United States Region 6 Fp.
Environmental Protection 1201 Elm Street trA
Agency Dallas TX 75270 November 1983
Water
4>EPA Environmental Fina|
Impact Statement
Martin Lake D Area
Lignite Surface Mine
Henderson, Rusk County
Texas
-------
This report is available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service, US Department
of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
TO ALL INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS, AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS:
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EPA 906/9-83-003 document) was filed by
Region 6 on March II, 1983 regarding the proposed Martin Lake "D" Area lignite
mine. This was subsequent to receiving comments at the scoping meeting and
comments from agencies on preliminary draft documents. EPA has held a public
hearing, received oral and written comments on the project and Draft EIS,
performed additional evaluation and analysis, and determined a course of proposed
action on the requested wastewater discharge permit.
We are submitting for your review this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
on the Martin Lake "D" Area Lignite Surface Mine Project proposed near Henderson,
Texas by the Texas Utilities Generating Company.
This Final EIS includes: (I) a revised summary; (2) EPA's responses to comments
received on the Draft EIS and summary of other public coordination; (3) revisions
necessary to the Draft EIS to make a more accurate statement; and (4) preferred
alternatives and EPA's proposed action. Unrevised portions of the Draft EIS are
incorporated by reference.
Major concerns of EPA regarding the project include the potential for adverse
impacts on surface and ground water resources (especially on water quality of the
downstream domestic raw water supply), the loss of U.S. Department of Agriculture
designated prime farmland soils, significant change in vegetation with reduction in
wildlife habitat and species diversity, impacts to wetlands, and losses of archaeolog-
ical and historic resources.
Copies of the public hearing transcript and this Final EIS will be available for public
review at the four public information depositories: Office of Gregg County Judge,
Longview, Texas; Office of Rusk County Judge, Henderson, Texas; Rusk County
Memorial Library, Henderson, Texas; and at EPA, Region 6.
Copies of the Final EIS are being distributed to those who made comments on the
Draft statement and to those who requested a copy.
Comments or inquiries on the accuracy or conclusions of this EIS should be sent to
Clinton B. Spotts, Regional EIS Coordinator by the date, 1 2 »PP
incerely yours,
Dick Whittington, P.E.
Regional Administrator
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MARTIN LAKE "D" AREA LIGNITE SURFACE MINE PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
PROPOSED ACTION; Issuance of new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit to Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) for discharge
of wastewater from the Martin Lake "D" area lignite surface mine near Henderson, in
Rusk County, Texas.
COOPERATING AGENCIES; Texas Department of Water Resources, Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, Texas Historical Commission, Texas State Department Highways
and Public Transportation, Texas Air Control Board, USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service,
USDOI Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USDA Soil Conserva-
tion Service, Sabine River Authority.
CONTACT FOR COMMENTS/INFORMATION;
Clinton B. Spotts, Regional EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75270
(2 1 4) 767-27 1 6 or FTS 729-27 1 6
WRITTEN COMMENTS ON FINAL EIS DUE; 1 2 OEH 1983
ABSTRACT; TUGCO would discharge wastewater from various sedimentation ponds to
be located within the mine area. Wastewater receiving streams would include Dry
Creek, Mill Creek, Todd Branch, Boggy Branch, Dogwood Creek, Boggy Creek, and
other unnamed tributaries. Some I02 million tons mined lignite would be hauled by
truck to a crusher at the mine site then transported by rail to Martin Lake Steam
Electric Station for burning. Earth would be disturbed by mining to depths varying to
ISO feet and by construction of ponds, diversions, haul roads, railroad, and three
transmission lines. Environmental changes include loss of existing topsoils, loss of
native vegetation and wildlife habitat, removal of wetlands, reduction of species
diversity, water quality and stream flow changes, disruption to groundwater levels, loss
of water wells, groundwater quality degradation and land use changes. Mine/reclama-
tion plans have not been reviewed/authorized by Railroad Commission of Texas to date.
General mine and reclamation plans proposed incude random mix of spoil for revegeta-
tion primarily with bermuda grass and pine forest species. Long-term impacts would
depend on success of land reclamation and level of maintenance for stability in
revegetation. Air and water quality control measures are proposed to reduce fugitive
dust, crusher emissions, stormwater runoff, erosion and sedimentation. Identification
of and mitigation of impacts to significant archaeological and historic sites are
expected to be carried out according to the Memorandum of Agreement stiupulated on
the proposed permit. The project will generate additional taxes and is estimated to
provide 240 jobs, and have a payroll of about $4,000,000.00 annually. Area highways
will be directly affected. Area health, educational, governmental, housing, and
commercial service needs will increase due to induced population increases.
PONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
Dick Whittington, P.E.
Regional Administrator
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PARTI. SUMMARY OF DRAFT AND FINAL EIS l-l
A. PURPOSE AND NEED l-l
B. ALTERNATIVES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES I-1
C. MAJOR ISSUES AND/OR CONCERNS 1-3
D. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS 1-4
PART II. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ll-l
A. ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO THE DEIS ll-l
B. PUBLICATION OF THE DEIS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING 11-10
C. THE FEIS AND RECORD OF DECISION 11-80
PART III. MODIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS III-1
A REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 5.0-DESCRIPTION AND
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES III-1
B. REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 6.0-ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 111-3
C. REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 9.0-BIBLIOGRAPHY 111-19
D. REVISIONS TO APPENDIX A-SECTION 404(b)( I) ANALYSIS 111-20
E. REVISIONS TO APPENDIX B-MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 111-20
F. REVISIONS TO APPENDIX C-PRELIMINARY NPDES PERMIT 111-20
PART IV. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES IV-1
A. APPLICANT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IV-1
B. MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND ALTERNATIVE IV-1
C. EPA PROPOSED ACTION IV-1
APPENDIX A-DRAFT NPDES PERMIT A-1
APPENDIX B-ADDITIONAL INFORMATION B-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
TABLE I-1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES '"6
TABLE 1-2 ACRES OF VEGETATION TYPE TO BE DISTURBED "'9
TABLE III-1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND USE MARTIN LAKE
"D" AREA PROJECT SITE M|-21
TABLE 111-2 SUMMARY OF LIGNITE AND ASH CHARACTERISTICS Hl-22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
FIG. l-l PROJECT LOCATION MAP 1-10
FIG. I-2A MINING SEQUENCE MAP l-l I
FIG. I-2B MINING SEQUENCE MAP 1-12
FIG. Ill-1 LOADING STATION OPERATION 111-23
FIG. 111-2 SURFACE WATER MONITORING SITES 111-24
FIG. 111-3 PROJECTS CONSIDERED IN CUMULATIVE
IMPACTS ANALYSIS 111-25
FIG. 111-4 PROJECT LOCATION AND NEARBY PROJECTS 111-26
-------
PART I.
SUMMARY OF DRAFT AND FINAL EIS
-------
PART 1. SUMMARY OF DRAFT AND FINAL EIS
A. PURPOSE AND NEED
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared to assess the impacts
from the Texas Utilities Generating Company's proposed Martin Lake "D" Area lignite
surface mine and facilities construction and operation, and to disclose these impacts to
the public and to decision makers. EPA must consider public input on environmental
impacts before making a decision on the wastewater discharge permit requested by
TUGCO. EPA preparation is in accordance with the Clean Water Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act. >
The objective of TUGCO is to surface mine and transport about 102 million tons of
lignite to the 2250-MW three-unit Martin Lake Steam Electric Station (MLSES), to be
burned as fuel. An 11.5-mile railroad and 11.5-mile power transmission line would be
constructed and utilized, connecting the mine and MLSES.
B. ALTERNATIVES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
EPA Permitting Alternatives. Alternatives available to EPA are: to issue a wastewater
discharge permit for the project as proposed; issue a permit for a project with certain
conditions to minimize or mitigate adverse impacts; or, to deny the issuance of a
permit.
No Action Alternative. The "no action" alternative, i.e., to not develop this project,
could be implemented by the permit applicant or as a result of an EPA decision to deny
a permit.
Applicant Preferred Alternative. The total project covers about 25,350 acres which
includes 273 acres for a railroad corridor and 114 acres for a transmission line. The
extent of the lignite reserves within the 24,963 acre mine boundary covers about 16,600
acres. About 102 million tons of lignite would be removed from approximately 15,000
acres over a 30-year period. The general sequence of proposed mining is shown in Fig.
1-2, which also shows generalized mining blocks. The actual areas to be mined occur
within the blocks shown but are smaller.
Recently (September 1983), a TUGCO electric power transmission line has been
proposed to be constructed on the previously proposed SWEPCO transmission line
relocation corridor. Therefore, two separate 138 kv lines would be constructed on one
corridor of 170-foot width (see Fig. I-2B). This TUGCO line and the TUGCO line
extending from the MLSES into the southeastern part of the mine area would carry
power for mine facilities and certain equipment. Clearing of vegetation and land
leveling would occur on both transmission line corridors and the railroad corridor prior
to construction of those facilities and before any mining occurs.
Prior to mining, the land would be cleared of all vegetation. Surface-water control
facilities such as stream diversions, catchment basins, overland flow-interceptor
channels and sedimentation ponds would be constructed. A 2,000-foot section of Dry
Creek would be diverted for two years for mining of lignite under the present channel.
Such a diversion requires a variance from RRC surface mining regulations that require
avoidance of a stream by a specific buffer zone. Overburden removal would be
performed primarily using electric draglines. The overburden handling method offered
by TUGCO for this NPDES permit is the mixed spoil alternative. TUGCO proposes to
l-l
-------
reclaim and revegetate with mixed spoil. Overburden removal is scheduled to begin
with one 75-cubic-yard dragline in May 1985, a second dragline in operaton by April
1987, and a third in 1994. Overburden stripping pits would be 120 feet wide and vary
from 3,000 to 10,000 feet long. Mining depths would vary to 150 feet. Scrapers,
dozers, front-end loaders, graders, etc., would be used in overburden handling and
lignite loading.
Trucks would haul the lignite from the pits to the train loading station over a network
of haul roads. Once loaded into rail cars, the lignite would be transported to the MLSES
by an electric train (Fig. I-1). The train loading station would be located in conjunction
with other permanent mine facilities which include an office, shop and warehouse
building, lignite storage area, service area, sewage treatment plant, wastewater
treatment pond, dragline erection site, and fuel storage facilities (Fig. Ill-1 of Final EIS
and Fig. 5-5, DEIS). The spoil surface would be recontoured to approximately premining
conditions and prepared for revegetation with fertilizers and lime. Final reclamation
would be to a vegetation cover of woodlands and managed pasture. The estimated
proportions are 10 to 50 percent woodlands and 50 to 90 percent pasture. Generally,
reclamation of mined lands is proposed by TUGCO to be at a level to meet surface
mining regulations. The RRC regulations require a topsoiling procedure, or a method
shown to meet the surface mining regulations which require productivity (yield) on
reclaimed land to be at a level "equal to" or "better than" productivity on nearby
unmined land, or, according to technical standards. "Equal to" is generally defined as
90 percent of the existing productivity at a 90-percent confidence level (or 80 percent
on shrub lands) based on the same level of management (see Draft EIS, Sec. 6.2.3.4).
Air pollutant particulate control measures proposed include vehicular speed control (on
roads), water spray (on roads and at the crusher), and enclosure at the conveyor and rail
car loading area. Gaseous and particulate air emissions from lignite burning would be
minimized by measures taken at the power plant. Lignite burning process wastewaters
would be treated in ponds before being discharged to Martin Lake or injected
underground.
On-site sanitary waste control is proposed by package sewage treatment plant to
secondary treatment level with effluent discharge to Dry Creek (see Fig. Ill-1). Mining
water pollution control is proposed by collection and settling in sedimentation ponds.
Polyelectrolyte would be utilized for lignite fines removal; pH control would be by lime
addition. Discharges to streams are proposed based on new source alkaline mine
drainage category standards for coal mining.
Environmental Consequences. The major environmental consequences of the applicant's
proposed project and the no action alternatives are shown on Table I-1. Acreages of
various vegetation types to be disturbed by mining and construction activities are shown
in Table 1-2.
It should be noted that if the no action alternative is implemented, impacts to the
environment (including soils, vegetation, topography, and air and water quality) will
have occurred from early construction of support facilities. The affected areas could
be recontoured, topsoil replaced and revegetated, but wildlife habitat would require a
long period for return to predisturbance status. See Appendix B for correspondence and
EPA requirements regarding construction prior to completion of the environmental
review.
1-2
-------
C. MAJOR ISSUES AND/OR CONCERNS
Socioeconomic Aspects. A major beneficial economic impact will occur from the mine
project for: the applicant, various individuals who sell or lease land and who own
mineral rights or obtain jobs, businesses, and governmental entities. A concern is that
persons within the affected area (who may choose not to sell or lease lands for mining
or who have interests where lignite does not occur) should not be inconvenienced or lose
any service if this project proceeds.
Surface Water Quality. A major concern exists regarding potential adverse impacts on
the receiving waters used as a public raw water supply, as well as on the water uses for
propagation of fish and wildlife and for noncontact recreation. A need for establishing
a complete baseline of existing water quality conditions was determined particularly as
some discrepancies between data exist and some parameters (mercury, pH, phenols,
ammonia, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, alkalinity and turbidity) in
existing waters appear to exceed water quality standards set by Texas Department of
Water Resources, U.S. Public Health Service and EPA. In addition, effects of the
project must be assessed as to whether impacts on stream water quality standards
occur. Degradation of surface water quality may occur on the long term, after release
of reclaimed mined lands from surface mining bonds, if the same levels of land
treatment and management utilized to obtain bond release is not maintained.
Stream Diversion and Wetlands. Potential for loss of water quality function of wetlands
upstream to Lake Cherokee (public raw water supply) by mining activities (including
transmission line relocation and haul road construction) is of concern. Where mining
occurs using the mixed spoil alternative for overburden handling, increased potential for
increased acidity, and release of metals is of concern. No specific plans or
commitment for mining or construction procedures are available to determine actual
short term impacts, or whether fill from discharge will be maintained to prevent
erosion. There is no specific plan for restoration of wetland vegetation. Site specific
data on spoil is needed to determine whether discharge in these sensitive areas will
consist of material free from toxic pollutants (in other than trace quantities).
Approximately 10 percent of wetland acreage in the Area "D" project boundary would
be directly affected—however, if mining dewatering caused reduced base flow in
surface water, possible cumulative effects, including desiccation, would occur on a
larger acreage.
Mine Spoil Reclamation. Lack of a specific plan regarding spoil handling and
reclamation exists. TUGCO has elected to submit an application for mining to the
Railroad Commission of Texas (state agency delegated with responsibility to permit
mines and enforce federal surface mining regulations) later. Therefore, review of the
justification for the use of mixed spoil, which is in variance to surface mining
regulations, has not occurred by RRC. Justification would include site specific
greenhouse studies and field studies; these are not now available for disclosure for
independent review. The proposed mixed spoil alternative has the highest potential for
acid forming materials and leached metals to occur at the surface initially and over the
long term. This would create hot spots, and then, loss of vegetation, erosion, and the
potential for adverse water quality impacts from sediment, pH and leached metals. On
a relatively short-term basis, RRC regulations require inspection and soil monitoring of
reclaimed land during a five-year bond period to identify and take mitigative action if
such impacts occur. Major concern exists with effects over the longer term where
measures necessary to obtain bond release may not be maintained. Additionally, some
5,232 acres of prime farmland soils will be lost.
1-3
-------
EPA has requested TUGCO consider entering into a Cooperative Agreement with the
Rusk County Soil and Water Conservation District. EPA believes that better reclama-
tion management programs can be developed when fully coordinated with the local soil
and water conservation districts based on formal agreement. While TUGCO has
indicated an intent to enter into such an agreement, to date an instrument has not been
signed. Therefore, EPA has reservations regarding plan development. The applicant's
general revegetation plan, consisting of 10 to 50 percent reforestation and 50 to 90
percent primarily coastal bermuda pasture, results largely in departure from native
vegetation and wildlife habitat. A loss of large acreage of economically significantly
forestland is expected. However, it is noted that within the last year the applicant has
increased reforestation acreage at Martin Lake "A", "B", & "C" areas to approximately
13 percent of the total area disturbed to date.
Groundwater. Appropriate ground-water monitoring in downdip areas as well as in
reclaimed areas will be necessary to adequately determine mining effects. The area of
influence on groundwater under water table and artesian conditions, due to mining, is
expected to be significantly larger than shown in the Draft EIS. Monitoring should be
adequate to plan for modifications of surface mining activities, if necessary, to restore
recharge capacity, minimize disturbance to the hydrologic balance, and reduce degrada-
tion of water quality. Piezometers should be installed in the mined/recontoured areas
to monitor recharge and water quality. Pumping and observation well systems should be
installed so that any connections and effects between the aquifers above and below the
lignite are determined and so that effects downdip in the upper Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer
can be accurately predicted. Potential measures to rebuild the aquifer and restore the
subsurface hydrology should be considered initially.
Pattern of Land Ownership. Concern for a change in the pattern of area land ownership
has been raised. Ownership of a large acreage by the utility company or the possibility
of sale, of all acreage owned, to one person is a possibility and would result in
permanent relocation of numerous families. A decision to sell or lease mine area lands,
to the private utility company, or to do neither, is a matter for present landowners. A
concern of EPA is that individuals make decisions based on the lease stipulations they
may require, knowledge of state-of-the-art reclamation that can be carried out, what
the laws require of surface mining operations, how enforcement is carried out, and
knowledge that environmental tradeoffs are necessary when an area is surface mined.
Cultural Resources. Known significant cultural resources exist in the project area and
other significant sites are expected to be discovered. Compliance by TUGCO with the
Memorandum of Agreement on Cultural Resources between EPA, Texas State Historic
Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, is necessary to
reduce impacts.
D. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
The permit action alternatives evaluated by EPA included: (I) the issuance of a new
source NPDES permit as proposed by the applicant; (2) the issuance of an NPDES permit
with conditions; and (3) denial of an NPDES permit.
EPA has determined its preferred action to be issuance of a new source NPDES permit
with limits for acid mine drainage rather than for alkaline mine drainage as proposed by
the applicant, and with additional conditions. The conditions include: (I) that TUGCO
provide quarterly monitoring and reporting of additional water quality parameters;
(2) TUGCO compliance with stipulations of the Memorandum of Agreement between
EPA, the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer, and the national Advisory Council
1-4
-------
on Historic Preservation for cultural resources protection; and (3) that there be no
discharge of dredge and fill material into any wetlands designated by the Corps of
Engineers unless TUGCO obtains a Clean Water Act, Section 404 authorization from the
Corps of Engineers for each discharge, based on site specific plans.
