United States              Regions            EPA 906/12-86-03
               Environmental Protection         1201 Elm Street         DECEMBER 1986
               Agency         ,       Dallas, TX 75270

               Water
&EPA                                         Draft
               Environmental
               Impact Statement
               Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP One
               Power Plant Project in
               Robertson County, Texas

-------
This report is available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service, US Department
of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161

-------
                                                                           PROTECTION
            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY         AGENCY
                                                                         DALLAS, TEXAS
                                  I 2O1 ELM STREET
                                DALLAS. TEXAS 7327O

                                  DEC 1 0 1988
    TO  INTERESTED AGENCIES, OFFICIALS, PUBLIC GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS:  '

    Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmental  Impact Statement  (EIS)  dn  the
    proposed Calvert Lignite Mine and TNP/One Power Plant Projects  in Robertson
    County, Texas.  This Draft EIS has been prepared and distributed in compliance
    with the National Environmental  Policy Act of  1969  and implementing
    regulations.

    EPA encourages agency and public participation in the decision-making
    process on it's proposed permit  actions.   EPA  will  hold  a  public hearing on
    the Draft EIS at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 29,  1987,  in  the Franklin
    High School gymnasium (located one-fourth mile west  of Franklin, Texas on
    FM 1644).  Comments made at the public hearing and  those presented to EPA
    in writing will  be considered in the preparation of  the  Final EIS.

    If the Draft EIS requires only minor changes,  the Final  EIS will incorporate
    the Draft EIS by reference and include only: 1) a revised  and updated
    Summary; 2) necessary revisions  to the Draft EIS; 3)  EPA's response to
    comments on the Draft EIS; and 4)  EPA's conclusions  and  selected alterna-
    tive^).  Therefore, the Draft EIS should be retained for  possible use
    with the Final EIS.  The Final EIS will  be mailed to those making substan-
    tive comments on the Draft EIS,  and those specifically requesting a copy
    (subject to supply limits).

    Requests for, and comments on, the Draft  EIS should  be submitted to Norm Thomas,
    Acting Chief, Federal Activities Branch,  EPA Region  6(E-F), 1201 Elm  Street,
    Dallas, Texas 75270.

    Sincerely yours,
   Frances E. Phillips
p^cting Regional Administrator (6A)

   Enclosure

-------
                                COVER SHEET
                    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
             CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE POWER PLANT PROJECTS
                          ROBERTSON COUNTY, TEXAS

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

COOPERATING AGENCY:   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION:  Issuing new source National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits to Texas-New Mexico Power Company for
the proposed power plant and to Phillips Coal  Company for the proposed
lignite mine.

EPA CONTACT:  Norm Thomas, Acting Chief, Federal  Activities Branch,  EPA
Region 6(E-F), 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas  75270.

ABSTRACT:  The proposed projects include a 600 (Mw) megawatt mine-mouth
power plant consisting of four 150 Mw circulating fluidized combustion bed
boilers with associated support facilities (i.e., ash disposal  sites,  makeup
water pipeline, railroad spur, and transmission line); and a 5,000 acre
surface lignite mine with associated haul  roads,  conveyor belt,  surface
water control  structures, and overburden stockpiles.  The total  acreage
potentially disturbed by the power plant,  mine and support facilities  is  an
estimated 8,000 acres over the 41-year operating  life.  The maximum  mining
depth would be approximately 300 feet.  Notable project effects  include:
changes in topography;  increased emissions of  particulates, sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides and radionuclides; degradation to surface and groundwater
quality; alterations in surface water runoff and  groundwater infiltration;
increased noise levels; increased erosion  and  soil  loss;  loss of cultural
resources; increased tax revenues for Bremond, Texas ISO; increased  personal
incomes; increased employment opportunities; aesthetic degradation;  loss  of
fish and wildlie resources;  and changes in local  communities.  Many  of
these direct and indirect effects constitute minor or major, long-term or
short-term, adverse impacts.  Some effects constitute irreversible commitments
of natural resources.  Measures to mitigate or monitor certain  adverse
impacts are presented for specific resources.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS DUE:

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
Frances E. Phillips
     g Regional  Administrator (6A)


-------
SUMMARY

-------
                                    SUMMARY


           Background.  The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires
that all Federal agencies prepare Environmental Impact  Statements  (EISs) on  major
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.  Furthermore, the
Clean  Water Act of 1977 (CWA) mandates that these NEPA  requirements apply to new
source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit applicants. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the issuance of NPDES
permits to Texas-New Mexico Power Company (TNP) to build and operate the proposed
power  plant facilities and  to Phillips Coal  Company (PCC) to operate  the proposed
Calvert Lignite Mine would represent a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment. Therefore, this Draft EIS has been prepared to assess
the potential environmental consequences of EPA's permit actions.

           EPA is also involved in the environmental review of another permit that is
not  subject to  the  requirements  of  NEPA.   This is a  Prevention of  Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit for air emissions from the power plant.  This EIS process will
supplement the regular environmental review conducted by EPA on the PSD permit.  In
addition, the consultations conducted for this EIS regarding Section 7  of the Endangered
Species Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act are intended to
fulfill  the requirements under  these statutes for other federal actions on the proposed
Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE Power Plant Project.

           Alternatives. Taking no action was evaluated, as were numerous power plant
and  mining system  alternatives.   Energy sources  such as natural  gas,  western coal,
nuclear generation,  and hydroelectric  power were reviewed and eliminated as  being
impractical, unavailable,  or not  cost-effective.   A power plant siting study narrowed
choices to a site in Robertson County and one in Lubbock County, eliminating eight other
counties due to  constraints of distance to fuel  reserves, distance  to water supplies,
length  of  proposed transmission lines,  and proximity  of  wildlife,  wilderness, and
recreation   areas.   The  Robertson  County  location  was selected  as the  preferred
alternative  on  the  basis  of  economic  and  environmental considerations.    Several
alternative  electric generating system designs were considered for the proposed power
plant project.  Both a conventional lignite combustion system and a circulating fluidized
bed combustion system were considered as well as alternative technologies for cooling,
biological control, air pollution control,  sanitary  waste treatment, solid waste handling,
and solid waste disposal.  The principal criteria for  selection of  the proposed  facility
design  was maximizing the electric generating capacity while reducing the emission  of
water and air pollutants.

           Alternatives to the transmission facilities  included five different destination
points.   The environment  of  areas  crossed to  reach each end point  were similar.
Therefore,   selection  of the  preferred  destination  was based on shortest  length  of
transmission line required to reach the end point.  Four routes  between the plant site and
the preferred end point were evaluated as were three different types of transmission line
support structures.

           Mining methodologies evaluated included underground mining,  auger mining,
and surface mining.  The first  two methods were eliminated  as being infeasible.  Three
extraction  techniques  and four lignite  loading alternatives  were considered.  Lignite
transport options included conveyor belts, rail haulage, and truck haulage.  Evaluation of
                                       S-l

-------
these revealed a combination truck and conveyor transportation system as the preferred
option.

           Reclamation alternatives were evaluated  with  regard  for State and Federal
regulations  and existing  landowner stipulations.  Four proposed  post-mining land use
alternatives included productive pastureland, row crop production, hardwood production,
and wildlife habitat.  Historical land use practices, current land  use trends, cost, and
management levels  for maintenance  were  among  the factors used to evaluate these
options.

           Alternatives available to the EPA are to issue the NPDES permits for the
project,  to  issue the NPDES permits for  the  project  with  certain modifications to
minimize adverse impacts, or to deny the  permits.

           Proposed Project. The proposed  Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE Power Plant
Project would be comprised of a 600 megawatt (Mw) mine-mouth power plant consisting
of four 150  Mw circulating fluidized combustion bed (CFB) boilers and associated power
plant support facilities including ash disposal sites,  makeup water pipeline, and railroad
spur;  a 17.3-mile long 345-kV, three-phase, double-circuit, overhead transmission line
connecting the power plant with the existing Twin Oak Substation; and  a 5,000-acre
surface lignite mine and  associated haul roads, conveyor belt, surface water control
structures, and stockpiles.  All of the above-mentioned facilities are  located  entirely
within Robertson County.  The total acreage to be disturbed by the power plant, mine,
and supporting facilities would be approximately 8,000 acres over a 41-year operating
life.

           A  project area  that  encompasses  the  proposed  mine, power plant,  and
associated facilities (with the exception  of the 17.3-mile 345-kV  transmission line) has
been delineated for the purpose of this EIS.  The boundary of  this area, which  includes
approximately 22,225 acres,  is presented  in  Figure S-l. In addition, the maximum area
to be  affected  by mining activities, which is designated as  the life-of-mine  area, is
shown  in   Figure S-l.    The  life-of-mine  boundary   encompasses   approximately
16,300 acres, of which approximately 43% will be directly affected by mining activities.
Indirect and short-term effects will be realized in portions of the remaining 57% of this
area.   Figure S-l also indicates the location of  the proposed power plant  site (approxi-
mately  270 acres), as  well  as Ash  Disposal  Site A-l  (approximately 200 acres),  Ash
Disposal Site A-2 (approximately  535 acres, of  which 412 acres will  be disturbed by
mining and reclaimed prior to ash disposal), and associated haul  roads.

           A total of seven lignite seams will be recovered with a total  production of
102,154,000 tons  during the 41-year life-of-mine. The overall depth of the mine will be
in excess of 300 feet  with burden removal being accomplished with a dragline-electric
shovel-dump truck combination. Continuous surface miners along with front-end loaders
will be used in lignite loading and haul trucks in combination with an overland conveyor
system will be used for lignite transport.

           Prior  to mining a particular area, the land would be  cleared of all vegetation.
Drainage systems affected by the  mine plan include the Little  Brazos River and Walnut
Creek,  a major  tributary of  the  Little  Brazos.  The mine is designed  such  that no
diversion of these major  drainages is necessary; however,  approximately 18 ponds and
23 ditches will be constructed to divert and control surface water in minor drainages
around the  mine area.  After mining, the  land would be returned to its approximate
original contour  with the exception  of  four permanent  overburden stockpiles  with a
maximum height  of 60 feet and two end-lakes averaging approximately 150  acres each.


                                      S-2

-------
            Project Area Boundary
	Life-of-Mine  Boundary
  ^3      Mine Blocks
  HI      Power Plant Site
            Ash Disposal Sites
tiiiiiimni   Ash Haul  Roads
                                 2 MILES
CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE
            Figure S-l
        Location  of  Project
       Boundary  in Relation
       to  Proposed Facilities
                                     S_
                                     ~

-------
           Generally,  reclamation  would  involve  placing  six  inches  of topsoil  over
randomly mixed overburden  material  and revegetating  with grasses, trees, and  shrubs.
The  majority of land will be reclaimed as grazingland and pastureland, with wildlife
habitat and aquatic habitat being reclaimed to a lesser  extent.  Reclamation categories
are based upon landowner preferences and consistentency with current  surrounding land
use practices.

           Environmental Consequences.  The major environmental consequences of the
proposed project, if implemented, are summarized in Table S-l.
                                       S-4

-------
                                                TABLE S-l

                             SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

                        CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE POWER PLANT PROJECT
     Environmental  Category
     Effect/Impact  Assessment of Proposed TNP ONE Power Plant
                       and Calvert Lignite Mine
Topography
Hydrogeology
Power  plant  construction  will  result  in  the  overall  leveling  of
approximately 270 acres of land.   Approximately 321 acres of otherwise
undisturbed land will be graded and subsequently used for landfill disposal
of ash.  If  the  ash  can be  marketed, some long-term impacts will  be
reduced.  The resulting landfills would range between 20 and 40 feet in
height.  Significant  changes throughout the mine area will result from
permanent overburden stockpiles and end-lakes, topsoil stockpiles, and
surface  water control structures.   These  alterations  to topography
constitute minor, long-term, adverse impacts.  Reclamation plans call for
the mine blocks and topsoil stockpiles to be returned to approximately the
original contours.  Surface water  control structures are to be removed,
based on landowner preference.

During operation of the power plant,  storage and disposal structures for
water, lignite, wastewater, and solid wastes are designed to protect the
local groundwater system, and, in particular, the  water-bearing units of
the Slrnsboro sands.  The only wastes generated by the power plant which
may affect the groundwater system are those related to the operation of
septic tanks.  It is  anticipated  that the  amount of seepage  into  the
groundwater from the septic systems is so small as to be immeasurable.
The major impact  of the power plant  operation  will be  a decrease in
artesian pressure due to groundwater pumpage required to supply make-up
water for the cooling towers.  Projected drawdowns are estimated to  be
less than 20 feet at  distances generally more  than four miles  from the
well field.  Artesian pressure declines larger than 40 feet will be limited
to locations within one to two miles  of the pumping.  No dewatering of
Simsboro sands will occur near or in the vicinity of the well field due to
the pumping; the artesian  sand zones will remain saturated.

Within the  area  of mining, the  geologic units overlying  the  mineable
lignite will  experience  unavoidable  long-term adverse  impacts.   The
stratigraphic relationships and physical  characteristics of  the Individual
strata above the lignite will be permanently altered as the overburden is
removed. Mining activities will result in artesian pressure declines in the
upper Simsboro  and  local  dewatering of the  Calvert  Bluff  overburden
adjacent to mine pits. Artesian pressure declines in the upper Simsboro at
the  depressurization wells  may be  more  than  200 feet; declines  are
expected to be less than 50 feet at  distances  of  5 or  more miles  from
depressurization  operations.  Artesian pressure and water-level declines
will affect existing water wells.  Water-level declines will occur in wells
that  tap the overburden  and are within approximately 5,000 feet of the
mine pits.  Artesian pressure declines will affect existing water wells that
tap  primarily the upper  Simsboro and  that are  within a  few miles of
depressurization pumping. About 100  Simsboro wells within two miles of
depressurization operations and power plant pumpage could potentially be
adversely affected;  most of these wells are used for  domestic or stock
purposes.  The City  of Calvert wells, located three to four  miles  from
depressurization  pumping  expected during later phases of raining, may
possibly  experience  from 10 to 75 feet of pressure decline, depending on
the  amount  of depressurization  pumping required  to mine.  If pressure
declines result in lowering water levels in the City of Calvert wells below
present  pump  settings,   mitigative  measures,  including  lowering  or
replacing existing pumps or, if necessary, replacing wells, will be taken by
PCC in accordance with  RRC regulations.  Water quality changes in and
within the immediate vicinity  of the  mine  pits  represent  long-term
adverse  Impacts of mining.  Changes in  groundwater  quality,  including
                                                 S-5

-------
                                             TABLE S-l (Cont'd)
     Environmental  Category
     Effect/Impact Assessment of Proposed TNP ONE Power Plant
                       and Calvert Lignite Mine
Soils
Surface Water
possible increases in total dissolved solids in the reclaimed spoil water,
may possibly  affect  the  use of the replaced overburden as a source of
water.  Groundwater wells (estimated at 10)  in and within the immediate
vicinity of the mine blocks which presently obtain their water supply from
the Calvert Bluff overburden may be adversely impacted. If this occurs,
replacement  wells   would  be  provided  by  PCC   pursuant  to   RRC
regulations.

Groundwater  monitoring programs  established  prior to the start-up of
proposed  project development  activities will be continued  in  order to
monitor  the quality  of  water resources which will be either directly or
potentially  affected by  mining  activities.   During  the first  five-year
permit period, groundwater  monitoring will be conducted in the Simsboro
Formation,  below the  overburden of  Mine Block A,  but not within the
overburden  of Mine Block A (PCC, 1986a).  Groundwater monitoring data
will be reported to the RRC and will also be reviewed by the TWC.

Construction  of the power plant,  its  ancillary  facilities, and  the mine
support facilities will create short-term adverse impacts  to approximately
850 acres of bottomland soils and 2,200 acres of upland soils primarily due
to  potential accelerated erosion.   Appropriate  use  of  fabric filter silt
fences and  hay bales and construction of two power plant  run-off ponds
will minimize these effects.  In the  long-term, construction will result  in
localized compaction  of  these  soils  and  conversion from  primarily
agricultural use to  industrial  use.   Approximately 300 acres of SCS-
designated prime farmland will be adversely affected by this construction,
constituting an irretrievable commitment of this resource.

Power plant operation will have negligible effects on surrounding soils.  It
is anticipated that neither power plant stack emissions nor cooling tower
plume drift dispersion will result in  any measurable accumulation of trace
metal pollutants, chlorides, or  sulfates in soils.  Mining  activities will
affect soils on approximately  5,000 acres over  a 41-year period.  The
effects will include accelerated erosion potential, alterations of chemical
and physical properties of soils, and potential subsidence.  Approximately
575 acres   of  SCS-designated   prime  farmland  soils   will  be   mined,
representing an  irretrievable commitment of resources.  Reclamation  of
soils will generally Involve the placement of 6 inches of stockpiled  topsoil
over  a randomly mixed overburden material.   Therefore, many  of the
original chemical, physical, and biological properties  of the topsoil will be
preserved, while those of the subsoil will be altered.

Monitoring of soil quality and revegetation success will  be conducted by
PCC.  Results of such monitoring will be reported to the RRC,  who will
be assisted in review of  these  results by the Soil Conservation  Service
(SCS).

Construction of the power plant and its  ancillary facilities and the mine
support facilities will result in  short-term adverse effects to streams and
ponds in  the  vicinity of the project area.   Surface  run-off from cleared
and grubbed  areas  may  carry  increased sediments,  therefore increasing
surface water turbidity and downstream sedimentation.   Localized erosion
control  measures will minimize  these  effects.   When  facilities  are
completed  and vegetation is re-established, the  erosion rates will return
 to normal.   Construction of  sedimentation and  diversion  ponds and
diversion ditches to control erosion and  maintain surface  water  quality
will result  in  flow disturbance  to several creeks in the mine  area.  The
reclamation  plan  calls for  the removal of these  structures, based  on
landowner preference.
                                                  S-6

-------
                                            TABLE S-l (Cont'd)
     Environmental Category
     Effect/Impact  Assessment of Proposed TNP ONE Power Plant
                      and  Calvert Lignite Mine
Climatology and Air Quality
Sound Quality
Vegetation
Power plant operation effects to surface water will be minimal.  Two run-
off ponds will be constructed on the power plant island to capture surface
water run-off and recycle it  to the plant.   Ash disposal  sites  will have
sedimentation basins, drainage swales, and diversion ditches constructed
to control and treat runoff from these disposal areas.  In the mine area,
the previously-mentioned control ponds and ditches will be used  to control
surface runoff and sediment loading.  Under normal operation (i.e., within
the design  capacity of  the control structures), release of this water will
not  occur   until  water  quality  standards  set  by  the  Texas  Water
Commission for the Brazos River Basin have been achieved.  No increase
of potentially toxic elements in project surface waters  is expected  to
occur.   Changes  or alterations  in drainage  patterns  associated  with
reclamation constitute minor, long-term, adverse impacts.

Data resulting from the sampling of wastewater discharge to area streams
will  be  reported to the Texas Water Commission (TWC).  Surface water
monitoring programs established prior to the start-up of proposed project
development activities  will be continued in  order  to monitor the quality
and  hydrology  of water resources  which  will  be  either directly  or
potentially affected by the project.  Surface water monitoring data will
be reported to the RRC, and will also be reviewed by the TWC.

Increased fugitive dust  and vehicle  exhaust  emissions during construction
and  operation of  the  power plant,  mine,  and  support  facilities  are
projected to  be negligible, with no  violation  of air quality  standards
expected.  Preliminary  modeling data  indicate that power plant emissions
of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter should not cause
a  violation  of  any ambient air  quality  standard.   The  PSD  permit
application  for  the proposed power plant  is  currently under  review  by
EPA.

Pursuant to  the requirements of the New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS), initial air quality performance  testing will be conducted at the
power plant.  Additionally, continuous monitoring of flue gases  with stack
instrumentation will take place.  The results  of the  NSPS monitoring
program will be filed  with the Texas Air Control Board  (TACB), with
oversight by EPA.

Construction  and  operation of  the proposed  power plant and mine will
cause increased noise levels, resulting in periodic, short-term and long-
term adverse impacts  to existing  ambient sound levels.   The greatest
effects will occur when mining operations are very near the perimeter of
the  mine boundary (Mine Years 1-5 in the northernmost  and easternmost
areas of the  mine,  Mine Years 29 and 30 in the westernmost, and  Mine
Years 20-29 in the southernmost).  The most significant effect will occur
at receptors  immediately  south  of Block J,  where resulting  net sound
levels of up to 60 dBA can be expected for approximately six months per
year for up to 10 years.   At most other locations  (e.g., nearby towns,
residences,  and churches), the  increases over existing sound levels will
cause minor adverse impacts.

Clearing and grubbing  activities prior to the  construction of  the power
plant and its ancillary facilities  and the mine support facilities will create
adverse impacts to vegetation  on 3,050 acres, 71% of which is presently
grassland and 26% timbered in  bottomland  and upland hardwoods and
mesquite brushland.  The remaining 3% is comprised  of  aquatic habitat,
disturbed land,  and cropland.  These  impacts are considered short-term;
although vegetation is removed, revegetation will occur as each facility is
dismantled  and the area is reclaimed.
                                                  S-7

-------
                                             TABLE S-l (Cont'd)
     Environmental  Category
     Effect/Impact  Assessment of Proposed TNP ONE Power Plant
                       and Calvert Lignite Mine
Terrestrial Wildlife
Aquatic Ecology
 Cultural and Historic Resources
Operation  of the  power  plant  is  not expected to  adversely affect
vegetation due  to foliar  deposition of acidic substances or  to  cooling
tower plume drift.  Minimal short-term  impacts may  occur to  vegetation
from dust due to lignite and solid waste handling and from oil  and grease
pollution  due to  surface  runoff from  haul  roads.   These  short-term
impacts will be minimized by using dust suppression techniques and by
building surface water control structures.   Operation of the  mine itself
will  remove vegetation  on  approximately  5,000 acres,  80%  of  which
presently is grassland, and  20% is bottomland and upland hardwood forests
and mesquite brushland. Less than 1%  is represented as aquatic habitat.
Reclamation plans provide for  the re-establtshment of  a  diverse  and
adapted vegetation cover.  Grass, trees,  and shrubs will be  planted  in
order to reclaim  these mined  areas into  pastureland,  grazingland,  and
wildlife habitat.  The long-term effect of these changes will be to replace
the  naturally  occurring  vegetation   communities  with communities
generally  having lower diversity  and a  higher percentage of  non-native
plant species.  Monitoring of revegetation success will  be conducted by
PCC, and results of the monitoring program will be reported to  the RRC.

Removal of approximately 8,062 acres of terrestrial wildlife habitats, and
the loss or displacement of wildlife communities, followed by the slow re-
establishment of habitats  and communities after  reclamation,  are major
long-term  adverse impacts.   Approximately  645 acres of the  area to be
affected consists of bottomland/riparian forest. Loss of this acreage and
of the  associated  wildlife habitat units constitute  a  long-term  major
adverse  impact.   Habitat losses should  be somewhat  ameliorated by
proposed   reclamation plans   for   the re-establishment  of  habitats.
Increased noise and human disturbance comprise minor adverse  impacts.

Increased turbidity and sedimentation are  short-term adverse  impacts  to
aquatic communities expected  to result from  construction of the power
plant,   its  ancillary  facilities,   and   the   mine  support   facilities.
Sedimentation  may  temporarily  decrease  aquatic  plant  and  animal
populations,  increase nutrient  levels,  and  reduce primary productivity.
However, because  local aquatic communities have zooplankton population
and  vertebrate  and   invertebrate  populations  which  are  moderately
tolerant of turbid  environments, and since erosion control measures will
be Implemented  to minimize potential  erosion, long-term  impacts should
be negligible.

Adverse impacts on aquatic communities from power plant operations are
not  expected to occur.   However,  streams will  be adversely impacted
within  areas  to   be  mined.   Long-term  adverse  impacts  to  aquatic
communities are expected to result from habitat losses  as streams are
diverted  and riparian vegetation is removed.  Toxic  elements  are not
expected  to occur in project surface waters  as a result of  the proposed
project.

Identified cultural resources in the project area range from  the Paleo-
Indtan  (Late Pleistocene) through Historic  periods.   To ilato,  culturnl
resource  surveys and  investigations have Identified a total of  92  cultural
resource  sites which  will be directly  affected by project development.
Two of these sites have been recommended by the  SHPO as  potentially
eligible for listing on the  NRHP.  A draft  Programmatic Memorandum  of
Agreement  (PMOA)  designed  to  ensure compliance  with  applicable  laws
and to avoid  or  minimize  project-related  adverse impacts has  been
developed.
                                                  S-8

-------
                                            TABLE S-l (Cont'd)
     Environmental Category
     Effect/Impact Assessment of Proposed TNP ONfc. Power Plant
                      and  Calvert Lignite Mine
Socioeconomics
  Economic
  Population
  Housing
  Community Facilities
  and Services
  Local Government Finances
                                      Cultural resources surveys will be performed by the applicants on project
                                      lands under  a Memorandum  of Agreement between EPA, the  Texas
                                      Historic  Preservation  Officer,  and  the  Federal  Advisory  Council  on
                                      Historic Preservation prior  to disturbance to document significant sites
                                      and avoid or minimize adverse impacts in  compliance with Section 106 of
                                      the National Historic Preservation Act.
Direct employment opportunities from construction activities (projected
peak  of  880 workers in  1990)  constitute  major  short-term  beneficial
impacts. Long-term beneficial employment impacts will consist of nearly
474 permanent operations jobs by the  year. 2000.   Indirect employment
opportunities  in  local towns  and  communities from expanding  business
sectors constitute additional beneficial impacts.   Landowners currently
receiving agricultural exemptions  on property taxes will incur additional
tax burdens as a  result  of mining.  Potential short-term adverse impacts
may  affect  local  employers  if  wage inflation  occurs.    Consumers,
particularly in service industries, may also experience increased costs due
to wage  inflation over the short term.  There are no producing oil or gas
wells within the life-of-mine boundary; therefore, economic losses related
to postponement of recovery of such resources are not expected to occur.

Population effects are expected  to begin  in 1987, with approximately
115 persons expected to  in-migrate; a peak of 951 persons in  1991  is
expected to  temporarily in-migrate.   An in-migrating population  of
approximately  670 permanent residents is estimated for the year 2000.
Long-term  adverse impacts  on  older existing  residents,  low-income
families, and persons on fixed incomes may  be experienced as a result  of
changes in the demographic characteristics of the project area. However,
the in-migration  of a younger, more affluent population will generally
create a demographic  structure  more consistent  with  the State  as a
whole.

An estimated peak of  approximately 67 housing units will be needed  in
1991   to  service  the  expected   in-migrating  population.     Housing
requirements of  about  300 units will be needed for permanent operation
workers  by the  year  2000.   Existing housing  supplies are  considered
insufficient hi Calvert,  Hearne,  and  Cameron.   Cities with available
housing include Bremond, Marlin,  Bryan-College Station,  and Franklin.
Housing  insufficiencies  may  result  in  short-term  adverse   impacts
associated with rental  and/or purchase price inflation and mobile home
development.
A peak of approximately 0.14 MGD of water and 0.09 MGD of wastewater
treatment  capacity  is expected to  be required  by the  in-migrating
population.  The available water and  sewage treatment facilities appear
to be  adequate to service the  anticipated in-migrating population.  In-
migrating school-aged population may generate demands  for additional
school capacity and short-term adverse impacts in the Calvert ISO.  Other
ISDs appear to have  capacity in excess of estimated demand.  However,
the specific distribution in terms of the grade levels of new students may
require additional  teachers  at  specific schools.   Health  and protective
services appear adequate to meet expected project-related demands.

Adverse impacts on local government  finances may occur during the years
of construction prior to receipts of ad valorem taxes.  Over the long-
term,  significant beneficial impacts will result from ad valorem and sales
                                                  S-9

-------
                                            TABLE S-l (Cont'd)
     Environmental Category
     Effect/Impact  Assessment of Proposed TNP ONE Power Plant
                       and Calvert Lignite Mine
 Transportation
  Recreation
  Aesthetics
  Civil Features
  Socio-Cultural
Land Use/Land Productivity
tax revenues.   A  total of  $9-3 million  in revenue  is  expected  to  be
generated   locally  through  ad   valorem   taxation.    Approximately
$2.0 million, $7.0 million, and $65,000  of  the revenue is  expected to be
received  by  Robertson County,  the  Bremond  ISO,  and  Calvert ISD,
respectively.   Calvert ISD  is  expected  to  receive  the largest  school
population but minimal ad valorem taxes from the project.

An additional  1,100 vehicles per day  are expected  to  travel on State
Highway 6.  This increased traffic may  result  in periodic adverse impacts,
particularly during shift changes due to congestion near the work site, and
during the construction phase.

Minor, short-term adverse impacts will be experienced locally as a result
of temporary road closures and road relocations during mining activities.
These impacts will occur intermittently in various portions of the project
area during the life-of-mine.  Orderly and adequate access to the area
will be maintained for the general public.

Regional recreational resources are expected to be affected by increased
visitation,   constituting a  minor, short-term  impact on  the  existing
resources.

The project is  expected  to  adversely impact area  visual resources by
changing  existing viewsheds from  rural  to  industrial.   The  degree of
impact is dependent  on several factors including existing visual quality,
height of new  structures, distance from areas  of  public access,  and
personal values.

Approximately  62  residential structures  are located  within  the  life-of-
mine  boundary, 33 of which are located within the proposed mining blocks.
Two  cemeteries are  located in close proximity  to  areas  to be  mined.
Project  activities will  not  physically  impact  the  two  cemeteries;
therefore, relocation  will  not be  necessary.  No known  airports or state
historical monuments will be directly impacted by the proposed project.
Five  pipelines carrying petroleum products occur within the life-of-mine
boundary, and will be relocated. Relocation of civil features constitutes  a
short-term  adverse impact.

In-migrating populations may generally differ  from  existing populations
with  respect to income,  education,  and age.   Existing  socio-cultural
patterns, customs, and lifestyles  may be altered, constituting  a short-
term  adverse impact.

Construction and operation of the Calvert Lignite Mine,  TNP ONE Power
Plant, and  associated  facilities  will  adversely  impact 8,062 acres of
primarily pastureland and grazingland.  Approximately 997 acres  of this
total would be converted by construction of the proposed  power plant and
remain  committed  to industrial  use  over  the life   of  the  project
(30-40 years).     The  remaining   7,065 acres   would  be  converted
incrementally to industrial use in the mine area and then reclaimed after
backfilling  is  complete.   Pastureland and  grazingland should  be  the
dominant land uses after reclamation.  Since land use change is a choice
of the landowner, it  is not considered  an adverse impact.  However,  the
secondary net  effect of  these changes constitutes  a major, long-term,
adverse  impact on wildlife habitat.   The productive capability  of  the
mined and  reclaimed land should be returned  to a condition equal to or
better than before disturbances in compliance with State  regulations, and
bonds are posted to  assure compliance.  To accomplish this, reclaimed
lands  will   be  monitored  to verify  their  productivity  and   overall
                                                 S-10

-------
                                          TABLE S-l (Concluded)
                                           Effect/Impact Assessment of Proposed TNP ONE Power Plant
     Environmental Category                                and Calvert Lignite Mine


                                      reclamation success prior to release of bonded areas throughout the life-
                                      of-mine development.

Public Health                          Air emissions caused by construction of power plant, mine, and associated
                                      facilities would consist primarily of fugitive dust; no adverse public health
                                      impacts are expected.  Computer modeling demonstrates that emissions
                                      of particulate  matter,  sulfur dioxide, and  nitrogen  oxides  from power
                                      plant operations will not cause adverse public health impacts. Evaluation
                                      of radionuclides and trace metals due  to power plant operation showed no
                                      adverse impacts on  health.  Relocation  of overburden material due to
                                      reclamation of mined areas will change the ground-level emanation rate
                                      of radon.  Depending on the initial profiles of radon concentrations  in the
                                      overburden, emanation  rates will be  less than  the predisturbed rate in
                                      some locations, while in others it will be greater.
                                                S-ll

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section                                                                   Page

          Abstract/Cover Sheet
          Summary                                                        S-l
          List of Figures                                                     ii
          List of Tables                                                     iii
1.0       INTRODUCTION. PURPOSE AND NEED                             1-1
2.0       DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES                2-1
2.1          NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE                                     2-1
2.2          ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCE                               2-2
2.2.1            Lignite                                                    2-2
2.2.2            Natural Gas                                                2-2
2.2.3            Western Coal                                               2-2
2.2.4            Other Fuel Sources                                          2-3
2.3          DESIGN AND SITING OPTIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION          2-3
             AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED POWER PLANT AND
             MINE FACILITIES
2.3.1            Alternative Power Plant Sites                                 2-3
2.3.2            Alternative Electric Generating Designs                        2-5
2.3.3            Alternative Transmission Facilities                           2-12
2.3.4            Alternative Railroad Spur Facilities                           2-16
2.3.5            Alternative Mining Systems                                  2-16
2.4          ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED BY PCC AND TNP                  2-21
             (PROJECT DESCRIPTION)
2.4.1            Plant Systems and Operating Procedures                       2-21
2.4.2            Mine Layout and Operation                                  2-32
2.5          ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA                           2-46
2.6          ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO OTHER AGENCIES               2-46
3.0       ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PREFERRED             3-1
          ALTERNATIVE ON THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1          TOPOGRAPHY                                                3-1
3.2          HYDROGEOLOGY                                             3-3
3.3          SOILS                                                       3-24
3.4          SURFACE WATER                                            3-34
3.5          CLIMATOLOGY/AIR QUALITY                                 3-58
3.6          SOUND QUALITY                                             3-69
3.7          VEGETATION                                                3-78
3.8          WILDLIFE                                                    3-90
3.9          AQUATIC ECOLOGY                                         3-101
3.10          CULTURAL RESOURCES (PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC)         3-108
3.11          SQCIOECONOMICS                                          3-114
3.12          LAND USE AND LAND  PRODUCTIVITY                         3-137
3.13          PUBLIC HEALTH                                            3-141
3.14          CUMULATIVE IMPACTS                                      3-149
4.0       COORDINATION                                                  4-1
4.1          SCOPING PROCESS                                            4-1
4.2          AGENCY COORDINATION                                      4-1
4.3          EIS REVIEW PROCESS                                          4-1
5.0       LIST OF PREPARERS                                              5-1
6.0       LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM       6-1
          COPIES OF THE DRAFT STATEMENT ARE SENT

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

Section                                                                       Page

7.0        BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                     ',
           Glossary
                                                                              ADI
           List of Abbreviations                                                H D - i
           Index                                                                I ~ 1
           APPENDDC A - Draft NPDES Permits                                  A-l
           APPENDDC B - Hydrogeology                                          B-l
           APPENDDC C - Soils                                                 C-l
           APPENDDC D - Vegetation                                            D-l
           APPENDDC E - Cultural Resources                                    E-l
           APPENDDC F - Socioeconomics                                        F-l
           APPENDDC G - Land Use                                              G-l

                                LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                                                                        Page

S-l        Location of Project Boundary in Relation to Proposed                   S-3
           Facilities
2-1        Alternative Power Plant Sites                                         2-4
2-2        Alternative Ash Disposal Sites                                        2-11
2-3        Location of Alternative Transmission Line Routes                      2-14
2-4        Project Location Map                                                2-22
2-5        Location Plan, Plant Coal Site                                        2-23
2-6        Environmental Emission Points                                       2-24
2-7        Location of Proposed Transmission Line Route                         2-30
2-8        345 kV Double Circuit Lattice Steel Tower                            2-31
2-9        Generalized Stratigraphic Section                                     2-34
2-10*      Clear and Grub Advance                                             2-35
2-11*      Mine Plan                                                           2-36
2-12*      Haul Road System                                                   2-39
2-13*      Conceptual Life of Mine Surface Water Control                        2-41
2-14*      Post-Mining Topography Map                                         2-43
2-15*      Post-Mining Land Use Map                                           2-45
3-1        Surficial Geology of the Project Region                                3-4
3-2        Regional Geologic Section                                            3-5
3-3        Principal Faults of the Project Area                                    3-8
3-4        Location of Power Plant Well Field and Pipeline                        3-15
3-5        Projected Pressure Decline Due to Power Plant                        3-16
           Well Field Pumpage
3-6        Example Pressure Declines in Upper Simsboro Due to                   3-19
           Depressurization Pumping in Later Mine Years
3-7*       Soils of the Project Area                                             3-27
3-8        Flood Hazard Boundary Map                                          3-41
3-9        Existing and Historic Water Quality Stations and                       3-44
           Discharge  Points
3-10       Annual Wind Rose for Waco, Texas (1961-1970)                         3-59
3-11       Baseline Noise Monitoring Locations                                  3-73
3-12*      Vegetation of the Project Area                                       3-80

   *       Figures are for general, not specific, detail. Larger maps
           are available at local information depositories.

                                       ii

-------
                            LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)

Figure                                                                       Page

3-13       Location of Independent School District Boundaries                    3-133
           in Relation to Project Area
3-14       Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE Project Land Ownership                3-134
3-15       Relocation of Public Roads in the Life-of-Mine Area                   3-136
3-16       Land Use of the Project Area                                        3-140
3-17       Location of Major Lignite Energy Products in the Region               3-152

                                LIST OF TABLES

Table

S-l        Summary of Environmental Consequences
2-1        Phillips Coal Company Calvert Lignite Mine Clear and Grub
           Summary of Acres Affected
2-2        Calvert Lignite Mine Acres of Disturbance by Activity                 2-38
2-3        Federal and State Permits/Regulations/Approvals Applicable           2-47
           to the Proposed Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE Power
           Plant Project
3-1        Summary of Groundwater Quality                                    3-10
3-2        Areal Extent of Soil Mapping Units Within the Proposed                3-26
           Project Area
3-3        Classification of Soils and SCS Prime Farmland Within the              3-28
           Project Area
3-4        Unit Area Expected Flow Duration, Project Area Streams              3-36
3-5        Expected Runoff  Per Square Mile of Drainage Area                    3-37
3-6        Expected Flow Duration, Brazos River Near Bryan                     3-38
           (USGS Station 08109000)
3-7        Low-Flow Analysis, Brazos  River Near Bryan                          3-38
           (USGS Station 08109000)
3-8        Maximum,  Minimum, and Mean Monthly Flow Volumes,                 3-39
           Brazos River Near Bryan (USGS Station 08109000)
3-9        Computed  Probability Peak Flow Frequency Curve Data,               3-39
           Brazos River Near Bryan (USGS Station 08109000)
3-10       Existing Water Rights, Brazos River Basin Segment HI                 3-40
3-11       USGS Water Quality Data (1968-1978) and TWC fcistream               3-42
           Standards,  Segment 1242
3-12       Water Quality Sampling Sites, Robertson County Water                 3-45
           Quality Monitoring Program (March 1978 to February 1979
           and November 1984 to October 1985)
3-13       Range of Values for Water Quality Parameters,                        3-46
           Robertson  County Water Quality Monitoring Program,
           March 1978 to February 1979
3-14       Range of Values for Water Quality Parameters,                        3-47
           Robertson  County Water Quality Monitoring Program
           (November 1984 to October 1985)
3-15       Characteristics of Permitted Discharges Near the Calvert              3-49
           Project Area
                                       111

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)

Table                                                                        Page

3-16       Stream Impoundment and Diversion Schedule by Mine Block             3-51
3-17       Chemical Analysis of Coal Ash Samples                               3-54
3-18       Effluent Limitations for Disturbed Areas                              3-56
3-19       National Ambient Air Quality Standards                               3-62
3-20       Particulate Monitoring Summary, Waco, Texas (1982 to 1985)            3-63
3-21       Summary of Monitoring Program Near the Project Area,                3-63
           October 3, 1980 to October 5,  1981
3-22       Ambient Air Quality Impacts of the Proposed TNP ONE                 3-67
           Power Plant
3-23       Baseline Noise Receptor Descriptions                                 3-71
3-24       Sound Levels for Each Baseline Receptor Location                      3-72
3-25       Estimated Power Plant Operational Ambient Sound Levels               3-76
           at Baseline Receptors
3-26       Results of Baseline Habitat Evaluation for Life-of-Mine Area            3-92
3-27       Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE Power Plant Project Estimated         3-120
           Project Construction and Operations  & Maintenance Employment
3-28       Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE Power Plant Project Estimated         3-123
           Project Expenditures
3-29       Estimated Project Income in the Local Study Area                     3-122
3-30       Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE Power Plant Project Estimated         3-126
           Total In-Migrating Population
3-31       Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE Power Plant Project Estimated         3-126
           Total Housing Demand Induced by All Workers
3-32       Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE Power Plant Project Available          3-128
           Housing in the Study Area
3-33       Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE Power Plant Project Water             3-128
           Treatment Capacity in the Study Area
3-34       Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE Power Plant Project                   3-130
           Wastewater Capacity
3-35       Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE Power Plant Project School            3-130
           District Data
3-36       Distribution of Revenue Generated Through Ad Valorem Taxes          3-131
3-37       Air Quality Dispersion Modeling Analysis of Regulated                 3-145
           Air Pollutants - Proposed TNP ONE Power Plant
3-38       Estimated Radionuclide Emissions and Ground-level Impacts            3-146
           TNP ONE Power Plant
3-39       Maximum Estimated Emission  Rates and Ground-Level                 3-147
           Concentrations of Trace Metals due to TNP ONE Power
           Plant Emissions
3-40       Existing and Planned Lignite Development Projects in the              3-155
           Development Projects in the Calvert  Lignite
           Mine/TNP ONE Power Plant Project Region
B-l        Summary of Overburden Data Resulting from Analyses of                B-2
           Overburden Material Above the Lowest Mineable Lignite in
           Mine Block A, Calvert Lignite  Mine
C-l        Rangeland Productivity for Soils of the Project Area                     C-l
C-2        Areal Extent of Soils Types Affected by the Proposed                    C-2
           TNP ONE Power Plant
                                       iv

-------
                           LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)

Table

C-3        Areal Extent of Soils Types Affected by Proposed Calvert
           Lignite Mine Facilities
C-4        Areal Extent of Soils Types Affected by Calvert Lignite
           Mine Blocks
D-l        Areal Extent of Vegetation Types Affected by the Proposed
           TNP ONE Power Plant
D-Z        Areal Extent of Vegetation Types Affected by Proposed
           Calvert Lignite Mine Facilities
D-3        Areal Extent of Vegetation Types Affected by the Calvert
           Lignite Mine Blocks
D-4        Grazing land Seed Mixtures
D-5        Pastureland Seed Mixture
D-6        Proposed Cover Crops and Seeding Rates
D-7        Woody Species Planting List
E-l        Cultural Resources Table
G-l        Areal Extent of Land Use Types Affected by the Proposed
           TNP ONE Power Plant
G-2        Areal Extent of Land Use Types Affected by Proposed
           Calvert Lignite Mine Facilities
G-3        Areal Extent of Land Use Types Affected by the Calvert
           Lignite Mine Blocks

-------
       SECTION 1.0
    INTRODUCTION,
PURPOSE AND NEED

-------
1.0        INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND NEED

           This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared to assess the effects
of a proposed mine-mouth power plant and surface lignite mine located within the Brazos
River drainage basin of east-central Texas.  Texas-New Mexico Power Company (TNP)
will own and operate  the  proposed power plant facilities, and  Phillips Coal  Company
(PCC)  will own and operate the proposed lignite mine facilities.  The proposed project
consists  of a  four-unit  mine-mouth 600 megawatt (Mw),  lignite-fired steam electric
(circulating fluid!zed bed combustion) generating station  (TNP ONE), and its fuel source,
a  2.5 million-ton-per-year  surface lignite mine (Calvert Lignite Mine  (CLM)).    A
345-kilovolt (kV) double circuit transmission line is proposed in association with the TNP
ONE power plant.

           Before discharge of any pollutant into navigable waters of the  United States
from a designated source in an industrial category for which performance standards have
been promulgated, a  new source  National  Pollutant  Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit must be obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Section 511 (c)(l) of the Clean Water  Act (CWA)  also requires that the issuance of an
NPDES permit by EPA  for a new source  discharge be  subject  to  the  National
Environmental  Policy Act (NEPA),  which may require preparation of an EIS on the new
source.  Pursuant to  the requirements of NEPA  and its authority under the  CWA, a
notice of  intent to prepare  an EIS on  the issuance of two NPDES permits for  the
proposed Calvert Lignite  Mine/TNP ONE Project was issued  by EPA  on 19 December
1985.

           This EIS  evaluates alternative permit  actions  (i.e., issuance or  denial of
permits) available to the EPA and other Federal agencies and the environmental effects
of undertaking each of these  alternatives. The alternatives available to EPA center on
the EPA's decisions regarding  applications by TNP and PCC for two NPDES (wastewater
discharge) permits.  One of these permits is for the proposed mining operation and one is
for  the  proposed power  plant.   Although many  other agencies also  have various
regulatory  decisions to make (see Section 2.6), the NPDES  permit decisions are  the
principal regulatory actions subject to NEPA.   This EIS will  be used in making  EPA's
permit decisions  and will  serve to inform the public of the potential  environmental
consequences of the proposed actions.

           Phillips  Coal Company is a  resource  development company  with lignite
reserve holdings in several locations within the Wilcox Formation in Texas. A wholly-
owned subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum Company, PCC has offices at 2929 North Central
Expressway, Richardson, Texas.

           Texas-New  Mexico Power Company  (TNP), an electric utility headquartered
in Fort Worth, Texas, is  a  wholly-owned  subsidiary of TNP Enterprises, Inc.   The
company serves five divisions in Texas and one in New Mexico.  The six divisions served
by TNP  are geographically located along the  Gulf coast  of  Texas,  northeast Texas,
central Texas, west Texas, the panhandle of Texas, and south-central and southwest New
Mexico.

           Plans  for the power plant and  mine proposed herein have been developed
concurrently as a result of  discussions between TNP and PCC.  The size of PCC's
proposed mining operation and the volume of fuel to be mined are responsive to the fuel
requirements of TNP's proposed 600 Mw 4-unit power  plant.   In addition to project
                                     1-1

-------
facility  design,  permitting  activities  for  the  power  plant  and  mine have been
synchronized in order to ensure concurrence of critical project milestones.

           TNP currently purchases all  of the power it  sells to its customers in Texas
from  four major generating utilities and two  cogenerators.  In New Mexico,  TNP  has
three major suppliers of power. The only generation TNP currently owns is a small gas-
fired unit in New Mexico which is incapable of serving any of TNP's Texas load. As of
year-end  1985,  TNP served 135 communities  and adjacent rural  areas  which included
193,907 customers. Total sales for 1985 exceeded 6.6 billion kilowatt hours.

           Two  of TNP's major purchased power  contracts for Texas will expire in 1991.
In the absence of the proposed plant,  these two  contracts would represent in excess of
70% of the total peak power needs  for TNP's  Texas operations  at  that  time.  Some
potential exists for renegotiation of these contracts, and other sources of power could be
developed; however, TNP  has determined that  the  first  150 Mw  unit  will replace
approximately 12% of the company's current peak load in Texas, and the proposed four
units can generate approximately one-half of its  Texas peak load at a cost  savings to its
ratepayers compared  to any other  source  of power.   The proposed lignite-fired
generation is also anticipated  to be more reliable than other types of power (e.g., natural
gas-fired), which may be  subject  to  extreme price  fluctuation and  varying plant
availabilities.  The Ten Year Load Forecasts of these same major suppliers, as filed with
the Texas Public Utilities Commission (TPUC), reflect a need for  additional generation
capacity to meet the  needs   of their retail  customers  in  addition to the  supply of
wholesale power  to  TNP  during the early  1990s.   The  long-term regional  energy
requirements  for  additional generation  capacity can be  at least  partially met by  the
construction of TNP's proposed power  plant. If those major suppliers provide TNP with
less wholesale power, they will have  additional  power to meet the increased needs of
their retail customers.

           TNP,  as  with all regulated utilities,  must be  assured  of reliable, economic
power while maintaining the long-term ability to meet the needs  of its  customers.   As
current major contracts for purchased power near the end  of their primary term, TNP, in
assessing its long-term needs and goals, has determined that it can best meet these needs
through owned  generation.   The proposed generating plant will  provide TNP  with a
diversity of generation, cogeneration, and purchased power. It will also provide a better
mix of fuel source for  power  within the TNP system.  The combination of lignite from
the proposed plant, gas from  major cogenerators, and the mixed  fuel sources of other
utilities should provide  a reliable, economically-favorable  combination of power sources.
Thus, TNP plans to construct the proposed generation plant, reducing the overall cost to
its rate payers.

           It  must be  emphasized that this power plant is  not proposed as a project
necessitated by TNP's load growth, but rather as a means  of replacing power  and energy
at a lower overall cost. The  goal of TNP is to provide reliable service  to its customers
at the lowest monetary and environmental cost.
                                      1-2

-------
               SECTION 2.0
DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION
           OF ALTERNATIVES

-------
2.0        DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

           This chapter discusses the no action alternative, the alternatives available to
TNP and PCC  for providing the necessary power, and the alternatives available to EPA
and other agencies.

2.1        NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

           The no action alternative  (i.e., no  new mine and power  plant) could  be
implemented by the permit applicants by choice, or as a result of EPA's denial to issue
the requested NPDES permits.

           If the no action alternative were implemented,  the project area would likely
remain much as it is into the foreseeable future.  Environmental impacts of the proposed
project, both positive and negative, would not occur. To a large extent, future land use
and  management  practices  would  dictate  the  environmental  characteristics  of  the
project area.  Barring the possibility that other  independent  development may occur in
the vicinity and cause related environmental impacts, current trends in the project  area
could be expected to continue. Current management practices have increased the extent
of lands used for agricultural and rangeland purposes.   This  trend  in land management
practices  (e.g., land  clearing  and  the introduction  of  improved grasses and legumes)
generally  results  in reductions in plant species diversity and in the local abundance of
native plant species,  with attendant  negative  effects on  local  wildlife  populations.
Employment and  population trends in the area  are likely to continue if the  no  action
alternative  is  implemented.   The relatively diverse  base  of the  regional economy
(agriculture, mining, construction,  education) tends to  keep unemployment  rates below
the State level, and  the  population of the  region can  be  expected to gain at varying
rates.  Community facilities and services and housing availability will most likely keep
pace with anticipated "without-preject" population projections.

           Abandoning the project could adversely affect TNP's ability to meet  pro-
jected customer  demands during  the early 1990s and  to  meet company goals of self
sufficiency. Other fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas,  are not likely to  be available
for power generation at an economical cost  over extended periods, and nuclear energy
could not be developed in time to meet projected  demands.

           According to TNP's calculations,  the no action alternative would result in
higher customer costs than implementation of the  proposed project.  As a transmission
and distribution utility, TNP is dependent on purchased power  for its source of power and
energy.  TNP desires to  lessen the  current dependence on  purchased  power and has
determined  that it can do so at lesser cost to its customers through the proposed power
plant.  Estimated combined project (lifetime) savings to the ratepayers amount to more
than $1.9 billion on a present value basis.

           TNP has several energy conservation programs, and other programs are being
investigated.  The extent to  which conservation and load management  programs can
effectively  reduce the projected  load is limited.   Deferral of  even one  unit of  the
proposed power plant due to conservation and load management is not feasible.  Any load
reductions through the current and proposed conservation programs will further reduce
the more expensive purchased power which TNP currently acquires.
                                      2-1

-------
2.2        ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

           TNP evaluated several  fuel sources for the proposed project.  EPA believes
that decisions  regarding  energy demand  and supply are  the  responsibility  of permit
applicants and agencies such as the Texas Public Utility Commission. The EPA review of
alternative energy sources, including costs, was  limited to establishing a reasonable need
for the project  from the information made available (see also Section 2.5).  There are
many factors bearing on the relative  merits of local lignite versus western coal or other
fuel sources.  For example, the use of western coal would eliminate mining impacts in
Robertson  County,  relocating these impacts to other parts  of the  nation  and possibly
increasing dollar costs  to TNP customers.  If EPA determined that the impacts of the
proposed Calvert mine would be unacceptable and could not be adequately mitigated, the
EPA water discharge permits (CWA Section 402) would be denied.  Any applicant could,
however, apply at any time for EPA permits for project proposals centering around fuel
supply alternatives  which  would  involve  fewer  and/or  less significant  environmental
impacts; however, in the event that the proposed mine is  deemed to have impacts within
acceptable limits, EPA would have no  authority nor policy mandate to force TNP to
select a different fuel source.

2.2.1       Lignite

           Due  to its abundance along the Texas Gulf coast, relatively close proximity
to TNP's primary load centers, and low cost, lignite was  a prime fuel candidate. Texas
lignite is typically low-priced due to the majority of the recoverable reserves being near
the surface.   Lignite has been successfully used  for generation of  electricity for  a
number of years.  Effective mining techniques have been developed.  For the proposed
project, various Texas lignite reserves were  evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively.
The results indicated, even with lignite's low and somewhat  varying fuel  quality, that a
lignite-fired facility would produce  the most economical kilowatt-hour in the short term,
as well as in the long term.  Therefore, lignite was selected to be the primary source of
fuel for the proposed TNP generating  facility.

2.2.2       Natural  Gas

           Recently, the price of natural gas has  dropped significantly due  to price
deregulation  and over-supply.  However, long-term forecasts indicate that natural gas
prices will trend upward  with substantial incremental increases during the early to mid-
1990s.

           The  Power Plant  and  Industrial Fuel Use  Act  of  1978 clearly provided  a
mandate against electric utilities using natural gas or petroleum as a primary fuel source
at new  electric generating facilities.  Natural gas is not  considered to be a viable fuel
source for the proposed power plant due to the restrictions imposed by the Fuel Use Act
and to the expected price increases.

2.2.3       Western Coal

           During the initial evaluation phase of the proposed project, western coal was
an  alternate source of fuel that received considerable  attention.  With the  soft coal
market and increasingly competitive  rail rates, western coal was projected to be one of
the top contenders.   Detailed quantitative and qualitative analyses were  conducted  on
numerous  Wyoming,  Colorado, and  New Mexico  coal suppliers under both pessimistic and
optimistic rail-rate scenarios.  The results indicated that western coal was not the  most
economical source of fuel.
                                       2-2

-------
2.2.4      Other Fuel Sources

           Purchased  power  suppliers to TNP  each have  their  own fuel mix, which
includes the full spectrum of fuel sources. Nuclear generation by a company the size of
TNP  is not  practical.  Solar or  wind generation  are  not viable  from  an economic
standpoint for TNP.  Hydroelectric power is not readily available.  TNP currently has
more  than 25%  of its  Texas  needs  supplied  by gas-fired  cogeneration.   TNP is
aggressively pursuing additional cogeneration at this time and has been in contact  with
cogenerators proposing use of low British thermal  unit (Btu) gas, municipal waste, and
petroleum coke, as well as natural gas.

2.3        DESIGN AND SITING  OPTIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND
           OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED POWER PLANT AND MINE
           FACILITIES

2.3.1      Alternative Power Plant Sites

           A power plant siting  study was completed  in January  1985.  The study was
based upon TNP's potential future requirement of 1200 Mw of generation built  in either
400-Mw or 600-Mw increments and fueled by  either Texas  lignite or western  sub-
bituminous coal.

2.3.1.1     Alternative Geographic  Locations

           Because  of the  geographical diversity  of  TNP's service territory, various
areas of the State of Texas were studied for potential power plant  sites.  These areas
included sites in the following counties:  Lubbock, Robertson, Brazoria, Winkler, Dawson,
Concho, Irion, Nolan, Calhoun, and Freestone.

           Potential sites were  initially evaluated with respect  to  such constraints as
timely negotiation of wheeling power agreements; commercial operation of first unit by
or before  1991; sites  using  Western  coal were required to be  within 50 miles of an
existing route of Santa Fe or  Burlington railroads  and west of the Texas  lignite  coal
reserves;  plant cooling water supply to be pumped  no  more than 50 miles; transmission
lines built to no more than 130 miles long; and no site would be  considered near wildlife
refuges, wilderness areas, national or state parks or  forests, game reserves, or recreation
areas.

           Imposition  of  these constraints  narrowed  TNP's site  choices  to a site in
Robertson County  adjacent to lignite reserves held by PCC and a site in Lubbock County
owned by Southwestern Public  Service Company  (SPS)  and fueled by  rail-delivered
western sub-bituminous coal.

2.3.1.2     Alternative Power Plant Sites in Proximity to the Calvert  Lignite
           Reserve

           Because the economic feasibility of using lignite  fuel is largely influenced by
transportation costs, potential power  plant sites  were  restricted  to areas bordering
PCC's Calvert Lignite  Reserve in Robertson County. Three candidate sites identified by
TNP are  described in the following paragraphs, and  their locations are presented in
Figure 2-1.
                                      2-3

-------
ROBERTSON COUNTY
          TEXAS
                                               	COUNTY BOUNDARY
                                               — "-CITY LIMIT
                                                 RAILROAD
                                               ^•^ PROJECT AREA
                                               B POWER PLANT SITES
                                                 MINING AREA
                                              — HIGHWAY
                                              ,f|A& LAKES 6 RIVERS
                                     CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE
                                             FIGURE 2-1
                                    ALTERNATIVE POWER PLANT SITES

-------
           Hammond Site.  The Hammond site, the preferred location for the proposed
power plant,  is located five  miles southwest of Bremond  and one mile  east of State
Highway 6.  Plant grade would be at approximately 425 feet (ft)  mean sea level (MSL).
Rail access would be provided by the Southern Pacific Railroad located one-half mile to
the west.  The plant site abuts the mine, minimizing fuel transport distance.  Cooling
water would be supplied to the plant via a three-mile pipeline  from depressurization
wells at the mine (operated by PCC) and a new well field in proximity to the plant site.

           Advantages of the Hammond site include proximity to the railroad, proximity
to  the economically  recoverable lignite  reserves without  encroachment upon those
reserves, and the superior drainage characteristics of the site.

           Site A.  Site A is located in the northwestern part of Robertson County (see
Figure 2-1),  two miles  west  of Bremond.  State  Highway 6  passes  through  the  site.
Site A is  a relatively flat  plain at an elevation of 380 ft  MSL.  Rail access  would be
provided by the Missouri Pacific Railroad which passes four miles to the southwest of the
site.  A pipeline seven  miles in length would be required to service the plant  with water
from  the  mine and the  wells.  Alligator Creek runs through Site A and drains to the
Little Brazos River.

           Site B.  Site B is located on  a flat  to rolling plain at  an elevation of 420 ft
MSL in central western Robertson County, Texas  (Figure 2-1).  The site drains to the
southeast into Little Mud Creek.  The Missouri  Pacific Railroad is four miles to the east
and the Southern Pacific Railroad is two  miles to the west.  A  pipeline  five miles in
length would be required to serve the plant with water from  the mine and the wells.

2.3.2       Alternative Electric Generating Designs

           Several alternative electric generating system  designs were considered for
the proposed power plant project.  Both a conventional lignite combustion  system and  a
circulating  fluidized bed  combustion  system were considered as  well  as  alternative
technologies for cooling, biological control, air pollution control, sanitary waste treat-
ment, wastewater handling, and solid waste disposal.  The principal criteria for selection
of the proposed facility design was  maximizing the electric generation capacity while
minimizing water and air impacts.

2.3.2.1     Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustion System

           The  circulating fluidized  bed  combustion  (CFB)  system is the  preferred
combustion system design for the proposed power plant.  The basic principle of fluidized
bed combustion involves  the burning  of  lignite  in  a bed of high calcium  or dolomitic
limestone  sorbent that  is  fluidized  by upward jets of  hot air under conditions which
calcine the limestone to the oxide form. In this form, the limestone acts as a reagent to
capture 90% of the sulfur gases emitted during lignite burning, eliminating the need for
flue-gas scrubbers.  Combustion takes place at temperatures between 1500  and 1600°  F
which is  significantly lower than temperatures  in conventional lignite-fired boilers, and
below  the point at  which nitrogen oxides are  formed.    Furthermore, the overall
operational efficiency  of  the  CFB system enables the use of lower grade  lignite for
combustion.

           The primary advantages of the CFB system involve the reduction of adverse
air  quality impacts.   Particulate  removal  is efficiently  accomplished  by  use of  a
baghouse.  Elimination of the  need for flue-gas scrubbers (due to operating  procedures
                                       2-5

-------
that reduce  the  formation of nitrogen oxides and  remove  sulfur  gases) results in a
cleaner, more reliable system than the conventional methods of lignite combustion.

2.3.Z.2     Conventional Lignite Combustion Systems

           In a pulverized coal (PC)  boiler unit, lignite is ground into a talcum powder
consistency in a pulverizer.  The talcum powder-sized lignite fines are then conveyed via
forced air through the  lignite pipes  to the furnace.  Excess air is  introduced into the
furnace to  augment  mixing  of  pulverized lignite and air  so complete  combustion  is
obtained.   A flue-gas stream containing  oxides of sulfur and nitrogen  exits the boiler.
Nitrous oxides are controlled by burner design, arrangement, and operation.  The sulfur
dioxide must be removed by a scrubber before the gas stream  is allowed to leave the
stack.   A fabric  filter (baghouse)  is  the most common solids collection device, but
electrostatic precipitators may also be used.  The  cleaned flue gas leaves the collection
device and is exhausted to the atmosphere through a stack.  Dry  waste solids collected in
the spray dryer and baghouse are typically disposed of by landfill.

2.3.2.3     Cooling System/Makeup Water  Alternatives

           Cooling involves pumping water through a condenser where  heat  is absorbed
from the  steam cycle.   In a once-through system, the heated water is released  into a
receiving  stream and does not reenter the cycle.  Closed loop  systems recycle cooling
water  using devices such as cooling  towers, spray ponds, or cooling lakes to facilitate
heat rejection.

           Cooling Towers.  A common method of rejecting  heat from condenser cooling
water, cooling towers, is the preferred alternative for the proposed power plant.  Heat
transfer occurs  by conduction/convection and/or  evaporation.  Cooling towers require
significantly less land than cooling lakes or spray ponds. Cooling tower designs include
wet cooling towers, dry cooling towers, and wet/dry cooling  towers.  Wet  cooling towers
are the preferred alternative.

           Wet  cooling towers  can be either  mechanical draft  or natural draft.   Each
type is affected by dry and wet  bulb temperature. The wet bulb temperature controls
the heat transfer process, while dry bulb temperature is important in determining the  air
flow rate.  Heat transfer occurs when water falls downward through the cooling tower
fill (packing)  and  contacts air, causing a small percentage  of  water to  evaporate and
cooling the balance.  Water evaporated in the  tower, which  causes an increase in solids
concentration, must  be replaced with fresh  water.   This  type of cooling  tower will
provide the cooling capacity required with minimal environmental impact and  cost.

           Dry cooling  towers are  classified into two types: direct and indirect.  Both
systems are directly dependent upon dry bulb temperature for the lower  cooling limit.   In
the direct system, large ducts or  pipes  transfer  the turbine exhaust steam to  an air-
cooled heat exchanger  where the steam  is condensed, heat transferred to the air, and
condensate  reused in  the  steam  cycle.  The  direct system does  not  require  an
intermediate cooling  fluid (water) or a condenser.  The indirect system  uses a condenser
and cooling fluid (water) to remove heat generated by the steam cycle and transfer it  to
an  air-cooled heat  exchanger.   Both systems   are  closed  to the  atmosphere, and
evaporation  cannot take place.   Therefore,  the  cooling fluid or steam  cannot  utilize
evaporation to transfer heat and achieve cooling  temperatures that approach ambient
wet bulb temperatures.  This handicap usually results in high turbine backpressures and
requires large surface areas for cooling, which can be cost prohibitive.
                                       2-6

-------
           Wet/dry towers incorporate both conduction/convection and evaporative heat
transfer.  The two primary advantages in a wet/dry tower are:  a less visible plume and
decreased make-up water consumption.   During winter months when the ambient  air
temperature is  low,  wet cooling is not  needed, thus reducing water consumption and
plume visibility.  These  advantages  generally  do not justify  the  added  capital cost
associated with wet/dry towers.

           Spray  Ponds  and Cooling Lakes.   Cooling  lakes  reject heat by  natural
evaporation. In spray ponds heat transfer is promoted by spraying water  into the air.
Both  require  a  relatively large area to  be  effective.   The high capital cost  for
constructing a  new  lake with  associated  pumps and distribution  piping,  make  this
alternative impractical for the proposed power plant.

           Once-Through Cooling.  Heat  rejection on a  once-through basis  requires a
large moving water source, such as a river, located near the plant.  This cooling system
alternative is not feasible for the proposed power plant because of the distance from the
preferred site location to a suitable water source and potential environmental impacts on
indigenous biota.

2.3.2A     Biological Control Alternatives

           Biological control is  used  in  the auxiliary cooling  system (Heat  Exchanger
Circulating  Water (HECW)) to control undesired growth of micro-organisms. Chlorine is
the least expensive  chemical available  for biological control.  Chlorination  controls
biological growth  in the HECW plate  heat  exchangers.  This control  is accomplished by
periodically injecting chlorine into the HECW system using a programmed timer which
controls chlorine residual.

           The preferred  alternative  for  cleaning the condenser tubes is  a  continuous
ball cleaning system.  This system incorporates mildly-abrasive sponge rubber balls which
are injected into the circulating water pipe near the condenser inlet and scour the inside
surface of the  tube.  Water flowing  with the  balls  flushes away  loosened material.
Screens located  at the condenser outlet collect the balls where a pump recirculates them
back to the  condenser.  Chlorine  will be added to the cooling tower to control algae and
other biological growth as needed.

2.3.2.5     Air Pollution Control System Alternatives

           SO.,  (Sulfur Dioxide).   The CFB lignite-fueled  boilers proposed  for  steam
generation satisfy SO? emission requirements without using flue-gas scrubbers, by the
addition of limestone into the combustion zone.   The limestone chemically reacts with
sulfur in the lignite, thus removing most of the SO, in the flue gas.

           Particulates. A baghouse is the preferred alternative for particulate  removal
because of its proven ability to meet  particulate air emission standards. Flue gas laden
with particulate  material (fly ash)  enters the baghouse  and is distributed among the
cleaning compartments.  Each compartment contains a large  number of  tubular filter
bags. The flue gas passes through the bags, out of the compartment, and on  to the stack.
Ash is collected in the bags  where it  builds up on the interior  surface.  Ash removal is
accomplished by isolating a particular compartment so that a reverse flow  of air can be
passed through the bags.  This process causes the bag to partially collapse, breaking loose
the accumulated ash cake and allowing it to fall  into  a collection hopper.  The  cleaning
cycle can be augmented with shaker mechanisms  or sonic horns.
                                       2-7

-------
           Another  alternative,  the electrostatic  precipitator,  collects  particulate
material by  applying  an electrostatic field  to  the  flue gas  stream which  electrically
charges the fly ash particles.  At the same time, an opposite charge is applied to large
plates or ducts  in  the  precipitator.  The charged  fly ash particles migrate to the
collecting plates where  they adhere.  The particles build up  a layer of dust on the
collecting  plate  surface.   The  accumulated dust deposit is periodically dislodged by
rapping the collecting plates. The dust falls to a collection hopper in the precipitator for
subsequent removal.  A  cold-side precipitator is located downstream of the air heater,
while a hot-side precipitator is located in the gas stream before  the flue gas reaches the
air heaters.

2.3.2.6     Sanitary Waste Treatment System Alternatives

           Three sanitary  waste systems were considered for the proposed power plant:
1) septic tank, 2)  packaged plant, and 3) existing sewage-treatment plants.

           Septic Tank.  A septic tank and drainfield system is considered adequate to
treat the anticipated volume of sewage generated by the proposed power plant operating
personnel,  and  was selected  as the preferred alternative.   The  maximum  design
population will be  200, based  on anticipated plant  employment  of 153 persons, divided
into  three shifts.  Wastewater  flows  are  expected to average less than 4000 gallons per
day (gpd).  The septic tank system has several general advantages which include minimal
overall system maintenance, lower cost, and low  energy requirements  for operation.

           The system design may include single- or multiple-compartment septic tanks,
depending on the design  flow  for each  tank.    Drain  field  systems will be  designed
according to good  engineering practice,  as recommended  by the Texas Department of
Health (TDK).

           Packaged Plant.  A centralized wastewater treatment plant could be designed
to treat the sanitary  wastes from  the  proposed power plant.   Typically, such plants
require substantial  investments in equipment for pumps, aerators, tanks, and equipment
housing.  In addition, substantial operator and maintenance labor are involved.  Sludge-
drying beds or other sludge removal and/or disposal systems would be required.

           Advantages include the ability to treat oily wastes and other potential wastes
from the plant which  might otherwise be difficult  to dispose of.  However, this is not
normally a problem in an electric generating station.  Also,  the treated effluent could be
reused in the power plant makeup water system.

           Disadvantages  of a packaged plant include high cost and high  operation and
maintenance expense.

           Existing Sewage  Treatment Plants.   No existing  municipal treatment plants
are located within an economic distance from the proposed power plant site.

2.3.2.7     Wastewater Handling Alternatives

           Once  cooling towers  were selected  as the preferred  alternative  for heat
rejection (Section 2.3.2.3), the  alternatives available  for  wastewater  disposal  were
limited to maximum reuse, evaporation, surface discharge, and irrigation.

           Maximum Reuse.   To maximize the reuse of plant  system wastewaters,  a
brine concentrator was selected. This negates  many of the disadvantages of the other
                                        2-8

-------
wastewater handling alternatives evaluated.  It allows the lowest possible volume  of
makeup water and is very flexible in the quality of water to be treated.  The land area
necessary for final disposal is smaller than  any other process considered.  Product  water
from the brine concentrator  is suitable for  boiler feed  with only minimal additional
treatment.   This  eliminates significant treatment costs and reduces the amount  of
wastes produced from the boiler makeup water  treatment system.  Selection of a brine
concentrator system provides a strong incentive to recycle and reuse all in-plant  waste
streams in order to minimize the final volume of water to be treated.

           Evaporation Ponds.  A very large area  of lined evaporation ponds would  be
required to evaporate the anticipated wastewater  volumes.  Operating and maintaining
these ponds would require additional manpower and maintenance expenses.  In addition,
the cost  of constructing the ponds is higher than the cost of the selected alternative due
to the large area requirement.

           Surface  Discharge.   Surface discharge was considered and rejected.   The
water quality  criteria   for  Segment 1242 of  the  Brazos  River  are  presented  in
Section 3.4.1.  Cooling tower concentrations would have to be severely limited in order
to meet the current stream segment standards for discharge into surface drainage at the
proposed plant site. This would result in a  significantly larger water supply requirement.
Alternately, the discharge point could be piped several miles to the Brazos River where
impacts  on the receiving waters would be reduced due to dilution.  These constraints
provide significant economic,  operating and environmental incentives  to  avoid  surface
discharge of the wastewater.

           Irrigation.  Disposal of the  wastewater by irrigation is considered feasible.
However, due to the limited irrigation currently practiced in the area of  the preferred
power plant site,  this disposal method was judged to be less desirable  than in locations
where water for irrigation is considered  essential to crop production.

2.3.2.8     Solid Waste Handling Alternatives

           Solid waste handling alternatives considered include dry ash  handling, ponding
of the fly ash and  bottom ash, and blending of the  ash with lime or other materials for
stabilization prior  to landfilling.

           Dry  Ash Handling.  Dry ash handling  is the preferred alternative  for the
proposed power plant. Waste  materials are segregated  and  thus the potential market-
ability of the various ash products is preserved.  The  land area required for disposal is
minimized because  no additional material  is  added, and the  probability  of marketing
substantial volumes for   ash products  in the  future is  maximized.  The potential for
adverse impacts on ground-water and surface-water quality is minimized.

           Ash  Ponds.  Ash  ponds require relatively large land areas.   The potential for
leachate production and  subsequent damage to ground-water resources from a wet fly
ash handling system is considered to be  a potential problem at the preferred power plant
site.  In addition,  the  potential market  value of fly ash could  be seriously degraded by
using wet handling methods. Therefore, using a wet system would assume that no market
could be found.

           Blending of Ash.  As with the  wet handling  methods, blending the ash with
lime or other materials prior to disposal could adversely affect the ash characteristics
and the potential for reuse.  It  would also increase the total volume  destined for disposal.
                                        2-9

-------
The blending equipment requires frequent maintenance and would add significantly to the
cost of power plant operation.

2.3.2.9     Alternative Ash Disposal Sites

           Several potential ash disposal sites in proximity to the preferred power plant
site were evaluated. Less favorable portions of the area investigated were eliminated by
Texas  Water Commission (TWC)  regulatory  requirements  and practical  engineering,
economic,  and  environmental constraints.  A primary and  an alternative disposal  site
were  selected  for  further  evaluation  of subsurface conditions and  development of
engineering and environmental designs.

           Preferred Sites A-l  and A-2.  Site A-l (Figure 2-2) occupies approximately
180 acres and will be utilized for waste disposal during the first 10 years of power plant
operation.   At  an estimated  waste  generation volume (in-place) of 6,328,250 cubic yards
during the  initial 10 years of plant operation,  Site A-l will reach a maximum height of
40 ft  above existing  grade,  if fully utilized.  The site is underlain  by the  Hooper
Formation  of Eocene Age, which contains significant mudstone and silt.  The geologic
units have  low  infiltration capacity and are  identified as  J-6 on the Land Resources of
Texas map  (Kier,  et al.,  1977).  This classification denotes  the Hooper Formation as
having minor recharge capabilities as a non-aquifer.

           Site A-2 occupies approximately  550 acres, most of which is located within
the mine.  A portion of the disposal site (approximately 150 acres) will be located on an
unmined area of the Calvert Bluff  Formation which contains no lignite.  The remaining
portion  of the site will be located upon a mixture of mined overburden which is expected
to have a relatively low permeability. The Calvert  Bluff Formation is classified by Kier
et al. (1977) as J-5 and is not  considered to be an aquifer.  Solid waste disposal upon
reclaimed mine spoil areas has been approved by the TWC in similar geologic settings.

           The truck haul route to Site A-l  would be north over a widened and upgraded
county  road directly into  the ash  disposal site.   The route  would  not require access
and/or use  of State Highway 6 or State Highway 14.  The existing county roads would be
upgraded to accept off-highway haul units.  The  ash haul road (Figure 2-2) is approxi-
mately  1.5 miles long and would be dedicated for power plant use. The truck haul route
to Site A-2 would be east from the preferred power plant site over a lignite haul road
from the mine. The route would not require access and/or use of local,  county or state
roads.   The lignite haul road (Figure 2-2)  is  approximately 1.5 miles  long and  would be
dedicated for power plant/mine use.  The average daily truck traffic will increase as
each unit of the power plant is brought on line.   Based on the use of off-highway haul
units carrying 35 tons per  load, the average daily truck traffic to the disposal sites  will
be as follows:
                                 Total             Average             Average
              Units in          Wet Tons          Tons/Day          Truckloads
 Year       Operation         Per Year         (6 days/wk)            Per Day


 1990            1              223,350              716                 20

 1991            2              446,700            1,432                 40

 1992            3              670,050            2,148                 60

 1993            4              893,400            2,864                 80
                                     2-10

-------
                                                         CALVERT UGNffE MNE/TNP ONE
       Figure  2-2
Alternative Ash  Disposal
  Sites and Associated
      Haul Roads
Source1 General Hwy. Map, Robertson Co., St. Dept. of Hwys
                                      2-11

-------
           Alternate Sites B-l and B-Z.  The alternate sites (Figure 2-2) occupy a total
area of approximately 610 acres, and would reach a height of 30 ft above existing grade,
if fully utilized.

           The sites are underlain by the Wills Point Formation of Eocene Age, which
contain clay,  silt,  and sand units dipping gently to the southwest.   These units are
lenticular in nature and change  character laterally and vertically (Barnes, 1970).  Kier
et al. (1977) describes the Wills Point Formation as a J5 unit having moderate relief, low
infiltration capacity, and a poor aquifer capability.

           The truck haul route would be west from the preferred plant site over the
main plant  access  road to State Highway 6, crossing the Southern Pacific Rail  Line,
north on State Highway 6  to County Road 1373,  and west on County Road 1373 to the
sites (Figure 2-2).  The average  daily truck traffic would increase as  each unit of the
proposed power plant is brought on line.  State  Highway 6 has a  load limitation of
100,000 pounds which is adequate for off-highway truck traffic.  County Route 1373 has
a load restriction of 58,000 pounds and would  require upgrading,  if the  alternate sites
were utilized.  Based on use of  over the highway tri-axial  trucks and  trailers carrying
20-tons per load, the average daily truck traffic would be as  follows:
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
2.3.3
2.3.3.1
Total Average
Units in Wet Tons Tons/Day
Operation Per Year (6 days/wk)
1
2
3
4
Alternative
223,350 716
446,700 1,432
670,050 2,148
893,400 2,864
Transmission Facilities
Average
Truckloads
Per Day
36
72
108
144

Destinations
           End points considered for a transmission line from  the proposed TNP ONE
Power Plant  site  included Twin  Oak Substation,  located  approximately  13.5 miles
northeast of the proposed site; Temple Substation, located approximately 35 miles west
of the proposed site; Sandow Power Plant, located approximately 42 miles southwest of
the proposed site; Gibbons Creek Power Plant, located approximately 50 miles southeast
of the proposed  site;  and Salem  Substation,  located approximately 70 miles south-
southeast of the proposed site.

           The environments  of the  areas  that  would be  crossed to reach these end
points are  similar,  consisting of various mixtures  of pasture, cropland,  woods,  and
streams.   No  prohibitive environmental factors were identified  in  any  of the areas
(Sargent  and Lundy, 1986a).   The shorter  length of  transmission  line that would be
required  for Twin  Oak  provides a  significant economic, as  well as environmental,
advantage  over  all  other alternatives.    Since load-flow  analyses  did  not  show  a
significant advantage for any  of the other alternatives,  Twin  Oak was chosen as the
preferred destination.

                                      2-12

-------
2.3.3.2     Routes

           Four  routes  between  the  proposed TNP ONE plant site and the Twin Oak
Substation were considered.  These alternative routes are shown in Figure 2-3.

           The general nature of the land crossed by all of the routes is essentially the
same.  The terrain consists of gently rolling hills  dissected  by several small stream
drainages.  None of the streams is classified  as navigable by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USCE),  and no USCE permit would be required to  cross any of the streams
(Townsend,  1986).  However, a USCE General Permit may be  required to place support
towers in Twin Oak Reservoir, which would be necessary for alternative routes 3 and 4.

           The predominant land use along all of the routes is  improved and unimproved
pasture.  Cropland is restricted to a few  isolated fields, and  none of the routes cross
irrigated  cropland  or  soils classified as prime  agricultural land by  the SCS (Schneider,
1986; Girdner, 1986).  Trees are found mainly  along the stream  drainages and in small
woodlots.  The wooded  areas tend to be dominated by post oak  (Quercus stellata) and
blackjack oak (Quercus marllandica).

           No incorporated communities or significant housing  developments are located
along any of the routes.   No parks, recreation areas, schools,  or other institutions are
located within 2,500 feet of any of the four alternative routes.  The only significant
industrial or commercial areas along any of the routes are the proposed mining  and ash
disposal areas for the Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE project and designated mining and
ash disposal areas for the Twin Oak power plant.  These are crossed, to varying degrees,
by all of  the  routes  except  Alternative 4.  The segments  of alternative routes 3  and 4
that are located north of the Twin Oak Substation are located within an area of existing
transmission line routes.  This portion of each alternative  route  is considered  industrial
land use.

           Field  surveys conducted by  the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory
(TARL)  have identified  several potential archaeological sites  in the area, but none of
these sites  are listed on the  National  Register  of Historic  Places  or  afforded any
protective status.  The  nearest Texas Historical Marker is located at the site  of the
extinct  town of Hammond, Texas, approximately 0.5  mile west  of the proposed TNP ONE
Power Plant site.

           The aesthetic  characteristics of  all of  the  alternatives are similar.   In all
cases, the  rolling terrain,  lack  of  nearby significant housing concentrations, and
relatively low  traffic volume  on the roads that are crossed will limit the numbers of
people who would view the transmission line.

           A comparison of  specific environmental data on the alternative transmission
line  routes is presented  in Table 2-1.  Alternative 4 was chosen  as  the preferred route
because it is the only alternative that avoids crossing all of the  strip mining areas for the
TNP ONE and Twin Oak power plants. In addition, it enters Twin Oak Substation from
the north, which is  the most favorable direction due to the substation layout.

2.3.3.3     Structures

           Three types of support structures were considered for the  transmission line:
lattice-type steel towers; steel poles; and wood poles.   Steel structures (towers and
poles) require less maintenance than do wood poles.  Steel structures also allow  greater
span lengths so that fewer structures are required for the same  length of transmission


                                      2-13

-------
ro
M
-P-
       6699-1
       04 86 389
               Source1 Sargent and Lundy, I986o
        Figure 2-3
 Location of Alternative
Transmission Line Routes

-------
                                                      TABLE 2-1

                                     COMPARISON DATA FOR ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION ROUTES
 Residences Within 500 Feet

 Archaeological Sites Within
 2,500 Feet

 Estimated Distance Through
 Designated Lignite Resources (miles)

 Total Length of R.O.W. (miles)

 Estimated Ownerships  (number)

 Pastureland Crossed (acres)

 Cropland Crossed  (acres)

 Woodland Crossed  (acres)

 Brushland Crossed (acres)

 Industrial Land Crossed (acres)


 Water Crossed (acres)

 Portion of Routing Along  Existing
 Transmission R.O.W.  Corridors
 (miles)

 Number of Paved Roads Crossed

 Number of Unpaved Roads Crossed

 Number of Streams Crossed


 Airstrips Within 10,000 Feet


 Churches Within 2,500 Feet
ALTERNATIVE
1
7
14
0.5
.les)
18.5
38
257.6
0
96.6
24.9
1.5
1.4
ig 2.3
3
8
35
1
0
ALTERNATIVE
2
7
42
6.7
17.5
38
276.1
0
69.2
12.7
1.5
0.8
2. 3
3
7
24
1
2
ALTERNATIVE
3
7
24
3.5
14.8
25
208.8
2.0
52.7
20.5
9.8
11.7
0.5
2
6
21
0
0
ALTERNATIVE
4
6
16
0
17.
32
242.
0
63.
22.
20.
8.
2.
2
9
29
0
0



3

0

4
4
5
8
5





                                                                                                          COMMENTS
Identified from TARL field data
Peach orchard
Twin Oak Power Plant site and
railroad spur

Farm ponds and Twin Oak Reservoir

Existing lines entering Twin Oak
Substation
Most streams in the area are
intermittent

Private airstrip
Note:All acreages are based on an R.O.W. width of 170 feet

Source:  Sargent & Lundy, 1986a

-------
line.   For  the type  of  transmission  line  being  considered,  lattice steel towers  are
generally more economical than steel poles.  In addition, the proposed tower design was
selected because it is widely used in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERGOT)
system.  Therefore, this design will make the proposed line aesthetically compatible with
other transmission lines in the vicinity.

2.3.3.4     Line Specifications

           The  two  major alternatives considered  for connecting  the  output  of  the
proposed TNP ONE Power Plant with the ERGOT power system at Twin  Oak Substation
are:  overhead  transmission  line; and underground transmission  line.    An  overhead
transmission line has certain advantages and disadvantages  compared  with  an  under-
ground line of the  same  voltage.  These advantages and disadvantages are summarized
below.

           Advantages!  construction of an  overhead transmission line involves consid-
           erably less environmental  disruption;  an  overhead  transmission line  is
           considerably less expensive; and underground cables do not have a sufficient
           operating  record at the voltages being considered to match the reliability of
           overhead lines.

           Disadvantages!  an overhead transmission line  has greater aesthetic impact,
           after construction.

Based on the  above  comparison,  an  overhead  transmission  line was  considered more
desirable for the proposed project.

           Two  alternative  voltages  (345 kV  and  138 kV)  were  considered for  the
proposed transmission line. Based on the costs for direct investment and transmission
losses, a 345-kV transmission line  was judged to be  more economical. In addition, since
the ERGOT system in the  vicinity of  the  proposed TNP ONE Power Plant is rated  at
345 kV, this voltage  will increase the  availability  of  maintenance accessories  under
emergency conditions.

           Nine different conductor sizes were  reviewed  for the 345-kV transmission
line.  The review included an evaluation of initial investment and yearly costs of fixed
charges, maintenance, and transmission losses.  Advantages of compatibility with the
ERGOT  System  in the vicinity of the transmission line also  were considered.   An
arrangement  with two  1590 kcmil  Aluminum  Conductor Steel  Reinforced  (ACSR)
conductors per phase  was selected as the optimum arrangement.

2.3.4     Alternative Railroad Spur Facilities

           Two railroads pass close to the  preferred power plant  site.   The Southern
Pacific railroad, located about 0.5 mile west  of the preferred plant site, is the preferred
railroad to be used in delivery of materials and equipment to the power plant  due to its
proximity to the project.  The Missouri Pacific is farther from the plant site  (about
4 miles  west).  A railroad spur  to the Southern Pacific will be much  shorter than one to
the Missouri Pacific, resulting in considerably less cost and environmental disturbance.

2.3.5     Alternative Mining Systems

           The proposed  mine site lies  within a 19,000-acre area which will contain all
of the actively mined areas, haul roads, and maintenance  facilities.  It is assumed that


                                       2-16

-------
any land not specifically excluded from the active mine area, but within this 19,000-acre
area, might be disturbed by mine construction/operation activities.

           Available lignite in the Calvert Lignite Reserve has been estimated by PCC
to be 360 million tons.  The overall reserve was  studied to determine  the most viable
reserves to recover.  Parameters which  were utilized to determine the lignite to be
recovered  were  areal extent;  potential  environmental  impact on  surrounding  area;
civil engineering features; water courses and  potential impacts; disturbed area water
control  structure impact; proximity to  preferred power  plant site; reserve quality;
groundwater impacts; and economic considerations.

           Based on the required Btu delivery schedule to the proposed power plant and
the energy characteristics  of  the selected reserves to be recovered, approximately
102 million tons of lignite  within the proposed mine site will be mined over the projected
41-year life of the project.

2.3.5.1     Alternative Mining Methodologies

           Underground  Mining. The Calvert Lignite Reserve is a multiple-seam, near-
surface resource.  The alternative of underground mining was dismissed because  lignite
recoveries could be expected  to  be limited  to  approximately  50% of  the available
reserve; operational constraints  exist,  such  as  faulting,  folding, rapid  thinning or
thickening of the lignite and rock splits or partings in the lignite  seam; weak compressive
strength of lignite and poor roof strength characteristics would necessitate large  lignite
pillars  to  maintain a  structurally  sound mine;  and  the  labor-intensive nature of
underground mining  results in a much higher manpower-to-recovered-ton ratio than does
the effort for surface mining.

           Auger Mining.   Auger mining is a supplemental technique to recover  lignite
from  a surface pit  seam when the overburden of the  high wall becomes  too thick  for
economical recovery or  when steep terrain precludes ordinary surface mining. Typical
auger mining  recovery is  approximately 35%,  although recoveries may approach 80%
when the auger  can cut  the seam at  almost full  thickness and the roof stability is
sufficient.  Although auger diameters up to 8 ft are practical, the lignite seams  in the
Calvert Lignite Reserve projected  for recovery vary in thickness from 2.0 to 11.9 ft, and
average 5 ft.   Therefore,  they could not be successfully mined  to  attain  the  higher
recovery continuously.  The use of auger mining might extend the total lignite recovery
from the Calvert Lignite Reserve, but it could not effectively replace surface mining as
the principal lignite  extraction method.

           Surface  Mining.   Based on  the  Btu content of the lignite,  the overburden
composition, and the structural as  well as physical characteristics of lignite, the only
mining  method considered  technically  and economically  feasible is surface mining.
Extraction operations consist basically of the removal and placement of randomly-mixed
overburden, extraction of the lignite resource, and return of the  mixed overburden to the
mine pits.  The factors considered as most  important hi evaluating alternative extraction
methods were  size  and  distribution of  the  lignite  reserve; nature of overburden to be
removed; character  and significance of geologic structures associated with the lignite
reserve; physical conditions of the  site that can render equipment  inoperable  during
unfavorable climatic events; and life and production rate of equipment.
                                      2-17

-------
2.3.5.2     Alternative Extraction Techniques

           Draglines.  Draglines are effective and efficient in moving large quantities of
material in soft overburden conditions generally to 150 ft of thickness.  These machines
are  very flexible  in  the overburden thickness required  (20-150 ft),  and have other
favorable characteristics (e.g., manueverability).  With large bucket capacities, draglines
can remove varying material sizes within the area of interest. Material is moved a short
distance before being replaced hi the open cut.

           The dragline alternative was  chosen as the most viable option since a simple
sidecast operation  would suffice  for  a  number of years before supplemental  stripping
equipment is  required  due  to  seam configuration and depth  restrictions.  The dragline
minimizes the lateral extent of disturbances and allows the flexibility  required for the
operation.

           Shovel/Truck  Stripping.   Shovel/Truck Stripping is similar to  dragline over-
burden removal; however, the shovel reach is much more limited, thereby requiring truck
support.  The material must be moved a greater distance to allow working room  for the
equipment.  Removing  overburden with only a  truck/shovel system would require many
more equipment pieces  than a  dragline  system, thereby increasing  costs  while  not
providing additional environmental benefits.

           When overburden depths become too great or seam  configuration precludes
only dragline  usage, a prestripping assist system must be implemented.  A truck/shovel
system  was chosen due to the  gradual increase of prestrip burden over a period of time.
Twenty-seven cubic yard shovels coupled with 100-ton class, rear-dump haulers would be
utilized to haul burden to required dump points.  These shovels would be employed at the
mine to provide the mobility and flexibility  required to remove material and selectively
replace it to provide a cohesive and efficient reclamation plan.

           Bucket Wheel Excavators. Bucket Wheel Excavators exhibit high production
overburden removal and are effective in  soft overburden. Due to the hydraulic nature of
the machines, they  are not reliable in areas of rock  or hard  stringers.  Additionally,
availability may not be as good as other systems. These machines require wide benches
to work effectively, as well as elaborate support equipment such as conveyors, transfer
equipment, spoil side spreaders, and/or cross pit conveyors.

           Bucket  wheel excavators were  eliminated  from  consideration  due  to  the
inefficient utilization  ability  in smaller, shorter sections  of the mine  blocks, lack of
sufficient overburden for efficient utilization in many mining  years,  as well as cost
considerations.

2.3.5.3     Lignite Loading  Alternatives

           Continuous  Surface Miner (CSM).   The CSM is ideally suited for thin seam
(< 5 feet) excavation while inducing minimal dilution of the  recovered reserve.   In
addition, this  machine can be utilized for other activities such as thin parting  removal.
Therefore, the CSM was selected  as the  preferred alternative, with front-end loader
support in pit  end areas and during CSM repair periods.

           Front-end  Loader.   Front-end loaders are  capable  of preparing the lignite
without auxiliary equipment and can load thin as  well as thick seams. However, dilution
of  the  recovered  reserve  is greater  with  this  machine than  with  other available
                                      2-18

-------
selections, and more machines are required due to lower loading rates than that which is
desirable and cost-effective.

           Shovel.   Shovel lignite removal  works very well in thick seams (> 5 ft) and
would work well in two of the seven seams  in the mine site deposit.  However, thinner
seams inherent to this operation preclude shovel use for lignite loading due to excessive
preparation time and dilution of recovered reserve.

           Backhoe.  Backhoes were considered and, as with the shovels, work well in
thicker  seams.   However,  in  the thinner seams, preparation time,  loading time and
dilution parameters do not meet required criteria.

2.3.5.4     Transportation System Alternatives

           The  mine-mouth location of the preferred power plant  site will minimize
transport  distances from the  proposed  mine,  so  that  the main  considerations  in
evaluating alternative transportation systems were volume efficiency and cost.   Several
high-volume, low-cost systems  were investigated.

           Conveyor Belt.   Conveyor  belt systems  can  generally  operate  for long
distances, negotiate fairly steep adverse grades (up to 18%), and minimize disturbance to
land surfaces  in  the right-of-way.  The equipment operates continuously and is usually
covered for protection from weather.  Conveyor systems are generally considered when
hauling  distances exceed 3 to 4 miles and/or environmental  conditions preclude  other
haulage systems.  Capital costs  for these systems are  increased by the need for large
lignite handling facilities at the  mine.   The handling  facilities  would also have  to be
moved with the conveyor as mining moves to new areas. The noise and visual  impacts
associated with these systems are generally not a significant concern.

           Rail Haulage.  Rail haulage  is a capital-intensive alternative that requires a
long amortization period.  Operational constraints involve slope limitations (4% downhill
and 3% uphill hauls) that would require increasingly greater railroad track space.   Lignite
would require double  handling,  since  the  mine is of  a  dynamic  character  with a
constantly changing loading face.  The  lignite must be trucked to a train loadout and a
large turn-around would be required at each end of the train  loop.  Because the lignite
will be developed for a  mine-mouth power plant, the  space,  grade,  loading configura-
tions, and economics are not favorable for this approach with the proposed mine.

           Truck Haulage. Truck haulage has the most  flexibility, can  manage moderate
haul grades, and can deliver lignite to various points during the mine life as required.
Haul roads must  be  developed  as mining proceeds and reclaimed as mining  is finished.
The costs of these systems increase almost directly with the quantity of lignite  to be
hauled and the distance  of the haul.  Therefore,  the capital investment can be spread
over the mine  life.

