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 DEffluent 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.
------- |