1-5
-------
TABLE I-1
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Factor
Project Alternatives
No Action Alternative
Geology and
Topography
Soils
Ground Water
Surface Water
Wetlands and
Flood Plains
Irreversible loss of bedded geologic
strata; minimal long-term adverse
impacts to topography; short-term
adverse impacts to oil and gas produc-
tion; irreversible loss of clay and gravel
deposits; 85 percent recovery of lignite
deposits; no significant cumulative
effects.
See Table 6-1; erosion potential would
be moderate, overburden handling
alternatives all have good potential for
success under high-level management;
alternative I has highest potential for
acid-forming material and release of
heavy metals at the surface; cumula-
tive impact of removing about 5,000
acres of prime farmland soils from
potential production.
More than 142 wells would likely be lost
or affected by mining; dewatering
would cause long-term adverse impacts
to shallow ground-water system;
recharge and restoration of system
would likely require more than 23
years; dewatering by pumping and
mining would lower water levels under
artesian conditions northwest of the
mine area; springs and seeps may be
irretrievably lost but others may form
over the long term; unknown level of
degradation to ground-water quality
from increased acidity and dissolved
solids; unknown level of cumulative
effects.
Preliminary assessment is that peak
flows would be decreased slightly;
runoff volume not significantly af-
fected; no significant reduction in firm
yield of Lake Cherokee.
Dewatering would decrease baseflow in
streams; could dry-up upper sections of
tributaries but should not significantly
affect Mill or Tiawichi creeks; poten-
tial for long- and short-term adverse
impacts, mainly from suspended solids
(sediment), to water quality of streams;
monitoring necessary to determine
level of adverse impacts to Lake
Cherokee and streams, as well as any
cumulative effects.
About 84 acres (10 percent) of wetlands
would be adversely affected by mining;
wetlands or riparian vegetation could
be adversely affected in specific areas
by dewatering effects on seeps, springs
and upper sections of tributaries; minor
adverse cumulative impacts to water
quality and important wildlife habitat
by reduction of wetland acreage.
No adverse impacts to geologic structure
or topography.
Minor continued erosion from present
levels of agriculture.
None.
None.
Continued increase in acreage of bot-
tomland forests despite clearing associ-
ated with mineral production, agricul-
ture and timber production; minor ad-
verse cumulative impacts by reduction
of wetland acreage.
-------
TABLE I-1 (Cont'd)
Factor
Project Alternatives
No Action Alternative
Terrestrial Biology
Aquatic Biology
Threatened or
Endangered Species
Archaeological and
Historical Resources
Air and
Sound Quality
Land Use and
Recreation
Population
Economy
Long-term adverse impacts related to
removal of upland and bottomland
forest acreage with concomitant reduc-
tion of wildlife habitat; adverse cumu-
lative impacts associated with removal
of wildlife habitat.
Minor short-term adverse impacts asso-
ciated with construction and operation
activities.
None.
Adverse effect has been determined on
Walling Cabin but minimized by reloca-
tion to Henderson; determination of
effect on known sites and sites yet to
be discovered would be conducted at
appropriate time; direct and/or indirect
impacts on sites are adverse to the
resource; mitigation measures would be
beneficial to state of knowledge;
adverse impacts would be minimized
and beneficial impacts maximized by
compliance with the Memorandum of
Agreement which requires identifi-
cation and mitigation of cultural
resources sites.
Minor adverse impacts to air quality
from fugitive emissions and to sound
quality from construction and opera-
tional activities. Long-term adverse
secondary impacts would result from
operation of the MLSES.
Long-term impacts would result from
the reduction in the amount of forested
land on the site and an increase in the
amount of managed pasture. Minor,
short-term adverse impacts to hunting
since TUGCO restricts access to its
land and long-term impacts from re-
duced forested land.
Short-term increases due to construc-
tion and long-term due to operation of
the mine. Additional increases from
secondary work force. Average age of
in-migrating population would be less
than existing population. No adverse
impacts to area schools.
Both short-term and long-term benefi-
cial impacts would result directly from
the project (wages, land purchases, roy-
alties and capital expenditures); secon-
dary beneficial impacts also would re-
sult from stimulation to the local econ-
omy.
Continued adverse impacts from clearing
upland forests and reducing wildlife ha-
bitat; minor cumulative adverse impacts
by reduction of upland forest acreage.
None.
None.
Minor adverse impacts caused by local
collectors, agricultural or other activi-
ties, and further natural weathering.
No action alternative would not avoid
long-term adverse secondary impacts
from continued operation of the MLSES.
Long-term decreases in agriculture land
and upland forest with increases in pas-
ture and residential properties; minor
adverse impacts to hunting with reduced
game habitat (upland forest).
Long-term minor increases following
past growth patterns.
Past economic patterns would continue.
1-7
-------
TABLE I-1 (Concluded)
Factor
Project Alternatives
No Action Alternative
Housing
Community
Services
Transportation
Community Finances
Minor adverse impact on availability of None.
housing from increased needs of work
force; long-term beneficial impacts
could occur to housing construction in-
dustry.
Short-term adverse impacts could occur None.
from stress on water treatment and
storage capacity and sewage treatment
facilities in some communities but
would be minor since increased need
would occur over a several year period;
long-term impacts would be avoided
because of increased services in re-
sponse to needs; long-term adverse
cumulative impacts could result in
combination with several other pro-
posed projects.
Significant increase in deterioration of
area roads due to heavy-load truck
hauling; no significant short-term or
long-term adverse impacts to trans-
portation systems would result because
of minor traffic increases due to
workers and induced population
increase.
Short-term and long-term beneficial None.
impacts to municipal, county and state
finances associated with tax revenues;
long-term beneficial cumulative im-
pacts in combination with other pro-
posed projects.
Road deterioration
present rate.
would occur at
-------
TABLE 1-2
ACRES OF VEGETATION TYPE TO BE DISTURBED
Activity
Within Mine Boundary
o
General Construction
Dry Creek Diversion
Mining
4
Mine Facilities Construction
Between Mine and MLSES
Railroad Line
Transmission Line
Bottomland
Hydric
1
Wetlands
21
21
42
0
0
0
Hardwood Forest/
Communities
Nonwetlands
+ 14.4
0.2
7
0
II. 0
13.0
Pastureland
+75.9
6.1
about 9,500
126
142
71.7
Upland Pir
Hardwood <
Regenerat
Forest
+82.6
3.7
about 4,000
55
120
13.7
Wetlands as defined by U.S. Corps of Engineers within the area of jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act.
o
General construction includes haul roads, utility line relocations, and proposed TUGCO 138 kv transmission
line. Acreage figures for most vegetation types cannot be absolutely determined at this time and are indicated
by, +X acres.
o
Mining would disturb about 16,000 acres during the life of the project. The acreage of bottomland nonwetlands
would be very small since little mining would occur in flood plains. The acreage disturbed would be primarily
pastureland and upland/regenerative forest. The acreages listed are based upon acreages within mine blocks
(17,916 acres) minus almost 2,000 acres not to be disturbed.
Mine facilities would occupy about 140 acres but construction would disturb about 210 acres including those
listed above, plus about 21 acres of pine plantation and 8 acres of cropland.
Transmission line construction would disturb a total of about 114 acres including the above acreages and about
15.6 acres of other vegetation types.
-------
c
-HH+H- RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
--- - TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY
STUDY
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO
MARTIN LAKE "D" AREA
FIG I~-
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
-------
LA
MARTIN
AREA 'C
BOUNDAR
iiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
mull
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiii
iiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil
MATCH LINE
Mill
1987-1997 APPROXIMATE
YEARS TO BE MINED.
NOTE= ACTUAL AREAS TO BE MINED
ARE SMALLER THAN SHOWN.
N
DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY: FEB. 1980
4000
FEET
TEXAS UTILITES GENERATING CO.
MARTIN LAKE 'D* AREA
Fig. 1-2 A
MINING SEQUENCE MAP
-------
MATCH UNE
"•IliMiMMr———:——
•TUGCO
IIIIMIIIIIIflllllllllAii
iSK. Nb." &-•>•& ~*I~?~}
1987-1997 APPROXIMATE
YEARS TO BE MINED.
NOTE: ACTUAL AREAS TO BE MINED
ARE SMALLER THAN SHOWN.
PROPOSED SWEPCO TRANSMISSION
LINE RELOCATION ANDTU6CO
TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR
i
N
DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY: FEB. I98O
4000
FEET
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.
MARTIN LAKE 'D' AREA
Fig. 1-2 B
MINING SEQUENCE MAP
-------
PART II.
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
-------
PART II CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
This section of the FEIS summarizes the consultation and coordination activities
with federal, state and local agencies and the public which have occurred since the
Notice of Intent for this project was published. The first part (II.A.) discusses
activities which occurred prior to the release of the DEIS. The second part (II.B.)
discusses the publication of the DEIS and the Public Hearing and the last part (II.C.)
describes activities associated with this FEIS and, finally, the Record of Decision.
A. ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO THE DEIS
A notice of intent to prepare an EIS on the issuance of an NPDES permit for the
proposed Martin Lake "D" Area project was issued by EPA, Region 6, on December
18, 1981. 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 action. A public
meeting (Scoping Meeting) to receive input was held on January 28, 1982, at the
Rusk County Courthouse in Henderson, Texas. The Scoping Meeting was advertised
in area newspapers and on radio. The meeting was attended by over 250
representatives of federal, state and local agencies and general public.
The major issues and concerns identified by EPA and expressed by federal, state and
local agencies, organization, and individuals during the scoping process included:
(I) Potential for contamination of major aquifers;
(2) Successful reclamation in terms of surface soil suitability and
revegetation efforts;
(3) Impacts on surface-water quantity and quality;
(4) Impacts on and protection of wetlands and riparian areas;
(5) Loss of wildlife habitat;
(6) Postmining land use and reclamation impacts on wildlife habitat;
(7) Assessment of the quality of fisheries habitat;
(8) Consideration of the impacts on cultural resources;
(9) Land use changes due to reclamation;
(10) Socioeconomic impacts on communities;
(II) The effects of the work force on area schools; and
(12) Consideration of transportation systems and traffic increases.
These 12 major issues and concerns, and others, were used to develop the DEIS. A
Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) was sent to cooperating
federal and state agencies for review and comment concurrent with EPA review.
Eight (8) agencies responded with written comments to be used in the production of
the DEIS. Agencies that commented were: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Office of
Surface Mining; Corps of Engineers; Sabine River Authority; Texas Department of
Water Resources; Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; U.S. Soil Conservation
Service; and Texas Historical Commission. The agencies' major comments are
reproduced below. Based upon these, the Draft EIS was prepared. EPA can be
contacted for responses to specific comments.
-------
1- Section 6.2.3.6. Reclamation Success and Coat. This aection of the
DEIS compares the various engineering costs associated with overbur-
den and topsoll handling for the four reclamation alternatives under
consideration. It Is assumed that post-reclamation management
expenses would be the same for all alternatives, regardless of
whether topsoil Is replaced or not. We believe this Is a debatable
assumption, when one considers the fact that additional quantities
of line, fertilizer, and plant materials will be required to estab-
lish successful vegetation without the benefit of topeoll. These
considerations should be factored into the cost analysis of the
reclamation alternatives. Admittedly, these concerns may be minor
costs compared to the overall expense of overburden handling) never-
theless, the comparative costs of revegetation practices should be
displayed to lend credence to the conclusion* reached In the DRIS.
There are two other considerations which we think should be men-
tioned regarding this type of reclamation analysis. First, there is
no detailed comparison on the productivity of native soils versus
mixed soils. It is very likely that native soils, given the same
amount of fertilizer and maintenance care as reclaimed nine lands,
would have i greater productivity. Secondly, although it has been
well documented that mined lands can have • high productivity when
actively managed, what might happen to the land following bond
release and return to the original landowner? Xf the landowner
does not utilize comparable, intensive management practices as the
mining company, the land might deteriorate faster than native soils
due to a lack of fertility, leaching of toxic materials, etc.
2. Section 6.5.1.1. Metland Communities. According to the Corps of
Engineers' April 1982 wetlands determination for the Martin Lake "D"
Area, there are about 13S9 acres of regulatory wetlands on the pro-
ject study area (Appendix D). However, the DEIS quotes a figure of
8SO acres. This discrepancy should be rectified. Also, are the 50
acres of regulatory wetlands to be Impacted by project operations
for the first 5-yr. mining Increment or the life-of-the-project?
This clarification, plus the status of the Corps' Section 404 per-
mitting actions, should be described in this section. Please note
that we have requested the Corps to re-evaluate the extent of its
regulatory jurisdiction on project area wetlands, based upon new
hydrologic data available since 1977. A copy of our request has
been forwarded to you for reference.
3. Section 6.6.3.1 Vegetation. The statement that "since the pre-min-
ing clearing will proceed Incrementally over a span of 30 years with
concurrent reclamation, the associated Impacts are considered to be
short-term* is both erroneous and misleading. Regardless of whether
the mining area is cleared incrementally or not, the ultimate result
will be 16,600 acres of land extremely low In wildlife habitat qua-
lity under the mining company's proposed revegetatton scheme (i.e.
pastureland). Due to the length of time required for nixed forest
communities to regenerate through the successlonal process, impacts
associated with mining and reclamation activities must be considered
long term as discussed on pp.6-87 through 6-88. The only short term
impacts associated with vegetation clearing would be erosion, water
quality, etc. and not the re-establishment of diverse vegetation
communities.
4. Section 6.6.3.2. Wildlife. On p.6-90 it is stated that "reclamation
activities will follow mining and will mitigate the short-ten
adverse impacts on wildlife population reduction through re-estab-
lishment of a diversity of vegetation (and thus, habitat) types".
This is in direct conflict with the statement on p.5-35 that the
thrust of reclamation efforts will be to re-establish pastureland.
Paaturelands are not diverse plant communities which lend themselves
to mitigating wildlife habitat losses. The planting of woody trees
and shrubs will provide some diversity to pasturelands, but not the
quality or quantity of vegetation required to prevent long-term,
adverse wildlife Impacts. This section should describe In more
detail the measures which will be Implemented on site to restore
impacted habitats (i.e., the best technology currently available
requirements in the surface mining regulations).
5. Section 6.11.2. Impacts of No Action Alternative. Based on U.S.D.A.
statistics, it is suggested that land used for farms and pastures In
the study area will continue to decline. However, on pp.6-71 and
6-85, respectively, it is indicated that wetlands and terrestrial
vegetation will continue to decline in acreage through their conver-
sion to farmland or pasture. This is an apparent discrepancy on
land use trends which should be clarified In the DEIS.
6. Appendix E. Threatened or Endangered Species Biological Assessment.
If not already accomplished, we suggest that this biological assess-
ment be forwarded to our Regional Director (Attni Endangered Species
Coordinator) in Albuquerque Cor official review and comments.
In summary, our greatest concern on this project Involves the necessity
for protecting bottomland hardwoods and wetlands. These are the most
productive and threatened wildlife habitats on site. We believe the
DEIS should spell out in more detail what mitigation features and
regulatory actions will be undertaken to ensure the protection of these
important natural resources during issuance of the NPDES permits.
-------
Soils
1. The footnote on page 1-4 states that present topaoils are
fine sandy Loam. However, topsoil as defined in the draft
EIS includes a mixture of A, B and somet imes C horizons.
Such a mixture will be heavier than fine sandy loam in most
cases.
2. An undiscussed alternative, where mining would affect the
luka soil type, would be to save this fine sandy loam
material since it would make excellent rooting medium.
3. The chemical and physical analyses of the soils are baaed
on mixed overburden with no cores to identify potential
toxic zones. Furthermore, there is no justification for
relying on only five cores for the entire 25,000 acres for
overburden analysis.
Fish and Wildlife Resources
L. It is difficult to assess impacts on wildlife without
knowing the post-mining ratio of pasture to woodland.
Until this ratio is finalized, it is impossible to estimate
the Loss of wood I and dependent species.
2. Table 1-2, page 1-9 states that no impacts will occur to
recreation yet page 6-83 lists several bird and mamma 1
species that are hunted in the area. Since habitat for
these species will be reduced there will undoubtedly be a
reduction in hunting opportunities.
3. On page 5-24 it is stated that only one stream will be
diverted yet on page 5-29 it is stated that diversions and
rerouting of small streams will be necessary. This
contradiction should be resolved.
4. It should be mentioned on page 6-82 that in addition to
preying on destructive insects and rodents, herptiles are
themselves prey for some birds, mamma Is and other herptiles.
5. Appendix E contains a "no effect" assessment of project
imp acts on threatened and endangered species. The final
EIS should contain the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
concurrence or disagreement with this dete rm ina 110 n.
Socio-economics '
L. Table 6-24 should breakdown the population into
cons truetion and operation categories.
2. It is stated on page 6-131 that project workers will earn
an averge of $25,000 annually while page 6-140 uses an
average of $22,000. This dif ferenee should be explained.
3. An explanation is needed as to why "materials'* comprise
nearly one-third of the annual operation and maintenance
cost shown on page 6-144.
4. Section 6.L5.3.L refers to four other mine and/or power
plant projects in the region during the same time period
yet there is not even a brief narrative on these projects.
A tabulation of employment, population impact s, residential
impacts, school attendance, etc. would be helpful in
assessing the cumulative impacts of these projects.
5. Considering the several projects proposed, it is
conceivable that the City of Henderson may attract the new
residents discussed on page 6-L30. If Henderson is
selected over Longview, the implications would certainly be
significant and deserve discussion.
6. Although children will be included in the peak population
influx of 892 persons. Section 6.15.I.4 contains no
specific enrollment forecasts for schools in the project
area.
7 . There is no mention of any impact assistance revenue for
local governments which are affected by this project.
Section 6.17.3 should explain how the expected 1.2 million
dollars in property taxes will be distributed among local
jurisdicti on 9.
Cultural Resources
I. Further discussion of cultural resource work conducted both
in and around the project area is needed.
2. There should be estimations of numbers, kinds and locations
of sites that might be expected t.o occur within the project
bound a r i e s.
3. Top priority should be directed toward developing
identified cultural resources, not conducting inventories
on Lands that may be impacted. Early, detailed planning
and intergovernmental-company cooperation ensures that
protection of cultural resources will not delay proposed
project activities.
-------
Hyd ro logy
1. On page 3-7 some statement is needed concerning the change
in elevation of the watershed in pre-mining versus
post-mining configurations and the associated changes, if
any, in the time of concentration.