           A combination system has been selected for the proposed mine.  Truck units
would be utilized early in  the mine life when the haul is relatively short. Approximately
mid-way into the proposed mining project, when the operation crosses Walnut Creek, the
haul distance becomes long enough and other considerations determine that  a conveyor
coupled with truck haulage to a centrally-located dump  hopper would be the best system
to install. This combination system would be utilized for the remainder of the mine life.
                                      2-19

-------
2.3.5.5     Alternative Reclamation Plans

           The selection of reclamation plans for the proposed mine will be an ongoing
process rather  than a single, one-time choice.   Reclamation  alternatives will be
developed for each  Railroad  Commission (RRC)  mine permit term plan (every 5 years)
over  the  mine  life.   Post-mining  plans for the  mine  site  must satisfy two  major
objectives:  1) to  meet  the State and Federal regulations defining reclamation require-
ments; and 2)  to satisfy existing landowner stipulations concerning post-mining land-use
requirements.

           Land  use  following  reclamation is  limited  by the  original physical and
chemical nature of the overburden, which is modified by mining and returned to the mine
pits.  Uses available for the land include:

           o    Productive  Pasture land - The  mine  site  is  in  an area  of primarily
                livestock production. Landowners currently utilize areas for the raising
                of cattle.  Hardy native species and bermudagrass can weather drought
                periods and would be primary species replaced.

           o    Row  Crop Production  -  The mine  site is  not  conducive to high-level
                crop production because of summer drought periods that require exten-
                sive irrigation.  Because no cash crops now are produced in the project
                area, there is a lack of marketing  and support  services  required  for
                commercial operations.

           o    Hardwood  Production - A  reliable source of suitable  native species
                would be necessary.   Planting  of nursery stock hardwoods would be
                economically questionable  on  a broad scale,  and the survival rate of
                these transplants probably would be low. Moreover, hardwood  product-
                ivity  is low relative to pastureland.  The current and generally desired
                trend  in the project area is to clear woodlands in order  to  increase
                pasture lands.

           o    Wildlife Habitat - This alternative would be least expensive because it
                would require only rough contouring, grass seeding,  and  planting of
                some forbs and woody species.  Native species then would be allowed to
                re-invade from surrounding  areas. However, because it is expected that
                undesirable species would  dominate the invasion,  some land  manage-
                ment practices also  would be required.  The rough  contouring  would
                make  management  of  the  area  difficult,  particularly  if  mowing,
                fertilizing, or erosion control activities were required.

The  reclamation plan alternatives  considered include evaluations of reclamation with
each  of  these techniques with consideration  to natural  topography  and  vegetation,
landowner preferences,  and  the specific characteristics of the  overburden.  Proposed
post-mining land-use plans will reclaim  disturbed lands as pastureland  and grazingland,
with livestock production the primary land  use and  wildlife usage a secondary land-use
consideration.
                                      2-20

-------
2.4        ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED BY PCC AND TNP (PROJECT
           DESCRIPTION)

2.4.1       Plant Systems and Operating Procedures

           TNP is proposing  to  construct a  600 Mw power station,  consisting of four
150 Mw  CFB boilers, located in  Robertson County,  near the towns of Calvert  and
Bremond, Texas (Figure 2-4).  Unit No. 1 is expected to begin commercial operation on
January 1, 1990, with the subsequent units starting up in  one-year intervals  thereafter.
Figures 2-5 and 2-6 present a layout of the proposed power plant site facilities.

           The  proposed CFB combustion system, ancillary facilities,  and operating
procedures have many advantages  over conventional lignite  combustion  facilities with
respect to resource conservation and  environmental impacts. Among these  advantages
are less nitrogen oxide production and effective sulfur  dioxide control without  the need
for high-maintenance, energy-consumptive scrubbers;  efficiency of  water use through
recirculation and  re-use of wastewaters; less thermal  pollution through use of cooling
towers  rather  than  once-through cooling or  cooling reservoir;  dry  disposal of  the
combustion by-product  (ash); use  of  a comparatively  low-maintenance, low-energy-
demanding fuel handling system (i.e., a fuel crusher is used rather  than the conventional
pulverizer); and an overall greater operating efficiency which allows the use  of  lower
grade fuel (lignite) as well as having  the flexibility  to  use other  fuel sources (e.g.,
western  coal).   The specific components of  the proposed  power  plant project  are
described in the following sections.

2.4.1.1     Boiler and Steam-Electric System

           Boiler.  The  proposed circulating fluidized bed boiler will  consume  about
120 tons  per hour (tph)  of  lignite   and  2% tph  of  limestone.    It   will  generate
1,100,000 Ibs/hr of steam at 2005 pounds per square inch gauge (psig)  and  1005  F at the
superheater outlet.  The reheat steam  supply is 987,493 Ibs/hr at 387 psig and  1000° F.
The general operation of the CFB is described in Section 2.3.2.1.

           The  turbine is a Westinghouse tandem-compound, double  flow, single  stage
reheat type,  with exhaust pressure of 3.5 inches mercury (Hg). The generator develops a
maximum 168,102 kilowatt (Kw) at  194,000 kilovolt amperes (KVA) and 3,600  revolutions
per minute (rpm).

           Condenser.  The condenser  is a  two  pass,  single shell with divided  water
boxes. Tube  material is 316 stainless steel, 22 birmingham  wire gauge  (bwg) 1" diameter.
Total heat transfer surface area is 94,500  square  feet.  Total heat  rejection  from the
condenser is 7.86 x 10  Btu/hr.

2.4.1.2     Heat Dissipation System

           The  proposed heat   dissipation  system is  a  closed  loop  cooling system
consisting of mechanical-draft cooling tower, circulating water pumps, and a condenser.
Water evaporation in the cooling tower will  cause a concentration of chemicals in the
water which  if not controlled, can cause scale to  form on the condenser tubes, thereby
decreasing plant efficiency.   Chemical  concentration is controlled by removing cooling
water (blowdown) and replacing  it with fresh water.  Scale that  is not controlled by
blowdown is  eliminated  by  the use of a condenser ball cleaning  system. The cooling
water pH is  controlled by adding sulfuric acid, which prevents formation  of calcium
                                      2-21

-------
ROBERTSON  COUNTY
          TEXAS
                                              	COUNTY BOUNDARY
                                              — --CITY LIMIT
                                                RAILROAD
                                              ^•"^ PROJECT AREA
                                              D POWER PLANT AREA
                                                MINING AREA
                                                HIGHWAY
                                                LAKES & RIVERS
                                     CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE
                                            FIGURE 2-4

                                         PROJECT LOCATION
                         2-22

-------
tZ-t

-------
                                    T I00d-I00-lNi-3 in
                                                                 
                                                                                 in
                                                                                 x
                                                                                 r-
1
  B£>
I       M
                     2-24

-------
carbonate  scale on the condenser heat transfer surfaces.  Almost all of the blowdown
water is recycled by brine concentrators and reused in the cooling tower makeup (CTMU)
or boiler water makeup. Only a small quantity (8.5 gallons per minute  (gpm) per unit) of
water will be discharged to a lined evaporation pond.

2.4.1.3     Makeup Water System Facilities

           Plant  makeup  water for cooling tower  makeup  and boiler feed will be
provided by ground-water wells and recycled plant wastewater.  Recycled water consists
of brine concentrator product (distilled  water), boiler  blowdown, miscellaneous sumps,
and plant site rainfall runoff.

2.4.1.4     Other Plant Water Systems

           The  service  water  system,  or auxiliary  cooling  water (ACW) system , is
intended to remove heat from all auxiliary heat-producing equipment in the plant.  After
the closed-loop equipment cooling water  (ECW) cools  the auxiliary plant equipment, it is
pumped to a plate-type heat exchanger, where heat is transferred to the heat exchanger
circulating  water, which transports the heat through the circulating  water piping  to a
mechanical draft cooling tower where it is dissipated to  the atmosphere.

           Piping for  the plant fire protection will  be located in the boiler, turbine,
auxiliary building,  cooling  towers, and  coal handling  facility.   No  continuous  water
consumption is anticipated, but periodic flushing is required.

           Normal boiler  water make-up will use  cooling  tower  blowdown (CTBD)
treated in a brine concentrator.  The resulting  distillate,  generally  very low in total
solids, anions, and cations, only requires  mixed bed demineralizer treatment  before use
as boiler water.  When CTBD  water  is not available,  ground-water wells will  substitute.
Pretreatment is not required  when using a brine  concentrator; therefore, the distillate
can be classified as demineralized water.

           Ground-water wells will  supply a potable  water  system  sized  for  200
personnel.  The water will be disinfected by chlorine injection and the system  design will
conform to the state regulations (TDK,  1978).

2.4.1.5     Wastewater Management Systems

           Since this  plant is designed  to have no  discharge of process wastewater,
attention  has been  given to  reuse  and  recycling of  all  wastewater streams  where
possible.   The  NPDES permit application  will  contain provisions  for discharge of
stormwater from unusually large rainfall events.  Runoff from normal rainfall will be
captured in the  runoff  control ponds  and used in the power plant to supplement the
ground-water supply.

           Sanitary  wastes (collected  drains from showers,  restrooms,  drinking foun-
tains, and  others) are  expected  to  average less  than 4,000 gpd with all four  plants
operating.   Maximum flows may approach 10,000 gpd.  The preferred  treatment system
consists of  two  or more localized septic tank and drainfield systems serving various
buildings in the power plant and auxiliary  facilities.

           Service water  returns consist  of  the boiler building and turbine building
sumps.  Water collected in each of these sumps  includes roof drains,  floor drains,  lab
                                      2-25

-------
drains, and vent drains.  The water will be returned to the makeup water  storage for
reuse in the plant.

           Lignite  handling and storage pile areas will drain via surface  runoff and
drainage ditches to the coal pile runoff pond.  This pond also captures any drainage from
dust suppression sprays in the handling facility.  The water will be clarified in this pond
and returned to  the makeup water storage lagoon.

           Surface runoff from  the plant  parking and yard areas, not otherwise con-
trolled, will drain via drainage ditches and  natural drainages to plant site runoff ponds.
The  water will be clarified and pumped back into the plant makeup storage lagoon. All
surface runoff from the 280-acre fenced plant site up to the 10-year, 24-hour frequency
flood event will  be captured on site and re-used for cooling water at the  power plant.

           The design of  surface runoff control  facilities will incorporate the following
concepts:  1) Ditches  or  other diversions will be used to ensure that all surface runoff
from within the land area occupied by power  plant  site facilities will be  captured;
2) Water captured  will be pumped  into the power plant makeup supply for use in the
plant; 3) Storage facilities for the various  drainage areas will be  sized to contain the
10-year, 24-hour storm event.  (Rainfall above this amount will be discharged off-site
through spillways);  4) Spillways will be designed  to U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil
Conservation Service  (SCS) criteria  of  100-year, 6-hour  flood  plus  a percentage of
probable maximum precipitation; 5) The ponds  will be equipped  with  pumps that will
normally maintain freeboard sufficient to contain the 10-year storm; and 6) Ponds which
may contain process wastes (coal  pile runoff) will  be lined  in accordance  with  TWC
requirements to eliminate seepage.  Design storm  data were obtained from Hershfield
(1961).

           All impoundments on the power plant site are  in the small category with
storage less than 1000 acre-ft and height less than 40 ft.  The hazard  potential ranges
from "low" to "significant" (TWC, 1986) with no loss of life expected from catastrophic
failure, but some potential for disruption of operations in the lignite mine could result,  if
such an event occurred.

           The water treatment building sump collects flows from sample lines, miscell-
aneous drains, and acid  and  caustic  waters from  regeneration of the mixed bed ion
exchange (boiler makeup  treatment  system).  Due to using distilled water from the  brine
concentrators as makeup  to the boiler makeup system, the  volume of  acid  and caustic
waters generated will be much smaller  than  in a conventional  deionization system.
These waste streams will be  commingled  for  neutralization.   Effluent from the  water
treatment building sump will be pumped to  the cooling tower makeup system  for reuse in
the plant (approximately 5 gpm).  Slowdown  from the  makeup treatment  reactivator
clarifiers will be routed to a sludge settling pond.  Overflow from the settling pond will
be piped into the makeup  storage pond (approximately 305 gpm).

           Brine Concentrator.  The wastewater  treatment system  will incorporate  a
brine concentrator  (i.e., is a vertical-tube,  falling-film, vapor  compression evaporator).
Cooling water blowdown  is the main source of wastewater into the brine concentrators.
Brine concentrator wastes are collected in two  or more synthetically-lined evaporation
ponds for final disposal of about 34 gpm by evaporation. The ponds are large enough to
contain the expected  volume  of sludge over the plant design  life and  will have  no
discharge.  Provisions will be made to enable recycling of the clarified water to the  brine
concentrators.
                                      2-26

-------
           Metal Cleaning Wastes. Boiler cleanout is required prior to initial startup to
remove mill scale and oil from the interior surfaces of the boiler and then about once
every five years to maintain peak efficiency.  With a four-unit plant, approximately  one
boiler cleaning  job per year can be  expected.  The  cleaning chemicals will include a
muriatic acid rinse followed by a sodium nitrite-sodium glutenate passivation treatment.
The total volume of  each solution is  about 20,000 gallons and the  waste liquids will be
mixed together in  the  flywheel pond, pH  adjusted,  and then treated in  the  brine
concentrator.  Final disposal of the  iron removed from the boiler will be in the  brine
evaporation ponds.  The water recovered from the brine concentrators will be reused in
the power plant cooling system.

2.4.1.6     Ash  Handling System

           The  ash handling system  is  divided into  two sub-systems  which are:  Bed
Drains and Fly  Ash.  Ash collected at the combustion ash cooler,  fluid bed ash cooler,
and economizer ash cooler is transferred via conveyors  to  a storage  tank.   Fly  ash
(collected by a baghouse), and air heater ash (collected in storage hoppers located under
the air heater) are pneumatically conveyed to  a storage silo.  The combustor ash storage
tank and fly ash  storage silo  are  the ash  disposal loadout points,  from  which ash will
either be sent to a designated disposal site  or marketed (see Section 2.4.1.8).

2.4.1.7     Fuel Handling System

           Lignite delivered by truck from the mine will be transferred via a covered
belt conveyor from an unloading facility to a transfer house, where it will be diverted to
either dead or active storage.  The dead storage will contain enough lignite for 28 days
operation.  A fixed stackout conveyor with a telescoping discharge chute will be used to
transfer  the lignite to the dead storage pile.   Belt feeders will move lignite from  the
dead storage pile to  the crusher building.  Several stackout  and shuttle  conveyor belts
will transfer lignite  to  covered active storage.  A portal scraper in the active storage
building will place the lignite onto redundant conveyor belts which carry it to the crusher
building.  After the crusher building, lignite will be transferred by other conveyor belts
to the plant tripper house where it empties into steel storage silos which will discharge it
into feeders which direct it to  the boiler.

2.4.1.8     Solid Waste Disposal Operation  Plan

           Fluidized  Bed Combustion  Wastes.   The  generating units  will  produce  a
combination waste stream consisting of  fly  ash, bottom ash, and spent bed residue.
Lignite ash wastes are, at present, classified as non-hazardous  solid waste by the EPA.

           During the initial landfill  disposal of fly ash, research will be conducted to
determine the technical feasibility and environmental suitability of marketing these  ash
products.  Alternate disposal practices such as  in-mine disposal will also be investigated.
If the results of the research are positive, marketing or alternative disposal practices
will be implemented.

           The  proposed ash disposal sites (see Section 2.3.2.9) are designed to accom-
modate the total waste generated by four 150 Mw CFB boilers (total 600 Mw).  The total
design capacity based on a 40-year service life is 29,780,000  cubic yards of material to
be disposed.  The proposed ash disposal sites will be located within the  boundaries of a
tract of land controlled by TNP.
                                       2-27

-------
           The actual disposal  operation will be conducted  similar to a large embank-
ment or area fill.   The waste  materials  will be unloaded from storage silos and bins
located within the power plant site.  The  material will be conditioned with water in a
pugmill or dustless unloader prior to discharge into hauling units.  It is anticipated that
approximately 15% water will be added  to condition the material for disposal. This step
will  aid in preventing  dusting and  will  enhance the  environmental  and  structural
properties at  the disposal site.  The materials will be transported over all-weather haul
roads to the disposal area.

           At the  disposal  site,  the  waste materials  will  be spread,  graded, and
compacted according to a  systematic phasing sequence.   Placement  will be  conducted
such that positive  runoff will be maintained from  the compacted surface at all times.
Material will  be placed in lifts, designed  to achieve the in-place  density required  to
obtain the desired strength  and permeability for future reclamation of the site.

           Once portions of the solid waste disposal area have reached an elevation 2 ft
below  the  finish  grades, a  minimum of 2 ft of compacted soil cover, suitable for plant
growth, will be applied.  The cover soil will be placed  and compacted on all exterior
slopes  and benches  after final grade has been reached in these portions  of the disposal
area.

           Water  Treatment  Wastes.   Limestone  sludge is generated by  the  makeup
water  treatment system.  Blowdown from the cold lime reactivator clarifiers will  be
routed to a settling pond.   Overflow from  the settling ponds will  flow by gravity to the
treated makeup storage pond.  Approximately 20 tons per day of the limestone sludge
will  be produced.  This  material is expected to receive  a TWC Class El classification.
The total volume to be disposed will be  about 260,000 cubic yards.  It  will be segregated
from other wastes and disposed of by landfilling in a manner similar to the ash disposal.
At the time water treatment sludges are  generated, TNP will conduct feasibility tests
and consult with the combustion engineer in order  to determine the potential for use  of
the waste material as a sorbant  in the power plant.

           Brine Concentrator Wastes.  The brine concentrators will produce about 95%
of their makeup flows as distilled  water which will then  be  reused  in the  power plant.
The  remaining 5%  (8.5  gpm  per  unit)   will be a saturated  slurry  of primarily CaSO4
(gypsum),  CaCO3  (limestone), and  other salts.   The  waste stream is routed to lined
evaporation ponds  where the  solids will settle and the remaining water will evaporate.
The  total solids volume will be approximately the same  as  the  waste from  the water
makeup system.

2.4.1.9     Atmospheric  Emission Sources and Control Systems

           The use of a  CFB lignite-fired boiler  with limestone to control sulfur dioxide
(SO,)  emissions  satisfies  the  requirements of  the  1979  New Source  Performance
Standards (NSPS) for fossil  fuel-fired steam electric generators. The use of CFB boilers
for  steam generation  allows  compliance  with  the  most  stringent  emission  control
requirements for SO, without using flue  gas scrubbers.

           Emissions from  the  lignite handling operation will  be  controlled with fabric
filter dust collectors and spray  type dust suppression.  Lignite stored in the fuel bunkers
will  be supplied to  the  combustor by feeders  at a rate consistent with boiler  load
demand.  Due to  the high  gas  velocity associated  with  the  fluidizing bed, the lignite,
limestone, and ash are entrained.   As the solids exit the combustor, they are captured  by
a recycling cyclone and returned to the combustor.


                                       2-28

-------
           The hot flue gas leaving the recycling cyclone passes through the convective
section where additional heat is removed. Particulate matter will be removed from the
flue gas stream with a fabric filter system.  The ash collected in the fabric filter hoppers
will be removed pneumatically and stored in the fly ash silo.

           SO, emissions are controlled in the CFB by feeding limestone with the coal.
Finely-ground limestone is utilized in the CFB for SO_ removal.  The use of the fine-
grained  material  provides  increased specific surface area for  SO,  capture.   The
limestone is calcined in  the furnace to lime or calcium  oxide  by the heating of  the
limestone or calcium carbonate to drive off the carbon dioxide. The lime is then free to
react with the SO, to form calcium sulfate (CaSO.) (i.e., gypsum).

           Oxides of nitrogen (NO ) emissions are reduced due to the low combustion
temperature of  1600° F.   The  combustion air is fed  to the  combustor as primary air
through the distribution plate at the bottom of the combustor and  as a secondary air,  fed
part way up the  combustor.  This "staging" of the combustion further suppresses NO
formation.                                                                         x

           The chimney for each  generating unit will consist  of a concrete shell with a
free standing, internal brick liner. This chimney will  have  an exit diameter  of 12.5 ft
and an exit velocity of about 80  ft per second (fps).

2.4.1.10    Transmission Line

           The proposed transmission line route is shown and labeled in Figure 2-7.  The
route connects TNP's proposed TNP ONE Power  Plant  with the  existing  Twin  Oak
Substation owned by Texas Utilities Generating Company.  The route is approximately
17.3 miles long, and is located entirely within Robertson County, Texas.

           Structures.   The  transmission  line  support  structures  will be  towers  of
galvanized steel lattice-type construction. A typical tower is  shown in Figure 2-8.  The
towers  will be placed  on drilled concrete caissons.   Each  tower will support  twelve
345-kV conductors and two shield wires.  The conductors will be supported by suspension
insulators. The spacing between towers will generally range from 800 ft to 1,200 ft, and
will average approximately 1,000 ft.

          Transmission Line Specifications.   The  transmission  line  will be  a 345-kV,
three-phase, double circuit, overhead line.  Each circuit will be designed for approxi-
mately 300 MVA.  The transmission line will include two shield wires of 7/16"  EHS steel
and two 1590 kcmil conductors per phase.  The conductors will be Aluminum Conductor
Steel Reinforced  (ACSR), consisting of 54 strands of aluminum over 19 strands of steel.
The right-of-way (ROW) width for the proposed transmission line will be  170 ft.

          Description of Segments.  The proposed route is composed  of the following
segments, which are presented in Figure 2-7:

           o    Segment  I exits the  proposed plant  site  from  the  south,  where the
                switchyard will be located, and then  turns north almost immediately.
                This segment is approximately 2.2 miles long, extending just far enough
                north to avoid the northernmost area of the proposed Calvert mine.

          o    Segment  n extends approximately 4.3  miles in an east-northeast direc-
                tion.   Approximately  1.8 miles  of this  route  is located within the
                proposed project  area;  the  remainder  is  on land currently held by
                private landowners.

                                     2-29

-------
2 30

-------
                          Figure 2-8
      345  kV DOUBLE CIRCUIT LATTICE STEEL TOWER
Source: Sargent and Lundy, I986a.
                       2-31

-------
2.4.2.1     Reserve Description

           Five major  and two minor lignite seams comprise the recoverable resource
for the Calvert Lignite Reserve.  These seams occupy approximately  270 ft of strati-
graphic section within the  lower Calvert Bluff Formation (Figure 2-9).

2.4.2.2     Clearing and Grubbing Operations

           Prior to mining, land must be cleared of vegetation.  Trees and brush will be
uprooted, stacked, and burned. All protruding growth which may be obstacles to dragline
cable movement will be removed.  Clearing  and grubbing will be  accomplished using
460-horsepower (hp) dozers with a root plow and a multi-application rake. Land  will be
cleared at least one year prior to active mining or on an as-needed basis.  The clear and
grub advance sequence is presented in Figure 2-10.

2.4.2.3     Topsoil  Handling Operations

           Prior to topsoil removal,  depths of topsoil will be determined and located in
the field.  At this  time, suitable temporary topsoil stockpile sites  will be located and
surveyed.  These locations are shown in Figure 2-11. After the mining areas have been
cleared and grubbed, an average of six inches of topsoil will be removed by scrapers and
either placed directly on regraded mine areas or stockpiled for future use.  The topsoil
stockpiles will have 5:1  side slopes and be vegetated to prevent erosion.

2.4.2.4     Burden Removal Operations

           The  overall  depth attained at the CLM, in excess of 300 ft,  precludes the
exclusive use of draglines  for burden removal because of the  large amount of rehandle a
dragline would experience at such depths.   Consequently, three 27-cubic yard electric
shovels  with up  to  thirty-one 100-ton, end-dump  trucks will  be  used to remove  enough
burden so that the remaining burden is within the dragline's normal range of productivity.

           Interburden, i.e., the relatively thin (less than 20 ft) layers of burden between
lignite seams, will be handled by scrapers and/or dozers.

           The dragline will leave an approximate one-foot  layer of burden  above the
lignite  seam.   This one-foot  layer must  then be  removed by  other  equipment in
preparation for loading  the lignite. Rubber-tired dozers (RTD) in the 450-hp class were
selected for this task due to their  minimal disturbance of the lignite surface.

2.4.2.5     Mine Production

           A  total of   seven  seams will  be  recovered with  a total  production  of
102,154,000 tons  of lignite during a 41-year mine operating life.   The average  annual
production is 2,500,000  tons, and the  maximum annual production is 3,400,000 tons. The
lignite reserve  supplies a  total of 1,337.6 x 10   Btus,  the annual average value being
31.6 x 10   Btus and the maximum annual Btu value being 44.0 x  10   Btus.  The total
burden removed to  recover the required  lignite  is 1,364,420,000  bank cubic yards (BCY)
or an average of 33,278,000 BCYs per year.  The overall effective  mined ratio for the
mine  is  13.4 BCY per ton of lignite recovered  or 1.0 BCY  per million  Btus (MMBtu)
supplied.
                                     2-33

-------
FIGURE 2-9
CALVERT LIGNITE MINE
GENERALIZED SIR ATIGR APHIC SECTION
AVERAGE AVERAGE
INTERVAL SEAM SEAM
THICKNESS FT. THICKNESS FT.
QUATERNARY f 	
ALLUVIUM /
2 a. iVWhitsett ^^/
« X Mann'tna j^
g£ Wellborn .?
3° Caddell/"
Iv *. AVAVS *^J
'Yegua.*. J
*X0»*. , ^ ,,. I
s 	 *—p
O Cook f
g Mtn. /
UJ .^^^^jl^p—
| Sparta J
»U m 	 */^
5 ^ W«ches/
Q Queen City J
w i r
Reklaw^
| |('(..' |(Carrlzo :Kj\
i Calvert •.
« Bluff 	 	 _



(2 -%-X.vv.ss
Z Simsboro i
« 	 	 '>ej^\JI
«^ Hooper 
-------
                                      Figure 2-10
2-35

-------
Figure  2-It

-------
2.4.2.6    Operation Scenario

           Table 2-2 indicates the  total number of  acres  disturbed  by the indicated
activity for specific time periods during the 41-year life-of-mine.

2.4.2.7    Permanent Stockpiles

           The use of a truck/shovel prestripping operation at the CLM will require four
permanent, stable overburden stockpiles (Figure 2-11) because some material must  be
removed by the truck/shovel system  in a specified  mine block before normal haulback
operations to  the dragline spoils can begin.  The  locations of the four stockpiles were
selected after reviewing water control features,  possible haul routes, potential subse-
quent use of the stockpiles and volumes requiring storage.  Stockpiles were sized for a
maximum height of 60 ft; side slopes of 5H:1V; and a 1.15 material swell factor.

2.4.2.8    Lignite Handling

           Lignite  Loading Techniques.  The continuous surface miner (CSM), selected
for use in lignite  loading at the  proposed mine, has proven to be an effective and
efficient  tool for loading Texas  lignites and is ideally designed  for  recovery of thin
lignite seams. The  CSM has the ability to mine seams 2 ft in thickness while maintaining
quality through limited dilution and recording excellent recovery.   A front-end loader
will also be available to handle lignite at pit ends and other areas not readily accessible
by the CSM.

           Lignite Hauling Procedures.  Lignite from Blocks A and B will be truck hauled
from the loading point directly to a truck dump located at the proposed power plant site
(Figure 2-12).   When  operations are shifted to Blocks K and J,  an overland conveyor
system (Figure 2-11) will be installed and utilized to transport the lignite from a truck
dump at the edge of the mine boundary to the power  plant.  Truck haulage will deliver
the lignite from the mine to the  conveyor loadout.  Trucks will transport the initial
lignite from Block C to the power plant site until operations in Block J are completed.
At this time, the truck dump  at Block J-K will be  moved to a location near Block C and
lignite will be delivered to the truck dump for transfer  to the conveyor at this point.

           The  overland conveyor  system consists  of a truck dump, two flights  of
conveyors, and  two transfer  stations.   The  overland conveyor  from Blocks J  and K
crosses approximately 3,200 ft of the Walnut Creek 100-year floodplain. This section of
the conveyor  will be  enclosed in  an elevated  gallery to protect the environment  of
Walnut Creek.  The conveyor  system is designed to handle an annual production  of
3.4 million tons per year based on a two shift per day, five day per week, operation.

2.4.2.9     Facilities

           A facilities  complex (Figure 2-11) will  be constructed which will provide the
various services necessary to  support the proposed mining operation.  The facilities will
include an  administration building, changehouse, shop/warehouse,  fuel storage area,
truck wash, water treatment plant,  vehicle ready line,  outside storage, and  employee
parking. A dragline erection  site will be constructed adjacent to the  facilities site. Top
soil will be removed from the  site and stockpiled  south of the selected site.
                                     2-37

-------
TABLE 2-2
PHILLIPS COAL COMPANY
CALVERT LIGNITE MINE
ACRES OF DISTURBANCE BY ACTIVITY

Year
-2
-1
1
2
3
4
5-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-41
Total
Cleared and
Grubbed
Acres
0
0
139
191
247
421
708
900
835
640
1,060
320
	 0
5,461
Road
Acres
2
52
0
20
28
0
30
81
110
0
65
0
0
388
Facilities
Acres
83
11
0
12
2
38
170
112
306
0
83
0
_0
817
Water
Control
Structures
37
50
5
47
0
213
83
386
31
93
133
4
	 0
1,082
Total
Disturbed
Acres
122
113
144
270
277
672
991
1,479
1,282
733
1,341
324
	 0
7,748
Source:  PCC, 1986
                                  2-38

-------
^;Y-f  v^m:  ..-;..   2
                                '    i  :"V7'^- r^
                             *      •.,  * /  -.'.; • ••'!••-
                            /' _>»_     «-i  ••/..'*  .     -
                                     LIOIHO
                                LIP! OF MINI tOUNOAMT
                                WWINQ COUNOANV  	 HAUlHOAO
                                       «^«« ACCESS NOAO
                                       v* «MO VtAN INfVIAH OUT
                                        i t i i VIAM iUILT fMCAK POINT
                                                                   Figure 2-I2
                               2-39

-------
2.4.2.10    Conceptual Water Control Plan

           The conceptual water control plan for the proposed mine has been prepared
to minimize changes to the existing hydrologic system; to protect the project from loss
of life, property,  or  operating time due to flooding;  to  prevent degradation of water
quality of project streams during mining and reclamation; and to prevent adverse  long-
term hydrologic impacts from  mining activities.  This  will be accomplished by utilizing
diversions  and sedimentation  ponds to control surface  runoff from  undisturbed and
disturbed drainages affected by all mine activities. The water control system is designed
to control surface runoff from areas disturbed by mining activities and ancillary areas.

           The water control plan conforms to applicable State and Federal regulations
governing the planning and design of surface mines in Texas.  Details of the plan are
contained in the  applicant's  mine permit application to the Texas Railroad Commission
(PCC,  1986a). Design rainfall data were obtained from Hershfield (1961).

           Hydrology. The hydrologic response of the watersheds was modeled using the
TR-20 Project Formulation Hydrology Computer Program developed by the SCS (1965).
Rainfall  distributions  used were the SCS  design  storm (B-Normal)  distribution for a
6-hour duration event and the SCS Type n distribution for a 24-hour duration event.

           In  general, sedimentation ponds provide detention  of  surface runoff  from
subbasins affected by the mining operation.  In addition,  they provide detention of pit
inflows pumped to the ponds by the  dewatering operation.  Diversion ponds  divert or
detain runoff  from subbasins not disturbed by  mining activities, thereby reducing the
amount of water required to be retained in the mine sedimentation ponds. Ponds will be
constructed as they are required to control and divert water in accordance with the  clear
and grub operation advance  (Figure 2-10).  Figure 2-13 is a topographical map showing
the proposed  mine blocks,  the affected watersheds,  and the proposed  surface  water
control structures.

           Drainage systems affected by  the  proposed  mine  plan  include the  Little
Brazos River and  a major tributary of the  Little Brazos River (Walnut Creek).   Walnut
Creek  tributaries  affected by mining activities include South Walnut Creek, Big Willow
Creek, Bee Branch, and Dry Branch.

           To allow sufficient  time for reclamation and vegetation establishment, water
control structures will generally be removed seven years after mining activities cease
within the drainage area controlled by that structure. In some cases, a structure will be
retained  for a longer  period of time in order  to reduce the  storage  requirements of
downstream water control ponds in the same watershed.

2.4.2.11    Reclamation Plan

           Goals  of  the  reclamation plan  include  re-establishment  of diverse  and
adapted vegetation; soil  erosion control; enhancement  of  wildlife habitat; and develop-
ment  of post-mining  land uses  consistent with  existing  land use  and/or desires of
individual land owners.

           As a result of the reclamation effort, post-mining land uses will be equal to
or better than those which  existed prior to mining.  This will be accomplished using
prudent reclamation practices that have been demonstrated to meet the aforementioned
goals.
                                      2-40

-------
                                      Figure 2-13
2-41

-------
           Backfilling and  Grading.  Regrading activities will  involve removing spoil
peaks and backfilling pits  to  establish  final grades and drainages,  and to  eliminate
highwalls.  Backfilling and grading will be completed primarily with dozers, scrapers, and
end  dump trucks.   A  post-mining topographic  map shown in Figure 2-14  has been
developed to provide a conceptual plan  for regrading mined areas.  Final contours have
been designed to blend into surrounding undisturbed land.

           During the life of the mine, four permanent, stable overburden stockpiles will
be created as shown in  Figure Z-ll.  The  maximum height of each stock pile will be
approximately 60 ft above premining contours with slopes no greater than 20%.  Erosion
control techniques  to  stabilize  the  overburden  stockpiles are discussed  in the  soil
reclamation section. In  addition,  two small lakes will be formed in  final cuts where spoil
material is insufficient to return  the cuts  to approximate  original ground  contour  (see
Figure 2-15).  These lakes will be reclaimed in a manner that allows for the development
of a significant amount of  wildlife habitat  in conjunction with providing a  source of
water for livestock and  wildlife.  Revegetation techniques to be utilized for these lakes
are presented in the vegetation reclamation section.

           Topsoil  Replacement.   Regraded areas will  be scarified or disked prior to
topsoil replacement to provide a  rough interface between the overburden and topsoil.
Topsoil will be replaced in depths averaging 6 inches after scarification. Topsoil will be
replaced utilizing either direct placement of removed topsoil or  utilizing material from
topsoil stockpiles.   Areas which  cannot be  immediately returned to final post-mining
contours will be temporarily revegetated until topsoil replacement is feasible.

           Regraded overburden will  be sampled prior to topsoil replacement to deter-
mine if pH factors are appropriate for topsoiling and revegetation.  Sampling will also be
used to identify areas of unsuitable material that may  need to be  treated, removed or
buried.  Replaced topsoil will be sampled to determine additional soil amendments based
on post-mining land uses.  Soil stabilization and preparation are further discussed in the
soil reclamation section.

           Revegetation Plan. The  revegetation plan  has been developed to  reclaim
disturbed areas  to  proposed post-mining land uses, grazingland and pastureland.  Seed
mixtures have been developed  to obtain  a diverse stand of vegetation on reclaimed areas
that is palatable to  livestock and wildlife.  Factors considered in selecting plant species
include long-term  performance,  wildlife  value,  management  requirements,  and seed
availability.  Planting will be scheduled to maximize successful  establishment.  Annual
vegetation will  be  used  as a temporary cover when  climatic conditions or the time of
year are inappropriate for planting perennial or permanent vegetation.

           Pastureland will  be planted  with  coastal bermudagrass and overseeded with
other permanent vegetation.  Grazingland will  be planted using a variety of species.
Landowner preference and  multiple land use objectives  will determine the combination
of species to be  used for specific tracts of land.

           Woody species of vegetation  will be planted in various locations such as along
rebuilt fence lines or property lines on reclaimed areas.   Shelterbelts will be planted
around reclaimed ponds, along reestablished drainage channels, and in select locations on
grazingland or pastureland.

           A variety of techniques will be  employed to stabilize reclaimed  areas and
minimize erosion.   Seedbed preparation, soil treatment, seeding, and sprigging will be
                                       2-42

-------
          ^•^\;/r^?^T^
          >)^i  >: •  '; vSi./*\ <-' ^"I'f^^^jjA-'.E!^^

          x / - '.;4' V %J. f-. L^. t^'k'^
                      Figure 2-14
2-42

-------
performed along the contour of an  area whenever possible.   Mulch will be utilized in
conjunction with cover  crops (annual  herbaceous  vegetation) to temporarily  stabilize
regraded areas.

           Maintenance activities  on reclaimed areas include soil amendments, mowing,
repairing  rills  and gullies, and controlling  weeds.  Results  from  soil  sampling will
determine the soil amendments necessary to increase plant productivity.  Chemical weed
control may be  utilized in conjunction with  mowing to control undesireable species of
vegetation  during  the  operation  of  the mine.    Herbicides  will  be  selected  after
consultation with local chemical representatives.

           Detailed discussions of plant species  selected  for  revegetation,  planting
schedules, and  maintenance  activities  are  presented  in the  vegetation  reclamation
section.

           Monitoring  Program.   A monitoring  program will be  conducted for all
reclaimed areas for five years  following initial  revegetation efforts.  The program will
monitor  soil and  vegetation characteristics  of reclaimed areas.  Monitoring will be
conducted annually by PCC.  At the end  of the 5-year period of monitoring, PCC will
report results of the monitoring program to the RRC, who will be assisted in the review
of these results by SCS.  The results of the monitoring program must indicate  that
productivity requirements have been met before the reclamation bond for the reclaimed
area in question is released.

           Post-Mining Land Uses.  The majority of reclaimed lands will be developed as
pastureland,  grazingland,  or   water  resources   to   support   livestock   production
(Figure 2-15). Pastureland and  grazingland will  be reclaimed in a manner such that their
use will  be part of an overall managed  system.   Large  tracts of land with  a single
landowner will be  reclaimed so that  pastureland and grazingland compliment each other
in the management system.  Pastureland will be planted with coastal bermudagrass to
provide a source  of  hay  while grazingland  will be planted  with a variety of grasses
palatable to livestock.   Water  bodies will be provided  for fish and wildlife as well as
livestock, based on landowner preferences.   Providing  the landowner with pastures for
grazing and hay production results in  a balanced approach for livestock production.

           Use of the land by wildlife is  a secondary land use. This includes hunting for
deer, dove, and waterfowl.   Forb  and  grass  species  selected  for  grazingland have
moderate  to  high  value  to  wildlife with respect to  food  and cover.  Reclamation
techniques (e.g., planting shelterbelts, scattered clumps of trees,  wooded edges) will be
employed to enhance wildlife usage  of the area.  Aquatic vegetation will be planted in
the ponds to improve waterfowl habitat, and selected ponds will be stocked with  fish.

           Reclamation Costs.  Reclamation costs will vary between $1,500 and $5,400
per acre throughout the life of  the mine.  Reclamation  costs are itemized by activity in
the applicant's mine permit application (PCC, 1986a).

           Reclamation Schedule.   Scheduling of  reclamation activities  will generally
follow dragline and truck/shovel advances by  six months.  Reclamation activities include
spoil regrading, topsoil replacement and revegetation. Regrading will be  conducted on a
continuous basis to remain current with mining activities. In Table 2-2, the acreage to
be revegetated over the life of mine is represented by  the columns titled "cleared  and
grubbed acres",  "road acres", and  "facilities  acres". The year of disturbance  shown in
Table 2-2 also represents the year of revegetation for each area.
                                      2-44

-------
<„     "'-
                      CROPLAND
                      IMPflOVID PAITUNI
                      OHAZINOLANO
                      UNHVILOnO LAMO
                      WILOL>M HAIITATt
                                                                           Figure 2-15
                          2-45

-------
2.5        ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA

           The two alternatives available  to EPA  regarding its permit action are to:
1) issue the NPDES permits as proposed  or with  modifications; or 2) deny the NPOES
permits.   Issuing  the  NPDES  permits  as proposed  would allow  the applicants to:
1) construct and operate the Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE Power Project  as described;
and  2) discharge  wastewater  to  the limits  set forth in the permits (See Appendix A,
which contains copies of the draft permits).  However, EPA may determine that special
conditions  should be made a part of the NPDES permits in order to  minimize or avoid
certain adverse environmental impacts.   EPA may also decide  to  deny the NPDES
permits, if certain  environmental resources are significantly adversely affected and the
proposed mitigation measures are insufficient.  Denying the NPDES permits could  be  a
reason for  the applicants to select another mining or power production alternative.  TNP
could also  decide to opt for the no  action alternative and to purchase electricity from
other sources.

2.6        ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO OTHER AGENCIES

           In order for TNP and PCC to construct and operate the proposed lignite-fired
power plant and  surface lignite mine facilities, compliance or conformance  with State
and Federal laws and regulations is  required. These requirements include  performance
standards,  limitations, agency reviews and  approvals, and interagency coordination.  A
list of these required permits and/or  regulations is presented in Table 2-3.

           Both TNP and PCC will be required to obtain permits and/or licenses from, or
will be  filing notices with, other regulatory agencies for construction and  operation of
their respective project facilities. Table 2-3 presents the agency, type of application or
approval required, and the status of the application.

           The USCE may require a Section 404 permit for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands. The review
of  a Section 404  permit  application  for  this  project,  including  the environmental
documentation, is the responsibility of the Ft. Worth District of the USCE.  Alternatives
available to the USCE include: 1) approval; 2) approval with conditions or modifications;
or 3) disapproval  of the 404 permit.  The proposed project may be authorized by a State
Program General Permit (SPGP-1) for structures, work, and discharges  for surface coal
mining, environmental reclamation, and related activities involving waters of the United
States.  This authorization requires compliance with the terms of the  SPGP, and project
authorization through the permit procedures of the  RRC pursuant to  the Texas Surface
Coal  Mining and Reclamation Act.  The  SPGP is required for and  authorizes  each
specific 5-year mine plan covered by an existing RRC permit.  The applicant of a SPGP
is  subject  to  all  general  and  special   conditions   associated  with   this  permit.
Alternatively,  the  USCE  may  exercise its discretionary  authority and require an
individual permit be obtained for the activity.
                                     2-46

-------
                                         TABLE Z-3
                          FEDERAL AND STATE PERMITS/REGULATIONS
                    CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE POWER PLANT PROJECT
Permit, Regulation, or Approval
Federal
NPDES (Section 402) permit under Clean Water Act (power plant)
NPDES (Section 402) permit under Clean Water Act (mine)
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan
Section 10/404 permit for placement of dredge and fill material
under Clean Water Act (transmission line)
Section 404 (State Program General Permit or Individual Permit)
Compliance with Clean Air Act (power plant)
Compliance with Clean Air Act (mine)
Compliance with Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act
and Executive Order 11593
Radio Tower Permit
Radio Use Permit
Legal Identity Report
Commencement of Mining
Mine Training and Retraining Plan
Impoundment Certification
State
Railroad Commission of Texas Surface Mining Permit
Certificate of Convenience and Public Necessity
(power plant and transmission line)
Construction Permit
Operating Permit (power plant)
Appropriation of State Water Permits
Wastewater Discharge Permit (mine)
Wastewater Discharge Permit (power plant)
Wastewater Treatment Plant Permit (mine)
Waste Control Order (mine)
Solid Waste Registration (power plant)
Water Supply System Permit
Agency

EPA
EPA
EPA
USCE
USCE
EPA, TACB2
EPA, TACB2
FWS
EPA, Texas
SHPO, ACHP
FAA
FCC
MSHA
MSHA
MSHA
MSHA

RRC
TPUC
TACB
TACB
TWC3
TWC
TWC
TWC
TWC
TWC
TDK
Status

under review
under review
to be submitted
spring 1987
to be submitted
summer 1987
to be submitted
spring 1987
under review
to be submitted
December 1986
Non-jeopardy opinion
with recommendations
PMOA
being drafted
to be submitted
summer 1987
to be submitted
summer 1987
identification number
received
to be submitted
summer 1987
to be submitted
summer 1987
1st application
to be submitted
spring 1987

under review
under review
under review
to be submitted
spring 1990
1st application
under review
under review
under review
to be submitted
summer 1987
to be submitted
summer 1987
under review
to be submitted
summer 1987
   Acronyms: see List of Abbreviations.
   PSD permit now administered by
3  Several permits are required and will be filed separately.
                                        2-47

-------
                   SECTION 3.0
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF
  THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ON
     THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

-------
3.0        ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNA-
           TIVE ON THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

           For  purposes  of  documenting existing  site-specific environmental features
and  assessing  effects  related to the  proposed power plant/mine project,  a project
boundary encompassing approximately 22,225 acres has been delineated (see Figure S-l).
The  land within this boundary (referred to as the project area) includes the area to be
directly affected by mining activities for the life-of-mine  (i.e., mine blocks, haul roads,
water control  structures, overburden  and topsoil  stockpiles,  conveyor,  mine  facilities
site)  and by facilities related to the  power  plant (i.e.,  plant  island,  water control
structures, ash  disposal sites, haul road, railroad  spur, makeup  water pipeline, access
road), with the exception  of the proposed  345-kV transmission line.   The  proposed
transmission line  route traverses approximately 17.3 miles  from  the proposed power
plant to the Twin  Oak power plant, with a 170-foot right-of-way  (ROW) (see Figure  2-7
for location).   The  entire area within  the project  boundary (22,225 acres) will not be
directly affected by proposed project activities.  Actual acreages  within this area to be
affected are  discussed with  respect  to various environmental  resources (e.g.,  soils,
vegetation, land use) in the  following sections.   Environmental features outside of  the
project  area having the potential  of  being indirectly  affected (e.g.,  in relation to
socioeconomic,  air quality,  and cumulative impacts) are either referenced with respect
to their proximity to the project area or referenced in a regional context.

3.1        TOPOGRAPHY

3.1.1      Existing and Future Environments

           The  proposed project area lies within the West Gulf Coastal Plain section of
the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The region is typically a gently hilly or gently
rolling plain dissected by intermittent and ephemeral tributaries of Walnut Creek and  the
Brazos  River.   The general physiographic characteristics of the area are  primarily  a
result of the geologic  lithologies  of the outcropping strata.   Surface features such as
escarpments or cuestas form from  the resistant sand  stratum  of  the  Wilcox Group.
These topographically-high areas are separated by low-lying, gently sloping areas formed
from the less resistant  muddy stratum.  Land  surface  elevations within the  proposed
mine areas range from a minimum of about 315 ft above mean sea level (MSL) along Dry
Branch and Bee Branch  to  a maximum of approximately 435 ft MSL along  resistant
outcrops of Eocene sandstone strata in the southeastern portion of the  site.  In  the
proposed plant area, a minimum elevation of 350 ft MSL occurs along Dry Branch  and  a
maximum elevation of  approximately 446 ft MSL is attained  in the northern portion of
the plant area.   The topography  along  the proposed transmission  line ranges from  a
minimum elevation of 355 ft MSL along Willow Creek to a  maximum of 487 ft MSL along
the hills overlooking Gnats Creek.

3.1.2      Construction Impacts

           Power  Plant

           Construction activities within the power plant facilities site will result in an
overall  leveling  of approximately 270 acres of land surface topography.   Additionally,
approximately 198 acres will be graded during preparation of ash disposal site A-l, which
will be used for approximately the first 10 years of mine  operation.  Site preparation  for
ash disposal site A-2 will involve grading of approximately 535 acres, most of which will
be previously mined and reclaimed land.


                                       3-1

-------
           Construction of the transportive systems (make-up water pipeline, rail-road
spur,  ash haul road, transmission lines, etc.) will conform to the present land surface,
resulting in no adverse effects on topography.

           Mine

           Construction of mine facilities (i.e., offices, shop/equipment storage areas,
and dragline erection pads) will involve the disturbance of about 42 acres of land surface
throughout the lifetime of the  project, resulting in minimal alteration to local topo-
graphy and very minor  impacts.   Haul road construction will generally conform to the
present land  surface, resulting in minimal affects on topography.  Construction of dams
for diversion and sedimentation ponds will create minor effects on topographic features
by placement of fill in existing drainages.

3.1.3       Operation Impacts

           Power Plant

           Topography  will be altered from fly  ash disposal.  The change in topography
that will result from fly ash  disposal at the proposed sites is  necessary to avoid more
severe adverse impacts associated with alternative  disposal areas or disposal methods.
The change in topography  will be a maximum  40-foot increase over the natural ground
elevation, resulting in minor long-term adverse impacts to the immediate vicinity. If the
ash can be  marketed, these long-term impacts will be reduced.

           Mine

           Short-term adverse impacts to topography will be experienced during mining.
Although reclamation will be generally concurrent with mining, an  estimated 1 to 2 years
will be required to reclaim mined land.  Approximately 835 acres will be disturbed during
mining activities at any one time before reclamation. Total land surface which will be
mined and  reclaimed during the life of project is 5,018 acres.  The mined surface will be
reshaped to a configuration similar to pre-mining topography,  and sedimentation ponds
constructed on the graded  surfaces will later be  removed when no longer required.  Four
permanent stockpiles will remain following mine reclamation activities.  These features,
which will  be a maximum of 60 feet in height, with side slopes  no  greater than 20%, will
result hi  minimal  effects to the  post-mining  topography  of the  area.   Additional
topographic features which will exist  following reclamation  include  two  small lakes
(averaging  approximately  150 acres each  and  100 to 200 feet  in  depth), which will be
formed in final mining cuts where spoil material is insufficient to  return the cuts to the
approximate original ground contour. A post-mining topographic map for regraded mined
areas is presented as Figure 2-14.  Because overburden materials removed during mining
are texturally similar to those presently existing at the surface, short-term impacts will
be very minor and no adverse long-term impacts to topography as a result of subsidence
are expected (Section 3.3.3).

3.1.4       Combined Impacts of  Power Plant and Mine

           Over  the life  of  the project, approximately  8,062 acres  of land  will be
directly affected by power plant and  mine construction  and operation.  Construction of
power plant facilities will  result  in adverse impacts to topography due to leveling of the
270-acre site.  Construction of the transportive  system and mine  facilities will result in
minimal adverse impacts on approximately 639 acres.  During operation of  the proposed
                                       3-2

-------
facilities,  topography will be locally  altered  by disposal  of fly ash;  and  short-term
adverse impacts will be experienced during mining.  However, reclamation of the mined
surface will reshape  topography  to  a  configuration  similar  to  that  of  pre-mining
conditions, with the exceptions of permanent overburden stockpiles and end lakes, which
will not be reclaimed to pre-mining  conditions, constituting long-term adverse impacts
to local topography.

3.2        HYDROGEOLOGY

3.2.1       Existing and Future Environments

           Stratigraphy.   The proposed  project area is  characterized  geologically by
surface exposures  of  strata  which are lower  Eocene  and  Quaternary  in age.  Units
present in the project vicinity include (from youngest to oldest) alluvium and terrace
deposits and the Calvert  Bluff, Simsboro, and Hooper Formations of the lignite-bearing
Wilcox Group.  Figure 3-1  illustrates the regional surface geology pertinent to the
project area, and Figure 3-2 indicates the stratigraphic  relationships of these forma-
tions.  These formations consist predominantly  of mudstones, sandstones, and  ironstones,
with varying amounts of  lignite  and glauconite.  Wilcox strata dip  to the southeast at
about 60 to 160 ft  per mile.  Dips  are  fairly uniform except where the strata is faulted.
High-angle, normal faults with  displacements ranging from less than  25 ft to  a  few
hundred feet are present in the area.

           The alluvium and terrace deposits typically consist  of limestone  and quartz
pebbles and gravels, fine- to coarse-grained quartz  sands, silts, and clays.   In general,
the finer-grained  materials are located in the  upper  portion  of the alluvium of the
terrace deposits. The maximum  thickness of  the alluvium ranges from 50 to  75 ft while
the terraces generally do not exceed  35 ft in thickness.

           The Calvert Bluff Formation outcrops throughout most of the  eastern half of
the project area and is unconformably overlain by terrace deposits in some portions of
the site.  The Calvert Bluff Formation consists of thinly laminated, interbedded  silts and
clays, carbonaceous plastic clay, fine-grained cherty sand, lignite beds, and medium- to
fine-grained  moderately well-sorted, thin beds  of sands and sandstones.   The sediments
of the Calvert Bluff Formation were deposited hi fluvially-dominated deltas  and highly
meandering channel  facies.   In  general,  the  Calvert  Bluff Formation represents  a
complex  interchannel network characterized by a  variable mixture of silty  clay and
clayey zones.   The  lignite  seams to  be  mined occur in  these silty  clay and clay
interchannel deposits of the lower Calvert Bluff Formation.  Five major and  two minor
lignite seams comprise the recoverable resource for the project.  These seams occupy
about 270 ft of the lower Calvert Bluff Formation.  Thickness of an individual seam
ranges from a minimum of about 2 ft up to a maximum seam thickness of almost 12 ft.
Estimated  thickness of the Calvert Bluff Formation in the project area ranges from 225
to 1,000 ft.

           The Simsboro  Formation conformably underlies the Calvert Bluff Formation.
The  Simsboro  Formation  is  a  fluvial sequence characterized  by massively-bedded,
moderately well-sorted, medium- to coarse-grained chertz, feldspathic, muscovitic sands
with minor beds and thin lenses of clays and silty clays. The  Simsboro Formation is made
up of an upper and a lower  sand  zone (referred to as the upper and lower Simsboro)
separated by a silt/clay  zone which is laterally continuous over the entirety of the
project area.  The upper sand typically  ranges from 80 to 140 ft thick.  The clay  and silty
clay beds  generally range  in thickness  from  a  few feet  to 30 ft  and  correlate
                                       3-3

-------
                                         POWCW
EXPLANATION
   CALVERT BLUFF
     FORMATION
     SWSBQRO
    FORMATION
      HOOPER
     FORMATION
                                                        CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE
    WI.LS POWT
     FORMATION
                                                                 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY

                                                              OF THE PROJECT REGION
                                       3-4

-------
                                                               Figure   3-2
                                                REGIONAL  GEOLOGIC  SECTION
                                                                                                               A'
(.0

Ul
                   500 i-
                  -500
               c

              J  -1000
              SI
              I
              £
              HI
                 -1500
                 -2000
                 -3000
                 -3500 L-
                                    Approximate Power
                                    Plant Site
Approximate
'Mine Area
<
                                            Plant •nd'V'Rob*rUon Co'
                                            Uin« Ar«a
                                               —i 500
                                                                   Hoiizonlal Scale
                                                4-iooo
                                                        o
                                                        a
                                                 -1500  s

                                                        o
                                                        >
                                                        o
                                                 -2000  -
                                                        o
                                                 -2500  5
                                                        £
                                                        LU



                                                i-3000
                                               —"-3500
           Source- R.W. Harden 8 Associates! Inc

-------
stratigraphically over  a significant area  locally.   Total thickness of the  Simsboro
Formation ranges from approximately ZOO to 300 ft in the project area, and virtually no
lignite occurs in this formation.

           The Hooper Formation, which conformably underlies the Simsboro Formation,
outcrops west of the Brazos  River.  The Hooper  Formation, a prograding  or  recessive
depositional  environment, consists of  mudstones, very  fine  grained, well sorted, and
crossbedded sandstones, plastic, silty and carbonaceous clays, thinly laminated silts and
clays,  and crossbedded chertz sands.  Thickness of the  Hooper  Formation varies from
approximately 200 to 500 ft within the project area vicinity.

           Overburden Geochemistry.  Chemical analysis has been conducted on over-
burden material above the  lowest mineable lignite at several locations throughout the
initial  areas to be surface mined (PCC, 1986a).  A summary of the results of this analysis
is provided in Table B-l (Appendix B). In general,  as the table indicates, the overburden
would be characterized as non-acidic, with a pH ranging  from 4.4 to 8.0 and with about
4% of the sample material having a pH less than 5.0.

           Lignite  Geochemistry.  Trace  element  analysis  for the deepest  mineable
lignite seam resulted  in  the  following  ranges  of concentrations (in parts per  million
weight dry whole coal basis)  (PCC,  1986a).  The  lowest  detectable value was used for
statistical analysis of boron, cadmium, and uranium.
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Uranium
Vanadium
26-34
0.07-0.12
5-7
< 1
40-52
Arsenic
Cadmium
Manganese
Lead
Zinc
3.6-10.5
< .2
47-343
9-12
5-10
Boron
Chromium
Molybdenum
Selenium

< 5-32
13-18
5-6
8.8-9.3

           Groundwater Hydrology. Important water-bearing units within the immediate
vicinity of  the  project  area are principally in the Simsboro Formation, with smaller
amounts of water available in the channel sands of the Calvert Bluff Formation.  Alluvial
deposits, including those associated with Walnut Creek, are not important water-bearing
units as they are generally too thin and/or largely unsaturated.

           A review of over 700 geophysical logs of oil and  gas tests,  water wells, and
lignite exploration holes was made  in order to determine  the  character,  depth,  and
thickness  of water-bearing sands in  the Calvert Bluff and Simsboro Formations in the
local area (PCC, 1986a). The occurrence  of water-bearing units in  the proposed power
plant  site and  mine area is similar  to their occurrence regionally.   The Calvert Bluff
Formation in the  proposed  mine area  represents a complex interchannel network
characterized by a variable mixture of silty clay and clay-rich zones  containing some
fine-grained sands. Sands, where present in the Calvert Bluff Formation, typically occur
as channel sands adjacent to, rather  than  within, mine blocks. These channel sands are
typically  laterally discontinuous and locally form separate,  minor  water-bearing units
capable of  furnishing  only  small supplies.   Clays and silty  clays,  which are more
predominant than sands in  the Calvert  Bluff Formation in the mine area,  are  of  low
permeability and act as barriers to groundwater movement (PCC, 1986a).

           Locally, as  regionally,  the  Simsboro Formation  contains by far the most
important water-bearing zones. The  Simsboro typically consists of a  series of massively-
bedded, medium-  to coarse-grained,  moderately permeable sands, with some  silty  and
clayey sands and some, mostly thinner, beds of low permeability silts and clays.  The low
                                       3-6

-------
permeability silt/clay beds are significant as they create important vertical hydraulic
discontinuities and locally tend to separate the sands of the Simsboro Formation into
partly distinct water-bearing units. Because virtually no lignite occurs in the Simsboro
Formation, these water-bearing units will not be directly disturbed by mining.

           Deeper drilling was conducted within the proposed mine area to  determine
the  character of the Simsboro Formation  (PCC, 1986a).  The  data from this  drilling
indicated the presence of an uppermost sand zone.  The predominantly massively-bedded
sands, characteristic of this uppermost sand zone, typically range from 80 to 140 ft in
thickness and  are designated herein as the upper Simsboro.  A correctable silt/clay zone,
identified on  a large percentage of logs at about 100 ft below the  top of the Simsboro
Formation, underlies the upper Simsboro and locally tends to separate sands of the upper
Simsboro from other, deeper Simsboro sands, or lower Simsboro.

           Detailed examination of geophysical and lithologic logs in the proposed mine
area indicates that the upper  Simsboro is  separated from the  base of the  lowermost
Calvert  Bluff lignite seam to  be  mined by a zone  of interbedded clays and silts or
interbedded clays, silts, and silty sands of very low permeability (PCC, 1986a).  Neither
this  separation zone nor the upper  Simsboro will be disturbed by mining operations.  The
separation zone in the mine blocks ranges to more than 140 ft  in thickness, averaging
more than 35 ft  in thickness.   The separation zone acts essentially  as an aquitard,
confining water in the Simsboro sands below the zone and retarding vertical migration of
water between the Calvert Bluff and the underlying Simsboro  Formation.

           Both lateral and vertical hydraulic discontinuities are evident in the proposed
power plant site and mine area as shown on geophysical logs,  as indicated by water-level
elevation differences, and as evidenced by boundary interferences during pumping tests
(PCC, 1986a).  Such discontinuities are due to faulting, differential compaction, and/or
deltaic depositional patterns.  Figure 3-3 shows the principal faults associated with the
proposed power plant and lignite  mine sites.  The  mapped  faults  have displacements
ranging from  less than 25 feet to  a  few hundred  feet.  The boundaries of some of the
mine blocks are fault-controlled as are parts of the outcrop area of the Simsboro.  The
faulting  forms significant negative hydraulic boundaries as  evidenced  by pumping test
results and experience in similar areas in Central and East Texas.

           Hydraulic characteristics  of the  saturated  subsurface  strata beneath the
proposed power plant site and mine area vary widely.  Strata composed predominantly of
clays, silty  clays, and  clayey  silts are  of  very low permeability and produce, at  best,
extremely weak  supplies of water.  Such  strata function principally as boundaries or
confining beds to adjacent sand zones.  The hydraulic characteristics  of  the saturated
sand  zones are many times more  favorable from  a water-producing standpoint.   They
have the most significance as aquifers in ground water evaluations and water-availability
studies.

           Pumping tests on test wells in the proposed mine area confirm that, overall,
sands of the Simsboro  Formation  are the  most productive water-bearing units in the
project area (PCC,  1986a).  Pumping tests show the upper Simsboro to be moderately
permeable (90 to over  200 gallons per day per  square foot (gpd/ft  )),  and to  have
moderate transmissivity (10,000 to 20,000 gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft)). One test of
a part of the Jower Simsboro shows a transmissivity of 40,000 gpd/ft and a permeability
of 444 gpd/ft  .   The average transmissivity for the entire Simsboro is estimated to be
between 50,000 and 100,000 gpd/ft. Pumping tests in the Calvert Bluff Formation  show
a  wide range in hydraulic characteristics  due to the  wide  range  in  sediment types.
                                       3-7

-------
                       FIGURE 3-3
                  CALVERT LIGNITE MINE
          LIFE OF MINE FAULT LOCATION  MAP
                                                 PERMIT
                                                 BOUNDARY
               F5
Source; PCC , 1986
                            3-8
                                       .MINE BLOCKS
                                     FAULTS DASHED WHERE INFERRED

-------
Typically, permeabilities at test sites are low, on the order of 5 to 50 gpd/ft  , indicative
of silty sands.  Calvert Bluff channel sands at test sites outside of ±he mine blocks have
higher permeabilities, ranging from about  80 to nearly 200 gpd/ft , similar  to those at
the Simsboro test sites.  However, transmissivities for these Calvert Bluff channel sands
are lower than for  the Simsboro due to much thinner Calvert Bluff sand thicknesses.
Transmissivities for  Calvert  Bluff  sands  tested  range from 90  to  6,500 gpd/ft  and
average 2,000 to 3,000 gpd/ft. Typical artesian storage coefficients were found to range
from 3 x 10   to 4 x 10   for both the Simsboro and the Calvert Bluff sands.

           Both water-table  and  artesian conditions exist beneath the proposed power
plant  site and mine area. The shallowest zones (down to about 100 ft) are  under water-
table  conditions, while artesian  conditions exist in deeper  zones and in  sand zones
downdip from outcrop areas.  Test well data in the proposed mine area show depths to
water in the Calvert Bluff Formation to range from 7 ft to 72 ft below ground level, and
water  levels in the Simsboro  Formation to range in depth from 4 ft  to  140 ft (PCC,
1986a).  Elevations of water levels  range from approximately  296 ft  to  386 ft in the
Calvert Bluff, and from 282 ft to 370 ft in the Simsboro. Depths to water at any one site
tend to be  shallowest  in shallow Calvert  Bluff zones,  and  are generally deeper in the
deeper  Calvert Bluff zones and  the Simsboro.  In most  areas,  the  indicated vertical
hydraulic gradient between  zones within the Calvert Bluff and between the  Calvert Bluff
and the Simsboro is reasonably large, and attests to the highly stratified character of the
Calvert Bluff Formation and the poor vertical connection between the Calvert Bluff and
Simsboro Formations.

           Water-bearing sands and silty sands of the  Calvert Bluff Formation and the
sands of the Simsboro Formation receive recharge in their outcrop areas primarily  from
precipitation, but possibly also from streamflow losses where water tables are below the
elevation of creek beds. The amount of recharge to sand zones is estimated to range up
to a maximum of about three or four inches per year, or 10%  of the average annual
precipitation of about  37 inches,  based on studies in adjacent areas  (TWDB, undated;
Cronin  and  Wilson,  1967).  Recharge to silt and clay  zones is  much less and can be
considered essentially non-existent.  After reaching the  water table, groundwater moves
slowly in  the direction  of  the hydraulic gradient, typically from areas of topographic
highs  towards areas of discharge, which are primarily evapotranspiration  areas  of low
elevation along the principal creeks.  From water-table areas, the small amount of water
not discharged by evapotranspiration moves to artesian areas, principally to the south,
southeast,  and  southwest.    In  the  artesian  portions of  the   water-bearing  zones,
groundwater movement  tends to be generally southward,   with  faults  and depositional
discontinuities acting as groundwater flow boundaries.  Mapping of groundwater move-
ment  in the  Simsboro  Formation indicates a  south-southeasterly  direction towards
downdip discharge areas outside  the area  of the  proposed power  plant and  mine.   The
hydraulic gradients range from 5 to 20 ft per mile and  average about 8 ft per mile.
Natural groundwater movement rates in both water-table and artesian areas are  very
slow, ranging from infinitesimally small in fine-grained silt and clay zones to  as much as
150 ft per year in the most  permeable sand zones.  Most discharge occurs in the form of
evapotranspiration, with smaller amounts occurring by seepage, springflow, underflow to
artesian areas, or by pumping from wells.

          Groundwater Quality.    A summary tabulation of the  Calvert Bluff  and
Simsboro water quality  in the area of the  proposed power plant and mine and their
comparison  with TDK requirements for drinking water  is presented on Table 3-1.   The
ranges and averages of constituent concentrations are based on analyses of samples from
three  Calvert  Bluff  Formation test  wells  and samples from four Simsboro test wells
                                      3-9

-------
                                         TABLE 3-1
                         SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY
                                 Calvcrt Bluff
Simsboro

Constituent

Acidity (as CaCO.)
Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Fluoride
Hardness (as CaCO.)
Iron (dissolved)
Iron (total)
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese (dissolved)
Manganese (total)
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrate (as N)
pH (pH units)
Phenol
Phosphorus (ortho)
Potassium
Selenium
Silica
Silver
Sodium
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Conductivity (umhos)
Strontium
Sulfate
Turbidity
Zinc
Water
Quality
Concentration*
Range
1-26
140-230
<.05
<.003
.067-. 25
<.001
<.05-.48
<.002
18-310
37-310
.005-. 013
<.001-.006
<.l-.3
62-1090
.037-6.3
<. 008-6.0
<.001
3.7-75
.016-. 60
.022-. 51
0
<.002-.004
<.003-.008
<.04-.06
6.38-7.70
.044-. 12
0-.12
2.8-5.6
<.003
7.1-17
<.002-.009
27-110
320-1700
2-25
517-2330
1.2-13
12-530
2-68
.016-. 028
Average
11
187
<.05
<.003
.149
<.001
<.273
<.002
133
134
.008
<.003
<.167
457
2.16
<2.06
<.001
29
.29
.24
0
<.003
<.005
<.047
7.01
.072
.063
3.83
< .003
13.7
<.004
82
787
14
1131
5.2
188
26
.021
Water Quality
Concentration*
Range
1-10
160-200
<.05
<.003
.02-. 18
<.001
<.05-.09
<.002
2.5-100
11-62
<.005-.006
•C.001-.003
4.5-310
.014-. 84
<.008-.70
<.001
'.40-16
.006-. 35
.004-. 28
0
< .002-. 006
<.003-.005
<.02-<.04
6.65-8.38
.019-. 089
.06-. 16
1.2-3.8
<.003
6.4-19
<.002-.003
31-120
290-460
3-7
524-692
.099-1.6
17-66
2-9
<.003-.052
Average
7
185
<.05
<.003
.12
<.001
<.06
<.002
64
39
<.005
<.002
199
.266
<.204
<.001
10.6
.21
.17
0
<.003
<.004
<.025
7.24
.038
.09
2.9
<.003
14.1
<.002
57
375
4
601
1.02
36
4.5
< .03
                                                                                  TDH Drinking
                                                                                      Water
                                                                                    Standards
                                                                                  Concentration*
                                                                                      0.05.1
                                                                                       l.O1


                                                                                      0.011

                                                                                       3002
                                                                                      0.051
                                                                                       1.0
                                                                                     1.4-2.4

                                                                                         ,2
                            1
                                                                                       0.3'
                                                                                      0.05
                                                                                      0.05'
                                                                                          1
                                                                                      0.002

                                                                                         I





                                                                                      0.011

                                                                                      0.051

                                                                                      10002



                                                                                       3002

                                                                                        52
                                                                                          1
? All concentrations  are in milligrams per liter unless otherwise  noted.
n Texas Department  of Health - required maximum level.
  Texas Department  of Health - recommended maximum level.


  NOTE:  All  samples taken in June 1986.
          Calvert  Bluff ranges and averages  based on sample results from three sites.
          Simsboro ranges and averages based on sample  results from four sites.
                                          3-10

-------
(PCC, 1986a).  The range in the overburden water quality reflects the range in lithology
of the Calvert Bluff Formation.  The silt and clay zones typically contain poorer quality
water, but they are capable of producing only very minor amounts of water.  Due to their
very low permeability, they are not considered significant water-bearing units.  The fine
sands and  silty sands in the Calvert  Bluff overburden are  capable of  producing larger
quantities  and  generally have better  water quality.   Overall, the water in the  more
significant water-producing  zones of  the Calvert Bluff  Formation is typically of good
quality.   A  smaller  range  hi constituent concentrations characterizes  the  Simsboro
Formation.  The  analyses show the Simsboro  water to be of good quality with relatively
low mineralization.   Water  from sand zones  in  both  the Calvert Bluff and  Simsboro
Formations typically  are  acceptable  for drinking water purposes,  although, in  some
instances, specific constituents may not meet TDH drinking  water standards.  For trace
constituents, this is apparently due primarily to laboratory or sampling error rather than
natural conditions.

           Ground water Use.   Groundwater  in the  project  area  is presently  most
commonly used for individual domestic and stock supplies. Some larger  development has
occurred in surrounding areas in  the Brazos River Alluvium  for irrigation use and in the
Simsboro Formation at widely-scattered locations for small- to moderate-sized munici-
pal and industrial supplies.  Regionally, the largest users from the Simsboro Formation
are municipal entities in the Bryan/College Station area,  located approximately 30 miles
from  the proposed power  plant  site and mine,  where pumpage totals  on the order of
20 million gallons per day (mgpd).

           To determine existing groundwater use and  to  locate potentially affected
users  in and around  the  project area, a comprehensive  water  well inventory was
performed (EH&A, 1985b).  Well data from TWC files was compiled and tabulated, and a
house-to-house inventory  was conducted to field check agency  data and  to obtain
additional  information not  available  in TWC  files.   In the vicinity  of  the  proposed
project, well density  and pumpage are very low.  The existing water  well data indicate
that most  groundwater development is by individual,  small-capacity wells tapping the
Calvert Bluff or Simsboro Formations for domestic and stock purposes  (EH&A, 1985b). A
few small- to moderate-sized municipal and industrial users draw from the Simsboro at
widely-scattered  locations. These users, including Calvert, Hearne, Bremond, and some
water supply corporations, each  produce from O.Z to about Z mgpd from various zones
within the Simsboro  Formation.  The total amount of groundwater  pumpage  in the
vicinity of the project area  is quite small, and substantial groundwater  resources of the
area are  virtually untapped.  The amounts of present pumpage are negligible, relative to
the large volumes of  water in the aquifers, particularly abundant supplies in deeper sands
of the Simsboro,  and the availability  of  much larger quantities of groundwater in the
area.

           Economic  Geology. The principal sand deposits in the project region occur hi
the Queen City,  Sparta, Reklaw,  Carrizo, Simsboro, and  Calvert  Bluff Formations, as
well as in the Pleistocene  terrace alluvium deposits.  The major production of sand and
gravel has been immediately southwest of Hearne in terrace deposits  adjacent to the
Little Brazos River (Fisher, 1965).  The Gifford-Hill Company has operated a plant at
Car ley where sand and gravel have been processed chiefly as engine and  filter sand, as
well as road material and  aggregates  for asphalt and concrete.  Smaller operations are
scattered throughout   Robertson  County; two such recovery areas are located in the
vicinity of the project area, approximately 3 miles west and 2 miles northwest of Calvert
in terrace deposits adjacent to the Little Brazos River (USGS, 1961;  196Z).
                                      3-11

-------
           As summarized by Fisher (1965), clay deposits occur in all Eocene formations
of  Robertson  County,  with the  exception  of the  Weches and  Carrizo  Formations.
Montmorillonitic clays,  best suited  for  non-ceramic products,  including drilling mud,
occur in marine deposits in the  Reklaw and Cook Mountain Formations. Kaolinitic clays,
used for ceramic products, occur mainly in non-marine beds in the Simsboro,  Queen City,
and  Sparta  Formations.  Kaolinitic clays from the Simsboro are  used to manufacture
building and facing brick, street  tile, and  white cement.   The  Central  Brick  and Tile
Company (acquired by Teague Brick and Tile  Company)  in Bremond quarries gray  plastic
and  silty clays from  the uppermost Simsboro for brick manufacturing.   No clay is
produced within the project area.

           Lignite mining in the  Calvert area of Robertson County was conducted from
the 1800s until the availability of inexpensive oil and gas in the 1930s  (Fisher, 1965;
Kaiser, 1974; Henry,  1976).  Fisher (1965) describes lignite-mining operations that were
conducted in the vicinity of the project area, specifically near  Calvert Bluff, 4.5 miles
west  of Calvert, and  in the  vicinity of Slater, 4 miles northwest  of Calvert.  As
elsewhere in the state,  lignite  mining at these locations  used  shafts, pits, and  drifts.
Major  producers were  the  Calvert Clay  and Coal Company;  Central Texas Mining,
Manufacturing,  and  Land Company; Madison Oil and  Coal Company;  and  the  South-
western Fuel and Manufacturing Company.  About 300 yards  from Calvert Bluff,  the
Central Texas Mining,  Manufacturing,  and Land  Company  worked  a shaft mine in  a
lignite  seam that averaged  10  feet in thickness and was "mixed  with bituminous coal
[sic] used as locomotive fuel" (Fisher, 1965).

           In the vicinity of the proposed project, three producing oil and gas fields of
moderate size are present:  the Harold Orr Field east of Bremond and northeast of  the
project area, the Calvert Field approximately 5-1/2 miles southwest of the project area,
and the East Calvert  Field in the eastern project area.  In addition to the East Calvert
Field,  there are also  two very small  fields  within the project  area,  the  Sue Ann  and
Jennifer Elaine fields.

           According to the Texas General Land Office, no leases for hard minerals have
been granted  in Robertson County for the last ZO years.   In terms of other potential
mineral resources in  the county, two small peat bogs occur  in  marsh areas  in  the
southeastern portion of  the  county adjacent to the Navasota River (Fisher,  1965).   The
Carrizo Formation could potentially yield heavy minerals, such as kyanite and staurolite
(Brewton, 1970; Fisher,  1965), and  the Reklaw  Formation  could  potentially produce
gravels, although no production of either resource has been reported.

3.2.2      Construction Impacts

           Power Plant

           Construction activities associated with the proposed power plant will include
the construction of the power plant  itself, surface water  control  structures,  roads,
buildings, transmission  lines, makeup  water pipeline and well  field,  water treatment
facilities, ash disposal areas, and  lignite storage areas.  The  Simsboro, composed  mostly
of sands with some thin beds of silts  and clays, occurs at the surface  in the vicinity of
the proposed power plant site and associated facilities.  Clearing, grubbing, leveling,  and
general construction activities at the power plant site and ash disposal sites will result in
localized long-term displacement  of shallow unsaturated Simsboro sediments. Construc-
tion activities at  the power plant facilities site, however,  will be  contained within  a
relatively small area of approximately 270 acres;  site  preparation at the ash disposal
                                      3-12

-------
areas will involve a total of approximately 198 acres on the Simsboro  Formation, with
the remaining  535 acres located on the Calvert Bluff Formation.  The effects of power
plant facility construction activities on the groundwater system, including water-bearing
sands of  the Simsboro, will be immeasurable to none.  Changes to groundwater flow
and/or quality  characteristics resulting from construction activities of  the power plant
facilities will be  minimal.  A slight decrease in the infiltration rates in the vicinity of
the construction may occur; however, no regional impacts to the groundwater hydro logic
system  should result due to the relatively small areas affected and the short construction
time involved.

           Mine

           Construction activities in the proposed mine area will be limited principally
to the construction of shop facilities,  surface water  control  structures, water wells,
pipelines, dragline erection pads, conveyor system, and haul roads. The majority of these
activities will be confined to areas around  the mine blocks. In general, construction of
these mine  facilities will result  hi  disturbance and  removal  of  surface and shallow
subsurface soils over relatively small areas.  The Calvert  Bluff, typically composed of
clays, silts, and some thin interbedded fine-grained sands, occurs at the  surface in the
area  of the proposed  mining  operations.    The shallow  Calvert  Bluff  materials  are
typically  of low  permeability; the  recharge  capacity of the Calvert  Bluff, hi  its
undisturbed state, is  quite low.  Construction of mine  facilities, therefore, should have
little or no effect on the recharge capabilities of the Calvert Bluff surface materials.
Construction associated  with mining also should have no effect  on the  recharge to
significant  water-bearing units, which  primarily include  sands of the Simsboro  that
underlie the Calvert Bluff. Mine construction activities will have minimal impact to the
quantity and/or quality of groundwater in the project area.

3.2.3       Operation Impacts

           Power Plant

           The principal  adverse impact  to economic geology  associated  with  the
operation  of the  proposed  power plant and associated facilities  would  be  potential
preclusion of the development of some natural subsurface resource during the life of the
project.    Since  recoverable resources  within  this area  have not  been  assessed  or
quantified,  potential impacts to  those  resources  are therefore unknown.  Given  the
relatively small area to be occupied by the plant facilities, adverse effects to geologic
resources would be proportionately small.

           Potential adverse impacts on the groundwater system could occur due to  two
activities associated  with power plant operations:  1) operation  of the power  plant  and
associated facilities, which include  storage  and disposal structures for water, lignite,
wastewater, and solid wastes (ash); and 2) the groundwater pumpage required to supply
make-up water for the power plant. Details of these potential impacts  are discussed
below.  No adverse impacts  to groundwater are anticipated as a result of the operation
of the proposed transmission line and other transportive facilities.

           Plant and Ancillary Facilities.  The approximately 270-acre proposed power
plant facilities site is located on an  outcrop of the  Simsboro Formation.  The  Simsboro
Formation consists mostly of sands, with some (mostly thinner) beds of silt  and clay,  and
is the primary  aquifer in the area. Lignite, water,  wastewater, and solid waste storage
and disposal areas associated with the power plant have been  specifically designed to
protect the groundwater system, in particular, water-bearing units of the Simsboro.


                                      3-13

-------
           Evaporation ponds to store and dispose of waters from the power plant will be
constructed.  The brine waste ponds, brine concentrator surge ponds, and the  cooling
tower makeup storage ponds will be lined with synthetic liners.  Clay liners will be used
for the lignite storage areas, the lime sludge pond, and the two ponds for collecting and
handling runoff waters from the plant site.

           Solid wastes from the  power plant, including bed drains, fly ash, bottom ash,
and spent bed residue will be marketed or disposed of at Ash Disposal sites A-l and A-2.
If the  material is disposed, the  solid waste  disposal facilities will be  constructed  in
accordance with the TWC's Industrial Solid Waste Management Regulations to ensure
adequate waste containment, no leachate generation, and protection of the groundwater
system.  Detailed plans for  the solid waste facility will be submitted to the TWC for
approval prior to construction.  Additional information regarding Ash Disposal sites A-l
and A-2  is presented in Section 2.4.1.8.

           The operation of these ancillary power plant facilities should  have no effect
on the groundwater system as each facility is specifically  designed to ensure contain-
ment of  all water and wastes.  No short-term or long-term impacts to the groundwater
system or irreversible commitment of groundwater  resources  are likely to  occur due  to
the operation of these facilities.

           The only wastes to be generated by the  power plant  facility that may affect
the groundwater system are those  related to the operation of septic systems.  Presently,
it is planned that  two or more septic tank and drainfield systems will be  constructed  to
provide wastewater services  to various facilities at  the plant.  These septic systems will
dispose   of  sanitary  wastes from showers,  restrooms,  and drinking fountains.    No
industrial wastes,  or any wastes other than domestic, will be disposed of to the septic
systems.   The water  discharged  by  the  septic  drainfields  will presumably be used by
existing  vegetation.  However,  some water may seep down to  the water  table.  Such
waters would provide immeasurable increases in the recharge  to the Simsboro Formation
and could result in a  slight  increase  in  the total mineralization and nitrate levels  of
groundwater very locally  and  immediately  down the  hydraulic gradient from the
drainfields.  Due  to  the extremely small area of  any  effects and the  large relative
thickness of Simsboro sands, there appear to be only  very minor  short-  or long-term
impacts  and no irreversible  commitment of resources  due to the  operation  of septic
systems.

           Well Field Pumpage. Cooling  water for the power plant  will be obtained from
a Simbsoro  well field  tentatively  located to the south  and  east of the proposed power
plant site (Figure 3-4). The well field is tentatively planned to consist of up to five  wells
at spacings of  2,500 feet and located along or near the southernmost extension of the
pipeline.   Power  plant pumpage is tentatively planned  to  be primarily  from lower
Simsboro sands. Such a well field will largely avoid interference from depressurization
pumping for the  mine.  Pumping from  lower  Simsboro sands will cause declines  in
artesian  pressure in those wells which tap the pumped  zone or  hydraulically-connected
zones.   Artesian pressure declines from well field pumpage will be largest immediately
adjacent to pumping  wells and  will be progressively less at  increasing distances  from
such operations.  No dewatering of Simsboro sands should occur near or in the vicinity  of
the well  field due to the pumping;  the artesian  sand zones should remain saturated.

           Artesian pressure declines in  the lower  Simsboro  resulting from anticipated
power plant pumpage of 6,500 gpm are  shown  in Figure 3-5.  The method of calculation
and  the  hydraulic  assumptions upon which the calculations  are based are included  in
                                       3-14

-------
                               Figure  3-4
          LOCATION OF POWER PLANT WELL FIELD AND PIPELINE
 Approximate location
    of power plant
                   Mine Block Boundary
                                     Water well field and pipeline
          Mine Block
          Boundary
                                                            4000
                                8000 Feet
Source^ R.W. Harden St Associates, Inc.
                                  3-
15

-------
                                                    Figure  3-5
                                          PROJECTED PRESSURE DECLINE
                                    DUE TO POWER PLANT  WELL FIELD PUMPAGE
CO
I
                    140
                                                          Transmissivity = 40.000 and 60.000 gpd/ft _|
                                                          Storage Coefficient = .0003
                                                          Time = Equilibrium
                                                          Well held Pumpage = 6,500  gpm
                                                          Distance To Line Source = 20.000 ft
                      1.000
       10.000                   100.000
Distance From Well Field (Parallel To Outcrop). Feet
1.000,000
       Source:  R. W. Harden a  Associates, Inc.

-------
Appendix B.  Based on the assumed average hydraulic characteristics,  Figure 3-5 shows
that declines in artesian pressure  in  the  lower Simsboro will be less than 20 feet at
distances generally more than four miles from the well field.   Declines  larger  than
40 feet will be  limited to locations within one  to  two miles of the pumping.  Pressure
declines across fault boundaries may be less than shown on Figure 3-5.

           The  major  adverse impact of the  power plant  pumpage  will  be lowered
artesian pressure in wells located close enough  to  the pumping and that tap the lower
Simsboro or hydraulically-connected zones.  The pressure declines will impact such wells
by  1) increasing lifts,  2) possibly requiring lowering  or replacing existing  pumps,  or
3) possibly,  but  not likely, requiring replacement  or supplementary wells to  maintain
supplies.  Few close wells exist which tap lower  Simsboro sands.  No public supply wells
exist within  about  four miles  of the planned pumpage;  approximately  15 domestic  and
stock wells exist within that distance which possibly tap  the lower  Simsboro.  Effects of
the pumpage on distant wells, or wells at distances greater than about four miles from
the well field, will be minor (less than 20 feet  of  decline).   Because pumpage induces
recharge, these  groundwater requirements do not constitute an irreversible commitment
of water resources.

           Mine

           Within the area of mining, the geologic units overlying the mineable lignite
will experience  unavoidable long-term adverse  impacts as  the overburden  above  the
lignite is removed.  While the overall texture of the material  (i.e.,  sand, silt or clay) will
be  unchanged, the  stratigraphic relationships and  the  physical characteristics of  the
individual strata above the lignite will be permanently altered.

           Adverse impacts associated with the preclusion of development of subsurface
economic resources will occur during mining activities.  Those resources lying below the
depth  of mining (e.g.,  oil  and gas)  will suffer  short-term impacts  as  a result  of
inaccessibility during  mining.   After mining is  complete, recovery of those resources
could then take place. There are no plans for the recovery of resources  (such as  sand and
gravel) within the overburden  strata prior to mining.  While mineable quantities of such
resources are common in the  project area, a  site-specific  boring program would  be
required in order to determine exact locations and  extent of  such  resources in  the mine
area.  The potential  loss of any such resources due to alteration of the  overburden
material would constitute an irretrievable commitment of those resources.

           Water Levels and Artesian Pressures.  Artesian pressure  declines, primarily in
the upper Simsboro, and local dewatering of the Calvert Bluff overburden  adjacent to
mine pits will be the  main impacts of mining on  the groundwater regime.  These effects
will be largest in the immediate vicinity of the mine and will be temporary.

           When mining is conducted below the water  table, the local hydraulic gradient
in overburden materials will be towards the pit, and  groundwater will flow into the pit or
to overburden dewatering wells adjacent to the pit.  In either case, water  levels will
decline,  and groundwater flow conditions will be altered locally.  As the distance from
the pit (or wells) increases,  the effects on the local water table will diminish rapidly.  In
silt/clay zones,  effects will extend  less than 200 feet  from  pits.  In sands, effects will
not extend  beyond about  5,000 feet.  Existing  wells in the Calvert Bluff  overburden
within these  distances will be  affected.  Wells in deeper zones  will not be affected  by
overburden dewatering.
                                      3-17

-------
           Depressurization pumping will be  conducted primarily in upper  Simsboro
sands  in  order to  prevent heaving of  the  mine  pit  floor  and  attendant upward
groundwater seepage.  Depressurization pumping will cause declines in artesian pressure
in those wells  which tap the pumped zone or hydraulically-connected zones.  Artesian
pressure declines from depressurization operations will be largest immediately adjacent
to the pits or pumping wells and will be progressively less at increasing distances from
such operations.  No dewatering of Simsboro sands will occur near or in the vicinity of
the mine pits  due  to  depressurization pumping.   The artesian  sand zones will  remain
saturated throughout proposed mining activities.

           For the  shallower  mining, no depressurization  pumping is  required.   The
amount of pressure  reduction needed increases as  mining depths increase.  The  largest
amounts of upper  Simsboro depressurization pumping  will be  required in the deepest
parts of the mine area.  Depressurization requirements for individual mine pits range up
to about 250 feet and  average between 100 and 150 feet.  Primary pressure relief will be
accomplished by multiple wells at  appropriate spacings and screened in upper Simsboro
sands.

           Actual design of the depressurization well fields will be tailored to detailed
mine  plans.  For impact analysis purposes, estimates have  been made of the pumping
required for depressurization purposes in the upper Simsboro.  The method of calculation
and the hydraulic assumptions  upon which the calculations  are based are included in
Appendix B.  The results of the calculations show the required depressurization pumping
to be less than 1,000 gpm during early phases of mining and to range from 1,500 gpm to
7,500 gpm  during  later  phases.  Average pumpage  during  later  phases  of  mining is
estimated  to be between 3,000 and 4,500 gpm, inasmuch as depressurization require-
ments average between  100 and 150  feet in deeper mine areas where depressurization is
needed.  During the early phases of mining, pressure declines will be small.  At the well
field,  declines will be  less than 80 feet and  30 feet  in the southwest  and  southeast
portions, respectively, of the first mine block. At distances of 2 miles and more from
the well fields, declines  will be less than 30 feet and only about  10 feet in the southwest
and southeast portions, respectively, of  the first mine block.  Hydraulic boundaries will
additionally reduce  the  amount of projected pressure decline that will occur in some
directions and at large distances from the  pumping.  Only those wells located within and
in the very near vicinity of the first  mine  block and associated depressurization and that
tap the upper Simsboro will be affected, due to the very low amount of pumpage.

           Figure 3-6  shows  projected artesian  pressure  declines  adjacent  to  the
example well field during later phases of mining for five pumping rates. The declines are
generally considered representative of the upper limit of the  actual declines that would
occur in the upper Simsboro. Actual  declines at larger distances (beyond on the order of
10,000 to 30,000 feet)  should be smaller than calculated due to regional interconnection
of the upper Simsboro  with deeper Simsboro sands.  Also, pressure declines in sand zones
underlying the upper  Simsboro and pressure  declines across fault  boundaries should be
less than shown on Figure 3-6.

           Pumping depressurization wells  completed  in  upper  Simsboro sands  will
locally change patterns of flow in that zone, and water will move towards the wells from
all directions in which it can.  The  cone of depression  will be several  miles in areal
extent, but the actual amount  of artesian pressure decline will be  relatively small (less
than  50 feet), as  will be  the  change  in the  present  flow  patterns, except  near the
pumping well  fields.  The  City of  Calvert  wells,  located  three  to  four miles  from
depressurization  pumping  expected  during  later  phases  of   mining,  may possibly
                                       3-18

-------
UJ
I
                 200
              to
              CO
              0)
                 250-
                 300-
                 350-
                                                Figure  3-6
                             EXAMPLE PRESSURE DECLINES IN UPPER SIMSBORO
                          DUE TO DEPRESSURIZATION PUMPING  IN LATER MINE YEARS
                 Transmissivity = 20,000 gpd/ft 	
                 Storage Coefficient  = .0003
                 Time = Equilibrium
                 Distance To Line Source = 20,000 feet
                    1.000
   Source: R.W. Harden & Associates, Inc.
     10.000                  100000
Distance From Mine Pit (Parallel To Outcrop), Feet
1,000,000

-------
experience  from  10  to  75 feet  of  pressure  decline,  depending  on the  amount of
depressurization pumping required to mine.  If pressure declines result in lowering water
levels in the City of Calvert wells below present pump settings, mitigative measures,
including lowering or replacing existing pumps or, if necessary, replacing  wells, will be
taken by PCC in accordance with RRC regulations.

           When  depressurization  operations  cease,  artesian  pressures  will  begin
recovering.  Recovery will be  rapid  (95% within 6 months  to  a year) throughout the
artesian parts of affected zones once the depressurization pumping is stopped.  Water-
level recovery in water-table areas affected  by depressurization pumping will require
longer time periods with the timing  of complete recovery  dependent on location, the
amount water levels  were  lowered,  and on  recharge  and  inflow  rates  to  areas of
depressed water levels.

           Depressurization  pumping  will  represent  a new  source of  ground water
discharge which will lower water levels  slightly in parts  of the outcrop of the Simsboro
as water is withdrawn from  storage.  Lower water levels will cause a part of the water
which formerly seeped, evaporated, or transpired in shallow  water-table areas  to move
towards the pumping wells, resulting in  a small reduction of pre-mine natural discharge.
Such effects are likely to be distributed over very large  areas, such that no measurable
or adverse  impacts are likely.  This is partly because  the outcrops of  the Simsboro
located closest  to  the mine blocks are separated from  the mine  by faulting.  When
pumping ceases, any temporary changes will reverse, and conditions will return to pre-
mining conditions.

           Artesian pressure and water-level  declines will affect existing water wells.
Water-level  declines  will occur in  wells  that tap  the overburden and  are within
approximately  5,000 feet  of the mine  pits.    Artesian  pressure declines  will affect
existing water wells  that tap primarily the upper Simsboro  and that are  within a  few
miles of depressurization pumping.   Artesian  pressure  and water-level declines  will
temporarily affect some wells by 1) increasing pumping lifts,  2) requiring the lowering of
existing pumps, 3) requiring replacement of pumping equipment, or 4) requiring replace-
ment wells or supplementary wells to  maintain the full capacity of the supplies.  These
short-term adverse effects are easily mitigated by lowering pumps  or replacing  wells.
Such mitigative measures will be conducted by PCC, as required by RRC regulations.

           When the causative operations cease, water levels and artesian pressures will
begin recovering.   There will  be no  long-term  effects on water  levels or  artesian
pressures.  The water which is pumped  from the pits or depressurization wells might be
considered an irreversible commitment  of  water resources; however, not only is the
water a small fraction of the total volumes  of water available from deeper sands, but it
is a renewable resource.  The amounts of water that  are  removed will be replaced
through recharge to the system.

           Hydraulic Characteristics.   In removing, redepositing and mixing the over-
burden, the natural character of the overburden will be  changed.  Changes in porosity,
permeability,  recharge  capacity, and storage  characteristics  of the overburden  will
occur.

           The overburden is  largely Calvert Bluff and is  characterized primarily by
silty clay, clay, and thin, variable sand deposits. Typically, no significant water-bearing
units are present in the overburden, so  effects of changed hydraulic characteristics will
be minimal.   In some  limited  areas, pits  may intersect some  thicker channel sands.
                                      3-20

-------
However,  relative  to  the abundant alternative supplies available  in sands  of  the
underlying Simsboro which will not be disrupted by proposed mining activities, changes in
hydraulic properties of  the replaced Calvert Bluff  overburden are very small  from a
groundwater supply  standpoint.  In addition, permeability likely will decrease with depth
within the replaced overburden due to compaction, which will tend to retard groundwater
movement  in  the  deeper  parts of  the  redeposited overburden.   The  disruption  of
geological materials and their associated hydraulic characteristics and recharge capacity
due to overburden removal represent long-term adverse impacts of mining operations.