2. The differences between d imens ionl ess hydrographs should be
discussed. Additional support should be provided as to the
reasons the SCS personnel believe the Mockus hydrograph
will represent an average d imens ionles s unit hydrograph for
the sub-basin.
Ceo logy
1. The chemical properties of the overburden and its method of
replacement could have significant effects on the potential
for contamination of major aquifers. There should be
additional chemical and physical data presented in the DEIS
perhaps as an appendix.
Transportation
I.
2.
The use of diesel versus electricity was discussed in the
haul train alternative but not in the discussion of trucks
versus conveyors for within mine transportation.
In discussion of the railroad, it is stated that the
railroad "can be designed with no at-grade cc^rssings s
ffic will be unaffected." It is unclear if t
local traff
railroad will or can be so designed.
the
Vegetation :
1.
Page 1-31 refers to "spontaneous re vegetat ion" . The phrase
"natural invasion" should be substituted.
2. The discussion of impacts pages 1-8, 1-9 indicate a plan to
change the ratio of woodland to pasture to a new unknown
ratio. It is impossible to assess impacts of such a change
without knowing the new ratio. This must be addressed.
3. Support is needed for the assertion that restoration of
woody species would be difficult.
4. The statement is made on page 5-35 that the predominant
land use is pastureland yet other statements indicate 50
percent pasture and 50 percent woodland. This
contradiction should be resolved.
5. On page 6-72 species diversity correlation with habitat
variability is only true for species composition along
environmental gradients, not for int ra-coramunity diversity.
The following errors In the document should be examined.
Section 3.2 5th line, the statement "the determination of wetland* by" should
read "the determination of the Area of Jurisdiction by"
5.1.7.1, Line 1 The tern wetlands seems to be an error.
Figure 5-4 Details on this map are extremely difficult to distinguish, and In
Its present form the map serves no useful purpose.
6.6.1.2.1 Page 6-81, 1st full paragraph, 10th line, the references Kendelgh and
Fawrer (1981) and Dlckson and Degelqulst (1979) are not listed In the
bibliography.
Page 6-122 2nd paragraph. This statement uses a 1978 average value for farmland
In the county. These figures nay not be realistic due to the Inflation rates of
the last four years.
The following paragraphs are In regard to content of the document*
In Section 5.4 It states "the USCE may require Section 10/404 permits for
certain project activities". This Indicates some confusion as to which activi-
ties require U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) authorization. Furthermore, the
term "Section 10/404 permit" Is Incorrect since this refers to two statutes and
separate authorizations. The discharge of dredged and fill material Into
streams and adjacent wetlands during project activities will require authoriza-
tion under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Since no navigable waters of the
United States exist within the project boundaries the project should not affect
these waters, therefore authorization under Section 10 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1899 Is not required. Also, In this section the term "USCE Environmental
Section" should read "USCE Fort Worth District Permits Section".
Section 6.5.1.1 2nd paragraph 8th line: Two citations USCOB (1978) and Whitlow
and Harris (1979) are not the only references examined for wetland plant
tolerances, nor are they necessarily representative. These citations should be
removed. Furthermore, the citation USCOE (1978) 1» not particularly suitable
for the Fort Worth District area. At the top of page 6-67 the EIS states "The
general consensus among the regulatory agencies Is that the definition of 404
wetlands should also Include annual Inundation sufficient to saturate the soil
throughout the root zone for 30 days during the growing season". This Is not
the general consensus of the regulatory agencies, and certainly not the
consensus of the Corps of Engineers. This statement should be deleted.
The first paragraph page 6-67 states that 327 acres of "wetland communities"
exist In the project area and seems to Imply that those wetlands defined by COE
are something other than "wetland communities". Since a definition of wetland
communities was not presented, the purpose of this distinction from those
wetlands under COE jurisdiction Is unclear. The wetland definition In the COE
regulations and quoted In the Y.IS la more conservative than other commonly
-------
accepted wetland definitions Including that now used by the Fieh and Wildlife
Serlvce. Since this distinction of wetland acreages In the EIS Is only a natter
of definition the 372 acre wetland figure should be deleted. A figure for those
wetlands not within COE Jurisdiction would be desirable. The paragraph also
states that 850 acres of "regulatory wetlands' exist within the study area.
This It not the wetland acreage (1,359) provided with our wetland determination.
From where was the 850 acre figure derived?
On page 6-67, and again on page 6-74 the E1S states that only 50 acres of
"regulatory wetlands" will be mined. Ts this figure for the entire mining
sequence or for the first 5-year plan only? Will these wetlands be restored or
lost permanently and where are these wetlands located? The mining sequence map
Figure 1-2 shows major Intrusions Into both the Mill Creek and the Tlawlchl
Creek wetland complexes. This sequence map should be more specific as to where
mining will take place.
The EIS Is not specific and rather contradictory on the subject of stream diver-
sions. On page 5-28 (1st paragraph) and again on page 6-75 It Is stated that
mining operations will avoid major streams presumably Mill and Tlawlchl Creeks.
However, on page 5-28 the F.IS states thst "flood protection levees and stream
diversion channels may be provided where necessary to prevent floodwaters of
major creeks from entering mine pits". This statement Is contradictory.
Furthermore, on page 6-75 It Is stated the "minor streams which are mined
through" and section 5.2.2.3 states that diverting and rerouting small streams
will be necessary. However, on page 5-24 the F.IS states that only one stream
will be diverted. Does this refer to the 5-year plan only, and which stream(s)
will be affected and how?
On page 6-73 through 6-75 a discussion Is made on the Section 404(b)(l)
guidelines under the heading of operation Impact. The evaluation Is lost In
this section and should be under an Individual heading or Included as an
Appendix. The evaluation should follow the format of the 404(b)(l) guidelines
published In 40 CFR Part 230. Much of this may take the form of summary state-
ment which reference the text. A statement concerning the water-dependency of
the project and compliance with the guidelines should be Included.
The sections regarding the Impacts of no action alternatives generally assume
that a general development and deterioration of the area will occur. This Is
not based on fact. Several statements In these sections are without foundation
and should be deleted such as that on page 5-1, 3rd paragraph which states
"clear cutting and natural phenomena such as damage from fires and Insects could
weaken the present woodland cover and cause a greater potential for accelerated
erosion". The forest ecosystem ts readily adapted to these natural phenomena
and accelerated erosion should not result from these ongoing processes. This
paragraph also states that "vegetative cover would continue to change toward
lesser diversity because of silviculture and agriculture". However, section
6.11.1.1, page 6-117, states that agricultural lands In the area have decreased
from 55% In 1969 to 48t In 1978 and the number of cattle decreased 20X In the
region from 1976-1980. This contradicts the statements that this area la being
progressively developed.
In general, the KIS appears to take a stance of advocacy rather than objectivity
In. the discussion of alternatives for overburden handling procedures. The F.IS
falls to document the differences other than engineering. In these procedures.
Discussions based on the literature, should Include short and long terra produc-
tivity of the reclaimed land, revegetated differences, and fertilization dif-
ferences of each alternative. In section 5.1.4.4, alternative one Is chosen
based soley on engineering costs to the company. Additional factors such as
costs of revegetatlon, fertilizer cost for Initial reclamation, long term fer-
tilizer costs to the landower, long tern loss of agricultural productivity for
the landowner, and wildlife habitat quality should be Included. These factors
should also be compared to the no action alternative.
Comments on the Cultural Resource Portions of the PDEIS.
1. The permit area Includes the mine area, railroad spur, transmission lines,
haul and access roads, highway relocations, stream diversions, mine service
facilities, the cooling pond (6-50 shows It outside the mine boundaries) and any
other proposed facilities. What portions of the permit area, as discussed, have
been surveyed and what percentage of the permit area does this equal? What
methodology was employed?
2. The known sites are not discussed In sufficient detail (page 6-98). Has
subsurface testing been conducted? Are subsurface deposits present? Are these
properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NR)7 If
sufficient Information exists to determine these properties eligible, or Ineli-
gible for the MR, this should be stated. The existing environment discussion
(Section 6.9.1) does not provide any Information on the archeologlcal and
historic background of the area, or on the known sites. Specific locatlonal
Information would be Inappropriate, however a general discussion of topographic
setting, site size and relationship to proposed activities should be Included.
3. The PDEIS provides conflicting and confusing Information In regard to
Impacts on cultural resources. It states that mining will not take place In
sensitive areas such as cemeteries and cultural resource sites (1-5). However,
It also states that, prior to mining, the area will be cleared of all vegeta-
tion. Other project Impacts can be expected from the construction of the faci-
lities and related actions discussed earlier. Will the avoidance Involve all
activities In the entire permit area, or only mining In the raining area? Total
avoidance would result In no Impact to the cultural properties, however the
PDEIS states variously: that sites will be "disturbed" (1-8), "none of the known
sites within the mine boundary will he affected by this project" (6-99), and
that there will he an "Irreversible commitment of any cultural resources that
are within the direct path of construction or mining activities" (6-99). The
meaning of the words "Irreversible commitment" In regard to cultural resources
Is unclear, but It Is assumed to mean that they will be destroyed. This section
should be clarified to present a uniform assessment.
4. Although the Texas Historical Commission (THC) Is correctly listed as a
cooperating agency (7-1), It Is not listed as having received a PDEIS for review
and comment (7-3), as would be appropriate. No evidence of the necessary coor-
dination with the THC In the form of a proposed Memorandum of Agreement, or
discussions Is referenced. It this coordination underway, or on-going?
5. The PDEIS gives vsgue, confusing and contradictory Information on the
cultural resources. The points mentioned above should be addressed, as should
any comments from the THC. The Information should be discussed concisely, but
with sufficient detail to allow assessment of the consequences of the project's
construction for any significant cultural resources.
-------
Section 5.1.6.1, Page 5-13
This section states that 10-50% of a given acreage will he planted to woodland.
Yet on page 6-29 It Is given that on other TUGCO mines 9.7Z of the areas have
been planted to forest, noes TUGCO propose to plant a higher acreage to trees
on the urea D than It's other mine areas or will the acreage of trees be much
the same? If so, the statements citing 10-50Z forest are contradictory.
Section 5.1.0, Page 50
The PDEIS states that TUGCO owned land upon completion of reclamation will be
handled In the most cost-effective method. It does not state how TUGCO owned
land will be reclaimed. This should be discussed along with the amount of TUGCO
land to be reclaimed.
Section 5.2.1, Page 5-23
This section states that "major stream diversions or rerouting are not antici-
pated. A 200 foot section of Dry Creek would be diverted." This Implies that
Dry Creek Is not a major stream. However, on the same page It la stated that
"Diversions and rerouting of small streams might be necessary." This statement
Is contradictory since It Is Implied above that Dry Creek, a minor stream, will
be the only stream diverted. The number and anticipated length of stream diver-
sions should be stated In the FTS.
Section 5.4, Page 5-33
This section discusses COR Section 404 alternatives In terms of Individual per-
mit criteria. The discussion Is somewhat misleading since an application will
not be filed and an Individual permit will not be processed for the mine and
most of the accessory facilities. Since moat discharges of dredged and fill
material Into the waters of the United States will be upstream of the head-
waters, the work may be authorized by a genera] permit Issued on a nationwide
basts provided the conditions of the permit are met. No administrative proce-
dures are necessary to receive authorization under the nationwide permit. If
all the work Is In compliance with all conditions, COR alternatives are to take
no action, or to assert discretionary authority and require an Individual permit
for the proposed discharge IF the District engineer has reason to have concern
for the aquatic environment.
Section 6.3.3.2, Page 6-46
The PDEIS states that between 9 and 36 percent of the flow In Mill Creek could
be diverted to the mine pits through dewaterlng of the ground water strata.
However, on page 6-89 Section 6.5.3.2 the PDEIS states that base flows of Hill
and Tlawlchl Creeks "should not he significantly affected and that the quality of
stream flow to downstream ecosystems should not be adversely Impacted over the
long-term." No data .or reasoning Is provided on which to base these conclu-
sions. We consider a 36Z reduction In base flow In these streams as a signifi-
cant Impact that may adversely affect the aquatic ecosystem In those streams and
downstream wetlands.
Section 6.3.3.3
The PDEIS states that the "results of the geochemlcal analysis from the overbur-
den cores (see 6.1.1) Indicates that no significant problems should result from
any chemical constituent." However, we can find no Information In Section 6.1.1
to support this conclusion. Information on possible water quality Impacts to
ground water Is scattered and inconclusive. On page 6-48 It Is stated that
"calculations Indicate" a net PH value greater than 4 will exist In ground
water. These "calculations: are not adequately cited and documented. On page
6-49 the PDEIS states that "It Is anticipated that concentrations exceeding
water quality standards" (In ground water) "would be restricted to within a few
hundred feet of the mine." This statement seems to Indicate that adverse
Impacts to ground water will occur on the mine area. Presumably the mine will
be relnhablted by landowners following reclamation. If this Is the case, will
the ground water be unsuitable for human and livestock consumption, and if so,
for how long? If the monitoring program detects severe water quality Impacts on
ground or surface waters, what action will he taken?
Section 6.5.3.2
On page 6-88, It Is stated "The short-terra Impacts on downstream water quality
and the dependent wetlands should he minimized since all discharges nust comply
with State Water Quality standards for segment 0505 of the Sablne River and
EPA's NSPS for coal mine discharges."
The use of federal and state regulatory standards as justification for a conclu-
sion that the project will not have adverse Impacts Is not logical or conclusive
reasoning. Impacts should be documented and assessed on their actual potential
effects.
Section 6.6.3.2, Page 6-104, 3rd paragraph, line 11 and 12
These citations are not Included In the bibliography.
-------
The Draft EIS states that the control of sediment load, pH and iron content of water
entering streams from the mining and reclamation areas is required by the Railroad
Commission. The EIS should discuss more fully what parameters uil] be monitored,
frequency of monitoring, concentration and load allowed to be discharged to
receiving streams, and what the Railroad Commission standards are for discharge
compliance.
The
disc
use of pesticides for control of weeds, insects and other pests as necessary is
u...-;cussed as part of the re-vegetation program. Will any pesticide monitoring he
performed? Since it was indicated that fertilization to aid in re-establishment of
vegetation during the reclamation phase may temporarily increase nutrient levels of
surface runoff to area streams, will pesticides used in the reclamation phase also
cause an increase in these substances in the runoff?
In the applicants proposed method for overburden handling, the potential for exposure
of layers high in pyritic sulfur (which can result in low soil pH and possible
release of toxic elements in runoff waters) appears totally dependent on equipment
operators being properly trained to recognize these thin layers which are high in
pyrites and selectively placing these layers near the bottom of the pit. How
effectively can this management technique be accomplished? The Draft EIS does not
discuss if any monitoring will be done for toxic elements in runoff waters or what
particular parameters are involved.
"In the discussion of water quality, it is stated that the mine plan has been formulated
specifically to avoid major streams to the extent practicable and that surface runoff
from disturbed mining areas will be routed to sedimentation ponds which must meet EPA's
new source performance standards for alkaline mine discharges. There was no discussion
of what the effluent concentration guidelines are for these performance standards. Also,
will there be any required periodic monitoring of Mill Creek, Tiawichi Creek and Lake
Cherokee to determine if any impacts are occurring to these receiving waters?
Finally, it was stated that the prevention of long-term adverse impacts to downstream
water quality is assured by the required certification of compliance with State Water
Quality Standards of all discharges from the proposed project and by the EPA's New Source
Performance Standards. However, it is not clear from the information presented as to
how this will be accomplished.
In closing, we would offer a comment that is'broader in scope than the particular lignite
mine discussed herein. A significant area of the Sabine Basin upstream from.Toledo Bend
Reservoir is affected by existing and proposed lignite mining operations. Do the various
regulatory agencies consider the potential cumulative impact from all of these projects
on downstream receiving waters? Are there any plans to increase monitoring activities to
evaluate water quality trends over the life of the mining projects?
We consider the hydrologic data and the analytical method (I.e., Soil Conservation
Service computerized watershed model, TR-20, 1965) used in the report ore reason-
able for preliminary study purposes. However, we have some reservations as to the
viability of the conclusions reached in the report relative to soils, ground wafer,
and surface water, as summarized in TABLE 1-2 (page 1-8). Fundamentally, we are
concerned about the viability of two key generalized assumptions adopted in the
analysis, i.e., (I) that the surface runoff chemical characteristics will remain
essentially unchanged after mining and reclamation over the 30-year operational
period (section 6A3.I, page 6-61); and, (2) that the treatment of discharged waters
from the system of sedimentation ponds into existing natural water courses and
lakes will remain uniform, effective, and uninterrupted under all circumstances over
the 30-year operational period (section 6A3.1, pages 6-56 to 6-61).
It is our opinion that predictions of: (I) the probable quantity and quality of
waters discharged from the active mining and reclaimed mined sections of Martin
Lake Mine Area "D"j (2) the probable effectiveness of the treatment plan for
discharged waters; (3) the probable impacts of discharged waters on the quality of
water in Lake Cherokee) and, (ft) the probable Impacts on other downstream water
right permittees, could be more confidently and reliably undertaken If complete
physical and chemical data on the soil overburden (i.e., soil stability; bulk density;
clay content and type; rock content; erodibility; acid-forming, alkali-forming,
salineforming, and trace-metal-forming potentialities) were mode available to and
considered by the environmental impact analysts.
We believe that the findings and conclusions of the report relative to surface water
quantity and quality pertaining to Martin Lake Mine Area "D" and Lake Cherokee
should be considered in light of the experience and results observed by the Texas
Railroad Commission and TUGCO in Mining Areas "A", "B", and "C", regarding: (I)
the changes in storm runoff from reclaimed mined lands; (2) the water quality
control effectiveness and sediment-trapping effectiveness of the sedimentation pond
system in terms of total dissolved solids (IDS), total suspended solids (TSS), and
hazardous trace metals; and (3) the selenium problems in Martin Lake. Available
historical data on existing sedimentation ponds in Martin Lake Mine Areas "A", "B",
and "C" Indicate that in regard to the TSS parameter, treatablllty has proven to be
Ineffective. Thus, adverse water quality impacts could result If the same TSS
treatment method is adopted In the small watershed of Lake Cherokee, Ipcated In
the Martin Lake Mine Area "D". In addition, special consideration should be given
to the probable effect of ineffectively treated inflows on existing power plant
cooling water properties of Lake Cherokee.
-------
On page 1-7 of the document, several Issues are listed that were Identified
during the scoping process which express a concern for the Impacts upon, and
losses of, fish and wildlife habitat. Proper reclamation is also Identified
as a major concern.
While the document provides a great deal of Information, it does not provide
the detail needed to enable this agency to determine the quality of habitat
created following mining and therefore its suitability to various wildlife
species. Although the document lists the vegetative species that would be
planted during reclamation, it does not give the approximate acreages
allotted to various vegetative types, I.e., coastal bermuda, mixed
herbaceous, pine plantations, mixed woody, etc.
According to Table 6-15, approximately 41% of the project area 1s currently
woody or forested area. While this agency understands the problem of
providing a completed map that delineates the proposed plantings on the
entire mining area, a plan that describes the general Intentions would be
helpful.
In order to provide a reclamation plan that discloses the needed Information
and would be beneficial to wildlife, the following measures are suggested.
(1) List the percentage or acreages of land that would be replanted In
coastal bermuda, mixed herbaceous cover, pine plantations, mixed
woody, etc.
(2) List the type planting patterns that would be used in planting
woody species, e.g.:
5a)
(b)
the number of acres in each plot,
the shape of plots, i.e., motts, strips, etc.
(3) Planting fence rows with species beneficial to wildlife would
provide travel lanes for wildlife.
1. It should be noted that the four alternatives listed on page 5-10 and
Figure 5-1 do not correspond to alternatives 1n Figure 5-2 and cost
estimates on page 5-17. It appears alternatives 2 and 3 are reversed.
2. The plan does not clearly define how "chop cut" method would be accom-
plished.
3. There 1s continued concern over revegetatlon species. Based on past
land use and revegetatlon activities, essentially all land not to be
1n woodland has been returned to bermudagrass.
4. Page 6-21, Prime Farmland, second sentence - ...very little of the
area qualifies as prime farmland based on soil type and historical
land use." This statement 1s not entirely correct. On approximately
one-third of the area the soils qualify as prime farmland. Although
the Railroad Commission may have Issued a finding on not prime due to
historical use, this does not change the USDA classification.
5. Page 6-21, Prime Farmland, last sentence - "It 1s possible that the
postmined soils will enhance production through Improvement of the
root medium, thereby creating a long-term beneficial Impact." This
1s a rather optimistic statement. Should we carry this one step
further and suggest that we should mine all of northeast Texas to
improve the soils? Some attributes of the soil may be Improved,
such as loosening the subsoil, but doubt an overall benefit.
Page 6-16 states "...prime farmland soil as defined under criteria established
by the SCS." Should be "...prime farmland as defined In Federal Register
and identified by the USDA-Soil Conservation Service."
Page 6-176 - the EIS compares fertilizer costs by stating simply that moderate
amounts of fertilizer and lime are needed. The same statement is made
for existing soils.
Past experience in mined areas of East Texas on Wilcox Geologic materials
indicate that higher amounts of a complete fertilizer are needed on mine
spoil areas where existing sojls need mainly nitrogen with small amounts
of P and K to maintain an acceptable level of production. Organic matter
content and micro-organism content are higher on existing soils which has
a beneficial effect.
Perhaps a comparison of fertilizer costs would be in order, similar to
comparison of costs for different mining alternatives.
Reference was made to the chemical properties of mixed overburden, but could
not find a table that showed the laboratory data.
-------
Page 6-96-97
The section on "Existing Environment" appears to be a literature
review and does not discuss how the sites will be affected, nor'
does it mention the determinations of affect which have been made.
No percentages of areas surveyed are given.
Differentiation in areas surveyed and not surveyed are not pointed
out specifically.
The Walling Cabin, 41RK104, has been-determined eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. If other "old structures exist
in the area...," they should be recorded or some explanation given
as to why they have not been recorded.
Page 6-98
A discussion regarding the sites found would be desirable; while
specific locational data is not warranted, a more complete discus-
.sion of the sites and their occurrence in the project surroundings-,
i.e., how they will be affected, is appropriate.
Page 6-99
The statement concerning the "irreversible commitment" of resources
is misleading—it should be simply stated. It is assumed that
destruction of the sites is the impact of the project.
The statement concerning the known sites within the mine boundary not
being affected by the project is not accurate. Impacts to those sites
may occur due to stream diversions, land clearing, catchment basins
and other activities.
Why will 41RK85 and 41RK86 not be disturbed, since there is lignite
in the area? According to what directive will J11RK87 be left intact?.
How has that decision been reached and under what consultation
process has that taken place?
The decisions concerning 41RK107 and 41RK108 should be explained in'
terms of the process involved in reaching that decision.
The memorandum of agreement has been drafted in this project and
should be noted in the document.
Avoidance of sites does not always imply preservation. Indirect
impacts occur by changing the surrounding environment, thus affecting
the sites.
The cultural resource section in this PDEIS is vague and does not differentiate
between areas directly affected by mining and those associated with all the
•ancillary facilities. These areas are not dealt with succinctly in relation
to the project impacts. Specific plans for further compliance procedures
are not noted.
-------
B. PUBLICATION OF THE DEIS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING
The Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement appeared in the
March II, 1983 issue of the Federal Register. The Notice announced a public review
period ending May 3, 1983. The public review period was scheduled to provide concerned
agencies and the public with an opportunity to review the DEIS and the make comments
on the adequacy of the analysis of impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. About
350 copies of the DEIS were distributed to reviewing agencies, organizations and
interested members of the public. Copies of the DEIS also were made available for public
review at three locations in the project area. During the review period, 40 comment
letters were received.
EPA sponsored a Public Hearing on the DEIS at 7:30 P.M. on April 26, 1983 at the County
Courthouse in Henderson, Texas. The meeting was attended by representatives of EPA,
Texas Utilities and project consultants. About 175 members of the public, interested
agencies and organizations attended the hearing. The hearing was divided into three
parts: first, representatives of EPA made formal presentations; second, comment state-
ments were made by interested citizens; and third, questions were received from the
audience. Four individuals read statements during the Public Hearing.
Each of the 40 comment letters and two (2) of the statements (for a total of 42) are
presented on the following pages, with EPA's responses printed beside the comments. Two
(2) of the statements read at the hearing were superceded by letters which are included
prior to the other comment letters on the following pages.
11-10
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PUBLIC HEARING
LIMITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
MARTIN LAKE "D" AREA LlONITl: SURFACE .MINE
April 26, 1983
RUSK COUNTY COURTHOUSE
nr:"oriRr-^.:, TEXAS
STATEMENT OF MR. BILLY FURRH
at the Public Hearing
April 26, 1983
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
24
25
I-
MR. HUDSON: All right. Mr. Billy Furrh.
Mr. Furrh, would you go to the microphone.
MR. FURRH: I am Billy Furrh, Water
Chairman, Marshall-Harrison County League of Women
Voters. I would like to know among other things
you state in the EIS statement that in 1981 natural
gas costs 3.5 times more than lignite per BTU,
I would assume is what you mean by that, and I
would like to know what the comparable figures
are for today, I think that we are all aware
that natural gas prices are somewhat lower now
than they were in 1981. Another thing I would
like to know is, you are talking about clearing
a large area of vegetation, and how is this
vegetation going to be disposed of, if it is going
to be burned, naturally we would need some data
on how this is going to affect emissions into the air.
JOHN FOSTER
Responses to the Statement at the Public Hearing
by Mr. Billy Furrh
I. The cost figure stated on page 5-1 of the Draft EIS included the average cost for all
utilities in Texas. System-wide costs for Texas Utilities Company System (TUCS) for
calendar year 1982 are lignite at $0.842 per million BTU and natural gas at $3.499 per
million BTU. Thus, in 1982 gas cost TUCS about 4.2 times as much per BTU as did
lignite.
2. As stated on page 6-124 of the Draft EIS, all marketable timber or wood products
would be sold while unmarketable vegetative matter would be burned on site. The
burning would adhere to Texas Air Control Board (TACB) regulations. The applicable
TACB regulations are, Texas Administrative Code, Title 31, Natural Resources,
Chapter Ill-Particulates, specifically paragraphs 11.2 (6) C, D, E, F, G and H. These
restrict burning to: outside corporate limits of a city or town, only when the wind
direction carries smoke away from occupied areas, at least 300 ft. from occupied
areas, dry plant material only, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and only
when wind speed is greater than 6 mph but less than 23 mph.
-------
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that I haven't seen covered in this statement.
There is talk about high level management on this
reclaimed property for five years. After five
years, it reverts to the landowner, and I think
the landowner should be made aware of what they
are going to have to do, to keep this property
in production. On page 1-7, referring to air
and sound quality., it states that long term
adverse secondary impacts will occur. I think
that probably we would like to know in laymen's
language what these — how long they will last.
I also think with the reclamation that has been
going on since 1977, it would be -- or should
be imperative for all groups concerned to be
able to have a tour of this area, and I don't
mean a tour of an isolated showcase project like
we liavp at Fairfield or somewhere like that, I
mean let us see how and what you are doing on
reclamation work here in East Texas. It states
also that in numerous areas that eighty to ninety
percent productivity will be resulted fron this
reclamation project, but it's kind of contradictory
I think, it talks in terms — are we talking
about eighty to ninety percent of the wildlife that
we still have hero -- we are talking about some
Mr. Billy Furrh
Page 2
3. Section 6.2.3.5 (pp. 6-27 to 6-29 of the Draft EIS) discusses the fertilizer and lime
requirements during the bonding period and predicts, in general, the requirements
after release from bond. Also, see Response to Comment No. 5 from Dr. Greg Beil.
l\. The statement on page 1-7 of the Draft EIS refers only to long-term advese
secondary impacts to air quality—not sound quality. The reference is made in regards
to operation of the Martin Lake Steam Electric Station (MLSES). Long-term refers
to impacts throughout the life of the power plant. Adverse refers to a lessening of
air quality compared to conditions without the plant. Secondary means that, since
the EIS concerns mining, these impacts are not directly a result of mining but are due
to burning the lignite.
5. TUGCO states that they frequently conduct tours of the Martin Lake "A", "B" and
"C" mining areas for groups and individuals. Anyone interested can contact the
MLSES office.
JOHN FOSTER
Hf-OE'JSOSi 1FKA5 75PS;
-------
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the prime hunting land in East Texas,
which will not only be barred to public use
for a number of years, but what is going to be
there as far as wildlife goes after this
reclamation takes place. In other places
in the statement, you state that fifty to
ninety percent will be in improved pastures.
Well, I would prefer soraething a little more
specific than fifty to ninety percent. In
another area you say ten to fifty percent will
be in forest. Once again I think you could
be a little more specific on that. I would
like to know why non-native species of vegetation,
such as cottonwood and tallow trees are introduced.
I have heard that it is because these species
will grow in sub-standard soils. I think the
major issues and concerns should be -- although
there are twelve listed, the one that I think
the jury is still out on, is number one, our
potential for contanination of major aquifers.
Number two, again related to water, the impact
on surface water quality and quantity. And
number five, and this is just s personal concern
of mine, but I think it would be shared by a
number of people in East Texas, is the loss of
Mr. Billy Furrh
Page 3
6. The measure of productivity is based upon reference areas or published standards.
Reference areas are parcels of land which have not been disturbed by mining and
which are used for comparison to disturbed areas in determining revegetation
success. Reference areas are in use at mining areas "A", "B" and "C". Therefore,
productivity of reclaimed pastureland is measured against undisturbed pastureland
while the productivity of reclaimed forest areas is measured against undisturbed
forest areas. The productivity refers only to revegetation success, not re-establish-
ment of wildlife populations. The impacts to wildlife and predictions of postming
conditions are discussed in Section 6.6.3.2 beginning on page 6-99 of the Draft EIS.
The use of a percentage range (10 to 50 percent) for reforestation is vague. This
represents the TUGCO commitment. It is unknown whether this will be acceptable to
the RRC. For any given acre of land the vegetative cover to be established may be
based upon factors such as: suitability of the land (e.g., steep slopes near water
courses may be most suitable to woody species); adjacent vegetative cover (e.g., a
small area of grassland partially surrounded by woody species may be most appro-
priate); desires of the land owner (e.g., lease conditions may specify the vegetative
cover); or regulatory restrictions of the RRC (e.g., planting woody species may
represent a land use change). TUGCO's practices in reforestation at the "A", "B" and
"C" areas have increased each year (during the last three years) and reforestation
areas presently amount to approximately 13 percent of the total area disturbed to
date.
7. The list of species in Table 6-17 (page 6-98) was developed by TUGCO in consultation
with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Soil Conservation Service and Railroad
Commission of Texas. The list represents those species which might be used during
reclamation. Inclusion of any species does not mean that it would be used, only that
TUGCO has the option to use it if conditions warrant. Some non-native species are
included for potential use in special circumstances. The special circumstances which
might call for the use of introduced (non-native) species include: (I) unavailability of
native species; and (2) more optimal growth of the introduced species compared to
native species. The particular species used in any case, the freguency of use and the
acreage of coverage must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The RRC
regulations (.39!) state that an introduced species may be used only if approved by
the RRC under the following conditions: (I) after appropriate field trials have
demonstrated that the introduced species are desirable and necessary to achieve the
approved postmining land use; (2) the species are necessary to achieve a quick,
temporary and stabilized cover which aids in controlling erosion and measures to
establish permanent vegetation are developed; (3) the species are compatible with the
plant and animal species of the region; and (4) the species meet the requirements of
applicable state and federal seed or introduced species statues and are not poisonous
or noxious.
JOHN FOSTER
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-
24
wildlife habitat. It seems to me that TUGCO had
conveniently not furnished the data on what is
happening in their present reclamation projects.
So, I think it would behoove all of us to wait
until it can be demonstrated, that the methods
they are using will do what TUGCO projects it
will do. Thank you.
Mr. Billy Furrh
Page 4
8. As stated on page 1-9, the twelve concerns listed were identified during the scoping
process. However, the ordering of the items is related to the order in which those
subjects are addressed in Chapter 6, not to their importance (i.e., No. 1 is not
necessarily more important than No. 12). Each individual or agency might attach the
most importance to different concerns, but all twelve are important.
JOHN F OSTE R
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
n
M
15
16
17
Ifl
19
20
21
24
PUBLIC HEARING
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ljr.'VTRONME'lTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TEXAS UTILITIES GEMMATING COMPANY
MARTIN1 L.V-r "D" AREA LinNITi: SURFACE MINE
April 26, 1983
RUSK COUNTY COURTHOUSE
iir\"?i"!*KON, TEXAS
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES EUVTROMMKNTAL
PFDTF.CTION AGENCY
IN THK MATTER OF:
PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MARTIN LAKE "D" LIGNITE SURFACE MINE PROJECT
RUSK COUNTY COURTHOUSE
HENDERSON, TEXAS 75652
APRIL 26, 19S3
STATEMENT OF C.US L. BFO'CT! ET UX BETTY IV. BRO'.VN
P.FD 4 30X 732
HENDERSON, TE-JiS 75652
P.ESIPENTS A.ND PROrinTY O'.VMERS
II-.' THE CAFTtONED A.C;E(\
-------
I
-J
!.!any residents ans property ov.Tners of the captioned area are servei
ty electric, telepV:or.», ar.3 coiiri.jrlty -water cooperative;-. Ir..jresr
nni f'-f-c-r:- to ap.'i 1'ron thfir liotnp*:. p.-opc-rt;-, '.•h'.ireher, -rorvT'j-:'.';.
centers, an: cimeterie,- are by way o!' "tste ai:ri/or :23.
2. .j.ll-.•••»•»tfcer. public roais. of E J?~i?n ar:3 ivic'th eqnal 'o or
eyceea'nc tho.TP ir\ tr>.- K.r°.& at. f-lii.7 ia^e, he ~.iirita:'.r.e:: TO ani
fi-om -,c!i resi-JencPs. property. ..-?. :i--'hes, xttZ'ftrisF , com:-mix-'
cer^v.'rs, p'.ioli^ par^s. 0**^., as 'fiOrc: ir. ti'e ftrpL TO of 1:?.:;
cictn, and •::it!!ou+. '. :M? -iro.i'-y 'not in exoesj 3f .".J p~r.?er.*
of tr.e present •.!!••:-^r,ce) to ar--1 .'ron io-.-to:-!, ler.'.lr'.:. ;:c.-?I-.als ,
?ho:ip:'r:.- cen^^r.-, i
Response to Comments in the
Statement of Cos L. Brown et ox Betty W. Brown
I. Continued electric, telephone, water, gas and other services can be expected with
compliance with Section M22 of the RRC regulations. This section states (in part)
"All surface mining activities shall be conducted in a manner which minimizes
damage, destruction, or disruption of services provided by oil, gas, and water wells;
oil, gas, and coal-slurry pipelines; railroads; electric and telephone lines; and water
and sewage lines which pass over, under, or through the permit area, unless otherwise
approved by the owner of those facilities and the Commission." Water service is
further protected by Section .352 which states, "Any person who conducts, surface
mining activities shall replace the water supply of an owner of interest in real
property who obtains all or part of his or her supply of water for domestic,
agricultural, industrial, or other legitimate use from an underground or surface
source, where the water supply has been affected by contamination, diminution, or
Interruption proximately resulting from the surface mining activities." Non-
compliance with any of the regulations or with the Texas Surface Coal Mining and
Reclamation Act would result in the issuance of a Notice of Violation or Cessation
Order as required under Part 843 - Enforcement. The enforcement procedures are
designed to ensure compliance or to halt mining activities if regulations ore not
complied with. Some indication of compliance and enforcement can be obtained from
the Information on violations submitted in the recent TUGCO application to the RRC
for construction at the loading station area (Appendix B). Regarding water wells,
generally the burden of proof of damage falls on the well owner. EPA has no further
information on enforcement. In various instances, specific plans have not been
addressed so that a review of wliether they will likely meet regulations cannot now be
made.
2. The protection of public roads as well as residential property, cemeteries, churches,
parks and other private and public structures is addressed by Section .071 of the RRC
regulations. Buffer zones are required between these properties and mining opera-
tions. The buffer zone between mining and an occupied dwelling may be reduced
after the dwelling owner provides a written waiver consenting to actlvltes closer than
300 feet. Mining activities may occur closer than 100 feet to the right of way of a
public road (I) where mine access roads or haul roods join such o right-of-way line or
(2) where the Commission allows a public road to be relocated or the area affected to
be within 100 feet of such a rood after (a) public notice (appearing in a local
newspaper of general circulation) at least two weeks prior to any hearing and a public
hearing (if one is requested by an Interested party or determined necessary by the
RRC) and ,(b) making a written finding that the affected public and landowners will
be protected. TUGCO has proposed to relocate a section of FM 782 (see Part III) but
no agreement with the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation has
been made and no official request for reduction of the buffer has been mode to the
RRC. The request, if one is made, should be made in the mining permit application.