           Water Quality. During mining, the adverse impacts on groundwater quality in
important water-bearing zones, if any,  will be minor.  During overburden removal,  the
mine  acts as a "sink" with water moving into the pit. Water is then removed from  the
mine  pit  and  put  into  surface structures  for  treatment as  necessary.    Table 3-1
summarizes  the  quality  of  the water  which will  discharge  from the Calvert  Bluff
overburden as pit inflow during  overburden removal.   The Calvert Bluff water, excepting
the very minor amounts which may be contributed by the clays and lignite, is typically of
good  quality. In addition, the total volumes of pit inflow  anticipated from  the  Calvert
Bluff overburden are typically small.

           The quality of the Simsboro water to be pumped for depressurization purposes
is also summarized  on Table 3-1.  The  Simsboro contains excellent quality  water;  the
discharge of this water will not adversely affect either ground or surface waters.

           Impacts on groundwater quality after mining are variable. They generally  are
a function of the quality  of the water resaturating the spoil, the amount of recharge, and
the type, distribution, and leachability of spoil materials.

           Breaking up of the overburden and possible increases in the total dissolved
solids in  the reclaimed spoil water will be restricted to the mine blocks.  Due to the lack
of permeable material,  however, the reclaimed  spoil will produce little or no  water.
Lignite occurs primarily in inter channel silts, clays, and silty clays, and few  sands occur
in the Calvert  Bluff overburden in the mine blocks.   Overburden removal and mining in
the Calvert Bluff will not intersect any Simsboro sands and largely will not intersect any
channel  sands  that  occur in the  Calvert Bluff.  Thus,  most potential water  quality
problems should be avoided simply as a result of the  natural distribution of  lignite to be
mined.

           Geochemical data on overburden materials at the Calvert Lignite Mine show
low pyritic sulfur and an  excess of alkalinity in the Calvert Bluff overburden. With  the
exception of one layer with elevated selenium concentrations (which will be handled and
buried selectively by dragline), no significant amounts of toxic-forming  or acid-forming
materials occur in the overburden, and the formation of acidic waters is not indicated.

           Infiltration of low-quality  water, if  present,    into  the  underlying upper
Simsboro sands is not likely to occur  either during or after mining. During mining,  the
hydraulic head in the Simsboro  is generally higher than the head in the pit, and upper
Simsboro sand zones are  separated by very low permeability interbedded clays and silts
or interbedded  clays, silts, and silty sands, precluding any movement of water from  the
floor  of the mine pit into the underlying sand zones.  The likelihood of low-quality water,
if present,  moving into  subjacent  upper  Simsboro sands  after mining  depends  on  the
degree of hydraulic  communication between the replaced spoil and the sands.  The thick
separation zone (averaging more than  35 feet within  mine blocks)  of relatively low
permeability materials between the lowest lignite seam to be mined and the underlying
                                      3-21

-------
Simsboro  will restrict hydraulic connection between the spoil and  the  subjacent Sims-
boro. The low permeability clay and silty clay barriers will effectively limit the amount
of vertical  seepage to very  small, if any,  amounts, and will essentially preclude any
significant mining and water-quality impacts in underlying Simsboro sands due to lignite
removal in the lower Calvert Bluff Formation.

           Lateral movement into adjacent Calvert Bluff sand zones is dependent on the
rate  of movement through  the   reclaimed spoil,  the  location of  low-  or  no-flow
boundaries,  such as the  faults that coincide with some  mine block boundaries,  and the
occurrence  of clays,  silts, and  sands  in the adjacent Calvert Bluff.  In  and near  most
areas of proposed mining, the Calvert Bluff consists primarily of low permeability  silts
and clays with no significant water-bearing sands.  In most  cases, any degradation  in
water quality will be  confined  to  the replaced overburden.  Within and in proximity  to
some mine  blocks  where channel  sands exist,  the spoil must become resaturated and
develop a hydraulic  head greater  than  that  of the Calvert Bluff sands in  order for
movement of solutes out of the spoil to take place. Even under these circumstances, any
quality  changes due to lateral  migration will  be contained in the close vicinity of the
mine  for decades, being limited by relatively low ground water movement  rates.

           Water quality changes in and  within  the immediate vicinity of the mine pits
represent  long-term adverse  impacts of mining.  Changes in water  quality, including
possible increases in total dissolved  solids  in the reclaimed  spoil  water, may possibly
affect the use  of the replaced  overburden as a source of water supply.  Ground water
wells (estimated at 10) in and  within the immediate vicinity of the mine blocks which
presently  obtain their  water supply from the Calvert Bluff overburden may be adversely
impacted. If this occurs, replacement wells would be provided by PCC pursuant to RRC
regulations.

           Existing Groundwater Users. Effects of proposed mine operations on existing
water wells will depend on the producing interval and location and distance of each  well
with  respect to  mining operations.  All wells within actual mine  excavations will  be
destroyed by mining operations.  Data on existing water wells,  including a field water
well inventory  (EH&A, 1985b),  indicate that very few, mostly small-capacity  or unused
wells presently exist within mine blocks.

           Wells outside  mine blocks  which  tap mine-related  parts  of the Calvert Bluff
or Simsboro can be affected by declining water levels or artesian  pressure declines.  Few
Calvert Bluff wells will be affected due to the limited extent of  water-level declines (at
most, less than 5,000 feet from  mine pits and typically less than  200 feet) and the small
number of  wells (less than  25 wells)  within 5,000 feet of the  mine  blocks.   Artesian
pressure  declines  due to depressurization operations  will  occur in  Simsboro wells
(primarily wells tapping  the upper Simsboro) that  are sufficiently close  to depressuriza-
tion operations.  The  field water well inventory indicates that  less than 100 Simsboro
wells exist  within  two miles of potential depressurization operations and could poten-
tially be  affected; however,  known  hydraulic boundaries limit the  lateral  extent  of
pressure declines in some directions and will  make for fewer wells being affected.

           Adverse impacts on wells affected by water level or pressure  declines will  be
increased  lifts  which,  in some cases, could result in lowering water  levels below present
pump settings.  For most wells, this can be mitigated by lowering existing pumps or, less
commonly,  replacing pumping equipment.  Such mitigative measures, if necessary, will
be taken by PCC in accordance with RRC regulations.  For a very few wells closer to the
mine,  it  is possible  that  water  level or  artesian  pressure declines  could  preclude
                                       3-22

-------
obtaining the present supplies from existing  wells.  If this were to occur, replacement
wells would be necessary to maintain supplies and would be provided by PCC pursuant to
RRC regulations.

           Any productivity of groundwater supplies that is affected by depressurization
operations should be only temporarily affected.   Once  mining and depressurization
operations cease, water  levels  and artesian pressures  will recover.  By  lowering or
replacing present pumping equipment or drilling replacement wells, it will be possible to
replace all adversely affected groundwater supplies.  A review of deep geophysical logs
indicates thick, permeable, water-producing sands hi both the upper and lower  Simsboro
throughout the area.  Abundant  groundwater of good quality  exists in upper and lower
Simsboro sands and will be available both during and after mining  to provide  for all
present and anticipated future groundwater needs.

           Water level and artesian pressure declines in existing wells represent short-
term adverse impacts of mining.  Long-term and irreversible losses include those wells
which are located within  future  mine pits  and which will  be destroyed by mining.
However, while the actual wells hi the pits will be destroyed by overburden removal, the
water supply will not; both during  and after mining, abundant supplies will be  available
from sands of the Simsboro.  The destroyed wells can be  readily replaced by PCC with
new wells.

3.2.4      Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine

           The adverse impacts  to the  geology of the  power  plant  and mine site
principally concern the alteration  of  the geologic  strata  existing above the  mineable
lignite, and potential short-term and long-term preclusion of development of additional
geologic resources  (i.e., oil and gas, sand and gravel,  etc.)  during operation  of  the
proposed project.

           The major short-term  and long-term adverse impact  on the groundwater
systems of the project area from the construction and operation of the proposed power
plant and mine will be artesian pressure declines in the Simsboro due to power plant well
field pumpage and mine-related depressurization.  Assuming that power  plant  pumpage
and  depressurization  pumpage are  independent of each other,  total pumpage during the
life of the project may range  from 1 to 20 mgpd, most likely averaging 10 mgpd during
early mining phases  and 15 mgpd during later phases.  Artesian pressure declines will
occur hi existing water wells that tap the upper or lower Simsboro and that are located
sufficiently close to  depressurization operations or  power plant pumpage.  About  100
Simsboro wells within two miles of depressurization operations  and power plant  pumpage
could potentially be  adversely affected; most of these wells  are used for domestic or
stock purposes. The City of Calvert wells may experience some decline.

           As a potential mitigation measure, power plant pumpage and depressurization
pumpage associated with the mine may be integrated. If part of the needs of the power
plant could indeed be  satisfied  by the water  discharged during depressurization,  the
presently planned pumping from  the lower  Simsboro would  be reduced.   Projected
artesian pressure declines hi the  lower Simsboro would be less, thereby reducing related
environmental impacts and  the effects on existing wells.  Detailed planning  and design
may also  find that  some of the water needed by the power plant can be obtained from
wells located at the plant itself or  located between the plant and the  farthest extension
of the proposed transmission line.  Some of the pumpage would then be located west of
the large displacement fault running northeast - southwest between the power plant and
                                      3-23

-------
mine area.  Such distribution of the power plant pumpage likely would reduce the amount
and impacts of artesian pressure declines projected herein.

3.3        SOILS

3.3.1       Existing Environment

           Soils  of the project area  fall into four general soil associations (SCS, 1979).
These  are (1) Axtell-Tabor Association,  (2) Crockett-Wilson Association,  (3) Nahatche-
Uhland Association, and (4) Silstid-Padina Association.   A description of these associa-
tions in relationship to the project area and to Robertson County follows.

           Axtell-Tabor Association.  These  timbered upland  soils occur on  approxi-
mately 5,700 acres and comprise 26% of the project area.  They  are  nearly  level to
gently sloping, deep, strongly  acid, loamy soils.  This unit makes up 44% of Robertson
County and consists of  40% Axtell, 35% Tabor, and 25% other soils. Axtell soils have a
grayish-brown, massive, very hard, fine sandy loam surface about 8 inches thick over a
mottled red, yellow and gray, strongly  acid,  clayey subsoil which  is  very slowly
permeable and has a high shrink-swell potential.   Tabor  soils have a grayish-brown, hard,
fine sandy loam  surface about 14 inches thick over a mottled yellow and gray, strongly
acid, clayey subsoil which is very slowly permeable and has a high shrink-swell potential.

           Crockett-Wilson Association.  These  prairie upland soils occur on  approxi-
mately 1,500 acres and comprise 7%  of the project  area.  They are nearly level to gently
sloping, deep slightly acid to  neutral, loamy  soils.  This unit  makes up about 5% of
Robertson County and  consists of  45%  Crockett, 40% Wilson, and 15% other  soils.
Crockett  soils have a dark brown  massive, very hard,  fine sandy loam  about  8 inches
thick  over a mottled reddish-brown,  olive and yellow, slightly acid, clayey subsoil which
is very slowly permeable and has a very high shrink-swell potential.  Wilson soils have a
very dark gray, massive clay loam surface about 5 inches thick over a very dark gray,
slightly clayey  subsoil which  is very slowly permeable and  has a  high shrink-swell
potential.

           Nahatche-Uhland Association.   These  bottomland  soils  occur on  approxi-
mately 4,700 acres and comprise 22% of the project area. They are nearly level,  deep,
slightly acid to  strong acid, loamy  soils  that flood.  This unit makes up about 5% of
Robertson County and consists  of 40% Nahatche, 35%  Uhland, and 25% other  soils.
Nahatche soils have a brown clay loam surface about 8 inches thick over stratified layers
of various colors and textures  that are medium  acid and have  wetness  characteristics.
Uhland soils have a dark brown  fine  sandy  loam surface about  9 inches thick over
stratified layers of loamy and  sandy  textures  that  are medium  acid with  wetness
charac ter istics.

           Silstid-Padina Association.  These timbered upland soils occur on  approxi-
mately 9,900 acres and comprise 45% of the project area.  They  are  nearly  level to
gently sloping,  deep,  strongly  acid,  sandy soils.  This  unit  makes up about  26% of
Robertson County and consists of 40% Silstid,  30%  Padina, and  30% other soils. Silstid
soils have  a pale brown to very pale brown sandy  surface about 31 inches thick over a
yellow, medium acid, sandy clay loam subsoil which  is moderately  permeable.  Padina
soils have a pale brown sandy surface about 50 inches thick over a mottled gray, red and
yellow, strongly acid, sandy clay loam subsoil which  is moderately permeable.

           Soil mapping within the boundaries of  the project area has focused principally
on land areas proposed to be mined  in support of RRC surface mine permitting activities.


                                       3-24

-------
This mapping has been produced from Order 2 (detailed) soil surveys performed by EH&A
(1981c) and correlated by SCS (1986).  In areas where detailed soil surveys have not been
performed, mapping from Order 4 (reconnaissance) surveys has  been reviewed  (SCS,
1979). Based on a compilation of this available data, nineteen soil series and 23 mapping
units have been identified within the project area where detailed surveys exist, and two
general soil associations have been identified where  reconnaissance surveys were used.
Table 3-2  presents  these  mapping units and soil associations,  their corresponding map
symbol, and the areal extent of each in both acres and percentage contribution to the
total project area.   Figure 3-7 presents  the  location of each mapping unit and  soil
association listed in Table  3-2.

            Four of the 23 map units identified within the project area meet the criteria
of SCS prime farmland (Table 3-3). These  soil units comprise approximately 2,856 acres
(12.8%) of the project area where detailed soils  mapping was performed.   The  RRC
considers  historical  usage criteria  to make  further  determination as to  historical
farmland status.   Based  upon  results  of  aerial photo surveys and landowner surveys
presented in the mine permit application (PCC, 1986a), very little  land within the first
5-year permit area that is SCS-designated  prime farmland is also eligible for classifica-
tion as historical farmland.  This is due to  the lack of utilization of these soils over the
past 10 years for crop production.  Within  the area to be  mined during the first 5-year
permitting period, 77 acres have been designated as prime farmland by the SCS, but only
43 acres may also qualify as RRC historical farmland due to historical usage. A 36-acre
tract within this area has been designated  by the  SCS as prime farmland; however,
detailed investigations on this 36-acre tract over the relevant 10-year period revealed
that the tract does not qualify as RRC historical farmland.

           Surface soils of the  project  area have pH measures ranging between 5.1 and
7.0, and subsurface soils measure between 4.6 and 8.1. Organic matter values for the Al
horizon range from 0.6% in  Axtell upland  soils to 2.9% hi Gladewater bottomland soils.
Textural classes and landscape  positions of  soils range  from  moderately steep,  well-
drained, upland loamy fine sands to frequently flooded, bottomland clays. Shrink-swell
potentials of the soils within the project area range from very low to high in the surface
soil and low to very high hi the subsoils (SCS, 1986; EH&A, 1981c).

           Rangeland productivity is presented in Table C-l (Appendix C) for  each soil.
In addition, the range site and the potential annual production of vegetation hi favorable,
normal, and unfavorable years are given.   Total potential  production is the  amount of
vegetation  that can be expected to grow  annually on well managed rangeland that is
supporting the  potential natural plant  community.   Only those soils that are used  as
rangeland  or are suited to use  as rangeland are listed  hi the table.  The relationship
between soils and vegetation was established during the soil survey.  Range  sites were
determined directly from the soil map.  In general, soils of the project area vary in  range
suitability  from high for loamy soils to medium and low for sandy soils.  However, lack of
topsoil, as in the  case of  eroded soils, or  very  dense clayey subsoils, as  hi the case of
claypan savannah range sites, reduces the suitability of a soil for rangeland. In favorable
growing seasons,  the rangeland productivity of  the project area soils varies from very
high for loamy and clayey bottomland range sites to very low for sandy range sites.

3.3.2       Construction Impacts

           Power Plant

           Construction of the  TNP ONE  Power Plant  and its ancillary facilities will
create adverse effects to soils on 997 acres, approximately 79% of  which are  classified


                                       3-25

-------
                                       TABLE 3 -2
                           AREAL EXTENT OF SOIL MAPPING UNITS
                           WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA
Map Unit
Order 2 Mappins
Axtell fine sandy loam
1 to 5% slopes
Axtell fine sandy loam, eroded
1 to 5% slopes
Axtell fine sandy loam
5 to 12% slopes
Chazos fine sandy loam
1 to 5% slopes
Crockett fine sandy loam
1 to 5% slopes
Crockett fine sandy loam, eroded
1 to 5% slopes
Demona loamy fine sand
1 to 5% slopes
Dutek loamy fine sand
1 to 5% slopes
Edge fine sandy loam, eroded
5 to 12% slopes
Gladewater clay, frequently flooded
Lufkin fine sandy loam
0 to 1% slopes
Mabank loam
0 to 1% slopes
Nahatche clay loam, frequently Hooded
Nimrod loamy fine sand
1 to 5% slopes
Padina loamy fine sand
0 to 8% slopes
Rader fine sandy loam
0 to 1% slopes
Rader fine sandy loam
1 to 3% slopes
Robco loamy fine sand
1 to 5% slopes
Silawa loamy fine sand
1 to 5% slopes
Sllstid loamy fine sand
1 to 5% slopes
Tabor fine sandy loam
0 to 1% slopes
Uhland loam, frequently flooded
Wilson clay loam
0 to 1% slopes
Water
Order 4 Mapping
Axtell-Tabor Soil Association
Silstid-Padina Soil Association
TOTAL
Map Symbol
AtC
AtC3
AtD
ChC
CrC
CrC3
DeC
DuC
EdD
Gw
LuA
MaA
Na
NIC
PaD
RaA
RaB
RoC
SiC
SsC
TaA
Uh
WiA
W

Ax-Ta
Si-Pa

Acres
5,196
918
96
1,257
1,279
169
10
763
1,112
916
60
30 .
1,389
394
1,346
IS
1,046
631
538
1,220
87
1,090
295
21

1,337
1.009
22,224
% of Total Project Area
24.4
4.1
0.4
5.7
5.8
0.8
< 0.1
3.4
5.0
4.1
0.3
0.1
6.3
1.8
6.1
< 0.1
4.7
2.8
2.4
5.5
0.4
4.9

< 0.1

6.0
4.6
100.0
Source:    SCS, 1979, 1986; EH&A, 1981c.

                                         3-26

-------
                                                             CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP  ONE

                                                                           Figure 3-7
                                                                 SOILS OF  THE PROJECT AREA
                                                           Note: See Toble 4-3 for explanation of mopping units
                                                                      0       1/2       I MILE
Source: EH8A, I98lc, USDA -SCS, 1979 and 1986
                                           3-27

-------
                                          TABLE 3 -3
                        SCS PRIME FARMLAND WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Map Unit
Axtell fine sandy loam
1 to 5% slopes
Axtell fine sandy loam, eroded
1 to 5% slopes
Axtell fine sandy loam
5 to 12% slopes
Chazos fine sandy loam
1 to 5% slopes
Crockett fine sandy loam
1 to 5% slopes
Crockett fine sandy loam, eroded
1 to 5% slopes
Demona loamy fine sand
1 to 5% slopes
Dutek loamy fine sand
1 to 5% slopes
Edge fine sandy loam, eroded
5 to 12% slopes
Gladewater clay, frequently flooded
Lufkin fine sandy loam
0 to 1% slopes
Mabank loam
0 to 1% slopes
Nahatche clay loam, frequently flooded
Nimrod loamy fine sand
1 to 5% slopes
Padina loamy fine sand
0 to 8% slopes
Rader fine sandy loam
0 to 1% slopes
Rader fine sandy loam
1 to 3% slopes
Robco loamy fine sand
I to 5% slopes
Silawa loamy fine sand
1 to 5% slopes
Silstid loamy fine sand
1 to 5% slopes
Tabor fine sandy loam
0 to 1% slopes
Uhland loam, frequently flooded
Wilson clay loam
0 to 1% slopes
TOTAL
Map Symbol
AtC
AtC3
AtD
ChC
CrC
CrC3
DeC
DuC
EdD
Gw
LuA
MaA
Na
NIC
PaD
RaA
RaB
RoC
SIC
SsC
TaA
Uh
WiA

SCS Prime Farmland
Yes/No Acres Percent of Project
No — --
No
No
Yes 1,257 5.7
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes 15 <0.1
Yes 1,046 4.7
No
Yes 538 2.4
No
No
No
No

2,856 12.8%
1  Prime farmland according to SCS criteria (SCS, 1978).
Source:    SCS, 1986; EH&A, 1981c.
                                           3-Z8

-------
as timbered upland soils, 16% as prairie upland soils, and 5% as bottomland soils (SCS,
1979). Areal extent of these soils to be affected by the power plant facility (i.e., power
plant site, ash disposal sites, makeup water pipeline, railroad spur, and transmission line)
are summarized in Table C-2 (Appendix C).   Mining is considered an overriding effect;
therefore, in  areas  where another type of facility overlaps with  mine  blocks,  the
affected area is included in the mining impacts section (see Section 3.3.3 and Table C-4,
Appendix C).

           Land clearing prior to  construction  will create short-term adverse effects
primarily associated  with potential accelerated  erosion.   In the long term, construction
of the power plant and facilities will result  in localized compaction of soils as they are
converted from primarily agricultural  use  to   industrial  use.   This  conversion  is  an
unavoidable  adverse effect, constituting a commitment of these resources for the life of
the project.

           SCS-designated prime farmlands  are  represented by Chazos fine sandy  loams
(ChC), Rader  fine sandy loams  (RaA  and  RaB),  and Silawa loamy  fine sands  (SiC).
Table C-2 (Appendix C)  shows the  acreages of these soils  associated with the power
plant and ancillary  facilities.   Construction activities  for  the  power  plant  and  its
ancillary  facilities will adversely affect 125  acres of SCS prime farmland soils.  This will
constitute an irretrievable commitment of these prime farmland soils.

           Suggested  mitigation for minimizing  construction  effects  due  to erosion
include the  installation of fabric filter silt  fences and  appropriate placement of hay
bales.  Run-off ponds will be in place prior to construction of the proposed power plant.

           Mine

           Support facilities for  the proposed mine include the mine facilities erection
site, lignite  transport  facilities,  surface water  control structures,  and stockpile  sites.
Construction of these  facilities  will create  adverse effects  to a  total of 2,047 acres,
approximately  40% of which are  bottomland soils, 50% timbered upland soils,  and 10%
prairie upland  soils (SCS, 1986; SCS, 1979). The areal extent of these soils to be affected
are summarized in Table C-3 (Appendix C) by mine facility.

           Construction  activities  will  create short-term adverse effects  primarily due
to potential  accelerated erosion.  These effects will be minimized with the installation
of fabric  filter silt fences and appropriate placement of hay bales.  Erosion rates should
return to normal as construction is completed and surrounding areas are revegetated and
stabilized.  In  the long term, construction of the mine facilities will result in localized
compaction as  soils are converted from  primarily agricultural use to industrial use.  This
conversion results in a commitment of these  soil resources for  the duration of each
facility; and, therefore, represents an unavoidable adverse effect.

           In the case  of the mine facilities  erection site, conversion of soils on 42 acres
will persist for the life of mine.  The conveyor  and associated truck dump sites (which
occupy approximately  22 acres)  will also involve a long-term commitment  of  soils,
although these  facilities will not be constructed until mining operations are shifted from
Blocks A and B to Blocks K and J. Once the  project is completed, these facilities will be
dismantled, and the soils should  be reclaimed to post-mining productivity equal  to  or
better than that which existed prior to mining.

           Overburden  stockpiles listed in  Table C-3  (Appendix C) will constitute a
permanent impact to 464 acres,  in  that the stockpiles will  be left in-place after the


                                      3-29

-------
completion of the mine project. These stockpiles will be stabilized at a maximum height
of 60 feet  and  5:1  (horizontal to vertical)  side  slopes,  and will be  reclaimed and
revegetated in accordance  with the reclamation plan.  This plan calls  for the  use  of
annual vegetation  to temporarily stabilize  overburden stockpiles  prior  to permanent
revegetation.    Cover  crops of  annual grasses will be  established by  seeding and
interseeded with several clover species.  Mulch will be used in conjunction with these
cover crops to temporarily stabilize regraded areas.

           Topsoil  will be replaced on overburden stockpiles when final post-mining
contours have been achieved. Regraded areas will be scarified or disked and topsoil will
be replaced to an average  depth of 6 inches.  Soil sampling will be conducted by PCC
(see reclamation discussion in Section 3.3.3) both before and after topsoil replacement  to
identify  unsuitable material which may need to be  treated, removed or buried,  and  to
determine  additional soil amendments.  Perennial vegetation will be  planted on the
stockpiles during the appropriate  planting season.  Most overburden stockpile areas will
be reclaimed as pastureland and grazingland.  Pastureland will require seeding of coastal
bermudagrass during  January through April and grazingland will require the seeding of a
common bermudagrass/native grass mix during March through May.

           The length of time for which resources will be  committed for haul roads and
surface water control structures varies.  The total area affected by haul roads outside  of
mining blocks is 170 acres.   The conceptual water  control  plan includes the  following
control structures:  14 sedimentation ponds, 7 diversion ditches, 18 control ditches, and 4
diversion ponds.   Among other purposes, these structures will serve to minimize soil
erosion from  areas of disturbance and  subsequent  sedimentation in adjacent off-site
areas.  Approximately 41 acres outside the mine blocks will be disturbed by construction
of control ditches and  diversion ditches.   A total of 1,848 acres will potentially  be
affected by the  construction and operation of the  diversion  and sedimentation ponds.
However, this acreage represents the maximum surface area to be inundated in the event
of a  10-year, 24-hour storm. The backwater areas will not be cleared of vegetation and
any backwater detained during a flood  will  be drained  from  the ponds  over  a 10-day
period following  attainment of water quality standards. Effects to the areas that will  be
inundated only  for  brief periods  during  flood stages are  considered  short-term and
minimal  and are not represented  in Table C-3 (Appendix C). However,  soils within the
area of  permanent  inundation will be  affected by  sedimentation, compaction, and
altering  of biological and  chemical properties of  the  soils, resulting in  long-term
impacts.  Acreages for  these areas are included in  the  figures presented in Table C-3
(Appendix C).  Permanent  inundation  will  affect  1,212 acres of  upland prairie soils,
upland timbered soils, and bottomland timbered soils.

           Topsoil  stockpiles represent  a temporary effect on 96 acres.  The stockpiles
will have 5:1 side slopes and will be vegetated to prevent erosion until the soil is  placed
on regraded mine areas as they are reclaimed.

           Construction activities for the mine facilities will result in adverse effects  to
164 acres of SCS-designated prime farmland.  This will result in a commitment  of these
resources for the duration of each facility.  Table C-3 (Appendix C) shows the acreages
of these soils associated with each facility.  As each facility is dismantled, the soils
should be reclaimed to  post-mining productivity equal  to or better than those which
existed prior to mining.

           All construction  activities pose  a potential effect on nearby off-site areas
due to accelerated erosion.  Dust from construction sites may be wind-blown to  adjacent
                                       3-30

-------
areas  and  deposited  on  foliage, thereby  temporarily lowering  primary  production.
Downstream plant  communities may also be effected due to sedimentation from soil-
laden run-off from  construction sites.

3.3.3      Operation Impacts

           Power Plant

           The potential effects to soils from operation of the TNP ONE cooling towers
are due to cooling  tower plume drift dispersion.  Adverse effects associated with drift
deposition have been generally found to be confined within 330-655 feet from the cooling
towers and in the direction of  the prevailing winds (Bartlit and Williams, 1975).  Taylor
(1980) has demonstrated that more than 75% of the drift fell within 0.6 mile downwind of
Department of Energy facilities in Kentucky and Tennessee.  In an evaluation of several
studies  of freshwater mechanical draft  cooling  towers, EH&A (1986)  found that the
potential  effects on soils include slightly elevated soil pH values and small accumulations
of some  water-soluble  anions.  However, in general,  it was found that alterations of
surrounding soil  chemistry are very  slight and that the native physical and chemical
properties of most soils tend to buffer or mitigate the  effects of  cooling tower plume
drift dispersion.

           In a previous study, The University of Texas School of Public Health (UTSPH)
and  EH&A  evaluated a lignite-fired power  plant  and found  levels  of  trace  metal
pollutants such as  arsenic and selenium present in ambient air to  be several orders of
magnitude lower  than the most stringent air  quality standards (UTSPH and EH&A,  1983).
Studies  of  this  power  plant  showed annual average maximum ambient ground-level
concentrations of  arsenic  and selenium  to  be  0.000159 Ug/m  and 0.000071 yg/m  ,
respectively, due to all  plant emissions.   Effects  of environmental deposition of these
trace elements were reported to be  negligible.  Similarly, modeling for the TNP ONE
Power Plant estimated  that the  annual averages  for maximum, ambient ground-level
concentrations of arsenic and selenium would be 0.0000077 Ug/m  and 0.000011 UgVm  ,
respectively.  The most stringent air quality standards are set at 200.00 Ug/m  for
arsenic and  0.20  ug/o>   for selenium  (see Section 3.13.3). These modeled levels are of a
significantly lower  level than those of the plant studied above and, again, several orders
of magnitudes less  than acceptable standards.  Therefore, it can be  deduced that effects
to surrounding soils resulting  from deposition of  these  trace metals by  the proposed
power plant will be negligible.

           There is some potential for oil and grease from runoff of power plant parking
lots, access roads,  and haul roads to  impact adjacent soils.  The  construction of two
runoff ponds on the power plant site should minimize the area  of potential impacts by
impounding run-off before it reaches downstream off-site soils.

           Mine

           The proposed reclamation plan provides for the replacement of subsoils with
a random mix of overburden  material, with grading and leveling  of  spoil material to
return the  mined  area to approximate  original contours.   After  replacement, the
overburden material will be sampled and analyzed for any chemical or physical problems,
such as acid-forming or toxic  materials or compaction pans.  Specifically, samples will
be taken  at intervals of 0-12 inches, 12  to  24 niches, and 24 to 42 inches and will be
analyzed  for  pH,  pyritic  sulfur,  exchangeable  acidity, neutralization potential, and
selenium.  If unsuitable  materials are found, corrective  action  will be taken either by
removal and replacement of material or addition of corrective amendments.


                                       3-31

-------
           After sampling, overburden material will be disked and scarified to reduce
compaction,  break up impervious  layers, incorporate lime,  improve drainage and  root
penetration, and provide a rough interface between the overburden and topsoil to prevent
slippage.   Topsoil, which was segregated prior to mining, will then be  replaced to an
average depth of 6 inches.  Topsoil will be sampled for necessary amendments and the
appropriate fertilizers will be broadcast to prepare soils for revegetation.

           As part of the  reclamation efforts, the soil stabilization and  conservation
plan is designed to reduce surface runoff and consequent soil erosion from the reclaimed
area, and to promote long-term soil and water conservation practices. To achieve these
purposes, terraces will  be used  when necessary to  control erosion.   Drainage areas
controlled by terraces will be  limited to ZO acres. Terraces have been designed to handle
a 2-year, 24-hour storm event within 1.5 feet of freeboard.  All seedbed preparation,
fertilizing, seeding,  and sprigging  will be performed along the contour  area whenever
possible (PCC, 1986a).

           Additionally, mulch will be used in conjunction with annual herbaceous cover
crops to  stabilized regraded areas until the season is appropriate for planting permanent
perennial vegetation.  Hay or straw mulchers  will not be applied when  seeding annual
cover crops, but will be used in specific situations when planting permanent vegetation.

           The revegetation plan is designed to further stabilize  and conserve soils and
reclaim disturbed areas  for use as primarily grazingland and pastureland.   Grazingland
will be  revegetated  with a  mixture  of  native and adapted  grasses  to minimize
management  requirements. Pastureland  will be planted with coastal bermudagrass and
overseeded with compatible species.

           Subsequent to revegetation, soil  sampling will be  conducted to  a depth of
4 feet on an annual basis to monitor chemical and physical parameters for all reclaimed
areas. Samples  will be tested for pH, pyritic sulfur, texture, electrical conductivity, and
primary plant nutrients  in topsoil.  Maintenance on  these reclaimed soils  will  include
administration of soil amendments as results of monitoring samples deem necessary.  The
practice  of amending the replaced topsoil will have the  anticipated beneficial effect of
increasing productivity by improving physical and chemical properties of reclaimed soils.
Other maintenance  activities  will include  mowing, repairing  rills  and  gullies,  and
controlling weeds.

           Monitoring and maintenance activities will continue for five years following
initial revegetation efforts  to  insure the  success of reclamation.   Results of soil sample
analysis and  measures of plant productivity  over  the period of monitor and  maintenance
will serve to evaluate the success of reclamation.

           A potential for accelerated erosion will exist on sloped areas  that have  been
cleared of vegetation prior  to  mining, resulting in an unavoidable adverse impact.   This
impact will be minimized by clearing only the land immediately ahead of  the overburden
removal and by revegetating as soon as possible following soil reconstruction.  Therefore,
the acreage  cleared of vegetation at a given point in time will be relatively small
compared to  the size of the mine, averaging about 835 acres of disturbance at any one
time.  Total acreage to be affected by  mining operations is 5,018 acres for the life of
mine. Table C-4 (Appendix C) summarizes the total acreage disturbed by  mining of  each
lignite mine block.  Approximately 74%  of this acreage is classified as timbered upland
soils by the SCS (1979 and 1986), 16% as prairie upland soils, and 10%  as bottomland
soils.
                                      3-32

-------
           No reclamation procedure will exactly duplicate the existing soils in an area
to be mined.  Thus, any mining operations will result in long-term, irreversible impacts
to morphology and composition of existing  soils.  Whether these long-term impacts on
productivity are  adverse  or beneficial depends upon  reclamation.   The alternative
proposed  by PCC of topsoil  segregation  and replacement  over a random   (partially
oxidized)  overburden mix  would create soils with surfaces similar to those of existing
soils. Subsurface  layers would be somewhat heterogeneous in nature.  There should be no
short-term adverse impacts to surface layers due  to surface crusting or localized acidity.
These soils should have a productivity capacity equal or greater than  that of the existing
soils.

           The effect of replacing subsurface soils with a heterogeneous overburden mix
would be  beneficial in areas of soils with dense clayey subsoils  (e.g., Axtell fine sandy
loams and Tabor fine sandy loams).  The resulting replacement soils would have increased
loamy texture and greater porosity, allowing deeper root penetration and providing more
available  soil moisture.   The effect of replacing subsurface soils  with heterogeneous
overburden  mix would also  be beneficial in  areas  of soils with  thick, droughty  sand
surfaces  (e.g., Silstid loamy fine  sand).  The resulting replacement soils would have
higher water holding capacity and  higher cation  exchange capabilities.  In areas where
existing soils have loamy subsurface textures, the replacement soils would have similar
physical, chemical, and productivity characteristics.

           The potential for subsidence as a result of the proposed mining activities will
be minimal.  Studies in Texas (Schneider, 1977) investigated the volume  changes of mine
overburden  at the Alcoa lignite surface mine  near Rockdale hi east  central Texas.  The
conditions at this site are geologically similar to those at the Calvert project  area and
reported volume changes and settlement values  are  expected to be similar.  Schneider
found that mined  overburden had 24 to 47%  increase  in volume.  Over a period of time,
mixed overburden consolidated  17 to  24% for  a net  volume  increase  of  3  to 12%.
Ultimate  settlement is affected by  hydrologic conditions,  since intermittently  wetted
soils tend to settle to a greater degree than saturated soils.

           Settlement rates vary widely with time. A fresh spoil pile settles at rates of
.85 to .02 feet/day for the first 20 days.  These rates decrease  rapidly and range from
zero to  0.221 feet/year within  2.5  to 10 years after mining.   The total amount of
settlement as calculated from these rates indicates that 75% of all settlement will occur
within the first year  after mining,  80% within  the  first five years, and  most of  the
remainder over the next  30 years.   The net increase in mixed overburden volume is
generally  equal to the volume of  lignite removed,  thus yielding no gross change in
surface elevation  (Schneider, 1977).

           Differential  settlement  of  up  to  0.1 feet/year  can  be expected over  a
distance  of 350 feet on disturbed lands,  if no additional  surface loads  are  imposed.
Differential settlement over short distances of 10 to  15 feet will occur at a rate of up to
0.02 feet/year if no surface  loads are imposed.  This may cause  a micro-relief of highs
and lows that, if not modified, may cause localized drainage problems. For woodland and
pasture uses,  little  effect would be noted.  This impact  will  primarily  affect areas
devoted to intensive row crop production.  This adverse effect is  not irreversible and can
be corrected by land-leveling (Schneider, 1977).

           As discussed in Section 3.3.1, approximately 2,856 acres of the project area is
SCS-designated  prime farmland.  Of  this  acreage, about 575 acres will be affected by
mining operations and will be subject  to reclamation.  SCS classification of these soils as
                                       3-33

-------
prime farmland will be permanently lost as a result of mining.  The loss of this acreage
as prime farmland represents an irretrievable commitment of resources.

3.3.4      Combined Impacts of Power Plant and Mine

           Construction and operation of the proposed power plant and mine represent a
combined commitment of 8,062 acres of  soil resources.  Approximately 69%  of this
acreage is classified by the SCS (1979  and 1986) as timbered upland soils, although much
of the area has been cleared  for pasture and grazingland.  Another 22% of this acreage is
classified as prairie upland soils and 9% is classified as bottomland soils.

           Construction and operation activities for both power plant  and mine will
impact 864 acres of SCS-designated prime  farmland.  Since these activities will  remove
the prime farmland classification, impacts represent an irretrievable commitment of soil
resources.

3.4        SURFACE WATER

3.4.1      Existing Environment

           Hydrology

           There are no existing streamflow gaging stations within  the project bound-
aries, nor on Walnut Creek, South Walnut Creek, Mud Creek or  the Little  Brazos River.
Therefore, a regional approach was used to estimate runoff by extrapolating from gaged
watersheds  influenced by similar hydrometeorology and having  similar physiographic,
soil, and vegetational characteristics.

           The transmission line corridor connecting the proposed TNP ONE power plant
and  the existing  Twin Oak Power Plant and Substation will cross 29 streams,  most of
which are intermittent.  There are no water quality or streamflow data available  for
streams traversed outside of the power plant/mine project area.  However, it is assumed
that these streams exhibit hydrologic  and  water quality characteristics similar  to those
streams within the power plant/mine  project area characterized  in the environmental
baseline (EH&A, 1985g).

           The records of the  U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) were reviewed in  order to
locate  streamflow  gages  in  the vicinity of the project area.   The  nearest operating
tributary streamflow gages are on Big Creek near Freestone, Texas and on Brushy Creek
near Rockdale, Texas. Each  of these gages is about 30 miles  from the project area. In
addition, Upper Keechi Creek near Oakwood, Texas; Davidson Creek near Lyons, Texas;
and two points on Yegua Creek are gaged and located within a 70-mile radius. Flows in
the Brazos River  are also measured in the vicinity of the project area near Bryan, Texas.

           Project Area Streams.  Flow measurements  taken since November 1984 from
monitoring stations within the project area indicate that these streams are intermittent,
with non-flowing  conditions for extended periods of the  year (EH&A, 1985g). Because of
the short period and discontinuity of this data, no firm  trends can be drawn.  However, a
continuous  water  level recorder has been established  on Walnut  Creek from which a
stage-discharge rating curve is being developed and verified.

           The annual  flow-duration curve at  each of the six tributary stations was
reduced to a unit area flow-duration  curve by dividing each flow on the curve by the
                                      3-34

-------
contributing drainage area at the gaging  station.   Table 3-4 presents  the  data for  a
composite unit area  daily  flow  duration curve,  obtained  by  calculating, for each
exceedance frequency, the arithmetic average of the unit area flows from the individual
station flow-duration curves.

           The seasonal variation in flow volumes is presented in Table 3-5. The data
indicates that the streams in the project area can be expected  to be bimodal,  with  a
predominate primary peak in May and a secondary peak in January or February.

           Brazos River. The flow in the Brazos River  is regulated by  four reservoirs
upstream of Bryan,  Texas.  Consequently, the flow records of the Brazos River reflect
the reservoir system  operation.  The Brazos  River near Bryan (USGS gage number
08109000)  has an  extensive record  since 1899  and  is  used  in this analysis as  a
representative  measure of the flow in the Brazos River downstream of the project area.
Since the data  was intermittent prior to 1927, water year 1927 was selected  as the first
year of continuous record.

           As the Brazos River is the receiving body of water for any runoff from  the
project area, it is necessary to examine the flow-duration characteristics of  the  Brazos
River.  A flow-duration analysis was performed on the data at the Bryan gage for  the
period 1927-1984.  The results of this analysis are shown in Table 3-6.  In  addition,  a
frequency analysis of  the 1-, 3-, 7-, and 30-day low-flow characteristics of  the  Brazos
River near Bryan was also completed. The pertinent statistics of the low  flow frequency
study are given in Table 3-7.

           Table 3-8 presents the recorded monthly maximum, minimum and mean flow
volumes  since 1927 for the Brazos River near Bryan. The annual  maximum streamflows
in the period from 1927 to 1984 at  the Bryan gage were also analyzed.  The results of
this analysis are presented in Table 3-9.

           Existing  Water Rights.   Data on existing water rights in the Brazos  River
Basin as  of July 1985 were obtained from the  TWC.  Current records indicate a total of
27 permits and 60 water right claims in Robertson County in the Brazos River Basin in
Texas.  Only 11 claims and  18 permits are  recognized by the  TWC.   Pertinent data on
these claims and permits are presented in Table 3-10.

           Floodplains.  Portions of the project area are located within  the  floodplains
of major streams (i.e., Walnut Creek, South Walnut Creek, Mud Creek, and Little Brazos
River), necessitating an  assessment  of potential flooding hazards.  Flood hazard  areas
within the project area boundaries are delineated on Figure 3-8.

           Water Quality

           Brazos River.  The project area is located in the drainage area of Seg-
ment  1242 of the Brazos River.  This segment consists  of the Brazos  River from the
Navasota River  confluence  at the  Grimes/Washington/Brazos  county  lines  to Lake
Whitney  Dam on  the Hill/Bosque county line.   According to the Texas  Surface  Water
Quality Standards, October 1985 (with regulations pending final approval by  the  TWC),
this segment is classified as effluent limited and is suitable for contact recreation, non-
contact  recreation,  propagation  of  fish  and  wildlife, and domestic  raw water supply.
Water quality standards for Segment  1242 are presented in Table 3-11.

           Water quality data have  been collected  by  the USGS near the  project area
within Segment 1242 of the Brazos River between 1968 and 1978.  The station, sampled


                                      3-35

-------
        TABLE 3-4
       UNIT AREA
EXPECTED FLOW DURATION
 PROJECT AREA STREAMS
Discharge
per Square Mile
(cfs)
0.0000
0.0004
0.0011
0.0022
0.0039
0.0060
0.0092
0.0134
0.0185
0.0252
0.0336
0.0444
0.0576
0.0764
0.1008
0.1338
0.1814
0.2631
0.4680
1.5608
36.9546
Average
Time Discharge is
Equalled or Exceeded
(%)
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
          3-36

-------
                                                   TABLE  3-5
                            EXPECTED RUNOFF PER SQUARE  MILE OF DRAINAGE AREA
                                               CALVERT PROJECT
                                   Minimum
                                  Runoff Per•
                                  Square Mile
                                   (flc-ft)
                                    Maximum
                                   Runoff Per
                                   Square Mile
                                    (ftc-ft)
                                   Mean
                               Runoff Per
                               Square Mile
                                 (flc-ft)
                                 Distribution
                                  of Mean
                                   Runoff
                                       <*)
to
Month
January
February
March
flpril
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
0.65
1.43
2.45
1.58
0.79
0.19
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.03
0.14
0.19
112.89
109.48
110.07
159.29
227.48
159.70
 43.03
 12.84
 90.67
110.98
 97.62
 96.29
22.96
33.11
32.58
39.05
54.31
26.08
 7.16
 1.97
 7.27
12.23
12.01
21.24
 8.2
•11.8
11.6
13.9
19.3
 9.3
 2.6
 0.7
 2.6
 4.4
 4.3
 7.6
                 Annual
                     58.35
                569.18
                                                                        280.71
                                                                          100.0

-------
        TABLE 3-6
EXPECTED FLOW DURATION
BRAZOS RIVER NEAR BRYAN
  (USGS STATION 08109000)

Discharge
per Square
Mile
(cfs)
0.0
293.0
411.0
530.0
655.0
791.0
939.0
1,090.0
1,260.0
1,490.0
1,750.0
Average
Time Discharge
is Equalled
or Exceeded
(%)
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50

Discharge
per Square
Mile
(cfs)
2,110.0
2,560.0
3,140.0
3,900.0
4,930.0
6,450.0
8,750.0
12,600.0
21,600.0
160,000.0

Average
Time Discharge
is Equalled
or Exceeded
(%)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

        TABLE 3-7
    LOW-FLOW ANALYSIS
BRAZOS RIVER NEAR BRYAN
  (USGS STATION 08109000)
Recurrence
Interval
Years
100
50 •
20
10
5
2
1.25
1.11
1.04
1.02
1-Day
Low Flow
cfs
64
78
106
138
188
328
555
720
940
1,112
3 -Day
Low Flow
cfs
66
82
110
143
195
344
589
770
1,017
1,211
7 -Day
Low Flow
cfs
71
87
118
154
211
379
665
886
1,195
1,445
30-Day
Low Flow
cfs
90
112
153
201
280
526
976
1,342
1,881
2,336
           3-38

-------
                        TABLE 3-8
   MAXIMUM, MINIMUM AND MEAN MONTHLY FLOW VOLUMES
                BRAZOS RTVER NEAR BRYAN
                  (USGS STATION 08109000)
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
Recorded
Max Vol (ac-ft)
1,498,000
1,156,000
1,111,000
2,002,000
3,237,000
2,999,000
729,400
304,500
903,300
1,586,000
1,445,000
1,339,000
11,060,100
Recorded
Min Vol (ac-ft)
12,420
12,730
16,670
24,280
41,510
29,610
11,460
6,980
18,400
6,830
14,140
10,490
719,540
Mean
Vol (ac-ft)
247,980
273,795
273,719
369,261
701,967
448,448
224,945
108,105
168,198
254,723
187,815
213,097
3,508,205
                        TABLE 3-9
COMPUTED PROBABILITY PEAK FLOW FREQUENCY CURVE DATA
                BRAZOS RIVER NEAR BRYAN
                  (USGS STATION 08109000)
Computed
Annual
Exceedance
Probability
0.990
0.950
0.900
0.800
0.500
0.200
0.100
0.040
0.020
0.010
0.05

Estimate of
Peak Flow
(cfs)
12,500
16,000
21,000
29,000
52,100
90,900
120,000
160,000
192,000
225,000
259,000
                         3-39

-------
                        TABLE 3-10




EXISTING WATER RIGHTS, BRAZOS RIVER BASIN SEGMENT HI
Permit
Claim Number
C-9605
C-1923
P-4079(A-4399)
C-5321
C-2656
P-4164(A-4471)
P-4075(A-4393)
P-2003A(A-2204A)
P-4078(A-4401)
P-4189(A-4472)
P-4023(A-4320)
C-5844
C-5490
P-4160(A-4469)
C-3120
P-4077U-1409)
C-5030
C-1527
P-450(A-4466)
P-415KA-4467)
P-228(A-239A)
P-4206(A-4508)
P-4145(A-4454)
P-4192(A-4511)
P-4080(A-4398)
C-2940
P-4-27(A-4319)
C-5384
Owner
Floyd Kempenski
B.W. Clements
Estate of Joe Reistino
Estate of Joe Reistino
Northern Trust Co., Trustee
Kathleen Kelly
Bert Wheelers, Inc.
City of Rosebud
John R. and Mary T. Woodall
Pauline D. Burnitt, Trustee
Don Weinacht, et aL
Agnes Field Eliot
Dougle A. McCrary
Northern Trust Co., Trustee
Wesley E. Anderson
Ellen Wiese Brien and
Laura Emily Wiese Moore
Ellen Wiese Brien and
Laura Emily Wiese Moore
Gertrud Papp et aL
Nick R. and Joan Lutz
Margaret Anderson Harris
Deborah A. Frazier
Northern Trust Co., Trustee
Gottfried F. Von Lueninck
John W. and Janie Nigliazzo
Hans Josef Wentzel et aL
Estate of Joe Reistino
Onah B. Penn et aL
Sam F. DeStefano
Sam F. DeStefano
Stream
Bee Branch
Walnut Creek
Touchstone Branch
Mud Creek
Little Brazos
Little Brazos
Little Brazos
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Brazos River
Annual
Diversion
(ac-ft)
—
74
1,500
480
3,750
935
512
224
825
706
600
184
256
3,750
976
400
275
380
520
520
3,236
400
448
300
1,500
486
700
300
Maximum
Diversion
Rate (cfs)
—
1
8.9
—
6.9
6.7
6.7
6.0
18.5
17.8
6.7
5.5
6.1
13.4
12.2
6.7
6.7
15.0
5.0
5.0
8.4
6.7
5.6
8.9
20.1
5.6
16.0
5.3
Type of
Usage
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Municipal
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Reservoir
Capacity Filing
(ac-ft) Date
20 9/1/69
9/1/69
9/19/83
8/29/69
9/26/69
7/31/84
9/6/83
408 10/2/61
9/26/83
7/31/84
2/7/83
8/28/69
8/28/69
7/10/84
10/31/84
10/31/84
8/29/69
8/26/69
7/10/84
7/10/84
6/26/84
10/23/84
5/15/84
10/30/84
7/19/83
8/29/69
2/7/83
8/29/69

-------
                    Special Flood Hazard Area
                                     O000FEET
 Source: Flood Hazard Boundary Map, Federa I Emergoncy Management Agency,

       Robertson County^Te»ai, 1977


 Base Map: USOS 7.5 Min. Quad Sheets, Sremond,  Petteway, Hammond and

	Owensville, Tenas	^^^
QESPEY, HUSTON a ASSOCIATES,INC.
 n   ENGINEERING a ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
                                                                                 Figure  3-8



                                                                     FLOOD HAZARD  BOUNDARY  MAP
                                              3-41

-------
                                              TABLE 3-11
                            USGS WATER QUALITY DATA (1968-1978) AND TWC
                                         INSTREAM STANDARDS
                                             SEGMENT 1242
           Parameter
                                             Brazos River
                                                  at
                                            College Station
Maximum
Minimum
Mean
TWC Standard
Chloride (mg/1)
Sulfate  (mg/1)
Solids,  total dissolved (mg/1)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1)
pH  (at25°C)
Fecal coliform (#/100ml)
Temperature ( C)
    480
    260
  1,300
   31.5
   8.8         119     Not to exceed 400
    18          80     Not to exceed 250
   153         464     Not to exceed 1,650
                      Not less than 5.0
                      6.5-9.0
                      Geometric mean not to exceed 200
   5.0        20.4     Not to exceed 35
— Data not reported.
Source:   EH&A, 1985L

-------
monthly, was located approximately 55 miles downstream of the project area on FM 60
near  College Station.   Extremes  and averages  for  the period  of 1968  to 1978  are
presented in Table 3-11  for the constituents for which instream water-quality standards
have been established by the TWO.  Noncompliance with chloride and sulfate criteria has
occurred on two  occasions in  the historical data base. Otherwise, general physical  and
chemical parameters presented in Table 3-11 indicate  that Segment 1242 has maintained
good water quality during the period of record.

           Project Area  Streams.  Baseline water quality of project area  streams  has
been characterized using data collected during the period March 1978 to February 1979
(Figure 3-9,  Sites 1H-4H) and November  1984  through  October 1985   (Figure 3-9,
Sites  1-9).   The monitoring site locations are described  in  Table 3-12  for  the historic
(1978-1979)  and current (1984-1985) monitoring programs. Water-quality standards have
not been  promulgated  by the  TWC  for these  streams.   The  observed ranges  for
constituents  measured during  historic and current  monitoring programs are presented in
Tables 3-13 and 3-14, respectively.

           Ranges of values  for  nonsteady-state (i.e.,  stormwater conditions)  water
quality data  are summarized  in Table 3-14  (Station 3,  Walnut  Creek, as  noted).
Dissolved  oxygen  (DO) concentrations were  below the TWC standard of 5.0 milligrams
per liter (mg/1) for  two  samples.   However, concentrations recovered and  were above
5.0 mg/1 within 2 days.   Two  samples revealed fecal coliform levels  above the TWC
standard of 200 per  100 milliliters (ml).  Other constituents  do not appear in unusual or
excessive concentrations.

           In summary, water quality of project area  streams appears generally accept-
able  for a  wide  variety of uses.   No constituents or  unusual concentrations of
constituents were detected that would seriously impair use.  Occasional  instances of  low
DO content  are  probably attributable  to excess point-source organic loadings that
project area streams experience seasonally or in runoff events.

          Permitted Wastewater  Systems.    There  are  three permitted  wastewater
systems operating in the immediate area of the project (Figure 3-9).  Permitted effluent
characteristics for these  treatment facilities  are presented in Table 3-15.

           The City of Bremond operates a  0.12 mgpd domestic wastewater treatment
plant, located 0.7 mile south of the intersection of Hwy 14 and Hwy 46.  Plant effluent is
discharged into an unnamed tributary of Big Willow Creek. The City of Calvert operates
a 0.25 mgpd domestic wastewater treatment plant located 1 mile southwest of mid-town,
northwest of Hwy 1644.   Plant effluent  is discharged into Tidwell Creek.  The City of
Franklin operates a 0.3  mgpd domestic  wastewater treatment  plant  located  1 mile
southwest of the intersection of Hwy 79 and Hwy 46. Plant effluent is discharged into an
unnamed tributary of Mud Creek.

          Texas  Utilities Mining  Company  also  has four  permitted  outfalls located
approximately 3  to 4 miles  east  of  the  project  area;  however,  no effluent will be
discharged from these systems until the 1990s.

3.4.2      Construction Impacts

          Power Plant

          Some adverse  effects to surface waters as a result of construction activities
associated with the  proposed power plant will be  unavoidable.  Clearing  of brush and


                                      3-43

-------
            /
             LEQENP

          MONITORING STATION
          HISTORIC MONITORING
              STATION
          DI8CHABOB POINTS
          ENVIRONMBNTAL
          BASELINE BOUNDARY
BASE MAP ;3
-------
                                TABLE 3-12

                     WATER QUALITY SAMPLING SITESa

       ROBERTSON COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM

  (MARCH 1978 TO FEBRUARY 1979 AND NOVEMBER 1984 TO OCTOBER 1985)
Sampling
Site No.
1H
2H
3H
Stream
Brazos River
Walnut Creek
Little Brazos River
Location
FM 979 bridge west of Calvert
TX 6 bridge north of Calvert
FM 979 bridge west of Calvert, below
confluence with Walnut Creek
   4H      Little Brazos River

   1       Mud Creek
   2       Little Brazos River

   3       Walnut Creek
   4       Walnut Creek

   5       Big Willow Creek
   6       Chair Branch
   7       Alligator Creek

   8       Hardin Slough

   9       South Walnut Creek
County road below confluence with Mud
Creek

TX 6 bridge southeast of Calvert
FM 1644 bridge south of Calvert,  above
confluence with Mud Creek

County road north of Calvert, above TX 6
County road southeast of Bremond, below
confluence with Big Willow Creek

County road southeast of Bremond

FM 2159 culvert southwest of Bremond

FM 1373 bridge southwest of Bremond,
above confluence with Chair Branch
FM 1373 bridge southwest of Bremond,
below diversion of Little Brazos River

County road northeast of Calvert, above
confluence with Big Willow Creek
   See Figure 4-6 for sampling locations.
H- Represents locations at which data were collected in 1978-1979.
Source:   EH&A, 1985f.
                                    3-45

-------
                                           TABLE 3-13

                       RANGE OF VALUES FOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
                   ROBERTSON COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
                                 (MARCH 1978 TO FEBRUARY 1979)
Water Quality Parameter3
Acidity
Alkalinity
Chloride
Fluoride
Hardness, carbonate
Hardness, non-carbonate
Hardness, total
Nitrogen, nitrate
Nitrogen, nitrite
Nitrogen, ammonia
Nitrogen, organic
Phosphorus, total
Phosphorus, ortho-
Bicarbonate
Sulfate
COD
BODj
Solids, total dissolved
Solids, total suspended
Arsenic
Aluminum
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Calcium
Iron
Mercury
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Sodium
Potassium
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Temperature ( C)
Dissolved Oxygen
pH at 25°C
Turbidity
Station 1H
Brazos River
1.0
110.0
66.0
0.40
110.0
SO.O
180.0
0.05
0.01
0.17
0.55
0.13
0.09
110.0
46.0
10.0
Z.O
342.0
-5.0
- 158.0
- 554.0
-0.66
- 158.0
-278.0
- 436.0
-1.46
-0.03
-0.72
-2.81
-0.26
-0.18
- 142.0
- 270.0
- 14.0
-3.0
- 1,473.0
7.0 - 100.0
0.001
0.16
0.001
0.001
0.001
64.3
0.13
0.0001
7.85
0.028
0.01
64.3
5.09
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.001
10.0
8.2
7.63
4.5
- 0.003
-2.28
- 0.004
- 0.007
-0.011
- 102.0
-1.55
- 0.0002
-33.4
- 0.061
- 0.01
- 373.0
- 8.94
- 0.01
-0.01
- 0.001
-0.044
-29.0
- 13.2
-8.50
-60.0
Station 2H
Walnut Creek
3.0
48.0
104.0
0.30
48.0
62.0
123.0
0.05
0.01
0.08
0.83
0.08
0.01
48.0
29.0
24.0
2.0
408.0
53.0
0.001
1.66
0.001
0.001
0.001
34.5
1.89
0.0001
9.0
0.383
0.01
46.7
6.37
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.001
11.0
8.8
7.13
32.0
-4.0
-96.0
- 158.0
-0.51
-96.0
-94.0
- 168.0
-2.05
-0.01
-1.22
-2.20
-0.14
-0.06
-96.0
-58.0
-34.0
-4.0
-461.0
-80.0
- 0.002
-7.42
- 0.007
- 0.008
- 0.013
-47.1
-4.11
- 0.0005
- 14.4
- 1.100
-0.01
- 111.0
- 10.7
- 0.01
-0.01
- 0.002
- 0.066
-27.0
- 12.2
-7.52
-75.0
Station 3H
Little
Brazos River (N)
2.0
50.0
80.0
0.27
50.0
60.0
122.0
0.19
0.01
0.42
0.12
0.06
0.02
50.0
28.0
10.0
1.0
424.0
38.0
0.001
0.52
0.001
0.001
0.001
35.0
0.72
0.0001
8.4
0.267
0.01
42.4
6.43
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.001
10.0
6.8
7.22
17.0
-5.0
- 124.0
- 146.0
-0.47
- 124.0
-94.0
- 184.0
- 1.27
-0.02
- 1.00
-2.70
-0.24
-0.06
- 124.0
-64.0
- 55.0
-4.0
- 507.0
-70.0
- 0.004
-7.93
- 0.003
- 0.009
- 0.008
-53.9
-4.80
- 0.0003
-14.9
- 0.726
-0.01
- 132.0
-9.39
-0.01
-0.01
- 0.001
- 0.053
-29.0
- 12.9
-7.82
-86.0
Station 4H
Little
Brazos River (S)
3.0
46.0
38.0
0.25
46.0
26.0
83.0
0.05
0.01
0.29
0.37
0.04
0.04
46.0
51.0
17.0
2.0
378.0
28.0
0.001
0.60
0.001
0.001
0.006
24.9
0.96
0.0001
4.99
0.119
0.01
24.0
5.65
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.001
10.0
7.7
7.26
22.0
-8.0
- 158.0
- 130.0
-0.59
- 158.0
-80.0
- 196.0
- 0.44
-0.02
-0.97
- 2.21
-0.28
-0.28
- 158.0
-78.0
-62.0
- 5.0
- 449.0
- 94.0
- 0.002
- 11.8
- 0.004
- 0.010
- 0.010
-59.1
-5.36
- 0.0009
- 13.7
- 0.341
-0.01
- 113.0
- 8.44
- 0.01
-0.01
- 0.002
- 0.067
-29.0
- 12.4
-7.90
- 110.0
a  All values reported as mg/1 unless indicated otberortse.
Source:    EH&A, 1985f.
                                          3-46

-------
                       TABLE 3-14
    RANGE OF VALUES FOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
ROBERTSON COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
             (NOVEMBER 1984 - OCTOBER 1985)a







to
I
-*>




















WQ Parameter
Discharge (cfs)
Temperature-field
Conductivity-field
(umhos)
DO-field
pH-field (su)
Conductivity-lab
(umhos)
pH-lab (su)
Acidity
Solids, Tot. Susp
Solids, Tot. Diss
Iron, Tot.
Iron, Diss
Manganese, Tot.
Turbidity (NTU)
Silica
Alkalinity
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Hardness, Tot.
Hardness, Carb
Hardness, Non-carb
Nitrogen, Nitrate
Nitrogen, Nitrite
Nitrogen, Organic
Phosphorous, Tot.
Ortho-Phosphorous
COD
BOD5
Station 1
Mud Creek
2.95 - 28.72
11.5 -22.0
300 -490
7.2 - 9.0
6.9 - 7.8
290 - 540
6.41 - 7.24
7.07 - 11.0
3.74 - 153.0
260.2 - 492
0.815 -4.42
0.143 - 1.39
0.365 -0.795
2.0 - 59.0
11.0 -40.0
16.0 - 52.9
41.1 -95.8
0.12 -0.40
43 - 214
54.6 - 168.1
16.0 - 52.9
34.2 - 145.9
0.01 -0.40
0.02 -0.50
0.0 - 7.15
0.2 -0.31
0.0 - 0.2
8.13 - 18.5
3.3 -4.8
Station 2
Little Brazos
River
16.9 -413.09
12.5 -22.5
150 - 320
3.8 - 7.0
7.3 - 7.6
130 - 343
6.7 - 7.0
6.2 - 8.76
1.94 - 57.7
193 -355
1.214 -3.91
0.43 - 2.97
0.053 -0.118
16.8 - 63
8.5 - 18
47.6 - 99.6
15.9 - 88.5
.01 -0.26
28.2 - 131
40.1 - 118.4
47.6 - 99.6
0.0 - 18.8
.01 - 0.2
0.022 -0.88
0.72 - 15.7
0.25 - 1.14
0.20 - 0.33
0.045 - 24.5
2.7 - 5.75
Station 5
Station 3
Walnut Creek
—
9.0
175
6.8
6.9
225.0
6.35
6.64
16.0
282.0
1.339
0.094
0.102
35.0
15.0
	
-16.0
-600
-8.6
-7.4
- 590.0
-7.03
-8.76
- 119.0
- 592.2
-3.133
-2.133
- 0.196
-54.0
-26.1
45.96 - 55.8
14.2
0.01
49.5
66.4
45.9
12.3
0.01
.041
0.90
0.70
0.20
10.8
4.0
- 155.0
-0.26
-78.8
- 107.6
-55.8
-58.0
-0.45
-0.54
-8.06
- 1.25
-0.37
-40.7
-5.42
Station 3 ,
Walnut Creek
23 -452
22 -23
109 - 230
4.0 - 6.2
7.2 - 8.3
105 - 276
6.6 -7.15
4.7 - 8.5
33.5 - 94.4
196 - 357
1.98 - 2.55
1.67 - 2.39
0.05 - 0.366
70 - 102
6.0 - 15.5
58.5 - 113
14.6 - 52.1
.05 - .22
10 - 17.5
33.4 - 86.4
58.5 -113
0.0 - 0.0
.01 - .01
.20 - .20
0.12 - 1.30
0.20 - 0.43
0.20 - 0.20
21.5 -27.3
2.6 - 7.2
Station 4
Walnut Creek
0.84 - 187.28
9.5 -21.5
115 -275
5.4 - 8.4
6.8 - 7.4
110.0 -320.0
6.42 - 7.14
3.47 - 7.2
5,71 - 53.5
192.0 -365.7
1.68 -2.551
0.539 - 2.341
0.06 - .204
22.1 - 62.0
7.0 - 24.6
43.6 - 69.8
14.3 - 67.8 .
0.01 -0.24
10.0 - 63.4
33.1 - 76.2
43.6 - 69.8
0 -21.5
0.01 - 0.30
0.025 -0.42
0.43 - 7.1
0.25 - 1.17
0.20 - 0.34
12.3 -29.0
2.4 - 5.4
Big Willow
Creek
0.96
10.0
275
5.8
6.9
270.0
6.67
3.47
5.77
248.0
1.259
0.212
0.137
15.3
19.0
58.3
57.1
0.12
10.1
58.0
58.3
0 -
0.02
0.021
0.19
0.20
0.20
10.1
2.2 -
-5.57
-22.0
-335
-9.4
-7.9
- 341.0
-6.92
-6.12
-54.6
- 377.0
- 3.380
-2.128
- 0.833
-29.5
- 235.0
- 109.0
-79.9
-0.34
-48.0
-89.2
- 109.0
22.6
-0.44
-0.42
-2.2
-1.02
-0.34
-15.7
-4.18
Station 6
Chair Branch
0.14 - 0.71
13.5 -22.0
230 - 580
7.0 - 9.2
6.85 - 7.3
242.0 - 620.0
6.65 - 7.02
5.7 - 12.2
8.7 - 53.7
249.0 - 560.0
0.67 - 1.904
0.39 - 1.107
0.024 - 0.327
8.1 -26.1
9.25 - 21.0
59.6 - 123.0
30.7 - 85.8
0.22 -0.26
26.8 - 150.0
86.1 - 200.0
59.6 - 123.0
0.0 - 93.4
0.01 - 0.32
.02 -0.040
0.03 - 5.1
0.20 - 1.09
0.20 - 0.5
16.2 - 22.4
3.25 -4.7
Station 7
AUigator
Creek
2.27 - 17.58
12.0 -21.5
190 - 370
6.4 - 7.8
6.8 - 7.9
203.0 -441.0
6.60 - 6.93
5.64 - 6.58
32.2 - 62.0
121.0 -411.0
1.752 -3.658
1.187 - 1.63
0.080 - 0.127
25.2 - 67.5
7.0 - 22.8
52.3 - 87.9
38.5 - 67.8
0.01 -0.26
14.0 - 112.5
59.4 - 110.0
52 .3 - 87.9
0.0 - 35.2
0.03 - 0.64
0.080 -0.48
0.22 - 18.7
0.33 - 1.25
0.20 - 0.90
12.0 - 24.6
4.33 - 6.4
Station 8
Hardin Slough
17.90 - 570.24
11.0 -22.0
165 -355
5.8 - 8.6
7.2 - 7.9
180.0 - 390.0
6.59 -7.15
4.4 -9.11
42.0 - 291.0
285.0 - 1,030.0
0.901 - 6.03
0.517 - 7.84
0.066 - 0.267
43.0 - 270.0
7.0 - 15.2
75.7 - 149.0
7.7 - 61.3
0.01 -0.37
22.0 - 85.7
76.4 - 101.4
75.7 - 149.0
0.0 - 20.1
0.04 -0.65
0.083 -2.60
3.36 - 5.70
0.20 - 2.30
0.20 - 0.35
16.2 -43.4
3.25 -6.8

-------
                                                                            TABLE 3-14 (Concluded)
co
Station 1
WQ Parameter
Phenols
Oil and Grease
Fecal Coliform
(4/100 mfi
Boron
Nitrogen Ammonia
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Calcium
Mercury
Magnesium
Molybdenum
Silver
Sodium
Potassium
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Strontium
Zinc
Arsenic
TOC
Color (CO)
Bicarbonate
Diss. Manganese
Mud
0.10
2.59
0 -
0.5
0.10
0.010
0.065
0.0008
0.001
0.005
0.01
25.7
.0015
6.4
.001
.005
34.2
3.6
.005
.01
.001
0.144
.036
.003
9 •
10
16 -
.009
Creek
-0.10
- 5.95
800
-0.5
-2.85
-0.86
- 0.142
- 0.0013
- 0.005
- 0.034
- 0.014
-76.4
- .0091
- 11.8
- 0.504
-.336
-84.1
-7.5
-0.03
-.037
-.057
-0.62
-.053
-.044
-23
-225
• 52.9
-.531
Station 2
Little Brazos
River
0.1 - 0.43
4.15 - 5.77
0 -500
0.5 - 0.5
1.13 - 6.0
0.016 -2.80
0.069 - 0.252
0.0003 - 0.001
0.001 - 0.005
.01 - 0.045
0.012 - 0.013
16.83 - 40.6
.0016 -0.0031
4.76 - 8.5
0.003 - 0.128
0.003 - 0.073
39.5 - 64.2
7.82 - 8.9
.005 - 0.025
0.010 - 0.027
.001 - 0.022
0.130 - 0.328
0.015 - 0.046
0.016 - 0.020
14.0 - 33.0
57.0 - 250.0
47.6 - 99.6
0.006 - 0.08
Station 3
Walnut Creek
0.1 - 0.35
1.89 - 8.43
1.0 - 1,600.0
0.5 - 0.5
0.38 - 12.6
0.015 -0.50
0.108 - 0.135
0.0001 - 0.002
0.001 - 0.005
0.009 - 0.022
0.006 - 0.024
20.6 - 61.4
0.001 - 0.0106
4.8 - 12.7
0.0020 - 0.088
0.001 - 0.03
55.3 - 61.0
7.6 - 9.30
0.005 - 0.03
0.0024 - 0.035
0.012 - 0.053
0.204 - 0.292
0.006 - 0.038
0.01 - 0.054
12.0 - 40.0
50.0 - 132.0
45.96 - 55.8
0.010 - 0.02
Station 3 _^
Walnut
0.10
2.98
0 -
0.5
0.82
0.798
0.103
0.0003
.005
.01
.01
10.67
.0044
4.15 •
.001
.005
37.8
7.19
.022
.014
.001
.140
.015
.015
—
—
—
--
Creek"
-0.10
-6.93
600
-0.5
- 1.73
-2.26
-0.151
- .0005
-.005
-.01
-.01
-34.1
- .0086
- 11.03
-.02
-.005
-64.6
-7.80
-.034
- .044
-.001
-.217
- .029
-.019
	
	
	
	
Station 4
Walnut Creek
0.1 - 0.36
1.88 - 5.63
0 - 1,400.0
0.5 - 0.5
0.68 - 8.9
.026 -2.08
0.090 - 0.132
0.0001 - 0.001
0.001 - .005
.005 - .037
0.010 - 0.02
14.52 - 38.3
0.001 - 0.0252
4.44 - 8.60
.001 - .52
0.001 - .022
30.6 - 66.2
7.0 - 10.1
0.010 - .019
.0017 - .015
.001 - .025
.100 - 0.300
0.005 - 0.023
.001 - 0.040
10.0 - 39.0
40.0 - 208.0
43.6 - 69.8
0.005 - 0.023
Station 5
Big Willow
Creek
0.10 - 0.16
3.02 - 17.69
0 -800
0.5 - 0.5
0.35 - 5.8
0.01 -0.712
0.088 - 0.214
0.0001 - 0.002
0.001 - 0.005
0.005 - 0.04
0.007 - 0.028
26.4 - 34.8
0.001 - 0.0060
6.10 - 9.20
0.001 - 0.712
0.001 - 0.023
35.6 - 70.3
6.85 - 8.90
0.005 - 0.041
0.0016 - 0.040
0.001 - 0.051
0.156 -0.312
0.005 - 0.179
.001 - 0.053
8.0 - 20.0
25.0 - 120.0
58.3 - 108.9
0.010 - 0.126
Station 7
Station 6
Chair Branch
0.10 - 0.10
4.30 - 20.86
0 -400
0.5 - 0.5
0.22 - 8.9
0.016 - 1.52
0.027 - 0.084
0.0003 - 0.001
0.001 - 0.005
0.005 - 0.044
0.007 - 0.023
26.8 - 48.5
0.001 - 0.002
7.12 - 10.10
0.009 - 0.334
0.001 - 0.016
58.2 - 80.7
6.08 - 7.70
0.005 - 0.027
0.021 - 0.03
.001 - 0.022
0.160 - 0.32
0.01 - 0.036
0.005 - 0.048
8.0 - 41.0
96.0 - 130.0
59.6 - 122.6
0.005 - 0.327
Alligator
Creek
0.10 -
3.50 -
0.38
16.4
0 - 3,200
0.5 -
0.58 -
0.03 -
0.039 -
0.0004 -
0.001 -
0.005 -
0.01 -
22.4 -
0.001 -
6.88 •
0.003 -
0.001 -
54.3 -
8.14 -
0.005 -
0.012 -
.001 -
0.175 -
0.01 -
0.008 -
12.0 -
138.0 -
52.3 -
0.01 -
0.5
9.85
1.10
0.112
- 0.002
0.005
0.033
0.012
28.9
0.003
-9.3
0.156
0.015
69.6
9.90
0.043
0.046
0.027
0.260
0.022
0.072
45.0
227.0
87.9
0.127
Station 8
Hardin Slough
0.10 - 0.62
5.42 - 15.7
0 - 2,600.0
0.5 - 0.5
0.75 - 8.62
0.030 - 1.55
0.085 - 0.210
0.0003 - 0.002
0.001 - 0.005
0.005 - 0.029
0.01 - 0.029
26.70 - 66.2
0.001 - 0.0033
7.40 - 11.60
0.0040 - 0.104
0.001 - 0.025
33.7 - 65.3
7.7 - 13.2
0.005 - 0.025
0.0025 - 0.041
.001 - 0.053
0.216 - 0.464
0.010 - 0.054
0.001 - 0.046
11.0 - 26.0
65.0 - 182.0
75.7 - 149.2
0.010 - 0.022
      All concentrations in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
      — Data not reported.
      a  Samples collected on: 11-29-84; 2-26-85; 5-16-85; and 10-2-85 (steady-state data).
      b  Nonsteady-state data collected on 5-14-85 through 5-17-85.
      Source:   EII&A, 1985f.

-------
                                              TABLE 3-15

          CHARACTERISTICS OF PERMITTED DISCHARGES NEAR THE CALVERT PROJECT AREA
    Parameter
 Daily
Average
  Daily
Maximum
 7 -Day
Average
30 -Day
Average
Range
 Discharge
Flow  (mgpd)
BOD
TSS
pH  (su)
Chlorine Residual
Flow  (mgpd)
BOD.
TSS
pH (su)
Chlorine Residual
NA - Not Applicable.
Source:   TWC, 198 5 a.
                               City of Franklin Wastewater Treatment Plant
  .300
   30
   90
  NA
  NA
  .600
   70
   NA
   NA
   NA
  NA
  45
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
                                City of Calvert Wastewater Treatment Plant
  .250
   20
   20
  NA
  NA
   .632
   45
   45
   NA
   NA
  NA
   30
   30
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 6-9
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 6-9
Tributary of
 Mud Creek
  Tidwell
   Creek
                               City of Bremond Wastewater Treatment Plant
Flow ( mgpd)
BOD
TSS 5
pH (su)
Chlorine Residual
.120
30
90
NA
NA
.300
70
NA
NA
NA
NA
45
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6-9
NA
Tributary of
Big Willow
Creek



-------
trees will  result in temporary increases in overland runoff from the cleared areas to
project area  streams.   Some  erosion  will occur, producing  increased surface water
transport of sediments  and increased turbidity in receiving streams especially during
periods of  heavy rainfall and  increased streamflow.  Localized control measures (e.g.,
fabric filter silt fences, hay bales) will be implemented as necessary to minimize  any
adverse impacts.  Adverse effects on streamflow rates and volumes due to construction
activities are expected  to be very minor because  of the relatively small acreages being
affected during construction.  Adverse impacts on surface water due to construction of
power plant facilities will be of short-term duration and  will essentially cease upon
completion of the facilities and revegetation of the affected areas.

           Mine

           Unavoidable  short-term adverse  impacts on  surface  water  hydrology  will
result primarily from increases in sediment production (soil erosion)  during pre-mining
construction activities  and mine development.  Mine-related  construction  activities
expected to cause the greatest potential increases in sediment yield are timber and brush
clearing, road and pipeline relocations and construction,  and excavation and  grading
during construction of drainage channels and sedimentation ponds.  Other activities, such
as local site preparation and  construction of shop facilities, are expected to result in
minor increases in sediment production.

           Activities related  to  mine  construction  will  result in short-term  adverse
impacts on the surface water hydrology on and adjacent to the mine site. Sedimentation
ponds and other erosion  control measures will be constructed before any mining  activity
takes place, as required by the RRC  Surface Mining Regulations.  Activities  such as
clearing of  vegetation, road  relocation  and  construction, and site preparation   and
construction of shop and personnel facilities will result in some increases in peak runoff
rates and sediment loading  to receiving streams. Existing drainage patterns may also be
altered somewhat by road construction.  In addition, excavation and grading activities in
connection with the construction of overland flow diversion facilities and sedimentation
ponds are expected to  result  in short-term increases in local  surface  water sediment
concentrations.  Adverse,  short-term  hydrologic  impacts resulting from construction-
related increases  in potential soil erosion  and  subsequent  sediment yield  will   be
minimized  by  the establishment of vegetative cover on disturbed  areas as  soon  as
possible after construction and by the use  of such  temporary sediment-control measures
as straw dikes or vegetative and fabric filter strips in collection ditches.

           Summary of  Affected Streams.  Mining of Block A will require construction
of sediment ponds to retain runoff which normally would  flow into Big Willow Creek.
The sediment ponds would cause short-term disruption of the normal flow  of this creek
(approximately  11 years).   Table 3-16  presents the stream  impoundment and diversion
schedule by mine block.

           During mining of Block A, two tributaries of Walnut Creek will be impounded.
A sediment pond will be constructed to retain runoff  from the southwestern  corner of
Block A which would  normally flow into Bee Branch. This structure will remain over  the
life of the mine (41 years). The above mentioned tributaries of Walnut Creek will be
impounded further downstream to retain runoff from Mine Block B in  project years 4-5,
resulting in a long-term  adverse impact on the flows of these ephemeral streams.

           Bee Branch would be affected  both up and downstream of mining operations
in Block B.  A sediment pond will be constructed across Bee  Branch to control runoff
                                      3-50

-------
                                                      TABLE 3-16
                          STREAM IMPOUNDMENT AND DIVERSION SCHEDULE BY MINE BLOCK
                                            1-10 Years
                                       Temporary Rerouting
                                                      10+ Years
                                      Long-Term Rerouting/Permanent Diversion
OO
01
       Mine Block A
       Big Willow Creek
       (trib. of Walnut Creek)
       Tributaries (2)
       of Walnut Creek
       Mine Block B3
       Bee Branch

       Walnut Creek

       Mine Block C
       Dry Branch
(Intermittent) stream ponded
to retain mine runoff
(Intermittent) stream ponded
to retain mine runoff
Impounded to retain runoff from Block B
                                     Diverted to Dry Branch. Reformed after
                                     mining by creation of lake.  Diverted
                                     around block B project years 4-50.
                                     Diverted to Diversion Ditch around mine
                                     area.  Diverted after mining by formation
                                     of lake.
       J andK
       South Walnut Creek
                                     Diverted around mining area project
                                     years 14-38.  Post mining lake created will
                                     impound one tributary of South Walnut Creek.

-------
from  the overburden stock pile.  This structure  will be constructed in the 4th project
year and remain until the 32nd project year.  Undisturbed waters of Bee Branch will be
diverted to Dry Branch beginning in project year 4 through the life of the project.

           During mining operations in Block B, a diversion  ditch will be constructed to
divert Walnut  Creek flows around the sediment  ponds and  mining area. This diversion
will remain for the life of the project.

           Mining operations in Blocks J and K would require diversion of South Walnut
Creek upstream of mine disturbances into Walnut Creek through a diversion  ditch.  This
disturbance would begin in project year 14 and end in project year 38.

           Mining operations in Block C  would  require diversion of Dry Branch, as well
as  water previously diverted from Bee  Branch around the  mine area.  This diversion
would begin in project year 25 and continue through project year 50.

           Two end  lakes,  averaging approximately 150 acres  each  in size,  will be
formed during reclamation in final cuts where spoil material is insufficient to return the
cuts to original contours.  One of these lakes will have a long-term adverse effect on the
ephemeral flows  of  Dry  Branch  and Bee Branch  in Mine Block C  in the  area of
convergence  of these two streams. Furthermore, a. branch of South Walnut Creek will be
permanently  impounded by post-mining lake creation  in Block J.

3.4.3       Operation Impacts

           Power Plant

           Hydrology. Due to the  small area of the power plant site relative to the total
drainage areas  of the Dry Branch, Bee Branch, and Walnut Creek watersheds, no adverse
effects on downstream  flooding are anticipated.  Swales, berms, or other diversions will
capture all surface runoff within the plant perimeter up to the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall
event.  Surface runoff captured  in holding ponds will be cycled into the power plant
makeup supply.  Runoff from storms greater than the 10-year,  24-hour event  will be
discharged from  the plant site.   Discharge  of plant site  surface  water would be rare
because  holding ponds  will  be  equipped with  pumps  that  will,  under normal circum-
stances,  maintain a surcharge sufficient to contain the 10-year storm.

           The disposal of  combustion  waste  materials by  landfill  will result in an
elevation increase of the  original land surface within the  disposal sites, potentially
resulting  in  alteration of  drainage patterns  in the  immediate vicinity of  the disposal
sites.  Ash disposal sites in the upper reaches of the drainage system were chosen so that
the base of the landfill will be above the groundwater table  at all times.  Sedimentation
basins, drainage  swales, and diversion basins will be  constructed  to  control and treat
runoff from the disposal areas.

           The crossing  of Walnut Creek and its  tributaries by power plant transportive
systems  (e.g.,  railroad  spur, conveyor,  and transmission  line)  will  result  in  minor
alteration of the  floodflow regime  in the  smaller watersheds. Normal overland flowpaths
will be interrupted by the railroad spur embankment and directed toward stream crossing
structures.   Major increases in  upstream  flood  elevations will be avoided due  to the
design of the stream crossing structures.  Operation  effects on surface water by the
proposed  transmission line should be negligible  after the completion and revegetation of
affected areas.
                                      3-52

-------
           Water  Quality.   A simulated  fluidized bed  combustion waste (ash)  from
Calvert lignite was subjected to two separate leachate tests:

           1)    A 7-day deionized water leach as per the Texas Department of Water
                Resources (TDWR leach); and

           2)    A 24-hour acid leach  according to  Appendix II of EPA regulations
                (EP-Tox leach).

These  two leachates were analyzed for the trace metals listed in 45 Fed. Reg. 33066 at
33122  (EP  Toxicity  Limitations; i.e.,  arsenic,  barium, cadmium,  chromium,   lead,
mercury,  selenium, and silver).  These data were compared to background values for the
pertinent  project area streams and to EPA Water Quality Criteria (WQC) (45 Fed.  Reg.
79319) (Table 3-17).   The  TDWQ leachate data were also  compared to EPA Drinking
Water  Standards (DWS) while the EP-Tox leach data were compared to the  EP-Toxicity
Limitations.

           An examination  of the data demonstrates the following:

           1)    Arsenic, cadmium,  lead, and  selenium concentrations in  the ash are
                below background values and all standards.

           2)    Barium concentrations  and chromium  concentrations  in  the EP-Tox
                leachate are  greater  than background values  but  are less than all
                standards.

           3)    Silver  and mercury concentrations  are less  than  background  con-
                centrations and all standards  except the WQC.  They  may actually be
                less  than the WQC, but the minimum detection limit was larger  than
                the WQC.

           4)    Chromium concentrations  in  the TDWR  leachate  are greater  than
                background concentrations and drinking water standards,  but are  less
                than the WQC.

           In  summary,  none of  the metals in   either leachate,  with  the  possible
exceptions of silver and mercury, exceeded the EPA Water Quality Criteria designed to
protect sensitive freshwater aquatic  life.  If silver did exceed the criterion (see item 3
above), it  was by less than 0.9  parts per billion  and  at levels below those in the receiving
stream.  Mercury  values are also less than existing concentrations in Walnut Creek. No
adverse impacts to surface water resources in the project  area are expected due to
runoff  related to potential spills or discharges from proposed ash disposal areas.

           The Oak Ridge  National Laboratory (Boegly, et al.,  1978)  found  that  low
sulfur  coal (e.g., the Calvert  lignite (0.91%)) has a much higher  leachate pH than  does
high sulfur coal.  This high leachate pH decreases the pollution potential of Calvert
lignite by decreasing  the  mobility of trace metals into the leachate.  Calvert Lignite is
12.35% ash, 31.61% moisture, and 29.76% volatile  matter.  Therefore,  the  trace metal
concentration in the ash, discussed above, will be  greater than that in the  lignite itself
and possible environmental  effects from  leaching of the lignite can be expected to be
less than  that from leaching of the ash.  No adverse impacts to surface water resources
in the  project area are expected due to runoff related to potential spills or discharges
from proposed lignite storage areas.
                                      3-53

-------
                            TABLE 3-17
            CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF COAL ASH SAMPLES
               (all values in mg/1, unless otherwise noted)
Tests
Parameter
Arsenic
Barium

Cadmium
Chromium

Lead
Mercury
Selenium

Silver
TDWR
Leach
< 0.005
0.209-
0.285
< 0.001
1.01-
1.64
< 0.01
< 0.001
0.0076-
0.0086
< 0.005
EP-Tox
Leach
< 0.005
0.499-
0.590
< 0.001
0.200-
0.282
< 0.01
< 0.001
0.005-
0.011
< 0.005
Existing
Conditions
Walnuta EPAb
Creek WQC
0.010-0
0.103-0

0.001-0
0.009-0

0.002-0
0.0010-0.
0.001-0

0.005-0
.054 0.440
.151

.005 0.0256
.022 4.7e

.044 0.17e
0086 0.0017f
.053 0.26

.030 0.0041
Standards

EPAC EP-Toxd
DWS Limitations
0.05
1.0

0.01
0.05

0.05
0.002
0.01

0.05
5
100

1
5

5
0.2
1

5
From Section 3.4.1.
45 Fed. Reg. 79318; 28 November 1980.
48 Fed. Reg. 45502, at 45511; 5 October 1983.
45 Fed. Reg. 33084, at 33122; 19 May 1980.
Based on a hardness of 100 mg/1 as CaCO,.
yg/i.
                              3-54

-------
           Mine

           Hydrology.  The development of the proposed mine and associated facilities
will result in some long-term  effects in the hydrologic regime of the area.  The primary
long-term adverse impacts expected as a result of mining activities will be alterations in
peak  runoff rates and  volumes resulting  from changes  in the site topography, topsoil
characteristics, vegetative cover  patterns, and land use.  Flood peaks will be reduced if
sedimentation ponds  are  allowed  to remain in place permanently  to be used  as runoff
detention basins  and for  livestock, wildlife, and recreational purposes.   Major streams
through the mine area will be altered due to permanent rerouting, resulting in fewer
stream channels and shorter flow  lengths.  The planned installation of energy dissipation
structures in areas of high streamflow velocities and establishment of vegetative cover
will reduce the potential for stream channel erosion.

           In the project  area, ditches will be provided along new roads to direct runoff
into local drainage channels.  During mining, diversion ditches, channels,  and berms will
be constructed to intercept runoff from disturbed areas and to divert it to sedimentation
ponds that will be  constructed  using various  combinations  of dams,  levees,  and
excavations.  Runoff from undisturbed areas will either be diverted away from  the areas
controlled by sedimentation  ponds or will be  detained in  upstream reservoirs to be
released after runoff  from disturbed areas has passed through the  sedimentation ponds.

           Runoff control and management  measures implemented prior to mine opera-
tion will be designed to handle runoff and to control sediment  loadings to acceptable
levels.  Runoff and sediment  volumes resulting from rainfall events with  frequencies up
to 10 years and durations up to 24 hours will be positively controlled at the mining front,
with  the  objectives of  mitigating flooding potential  and  settling sediment-laden runoff
originating at the  mine  front.  Off-channel  sediment ponds with detention  times of
24 hours or greater will ensure the impoundment of storm  runoff waters for  sufficient
time  to allow settling of  most suspended sediment before any releases are made.  The
sediment  ponds will be  restored to initial capacities when 60% of the storage volume has
been  filled with  sediment.    Sediment removed  from the ponds  will be deposited  in
overburden and placed  within disturbed areas during  reclamation.  This activity will be
implemented as a general management practice throughout the life of  the  mine  and
during the reclamation period, as is required by the RRC Surface Mining Regulations.

           Water  Quality.  The following discussion evaluates  the effects  of mining
activities  upon water  quality of  the project   area streams and  the  Brazos River,
considering discharges from active mining  areas  and other areas disturbed by mining.  A
mining plan,  developed by Phillips  Coal Company (PCC, 1986a), was used to evaluate
mining effects upon  surface  water quality.   The plan  presented a projected mining
scenario,  with delineation of the temporal and spatial extent of mining activities.

           For all disturbed areas, sedimentation ponds (and other treatment  facilities,
if necessary)  will be maintained until restoration  is complete  and  the  areas exhibit
compliance with promulgated water discharge requirements.   Ponds will be designed to
contain runoff from the 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event.  Discharges from disturbed
areas are  subject  to the numerical effluent limitations described in Table 3-18.
                                     3-55

-------
                                   TABLE 3-18

                 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR DISTURBED AREAS
      Effluent                           Maximum                      30-Day
   Characteristics                       Allowable                      Average


Iron, total                                7.0 mg/1                      3.5 mg/1

Manganese, total                         4.0 mg/1                      2.0 mg/1

TSS                                     70.0 mg/1                     35.0 mg/1

pH                                     6.0 to 9.0



   New sources are limited to a maximum 6.0 mg/1 and an average 3.0 mg/1 total iron
   concentration.

   Manganese  limitations do  not  apply  to untreated discharges that are alkaline  as
   defined by the EPA.

Source:    RRC, 1984.

           The Texas Water Commission has also promulgated  surface water quality
standards specifically for the Brazos River Basin.  Segment Number 1242 contains the
Brazos River from the confluence  with the Navasota River to Whitney Dam, including
the proposed project area.   This segment of the Brazos River is classified as effluent
limited and is  suitable for  contact recreation, non-contact recreation, propagation  of
fish and wildlife, and domestic raw water supply.  Water quality criteria have been set  in
consideration of  recognized water uses.  The numerical criteria for water quality  in
Segment 1242 are as follows (TWC,  1985a):

           Temperature                                       less than 95°F
           pH range                                         range of 6.5 - 9.0
           Diss. Oxygen                                   greater than 5.0 mg/1
           Total Diss. Solids                                 less than 1650 mg/1
           Chloride                                         less than 400 mg/1
           Sulfate                                           less than 250 mg/1
           Fecal Coliform                               less than 200 count/100 ml

           Surface mining causes the concentration of dissolved salts (TDS) to  increase
in waters  draining  the disturbed  areas.   By  exposing the  overburden  materials  to
oxidation, weathering and saturation, the mining operation creates a. setting for leaching
of soluble salts. Dewatering of the mine pits releases the leachate to the surface water
system, where it mixes with runoff water.  The concentration and load of dissolved solids
discharged to streams will increase as a result.  Individual dissolved components of the
total salt load will increase,  in proportion to the relative solubility of each constituent,
which could result in beneficial or adverse impacts.

           Walnut  Creek is  an intermittent stream  with a watershed area of  approxi-
mately 134 square miles.  The Brazos River, at the confluence  of Walnut Creek  with the
                                      3-56

-------
Little Brazos River has a cumulative  drainage area of about 34,000 square miles.  The
average baseline TDS concentration in Walnut  Creek is  325 mg/1,  while  the  maximum
allowable  concentration  for the  Brazos River is  1,650 mg/1.   Chloride  and sulfate
concentrations in Walnut Creek are in similar  proportion to stream  standards for the
Brazos River.   Mining operations  are  not expected to cause stream  standards for
dissolved solids  to  be exceeded,  due  to  attenuation of concentrations downstream.
Therefore, salt loading of streams should not result in adverse impacts to water quality.

           Acid-forming materials in the overburden at the proposed mine are offset by
the presence of neutralizing agents, such as alkali salts and  clay  minerals; therefore,
acid mine drainage is not expected to occur.

           Water in Walnut Creek is neutral to  slightly alkaline in the baseline condition.
Mining operations are not  expected to cause stream  standards for indicator parameters
(e.g., temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen) to be exceeded. Any changes in alkalinity,
acidity, and pH are predicted to be minor.

           Mixing of waters from pit pumpage  and surface runoff may cause a change in
the predominant ionic composition of effluent.  The predominant ions in existing surface
runoff  are sodium  and bicarbonate,  while during  times  when natural groundwater
contribution is the  major source of stream flow, sulfate is the predominant anion.  The
trend toward higher sulfate  concentrations will be more  evident in mine effluent, since
pit water  will be in contact with  oxidized spoil materials.  The  effect of  increased
sulfate content  in mine discharge will be minor, because  mixing with surface runoff and
streamwater will significantly dilute sulfate concentrations. Baseflow sulfate concen-
trations in Walnut Creek  average  55 mg/1, while the stream standard for the Brazos
River  is 250 mg/1.   Mining operations  are not  expected to cause stream  standards for
sulfate to be exceeded.

           Overburden that  lies below  the existing  water table exists under anaerobic
(chemically reducing)  conditions.  Once the water table  is lowered by dewatering,  and
the overburden  is  excavated  and  replaced as spoil, the material is  exposed to  the
atmosphere and oxidizing conditions.  In this new environment, certain mineral species
are susceptible  to chemical alteration to  a leachable form as  they were  already in the
overburden above the water table.  The  parameter  of  greatest  concern in post-mine
leachate quality is  total dissolved solids.  The constituent that  will probably contribute
most to total dissolved solids is sulfate.  However, this constituent poses  no significant
health  problem.   Water high  in  sulfate  tends to  act  as a  laxative to people  not
accustomed to it.   The other constituents contributing  to  total dissolved  solids (i.e.,
calcium, sodium, magnesium, etc.) are associated with taste  preferences.  Other less
common elements, such as  the heavy  metals,  may become mobilized,  if pH of  the
overburden is lowered to 4.0 or  less through oxidation of iron disulfides.  This is  not
likely in this case (Section 3.2) and heavy metal  concentrations should be sufficiently  low
such  that  significant water quality effects are not anticipated in any runoff  from
overburden materials exposed during mining operations.

3.4.4       Combined Impacts of the Power Plant and Mine

           All of the  construction-related hydrologic impacts  of the  combined project
will not occur simultaneously.  Most of the construction activities for the power  plant
will essentially be completed prior to mining, and further construction will occur during
the sequential development of the mine.
                                      3-57

-------
           The  overall effects of  the proposed  power  plant  and  mine construction
activities on the surface  water hydrology of the area will be minor in magnitude and of
short-term duration.  These impacts  are temporary and will diminish with  increasing
distance downstream of  the  construction  site.   Current available technology will be
employed, as necessary, to minimize the effects of construction on runoff and sediment
production in the project area.

           Operational impacts of the combined project on the hydrologic regime of the
local watersheds will also be  composed of the separate effects  of the power plant and
mine as discussed in Section 3.4.3.  The hydrologic impacts  of the mine development on
local watersheds, including changes in site topography and alterations  in peak runoff
rates and  volumes, will occur concurrently  with mining  and  reclamation activities
throughout the life of the project.  Sedimentation ponds installed to  control runoff and
sediment from disturbed areas will  be in operation at various locations and at different
times, as dictated by the  mine plan. The sequential development of the mine  will result
in greater overall impacts on local watersheds during later stages of the project than in
earlier years,  while the hydrologic impacts of the  power plant facilities will essentially
remain uniform throughout the project life.

3.5        CLIMATOLOGY/AIR QUALITY

3.5.1      Existing and Future Environments

           Climatology.   The climate  of the project area is humid subtropical with hot
summers. The local climatology is strongly influenced by the Gulf of  Mexico, which lies
155 miles to the southeast. Maritime tropical air masses predominate throughout  most
of the year, with polar  air masses frequent only in  winter.   Except where otherwise
noted,  the  data presented here  were collected  from 1951  to 1985 by the National
Weather Service  (NWS)  at  the  Madison  Cooper Airport  (MCA)  hi  Waco, 46 miles
northwest of  the project area (National  Climatic  Center (NCC), undated publications).
Additional information regarding the climate of the project area is presented  in detail in
the baseline climatology and air quality report for the project (EH&A,  1985c).

           Most of the precipitation in the project area, both in quantity and number of
occurrences, falls from  convective showers.  From May through September, thunder-
storms can  produce  excessive rains of short duration (a few  minutes to a few hours).
Heavy rains may also be associated  with squall lines during spring or fall months.  Rains
of longer duration (up  to  several days' of intermittent activity) are normally associated
with warm  or stationary frontal  activity during the  colder months or with dissipating
tropical cyclones during summer  or fall.  The annual average precipitation  at MCA is
almost 31 inches.  Monthly rainfall  averages range from  almost 2 inches during January
to almost 5 inches during May.  Data from MCA indicate that measurable precipitation
(0.01 inch or  more)  occurs approximately  78 days per year.  Normally,  the maximum
number  of occurrences is in May (9 days), and the minimum is in July (4 days).

           Based on seasonal surface  wind data, the  windiest season is spring, with an
average wind  speed of about 13 miles per hour  (mph).  Winter is  the  next windiest
(12 mph),  followed by summer (about  11 mph) and  fall (about 10 mph).  The average
annual wind speed for MCA is 11.3 mph, with calm  conditions  (winds less than  1  mph)
prevailing less than 5% of the time.  The most frequent annual wind directions during the
year are south and south-southeast  (based on a 16-point compass), occurring mostly in
the  summer.  North-northwesterly  winds predominate during the winter.  The  annual
frequency distribution of wind direction  is presented as  a  "wind rose" in Figure 3-10.
                                      3-58

-------
ONE UNIT  = 1%
                  6 ESPEY, HUSTON  8 ASSOCIATES ,INC.
                    n  ENaiNEERINS » efMRONMCMM. CONSULTANTS
                                 Figure  3-10
                          Annual Wind Rose for
                        Waco,Texas (1961-1970)
                             Calvert  Project

                              Source EH8A, I98SC	
     3-59

-------
The  wind radials for each  direction represent  the percentage of time during the year
when the wind flows from that direction.

           The primary meteorological factors  which characterize the dispersion  of air
pollutants  in the project area  are  surface  wind, atmospheric  stability, mixing  layer
height and transport wind, and the frequency of stagnating anticyclones.

           Atmospheric  stability  is determined  by  the vertical  motion in the atmos-
phere, resulting  from thermal  and  mechanical turbulence which act to disperse air
pollutants. A method for  estimating the degree of turbulence in the surface layer is used
by the NCC to produce a computer summary of stability  conditions for  selected NWS
stations.  The summary is called STAR (STability ARray) and was obtained for Waco for
the period 1969 through  1973 (NCC, 1975).   On an annual average, unstable conditions
(those  associated with the greatest turbulence)  occur  less than one-fifth of  the  time.
Neutral conditions  occur most  frequently,  slightly  more  than half the  time.   Stable
conditions, which tend to suppress vertical turbulence, occur less  than one-third of the
time.

           Mixing layer heights and mean transport  wind speeds determine the volume
through which pollutants  can eventually be mixed.  Low mixing heights can mean high
concentrations of pollutants through trapping of pollutant  plumes or decreased dilution
of area source emissions.  In general, the greater the mean mixing height and transport
wind speed, the less the impact of emissions of air pollutants. Holzworth (1972) analyzed
annual and seasonal values of mixing height and transport winds for a period of five  years
(I960 through 1964) for  62 stations in the  U.S.  The upper air station  closest to the
project area is San Antonio, which consistently ranked high in the  absence of extended
periods with poor dispersion.

           Maximum concentrations of air pollutants often occur at ground level during
periods of anticyclone (high pressure system) stagnation.   A study by  Korshover (1971)
indicates  that the area of the proposed project experienced an approximate average of
one  stagnation day per  year and approximately one stagnation  case (four  or  more
continuous stagnant days) every  four years during  the  35-year study period  (1936 to
1970).  The fall months have the maximum frequency of stagnation occurrences, and the
winter months have the minimum frequency.

           Hosier (1961)  has estimated the  seasonal and annual frequencies  of occur-
rence of low-level atmospheric inversions based below 500 ft above the land surface.  In
the project area, the frequency of low-level inversions (in  percentage of  total hours) is
lower in the spring  and the summer than the rest of  the  year.   The annual inversion
frequency is 25%.

           Air Quality. Nitrogen  oxides (NO ),  sulfur dioxide (SO,), and total suspended
particulate matter  (TSP)  emissions data for  sources  with a significant impact within a
31-mile  radius of  the proposed  power  plant  site  were  requested from  the TACB.
Substantial emissions  of  lead  (Pb),  carbon  monoxide (CO),  and  ozone  (O,)  are  not
expected  to  be produced by proposed project operations and  were not included in the
emissions inventory.  The TACB data show that  a total of  28,421 tons per year of NO
from 10 companies  in the immediate project region are expected to be emitted. Most 01
the NO  emissions  are produced by  the Trading  House Creek Plant of the Texas Power
and Light  Company, about 36 miles north-northwest of the proposed power plant site.
From 12 companies, 20,225 tons per year of SO, will be emitted, mostly by Lehigh
Portland Cement, 42 miles  to the northwest.  Twenty companies will emit 27,135 tons
                                       3-60

-------
per year of TSP. Based upon TACB records of existing permits on file, the major sources
are the Oak Knoll and the Big Brown stations of the Texas Utilities Generating Company,
about 21 miles and 63 miles, respectively, to the northeast of the proposed power plant
site.  It should  be noted  that construction of the  Oak Knoll power plant has not been
initiated to date.

           The  project area is located in EPA Air Quality Control Region  (AQCR) 212
and is primarily rural. Several isolated point sources of NO  , SO,, and TSP are located
within 31 miles  of the site.  The dispersed nature of emissions in the area and the large
distances to major industrial areas ensure generally good air quality for the project area.

           According to the most  recent (July 1, 1985) update of 40 CFR 81, the EPA
has designated all counties in AQCR 212 as attainment areas for NO  ,  SO,, TSP, CO,
and  O_.   The  area around the project site is Class II for Prevention 01  Significant
Deterioration (PSD) purposes. No PSD Class I areas are within AQCR 212.   The nearest
such area to the project site is Caney Creek National Wilderness Area in Arkansas, about
280 miles to the northeast.

           Ambient air quality standards set limits on concentrations of pollutants in the
atmosphere accessible to  the general public. The federal standards are the National
Ambient  Air Quality  Standards  (NAAQS), which  presently  include  six  pollutants
(Table 3-19).  NOx> SO2, and TSP are three of the six NAAQS criteria pollutants.  Data
from monitoring programs are compared  with  the NAAQS to determine compliance.

           Air quality data hi the project region are available from a TACB participate
monitoring station located in Waco.  A summary of the particulate data collected from
this monitoring  site during the period 1982-1985 is presented  in  Table 3-20.  Although
background TSP levels  in the  region  are  influenced by  local sources and  natural
phenomena, the  TSP values have been well within the NAAQS for the past four years.

           Two  air monitoring programs  have been conducted in  the project area.  The
first program (September 1, 1978 to  August 31, 1979) monitored for TSP only  (EH&A,
1979).  The second program (October 3, 1980 to October 5, 1981) monitored for all six of
the NAAQS criteria pollutants (Radian Corporation, 1982).

           The  maximum  TSE  concentration  recorded during the   1978 to  1979
monitoring program (74.3  Ug/m  ) is less than one-half of the most restrictive short-term
NAAQS for TSP (150  yg/m ). The annual geometric  mean TSP concentration monitored
was 23 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m ), which is well below the annual particulate
secondary  NAAQS of 60  Ug/m .  The validated data capture rate for the program was
96%.

           The NO,, SO,, and TSP results of the 1980 to 1981 monitoring program are
summarized hi Table 3-21.  For each of these NAAQS criteria pollutants, the  maximum
concentrations and the means were well below the applicable NAAQS.  The cumulative
air quality data capture rate for the program was 94%.

3.5.2       Construction Impacts

           Power Plant

           Pollutant emissions from  the construction of various power plant facilities
will result hi some  effects to air quality in the area immediately surrounding the
                                     3-61

-------
                                               TABLE 3-19

                             NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
      National Standard!
                                             Primary
                                                     (1)
                                                                                   Secondary
                                                                                            (2)
Total Suspended Participate
Matter (TSP)
Sulfur Dioxide
             (S02)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)


Ozone (O3)(4)




Lead (Pb)
                                  260 Ug/m  24-hour average,
                                  not to be exceeded more than
                                  once a year
                                  75  Ug/mJ
                                  mean
                                            annual geometric
365 Ug/m  (0.14 ppm) 24-hour
average, not to be exceeded
more than once a year
                                  80  ug/n>
                                  average
                                            (0.03 ppm) annual
                                  40,000 |lg/m  (35 ppm) hourly
                                  average, not to be exceeded
                                  more than once a year

                                  10,000 Ug/m  (9 ppm) eight-
                                  hour average, not to be ex-
                                  ceeded more than once a year

                                             (0.05 ppm) annual
100 ug/m'
average
                                  235 Ug/m  (0.12 ppm) hourly
                                  average, not to be exceeded
                                  more than one day per calendar
                                  year

                                  1.5 Ug/m  maximum arithmetic
                                  mean averaged over a calendar
                                  quarter
                                       150 Ug/m  24-hour average,
                                       not to be exceeded more than
                                       once a year

                                       60 Ug/m annual geometric mean
1,300 ug/m  (0.5 ppm) three-
hour average, not to be ex-
ceeded more than once a year
                                       Same as primary
Same as primary


Same as primary




Same as primary
(1)
     Primary standards define levels of air quality which the EPA Administrator judges necessary to protect the
     public health with an adequate margin of safety.
     Secondary standards define levels of  air quality which the EPA Administrator judges necessary to protect the
     public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
     Used as a guide in assessing implementation plans to achieve the 24-hour standards.
     Ozone is primarily a secondary air  pollutant (i.e., it is formed within the atmosphere rather  than being
     emitted  into the atmosphere).  The most  frequent ozone control technology  usually consists of  reducing
     hydrocarbon emissions.
Source:    40 CFR 50.
(2)

(3)

(4)
                                             3-62

-------
                                 TABLE 3-20
                   PARTICULATE MONITORING SUMMARY*
                                WACO, TEXAS
                                (1982 to 1985)
TACB
Site
45537007



Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
Number of
Samples
58
60
61
49
Annual
Geometric
Mean-
( yg/m3)
54
45
39
38
2nd-High
24 -hr,
(yg/m3)
104
74
95
69
 *   Data for dust  storms, naturally-occurring events,  are usually omitted by the
    TACB in order to obtain the most  accurate particulate  concentration levels.
    Dust storm data are included in this table because the concentrations excluding
    those data for all the years are not available at this time.
 Source:    TACB, undated publications; TACB, 1986.
                                TABLE 3-21
                   SUMMARY OF MONITORING PROGRAM
                         NEAR THE PROJECT AREA
                   OCTOBER 3, 1980 TO OCTOBER 5, 1981


NO2
SO2
S°2
TSP
TSP

Pollutant
Annual arithmetic mean
Maximum 24 -hour
Annual arithmetic mean
Maximum 24 -hour
Annual geometric mean
Monitored
Concentration
(yg/m3)
5.4
17
1.7
82
29.9

NAAQS
(yg/m3)
100
365
80
150
60
Source:    Radian Corporation, 1982.

                                    3-63

-------
construction activity.  These  effects  will be  areally localized and  of  short  duration.
Ambient levels of total suspended particulate matter may occasionally exceed normal
background levels as a result of construction, but will be localized.  Ambient levels of all
other air pollutants are not  expected to change from  existing background levels as a
result of construction activities.

           On-site open burning  is the most efficient  means of  eliminating debris
produced during clearing and grubbing activities.  All burning operations will be designed
to be safe and to  minimize adverse effects on surrounding areas and wildlife habitats.
As part of this design, open burning will be eliminated wherever feasible.  Where burning
is the only  feasible method  of debris  removal, all burning  activities will adhere to
Federal, State, and local regulations.  Burning will be conducted during the  hours of the
day designated for such procedures and  under  meteorological  conditions that will allow
for such procedures in a safe  manner, as required by the TACB (Reg. I,  Rule 111.2(2)).
Debris from clearing and grubbing activities will be stockpiled  to facilitate access to and
control of burning.  These materials will be  left to dry for  variable periods  of  time
before  burning;  time  of burning  will  be  determined  by dryness  of  the piles  and
meteorological conditions.  Workers and fire-control equipment will be  on site during
burning operations.

           Some exhaust will be produced by the operation of  mobile  source (diesel- and
gasoline-fueled)  engines  and  by construction  activities  such as  welding.  Vehicular
exhaust emissions will include small amounts of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen
oxides,  and particulate matter.  Although the effects of these emissions  have not  been
modeled, they are expected  to be similar to the effects  associated with other large
construction projects (e.g., large office buildings).  Some odor  may be detectable in the
immediate vicinity of a diesel-fueled engine or a welding operation, but adverse off-site
air quality effects are expected  to be negligible.  The ambient air quality impacts of
vehicular exhaust emissions and of gaseous emissions from other construction activities
are expected to  be below the significance levels defined by EPA  (see Table 3-22)  and
within Federal and State ambient air quality standards.

           On-site fugitive dust  will result primarily from heavy  earth-moving equip-
ment involved in excavation and  from vehicular traffic on unpaved roads. Fugitive dust
consists predominantly of large particles, similar to those generated by wind erosion of
exposed areas such as plowed  fields and  unvegetated areas.  These large  particles settle
quickly and pose  minimum adverse public health effects. During construction, sprinkler
trucks will be employed, as necessary, on the roadways and in immediate  construction
areas to reduce adverse surface dusting  conditions.   The moderately high frequency of
precipitation in the project area will further reduce the amount of fugitive dust in the
air.  In  accordance with TACB regulations, emissions will be controlled so that they will
not cause  or intensify any traffic  hazard due  to  impairment  of visibility on any public
road.

           Mine

           Air pollutant  generating activities  associated with the construction of the
proposed mine and support facilities will be similar  in nature to those associated with
construction of the proposed  power plant. Unlike the power plant, however, some mine
construction (mainly of haul roads and water impoundments) will continue throughout the
life of  the  project.  Fugitive  particulate emissions from construction of the mine  will
affect the air quality in the  areas immediately around  those  activities, but the effect
will be temporary and localized.
                                      3-64

-------
           During construction, fugitive dust emissions will be produced on-site by heavy
earth-moving equipment involved in construction  activities  and by  vehicular  traffic
traveling over temporary unpaved roads. The quantity of these emissions will vary on a
day-to-day basis, depending on the area of land being worked,  the level  of activity, the
specific  construction activities,  and the prevailing  weather  conditions.  Particulate
matter will be  generated by individual  operations  in short  spurts, whenever any loose
material is disturbed. Emitting activities will be generally intermittent, lasting  from a
few seconds to  a few minutes. Examples of such activities include dumping dirt  into or
out of a dump truck, driving over an unpaved road,  and  exposing unprotected stockpiles
to gusty winds.

           Physically,  fugitive dust  emissions are  predominantly  composed of large
particles which  rapidly settle out of the  atmosphere.  Large particles also pose a lower
health risk than do smaller particles which can evade the human body's  natural defense
mechanisms.

           These two characteristics of fugitive emissions,  intermittent emission  and
large-particle composition, will act in concert to reduce the effects of  these emissions
on the ambient  air quality.  Puffs of fugitive emissions will disperse in three dimensions
(as opposed  to continuous  stack emissions  which  effectively disperse  in  only  two
dimensions).   This  means  that  the  particulate  matter  concentration decreases more
rapidly with downwind distance for  fugitive  sources than it does  for continuous non-
fugitive  sources. Concurrent with this  decrease due to  dispersion will be a decrease in
concentration due to settling which removes particulate matter.

           The  net result will be that ambient concentrations of fugitive dust emissions
will decrease very rapidly with increasing distance from  the  source  so that off-property
particulate  levels will exceed current  ambient  levels only occasionally.  Increases in
ambient  concentrations will be most likely to occur  during dry windy  conditions in  the
late spring.   Such  conditions usually last  for less than 24 hours, during which time
particulate emissions due to mine construction would be superimposed upon  naturally
occurring emissions  of  windblown dust, thereby constituting  a recurring,  short-term
minor adverse impact.

           Vehicular exhaust  emissions will be produced by  the  operation of diesel
engines and other construction equipment.  These mobile source  emissions will include
small amounts of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides, but they are not
expected to cause any exceedance of any Federal or  State air quality standards.  On-site
concentrations of vehicular exhaust emissions may be sufficiently high in the immediate
vicinity of the  source to detect diesel  odor.  The  vehicles will generally be operating
singly or in groups of small numbers, and they will always be operating in the open. This
situation (a low density of emissions  coupled with good  atmospheric dispersion)  means
that the off-site ambient effects of diesel emissions will be near or below the detection
limits of routine field equipment.

           On-site  open burning from mine site clearing activities will be handled in a
manner similar  to controlled burning  operations  associated with power plant construc-
tion.  All burning operations will be designed to be safe and to minimize  adverse effects
on surrounding areas and wildlife habitats. This design will include eliminating, wherever
feasible, the need for open burning; adhering to all applicable regulations; allowing debris
to  dry,  as  necessary  to reduce  smoke to  reasonable  levels,  before  burning;  and,
maintaining operators and control equipment on-site during all burning operations.
                                      3-65

-------
3.5.3       Operation Impacts

           Power Plant

           As a result of burning lignite, each of the four proposed power plant units will
emit a maximum of 4,502 tons of sulfur dioxide per year,  4,502 tons of nitrogen oxides
per year, 485 tons of carbon monoxide per year, 227 tons of particulate matter per year,
and 1.4 tons of mercury per year. In addition, lignite and limestone handling operations
will contribute approximately 30 tons of particulate matter per year (SPS, 1986).

           All processes are required to use best  available control technology (BACT).
In addition, TNP ONE will be required to meet the provisions of 40 CFR 60, Subpart Da,
the Federal New Source Performance  Standards for new coal- and lignite-fired power
plants.  Stack emissions of sulfur dioxide will be limited to 1.2 Ib/mm Btu, plus a variable
percent  reduction.   BACT for sulfur dioxide will be  accomplished by  the addition  of
limestone  in the circulating fluidized  bed  boiler.  Nitrogen  oxides  emissions  will  be
limited to  0.6 Ib/mm Btu.  BACT for nitrogen oxides will  be accomplished through the
inherently  low nitrogen oxides emissions characteristics  of the fluidized  bed  boilers.
Particulate matter  stack  emissions will be  limited  to 0.03 Ib/mm  Btu.    BACT  for
particulate matter  emissions  will  be  controlled  by baghouses, which presently meet
particulate matter  and opacity standards for Subpart Da  sources.  Particulate matter
emissions from the lignite and limestone handling facilities will be controlled either  by
baghouses or surfactant water sprays.

           Computer dispersion  modeling of  the  ambient air pollutant concentrations
associated  with emissions  from the  proposed power plant was conducted by SPS (1986)
for inclusion in the TACB and PSD  permit applications. (The PSD permit application is
under separate review by EPA and TACB. This Draft EIS provides  a general assessment
of air quality  impacts conducted by  EH&A,  which does not represent the actual PSD
evaluation.)  This modeling effort analyzed both the effects of the power plant emissions
alone and in combination with those  of other emissions sources in the region.

           Data  from the  modeling effort are presented in Table 3-22.   The  listed
results include the effects of emissions from TNP ONE,  coal handling, and limestone
handling.  Although  BACT review  by  EPA is not  complete to date, the preliminary
modeling results indicate that ambient  effects of all criteria pollutants emitted by the
plant  when added to  the ambient concentrations resulting  from all other sources in the
region (including natural sources)  should  not violate national  ambient air  quality
standards (also see Section 3.13).

           Preliminary information indicates  that ambient effects due to  emissions  of
carbon monoxide would be  less than the  "significance level", as defined  in the PSD
regulations for the purposes of determining whether or not additional air quality analyses
or BACT are warranted.  In effect, the carbon monoxide emissions are expected to be  so
low that their  impacts on  the ambient air quality will be negligible.  Effects associated
with nitrogen oxides emissions are expected to be above the significance level but below
the "de  minimis level".    The  de  minimis  level, which is also  defined  in the PSD
regulations,  is  the  threshold ambient  concentration  at  which  ambient  air  quality
monitoring (or a substitute  ambient air quality analysis) is  required.  Increases in the
ambient  concentration which are less than  the de minimis  level are considered  to  be
difficult, if not impossible, to detect with routine field  monitoring equipment.

           Preliminary modeling  results indicate  that  emissions of  sulfur  dioxide and
particulate matter should have a measurable impact, but will not result in any significant


                                     3-66

-------
                                              TABLE 3-22

              AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED TNP ONE POWER PLANT
Impacts
Pollutant
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual
24-Hour
3-Hour
Nitrogen Oxides
Annual
Participate Matter
Annual
24-Hour
Carbon Monoxide
8-Hour
1-Hour
Ozone™
1-Hour
Lead
Quarterly
~ Not Applicable.
Modeled impacts
Modeled impacts
\|(A«* •><*» + «!•**!»«
TNP ONE
Alone
Impacts2
( ug/uO
3.8
45.0
258.6

4.7

3.2
13.6

6.3
33.4

N/A

0.0

as presented
of TNP ONE
t*t «•!»»«•• »t*A
Combined
Impacts
( Ug/mJ)
5.5
62.0
306.2

10.1

33.1
95.6

2,867.3
3,433.4

N/A

—

Standards
Most
Restrictive
NAAQSC
( Kg/nT)
80
365
1,300

100

150
60

10,000
40,000

235

1.5

PSD
Class H
Increments
( pg/m3)
20
91
512

—

19
37

—
—

—

—

in Attachment Vm, PSD application for TNP ONE
emissions and emissions from other sources in the
.
b«"n*iflaw ntttts^vi
• 1 •mViiAnt ail* /titnll
Guidelines

Significance De Minimis
Levels? Levels,
( Ug/na ) ( Ug/ni)
1
5
25

1

1
5

500
2,000

—

—

area.
fv vtanflarri fnr 1i«t0ri

13
—

14

—
10

575
„

~

—


1 nnlliitant .
   This level protects the public health and welfare with a margin of safety.
   PSD Class n increments are intended to prevent any significant degredation of the existing air quality while at
   the same time allow for 'a moderate level of growth.

e  Significance levels are used to determine if best available control technology or ambient air quality analyses
   are required. Ambient impacts below the significance level are considered to have negligible effect.

   De Minimis levels are  used to determine if ambient monitoring is warranted.  Ambient impacts below the de
   minimis level are considered to produce  effects which  are  below the monitoring  threshold for routine field
   equipment.
'  No projections made for ozone because volatile organic compound emissions from  TNP ONE will be less than
   the De Minimis level of WO tn/yr set by  the  EPA.  Ambient volatile organic  compound hourly impacts  are
   calculated to be 0.5/ Ug/m .

Source:   SPS, 1986.
                                              3-67

-------
deterioration of the existing air quality.  The ambient concentrations of these pollutants
are expected to be  above the de  minimis levels (as defined in Table 3-22), but less than
the PSD increments.

           Fugitive dust  associated with lignite delivery from the proposed mine will be
controlled by watering or chemical dust suppressants. Lignite storage piles, which  must
be  open  to reduce the  possibility of  spontaneous combustion, will be  compacted to
minimize  the generation of  fugitive  dust.   Areas and  private  roads  within the plant
facilities  site will be paved or watered to minimize fugitive dust from vehicular travel.
Air pollutant emissions  from ash  haulage and  disposal  are  expected  to be  minimal
because the ash will typically be  wetted before removal and disposal, or removed in a
totally enclosed truck or tank car.

           During  recent years,  the potential for  acid  deposition from power plant
operations has been a national concern.  Acid deposition refers to the acidification of the
environment as a result  of airborne  pollutants.   Acid deposition has been extensively
studied in Texas and found not to be a problem of immediate concern.  The rationale
behind this finding is that the Texas environment is generally resistant to the effects of
acid deposition due  to the buffering capacity of  the  state's soils.  The TACB and other
State agencies continue  to carefully  evaluate the  current situation according to an in-
place workplan.  There are some  18 acid  deposition monitors currently in place around
the state. Based on the  current understanding of the phenomena involved, the level of
emissions from the proposed power plant,  and the meteorology of the  project  area, it  is
expected  that  the proposed  power plant  will not cause  or  contribute to any adverse
impacts related to acid deposition.  Additional discussion on this topic  is presented in
Section 3.14.

           Mine

           The  operation of the proposed lignite  surface mine will cause  participate
matter  to be emitted into the atmosphere.  The vast  majority of those emissions will be
fugitive in nature and will be composed primarily of large particles which settle out of
the atmosphere within a short time and distance from their point of origin.  Such large
particles inherently pose only a minimal public health risk.

           Sources  of particulate matter at  the  mine  can be  categorized either as
"process"  or  "fugitive" sources.  Process emission sources will be those which are fixed
and which emit particulate matter to the atmosphere  through a chimney, vent, or similar
opening.  The only  process sources at the mine will  be  those associated  with the truck
dump and conveyor  transport system.  The quantity of emissions from these  sources  is
expected  to be quite small.

           Fugitive emission sources are  area-type sources whose emissions cannot
effectively pass through  a  stack, chimney, vent, or  similar  opening.   Examples of  this
source  category include  the following:   removal of  overburden,  removal of  lignite,
storage of overburden,  wind erosion  of  exposed  areas,  haul and service  roads,  and
reclamation of  exposed areas.   Fugitive  sources will move  with the mining  activities.
They  will initially be in the northern and eastern portions of the mine, moving in  later
years to the southern portions of the mine, and ultimately to the northwestern portion of
the mine  area.  Particulate matter from fugitive  sources  is  generated through the
process of mechanical breakup  of the material, which characteristically produces large
particles. Strongly  affected by the force  of gravity,  such  particles  rapidly settle out of
the atmosphere, thereby  substantially limiting their  impact  on the ambient air quality.
                                      3-68

-------
Further, the human respiratory system has defense mechanisms which are very effective
in trapping and removing such particles.  Thus, fugitive emissions are not expected to
pose any public health or welfare risk, or to violate ambient air quality standards.

           The largest single source  of  particulate  matter  will  originate  from the
transport of products over haul roads.  At  the proposed mine, this source will be partially
controlled by  the use of an overland  conveyor to  transport  the  lignite during  certain
phases  of mining (see Section 2.4.2.8).   Dust generated by  haul road traffic  will be
controlled through the control of vehicle speeds and the application of water sprays, as
necessary.  Controls on other sources of fugitive particulate matter (e.g., overburden
removal, lignite removal, reclamation activities, etc.) are generally not required because
such sources  (1) are  spread  over  a very large area, (2) continually move, and (3) have
minimal offsite effects.

           Before  construction of the mine  can begin, a  construction permit for all
process emissions at the  mine will have to  be obtained  from  the TACB.   A  TACB
operating permit must be secured to continue  operation of process facilities.  The TACB
also will require the mine to be operated in a manner which ensures that emissions do not
cause or  contribute to an exceedance of any ambient air  quality standard, produce a
nuisance, or create a  traffic hazard due to visibility impairment.

3.5.4       Combined Impacts of Power Plant and Mine

           Operation of the  proposed power plant/mine project will affect the ambient
particulate matter concentrations of the project area.  However, the maximum particu-
late matter effects due to power plant emissions will  generally  occur  under different
meteorological  conditions and at  different locations  than  those effects due to  mine
emissions. Mining operation emissions (i.e., fugitive dust emitted at ground level) will be
located hi the mine  area, and their  effects  on air quality will  decrease rapidly with
distance.  Fine particle emissions  from the power plant boiler stacks will be very small
and located some distance downwind of the power plant stacks. The mine will not have a
significant emission rate for  any gaseous air pollutant.  Because project-related  effects
on air quality will generally  not be coincident, no combined adverse air quality impacts
are anticipated.

           A  secondary air quality  effect from the combined power plant/mine opera-
tions will  be  an increase in atmospheric pollutant emissions due  to  local  population
growth.   A significant portion of the  permanent work force  for  the power plant/mine
project  will be made up  of  individuals, with families, who will move to the  project
region.  The overall effect of this growth, however, should not pose any adverse impact
to the ambient air quality.

           The  power plant  and mine will  each  have a  minor effect  on the  local
meteorology of the project area.  The  primary effect from  the power plant will be the
occasional development of fog above and downwind of the  cooling  towers during  cold,
humid, stable  conditions.  The primary effect from  the mine will be the potential for
locally reduced visibility due  to blowing dust during dry, windy conditions.

3.6        SOUND QUALITY

           Neither the  State  of Texas nor  Robertson County  has noise  regulations
limiting maximum sound levels from construction and/or operation of  industrial facili
ties.  As directed  by Congress in the Noise Control Act of 1972 and  amended by the
                                      3-69

-------
Quiet Communities Act of 1978, the EPA  has developed noise level  guidelines.   The
average  day-night noise  level  (L,  )  is  the 24-hour equivalent sound level, with the
nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) sound level penalized by the  addition of 10 dBA.  An
average  outdoor noise level with an L,  of 55 dBA for 24 hours interferes with normal
activity, while equivalent  sound levels ^L   *s) of 70 dBA or more  for  24 hours warrant
consideration of hearing loss (EPA,  1974). por housing, the U.S. Department of Housing
and  Urban  Development  (HUD)  considers  outdoor  L,  ,  of  65  dBA or less to  be
"acceptable". Levels above 65 dBA, but not exceeding to dBA, are  considered "normally
unacceptable", and levels above 75 dBA are "unacceptable" (HUD, 1980).

3.6.1       Existing Environment

           Baseline receptor location descriptions and sound levels  recorded during field
surveys of the project  area are presented in Tables 3-23 and 3-24,  respectively.   The
locations of  the baseline receptors  are presented in Figure 3-11.   The  proposed project
area can be  best  classified as a rural, agriculturally-oriented environment.  Measured
sound levels within most  rural areas of the project area are at or below the optimal
standard L,  level of 55 dBA.  However,  several county roads transect  the project area,
resulting in  higher noise  levels in  proximity to the roads.  Local  traffic (e.g.,  farm
equipment and passenger cars) along county  roads of the project area could periodically
result  in day-night sound  levels above  55  dBA, particularly during work-hour traffic
(6:00 a.m. to 8:00  a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.).  Along major highways, such as State
Highway 6,  passenger vehicles and truck  traffic  cause L,  's to periodically exceed
70 dBA at locations adjacent to  the highways.  Along residential  streets within the urban
areas of  Calvert, Bremond, and Franklin, outdoor  day-night  noise levels are generally
less than 55 dBA, but may reach 65 dBA in the vicinity of highways and railroads.

3.6.2       Construction Impacts

           Power Plant

           The construction of  the proposed power  plant facilities will  increase ambient
noise levels.  Noise will be  produced by the use of landmoving  equipment (e.g., backhoes,
bulldozers, scrapers,  and dump trucks), cranes, pneumatic  tools, and generators.  Rail
and vehicular traffic will also contribute  to construction noise  levels.   The L   during
this period is estimated to be 84 dBA at 50 ft  from the center  of  the activityf^Overall
noise  levels  may be  even higher  when certain jobs  (e.g., foundation  finishing  and
structure erection)  are performed simultaneously with  excavation and  land  clearing
activities. Such situations will constitute maximum noise conditions.  It is anticipated
that under  maximum noise conditions,  increased  levels associated with construction
activities will be of short duration and have  minimal adverse impact on local residences.
The closest  residences are located south of  Hammond  and  immediately west of the
proposed power plant site.  These residences  are approximately one  mile from the site of
the TNP ONE smokestack (near the center of construction activity for the  plant) and
somewhat closer  to  the  limestone  handling  facilities,  reactivators,  and  brine
concentrators. On the north side of the  power plant site, the nearest residence and the
town of Bremond are approximately 2.3 miles and 4.5 miles, respectively, away from the
site of the TNP ONE stack.

           Noise due to construction of the  power plant will have an  L,  of 50.4 dBA at
the nearest residences  and of 37.4 dBA at  Calvert.  This will  produce an increase of
approximately 6.1 dBA ambient day-night sound levels in the immediate vicinity of the
power plant,  but will have a negligible impact on ambient sound  levels in Calvert.  Noise
                                     3-70

-------
                                 TABLE 3-23

                 BASELINE NOISE  RECEPTOR DESCRIPTIONS
Location 1   - Calvert Country  Club, second fairway, approximately 50 ft south of
               main entrance gate, along a north-south fence  line.  The primary
               noise source was distant traffic.

Location 2   - Calvert  High  School,  lot northeast  of  building,  approximately
               50 feet northwest of Hwy 1644 along a fence line adjacent  to  the
               football  field.  Contributing noise  sources  included  traffic from
               Hwy 1644 and student voices and band music. Night  monitoring was
               influenced by barking dogs as well as distant traffic.

Location 3   - Bottomland cultivated  fields  on southeast  side of Brazos  River
               bridge at Hwy 979  west of Calvert.   Approximately 60 ft from
               Hwy 979 on Robertson-Milam  County  line.  Noise  sources at this
               location were  attributed to highway traffic, including large trucks.

Location 4   - Hwy 6,  500 yards north of Calvert city limits and 30 feet west of
               the highway.  Motor vehicle traffic was the  principal  noise source at
               this location.

Location 5   - Unnamed  church lot  adjacent  to Hammond School,  about 1/2 mile
               east  of Hwy  2159.   Distant  aircraft sounds,  bird activity, and
               barking dogs contributed to the monitored noise level.

Location 6   - Tidwell Prairie area, approximately 4.3 miles south of Hwy 14, along
               dirt road.  Contributing  noise  sources include  birds,  cows,  dogs,
               distant train and  airplane sounds.  This livestock grazing area is near
               the location of the first five-year mine area and loadout facility.

Location 7   - Bremond Nursing Home, at intersection of  N. Market and E. Cham-
               berlain Sts., approximately 50 ft west of  Chamberlain St.   Motor
               vehicle traffic from Chamberlain St.  and  Hwy 14,  nearby passing
               trains, and barking dogs contributed to the monitored noise leveL

Location 8   - Abandoned church at Beck Prairie, about 0.2 mile west of Hwy 46.
               Noise sources  included motor  vehicles on  Hwy 46 and nearby dirt
               road, bird sounds,  dogs  barking, and  distant  aircraft and train
               sounds.

Location 9   - Franklin High  School, open field north of  driveway  to parking lot,
               about 100 ft  east of the building.  Noise  sources at  this location
               included traffic  from  Hwy 79  and  the  school driveway,  school
               physical plant, students, and school paging system.

Location 10  - Area of livestock grazing near proposed  power plant site, approxi-
               mately 1 mile  east and 0.8 mile south of intersection  of Southern
               Pacific  RR and  Hwy 6, near  the community of Hammond.  Bird
               activity, cows, barking dogs, and distant traffic noises contributed
               to the monitoring noise level.
Source:    EH&A, 1985d.
                                      3-71

-------
                                TABLE 3-24
                         SOUND LEVELS FOR EACH
                     BASELINE RECEPTOR LOCATION
Receptor
Location
1

2

3

4

5
6

7

8

9

10





Day or
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Nighta'b
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night




Date
12-5-85
12-6-85
12-5-85
12-6-85
12-5-85
12-5-85
12-6-85
12-6-85
12-5-85
12-5-85
12-5-85
12-5-85
12-5-85
12-5-85
12-6-85
12-6-85
12-6-85
12-5-85
12-5-85




Time
(CDT)
1120
0125
1215
0150
1300
2145
1123
0207
1350
1607
2343
1520
2313
1645
0003
1010
0042
1430
2245
Summary
Max.
Min.
Avg.
L
44.2
34.9
52.4
35.1
53.3
43.6
59.8
66.1
43.2
39.5
49.5
50.8
59.9
47.5
36.4
50.3
48.6
40.3
38.3

66.1
34.9
47.0
W
68.9
61.2
75.7
56.2
82.1
66.8
90.9
86.1
59.4
64.8
58.4
81.6
78.1
71.3
68.4
71.9
60.3
60.8
58.1

90.9
56.2
69.5
L
44.5

50.8

53.4

72.0

45.8
55.3

65.7

47.1

55.3

45.1


72.0
45.8
53.5
   Nighttime measurement aborted due to continuous barking of dogs nearby.
   Nighttime L   for receptor 10 was used due to its similar situation.
Source:    EH&A, 1985d.
                                    3-72

-------
               LEGEND
              Study Area Boundary

              Noise Monitoring
              Location
BASE MAP'Otmrol HigKwaj Map; Falli and RoowtMn CawtlM, T««o»; 1984.
CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE
                                                                         Figure 3-11
                                                           BASELINE  NOISE  MONITORING LOCATIONS
                                                                      Sourct:  EHdA, 1985 d
                                          3-73

-------
from the site will probably be heard on occasion, as heavy equipment is moved onto the
site  or as  earthmoving  activities  take place  near  the site boundary.   Noise levels
associated with such ground-level activities will be  somewhat  attenuated by  existing
topography and vegetation.

           Mine

           Noise  levels associated with  the construction of proposed  mine  facilities
(e.g., shop, dragline erection, etc.) and haul roads will be similar to the levels produced
during construction of power plant facilities.   However, the shorter  schedule and the
somewhat more dispersed nature  of the activities should minimize impacts.  Addition-
ally, the local  topography and vegetation will attenuate noise level increases.   As  with
the power plant construction, increased noise levels will result, but these increases will
be intermittent during the construction and should,  on average, have minimal adverse
effects on local residences.

           The  mine  facilities will be located approximately  1.9 miles  south of  the
nearest dwelling.  At this distance, the L    due  to construction noise should be 38 dBA,
low enough that its impact will be negligible.

           Haul road construction will continue throughout the life of  the  mine but will
move from block to block ahead of mining operations.   Haul road construction in Block A
(the northernmost  area of the mine) will begin  in Mine Year 1;  construction in Block B
(the easternmost area of the mine) will begin in Mine Year 3; construction in  Block C
(the westernmost area of the  mine)  will begin in Mine Year 26; and construction in
Block J (the southernmost area of the  mine) will begin in Mine  Year ZO.   Some of this
construction will occur close to the mine boundary and to nearby dwellings. The closest
dwelling was found to be  0.6 miles southeast of  the road  in Block J.  Road construction
noise at this distance will have an L   of 48 dBA. This area was  not  monitored during
the baseline analysis, but it can be assumed to have a background L    of 49 dBA (based
on measurements at other similar sites in the area).  The presence or road construction
near this site would increase  the existing L   to 52 dBA, about the same as that found at
the Calvert High School site.              eq

3.6.3       Operation Impacts

           Power Plant

           Noise-producing operations  associated with  the proposed power plant can be
categorized into  five  separate  activities:   1.) power production, 2.) lignite handling,
3.) limestone handling, 4.) ash transport, and 5.)  ash disposal.  These activities can occur
simultaneously.

           The noise  assessment for the proposed power  plant site  is based  on  four
identical 150 Mw units, operating on a 24-hour per day basis.  The major noise-producing
equipment associated  with  power  production  operations  are:  the  four lignite-fired
boilers, four 168,102-kW  turbine generators, and various  pumps and fans.  Noise levels
were  determined  for  each piece of equipment  at a distance of  50 ft  with enclosure
attenuations of 10 to 30 dBA considered for applicable equipment (EEI, 1978).

           Lignite will be delivered  by  truck  to an  unloading facility at the plant.
Lignite will be transferred to storage via covered conveyors and/or  stackout belts. Upon
removal from storage, the lignite will be crushed, then transferred by conveyor to the
                                      3-74

-------
plant tripper house and storage silos.   Limestone  will probably be brought  in by rail,
unloaded into a hopper, and then conveyed to storage/use within the plant. Fluidized bed
combustion systems generate three different forms of ash:  bed ash, lignite ash, and fly
ash.  These solid wastes will be hauled by  truck to ash disposal sites A-l (first 10 years
of operation) and A-2 (remainder of operation).  At the disposal site,  the materials will
be  dumped, spread, graded, and  compacted (as described  in  the project description,
Section 2.4.1.8).

           The primary noise-producing equipment  associated with limestone  and  lignite
handling operations are the receiving hoppers and the trains/trucks. For the ash handling
operations, trucks are expected to be the greatest noise producers.

           For  a  maximum noise condition, it  can be  assumed  that  both  power
production  and lignite  handling  will  occur simultaneously.   Typically, peak  lignite
handling activities will occur on an intermittent basis for a portion of the day (usually
but not always during daytime hours), while power production will occur on a 24-hour per
day basis.

           By  combining  the baseline  receptor  ambient  sound level with  the  power
plant's operational sound level, each receptor's expected ambient sound level (L,  ) was
computed  and is  presented hi  Table 3-25.   Location 10  (see  Figure  3-11)  snows a
substantial increase of 17.5 dBA.  This receptor is  located at the proposed power plant
site, which will change from a rural to an industrial land use.  Locations 5 and 8 show a
marginal increase of 1 dBA or less, while all other receptors reflect no change.  Existing
sound  levels in Bremond, Calvert, and  Franklin (approximately 4.5, 7.5, and 13.5 air
miles, respectively, from the TNP ONE stack) will not  change.  The impact of the power
plant's operation in Bremond, the nearest of the  three towns, will  be  an  L    of 36 dBA,
well below the  current L   of 50 to 60 dBA.                              eq
                       eq

           According  to EEI procedures (EEI, 1978), calculations show the noise level at
the acoustic center of the 4-unit complex  to be  89 dBA.  Noise levels decline with
distance as follows:  75 dBA at 251 feet, 65 dBA at 800 feet, and 55 dBA at 2,546 feet.
The  closest residence, located approximately 1.2 miles west  of the  TNP ONE  stack,
should experience an L   of  47 dBA due to  the operation of the plant.  This will increase
the  assumed existing noise  level by  2 dBA to  51 dBA.   The  effect of power  plant
operation on  Shiloh  Church  (approximately  1.5 miles to the  south)  will be 45.3 dBA,
thereby increasing  the existing  L, by  1.7 dBA to 50.4 dBA.  This effect will constitute
a long-term minor adverse impact.

           In summary, analysis of the data presented in Table 3-25 indicates that most
baseline  receptors  will  experience no adverse  noise impacts,  two   receptors  will
experience only minimal adverse impacts, and the only receptor expected to experience
significant adverse  impacts  is located within the proposed power  plant site.   L, 's
affecting  the  baseline receptors outside the  power plant facilities site are expectea to
range from 27  to 42 dBA. This results in an almost negligible  increase of the existing
ambient sound levels adjacent  to the project area. A few receptors very near  to the
power plant or  in isolated locations (e.g.,  the Hammond School and the  abandoned church
at Beck  Prairie)  will  experience a minor increase in the existing sound level.  Areas
farther away will experience no change  in average sound level.  Intermittent impulse-
type activities from the  power plant  will occasionally raise the sound level above the
level predicted in this analysis.  This may be particularly evident at night, resulting in
minor short-term recurring adverse impacts to local residents.
                                      3-75

-------
                             TABLE 3-25

              ESTIMATED POWER PLANT OPERATIONAL
          AMBIENT SOUND LEVELS AT BASELINE RECEPTORS


Location










a
b
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Baseline
Existing
Background
Ambient
Sound Level
(dBA)
44.5
50.8
53.4
72.0
45.8
55.3
65.7
47.1
55.3
45.1
receptor locations
Sound Level
Due to Predicted Net
Power Plant Ambient
Noise
(dBA)
30.5
31.3
30.5
31.8
39.8
41.5
33.2
38.9
26.8
62.6
are presented
Sound Level
(dBA)
44.5
50.8
53.4
72.0
46.8
55.3
65.7
47.6
55.3
62.6
in Figure 3-11.
Change in
Ambient
Sound Level
(dBAT
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
17.5

logarithmic numbers.  A difference of greater than 13dB between background
ambient and operational sound levels results in no change in the ambient sound
level. Thus, a change of 0.0 dBA means that the  sound due to the operation of
the power plant  will be  masked by the existing ambient sound level.  The result
will be an imperceptable change in the  average sound level, although occasional
instantaneous increases may be detected due to impulse-type noises.
                                 3-76

-------
           Mine

           Noise-producing operations of the proposed mine can be categorized into four
separate activities:  1) timber and brush removal; 2) surface soil and overburden removal;
3) lignite mining; 4) and  spoil  grading and  revegetation.   All of  these operational
activities will be transient and could occur simultaneously.  Additionally, these activities
will move as the mine moves.  Mining in Block A (the northernmost area of the mine) will
begin in Mine Year 1; mining in Block B (the easternmost area of the mine) will begin in
Mine Year 4; mining in  Block C (the  westernmost  area  of the mine) will begin in Mine
Year 29; and mining in Block J (the southernmost  area of  the mine) will begin in Mine
Year 21.  Mining in Block A, the mining area nearest Bremond, will begin in Mine Year 1
and will be completed in Mine Year 4.  Mining in Block J, the nearest to Calvert, will not
begin until Mine Year 20 and will be completed in Mine Year 29.

           Timber and brush  within a mine  block will be cleared  and burned  (or, if
commercially valuable, removed) prior to soil/overburden  removal and mining. Typical
equipment used in this kind of activity and the associated  sound levels at 50 ft include:
bulldozer, 82 dBA; chain saw,  78 dBA; loader, 78 dBA; and dump truck, 78 dBA. An L
of 85 dBA at 50 ft from  the  center of activity is expected  to  occur during  this phase  of
mine operation.

           Topsoil and overburden removal will be accomplished by means of a combina-
tion of scrapers, dozers, draglines,  and shovels.  Some  of the  material will be moved
within the mine by  truck.  The respective sound levels  at 50 ft are  estimated to be  as
follows:  haul  truck, 88 dBA;  dozer,  82 dBA; grader, 85 dBA; and  loader, 78 dBA.
Overburden removal is anticipated to occur on a 24-hour per  day basis with an L  /L,
contribution at 50 ft of 92 to 98 dBA for draglines and 93 to 99 dBA for power shovels.

           A continuous  surface miner will be  used to  remove  and  load lignite at the
proposed mine.   Although no data exist for the noise levels  generated by this kind  of
machinery, it is assumed to be equivalent to that of a bulldozer or loader (80 dBA).  The
noise level contribution associated with lignite loading will be substantially lower at the
property boundary due to the attenuation  of  the pit walls. In effect, the pit  walls will
act as noise barriers, attenuating up to 15 dBA per pit (Transportation Research Board,
1976).  Lignite loading and handling are anticipated to occur  on a 24-hour per day basis
with handling operations being  the loudest activity.  Lignite handling is expected to have
an L    contribution  at 50 ft of 90 dBA and an L,   of  96 dBA, while  lignite loading will
haveeab. L   of 71 dBA and an L,  of 77 dBA (with a 15 dBA pit wall attenuation).
         eq                   dn                         r

           Overburden regrading and revegetation activities will occur concurrent with
mining.  Typical equipment  and their sound  levels at 50 ft  will include:  bulldozers,
82 dBA; graders,  85 dBA; and large trucks, 88 dBA.   The L    contribution during this
period is estimated to be 88 dBA at 50 ft from the center of activity.

           Based on a maximum noise level scenario  with all  mine operations occurring
simultaneously and within proximity  to each other, day-night sound levels are anticipated
to be less than 75 dBA at approximately 1,152 ft from the  center of the mining activity,
less than 65 dBA at  3,658 ft, and less than 55 dBA  at approximately  11,612 ft from the
source.

           It is anticipated that the greatest potential for noise impacts will generally
occur when  mining operations progress along or near the perimeter of the project area.
Minor local  increases  in the  ambient sound level  are  expected to  occur at some
                                     3-77

-------
receptors.  The  closest residence to  a mine operation area lies approximately 0.6 mile
south of Block J.  Mine operations will occur within one mile or less of this residence for
less  than six months per year  for  approximately 10 years.   At  the mine's  closest
approach, the L,  at this residence will be approximately 60 dBA.  The L.  will drop to
55 dBA whenever1 the mining operations are  more  than 1.1 miles from tms residence.
Sound level increases at this residence, which will occur both at night and during the day,
will  constitute  a long-term,  intermittent major  adverse  impact.   Elsewhere, it is
projected  that  the   new  ambient sound  level  (i.e.,  noise due to  mining operations
superimposed on the existing sound level) will be at or below  a L,  of 55 dBA.

3.6.4      Combined Impacts of  Power Plant and Mine

           Construction and  operation  of the proposed power plant and mine will cause
increased  noise  levels, resulting  in  minor,  short-term adverse  impacts to existing
ambient sound levels.  The greatest effects will occur when mining operations are very
near the  perimeter  of  the  mine  boundary (Mine  Years 1-5  in the northernmost  and
easternmost  areas of the  mine,  Mine  Years 29  and 30  in the  westernmost,  and Mine
Years 20-29  in the southernmost).  The most significant combined effect will occur at a
residence immediately south of Block J, where  resulting net sound levels of up to  60 dBA
can  be  expected for approximately  six months per year for up to 10 years.  At other
locations, the increases over existing  sound levels will be minor.

3.7        VEGETATION

3.7.1      Existing Environment

           Regional Setting.  The project area is located entirely within  the Post Oak
Savannah Vegetational  Area  (Gould,  1975).   This  ecological  region, approximately
8.5 million acres  in  area, is bordered by  the Pineywoods  region  to  the  east and the
Blackland Prairie region to the west.  The two dominant tree  species of  the Post Oak
Savannah, post oak  (Quercus  stellata)  and blackjack oak (Q. marilandica), are probably
the remnants of a forest which was more extensive  in the past during a moister  climate
(Weaver and  Clements, 1938). Braun (1950) described the region as part of the Forest-
Prairie  Transition Area of  the Southern Division of the Oak-Hickory Forest region.  The
oaks maintain their present distribution due to the favorable moisture-holding character-
istics of the sandy soils (McBryde, 1933).

           The climax vegetation of the Post Oak Savannah consists predominantly of
prairie  climax  grasses  and   scattered trees.    The  grasses  include little  bluestem
(Schizachyrium scoparium), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum avenaceum), switchgrass (Panicum
virgatum),  purpletop (Tridens flavus),  and inland sea oats (Chasmanthium latifolium)
(Gould, 1975; Truett, 1972).   The most prevalent  trees are post oak, blackjack oak, and
cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia). The deterioration of the plant community is evidenced by
an increase  of grass species  such as buffalograss (Buchloe  dactyloides), common curly
mesquite (Hilaria belangeri), threeawn (Aristida spp.), red lovegrass (Eragrostis oxylepis),
broomsedge  (Andropogon virginicus), splitbeard bluestem (Andropogon ternarius),  and
smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus); forb species  including yankeeweed (Eupatorium composit-
i folium), western  ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), and silver leaf  nightshade (Solanum
elaeagnifolium);  and such woody  species  as  yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) and greenbriar
(Smilax spp.) (Gould, 1975).

           Vegetational Communities.  Of the  approximately 22,225 acres located within
the boundaries of the proposed power  plant/mine project area, a total of 16,798 acres
                                      3-78

-------
consists  of  grasslands.   The  remaining  5,427 acres  is  composed of  upland forest
(3,126 acres), bottomland/riparian  forest (1,521  acres),  mesquite brushland (468 acres),
cropland (200 acres), and aquatic habitat (113 acres). Figure 3-12 presents the location
and areal extent of these vegetational community types, based upon the results of  site-
specific  mapping and extensive field surveys (EH&A, 1985a).  Vegetation mapping by
EH&A, which  involved  a more  extensive  environmental  study area,  also  included a
wetlands  community classification.  Within the  boundaries of the proposed project, no
swamps or marshes were encountered.  The only wetland habitats occurring within the
project boundaries are those  closely associated  with the aquatic habitats (i.e., streams
and ponds) and are not extensive enough to  be mapped separately.  Portions or all of the
bottomland/riparian  forest  community type  may also be considered wetlands by some
definitions (e.g., USCE, EPA, FWS). The following paragraphs provide a brief characteri-
zation of each community type. Detailed community descriptions and species lists based
upon  quantitative sampling in the project  area are presented in the baseline ecology
document for the project (EH&A, 1985a).

           Upland forest vegetation comprises  14% of  the project area.  Most of the
native upland woods have been historically cleared and the land converted to pasture or
cropland.  Where scattered stands remain,  blackjack oak and post oak dominate the
canopy, intermixed with cedar elm, winged  elm (Ulmus alata), honey mesquite  (Prosopis
glandulosa), eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), black hickory (Carya texana), and
Texas sugarberry. Common shrubs in the upland forests include coralberry (Symphori-
carpos orbiculatus),  American  beautyberry  (Callicarpa americana), yaupon,  southern
blackhaw (Viburnum  rufidulum), and deciduous holly  (Ilex decidua).  Vines, grasses, and
forbs comprise the ground cover, which ranges from moderately dense to sparse.

           Bottomland/riparian forests, which are the most diverse vegetation type in
the region, comprise 7% of the project area.  Bottomland  forest stands, which occur in
the wide floodplains of major streams, are  characterized by a dense overstory canopy,
and  a well-developed understory  and  shrub  layer.  Typical  overstory species include
pecan,   eastern  cottonwood,  black   willow,   green  ash   (Fraxinus   pensylvanica
var. integerrima), cedar elm, Texas  sugarberry, American elm  (Ulmus  americana), and
boxelder (Acer negundo).  A variety of woody vine species commonly grow on trees in the
overstory and understory.  The herbaceous  vegetation is generally patchy, depending on
density of  the canopy and abundance  of litter. Riparian  forests are  typically comprised
of the same species  as are bottomland forests; however, riparian forests generally occur
in narrow  floodplains of small streams, and are  thereby limited  to narrow  bands of
vegetation immediately bordering streams.

           The mesquite brushland community occupies approximately 2% of the project
area.  This  habitat  has developed primarily as a  result  of  encroachment  by honey
mesquite into abandoned cropland  and pastureland. Honey mesquite predominates in the
overstory,  with occasional occurrences of eastern redcedar, winged elm, post  oak, and
blackjack  oak.   The dense  ground cover  generally consists of  grasses and weedy
herbaceous species.

           Grasslands comprise  76% of the vegetation  in  the project area.   This
community type consists of tame  pasture, oldfields (fallow cropland), and overgrazed
pastures.   Bermudagrass is  the  dominant  constituent  of most tame  and abandoned
pastures.   Pasture grasses of  secondary importance are bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum),
sorghum, and Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense).  Native pastures within the project  area
consist of  grass species such  as silver  bluestem (Bothriochloa saccharoides), splitbeard
bluestem, lovegrass,  threeawn, and  a variety of annual and perennial forbs.
                                     3-79

-------
           EXPLANATION
A    Aquatic Kooitat (ponds, crttks, nv«rs)
B    Boiiemland Hardwood/Riparian Fornt
C    C'opland (row crops 0, improvM patlurt)
G    Grassland
M    Mdquilt BrusNand
U    Upland Haidwood Foreit

——  Proj«cl Boundary
CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE
               Figure  3-12
  VEGETATION OF THE PROJECT AREA

-------
           Aquatic habitats,  which comprise less than 1% of the  project area, consist
primarily of streams  such as Walnut  Creek and South  Walnut Creek.  Additionally,
numerous intermittent streams and stock ponds occur.  The aquatic habitat designation
also includes small areas of wetland vegetation which fringe the aquatic habitats and are
not extensive enough  to be mapped separately.  Plant species occurring in the aquatic
habitats include hydric species which inhabit the fringes of the water  and herbaceous
aquatic species in shallow water zones.

           Croplands occupy approximately 1% of the project area. The most important
row crops in the vicinity of the project are sorghum, wheat, corn, and cotton.

           The route of the proposed transmission line  transects an area very similar in
nature to the mine/power plant project  area described above.  Vegetation community
types  crossed by the  proposed  transmission  line  ROW include pastureland  (68%),
woodland (18%), brushland (6%), disturbed (i.e., industrial) land (6%), and aquatic habitats
(2%).  The aquatic habitats crossed by the proposed route consist primarily of branches
of Twin Oak Reservoir. In addition, 29 streams (most of which are minor intermittent  or
ephemeral streams) are  crossed by the proposed route. Wetland habitats are limited  to
small  areas fringing  the   aquatic  habitat  of  the  streams  traversed  and Twin  Oak
Reservoir.

           Endangered and Threatened Species.   Currently, seventeen plant species are
listed by the FWS as Endangered or Threatened in Texas (FWS, 1986; 51 FR 8681).  Only
one of these species, Navasota ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes parksii), occurs in the vicinity
of the project area.   Navasota ladies'-tresses,  an endemic orchid  species, is known  to
occur  in Brazos,  Grimes,  Burleson, and  Robertson counties.  Since the project area is
located within Robertson County, the possibility exists that habitat suitable for  Navasota
ladies'-tresses occurs  within  the project area.   The typical habitat of  this species  is
within oak-forested uplands  along minor  tributaries  associated  with the  Brazos and
Navasota rivers in the Post Oak Savannah vegetative region.  Navasota ladies'-tresses is
identifiable only  during its flowering period (mid-October through mid-November), and
field  surveys  during that  period are the only way of determining whether the species
occurs in a given location.

           Field  surveys were conducted by EH&A in October-November 1984, and by
Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc.,  in November 1985, in  order to  investigate  areas  of
potential  occurrence  of  Navasota  ladies'-tresses within the project area (EH&A,  1984).
Navasota ladies'-tresses was not encountered in any surveyed portion of the project area,
and  the results  of the field survey indicate that the potential for occurrence of this
species in the project area is extremely low.

           Approximately   124 plant species hi  Texas are currently considered by the
FWS as candidates for future proposal  (FWS,  1985).   Some of these species may be
proposed in the near future for Endangered or Threatened status. Though they are to be
considered in environmental impact analyses, these candidate species currently have no
official status and are not protected by law. Two candidate species (smallhead pipewort
(Eriocaulon kornickianum)  and  Abronia  macrocarpa)) are  known  to  occur  in  counties
adjacent  to  the   project  area.   Abronia  macrocarpa  was  recently  placed in  status
category "1",  indicating that  data  currently  available  is  sufficient  to  support the
appropriateness  of proposing to  list  the  species as Endangered or  Threatened,  but  that
additional  information is  required before such  a proposal would occur.  Smallhead
pipewort  is included  in status  category "2", indicating that  substantial  data are not
currently  available to  support a proposed listing as Endangered  or Threatened, and  that
                                      3-81

-------
further biological research is necessary  to determine the status of  the species.  While
potentially suitable habitat of these candidate species may occur within the project area,
only field  surveys during the  specific season  when the  species are identifiable  would
determine if populations of any of the species actually occur.

           No official state  list of endangered  and threatened plant species promulgated
by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) or any other state agency currently
exists.  However, TPWD recognizes the  federal list as  the official list for the State of
Texas.

           Commercially Important Plant Species.  Commercially important species in
the project area include hardwoods (e.g., oaks, elms, green ash, pecan, hickories,  and
others), forage species, and row crops.  Although hardwood species  hi the project area
should be  considered  commercially important,  these  trees  (or their  products)  are
marketed only on a very small scale, if at all, in the  project area.  Thus, the market
value of the hardwoods present in  the project area is  slight in proportion  to the real
value of the land.  The most important forage species planted for cattle  in the project
area are bermudagrass and Johnsongrass.   The latter  species  is more  important  on
bottomlands, where it is cut for hay.  Other forage crops occasionally planted in disked
fields include bahiagrass, dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum), carpetgrass (Axonopus sp.),
wheat (Triticum aestivum), and oats (Avena fatua).

           Other Important  Plant Species.  Plant species  important for browse or forage
materials for wildlife hi the project area include various  grapes, greenbriar, common
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis),  various oak species,  yaupon, possumhaw,  roughleaf
dogwood (Cornus drummondii),  green  ash, pecan, black hickory, black willow, winged
elm,  Texas  sugarberry,  southern  dewberry  (Rubus  trivialis),  common  persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana), common buttonbush, common trumpetcreeper  (Campsis  radicans),
American beautyberry, and various grasses and  sedges. Of special importance to deer are
oak mast (Martin, Zim, and Nelson, 1951; Halls and Rip ley, 1961).

           Ecologically Sensitive  Areas.  In general, an area may be  considered ecologi-
cally sensitive if:  (1) it supports a rare plant or animal community or a rare, endangered
or threatened species; (2) it  is a highly productive habitat having substantial commercial
or recreational value; and/or (3) it supports species considered to be wetland indicators
by a regulatory agency  (e.g., USCE).  Federally listed Endangered and Threatened plant
species were  discussed previously.   Critical  habitats  for  Endangered or  Threatened
species do not occur, per se, in  the project area.   As previously discussed, Navasota
ladies'-tresses is of potential occurrence in the area. Critical habitat  for this species has
not been determined because publication of exact locations of the species may  make it
more vulnerable  to collecting.  However, potential habitat for  this species (i.e., oak-
forested uplands along minor tributaries of the  Brazos River), as discussed earlier, should
be considered sensitive.

           Additional habitats within the project area which may be  considered ecologi-
cally sensitive are  located  primarily within  the bottomland/riparian forest  of Walnut
Creek and South Walnut Creek.  These habitats are used as feeding, nesting, breeding,
and shelter areas by a variety of wildlife species.  The nature of  their sensitivity is also
related to  the dependency of these habitats upon reliable sources of  water.  Portions of
the bottomland/riparian forest type may  support plant species considered  to be wetland
indicators  by  the USCE.  Certain  activities within these habitats (e.g., deposit of fill
material) may be  subject to Federal regulations under  Section 404 of  the Clean Water
Act (see Section 2.6).
                                      3-82

-------
3.7.2      Construction Impacts

           Power Plant

           Site preparation and construction activities will result in vegetation removal
at the location of various power plant facilities.  These facilities include the power plant
island, runoff ponds, ancillary access roads, ash  disposal sites, ash haul road, makeup
water pipeline, railroad  spur, and  transmission  line.   The  areal extent  of  affected
vegetation  communities  associated with  the  proposed power plant  and its  ancillary
facilities is  shown  in  Table O-l  (Appendix D).   Mining  is  considered  the overriding
impact; therefore, in areas where facilities overlap with mine blocks (e.g., makeup water
pipeline), the affected area is discussed as an effect of mining (Table D-3, Appendix D).
Of the 997 acres to be  adversely affected by  power plant facilities construction, 78%
presently supports grassland,  while less than 5% is currently  used as cropland.  Of the
remainder, 14% of the area preempted by the power plant and its support facilities is
timbered in bottomland  and upland hardwoods  and mesquite  brushland.  Approximately
2% of the area is disturbed land, and 1% consists of aquatic habitat.  Portions of the
34 acres of bottomland/riparian forest and 12 acres of aquatic habitat affected  by the
proposed  facilities may be considered regulatory wetlands by  the  U.S. Army  Corps of
Engineers (for more  detail see Section 3.7.4).

           Construction of the power plant facilities site  and the ash disposal  sites will
involve the greatest amount of vegetation disturbance (271 and 329 acres, respectively)
(Table D-l, Appendix O).  The proposed transmission line, which will extend 17.3 miles
from the proposed plant site to  the Twin Oak substation, will  traverse the  greatest
amount of land area (358 acres), which appears to indicate the greatest amount of land
disturbance.   However, vegetation disturbance along the ROW will occur  primarily in
wooded areas  (approximately 24% of the route)  and at  the tower locations, thereby
limiting  the areal  extent of  actual  land disturbance  associated with  the  proposed
transmission line.

           Mine

           The areal extent of vegetation community types to be removed as a result of
site  preparation and construction of support facilities for  the proposed mine (excluding
mine blocks) is presented in Table D-2 (Appendix D). The mine facilities site, haul roads,
water control structures, and  stockpile areas will affect approximately 2,047 acres, of
which 68% is  grassland.   The remaining 32% is timbered  in bottomland and  upland
hardwoods and  mesquite brushland.  Two one-acre  stock ponds will also be removed. No
acreage  currently in row crops will be affected.  The acreages presented in Table D-2
(Appendix D) represent the area of effect outside  of mine blocks.   In areas where mine
facilities overlap with mine blocks, the affected area is included in discussions related to
mine operation impacts (Section 3.7.3).

           During the life of  mine,  lignite transport facilities,  including  a haul  road
system, a lignite conveyor system, and associated  truck dump sites will be constructed.
The  areal extent of  the  vegetation types adversely affected by each facility, as well as
the years which encompass the projected duration  of each facility from construction to
reclamation are presented in Table D-2 (Appendix  D). The effects of construction of the
lignite transport facilities on  vegetation result primarily  from  vegetation clearing and
localized soil compaction.  These effects  will be somewhat mitigated by reclamation of
the disturbed areas as the facilities are taken out of service.
                                      3-83

-------
           The proposed water control plan includes the following control  structures:
four diversion ponds, seven diversion ditches, fourteen sedimentation ponds, and eighteen
control ditches.   These structures are designed  to  minimize  changes to the existing
hydrologic system; to protect the project  from loss  of life, property, and time  due to
flooding; to prevent degradation of water quality  during mining and reclamation; and to
prevent long-term  adverse  hydrologic  impacts from  mining activities.   Approximately
41 acres  within  the  area  ancillary   to  the  mine  blocks will  be  disturbed  by  the
construction of control ditches and diversion ditches.  Adverse effects on vegetation will
result  from clearing  activities prior  to  construction of these ditches.   Effects  on
vegetation resulting from construction of the proposed sedimentation and diversion ponds
will primarily involve the removal of vegetation within the area to be affected by dam
construction.  Vegetation clearing will not take place in backwater areas of the ponds.
Acreages presented hi  Table D-Z (Appendix D) represent effects  resulting from  dam
construction as well as acreage  affected  by  operation of the proposed  surface water
control structures.  A total of 1,848 acres will potentially be affected by the construc-
tion and  operation of  diversion  and  sedimentation ponds.   However,  this acreage
represents the maximum surface area to be inundated hi the event of a 10-year, 24-hour
storm.  The conceptual plan allows for backwater  detained during a flood to be drained
from the ponds over a ten-day period following attainment of water quality standards.
Effects on the areas that will be inundated only for brief periods during  flood stages are
considered short-term and  minimal and are not represented in Table D-Z (Appendix D).
However, vegetation within the areas of permanent inundation will be adversely affected
by inundation, resulting  in long-term impacts.  Acreages  for these areas are  included in
the figures represented in Table D-Z (Appendix D). Of the 1,212 acres affected by dam
construction and  permanent  inundation,  69% is  presently grassland.   Water control
structures (i.e., pond embankments and ditches) are generally removed seven  years after
mining activities cease within the drainage area controlled by that structure, in order to
allow sufficient time for reclamation and vegetation establishment in the  area disturbed
by the structure.  In some  cases, a water control  structure will be retained for a longer
period of time hi order to reduce  the storage requirements of downstream water control
ponds in the same watershed.

           Approximately 560 acres of grassland and  upland hardwoods will be adversely
affected by the stockpiling of topsoil  and overburden material as  shown in Table D-Z
(Appendix D).   Clearing and  grubbing will  precede  the  stockpiling activities  and,
therefore, along  with the  subsequent  compaction of the  soil,  represent a long-term
impact to the displaced  vegetation. Topsoil stockpiles are temporary in nature since the
topsoil is stored only until it is needed for reclamation, and the area affected during site
preparation will  be reclaimed as the  piles are  taken out of service.  The proposed
overburden stockpiles are permanent features which will be stabilized during reclamation
by means of revegetation.

           In addition  to  the direct  adverse effects on vegetation resulting from
construction activities,  there may be some  unavoidable  indirect  adverse  effects  to
vegetation  occurring  adjacent  to disturbed areas.   Pollutants, such as oil  and  grease
occurring in runoff from areas utilized by construction machinery, may adversely impact
the  surrounding vegetation as  detailed in  Section 3.7.3.   The construction  of surface
water control structures may  result in  short-term  adverse impacts to either downstream
or adjacent plant communities due to erosion and/or  sedimentation.  These effects will
be reduced  by the installation of  appropriate erosion control devices  (e.g., fabric filter
silt  fences  and hay bales) prior to initiation of construction activities.  Also, primary
production  in vegetation located  immediately adjacent  to construction  sites may  be
reduced  due  to  dust  accumulation  on  foliage.   These  short-term impacts  will  be
                                      3-84

-------
minimized by appropriate construction practices.  The fugitive dust control program for
the project (PCC, 1986a) includes measures such as watering  of haul roads, traffic
controls, and stabilization and revegetation of disturbed areas in order to reduce fugitive
dust emissions.

3.7.3      Operations Impacts

           Power Plant

           The  possible  effects  of power  plant  operation on surrounding  vegetation
communities may include potential acid deposition due  to  emissions  from power  plant
furnace stacks,  drift dispersion from power plant cooling towers, dust accumulation due
to lignite and solid waste handling, and potential oil and grease pollution due to surface
water runoff from plant site  facilities.  These potential effects are discussed below.

           The  potential  for  acid  deposition  in  the  environment resulting  from the
operation  of  coal-  and  lignite-fired  power  plants,  and  its  associated effects on
vegetation  have  been a national concern during  recent  years.    As   discussed  in
Section 3.5.3, acid deposition has  been extensively studied in Texas. Emissions from the
proposed power  plant are  not expected to cause effects to vegetation as a result of acid
deposition.   An evaluation  of the potential for  regional  acid deposition problems  is
presented in the discussion of Cumulative Impacts (Section 3.14).

           The  potential effects  on vegetation from operation of the power plant are
due to cooling tower plume drift dispersion (i.e., movement  of vapor and water droplets
from  the  cooling towers  with the prevailing  winds). Two mechanisms by  which cooling
tower plume drift may adversely affect surrounding vegetation are:  1) increasing the
relative humidity of the air around the foliage and 2) depositing the substances contained
in the cooling tower water onto the leaf  surfaces, where damage can occur by subsequent
foliar uptake.

           Increased humidity may affect vegetation directly by increasing the surface
moisture on the leaves and stems, and,  thereby, favoring the growth of fungi  and other
pathogenic  organisms.   Among the various  substances which may occur within water
droplets in the cooling tower plume and  which may (when in high enough concentrations)
adversely affect vegetation  are:   sodium, calcium, chloride, sulfate,  boron,  and phos-
phate.  All of these are  naturally occurring substances;  it  is only their concentrations
that determine  whether  they are beneficial or toxic.   Effects of these substances on
vegetation vary greatly with the  individual plant's susceptibility to that substance and
with the level of deposition  of the substance (McCune and  Silberman, 1977).   There are
no studies which specifically address the potential  impacts of cooling tower plume drift
on vegetation types found in the project area.  However, as discussed below, significant
effects on vegetation resulting from cooling tower plume drift are not anticipated.

           Effects of cooling tower plume drift  on  surrounding  vegetation can range
from no effect at all, to slight leaf burn on the edge of leaflets, to complete defoliation
and resultant  death of a particular plant (McCune and  Silberman, 1977).  All effects,
however, are usually very localized hi their occurrence.  When damage is observed,  it  is
generally  within 300 to 600 feet and in the downwind direction from the cooling towers.
Rochow (1978) found that  high depositional rates of sulfates from cooling tower drift was
responsible for defoliation of trees at a tower site studied. However, this high deposition
rate and resultant defoliation was  limited to an area within 300 feet of  the towers.
                                      3-85

-------
           Prevailing winds in the project axes, are  most frequently from the south and
south-southeast (see  Section 3.5.1); therefore, the greatest potential  for impact  from
cooling tower plume drift dispersion lies to the north and north-northwest of the towers.
However, it is anticipated that the plume drift dispersion from the proposed power plant
will not pose any significant effect to off-site vegetation since the plant island property
boundary lies more than 600 feet beyond  the  cooling towers (see Figure 2-5),  and it is
very unlikely at this distance that any substances would be deposited and accumulate to
levels  which would injure vegetation.  Also, because the majority of vegetation on the
plant island  will be removed during construction activities, it is improbable  that any
significant effect of cooling tower drift on vegetation will be observed.

           Power plant operation effects on vegetation also include the potential effects
from dust accumulation on  foliage due  to lignite and solid waste handling. Dusting  from
solid  waste handling will  be minimized by conditioning the material with water in a
pugmill or dustless unloader prior to discharge into hauling units.  Dust from  the lignite
handling operation will be  controlled  with fabric filter dust collectors  and  spray type
dust suppression.

           Potential  effects  of oil and grease pollution on  vegetation  due  to surface
water runoff from roads and other power plant facilities will be minimized by diverting
plant site runoff via drainage ditches to runoff ponds.  This water will be clarified and
pumped back into the plant makeup storage lagoon.  Lignite handling and storage pile
areas will also drain via drainage ditches to the coal pile runoff pond. This pond catches
any drainage from dust suppression sprays in the handling facility.  The water is clarified
in this pond and returned  to  the makeup water storage  lagoon,  therefore minimizing
effects on adjacent and downstream vegetation communities.

           Mine

           The primary long-term effect to on-site vegetation due  to proposed mining
operations will include the removal of natural vegetation on those portions of the project
area to be mined.  These effects are quantified below.  Alterations of the physical and
chemical properties of  the  existing soils that  support these plant communities will also
occur,  although  the  proposed  practice of topsoil segregation  and replacement will
minimize the long-term effects of these alterations.

           During the life  of the mine, approximately 5,018 acres  of grassland (80%),
bottomland/riparian hardwood  forests (6%), upland hardwood forests  (12%), mesquite
brushland  (2%),  and aquatic  habitat (<1%)  will be  cleared prior to  actual  mining
activities (see Table D-3,  Appendix D).   These direct,  adverse  impacts  to  vegetation
from  pre-mining  clearing  are considered  to be long-term.   During  this pre-mining
clearing activity, trees and brush will be uprooted, stacked, and burned.  All protruding
growth which may be obstacles to dragline cable movement will be removed.  After the
trees are leveled and stacked, a root plow will be used  to slice through  brush  and tree
roots below  the  ground surface.   A multi-application  rake is then  utilized to  lift and
stack  these  roots  hi preparation  for  burning.   Although  forests in the project  area
generally do not  meet U.S. Forest Service or  Texas Forest Service criteria as commer-
cial timber, each landowner has the option to harvest trees from his or her tracts of land
before mining operations enter the area.

           The potential  short-term effects of mining activities  to off-site  vegetation
include dust accumulation on foliage, temporary lowering of the water table immediately
adjacent  to  the  mine  blocks, and  temporary desiccation of  existing hydric  plant
communities downstream from the mine blocks.  These effects are discussed below.


                                      3-86

-------
           The dust associated with mining activity will have unavoidable minor, adverse
impacts on  immediately  adjacent terrestrial vegetation in  the  project  area.  Land
clearing,  mining operations, vehicular traffic, and  land disturbance  associated with
reclamation  activities will create  wind-blown participates of soil and lignite, which will
accumulate to some extent on foliage surfaces hi areas immediately adjacent to these
activities.   However,  these unavoidable  adverse impacts  should be  short-term and
localized because the amount of area affected at any one time will be relatively small,
averaging approximately 835 acres. Use of water sprayers as needed will facilitate dust
suppression.

           Any adverse effects to vegetation (e.g., localized reductions in available soil
moisture) resulting from the general lowering of ground water levels due to dewatering
and  depressurization during the mining  phase should be  very localized and short-term
(see Section 3.2.3).

           The operation of surface water control structures is designed to minimize the
effects of sedimentation on downstream plant communities.  Such effects may include
the desiccation of  off-site hydric  habitats because of increased sediment deposition in
those areas.  Diversion and sedimentation ponds which are planned to temporarily divert
and retain runoff from the mine blocks could also temporarily interrupt inflow of water
and nutrients to downstream plant communities.  However,  since the  drainages to be
affected are ephemeral and since the retained water will be released after attainment of
water  quality standards, adverse effects  should be very  minor and  short-term.   Some
beneficial  effects of the water control structures may include the formation of hydric
vegetation communities where  water  levels are  maintained  hi permanently  inundated
areas (i.e., at elevations below the  lowest discharge gate of the embankment).

           Reclamation.   The  proposed  reclamation plan (PCC,  1986a) provides  for
regrading of mine  block contours, soil  preparation, establishment of  vigorous ground
cover, and proper maintenance of re-established vegetation.   The goals  of the reclama-
tion plan  include:   (1) re-establishment  of  a diverse  and  adapted  vegetation  cover,
(2) control of soil erosion,  (3) enhancement  of wildlife habitat, and  (4)  development of
post-mining land uses consistent with surrounding land uses.  In order to accomplish these
goals, plant species to be used in re-vegetation were selected with particular considera-
tion of  the  following factors:   species adapted or  native to  the area,  long-term
performance, palatability (to livestock), wildlife value, drought resistance, management
requirements, and seed availability (PCC, 1986a).  Additionally, landowner preferences
and  multiple land use objectives were considered  in the development  of reclamation
plans.

           The  revegetation plan  is  designed to reclaim  areas for use as  primarily
grazingland and pasture land.  Grazingland will be revegetated with a mixture  of native
and adapted grasses to minimize management requirements.  One of three seed mixtures
listed in Table O-4 (Appendix D) will be used on a specific tract of land depending on
landowner  preference  and land  use objective.  To improve wildlife usage, forbs will be
included in these mixtures.  Pastureland will be planted in  coastal bermudagrass and
overseeded  with compatible species.    Planting rates and  species to be utilized  on
pastureland are presented in Table D-5 (Appendix D).

           Successful re-establishment of vegetation depends on an appropriate planting
schedule.  Permanent vegetation will be planted during the season most  likely to insure
its  survival  (PCC,  1986a).  When  necessary, annual vegetation  will  be used  as a
temporary cover to stabilize the soil until permanent vegetation is planted.  It will also
                                      3-87

-------
reduce wind and water erosion, add organic matter to the soil, act as in situ mulch, and
reduce weed establishment.  Table D-6 (Appendix D)  lists species and proposed  seeding
rates of potential cover crops.

           Woody species of vegetation will be planted in various locations as shelter-
belts, along fencelines, and for habitat development along re-established water bodies
and drainages.  Table D-7 (Appendix D) provides the woody species planting list.

           A stock pond reclamation plan has been designed to reclaim  aquatic vegeta-
tion in, and woody vegetation  around,  re-established  stock ponds.  Trees will be  planted
along rows with species being  randomly mixed.  Stocking rates will be in excess of the
expected  natural density to  insure stand success.   Thinning,   if necessary,  will be
completed after the woodland blocks are established.  Several aquatic  species  will be
seeded or established using root segments.  Species  to  be  used  include:  cattail,  rush,
sedge, browntop millet, Japanese millet, smartweed, and arrowhead.  Planting rates will
be dependent on the form of planting stock.

           Success of revegetation will be evaluated on reclaimed lands as part of the
reclamation  maintenance program.   Reference  areas will be  chosen  and  will be
monitored on a  regular basis  to obtain long-term success  criteria data (e.g.,  species
composition, percent cover, and productivity). Standards for the evaluation of attain-
ment of adequate  productivity  levels are  set by the RRC.  Reference  areas  will be
maintained on the same level as reclaimed areas  to equalize treatments (i.e., fertility,
liming,  harvesting,  etc ).  Land uses  chosen for reference area comparison  include
pastureland and grazingland.  Although the primary method for  evaluating reclamation
success will be the use of reference areas as described above, an alternative evaluation
method, or one that may be used in addition to the reference area method, involves the
use  of technical guidelines of  the  Soil  Conservation  Service  for  the assessment of
revegetation success.  In  this method,  county productivity averages are used as  a  basis
for comparison.

           Re-establishment of adapted vegetation is dependent  upon selection of  plant
species which are native  to the project area. Plants native to the area are adapted to
long-term  climatic extremes.   Therefore, they have  better  chances for long-term
survival than do exotic plant species and are more likely to  contribute to  a mature and
stable vegetation community.   Examination of the list  of woody species  to be  used in
revegetation of  wildlife  habitat under  the proposed reclamation plan (PCC,  1986a)
reveals that of the 20 species to be used, 13 occur naturally in the project area.  In  order
to accomplish the  objectives of the TPWD (as presented informally in Y ant is, 1986),
these native species  should be emphasized  in all planting scenarios,  with particular
emphasis  placed  on  those  species that   are  considered  valuable  to  wildlife   (see
Section 3.8.3) and  those  species that  are  not widely dispersed  naturally (e.g., oaks).
Exotic species, species of low  wildlife  value, and species that are rapidly dispersed by
natural means  should be  used sparingly, if at all, in the  revegetation  of mined  areas
(Yantis, 1986).

           Adapted vegetation also has the advantage of requiring less maintenance than
non-adaptive plants.   For  example, reclamation of pastureland with the exotic  coastal
bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon)  results  in  a situation which  requires high levels of
management to maintain.  Native species, however, such  as Indiangrass (Sorghastrum
nutans), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum)
are  adapted to  the project  area.   They can  establish  and  persist  with very low
management levels.  One study  near Fairfield, Texas (Skousen and Call, 1985),  experi-
                                      3-88

-------
men ted with  interseeding of these low-maintenance native grasses to improve forage
quantity and quality without increasing cultural inputs.  They concluded that sod-seeding
these  species into  coastal bermudagrass shows  promise  for  enhancing diversity and
increasing productivity on surface-mined areas in Texas.

           In re-establishing a diverse vegetation community, the use of fast-growing
exotic species often seems  an attractive option.  However, when exotics are  established
in areas of disturbance,  they may grow in size and number so fast that they compete
with the more desirable native species for light, water, and nutrients.  If they succeed in
their establishment, they may severely limit the diversity of  the community.   For this
reason, use  of late-successional stage, native plants is desirable over many fast-growing
exotics. Use  of such exotics as Russian olive should be discouraged. Although this plant
appears to have value as a reforestation and erosion control species on  nutrient-deprived
soils, studies  in  the western U.S. report this value appears to be greatly off-set  by a
tendency to  invade  and over-grow areas,  even  to  the extent  of  displacing native
vegetation (Horton and Campbell, 1974).  In addition, Russian olive is a phreatophyte and
can be responsible for serious forage-production losses and soil-water losses (Carmen and
Brotherson, 1982).  Good substitutes for Russian olive would include such native species
as sumac (Rhus spp.) and yaupon (Ilex vomitoria).

           Both  annual and perennial species of vegetation will be used  to control soil
erosion and to stabilize disturbed areas in the proposed reclamation plan (PCC, 1986a).
Annuals such  as  winter wheat and ryegrass serve  as a good temporary cover in  advance
of establishment  of perennial vegetation.   Erosion control is discussed  in  more detail in
Section 3.3.3.

           Re-establishing  a diverse and  adapted plant  community is also  compatible
with the philosophy of enhancing wildlife  habitat. In general, the selection of native,
late-successional species  to produce stable and adapted plant communities also produces
optimal wildlife habitat.  In planning a diverse plant community, cost can be saved by not
selecting  species which are readily dispersed by wildlife (e.g., berry plants), as long as
cover or roosting areas for birds that disperse the  seed are available in the area  (Yantis,
1986), and sources of the food plant are located in the vicinity.  Enhancement of wildlife
habitat is further discussed in Section 3.8.3.

           The reclamation  plan for  the mine  block and overburden stockpile  areas
indicates that 49% of this acreage will be developed as pastureland, 31% as grazingland,
14% as wildlife habitat, and  6% as aquatic features.  In comparison, existing vegetation
hi the mine blocks and overburden stockpile areas consists of 82% grassland and mesquite
brushland (including  pastureland and  grazingland land  use  categories), 12%  upland
hardwood forest, 6% bottomland/riparian  forest,  and  <1% aquatic habitats.   Since the
majority of  land is being reclaimed as coastal bermudagrass pastureland and grazingland
in coastal bermuda/native  species  mix,  special  consideration  should be paid to the
recommendations of Yantis (1986) and to  the study by  Skousen and Call (1985).   This
study  concludes  that  efforts to  reclaim pasturelands and grazinglands  in Texas  may
benefit from  increased interseeding of native species.   Wildlife  habitat also benefits
from this practice (Yantis, 1986).  Within the areas designated by the reclamation plan as
wildlife habitat,  some of the woody species which occur in the pre-mining upland  and
bottomland  forests will be planted.  However, upland hardwood forests and bottomland/
riparian  forests as they  exist in the project area will  not be directly  re-established
through the proposed revegetation plans.  Loss of these habitats is considered  a major
long-term adverse effect of mining.
                                      3-89

-------
           As discussed in the preceding evaluation of the proposed reclamation plan,
the  successful  re-establishment  of  adaptive,  diverse   vegetation  communities  is
dependent upon the application of specific guidelines and recommendations. Adaptation
of the proposed reclamation plan to include  means  of achieving  ecological objectives
outlined by experts such as Yantis (1986) may be considered appropriate mitigation for
the anticipated effects of the proposed mining project.  Some  of the  measures  for
accomplishing these mitigative goals are discussed below.  In the selection of species for
re-vegetation efforts, native species that  are of value to wildlife and are not  widely
dispersed by natural means should be emphasized.  Exotic species  (i.e., species that are
not native to the project site) should be used sparingly, if at all, due to the tendency of
some non-native species to displace  valuable native species by rapidly invading the area
under reclamation.  Substitutions for commonly-used exotics such  as Russian olive may
include such common native species as sumac  and yaupon.  Interseeding of native grasses
and forbs in pastureland and grazingland  areas should be encouraged in  order to increase
diversity, productivity, and wildlife value, as well as decrease management  requirements
in these areas.

3.7.4      Combined Impacts of Power Plant and Mine

           Construction and operation of the proposed power plant and mine will affect
approximately 8,062 acres, of which 77% is grassland; 12% is upland hardwood forest; 8%
is bottomland/riparian forest; 2% is  mesquite brushland; and aquatic habitat, cropland,
and disturbed (unvegetated) land comprise less than 1% each.  The  loss  of these habitats
is considered a  long-term adverse impact.  The proposed reclamation plan will reduce
some adverse effects of the project  by re-establishing vegetation  on lands disturbed by
mining activities.  Over the long-term, these changes in vegetative  cover will have a net
effect of replacing the naturally occurring vegetation communities with  communities
generally having lower diversity and a higher percentage of non-native plant species.

           Portions or all of the 614 acres of bottomland/riparian hardwood forest  and
50 acres of aquatic habitat to be affected by the proposed project  may be defined as
regulatory wetlands by the  USCE.   A determination  of the locations of  regulatory
wetlands  within the project area will be made by the  USCE following submittal of a
permit  application pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Additional informa-
tion concerning this permit process is presented in Section 2.6).

           One  plant species, Navasota ladies'-tresses  (Spiranthes parksii), which is
listed as Endangered by the FWS, is  of potential occurrence in the project region.  The
Biological Assessment report for the  project (EH&A, 1986b) prepared in accordance with
Section 7 of the Endangered Species  Act, concluded that the proposed project will have
no effect on populations  of this species  or  on important habitat of  the species (see
Coordination Section).

3.8        WILDLIFE

3.8.1       Existing Environment

           Wildlife Habitats  and  Species.  The project area lies within the Texan biotic
province.  This province represents  a transitional area between  the  forested Austro-
riparian province  to the east and grassland provinces to the west (Blair, 1950).  The
integration  of forests and grasslands  on the  project site  results  in  a  mixture  of
vertebrate species typical of the two general habitats.  This is a situation typical of  the
Texan biotic province, especially since the advent of agriculture in the area.
                                      3-90

-------
           The major wildlife habitats of the project area are upland hardwood forest,
bottomland hardwood forest; grasslands, hayfields and pastures, and wetlands and aquatic
habitats (Figure 3-12).  Because of the distribution of habitats within the project  area,
some overlapping of faunal communities occurs.  This is especially true of birds and the
larger, more mobile mammals. During the ecological surveys of the project  area (EH&A,
1985a),  97 species  of birds,  21 species  of  mammals, and 31 species of  reptiles and
amphibians were identified.

           Grassland,  hayfields,  and pastures constitute  the most extensive wildlife
habitat type of the power plant/mine project area, comprising approximately 79%.  This
habitat type includes open areas in which trees are  few in number or entirely absent.
Cropland was also included within this habitat type.  Mammal species common in open,
non-forested habitats of  the project area include the Eastern  Cottontail (Sylvilagus
florid anus), Black-tailed Jack Rabbit (Lepus calif ornicus), Hispid Cotton Rat (Sigmodon
hispidus)T" and Fulvous Harvest  Mouse  (Reithrodontomys  fulvescens).   Breeding  birds
characteristic of open areas include the Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella  magna),  Dick-
cissel (Spiza am eric ana), Scissor-tailed  Flycatcher (Tyrannus  for fie at us), Barn Swallow
(Hirundo rustica),  and the Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum).  Common
reptile  species observed in the grassland habitats of the project  area include the Six-
lined Racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus), Western Box  Turtle (Terrapene ornata
ornata.),  Eastern  Box  Turtle  (Terrapene Carolina triunguis), Texas Rat  Snake (Elaphe
obsoleta lindheimeri), and Western Coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum testaceus).

           Upland hardwood forests constitute approximately 14% of the project area.
Common mammal species found within the upland woodland habitats of the  project area
include  the  White-tailed  Deer  (Odocoileus  virginianus), Fox  Squirrel (Sciurus niger),
Eastern  Cottontail, Raccoon (Procyon lotor), and  the White-footed Mouse  (Peromyscus
leucopus).  Common breeding birds include  the Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
Carolina Chickadee (Parus carolinensis), Tufted Titmouse (Parus bicolor), Downy Wood-
pecker (Picoides pubescens), and Bewick's Wren (Thryomanes bewickii). Amphibians and
reptiles characteristic of this habitat include the Woodhouse's Toad (Bufo  woodhousei),
Green Anole (Anolis carolinensis), Ground Skink (Scincella later alls), Eastern Box Turtle,
Western Box Turtle,  Texas Rat  Snake,  and Broad-banded  Copperhead  (Agkistrodon
contortrix laticinctus).

           Bottomland  hardwood  forests  comprise  about 7%  of the  project  area.
Mammal species common in this habitat type include the  White-tailed Deer,  Raccoon,
Virginia  Opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Fox Squirrel,  and White-footed Mouse.  Common
breeding birds characteristic of this habitat type  include the Northern Cardinal, Tufted
Titmouse,   Carolina   Wren  (Thryothorus   lodovicianus),   American  Crow   (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Blue Jay  (Cyanocitta  cristata),  Carolina Chickadee, and the Great-
crested Flycatcher  (Myiarchus crinitus).  Amphibian and reptile species characteristic of
this  habitat type include the Gray Tree Frog (Hyla  versicolor), Green Anole, Eastern
Fence  Lizard (Sceloporus undulatus),  Ground Skink, Rough  Green Snake (Opheodrys
aestivus), and Eastern Box Turtle.