No mechanism exists to reduce the size of the buffer zones for cemeteries, churches,
schools, community or Institutional buildings and public parks. The RRC states (1983)
that In the past, requests for reductions in the size of buffer zones have been denied
in cases where the supporting documentation provided by the applicant was insuf-
ficient to justify a reduction.
-------
3. The noise level, quality of air, and water is conducive to good
health and productivity of humans, animals, and vegetation, and
not disruptive to public places, such as churches and cemeteries.
4. The mir.in/r operations of proponents shall not cause or create
erosion to ruch property or cause a reduction in the useful life
expectancy of buildings, fences, and/or other improvements.
CO
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 1983
0
GUS L. BRO'.YN
Gus L. Brown et ux Betty W. Brown
Page 2
3. The RRC regulations provide for the protection from excessive noise (Section .071,
Buffer Zones), lessened air quality (Section .379) and change in the quality or quantity
of both surface and ground water (Sections .339 through .355). In addition, air quality
is protected by Texas Air Control Board regulations while water quality is protected
by compliance with permits from the Texas Department of Water Resources and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (NPDES permit). Some measures have been
described in the DEIS based on information provided by the applicant. Each federal
and state agency promulgating regulations and/or issuing permits have enforcement
procedures. Enforcement procedures vary. The RRC conducts inspections monthly
and quarterly at different times of the day and week to ensure all aspects of the
mining operation ore inspected. In addition, individuals who feel their property is
being adversely affected may request, in writing, that the RRC hold a special
inspection and may accompany the RRC during the inspection. The NPDES permit
from the EPA requires the permittee to collect and analyze discharge samples and to
provide monthly, self-monitoring reports. If a non-compliance event occurs it must
be reported to EPA orally within 24 hours and in writing within 5 days of the event.
It is important for individuals living outside the permit boundaries to be aware of
impacts to their property. If an individual feels the mining operation is causing
adverse impacts (e.g., to air quality, sound quality, water quality, etc.) on their
property, he or she should report these conditions to the RRC or EPA.
It. Property and structures are protected, in general, by buffer zones specified under
conditions of Section .071 of the RRC regulations. Specific regulations governing the
control of erosion are found in Sections .335 through .337 (topsail removal, handling
and storage), .343 (sedimentation control including erosion control), .363 (disposal of
excess spoil) and .393 (use of mulch and other soil stabilization procedures during
re vegetation).
EPA encourages you to continue your interest and to follow the project as it may
proceed through the various stages of permitting, compliance and enforcement.
-------
April 26, 1983
FTOM: Dr. Greg Beil
President,
Marshall/Harrison County League of Vtomen Voters
313 S. Washington St.
Marshall, TX 75670
TO: Clinton B. Spotts
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
SUBJECT: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the
Proposed Martin Lake "D" Area Lignite Surface Mine
A. Vfe believe that more data is necessary to justify using Alternative 1
for handling of the overburden. Specifically:
1. More data on potential acidity of soils. A distribution of
values should be given in addition to the ranges reported in
Table 6-2 of the EIS.
2. More data on potential heavy metal content of the surface
soil.
3. More information on the oxidation of pyrites, particularly
after 5 years.
4. Data should be made available on long-term population of soil
microorganisms and other factors affecting continuing soil fertility.
There are some studies which claim that it may take as long as
75 years for topsoil to rebuild.
5. More data on fertilizer requirements for average to high crop
VO yields, particularly after 5 years. Our concern is that most
plants will die after the 5-year reclamation period without
continued heavy application of lime and fertilizer by property
owners.
B. Vfe believe that more data is necessary on factors which affect the
quality of surface water, particularly with regard to heavy metal
concentrations. Specifically:
i I 1. It should be reported how the samples listed in Table 6-15
I were taken — whether the coverage was random, total, or selected.
2. An explanation should be given for the value of a manganese
7 sample in this table which appears to be above the state allowable
concentration.
S I 3. The range of values for Selenium should be given.
., i 4. More data on heavy metal concentrations from the ponds themselves
1 | .in carder to be able to estimate the possible effects of discharges.
C. Vfe believe that more specific information is necessary on the reclamation
of forested areas. Specifically:
1. More data on the percentage of mined area which would be reclaimed
10 as forest. The 10 to 50 percent value given in the EIS leaves a
considerable latitude.
Response to Comments by
Dr. Greg Beil
The calculated ranges shown on Table 6-2 represent the range of values from five
cores and each value is based upon a homogeneous mixture of the core. The
distribution of potential acidity values for the five cores is: 0.0, 1.5, 8.3, 21.3 and
27.5. The ranges were calculated using the weighted averages of the physical and
chemical data from the overburden analyses of the five cores (Appendix B). For
example, to determine the potential acidity resulting from Alternative I, each core
was considered separately. The potential acidity for each segment of the core was
listed and weighted acording to the length of the segment. Then, since the
alternative considers a total mix, the weighted averages were averaged to provide a
potential acidity value in a theoretical homogeneous mixture of overburden repre-
sented by that core. The calculations can be made in the following manner, using
data for core hole //1128:
Segment
No.
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
(A)
Thickness
(ft)
11.8
16.2
12.0
7.0
1.3
3.3
9.8
(B)
Neutralization
Potential
-0.53
5.00
1.25
-0.95
0
2.73
3.80
(C)
%TotaJ
Sulfur
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
23.4
11.3
14.7
(D)
B-C3
-0.84
4.69
0.94
-1.26
-23.40
-8.57
-10.90
(E)
AxD4
-9.91
75.98
11.28
-8.82
-30.42
-28.28
-106.82
TOTAL
-96.995
The measure of residual bases in the soil expressed as tons of CaCO, per 1,000 tons
material. A negative number means the soil is acidic.
The measure of pyritic sulfur (acidity) expressed as tons of CaCO, per 1,000 tons
material.
The acidity of each core segment calculated by substracting acidity value from residual
base value. A negative number indicates potential acidity.
The weighted average acidity of each core segment calculated by multiplying the acidity
times the segment length. A negative number indicates potential acidity.
The arithmetic total of weighted average acidity of each segment. The negative sign
indicates potential acidity.
Then the average acidity of a hypothetical random mixture of the core can be calculated
by dividing the total weighted average acidity (-96.99) by the length of the core (64.1
feet). The resulting number (1.5) expresses the potential acidity of such a mixture in
terms of tons of CaCO, per 1,000 tons of material.
-------
Marshall/Harrison County League of Women Voters — Page 2
12.
2. More definitive projections on the use of various tree and
shrub species. In particular, we wonder why such non-native or
currently unconnon species as eastern cottonwood, Chinese tallow,
and black locust are proposed.
3. More studies should be done as to the effects of mining on
wildlife populations in forest habitat in east Texas. It appears
that with present reclamation plans there is little hope for
reestablishment of any semblance of existing wildlife ccmnunities.
In sunmary, we feel that there is insufficient justification for the
Alternative 1 method for handling the overburden. The economic benefits
to the power cotpany are outweighed by the adverse effects to soil
reclamation, surface water quality, reforestation, and the general
future use of the land.
N>
O
Dr. Greg Beil
Page 2
2. Data concerning the heavy metal concentrations in the overburden represented by
the five cores are presented in Appendix B. The five cores were spaced evenly over
approximately the southern half of the project area. The data do not characterize
the overburden throughout the project area.
3. Pyrite can vary significantly in particle size and physical form. It has been found in
at least six different forms in coal deposits. The most reactive form is framboidal
pyrite which has particles less than 0.0004 inches in diameter. The rate of
breakdown (oxidation) of pyrite is not constant over time and may depend upon pH,
the amount of oxygen present, the presence of breakdown products and other
factors. The addition of lime, to raise the pH, tends to slow down the breakdown of
pyrite. The addition of lime to control pH during early reclamation efforts could
actually extend the period of time over which lime is needed. The low pH caused by
the breakdown of pyrite has an adverse effect on the growth of most plants and
interfers with successful reclamation. In addition to the direct effects on plants,
low soil pH also increases the rate of release of certain heavy metals (copper,
nickel, zinc, manganese or iron) causing the amount of these metals in soil to reach
a level which is toxic to plants. This causes further problems with reclamation and
revegetation. The RRC regulations call for the successful revegetation of mined
lands and establish a period of extended responsibility (during which the land is
under bond) for the permittee to demonstrate successful reclamation. No such
protection exists to guarantee control of pH and metals after reclaimed land is
released from bond.
4. Soil fertility is dependent upon a number of factors including the physical and
chemical characteristics of the soil (e.g., particle size, water holding capacity,
presence of trace metals, pH, etc.) and the presence of microorganisms which are
important for the regulation of the levels of certain elements (e.g., nitrogen). EPA
concurs that under natural conditions topsoil rebuilding could take 75 years or much
more. Under natural conditions it may take that long for all physical, chemical and
microbiological factors to reach pre-disturbance conditions. Topsoil rebuilding may
proceed much more rapidly if physical and chemical factors in spoils are similar to
pre-mining conditions and when amendments (such as fertilizers and micro-
organisms) are added during the reclamation process.
5. Data on fertilizer requirements for average to high crop yields are presented on
page 6-28 of the Draft EIS. Although given as the data for 1981, the figures from
TUGCO should be considered as the requirements from year two through five of
reclamation. SCS technical guides for soils in the "D" area recommend 100 to 130
Ibs of nitrogen, 40 Ibs of phosphorous and 0 to 40 Ibs of potassium annually to
achieve high yields. At areas "A", "B" and "C" TUGCO applies (1981 figures) 80 to
160 Ibs of nitrogen, 90 Ibs of phosphorous and 135 Ibs of potassium to obtain high
yields. Fertilizer requirements on reconstructed soils vary greatly. For example, at
areas "A", "B" and "C" the requirement for phosphorous varied from 40 Ibs annually
to 135 Ibs annually in different reconstructed soils. No reclaimed mine land in
Texas has been released from bond and fertilizer and lime requirements over time
cannot yet be determined.
6. The data reported in Table 6-15 were collected at randomly selected
locations during RRC inspection visits. The data are spot samples from
sedimentation ponds throughout the Martin Lake "A", "B" and "C" areas
and cannot be considered as long-term monitoring effects. No information is
available to indicate whether the samples were taken under varying precipita-
tion conditions.
-------
Dr. Greg Beil
Page 3
7. The TDWR allowable concentrations given in Table 6-15 are for averages
(weighted by flow) of all samples collected during a one month period. TDWR
also has grab sample standards which should not be exceeded in any individual
sample. Because of the apparent collection procedure for these samples, the
grab sample standards should have been used. fToble 6-15 has been revised to
reflect this, see Part III.) The grab sample standard for manganese is 3.0 parts
per million which is not exceeded by the highest concentration listed on Table
£-15 (2.8 parts per million).
8. All samples showed concentrations of selenium which were below the detect-
able limit (0.01 ppm). No meaningful range can be given.
9. These data represent the concentrations in the sediment ponds. We have no
data on metal concentrations in the streams or sediment below the discharges
to determine constituents released during rainfall events.
10. The use of a percentage range (10 to 50 percent) for reforestation is vague.
This represents the TUGCO commitment. It is unknown whether this will be
acceptable to the RRC. For any given acre of land the vegetative cover to be
established may be based upon factors such as: suitability of the land (e.g.,
steep slopes near water courses may be most suitable to woody species);
adjacent vegetative cover (e.g., a small area of grassland partially surrounded
by woody species may be most appropriate); desires of the land owner (e.g.,
lease conditions may specify the vegetative cover); or regulatory restrictions of
the RRC (e.g., planting woody species may represent a land use change).
TUGCO's practices in reforestation at the Martin Lake "A", "B" and "C" areas
have increased each year (during the past three years) and reforestation areas
presently amount to approximately 13 percent of the total area disturbed to
date.
II. The list of species in Table 6-17 (page 6-98) was developed by TUGCO in
consultation with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Soil Conservation
Service and Railroad Commission of Texas. The list represents those species
which might be used during reclamation. Inclusion of any species does not mean
that it would be used, only that TUGCO has the option to use it if conditions
warrant. Some non-native species are included for potential use in special
circumstances. The special circumstances which might call for the use of
introduced (non-native) species include: (I) unavailability of native species; and
(2) more optimal growth of the introduced species compared to native species.
The particular species used in any case, the frequency of use and the acreage of
coverage must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The RRC regulations
(.391) state that an introduced species may be used only if approved by the RRC
under the following conditions: (I) after appropriate field trials have demon-
strated that the introduced species are desirable and necessary to achieve the
approved postmining land use; (2) the species are necessary to achieve a quick,
temporary and stabilized cover which aids in controlling erosion and measures
to establish permanent vegetation are developed; (3) the species are compatible
with the plant and animal species of the region; and (4) the species meet the
requirements of applicable state and federal seed or introduced species statues
and are not poisonous or noxious.
12. Comment noted.
13. Comment noted.
-------
•.C.OURTNQII3C
DAVID P. BROWN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
». o. eox caa
Response to Comments by
Mr. David P. Brown
NJ
N;
April 29, 1953
I'.r. Clinton B. Spottc (6ESF)
United Jtates environmental Protection
12<"il ~]n Street
j.illns, TX 75270
m
MAY 2 1333
GE3
Dear Xr. Spotts:
?o: .'-".nvironriental Impact .Statement on Martin Lake D Area Lignite
Surface Mine in Henderson, Rusk County, Texas.
Cn April 26, 19S3, I testified at the hearing in the husk County
Courthouse on the above referred to Sr.vironraental"lnipac t Statement
arid y/as requested to submit written co::usents. I had several concerns
ar:d questions which I raised at that meeting and which will he dis-
According to the draft if.IS, T'JGCC rr.ay only reforest 10 per cent
of the area to be mined. (Their proposed plans call for ref orestati T.
of fi-o.ii 10 to 50 per cent of the affected area). Vour table 6-23
shov.-o that over 1,0 per cent (Itl.&i) of the area to be r.:ir,ed is nj'.v
forest, I feel that T'JGCO should be -required to reforest the affect
area v:i th approximately the sarae amount of forest as it- now has, tha*
is at least IjO per cent. :/e value both our forest and our pasture
lands in this area and both are vital and essential to the agricultural
Tconomy of this area. vVe have many pine trees in this area which are
sold both for timber and pulpwood, and it would be a severe blow to
this area to have such a large portion of our lands which are forest. d
in pine trees cut back to such a lov; percentage of the affected area.
Also, our hard'.vood trees as well as our pine trees contribute verv
significantly to the beauty of this area. You would only have to"
drive through this area one tine in the fall of the year tc appreciate
the :nany reds, yellows, oranges, and other colors which adorr. the
trees of this county and area during the fall. I submit that the
beauty of this region in the fall rivals that of any in our country.
The tourism is a growing and important part of our local econo.-ny.
Therefore, I submit that TUGCO should be required to agree to and
G-yo.T.it proof that they can and will return the percentage cf pasture
and tinberlands in the affected area to almost the si-r.e percentages
of pasture and tii:.terlajids that are now found in that area. T'JGCO
should not be issued a permit from you until it guarantees that per-
ce:it--3ge and shows that it can restore that land adequately to s:;ppor;
approximately ^0 per cent forest.
I. The plan for revegetation as stated to EPA is vague and is of concern to EPA. If the
plan for 50 percent reforestation of the area mined is implemented it would amount
to greater acreage of wooded vegetation than now exists; however, 50 percent
reforestation is not seriously expected based on past measures taken by TUGCO. In
addition to the NPDES wastewater discharge permit, the Railroad Commission of
Texas has been delegated surface mining regulatory authority, the U.S. Department
of the Interior Office of Surface mining has overview responsibility. The mining
regulations allow for a significant vegetation change on disturbed areas from
woodland to "monoculture" grasses. TUGCO states that the 10-50 percent range is
their commitment and apparently believes a permit will be obtained from RRC. The
most environmentally sound revegetation alternative is considered by EPA to be that
requiring equal acreage replacement utilizing native species for forage and cover for
maximum recovery of wildlife habitat. Some of TUGCO's final plan will depend on
the landowner lease conditions.
2. Comment noted.
3. Relatively temporary sediment loading problems are expected to occur during and
after construction of the mine facilities area but the significance of these impacts to
water quality is presently unknown. Temporary increases in nutrients could occur as
a result of fertilization during revegetation. The mine facilities area (see Fig. Ill-l)
is proposed to contain two (2) sedimentation ponds as well as facilities such as a
sewage treatment plant, fuel storage area, maintenance shop, and handling area and
crusher. Discharges from the facilities area will be routed through the ponds before
release into Dry Creek. The sewage treatment plant discharge will require a permit
from Texas Department of Water Resources as well as from EPA. The storage of
2,500 barrels of diesel fuel on site will require TUGCO to have a site specific Spill
Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure Plans as called for by Section 311 of
the Clean Water Act. The design of the fuel storage site includes containment dikes
to prevent discharge of any spills in the area of the tank. TUGCO states that they
will obtain an approved plan from EPA before operation of the facility. Long-term
monitoring called for by the Draft NPDES Permit (Appendix A) may determine if
effects from heavy metals or other constituents occur. The discharge to Dry Creek
should have no effect on cattle drinking the water.
l\. The quantity of water in Dry Creek during peak flows will be decreased by about 2
percent during mining operations. More frequent flooding is not expected since the
frequency of storm events will not increase and the peak flows will be slightly less
than at present.
5. The Dry Creek diversion is being planned to allow for mining of a lignite seam
beneath the present channel. Other streams in the project area do not have lignite
beneath their channels since it was washed out during geologic time. The lignite
beneath Dry Creek is desirable because it is relatively shallow and can be obtained
easily and inexpensively. The diversion is planned during the first five years of
mining. The construction of the diversion is expected to take six months or less and
the diversion would be in place (during mining) for about two years. During that
time, nonriparian vegetation would be planted to control erosion and stabilize the
soil surface. Restoration of the channel to the prediversion location also would take
-------
Xr. Clinton ':•..
Fa~e ?.
Af.fil 39, 19S3
Spotts (62SF)
Your figure 5-6 chows that there will be a discharge fro:.-, the retcr.t
pone: at the loading station-into Dry Creek. '.Vhat effect v;ill said
discharge have on the water in Dry Creek? I am especially cor.cerne ;
suo t the effect that said discharge v:ill have on the cattle drinkir.