           Wetland and aquatic habitats make up  approximately 1% of the project area.
Common mammal species  associated with these habitats include the Nutria (Myocastor
coypus),  Raccoon,  Virginia Opossum, and  Beaver (Castor canadensis).   Common bird
species include the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus),
and the Cattle Egret  (Bubulcus  ibis).  Hydric communities  on  the  site support  a diverse
herpetofauna which includes such species as the  Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana),  Southern
Leopard  Frog (Rana sphenocephala), Green Frog (Rana clamitans), Northern Cricket  Frog
                                     3-91

-------
(Acris crept tans),  Red-eared  Slider (Chrysemys  script a),  Snapping Turtle  (Chelydra
serpentina), Diamondback Water Snake (Nerodia rhombifera), and Cottonmouth (Agkist-
rodon piscivorus).

           Wildlife habitats within the proposed transmission line ROW are comprised of
approximately 67% pastureland, 6% brushland, 17% woodland,  and 3% aquatic, with the
balance (approximately 7%) being other land uses,  primarily industrial land (Sargent and
Lundy, 1986a).  These habitats are similar to those found in the power plant/mine project
area.

           A habitat evaluation of the  mine area was  conducted by Morrison-Knudsen
Co., Inc. (M-K, 1986a and  1986b) during  1985.   The  evaluation was designed  to
characterize the Life-of-Mine (LOM) area to be impacted during the proposed 41-year
mine life.  This preliminary report reflects the baseline condition of the LOM  area as
sampled during 1985.

           This habitat evaluation was  conducted with procedures  developed by the
Kansas Fish and Game  Commission and  the Soil Conservation  Service (SCS).  Modifica-
tion to  the methodology to  represent central Texas vegetation was necessary  to
accurately reflect habitats in the Post Oak Savannah.

           The product of this evaluation is expressed in  habitat units, which  are the
result of  the habitat rating assigned to each habitat  times the area! extent of  each
habitat  (acres).  Habitat Units in this procedure are based upon an ecological  wildlife
concept rather than an individual species concept. The actual field evaluations more
strongly reflect land cover (composition and quality) rather than land use.

           Table 3-26 illustrates  the results  of the habitat evaluation of the existing
conditions for the evaluated area. For the 10,860 acres included in the evaluation (which
comprises  the  area within the  life-of-mine boundary  that is expected to  incur  the
majority of the impacts to land use  as a result of mining activities), 52,803 habitat units
exist, ranging from a low of  17.5 cropland-related habitat units to a high  of  19,272
pasture  units.  The highest rated habitat (bottomland  woodlands) was also one of the
more limited habitats in areal extent.  The poorest quality habitat in the area studied
was cropland,  primarily  because  of   management practices and  small field  size.
Potentially, the LOM area could support 95,445 habitat units, if all conditions were ideal.

                                    TABLE 3-26

                  RESULTS OF BASELINE HABITAT EVALUATION

                             FOR LIFE-OF-MINE AREA
     Habitat Type               Rating      x    Acres      =     Habitat Units
Cropland
Pasture
Rangeland
3.5/71
4.4/7
4.6/10
5
4,380
3,795
18/351
19,272/30,660
17,457/37,950
                                      3-92

-------
                                TABLE 3-26 (Cont'd)
     Habitat Type                Rating     x    Acres      =     Habitat Units
Upland Woodland
Bottomland Woodland
Water
5.4/10
7.4/10
4.6/10
1,811
814
55
9,779/18,110
6,024/8,140
253/550
   Maximum number possible.

Source:    M-K, 1986b.

           Endangered  and  Threatened  Species.   Several State  or  Federally-listed
endangered or threatened species are of potential  occurrence in the project area (EH&A,
1985a).  Three species  of greatest concern to the FWS are the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus),  Whooping Crane  (Grus  americana),  and  the  Houston Toad  (Bufo
houstonensis).

           The  American Alligator  (Alligator   mississippiensis)  is the  only species
considered endangered or  threatened by  the  FWS that may permanently reside in the
project area.  Although the American Alligator is considered endangered in most of the
United States, its numbers are rapidly increasing in Texas.  Because of this increase, it is
currently classified by the FWS as threatened in  Texas due to similarity of appearance
and is no longer considered  biologically  threatened or endangered in the state (FWS,
1983).  No alligators were observed during the field surveys conducted in the project
area; however, portions of Walnut Creek appear to provide  suitable  alligator habitat.

           The  endangered Houston  Toad formerly  occurred through a large area of
southeast Texas. Presently,  it is  known  to occur only in east-central Bastrop County,
southeast Harris County, and northern Burleson County (FWS, 1984). Critical habitat for
the species has  been designated in all three  areas.  The  designated critical habitat in
Burleson County is nearest to the project area.   This critical habitat is  a circular  area
with a one-mile  radius, the center being the north  entrance to Lake Woodrow from Texas
FM 2000.  The  center  of this critical habitat  is approximately 32 miles south of the
center of the power plant/mine project area.

           Three federally-listed birds are of potential occurrence in the area at certain
times of the year. The endangered Bald Eagle may reside  in the area during the winter
or may migrate  through the area.  The endangered Whooping Crane is a possible migrant
in the project area.  The endangered  American Peregrine  Falcon (Falco  peregrinus
anatum) and the threatened  Arctic  Peregrine  Falcon  (Falco  peregrinus tundrius)  are
possible migrants in  the area. Although none of these species were observed during the
field surveys, suitable habitat may be present for any of these species.

           Commercially and Recreationally Valuable Species.  The White-tailed Deer is
the most important big game mammal in  the State (Davis, 1974).  In the  Calvert project
area,  deer tracks were most common in bottomland areas,  especially along watercourses.
The TPWD estimate for number of deer per square mile of deer range for the period  1980
                                      3-93

-------
to 1984 for Robertson County was 33.6 (Gore and Reagan, 1985).  The density of deer in
the Post Oak Savannah (which for TPWD reporting purposes includes Robertson County)
is generally lower than other areas of Texas (Harwell and Cook, 1978).

          The Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) is an important game  bird over
much of Texas.  The road censuses taken during the field surveys indicate about 2.20,
1.03,  and 0.34 calling male Northern Bobwhites per mile (EH&A, 1985a).   Northern
Bobwhites occur in comparatively low numbers in Robertson County. The Mourning Dove
(Zenaida macroura) is the most widespread  and abundant game bird in Texas. The TPWD
determines Mourning  Dove population densities from "call count" surveys and visual
observations  conducted in  the  spring along randomly selected  15-mile  transects.  The
average  number of doves  heard per transect route  in the Post  Oak Savannah  for  the
period 1970 to 1984 was 24.5 (George, 1985).  This is higher than the 18.8 average for  the
entire State  during the  same period.   The  average  of the 1978, 1980, and 1985 road
census data indicate approximately 19.0 Mourning Doves per 15 miles in  the project area
(EH&A, 1985a).

          Fox Squirrels and Eastern Gray Squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) are important
game mammals over much of the eastern half of the state.  Eastern Gray Squirrels  are
usually restricted to bottomland hardwood forests  and  are decreasing in  numbers in
eastern Texas, mainly because  of habitat destruction (Davis, 1974). Fox Squirrels were
observed commonly during the field surveys.  Eastern Gray Squirrels were not observed
during the field surveys, but potential habitat appeared to  exist along portions of streams
and rivers within the project area.  The densities of squirrels within the  project area  are
unknown. The Black-tailed Jack Rabbit, Eastern Cottontail, and Swamp  Rabbit  (Sylvi-
lagus  aquaticus), although  not  strictly defined as game  animals,  are hunted throughout
Texas.  The Black-tailed Jack Rabbit and Eastern Cottontail were both  observed during
the survey, and it is very probable that the  Swamp Rabbit  also occurs in the project area.
The densities of these species within the project  area are unknown.

          Furbearers (e.g., Raccoon,  Virginia  Opossum, Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereo-
argenteus), Striped Skunk,  Bobcat (Felis rufus),  and Mink (Mustela vis on)) are of some
economic and  recreational importance in Texas.   On  a Statewide basis, furbearers
harvested during the 1982-1983 season had an estimated worth in excess of  $8.4 million
(Thompson, 1983). TPWD data show the Raccoon,  Virginia Opossum, and Striped Skunk
to be  the most commonly observed furbearers in  the Post Oak Savannah region, which  for
TPWD reporting purposes  includes the project area (Boone,  1981).   They  are most
abundant in wooded lands, especially the bottomland forests.

          Ecologically Sensitive Habitats. No  wildlife habitat areas were found on  the
site that were  unique to the area.  The fauna  is generally typical of  pastureland and
rangeland,  much  of  which is  heavily  invaded by  mesquite, interspersed with post
oak/blackjack oak forests.  The bottomland forests  represent the most sensitive wildlife
habitat due  to  their characteristic faunal  assemblages and their progressive decline in
the face of man's encroachment.  These areas typically support a number of species with
restrictive habitat requirements.   These  include  species such  as the Gray Squirrel,
Swamp Rabbit, Red-shouldered Hawk, various waterfowl, and Northern Parula.  River
bottoms also support larger populations of  game animals,  such as White-tailed Deer, and
various furbearers. Also, a variety of reptiles  and amphibians are either restricted to
moist  bottomland situations or  are much more common there  than  in higher, drier
habitats. Migrating songbirds utilize deciduous bottomlands for both food and temporary
nesting areas. Much of the bottomland forests in the project area have been impacted by
overcutting  and  clearing.   However, the  woodlands along Walnut and  South  Walnut
creeks, although narrow,  are considered good wildlife habitats.


                                      3-94

-------
           Wetland and aquatic habitats,  such as tributaries and farm ponds, are also
valuable habitats.  These areas provide  habitat for  many species of herons, egrets,
waterfowl,  and  other birds,  and  a  diverse  herpetofauna.   Some  areas within  the
bottomland  forests  and  aquatic  habitats  are  jurisdictional waters/wetlands  under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (see sections 2.6 and 3.7.4).

3.8.2      Construction Impacts

           The primary direct adverse impact  of  the proposed construction activities on
wildlife will be the result of the previously discussed vegetation clearing (Section 3.7.2)
and associated loss of habitat.  Clearing activities will result in the direct destruction of
some forms of wildlife that are not  mobile enough to  avoid construction operations.
These include several species of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and some age classes of
birds (e.g.,  nestlings and  fledglings).   Also  included  are species  which burrow under-
ground, such as the Plains Pocket Gopher.  Larger, more mobile species of wildlife may
avoid the initial clearing  activity and  in-migrate into adjacent areas.  However, each
species of  animal is dependent  on  available resources such as  food, shelter, water,
territory, and nesting sites from its habitat, and  any given area of habitat will have a
certain amount of these resources (Dempster,  1975). The carrying capacity of a habitat
for a species is determined by the availability  of  these resources and, in particular,  the
availability of critical limiting resources.   It is assumed  for the  purposes of impacts
analysis that these habitats are at their carrying capacity for the species that live there.
Thus, where  new individuals are  forced into  competition  with  resident individuals,
competition for resources  will occur, eventually resulting in a decreased birthrate and/or
increased mortality such  that  populations are reduced to  that which  the habitat can
support (Dempster,  1975). This  will result in an indirect  adverse impact on wildlife
populations adjacent to construction areas.

           Increased noise during  construction  could potentially disturb breeding  or
other activities  of species that  inhabit  the  adjacent  areas; however,   methods  for
quantifying such potential impacts are not yet developed (Janssen,  1978).  Shaw (1978)
states that  "Information  about the  effects of noise  on  wildlife is widely  scattered
through the scientific literature, frequently inconclusive, and sometimes contradictory."
However, studies indicate that many wildlife  species  learn  to  avoid sounds which  are
associated with danger (such as  the  sound of airplanes used to chase wolves, caribou,
etc.), and that many species habituate to loud  environmental noise pollution which does
not result in physical harm (Busnel, 1978; Lynch  and Speake, 1978; and Thiessen et al.,
1957). In any case, the adverse effects of construction noise will be limited with regard
to areal extent (see Section 3.6.2).

           Local  wildlife  populations in the  area will  be  adversely  affected by  the
increased human population resulting from the  influx of construction workers.  The total
population increase attributable to mine and  power plant construction is  predicted  to
peak in late 1989  at 749 (Section 3.11.4).  An increase in hunting is likely to result from
the concentration of construction workers and the greater accessibility to the project
area; however, the extent to which this will impact the wildlife  resources in the area is
not easily quantified.  Game species and  furbearers would receive the greatest pressure
in this regard, although state hunting regulations should prevent undue adverse effects.
Other effects on  wildlife  of the increased human population will include an increase in
the number  of wild animals killed on highways,  increased harassment by pets, and loss of
habitat due to construction of new homes (Section 3.11.3) which may be attributable  to
the construction worker population.
                                       3-95

-------
           Power Plant

           Construction activities at the power plant facilities site and ash disposal sites
will directly  affect  approximately 600 acres  of wildlife  habitat,  resulting in direct
adverse impacts of construction on wildlife populations.  Construction  of  the 345 kV
transmission line, railroad spur,  and make-up water pipeline will remove  approximately
358,  16,  and 23 acres  of  vegetation,  respectively  (Section 3.7.2).  The predominant
wildlife habitat  type to be affected  by clearing activities  is pastureland/grassland
(approximately  78%)  which  supports  wildlife  species such  as the Texas Rat Snake,
Eastern Meadowlark, Scissor-tailed Flycatcher,  Grasshopper Sparrow, Hispid Cotton Rat,
Eastern Cottontail, and  other typical pastureland/grassland species.  Bottomland forests
and aquatic habitats are the most sensitive habitats to be affected,  and comprise about
5% of the area of the power plant and related facilities.  Approximately 10%  of the area
to be cleared is upland forests  and  mesquite brushlands, 5%  is cropland,  and 2% is
disturbed.  Direct impacts of clearing may be considered long-term due to the fact that
such areas will not return to their pre-construction condition for many decades following
disturbance,  if ever.  Indirect adverse  impacts resulting from  competition between in-
migrating and resident wildlife populations will be short-term.

           Mine

           Approximately 2,047 acres  will be impacted by  construction of the  mine
facilities erection site, lignite transport facilities, surface water control structures, and
soil stockpiles (Section 3.7.2).  Of this area, approximately 68% is pastureland/grassland,
13% is bottomland forest, 13% is upland forest,  and 5% is mesquite brushland.  Less than
1% of the area of  mine construction is aquatic  habitat.  The  construction of a 138 kV
transmission line and  other  electric transmission facilities to power the  mining opera-
tions will also affect existing wildlife  habitats.  Impacts on wildlife resources  will be
similar to those discussed above.  Temporary dragline  move roads will be constructed to
move the  dragline  from Mining Block B to Block K in Year  17  and  from  Block J to
Block C in Year 29.  Both dragline move roads will be  approximately 7,000 feet long and
will require  a cleared  right-of-way  of 200 feet.   The  total  area of  wildlife habitat
affected will be approximately 64 acres, and includes  two crossings (one in Year 17 and
one in Year 29) of  Walnut Creek.  Impacts on  wildlife resources include loss of habitat
(including bottomland  forests along Walnut Creek) and  reduction of animal populations in
the area.

           The  proposed surface  water  control ponds will  be constructed in  such a
manner  as  to leave  intact as  much  natural  vegetation as  possible,   allowing  the
development of semi-aquatic habitats in some areas.  This type of habitat is  not typical
of the project area, and may benefit some species of wildlife.

3.8.3       Operation Impacts

           Noise from the power plant and mine  operations could disrupt breeding or
other activities of animals in adjacent  areas, as  discussed in Section 3.8.2. Since noise
from  project operations will occur over the life  of the project,  this impact  may be
considered long-term.   However, potential impacts due to noise will be limited  with
regard to areal extent (see Section 3.6.3).

           Local wildlife  populations  in the area  will  be adversely affected  by the
increased human population resulting from the  influx of workers  for mine  and power
plant operation.   The total population increase  attributable to  mine and power plant
                                      3-96

-------
operation  is predicted  to  peak in 2019  at 801 (Section 3.11.4).   The  effects  of this
population increase will be similar to those discussed previously (Section 3.8.2).

           Power Plant

           The possible effects  of power plant operation on vegetation  discussed in
Section 3.7.3 will affect wildlife habitats in the surrounding area.  Decreased product-
ivity of vegetation (e.g., as a result of dust accumulation on foliage) will limit resources
available to wildlife, possibly resulting in lower wildlife populations. Increased noise and
human activity in the area will also act to limit wildlife use of the surrounding area.

           A  14.5-mile long 345 kV transmission line is proposed to connect  the TNP
ONE Power Plant and  the Twin Oak substation (Section 2.4.1.10).  The greatest  impact
on  wildlife resulting  from  the operation  of  the proposed transmission line  will  be
increased  mortality  of birds  due to collisions  with towers, poles,  and wires.   Over
80 species  of  birds, representing 13 orders,  have been documented  as victims of wire
strikes  or  electrocutions in the United  States  (Thompson,  1978).  Stout and  Cornwell
(1976) reported that approximately 0.7% of nonhunting mortality of waterfowl resulted
from collisions with powerlines.   Mortality data for immature and  adult  Bald Eagles
indicate that  about 10% of the known deaths  from I960 through 1972  resulted  from
impact  injuries,  many  of which  resulted  from collisions with power lines  (Kroodsma,
1978).   Electrocution may have  been the primary cause of death  in  some  of these
incidents (Kroodsma,  1978).  The distance between conductor and  tower structure or
ground wire on high-voltage transmission lines (such as the proposed 345 kV transmission
line) is  usually  at least  10 feet, which is greater than the wingspan  of any  North
American bird, thus reducing  the possibility of  electrocution.  During the  life  of the
project,  there  is a high probability that some birds will be killed as a result of collision
with the proposed line (EH&A, 1986b).

           Mine

           Clearing and grubbing of the  mining blocks  will occur throughout the life of
the mine and will take place a few hundred feet  (and one  or two years) in simultaneous
advance of the prestripping shovel and draglines.  Thus, even though the mining blocks
encompass 5,018 acres, the actual area in which clearing is ongoing will be much smaller
at any given time during the life  of the project.  The adverse impacts to wildlife during
clearing and grubbing will  be of the same  nature  as  those discussed in the  previous
section  on construction.  However,  the  magnitude of both direct and indirect adverse
impacts resulting from clearing and  grubbing during  the operational phase of the  mine
will be  much  greater due to the  larger area to be affected.   Habitats which will be
cleared  and grubbed  include  4,011 acres  of  pastureland/grassland  (80%  of  total),
578 acres  of upland  forest (12%), 318 acres of bottomland forest  (6%),  76  acres  of
mesquite brushland (2%), and 35 acres of aquatic habitats (<1%).  Wildlife species that
will be adversely  affected by this  clearing include those species previously  discussed in
Section 4.8.1 as being typical of those habitats.

           A 138 kV transmission line will be constructed to supply power to the mine.
Other utility lines which will be operated include those necessary to supply power to the
draglines and other elements of the mining operation, and any aerial lines necessary for
telephone communication.  Potential adverse effects due to operation of these  lines
include  possible  deaths  or  injuries of birds due  to collisions.   Some  birds may  be
electrocuted by the lines, especially the 138 kV transmission line.
                                      3-97

-------
           Pesticide use  during mine operation will be limited to weed control around
fuel storage areas, electrical  substations,  and conveyors, resulting in a possible  long-
term minor adverse impact to wildlife.

           Reclamation.   The wildlife  species which  will  inhabit  the project area
following mining,  and the structure, diversity  and  dynamics of the postmining wildlife
communities will depend  to a  major extent on the  practical application of the proposed
reclamation plan  (including fish and  wildlife  habitat  restoration  measures) and on
postmining land use.  Based on the  proposed reclamation plans, the postmining fauna of
the mined area will greatly differ in species composition and community structure from
the existing wildlife communities.  Numerous  studies have documented similar adverse
impacts on strip-mined areas (e.g., Cantle, 1978; Brewer,  1958; Karr, 1969; Allaise,  1979;
Wray et al., 1982; Hingtgen and  Clark,  1984;  Medcraft and Clark, 1986).  In  order to
better evaluate the proposed  reclamation  plan,  telephone  communications  were  made
with three experts in the area of wildlife  habitat  reclamation on surface-mined lands:
Norman Bade (SCS, Temple Office),  Ray Telfair (TPWD, Tyler Office), and James Yantis
(TPWD, Hearne).  The following discussion of the proposed reclamation plan incorporates
comments and recommendations of these experts.

           Interim reclamation activities will include the establishment  of food plots, to
provide for wildlife in the area.  Food plots will be established using fast-growing,  low
maintenance species.  This effort will provide short-term food resources for displaced
wildlife until final reclamation efforts are  initiated.  Cattle will  be totally  or partially
excluded  from  interim reclamation  areas,  to minimize competition with wildlife (PCC,
1986a).

           Reclamation  of the  mine blocks on the  Calvert  Lignite Mine  will  begin
immediately following  the replacement of the overburden and topsoil.   Reclaimed
pasture  will be  established with kleingrass,  switchgrass, and bermudagrass.   These
species will  create an open habitat  intended to  resemble pasturelands  with  respect to
wildlife habitat.  Such reclaimed habitats support a very low diversity and an overall  low
density of wildlife,  although  a  few species may  occur  there in good numbers  (e.g.,
Dickcissels  and Eastern  Meadowlarks).   Approximately 49%  of the mine  block  and
overburden  stockpile areas will be reclaimed as improved pasture and as such will have
very low value to wildlife.    In comparison, 64%  of the mine blocks  and overburden
stockpile areas are currently used as pastureland.

           Approximately 31% of the mine  block and overburden  stockpile areas will be
reclaimed as grazingland. In  comparison,  approximately  17%  of the mine blocks  and
overburden  stockpile  areas  are  currently used  as grazingland.   Such habitats  are
structurally similar to improved pasture. Land reclaimed to grazingland will  be slightly
better habitat  than reclaimed pastureland  for  some species  of wildlife,  due to  the
slightly more diverse assemblage of vegetation species used in reclamation.  Although
much vegetational diversity  will be lost  from existing conditions, some  wildlife species
may benefit more from  reclaimed  grazingland than reclaimed improved pasture.   For
example, White-tailed Deer may benefit from the planting of forbs in grazingland.

           Some pastureland and grazingland reclamation activities will be performed to
benefit wildlife.  Permanent pastures will be overseeded to promote vegetative diversity.
Range management practices which  may be performed include rotational  grazing, disking
for forb production, and burning (as necessary).

           Approximately 6%  of  the mine  block and overburden stockpile areas will be
converted to ponds,  lakes, or other  aquatic habitats.  Less than 1%  of  these areas  are


                                      3-98

-------
currently aquatic habitats.  Approximately 49 small ponds  will be created in the mine
blocks, ranging in size from about 0.1 to 3.6 acres.  Two lakes will be created at the end
of mining.   One  of these lakes will be in the west  end of Mine  Block J,  and  will be
approximately 145 acres.  The other lake will be in the east end of  Mine Block C, and
will  be about 160 acres.  Based upon conceptual engineering designs, both of these lakes
will  have steep slopes and banks (approximately 20%).  They will thus have very  narrow
littoral zones and very little emergent aquatic vegetation. Water levels of the ponds and
lakes may fluctuate widely, depending on rainfall,  runoff, and evapotranspiration. This
set of conditions  is not favorable for developing good habitat for wildlife species which
normally occur in typical aquatic habitats.  The wildlife value of ponds and lakes such as
those proposed is generally low.  Potential waterfowl  habitat  and fish spawning sites
could  be improved by  constructing  the  ponds and lakes  with gentle slopes and  an
undulating shoreline, and by ensuring a stable  water level.  To  some extent, an  uneven
shoreline will form as spoil material is deposited into the mine  pits which will become
end  lakes.    Construction of  the  proposed  end  lakes,  which is  proposed  to  occur
approximately 30-40 years in  the  future, will depend upon   approval  by  the  RRC.
Following permit approval for these features,  PCC will consult with State and Federal
agencies regarding possible measures  for  improving wildlife habitat value  of the end
lakes.

           Reclaimed lands specifically  designated as wildlife habitat  will  represent
approximately 14% of postmining land use in the mine blocks and overburden stockpiles.
These  areas are  currently approximately 18%  bottomland  and upland forest habitats.
Wildlife  areas are proposed to be established  along some fencerows and around  some
ponds.  Additionally, shrub and tree species which provide  food, cover, and shelter for
wildlife  will  be  planted along channels  and around wetland/aquatic  wildlife habitat
enhancement areas that will be created  adjacent  to drainages where practical  (PCC,
1986a).  Such areas offer the most  favorable conditions for providing habitat  for many
species which would not otherwise occur in the permit area. Wildlife habitat areas are
proposed to be planted  with grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees which  may  be usable  by
wildlife  for some of their physical or nutritional requirements.  The use  of  some non-
native plant species is proposed, including Russian  olive and northern red oak,  among
others.  Since the ultimate goal of reclamation is to restore  existing habitats to the
greatest  extent feasible, the use of exotic plants is undesirable.  In fact, where exotics
are established during reclamation, they may be able to  out-compete  the more desirable
native species for light, moisture, or nutrients, thus further hindering the re-establish-
ment of  native habitats.  Other plants which are proposed to be  used  for the restoration
of wildlife habitats, such  as green  ash and sycamore, are  not  particularly valuable to
wildlife for food or cover.  These two species are undesirable for use in reclamation for
the additional reason that they are both early  colonizers in appropriate habitats.  They
may thus  become established to the  extent  that  they out-compete more  desirable
species.  Other species, including some forbs and grasses, proposed  for use in wildlife
habitat restoration are also undesirable for similar reasons.

3.8.4      Combined Impacts of Power Plant and Mine

           As described in Section 3.7, construction and operation of  the  power plant
and mine facilities will result in the removal of approximately 8,062 acres of vegetation
and  associated existing wildlife  habitats.   Because this  area will be converted  to
industrial use for the life of the project, the  effect  on wildlife is considered a major
long-term adverse impact.  Restoration of wildlife communities and  habitats  to condi-
tions comparable  to pre-mining will take decades longer than the  life of the proposed
project.
                                      3-99

-------
           Actual mining  will result in the removal of 5,018 acres of existing  wildlife
habitats incrementally  over the life of the project.   This  adverse impact will result in
long-term  effects on wildlife species and  communities due to substantial  changes in
species composition and community dynamics. Reclamation will reduce adverse  impacts
of mining  to some extent; however, certain habitats such as mature upland forest  and
riparian woodlands will probably not redevelop for many decades.  The overall value of
mined areas to wildlife  will be greatly reduced.

           The most  important wildlife habitat,  as reflected by the highest rating of 7.4,
is the bottomland woodland  type.  As  previously  mentioned, bottomland  woodlands,
covering approximately 18% of  the  project area,  totaled  6,024 habitat units in  the
completed  habitat evaluation. Generally, the FWS considers that these are the  critical
habitat units (i.e., 6,024) that should be replaced to adequately mitigate adverse  impacts
on wildlife habitat.  Mathematically, it is  possible  to  provide 6,500  habitat units  on
650 acres rated at 10.  The reclamation plan indicates that 14% of affected lands will be
reclaimed  as wildlife  habitat.    Based  on 5,018 acres,  about  700 acres   are to  be
specifically designated  as wildlife habitat.  If this  700 acres were restored as bottomland
woodlands, with similar quality (i.e., 7.4  rating), 5,180 habitat units could be mitigated
over  time.  However,  the area (14%)  proposed  to be reclaimed as wildlife  habitat
includes habitat types  other  than  bottomland woodlands.  The net result being, only a
very small percentage of the  highest rated wildlife habitat is to be replaced.  To reduce
adverse  impacts on  wildlife  resources,  coordination on  habitat  reclamation  will  be
maintained for the project life with state and federal wildlife agencies.

           The restoration of wildlife habitats would be more successful  if native, late-
successional stage species with a demonstrable value to the maximum number of  wildlife
species were used in all except  unusual  or  emergency situations (Yantis, 1986).  It is
recommended that during project  development  consideration be given to establishment
of more native vegetation than presently planned.  The establishment of a  nursery to
raise  plants  native  to  the  project area  would  facilitate successful wildlife  habitat
reclamation.   Consultation with experts in state and federal wildlife agencies will occur
in order to promote beneficial reclamation practices  over the life of the project.

           Other major long-term adverse impacts on wildlife as a result  of construction
and operation of the power plant and mine include the effects of noise, increased human
activity in  the area, and other indirect impacts as described previously.

           Section 7  of the Endangered  Species Act requires that all Federal Agencies
consult with  the FWS regarding endangered  species.  This consultation  is necessary to
insure actions authorized,  funded or carried out by such agencies do not jeopardize  the
continued  existence  of any  listed or proposed endangered  or  threatened  species  or
adversely modify  or  destroy  critical habitat of  such species.  Wildlife species listed by
the FWS as threatened or endangered which may be affected by the proposed  project
include  the  Houston Toad,  Whooping Crane,  and  Bald Eagle.   EPA determined  the
proposed project would  not affect the Houston Toad,  but may affect the Whooping Crane
and Bald Eagle.  The proposed 345-kV and 138-kV  transmission lines present potential
collision hazards  during  flight for these  two  bird  species.   As a result  of  formal
consultation  between EPA and the FWS regarding  these  species, FWS  formulated  the
biological  opinion that the proposed project is  not  likely to jeopardize  the continued
existence of  these species (see  Coordination Section). The following FWS recommenda-
tions, if implemented, would lessen the potential effect on these species  and provide for
their  enhancement:
                                       3-100

-------
           1.    Wetlands, including ponds, lakes, streams, and their associated riparian
                 vegetation, should be avoided and protected  whenever  feasible  during
                 the mining process.

           2.    If adversely impacted, wetlands  should be reclaimed in order to restore
                 their natural biological productivity.

           3.    Power lines and other transmission facilities should be designed to avoid
                 accidental electrocution of  bald eagles  through  the  application  of
                 appropriate construction criteria (Texas Railroad Commission, Surface
                 Mining Regulations Section 380(c)).

           4.    Powerlines should avoid  spanning large bodies of open water or wetlands
                 which often serve as  endangered  and threatened  species' migratory
                 flyways, thus minimizing the potential for bird/powerline collisions.  If
                 it is necessary to span large  water  bodies,  the lines should be marked
                 with  high  visibility aviation  markers  or  similar material  to increase
                 their visibility.  The Twin Oak  Reservoir  and Walnut Creek crossings
                 are examples of areas that should be marked.

           5.    If a bald eagle nesting  site  is located during project development  or
                 thereafter, the Fish and  Wildlife  Service should be notified immediately
                 in order to  work  with  the  project sponsors  in identifying  measures
                 necessary to protect the site.

The  Biological Assessment report (EH&A, 1986b) prepared for Section 7  consultation is
available for review at the informational depositories or upon request.

3.9        AQUATIC ECOLOGY

3.9.1      Existing Environment

           Aquatic Habitats.   The aquatic environment of the proposed project area
includes intermittent creeks and a  few small  impoundments (stock tanks) (EH&A,  1979;
1985a).  The  small streams within the project area (i.e., Walnut Creek, South  Walnut
Creek,  Dry  Branch,   Bee Branch,   Big  Willow  Creek,  and  Barton  Branch)  are  all
intermittent tributaries of the Little Brazos River, which  is a part of  the Brazos River
drainage system. The substrate in all the streams is sandy clay, although small areas  of
pure sand or gravel riffles  are  present at some locations.   Physical habitat diversity is
low, for the most  part, being  a  function of  channel  morphology (e.g.,  pools, shallow
areas)  and the amount and type of  organic debris present.  Aquatic vegetation includes
scattered  clumps  of  cattails  (Typha sp.),   stonewort   (Charaspp.),   and  seedbox
(Ludwigia spp.).  Although circumneutral  pH is the rule in  these aquatic  systems, water
quality, as reflected  by conductivity,  can vary  considerably  among streams and  also
varies  seasonally in a given stream. All of these creek systems typically flow through
dense second-growth woodland and,  consequently, are heavily shaded  in most places and
receive a large amount of vegetative debris.

           A  total of 29 streams,  most  of which are intermittent  or ephemeral, are
crossed by the proposed  transmission line  route. Streams  to be  crossed include Dry
Branch, Bee Branch,  Big Willow Creek,  Barton Branch, Big Sandy Creek, Little  Sandy
Creek, Long Branch, and tributaries of Walnut Creek,  Red Bank Creek, Barton Branch,
Big Sandy Creek, and Long Branch.  In addition, the eastern portion of the  proposed route
crosses two small arms of the Twin Oak Reservoir (Herds Branch and Oliver Branch).
                                      3-101

-------
           Aquatic Biota.  The  algal densities of Walnut Creek were the lowest sampled
in the project area (EH&A, 1979; 1985a). Green algae and diatom species were generally
among  the  dominant species,  but  the  Euglenophyta  and  Cryptophyta  were  greatly
represented.  The low algal densities and presence of groups with littoral affinities are
typical  of small woodland streams.

           Although  zooplankton  densities were  generally low  to moderate,  species
diversity tended to he relatively high, with the communities typically containing species
of copepods,  Cladocera, and  rotifers as  dominants.  Low zooplankton densities  are
common because of the flushing effects of stream flow and low phytoplankton availability
as food.

           Macroinvertebrate assemblages were generally  dominated by dipteran larvae
and  oligochaetes,  which  are  regarded  as tolerant of  enrichment  and  low  oxygen
concentrations.  These  organisms  are  typical  of  fine-grained substrates, particularly
where large amounts of detrital material are present.  Other  major taxa  present in
appreciable numbers  include the insect orders Ephemeroptera, Odonata, and Coleoptera,
represented  by  species at  least  moderately  tolerant   of  turbidity  and low   DO
concentrations.

           Major groups of fish observed in the project area and vicinity  were minnows,
mosquito fish, sunfish, and darters.  Fish were not very abundant in the project area,  and
individuals  tended to be  small.   Most of the species which  exist in  the area  are
widespread  throughout Texas or are extremely common in small aquatic habitats of this
region.

           Endangered and Threatened Species.  According to the latest listings  and
proposed listings (FWS,  1986), no species of fish,  freshwater mussels, snails or crusta-
ceans which are listed as  endangered or threatened, are known  to  occur in the project
area.

           Commercially or Recreationally Valuable Species.   A  number of sportfish
(catfish, bass, sunfish) occur in the area.  While these are important  species, the aquatic
habitats available  in the  project  area  are not considered an  important commercial
fishery  or  a major recreational area due  to  their size and accessibility.  Due to  the
proposed project's proximity to the Brazos and Little Brazos rivers, sportfishing in the
immediate vicinity is considered light.   The two major creek systems in the proposed
project  area (e.g., Walnut Creek and South Walnut Creek) are intermittent tributaries of
the Little Brazos and Brazos Rivers and may provide limited spawning and nursery areas
for important game species from early spring to late summer.

3.9.2      Construction Impacts

           Power Plant

           Construction activities  associated with the proposed power plant facilities
site, ash disposal site A-l and associated haul road, railroad spur,  and power plant access
road have the potential of adversely affecting Dry Branch and Bee Branch in the Walnut
Creek drainage and Barton Branch in the Little Brazos drainage. Clearing and  grading
activities will potentially increase surface  water transport of eroded sediments off-site,
adversely impacting  aquatic  communities  in  receiving streams.   During  construction
activities,  standard engineering practices  will be  employed to  reduce erosion, and  the
runoff from cleared  areas will be controlled  through temporary sediment catchments.
                                      3-10Z

-------
Any sediment loading to the drainages named above is  expected to be minor and short-
term.   Additionally, the substrata of potentially affected streams are typically fine-
grained. The existing aquatic communities are well adapted to periodic siltation which
currently occurs during periods of high stream flows associated with storm events.

           Adverse  effects on aquatic communities from  construction  of the proposed
transmission line may include temporary erosion  and sedimentation at stream crossings.
Potential adverse impacts from sedimentation would include temporarily reduced phyto-
plankton, zooplankton, benthic invertebrate,  and  fish populations;  temporary reductions
in  benthic  habitat   diversity;  temporary increases in  stream   nutrient  levels;  and
temporarily reduced primary productivity.   Sedimentation is not expected  to result  in
adverse  impacts to  area streams  since  these  streams are characterized by low zoo-
plankton populations; benthic invertebrate populations adapted to soft, muddy substrates;
and fish communities dominated by  species  tolerant  of turbid  environments.   The
duration of any potential adverse impacts would be short-term  and restricted to the
duration of  construction  activities  at each stream  crossing.   Furthermore,  erosion
control measures such as rock berms, brush berms, and/or dikes will be implemented  to
reduce potential erosion and sediment transport to streams.

           Mine

           The  effects of mine construction  activities will be similar to those discussed
for the  power  plant facilities.   Clearing   and  grubbing  of  land  areas  for   offices,
shops/maintenance  areas,  etc.,  will increase  surface water runoff from affected areas
and potential sediment transport to receiving streams.   In  addition,  Bee Branch  is
expected to incur minor impacts during  the  construction  of permanent  mine operation
facilities.   Planned  surface  water  runoff   and  sediment  transport  controls  such  as
sediment ponds, fabric filter silt fences, and  hay bale dikes are expected to reduce these
impacts.

           Clearing   of terrestrial  vegetation  in areas to be  mined,  construction  of
access and haul roads, construction of surface water control structures, and erection  of
administrative,  maintenance,  and service buildings are also planned.  Some of the roads
will cross area streams, as will embankments constructed  for diversion and sedimenta-
tion ponds.   Each  activity  could potentially discharge  effluents  to these streams,
adversely impacting aquatic biota resulting  from the 1) destruction of  existing stream
channels (e.g., stream realignments); 2) increases in  suspended solids loading; 3) changes
in nutrient inputs; 4) reduction  in  the shade  and  organic material  provided  by riparian
vegetation;  and  5) alteration of  the existing  flow  regime.   The  immediate  effluent
constituent  of concern, in addition to increased rainwater runoff, is suspended solids
(silt)  delivered  to  stream flow.   Sedimentation  ponds  and diversion  ditches  will be
constructed to eliminate runoff water carrying an  increased load of suspended solids into
the small tributary  streams draining  the proposed mine area.   Mine  plans call  for the
construction of 14 sedimentation ponds, 4 diversion ponds, and 25 diversion and sediment
control ditches over the life of the project in  order to reduce or eliminate the potentially
adverse impacts to surface water related to sedimentation  (PCC, 1986a).  The conveyor
and associated access road, which are proposed for mining activities in Mine Blocks J and
K,  will be constructed so as  to  minimize disruption of local  drainage systems, thus
minimizing disruption of  aquatic  communities.   Intermittent reaches of South Walnut
Creek, Walnut Creek, and Bee Branch will be  crossed  by  the  conveyor.  Minimal and
short-term impacts  to these streams may occur  due to sedimentation during construc-
tion.  Normal flow or gradient of the streams, as well as long-term  water quality, should
not be affected.  The 3,200-foot section of conveyor that crosses the Walnut Creek
                                       3-103

-------
floodplain north of Blocks J and K will be enclosed in an elevated gallery to protect the
Walnut Creek environment.

           The severity of impacts due to increased suspended solids loads is dependent
on the concentration of suspended  material, the amount of sedimentation which takes
place,  and the nature  of the substrate and biota receiving the sediment.   Fish  will
generally leave areas of high suspended solids and  return when  conditions  are more
favorable.  Suspended solid loads may have an abrasive action on the gills of fish, and
sudden increases due to extremely heavy precipitation on the project site  could create
some periodic short-term adverse impacts on the stream fisheries.

           The effects of substrate blanketing by sediment and destruction of aquatic
vegetation and invertebrates are of potential significance.  However, use of sediment
control structures will prevent massive  blanketing of stream beds, and the fine-grained
nature (e.g.,  sand,  silt, and clay)  of the substrates in the project  area ensures that no
long-term alteration of substrate type will result, if sedimentation rates are temporarily
increased  during  construction  activities.  In  addition,  area  streams are  presently
dominated by a  benthic  invertebrate  fauna characteristic of  fine-grained substrates.
Therefore, any  adverse  impacts resulting  from  increased suspended solids loads to
project streams are expected to be short-term and localized.

           The immediate increase in  leaching of soil  nutrients commonly associated
with clearing of vegetation may temporarily enrich streams in the project area. If this is
accompanied by the clearance of riparian vegetation for access roads, etc., the increased
nutrient  and light  levels will probably  cause  algal blooms in pool  areas,  if suspended
solids concentrations are  sufficiently low. Nutrient release rates from cleared areas will
decrease following the  initial pulse, and nutrient enrichment of project streams is not
anticipated to be a long-term effect.

3.9.3       Operation Impacts

           Power Plant

           The  proposed  power plant  is designed to  have no discharge of process
wastewater; design emphasis has been placed on reuse and  recycling  of all wastewater
(see  Section 2.4.1.5).    Surface  water  from  the  lignite  storage  areas  and planned
parking/yard areas  will be impounded,  clarified,  and returned to  the cooling  water
storage lagoon for  reuse.  Impoundments receiving various drainages from  the plant will
be sized to contain  the  projected 10-year, 24-hour  storm event; rainfall above  this
amount will  be discharged off-site through spillways.   No adverse  effects  to aquatic
communities are expected to occur as  a result of power plant  operation.  If a storm
event exceeding  the design specifications of plant  site drainage impoundments were to
occur,  short-term  degradation  of  the  water  quality of receiving  streams  might  be
expected.  However, no potentially toxic water  quality constituents of the proposed
power plant's discharge are expected to reach levels which will adversely affect aquatic
communities of receiving streams (see Section 3.4.3).

           Adverse  impacts  to  aquatic biota  associated with operation of  the  trans-
portive systems may result from the maintenance of  the right-of-way (ROW)  corridors.
Maintenance of transportive systems  will require  that woody vegetation  be restricted
from colonizing within the ROW.  Therefore, long-term, but localized, effects to aquatic
ecosystems at ROW crossings may include  localized elevated temperatures,  increased
solar insolation,  and increased phytoplankton  production at stream  crossings.  Rooted
                                      3-104

-------
aquatic plants may also become established in areas where canopy cover is permanently
removed.

           Mine

           Drainage  systems  affected  by the  proposed mine plan include the Little
Brazos River and a major tributary of the Little Brazos River (Walnut  Creek).  Walnut
Creek tributaries affected by mining activities include South Walnut Creek, Big Willow
Creek, Bee Branch, and Dry Branch.  Disruption of normal flow volumes  and patterns are
expected until backfilling has been completed, with  adverse impacts on aquatic biota
occurring in stream channels directly affected by proposed mining activities.

           Potential  disturbance of aquatic  habitats during mine  operation may result
from the increased suspended solids loads entering  the creeks, which will be a function of
rainfall and subsequent  surface  water runoff.  Most  of the runoff and  other discharges
along and within each mine block will be regulated by sedimentation and diversion ponds
(PCC, 1986a).   Sedimentation  ponds will provide detention  of  surface runoff  from
subbasins affected by the mining operation, as well as the detention of pit inflows from
mine pit dewatering  operations.  The diversion ponds will divert or detain  runoff from
subbasins not directly disturbed by mining activities.

           Potential  constituents of runoff from roads and service  areas may include oil
and grease deposited during operation of vehicles. Runoff from service areas  and  road
surfaces will be controlled by sedimentation ponds.

           It  should   be  pointed out that  activities such  as land clearing and  road
construction,  in addition  to  others  which may be classified as construction,  such as
construction of embankments  for diversion and sedimentation  ponds,  will  continue
throughout  the life  of  the  project  as  mining progresses.   Therefore, it should be
recognized that the operation activities, like the construction activities, will not affect
the entire project area simultaneously.

           As prestripping operations begins in Mine Block A, temporary stream diver-
sions will be  constructed, resulting in  the loss of habitats  and biota of the  existing
stream channels.  Although the new channels can  be  expected to colonize rapidly,  they
are unlikely to provide the habitat diversity of the natural channels.  Extremes  in water
level (discharge) in new channels are expected to be greater than  in natural  channels
because  they will be straightened and  because  their  watersheds  will  have   reduced
vegetative cover. Riparian vegetation will remain undisturbed in downstream reaches of
affected streams.

           Extensive  removal of riparian vegetation from  the streams of  the mine  site,
and  construction  of  new, unshaded  diversion channels will result in  a change in  the
trophic structure of affected stream reaches. These streams are presently dominated by
detrital food chains dependent on leaf litterfall from the surrounding woodlands. In situ
production by algae and macrophytes is, at present,  largely  confined to  areas, such as
road crossings, that have been cleared.  While extensive alterations  in the abundance  and
composition of  the algal and macrophyte  flora can be expected,  the  effects  on other
components of the aquatic community are less clear, but are discussed below.

           Zooplankton and littoral microinvertebrate densities will probably rise due to
increases in phytoplankton food  availability and the additional cover provided  by  more
extensive stands of aquatic  vegetation.  The factors  affecting potential changes in the
                                       3-105

-------
macroimrertebrate community are more complex. Although in situ production will, to a.
large degree,  supplement terrestrial organic material at the base of the food chain, it
must be pointed out that  the  largest proportion of aquatic macrophyte production also
enters  the  food  web as  detrital material, rather  than  being cropped when  living.
Detritus-feeding organisms (e.g.,  most oligochaetes)  may be largely unaffected, as the
source of organic material in  the sediments appears  to be  unimportant relative to the
amount available.  Some changes may occur in the composition of  the detritus-feeding
fauna as the source of detritus changes from mainly  terrestrial plant leaves  to  aquatic
vegetation,  but little  is known about the dependence (or lack thereof) of these species
upon specific detrital sources.  Two groups of macroinvertebrates, the scrapers/algal
grazers and the filter  feeders, can be expected to increase in abundance and diversity in
response to these  changes.  Additionally, the  increased  habitat diversity provided by
macrophyte stands  can  be expected to result  in some increase in macroinvertebrate
abundance and diversity.  Fish species feeding on macroinvertebrates (e.g., sunfishes,
catfish) would be affected by  changes in invertebrate species composition and distribu-
tion only to the extent that the availability, or catchability, of prey  items changed. For
instance,  the  greater  abundance and variety of invertebrates generally associated with
aquatic vegetation may result in some increases in sunfish and top minnow populations.

           Other factors attendant to the change from  woodland to  open stream habitat
that  may affect  the  fish community include  increases in the ranges  of variation in
temperature and water level, and increased availability  of cover in stands of vegetation.
Increased summer  temperatures could have adverse impacts on fish populations,  while
increased oxygen levels  and cover provided by  aquatic  vegetation could have beneficial
impacts.

           The  changes  in stream communities in response to removal of forest  cover
outlined above will be extensive and  long-term.  These streams are presently mosaics of
wooded and open reaches, and the proposed project will substantially alter  the  propor-
tions of  those  two major  habitat   types.   Except perhaps in channelized   reaches
experiencing extended low  flow periods, species diversity and overall abundance is not
expected to decline in any  of  the major groups, and some increases may occur.  Long-
term adverse  impacts  can be expected in  those  channelized  reaches experiencing
extreme variation in water level (discharge), in which little  physical habitat diversity is
available, and which do not develop extensive stands of aquatic vegetation.

           The  degree to  which mining activities  will alter the present stream  flow
regime  cannot be accurately predicted.  Ordinarily, clearing of forest cover would result
in more rapid runoff,  increased flood peaks, and extended low flow periods.  However,
the large number of sedimentation ponds to be used should substantially retard the runoff
peaks and release  the  impounded water more slowly,  somewhat approximating the
hydrologic effects of the original forest cover.

           A  number  of created  ponds and ditches are to be used for runoff control.
Water control plans include 14 sedimentation ponds, with  drainage areas ranging in size
from 51 to 2,258 acres, during project life.  Ponds  controlling runoff from disturbed
areas could serve  to  concentrate  a variety of  discharge materials.  These ponds are
designed to treat mine discharge and other runoff by settling, and are likely to retain the
concentrates during a 10-year, 24-hour storm.  The potential exists for biomagnification
of these materials (mainly heavy metals) in animals, especially  waterfowl,  using  these
ponds unless efforts are made  to restrict  use.  It  is suggested that concentrations of
runoff materials such as arsenic,  cadmium, chromium, copper, fluoride, molybdenum,
selenium, and  uranium  from disturbed and undisturbed areas should be  monitored to
                                      3-106

-------
minimize disturbances and adverse impacts on fish and  wildlife.  In addition, periodic
sampling of the water control ponds is suggested in order to comply with the Fish  and
Wildlife  Plan of the RRC mine permit application,  which states the water control ponds
will be constructed in such a manner as  to facilitate the development of riparian  and
semi-aquatic habitats (PCC, 1986a).  Finally, flocculation (as necessary) is suggested to
remove contaminants considered to be potentially toxic to fish and wildlife.

           Potential adverse impacts to aquatic communities could  include drainage of
acidic, metal-bearing waters from exposed overburden piles made up  of materials having
a high acid-forming potential. However, acid-forming materials in the overburden at the
proposed mine  are offset by the presence  of neutralizing  agents such as alkali salts  and
clay minerals; therefore, acid mine drainage is not expected to occur.

           Reclamation.  Reconstructed stream channels will be of  sufficient width to
allow the  natural processes  of weathering and sedimentation to shape  a meandering
channel. To the  extent possible, the  pre-existing stream drainage  configuration  will be
retained and  slopes similar  to pre-mining conditions  will be  achieved  to  facilitate
stream-flow regimes consistent with  pre-mining rates.  Some wetland/aquatic wildlife
enhancement areas should be restored adjacent to drainages.

           Revegetation efforts will be directed to stabilize  slopes, control erosion,  and
provide  initial stages of  a  high  quality wildlife habitat.    Channels and  associated
sideslopes will  be planted to grass  and legume species capable of tolerating stream flow
with minimal erosion.  Shrubs and tree species  which provide  superior food, cover,  and
shelter  for wildlife  will be  planted  along channels and around  the  wetland/aquatic
wildlife habitat enhancement areas.

           No  attempt will be made  to artificially restock  stream sections because of
their ephemeral or intermittent nature.  Natural restocking of plankton and invertebrate
species will occur,  and fish will move principally from downstream areas  to occupy  the
recreated habitat.  Following completion of mining, stocking  of the ponds  and  lakes will
be employed by PCC,  as necessary,  to maintain or enhance their fishery value.  Although
fish stocking  depends on  landowner goals  and  management  philosophy,   the most
commonly stocked fish in Texas farm  ponds  are channel catfish, blue  catfish, largemouth
bass, bluegill,  red  ear sunfish, and  various  forage species  (threadfin shad, fathead
minnows, golden shiners).  Ponds  and lakes stocked with these species  and properly
managed will provide a stable fisheries resource (PCC, 1986a).

3.9.4      Combined Impacts of Power Plant and Mine

           The combined effects of construction and operation of the mine, power plant,
and  associated facilities on  the aquatic  communities of the  project area include  the
removal  (until  backfilling  is  completed)  of some  upland, ephemeral, and intermittent
stream habitat, disturbance of some habitat parameters in the lower reaches of project
area steams, creation of a  pond habitat, and fluctuations in  resident species population
sizes and distributions.  Population fluctuations are  expected to be apparent as local
decreases  in some  fish and  larval  insect species and  as  increases  in  chironomids,
oligochaetes, vascular aquatic plants, and certain algal and microbial species.  A short-
term minor net loss in the aquatic  energy base may occur as the food chain base shifts
from a dependence  on leaf litterfall  to a dependence on algae and  macrophytes.  The
minor net  loss in the aquatic energy base  is expected  to be regained as the system
stabilizes.
                                      3-107

-------
3.10       CULTURAL RESOURCES (PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC)

3.10.1      Existing Environment

           The proposed mine and power plant lie within an area known to have a rich
cultural heritage, spanning at least  five cultural  stages:  Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Late
Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Historic.

           Prehistoric. The known prehistory of the region in which the proposed mine
and power plant are located is  generally assumed  to have commenced with the Paleo-
Indian  period (late  Pleistocene), beginning  prior to  10,000 B.C.   and  continuing  to
ca. 6,500 B.C.  Subsistence may have been dependent upon hunting now-extinct  Pleisto-
cene fauna including mammoths and a species of bison (Bison antiquus figginsi).  Hunting
was augmented by the utilization of  plants, small  animals, and marine life (Bryant and
Shafer, 1977).

           The proposed mine and power plant lie in a geographic zone in which  Archaic
cultural traits from both  east  and  central  Texas are present.  East Texas  cultural
influences in the region appear throughout the Archaic (Prewitt, 1974 and 1975;  Prewitt
and Grombacher, 1974; Wooldridge, 1982; Day, 1984)  and appear to occur  more  strongly
in the Middle and Late Archaic than the Early archaic (Day, 1984). The predominance of
cultural traits in the region relate, however, to the central Texas Archaic, prompting
Kotter (198Z)  to place the upper Navasota River Basin (including Robertson County) in
the Central Texas archaeological region.

           The  Late Prehistoric stage  is  associated  with  the  Caddo  development.
Wyckoff (1971) visualizes Caddo culture as  an extension of aboriginal cultures of  the
Lower  Mississippi Valley.  Caddo is  recognized by the  presence of  mound centers and
village sites  along  the terraces  of major  streams.   Horticultural, and eventually
agricultural, activities  supplemented hunting and  gathering activities.  As defined  by
ritual burials  and trade  networks, a stratified society  was probably  typical of Caddo
culture.

           During the protohistoric,  the records left by  early explorers  are useful  to
assess because their reports  of various Indian tribes  located in the region may  suggest
something of the identities of tribes who lived within or passed through it.  Documentary
accounts  reveal that two  specific tribes were mentioned:   the  Tejas,  or Hasinai,  a
Caddoan  group; and the Kichai,  a Wichita tribe linguistically affiliated with the Caddo
(Bolton, 1970; Webb, 1952).

           Historic.    Historically,   Robertson  County  was  officially   created   on
December 14, 1837, and organized in  1838. It included 25,000 square  miles  from  the Old
San Antonio Road to the south, the Brazos River to the west, and the Trinity River to
the east, to a line north of present-day Fort Worth  and Mineral Wells  (Baker, 1970).  The
county seats were:  Old Franklin (1837-50);  Wheelock (1850-55);  Owensville (1856-70);
Calvert (1860-79);  and finally present-day Franklin  from  1879 to the present  (Webb,
1952).  When  Texas was admitted to the United  States in 1846,  the present limits  of
Robertson County were established.

           Located about  two miles southwest of the proposed project is  the  town  of
Calvert.  The  townsite of Calvert was donated to the H&TC Railway  in 1863 by Robert
Calvert, a planter who moved west of the town  in 1850.  It was incorporated in 1870, one
year after the railroad was built through the area. Calvert was an  important regional
                                      3-108

-------
center for commerce, agriculture, and manufacturing in Robertson County.  By 1885, it
had five churches, gins, mills, a foundry, machine shops, an opera house, two banks, and a
weekly newspaper  (Webb, 1952).  Approximately 36 historic  commercial,  residential,
public,  and religious structures on parts of about  46 blocks  in  Calvert  comprise the
Calvert Historic District. This District was listed in the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) in 1978, following nomination in 1977 by the NRHP staff in Austin, Texas.

           Within the proposed mine and power plant project area, Tidwell  Prairie is the
historic name given to a dispersed agricultural community.  By the 1880s, the area had a
store, a possible cotton  mill, and a building which served as a church, school,  and
meeting place.  The depression of the 1930s contributed to the decline of Tidwell Prairie
and closing of stores, etc.  Little remains of the former community.

           Summary of Cultural  Resources Investigations.   Robertson County and the
surrounding counties have been subjected to numerous cultural resource investigations
since the  1970s.   As of July 1986, 351  archaeological sites had been recorded in
Robertson County at the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory in Austin, Texas. A
total  of 128  sites have been recorded within the  project boundary of 22,225 acres and
within the proposed  transmission line corridor.

           The  Texas Archeological Survey (TAS)  and Espey, Huston & Associates,  Inc.
(EH&A) have both conducted cultural  resources investigations within the proposed mine
and power plant project  boundaries.  In 1974 TAS conducted a survey for the then-
proposed Twin Oak and Oak Knoll power plants (Prewitt and Grombacher, 1974).

           In 1978  TAS, reported  on  a reconnaissance survey conducted in the Calvert
and Cole  Creek lignite prospects  for Phillips Coal Company (Good et al., 1980). Sixty-
four prehistoric sites were located: 40 in the Calvert Prospect and 24 in the Cole Creek
Prospect.  Virtually  all of the sites were located in lowland  areas  near major drainages.
Diagnostic artifacts recovered from  11  of the sites  reflect  occupation from the Paleo-
Indian through the Late Prehistoric Stage. The historic resources  documented  from the
Calvert and Cole Creek prospects are numerous and date from  as early as 1850. A total
of 101 historic  sites were "...either  recorded or  otherwise  noted in the  two prospect
areas."  (Good et al., 1980).

           In 1980  TAS  conducted a survey  of  the 918-acre Diamond No. 1 Lignite
Prospect through which part of the proposed transmission line route crosses (Moncure,
1980). No sites were recorded within the area traversed by the corridor.

           In 1984  EH&A conducted  a cultural  resources survey  of about 15% of the
then-proposed South Deposit (Twin Oak) and North Deposit  (Oak Knoll) mines for Texas
Utilities Mining  Company (TUMCO)  (Glander  et  al.,  1984).   A  100%  survey  of  the
proposed Twin Oak  Mine  has recently been completed by EH&A (Glander  et al., 1986).
Settlement modeling suggests that third-order or greater drainages and floodplain areas
contain the highest density of prehistoric sites, and that uplands contain the lowest site
density.  Those stream segments with  no tributaries and marked as intermittent streams
are ranked as first-order drainages. When two first-order  drainages join, a  second-order
drainage is formed.   At every confluence between drainages of equal order,  the next
higher-order  drainage is formed.  Environmental zone interfaces are also shown to have a
high probability for prehistoric site  occurrence.   Clay soils are  shown to have a  low
probability for both prehistoric and historic site occurrence.  Unlike prehistoric sites,
upland areas  with fine sandy  loam soil are shown to have  a high probability for historic
site occurrence in the surveyed area.
                                      3-109

-------
           EH&A (Glander et al., 1986) recorded ten sites within the project boundary
during the course of a 100% cultural resources pedestrian survey for an adjacent project
area unrelated to the Calvert project.

           In May,  1986 TAS reported on an  intensive cultural resources investigation
(100% survey) over a portion of the  proposed mine site covering about 4,000  acres.  The
interim  report produced by TAS (Davis and Utley,  1986) recorded 25 new prehistoric sites
and 36  new historic sites, and relocated four previously recorded sites. The interim
report was subsequently reviewed by the  SHPO. The review comments were  discussed in
a letter dated 20 June 1986  from the  SHPO to Region VI of the U.S.   Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).   Two sites  were recommended by the SHPO as potentially
eligible  for listing on the NRHP,  and 48 sites were recommended for either additional
documentation  and research and/or archaeological  testing in order  to  assess National
Register eligibility.

           After completion of the interim document, surveys within the remainder of
the proposed project area were  performed by TAS  where land access was  available
(Davis,  1986;  Kotter,  1986).   An additional 34  sites  were  recorded.   No NRHP
recommendations were made by the authors.   However,  TAS recommended additional
research and/or testing on 11 of the 34 sites recorded. The findings of these reports are
being reviewed by EPA  and the SHPO  regarding adequacy  of surveys,  further  work
required, and/or determination of NRHP eligibility nominations.

           A listing of the recorded sites affected by construction and operation of the
proposed project is included in Appendix E.  Table E-l (Appendix E)  also presents how
each  site  would be affected, a brief site description, recommendations of  the original
investigator of  each site regarding  both additional work and NRHP  eligibility, and the
recommendations of the SHPO (1986)  regarding  the  sites located by Davis and Utley
(1986) in their interim report covering some 4,000  acres of the proposed mine  site.

           The  Mine Blocks that have not been surveyed are:  Mine blocks C, J, and K.
Overburden stockpiles "C", "J",  and  "K" have also  not  been surveyed.  Topsoil piles  (TSP)
TSP5, TSP7 and TSP8 as well  as Truck Dumps (TD) TD-1 and TD-1A have  not  been
surveyed.

           The  Haul Roads that have  not been surveyed are:  YR11/30, YR35-40/47,
YR11-15/23,  YR26/48,  YR26-30/38,  YR35/48,  YR30-40/42,  YR31-40/42, YR14/36,
YR16/36, YR14/33, YR20-30/31, YR16-20/21,  YR20-30/36, YR16-20/26, and YR21/36.

           The  Control Ditches (CDC) that have not been surveyed are:  CDC-11 14/38,
CDC-12 14/38,    CDC-13 14/38,    CDC-14 14/38,    CDC-15 22/36,   CDC-16 24/38,
CDC-17 27/36,  CDC-18 28/36, and CDC-19 28/36.

           The  Sediment Ponds (SPC) that have  not  been surveyed are:  SPC-10  4/32,
SPC-11  14/38,    SPC-11A 15/17,   SPC-13 17/26,    SPC-14 14/38,    SPC-14A 19/26,
SPC-15  25/36, SPC-15A 26/28, SPC-16 26/50, and SPC-16A 31/48.

           The  Diversion Ditches (DDC) that have not been surveyed are:  DDC-3 14/38,
DDC-4  14/38, DDC-5 14/38, DDC-6 17/26, DDC-7 4/50, and DDC-8 25/50.

           The  Diversion Ponds (DPC)  that have  not been surveyed  are:  DPC-1  4/50,
DPC-2  14/38, DPC-3 14/38, and DPC-4 25/50.
                                      3-110

-------
           A major portion of Mine Block B has been subjected to 100% survey.  Only
small portions of Overburden Stockpile "B2", the Conveyor Alignment Corridor, and TSP6
have been surveyed.   The Transmission Line Corridor and Power Plant  Site have  had
some areas 100% surveyed, but neither is fully surveyed.

           The Haul Roads that have been only partially 100% surveyed are:  YR11/50,
YR5-10/12, YR5-10/16, YR10/18, YR11-15/18,  YR5/10, YR16/30, and YR11/56.

           Control ditches CDC-8 4/5 and CDC-10 4/50 have been partially subjected to
100% survey, and  Sediment  Pond SPC-9 4/15 has  been  partially subjected  to 100%
survey.

           The  areas  that have  been totally  subjected  to  100%  survey  are:  Mine
Block A; TSP1, TSP2, TSP3, TSP4; the Power Plant Truck Dump; the Facilities Erection
Site;  the Ash  Disposal Site; Haul  Roads  YR-1/50,  YR-1/10,  YR-3/6,  YR-3/16,  and
YR-7/12;  Control  ditches  CDC-1  2/50,  CDC-3 2/14,   CDC-4 1/11,  CDC-5 1/14,
CDC-6 7/20, CDC-7 7/20, and CDC-9 4/15; Sediment  ponds SPC-3 1/10, SPC-4 2/14,
SPC-5 2/50,  SPC-7 5/50, SPC-7A 12/14,  SPC-8 4/20, SPC-8A 7/20,  SPC-17  1/6,  and
SPC-18 1/5; and Diversion ditch DDC-9 4/50.

3.10.2      Combined Impacts

           Based upon survey results  completed to date, construction and operation of
the proposed power plant and mine will directly affect 92 cultural resources sites.  Two
of these sites have been recommended by the SHPO as potentially eligible for listing in
the NRHP, but have not been submitted by EPA  to the Keeper of the Register. Over the
life of  the project, sites will  be impacted and/or  destroyed,  and this  represents  an
irreversible commitment of a non-renewable resource.  Sites determined to meet NRHP
eligibility criteria will be mitigated,  according to  the  stipulations of  a  Programmatic
Memorandum of Agreement (see below). This will ensure recovery of significant  cultural
resources data which will lessen the adverse impacts of the project.  This undertaking
represents a potential  gain through the beneficial information retrieved that will expand
our current knowledge  of the history and prehistory of the project area.

3.10.3      Section 106  Consultation

           Section 106  of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that
every Federal  agency, in  this case  the EPA, take  into account  how each of its
undertakings  could  affect historical/prehistoric properties, either listed  in,  or eligible
for, the National Register of Historic Places.   The  National Register is  maintained by
the Secretary of the Interior and includes buildings, historic and prehistoric sites, and
prehistoric and historic districts. It is the responsibility of the EPA, in consultation with
the SHPO,  to  identify  and evaluate National Register-listed  or  -eligible  properties
affected by the proposed activity.  When a property appears  to meet the criteria  of
eligibility for nomination to the NRHP as stated in 36CFR, Part 60.6 (Department of the
Interior), the EPA must seek a Determination of Eligibility from the Department of  the
Interior.   For purposes of  Section 106 compliance,  EPA  and  the  SHPO may  reach a
consensus determination of eligibility.

           Once historic/prehistoric properties  have been identified and found to meet
National Register criteria, a determination of project effects must be identified for each
site. These effects can be one of three possible findings:  no effect, no adverse effect,
and adverse effect.  If  the EPA and SHPO  agree  that the effect on a property will not be
                                      3-111

-------
adverse,  a determination of no adverse effect is  made  and forwarded by EPA to the
Advisory Council with evidence of the SHPO's concurrence. In the event a property is to
be adversely affected,  a consultation between EPA,  SHPO,  and the Advisory Council
should take place to consider ways to either avoid or mitigate the adverse effect on the
property.  Section 106 consultation will be  an ongoing process and will require continued
coordination to determine final actions to be taken  on  cultural resource sites now known
to exist within the project area and those which may be encountered in the future during
project development. A major part of the  consultation process  is the development of a
Programmatic  Memorandum  of  Agreement  (PMOA).   The PMOA  is  a procedural
mechanism designed to  ensure compliance  with the NHPA over the life of a long-term
project such as the power plant/mine project discussed in this EIS.   Stipulations for
dealing with affected cultural resources over the life  of the project  are outlined in the
PMOA. A copy of a draft PMOA is presented below.

                PROGRAMMATIC MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
                                  BETWEEN THE
            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                TEXAS STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
                ADVISORY COUNCIL ON  HISTORIC PRESERVATION
                            PHILLIPS COAL COMPANY
                     TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY

WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),  Region 6, has determined that
the Calvert Lignite Mine and TNP  ONE Power Plant  Project will have an effect  upon
properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
(hereafter referred to as the National Register) and has requested the comments of the
Advisory  Council on Historic Preservation pursuant  to Section 106  of the National
Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470) and its implementing  regulations, "Protection
of Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 CFR Part 800),

NOW, THEREFORE, the EPA, Region 6, the Texas  State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO),  the Advisory  Council on  Historic  Preservation  (ACHP),  the  Phillips  Coal
Company  (PCC), and the Texas-New  Mexico Power  Company (TNP)  agree  that the
undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with  the following stipulations in order
to take into account the effect of the undertaking on historic properties:

                                  STIPULATIONS

A.   EPA  shall incorporate by reference the following conditions into the original and
subsequent NPDES permits issued to the PCC and TNP for the Calvert Lignite Mine and
TNP ONE Power Plant Project in Robertson County, Texas:

     1.    PCC shall submit a report to  EPA for approval, in consultation with the
SHPO, on the intensive survey(s) for unsurveyed areas  within the mine  and power plant,
including  all auxiliary  areas,  prior to ground  disturbing activities.   Survey(s) and/or
testing for buried sites  (as in deep  alluvium) in  areas of  high probability  for  site
occurrence are to be included. Survey reports shall provide sufficient documentation for
EPA to identify all properties  listed in the National  Register that will be affected, either
directly or indirectly by the  undertaking.   Survey reports shall also provide sufficient
documentation for EPA to determine the eligibility for  listing in the National Register of
all properties that will be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the undertaking.
                                      3-112

-------
      2.    Wherever feasible,  PCC and  TNP shall avoid, by  project  design, known
properties (e.g., buildings,  objects, structures,  and archeological sites)  listed in or
eligible for listing in the National Register.

      3.    PCC  and TNP shall submit  to EPA  for  approval, a Cultural  Resource
Management Plan(s) for National Register-eligible properties which may not feasibly be
avoided.   This  plan  shall  include measures  to  mitigate adverse  impacts  on  such
properties.  This plan shall also provide a framework for conducting  additional testing
and for review and reporting these activities to EPA.

      4.    For  National Register-eligible archeological sites that cannot be feasibly
avoided, PCC and TNP shall submit to EPA for approval, a Research Design providing for
the recovery of important information.   The  Research  Design shall be developed by
professionals who meet, at a minimum, the qualifications set forth in proposed 36 CFR
Part 66,  Appendix C.  The Research Design shall also take into account Part HI of the
ACHP's Handbook, "Recommendations for  Archeological Data Recovery".

      5.    Prior to approving a Cultural Resource Management Plan or Research Design
in accordance with Stipulations A.3. and A.4. above, EPA will  submit the plan to the
SHPO and the ACHP for review and comment.

      6.    Any  Cultural  Resource  Management Plan  or  Research Design shall be
implemented by PCC and TNP once it has been approved by EPA.

      7.    In the event that  a property is determined by EPA not to  meet the criteria
for nomination to the National Register, PCC and TNP will identify the property on their
project plans.   However, no  special protection  need be given the  property when
encountered during construction or mining.

      8.    During  mining or  construction in  areas for which  background  research,
survey, and/or testing have documented a high potential for revealing additional sites,
PCC  and TNP shall provide  an archeologist, meeting professional standards, who will
monitor the earth disturbing activities.

      9.    PCC and TNP shall cease activities that would adversely affect a cultural or
historic property discovered during construction, mining, or operation activities until the
EPA or SHPO has been given an opportunity to inspect the resource and make a decision
regarding possible survey or testing necessary to determine National Register eligibility.

    10.    PCC and TNP may commence construction  in a portion of the project area
once  the measures to  insure  avoidance   or data recovery have been  completed in
accordance with Stipulation A.9. above, to the satisfaction of EPA.

    11.    PCC and TNP shall  provide EPA, SHPO and/or  ACHP access to the known
archeological and historic sites.  EPA or SHPO may  occasionally  provide  for or directly
monitor data recovery and/or preservation activities.

    12.    PCC  and TNP shall insure  that all notes, photographs,  negatives,  and
processed data are stored in good order and in a manner suitable for future study at a
facility which meets the standards set  forth in the "Recovery of Scientific, Prehistoric,
Historic  and Archeological Data; Methods, Standards and Reporting Requirements" as
published on January 28, 1977.  PCC and  TNP shall make these data available to other
parties for research or other  appropriate purposes.
                                      3-113

-------
B.   If any of the  signatories  to  this Agreement determine that the term(s)  of  the
Agreement cannot be met or that a change is necessary, that signatory shall immediately
request that the other signatories consider preparing an amendment or addendum to  the
Agreement. Such  an amendment or addendum shall be executed in the  same manner as
the original Agreement.  While  executing  an  amendment or addendum, the  signatories
shall not take  or sanction any action or make any irreversible commitment which would
adversely affect  National  Register  or eligible properties or which  would  preclude
consideration by the  ACHP of alternatives to avoid or mitigate the  adverse effects.

C.   Failure to carry  out the terms  of this Agreement requires that EPA request  the
comments from the ACHP in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.

Execution  of  this Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement  evidences  that  EPA,
Region 6, has afforded the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to  comment on  the
Calvert Lignite Mine  and TNP  ONE  Power Plant Project and its effects  on historic
properties, and that EPA,  Region 6 has taken into account the effects of  this undertaking
on historic properties.
             EPA, Region 6                     Texas State Historic Preservation
                                                           Officer
         Phillips Coal Company                   Texas-New Mexico Power Co.
      Advisory Council on Historic                           Date
              Preservation

3.11       SOCIOECONOMICS

           The study  area  is defined as the area  expected to incur socioeconomic
impacts and includes Brazos, Falls, Limestone, Milam, and Robertson  counties. Munici-
palities expected to incur socioeconomic impacts from the proposed Calvert Project are
Bryan/College  Station, Calvert,  Hearne, Bremond,  Marlin,  Cameron, Franklin, and
Rosebud.   The selection of counties and communities  within counties included  in the
study area was based  upon the assumption  that  the residential  allocation  of project
employees  will be contained within a 40-mile radius of the work site.  Appendix F details
the methodology used to determine the area expected  to receive socioeconomic impacts.

           The socioeconomic impact assessment incorporates construction  and  opera-
tion data concerning employment levels and skills, employment schedules, wages, levels
and types and geographic  location of expenditures, capital value of facilities, and other
pertinent information.  This data was provided in the form of completed questionnaires
by  the  applicants.   Data sources include Phillips Coal Company (1986b), for Calvert
Mine; TNP (1986) and H. B.  Zachary (1986) for TNP ONE Power Plant and ash disposal
site; and Sargent & Lundy  (1986b) for transmission line and substation modification.

           The socioeconomic assessment identifies peak impacts  generally corres-
ponding to  the construction  and operations phases. Peak years are identified as 1989 and
                                      3-114

-------
the year 2000.  Although following  the year 2000,  there  will be  some  increase  in
employment, the gradual increase is not expected to generate significant impacts.  For
some socioeconomic elements, peak  years differ.   Due  to  the differences  between
household size of construction and operations workers, sewage and water requirement
peaks  occur in 1991.  The peak  years  identify potential impacts  that  may require
responses from local planners. Population increases during the construction phase  may
exceed  those associated with permanent  operations, depending upon levels  of  local
residents who are employed by the proposed project  and/or choice of residential location
by in-migrants.  Therefore, it is recommended that  local planners closely monitor levels
of community housing and service capacity and potential demand levels  to facilitate
appropriate public and private responses  to temporary as  well as permanent population
increases.  Additionally, it is expected  that the majority of construction workers will not
be  accompanied  by  their  families.   The  following assessment provides estimates  of
potential impacts and assumes levels of population increase and community distribution
of worker  residence  will be similar to other  lignite  mine and power plant projects  in
Texas.  Considerable variations between these estimates and actual impacts may occur.

3.11.1      Existing Environment

           Demographic Profile.   The proposed project  area  is  located  entirely  in
Robertson County, approximately mid-way between the cities of Calvert and Bremond.
Robertson  County is the  anticipated  center  of  the  socioeconomic  effects from the
proposed project.  The  surrounding counties that may incur  significant  socioeconomic
effects  are Brazos,  Falls,  Milam, and Limestone  counties.  The Bryan-College Station
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is  the largest metropolitan area located in the five-
county  region.  Other  incorporated  towns of significant population in  the region are
Marlin  and  Rosebud  in Falls County,  Groesbeck in Limestone  County,  Cameron and
Rockdale in  Milam County,  and  Hearne,  Franklin,  Bremond,  and Calvert in Robertson
County.

           The five-county region experienced an overall increase in population  between
1940 and 1984, for a 1984 total population of 196,300. From 1900 to 1970, the population
of Robertson, Falls, Milam, and  Limestone  counties  declined, partially  due to in-
migration into Brazos County.  The population  of Brazos County increased steadily from
1900 to 1984  due to job opportunities and  urban amenities.  Population  fluctuations  in
Robertson, Falls, Milam, and Limestone  counties  from  1920  to 1950  resulted  from
periodic increases and declines in oil-related employment in the area.  The 1930 to 1970
decline  in population in Robertson,  Falls,  Milam, and Limestone counties can largely be
attributed  to migration  to  urban  centers  due to  the  lack  of  job opportunities,  age
differentials, and the lack of amenities in these counties.  All five counties experienced
population growth between 1980 and 1984.

           Though the 1980s have been a  period of rapid growth in the State, as well  as
the project  region,  two very different periods of population growth are  evident:  that
from 1980  to 1982  and  that from 1982 to  1984.  From 1980  to  1982,  annual change  in
county population of the region ranged from 7.7%  in Brazos  County  to 0.5%  in Falls
County.  Resulting  from a decline in  net migration, annual change from 1982  to 1984
declined to 4.3% in  Brazos County, 0.2% in Falls County, 1.2% in Limestone  County,
0.7% in Milam County, and 2.1%  in Robertson County. Whether this trend is long-term
or short-term is not yet apparent (Murdoch and  Hwang,  1986).

          The 1980 rural populations  of Robertson,  Brazos, Falls, Limestone, and Milam
Counties comprised 63%, 11.3%, 60.4%, 48.5%, and 50.1%, respectively, of the county
totals.  The 1980 rural population of the State, as a whole, was 20.4%.
                                      3-115

-------
           The entire project region experienced a gradual increase in the percentage of
whites in the population from 1950 to 1970. The period between 1970 and 1980 resulted
in a slight  increase in percentage of non-whites. The median age in 1980 for the five-
county project region ranged from  a low of 22.7 years in Brazos County to  a  high of
39 years in Falls County, as compared with 28 years for the State. The lower median age
in Brazos County resulted from younger in-migrants attracted to Texas  A&M University
and job opportunities in Bryan-College  Station.   The  median age in 1980 for Robertson
County was approximately 35 years (DOC, 1982).

           Three separate population projections,  based on the Texas Department of
Water Resources (TDWR), TDK, EH&A, and projections using the cohort-survival method
(POPCNT), have  been prepared for  the project region (EH&A, 1985h).  The results of
these population analyses are summarized below.

           The TDWR projections indicate that Brazos, Falls, Limestone, and Milam
counties will experience population increases of 47.3%, 1.2%, 9.5%, 28.2%, and  12.1%,
respectively, between the years 1985  and 2000. The TDWR projected populations for the
year 2000 are 172,389 for Brazos County, 18,380  for Falls County, 23,573 for Limestone
County, 29,475 for  Milam County, and 17,471 for Robertson County  (TDWR, 1982).  The
TDH projects a higher rate of growth  for Falls, Limestone, and Milam counties  than
indicated by the projections of TDWR (TDH, 1985).

           The cohort-survival method,  which is considered to be the most likely growth
scenario for Robertson County, indicates a  "without  project" population increase of 3.8%
annually between the  years  1980 and  2000.  The predicted population for Robertson
County for the year 2000 is 15,208 persons.

           Economic Profile.  The economic profile of the project area described in the
following paragraphs represents current  economic conditions. The economy of the five-
county region is based upon agriculture and agriculture-related products. Brazos County
is the exception with a more diversified economy.

           The labor force of the five-county region experienced similar annual average
growth rates to that of the State for the  years  1981  to  1984.  Robertson, Milam,  and
Falls counties most closely paralleled the  State  labor force growth rate of 2.6%,  with
rates of 3.2%, 2.8%,  and 3.2%,  respectively.   Brazos  and Limestone counties  had
somewhat higher growth rates than the  State, with rates of 5.0% and 8.0%, respectively
(TEC, 1982-1985).

           The average unemployment  rate for  1981  was 6.3% for Robertson County,
while the total labor force was 5,603.   In 1984, the  average unemployment rate was
7.3%, and  the labor  force was 6,358.   Unemployment rose 1%, and  the  labor  force
increased  6.3%  in  Robertson County between  the years  1981  to 1984, indicating a
relatively stable  economy  in the immediate project area.  The remainder of the five-
county project region  experienced  similar economic  growth during the years 1981  to
1984.   Brazos  County had  substantial  economic growth  with  a  0.4% decrease in
unemployment (4.1% in 1981 to 3.7% in  1984), and an increase of 21.6%  (47,295  in  1981
to 57,516 in 1984) in the labor force, due to the stabilizing influence of Texas A&M. The
remaining counties  experienced  significant economic growth during  the years 1981 to
1984.  This is exemplified by the decrease in unemployment rates in Falls and Limestone
counties.  These counties experienced declines in unemployment of 3.7% (from 7.1% in
1981 to 3.4% in 1984) and 0.4% (from 4.1% in 1981 to 3.7% in 1984), respectively. These
counties also  had substantial increases  in  the labor force with the Falls County labor
                                      3-116

-------
force increasing by 13.6% (from 7,073 in 1981  to  8,033  in  1984) and  the  Limestone
County labor  force increasing 36.4% (from 8,709 in  1981 to 11,882  in 1984).  Finally,
Milam County experienced relatively strong economic growth with a 11.7% increase  in
labor force, and a relatively constant overall unemployment rate.

           The leading industrial sectors in the five-county project region are wholesale
and retail trade, service, and state government.  Wholesale and retail trade is  one  of the
most important sectors in the five-county region, accounting  for 27.3%, 14.8%, 16.0%,
21.6%,  and 24.1% of the total covered employment  in the second quarter of 1984 for
Robertson, Limestone, Milam, Brazos, and Falls counties, respectively. Other industrial
sectors employing a significant number of covered employees  in Robertson County are
manufacturing and local government,  accounting for 18.7%  and 17.8% of the  total
covered employees,  respectively.  Another industry  responsible for large employment
sectors in the five-county region is State government, which accounts for 30.8%  of the
total 46,441 covered employees in Brazos County, and 21.3% of the 8,212 employees  in
Limestone County.  The  large employment in the State  government sector in Brazos
County is primarily due to the presence of Texas A&M University,  the largest employer
in the county.  Another  industry with a large  employment sector is the construction
industry in Limestone  County, which accounts for 27% of the total employment. The
large percentage of construction jobs is associated with the Houston Lighting  and Power
Limestone Power Plant under construction at Lake Limestone, approximately 40 miles
northeast of Calvert.

           Between 1977  and 1982,  total personal income in the State of Texas grew by
an average annual rate of 11.7%, exceeding the growth in income of 10.6%  for  Robertson
County and 8.7% for Falls County. Brazos and Milam counties had growth  rates very
similar  to the State as a whole, with an average annual increase in income of  11.7% and
11.8%, respectively.  Limestone  County was the only county in the five-county project
region with an average annual increase in income that significantly exceeded the growth
rate in personal income of the State as a whole, with an average  annual increase of
15.3%.  In 1982, all five counties had per capita income below that  of the State.  During
this  period, Robertson, Brazos, Falls,  Limestone, and Milam  counties  had per capita
income, respectively, of 68.2%, 75.5%, 73.9%, 74.8%, and 86.9% of the State  per capita
income of $11,423 (DOC, 1984).

           Housing.  A 1986 analysis of available housing in the study area indicates that
housing availability ranges from 10 units (Cameron) to approximately 4,800 units in the
Bryan/College Station area.  Some of  the  small communities expected  to receive in-
migrating population (Calvert, Cameron, Rosebud, and Franklin) have not experienced
any  recent economic  development to stimulate  substantial  residential  development.
Therefore, these communities do  not  have  an excess of available housing.    Other
communities within the project area with  available  housing include Marlin (100  single
family units), Bremond (68 units),  and Hearne (95 units).

           Local sources  in the Bryan-College Station area report high availability for
low-income rental housing, with rents  as  low as $225.00 per  month.   However,  low-
income home  buyers  would find  little affordable housing  in the Bryan-College Station
area  (Bradley, 1985).   Newly-constructed  housing provides middle- and high-income
housing,  though construction of new  developments  has slowed.   Prices  begin  around
$50,000.

           Community Facilities  and Services.  The communities expected to receive in-
migrating population  all  have adequate  water  and  wastewater treatment  facilities.
                                      3-117

-------
Water treatment capacity  ranges from 0.446/MGD in  Rosebud  to 35.481 MGD  in
Bryan/College Station.   All  of these cities have  significant  excess  pumping capacities
ranging from  0.165 MGD in Rosebud to 21.02 MGD  in  Bryan/College Station.   Other
municipalities expected  to incur  impacts include  Calvert (0.443 MGD  excess capacity),
Hearne (1.032 MGD  excess capacity), Cameron (1.600 MGD  excess  capacity),  Bremond
(0.341 MGD excess capacity), Marlin (7.3 MGD excess  capacity), and  Franklin (0.42 MGD
excess capacity).

           The wastewater  treatment facilities in these towns are  also adequate with
excess capacities ranging from 0.065 MGD in Bremond to  5.623 in Bryan/College Station.
Calvert has an excess capacity of 0.11  MGD, Hearne 2.072  MGD, Cameron 0.08 MGD,
Rosebud 0.16 MGD, Marlin 2.52 MGD, and Franklin 0.17 MGD.

           School facilities are also adequate to serve existing population with student-
teacher ratios  significantly  lower  than  the  state standard of 1:25  (TEA,  1985).  The
student teacher ratios range from a low of 9.7 students per teacher  in the Bremond ISD
to 18.3 students per teacher in the Bryan ISD.   Table 4.11.4-3 identifies the student-
teacher ratio in the other school districts expected to incur socioeconomic impacts.

           Police, fire, and health services are adequate  to service existing populations.
Small hospitals with 25-35 beds and 2 doctors are located in both Franklin and Hearne,
with much larger health  facilities located in the Bryan/College Station area. Each of the
municipalities has adequate police  forces  and  five  departments  to  service existing
population.

           Local Government Finances.  The  1984 ad valorem taxes in Robertson  County
are $0.28 per $100 assessed valuation.  The  effective municipal tax rates range from
$0.08 per $100  assessed valuation in Bremond to $0.44  per  $100  assessed valuation in
Calvert.  Effective school district tax rates are $0.76 per  $100 assessed valuation  in both
the Hearne and Franklin ISDs.  The estimated total tax revenue in Robertson County for
1984 was $1,177,985 (MACT, 1985).

           The 1984 ad  valorem  tax rate for the remaining four  counties ranged from
$0.18 per $100  assessed  valuation in Milam County to $0.41 per $100 assessed valuation
in Falls County.  The highest municipal tax rates  were located  in College Station with a
$0.54 tax rate per $100 assessed valuation. The effective school district tax rates range
from  $0.58 to $0.95 per $100 assessed valuation.

           Expenditures  per  capita for county governments in the five-county region are
concentrated in education, police and fire protection, and utility spending.  The  Census
Bureau estimates per capita  expenditures based on a 1981-82 survey  of  finance data and
1980  population data (DOC,  1984).  Expenditures  per  capita for education range from
$301.33 in Limestone County to $422.71 in Robertson  County.  Per  capita expenditures
for police protection range from $21.36 in Robertson County to  $40.56 in Brazos County.
Per capita  expenditures for sewerage  and sanitation  range  from $43.91  in Limestone
County to $8.67 in Robertson County.

           Transportation.  The Calvert project site is well accessed by State Highway
(SH) 6 and Farm to  Market  (FM) roads 46 and 979.   Access to the project site from
Bremond and Marlin is provided by SH 6.  Approximately  4,600 vehicles per day (vpd) use
SH 6  near the proposed  TNP ONE power plant entrance,  an  increase of 1,210  vpd over
the previous traffic count (1978) (TDHPT, 1978  and 1985).   The north section of the
Calvert  project  site  is accessed  by  FM 46,  where  average  daily  traffic   totaled
                                       3-118

-------
300 vehicles in  1985.  The southern section of the project site is accessed by FM 979,
where average daily traffic near the City of Calvert totaled 360 vehicles (TDHPT, 1985).

           Recreation and Aesthetics.  Approximately 5,787 acres are used for recrea-
tion  in  the five-county  project  region.   The  majority  are  local  and commercial
developments, with three parks in Limestone County administered by the State.

           Water courses and lakes within the five-county project region include Little
River, San  Gabriel River, Lake Alcoa, Brazos River, Lake Limestone, Navasota River,
Yegua Creek, Camp Creek Lake, Lake Mexia, and Marlin Reservoir.

           The  Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan (TPWD, 1984) lists two significant rural
natural areas in the project region that have been identified by the Texas Natural Areas
Survey as unique and/or worthy of preservation.  The first area, described as "McClean
Bog", is a small tract containing peat  bogs, located  about 25 miles southeast of the
project area, south of Camp Creek Lake.  The second area is the Navasota  River, which
forms the eastern boundary of Brazos County.

           The  terrain of the project area is gently rolling, with hills sloping toward the
Brazos River.   The farmhouses,  grazing cattle,  meandering streams,  and rolling hills
dotted with trees and brush all  contribute to the  scenic beauty of the rural countryside.
There are other scenic  and natural resources in the Brazos  Valley region,  including
historic sites and structures, and areas of known archaeological significance.

3.11.2     Economic Impacts

           Employment

           The  combined labor  force involved in  both construction and operation of the
proposed mine and power plant is anticipated to grow from 115 in 1987  to a peak of 880
in 1989.   This  labor force is  expected to  fluctuate  until the  year 2000  when 474
permanent operations personnel will be  employed.  Detailed employment effects are
identified  in Table 3-27.   The  local  labor  force is expected  to  fill  55% of the
construction jobs and 50% of the operations and maintenance  employment.  At  peak
(1989), approximately 468 existing residents are  expected to be employed in construc-
tion.  An additional 282 secondary employment opportunities will be available  to  local
residents.  Additionally, by the  year 2000,  approximately  564 permanent operations and
secondary jobs will be available  to local  residents. Additional employment opportunities
will result in both short- and long-term  beneficial impacts to local residents. Potential
short-term  adverse impacts  may affect  local  employers  if  wage  inflation occurs.
Consumers, particularly in service industries,  may also experience increased costs due to
wage  inflation over the short-term.

           Indirect, or secondary employment is the result of increased service demand
and income associated with construction employees.  Based on similar energy develop-
ment  projects and analysis of the basic-to-service employment ratios in  the study area, a
direct-to-indirect multiplier of 0.3 was applied. Studies of power  plant effects  indicate
that peak multipliers outside of metropolitan areas generally range from 0.1 to 0.3 (DRI
et al., 1982). Due to the proximity of Bryan/College Station with its diversified economy
and  to the  duration  of peak  construction  activities, a 0.3 multiplier  is considered
justified.  However, it should be noted that the secondary  employment is assumed to be
supported by new income and sales, and is not necessarily  a reflection of the inducement
of full-time  jobs.  As several case studies have noted, excess capacity in retail and
service business often permits  large increases in sales per employee (Summers, et al.,
1976). A review of retail sales (1980-1985) in study area communities indicates that

                                     3-119

-------
                                                                     TABLE 3-27

                                                CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE POWER PLANT PROJECT
                                   ESTIMATED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE EMPLOYMENT
I
o
Employment Category
Construction
Mine
Transmission Line
Power Plant
Total
Operations & Maintenance
Mine
Transmission Line
Power Plant
Landfill
Total
Construction and
Operations & Maintenance
Totals
Mine
Transmission Line
Power Plant
Landfill
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
1987

0
5
110
115

0
0
0
0
0


0
5
110
0
115
1988

50
43
370
463

0
0
15
0
15


50
43
385
0
478
1989

79
0
670
749

29
3
92
7
131


108
3
762
7
880
1990

25
0
670
695

46
3
92
15
152


71
3
762
15
851
1991

0
0
670
670

82
0
103
15
200


82
0
773
15
870
1992

0
0
510
510

89
0
133
IS
239


89
0
643
17
749
1993

0
0
200
200

103
0
154
18
275


103
0
354
18
475
1994

0
0
0
0

197
0
154
18
369


197
0
154
18
369
1995

0
0
0
0

163
0
154
18
335


163
0
154
18
335
1996

0
0
0
0

232
0
154
18
404


232
0
154
18
404
1997

0
0
0
0

239
0
154
18
411


239
0
154
18
411
1998

0
0
0
0

Z39
0
154
18
411


239
0
154
18
411
1999

0
0
0
0

257
0
154
18
429


257
0
154
18
429
2000

0
0
0
0

302
0
154
18
474


302
0
154
18
474

-------
sales have been relatively stable. Sales between 1983 and 1985 increased by about 3%.
Additional jobs created  are expected to be  filled by  local  residents.   During the
construction phase, expansions of existing businesses should occur, providing employment
opportunities in retail and service industries.  Local labor characteristics coupled with
recent declines in agricultural employment and oil exploration activities and slow-downs
in construction (both commercial and residential) in Bryan/College Station suggest that
local labor supplies should be available to fill  these relatively low-paying secondary jobs.
Case studies of indirect  effects of power plants throughout the U.S. also indicate that
induced jobs are often filled by local  residents taking second and third jobs  and by
increased labor participation by women. This occurs in areas similar to the project area
where job availability in the past has been limited (DRI et al., 1982).

           Combined secondary employment associated with the construction and opera-
tion of the proposed mine and power plant is  expected to grow from 35 workers  in 1987
to a peak  of 299 in 1991.  Total secondary employment associated with the project is
expected to fluctuate until the year 2000,  when approximately 237 secondary employees
will be required.  All of the secondary jobs are expected to be  filled by the local labor
force.   Both  short- and long-term beneficial impacts  will  occur due  to increased
employment  opportunities  for   local  residents.   Service  employment  increases  are
expected to provide jobs for lower-skilled residents, women, and teenagers.

           During the construction phase,  the majority of employment is associated with
power plant construction. Major construction of the proposed power plant  facilities  is
scheduled to begin in  1987  with approximately 110 employees,  steadily increasing to a
peak of 670 workers  beginning in  1989   and  continuing  through  1991  (Table 3-27).
Construction of the power plant facilities is scheduled to conclude in 1993.  Transmission
line construction is scheduled to begin  in  1987 with 5 workers and peak  in 1988 with
43 workers.   The  transmission line is  scheduled  for completion in  1989.    Major
construction  of the proposed  mine  facilities is  scheduled  to  begin in  1988  with
approximately  50 employees,  increasing to a peak of 79 workers in 1989 (Table 3-27).
Construction of mine facilities is scheduled to conclude by 1990.  Approximately  45% of
the  construction  workers (both mine  and power plant)  are expected to  be existing
residents of the study area.  This figure is based upon a review of required labor force
characteristics, and findings of studies  of  similar energy  development  projects  in non-
metropolitan areas (Murdock, et al.,  1981; DRI et al., 1982).

           As  indicated  in  Table 3-27, the  mine  will employ  the majority  of  the
permanent operations workers.  The operations and maintenance phase  of the proposed
project is scheduled to begin in 1988 with 15 employees. The operations employment is
expected to steadily increase to a maximum of 474 workers in the year 2000.  It  is
estimated  that 50% of the  operations  work force  will in-migrate to the  area.  The
remaining operations workers are expected to  be existing  residents of the  study area.
Long-term beneficial  impacts will result  from  increased job  opportunities for local
residents.  The gradual increase in permanent in-migrants will mitigate  adverse impacts
associated  with population increases.

           Indirect, or secondary,  employment will  be  generated due  to increased
service  demand and income associated  with  operations employees.  A review  of  the
effects of power plant operations on the secondary work force indicates that the  direct-
to-indirect worker ratio ranges from 0.3 to 0.8.  Generally, proximity to a metropolitan
area will result in  higher  multipliers than are  used for rural areas due to the availability
of a diversified economy with a. mature trade  center (DRI et  al.,  1982).  Due  to the
location of the project with respect to Bryan/College Station, a multiplier of 0.5  has
been applied.
                                     3-121

-------
           Secondary jobs are expected to be filled by existing residents.  The  gradual
nature of the employment increase from initiation of operations through the life of the
project will favor expansion of local  businesses.   Likewise,  the  availability of nearby
communities averts large concentrations of project  employees in one location.   This
factor mitigates against in-migration of either business  or employees.  Over the life  of
the  project,  it  is  expected that  indirect  employment will be  filled  by  currently
underemployed persons, and persons (particularly women) entering the labor force.  For
example,  in  1983  the  census (DOC, 1983) reported labor participation in project  area
counties as follows:  Robertson, 47.9%; Brazos, 55.9%; Limestone, 49.2%; Milam, 52.2%;
and  Falls, 52.2%.  These  levels are well below the participation rate  of the State  at
64.3%.  In fact, rates are below averages for rural areas in Texas.

           Income Impacts

           Increases in income constitute major short- and long-term beneficial impacts
affecting  both individuals and businesses in the region.

           As Table 3-28 indicates, project  construction expenditures for the proposed
power plant are significantly higher than those for the  mine.  An estimated $70.5 million
in total labor expenditures is  expected to  be  expended locally over the seven-year
construction period with  approximately  $22 million  in the  peak construction year.
Approximately $57 million of the total labor expenditures will be in the form of direct
wages and salaries paid to  the  construction workers.   This  is based on a 85%  local
capture rate  and a regional secondary  income multiplier  of 0.5.   The  capture  rate
assumes that 15% will be out-of-area expenditures for past debts and support of families
who do not  accompany project  employees and will not accrue to the local economy.
Table 3-29 summarizes project-related local income effects for both  total construction
and annual operations phases.

                                   TABLE 3-29

                          ESTIMATED PROJECT INCOME

                          IN THE LOCAL STUDY AREA*

Construction (Total)
Power Plant
Mine
Operations (Annual)
Power Plant
Mine

Primary
112.6
104.0
8.6
18.0
5.4
12.6
Summary
(Millions of $)
Secondary
46.2
42.6
3.6
14.4
4.3
10.1

Total
158.8
146.6
12.2
32.4
9.7
22.7
*  Includes direct wage and salary payments and capital expenditures captured.
                                      3-122

-------
                    TABLE 3-28
CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE POWER PLANT PROJECT
         ESTIMATED PROJECT EXPENDITURES

Tptal
Construction
Period
Peak
Construction
Year
Average
Operations
and
Maintenance
Year
LOCAL POWER PLANT EXPENDITURES
A. Labor
(1) Direct Wage and Salary
(2) Fringe and Benefits
(3) Labor Subtotal
B. Land Purchase/ Annual Lease
C. Machinery/Equipment
D. Materials
E. Power and Fuels
F. Insurance, Interest, Taxes
G. Other
H. TOTAL (1986 Dollars)
A. Labor
(1) Direct Wage and Salary
(2) Fringe and Benefits
(3) Labor Subtotal
B. Land Purchase/Annual Lease
C. Machinery/Equipment
D. Materials
E. Power and Fuels
F. Insurance, Interest, Taxes
G. Other
H. TOTAL (1986 Dollars)
A. Labor
(1) Direct Wage and Salary
(2) Fringe and Benefits
(3) Labor Subtotal
B. Land Purchase/Annual Lease
C. Machinery/Equipment
D. Materials
E. Power and Fuels
F. Insurance, Interest, Taxes
G. Other
H. TOTAL (1986 Dollars)
$ 57,000,000
13,500,000
$ 70,500,000
: Payments 5,000,000
9,000,000
7,000,000
4,500,000
8,000,000
$104,000.000
LOCAL ASH DISPOSAL SITE
$ 95,000
31,000
$ 126,000
Payments
130,000
95,000
42,000
130,000
$ 523.000
TOTAL TRANSMISSION LINE
$ 1,675,000
379.000
$ 2,054,000
Payments
1,185,000
4,043,000
536,000
3.914,000
$ 11.732.000
$ 18,000,000
4tOOOjOOO
$ 22,000,000
5,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
1,500,00
$ 33L500,OOQ
EXPENDITURES
$ 95,000
31,000
$ 126,000
130,000
95,000
42,000
130,000
$ 523,000
EXPENDITURES
$ 1,491,000
337,000
$ 1,828,000
1,185,000
3,636,000
442,000
3,101,000
$ 10,192,000
J 5,000,000
2,000,000
$ 7,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
90,000,000
46,000,000
$148,000.000
$ 360,000
85,000
$ 445,000
600,000
95,000
220,000
200,000
$ 1,800,000
$ 7,000
2,000
$ 9,000
1,000
3,000
1,000
200
300
$ 14.500
TOTAL MINE EXPENDITURES
A. Labor
(1) Direct Wage and Salary
(2) Fringe and Benefits
(3) Labor Subtotal
B. Land Purchase/ Annual Lease
C. Machinery/Equipment
D. Materials
E. Power and Fuels
F. Insurance, Interest, Taxes
G. Other
H. TOTAL (1986 Dollars)
$ 3,617,000
1,357,000
$ 4,974,000
Payments 3,755,000
38,378,000
4,262,000
1,065,000
987,800
$ 53.421.800
$ 2,413,000
885,000
$ 3,298,000
2,143,000
23,416,000
2,647,000
662,000
538,800
$ 32,704,800
$ 10,305,000
3,192,000
$ 13,497,000
2,168,000
4,005,200
15,025,000
2,949,000
$ 37,644,200
              3-123

-------
           During the construction phase, local land and capital expenditures associated
with the power plant will be  nearly  $104 million.  These  capital expenditures should
result in beneficial impacts by generating  an additional $42.6 million in local secondary
income based  on an 85% local capture rate  and 0.5 multiplier.

           As Table 3-28 indicates, an estimated $4.9 million in total labor expenditures
is anticipated over the construction period of the mine.  Approximately $3.3 million of
this  labor expenditure will occur in the peak construction year, which is scheduled  to be
1989.  Approximately 73% of the project's total labor expenditures (or  $3,617,000) will
be direct wages and salaries  paid  to  construction workers. Local secondary income in
the study area resulting from  mine construction worker expenditure is estimated to be
approximately  $1.8 million, assuming a regional secondary income multiplier  of 0.5.  The
multiplier of 0.5 assumes that  a portion of the total income will be spent  outside the
local region during the construction phase,  as many of the estimated in-migrants will be
weekly commuters.   The majority  of this  income should support relatively low-paying
service jobs in  the study area communities.  Distribution of income should tend to favor
the Bryan/College Station area where  a  diversified  economy will attract  expenditures.
Income  associated with construction  activities  will constitute  significant  short-term
beneficial impacts.

           The income derived  from local land and capital expenditures should also have
a beneficial impact on the income in the study area.  During the three-year construction
period of the proposed mine,  almost $48.4 million will be expended for land and capital
equipment acquisition.  Approximately $3.7 million  is expected  to be  expended in the
local economy  (PCC, 1986b).   The  majority  of local expenditures  will be for land
purchase, fuel, and industrial services.  These expenditures are expected to generate an
additional $1.8 million in local secondary  income during the  mine construction period
(PCC, 1986b).

           The  average  operations and maintenance expenditures for the proposed mine
and  power plant are  estimated at $187.5 million  annually.   Direct  wage  and salary
expenditures are estimated at  $15.7 million, approximately 8.3% of the total operations
and  maintenance  expenditures.  Local secondary income to  the area resulting  from
operations and  maintenance  worker  consumer expenditures is estimated  to  average
approximately  $12.5  million  annually.  Beneficial impacts  to  the local  economy  will
result from these direct expenditures and associated secondary income.

           Local  capital  expenditures associated  with operations are  expected  to
generate long-term beneficial impacts in the study area.  In an average year, more than
$166 million  is expected  to  be  expended for  capital  acquisitions.   Approximately
$2.3  million of that total is expected to be  spent locally in an average year. Based on an
income  multiplier  of 0.8,  an  additional  $1.88 million  is  expected to become  local
secondary income during an average operations and maintenance year.

           Based upon current RRC records,  there are no producing  oil or gas wells
within the life  of mine boundary. Therefore, economic losses related to postponement of
recovery of such resources are not expected to occur.

3.11.3      Population Impacts

           The  population associated  with the  construction  and  operation  of  the
proposed mine and power plant is  expected to begin in-migrating to the  study area in
1987, with approximately 115 persons expected to relocate.  The in-migrating population
                                      3-124

-------
is anticipated  to  peak with  951 persons  in  1991.   After 1991, the total in-migrating
population associated with the proposed project is expected to fluctuate and level at an
operating level of 670 persons in the year 2000. All of the in-migrating population to the
study area are  a result  of primary employment at the proposed  project.   Expected
population impacts distributed by municipality are indicated in Table 3-30.

           Population increases associated  with  the construction workers and  their
families are based on the assumption that 55% of the total work force will in-migrate.
Additionally, it is assumed  that  70%  of the in-migrant workers  are  single  or are
unaccompanied and commute weekly.  The remaining 30% are  assumed to be married,
with an average household size of 3.73.  Population distribution or potential community
of residence of workers was derived from  the gravity model and commuting assumptions
described in Section 3.11.1.  Population increases associated with the operations phase
are based on the assumption that 80%  of  these permanent workers will be married with
an average household size of 3.3 (DRI, et al., 1982).  School-aged population is estimated
at 911 for the 1989 peak and 1,139 for the 2000 peak.  These figures are based on the
assumption that approximately 60% of the total workers  will be  accompanied by school-
aged children.   The potential residential  distribution by community of project-related
population is estimated separately for construction and operations workers.

           Based upon a standard gravity model, the projected residential distribution of
in-migrating workers  was   estimated.    Approximately  44%  of  the   in-migrating
412 workers  are  expected  to  commute   from  the  Bryan/College  Station  area.
Bryan/College  Station  is located  approximately 40 minutes  driving time  from  the
proposed project area and has available housing, services, and amenities. The remainder
of the construction labor force is expected to  reside  in Calvert,  Hearne, Bremond,
Marlin,  and various other municipalities within 35 driving miles of the project area.  It is
anticipated that many of the in-migrating work  force will be weekend commuters  who
will reside close to the work site  (DRI et al., 1982).

           It should be noted that due to the variable  nature  of project construction
schedules both  during  the planning phase and  actual  site  construction,  the  actual
distribution of workers moving from one project in the region to  another is difficult to
determine.  For this reason, there  is the potential that  the degree  of any in-migration
related  adverse effects attributable to the proposed project can be somewhat mitigated
by the release of construction workers  from another project in the area, although labor
competition for skilled  workers among all projects  will be  a  significant determining
factor.

           Unlike construction workers who  tend to travel long distances to  the work
site  (Murdock,  1981; Metz, 1985),  operation workers in Texas  tend to  reside within
30 miles of the work place. A study of  operations workers at five lignite mine and power
plant projects was conducted in  1982 (TENRAC, 1983).  Of the  4,042 employees, 91.4%
reside within a 30-mile radius of the work site. An inspection of the individual projects
and their work forces indicates that there is a clear preference  for larger cities (i.e.,
population over 10,000)   within  a  30-mile radius,  but if such population centers are
unavailable, workers will reside in smaller towns (TENRAC, 1983).

           Several studies have  also found that  workers may live  in larger cities and
commute when first hired, but over the long-term are likely to move closer to  the work
site as suitable housing becomes available (Clemente and  Summers, 1973).  Consequently,
in order  to estimate employees and population distribution patterns, the Bryan/College
                                     3-125

-------
                                                          TABLE 3-30
                                     CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE POWER PLANT PROJECT
                                          ESTIMATED TOTAL IN-MIGRATING POPULATION










OJ
1— »
to
0-
Municipality
Bremond
Calvert
Hearne
Cameron
Rosebud
Marlin
Franklin

Bryan/College
Station
TOTAL
1987
9
19
15
4
2
8
4

53

115
1988
39
84
66
19
10
37
17

212

485
1989
85
182
145
42
21
80
37

344

935
1990
85
182
144
42
21
80
37

322

913
1991
92
197
156
45
23
87
40

311

951
1992
88
187
149
43
22
83
38

238

846
1993
71
151
120
35
18
67
31
'
95

587
1994
74
159
126
36
18
70
36
« ••
0
•
521
1995
67
144
114
33
17
64
33
* '
0

472
1996
82
174
138
40
20
77
• 39

0

570
1997
83
177
141
41
21
78
40
1 '
0
,
580
1998
83
177
141
41
21
78
40

0

580
1999
87
185
147
43
22
82
41

0

606
2000
96
205
163
47
24
91
45

0

670
                                                           TABLE 3-31
                                      CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE POWER PLANT PROJECT
                                  ESTIMATED TOTAL HOUSING DEMAND INDUCED BY ALL WORKERS
Municipality
Bremond
Calvert
Hearne
Cameron
Rosebud
Marlin
Franklin
Bryan/College
Station
1987
7
15
12
3
2
7
3
41

1988
30
63
50
14
7
28
13
166

1989
57
123
97
28
14
54
25
268

1990
56
120
95
28
14
53
24
252

1991
59
125
99
29
15
55
25
243

1992
52
112
89
26
13
50
23
185

1993
37
79
62
18
9
.35
16
74

1994
33
71
56
16
8
31
17
0

1995
30
64
51
15
7
28
16
0

1996
36
77
62
18
9
34
19
0

1997
37
79
63
18
9
35
19
0

1998
37
79
63
18
9
35
19
	 0

1999
39
82
65
19
10
36
20
	 0

2000
43
91
72
21
11
40
21
0

TOTAL
                 90
                         371
                                 667
                                          642
                                                  650
                                                           550
                                                                   330
                                                                            233
                                                                                    212
                                                                                             255
                                                                                                     259
                                                                                                              259
                                                                                                                      271
                                                                                                                               299

-------
Station area at approximately 40 driving miles was excluded.  This may slightly bias the
findings and overestimate  population  effects  in smaller towns, but follows general
patterns in Texas.

           The demographic characteristics of the project area will be altered by the in-
migration of a younger, more affluent population. This may be construed as a long-term
adverse effect upon older existing residents, low income families, and persons  on fixed
incomes.  However, the change will generally reinstitute a demographic structure more
consistent with the State as a whole. In 1980, with the exception of Brazos County, the
population over  age 65 in the project area counties comprised in the aggregate 27% of
the total population.  In the State of Texas, as a whole, in  1980, only 13.3% of the
population was age 65 and over (DOC,  1983).  In contrast, over 75% of the  incoming
construction workers  are expected to be between 25 and 64 years of age with less than
0.8% over 65 years of age (Mountain West Research Inc., 1975).  Operations workers will
also consist  of younger persons and, due to the high percentage of  workers who  will
arrive  with their families,  will introduce  additional persons  under 18 years into the
population (Leholm et al., 1975). Similarly, surveys of energy operations throughout the
U.S. document that the incoming population is likely to be younger but better educated,
have higher incomes,  and have greater expectations (e.g., see Summers et al., 1974; DRI,
1982).

3.11.4      Housing

           The peak  need  for  housing  units in 1989 will require  approximately  667
housing units. The estimated distribution of required housing units by city is detailed in
Table 3-31.  As  Table 3-32 indicates, ample housing is available in the Bryan/College
Station area. The majority (529)  of the  units  will  be required for the construction
workers.  Generally, most construction workers are interested in temporary housing and
rentals, whereas  operations and maintenance workers have a tendency  toward long-term
housing and home ownership.  Therefore, approximately 121 permanent housing units will
be required during the peak year of 1989.   A  study of  similar energy  development
projects revealed that 46%  of the non-local construction workers preferred single family
houses while 38% preferred mobile homes.  The remaining 16% preferred multi-family
dwellings (DRI et al., 1982).  As shown in Table 3-31,  housing  supplies are inadequate in
Calvert, Hearne, Cameron, and possibly Rosebud.  If housing is unavailable,  it  is likely
that additional construction workers  will either commute from cities with housing (e.g.,
Marlin, Franklin, Bryan/College Station) or mobile homes will be placed  in or around
communities close to the project site  (e.g., Calvert, Bremond).

           Short-term adverse housing impacts are anticipated in Calvert and Hearne.
Due to potential housing  shortages, mobile  home placement near Bremond may result in
localized short-term adverse impacts. Housing cost inflation both for rental  and owner-
occupied units  may result  in both short-  and long-term  adverse impacts  on  existing
residents.  Supply and price  adjustments are expected to mitigate long-term  adverse
impacts.  However, home owners with  low or fixed  incomes  may incur increased tax
burdens if valuation increases. On the other hand, Robertson County  and school districts
receiving tax payments  for project facilities may lower  tax rates  if revenues exceed
expenditure requirements.

           As discussed previously, housing  constraints  are  expected during  the  con-
struction phase,  if housing development does not occur.  Individual construction workers
may not work  throughout  the construction phase, inhibiting investment.   During the
operations phase, development in support of permanent employment is  more  likely to
                                      3-127

-------
                               TABLE 3-32

         CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE POWER PLANT PROJECT

                 AVAILABLE HOUSING IN THE STUDY AREA



Bremond
Calvert
Hearne
Cameron
Rosebud
Marlin
Franklin
Bryan/College
Station


Single
Family
10
9
25
10
N/A
100
25
1,568


Apartments
48
2
70
0
N/A
0
20
3,300


Mobile
Homes
10
2
0
0
N/A
0
0
N/A


Total
Units
68
13
95
10
N/A
100
45
4,868
Total
Required
Peak
Construction
(1989)
57
123
97
28
14
54
25
268
Total
Required
Peak
Operation
(2000)
43
91
72
21
11
40
21
0
Sources:   Bremond -  Mayor B. Stellbauer; Calvert -  Calvert Chamber of Com-
          merce  and  E. Shadden,  Citizens Bank and  Trust of Calvert; Hearne -
          Mayor  B. Carrington; Cameron - All Tex Realty; Marlin - Mitchell and
          Walker  Realtors;  Franklin -  Liamon  Realty;  Bryan/College Station -
          Arthur Wright and TAMU-TX Real Estate Research Center.

                               TABLE 3-33

         CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE POWER PLANT PROJECT

            WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY IN THE STUDY AREA





Bremond
Calvert
Hearne
Cameron
Rosebud
Marlin
Franklin
Bryan/College
Station

Total
Pumping
Capacity
(MGD)
.461
.806
3.252
2.88
.446
8.5
.720
35.481



Average
Use
(MGD)
.120
.363
2.22
1.28
.281
1.2
.300
14.461



Excess
Capacity
(MGD)
.341
.443
1.032
1.6
.165
7.3
.42
21.02

Additional
Number of
Connections
Potentially
Available
395
513
1,194
1,851
191
8,445
486
24,319



Peak Years
(MGD)
1991 2000
.014 .015
.031 .030
.024 .025
.007 .007
.004 .004
.014 .013
.006 .007
.006 .000

Source:    TDH, 1986. Municipal correspondence file, inspection reports.

                                 3-128

-------
occur.  Additionally, many of the in-migrant construction workers who reside in towns
near the work site (i.e.,  Calvert, Bremond, Hearne) are likely  to be  single workers or
workers  without families who prefer inexpensive housing that may not be suitable for
permanent workers and their families.  Operations  workers provide a  stable market for
investors, particularly in single-family  housing.  In the smaller communities, if apart-
ments and mobile homes predominate in  the construction phase, new development will be
required to support operations workers who are expected to prefer single-family housing.

           If single-family housing is developed as rental units for construction workers
in anticipation  of  rentals or sales to operation workers, sufficient housing should be
available after 1989 peak  construction activities.

3.11.5      Community Services and Facilities

           As indicated in Table 3-33 and 3-34, expected water and wastewater demand
associated with  the proposed project are not expected to exceed existing capacities.  The
demand is expected to be greatest in Bryan/College Station and Calvert.  The  current
systems  and planned  improvements should be sufficient to  accommodate the expected
population influx.

           Existing protective services  are adequate in area municipalities.  Increased
fire protection may be required in smaller communities where volunteer fire services are
utilized  in  order  to  protect expected increases  in  housing  (e.g.,  Hearne, Calvert,
Bremond).

           The expected distribution of  workers among smaller communities in the study
area will minimize additional school classroom and teacher requirements.  However, as
indicated in  Table 3-35,  the Calvert ISD may require an increase in teachers and/or
classrooms to accommodate increased populations.  The expected increase in required
teachers and/or classrooms  in  Calvert may result   in short-term  adverse  impacts
associated  with  additional  ISD  costs.    Over the  long-term these  impacts  should  be
reduced by expected increases in ad valorem taxes from permanent new residents who
live in new housing. Based upon a conservative 18:1  ratio, other local school districts are
expected to  be able  to accommodate potential increases in student  populations.
However, the specific distribution  in terms  of the grade levels of new students may
require additional teachers at specific schools.

3.11.6     Local Governmental Finances

           Adverse impacts  on local governmental finances may occur during the first
2 years of the construction period.  During this time, in-migrants will  require municipal
utilities  and  services before  tax revenues are available.  As new homes are built  and
property added  to local tax  rolls, and as  in-migrant  spending  begins  to generate
additional sales  taxes, local governments will begin to realize increased revenues.  Only
after the full value of the mine and power plant is added to the local tax rolls,  along with
new single-family homes,  will local  governments' revenues equal or exceed expenditures.
Based upon anticipated worker distribution and existing housing supplies in communities,
over the long-term, approximately  90 new homes will  be required, with 78 in Calvert.
The increases in tax  base will be slightly off-set by the losses  of taxes from  existing
agricultural lands within the project site area; however, the higher valuation of proposed
mine and power plant uses will exceed existing valuations.

          As indicated in Table 3-36, following  1986, significant tax revenues  will be
distributed through ad valorem taxes. Possible mitigation measures include bond issues


                                     3-129

-------
                                TABLE 3-34

         CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE POWER PLANT PROJECT

                         WASTEWATER CAPACITY





Bremond
Calvcrt
Hearne
Cameron
Rosebud
Marlin
Franklin*
Bryan/College
Station

Design
Capacity
Average
(MGD)
.11
.25
4.75
.82
.26
3.25
.36
18.050


Daily
Average
Flow
(MGD)
.055
.14
2.678
.74
.10
.734
.19
12.423



Excess
Capacity
(MGD)
.065
.11
2.072
.08
.16
2.52
.17
5.623

Additional
Number of
Connections
Potentially
Available
260
440
8,288
320
640
10,080
680
22,492



Peak Years
(MGD)
1991 2000
.009 .009
.019 .021
.016 .016
.004 .005
.002 .002
.008 .009
.004 .004
.031 .000

*  Brien,  John.  Aqua Tech Laboratories, personal communication.

Source:    Texas  Water  Commission,  self reporting  raw  data  report;  personal
          communications with City of Bryan (City manager's office personnel) and
          City of College Station.

                                TABLE 3-35

         CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE POWER PLANT PROJECT

                          SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA


Bremond ISD
Calvert ISD
Franklin ISD
Hearne ISD
Marlin ISD
Rosebud-Lott
ISD
Cameron ISD
Bryan ISD/
College
Station ISD

Enrollment
(1986-1987)
280
180
700
1,750
1,775
840

1,535
4,948
11,000


Number of
Educators
29
16
48
120
108
68

112
350
600


Students/
Teacher
9.7
11.3
14.6
14.6
16.4
12.4

13.7
14.1
18.3

Excess
Capacity
(pupils)*
259
118
193
482
234
425

548
• 1,562
160

School-Aged
Population
Increase
1989
73
342
69
272
149
39

78
646


2000
163
349
70
276
155
41

80
0


   Assumes 18:6 student/teacher ratio (Golden, et al., 1980).
Source:    Above school districts, superintendent's offices.  1986.

                                  3-130

-------
                          TABLE 3-36




DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE GENERATED THROUGH AD VALOREM TAXES
Base Year
of Cost
Estimate
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1990
1991
1992
1993
TOTAL
Unit
Ash Disposal Site
Transmission Facilities
Mine Blocks A, B, C, J, K
Mine Blocks A, B, C (45%)
Mine Blocks J, K, C (55%)
Unit 1 Power Plant
Unit 2 Power Plant
Unit 3 Power Plant
Unit 4 Power Plant
Value of Project
Facilities
Subject to Local
Taxation
$ 200,000
6,886,000
17,960,000
9,556,516
8,403,484
200,000,000
150,000,000
180,000,000
180,000,000
$753,006,000
Ad Valorem Revenue
Robertson
County
$ 571
19,652
51,257
0
0
570,800
428,100
513,720
513,720
$2,097,820
Bremond
ISD
$ 1,979
68,144
0
94,571
0
1,979,200
1,484,400
1,781,280
1,781,280
$7,190,854
Calvert
ISD
0
0
0
0
$65,227
0
0
0
0
$65,227
Total
$ 2,550
87,796
51,257
94,571
65,227
2,550,000
1,912,500
2,295,000
2,295,000
$9,353,901

-------
to  finance  the needed service expansions.   Alternately, if housing  development  is
encouraged in  non-municipal  areas and developers and new home purchasers bear the
costs of facilities, local municipalities may avoid capital costs.

           As indicated in Figure 3-13 by locations of the project facilities (power plant
and mine areas), the majority of revenues will accrue to the Bremond ISO and Robertson
County.  In  contrast, it  is anticipated that Calvert ISD will receive the majority  of
students.   This jurisdictional  mismatch of revenues may  cause adverse impacts on the
Calvert ISD.

           Existing taxes from the 5,018 acres within proposed mine areas total approxi-
mately $4,462.   This  figure  assumes  that agricultural  exemptions  are claimed  by
landowners in accordance with land uses described in Section 3.12 and  current tax rates.
Currently,  grazingland is  taxed at a value of $45  per acre; improved pasture at $90 per
acre  and  undeveloped  forestry  at $25  per  acre.   For undeveloped land  (without
agricultural exemptions) valuation ranges from $800-$2,000 per acre (S. Simms, personal
communication, 1986).

           Some individual landowners  may  be adversely impacted by  increased  taxes
from  agricultural  exemptions lost  as a result of mining.   It is assumed that lease and
royalty payments will exceed any increased tax burdens incurred by land owners,
resulting in an anticipated net  beneficial impact.  Following  mining activities, active
agricultural use of lands must  take place for a continuous 5-year period before land
owners can regain their agricultural exemption. During this interim period, lands will be
valued at the market price of adjacent non-industrial lands.  Figure 3-14 indicates the
number of landowners affected by the proposed project.

3.11.7     Transportation

           Approximately 880 mine and power plant workers will generate about  1,100
work-related trips per day on  project area roads, particularly State Highway 6 (assuming
two trips per day and 1.6  workers per vehicle).  The addition of 1,100 vehicles per day  to
existing traffic volumes on State Highway 6 would result in approximately 6,860 vehicles
per day.  During the construction period, short-term adverse impacts may occur on  State
Highway 6  due to increased congestion near site access points.  The majority of traffic
will be periodic, occurring when shift-changes take place.  In the long-term, periodic
adverse effects during shift changes are expected  to be minor.

           A county  road will be upgraded  and widened  for transport of ash from the
power plant to ash disposal site A-l. This approximately 2-mile route will be dedicated
for power plant use over  the  life of the project.   This road is currently used to provide
access to residences  located  on and near the proposed  power plant and ash disposal
site A-l.

           Several county roads will be altered  by the mining activity at the Calvert
Lignite Mine. Sections of these county  roads will be upgraded, relocated or temporarily
closed as mining progresses through the area.  In  addition, new sections of road will be
constructed, as necessary, so  that  orderly and adequate access to the area is available
for the general public.  Approvals and variances will be obtained as necessary to conduct
surface mining activities  within 100 feet of public roads.  Minor,  short-term adverse
effects will be locally experienced during  the  life-of-mine  as  a result of the road
relocations described  below.
                                      3-132

-------
                          <    0   ,
          — — —  PROJECT BOUNDARY
          ••—•  SCHOOL. DISTRICT BOUNDARY
          0	2	468 MILES


Source: TEA,  Alias of Tx. Public School Districts,  1983
         Figure  3-13
  LOCATION OF  INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
IN RELATION TO PROJECT AREA
                                        3-133

-------

-------
           The locations  of  the affected roads are shown  on Figure 3-15.   Detailed
information regarding road relocations during the first five-year permit term is discussed
below. Roads affected during this term are highlighted in Figure 3-15.

           o    County  Road 427 will  be closed  in the  second permit year from  the
                intersection of County  Road 427  and  County Road 436  north  for
                approximately  3,300 feet due  to mining activities.  The segment  of
                County  Road 436  located  between County  Road 427  and  County
                Road 426 will be closed during permit year 2.  This section is approxi-
                mately 2,200 feet long.

           o    A  new  diagonal  connecting  road  running  southwest-northeast  for
                approximately 1,200 feet will be constructed between County Road 427
                and County  Road 436 in the  third permit  year to  avoid the present
                intersection of  these two roads  which  will  be impacted  by mining
                activities.

           o    County  Road 426 will  be closed in  the  third  permit  year  from  the
                intersection of County  Road 426  and  County Road 430  north  for
                approximately  4,800 feet due to  mining  activities.   The  diagonal
                connection between County Road 427 and County Road 436 constructed
                in  the third permit year will be  closed and the section of County
                Road 427 north of the County Road 427 and  County Road 436 intersec-
                tion closed in the second permit year will be  reopened to public use.

           o    County  Road 427 will  be closed in  the  fifth permit year  from  the
                intersection of County  Road 427 and County  Road 436 south to  the
                intersection  of County Road 427  and County Road 432, a distance  of
                approximately 4,800 feet.  County Road 430  will be closed  between
                County  Road 426 and  County Road 427 in the  fifth permit year, a
                distance  of  approximately  1,800 feet.    Also  during permit year 5,
                County  Road 435  will  be closed  from  the  intersection of  County
                Road 427 and County Road 435 for  approximately 4,000 feet,  east and
                then south,  and the  segment of County Road 436  between County
                Road 426 and  County Road 427 will be reopened.   County Road 426,
                closed in the fourth permit  year  will be reopened in the fifth permit
                year after mining activity is finished in the area.  This section of road
                is 4,800 feet long.  A  new diagonal connecting road between County
                Road 430 and  County Road 432 will  be  opened  during permit year 5
                southwest of the present County Road 427 and County Road 430 inter-
                section. This section is approximately 2,700  feet.

           o    Approximately 4,400 feet of County Road 432 will be closed in  the sixth
                year from the County Road 427 and County  Road 432 intersection to a
                point approximately 2,600 feet east of the County Road 432 and County
                Road 427 intersection.   County Road 43 5 will be closed  north of the
                County Road 435 and County  Road 432  intersection  for approximately
                2,200 feet during permit year 6. The new diagonal connection between
                County Road 430 and County Road 432 opened in the fifth permit year
                will be closed in the sixth permit year.

           Although detailed information regarding relocations in the years  following
the first five-year  mining  period is not currently available, public roads likely to be
                                     3-135

-------
Illllllllll
TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURES-
FIRST FIVE YEARS
         NEW ROAD LOCATIONS-
    * * *  FIRST FIVE YEARS

         TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURES
   ••"'  LIFE-OF-MINE
                                        3  MILES
                                                   CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE
                                                         Figure 3-15

                                                RELOCATION OF PUBLIC ROADS
                                                 IN THE LIFE-OF-MINE AREA
                                     1-136

-------
affected by mining activities are indicated on Figure 3-15 for the life-of-mine.  Reloca-
tion of roads and maintenance of public access, as necessary, will be handled in a fashion
similar to that described above for the first permit term.

3.11.8     Recreation

           Regional  recreational resources  will  be  affected  by  increased visitation
associated with combined mine and  power plant population growth.  Increased use of
urban parks in project area communities may adversely impact these facilities.  Regional
parks may also be adversely  impacted by increased demand, constituting a minor short-
term impact on the existing resources.

3.11.9     Aesthetics

           The project will  adversely impact project area visual resources by changing
existing viewsheds (from  public roads) from rural  to industrial,  generally considered of
lower visual quality.  The degree of impact is dependent upon:   the existing visual
quality; height of the new structures; distance from areas of public  access (roads, parks,
cemeteries); and  individual, family, and community values.

           Public roads from which project facilities  will be visible are State Highway
(SH) 6 (from Bremond south  to Calvert), SH 46 (from Bremond southeast to an intersec-
tion with SH 979), and SH 979 (from Calvert northeast to an intersection with SH 46). A
network  of county roads provide access  to the triangular area formed by the State
highways described above.   Project  facilities may be visible from  these  county roads
during construction  and operation of the  mine.   The following cemeteries are located
proximate  to the project: Cotton Cemetery, Anderson Cemetery,  Beck Prairie Ceme-
tery, Jackson Cemetery,  Webb Cemetery,  Spring Hill Cemetery, St. Paul Cemetery, and
one unnamed cemetery near Tidwell Prairie. Project facilities may  be visible to visitors
of these cemeteries.

           Ash Disposal  Site A-l will  be  located just  east of SH 6, approximately
1.1 mile south of Bremond.  Due to the  lack of existing vegetational screening and the
proposed height of the pile (maximum 40 feet), Ash Disposal Site A-l will be visible  from
SH 6 for approximately 2.2 miles.

           The proposed power plant  may  be  visible  from  SH 6  for approximately
2,000 feet, provided  existing  vegetational screening remains over the life of the project.
Recommended mitigation for visual impacts includes planting of a tree screen along the
roadway segment affected.

           The boom of the dragline operating in the various mine blocks may reach a
height of 175 to 225  feet above existing grade, depending on the  boom angle.  Elevations
in the mining blocks average around 400 feet above mean sea level.  The boom  will be
visible from  county  roads within the immediate project area as mining proceeds  from
block to block.  The boom may be visible from SH 46, SH 6, and SH 979  between
Bremond, Calvert, and Owensville, as it is transferred from block to block during mining.

           The mine and power plant will operate 24 hours per day,  requiring lighting of
the power plant and the mine operation area. This lighting will alter the visual character
of the area for residents and night-time travelers in the immediate project area.

           Adverse impacts  to aesthetics  associated with reclamation may occur  as a
result of changes in topography.  Two lakes will be created in Mine Blocks C and J in


                                     3-137

-------
areas which are currently drainage channels of intermittent streams.  Bottom elevations
will be  100-200 feet below existing conditions. Elevations of overburden stockpiles will
remain  approximately  50 feet higher than existing elevations.  Once vegetated, the new
contours may help minimize this adverse impact.

           Adverse impacts upon the aesthetic environment  will largely be  associated
with the Ash  Disposal Site A-l, east of SH 6.   Other project facilities will minimally
affect the aesthetic character  of the area.  Due to the lack of public visual access to
plant facilities, a negligible adverse  effect is anticipated.

3.11.10     Civil Features

           There  are  approximately 62 residential structures  within  the  life-of-mine
boundary, 33 of which  are  within the proposed mine blocks.  Two cemeteries are located
in close proximity to  areas to be mined.   Cotton Cemetery is  surrounded by proposed
mine  block C.  Construction activity (clearing)  in  the vicinity  of Cotton  Cemetery is
scheduled to begin in  project year 26.  An unnamed cemetery,  approximately one half
mile west  of  Tidwell  Prairie is surrounded by proposed mine block B3.   Construction
(clearing) in the  vicinity  of this cemetery  is scheduled  to  begin in  project year 14.
Project activities will not  physically impact  the  two cemeteries.  Clearing and mining
activities will avoid the two cemeteries  and public access will be provided. Adverse
visual and  noise impacts from the  project may also be felt  by visitors  to cemeteries
proximate  to the project including Anderson Cemetery, Beck Prairie Cemetery, Jackson
Cemetery, Webb Cemetery, Spring  Hill  Cemetery,  and St. Paul Cemetery.  Spring Hill
Church  (.5 mile  northeast  of FM 979) and  Shiloh Church  (1.3 mile west of SH 6), though
outside  the mining area, may be impacted  by construction and/or  operation noise.  Five
pipelines carrying gas  or petroleum  products  occur within the life-of-mine boundary and
will be  relocated prior to mining.   There  are  no known airports or  State  Historical
Monuments to be directly affected by the proposed project.  Relocation of civil features,
in accordance  with State  Mining  Regulations, constitutes minor short-term adverse
impacts.

3.11.11     Socio-Cultural Impacts

           The economy of Robertson County  has  been dependent largely upon cotton
production since 1850.  Calvert functioned  as a shipping and marketing center for cotton
and other  agricultural products  on  the  Texan  and  New  Orleans Railroad.  Agriculture
remained dominant  with  a shift  from crops  to  livestock production in  the  1900s.
Settlement of Robertson County was accomplished by plantation owners from the south,
negro slaves, and Polish immigrants.

           The construction of large industrial developments in rural areas is generally
thought to be disruptive of community social patterns.  Potential adverse impacts to the
existing quality-of-life include a perceived disrespect for existing customs and lifestyles,
construction of  housing developments which  may be inconsistent with previous  settle-
ment patterns and architectural styles, and the introduction of a younger  population
accustomed to the social and cultural amenities of urban life.  Whether the changes to
local  lifestyles are perceived as  opportunities or problems depends to some degree upon
individual/family values and whether the extent of change has been anticipated by  local
decision-m aker s.
                                      3-138

-------
3.12       LAND USE AND LAND PRODUCTIVITY

3.1Z.1     Existing Environment

           Robertson County's leading land uses  in 1980 (SCS, 1980) were pasturelands
(54%), rangeland (29%), and cropland (17%).  Livestock and livestock products accounted
for the largest percentage of farm marketings in Robertson County from 1980 to 1983.
In 1983, the major crop in Robertson County was hay (Texas Dept. of Agriculture, 1984).
Other crops of importance cultivated in the county are cotton, sorghum,  wheat,  and
corn.  Cash receipts from  all crops accounted  for  an average 28% of the  total  cash
receipts from farm marketings for 1983, not including government payments.  Receipts
from livestock and livestock products accounted for the remaining 72%.

           The following discussion of  land use is based upon  recent baseline investiga-
tions in the project  area (EH&A, 1985h).  RRC land-use  definitions (RRC,  1984),  with
minor additions to more clearly identify existing land use patterns, were used in the
mapping effort.   Pastureland is defined  as land used  primarily  for the  long-term
production of adapted,  domesticated forage plants grazed by livestock  and occasionally
cut for hay (RRC, 1984).  In the project area, approximately 2-3 acres of pastureland
will  support one  cow-calf unit (Schnider, 1985).  Under intensively high levels of
management,  approximately 0.25 acres of pastureland will support one cow-calf unit
(SCS, 1986).  Grazingland is grassland, including domesticated grasses and native grasses,
which requires considerably  less management than pastureland.  In the project area,
approximately  15-20 acres  of grazingland  are required to maintain one cow-calf unit
(Schnider, 1985).

           Land uses of the 22,225-acre proposed project area include 13,934 acres of
pastureland (64%), 3,036 acres of grazingland (14%), 5,095 acres of undeveloped forestry
(23%), 78 acres  of cropland (< 1%),  1 acre of undeveloped water cover  (< 1%), 77 acres
of developed water resources  (< 1%), and 4 acres of residential land (< 1%).  Figure 3-16
presents the detailed land use  map of the project area.

           The proposed transmission line  ROW is located southeast and southwest of
Bremond, in Robertson  County, and will connect the proposed power plant site with the
existing Twin Oak substation.  Land uses within the proposed ROW  include pastureland
(68%), undeveloped forestry (24%), industrial (6%), and water (2%).  The  ROW  of  the
proposed transmission line route generally avoids residential  land uses, coming within
500 ft of  five residences.    The proposed  transmission  line  route is approximately
17.3  miles long, 2.5 miles of which are currently used as transmission  line ROWs.

           The  major  trend in land use of the  project region  is from cropland  to
grassland.  This trend has been evident in the Brazos Valley Region since the late 1940s
and is expected to continue.  Trends in agricultural land use in Robertson  County from
1978-1982 include an increase in the number of farms, while total farm acreage declined.
A  recent  increase  in  surface  water acreage  in  Robertson  County resulted  from
completion  of the  Twin  Oak  Reservoir.    In  addition, assuming lignite  remains  a
competitive source of  energy, surface mining is  expected to measurably change  the
character of the project region for some time.
                                     3-139

-------
           EXPLANATION
C   Cropland      C-l  Commercial/ Industrial
G   Grazingland    UF  Undevelooed Form
P   Posture       UW  Undeveloped Wol«r
R   Residential     — Pro|«t  Boundary
w   water
CALVERT LJGNITE MNE/TNP ONE
                                                                               Figure  3-16
                                                                   LAND USE  OF THE PROJECT  AREA
                                                                            Source '• EHGkA, I983ti

-------
3.12.2     Construction Impacts

           Power Plant

           Construction of the proposed power plant and associated facilities  (e.g., ash
disposal sites, ash haul road, makeup water pipeline, railroad spur, transmission line) will
adversely effect a total  of 997 acres  of primarily pastureland (72%),  grazingland  (6%),
and undeveloped forestry (14%) (Table G-l, Appendix G). The conversion of existing land
uses to industrial use is scheduled to begin with construction of the power plant in  1987,
with the effects continuing through the life of the project (30-40 years).  The  land uses
affected by  construction of the proposed power plant will  be removed from existing
production during the project life, representing a major long-term adverse impact on
those resources.  Project construction activities adversely affecting  off-site land use
include relocation of pipelines and transmission lines.

           Mine

           Construction  of  proposed mine  facilities (e.g., mine facilities  site, lignite
transport facilities, water control structures,  and stock piles) will affect a  total of
2,047 ac, which represents a major long-term  adverse impact  on related land uses.  Land
uses  affected  by  mining  operations  within  the  mine   blocks are  discussed  in
Section 3.12.3.  Land use  effects associated  with the mine  facilities site and lignite
transport facilities (haul road, conveyor system) are shown in Table G-2 (Appendix G),
with acreages  in this  table  representing areas of adverse impact outside of the mining
blocks only.  The mine facilities site will affect 32 acres of pastureland and 10 acres of
undeveloped  forestry.   Approximately 192 acres  (of  pastureland (66%),  undeveloped
forestry (29%), and grazingland (5%)) will be impacted by haul road  and conveyor system
construction.

3.12.3      Operation Impacts

           Power Plant

           Operation  effects of the  proposed power plant  and  related facilities on
existing land uses are the ongoing effects of construction (i.e., conversion to industrial
land use) (Section 3.12.2) throughout the life of the project.

           Mine

           Mine operations will adversely impact existing land uses on 5,018  acres within
the mine. Land uses and dates of disturbance of the mine blocks are shown in Table G-3
(Appendix G).  The mine blocks range in total  acreage from 432 to 1,218.  An average of
122 acres will be mined annually over the life of the mine.

           Lignite will be recovered from mining blocks listed in Table  G-3 (Appendix G)
incremently  over the  life  of the mine,  and  mined  areas  will  be  reclaimed after
backfilling is completed.  A survey of landowner preference  (PCC, 1986a) provided the
basis for proposed post-mining land uses.  Although the survey considered only the first
five-year permit area, the results of the  survey were  considered representative of the
entire  mine area.  Results  of the landowner survey for the  first  5-year permit  area
indicate a preference  for an overall increase in grazingland  acreage and a decrease in
pastureland acreage.  A decrease  in undeveloped forestry land use (represented in the
reclamation plan  as wildlife  habitat)  is  also indicated by  the landowner preference
                                     3-141

-------
survey, while the indicated preference for the developed water resources category is to
approximately  maintain the status quo.   As discussed below,  these  preferences are
generally reflected in the proposed reclamation plan, although a somewhat lower acreage
of pastureland  and higher acreage of developed water resources will be established than
are indicated by the landowner survey.  This difference can be accounted for by the
creation of the two end lakes proposed in the reclamation plan.

           Pastureland and grazingland should be the dominant land uses after reclama-
tion.    Grazingland  could  increase  by  approximately 698 acres  after  reclamation,
increasing the percentage of grazingland in the  mine blocks from 15% to 29%.   A net
area of  approximately 757 acres  of pastureland may be converted  to  other  land uses,
decreasing the percentage of pastureland in the mine blocks from 67% to 52%.  Land
identified as undeveloped forestry covers 18% of the mine blocks.  An equivalent use,
wildlife habitat, is proposed for 13% of the mine block area, a decrease of 5% (245  acres)
from the current inventory.   Land used for developed water resources  should increase
after  reclamation to 339 acres,  6.7% of the  total mine block acreage.  This change
represents  an increase of 304 acres of water cover within the mine block area, which is
the approximate size of the two proposed end lakes.  Thus,  livestock production will be
the principal  use of the reclaimed  land.   Since land  use change  is a choice of the
landowner, it is not considered an adverse impact. However, the secondary net effect of
these changes constitute a major, long-term, adverse impact on wildlife habitat.

           The productive capability of the reclaimed  land should be returned to  a
condition equal  to  or better than before disturbance, in compliance with  Section 23 of
the Texas Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.  To ensure  that proposed post-
mining productivity is not attained only through cost prohibitive levels of  management,
the process of restoring land productivity may include assignment of  a reference area or
use of technical  guidance procedures published by USDA or USDI for assessing ground
cover and productivity.  The  method of monitoring land productivity of the  reclaimed
land will be determined by RRC staff.   The level  of management required for the
reference area  would  provide  a basis for  attainment  of  the  level  of  management
necessary for an equivalent post-mining land use. A period of extended responsibility of
not less  than 5 years after the establishment of  ground cover is required of the mining
company.  Ground cover and  productivity  of reclaimed land must equal an approved
standard for the last two consecutive years of the responsibility period (RRC, 1984). The
monitoring techniques  described  above  are intended to ensure  an  equivalent level of
management before and after  mining,  as a means of protecting land owners  from the
need for cost prohibitive management practices.

           In addition to the  long-term conversion of existing land uses in the project
area,  activities related to mine  operation  which  adversely impact  off-site  land uses
include relocation of pipelines, roads, streams, and transmission lines.

3.12.4      Combined Impacts of Power Plant and Mine

           The proposed power  plant/mine project  will adversely  impact  a total  of
8,062 acres over the life of the project.  This acreage accounts for 1.4% of the land area
of  Robertson  County.  Proposed  post-mining  land  uses (discussed  previously)  are
generally consistent with existing land uses in the project area. Land productivity should
be returned to a condition equal to or better than pre-mining conditions.  Therefore, in
mined  areas, temporary adverse  impacts  to land use  and land productivity  will occur
until reclamation takes place.  Long-term impacts resulting from conversion  of largely
agricultural lands to industrial uses will occur in the power plant site area.
                                      3-142

-------
3.13       PUBLIC HEALTH

3.13.1     Existing Environment

           Statistics on the effects of existing air quality on public health in Robertson
County are not available from  the Texas Department of Health (Texas Department  of
Health, 1986).  Therefore, the effects of existing ambient  conditions on public health
cannot be directly addressed.   However,  the incremental and combined  effects  of the
proposed  project  on public health are projected in  the sections  which follow, using
existing standards  as a basis for comparison.  These effects are discussed in terms  of
regulated and non-regulated pollutants, which are introduced below.

           Regulated Air Pollutants.  The EPA has determined the exposure-dependent
threshold  level (or levels)  for each  formally regulated  air pollutant by a lengthy and
complex process.  During this process,  a primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS)  was developed  based upon  the latest scientific  evidence available with
additional scientific research commissioned, if necessary.   Each primary NAAQS was
established only after careful evaluation by EPA, an independent panel of scientists, and
the  general  public.   The  primary  NAAQS  for  regulated  air  pollutants  are  set  at
concentrations below the public health impacts threshold level and include a margin  of
safety considering  the health of especially sensitive persons (e.g.,  the very young, the
aged, and infirm).  Possible inadequacies in the  scientific  evidence on health-related
effects are also considered in the standard-setting process.

           Public health is protected by air quality regulations such as the primary and
secondary NAAQS, Prevention  of Significant Deterioration  (PSD)  rules  and emission
regulations that ensure the primary NAAQS are not exceeded in clean air areas like that
surrounding the proposed project.  A continuous program of  review and enforcement  is
conducted by governmental agencies to  ensure that  public health is protected at all
times. Within Texas, there are  two governmental  agencies primarily responsible for air
quality  regulation:  (1) the U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA), and  (2) the
Texas Air Control Board (TACB).  These agencies work in tandem within a system which
provides both flexibility and quality  assurance in regulating  air quality.  There are two
different  mechanisms which the  agencies use  to implement  air  quality regulations:
(1) pre-construction permitting  and (2) operational compliance. The permitting  mecha-
nism requires all new major sources of air pollutants to  be evaluated  and approved by the
TACB and the EPA before construction begins.  Once construction permits are issued,
the second regulatory mechanism, operational compliance, is activated. If the TACB  or
EPA  finds that the  facility is  not  in compliance  with its permit conditions  or any
applicable air quality rule, these agencies can  impose a variety of legal  sanctions and
penalties  to  force  the  operator to bring  the facility into compliance or  shut it down.
These agencies also have the authority to require changes in operation or design in cases
where ambient standards are being exceeded even though all sources are  technically  in
compliance.

           Non-Regulated  Air Pollutants.  Some substances emitted to the air which are
suspected of causing (either directly  or indirectly) adverse impacts  to public health are
not formally regulated.  These pollutants  are not  regulated because scientific evidence
relating an air pollutant to a  purported  adverse impact does  not exist, or ambient
concentrations are so low  that they are never expected  to approach health-threatening
levels. Some pollutants are in the process of having a regulatory mechanism established
(arsenic) or are regulated only for a specific source (mercury).
                                      3-143

-------
3.13.2      Construction Impacts

           Air emissions expected  to  be caused by construction  of  the power  plant,
mine, and associated facilities are described in Section 3.5.2 (Air Quality Impacts). The
emissions caused by  construction  activities will  primarily consist  of  fugitive dust
emissions.   These emissions  will only have  a temporary  and localized  effect  on air
quality.  The  temporal nature of these effects will vary, depending upon the particular
construction activity.   Whereas power plant facility construction  will occur within  a
specified period of time (projected as 1987 through 1993),  construction of certain mine
facilities (e.g., haul  roads) will occur throughout the life  of the project on an as-needed
basis.   No  adverse public health  impacts  are  expected  to occur as a result  of air
emissions from construction activities associated with the proposed project.

3.13.3      Operation Impacts

           Power Plant

           Projected public health effects of regulated and unregulated air emissions
from the operation of the proposed power plant are presented  in the following discussion.
Public health  effects of air emissions formally regulated by  either the State or Federal
government are addressed as  well as evaluations of expected air emissions for which  a
formal regulatory mechanism  does not exist.

           Regulated  Air  Pollutants.   Concentrations for  each regulated air pollutant
projected by  the  Texas  Climatological  Dispersion  model (TCM)  are provided  in
Table 3-37 for the proposed power plant, along with the  existing background concentra-
tions.   The public  health impacts of the  regulated  air  pollutants are  evaluated by
comparing  projected ground-level  concentrations  with  existing standards.   These air
pollutants  are known  to produce  adverse  public  health impacts  only if threshold
concentration levels are  exceeded.  The TCM computer modeling results demonstrate
that emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide,  and  nitrogen  oxides from  the
proposed power plant would not  cause adverse public health impacts since the expected
concentrations of these pollutants should remain well below  the  NAAQS.  Emissions of
carbon  monoxide and  hydrocarbons should  also  be  so low  that their  effects would be
negligible.

           Non-Regulated Air  Pollutants.    The  public health impacts of the non-
regulated air  pollutants  are  evaluated  for  the proposed power  plant  by comparing
estimated ground-level concentrations with various guidelines shown in Tables 3-38 and
3-39.   The air pollutants evaluated were  limited  to those produced in measurable
quantities from the proposed power plant. These air pollutants include radionuclides and
trace metals.

           Radionuclides  - The  radionuclides of concern  in the evaluation of  lignite
combustion are the natural Uranium-238 (U-238) and Thorium-232 (Th-232) decay series
radionuclides. Through a long series of alpha and beta decays U-238 eventually becomes
stable Lead-206 (Pb-206)  and  Th-232 becomes stable Pb-208.

           In  this  evaluation,  maximum permissible concentrations  (MFC's)  recom-
mended by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (Table 3-38) are used
for comparison with the estimated ground-level concentrations produced by the  power
plant.   The MPC's are recommended so  that doses  to certain critical organs will not
exceed  a certain number of millirems  per year.  These limitations were based on
                                      3-144

-------
                                TABLE 3-37
              AIR QUALITY DISPERSION MODELING ANALYSIS
                    OF REGULATED AIR POLLUTANTS -
                    PROPOSED TNP ONE POWER PLANT
  Pollutant/
  Averaging
    Time
                 Primary NAAQS
                          J
                                      Projected Ground-Level Concentration
                                     	  (yg/nT)	
                                    Current
                      (1)
             TNP ONE
               Total
                                             TOTAL
PM
SO,
   (2)
   annual
   24-hour

  2
   annual
   24-hour
   3-hour

  '2
   annual

   8-hour
   1-hour
Ozone(3)
   1-hour
Lead(4)
   quarterly
NO
CO
    75
   260

    80
   365
 1,300

   100

10,000
40,000

   235

   1.5
   29.9
   82.0

    1.7
   17.0
   47.6

    5.4

2,861.0
3,400.0
  3.2
 13.6

  3.8
 45.0
258.6

  4.7

  6.3
 33.4
   33.1
   95.6

    5.5
   62.0
  306.2

   10.1

2,867.0
3,433.0
                                        N/A
             0.000013
          >0.000013
Note:
(1)

(2)
(3)

(4)
           yg/m  represents micrograms per cubic meter.

     Existing  background concentrations  as  presented  in  Attachment VIH,  PSD
     application for TNP  ONE (SPS, 1986).
     PM represents particulate matter.
     No projections made because hydrocarbons necessary for ozone formation are
     emitted well above ground level.
     Existing ambient concentrations for lead are not available (N/A).
                                    3-145

-------
                                                               TABLE 3-3 8
                                  ESTIMATED RADIONUCLIDE EMISSIONS AND GROUND-LEVEL IMPACTS
                                                         TNP ONE POWER  PLANT
Nuclide
Uranium -23 8
Uranium -234
Radium -226
Radon-222
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Concentrations
in the Lignite
(pCi/g)
< 0.33
< 0.33
< 0.33
< 0.33
< 0.33
< 0.33
Uncontrolled
Emissions
(Ci/Y)
< 0.21
< 0.21
< 0.21
< 0.21
< 0.21
< 0.21
Controlled.
Emissions
(Ci/Y)
< 0.00028
< 0.00028
< 0.00028
< 0.2,'3'
< 0.00028
< 0.00028
TNP ONE
Maximum Annual
Ground-Level..
Concentrations
(aCi/m )
< 0.40
< 0.40
< 0.40
< 308.1
< 0.40
< 0.40
Ambient
Background »-.
Concentrations
(aCi/m3)
100 - 400
100 - 400
80 - 100
100,000,000 - 500,000,000
10,000
1,000
Maximum
Permissible ...
Concentrations
(aCi/m )
5,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
Note:


(1)

(2)
(3)
(4)

(5)
(6)
     The concentrations of Uranium -23 8  in the  Calvert  lignite were  measured, while the concentrations for the other  nuclides were
     estimated based on the assumption of secular equilibrium with the measured parent nuclide.  Radium-226  and Thorium-232  were not
     measured (Calvert Geology Baseline, Morrlson-Knudsen Company, Inc. Transmittal No. LTC-204, April 14, 1986).

Assuming combustion of 5.6 million tons of lignite/year total for four units. Uncontrolled emissions represent pollutant levels prior to control
by baghouses.
Controlled emissions released from the stacks following passage through baghouse with an assumed 99.87% fly ash removal efficiency.
Assuming no  collection of radon gas prior to release to the atmosphere.
Based  on air quality modeling  results  submitted to the Texas Air Control Board for annual participate matter concentrations  and on a
maximum uranium concentration in lignite of 1 ppm.
From National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) (1975), NCRP-45.
From Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation, Texas Department of Health, September 1982.

pCi/g represents picoCuries per gram.
Ci/Y represents Curies per year.
aCi/m   represents attoCuries per cubic meter.

-------
                                                TABLE 3-3 9

             MAXIMUM ESTIMATED EMISSION RATES AND GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS

                                        OF TRACE METALS DUE TO

                                    TNP ONE POWER PLANT EMISSIONS

Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
„ . . (1)
Emission
Rate
(tpy)
0.0057
0.00054
< 0.00018
0.014
0.0097
0.15
0.025
0.0057
0.0082
Maximum Annual
Ground-Level^^
Concentrations
(yg/m )
0.0000077
0.00000074
0.00000025
0.000019
0.000013
0.000204
0.000033
0.0000077
0.000011
Most Stringent /,j
Air Quality Standard
(Ug/m)
200.00
0.01
0.05
0.05
1.50
1.00
0.01
0.10
0.20
(1)
(2)

(3)
Emission rates are based on the trace element concentrations in lignite (Calvert Geology Baseline, Morrison-
Knudsen Company, Inc. Transmittal No. LTC-204, April 14, 1986), an ash content of 15.5%, and a controlled
particulate matter emission rate of 908 tpy total for TNP ONE's four units.  A collection efficiency of 62%
was used for  mercury, as opposed to  an overall particulate control efficiency  of 99.87%.  The  mercury
collection efficiency is smaller due to its volatile nature.
Based  on air  quality  modeling results submitted  to the Texas Air Control Board for annual particulate
matter concentrations and on trace metals concentrations in the lignite.
From UTSPH and EH&A (1983).
tpy - tons per year.

-------
observations  of  occupational  groups  who  inhaled, or  ingested,  large  quantities  of
radioactive  materials  and were  later  observed  to be more prone to  cancer than  an
unexposed but  comparable  group.   The MFC's represent acceptably  low public  health
risks.

          The potential  effects on public health  from stack releases depend upon the
radionuclide concentration in the lignite, the amount of lignite burned, and the amount
of fly ash released from the power plant stack.  The radionuclide content of the  lignite
and the total annual radionuclide emission rates for all four units of the proposed power
plant are presented in Table 3-38.

          The most direct pathway  for  human exposure is inhalation of radioactive
aerosols directly from the power  plant's exhaust gas plumes.  The maximum  annual
average concentrations computed for  the U-238 decay series releases are presented in
Table 3-38 for comparison with normal background levels and the MFC's.  Based on this
comparison, the  combined  effect  on  ambient air radionuclide concentrations due  to
operation of the proposed  power plant is expected to be negligible.

          A maximum uranium concentration  of 1 ppm in  the  lignite was used for
estimating the emission rate and ground-level concentration.  Although uranium was
analyzed in the lignite core samples, the uranium concentration was actually below the
minimum detectable limit of 1 ppm.

          Thorium was not analyzed  for in the lignite samples. Therefore, no project-
specific emission or concentration estimates for the Th-232 decay series radionuclides
can  be presented  herein.   Typically,  thorium  concentrations are  close  to uranium
concentrations in lignite.  To provide a basis for assessing potential public health effects
related  to thorium, EPA's recent EIS on the Cummins Creek lignite mine was reviewed.
In addition,  the original report which  documented  the potential adverse public  health
effects  due  to  airborne emissions from the Fayette Power Project and  Cummins Creek
mine was reviewed (University of Texas School  of Public Health  (UTSPH)  and EH&A,
1983).  The uranium concentration in Calvert lignite is less than that for Cummins Creek
lignite,  and the thorium concentration is expected to be below that for  Cummins Creek
lignite.  Therefore, Th-232 decay series impacts are expected to be less than, or similar
to, those impacts estimated for the Cummins Creek EIS.  The Th-232 (and U-238) decay
series  emissions  were estimated to have negligible impact  at Cummins Creek.   No
adverse public health effects are expected to occur as a result of Th-232 decay series
emissions from  the proposed power plant.

          Foliar deposition and surface water contamination from  the radionuclide
emissions are expected to be minimal.  Also, pathways  of  radioactive emissions from
lignite-fired power  plants such as intake through surface water or food (plant or animal)
are considered insignificant as compared with the direct route of inhalation (Beck, 1980;
UTSPH  and EH&A, 1983).

          Most of the metallic radionuclides in  the lignite will be  contained  in the
bottom  ash and fly ash after combustion.  Radionuclide  concentrations in the ash are
increased (enriched)  following combustion  because much  of the mass of  lignite  is
converted to energy. The  enrichment of the concentration is proportional to the percent
ash content of the lignite.   However, the releases of radionuclides and radon from the
ash will be less than that from lignite due  to the  glassy nature of the ash  (following
combustion of lignite,  each ash particle is covered by a glassy matrix).  In addition, the
proposed ash disposal area will be covered with at least  two feet of compacted  soil  to
                                      3-148

-------
comply with current Industrial Solid Waste Management  regulations.   Radon emissions
are expected to be reduced by approximately 18% to 70% due  to  the compacted soil
cover (Clements et al., 1980).

           The radon  emission rate and maximum estimated annual  average air concen-
trations at the ash disposal site were estimated based on modeling  results (UTSPH and
EH&A,  1983) for emissions from uranium mill tailings piles. Under atmospheric stability
class F  (maximum  case) and  a wind velocity  of 1 meter  per  second (m/s),  the  radon
concentration at the downwind border .of the  disposal site is  estimated to be less than
14.2 picoCurjes per cubic meter (pCi/m ). This concentration is well below the  MFC of
3,000 pCi/m3.

           Trace Metals - Trace metals present in the lignite  and capable of producing
adverse  public  health impacts  were  selected  for  a  maximum-case  analysis.   The
maximum ground-level ambient air concentrations (Table 3-39)  were projected for  all
four units using an air  pollution dispersion model  and maximum-case  meteorological data
provided by the TACB. Coincidence of maximum concentrations  from all four units was
assumed. The annual release of  each  element  (Table 3-3 9) was also  estimated  based
upon an annual fuel consumption of 5.61 million tons total for all  four units and a lignite
ash content of 15.5%.

           Acute exposures  and levels causing  acute intoxications  are  not anticipated
due to emission rates and plume dispersion characteristics.  Average  levels in the lignite
and annual average levels in the air are, therefore, used in the trace  metal  analysis to
evaluate any potential for adverse chronic public health effects.   Also, the assumption
was made that the metals present  in the lignite will distribute homogeneously in solid
materials generated by combustion with no segregation by particle size. The  collection
efficiency for the lignite-burning units was assumed  to be 99.9% for all metals except
mercury, for which 62.0% was assumed  because it forms more volatile derivatives.

           Impact  evaluation  was  performed  by  comparing  the  resulting  maximum
ambient air concentrations for all  metals, except beryllium and lead,  with  Threshold
Limit Values (Table 3-39).  These values were developed by the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists to protect workers within the  confines of their  work
environment.  Beryllium was  compared to its  national emission standard for  hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAPS), a more stringent criterion.  Lead was compared to its national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), which is also a more stringent  criterion.

           As shown in Table 3-39, the maximum ambient ground-level concentrations
due to all emissions from the proposed power plant are far below the most stringent air
quality  standard.  Further, the exposure  represented by  these estimated ambient air
levels is far below  current contacts through air  or diet.  All ambient air concentrations
will remain far below  any levels necessitating concern.  Therefore,  no  adverse impacts
on public health are expected on  either a short- or long-term basis.  A detailed study
(UTSPH  and  EH&A, 1983) which presents analyses of potential  adverse public health
effects  due to airborne emissions from  large conventional lignite-fired power plant units
and a mine in Central Texas also demonstrated that all ambient  air concentrations are
expected to be  far below any levels necessitating concern.  The concentrations were
estimated to be from  three to eight orders of magnitude  less than  the adverse public
health effects concentration limits.
                                     3-149

-------
           Mine

           Radon will be released into the atmosphere as  a result of mining operations
at the proposed mine.  Radon is normally emanated continuously from virgin undisturbed
topsoil.  The amount of radon emanated is related to  the  amount of uranium present in
the soil or the  near-surface material being evaluated.  Soils have been reported to have
an  average uranium  concentration of 1.8 parts per million by weight  (ppm ) (NCRP,
1975). Because the concentration of uranium in the Calvert lignite, < 1.0 ppm  ,  is less
than the above-referenced concentration in average soil of 1.8 ppm  , the emanaTion rate
of radon from any exposed lignite seams or lignite storage piles would not be expected to
be greatly different from the average soils. Therefore, release of Rn-222 by the exposed
lignite  during  mining  operations is expected to be  similar to  existing  undisturbed
conditions.

           The concentrations of uranium and thorium, and their associated decay  series'
radionuclides, vary by both horizontal and vertical locations within overburdens (Rosholt
et al., 1966; UTSPH and EH&A,  1983).  The actions of mining and land reclamation will
have the effect of relocating various layers of overburden  material  containing different
amounts of these radionuclides.  Changes in the soil radon emanation rates  are expected
to be caused by  relocating existing pockets  of overburden material containing varying
contents of uranium and radium-226 (Ra-226), the parent  nuclide of radon-222, and by
changes in topsoil and overburden porosity. The radon emanation rate from the surface
at  some  locations  in  the reclaimed  mine  area  will be  less  than the  predisturbed
emanation rate, while at other locations in the reclaimed mine area, it will be greater.

3.13.4     Combined Impacts of Power Plant  and Mine

           Regulated Air Pollutants.  Construction and operation of the  proposed  power
plant and mine,  located  at adjacent sites, will adversely  effect the  air quality  of the
project area.  However, the maximum effects from the mine and power plant operations
are not expected to coincide  in the same locations. Construction  activities and mining
operation emissions (mostly fugitive  dust emitted  at ground level)  will cause effects  at
points immediately adjacent to the mining area and will decrease rapidly with distance.
These effects on air quality and public health-related concerns will consist of an increase
in  fugitive dust, resulting  in localized, short-term  adverse impacts.   Power  plant
emissions (gases and particulate matter emitted at stack-top level) will cause effects  at
greater distances downwind. The air quality associated with power plant emissions is not
expected to  cause any adverse  public health effects.   The estimated air pollution
concentrations are well below adverse health impact threshold concentration levels.

           Non-Regulated Air Pollutants.  No adverse impacts  on public health are
expected due to emissions of non-regulated air pollutants from both the power plant and
mine,  on either  a short-term or long-term  basis.   The  estimated  trace  metals and
radionuclide  concentrations  in  air  are  expected to  be  far  below  existing natural
background concentrations. Maximum estimated ground-level air concentrations result-
ing from power  plant emissions are  so low  that the concentrations would not  be
detectable.  Relocation of overburden material by reclamation will  change the  radon
emanation rate from the surface of the reclaimed land. Depending on the initial profiles
of radon concentrations in the overburden, the radon emanation rate will be less than the
predisturbed rate at some locations, while at  other  locations in the reclaimed mine area,
it will be greater.
                                      3-150

-------
3.14       CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

           The primary impacts considered in this EIS so far have been those associated
with construction and operation of the proposed TNP ONE Power Plant (Units 1, 2, 3, and
4),  Calvert Lignite Mine,  and associated facilities.  The intent  of this  section is to
discuss in general terms the potential  impacts of  major existing or planned  lignite
development projects located in the vicinity of the proposed TNP ONE Power Plant and
Calvert Lignite Mine.  The  majority  of the area located  within 30 miles of the proposed
Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE Power Plant  Project is also within  the  30-mile radius of
four existing lignite  projects:  Twin Oak (Texas Utilities Generating Company), Lime-
stone  (Houston Lighting and Power, Northwestern Resources), Gibbons  Creek  (Texas
Municipal  Power Agency),  and  Sandow  (Alcoa, Texas Utilities Mining Company) (see
Figure 3-17).  These projects are located in Robertson, Limestone, Grimes, and Milam
counties, respectively.  The Limestone project also affects, to  a minor extent, portions
of Leon and Freestone counties.  The following brief synopsis of potential cumulative
impacts  is generally limited to  the  above-mentioned projects and   counties,  unless
anticipated cumulative effects involve a greater or lesser area, as indicated in applicable
discussions below.

3.14.1      Air Quality

           Air pollutants from lignite and coal combustion include particulate matter,
sulfur  dioxide (802), and nitrogen oxides (NO ), as  well as small amounts of carbon
monoxide,  hydrocarbons, and trace  metals.  Controls  are  available  to  substantially
reduce emissions  of all  pollutants from combustion.  Additionally, current regulations are
designed to maintain  the existing air quality of the region.

           The potential  for increased acid deposition is  unknown at this time, given the
current state  of  research on  the subject.  Atmospheric  chemistry technology currently
does not  allow precise prediction of  changes  in the pH  or location of  atmospheric
deposition, including acid  precipitation.  The potential for  damage to  aquatic  and
terrestrial organisms sensitive to acid deposition is documentable  but  not  quantifiable.
Information concerning these  issues is being developed in Texas, with the EPA and other
Federal  agencies,  the  TACB and other State  agencies,  and  the utility  and paper
industries to monitor  precipitation acidity and/or its effects.

           Two conditions  of the Texas situation  qualitatively indicate  that an  acid
deposition  problem in the future is unlikely.   First, the Texas environment is, in general,
relatively insensitive to the effects of acid deposition.  Even the most  sensitive area of
the state, northeast Texas,  is considerably less sensitive  to the effects of acid deposition
than areas in Canada, the northeast U.S., and the mountainous areas of the  western U.S.
Second, of the five power  plants existing or projected for the region (TNP  ONE,  Big
Brown,  Gibbons Creek, Limestone, Twin Oak,  and  Sandow), three will have  flue  gas
desulfurizations systems installed, limiting SO-, emissions by up to 90%.  This situation is
fundamentally different  from that found in  the northeast U.S. where the impacts  of
many older,  uncontrolled plants  are  thought  to be the  major  contributors to  acid
deposition.

           Air pollutants from lignite mining include fugitive dust from surface mines
and lignite piles,  and equipment  exhausts. Adverse cumulative  impacts associated with
fugitive dust  emissions are not expected due to the large particle character of such
emissions.  These large particles tend to settle out  of  the  atmosphere within a short
distance of their emission point.
                                     3-151

-------
I    Twin Oak power plant and mine
2   Limestone Electric Generating Station and Jewett mine
3   Gibbons Creek lignite mine and power plant
4   Sandow  lignite mine and power plant
5   Calvert lignite mine and TNP ONE power plant
         0        10      20       30 MILES
                                                        CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE
           Figure  3-17

  LOCATION OF  MAJOR LIGNITE
ENERGY PROJECTS IN  THE REGION
                                       3-152

-------
3.14.2     Water Resources

           Water  consumption for lignite development by the year 2000  will result in
reductions in stream flow near major diversions.  Cumulatively, these reductions can
affect groundwater recharge,  stream ecology, coastal freshwater inflows to bays and
estuaries, and the capacity of streams to assimilate pollutants. Although flow  reductions
may be relatively small, they  can be critical during low-flow conditions,  therefore the
variety in site-specific conditions may result in local adverse impacts.

           One  operation associated with the  Calvert Project in which there could
possibly be overlapping  effects with other lignite and power plant projects  would be
depressurization and power plant pumpage from the  Simsboro.  There  could be cumula-
tive adverse impacts if projects were located close enough and if pumpage  was from the
same zones such that the cones of depression from pumpage overlapped and increased
the total impact on the  groundwater system.  The maximum distance  to which artesian
pressures  are expected to decline as a result of depressurization at the Calvert Lignite
Mine is about 20 miles.  Depressurization was not planned for mining  operations at the
Twin Oak site (EPA, 1982),  the project located closest to  the Calvert lignite operations.
If, in the  future, depressurization  of the Simsboro in  the southernmost mine  areas for
Twin Oak should be done, the  effects of pumping for Twin Oak and Calvert could cause
cumulative adverse  impacts.   The  degree of cumulative  impacts would depend on the
amount of pumpage, whether  or not the mines would be depressurized simultaneously,
and  the locations of Twin Oak pumpage relative  to Calvert pumpage.  The nearest
existing or proposed project to the Calvert Project in which significant withdrawals of
groundwater  from the Simsboro are currently planned is the ALCOA Plant and  associated
Sandow Mine, located about 40 miles to the southwest. Overlapping depressurization and
power plant pumpage at the Calvert Project and other lignite and power plant projects in
Central Texas is expected to be minimal.

           Water-level declines due to dewatering at the Calvert Lignite Mine will occur
over a much smaller, localized area  than declines associated with  depressurization and
will  be limited to  the  close vicinity (typically less than 5,000 feet) of actual  mine pits.
Possible cumulative dewatering could occur if the southernmost areas of the  Twin Oak
mine operation were mined  simultaneously with  the  northernmost Calvert lignite
operations; however, the cumulative adverse  impacts should be minimal due to the small
declines except  immediately adjacent to mine pits.  Other existing lignite projects are
too distant for projecting cumulative  impacts due to dewatering operations at the mines.

3.14.3     Fish and  Wildlife Resources

           The  primary  cumulative  adverse impact on fish  and wildlife  resources
resulting  from lignite development  is the  loss  of  habitat  caused by lignite mining,
construction  of power plants, cooling reservoirs, transportive systems, as well as project-
related secondary development.  The five  lignite projects under consideration in this
assessment of cumulative impacts  are located primarily  within the Post Oak Savannah
vegetative region delineated  by  Gould  (1975),  although the  Gibbons Creek project
includes  some area within the Blackland Prairie and Pineywoods vegetative regions
(Gould, 1975) as well. Fish and wildlife habitat losses expected to occur are primarily in
the  forested  habitats (e.g.,  bottomland/riparian and upland forests) and  naturally-
occurring  drainage  features,  which  are  not readily re-established  by  reclamation
procedures. Habitat disturbance projected to result from  the five lignite projects shown
in Figure 3-17 totals approximately 136,000 acres (EPA, 1981 and 1982; TUGCO, 1986),
constituting a major, long-term, adverse impact.
                                      3-153

-------
3.14.4     Socioeconomic Resources

           The cumulative  effects of lignite-fueled operations in Texas will have both
beneficial and adverse effects upon the existing socioeconomic environment.  To a large
extent, potential  for  adverse effects  of  multiple  developments  will depend upon the
phasing  of  construction  and  operations  activities,  the  extent  to  which  individual
communities receive population from  multiple projects, and appropriate planning for
growth by local public officials.  The intent  of this  section is  to provide information on
potential cumulative growth effects to communities within the affected project area of
the proposed Calvert Project.

           According  to  a study completed  in 1983 (TENRAC, 1983), over 90%  of the
anticipated population growth effects occur within 30 miles of the  work site for existing
lignite development projects in Texas.  Figure 3-17 indicates the existing and planned
projects  within 30-mile radii overlapping the Calvert 30-mile radius.  Within this area,
the planned projects include Twin Oak and Limestone/Jewett. Existing projects include
Gibbons Creek and Sandow.   Only the Twin Oak project should simultaneously affect and
potentially impact those  communities  expected to experience population growth asso-
ciated with the Calvert  project.   These local communities  include Franklin, Calvert,
Hearne, Marlin, and  Bremond.

           Certain  factors  suggest that the Twin  Oak  and Calvert Projects may not
cause adverse cumulative impacts. First,  construction peaks do not overlap.  The Twin
Oak peak construction is  anticipated in 1987, two years before the Calvert construction
peak is expected.  Therefore, at least  a portion of the construction-related population
associated with the  approximately 1,150 peak construction employment of the Twin Oak
project  is  expected  to  leave  the  area  prior   to  the  maximum   employment  of
749 employees by  the  Calvert project.  Additionally, it is possible that the net effect of
the two developments  will be to reduce the total in-migration in the area, if employees
leaving the Twin Oak project are employed by the Calvert project.  If  this occurs, there
will be greater stability in population and associated housing and service requirements.
Second,  the  Twin Oak project area includes  several communities not expected  to be
affected by  the Calvert  project.   These communities  are  Kosse,  Mexia,  Groesbeck,
Jewett, and Marquez.   Therefore, there is greater  likelihood of population distribution,
reducing the cumulative impacts on any single community.

           Also,  other communities  in  the  Calvert  Project area are near existing
projects, including Gibbons Creek (Bryan-College Station) and Sandow (Cameron).  These
communities are  expected   to have  sufficient excess capacity to  accommodate new
populations.  Likewise, operations employees  are expected to be spatially  distributed
among  the  communities in over-lapping impact  zones.   As shown  in  Table 3-40,
employment forecasts  indicate that the anticipated operations start dates for the Twin
Oak is 1991 and the Calvert projects is 1988.  Total operations employment for the two
projects  will develop gradually through the year 2000 which should  help allow housing,
public services, and  facilities to be developed.

           Consequently,  adverse cumulative  impacts  such as a temporal lag between
public revenues  and  requirements,  and  jurisdictional  mismatches  between revenue
receipts  and population effects may occur in specific locations.  However,  a review of
the  area's communities indicates  that  excess  public capacity and anticipating housing
development can ameliorate negative  effects. In  addition, employment opportunities,
increased revenues  and secondary economic growth could provide significant positive
benefits  to the region.
                                     3-154

-------
                                                                             TABLE 3-40

                                                           EXISTING AND PLANNED LIGNITE DEVELOPMENT
                                                          PROJECTS IN THE CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE

                                                                   POWER PLANT PROJECT REGION
Ol
in




Project
Calvert




Jewett


Gibbons Cr.
(Existing)




Twin Oak3




Sandow
(Existing)






County Operator
Robertson TNP/Phillips




Limestone HLP/NWR


Grimes TMPA
Navasota
Mining Co.



Robertson Texas
Utilities



Milam ALCOA
TUMCO





Communities
Impacted
Franklin/Cameron
Bryan/College Station
Calvert/Hearne
Bremond/Marlin
Rosebud
Fairfleld/Teague
Buffalo/Jewett
Groesbeck/Mexia
Bryan-College Station
Madisonville/Bedias
Navasota/Huntsville
Montgomery
Anderson
Roans Prairie
Kosse, Marlin
Mexia/Hearne
Calvert/Groesbeck
Franklin/ Jew et t
Marquez/Bremond
Taylor/Rockdale
Cameron/Elgin
Giddings/Lexington
CaldweU
Power Plant
Peak
Cons true-
Con- tion
struc- Employ- Opera-
tion ment tion
Start (Year) Start
1987 670 1988
(1991)



1981 3500 1986
(1984)

N/A N/A 1983





1979 1ZOO 1991
(1987)



N/A N/A 1953



Mine
Current/ Peak
Peak Construction
Operations Employment
Employment (Year)
172 79
(1989)



617 207
(1984)

399 N/A





300 150
(1988)



435 N/A




Operations
Employment
(Year)
302
(2000)



436
(1987)

183





971
(1995)



335





Combined
Employment
474




1053


582





1324




770



        Sources:  1.   TENRAC, 1983.
                 2.   Navasota Mining, 1986; TMPA, 1986.
                 3.   Texas Utilities, 1986; EPA, 1982.

        N/A =    Not Available.

-------
4.0        COORDINATION

4.1        SCOPING PROCESS

           A notice of intent  to prepare  an EIS  on the issuance of new source NPDES
permits to PCC and TNP for wastewater discharges from the Calvert Lignite Mine and
the  TNP  ONE Power Plant (Units 1, Z, 3, and  4), was  issued by EPA,  Region 6,  on
19 December 1985.  Federal,  State and local agencies and the public were invited  to
participate in the process for  determining the scope of  issues to be addressed and for
identifying the  significant  issues related  to the proposed  actions.  A public  scoping
meeting to receive input was held on 30 January 1986 in Franklin, Texas.  The details of
the scoping meeting and comments received during the scoping process are presented in
EPA's Responsiveness Summary included at the end of this section.

4.Z        AGENCY COORDINATION

           EPA, Region 6, sent letters to  various Federal and State agencies requesting
their participation as cooperating agencies  in the review and preparation of this EIS.
EPA received an affirmative  response from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  Addi-
tionally, nine agencies responded with comments and/or technical assistance information
for the development and preparation of the EIS.  Copies of these response  letters are
included in the Scope of Work for preparation of the  EIS  (available for review in the
informational depositories or  upon request).   Correspondence between EPA and FWS
concerning formal consultation in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act is presented at the end of this section.

4.3        EIS REVIEW PROCESS

           The notice of availability of this Draft EIS in the Federal Register initiates a
45-day comment period during which comments are solicited from Federal,  State, and
local agencies, groups, and individuals.  A public hearing will be held after the Draft has
been available for  review for 30 days.  After the public hearing and end of the comment
period, EPA will respond to the comments received and prepare and distribute the Final
EIS.  Comments on the Final EIS will be received during a 30-day review period.  EPA
will consider all comments received during the review periods  in making its decision  on
the NPDES permit  actions.  A  Record of  Decisions  will then be issued, which will
document the end of the NEPA process and EPA's final permit decisions.
                                      4-1

-------
(i
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         REOION VI
          INTER FIRST TWO iuiLoiNo. taoi ELM STREET
                   DALLAS. TEXAS  7887O
                                 MARCH 17,  1986


                             RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
             SCOPING MEETING FOR THE  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
                                      ON THE
                  CALVERT  LIGNITE MINE AND  POWER PLANT PROJECT


   The  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) held a scoping meeting for
   the  Calvert  Lignite Mine and Power  Plant  Project Environmental Impact
   Statement (EIS) 1n Franklin, Texas  on January 30, 1986.  The purpose of the
   meeting was  to  receive comments from the  public regarding Important Issues
   which should be addressed 1n the EIS.  That document 1s being prepared 1n
   response  to  a request by the Phillips Coal Company and Texas-New Mexico Power
   Company for  wastewater discharge permits  (Clean Water Act, Section 402) from
   EPA.

   Approximately 350 persons attended  this meeting and provided specific
   comments  regarding the potential Impacts  of the proposed power plant and
   lignite mine upon the local communities and area residents.  In addition to
   these comments, several  letters were received from other Interested citizens.
   Letters were also received from Federal,  state and local agencies relating
   to the effects  of the proposal on their programs and responsibilities.

   Numerous  comments were received which will be considered during the prepara-
   tion of the  EIS and background studies.   Those Issues have been summarized
   1n the attached table.

   Two  of the topics suggested for Inclusion were determined to be beyond the
   scope of  the EIS or are  more appropriate  for separate consideration.  The
   first of  those  had to do with legal recourse for citizens regarding viola-
   tions of  air quality standards or other environmental laws and regulations.
   While the EIS will Include a discussion of «1r quality Impacts, any suspected
   violations should be reported to the appropriate agency.  The second Hem
   was  a request for a study of the time required to produce a self-sustaining
   (I.e., not requiring the application of fertilizer) soil-plant system.
   Although  a new  site specific study  will not be conducted 1n this regard,
   the  EIS will Include a detailed analysis  of reclamation procedures, techniques,
   and  projected success, based on field test results from similar projects.
   Success must be demonstrated prior  to bond release.  Also, under Texas Railroad
                                      4-Z

-------
                                    -2-

Comm1ss1on regulations, the mining company 1s required to secure a bond,
which will not be released until reclamation success has been demonstrated
and sustained for a period of five years.

In summary, the Calvert Lignite Mine and Power Plant EIS will be prepared
1n accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and Implementing
regulations developed by the Council on Environmental Quality and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  In addition to the Items listed on the
attached table, the EIS will also address other environmental review statutes,
Executive Orders, etc., which may apply to the action being considered by
EPA,  A detailed scope of work for the EIS will be developed by an environ-
mental contractor under the direction of EPA.

We thank all of those who attended and participated 1n the scoping meeting.
In addition, we thank those Federal  and state Agencies who are participating
1n the preparation of the EIS.

This responsiveness summary 1s being distributed to those persons on the
EIS mailing 11st.  It will  also be available for review at the Information
depositories listed below:

          City Hall                                City Hall
          409 N. Center St.                        600 Railroad St.
          Franklin, Texas                          Calvert, Texas

          City Library                             City Hall
          116 Fourth                               201 S. Dallas St.
          Hearne, Texas                            Bremond, Texas


          For additional  Information, please contact:

               Clinton B, Spotts (6E-F)
               Regional EIS Coordinator
               U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
               InterFlrst Two Building
               1201 Elm Street
               Dallas. Texas  75270
               (214) 767-2716 or (FTS) 729-2716
               Clinton ₯7 spotts  /
               Regional EIS Coordinator (6E-F)
Attachment
                                    4-3

-------
                                                      SCOP IKS PROCESS SUMMARY
                                         CALYERT LIGNITE NINE AND POWER PLAKT PROJECT EIS
  SUBJECT AREAS
PROJECT AREAS
  Socioeconotnic Resources   Power Plant & Nine
^Biological Resources
Power Plant S Nine
  Water Resources
Power Plant & Nine
                     POTENTIAL EFFECTS/IMPACTS

Financial boost to: 1) Robertson County; 2) the towns of Calvert,
Bremond, Franklin, Hearne, Bryan, MarTin; and 3) the entire
Highway 6 corridor
Relocation or reduced access to cemetaries and churches
Increased employment (particularly among youth)
Increase in tax base
Increase/decrease in crime rate
Increase in costs to landowners following reclamation due to ferti-
lization requirements
Adverse impacts on the community fro* increased residential,
commercial, and industrial growth

Adverse impacts on aquatic regimes from surface water runoff
Alteration or relocation of streams
Alteration or loss of wetland resources
Reduced fertility of soils following reclamation
Adverse Impacts on threatened or endangered species

Decreased surface water quality (including effects from solid waste
management, selenium concentration in overburden, and increased use
of Insecticides during reclamation)
•Relocation or dewaterlng of North Walnut Creek, South walnut Creek,
Willow Creek, Bea Branch, stock tanks, and farm ponds
Depletion of Simnsboro aquifer
Depletion of private well water supplies and water supply for Bryan,
Texas
Increased potential for flooding
Contamination of aquifers due to solid waste disposal {e.g., ash and
sludge)

-------
                                                            -2-
SUBJECT AREAS
PROJECT AREAS
                     POTENTIAL EFFECTS/IMPACTS
Air Quality
Power Plant
Transportation
Land Use
Mine

Power Plant S Mine
Mine
Power Plant & Mine
Energy Resources          Kine

                          Power Plant

Public Health & Welfare   Power Plant & Nine
Soils
Nine
Recreation

Cultural Resources
Power Plant & Mine

Power Plant & Mine
Decreased/increased air emissions as a result of using circulating
fluidlzed bed combustion vs. conventional  boiler
emulative increase in air emissions from all generating stations in
northern Robertson County
Acid rain formation
Decreased visibility
Increased air emissions

Increased traffic and safety problems
Road relocations

Decreased ability to utilize reclaimed land for grazing and farming
Aesthetic impacts from a change in the landscape

Increased supply of electrical energy
Disruption of on-going oil and gas operations and future production
Availability of cogenerated power

Increase in respiratory illnesses and allergies as a result of air
emissions
Increased need for mosquito control
Increased noise levels

Alteration of chemical and physical characteristics of soils
(including selenium concentration)
Decreased soil productivity due to poor reclamation success
Alteration of pH due to presence of pyritic compounds
Increased soil erosion from construction and operation

Decreased hunting opportunities

Adverse effects on or loss of historic properties

-------
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                              REGION VI
                           12O1 ELM STREET
                          DALLAS, TEXAS 7S27O


JUL251986


Mr. Jerry Johnson
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
819 Taylor Street  Room 9A33
Fort Worth, Texas  761O2

Dear Mr. Johnson:

The  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA),   Region  6,   has
completed  the  enclosed biological assessment for   the  proposed
Calvert Lignite Mine and Power Plant  Project  in  Robertson  County,
Texas.   This assessment was prepared to comply  with Section  7 of
the Endangered Species Act for all Federal  permit actions  on  this
project.   These actions would include NPDES  permits '(Clean Water
Act,  Section 4O2),  PSD Permit (Clean Air  Act),  and Section 404
Permit (Clean Water Act).

As a result of this assessment,  EPA  has determined that there is
no effect  on the Houston toad and Navasota ladies'-tresses,   and
there may be an effect on the bald eagle and  whooping crane   from
the proposed transmission line(a).    Therefore,  this letter shall
initiate  a  request  for formal consultation on these  proposed
Federal permit actions.;    For additional coordination,    please
contact  Joe Swick or Barbara Keeler  at FTS 729-6652 or  729-6654,
respectively.

Sincerely yours,
Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator (6E-F)

Enclosure

cc:  Kefn Ratliff; Phillips Coal Co. (w/o encl)
    v^ueorge Vaught; E&pey, Huston £. Aeaoc. (w/o encl)
     Wayne Lea; Corps of Engineers (w encl)
                               4-6

-------
                                                                  IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                               2-12-86-F-188
                               UNITED STATES
                     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                         FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
                                 Ecological Services
                             9A33 Fritz Lanham Building
                                 819 Taylor Street
                               Fort Worth, Texas 76102
                                             August 14, 1986      AUG  15 1986

                                                                    6ES
   Mr.  Clinton B. Spotts
   Regional BIS Coordinator (6E-F)
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   1201 Elm Street
   Dallas, Texas  75270

   Dear Mr. Spotts :           -
i
   This acknowledges receipt of your request, dated July 25, 1986,  to initiate
   formal Section 7 consultation with the  Fish and wildlife Service  regarding
   the  Calvert Lignite -Mine and  Power- Plant  Project  in Robertson  County,
   Texas, as required by the Endangered Species Act of  1973, as  amended.   The
   90-day consultation period began on July 29,  1986,  the date your  request
   was  received.

   We will process your  consultation request as  soon  as possible within  the
   90-day time frame.  If  additional information  or time  is required you  will
   be contacted.             : •::-

   As a reminder,  the Endangered Species Act requires that after  initiation of
   formal consultation,  the  Federal action  agency make  no  irreversible or
   irretrievable commitment  of  resources  which  limit  future options.    This
   practice insures  that agency actions  do "not  preclude  'the  formulation or
   implementation  of-  reasonable   and  prudent   alternatives   which  avoid
   jeopardizing the continued  existence of endangered or  threatened agencies
   or adversely modify their critical habitat.

   Thank you  for  assisting us to conserve listed species.  If  you  have   any
   questions,  please 
-------
                                                               IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                             2-12-86-F-188


                            UNITED STATES
                   DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                       FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
                              Ecological Services
                           9A33 Fritz Lanham Building
                              819 Taylor Street
                            Fort Worth, Texas 76102

                                           October 2,

Mr. Norm Thomas
Acting Regional BIS Coordinator (6E-F)
D.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas  75270

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This responds to your July 25, 1986,  request for formal Section 7 consulta-
tion, as provided by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,  on the
Calvert Lignite  Mine  and Power Plant Project in Robertson  County,  Texas.
The proposed action under  consultation is your agency's issuing  of Section
402 wastewater discharge permits (NPDES)  to Texas-New  Mexico Power Company
and Phillips Coal Company.  This formal  consultation was initiated on July
29, 1986.

On  January 7,  1986,  you  requested a  list  of  endangered  or  threatened
species which may  occur within  the project area.   A list of species which
could potentially be affected by the project  was provided by the  Fish and
Wildlife Service  on January 10, 1986.   Your  biological  assessment,  which
was transmitted to us with your request  for  formal  consultation, concluded
that  the  proposed  electric  transmission lines  associated with the  power
plant  "may affect"  the  bald  eagle  (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and  whooping
crane  (Grus  americana).  We  agree  with  your assessment  that the  mine and
power  plant  related  facilities  are  not likely to affect  threatened  or
endangered species.

This  biological  opinion  is  based  on   information   in  our  files,  your
biological assessment,   the Ecology Baseline Report  for the Calvert Project
(1985),  aerial  photographs  of  the  project  area,  and  transmission  line
specifications provided in your  letter  of September 4,  1986.

Background Information

The proposed  action includes the  construction  of  an   electric  generating
station by Texas-New Mexico Power Company in  Robertson County,  Texas.   The
generating station would be powered by lignite obtained from Phillips  Coal
Company's Calvert  Mine,  located  adjacent to the  station.  A 345-kV trans-
mission line would  connect the  generating station  to  Twin Oak  substation,
which  is  located  approximately  13.5  miles northeast of  the  proposed  site.
Total acreage to be disturbed includes about  5000,  300,  and  356 acres for
the  surface  mine,  generating  station, and  transmission  line  route,
respectively.


                                 4-8

-------
                                     -2-

Our  analysis  of project  features  and their  potential  impact  on listed
species  indicates  the  transmission line corridor may  affect the bald eagle
and  whooping crane.   Bald eagles have historically  wintered  in or around
Robertson  County.   Eagles  have been observed  regularly at Lake Limestone
and  Camp Creek Reservoir.   These reservoir  sites  have also supported nest-
ing  bald eagles.   It  is likely  that suitable wintering  or  nesting habitat
also occurs  at nearby  Twin Oak Reservoir which  lies within the path of the
proposed transmission  line.