•.voter out of Dry Creek. Cry Creek frequently floods once or f.vice •>.'
ye;:r v/hen there is a heavy rain. This is not a rare occurrence,
becy;.:c I have see:i it flood quite often .r.yself. .Vhat effec. v.ill
thi acovo rcentior.od discharge have on the qua:- ti ty of '.rater ir. ::ry
Creek ur.A will it cn-;ce Eoro frequent flooding?
Your SIS shows that a small portion of Dry Crack is jroir.g to "f
tei.-porarily diverted fron its present tanks. ./hy is that 3..-.all oori-
of thMt creek being diverted? ~ .Thy ic that the or.l;- creek that is
bsir.£ diverted in the entire Tdned area discussed in this report?
.ny Js only a small portion of that creek only beir.g diverted? Is
there any retaliation because the land in the temporary diversion
has not been sold to TUGCO, as have nany farms in the area? ./hen
is this diversion planned? ,Vill this diversion cause reclamation
efforts to take longer where the diversion is nlar.ned thnr. they
ivoult: in other areas where there is no diversion? You rncntio ed
in your report that a Railroad Commissior. hearing would be co;iduc-e.:
before this proposed diversion would be allowed. ,Yhen will t!:at
hearing be conducted? '.Vill the land ov;nors involved be give!-. :.otic
of that hearing BO that they can be present? ',','ill that heari:::; \>-i
conducted locally as your hearing has been?
Your report states that FH Koad 782. will be diverted, .'/here
will it be diverted? i'/hy will it be diverted? .'/hen will it be
diverted?
Your report discusses whether there will be sufficient law
enforcement officers for the increased population caused "jy this
mining. However, I do not find any discussion in your report T;hat
adequately deals with the potential increase in crime. Statistic;
about the number of law enforcement officers needed is nice, but it
doesn't help ir.uch when your property is stolen or destroyed. I kr.sv;
for a fact of certain increases in crinc which occurred when the
Tl.GCO plant was being constructed because I v;as Assistant County
and District Attorney in Husk County, Texas, during that period of
time. The types of crime that particularly increased during the
period of time were the theft of copper wire (primarily fron ;-5A
lines) and house burglaries.
:!o are also concerned in this area with what will be dono with
the enormous ai.-.ount of land which is being purchased by TUGCO in
-lining areas. I am talking about what will be dor.e with the land
Mr. Dovid P. Brown
Page 2
about six months. After restoration, the stream channel would be reclaimed to pre-
mining conditions. The exact time for this process is presently unknown, but since
the banks and surrounding area would be reclaimed with riparian vegetation, several
years could be required before the vegetation resembles present conditions. Pro-
cedures governing release from bond are stated in Port 807 of the RRC regulations.
To obtain the release of an area from bond (including stream diversions) the
permittee must file an application with the RRC which includes copies of letters
notifying (among others) adjacent landowners and local government bodies of the
intent to seek release and proof of publication of a newspaper advertisement of the
application for release from bond. The RRC must conduct a site inspection and
evaluation of the reclamation work and, if requested, hold a public hearing on the
application for release. No area can be fully released from bond until "the permittee
has successfully completed all surface coal mining and reclamation operations in
accordance with the approved reclamation plan, including the implementation of any
alternative land use plan approved pursuant to Section .399 or .568 and achieved
compliance with the requirements of the Act, this Chapter, the regulatory program,
the permit, and the applicable liability period under Section 23(b)(20) of the Act and
Section .306(b) of this Subchapter has expired."
6. Upon filing a mining permit application with the Railroad Commission (RRC),
TUGCO is required to advertise the application filing in a local newspaper once a
week for four consecutive weeks (beginning at the time the complete permit
application is filed) and to file a copy of the application at the Rusk County
Courthouse for the public to inspect and copy. Until 30 days after the last newspaper
notice, the RRC will accept written comments on the permit application. The
applicant or any person with an interest which may be adversely affected may
request a public hearing but must do so within 45 days after the last newspaper
publication. The RRC could decide to hold a Public Hearing without any request. If
a hearing is held, it will be held within 30 days of the request or determination by
RRC, in the locality of the project.
7. TUGCO proposes to mine the area east of FM 782 (in the southern part of the project
area) and then divert the road to a location about 1500 feet to the east (onto
reclaimed land). The relocation is planned within the first five years of mining to
obtain lignite beneath the present right-of-way. About a 4 mile portion would be
diverted end would tie into the existing road through gentle curves (i.e., no right
angle corners). See Part III for revisions to the text.
8. Increases in crime associated with construction projects are related to the overall
size of the construction work force and especially to the number of workers from
outside the project area (in-migrating work force). For this project, no direct
estimates of increased crime rates were made. The models used for socioeconomic
analyses for this project do not include factors to directly predict increases in crime.
However, the small increase in crime which might occur is indirectly accounted for in
the predictions for the need to increase police services. Those predictions are based
upon population increases caused by the project and are further affected by state
recommended standards for police protection based on the overall population density
and type of area (i.e., rural or urban). The state recommended standards for police
protection are based on the level of crime associated with different population sizes
and the effects of increasing or decreasing population. For this project the in-
migrating work force would be small and no significant increase in crime would be
expected.
-------
N)
-P-
Mr. Clinton f>.
Pago 3
April 39, 1933
Spotts (SESF)
after raining and reclamation have been completed. This ic an area
of primarily small family farms, and we do not want one company
ov.v.inE all or a large portion of the land. I feel that all of the
land purchased by TUGCO should be returned to the local land owners
in farms similar to those now found in that area.
I In a related concern, I would like to know how TUGCO plans to
!"•! keep the present corners and boundary lines for farms in that area
marked. This is very essential to land titles in that area.
Also, as to a particular farm owned by :r.y father and I in the
area to be nined, there are two trees of particular significance
which I feel should be dealt with in your report. The first is a
quince tree which is a fruit tree. I a-n told that it is or.e of
only two such trees in the county. It was a large fruit tree and
producing prolifically when my father bought this farm about 1950.
It is still producing fruit prolifically in about July or August of
each year. Due to its age and size I doubt very seriously if it
could be successfully transplanted. Also, there is a large v;ater
oak or pin oak on our farm which night even qualify for designation
as the largest in the state or nation. I do not know of the size
the largest one is, but this tree would probably take four, if nor
irore, men to reach around it with arms outstretched at its base. I
feel that the impact of destroying such rare trees should be dis-
cussed in your report and v;ould be glad to take any of your staff t;
view these trees at any time.
These are some of my main concerns about the area to be mined.
I appreciate your giving me the time to speak about them at your
recent hearing and accepting these written cosnents. -fie would sin-
cerely appreciate your considering them in drafting your final
report and deciding whether or not to issue a permit to TUGCO to
nine the affected area.
Mr. David P. Brown
Page 3
9. There is no restriction, by surface mining regulation or the Public Utilities Com-
mission, on the disposition of land owned in fee by a private corporation such as
TUGCO.
10. Present corners and boundary lines would be re-established on leased land after
completion of mining. TUGCO-owned land would be surveyed and divided according
to requirements for disposition of the land. The original corners and boundaries may
not be re-established.
II. No regulatory standing or protection are afforded to trees based upon size alone.
Protection might be afforded to trees associated with an historic site or if the tree
were declared an historic site. Possibly, protection of a tree could be included as
part of a lease agreement. The Texas Forest Service (TFS), College Station,
maintains the "Registry of Champion Big Trees in Texas." Upon request, the TFS will
send a list of champion big trees and the procedure to measure and register trees.
Also, a national registry of big trees is maintained by the American Forestry
Association, Washington, D.C.
The above comments are appreciated. We encourage you to continue your interest and
follow the project as it may proceed through the surface mining permitting of the RRC as
well as the NPDES wastewater discharge permitting.
Very truly yours,
David. P. Brown
pb
-------
TEXAS FOREST SERVICE
» \ The Tent MM Unltenilf Sytlem
Am II P.O. Drawer 1327
1214) 657-1033 Henderson. Teas mm.
6.352 75653-132;
Environmental Protection Agency
Interfirst Two Bldg.
1201 Elm St.
Dallas, Texas 75270
Attention: Jeanene Peckham
Dear Ms. Peckham:
Thank you for the chance to review your EIS on the Martin Creek Lake
Area D Permit. I do have some general comments that are of concern to me.
It seems to be a forgone conclusion that this area will be mined, so
most of my concerns deal with the reclamation and reveget.ation of the mined
area and the responsibilities of the company to accomplish this.
The message I percieve from the companies proposals and your information
is that reforestation is not going to be considered in the revegetation pro-
cess except along streams and on steep slopes. It sounds as though you ..con-
sider reforestation too costly and too much trouble to pursue. At least 33%
of the land they intend to mine is upland forestland. As it stands now, these
sites are producing valuable commercial timber or at least they have this
potential. I cannot agree with changing the land use on these sites to
pasture without making an effort to restore them to their pre-mined state;
forestland. Your information on the value to timberland is very discouraging.
It is estimated that a pine plantation is worth from $100.00 to $125.00 per
acre, per year over a 35-40 year rotation. True, it does take at least 15
years to realize initial income but you need to compare value on the same
basis. What is an acre of pasture worth each year to a landowner? What are
his costs for maintaining this pasture? I've collected some figures on the
initial establishment costs of pine vs. pasture.
Costs For Pine Plantation Establishment
Response to Comments by
Texos Forest Service
I. The information is sincerely appreciated.
Treatment
Seedlings
Tera Sorb
Planting
Unit/Cost
$25/1,000
$l/oz.
$35/Ac.
$ 54/Ac-. Total Cost
This should be the only cost incurred in establishing and maintaining a pine
plantation until the first harvest.
more -
The forest Resource Agency of Texas
-------
NJ
- 2 -
Establishment of Pasture!and
Treatment Unit/Cost
Seed $18.50/Lb.
Fertilizer $185/Ton
Cost/Acre
$ 9/Ac.
S 28/Ac.
$37/Ac.
Application costs are included in the fertilizer costs since the seed can be
mixed with the fertilizer and applied by bulk truck.
The establishment cost for pine is higher than for pasture but whereas
there are no maintenance costs for growing pine there are yearly-costs for
fertilizer to maintain the pasture.
I should think that a proposal for at least 30% of the mined area to be
reforested with pine would be acceptable. Just because the trend has been
in years past for a decline in forested acres does not justify contributing to
this decline in an accelerated manner. The timber resource is not only
valuable to the landowner but it plays an important role in the economy of ,,
the county, and the state. It will always be a challenge for foresters to
ensure an adequate supply of timber for this county and state.
You have classified certain areas as ecologically sensitive areas because
they are wetlands and highly productive wildlife habitat. Wouldn't it s'tand to
reason that pine plantations are also ecologically sensitive areas because of
their substantial commercial value? (6.6.1.4)
Again I would like to thank you for the chance to respond.
I appreciate the magnitude of the job you are trying to accomplish in
being a good steward of the land for the people of Rusk County. If I have
raised any questions please feel free to call or write.
Sincerely,
Brad Smith
County Forester
BS/pj
-------
MARK WHITE
GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
May 25, 1983
Response to Comment by the
Office of the Governor
The comments in individual letters from the different state agencies are responded to
separately for each letter.
Mr. Dick Whittington, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Whittington:
The Governor's Office of Planning and Intergovernmental Relations has
received for review and comment the draft environmental impact statement
prepared on the Martin Lake "D" Area Lignite Surface Mine Project in Rusk
County. The State Environmental Impact Statement number assigned to this
project is 3-03-50-008.
The following state agency comments are provided for your consider-
ation. Texas Department of Water Resources requests that changes be incor-
porated in the EPA permit to monitor and report several chemical levels in
downstream stations in addition to other locations. This request is made
due to inconsistencies in previous water quality reports for Martin Lake
and the Sabine River studied by TDWR. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
is concerned with the applicant's plan to use inadequate ground cover for
reclamation areas and also cites the need for monitoring downstream fishing
areas for possible adverse impacts. The Texas Air Control Board advises
the applicant to contact their office to determine the need for
construction and operating permits for this facility. Review coitments by
the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation indicate this
project will cause extensive damage to existing highway surfaces in Rusk
County due to the hauling of materials and resulting development associated
with this project. It is recommended that the applicant consult with SDHPT
in an attempt to minimize road damage and to further determine those SDHPT
permits required of the applicant. The Texas Historical Commission is
notifying the applicant of the location of a potential national historical
site designation with the request that this be noted in the final impact
statement.
SAM HOUSTON BUILDING
P.O. BOX 13561 • AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
-------
Mr. Whittington
May 25, 1983
Page 2
This office appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on this
environmental impact statement. If we may provide additional information
during the review process, please let us know.
David Nesenholtz, Assistant Director
Office of Planning and Intergovernmental
Relations
mbs
Comments enclosed: Texas Department of Water Resources
State Department of Highways and Public Transportation
Texas Air Control Board
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Texas Historical Commission
General Land Office
NJ
-------
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
1700 N. Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas
TT.XAS WATER 1)1:VF.I.O!'Mr.NT BOARD
Louis A. IWecherl. Jr.. Chairman
George ft'. McClfskcy. Viijc Chairman
Cilcn E. Ronry
W. O. llanbton
Lonnic A. "lio" Pilgrim
Louie Welch
NJ
VO
TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
Lee B. M. Bipgart, Chairman
Felix McDonald
John D, Stover
Charles E. Ncmir
Executive Director
April 25, 1983
Mr. Harden Wiedemann, Director
Governor's Office of Planning &
Intergovernmental Relations
P. O. Box 13561
Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Mr. Wiedemonn:
Subject: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) on MARTIN LAKE D AREA LIGNITE SURFACE MINE,
HENDERSON, RUSK COUNTY, TEXAS. (EPA 906/9-83-003, March 1983)
State File Reference: EIS No. 3-03-50-008.
In response to your March 25 memorandum, members of the Texas Department of
Water Resources (TDWR) staff have reviewed the subject report being considered by
EPA in the administrative review of the application filed by the Texas Utilities
Generating Company (TUGCO), requesting a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit to discharge wastewaters from the Martin Lake "D" Area
Lignite Surface Mine, near the City of Henderson, Rusk County, Texas.
We suggest that NPDES Permit (TX 009120) proposed by EPA (Reference: Appendix
C, subject report) be amended to require the permittee to monitor and report the
concentrations of ammonia, phenols, and mercury at three selected, existing down-
stream water quality monitoring sampling stations, in addition to monitoring the
effluent quality-control parameters, stipulated in the federal New Source Perfor-
mance Standards (NSPS) of October 1982 (Reference: Table 5-3, page 5-29; and
Appendix C, page C-2, subject report). This suggestion is based on our con-
sideration of certain findings and inconsistencies observed between the report of the
Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) on the ambient water quality sampling and
analysis program in 1974, and the reports of the Sabine River Authority of Texas
(SRA) on water quality monitoring program during 1977-1980, in the Mortin Lake
lignite mining area. (References: Section 6.4.1.3, pages 6-54 to 6-64, subject
report; md, SRA Report: COMPILATION OF DATA-MILL CREEK RESERVOIR-
WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM-1977-1980, May 1981.)
The SWRI program identified eight water-constituent levels and quality charac-
teristics which exceeded the maximum-stringency water-quality standards set by
EPA, the U.S. Public Health Service, and TDWR for drinking-water supply, aquatic
life, irrigation, livestock and recreation uses. (Reference: page 6-58, paragraphs 2
and 3, subject report.) The water quality parameters identified were ammonia,
Response to Comments by the
Texas Department of Water Resources
I. We concur that inconsistencies occur in the water quality data provided to us for
the area; this presents us with an unknown background for measuring effects. In
response, EPA has placed a provision on the draft NPDES permit for monitoring of
additional parameters as follows:
In-stream sampling, analysis and reporting shall be provided for
phenols, ammonia (as N), pH, alkalinity, turbidity, total suspended
solids, total dissolved solids and mercury on a once/3 month basis for
Stream Sampling Stations TUSI I, 2, and 5, as used in the Sabine
River Authority's 1977-1980 Water Quality Monitoring Program.
Grab samples shall be collected both prior to, and during, periods
when discharges from the mine area are actually occurring.
r 7 R-7 1 1 • a .
-------
Mr. Harden Wiedemann, Director
Page 2
April 25, 1983
Texas Deportment of Water Resources
Page 2
1. Please note the revised analysis of impacts to groundwater and surface water in Part
III.
CO
O
mercury, phenols, alkalinity, pH, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, and
turbidity. The proposed NPDES Permit presented in Appendix C, subject report,
does not require the monitoring and regulation of any of these eight parameters,
except pH and total dissolved solids. We believe that ammonia, phenols, and
mercury also should be monitored in order to obtain sufficient data to clarify
inconsistencies and resolve uncertainties regarding the ambient water quality of
streams draining the mine project area, contained in earlier reports by SWRI and
SRA. We believe this is essential due to the fact that almost the entire natural
drainage from the watershed, and discharges from the mined portions of the
24,960-acre Martin Lake Mining Area "D"orea flow into Lake Cherokee, a major
drinking water supply source for several local communities. (Reference: Page 5-21,
last paragraph; and Figure 6-12, page 6-59, subject report.) Therefore, we suggest
that water quality sampling, analysis, and reporting program of the permittee
include the continued utilization of Stream Sampling Stations, TUSI I, 2, and 5,
which were used in the Sobine River Authority's 1977-1980 Water Quality Monitoring
Program. (References: Figure 6-13—SRA Surface Water Monitoring Sites, page
6-63, subject report; and Figure I—Water Quality Monitoring Station Locations,
presented in SRA Report: COMPILATION OF DATA-MILL CREEK RESERVOIR-
-WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM-1977-1980, May 1981, which was
furnished to TDWR by the permit applicant's representative on April 15, 1983).
Further, we suggest that the water samples from these three sampling stations be
obtained at least twice annually, analyzed for phenols, ammonia as nitrogen, and
mercury, and results reported to the permitting agency. The stream samples should
be collected both prior to, and during, periods when discharges from the mine area
are actually occurring, and the evaluations should be mode in light of earlier SWRI
(1974) and SRA (1977-1980) program data relative to ambient stream water quality
measurements in order to provide current verifiable data regarding ambient pre-
mining water quality conditions, and also to resolve any present uncertainties
regarding the post-mining stream water quality-impacts.