The  primary  threat  to  bald eagles due  to  project implementation is colli-
sion with powerlines   along  the transmission corridor.   The  potential for
serious  conflict  between  eagles  and  the   powerlines  should  be  somewhat
lessened by  the small number  of  eagles within  the  project  area.  However,
we are concerned about potential collision threats  associated  with Segment
V of the selected route (Alternative 4) where the  lines cross 8.8 acres of
water, predominately on  two arms of Twin Oak Reservoir.  A minor conflict
might  also occur where  the lines cross Walnut  Creek in Segment IV, since
streams  and  their associated  riparian habitats often  provide highly-used
migratory  corridors for  raptors.  Although Segment V lies totally within an
existing  transmission  line corridor,  the  chance  for  bird  collisions  will
remain due to  the  greater number  of  powerlines  spanning  the water.   The
lattice  steel  design of  the towers  should prevent any  mortality of eagles
from accidental  electrocution.

As with  the  bald eagle,  transmission lines also present a collision hazard
for  the  whooping crane.   Robertson  County lies  within  the  eastern portion
of  the  whooping  cranes'   migratory corridor   to   the  Texas  Gulf  coast.
During their annual spring and  fall  migrations,  the  birds could use natural
or man-made, shallow wetlands  in  the area for feeding  or roosting.  Shallow
water areas  of  Twin Oak Reservoir provide suitable  habitat  for  feeding or
resting.

Several  powerline related mortalities  involving whooping cranes have been
documented  in  recent  years.    Mortalities   usually  occur  when  the  cranes
strike the groundwire  due to  its  low  visibility.    The  proximity of power-
lines to preferred roosting and feeding habitats increases  the liklihocd of
collisions,  since  a great  deal of local, low-level  flight  generally occurs
between  the  roost  and  nearby  feeding areas.   Since there  have  been  no
confirmed  sightings of  whooping  cranes in Robertson  County,  the  trans-
mission  line should not  present any  significant  effect on the birds.

Biological Opinion

Based on the preceding  discussion,  it is my biological  opinion  that  the
proposed  Calvert Lignite  Mine and  Power Plant Project  is not  likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the bald eagle or  whooping crane.

Conservation Recommendations

Although  we  believe   the  project  as   proposed  would not  jeopardize  the
continued  existence  of  the bald  eagle or  whooping  crane, the  following
                                    4-9

-------
                                     -3-

recommendations/ if implemented, would lessen the potential effect on these
species and provide for their enhancement:

      1.   Wetlands,  including  ponds,  lakes,  streams, and  their associated
           riparian  vegetation, should  be avoided  and  protected whenever
           feasible during the  mining process.

      2.   If adversely impacted,  wetlands should be reclaimed  in order to
           restore their natural biological productivity.

      3.   Powerlines  and  other transmission facilities  should  be designed
           to  avoid   accidental electrocution  of bald  eagles  through  the
           application of appropriate construction criteria [Texas Railroad
           Commission, Surface  Mining Regulations Section 380(c)].

      4.   Powerlines  should  avoid spanning  large  bodies of open  water or
           wetlands which often serve as  endangered and  threatened species'
           migratory  flyways, thus minimizing the potential for  bird/power-
           line collisions.   If it is necessary to span  large water bodies,
           the lines  should be  marked with high visibility aviation markers
           or similar material  to  increase their visibility.  The Twin Oak
           Reservoir  and Walnut Creek  crossings are examples  of areas that
           should be  marked.

      5.   If a bald  eagle  nesting site is located  during  project develop-
           ment  or  thereafter,  the  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  should  be
           notified immediately in order to work with the  project sponsors
           in identifying measures necessary  to protect  the site.

Further consultation  is not  required unless new  information becomes avail-
able  on  these species which  indicates they  might be affected  in a manner
not considered here,  new species are  listed  which  may  be  affected  by  the
proposed project, or  project  plans are modified  in  a manner not consistent
with this opinion.

Please let  us know if we can  be  of  further  assistance on  this project.
Your interest in the  conservation of endangered species  is appreciated.

                                           Sincerely,


                                                       *-<•
                                                   L. Johnson
                                           Field Supervisor

cc:   Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,  Albuquerque, NM (AWE)
      Director, Fish  and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. (OES)
      Executive Director, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX
      Texas-Mew Mexico Power Company, Fort Worth,  TX
      Phillips Coal Company, Dallas, TX
                                   4-10

-------
      SECTION 5.0
LIST OF PREPARERS

-------
5.0        LIST OF PREPARERS FOR THE CALVERT LIGNITE MINE/TNP ONE
           POWER PLANT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

           This environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared by Espey, Huston &
Associates, Inc. (EH&A) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 (EPA)
under a 3rd Party EIS agreement between EPA, Phillips Coal Company, and Texas-New
Mexico Power Company. EPA has directed the scope of services provided by EH&A. All
materials submitted by EH&A have been reviewed and independently evaluated by EPA.
Guidance for preparation of this document was provided by the following EPA personnel:

           Mr. Norman Thomas
           Mr. Joseph Swick
           Ms. Barbara Keeler
           Ms. Darlene Coulson
           Ms. Jeanene Peckham

EH&A key personnel responsible  for the preparation  of  various  EIS sections are as
follows:
           Topic
Project Manager
Assistant Project Manager
Groundwater

Geology
Soils
Surface Water Hydrology

Climatology/Air Quality
Sound Quality
Vegetation

Terrestrial Wildlife
Aquatic Ecology
Cultural Resources

Socioeconomics

Land Use
 Principal Reporter

George L. Vaught
Cecilia Green
Ron Harden

Gilbert Ward
Camille Butler
Gary Guhl
Ron Boyd
Julian Levy
Julian Levy
Cecilia Green
Camille Butler
CUf ton Ladd
Jim Wiersema
Martin Arhelger
David Thomas
Wayne Glander
Melissa Voellinger
Sandra Hicks
Don Blanton
Marilyn Querejazu
            Title
Associate
Staff Ecologist
President, R. W. Harden
  & Associates, Inc.
Staff Hydrogeologist
Staff Ecologist
Senior Staff Hydrologist
Staff Hydrologist
Senior Staff Meteorologist
Senior Staff Meteorologist
Staff Ecologist
Staff Ecologist
Staff Ecologist
Associate
Associate
Staff Ecologist
Senior Staff Archaeologist
Staff Archaeologist
Senior Staff Socioeconomist
Staff Socioeconomist
Staff Socioeconomist
                                     5-1

-------
                      SECTION 6.0
LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND
    PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE
        DRAFT STATEMENT ARE SENT

-------
6.0        LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES
           OF THE DRAFT STATEMENT ARE SENT
           Listed below are the major governmental office and public  interest  groups
which will receive a copy of the Draft EIS.  In addition, numerous other governmental
organizations, public groups, and interested individuals will also receive a copy  of the
document.
FEDERAL
Soil Conservation Service
Department of the Interior
Department of Commerce
Department of Transportation
Department of Agriculture
Department of Energy
Advisory Council on Historic
  Preservation
National Park Service
Office of Surface Mining
Agricultural Stabilization and
  Conservation Service
Department of Housing and Urban
  Development
Public Health Service
Department of Health and Human
  Services
Army Corps of Engineers
Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Senator Lloyd Bentsen
Senator Phil Gramm
Representative Joe Barton

STATE OF TEXAS
Office of Planning and Budget
General Land Office
Department of Health
Department of Highways and Public
  Transportation
Railroad Commission
Historical Commission
Water Commission
Water Development Board
Soil and Water Conservation Service
Parks and Wildlife Department
Department of Agriculture
Air Control Board
Bureau of Economic Geology
Governor Mark White
Public Utility Commission
Senator Kent Caperton
Representative L. B. Kubiak
Representative Richard Smith
PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS
Sportsmen's Clubs of Texas
Natural Resources Defense Council
Wildlife Management Institute
Audubon Society
Sierra Club
Texas Committee on Natural Resources
League of Women Voters
Texas Environmental Coalition
Central Texas Lignite Watch
Common Cause
Texas Conservation Council
Citizen's Action Program
                                     6-1

-------
  SECTION 7.0
BIBLIOGRAPHY

-------
7.0        REFERENCES
Allaise, P. N.  1979.  Coal mining reclamation in Appalachia:  low cost recommendations
      to  improve bird/wildlife habitat.   In: The Mitigation Symposium:   a  National
      Workshop  on  Mitigating Losses of Fish and  Wildlife Habitats (G. A.  Swanson,
      Technical  Coordinator).  U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, Rocky
      Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-65.
      pp. 245-251.

American Public Health Association.  1975.  Standard methods for  the examination of
      water and  wastewater.  14th edition.

Barnes, V. E.  1970.  Geologic atlas of Texas, Waco sheet:  Texas Bureau of Economic
      Geology.

	.   1974.   Geologic  atlas of  Texas,  Austin sheet:   Texas Bureau  of Economic
      Geology.

Bartlit, J. R, and M. D.  Williams.  1975.  Environmental impact assessment of cooling
      towers. Materials Performance 14:39-41.

Beck, H., C. Gogolak, K. Miller, and W. Lowder.  1980.  Perturbations  on the natural
      radiation environment due to the utilization of coal as an energy source."  In The
      Natural Radiation Environment HI, U.S. Department of Energy/Technical Informa-
      tion Center.

Black, John.  1986.  Personal communication. City Secretary, Bremond, Texas.

Blair, W. F. 1950. The biotic provinces of Texas.  Texas Journal of Science 2:93-117.

Boegly, W. et al. 1978.  Quarterly report:  Experimental study of leachate from stored
      solids, June 1, 1977  to January 1, 1978.   Oak Ridge National Laboratory,  Oak
      Ridge, Tennessee.  29 pp.

Boone,  D.   1981.   Evaluation  of the  annual fur  harvest.   Federal  Aid  Project
      No. W-108-R-5.  Job  No. 24.  Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., Austin,  Texas.
      16 pp.

Bolton, H. E.  1970.  Texas in the  middle eighteenth century.  University of Texas Press,
      Austin.

Bradley,  R.   1985.   Personal communication.   Local  realtor,  Bryan-College Station,
      Texas.

Braun, E. L.  1950.  Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner Publishing Co.,
      Inc., New York.

Brewer, R.  1958.  Breeding bird populations of strip-mined land in Perry County, Illinois.
      Ecology 39:543-545.

Brewton, J. L.  1970. Heavy mineral distribution in the Carrizo Formation  (Eocene), east
      Texas. University of Texas.  MS Thesis.
                                        7-1

-------
Bryant, Mavis and D. Parmelee.  1976.  Some notes on the laws governing  our Historic
     Texas Cemeteries.  Unpublished flyer, Texas Historical Commission, Austin,  Texas.

Bryant, Vaughn M., Jr. and H. J. Shafer.  1977.  The Late Quaternary Paleoenvironment
     of Texas: A model  for the archeologist.  Texas Archeological Society Bulletin 48.

Busnel, R.  1978.  Introduction. In: Effects of Noise on Wildlife.  J. L. Fletcher and R. G.
     Busnel (eds.). Academic Press, New York. p. 7-22.

Cantle, P. C.  1978.  Avian population densities and species diversity on reclaimed strip-
     mined land in east-central Texas.  M.S. Thesis.  Texas A&M Univ., College Station.
     131 pp.

Carmen, J. G. and J. D. Brotherson.  1982.   Comparisons of sites  infested and not
     infested  with   saltcedar  (Tamarix  pentandra)  and  Russian  olive  (Elaeagnus
     angustifolia). Weed Science 30:360-364.

Clemente,  Frank  and Gene F. Summers.   1973.   The Journey to Work of Industrial
     Employees,  Social Forces.

Clements,  W., S.  Barr, and M. Marple.  1980.  Uranium mill tailings piles as sources of
     atmospheric Radon-222.

Correll, D. and M. Johnston.   1970.  Manual of the  vascular plants  of  Texas.   Texas
     Research Foundation, Renner, Texas.

Cowardin,  L. M.,  V. Carter, F. C. Golet,  and E. T. LaRoe.   1979.  Classification of
     wetlands and deepwater  habitats of the  United States.   Prepared  for USFWS,
     Office of Biological Services, Washington, B.C.  FWS/OBS-79/31.

Cronin, J.  G., C.  R.  Follett, G. H. Shafer, and P. L. Rettman.   1963.  Reconnaissance
     investigation of the groundwater  resources  of  the  Brazos  River Basin,  Texas.
     Texas Water Commission Bulletin 6310, p. 152.

Cronin, J.  G.  and C. A.  Wilson.  1967.  Groundwater in the flood-plain alluvium of the
     Brazos  River, Whitney Dam to the vicinity  of Richmond, Texas.   Texas  Water
     Development Board, Report 41.

Davis,  W. B.   1974.  The mammals of Texas.  Bulletin No. 41.  Texas Parks and Wildlife
     Dept. 294 pp.

Davis,  M. W.  and D. Utley.   1986.   Intensive survey of the cultural resources  of the
     Calvert Prospect,  Robertson County, Texas:   An interim  report.  Texas Archeo-
     logical Survey Report, The University of Texas, Austin.

Davis,  M.  1986.  Personal communication.  Letter to George Vaught of Espey, Huston &
     Associates,  Inc. with site forms (copies of sites 41RT314-41RT326 and 41RT346-
     41RT349).

Day, W. 1984. Archaeological mitigation of the Doyle Martin Site, 41LN178 and the P.I.
     Ridge Site,  41FT52,  Leon  and Freestone Counties,  Texas.  EH&A Document
     No. 82209, Austin, Texas.

Dempster,  J. P. 1975. Animal population ecology.  Academic Press, London. 155pp.


                                        7-2

-------
Denver Research  Institute  (DRI)  and Browne,  Bortz  and Coddington.   1982.  Socio-
      economic Impacts of Power Plants.  Electric Power Research Institute.  Palo Alto,
      California.

Dutton, A. R.  1982.   Hydrogeochemistry of the unsaturated zone at Big Brown lignite
      mine, east Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Ph.D.  dissertation, p. 239.

Edison Electric Institute.  1978.  Electric Power Plant Environmental Noise  Guide,
      Volume I.  Report No. 3637 prepared  by Bolt Beranek  and Newman,  Inc.,  Cam-
      bridge, Massachusetts.

Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy.   1985.  Inventory of power
      plants in the United States.  Washington, D.C.

Espey, Huston  &  Associates,  Inc. (EH&A).  1979.  Data report for the Calvert  site
      ambient air  monitoring program.  Prepared for Phillips Coal  Company, October.
      Austin.

	.  198la.  Baseline report geology and hydrology of the Calvert project, Robertson
      County, Texas. EH&A Document No. 80368. Austin.

	.   1981b.  Calvert Project:  Surface-water hydrology baseline report.  EH&A
      Document No. 80397, June.  Austin.

	.   1981c.  Soils of the Calvert Mine Project, Phillips Coal Company.  EH&A
      Document No. 81168.  Austin.

	. 1984.  Report on a survey for Spiranthes parksii on the Calvert Mine/Power Plant
      project site. Prepared for Phillips Coal Co., Richardson, Texas.  EH&A Document
      No. 84957. Austin.

*	.  1985a.   Ecology baseline report,  Calvert Mine/Power  Plant  project.  EH&A
      Document No. 85614.  Austin.

*	.   1985b.   Water well inventory,  Calvert Mine/Power  Plant  project.  EH&A
      Document No. 851120. Austin.

*	.  1985c. Baseline climatology and air quality, Calvert Mine/Power Plant project.
      EH&A Document No. 851162. Austin.

*	.   1985d.   Ambient  noise baseline  report, Calvert Mine/Power Plant project.
      EH&A Document No. 851240. Austin.

*	.  1985e.  Cultural resources baseline report, Calvert Mine/Power Plant project.
      EH&A Document No. 851249. Austin.

*	.   1985f.   Surface  water quality  baseline report, Calvert Mine/Power  Plant
      project.  EH&A Document No. 851203. Austin.
*  Documents available for public review in information depositories.
                                        7-3

-------
*	.   1985g.  Surface  water hydrology baseline report,  Calvert Mine/Power Plant
     project.  EH&A Document No. 851125. Austin.

*	.  1985h.  Socioeconomics and land use baseline report, Calvert Mine/Power Plant
     project.  EH&A Document No. 851123. Austin.

	.  1986a.  Preliminary investigations into alleged power plant cooling tower drift
     impacts, Victoria, Texas.  EH&A Document No. 860593.  Austin.

*	.   1986b.   Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE  Power Plant project,  biological
     assessment.   Prepared  for  Region VI,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Dallas, Texas. EH&A Document No. 860794.  Austin, Texas.

Federal Emergency Management Agency  (FEMA).  1977.  Flood hazard boundary map,
     Robertson County, Texas.

Fisher, W. L.  1965.  Rock and mineral resources of east Texas.  University of Texas,
     Bureau of Economic Geology.  Report of Investigations No.  54.

Fisher, W. L. and J. H. McGowen.  1967.  Depositional systems in the  Wilcox Group of
     Texas  and  their relationship to the occurrence of oil and  gas.  The University of
     Texas  at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Circular 67-4, p. 20.

French, L. N.  1979. Hydrogeologic aspects of  lignite strip mines  near  Fair field, Texas.
     The University of Texas at Austin, Master's Thesis, p.  104.

George,  R.  R.   1985.   Migratory shore and upland  game bird research  and surveys.
     Federal Aid Project No. W-115-R-2.  Job No. 1.  Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.,
     Austin. 9 pp«

Girdner,  Charles.  1986. Personal communication to Shirley  Hallaron, Sargent & Lundy.
     Soil Conservation Service, Temple, Tx. April 8, 1986.

Glander,  W.,  G. Sundborg, and S. Victor.  1984.   Appendix n,  Section  D:   cultural
     resources survey of  the proposed  Twin Oak  Mine South  and  North Deposits,
     Robertson  and Limestone  Counties, Texas.  EH&A Document No. 83617, Austin,
     Texas.

Glander,  W.,  T. Bearden,  S. Victor,  D. Blanton,  K. White,  D.  Jurney,  N. Barker,  and
     C. Green.  1986.  Additional cultural  resources survey  of  the proposed Twin Oak
     Surface  Mine, Robertson  County, Texas.  EH&A Document No. 86086, Austin,
     Texas.

Godfrey, C. L., C. R. Carter,  and G. S. McKee. 1967.  Resource areas of Texas.  Texas
     A&M  University, Texas  Agriculture  Experiment  Station Bulletin 1070,  College
     Station, Texas.

Golden,  Jack, Robert P.  Ouellette, Sharon Saari, and  Paul N. Cheremisinoff.   1980.
     Environmental Impact Data Book.  Ann Arbor  Science Publishers.   Ann Arbor,
     Michigan.
*  Documents available for public review in information depositories.


                                        7-4

-------
Good, C. E., S. A. Turpin, and M. D. Freeman.  1980.  A cultural resource assessment of
     the Calvert  and Cole Creek Lignite Prospects, Robertson County, Texas.   Texas
     Archeological Survey Research Report 75, The University of Texas, Austin.

Gore, H. G. and J. M. Reagan.  1985.  White-tailed deer population  trends.  Federal Aid
     Project No. W-109-R-8.  Job No. 1. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. Austin, Texas.
     81 pp.

Gould, F. W.  1975.  Texas plants:   a checklist and  ecological summary.   Texas A&M
     University, Texas Agriculture Experiment Station. MP-585/Rev., College Station,
     Texas.

Halls, L. K. and T. H. Ripley.  1961.   Deer browse plants of southern forests.  Southern
     and  Southeastern  Forest  Experiment Stations, Forest  Service, U.S.  Dept.  of
     Agriculture,  Washington, D.C.

Harwell, F. and  R. L. Cook.  1978.  Status of the white-tailed deer population in the Post
     Oak Savannah ecological area.  Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.  Austin, Texas.

Hearne Chamber of Commerce.  1985. Personal communication.

Henry, C. D. 1976. Land resources inventory of lignite strip-mining areas, east Texas —
     an application of environmental geology. University of Texas, Bureau of Economic
     Geology.  Geologic circular 76-2.

Henry, C. D., J. M. Basciano, and T. W. Duex.  1979. Hydrology and water quality of the
     Eocene Wilcox Group:  Significance  for  lignite development  in  east  Texas.
     Transactions, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, Vol. 29, pp. 127-135.

Hershfield, D. M.  1961.  Rainfall frequency atlas of the United States for durations from
     30 minutes to  24 hours and  return periods  from  1 to  100 years.  U. S. Weather
     Bureau Technical Publication No. 40.

Hingtgen, T. M.  and W. R. Clark.  1984.  Small mammal recolonization of reclaimed coal
     surface-mined land in Wyoming.  J. Wildl. Manage. 48:1255-1261.

Holzworth,  G.  C.   1972.    Mixing heights, wind  speeds,  and potential  for  urban air
     pollution  throughout  the contiguous  United  States.   AP-101.   EPA,  Research
     Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Horton, J.  S. and  C. J.  Campbell.   1974.  Management of  phreatophyte and riparian
     vegetation for  maximum  multiple use  values.   USDA. For. Ser.  Res.  Paper
     RM-117.23 pp.

Hosier,  C.  R.  1961.  Low-level inversion  frequency in the  contiguous United States.
     Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 89, pp. 319-339.

Institute of Transportation Engineers.  1984. Trip Generation Report.

Janssen, R. 1978.  Noise and animals: perspective of government and public policy.  In:
     Effects of Noise on Wildlife.   J. L. Fletcher and  R.  G. Busnel  (eds.).   Academic
     Press, New York. p. 287-301.
                                        7-5

-------
Kaiser,  W. R.  1974.   Texas lignite:  Near-surface  and deep  basin  resources.   The
     University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Report of Investiga-
     tions No. 79. p. 70.

	.  1978. Depositional systems in the Wilcox Group (Eocene) of east-central Texas
     and  the occurrence  of lignite in  proceedings,  Gulf Coast  Lignite  Conference:
     Geology, utilization,  and  environmental  aspects.   The University of  Texas at
     Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Report of Investigations No.  90, p. 276.

Kaiser,  W. R. et al.  1984.  Evaluating the geology and ground water hydrology of deep-
     basin lignite in the Wilcox Group of east Texas. The University of Texas at Austin,
     Bureau of Economic Geology, Final Report, Project No. 80-L-7-9C, p. 257.

Kaiser,  W. R., J. E. Johnston, and W. N. Bach.  1978.  Sand-body  geometry and the
     occurrence  of lignite in the Eocene of Texas.  The University of Texas at Austin,
     Bureau of Economic Geology, Geological Circular 78-4, p. 19.

Karr, J. R.  1969*  Habitat and avian diversity on strip-mined land in east-central Illinois.
     Condor 70:348-358.

Kier, R. S., L. E. Garner, and L. F. Brown, Jr.  1977.  Land Resources of Texas (4 maps;
     1:500,000).  University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology.

Korshover,  J.    1971.   Climatology  of stagnating anticyclones east  of  the  Rocky
     Mountains,  1936-1970.  U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo-
     randum ERL ARL-34, October.

Kotter,  S.  1986.  Personal communication.  Narrative  site descriptions sent  to Espey,
     Huston & Associates, Inc. of sites 41RT10, 41RT327-41RT345.

Kotter,  Steven M.  1982.   A preliminary assessment of the cultural resources within the
     Millican Project,  Navasota River  Basin,  Grimes,  Leon, Madison and  Robertson
     Counties, Texas. Prewitt & Associates, Inc. Austin, Texas.

Kroodsma,  R. L.   1978.    Evaluation of a proposed  transmission  line's impacts on
     waterfowl and eagles.  In:  Avery, M. L., ed.  1978.  Impacts of transmission lines
     on birds in  flight:  proceedings of a workshop.  31 January-2 February 1978.  Oak
     Ridge Associated Universities.  Oak Ridge, Tennessee.   U.S. Fish and Wildlife
     Service. FWS/OBS-78/48.  151 pp.

Lawrence, B.  1985.  Personal communication. Local realtor, Rockdale Real Estate.

Leholm, Arlen, F. Larry Leistritz, James  Wieland.  1975. Profile of North Dakota Coal
     Mine and Electric Power Plant operations work force.  Department of Agricultural
     Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo.

Lynch, T. E. and D. W. Speake.  1978.  Eastern Wild Turkey behavioral responses induced
     by sonic boom.  In:  Effects of Noise on Wildlife.   J. L. Fletcher  and R.  G. Busnel
      (eds.).  Academic Press, New York. p. 47-61.

Martin,  A. C., H. S. Zim, and A. L. Nelson.  1951. American wildlife and plants.  Dover
     Press, New  York.
                                        7-6

-------
McBryde, J. B.  1933.  The vegetation and habitat factors  of the Carrizo Sands.  Ecol.
      Monogr. 3:247-297.

McCune, D. C. and D. H. Silberman.  1977.  Studies on the effects of saline aerosols of
      cooling tower origin on plants.  J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. 27(4):319-324.

Medcraft, J. R. and W. R. Clark.   1986.  Big game hunting use and diets on a surface
      mine in northeastern Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage 50(1):135-142.

Metz, William C.   1985.   Energy  Industry  Involvement in  Worker  Transportation.
      Transportation Quarterly.  Eno Foundation  for  Transportation, Inc.   Westport,
      Connecticut.

Moncure, H.   1980.  Cultural resources survey of  the Diamond No. 1 Lignite Prospect,
      Robertson County, Texas. Texas Archeological Survey Technical Bulletin 42, The
      University of Texas, Austin.

Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc.  (M-K).   1986a.   Habitat evaluation report,  Calvert
      Lignite Mine.  Prepared for Phillips Coal Company, Richardson, Texas (unpublished
      data).

	.    1986b.    Calvert project-habitat  assessment-life  of  mine  area.     W.O.
      No. 1687-02-60-621. San Antonio, Texas.

Mountain West Research, Inc.  1975.  Construction Worker Profile.  Old West Regional
      Commission. Washington, D.C.

Municipal Advisory  Council of Texas.  1985.   Taxing jurisdictions of Texas.   Special
      Report  No. 156, July 19.

Murdock, S.  and Larry F.  Liestritz.   1981.   The Socioeconomic  Impact of Resource
      Development:  Methods for Assessment.  Westview Press.  Boulder, Colorado.

Murdock and Hwang.    1986.   A  slowdown in Texas population growth:   post-1980
      population change in Texas counties.

National Climatic  Center,  NOAA.   1975.  Monthly  and  annual  wind distribution by
      Pasquill stability classes.  STAR Program.  Waco, TX.  April 15.

	.  Undated. Local climatological data, annual summaries for 1983.  Part n  - NEB -
      WYO.

	.  Undated.   Local climatological data,  1984 annual summary with comparative
     data, Waco, Texas.

	.    Undated.   Local  climatological data,  monthly  summary.   Waco,  Texas.
     Summaries for January through December 1985.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements  (NCRP).  1975.  Natural
     background radiation in the United States.  NCRP-45, Washington, D.C.

Navasota Mining Company.  1986. Personal communication.
                                        7-7

-------
Phillips Coal Company.  1986a. Calvert Lignite Mine, Surface  Mining and Reclamation
     Permit Application.

	.  1986b.  Socioeconomic questionnaire for proposed Calvert Lignite Mine.

Poultney, N. E.  1973.  The tornado season of  1972.   Weatherwise,  Vol.  26,  No. 1,
     February.

Prewitt, E.  R.  1974.  Upper Navasota Reservoir:  an archeological assessment.  Texas
     Archeological Survey Research Report No. 47, The University of Texas, Austin.

	.  1975.  Upper Navasota Reservoir:  archeological test excavations at the Barkley
     and Louie Sadler Sites.  Texas Archeological Survey Research Report No. 53, The
     University of Texas, Austin.

Prewitt, E. R. and K. A. Grombacher.  1974. An archeological and historical assessment
     of the areas to be affected by the proposed Twin Oak and Oak Knoll Projects, east-
     central Texas.  Texas Archeological Survey Research Report No. 43, The Univer-
     sity of Texas, Austin.

Radian Corporation.   1982.   Final  air monitoring  report for Phillips  Coal Company
     monitoring  station  near  Calvert,  Texas,  October 3,  1980 to  October 5,   1981.
     Prepared for Phillips Coal Company.  January.

Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC).  1982.  Coal mining operations map, 1982.

	.   1984.   Coal  mining regulations.  Surface  Mining  and  Reclamation Division.
     Austin, Texas. Revised, April.

Rochow, J. J.  1978.   Measurements and vegetational  impact of chemical  drift from
     mechanical    cooling   towers.      Environmental   Science    and   Technology
     12(13):1379-1383.

Rosholt, J.  N., B. R. Doe, and Mitsunobu  Tatsumoto.  1966.  Evolution  of the isotopic
     composition of uranium and thorium in soil profiles:  Geological Society American
     Bulletin, Volume  77, number 9.

Sargent  and Lundy.  1986a.  Preferred and alternative transmission line information.
     Prepared for Texas-New Mexico Power Company (unpublished data).

	.  1986b.  Socioeconomic questionnaire for proposed TNP ONE Transmission Line.

Schneider, Edward. 1985.  Personal communication with Robertson County Agricultural
     Extension Agent.

	.   1986.  Personal communication  to Shirley  Hallaron,  Sargent  &  Lundy.  Soil
     Conservation Service, Franklin, Tx.  April 9, 1986.

Schneider, W. J.   1977.   Analysis of the densification of reclaimed  surface-mine land.
     M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Schroeder, E. E. and B. C. Massey.  1977. Water resources investigations 77-110.  U.S.
     Geological Survey. Open-File Report. Austin, Texas.
                                        7-8

-------
Shaw,  E. A. G.  1978.  Symposium on the effects of noise on wildlife.  In:  Effects of
     Noise on Wildlife J. L. Fletcher and R. G. Busnel.  (eds.).   Academic Press, New
     York. p. 1-5.

Simms, S.   1986.   Chief Appraiser, Robertson County Appraisal District.  Personal
     communication.  October 1986.

Skousen, J. G. and C. A.  Call.  1985.  Sod-seeding  low maintenance plant species into
     coastal bermudagrass sod on lignite overburden in Texas.  In: Proceedings of 2nd
     Annual Meeting of American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation. Denver,
     CO.

Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS).  1986.  Texas-New Mexico Power Company:
     TNP ONE power plant application for EPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration
     permit and TACB Construction permits.

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 1986. Letter reviewing interim draft report
     (Davis  and  Utley, 1986) dated  20 June  1986,  to  Clinton Spotts, Region VI,  EPA,
     Dallas, Texas.

Stout,  I. J. and G. W. Cornwell.  1976.  Nonhunting mortality of  fledged North American
     waterfowl.  J. Wildl. Manage 40(4);681-693.

Summers, G., W. Beck, J. Minkoff, S. Evans.  1974. Industrial invasion.  Lexington Books.
     N.Y.

Taylor, F. G., Jr.  1980. Chromated cooling tower drift and the terrestrial environment:
     a review. Nuclear Safety 21(4):495-508.

Texas  Air  Control Board  (TACB).    Undated.   1982 Summary  of  total  suspended
     particulate data.

	.  Undated.  1983 Summary of total suspended particulate data.

	.  Undated.  1984 Summary of total suspended particulate data.

	.  1986. Personal communication with Larry Butts to obtain 1985 total suspended
     particulate data.

Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA). 1984.  Texas county statistics.

Texas  Department of  Health (TDK).  1978.  Rules and Regulations  for Public Water
     Systems. Water Hygiene Division.

	.  1982. Regulations for control of radiation.  Bureau of Radiation Control, Austin,
     Texas.

	.  1985.  Population projections for counties. Austin, Texas.
      .  1986.  Personal communication with Environmental Health Department, Austin,
     "Texas.
                                        7-9

-------
Texas  Department of  Highways  and  Public  Transportation.   1978.   Traffic  map,
     Robertson County.

	. 1983. Service standards.

	. 1985. District highway traffic map.
Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR).  1982.  Population projections.  Austin,
     Texas.

Texas Education Agency. 1984. Statewide education standards.

Texas Employment Commission (TEC).   1982-1985.  Annual average labor force esti-
     mates for Texas counties. Austin, Texas.

Texas Energy and Natural Resources Advisory Council (TENRAC).  1983.  Impacts of
     Lignite  Development in Texas, A Resource Book for Committees.  Espey, Huston &
     Associates, Inc. Austin, Texas.

Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA).  1986. Personal communication.

Texas-New Mexico Power Company.  1986.  Socioeconomic questionnaire  for proposed
     TNP ONE Power Plant.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD).  1985. Texas outdoor recreation plan.

Texas Real Estate Research Center.  1986. Personal communication with Arthur Wright
     to obtain regional housing information. TAMU.

Texas State Board of Water Engineers.  1942.  Records of wells and springs, drillers' logs,
     water analyses, and map showing locations of  wells and springs, Robertson County,
     Texas,  p. 62.

Texas Utilities  Generating  Company.  1986.  Personal communication with Jim Gaw.
     Dallas,  Texas.

Texas Water  Commission (TWC).  1985a.  Water quality segment report for segment 1242
     of the Brazos River. October.

	. 1985b. Personal communication with Permits Division personnel. Austin, Texas.
	.  1985c.  Notice of the  final determination of all claims of water rights in the
      Brazos HI segment of the Brazos River Basin.   Texas Water Commission, Austin,
      Texas.  April.

	.   1985d.   Personal communication.   Tom  Buckingham,  Adjudication Section,
      Austin, Texas.  October.

	.    1986.   Texas  Admininstrative  Code  (Dams and  Reservoirs).   31  TAG
      299.1-299.18.

Texas Water Development Board (TWDB).   1973.   IMAGEW-1,  Well Field Drawdown
      Model, p. 37.
                                       7-10

-------
	.  (undated).  Volume II, Upper Sabine River Basin, and Volume HE,  Cypress Creek
      Basin, hydrologic data refinement.  File data report, p. 93.

Texas Water Quality Board.  1973. Texas water quality standards.  Austin, Texas.

Thiessen, G. J., E. A. G.  Shaw, R. D. Harris, J. B. Gollop, and H. R. Webster.  1957.
      Acoustic irritation threshold of Peking Ducks and other  domestic and wild fowls.
      J.A.S.A. 29:1301-1306.

Thompson, B.  C.  1983. Texas fur harvest summary:  1982-1983 fur season. Federal Aid
      Project No. W-117-R. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas.

Thompson, L. S.  1978.  Transmission  line wire strikes:  mitigation through engineering
      design and  habitat  modification.   In:   Avery, M. L.,  ed.   1978.  Impacts of
      transmission lines on birds in flight:   proceedings of a workshop.  31 January-
      2 February 1978. Oak Ridge Associated Universities.  Oak Ridge, Tennessee. U.S.
      Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-78/48. 151 pp.

Townsend, James.  1986.  Personal communication to Tim  Krause, Sargent and Lundy.
      USCE Fort Worth District. June 4, 1986.

Transportation Research Board.  1976.  Highway  noise generation and control.  Report
      No. 173.  National Cooperative Highway Research Program.

Truett,  J. C.   1972.  An ecological  survey  of the lignite area of the Big Brown Steam
      Electric  Station,  Freestone  County,  Texas.    Submitted to  Texas   Utilities
      Generating Co.

Turpin, S. A. and M. J. Kluge. 1980. Cultural resources sampling,  survey and assessment
      in areas  to be affected by the Twin Oak Steam Electric Station,  Robertson County,
      Texas.   Texas Archeological Survey  Research Report No. 74,  The  University of
      Texas, Austin.

U.S.  Department  of  Agriculture-Soil  Conservation  Service (SCS).   1972.  Hydrology.
      National Engineering Handbook, Section 4.  August.

	.  1973.   A method for estimating volume and rate of runoff in small watersheds.
      SCS-TP-149.

	.  1978.  Regulations for designating prime farmlands. Federal Register, Vol. 43,
      No. 21, Sec. 657.5a.  January 31, revised May.

	.  1979.  General soil map, Robertson County, Texas. In cooperation with Texas
      Agricultural Experiment Station.  Fort Worth. August.

	. 1980.  Preliminary data - statewide erosion study.

	.  1984.   Kansas Fish and Wildlife Habitat Analysis Procedure.   National  Biology
      Manual 190V-amendment KS1.

	.  1986.  Soil survey, proposed Calvert Mine Project in Robertson County, Texas.
      Developed under a reimbursable  agreement with Morrison-Knudsen  Company,  Inc.
      for Phillips Coal Company. February.
                                       7-11

-------
U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC). 1972. 1970 census of population and housing.

	. 1982.  1980 census of population and housing.

	. 1983.  Census of Population Characteristics.

	. 1984.  1982 Census of Governments, compendium of government finances.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  1980.  Noise assessment
     guidelines. Office of Policy Development and Research.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  1974.  Information on  levels of  environ-
     mental noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with an  adequate
     margin of safety.  Office  of Noise Abatement and  Control.  March.  Washington,
     D. C.

	.  1978.   Protective  noise  levels:   Condensed  version of EPA levels document.
     Office of Noise Abatement and Control.  Washington, D.C.

	. 1979.  Methods of chemical analysis of water wastes. 600/4-79-020.
	.  1981.  Environmental inventory  of  90 counties with  known coal resources in
     Texas.  Prepared by WAPORA, Inc. Dallas, Texas.

	.  1982. Draft environmental impact statement, Twin Oak Steam  Electric Station,
     Robertson County, Texas.  Dallas, Texas.  EPA 906/9-82-010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  (FWS).  1983.   Final rule  to change the status of the
     American Alligator in the state of Texas. Federal Register 48 (198):46332-46336.
     12 October  1983.

	.  1984. Houston Toad recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque,
     New Mexico.  73 pp + iii.

	.  1985. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: review  of plant taxa for
     listing as endangered or  threatened species.   50 CFR Part 17.  Federal Regulation
     Vol. 50, No. 188. September 27.

	.  1986. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12.
     January 1.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).   1961, 1962,  1965, 1974, 1977, 1978. Maps (1:24,000) of
     Owensville, Calvert,  Hearne, Marquez, Franklin, Gause, and Bald Prairie, Texas.
     U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

	.  1984. Streamflow data and statistical package.  National Water Data Storage
     and Retrieval System (WATSTORE).  Reston, Virginia.

United  States Water Resources Council.   1977. Guidelines for determining  flood flow
     frequency.  Bulletin #17a of the Hydrology Committee. Washington, D.C. June.
                                        7-12

-------
University  of Texas  School of Public Health  and Espey, Huston  & Associates, Inc.
      (UTSPH and EH&A).  1983a.  Analysis of potential adverse human health effects
      due to airborne emissions from the Fayette Power Project and the Cummins Creek
      Mine.  Prepared for the Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin, TX.

	.  1983b.   Addendum to include  the effects of Unit 4 in the analysis of potential
      adverse human health effects due to airborne emissions from  the  Fayette Power
      Plant  and  the Cummins  Creek Mine.   Prepared for the  Lower Colorado  River
      Authority,  Austin, Texas.  EH&A Document No. 84443.

Weaver, J. E. and F. E. Clements.  1938.  Plant ecology.  Second ed.  McGraw Hill Co.,
      New York.

Webb, W. P.  1952.  Handbook of Texas, Vols I and n. Texas State Historical Association,
      Austin, Texas.

Wooldridge,  H. G.,  M. Davis, P. Denney, J. Freeman, M. D. Freeman, and  J. Goodson.
      1982.  Archaeological investigations at the Limestone Electric Generating Station,
      Limestone, Freestone, Leon,  and Robertson  Counties, Texas.   EH&A Document
      No. 81438, Austin, Texas.

Wray, T., n, K. A.  Strait, and R. C. Whitmore. 1982. Reproductive success of grassland
      sparrows on a reclaimed surface mine in West Virginia. The Auk 99(1):157-164.

Wright, Arthur.  1986. Personal Communication, August.  Texas A&M  University, Texas
      Real Estate Research Center.

Wykoff, D.  C.   1971.   The Caddoan  cultural area:  an  archaeological perspective.
      Oklahoma Archaeological Survey, University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Yantis,  James.  1986.  Biologist,  Texas Parks &  Wildlife Department, Hearne, TX.
      Letter  to  Bob  Spain, Resource Protection, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department,
      Austin, TX.

Zachry, H. B. Company.   1986.  Socioeconomic questionnaire for proposed TNP ONE
      Power Plant and Ash Disposal Sites.
                                       7-13

-------
GLOSSARY

-------
                                    GLOSSARY

Acre-Foot.   A term  used in measuring  the volume  of water, equal to the  quantity
required to cover one acre one ft in depth, or 43,560 cu ft.

Alluvial.  Relating to clay, silt, sand, gravel, or similar detrital material deposited by
running water.

Ambient. The surrounding environment or atmosphere.

Aquifer.  (1) Water-bearing formation through which water moves more readily than  in
adjacent formations with lower permeability; (Z) A zone, stratum, or group of strata that
can store and transmit water in sufficient quantities for a specific use.

Atmospheric Inversion.  A condition  which occurs when the air near the  earth is cooler
than the air  above.  The result is  a  stable atmosphere in which layers do not  mix and
ground level  air becomes stagnant.

Atto. One quintillionth (10   ) part.

Bagfaouse. A dust removal device  consisting of fabric  filter elements inside an  enclosed
structure. Dust-laden air enters the bags, the dust collects on the bags, and the  cleansed
air exits.

Baseline.  Definition of existing conditions without  the proposed mine, power  plant or
other facility under evaluation.

Biota. The plant and animal life of a  region.

Boiler Blowdown.   Method of preventing buildup of naturally  occurring solids  found in
boiler feedwater.

Boiler Makeup  Water.   Water used  to replenish a net loss in the power plant cooling
water system.  These losses occur primarily because of evaporation.

Bottom Ash. Coal ash that either settles or adheres to the interior furnace surfaces in
the form of fine particulate or sludge.

Box Cut.  The initial cut driven in  a property, where no open side exists; this results hi a
highwall on both sides of the cut.

Brine Concentrator. A vertical tube, falling-film, vapor compression evaporator which is
part of the power plant wastewater treatment system.

British Thermal Unit (BTU).   The quantity  of heat required to  raise the temperature of
one pound of water one degree (F).

Bucket Wheel Excavator. A continuous digging machine composed of a boom on which is
mounted a rotating vertical wheel having buckets on its periphery.  As the rotating wheel
is pressed into the material to be excavated, the buckets scoop  material and discharge it
onto a conveyor belt system for transport to loading or dumping  sites.


                                       GL-1

-------
Carbon Monoxide.   Colorless, odorless,  very toxic  gas produced by any process that
involves the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing substances.

Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustion (CFB). The system for burning lignite in a bed of
high calcium or dolomitic limestone sorbent that is fluidized by upward jets of hot air
under  conditions which calcine  the  limestone to the oxide form.   In this form,  the
limestone acts as a reagent to capture 90% of  the  sulfur gases emitted during lignite
burning.

Circumneutral pH.  Around neutral pH (~ 7).

Cultural Resources.  Artifacts created as a result of human activity.

Curie.  A quantity of any radioactive  material giving off 3.70 x  10    disintegrations per
seconds.

Dewater.  The removal of water by such processes as filtration, centrifugation, pressing,
and coagulation.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO).  Concentration of oxygen (O_) dissolved in water in mg/1.  In the
course of breaking down excess organic matter  in  water,  microbes may deplete this
oxygen, causing stress from  lack of oxygen on fish and other aquatic life.

Dragline.   An excavating  machine that utilizes a bucket  operated and suspended by
means of lines or cables,  one of which hoists or lowers the bucket from a boom;  the
other, from which the name is derived, allows the bucket to  swing out from the machine
or to be dragged toward the machine  for loading.   Mobility of draglines is by crawler
mounting or by a walking device featuring pontoon-like  feet and a circular base or tub.
The swing of the machine is based on rollers and rail.   The machine usually operates from
the high wall.

Drawdown.  Lowering of the water table or  aquifer level caused by pumping or artesian
flow.

Effluent.  Wastewater or other liquid, partially or completely treated,  flowing out of a
reservoir, basin, or treatment plant.

Eocene. In geology, the period of time approximately 40-50 million years ago.

Ephemeral.  Lasting a very short  time.

Fecal  Coliforms.  A large and varied  group of bacteria flourishing in the intestines  and
feces of warm-blooded animals, including man.  Large amounts of these bacteria in  the
water indicate sewage or feedlot pollution.

Floodplain.   Level  land that  may be  submerged by  floodwaters; or  a plain  built  up by
stream deposition.

Flue  Gas.   Any gas  that  is ducted  through flue   or  chimney  and  expelled to  the
atmosphere.

Fly Ash.  Coal ash particulate matter that is entrained into the flue gas stream.


                                      GL-2

-------
Formation.  In geology, the primary unit for describing and mapping sedimentary rock
groups.

Fugitive Dust. That particulate matter not emitted from a duct or stack which becomes
airborne due to the forces of wind or surface coal mining and reclamation operations or
both.  During surface coal mining and reclamation operations it may include emissions
from haul  roads; wind erosion  of  exposed  surfaces,  storage piles  and  spoil  piles;
reclamation operations; and other activities in which material is either removed, stored,
transported or redistributed.

Groundwater.   Subsurface  water occupying the saturation zone,  from which wells  and
springs are  fed.  In a strict sense, the term applies only to water below the water table.
Also called  "plerotic water"; "phreatic water".

Hard Stringers (Hard Streaks).  Intermittent hard  layers of rocky material occasionally
encountered during overburden removal.

Hazardous Waste. Any waste or combination of wastes which pose a substantial present
or potential hazard  to human  health  or living  organisms  because such  wastes  are
nondegradable, persistent  in nature,  can be biologically  magnified,  can be  lethal, or
because they may otherwise cause or tend to cause detrimental comulative effects.

Herbicides.  An agent used to destroy or inhibit plant growth.

High wall. The leading edge of the original box cut.

Historic Resources.    Characteristics  which  have value in  explaining past  events,
particularly after the invention of writing.

Hydrocarbon.  Any of  a vast  family  of compounds containing carbon and hydrogen in
various combinations;  found especially  in  fossil fuels.   Some  of the  hydrocarbon
compounds are major air pollutants; they may be  carcinogenic or active participants in
photochemical processes.

Hydrogeology. Science that deals with subsurface waters and with related geological
aspects of surface waters.

Ion.   An atom which  carries a positive electric charge (cation) as a result of having lost
one or more electrons or a negative charge (anion) as a result of having gained one or
more electrons.

Ion Exchange.  A reversible interchange of  one kind of ion with another of like charge.
Used for demineralizing water, purifying chemical, and separating substances.

Interburden.  Material  of any nature, consolidated or  unconsolidated, that lies between
two deposits of useful minerals (lignite).

Kilowatt-hour (KWH). The  unit of work or energy equal to that expended by one kilowatt
(i.e.,  1000 watts) in one hour.

Land Use.  Specific uses or management-related activities, rather than the vegetation or
cover of the land.
                                       GL-3

-------
Lignite.  A brownish-black coal in which the alteration of vegetal matter has proceeded
further than peat, but not so far as sub-bituminous coal.

Lithic Debitage.  Stone artifacts composed of flakes and chips (broken flakes); typically
they are the result of prehistoric tool manufacture or maintenance.

Lithology.  In geology, the study of rocks and rock formations.

Littoral Zone.  The area of shallow water around the edge of a. body of water.

Megawatt (net) MW.  The unit for measuring the amount  of power that is transmitted
from a power plant. One megawatt equals 1,000,000 watts.

Mesophytic.   Medium  conditions  of  moisture,  in contrast  to very  wet  or  very  dry
conditions.

Mine-Mouth Power Plant. A steam-electric plant or coal gasification power plant close
to a  coal  mine;  usually associated with delivery of  output via transmission lines  or
pipelines over  long distances, as constrasted with plants located nearer load centers  and
at some distance  from sources of fuel supply.

Mitigation.  (1) Avoiding an  impact altogether by not taking  a certain action or parts of
an action; (Z) minimizing impacts by limiting  the degree or magnitude  of an action;
(3) rectifying an  impact by  repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environ-
ment; (4) reducing or eliminating an impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of  that action.

Nitrogen Dioxide.   An  atmospheric gas formed primarily during combustion  of  fossil
fuels.  Considered a pollutant.

Nitrogen Oxides  (NO ).  A combination of various oxides of  nitrogen, the  most common
of which are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO?).  Formed by the combustion
processes.

Non-steady State. Storm water/high stage flow conditions.

Overburden.    Consolidated  or  unconsolidated material overlying a  deposit  of useful
geological material (minerals, ores, lignite, or coal) especially where mined by open cuts.

Palustrine.  The  biological  classification for all nontidal wetlands dominated  by trees,
shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent  masses or lichens,  and  all such  wetlands that
occur in tidal areas where salinity due  to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 0/00.

Particulates.   Small  particles of solid  or  liquid  materials that  when suspended in  the
atmosphere, constitute an atmospheric pollutant.

Permeability.   The quality  of having  pores or openings that permit liquids or  gases to
pass through.

pH.  The measure of hydrogen-ion activity  in solution.   Expressed on a scale of 0 (highly
acid)  to 14 (alkaline), pH 7.0  is a neutral solution, neither acid nor alkaline.

Phreatophyte.  A deep-rooted plant that obtains its water from the water table or  the
layer of soil just above it.
                                     GL-4

-------
Pico. One trillionth (10   ) part.

Plume drift dispersion.  Pure clean water vapor and a small fraction of water droplets or
mist from circulating cooling water are expelled through the cooling tower fans in an
upward draft to form a "plume" above the cooling towers. This plume can "drift" in the
direction of the prevailing winds and fan out or "disperse" in the cross-wind direction.

Prehistoric Resources.  Characteristics  which have value in explaining events prior to
the invention of writing.

Quarternary.   In  geology, the  most recent period,  comprising  all geologic time  and
deposits from roughly 10 million years ago to the present.

Radionuclides.  A radioactive atom  which is  characterized by  the constitution of its
nucleus and hence its energy content.

Radon.    A  naturally occurring  radioactive  gas which results from the  decay  of
uranium-238 and which is emitted from fly ash.

Reagent.  A substance used (as hi  detecting or measuring a. component or in preparing a
product) because of its chemical or biological activity.

Recharge. Process by which water is added to the  zone of saturation, as recharge of an
aquifer.

Reclamation. (1) The process of reconverting mined or other disturbed land to its  former
or other productive uses;  (2) The process of making a  site habitable  to organisms that
were  originally present or others  that approximate  the original inhabitants; (3) Those
actions  taken to restore mined land to a postmining land use approved by the regulatory
authority.

Riparian.  Relating  to  the  bank of a natural water course,  such  as a river, lake, or
stream.

Scrubber.  A device which uses a liquid spray to remove aerosol and gaseous pollutants
from an air stream.  The gases are removed either by  absorption or chemical reaction.
Solid and liquid particulates are removed through contact with the spray.  Scrubbers are
used for both the measurement and control of pollution.

Sedimentation Pond.  A primary sediment control structure including, but not limited to,
a barrier, dam or  excavated depression  which slows down  the  water runoff to allow
sediment  to settle out.

Socioeconomic Resources.  Characteristics of the population which relate to social and
economic activity.

Spoil.  (1) The overburden or non-coal material removed in gaining access  to the coal or
mineral material in surface mining; (2) Overburden that has been removed during surface
coal mining operation.

Steady State.  Base flow conditions.

Subsidence. A sinking of a large part  of the earth's crust.
                                      GL-5

-------
Sulfate.  A compound in which the hydrogen of sulfuric acid is replaced by either a metal
or by an organic radical.

Sulfur  Dioxide  (SO-.)-   A gaseous  air  pollutant  that  is produced  primarily  by the
combustion of fossil ruels and petroleum refining.

Surface Water.  Water that flows exclusively across the surface of the land.

Topography.  The configuration of a surface including its relief and position of its  natural
and manmade features.

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).  The anhydrous residues of dissolved constituents in water.
Actually,  the term is defined by the method  used in  determination.  Standard Methods
are used in water and wastewater  treatment.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS).  The sum of the solids that either float on the surface or
are in suspension  in water,  wastewater, or other liquids.   These can  be removed by
filtering.

Trace Metals. Metals present in minute quantities.

Undifferentiated.   In  archaeology,  a period  of occupation  which cannot be  precisely
identified because of insufficient data (i.e., a lack of temporally diagnostic  artifacts).

Wetlands. Areas inundated by  surface or groundwater with enough frequency to  support
a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for  life in a saturated soil condition (such as
tidal flats, swamps, wet meadows, natural ponds).

Wheeling  Power Agreements.   Agreements between utilities outlining the terms and
conditions of transmitting power from one source to another.
                                   GL-6

-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

-------
                            LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ac-ft      acre-feet
ACHP     Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACW      auxiliary cooling water
AQCR     Air Quality Control Region of EPA
BCY       bank cubic yards
Btu        British thermal units
bwg       birmingham wire gauge
CDC       sediment control ditch
CFB       circulating fluidized bed
cfs        cubic feet per second
Cl         chloride
CLM       Calvert Lignite Mine
cm        centimeters
cm/sec     centimeters per second
CN        curve numbers
CO        carbon monoxide
CSM       continuous surface miner
CTBD     cooling tower blowdown
CTMU     cooling tower makeup
CWA      Clean  Water Act
DDC       diversion ditch
DO        dissolved oxygen
DOC       United States Department of Commerce
DPC       diversion pond
DRI       Denver Research Institute
ECW       equipment  cooling water
EH&A     Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
EIS        Environmental Impact Statement
EPA       Environmental Protection Agency
FAA       Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA     Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHBM     Flood Hazard Boundary Map
fpm        feet per minute
fps        feet per second
FWS       Fish and Wildlife Service
ft         feet
gpd        gallons per day
gpd/ft     gallons per day per foot
gpd/ft     gallons per day per square foot
gpm       gallons per minute
HECW     Heat Exchanger Circulating Water
Hg         mercury
hp         horsepower
ISD        Independent School District
km        kilometers
kV         kilovolt
KVA       kilovolt amperes
Kw        kilowatt
L,         day-night noise level
MACT     Municipal Advisory Council of Texas
MCA       Madison Cooper Airport, Waco
                                   AB-1

-------
                      LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Concluded)

mg/1 .,    milligrams per liter
mg/m     milligrams per cubic meters
mgpd     millions of gallons per day
ml        milliliters
MMBtu    millions of Btus
mph      miles per hour
MSA      Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSHA     Mine Safety Health Administration
MSL      mean sea level
Mw       megawatt
NAAQS   National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCC      National Climatic Center
NEPA     National Environmental Policy Act
NO       Nitrogen oxide
NP$ES    National Pollutant  Discharge Elimination System
NFS      National Park Service
NSPS     New Source Performance Standards
NWS      National Weather Service
O_        Ozone
PE        lead
PC       pulverized coal
PCC      Phillips Coal Company
PIW      per inch width
PSD      Prevention of Significant Deterioration
psig      pounds per square inch gauge
rpm      revolutions per minute
RRC      Railroad Commission of Texas
RTD      rubber-tired dozer
SCS      Soil Conservation Service
SHPO     State Historic Preservation Officer
SO-      sulfur dioxide
SPC      sedimentation pond
SPGP     State Program General Permit
SPS      Southwestern Public Service Company
STAR     Stability Array
SWEPCO  Southwestern Electric Power Company
TACB     Texas Air Control Board
TDH      Texas Department  of Health
TDS      total dissolved solids
TDWP     Texas Department  of Water Resources
TEC      Texas Employment Commission
TNP      Texas-New Mexico Power Company
TNP ONE Texas-New Mexico Power Company's lignite-fired steam electric
          generating station
tph       tons per hour
TPWD     Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
TPUC     Texas Public Utilities Commission
TSP      Total Suspended Particulate Matter
TWC      Texas Water Commission
TWDB     Texas Water Development Board
USCE     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA     U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS     U.S. Geological Survey

                                    AB-2

-------
INDEX

-------
                                      INDEX
Acid Deposition
Advisory Council on Historic
  Preservation (ACHP)
Aesthetic Values
Air Quality
Alternatives
Alternatives, Preferred
Aquatic Ecology
Archaeological and Historic Resources
Artesian Pressures
Ash-Handling System
Ash Disposal
Auxiliary Cooling Water
Bottom Ash
Carbon Monoxide
Chloride
Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustion
Civil Features
Climatology
Commercially-Important Species
Community Facilities and Services
Conveyor
Cooling System
Coordination
Cultural Resources
Demographic Profile
Dewatering
Dissolved Oxygen
Diversion Ditches
Diversion Ponds
Ecologically-Sensitive Areas
Economic Geology
Economic Profile
Effluent
Emission Rates
Employment
Endangered and Threatened Species
Environmental Consequences
Equipment Cooling Water
Existing Environment
Fecal Coliform
Floodplains
Flow Duration
Fly Ash
Geochemistry, Overburden
Geochemistry, Lignite
Geology
Government Finances
Groundwater
              3-68, 3-85, 3-151
                         3-112

             S-10, 3-119, 3-137
               S-7, 3-58, 3-151
                 S-l, 2-1, 2-46
                     S-2, 2-21
              S-8, 3-101, 3-153
       (see Cultural Resources)
          S-5, 3-14, 3-17, 3-23
                     2-9, 2-27
               2-10, 2-27, 3-14
                          2-25
                     2-9, 2-27
              3-61, 3-67, 3-145
         3-43, 3-46, 3-47, 3-56
                     2-5, 2-21
                   S-10, 3-138
                     S-7, 3-58
              3-82, 3-93, 3-102
              S-9, 3-117, 3-129
                S-2, 2-19, 2-37
                     2-6, 2-21
                          4-1
                    S-8, 3-108
                  3-115, 3-127
                          3-17
         3-43, 3-46, 3-47, 3-56
                    2-40, 3-55
                          2-40
                    3-82, 3-94
                          3-11
                         3-116
                2-8, 3-43, 3-57
                    3-60, 3-67
                  3-116, 3-119
  3-81, 3-93, 3-90, 3-100, 3-102
                      S-5, 3-1
                          2-25
3-1, 3-3, 3-24, 3-34, 3-58, 3-70,
3-78, 3-90, 3-101, 3-102, 3-108,
           3-115, 3-139, 3-143
                          3-43
                    3-35, 3-41
                          3-34
                     2-9, 2-27
                     3-6, 3-21
                          3-6
                      S-5, 3-3
              S-9, 3-118, 3-129
                S-5, 3-6, 3-153
                                      1-1

-------
                                  INDEX (Cont'd)
Habitat Evaluation
Heat Exchanger Circulating Water
Heavy Metals
Historic Resources
Housing
Hydraulic Characteristics
Hydrogeology
Impacts
  Combined

  Construction

  Cumulative
  No-Act ion
  Operation

Income
Interburden
Land Ownership
Land Use/Land Productivity
Lead
Lignite
Mine Plan
Memorandum of Agreement
Makeup Water
Mitigation

Monitoring

Natural Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
  System (NPDES) Permit
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
Nitrogen Oxides
Noise Level, Day-Night
Non-Regulated Air Pollutants
Overburden
Ozone
P articulates
PH
Plant and Ancillary Facilities
Plume Drift Dispersion
Population
Prehistoric Resources
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Prime  Farmland Soils
Project Area Streams
Project Description
Public Health
                               Page

                         3-9Z, 3-100
                                2-7
                   3-53, 3-57, 3-106
                          S-8, 3-108
                   S-9, 3-117, 3-127
                           3-6, 3-20
                            S-5, 3-3

     3-2, 3-23, 3-34, 3-57, 3-69, 3-78,
3-90, 3-99, 3-107, 3-111, 3-142, 3-150
     3-1, 3-12, 3-25, 3-43, 3-61, 3-70,
      3-83, 3-95, 3-102, 3-141, 3-144
                              3-151
                                2-1
     3-2, 3-13, 3-31, 3-52, 3-66, 3-74,
      3-85, 3-96, 3-104, 3-141, 3-144
                        3-117, 3-122
                               2-33
                        3-132, 3-134
                   S-10, 2-44,3-139
                   3-46, 3-67, 3-145
                       S-2, 2-2, 2-33
                     S-2, 2-17, 2-32
                     S-8, S-9, 3-112
                           2-6, 2-25
          S-5, 3-20, 3-22, 3-23, 3-90,
                        3-100, 3-107
       S-6, S-7, S-8, S-10, 2-44, 3-32,
                          3-61, 3-63
                   3-61, 3-62, 3-143
                        S-l, 1-1, 4-1
                          S-9, 3-111
             S-l, 1-1, 2-25, 2-46, 4-1

                              3-111
              2-29, 3-60, 3-67, 3-145
               3-70,  3-75, 3-77, 3-78
                 3-143, 3-144, 3-150
                     2-17, 2-18, 2-33
                   3-61, 3-67, 3-145
     2-7, 2-29, 3-60, 3-67, 3-68, 3-145
                          3-46, 3-47
                            S-2, 2-3
                          3-31, 3-85
                   S-9, 3-115, 3-124
                              3-108
               S-l, 3-61, 3-66, 3-143
                S-6,  3-25, 3-29, 3-33
                     3-34, 3-43, 3-50
                           S-2, 2-21
                         S-ll, 3-143
                                       1-2

-------
                                 INDEX (Concluded)
Pulverized Coal
Radionuclides
Railroads
Recharge
Reclamation

Recreation
Regulated Air Pollutants
Regulatory Requirements
Schools
Section 404 Permit
Sediment Control Ditches
Sedimentation Ponds
Socioeconomics
Soils
Sound Quality
Stability Array
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
Stockpiles
Stratigraphy
Sulfates
Sulphur Dioxide
Summary
Surface Water
Terrestrial Vegetation
Terrestrial Wildlife
Texas Air Control Board (TACB)
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)
Texas Water Commission (TWC)
Topography
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Trace Metals
Transmission Line
Transportation
Vegetation
U.S. Corps of Engineers (USCE)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
Wastewater
  Capacity
  Management Systems
  Permitted Systems
Water Control Structures
Water Levels
Water Quality

Water Rights
Well Field Pumpage
Wetlands
Wildlife
                              Page

                                2-6
                3-144, 3-146, 3-150
               S-2, 2-16, 2-19, 2-32
                     3-9, 3-17, 3-20
         S-4, 2-20, 2-40, 3-31, 3-87,
                        3-98, 3-107
                 S-10, 3-119, 3-137
                3-143, 3-144, 3-150
                S-l, 1-1, 2-46, 2-47
                       3-118, 3-129
                              2-46
                              2-40
                   2-40, 3-55, 3-106
                   S-9, 3-114,3-154
                          S-6, 3-24
                          S-7, 3-69
                              3-60
                             3-111
                         2-37, 3-29
                          2-34,  3-3
         3-43, 3-46, 3-47, 3-56, 3-57
         2-7, 2-28,  3-60, 3-67, 3-145
                                S-l
                    S-6, 3-34, 3-153
                    S-7, 3-78, 3-153
                    S-8, 3-90, 3-153
             3-60,  3-66, 3-69, 3-143
                        3-93,3-119
                     S-7, 3-43, 3-56
                           S-5,  3-1
              3-21, 3-46, 3-47, 3-57
                         3-46, 3-47
3-46, 3-47, 3-53, 3-106, 3-147, 3-149
               S-2, 2-12, 2-29, 3-97
            S-10, 2-19, 3-118, 3-132
         (see Terrestrial Vegetation)
                              2-46
  3-81, 3-90, 3-93, 3-100, 3-102, 4-1
                              3-67

                       3-118, 3-129
                          2-8, 2-25
                         3-43, 3-49
                         2-26, 2-40
                          S-5, 3-17
      S-5, S-7, 3-9,  3-21, 3-35, 3-46,
                   3-47, 3-53, 3-55
                         3-35, 3-40
                              3-14
              3-79, 3-81, 3-82, 3-90
           (see Terrestrial Wildlife)
                                        1-3

-------
         APPENDIX A
DRAFT NPDES PERMITS

-------
Permit No. TX0101567
preliminary
                AUTHORIZATION  TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
           NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control  Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C... 1251 et. seq; the "Act"),


                    Phillips Coal Company
                    2929 North Central  Expressway
                    Richardson, Texas  75080


is authorized to discharge from a facility located near Calvert, Robertson
County,  Texas


to receiving waters named Big Willow Creek and unnamed tributaries of
Bee Branch, Big Willow Creek, and Walnut Creek; then to Walnut Creek;
then to  Little Brazos River; then to the Brazos River in Segment No.
1202 of  the Brazos River Basin
in accordance with effluent  limitations, monitoring requirements and
other conditions set forth in Parts I (12 pages), II (14 pages), and
III (3 pages) hereof.

This permit shall become effective on

This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire  at midnight,
Signed  this     day of
                         Preliminary
Myron  0.  Knudson, P.E.
Director, Water Management Division (6W)
                               A-l

-------
Permit No. TX010.1567
                                                     Page 2 of PART I
                                PART I
                    REQUIREMENTS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
                              OUTFALL 001

During the period beginning upon the effective date and lasting through
the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge from
Outfall 001 - mine discharge and previously monitored domestic wastewater
and equipment washwater.

Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as
specified below:
Ef f 1 uent Characteri st1 c
Flow (MGD)
TSS
Iron, Total
Manganese, Total
                                     Discharge Limitations (*1)
                            Mass(lbs/day]         Other Units (Specify)
                       Daily Avg    Daily Max    Daily Avg    Daily Max
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
(*2)
35.0 mg/1
3.0 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
(*2)
70.0 mg/1
6.0 mg/1
2.0 mg/1
Effluent Characteristic
Flow (MGD)
TSS
Iron, Total
Manganese, Total
                                     Monitoring Requirements
                                     Measurement      Sample
                                     Frequency        Type
                                     l/Day(*3)
                                     I/Week (*3)
                                     l/Week(*3)
                                     I/Week (*3)
                                                      Estimate(*4)
                                                      Grab
                                                      Grab
                                                      Grab
(*1) See Part III, Paragraph D--Effluent Limitations for Precipitation
     Events.
(*2) Report.
(*3) When discharging.  At least one sample per month shall represent
     dry weather, baseline flow.
(*4) See Part III, Paragraph A.
                                A-Z

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page 3 of PART I


                              OUTFALL 001

The pH shall  not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0
standard units and shall be monitored l/week(*3) by grab sample.


There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other
than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified
above shall  be taken at the following location(s):   See Appendix A.


(*3) When discharging.  At least one sample per month shall  represent
     dry weather, baseline flow.
                                 A-3

-------
Permit No.  TX0101567
                                                     Page 4 of PART I
                                PART I
                    REQUIREMENTS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
                            OUTFALLS 002-005

During the period beginning upon the effective date and lasting through
the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge from
Outfalls 002-005 - mine drainage.

Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as
specified below:
Effluent Characteristic
                                     Discharge  Limitations(*l)
Mass(lbs/day)
Daily Avg Daily Max
Flow (MGD) N/A
TSS N/A
Iron, Total N/A
Manganese, Total N/A
Effluent Characteristic


Flow (MGD)
TSS
Iron, Total
Manganese, Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Monitoring
Measurement
Frequency
l/Day(*3)
l/Week(*3)
l/Week(*3)
l/Week(*3)
Other Units (Specify)
Daily Avg Daily Max
(*2) (*
35.0 mg/1 70
3.0 mg/1 6
1.0 mg/1 2
Requirements
Sample
Type
Estimate(*
Grab
Grab
Grab
2)
.0 mg/1
.0 mg/1
.0 mg/1



4)



(*1) See Part III, Paragraph D—Effluent Limitations  for Precipitation
     Events.
(*2) Report.
(*3) When discharging.  At least one sample per month shall  represent
     dry weather, baseline flow.
(*4) See Part III, Paragraph A.
                                 A-4

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page 5 of PART I


                            OUTFALLS 002-005

The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0
standard units and shall be monitored I/week(*3) by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other
than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified
above shall be taken at the following location(s):   See Appendix A.
(*3) When discharging.  At least one sample per month shall  represent
     dry weather, baseline flow.
                                A-5

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page 6 of PART I
                                PART I
                    REQUIREMENTS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS


                              OUTFALL 101

During the period beginning upon the effective date and lasting through
the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge from
Outfall 101 - treated domestic wastewater.

Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as
specified below:
Effluent Characteristic              Discharge Limitations
                            Mass(Ibs/Hay]Other Units (Specify)
                       Daily Avg    Daily Max    Daily Avg    Dally Max

Flow (M6D)
BOD5
TSS
Effluent Characteristic              Monitoring Requirements
                                     MeasurementSample
                                     Frequency        Type

Flow (MGD)                           I/Day            Estimate
BOD5                                 I/Month          Grab
TSS                                  I/Month          Grab
(*1) Report.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
(*l)
20 mg/1
20 mg/1
(*D
45 mg/1
45 mg/1
                                 A-6

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page 7 of PART I


                              OUTFALL 101

The pH shall  not be less than N/A standard units nor greater than N/A
standard units and shall be monitored N/A.


There shall  be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other
than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified
above shall  be taken at the following location(s):   Outfall  101,  treated
sanitary wastewaters, prior to entering pond SPC-5.
                                A-7

-------
Permit No. TX0101567
                              Page 8 of PART I
                                PART I
                    REQUIREMENTS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
                              OUTFALL 102

During the period beginning upon the effective date and lasting through
the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge from
Outfall 102 - treated equipment washwater.

Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as
specified below:
Effluent Characteristic
              Discharge Limitations
     Mass(lbs/dly)Other Units (Specify)
Daily Avg    Daily Max    Daily Avy    Daily Max
Flow (MGD)
Oil & Grease
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10 rag/1
(*D
15 mg/1
Effluent Characteristic
Flow (MGD)
Oil & Grease
              Monitoring Requirements
              MeasurementSample
              Frequency        Type
              I/Week
              2/Month
                  Estimate
                  Grab
(*1) Report.
                                 A-8

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page 9 of PART I


                              OUTFALL 102

The pH shall not be less than N/A standard units nor greater than N/A
standard units and shall be monitored N/A.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other
than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified
above shall be taken at the following location(s):   Outfall  102, treated
equipment washwater, prior to entering pond SPC-5.
                                A-9

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page  10 of  PART  I
                                PART I
                    REQUIREMENTS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS


                          OUTFALLS 006 and 007

During the period beginning upon the effective date and lasting through
the expiration date, the permittee 1s authorized to discharge from
Outfalls 006 and 007 - groundwater depressurization effluent.

Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as
specified below:
Effluent Characteristic              Discharge Limitations
                            Mass (Ibs/d!y~)Other Units (Specify)
                       Daily Avg    Daily Max    Daily Avg    Daily Max

Flow (M6D)             N/A          N/A          (*1)         (*1)
Iron, Total            N/A          N/A          N/A          (*1)
Manganese, Total       N/A          N/A          N/A          (*1)
Effluent Characteristic              Monitoring Requirements
                                     MeasurementSample
                                     Frequency        Type

Flow (MGO)                           I/Day            Estimate
Iron, Total                          I/Month          Grab
Manganese, Total                     I/Month          Grab
(*1) Report.
                                 A-lO

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page 11 of PART I


                          OUTFALLS 006 and 007

The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0
standard units and shall be monitored I/week by grab sample.


There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other
than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified
above shall be taken at the following location(s):   See Appendix A.
                                A-ll

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page 12 of PAKT I
SECTION B. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
The permittee  shall  achieve compliance  with the  effluent  limitations
specified for  discharges  1n  accordance with  the  following  schedule:

                                  NONE
                                A-12

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                 w/ V           Page 1 of PART II
                                 PART II
                  STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES PERMITS
 SECTION A. GENERAL CONDITIONS
 1.  Duty to Comply

 The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit.  Any permit
 noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is
 grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and
 reissuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit renewal application.

 2.  Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions

 The Clean Water Act provides that any person who violates a permit
 condition Implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of
 the Clean Water Act is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000
 per day of such violation.  Any person who willfully or negligently
 violates permit conditions Implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, or
 308 of the Clean Water Act is subject to a fine of not less than $2,500
 nor more than $25,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not
 more than 1 year, or both.

 3.  Permit Actions

 This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for
 cause Including, but not limited to, the following:

     a.  Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;

     b.  Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose
     fully all relevant facts;

     c.  A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or a
     permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge; or,

     d.  A determination that the permitted activity endangers human health
     or the environment and can only be regulated to acceptable levels by
     permit modification or termination.

 The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit modification,
 revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned
 changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any permit condition.
                                   A-13

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 page 2 Qf PARJ „
 4.  Toxic  Pollutants

 Notwithstanding  Part  II.A.3, 1f any toxic effluent standard or prohibition
 (Including any schedule of compliance specified 1n such effluent standard
 or  prohibition)  Is promulgated under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act
 for a  toxic pollutant which 1s present In the discharge and that standard
 or  prohibition 1s more stringent than any limitation on the pollutant 1n
 this permit,  this permit  shall be modified or revoked and reissued to
 conform  to the toxic  effluent standard or prohibition and the permittee
 so  notified.

 The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions
 established under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for toxic
 pollutants within the time provided 1n the regulations that established
 those  standards  or prohibitions, even 1f the permit has not yet been
 modified to Incorporate the requirement.

 5.  C1v11  and Criminal Liability

 Except as  provided 1n permit conditions on "Bypassing" (Part II.B.4.b)
 and "Upsets"  (Part II.B.S.b), nothing 1n this permit shall be construed to
 relieve  the permittee from civil or criminal penalties for noncompllance.

 6.  011  and Hazardous Substance Liability

 Nothing  In this  permit shall be construed to preclude the Institution
 of  any legal  action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities,
 liabilities,  or  penalties to which the permittee 1s or may be subject
 under  Section 311 of  the  Clean Water Act.

 7.  State  Laws

 Nothing  1n this  permit shall be construed to preclude the Institution
 of  any legal  action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities,
 liabilities,  or  penalties established pursuant to any applicable State
 law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 510 of the Clean
 Water  Act.

 8.  Property Rights

 The Issuance of  this  permit does not convey any property rights of any
 sort,  or any exclusive privileges, nor does 1t authorize any Injury to
 private  property or any Invasion of personal rights, nor any Infringement
 of  Federal, State, or local laws or regulations.
                                  A-14

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page 3 of PART II
9.  Severability

The provisions of this pernrit are severable,  and 1f any provision of
this permit or the application of any provision of this permit to any
circumstance 1s held invalid, the application of such provision to
other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall  not be
affected thereby.

10. Definitions

The following definitions shall  apply unless  otherwise specified 1n
this permit:

    a.  "Dally Discharge" means  the discharge of a pollutant  measured
    during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents
    the calendar day for purposes of sampling.  For pollutants with
    limitations expressed in terms of mass,  the "daily discharge" is
    calculated as the total  mass of the pollutant discharged  over the
    sampling day.  For pollutants with limitations expressed  1n other
    units of measurement, the "daily discharge" is calculated as the
    average measurement of the pollutant over the sampling day.  "Daily
    discharge" determination of  concentration made using a composite
    sample shall be the concentration of the  composite sample.  When
    grab samples are used, the "daily discharge" determination of
    concentration shall be the arithmetic average (weighted by flow
    value) of all samples collected during that sampling day.

    b.  "Dally Average" (also known as monthly average) discharge
    limitation means the highest allowable average of "daily  discharges"
    over a calendar month, calculated as the  sum of all "daily discharges"
    measured during a calendar month divided  by the number of "daily
    discharges" measured during  that month.   When the permit  establishes
    daily average concentration  effluent limitations or conditions, the
    daily average concentration  means the arithmetic average  (weighted
    by flow) of all "daily discharges" of concentration determined
    during the calendar month.

    c.  "Dally Maximum" discharge limitation  means the highest allowable
        "daily discharge" during the calendar month.

    d.  The term "MGD" shall  mean million gallons per day.

    e.  The term "mg/1" shall  mean mini grams per liter or parts per
        million (ppm).

    f.  The term "ug/1" shall  mean micrograms per liter or parts per
        billion (ppb).
                                  A-15

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page 4 of PART II
SECTION B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROLS
1.  Proper Operation and Maintenance

The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances)
which are Installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit.  Proper operation and maintenance also
Includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance
procedures. This provision requires the operation of backup or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems which are Installed by a permittee only
when the operation 1s necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions
of the permit.

2.  Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense

It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that
It would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity
in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit.

3.  Duty to Mitigate

The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent
any discharge in violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood
of adversely affecting human health or the environment.

4.  Bypass of Treatment Facilities

    a.  Definitions

        (1)  "Bypass" means the intentional diversion of waste streams
             from any portion of a treatment facility.

        (2)  "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage
             to property, damage to the treatment facilities which
             causes them to become Inoperable, or substantial and
             permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably
             be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass.  Severe
             property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays
             In production.

    b.  Bypass not exceeding limitations.  The permittee may allow any
        bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be
        exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to
        assure efficient operation.  These bypasses are not subject to
        the provisions of Part II.B.4.C and 4.d.
                                  A-16

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page 5 of PART II
    c.  Notice

        (1)  Anticipated bypass.  If the permittee knows in advance
             of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice,
             if possible at least ten days before the date of the
             bypass.
                                                              <*
        (2)  Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice
             of an unanticipated bypass as required in Part II.D.6
             (24-hour notice).

    d.  Prohibition of bypass

        (1)  Bypass is prohibited, and the Director may take enforcement
             action against a permittee for bypass, unless:

             (a)  Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
                  personal Injury, or severe property damage;

             (b)  There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass,
                  such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities,
                  retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance  during
                  normal periods of equipment downtime.  This condition
                  is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should
                  have been Installed 1n the exercise of reasonable
                  engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occured
                  during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive
                  maintenance; and,

             (c)  The permittee submitted notices as required by
                  Part II.B.4.C.

        (2)  The Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after
        considering its adverse effects, if the Director determines
        that 1t will meet the three conditions listed at Part II.B.4.d.(l).

5.  Upset Conditions

    a.  Definition.  "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there
        1s unintentional and temporary noncompllance with technology-based
        permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable
        control of the permittee.  An upset does not include noncompliance
        to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed
        treatment facilities, Inadequate treatment facilities, lack of
        preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
                                  A-17

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page 6 of PART II
    b.  Effect of an upset.  An upset constitutes an affirmative defense
        to an action brought for noncompHance with such technology-based
        permit effluent limitations 1f the requirements of Part II.B.S.c
        are met.  No determination made during administrative review of
        claims that noncompllance was caused by upset, and before an
        action for noncompllance, 1s final administrative action subject
        to judicial review.

    c.  Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset.  A permittee
        who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall
        demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating
        logs, or other relevant evidence that:

        (1)  An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the
             cause(s) of the upset;

        (2)  The permitted facility was at the time being properly
             operated;

        (3)  The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required by
             Part II.D.6; and,

        (4)  The permittee complied with any remedial measures required
             by Part II.B.3.

    d.  Burden of proof.  In any enforcement proceeding the permittee
        seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden
        of proof.

 6.  Removed Substances

 Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed 1n the
 course  of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in
 a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from
 entering navigable waters.
                                 A-18

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 page 7 Of PART II
SECTION C. MONITORING AND RECORDS


1.  Representative Sampling

Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative
of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge.  All samp-les shall
be taken at the monitoring points specified in this permit and, unless
otherwise specified, before the effluent joins or is diluted by any
other wastestream, body of water, or substance.  Monitoring points
shall not be changed without notification to and the approval of the
Director.

2.  Flow Measurements

Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with accepted
scientific practices shall be selected and used to ensure the accuracy
and reliability of measurements of the volume of monitored discharges.
The devices shall be installed, calibrated, and maintained to Insure
that the accuracy of the measurements are consistent with the accepted
capability of that type of device.  Devices selected shall be capable
of measuring flows with a maximum deviation of less than +_ 10% from
true discharge rates throughout the range of expected discharge volumes.
Guidance in selection, installation, calibration, and operation of
acceptable flow measurement devices can be obtained from the following
references:

    a.  "A Guide to Methods and Standards for the Measurement of Water
        Flow", U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards,
        MBS Special Publication 421, May 1975, 97 pp.  (Available from
        the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
        Order by SD catalog No. C13.10:421).

    b.  "Water Measurement Manual", U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau
        of Reclamation, Second Edition, Revised Reprint, 1974, 327 pp.
        (Available from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
        D.C. 20402.  Order by Catalog No. I27.19/2.-W29/2, Stock No. S/N
        24003-0027).

    c.  "Flow Measurement in Open Channels and Closed Conduits", U.S.
        Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, NBS
        Special  Publication 484, October 1977, 982 pp. (Available In
        paper copy or microfiche from National Technical Information
        Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22151.  Order by NTIS No. PB-273
        535/5ST).

    d.  "NPDES Compliance Sampling Manual", U.S.  Environmental  Protection
        Agency,  Office of Water Enforcement, Publication MCD-51, 1977, 140 pp.


                                  A-19

-------
Permit No. TX0101567  '                                Page 8 of PART II
         (Available from the General  Services Administration [8FFS],
         Centralized Mailing Lists Services,  Building 41,  Denver Federal
         Center,  Denver, CO 80225).

 3.   Monitoring Procedures

 Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved
 under 40 CFR Part 136,  unless other  test procedures have  been  specified
 in  this permit.

 4.   Penalties for Tampering

 The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers
 with, or knowingly renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method
 required to be maintained under this permit shall,  upon conviction,  be
 punished by a fine of not more than  $10,000 per violation,  or  by
 imprisonment for not more than 6 months per violation,  or by both.

 5.   Reporting of Monitoring Results

 Monitoring results must be reported  on a Discharge  Monitoring  Report
 (DMR) Form EPA No. 3320-1.  Monitoring results obtained during the
 previous 3 months shall be summarized and reported  on a DMR form post-
 marked no later than the 28th day of the month following  the completed
 reporting period.  The  first report  is due on	.
 Duplicate copies of DMR's signed and certified as required by  Part
 II.D.ll and all  other reports required by Part II.D (Reporting Require-
 ments) shall be submitted to the Director and to the State (if listed)
 at  the following address(es):

 Director
 Water Management Division (6W)
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Region VI
 Dallas, Texas 75270

 6.   Additional Monitoring by the Permittee

 If  the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required
 by  this permit,  using test procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136
 or  as specified 1n this permit, the  results of this monitoring shall
 be  Included in the calculation and reporting of the data  submitted in
 the DMR.  Such increased monitoring  frequency shall also  be indicated
 on  the DMR.
                                  A-20

-------
 Permit No. TX0101567                                page 9 Of PART
7.  Averaging of Measurements

Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements
shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified by the
Director In the permit.

8.  Retention of Records

The permittee shall retain records of all  monitoring information, Including
all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart
recordings for continuous monitoring Instrumentation, copies of all
reports required by this permit, and records of all data used to complete
the application for this permit, for a period of at least 3 years from
the date of the sample, measurement, report, or application.  This
period may be extended by request of the Director at any time.

9.  Record Contents

Records of monitoring information shall include:

    a.  The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;

    b.  The individual (s) who performed the sampling or measurements;

    c.  The date(s) analyses were performed;

    d.  The individual(s) who performed the analyses;

    e.  The analytical  techniques or methods used; and,

    f.  The results of such analyses.

10. Inspection and Entry

The permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative,
upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be
required by law, to:

    a.  Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility
        or activity is located or conducted, or where records must be
        kept under the conditions of this  permit;

    b.  Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that
        must be kept under the conditions  of this permit;

    c.  Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including
        monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations
        regulated or required under this permit; and,

    d.  Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of
        assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the
        Clean Water Act, any substances or parameters at any location.

                                 A-21

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                  Page  10 of  PART  II
 SECTION  D.  REPORTING  REQUIREMENTS


 1.   Planned Changes

 The  permittee  shall give  notice  to  the  Director as  soon  as possible  of
 any  planned physical  alterations or additions  to  the  permitted- facility.
 Notice 1s required only when:

     a.   The alteration or addition  to a permitted facility may  meet  one
         of  the criteria for  determining whether a facility 1s a new
         source 1n 40  CFR  Part  122.29(b) [48  FR 14153, April  1,  1983, as
         amended at 49 FR_  38046,  September  26,  1984];  or,

     b.   The alteration or addition  could significantly change the
         nature or Increase the quantity of pollutants discharged.  This
         notification  applies to  pollutants which  are  subject neither to
         effluent limitations In  the permit,  nor to  notification requirements
         under  40 CFR  Part 122.42(a)(l)  [48 FR  14153,  April 1,  1983,  as
         amended at 49 FR  38046,  September  257  1984].

 2.   Anticipated Noncompliance

 The  permittee  shall give  advance notice to the Director  of any  planned
 changes  in  the permitted  facility or activity  which may  result  in
 noncompllance  with permit requirements.

 3.   Transfers

 This permit is not transferable  to  any  person  except  after notice  to
 the  Director.   The Director  may  require modification  or  revocation and
 reissuance  of  the permit  to  change  the  name  of the  permittee and
 Incorporate such other requirements as  may be  necessary  under the
 Clean Water Act.

 4.   Monitoring Reports

 Monitoring  results shall  be  reported at the  Intervals and in the form
 specified at Part II.C.5  (Monitoring).

 5.   Compliance Schedules

 Reports  of  compliance or  noncompliance  with, or any progress reports
 on,  Interim and final requirements  contained in any compliance  schedule
 of  this  permit shall  be submitted no later than 14  days  following  each
 schedule date.  Any reports  of noneompliance shall  include the  cause of
 noncompliance, any remedial  actions taken, and the  probability  of
 meeting  the next scheduled requirement.


                                  A-Z2

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page H of PART II
6.  Twenty-Four Hour Reporting

The permittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger health
or the environment.  Any information shall be provided orally within
24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances.
A written submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the time
the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances.  The written- submission
shall contain a description of the noncompliance and its cause; the
period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if the
noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected
to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and
prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.  The Director may waive the
written report on a case-by-case basis if the oral report has been
received within 24 hours.

The following shall be included as information which must be reported
within 24 hours:

    a.  Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation
        in the permit;

    b.  Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit; and,

    c.  Violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of
        the pollutants listed by the Director in Part III of the permit
        to be reported within 24 hours.

7.  Other Noncompliance

The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported
under Part II.D.4, 5, and 6 at the time monitoring reports are submitted.
The reports shall contain the information listed at Part II.D.6.

8.  Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances

The permittee shall notify the Director as soon as it knows or has
reason to believe:

    a.  That any activity has occured or will occur which would result
        in the discharge, in a routine or frequent basis, of any toxic
        pollutant which is not limited in the permit, 1f that discharge
        will exceed the highest of the "notification levels" described
        1n 40 CFR Part 122.42(a)(l) [48 FR_ 14153, April  1, 1983, as
        amended at 49 FR 38046, September 26, 1984].

    b.  That any activity has occured or will occur which would result
        1n any discharge, on a non-routine or infrequent basis, of a
        toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that


                                  A-23

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page 12 of PART II
        discharge will exceed the highest of the "notification levels"
        described 1n 40 CFR Part 122.42(a)(2) [48 FR 14153, April 1,
        1983, as amended at 49 FR 38046, September~T6, 1984).

9.  Duty to Provide Information

The permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a reasonable time,
any Information which the Director may request to determine whether
cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this
permit, or to determine compliance with this permit.  The permittee
shall also furnish to the Director, upon request, copies of records
required to be kept by this permit.

10. Duty to Reapply

If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this
permit after the expiration date of this permit, the permittee must
apply for and obtain a new permit.  The application shall be submitted
at least 180 days before the expiration date of this permit.  The
Director may grant permission to submit an application less than 180 days
1n advance but no later than the permit expiration date.  Continuation
of expiring permits shall be governed by regulations promulgated at 40 CFR
Part 122.6 [48 FR 14153, April 1, 1983] and any subsequent amendments.

11. Signatory Requirements

All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Director
shall be signed and certified.

    a.  All permit applications shall be signed as follows:

        (1)  For a corporation - by a responsible corporate officer.
             For the purpose of this section, a responsible corporate
             officer means:

             (a)  A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president
             of the corporation in charge of a principal business
             function, or any other person who performs similar policy
             or decision making functions for the corporation; or,

             (b)  The manager of one or more manufacturing, production,
             or operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or
             having gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25
             million (in second-quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to
             sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the
             manager in accordance with corporate procedures.

        (2)  For a partnership or sole proprietorship - by a general
             partner or the proprietor, respectively.

                                  A-24

-------
Permit No.  TX0101567                                 Page 13 of PART II
        (3)  For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency -
             by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected
             official.  For purposes of this section, a principal
             executive officer of a Federal agency includes:

             (a)  The chief executive officer of the agency, or

             (b)  A senior executive officer having responsibility for
             the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of
             the agency.

    b.  All reports required by the permit and other Information requested
        by the Director shall be signed by a person described above or
        by a duly authorized representative of that person.  A person
        is a duly authorized representative only 1f:

        (1)  The authorization 1s made in writing by a person described
             above;

        (2)  The authorization specifies either an individual or a
             position having responsibility for the overall operation
             of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position
             of plant manager, operator of a well or a well field,
             superintendent, or position of equivalent responsibility,
             or an Individual or position having overall responsibility
             for environmental matters for the company.  A duly authorized
             representative may thus be either a named Individual or
             any individual occupying a named position; and,

        (3)  The written authorization is submitted to the Director.

    c.  Certification.  Any person signing a document under this section
        shall make the following certification:

        "I certify under penalty of law that this document and all
        attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision In
        accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
        personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.
        Based on my Inquiry of the person or persons who manage the
        system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
        Information, the Information submitted is, to the best of my
        knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete.  I am aware
        that there are significant penalties for submitting false
        Information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment
        for knowing violations."
                                 A-25

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page 14 of PART II
12.  Avail ability of Reports

Except for data determined to be confidential under 40 CFR Part 2, all
reports prepared 1n accordance with the terms of this permit shall be
available for public Inspection at the office of the Director.  As
required by the Clean Water Act, the name and address of any permit
applicant or permittee, permit applications, permits, and effluent data
shall not be considered confidential.

13.  Penalties for Falsification of Reports

The Clean Water Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any
false statement, representation, or certification 1n any record or
other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit,
Including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or noncompliance
shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000
per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 6 months per violation,
or by both.
                                  A-26

-------
Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page 1 of PART  III
                               PART III
                           OTHER CONDITIONS
A.  Methods of flow estimating shall be by the "California Pipe Method"
as described in Section 7.4.2.2. of the Handbook for Monitoring Industrial
Wastewater, August 1973, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology
Transfer.

B.  Locations may be revised by the permittee if it becomes necessary
to eliminate or establish new holding ponds.  For any revision, the
permittee shall submit appropriate maps redesignating the holding pond
locations.

Any revised pond or outfall location should be consistent with and fall
within the mining area boundary as defined in the applicant's State Mining
Plan.

Any revised pond or outfall location shall be limited to discharging to
the same receiving body of water.

C.  Effluent Limitations for Reclamation Areas

The following standards apply to discharges from reclamation areas until
SMCRA bond release:

                          Effluent Limitations

                                              Average of daily
    Pollutant or            Maximum for       values for thirty
    Pollutant Property	any one day	consecutive days

    Settleable Solids        0.5 ml/1              N/A

    pH	Within the range 6.0 to  9.0 at all  times	
                                A-27

-------
 Permit No. TX0101567
                               Page 2 of PART III
D.  Effluent Limitations for Precipitation Events

    (1)  The following alternate limitations apply with respect to
mine drainage, except for controlled surface mine discharges as addressed
in Subsection (2):

    (a)  Any discharge or increase in the volume of a discharge caused
by precipitation within any 24 hour period less than or equal to the
2-year, 24-hour precipitation event (or snowmelt of equivalent volume)
may comply with the following limitations instead of the otherwise
applicable limitations:

             Effluent Limitations During Precipitation
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of dally
values for thirty
consecutive days
Iron, Total            7.0 mg/1              N/A
Settleable Solids      0.5 mg/1              N/A
£H	Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times

    (b)  Any discharge or increase in the volume of a discharge caused
by precipitation within any 24 hour period greater than the 2-year,
24-hour precipitation event, but less than or equal to the 10-year, 24-hour
precipitation event (or snowmelt of equivalent volume) may comply with
the following limitations instead of the otherwise applicable limitations:

             Effluent Limitations During Precipitation
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
values for thirty
consecutive days
Settleable Solids      0.5 ml/1              N/A
£H	Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times

    (2) The following alternate limitations apply with respect to mine
drainage, including controlled surface mine discharges:

    (a)  Any discharge or increase in the volume of a discharge caused
by precipitation within any 24-hour period greater than the 10-year,
                                A-28

-------
 Permit No. TX0101567                                 Page 3 of PART III
24-hour precipitation event (or snowmelt of equivalent volume) may
comply the following limitations instead of the otherwise applicable
limitations:

             Effluent Limitations During Precipitation

                                         Average of daily
Pollutant or          Maximum for        values for thirty
Pollutant Property    any one day	consecutive days

£H	Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times

    (3)  The operator shall have the burden of proof that the discharge
or increase in discharge was caused by the applicable precipitation
event described in subsections (1) and (2).

E.  The term "controlled surface mine drainage" means any surface
mine drainage that is pumped or siphoned from the active mining area.

F.  The term "10-year, 24-hour precipitation event" means the maximum
24-hour precipitation event with a probable recurrence interval of once
in ten years as defined by the National Weather Service and Technical
Paper No. 40, "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the U.S.," May 1961, or
equivalent regional or rainfall probability information developed
therefrom.