Pending the completion of our current comprehensive staff review of the hydro-
logical aspects of TUGCO's application to the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRCT)
for a mining permit, pursuant to the administrative agreement of October 29, 1979,
between TDWR and RRCT, we hereby note and hold in abeyance our views regard-
ing the following tentative determinations and recommendations presented in the
subject DEIS, relative to: (I) the anticipated radius of influence, i.e., approximately
3,800 feet) on groundwater levels, as a result of mining area dewatering operations;
(2) the estimated number of existing water wells (i.e., 142) within the mining
project boundaries, and the presently undetermined impact on wells outside the
project boundaries which may be affected by the mining-area dewatering operations;
(3) the possible potential effects of dewatering operations on existing annual average
streamflows (i.e., approximately 10 percent reduction); and, (4) the possible desir-
ability of requiring the applicant to "monitor existing wells downdip from earlier
mined areas to develop accurate predictions of effects from dewatering by pumping
in the northwest area before mining in that area. This should coincide with the
-------
Mr. Harden Wfedemann, Director
Page 3, 1983
April 25, 1983
monitoring program required by the RRC." (References: Table II, page IS;
Section 6.3.1, pages 629 to 630; Subsection 6.3.1.1, pages 633; and, Subsection
6.3.3.2, pages 639 to 644.) TDWR shall furnish staff review comments to RRCT
after the detailed data on the applicant's proposed mining-area dewatering plan is
furnished to TDWR by RRCT for review, pursuant to currently proposed Sections
339.61 to 339.71 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC).
Please advise if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Charles E. Nemir
Executive Director
-------
COMMISSION
ROBERT H OEDMAN CHAIRMAN
A. SAM WALDROP
JOHN «. BUTLER. JR.
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
DEWITT C CHECK STATE H1GHWAV ILDC.
AUSTIN. TF.IAS TtTtl
April 18, 1983
Draft EIS H 3-03-50-008
Martin Lake "D" Area
Lignite Surface Mine
Mr. Harden Wiedemann, Director
Office of Planning & Intergovernmental Relations
Sam Houston Building
Austin, Texas
Dear Mr. Wiedemann:
ENGINEER-DIRECTOR
MARK G GOOOE
IN REPLV REFER TO
FILE NO.
D8-E 854
Response to Comment by
State Department of Highways and Public Transportation
I. Thank you for providing information specific to this project area.
Discussions with the State Deportment of Highways and Public Transportation
(SDHPT) indicate that several methods could be useful in mitigating the impact of
road deterioration. Truck routing could be specified to prevent continued passage of
heavy trucks over the same roods. Contractual agreements have been effective in
reducing the incidence of overweight vehicles reporting to the job site. This
approach requires that suspect vehicles be individually weighed at the job site prior
to delivery of materials and that overweight shipments be rejected. Maintenance
agreements, between constructors and the SDHPT, could be negotiated which call for
the constructors to provide maintenance on affected roads (SDHPT, 1983). TUGCO
and the SDHPT do not presently have any agreement covering mitigation of road
deterioration.
See the revised text in Part III regarding impacts and mitigation.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft environmental statement
covering the Martin Lake "D" Area lignite surface mine project proposed
near Henderson in Rusk County.
Experience with similar operations In other areas has shown that the
introduction of a number of heavy trucks and construction equipment will
have an adverse effect on area highways. Although the mined lignite will
be hauled to Che power station on a private railroad, the area highways
will be used to haul heavy equipment to and from the mine; lumber, topsoll,
iron ore and gravel from the mine; crushed lime to the generating station;
and flyash from the generating station. Many of these loads probably will
require SDHPT permits. Even legal-weight loads have a cumulative destructive
effect on the pavement structure of area highways. Farm to Market Roads
designed to carry local traffic are especially affected.
Presently the Department has three projects in Rusk County to reconstruct
roads damaged by overweight hauling. These three projects will rebuild over
ten miles of farm roads at an average cost of $80,000 per mile. Many other
highways in the area also have been damaged and need repairs. It Is anti-
cipated that the proposed mining operation in Rusk County will continue the
adverse effect on area highways.
Sincerely yours.
M. G. Goode
Engineer-Director
By:
Clinton Spotts. Regional EIS
Coordinator Environmental
Protection Agency
Marcus L. Yancey/^Jr.
Deputy Engineer-Director I
1983
-------
TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOARD
JOHN L.BLAIR
Chairman
CHARLES R. JAYNES
Vice Chairman
BILL STEWART, P. E.
Executive Director
6330 HWY. 290 EAST
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78723
512HS1-5711
VITTORIO K. ARGENTO, P. E.
BOB G. BAILEY
FRED HARTMAN
D.JACK KILIAN, M. 0.
OTTO R. KUNZE, Ph. D., P. E.
FRANK H. LEWIS
R. HAL MOORMAN
Response to Comments by the
Texas Air Control Board
The Texas Air Control Board has written a letter exempting the Martin Lake "D" area
facilities site. This letter appears in Appendix B.
April 12, 1983
CO
CO
Mr. Harden Wiedemann, Director _ ,OQ3
Office of Planning and APR 13 1-'OJ
Intergovernmental Relations t
Intergovernmental Section Grrivf. !'? ji^l" ".-''Vhi'.KOk
P. O. Box 13561 O.M.B./&.r...S.
Austin, Texas 78711
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Martin Lake D Area Lignite Surface Mine Project
Proposed near Henderson, in Rusk County, Texas by
the Texas Utilities Generating Company
EIS Number 3-03-50-008
Dear Mr. Wiedemann:
It is the policy of the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) not
to require permits for surface mining. However, associated
stationary sources of air contaminant emissions such as
crushers, classifiers, material handling facilities, and
power plants do require TACB permits. Since crushers and
material handling facilities are planned for this site, the
TACB must be contacted for the purpose of determining whether
a construction permit or an exemption will be required for
the proposed facility. Additionally, a permit to operate
must be applied for within sixty days after the facility has
begun operation.
The proposed facility is in a location that meets the
national primary and secondary air quality standards for
carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and
particulates (TSP) and is, therefore, in a designated
"attainment area" for these criteria pollutants. Rusk
County has been designated "unclassifiable" for ozone.
There has been no designation established for lead.
Celebrating ISO Years of Texas Independence 1836 ^1986
-------
Mr. Harden Wiedemann -2- April 12, 1983
Mr. Richard Leard, P.E., Supervisor of Region 12 in Tyler,
has been contacted and would be happy to answer further
questions. You may reach him at (214) 595-2639.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. If
we can be of further assistance, please contact me or our
regional staff.
Sincerely,
/^~) . .-•—y
''_ ^-'-'^L-^ .^_\p-?c>.£<-(..' Y,>J_ .>
Roger R. Wallis, Deputy Director
Standards and Regulations Program
cc: Mr. Richard Leard, P.E., Regional Supervisor, Tyler
CO
•P-
-------
TEXAS
AND WILDLIFE DEPA .TMENT
COMMISSIONERS
PERRY H. BASS
Chlimun. Fort Worth
JAMES « PAXTON
Vicl-Chiirman. Palestine
EDWIN L COX. JR.
Athrni
CHARLES D. TRAVIS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
4200 Smith School Rod
Auitin. T«« 78744
COMMISSIONERS
ft. B. OSBORN, JR.
Sinti El«n>
WM. O. BRAECKLEIN
Dall.i
WM. M. WHELESS, III
Houston
Response to Comments by the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
I. Thank you for the comments. Your assistance and technical expertise is appreciated.
t. EPA concurs and has placed a provision on the permit for monitoring of additional
parameters in streams.
Hay 3, 1983
M.I' 5 1SS3
i
CO
Ol
Mr. Harden Uiedemann, Director
Office of Planning and Intergovernmental
Relations
Intergovernmental Section
P. 0. Box 13561
Austin, Texas 78711
Re: Martin Lake D Area Lignite Surface Mine
Henderson, Rusk County, Texas
EIS II 3-03-50-008
Dear Mr. Wiedemann:
^.
This agency has reviewed Che above-referenced document and offers the
following comments.-
The information concerning wildlife resources provides an adequate
assessment of current conditions. However, the main concern of this
agency pertains to reclamation following mining. Utilization of mono-
culture of coastal bermudagrass will not provide the minimum life
requisites for many wildlife species. Reclaiming the mined area to
vegetative cover comprised of at least 30% woody cover would lessen
adverse impacts upon extant wildlife resources.
Concerning aquatic wildlife, adverse impacts upon species important
to public use are not apparent. However, surface water discharges
should be monitored to insure that downstream fishing sites are pro-
tected from the adverse effects of sedimentation, turbidity, and releases
of trace metals.
Celebrating One Hundred and Fifty Years- 1836 1986
-------
Mr. Harden Wledetnann, Director
Page -2-
I appreciate the opportunity to review and provide comments on this
project.
Sincerely,
Charles fa. Travis
Executive Director
CDT:RWS:jlm
cc: Jerome Johnson, U.S. Fish & Widlife Service
Fort Worth, Texas
U)
-------
CURTIS TUNNELL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
April 26. 1983
•'-'- P.O. BOX 12276
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
(512)475-3092
Mr. Dick Whlttlngton, P.E.
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Attn: Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
Re: Draft EIS - Martin Lake D Area
Lignite Surface Mine, Henderson,
Rusk County, Tx (EIS #3-03-50-008)
Dear Sir:
We have reviewed the document referenced above pursuant to the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and Its implementing regu-
lations, 36 CFR, Part 800. We continue to coordinate and consult with
all parties on matters of cultural resources in accordance with the terms
of the Memorandum of Agreement. Page 6-116, The Vinson Plantation Is
potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, its
trinomial site number is 41RK128, these points should be noted in the FEIS.
We look forward to future consultation and coordination.
opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Thank you for the
LaVerne Herrington, Ph.D.
Deputy
State Historic Preservation
Officer
PEP/LH/lft
Harden Wiedemann, Officeof the Governor
Jeanine Peckham, EPA, Dallas Office
L/Ae Jinie-Stye/icy for
Response to Comment by the
Texas Historical Commission
I. The comments and assistance on cultural resources considerations are appreciated.
Table 6-18 (pg. 6-113) and pg. 6-116 have been revised to reflect the site number and
potential eligibility of the Vinson Plantation. See Part III.
-------
Garry Mnuro
Commissioner
General Land Office
April 15. 1983
'"PR I 8 13S3
^'^u.-.';.?*'0"
Response to Comment by the
General Land Office, State of Texas
I. The letter is appreciated and the comment is noted.
Mr. Harden Wiedemann, Director
Office of Planning and Intergovernmental
Relations
Intergovernmental Section
P. 0. Box 13561
Austin, Texas 78711
Re: Draft EIS t 3-03-50-008
Martin Lake D Area Lignite Surface Mine
Henderson, Rusk County, Texas
Dear Mr. Wiedemann:
I
00
CO
The General Land Office appreciates the opportunity to review the referenced
report. It has been determined by my staff that state lands will not be
Involved or affected by the Martin Lake D Area Lignite project; thus no
substantive comments will be offered.
Sincerely,
Mike Hlghtower
Assistant Land Commissioner
MH/SD/jb
Slepnen F Ausun Building
1700 Noftn Congress Avenue
Austin Texas 78701
(512) 175-2071
-------
5
3800 STONE ROAD -KIIGORE, TEXAS 75662 -2U/9B4-8641
ESVEO
APR 7 1S83
SERVING A FOURTEEN COUNTY REGIOf
April 5, 1983
Mr. Harden Wiedemann, Director
Office of Planning and Intergovernmental Relations
Intergovernmental Section
P. 0. Box 13561
Austin, Texas 78711
Re: EIS #3-03-50-008
Dear Mr. Uiedemann:
The East Texas Council of Governments (ETCOG) has reviewed the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) on the Martin Lake "D" Area Lignite Surface Mine Project
proposed near Henderson, in Rusk County, Texas by the Texas Utilities Generating
Company.
The proposed project is not in conflict with adopted areawide policies, goals,
and objectives and is in conformance with the adopted ETCOG Regional Land Resource
Management Plan and Tri-County Growth Management and Housing Plan. Therefore,
ETCOG gives the proposed project favorable comment and recommends the preparation
of the final EIS.
Sincerely,
Glynn 0. Knight
Executive Director
GJK/VE/lm
cc: Commissioner Talmadge Mercer
Rusk County
Jack Dickerson, City Manager
City of Henderson
Response to Comment by the
East Texas Council of Governments
I. The comment letter is appreciated and comments are noted.
CAMP • CHEROKEE • GREGG • HARRISON • HENDERSON • MARION • PANOU • RAINS • RUSK • SMITH • UPSHUR • VAN ZAKDT • WC"
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Office of Environmental Project Review
Post Office Box 2088
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87103
ER-81/358
MAY 0 3 196J
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the
Martin Lake D Area Lignite Surface Mine, Henderson, Rusk County, Texas and
offer the following comments.
General Comments
In general, we find that the EIS accurately describes existing resources of
the project area and adequately displays the proposed project's impacts upon
these resources. The State of Texas has assumed primary responsibility under
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 for regulating surface
mining in Texas. The Office of Surface Mining still maintains an oversight
role in assuring that coal mining in Texas complies with that Act.
Although we are concerned with many of the applicant's selected alternatives
in the development of this project (i.e., the use of mixed overburdens, mining
of fragile bottomland hardwoods and wetlands, land use changes from forestry
and grazing land to pastureland), these options appear to be consistent with
surface mining laws and regulations. We believe many of the selected alterna-
tives, especially when considered cumulatively with other surface mine
projects within the Texas lignite region, will have adverse, long-tern impacts
particularly on the quantity and quality of fish and wildlife habitats. To
minimize these impacts the appropriate regulatory authorities should closely
monitor the status of these large scale mining projects with respect to their
impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and take whatever measures are nec-
essary to ensure that these resources are adequately protected.
The project will have minimal impacts upon other mineral resources such as
clay, gravel, oil and gas.
The project as proposed will not impact any present, proposed, or potential
unit of the National Park System, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System,
or the National Trail System. The memorandum of agreement for consideration
of cultural resources should prove to be an effective tool in preserving
cultural resources in the project area and we complement the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on its preparation.
Response to Comments by the
U.S. Deportment of the Interior
I. Comment noted, EPA concurs.
2. Comment noted.
3. A map showing the relationship of mining areas "A", "B" and "C" to area "D" is
included in Part III. The "A", "B" and "C" areas were considered in addressing
cumulative impacts to all resources as stated on pg. 6-167 and 6-168 of the DEIS.
Because areas "A", "B" and "C" are located so close to area "D", the potential for
cumulative impacts to geology and topography, soils and prime farmland, ground
water, surface water, ecology, archaeological and historical resources, air quality,
land use and recreation, and socioeconomic factors does exist. These cumulative
impacts are more evident when considering the "D" area in relation to the "A", "B"
and "C" areas than with the other projects discussed in the section on cumulative
impacts.
4. A table presenting the acreages affected by project activities has been provided as
Table 1-2. A summary table listing acreages for land use and vegetation has been
provided as Table III-1. We trust this clears up the presentation.
5. The railroad will cross SH-<(3 above the traffic on an overpass constructed such that
traffic flow will not be affected. In addition, the railroad will cross two Farm to
Market roads and three unnamed country roads. None of the crossings will be at-
grade and traffic flow will not be affected during operations. Construction of all
crossings may affect traffic flow temporarily. See Part III for detailed information
on the crossings.
6. EPA concurs.
7. EPA concurs that when the preferred alternative is known it should be included in the
draft statement. This project is complicated regarding disclosure in that the
significant aspects of mining have not yet undergone review by the state agency
(RRC) which has been delegated authority/responsibility to see that mining require-
ments are enforced. The most environmentally-sound and EPA-preferred alternative
is discussed in Part IV. Obviously, the information made available in many cases is
not site specific and, we believe, could not comply with requirements for a specific
mining area permit. Of major concern is the alternative proposed for overburden
handling using mixed spoil for a revegetation medium—major justifications required
by federal surface mining regulations are not available for review or disclosure.
8. Section .384 of the RRC regulations state (in part) that, ". . . all disturbed areas shall
be returned to their approximate original contour." Historically, compliance with
this section has been determined by comparison of premining topography maps with
topography maps of disturbed areas which are made prior to the third year of
extended responsibility (i.e., the third year after land has been placed under bond to
ensure reclamation). Premining maps are typically produced (at the applicant's
request) by an independent aerial survey company. Aerial photographs of the area
are used, in conjunction with surveyed ground-control points, to determine the
topography. The postmining topography maps are developed by the permittee using
aerial photos of the disturbed areas and the surveyed ground-control points to
determine contour lines. Submission of such maps prior to the third year of extended
-------
Specific Comments
Section 1.2, PURPOSE AND NEED and Section 6.18. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS - A map
showing the location of the "A", "B", and "C" area mines is needed to show
their relation to the "D" area mine, and the possibility for cumulative
impacts to some resources.
Section 1.4, PROPOSED PROJECT - It would be helpful if the actual acreage
to be disturbed by mining, haul roads and ancillary structures were clearly
shown throughout the EIS.
Section 5.1.3. Transportation Systems and Routes - It is not clear how the
railroad will cross SH-43. It is stated that it would not be a grade
crossing, but would there be a bridge installed on the highway? What would
these impacts be?
Section 5.1.8, Other Project Components - The reference to Figure 1-1 should
be to Figure 1-2.
Section 5.3, ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA - This section should indicate
the preferred alternative. If certain conditions (stipulations) are to be
attached to the permit, they also should be indicated. The public should
have a chance to comment on them.
Section 6.1.3, Impacts of Project Alternatives - It would be better to
include a map of the proposed postmining topography instead of referencing
a map of the existing topography.
Section 6.2.1.5, Group V - Miscellaneous Land Types - It appears the refer-
ence to Figure 6-6 should be Figure 6-5.
Section 6.3, GROUND WATER RESOURCES - Leakage through the aquitard into the
upper Wilcox aquifers is indicated as occurring under existing conditions
(e.g., p. 6-33, 6-34, 6-38; figs. 5-3, 6-4). As dewatering of the affected
upper Wilcox aquifers progresses over the life of the project, differences
in head between the deeper Wilcox aquifers and the upper Wilcox aquifers
will be increased; presumably leakage will also increase. We suggest that
the statement address both existing leakage and any changes in upward leak-
age that may occur as a result of the project. It would be helpful if
current heads existing in the upper and lower aquifers were compared in the
EIS including a map of the potentiometric surface of the shallow aquifer,
inasmuch as appendices F and G are not available. Any pertinent observa-
tions from experience in mining in similar situations would aid in the
assessment. It is because leakage from the lower aquifers might result in
significant impacts beyond the project boundaries that the potential for
leakage during mining should be addressed.
TABLE 6-5, GROUND-WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED BY TUGCO - The volumes for TDS
are suspect since they are less than the sum of sulfates and chlorides.
This should be checked.
Section 6.3.3.3, Reclamation - The second paragraph should read "Alterna-
tives 2 and 4 . . . (than 1 or 3) . . .".