G.  The term "2-year, 24-hour precipitation event" means the maximum
24-hour precipitation event with a probable recurrence interval of once
in two years as defined by the National Weather Service and Technical
Paper No. 40, "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the U.S.," May 1961, or
equivalent regional or rainfall probability information developed
therefrom.
                               A-29

-------
                                   Appendix A


Outfall   Pond     Latitude    Longitude   Receiving Stream

  001     SPC-5    31°05'21"   96°41'14"   Unnamed tributary of Bee Branch
  002     SPC-3    31°06'35"   96°39'19"   Unnamed tributary of Big Willow Creek
  003     SPC-17   31°04'59"   96039'11"   Unnamed tributary of Walnut Creek
  004     SPC-18   31°04'57"   96°38'35"   Unnamed tributary of Walnut Creek
  005     SPC-4    31°06'15"   96°38'46"   Unnamed tributary of Big Willow Creek
  006     N/A      31°05'58"   96°38'26"   Big Willow Creek
  007     N/A      31°05'18"   96°39'57"   Unnamed tributary of Bee Branch
                                     A-30

-------
 Permit No. TX0101168
                 AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
           NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Federal  Water  Pollution
Control Act, as amended,  (33 U.S.C... 1251 et. seq;  the "Act"),
                     Texas-New Mexico Power Company
                     P.O.  Box 2943
                     Fort  Worth, Texas  76113
is authorized to discharge from a facility located  approximately one mile
east of Hammond, eight miles north of Calvert on  State  Highway 6 in
Robertson County, Texas


to receiving waters  named an unnamed tributary of Bee Branch, then to a
tributary of Walnut  Creek; and to an unnamed tributary  of Chair Branch,
then to Little Brazos River in Segment No. 1202 of  the  Brazos River
Basin
in accordance with  effluent limitations, monitoring  requirements and
other conditions  set forth in Parts I (8 pages)  and  II  (14 pages) hereof.

This permit shall become effective on

This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight,
Signed this       day of
Myron 0. Knudson,  P.E.
Director, Water  Management Division (6W)
Preliminary
                                A-31

-------
Permit No. TX0101168                                 Page 2 of PAKT I
                                PART I
                    REQUIREMENTS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS


                              OUTFALL 001

During the period beginning upon the effective date and lasting through
the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge from
Outfall 001 - coal pile runoff and coal handling area washwater.

Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as
specified below:
Effluent Characteristic              Discharge Limitations
                            Mass(lbs/day~)Other Units (Specify)
                       Daily Avg    Daily Max    Daily Avg    Daily Max

Flow (MGD)             N/A          N/A          (*1)         (*1)
TSS                    N/A          N/A          N/A          50 mg/1
Effluent Characteristic              Monitoring Requirements
                                     MeasurementSample
                                     Frequency        Type

Flow (MGD)                           I/Day(*2)        Estimate
TSS                                  l/Week(*2)       Grab
(*1) Report.
(*2) When discharging.
                                  A-32

-------
Permit No. TX0101168                                 Page 3 of PART I


                              OUTFALL 001

The pH shall  not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0
standard units and shall be monitored l/week(*2) by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other
than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified
above shall be taken at the following location(s):   Outfall  001,  coal
pile runoff pond, prior to discharge to a dry branch of Bee Creek.


(*2)  When discharging.
                                A-33

-------
Permit No. TX0101168                                 Page 4 of PART I
                                PART I
                    REQUIREMENTS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS


                              OUTFALL 002

During the period beginning upon the effective date and lasting through
the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge from
Outfall 002 - plant site stormwater runoff.

Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as
specified below:
Effluent Characteristic              Discharge Limitations
                            Mass(lbs/day)Other Units (Specify)
                       Daily Avg    Daily Max    Daily Avg    Daily Max
Flow (MGD)
TSS
Oil & Grease
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
(*D
30 mg/1
15 mg/1
(*1)
100 mg/1
20 my/1
Effluent Characteristic              Monitoring Requirements
                                     MeasurementSample
                                     Frequency        Type

Flow (MGD)                           l/Day(*2)        Estimate
TSS                                  l/Week(*2)       Grab
Oil & Grease                         l/Week(*2)       Grab
(*1) Report.
(*2) When discharging.
                                  A-34

-------
Permit No. TX0101168                                 Page 5 of PART I


                              OUTFALL 002

The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0
standard units and shall be monitored I/week(*2) by grab sample.


There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other
than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified
above shall  be taken at the following location(s):   Outfall  002,  plant
site runoff pond, prior to discharge to an unnamed  tributary of Bee
Branch.
(*2)  When discharging.
                                  A-35

-------
Permit No. TX0101168                                 Page 6 of PART I
                                PART I
                    REQUIREMENTS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS


                          OUTFALLS 003 and 004

During the period beginning upon the effective date and lasting through
the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge from
Outfalls 003 and 004 - ash handling/ash disposal stormwater runoff.

Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as
specified below:
Effluent Characteristic              Discharge Limitations
                            Mass(lbs/Hay]Other Units (Specify)
                       Daily Avg    Daily Max    Daily Avg    Daily Max
Flow (MGD)
TSS
Oil & Grease
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
(*1)
30 mg/1
15 mg/1
(*1)
100 mg/1
20 mg/1
Effluent Characteristic              Monitoring Requirements
                                     MeasurementSample
                                     Frequency        Type

Flow (MGD)                           l/Day(*2)        Estimate
TSS                                  I/Week(*2)       Grab
Oil & Grease                         I/Week(*2)       Grab
(*1) Report.
(*2) When discharging.
                                   A-36

-------
Permit No. TX0101168                                 Page 7 of PART I


                          OUTFALLS 003 and 004

The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0
standard units and shall be monitored l/week(*2) by grab sample.


There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other
than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified
above shall  be taken at the following location(s):   003:   Ash Disposal
Runoff Pond  003, prior to discharge to an unnamed tributary of Chair
Branch.  004:  Ash Disposal  Runoff Pond 004, prior to discharge to an
unnamed tributary of Bee Branch.


(*2)  When discharging.
                                 A-37

-------
Permit No. TX0101168                                 Page 8 of PART I
SECTION B. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
The permittee shall  achieve compliance with the effluent limitations
specified for discharges in accordance with the following schedule:

                                  NONE
                                 A-38

-------
Permit No. TX0101168                  w'Jr         page 1 of PART II
                                PART II
                 STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1.  Duty to Comply

The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit.  Any permit
noncompllance constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and Is
grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and
relssuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit renewal  application.

2.  Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions

The Clean Water Act provides that any person who violates a permit
condition Implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of
the Clean Water Act is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000
per day of such violation.  Any person who willfully or negligently
violates permit conditions implementing Sections 301, 302,  306, 307, or
308 of the Clean Water Act Is subject to a fine of not less than $2,500
nor more than $25,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 1 year, or both.

3.  Permit Actions

This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for
cause including, but not limited to, the following:

    a.  Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;

    b.  Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose
    fully all relevant facts;

    c.  A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or a
    permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge; or,

    d.  A determination that the permitted activity endangers human health
    or the environment and can only be regulated to acceptable levels by
    permit modification or termination.

The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit modification,
revocation and relssuance, or termination, or a notification of planned
changes or anticipated noncompllance, does not stay any permit condition.
                                 A-39

-------
Permit No. TX0101168                                 Page 2 of PART II
4.  Toxic Pollutants

Notwithstanding Part II.A.3, 1f any toxic effluent standard or prohibition
(Including any schedule of compliance specified 1n such effluent standard
or prohibition) 1s promulgated under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act
for a toxic pollutant which 1s present 1n the discharge and that standard
or prohibition Is more stringent than any limitation on the pollutant 1n
this permit, this permit shall be modified or revoked and reissued to
conform to the toxic effluent standard or prohibition and the permittee
so notified.

The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions
established under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for toxic
pollutants within the time provided 1n the regulations that established
those standards or prohibitions, even 1f the permit has not yet been
modified to Incorporate the requirement.

5.  Civil and Criminal Liability

Except as provided 1n permit conditions on "Bypassing" (Part II.B.4.b)
and "Upsets" (Part II.B.S.b), nothing 1n this permit shall be construed to
relieve the permittee from civil or criminal penalties for noncompllance.

6.  011 and Hazardous Substance Liability

Nothing 1n this permit shall be construed to preclude the Institution
of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities,
liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee 1s or may be subject
under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.

7.  State Laws

Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution
of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities,
liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any applicable State
law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 510 of the Clean
Water Act.

8.  Property Rights

The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of any
sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to
private property or any Invasion of personal rights, nor any Infringement
of Federal, State, or local laws or regulations.
                                  A-40

-------
Permit No. TX0101168                                 Page 3 of PART n
9.  Severability

The provisions of this permit are severable,  and if any provision of
this permit or the application of any provision of this permit to any
circumstance is held invalid, the application of such provision to
other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall  not be
affected thereby.

10. Definitions

The following definitions shall  apply unless  otherwise specified in
this permit:

    a.  "Daily Discharge" means  the discharge of a pollutant  measured
    during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents
    the calendar day for purposes of sampling.  For pollutants with
    limitations expressed In terms of mass, the "daily discharge" is
    calculated as the total  mass of the pollutant discharged  over the
    sampling day.  For pollutants with limitations expressed  in other
    units of measurement, the "daily discharge" is calculated as the
    average measurement of the pollutant over the sampling day.  "Daily
    discharge" determination of  concentration made using a composite
    sample shall be the concentration of the  composite sample.  When
    grab samples are used, the "dally discharge" determination of
    concentration shall be the arithmetic average (weighted by flow
    value) of all samples collected during that sampling day.

    b.  "Daily Average" (also known as monthly average) discharge
    limitation means the highest allowable average of "daily  discharges"
    over a calendar month, calculated as the  sum of all "daily discharges"
    measured during a calendar month divided  by the number of "daily
    discharges" measured during  that month.   When the permit  establishes
    daily average concentration  effluent limitations or conditions, the
    daily average concentration  means the arithmetic average  (weighted
    by flow) of all "daily discharges" of concentration determined
    during the calendar month.

    c.  "Daily Maximum" discharge limitation  means the highest allowable
        "dally discharge" during the calendar month.

    d.  The term "MGD" shall  mean million gallons per day.

    e.  The term "mg/1" shall mean milligrams per liter or parts per
        million (ppm).

    f.  The term "ug/1" shall mean micrograms per liter or parts per
        billion (ppb).
                                 A-41

-------
Permit No. TX0101168                                 page 4 Qf pARy
SECTION B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROLS
1.  Proper Operation and Maintenance

The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and control  (and related appurtenances)
which are Installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit.  Proper operation and maintenance also
Includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance
procedures. This provision requires the operation of backup or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems which are installed by a permittee only
when the operation 1s necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions
of the permit.

2.  Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense

It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that
1t would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity
in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit.

3.  Duty to Mitigate

The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent
any discharge in violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood
of adversely affecting human health or the environment.

4.  Bypass of Treatment Facilities

    a.  Definitions

        (1)  "Bypass" means the intentional  diversion of waste streams
             from any portion of a treatment facility.

        (2)  "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage
             to property, damage to the treatment facilities which
             causes them to become Inoperable, or substantial and
             permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably
             be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass.  Severe
             property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays
             In production.

    b.  Bypass not exceeding limitations.  The permittee may allow any
        bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be
        exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to
        assure efficient operation.  These bypasses are not subject to
        the provisions of Part II.B.4.C and 4.d.
                                  A-42

-------
Permit No. TX0101168                                 Page 5 of PART II
    c.  Notice

        (1)  Anticipated bypass.  If the permittee knows in advance
             of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice,
             if possible at least ten days before the date of the
             bypass.

        (2)  Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice
             of an unanticipated bypass as required in Part II.D.6
             (24-hour notice).

    d.  Prohibition of bypass

        (1)  Bypass is prohibited, and the Director may take enforcement
             action against a permittee for bypass, unless:

             (a)  Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
                  personal injury, or severe property damage;

             (b)  There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass,
                  such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities,
                  retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance  during
                  normal periods of equipment downtime.  This condition
                  is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should
                  have been installed in the exercise of reasonable
                  engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occured
                  during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive
                  maintenance; and,

             (c)  The permittee submitted notices as required by
                  Part II.B.4.C.

        (2)  The Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after
        considering its adverse effects, if the Director determines
        that it will meet the three conditions listed at Part II.B.4.d.(l).

5.  Upset Conditions

    a.  Definition.  "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there
        is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based
        permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable
        control of the permittee.  An upset does not include noncompliance
        to the extent caused by operational  error, improperly designed
        treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities,  lack of
        preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
                                 A--43

-------
Permit No. TX0101168                                 Page 6 of PART  II
    b.  Effect of an upset.  An upset constitutes an affirmative defense
        to an action brought for noncompllance with such technology-based
        permit effluent limitations 1f the requirements of Part II.B.5.C
        are met.  No determination made during administrative review of
        claims that noncompllance was caused by upset,  and before an
        action for noncompllance, 1s final administrative action subject
        to judicial review.

    c.  Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset.  A permittee
        who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall
        demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating
        logs, or other relevant evidence that:

        (1)  An upset occurred and that the permittee can Identify the
             cause(s) of the upset;

        (2)  The permitted facility was at the time being properly
             operated;

        (3)  The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required by
             Part II.D.6; and,

        (4)  The permittee complied with any remedial measures required
             by Part II.B.3.

    d.  Burden of proof.  In any enforcement proceeding the permittee
        seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden
        of proof.

6.  Removed Substances

Sol Ids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed 1n the
course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in
a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from
entering navigable waters.
                                  A-44

-------
Permit No. TX0101168                                 Page 7 of PART II
SECTION C. MONITORING AND RECORDS


1.  Representative Sampling

Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative
of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge.  All samples shall
be taken at the monitoring points specified in this permit and, unless
otherwise specified, before the effluent joins or is diluted by any
other wastestream, body of water, or substance.  Monitoring points
shall not be changed without notification to and the approval of the
Director.

2.  Flow Measurements

Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with accepted
scientific practices shall be selected and used to ensure the accuracy
and reliability of measurements of the volume of monitored discharges.
The devices shall be installed, calibrated, and maintained to insure
that the accuracy of the measurements are consistent with the accepted
capability of that type of device.  Devices selected shall be capable
of measuring flows with a maximum deviation of less than _+ 10% from
true discharge rates throughout the range of expected discharge volumes.
Guidance in selection, installation, calibration, and operation of
acceptable flow measurement devices can be obtained from the following
references:

    a.  "A Guide to Methods and Standards for the Measurement of Water
        Flow", U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards,
        NBS Special Publication 421, May 1975, 97 pp.  (Available from
        the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
        Order by SD catalog No. C13.10:421).

    b.  "Water Measurement Manual", U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau
        of Reclamation, Second Edition, Revised Reprint, 1974, 327 pp.
        (Available from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
        D.C. 20402.  Order by Catalog No. I27.19/2:W29/2, Stock No. S/N
        24003-0027).

    c.  "Flow Measurement in Open Channels and Closed Conduits", U.S.
        Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, NBS
        Special  Publication 484, October 1977, 982 pp. (Available in
        paper copy or microfiche from National Technical Information
        Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22151.  Order by NTIS No. PB-273
        535/5ST).

    d.  "NPDES Compliance Sampling Manual", U.S.  Environmental  Protection
        Agency,  Office of Water Enforcement, Publication MCD-51, 1977, 140 pp.

                                 A-45

-------
 Permit  No.  TX0101168 '                                Page 8 of PART II
        (Available from the General Services Administration [8FFS],
        Centralized Mailing Lists Services, Building 41, Denver Federal
        Center, Denver, CO 80225).

3.  Monitoring Procedures

Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved
under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified
1n this permit.

4.  Penalties for Tampering

The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers
with, or knowingly renders Inaccurate, any monitoring device or method
required to be maintained under this permit shall, upon conviction, be
punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by
Imprisonment for not more than 6 months per violation, or by both.

5.  Reporting of Monitoring Results

Monitoring results must be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR) Form EPA No. 3320-1.  Monitoring results obtained during the
previous 3 months shall be summarized and reported on a DMR form post-
marked no later than the 28th day of the month following the completed
reporting period.  The first report is due on 	         	.
Duplicate copies of DMR's signed and certified as required by Part
II.D.ll and all other reports required by Part II.D (Reporting Require-
ments) shall be submitted to the Director and to the State (if listed)
at the following address(es):

Director
Water Management Division (6W)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
Dallas, Texas 75270

6.  Additional Monitoring by the Permittee

If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required
by this permit, using test procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136
or as specified in this permit, the results of this monitoring shall
be Included 1n the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in
the DMR.  Such increased monitoring frequency shall also be indicated
on the DMR.
                                  A-46

-------
 Permit No. TX0101168                                page 9 Of
7.  Averaging of Measurements
Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements
shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified by the
Director 1n the permit.
8.  Retention of Records
The permittee shall retain records of all  monitoring Information, Including
all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart
recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all
reports required by this permit, and records of all data used to complete
the application for this permit, for a period of at least 3 years from
the date of the sample, measurement, report, or application.  This
period may be extended by request of the Director at any time.
9.  Record Contents
Records of monitoring information shall include:
    a.  The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
    b.  The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
    c.  The date(s) analyses were performed;
    d.  The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
    e.  The analytical techniques or methods used; and,
    f.  The results of such analyses.
10. Inspection and Entry
The permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative,
upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be
required by law, to:
    a.  Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility
        or activity is located or conducted, or where records must be
        kept under the conditions of this permit;
    b.  Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that
        must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
    c.  Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including
        monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations
        regulated or required under this permit; and,
    d.  Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of
        assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the
        Clean Water Act, any substances or parameters at any location.
                                A-47

-------
Permit No. TX0101168                                 Page 10 of PART
SECTION D. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS


1.  Planned Changes

The permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of
any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility.
Notice 1s required only when:

    a.  The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one
        of the criteria for determining whether a facility 1s a new
        source 1n 40 CFR Part 122.29(b) [48 FR 14153, April  1, 1983, as
        amended at 49 FR 38046, September 267~1984]; or,

    b.  The alteration or addition could significantly change the
        nature or Increase the quantity of pollutants discharged.  This
        notification applies to pollutants which are subject neither to
        effluent limitations 1n the permit, nor to notification requirements
        under 40 CFR Part 122.42(a)(l) [48 FR 14153, April 1, 1983, as
        amended at 49 FR 38046, September 2l>7 1984].

2.  Anticipated Noncompllance

The permittee shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned
changes In the permitted facility or activity which may result In
noncompllance with permit requirements.

3.  Transfers

This permit 1s not transferable to any person except after notice to
the Director.  The Director may require modification or revocation and
relssuance of the permit to change the name of the permittee and
Incorporate such other requirements as may be necessary under the
Clean Water Act.

4.  Monitoring Reports

Monitoring results shall be reported at the Intervals and 1n the form
specified at Part II.C.5 (Monitoring).

5.  Compliance Schedules

Reports of compliance or noncompllance with, or any progress reports
on, Interim and final requirements contained 1n any compliance schedule
of this permit shall be submitted no later than 14 days following each
schedule date.  Any reports of noncompllance shall Include the cause of
noncompllance, any remedial actions taken, and the probability of
meeting the next scheduled requirement.
                                  A-48

-------
 Permit  No. TX0101168                                 Page 11 of PART II
6.  Twenty-Four Hour Reporting

The permittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger health
or the environment.  Any information shall be provided orally within
24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances.
A written submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the time
the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances.  The written submission
shall contain a description of the noncompliance and its cause; the
period of noncompliance, Including exact dates and times, and if the
noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected
to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and
prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.  The Director may waive the
written report on a case-by-case basis if the oral report has been
received within 24 hours.

The following shall be included as information which must be reported
within 24 hours:

    a.  Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation
        in the permit;

    b.  Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit; and,

    c.  Violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of
        the pollutants listed by the Director in Part III of the permit
        to be reported within 24 hours.

7.  Other Noncompliance

The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported
under Part II.D.4, 5, and 6 at the time monitoring reports are submitted.
The reports shall contain the Information listed at Part II.D.6.

8.  Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances

The permittee shall notify the Director as soon as it knows or has
reason to believe:

    a.  That any activity has occured or will occur which would result
        in the discharge, 1n a routine or frequent basis, of any toxic
        pollutant which Is not limited in the permit, if that discharge
        will exceed the highest of the "notification levels" described
        in 40 CFR Part 122.42(a)(l) [48 FR 14153, April  1, 1983, as
        amended at 49 FR 38046, September 26, 1984].

    b.  That any activity has occured or will occur which would result
        in any discharge, on a non-routine or infrequent basis, of a
        toxic pollutant which is not limited 1n the permit, if that


                                  A-49

-------
 Permit  No. TX0101168                                 Page 12 of PART II
        discharge will exceed the highest of the "notification levels"
        described 1n 40 CFR Part 122.42(a){2) [48 FR 14153, April  1,
        1983, as amended at 49 FR 38046, SeptenterTe,  1984).

9.  Duty to Provide Information

The permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a reasonable time,
any Information which the Director may request to determine whether
cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this
permit, or to determine compliance with this permit.  The permittee
shall also furnish to the Director, upon request, copies of records
required to be kept by this permit.

10. Duty to Reapply

If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this
permit after the expiration date of this permit, the permittee must
apply for and obtain a new permit.  The application shall be submitted
at least 180 days before the expiration date of this permit.  The
Director may grant permission to submit an application  less than 180 days
1n advance but no later than the permit expiration date.  Continuation
of expiring permits shall be governed by regulations promulgated at 40 CFR
Part 122.6 [48 F£ 14153, April 1, 1983] and any subsequent amendments.

11. Signatory Requirements

All applications, reports, or information submitted to  the Director
shall be signed and certified.

    a.  All permit applications shall be signed as follows:

        (1)  For a corporation - by a responsible corporate officer.
             For the purpose of this section, a responsible corporate
             officer means:

             (a)  A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president
             of the corporation in charge of a principal business
             function, or any other person who performs similar policy
             or decision making functions for the corporation; or,

             (b)  The manager of one or more manufacturing, production,
             or operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or
             having gross annual sales or expenditures  exceeding $25
             million (1n second-quarter 1980 dollars),  if authority to
             sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the
             manager in accordance with corporate procedures.

        (2)  For a partnership or sole proprietorship - by a general
             partner or the proprietor, respectively.


                                  A-50

-------
Permit No. TX0101168                                 Page 13  of PART  II
        (3)   For a municipality,  State,  Federal,  or other public  agency  -
             by either a principal  executive  officer or ranking elected
             official.  For purposes  of  this  section, a principal
             executive officer of a Federal agency  includes:

             (a)  The chief executive officer of  the agency,  or

             (b)  A senior executive  officer  having responsibility  for
             the overall operations of a principal  geographic unit  of
             the agency.

    b.   All  reports required by the permit  and other information  requested
        by the Director shall  be  signed  by  a  person described above or
        by a duly authorized representative of that person.   A person
        is a duly authorized representative only  if:

        (1)   The authorization Is made 1n writing by a  person described
             above;

        (2)   The authorization specifies either an  individual  or  a
             position having responsibility for the overall operation
             of the regulated  facility or activity,  such  as the position
             of plant manager, operator  of  a  well or a  well field,
             superintendent,  or position of equivalent  responsibility,
             or an individual  or  position having  overall  responsibility
             for environmental  matters for  the company.   A duly authorized
             representative may thus  be  either a  named  individual or
             any individual  occupying a  named position; and,

        (3)   The written authorization is submitted to  the Director.

    c.   Certification.  Any person signing  a  document under this  section
        shall  make the following  certification:

        "I certify under penalty  of law  that  this document and all
        attachments were prepared under  my  direction or supervision in
        accordance with a system  designed to  assure that  qualified
        personnel  properly gather and evaluate the  Information submitted.
        Based  on my inquiry of the person or  persons  who  manage the
        system,  or those persons  directly responsible for gathering the
        information,  the information  submitted is,  to the best of my
        knowledge and belief,  true, accurate,  and complete.   I am aware
        that there are significant penalties  for  submitting false
        information,  including the possibility of fine  and imprisonment
        for  knowing violations."
                                 A-51

-------
 Permit  No.  TX0101168                                 Page 14 of PART II
12.  Availability of Reports

Except for data determined to be confidential  under 40 CFR Part 2, all
reports prepared 1n accordance with the terms of this permit shall be
available for public Inspection at the office of the Director.  As
required by the Clean Water Act, the name and address of any permit
applicant or permittee, permit applications, permits, and effluent data
shall not be considered confidential.

13.  Penalties for Falsification of Reports

The Clean Water Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any
false statement, representation, or certification 1n any record or
other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit,
Including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or noncompllance
shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000
per violation, or by Imprisonment for not more than 6 months per violation,
or by both.
                                  A-52

-------
   APPENDIX B
HYDROGEOLOGY

-------
              HYDROGEOLOGY - METHODS AND TECHNICAL DATA

               Artesian Pressure Declines Due to Power Plant Pumpage

           Artesian pressure declines in the lower Simsboro resulting from anticipated
power plant  pumpage of 6,500 gpm  were calculated using a computer-assisted mathe-
matical  model based on the  Theis  equation  (TWDB,  1973) for calculating  pressure
declines due to  pumpage.  A well field consisting of five wells, screened in the lower
Simsboro at spacings of 2,500 feet and oriented parallel to the  Simsboro outcrop area,
was assumed. A line source, simulating the Simsboro outcrop, was assumed at a distance
of 20,000 feet.  Resulting pressure declines were calculated along a line extending away
from the well field  and parallel  to  the  outcrop, although  the  declines are generally
representative of the declines which would occur in all directions  from the pumping well
field.   Artesian pressure declines  were  calculated based upon  a  transmissivity  of
60,000 gpd/ft, which is considered reasonable for sands of the lower Simsboro.  No fault
boundaries were  included in the calculations;  such negative  boundaries would  result in
larger projected drawdowns.   To approximate  the  potential  effects  of the  faults,
calculations  were also made  using a transmissivity of 40,000 gpd/ft.  Projected draw-
downs due  to power plant pumping are estimated to be  between the  values calculated
using 40,000 and 60,000 gpd/ft.

             Artesian Pressure Declines Due to Depressurization Pumpage

           Artesian pressure declines in the upper Simsboro resulting from depressuriza-
tion pumpage were calculated using  a computer-assisted mathematical model based on
the Theis equation  (TWDB, 1973).  During early phases of mining, two small well fields
were assumed to satisfy depressurization  requirements.  It will require about six months
to mine the lignite in the southwest portion of the first mine block needing depressuriza-
tion.   It is estimated that pumpage totalling  1,000 gpm will be required.   An aquifer
having a transmissivity of 10,000 gpd/ft and a coefficient of storage  of 0.0003, a line
source (the Simsboro  outcrop) 20,000 feet away, and four wells pumping  at a rate of
250 gpm each for six  months were assumed.  The southeast portion of  the first mine
block was modeled  assuming two wells pumping a total of 750 gpm  for one year, and an
aquifer having a  transmissivity of 20,000  gpd/ft and a coefficient of storage of 0.0003,
and a line source 20,000 feet away.

           Larger amounts of upper Simsboro  depressurization pumping will be required
during later phases of mining.  During later mining phases, depressurization requirements
may  range up  to  250 feet  and  average  between  100  and 150 feet.    An  example
depressurization well field, consisting of 13 wells at 250-  to 800-foot spacings extending
parallel to  a  6,000-foot mine pit, was assumed  for the later, deeper parts of mining. The
estimated  pressure declines were calculated   assuming  an  average transmissivity  of
20,000 gpd/ft, a storage coefficient of 0.0003, and a line source (the Simsboro outcrop)
at 20,000 feet.
                                       B-l

-------
                                     TABLE B-l
     SUMMARY OF OVERBURDEN DATA RESULTING FROM ANALYSES OF OVERBURDEN
MATERIAL ABOVE THE LOWEST MINEABLE  LIGNITE IN MINE BLOCK A, CALVERT LIGNITE MINE8
- range
- % of taeple Material
e«ceadlng pH •.*
- % of aaanla Material
lots than p« S.O
EC
- range (oaho./cn)
- % of aaoBle Material
OMceoo'lut % eBhot/cei
SM
- ranee
- % of Maple Material
- ranee (ppn)
- % of aeenle Material
exceeding SO pan
Cp - ajolghted average (POM)
to
- ranee (ppn)
- % of linple Material
exceeding S ppM
- Might** average (pen)
Cd
- % of eaoBlo Material
encaaelng 0.7 pan
- nlghted average (BOM)
Cr
- range (ppM)
- % of aenple Material
exceeding 1.000 pan
- Molghted average (POM)
Cv
- range (pan)
- % of aaeple Material
exceeding 100 ppM
- nelghted average (DOM)
M»
- range (ppn)
- % of ue>le Material
emeeedlng 1.000 ppn
- nelghtad averega (ppn)
M-47SO IO-«7S1 M-47S2 HIM Block A
».» - 7.1 *.S • 1.0 t.O - 7.9 «.* - 1.0
0% M M M
M M M 4»
O.t - 0.7 0.1 - S.O 0.2 - 2.« 0.1 - S.O
M 1% 0% 1«
0.1 - «.l 1.0 - 10.1 0.7 - S.9 0.1 - 10.1
0% 0% M 0%
C.S - 12.1 1.7 - 11.» 7.9 - 21.9 1.7 - 11.4
M M 0% 0%
U.C 1S.S 12.» H.O
0.1 - S.S 0.1 - 1.0 0.1 - t.O 0.1 - t.O
It M *» 1.7%
0.2 0.2 O.t 0.*
0.1 - O.t 0.1 - O.t 0.1 - 1.2 0.1 - 1.2
0% 0% 2» 1»
0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
10.S - 27.1 9.1 - 29.7 9.7 - 29.1 9.1 - 29.7
0% 0% 0% 0»
19.0 20.S 20.S 20.0
9.« - 12.0 I0.» - «*.! 12.9 - »«.7 9.« - M.I
0% 0% 0% 0%
11.2 11.1 »•» 19'J
M - *672 SI - «17 »6 - 1«» *S ' *"'
n 2% o» u
1JS.O 151.7 170.« 12S.2

-------
                                                                          vuonciuaecu

                                                              BO-47SO                M-47SI
                                                                                                        •0-4752
                                                                                                                           HIM Block
                                                               2 -
                                                                                    2-1
                                                                                                         2-5
                                                                                                                              2-6
CO
CO
••caaalng 5 ppa
- Might** avoraga (BOB)
M
- rang* (ppa)
- k *f uapl* Mtwial
Me*a*l*g 500 ppa
- Might** avaraga (ppa)
Ph
- rang* (ppa)
- k *f M*yl* Bat*rl*l
•*c*a*lng 200 ppa
- Might** av*rag* (ppa)
- rang* (ppa)
- % of uapl* aatarlal
*iica**lng 2 ppa
- Might** av*raga (ppa)
U
- rang* (ppa)
- % of uapl* Mterlal
•xc***ing 4 ppa
- Might** amrag* (ppa)
V
- ranga (ppa)
- % of Mapla aat*rlal
MC***lng 500 ppa
- Might** av*r*g* (ppa)
In
- ranga (ppa)
- k of uapl* Mtcrtal
•KC***lng 100 ppa
- Might** *v*rag* (ppa)
Llaa •aoulrwnmt
- ranga (T/1000I)
- k of uapl* aat*rlal
U» than 0 T/1000T
- aalght** av*rag*
(T/1000T)
Ok 2* Ok
0.7 0.9 1.5

19.1 - 39.2 14.4 - 40.9 15.2 - 39.9

Ok Ok Ok
25.5 25.7 2S.C
6.7 - 20.1 4.4 - 24.9 a.l - 22.7

Ok Ok Ok
1k.2 12.9 H.I
0.2 - 9.0 0.2 - 3.2 0.2 - 4.3

10k 10k 14k
o.a o.a o.a

0.5 - 2.6 1.2 - 4.2 0.5 - 5.0

Ok 2k 4k
1.4 2.2 2.2

19.1 - 168.J 30.1 - 210.9 U.C - 165.1

Ok Ok Ok
96.C 100.1 93.0

•30.6 - 102.2 22.2 - 99.5 24.3 - 112.0
.
Ok Ok Ok
61.4 71.2 71.4

47.1 - (->a.o 11.1 - (-)o.a 90.2 - (-)a.i

9k 6k 4k

3.3 9.1 12.8
Ik
1.1

14.4 - 40.9

Ok
25. C
4.4 - 24.9

Ok
13.8
0.2 - 9.0

14k
o.a

0.5 - 5.0

2k
2.0

30.1 - 168.2

Ok
96.3

22.2 - 112.0

Ok)
6S.1

90.2 - (-)O.I

6%

1.9
                            • Suawry of Ov*rbur*M Cora. *0-k750, M-k051 an* M>-k7S2.

                           aSee  glossary  for definition of  parameters.
                            SOURCE:   PCC,  1986

-------
APPENDIX C
     SOILS

-------
                                              TABLE C-l
                    RANOELAND PRODUCTIVITY FOR SOILS OF THE PROJECT AREA1
Potential Annual Production
for Kind of Growing Season
Map Symbol and
Soil Series
AtC, AtC3, AtD
Axtell
ChC
Chazos
CrC, CrC3
Crockett
DeC
Demona
DuC
Dutek
EdD
Edge
Gw
Gladewater
LuA
Lufkin
MaA
Mabank
Na
Nahatche
NiC
Nimrod
PaO
Padina
RaA, RaB
Rader
RoC
Robco
SiC
Silawa
SsC
Silstid
TaA
Tabor
Oh
Uhland
WiA
Wilson
Range Site
Claypan Savannah
Sandy Loam
Claypan Prairie
Claypan Savannah
Sandy
Claypan Savannah
Clayey Bottomland
Claypan Savannah
Claypan Prairie
Loamy Bottomland
Sandy
Deep Sand
Sandy Loam
Sandy
Sandy Loam
Sandy
Sandy Loam
Loamy Bottomland
Claypan Prairie
Favorable
Lb/Acre
5,000
5,500
6,000
4,500
4,500
5,000
8,000
5,000
6,000
7,500
4,500
4,500
6,000
3,600
6,000
4,500
6,500
7,500
6,000
Average
Lb/Acre
3,500
4,500
5,000
3,500
4,000
3,500
6,000
4,000
5,000
6,500
3,500
3,500
4,500
3,000
5,000
4,000
5,500
6,500
4,500
Unfavorable
Lb/Acre
2,500
3,000
3,000
2,000
2,000
2,500
4,000
2,500
3,000
4,000
2,000
2,250
3,500
2,600
3,000
2,000
3,500
4,000
3,000
   Only the soils that support rangeland vegetation suitable for grazing are listed.
Source:    SCS, 1986.
                                               C-l

-------
                                                                           TABLE C-Z
                                                                AREAL EXTENT OF SOILS TYPES
                                                    AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED TNP ONE POWER PLANT1



Power Plant
Facilities
Site

Runoff Pond
Runoff Pond
O
N>
. Ash
Disposal
Sites
A Z2


Water
KpeEie
Spur
Transmission
T ir)f*
TOTALS
Order 4 Mapping
Order 2 Mapping Ax- Si- Na- Sub-
AtC AtC3 AtD ChC CrC CrC3 DeC DuC EdD Gw LuA MaA Na NiC PaD RaA RaB RoC SiC SsC TaA Uh WiA W Ta Pa Oh Totals









__ __ 	 C __ __. __ f. __ 	 	 __ __ __ C ^_ 	 __ __ __ 	 	 __ __ __ 	 1 L

9 145 156 48 358
40 1 0 56 44 33 0 15 1 1 0 0 0 3 57 0 48 0 21 98 0 1 12 12 343 163 48 997
Impacts are presented hi acres*
Soil distribution for area of new impact only.  Total acreage of ash disposal site A-2 is 535 acres, 412 acres of which will be disturbed by mining and topsoil stockpiling, then
reclaimed prior to ash disposal on the site.
An existing county road will be widened and upgraded for 80% of the approximately 2 mile haul road to Site A-l.  A coal haul road to mine Block A will be used as the ash
haul road to Site A-2.

-------
                                                                        TABLE C-3

                                                              AREAL EXTENT OF SOIL TYPES
                                                AFFECTED BY PROPOSED CALVERT LIGNITE MINE FACILITIES
                                                                  (Excluding Mine Blocks)1
                                                                                                                                            Order 4
                                                                                                                                            Mapping
               	Order 2 Mapping	  Ax-  Si-    Sub-
                AtC   AtC3 AtD ChC CrC CrC3 DeC DuC EdD  Gw  LuA MaA  Na  NIC PaD RaA  RaB RoC  SiC  SsC TaA  Uh   WiA  W    Ta  Pa   Totals
Mine
Facilities
Erection Site

Lignite
Transport
Facilities

Haul Roads
                                                                                          11
                                                                                                                   22
                                                                                                                                                        42
1A
(1989
IB
(1990

2
(1991
3A
(2000
,3B
(2000
4
(2003
5A
(2005
5B
(2005
5C
(2005
6A
(2015
6B
(2015
7
(2024
 2039)'

 1999)

 2008)


 2019)

 2039)

 •2022)

 •2015)

 -2010)

 •2025)

 •2027)

-2037)

-2036)
Conveyors &
Truck Dumps
                                   10
                                                                                                                    3

                                                                                                                    6

                                                                                                               2    3
                                                                                15

                                                                                 2
                                                                                14
30

 6

 8


 9

16

23

11

 2

21

17

20

 7


22

-------
TABLE C-3 (Cont'd)


Surface
Water Control
Structures
Diversion
Ponds
DPC-1
(1993-2039)2
DPC-2
(2003-2027)
(2003-2027)
(2014-2039)
,_. Diversion
1 Ditches
*>•
(2003-2027)
(2003-2027)
' (2003-2027)
(2006-2015)
(1993-Z039)
(2014-2039)
(1993-2039)
Sedimentation
Ponds
(1989-1999)
(1991-2003)
SPC 5
(1991-2039)
Order 4
Mapping
Order 2 Mapping Ax- Si- Sub-
AtC AtC3 AID ChC CrC CrC3 DeC DuC EdD Gw LuA MaA Na NiC PaD RaA RaB RoC SiC SsC TaA Uh WiA W Ta Pa Totals




6 5 — — — — — 13 4 — — — 283 Zl Z — 3 6 5 7 — 38 -- 1 — — 394
9O •* _______ 1 __ -- — 	 7.\
«i/ i ______ 	 	 __ __ 1? _. __ __ 1 	 	 75
« _ __ __ _- __ 	 -- — -- -- -- 1

_ _„ _ - 1 	 _________ — _- — — 1 -- 1 -- -- -- -- T
•t _____ 	 	 	 	 	 -- 1
_ __ __ 1 	 __ 	 __ __ __ _- 	 	 	 - 1
1 1 _ _ 	 __ 	 _____ 7
•j „ 	 __ 	 	 __ 	 7
•j 	 _ __ _ „ 	 o _ __ __ _ 	 	 	 __ __ __ 17 __ 	 	 	 2?
C 	 _ 	 	 	 	 __ _ __ 	 	 _ 	 „_ __ 	 7 __ - 	 ft
— — 1 -a _ 	 o 7


-------
TABLE C-3 (Cont'd)




SPC-7
(1994-2039)
SPC-8
(1993-2009)
SPC-9
(1993-2004)
SPC-10
(1993-2021)
SPC-11
(2003-2027)
SPC-13
(2006-2015)
SPC-14
(2003-20Z7)
SPC-15
9 (2014-2025)
01 SPC-16
(2015-2039)
Control
Ditches
CDC-1
(1991-2039)
CDC-3
(1991-2003)
CDC-4
(1990-2000)
CDC-7
(1996-2009)
CDC-8
(1993-2004)
CDC-9
(1993-2004)
CDC-10
(1993-2039)
CDC-1 1
(2003-2027)
CDC-12
(2003-2027)
Order 4
Mapping
Order 2 Mapping Ax- Si- Sub-
AtC AtC3 AID ChC CrC CrC3 DeC DuC EdD Gw LuA MaA Na MJC Pab RaA RaB RoC SiC SsC TaA Uh WiA W Ta Pa Totals
1 — — „ „ — 3 — 23 — — 26 — 2 — — — — — — — — — — — 55

._ _. .. „ .. .. 2 „ 33 „ „ „ - - 	 - - - — - - - - 35

- - - - - - - - 18 - - - - 	 - -- - - -- ~ ~ - ~ - 18

— — 2 — — — — — — — -- — — - 	 - — 13 -- — — — 15

— — — 4 - 	 2 — — — 43 — — — — — — 2 ~ 50 — — — — 101

3 „ -. __ 2 __ „ _. „ - -. - - - 	 - - - - 	 - - 5

1 — — — 	 — 27 — -- 51 — -- — — — — — — 4 -- 1 — -- 84

„ „ __ „ __ ._ _. 13 — ._ — 1 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — 15

— — — — — 	 - — — — 36 — 8 	 — 4 — — ~ — 48



— — — — - 	 — — — — — — 1 — — — ~ 1 — — — ~ ~ — 2

— — — — - 	 - — — — — — - 	 — 1 -- — 1 — — — — 2

— — __ — „ ._ _- — „ ._ „ — — — — — — — < 1 — — — — — — < 1

- - - - - - < 1 - - - -- - - - 	 - 	 - - -- - - -- < 1

— — — — — — 1 — — — 	 - — — — -- — — — — — — -- — 1

„ — — — — — i — — — — — — — — — 1 1 — — — — — -- — 3

I .. — ._ „ .. „ i ._ „ .. „ — — — — i — — — — — — — — — 3

1 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — 2

„ „ .. „ „ — „ — — .. .. i „ — — _. -_ — — — i — — — — 2


-------
                                                                    TABLE C-3 (Concluded)

AtC

(Z003-ZOZ7)
(2
-------
                                                                      TABLE C-4
                                                            AREAL EXTENT OF SOILS TYPES
                                                    AFFECTED BY CALVERT  LIGNITE MINE BLOCKS
                                                                        (Acres)


Mine Block A
(1989-1994) l
Mine Block 61
(1992-1998)
Mine Block B2
O (1995-2006)
I
~^ Mine Block B3
(2004-2007)
Mine Block K
(2005-2010)
Mine Block J
(2008-2019)
Mine Block C
(2017-2031)
TOTALS

AtC
84

123

395


?A

170

401

587

1,788

AtC3 AtD
6 —

3

26 —


CO __

19 --

122 —

47

282 0

ChC CrC CrC3 DeC DuC EdD
3 149 30 — 7 16

4 20 — — 7

34 2 — — 53


ftA d*J

31 23 — — — 193

40 24 — — 18 192

114 36 — -- 17 26

226 322 77 0 102 427
Order 2 Mappinj
Gw LuA MaA Na
__ _„ _ _ 	

3 ~ 23

10 31 -- 71


_._ __ 	 A?

4 .— — 42

28

-- — — 15

14 34 0 221
Z
NIC PaD RaA
5

— 31

— 49 —




—

2 34 —

64 126

66 250 0

RaB RoC SiC SsC TaA
45 — 29 59 —

76 98 10 31

36 14 — 101


	 	 1? o 	

73 42 „ _. „

18 4 — — 5

50 19 — 47

298 177 51 246 5

Uh WiA
3 86

3

9


(.A.

59 —

109 29

65 5

236 196
Order 4
Mapping
Ax- Si- Sub-
W Ta Pa Totals
— — — 522

— — — 432

— — 831


	 	 •»«

— — — 656

-- -- — 1,026

— 1,218

000 5,018
Dates indicate the span of time from clearing and grubbing through the first year of reclamation.

-------
APPENDIX D
VEGETATION

-------
                                                                  TABLE D-l
                                                   AREAL EXTENT OF VEGETATION TYPES
                                           AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED TNP ONE POWER PLANT1
Bottomland
Aquatic Hardwoods Cropland
Power Plant Facilities Site
Plant Island 2 — 49
Coal Pile Runoff Pond
Plant Site Runoff Pond
Access Road
Ash Disposal Sites
A-l 1
A-22 — 13
Haul Road to A-l3
Makeup Water Pipeline
Railroad Spur
Transmission Line 9 21
TOTAL 12 34 49
Impacts are presented in acres.
2 ....... . . ,.
Grassland
182
9
5
4
192
110
S
16
12
242
777

ic- •
Upland
Mesquite Hardwoods Disturbed
20
__
--
._
5
	 	 . 	
3
7
4
2^ 43_ 2_1
22 82 21


Sub-total
250
9
8
4
198
123
8
23
16
358
997


topsoil stockpiling, then reclaimed prior to ash disposal on the site.
An existing county road will be widened and upgraded for 80% of the approximately 2 mile haul road to Site A-l.  A coal haul road to mine Block A will be
used as the ash haul road to Site A-2.

-------
                      TABLE D-Z
          AREAL EXTENT OF VEGETATION TYPES
AFFECTED BY PROPOSED CALVERT LIGNITE MINE FACILITIES
                 (Excluding Mine Blocks)1
Aquatic
Mine Facilities/
Erection Site
Lignite Transport
Facilities
Haul Roads
1A
(1989-Z039)
IB
(1990-1999)
Z
(1991-2008)
3A
(ZOOO-Z019)
3B
(ZOOO-Z039)
4
(2003 -ZOZZ)
5A
(Z005-Z015)
5B
(Z005-Z010)
5C
(Z005-ZOZ5)
6A
(2015-2027)
6B
(2015-2037)
7
(2024-2036)
Conveyor and
Truck Dumps
Surface Water
Control Structures
Diversion Ponds
DPC-1
(1993-2039)
DPC-Z 1
(Z003-2027)
DPC-3
(2003-ZOZ7)
DPC-4 1
(Z014-Z039)
Bottomland
Hardwoods


—
--
—
--
—
6
3
1
6
—
--
—
Z


43
48
5
8
2
Grassland
Z7

11
3
4
7
11
17
5
1
15
16
17
5
19


160
325
18
54
2 Upland
Mesquite Hardwoods
15

5 14
3
4
2
5
—
3
—
—
1
3
2
1


33 71
20
—
12
Sub-totals
42

30
6
8
9
16
Z3
11
2
Zl
17
ZO
7
ZZ


307
394
Z3
75
                       D-2

-------
TABLE D-2 (Cont'd)
Aquatic
Diversion Ditches
DDC-3
(2003-2021)
DDC-4
(2003-2027)
DDC-5
(2003-2027)
DDC-6
(2006-2015)
DDC-7
(1993-2039)
DDC-8
(2014-2039)
DDC-9
(1993-2039)
Sedimentation Ponds
SPC-3
(1989-1999)
SPC-4
(1991-2003)
SPC-5
(1991-2039)
SPC-7
(1994-2039)
SPC-8
(1993-2009)
SPC-9
(1993-2004)
SPC-10
(1993-2021)
SPC-11
(2003-2027)
SPC-13
(2006-2015)
SPC-14 1
(2003-2027)
SPC-15
(2014-2025)
SPC-16
(2015-2039)
Control Ditches
CDC-1
(1991-2039)
CDC-3
(1991-2003)
CDC-4
(1990-2000)
Bottomland
Hardwoods

~
--
—
—
—
—
3

—
—
—
14
25
1
6
24
—
28
7
8

~
—
—
Grassland Mesquite

1
1
3
1
— —
1 1
4

22 — .
8
1
41
,9
16
—
75
5
55
7
40

1
1
< 1
Upland
Hardwoods

—
--
—
—
1
—
-—

—
—
6
—
1
1
9
2
—
—
1
— _

1
1
—
Sub-totals

1
1
3
1
1
2
7

22
8
7
55
35
18
15
101
5
84
15
48

2
2
< 1
   D-3

-------
                                      TABLE D-2 (Concluded)
Aquatic
CDC-7
(1996-2009)
CDC-8
(1993-2004)
CDC-9
(1993-2004)
CDC-10
(1993-2039)
CDC-11
(2003-2027)
CDC-12
(2003-2027)
CDC-13
(2003-2027)
CDC-14
(2003-2027)
CDC-15
(2011-2024)
CDC-16
(2013-2027)
CDC-17
(2016-2025)
CDC-18
(2017-2025)
CDC-19
(2017-2025)
Stockpiles
Overburden B2
Overburden C
Overburden J
Overburden K
Topsoil Piles
TSP1
TSP2
TSP3
TSP4
TSP5
TSP6
TSP7
TSP8
TOTALS 3
Bottomland -
Hardwoods Grassland Mesquite
< 1
1
3
^
2
1
1
3
1
1 1
3
< 1
< 1

102
4 45
7 96 67
12 55

7
2
17
_.
29
3
15
4
262 1,399 107
Upland
Hardwoods Sub-totals
< 1
1
3
1 3
2
1 2
1
3
1
2
3
< 1
< 1

10 112
4 53
40 210
22 89

4 11
6 8
17
--
1 30
2 5
6 21
4
276 2,047
Impacts are presented  in acres and  represent areas of new impact (i.e.,  outside of proposed mine  blocks).
Impacts related to mine blocks are presented in Table V-3.
Grassland and  mesquite brushland vegetation types include grazingland and pastureland land use categories.
                                             D-4

-------
                                                        TABLE D-3

                                          AREAL EXTENT OF VEGETATION TYPES
                                    AFFECTED BY THE CALVERT LIGNITE MINE BLOCKS
                                                         (Acres)
 i
en

Mine Block A
(1989-1994)
Mine Block Bl
(1992-1998)
Mine Block B2
(1995-2006)
Mine Block B3
(2004-2007)
Mine Block K
(2005-2010)
Mine Block J
(2008-2019)
Mine Block C
(2017-2031)
TOTALS
Aquatic
3
2
13
3
2
7
5
35
Bottomland
Hardwoods
11
23
98
10
20
50
106
318
Grassland Mesquite
479
387
667
309
524
817 64
828 12
4,011 76
Upland
Hardwoods
29
20
53
11
110
88
267
578
Sub-totals
522
432
831
333
656
1,026
1,218
5,018
              Grassland and mesquite brushland vegetation types include grazingland and pastureland land use categories.

-------
                                  TABLE D-4
                          GRAZINGLAND SEED MIXTURES
Mixture 1                                                       Ibs  PLS/acre

Mixed bermudagrass (NK-37 and common)                                 2
Kleingrass (Selection 75)                                             2
Bahiagrass (Pensacola)                                                4
Switchgrass (Alamo)                                                   3
Bluestem, little                                                     _3
  Total                                                              14

Mixture 2                                                       Ibs  PLS/acre

Kleingrass (Selection 75)                                             2
Bahiagrass (Pensacola)                                                3
Bluestem, King Ranch                                                  2
Indiangrass (Lometa)                                                  2
Sideoats grama (Haskell)                                              2
Switchgrass (Alamo)                                                  _!_
  Total                                                              12

Mixture 3                                                       Ibs  PLS/acre

Mixed bermudagrass (NK-37 and common)                                 2
Green sprangletop                                                     2
Sideoats grama (Haskell)                                              3
Indiangrass (Lometa)                                                  3
Bluestem, Kleberg                                                     2
Buestem, Medio                                                        2
Yellow sweetclover (Hubam)                                           __4
  Total                                                              18

 Source: PCC, 1986
                                   D-6

-------
                                  Table D - 5
                          PASTURELAND SEED MIXTURE
Coastal bermudagrass                               40 bushels of sprigs/acre
  overseeded with

          Species                                        Ibs PLS/acre

Bermudagrass (NK-37)                                           2
Kleingrass (Selection 75)                                      2
Switchgrass (Alamo)                                            3
  Total                                                        7
 Source: FCC, 1986
                                 Table D-6
                   PROPOSED COVER CROPS AND  SEEDING  RATES
                                                         Rate
                 Species                          (Commercial Lbs/Acre)
        Winter  wheat                                      40
        Oats                                              50
        Ryegrass                                          20
        Arrowleaf clover  (Yucchi)                         10
        Yellow  sweetclover (Madrid)                       10
        Subterranean  clover (Woogenellup)                 10
        White sweetclover (Hubam)                         10
        Sorghum sudangrass                               30

Source:  PCC, 1986
                                  D-7

-------
                                 Table  D - 7
                       WOODY SPECIES PLANTING LIST
             Blackjack oak
             Black walnut
             Common persimmon
             Green ash
             Hackberry
             Hawthorn
             Northern red oak
             Pecan
             Pin oak
             Post oak
Red mulberry
Russian olive
Shumard oak
Sumac
Sweetgum
Sycamore
Water oak
Wild plum
Willow oak
Yaupon
Source: PCC, 1986
                                 D-8

-------
         APPENDIX E
CULTURAL RESOURCES

-------
                        CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS

           Construction Impacts

           Power Plant

           Two sites are  recorded  within the proposed power plant site (41RT319 and
41RT324.  The sites are  historic structures and were  recorded  in  June 1986 by TAS
(Davis, 1986).  The eligibility of either site to the NRHP has not been determined.

           Within  the makeup  water pipeline corridor, five sites  (41RT43, 41RT301,
41RT303, 41RT305, and 41RT306) have been recorded from two different surveys  (Good
et al.,  1980;  Davis  and Utley,  1986) as  shown in Table E-l  (Appendix E).  All are
prehistoric sites and NRHP eligibility for each site has not been determined.  Concurring
with Davis and Utley (1986), the SHPO recommended that further  work be conducted on
sites 41RT301, 41RT305, and 41RT306 and also  recommended that no further work be
conducted on site 41RT303 (SHPO, 1986).  Site 41RT43 was not addressed by the  SHPO
(1986).

           Sixteen sites have been  recorded within the two proposed ash disposal sites
(Davis, 1986; Davis and Utley,  1986) as shown in  Table E-l (Appendix E).  Three historic
sites (41RT325, 41RT326, and 41RT349)  have been recorded in Ash Disposal Site A-l.
No eligibility determination to the NRHP has  been  made on the  three sites. Thirteen
sites, all historic, have been recorded within Ash Disposal Site A-2 (41RT246, 41RT251,
41RT256-41RT261,    41RT271,   41RT273,    41RT286,   41RT302,   and   41RT314;
Table 4.10.2-1).  Because most  of this disposal site will be constructed on reclaimed
mine land in Mine Blocks A & B, only site 41RT251 will be impacted by the  ash disposal
area.  No determination of eligibility to the NRHP has been made for this site, and the
SHPO has requested  that more information be obtained to better assess site 41RT251  in
terms of NRHP eligibility criteria (SHPO, 1986).

           Davis (1986) recorded one  historic site (41RT347) within the proposed power
plant  access  road  corridor and  one historic site  (41RT348) within the railroad spur
corridor. Determination of eligibility to the NRHP has not been made for either site.

           Twenty  sites have been recorded within  the  proposed transmission line
corridor  (41RT10,   41RT219,   41RT254,  41RT327-41RT331,  41RT333-41RT339, and
41RT341-41RT345)  (Prewitt and Grombacher,  1974;  Glander et al., 1986;  Davis and
Utley,  1986; Kotter,  1986; Table E-l  (Appendix E).  No NRHP eligibility determination
has been made for  any of these sites, including site 41RT10 which  was tested by TAS  in
1980  (Turpin  and  Kluge,  1980).   Of the  remaining  19  sites,  only the  data  from
site 41RT254 has been reviewed by the SHPO as of July 1986.  In partial agreement with
Davis and Utley, the  SHPO recommended  testing and archival research of site 41RT254
(SHPO, 1986).  Although data from the remaining 18 sites has not  been reviewed by the
SHPO, site 41RT219 has been recommended for testing by Glander et al.  (1986), and
sites 41RT327, 41RT328, 41RT329, 41RT334, 41RT335, 41RT338, 41RT341, and 41RT342
have been recommended for additional work by TAS (Kotter, 1986). No further work was
recommended  for sites 41RT330, 41RT331, 41RT336, 41RT337, 41RT339,  41RT344, and
41RT345; two sites (41RT333 and 41RT343) were not addressed in  terms of additional
work (Kotter, 1986).
                                     E-l

-------
           Mine

           Within the area to be impacted for the proposed mine facilities erection site,
a single  historic site (41RT262)  was recorded by  TAS  (Davis and  Utley,  1986).  No
recommendations for testing or eligibility to the NRHP were made by the authors.

           Within the proposed overburden stockpile locations, a single site, 41RT41, is
recorded in Overburden Stockpile J.  No NRHP eligibility determination has been made
for the site.

           As detailed in Table E-l (Appendix E), 26  archaeological sites are located in
areas to be impacted by surface water control structures.

           Although a determination of eligibility to the NRHP has not been made for
the above sites,  the SHPO has recommended that site 41RT261 is potentially eligible to
the NRHP (SHPO,  1986).  No further  work on sites 41RT280  and 41RT290 has been
recommended by  the  SHPO   (1986),  and  further  documentation  of sites 41RT267,
41RT271, 41RT279, 41RT283-41RT285,  41RT287, 41RT288, 41RT293, and 41RT301 has
been recommended  by the SHPO  (1986) to further  assess NRHP eligibility.  Regarding
sites  in   the  water  control  structures  (Table E-l,  Appendix E),  testing has  been
recommended by  EH&A  on  site 41RT172  (Glander et al.,  1986)  and  by TAS  on
site41RT317 (Davis, 1986).

           Within the lignite transportive facilities corridors, site 41RT45  is located in
the impact area of the conveyor and Truck Dump-1.  No eligibility determination has
been made on this Early Archaic site.  On the haul roads, sites 41RT45, 41RT46, 41RT48,
41RT93, 41RT247, 41RT251, 41RT256, 41RT259, 41RT260, 41RT261, 41RT277, 41RT279,
41RT285, 41RT318, and 41RT320  are recorded (Table E-l, Appendix E).  Eligibility to
the NRHP has  not been  determined  for  any of  the  sites,  however the  SHPO has
recommended that  sites 41RT260 and  41RT261 be considered  eligible  to the NRHP
(SHPO, 1986). The  SHPO (1986) has recommended that additional documentation and/or
testing be conducted  on  sites 41RT93, 41RT247,  41RT251,  41RT256,  41RT279,  and
41RT285. Further work is not recommended by the SHPO (1986)  for sites 41RT259 and
41RT277. The remaining haul road sites have not been assessed by the SHPO.

           Operation Impacts

           Power Plant

           Operation  of  the proposed power plant,  makeup water pipeline corridor, ash
disposal  sites, power plant access road and railroad spur, transmission corridor and
auxiliary facilities  should have no additive  effect on the cultural resources previously
referenced in Section 3.10.2 beyond those experienced as a result of construction.

           Mine

           Operation  of the proposed  mine will result in the loss of cultural resource
sites.  In Mine  Block A,  15  sites, 41RT246,  41RT247,  41RT248, 41RT252, 41RT254,
41RT256-41RT260,  41RT265, 41RT267, 41RT268, 41RT273, and 41RT281 are recorded
(Table E-l, Appendix E).  In the opinion of the SHPO (1986) site 41RT260 is potentially
eligible to the NRHP, although as of July 1986 the  site data had not been submitted to
the Keeper of the  Register for review, and determination of eligibility  has not been
made. No determination of eligibility to the NRHP has been made for the remaining
                                     E-2

-------
sites in Mine Block A.  Subsurface  testing on site 41RT267 was recommended by TAS
(Davis and Utley, 1986) and the SHPO (1986).  The SHPO (1986) recommended additional
historic information and/or archaeological testing on all remaining sites in Mine Block A
except sites 41RT248, 41RT259, 41RT268, and 41RT281.

          In  Mine  Block B  sites  41RT93,  41RT247,  41RT256,  41RT260, 41RT261,
41RT270, 41RT271, 41RT274-41RT280, 41RT282-41RT290, 41RT302, 41RT314, 41RT323,
and 41RT346 are recorded (Table E-l, Appendix E).  Three of these 27 sites (41RT247,
41RT256, and 41RT260) are also recorded in Mine Block A because the sites fall on or
adjacent to  the proposed mine block perimeters. As previously stated, the SHPO (1986)
recommended that site41RT260 is potentially eligible to the NRHP.  Further work to
assess NRHP eligibility of sites 41RT247  and 41RT256  was also  recommended by the
SHPO (1986).  Site41RT261 is also,  in the opinion of the SHPO (1986), eligible to the
NRHP.  Site data, as of July 1986, has not been submitted to the Keeper of the Register
for review and no determination of eligibility has been made. Of the remaining 23 sites,
no NRHP  eligibility determination  has been made.  Additional documentation and/or
testing of  15 of the 23 sites has been recommended by the SHPO (1986)  to assess NRHP
eligibility  (Table E-l, Appendix E).   Sites 41RT277, 41RT280, 41RT289,  and 41RT290
have been recommended for no further work by the SHPO (1986).  One additional site,
41RT270, is the  alleged location of up to six burials dating from 1870.  Although not
verified, the site was recorded by  TAS  (Davis and Utley, 1986)  in response  to local
informants.  Mitigation of the reported cemetery is recommended by  TAS (Davis and
Utley, 1986), and the area of the alleged cemetery has been recommended as unsuitable
for mining by the SHPO (1986).

          In Mine Block J sites 41RT38-11RT40 and 41RT46  are  recorded, and in Mine
Block K sites 41RT45, 41RT48, and  41RT51 are recorded (Table E-l, Appendix E).  All
were located by  TAS in 1978 (Good et al., 1980), and a determination of eligibility to the
NRHP has not been made on any of the sites.
                                    E-3

-------
         TABLE E-l
CULTURAL RESOURCES TABLE
NRIIP Eligibility Recommendations and Other Recommendations

















W
I







Site
Number
41RT10


41RT35

41RT36

41RT37

41RT38

41RT39

41RT40

41RT41

41RT42
41RT43

41RT44

41RT45


Reference(a)
Prewitt ft Grombacher,
1974; Turpm ft Kluge,
1480; Kotter 1486
Good, Turpm ft Freeman,
1480
Good, Turpin & Freeman,
1480
Good, Turpin ft Freeman,
1480; Davb ft Utley, 1486
Good, Turpm ft Freeman,
1980
Good, Turpm ft Freeman,
1980
Good, Turpm ft Freeman,
1480
Good, Turpm ft Freeman,
1980
Good, Turpm ft Freeman,
1980
Good, Turpm ft Freeman,
1980
Good, Turpm ft Freeman,
1980
Good, Turpin ft Freeman,
1980

Area of
Effect!
TNP tranimb-
lioa corridor

None

SPC-14

None

Mine Block J

Mine Block J

Mine Block J

Overburden
Stockpile 1
SPC-16
Makeup water
pipeline
None

Mine Block K,
TD-1, Conveyor
alignment.
Cultural
Remain!
Lithic debltage


Lithic debltage

Lithic debltage

Lithic debltage.
burned rock
Lithic debitage,
burned rock
Lithic debltage,
burned rock
Lithic debltage

Lithic debitage,
dart point
Lithic debltage
Lithic debltage,
acraper
Lithic debltage

Ltthlc debltage,
Uvalde-lbe
point
Cultural
Affiliation
Middle Archaic to
Late Prehbtoric

Undifferentlated Prehbtorlc

Undlfferentlated Prehblortc

Undlfferentlated Prehbtoric

Undifferentlated Prehbtorlc

Undlfferentlated Prehbtorlc

Undifferenllated Prehbtoric

Undlfferentlated Prehbtoric

Undifferentlated Prehbtorlc
Undlfferentlated Prehbtorlc

Undlfferentlated Prehbtorlc

Early Archaic


Area
(n.2)
2000


100

330

7,500

50

25

375

300

500
. 250

300

800


TAS TAS
Artifact (Prewitt ft (Turpin &
Depth Grombacher, Kluge,
(cm) 1974) 1980)
100 (1) (2)


N/S

N/S

40

N/S

N/S

N/S

N/S

N/S
N/S

N/S

N/S


TAS
(Good,
Turpm
Freeman,
1980)



(1)

ID

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)
(1)

ID

(1)


TAS EHftA TAS TAS
(Oavbft (Glander SHPO (Oavb iKotter
Utley, el aL, June July July
May 1986) 1986) I486 1986) 1986)
(2)






(2) (3)

















SPC-11, SPC-14,











41RT46


41RT47

41RT48


41RT50

Good, Turpm ft Freeman,
1980

Good, Turpm ft Freeman,
1980
Good, Turpm ft Freeman,
1480

Good, Turpm ft Freeman,
Haul road
Mine Block J,
SPC-14,
Haul road
None

Mine Block K,
SPC-11,
Haulroad
DPC-2

Lithic debitage


Lithic debltage

Lithic debltage


Lithic debltage

Undlfferentlated Prehblorlc


Uudifferentlated Prehbtorlc

Undifferentlated Prehbtorlc


Undifferentlated Prehistoric

200


50

500


25

N/S


N/S

N/S


N/S

(1)


(1)

(1)


(1)











-------
                                                     TABLE E-l (cont'd)
w



Site
Number
41RT51

41RT66

41RT42

41RT43




41RT43A

41RT44

41RT45

41RT150

41RT151

41RT152

41RT172
41RT145

41RT214


41RT238

41RT234

41RT240

41RT241

41RT246






Reference(s)
Good, Turpin & Freeman,
1480
Good, Turpm & Freeman,
1480
Davis, 1486

Davis & Utley, 1486
Good, Turpin and
Freeman, 1480


Davis & Ulley, I486

Good, Turpm It Freeman,
1480
Good, Turpm & Freeman,
1480
Glander el aL, I486

Glander el aL, 1486

Glander et aL, 1486

Glander et aL, 1486
Glander el aL, 1486

Glander et aL, 1486


Glander et aL, 1486

Glander et aL, 1486

Glander et aL, I486;
Davis t> Ulley, I486
Glander et aL, I486)
Davis It Utley, 1486
Davis 8. Utley, I486





Area of
Effects
Mine Block K

None

None

Mine Block B,
Haul road



None

None

None

None

None

None

DPC-2
DPC-2

TNP trans-
mission
corridor
None

None

None

None

Mine Block A
Ash Disposal
Area A-2



Cultural Cultural
Remains Affiliation
Llthic debitage, Archaic
Yarhrough point
Llthlc debitage Undifferentiated Prehistoric

Multiple Historic Cemetery
headstonea
Board and batten 4th quarter 14lh-
house, log crib, 3rd quarter 20th century
log dog trot house,
two log outbuOdmgs,
well, cistern
Log bam, two board 4th quarter 14th-
and batten sheds 3rd quarter 20th century
Single grave Historic Cemetery
dated 1872
Multiple headstones Historic Cemetery
dating from 1400
Lithlc debitage, Undif ferentiated Prehistoric)
historic ceramics Undlfierentlated Historic
Ceramics, glass, lst-2nd quarters
metal 20th century
Glass, ceramics lst-2nd quarters
20th century
Llthlc debitage Undlfferentialed Prehistoric
Glass ceramics, lst-3rd quartera.
brick 20th century
Llthlc debitage Undifferentiated Prehistoric


Board and batten 2nd quarter 20th century
house, well
Collapsed wooden 1st quarter 20th century-
bouse present
Llthlc debitage. Archaic
burned rock
Wooden house, 20tb century
cattle sheds
Ceramics, glass, 4th quarter 14th-lst quarter
metal 20th century




Area
(0,2)
150

25

N/S

3750




4200

N/S

N/S

625

600

400

7500
3500

3000


700

440

120,000

400

625


NRHP Eligibility Recommendations and Other Recommendations
TAS
TAS TAS (Oood, TAS EH&A TAS TAS
Artifact (Prewitt & (Turpin 1 Turpin (Davis «. (Glander SHPO (Davis (Kotler
Depth Grombacher, Kluge, Freeman, Utley, et aL, June July July
(cm) 1474) 1480) 1480) May I486) 1486) 1486 1486) 1486)
N/S (1)

N/S (1)

N/S (1)

N/S (1) (4)




N/S (1)

N/S (5)

N/S (5)

10 Ineligible

0 Ineligible

10 Ineligible

40 (6)
20 Ineligible

20 (6)


0 Ineligible

80 Ineligible

110 (6) (6) (6)

0 (1) Ineligible (7)

0 (1) (8)



-------
TABLE E-l (cont'd)
Site
Number
41RT247






41RT248

41RT244

41RT250


41RT251


41RT252



flj 41RT253
O-- 41RT254



41RT255
41RT2S6




41RT2S7


41RT2S8


41RT254



41RT260




Referenced)
Dub It Utley, 1486






Davis It Utley, 1486

Da»ta i Utley, I486

D»b It Utley, 1486


Da»is It Utley, 1486


Davis It Utley, 14(6



Davis & Utley, I486
Davis It Utley, 1416



Davis 1, Utley, 14(6
Davis It Utley, 1486




Davis it Utley,.14S6


Davis It Dtley, I"4


Davis S. Utley, I486



Davis & Ulley, 1486




Area of
Effecu
Ulne Block A,
Mine Block B,
Haul road




Mine Block A

None

None


Haul road,
Ash Disposal
Area A-Z
Mine Block A



None
Mine Block A,
TNP trana-
nbaioa
corridor
None
Mine Block A,
Mine Block B,
Haul road, Adi
Dlaposal Area
A-2
Ume Block A
Aah Dbpoaal
Area A-2
Mine Block A
AihDtapoul
Area A-2
Mine Block A
Haul road, Aah
Disposal Area
A-2
Ulne Block A,
Mine Block B,
Haul road, Ash
Disposal Area
A-2
Cultural
Remains
Sandstone block
foundation,
concrete
dairy barn foun-
dation, well,
collapsed out-
building
Board and batten
bouse, outbuUdmgt
Wooden house.
collapsed well
Collapsed wooden
house and out-
buildings, well
Collapsed log
crib, well

Sandstone block
foundation, well.
tta cistern,
outbuilding
Uthic debltage
Board and batten
house, log crm


Well, tin cistern
Brick footings
of former school



Collapsed church


Wooden house,
well

Collapsed wooden
house


Wooden house,
outbuildings,
well


Cultural
Affiliation
4th quarter 14th-2nd quarter
20th century





4th quarter 14lh century-
present
4th quarter 14th century-
2nd quarter 20th century
4th quarter 14th century-
Znd quarter 20th century

4th quarter 14th century-
3rd quarter 20th century

1st aod/or 2nd quarters
20th century


Undlfferantlated Prehistoric
1417-preaent



lst-3rd quarters-ZOth century
lit -3rd quartcrs-20th century




lst-3rd quarters-20th century


lst-3rd quarters-20th century


2nd-3rd quarters-20th century



4th quarter 14th century-
present



NRHP EllKibllitr Recommendations and Other Recommendations
TAS
TAS TAS (Good, TAS EH&A TAS
Artifact (Prewltt V ITurpin It Turpin (D.YB. i, (Glander SHPO (Ua.is
Area Depth Grombacher, Kluge, Freeman, Utley, et aL, June July
(to2) (cm) 1474) 1480) 1480) May 1486) I486) 1486 1486)
2500 IS (1) (4)






2500 IS (1) (2)

62S 10 (1) (10)

2SOO N/S (1) (10)


2500 N/S ID (10)


2500 N/S (1) (10)



2500 60 (1) (2)
2500 N/S (11) (4)



100 N/S (1) (2)
100 N/S (1) (14)




100 N/S (1) (14)


2500 N/S (1) 110)


625 N/S (1) (2)



S625 N/S (111 Eligible





TAS
(Hotter
July
I486)
















































-------
TABLE E-l (cont'd)
NKHP Eligibility Recommendations and Other Recommendations
Site
Number
41RT261
41RT262
41RT263
41RT264
41RT26S
41RT266
41RT267
W 41RT268
1
"^ 41RT269
41RT270
41RT271
41RT272
41RT273
41RT274
41RTZ75
41RT276
41RT277
41RT278
Reference(s)
Davb It Utley, 1986
Davb It Utley, 1986
Davb reseiit
4th quarter 19tb-3rd quarter-
20th century
lst-2nd quartera-20tb century
Undifferentlated Historic
4th quarter 19th-2nd quarter-
20th century
1st quarter-3rd quarter-
20th century
Differentiated Prehistoric
Undifferentiated Prehbtoric
Area
(n,2)
2500
2500
2500
5625
10,000
2500
20,000
2500
20,000
25
2500
2400
2500
N/S
50
2500
7500
11,250
TAS TAS
Artifact (Prewitt & (Turpin &
Depth Grombacher, Kluge,
(cm) 1974) 1480)
N/S
N/S
N/S
20
40
N/S
904
10
80
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
20
40
TAS
(Good, TAS
Turpin (Davb &
Freeman, Utley,
1980) May 1986)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
16)
(1)
(6)
(13)
(1)
(1)
0)
(1)
(11)
(1)
(1)
(1)
EHItA TAS
(Glander SHPO (Davb
et aL, June July
1986) 1986 1486)
Eligible

(10)
(3)
(20)
(10)
(3)
(2)
(6)
(14)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(2)
(6)
TAS
(Kotter
July
1986)

















-------
TABLE E-l (cont'd)
NRHP Eligibility Recommendations and Other Recommendation*
Site
Number
41RT274
41RT280
41RTZ81
41RT282
41RT283
41RT284
41RT285
(T) 41RT2I6
00
41RT2I7
41RT288
41RT284
41RT240
41RT241
41RT242
41RT213
41RT244
41RT245
41RT246
Referenced
Da»b fc Utley, I486
Da»b Ic Utley, I486
Davis 1 Dtley, I""
Da.to & Utley, I486
Da.to S, Utley, I486
D.»to & Utley, I486
Da»b I Ultey, 1486
Da.!. 1, Utley, 1486
Da.to & Utley, 1186
Dark It Utley, 1486
Da.il V Utley, I486
Da.to S, Utley, 1486
Da. to Ic Utley, 1486
Da.to It Utley, 1486
OaTb «i Utley, I486
Da.to & Utley, 1486
Da.to «. Utley, 1486
Da.to & Utley, 1486
Area of
Effect!
Ume Block B,
SPC-17,
Haul Road
Mine Block B,
SPC-17
Mine Block A
Mine Block B
Mine Block B,
SPC-7
Ume Block B,
CDC-6, CDC-7,
SPC-7, SPC-8
Mine Block B,
SPC-7, Haul
Road
Mine Block B
Alhdtopoaal
area A-Z
Mine Block B,
SPC-8, CDC-4
Mine Block B,
CDC-4
Mine Block B
Mine Block B,
CDC-4
None
None
SPC-7
None
None
None
Cultural
Remain.
Llthlc debltage
Lithlc debitage,
burned rock
Glaaa, ceramic*
Glaat, ceramic*
Llthlc debltage,
burned rock
Llthlc debitage,
charcoal, burned
bone
Llthlc debitage,
charcoal, burned
rock
Glaas, ceramica,
planka, caUem
LJthic debitage
Llthlc debitage,
burned rock
Cement wellhead,
hbtorlc debrb
Llthlc debitage
Railroad tie
bridge
Uthlc debitage,
Perdlx pomU,
ceramic*, charcoal,
burned hone
Caat Iron
culvert bridge
Lithlc debitage
Lithlc debitage
Arrow point,
lithic debitage,
burned rock
Cultural
Affiliation
Undifferentiated Prehbtorlc
Undifterentiated Prehbtorlc
Undifferentiated Hbtorlc
4th quarter 14th - tat quarter
20th century
Undifferentiated Prehbtorlc
Undifferentiated Prehbtorlc
Undifferentiated Prehbtorlc
Undifferentiated Hbtorlc
Undifferentiated Prehbtorlc
Undifferentiated Prehbtorlc
Undifferentiated Hbtorlc
Undifferentiated Prehbtorlc
Undifferentiated Htolork
Late Prehbtotlc
Undifferentiated Htotortc
Undifferentiated Hbtorlc
Undifferentiated Prehbtorlc
Late Prehistoric
Area
(.2)
8000
2500
2500
2500
20,000
40,000
150,000
N/S
20,000
40,000
400
2500
160
375,000
i
15,000
5625
60,000
TAS
TAS TAS (Good,
Artifact (Prewitt L (Turpln & Turpin
Depth Grombacher, Kluge, Freeman,
(cm) 1474) 1480) 1480)
10
0
N/S
10
80.
80
80
N/S
60
<0<
N/S
20
N/S
100*
N/S
35
35
100
TAS EHfcA
(Da.U & (Glander
Utley, et at,
May I486) 1486)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(1)
(1)
(6)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(6)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(6)
TAS
SHPO (Davb
June July
1486 1486)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(14)
(3)
(3)
(3)
110)
(3)
13)
(2)
(2)
(15)
(3)
(IS)
(3)
(2)
(3)
TAS
(Kolter
July
I486)



















-------
TABLE E-l (cont'd)

Site
Number
41RT247
41RT248
41RT244
41RT300
41RT301
41RT302
41RT303
41RT304
41RT305
41RT306
41RT314
41RT315
41RT316
41RT317
41RT318
41RT319
41RT320
41RT321
41RT322
41RT323
Reference(s)
Davb & Utley, 1486
Davb & Utley, 1986
Davb 
-------
TABLE E-l (cont'd)
Site
Number
41RT324

41RT325

41RT326


41RT327

41RT328

41RT3Z9

41RT330

41RT331

Kq 41RT333
I
O 41RT334

41RT335

41RT336

41RT337

41RT338

41RT339

41RT341


41RT342


41RT343

41RT344

Reference(s)
D..U, 1986

DaTis, 1486

DaTis, 1486


Kotter, 1486

Kotter, 1486

Kotter, 1486

Kotter, 1486

Kotter, I486

Kotter, 1486

Kotter, 1486

Kotter, 1486

Kotter, 1486

Kotter, 1486

Kotter, 1486

Kolter, 1986

Kotter, 1986


Rotter, 1986


Kotter, I486

Kotter, 1486

Area of
Effects
Power Plant
Site
Ash disposal
area A-l
Ash disposal
area A-l

TNP transmis-
sion corridor
TNP transmis-
sion corridor
TNP transmis-
sion conidor
TNP transmis-
sion corridor
TNP transmis-
sion corridor
TNP transmis-
sion corridor
TNP transmis-
sion corridor
TNP transmis-
sion corridor
TNP transmis-
sion corridor
TNP transmis-
sion conldor
TNP transmis-
sion corridor
TNP transmis-
sion corridor
TNP transmis-
sion corridor

TNP transmis-
sion corridor

TNP transmis-
sion corridor
TNP transmis-
sion corridor
Cultural
Remains
Wooden house.
outbuild ings
Wooden house,
barn, shed
Shotgun house
built 1949, two
log barns
Log structures,
fireplace
House remains.
well
Uthfc debltage

Llthic debltage

Llthic debltage

Llthic debltage

Llthic debltage

Llthic debltage.
Alba point
Uthlc debitage

Single flake

Llthic debitage,
hearth
Single flake

Llthic debltage.
bone, historic
ceramic
Lithic debltage.
hearth stones.
glass, wire nails
Board and batten
house, well
Llthic debitage

Cultural
Affiliation
1934-present

2nd quarter
20th century
4th quarter 14th century -
present

Undlfferentiated Historic

Undlfterentlated Historic

Undlfferentiated Prehistoric

Undifferentiated Prehistoric

Undlfferentiated Prehistoric

UndlfferentUted Prehistoric

Undlfferentiated Prehistoric

Late Prehistoric

UndlfferentUted Prehistoric

Undlfferentlated Prehistoric

UndlfferentUted Prehistoric

UndifferentUted Prehistoric

Undlfferentiated Prehistoric/
Historic

Undifferentiated Prehistoric/
20th century historic

Undifferentiated historic

Undifferentiated Prehistoric

Area
3750

2500

7500


2500

2500

2500

225

600

4500

3000

400

400

N/S.

400

N/S

600


400


1600

400

Artifact
Depth
(cm)
N/S

N/S

N/S


N/S

N/S

60

20

SO

60

60

100

60

20

100

20

100*


50


N/S

20

NRHP Eligibility Recommendations and Other Recommendations
TAS
TAS TAS (Good, TAS EHfcA TAS TAS
(Prewltt l> (Turpin 4 Turpln (Da«is Ic (Glaoder S1IPO (Davis (Kotter
Gromhacher, Kluge, Freeman, Utley, et aL, June July July
1974) 1480) 1480) May 1486) 1986) 1986 1486) 1486)
(1)

(1)

(1)


(16)

(16)

(6)

(2)

(2)

(1)

(6)

(6)

(2)

(2)

(6)

(2)

(6)


(17)


(1)

(2)


-------
                                                                                        TABLE  E-l (concluded)
     Site
    Number
                       Reference(s)
                                                      Area of
                                                      Effects
Cultural
Remains
 Cultural
Affiliation
                                                                                                                                           NKHP Eligibility Recommendations and Other Recommendations
             TAS
Artifact   (Prewitt &
 Depth   Grombacber,
  (cm)        1474)
  TAS
(Turpin &
 Kluge,
  1480)
  TAS
 (Good,
 Turpin
Freeman,
  1480)
   TAS
 (Davh &
  Utlev,
May 1486)
 EHJ.A
(Glander
 etaL,
 1486)
SHPO
June
1486
 TAS
(DavU
 Jul,
 I486)
 TAS
(Roller
 Jul,
 1486)
41RT345         Roller, 1486
41RT346
41RT347
                         Davis, 1486
                         Davis, 1486
                 Davis, 1486
                  Davis, 1486
                                            TNP transmis-   Bam, wellhead,
                                            sion corridor    brick, corrugated
                                                           tin, railroad ties
                                                           None
                                            Mine Block B
                                            Power Plant
                                            access road
                                            Railroad spur
                                            Ash Disposal
                                            Area A-l
                                                                  Glass, corrugated
                                                                  tin, ceramics,
                                                                  lumber, well
                                                                  Glass, lumber,
                                                                  well, bricks,
                                                                  sandstone blocks
                                                                  Wooden house,
                                                                  outbuildings
                                                                             Undifferentlated Historic
               Undifferentiated Historic
               Undlfferentiated Historic
                                                                             Undifferenllated Historic
                                                                              Ist-Znd quarters 20th century
                                                                                                            N/S
                     N/S
                      2500
                                                                                                                      N/S
  N/S
  N/S
                                                                                                                      N/S
                                                                                                                       N/S
                                                                                                                                                                                                             (1)
                                                       (1)
                                                       (1)
                                                                                                                                                                                                    (1)
                                                                                                                                                                                                    (1)
                                                                         N/S Not Stated.
                                                                         SPC Sediment pond.
                                                                         DPC Diversion ditch.
                                                                         CDC Control ditch.
                                                                         TO  Truck dump.
        NRHP   National Register of Historic Placet..
        TAS     Texas Archaeological Surrey.
        EHfcA   Espey, Huston & Associate.., Inc.
        SHPO   State Historic Preservation Officer.
        TNP     Texas-New Mexico Power.
|T]      (1)      No NRHP recommendation made.
 *       (2)      No NRHP recommendation made; no further work recommended.
|—*      (3)      No NRHP recommendation made; subsurface testing recommended.
        (4)      No NRHP recommendation made; testing and archival research recommended.
        (5)      No NRHP recommendation made; recommended following provisions outlined by Bryant & Parma.ee, 1976.
        (6)      No NRHP recommendation made; testing recommended.
        (7)      No NRHP recommendation made; dates of occupation requested.
        (8)      No NRHP recommendation made; asked If site associated with 41RT258.
        (9)      No NRHP recommendation made; more archival data requested; suggested more data related to quantities of dairies be documented.
        (ID)     No NRHP recommendation made; more information requested.
        (11)     No NRHP recommendation made; archival research, oral history recommended.
        02}     No NRHP recommendation made; testing and archival research recommended.
        (13)     No NRHP recommendation made} mitigation of site m accordance with state law recommended.
        (14)     No NRHP recommendation madef area of site recommended as unsuitable for mining.
        (15)     No NRHP recommendation made) photo documentation requested.
        (16)     No NRHP recommendation madef historic research recommended.
        (17)     No NRHP recommendation made) testing recommended on prehistoric component, historic research recommended on historic component.
        (18)     No NRHP recommendation made; historic research and architectural assessment of the barn recommended.
        (19)     No NRHP recommendation made; further work recommended.
        (20)     No NRHP recommendation made; further data from private collection requested.
                                                                                                     I

-------
     APPENDIX F
SOCIOECONOMICS

-------
                 DELINEATION OF THE REGIONAL PROJECT AREA

           The  project  area is defined as those counties and communities within a
40-mile radius of the proposed Calvert Lignite Mine/TNP ONE  Power Plant Project.  A
40-mile radius was identified as the potential commuter radius  within which population
growth and economic development associated with the proposed project  may potentially
occur. The 40-mile radius was designated based upon the reported travel time to work
of existing residents within the region (U.S.  Department of Commerce, 1983a), and an
analysis of commuting distances of workers in currently  operating lignite development
projects in Texas (TENRAC,  1983).

           Counties  included in the regional project area are Brazos, Falls, Limestone,
Milam, and Robertson.   To varying degrees, socioeconomic  effects are likely  to be
experienced in these counties from the proposed project activities through an increase in
economic opportunities and possible in-migration  of people into  the region.  As  such,
demographic,  economic,  transportation, and health and  recreation characteristics are
discussed on a regional and community basis.

           Community-based socioeconomic  impacts include economic  benefits associ-
ated with new employment opportunities and increased business and personal income, and
community service impacts  from  potential project-related population increases.  Base-
line socioeconomic characteristics reviewed on a community basis include demographics,
economics, housing,  public services and facilities,  and community  finances  for  those
communities likely to attract project-related in-migration.

           In  order  to preliminary identify the  project area's communities likely to
attract in-migrating  populations,  a standard gravity distribution model was  employed.
The  model assumes  that residential selection is  positively related to  the size of the
community and  inversely related to the distance from the community to the work site,
considering all other communities.

           The  formula  employed  (adapted from  Mountain West Research, 1975)  takes
the following form:
                                 DF. =
                                    i
                                                P
                                                 £
                                                 a
                                         i=l   D.

where:     DF.  is the percentage of estimated worker residents in community i;
           P.    is the population (1980) for community i;
           D.    is the distance (in road miles) from community i to the closest boundary
                of the proposed project; and
           a    is the residential allocation quotient.

           The use of this model assumes that population  size is a uniform predictor of
service  and amenity availability which affects residential selection.   The residential
allocation quotient measures the effect of distance on  residential  selection.  EH&A
calculations employed a survey of 4,042 operations workers in currently operating lignite
mine and electric generating stations in Texas (TENRAC, 1983).  While the Texas data do
                                     F-l

-------
not  differentiate  between  locally-hired  and  in-migrant  workers,  and  include  only
operations workers, the use of these  data is considered preferable  to available formula-
tions from existing studies from other states.

           The  resulting residential  allocation quotient (of  1.8190) is somewhat higher
than those developed  for energy  development  areas  in the  West  (e.g., Murdock et al.,
1978) and suggests that due  to  the  greater  density  of  population  centers in Texas,
workers exhibit  a greater adversity to distance.  The data employed include both locally-
hired as well as in-migrant workers,  a  factor  which may have affected  the  quotient.
However, the expected  effect of including locally-hired workers  is the acceptance of
greater travel distance to a new  work site in order to avoid moving a family residence
(Murdock et al., 1978).

           Based upon the gravity  allocation model, the following communities were
identified  as  locales  of probable impact:   Bryan/College  Station,  Calvert,  Hearne,
Bremond, Marlin, Cameron, Franklin, and Rosebud. The communities  selected axe those
which would receive at least 1% of  any in-migrating population associated  with  the
proposed project. Following the selection of project area communities using the gravity
model, secondary socioeconomic data  were examined and a  field survey was conducted
(in  June 1986) to further assess the  growth potential of communities considered by the
gravity  model.   This  review  was conducted to verify the assumption  that  community
attributes influencing residential  selection  of  in-migrating  resource workers were
associated with  population size in  the  project area.   Additionally,  the  communities'
economic  base  (which  might influence  the  location  of  expansion of project-related
employment and associated induced  population) was surveyed.  The  following  elements
were considered:  adequacy and  availability  of  housing,  commercial establishments,
public services and facilities, and fire and police  protection.  The results of the survey
confirmed that  within the project area, population size was a valid proxy for growth
potential.
                                     F-2

-------
APPENDIX G
  LAND USE

-------
                                                                                        TABLE G-l
                                                                           AREAL EXTENT OF LAND USE TYPES

                                                                  AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED TNP ONE POWER PLANT1
O
 I

Power Plant Facilities Site
Plant Island
Coal Pile Runoff Pond
Plant Site Runoff Pond
Access Road
Ash Disposal Sites
A-l
A-22 '
Haul Road to A-l3
Makeup Water Pipeline
Railroad Spur
Transmission Line
TOTAL
Areas of impact are presented
T.anH tis<> distribution is for ar«
Cropland Grazingland
49 6
9
—
—
— 42
5
3
49 65
in acres; land use categories follow
»a of new imnact onlv. Total aerea
Pastureland
176
—
8
4
189
68
5
12
10
242
714
RRC (1984), with minor
CJ*» of ash disnosal Site /
Undeveloped Developed
Forestry Water • Industrial
17 2
„
__
—
8 1
13
3
6
3
86 9 21
136 12 21
additions.
L-2 is 535 acres. 412 acres of which will be disturbed
Sub-total
250
9
8
4
198
123
8
23
16
358
997
t bv minint? and
                       topsoil stockpiling, then reclaimed prior to ash disposal on the site.

                       An existing county road will be widened and upgraded for 80% of the approximately 2 mile haul road to Site A-l.  A coal haul road to mine Block A will be

                       used as the ash haul road to Site A-2.

-------
                       TABLE G-2
           AREAL EXTENT OF LAND USE TYPES
AFFECTED BY PROPOSED CALVERT LIGNITE MINE FACILITIES
                 (Excluding Mine Blocks)
Cropland
Mine Facilities/
Erection Site
Lignite Transport
Facilities
Haul Roads
1A
(1989-2039)
IB
(1990-1999)
^
(1991-2008)
3A
(2000-2019)
3B
(2000-2039)
4
(2003-2022)
5A
(2005-2015)
5B
(2005-2010)
5C
(2005-2025)
6A
(2015-2027)
6B
(2015-2037)
7
(2024-2036)
Conveyor and
Truck Dumps
Surface Water
Control Structures
Diversion Ponds
DPC-1
(1993-2039)
DPC-2
(2003-2027)
DPC-3
(2003-2027)
DPC-4
(2014-2039)
Grazingland Pastureland
32


20
3
4
7
11
16
2
—
1 15
16
6 12
5
3 16


22 177
193 135
18
52
Undeveloped Developed
Forestry Water
10


10
3
4
2
5
7
9
I
5
1
2
2
3


108
65 1
5
22 1
Sub-totals
42


30
6
8
9
16
23
11
Z
21
17
20
7
22


307
394
23
75
                        G-2

-------
TABLE   G-2  (Cont'd)
Cropland
Diversion Ditches
DDC-3
(2003-2027)
DDC-4
(2003-2027)
DDC-5
(2003-2027)
DDC-6
(2006-2015)
DDC-7
(1993-2039)
DDC-8
(2014-2039)
DDC-9
(1993-2039)
Sedimentation Ponds
SPC-3
(1989-1999)
SPC-4
(1991-2003)
SPC-5
(1991-2039).
SPC-7
(1994-2039)
SPC-8
(1993-2009)
SPC-9
(1993-2004)
SPC-10
(1993-2021)
SPC-11
(2003-2027)
SPC-13
(2006-2015)
SPC-14
(2003-2027)
SPC-15
(2014-2025)
SPC-16
(2015-2039)
Control Ditches
CDC-1
(1991-2039)
CDC-3
(1991-2003)
CDC-4
(1990-2000)
Undeveloped Developed
Grazingland Pastureland Forestry Water

1
1
3
1
1
2
223 —

7 14 1 —
8
1 6
27 26 2 —
4 1 30 —
2 16
15
3 74 24
5
20 30 33 1
1 4 10 —
40 8

1 1 —
1 — 1 —
< 1
Sub-totals

1
1
3
1
1
2
7

22
8
7
55
35
18
15
101
5
84
15
48

2
2
< 1
      G-3

-------
                                     TABLE   G-2   (Concluded)
Cropland
CDC-7
U996-Z009)
CDC-8
(1993-2004)
CDC-9
(1993-2004)
CDC-10
(1993-2039)
CDC-11
(2003-2027)
CDC-12
(2003-2027)
CDC-13
(2003-2027)
CDC-14
(2003-2027)
CDC-15
(2011-2024)
CDC-16
(2013-2027)
CDC-17
(2016-2025)
CDC-18
(2017-2025)
CDC-19
(2017-2025)
Stockpiles
Overburden B2
Overburden C
Overburden J
Overburden K
Topaoil Piles
TSP1
TSP2
TSP3
TSP4
TSP5
TSP6
TSP7
TSP8
TOTALS 0
Undeveloped Developed
Grazingland Pastureland Forestry Water
< !
1
3
2 1 —
2
2
1
21
1
1 1
2 1
< 1
< 1

12 94 6
45 8
148 20 42
55 0 34

7 4
1 16 —
17
--
9 21
3 2
14 4 3
4
536 1,000 508 3
Sub-totals
< 1
1
3
3
2
2
1
3
1
2
3
< 1
< 1

112
53
210
89

11
8
17
—
30
5
21
4
2,047
Areas of impact are presented in acres  and represent  areas  of  new impact  (i.e., outside  of  proposed mine
blocks).  Impacts related to  mine blocks  are presented  in Table  4.12.3-1.   Land use categories follow RRC
(1984), with minor additions.
                                               G-4

-------
                                                     TABLE G-3
                                         AREAL EXTENT OF LAND USE TYPES
                                 AFFECTED BY THE CALVERT LIGNITE MINE BLOCKS
1
0

Mine Block A
(1989-1994)
Mine Block Bl
(1992-1998)
Mine Block B2
(1995-2006)
Mine Block B3
(2004-2007)
Mine Block K
(2005-2010)
Mine Block J
(2008-2019)
Mine Block C
(2017-2031)
TOTALS
Cropland
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grazing land
57
6
94
83
16
68
412
736
Pastureland
424
380
578
236
486
828
423
3,355
Undeveloped
Forestry
38
44
146
11
152
123
378
892
Developed
Water
3
2
13
3
2
7
5
35
Sub-totals
522
432
831
333
656
1,026
1,218
5,018
             Areas of impact are presented in acres; land use categories follow RRC (1984), with minor additions.

-------