U.S. Department of the Interior
Page 2
responsibility allows determination of compliance with Section .384 and is one step
toward release of an area from bonding. Surface mining with draglines typically
results in postmining topography that is similar to the premining conditions. Major
features such as hills and valleys are present after mining but the general contour of
the land is smoother than the premining contour. The elevation is generally a few
feet higher after mining because of the initial volume increase (bulking) of the spoil.
9. EPA concurs.
10. Present downward leakage is minor since the only connections between upper and
lower sand bodies are sand channels and the deeper sands are confined by clay and
lignite strata. It can be seen on Figure 6-3 and 6-4 that the minor sand channels
(shown as a dashed pattern on the figures) which connect the upper and lower sand
bodies are discontinuous. At no point on the cross section could a particle of water
move vertically in a direct line more than about 100 feet. Vertical movement would
be prevented by either clay (in white) or lignite (in black on the figures) strata, or by
both types of strata. In several places on the figures, the small lateral extent of the
sand bodies is apparent since a sand body of a few hundred feet in width has lignite or
clay strata extending horizontally from both sides. Thus, not only would water
moving vertically have to frequently move laterally before continuing its vertical
movement, but the channels providing vertical connections are limited in area making
vertical movement more difficult. There are numerous clay and lignite strata below
the upper mineable lignite seams as shown in Figures 6-3 and 6-4. The clay strata
vary individually in thickness from about 2 to 20 feet. Cumulatively they have a
thickness of over 50 feet and extend over the entire area. Analysis of electric logs
taken from the first five-year mining area shows that these clays are typical of the
low permeability clays characteristic of the Wilcox formation. To obtain specific
information regarding leakage, it would be necessary to run pumping tests with a well
installed to the lowest lignite seam to be mined and observation wells completed in
the first significant aquifer below the seam to be mined and in the shallow aquifer
above. If no drawdown was detected in the lower well, then it would be assumed
there is no connection. TUGCO states they have not experienced problems with
upward leakage. Although not shown on a map, the current heads in the upper sand
bodies are stated as being between 5 and 50 feet below ground level with most levels
between 5 and 15 feet (DEIS, pg. 6-30). Figure 6-8 shows that the potentiometric
head of the deeper Wilcox sands varies from less than 330 feet mean sea level (msl) in
the northwestern part of the project area to just over 380 feet msl in the
southeastern portion. Figures 6-3 and 6-4 show that the lignite to be mined varies
from about 320 feet msl to just over 380 feet msl. Dewatering of the upper Wilcox
sands during mining would decrease the head to approximately the top of the
potentiometric head of the lower sand bodies. In areas not containing connecting
channels, no leakage problems would exist. Where mining occurs in the vicinity of
the localized sand channels of restricted areal extent, two possibilities exist. One, if
the lignite lies above the potentiometric head of the lower sand bodies, then
conditions of "no flow" would exist and downward leakage would cease. Two, if the
lignite lies below the potentiometric head of the lower sand bodies, lowering the head
of the upper sand body would allow upward leakage to occur and further dewatering
would be required. However, because of the small head difference (i.e., the lignite
only a few feet below the potentiometric head) and the restricted areal extent of the
sand channels, the amount of additional dewatering required would be minor and the
cone of depression would be limited. The possibility of impacts significantly beyond
the project boundaries and monitoring to determine such impacts were discussed on
pg. 6-40 of the DEIS.
-------
Section 6.4.1.2, Hydrologic Characteristics - The soil associations discussed
in this section should be correlated to the soil groups described in the
soils section.
Section 6.5.3, Impacts of Project Alternatives - It is noted in this section
of the E1S that approximately 1,136 acres of bottomland hardwoods, wetlands,
and hydric plant communities occur in the mining blocks. An additional 96
acres of floodplains and wetland plant communities would be impacted by
ancillary facilities construction.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) classifies these bottomlands and
wetlands as Resources Category 2, of high value for wildlife evaluation
species and scarce or becoming scarce (FR 46(15): 7644-7663, January 23, 1981).
To minimize long-term losses to these diverse, productive wildlife habitats,
we recommend "inkind replacement" of floodplain/wetland communities during
the reclamation phase of the project. Specifically, the hydrologic balance
of these wetland areas should be restored, appropriate wetland vegetation
established, and management practices undertaken to promote the long-term
recovery of these ecosystems. These practices are required to ensure the
biological integrity of these important habitats pursuant to the surface
mining performance standards of the Texas Railroad Commission (Surface Coal
Mining Regulations, Sections 342 and 380, respectively). We recommend that
the final EIS discuss more concisely what measures will be undertaken by the
applicant to restore these impacted floodplain and wetland habitats.
Section 6.18.9, Socioeconomics_ - The last sentence on this page is incomplete.
APPENDIX B. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Two references in the agreement should be changed or noted for future refer-
ence. On page B-3, the correct address for the National Architectural and
Engineering Record (NAER) for projects in Texas should be Chief, Division
of Cultural Resources, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region, P. 0.
Box 25287, Denver, Colorado 80225.
Also on page B-3, the reference to the Interagency Archeological Service
should be changed to Interagency Resources Division, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.
APPENDIX C. Preliminary NPDF.S Permit - On August 9, 1982, the FWS provided
comments to EPA on the proposed draft HPDES permit for this facility. The
comments recommended that the "NPDES permit be conditioned to require that
any retention ponds, discharge structures, etc. making up outfall 001 not be
located in wetlands as designated by the Corps of Engineers," unless individ-
ual authorization is obtained from the Corps. We request that Part III of
the MPDES permit incorporate this provision. A comparable stipulation was
recently included in the nearby South Hallsville Lignite Surface Mine mow
permit.
He hope these comments will be helpful in the preparation of the final ETS
Sincerely,
.^~fr^_Jf^C-7tA>
Pfeymond P. Churan
'Regional Environmental Officer
U.S. Department of the Interior
Page 3
11 The IDS values in Table 6-5 are incorrect. The chloride and sulfate values are
correct and are within the range in analyses of other groundwater samples from the
area. Apparently, incorrect calculations resulted in IDS values (shown in Table 6-5)
which are approximately 1/10 of the real value. Revised Table 6-5 in Part III
includes the corrected TDS values.
12 EPA concurs.
13 The Hydrologic Group Classifications were determined for the soil associations
designated by the SCS. Four soil associations make up the total project area and
contain nine major soils. Each of the associations fall into a different Soil Group
(Section 6.2.1.1, Table 6-1, DEIS) while only two (B and C) Hydrologic Group
Classifications are represented. The Kirvin-Bowie-Cuthbert association (Soil
Group II) and the Nahatchie-Mantachie association (Soil Group IV) ore in the Hy-
drologic Group C while the Nacogdoches-Trawick (Soil Group I) and Lilbert-Tenaha
(Soil Group 111) associations are in Hydrologic Group B.
\l\ Table 1-2 has been prepared to help clear up confusion on acreages. Within the mine
blocks, 1092 ac of bottomland hardwood forests (1039 ac) and hydric communities
(53 ac) occur. These 1092 ac include wetlands identified by the COE. Activities to
occur within the mine blocks are: construction of ancillary facilities; the Dry Creek
diversion; construction of haul roads; and pipeline/transmission line ROW relocations.
These activities would affect about 42 ac of wetlands as determined by the COE. An
additional 42 ac would be affected by mining for a total of 84 ac of wetlands.
Construction of the railroad and transmission line between the power plant and mine
would affect about 24 ac of bottomland hardwood forest and hydric communities
(some of which might be classified as wetlands). Mining activities would affect an
undetermined acreage of bottomland hardwood forest and hydric communities which
are not wet lands.
15 The RRC regulations (.337-.339, .341-.347, .384-.3B8 and .390-.396) require re-
establishment of the hydrologic balance after mining and/or stream diversions as well
as topsoil replacement, backfilling, grading and revegetation of disturbed areas. A
major feature of restoration is the re-establishment of the hydrologic balance.
Backfilling and grading to approximate original contour is a requirement for all areas.
TUGCO has not made c commitment to specific measures which could ensure
compliance to these regulations for these areas.
16 The last sentence on pg. 6-171 (concluding on pg. 6-172) contains two typographic
errors. The sentence should read (typographic errors underlined), "Two of the
projects (the proposed plant/mine in Harrison County and the Troup project) ore in
planning stages and are not scheduled to begin in the near future."
17 The address has been corrected. See Part III.
18 The address has been corrected. See Part III.
19. To ensure that specific plans and commitments are made for mitigation on disturbed
designated wetlands, EPA has placed the following condition on the proposed permit:
"There shall be no discharge of dredge and fill material into wetlands as designated
by the Corps of Engineers unless TUGCO submits specific plans for each wetland area
discharge proposed, to the Corps of Engineers for authorization by the Corps under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
-------
Response to Comments by
Mr. and Mrs. Gus L. Brown
I. The Texas Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (the Act) and RRC regulations
require that an applicant's past performance be considered before a permit is issued.
The RRC determines if an applicant's records show "a demonstrated pattern of willful
violations of the Act" and, if so, the RRC must deny a permit to the applicant.
Compliance is partially a function of enforcement by the RRC. A list of violations at
TUGCO's three existing operational mining sites, as shown in a recent application
submitted to RRC for construction of the railroad loading facilities, is included in
Appendix B. The monthly, self-monitoring reports required by NPDES permits for
TUGCO's three existing mine sites show numerous violations of the Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) discharge limits from sediment. These were proposed to be during storm
events, and not under dry weather conditions. Recently (October 13, 1982), EPA
published new rules on allowable TSS concentrations during storm events. The new
rules do not consider such TSS concentrations during storm events as violations.
Based upon overall potential impacts to the "D" area site, EPA is considering this
permit area as a "new source."
2. The Rusk County Tax Collector states (1983) that taxes are levied against land that
TUGCO owns or leases in the same manner as for other taxpayers. Land which is
being mined will be taxed at full market value but not above the value of the land
itself. Land which contains improvements (i.e., mine facilities, railroad corridor,
houses, etc.) will be taxed based upon the value of the improvement. TUGCO could
not qualify for homestead exemptions for residences it owns. Other lands (not being
mined and not containing improvements) would be taxed either at full market value
or might qualify for a lower rate based upon productivity (i.e., agricultural exemp-
tion). Over time appeals could be made by TUGCO (as by anyone else) for
reclassification of its property and reduction of its tax rate (possibly for an
agricultural exemption).
(Secure folded sheet with tape or glue)
-------
THIS FORM CAN BE USL_ TO SUBMIT COMMENTS RELATED TO mE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE MARTIN LAKE "D" AREA LIGNITE SURFACE MINE IN
HENDERSON, RUSK COUNTY, TEXAS.
fit it
a-
Mr. and Mrs. Gus L. Brown
Page 2
3. Comment noted.
4. Comment noted. Address has been changed.
Mrs. G. L. Brown
Rt. 4, Box 281-A
Henderson, TX 75652
Gus L. Brovjn
Route 4
Henderson, TX 75652
MAY 5
1983
6E3
(Secure folded sheet with tape or glue)
-------
TtXAS-
ELECTRIC
SEKWECE
COMPANY
Response to Comment by
Texas Electric Service Company
I. Comments are noted. No response is necessary by EPA.
May 2, 1983
Clinton B. Spotts
EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
Texas Electric Service Company (TESCo) appreciates the opportunity
to comment on the EPA's draft environmental impact statement for Texas
Utilities Generating Company's (TUGCo) Martin Lake D Area Lignite Surface
Mine near Henderson in Rusk County, Texas. TESCo provides electric power
to 78 incorporated cities and has 561,486 customers in an area of 18,500
square miles in central and west Texas. Like TUGCo, we are an operating
company in the Texas Utilities system who is concerned with the cost of
providing electricity to our customers.
Lignite coal is the least expensive fuel which TU uses to produce
electricity. Over 55 percent of all electric power generated by TU is
produced by burning lignite. Because of lignite's low cost, we plan to
take full advantage by generating as much electricity in the future with
this fuel. We have reviewed the EPA's draft EIS and it is our hope that
the subsequent permit will be issued so that we can begin using this
valuable new fuel supply and avoid any additional costs to our customers.
Sincerely,
W. Keel
Superintendent
of Power
ddb
cc: 0. R. Robertson
-------
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region VI
Dallas, Texas 75270 5-2-83
ref; TUGCO impact study for Henderson, Tx
Your report is inacurate in that my water well
is not shown in your report.
My well is active .
I know of other wells that are not included in
your report
I do not believe that waste water should be
placed into creeks and other water because it
will pollute the land banks etc.
Response to Comments by
Mr. R. Allen Green
I. EPA appreciates notification concerning wells not shown on the map. Specific data
on your well and others, including locations, would be helpful. The information has
been given to TUGCO for use in updating the water well map to be included in the
RRC permit application. If TUGCO disturbs or interrupts your water supply by
mining activities, RRC regulations require that they replace that water supply.
Measures for replacement include drilling a new well, providing other service (for
example, via a water supply company) or monetary compensation.
2. Comment noted.
.Allen Green
RT 4 box 702
Henderson, Tx. 75652
-------
TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
WHII IIHYAN-niWKH l>\IJ.\S.TKXAS 7r.ytll rurrfl
May 3, 1983
Response to Comment by
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
I. We appreciate the letter and note the comments.
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Attn: Mr. Clinton Spotts
Martin Lake Mining Area "D"
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Review Comments
Dear Sir:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated March 1,
1983, for our proposed Martin Lake Mining Area "D" project and wish to
provide the following comments.
Our review Indicates the draft EIS provides an accurate description of
TUGCO's project plans and the need for development of the mine. The
document also presents a complete and informative evaluation of the exist-
ing environment of the project area.
While we do not agree with several of the predictions concerning the
probability of occurrence and the severity of some of the impacts, we
believe that all the significant environmental Impacts have been identi-
fied. It Is evident that the requirements of state and federal surface
mining regulations and provisions of the preliminary NPDES permit will
ensure that any potential adverse impacts are minimized or prevented.
We are not submitting specific comments at this time on the preliminary
permit presented in the DEIS. We will comment at the appropriate time
when a draft permit Is prepared.
Please let us know If you have any questions concerning these comments.
We are prepared to provide whatever assistance is needed from the Company
in responding to other EIS comments.
Very truly yours.
H. B. Coffmln
JRR:11
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FORT WORTH DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX I73OO
FORT WORTH. TEXAS 76IO2
April 29. 1983
Office Operations Branch
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
This is in regard to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
Martin Lake Area D Lignite Mine proposed by Texas Utilities Generating Company.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) working as a cooperating agency with
the Environmental Protection Agency has completed a review of the DEIS.
The DEIS adequately assesses the impacts of the project and is correct in
regard to COE jurisdiction and permit requirements under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Although the DEIS provides little mitigatory measures for
the loss of wildlife habitat, we believe the applicant has made a conscientious
effort to avoid adverse impacts to wetlands and other waters of the United States.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the document. If you have any
questions concerning this letter or our comments, you may contact Alan Brackney
at FTS 334-4624.
Sincerely,
Response to Comments by the
Department of the Army, Fort Worth District Corps of Engineers
We have determined that there is a lack of a specific plan and commitment to
restoration of sensitive areas such as jurisdictional wetlands under Section bQb of the
Clean Water Act.
To ensure that there will be restoration of these areas that have important wildlife
habitat and water quality improvement functions, the following condition is placed on
the permit:
There shall be no discharge of dredge and fill material into wetlands
as designated by the Corps of Engineers unless TUGCO submits
specific plans, for each wetland area discharge proposed, to the
Corps of Engineers for authorization by the Corps under Section 4(M
of the Clean Water Act.
Allie J. Major
Chief, Operations Division
-------
THIS FORM CAN BE USED TO SUBMIT COMMENTS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE MARTIN LAKE "0" AREA LIGNITE SURFACE MINE IN
HENDERSON, RUSK COUNTY, TEXAS.
Response to Comment by
Mr. Ervin B. Henrichs
Two parcels of your land were located within the proposed first five-year mining
area. A third parcel was not located. The location of the well noted in your letter
is unknown based on available information. Specific data on your well(s) and its
location would be appreciated. If TUGCO disturbs or interrupts your water supply
by mining activities, RRC regulations require that they replace that water supply.
Measures for replacement include drilling a new well, providing other service (for
example, via a water supply company) or monetary compensation.
Fold
i-
VQ
Fold
8
Address
C L / A/ /?J>
773
(Secure folded sheet with tape or glue)
-------
T° SUBMIT COMHENTS REI-ATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
"°" *"" LIG"ITE
Cn
O
Response to Comments by
Mr. R. K. Barrett
Neither the Public Utilities Commission (PUC, 1983) nor the Railroad Commission of
Texas (RRC, 1983) have regulations restricting the disposition of land owned in fee.
Disposition could include sale to private individuals. But it could also include trading
for acreage in future mining areas or sale to non-individuals (i.e., companies).
Official monuments, such as property corner markers, highway right-of-way markers
and National Geodetic Survey (NGS) markers must be re-established. On leased land
the original property lines will be re-established after completion of mining.
TUGCO-owned land will be surveyed and divided according to requirements for
disposition of the land. The original corners and boundaries may not be re-
established. Highway right-of-way markers will be re-established when the road is
replaced, or established in a new location if the road is relocated by the State
Department of Highways and Public Transportation. Any NGS monument which is
disturbed would be re-established by NGS. The quality of all surveying done in Texas
is monitored by the Texas Board of Land Surveyors under the authority of the Land
Surveying Practices Act of 1979. Surveying is monitored by registration of surveyors,
release of manuals and guidelines to determine acceptable practices and, in some
cases, by an investigation and a hearing in response to complaints to the Board from a
third party (or the Board may institute proceedings on its own behalf). See revisions
to the text in Part III.
The comments are appreciated and revisions to page 5-18 of the DEIS are included in
Part III.
(Secure folded sheet with tape or glue)
-------
TEXAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
1511 Bryan Street • P. O, Box 226331 • Dallas, Tex«s 75Zfe6
APR JJ9 I9M
6ES
Response to Comment by
Texas Power & Ligjit Company
April 27, 1983
The comments are noted; no response is necessary from EPA.
appreciated.
Your letter is
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts (6ESF)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
First International Building
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
Re: Martin Lake "D" Area Lignite Surface Mine
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
I
Ln
Dear Mr. Spotts:
Texas Power & Light Company is an investor owned public utility
serving over 750,000 customers in 51 counties of north, central, and
east Texas. TP&L is a joint owner of the Martin Lake Steam Electric
Station and, thus, has an interest in the referenced Environmental
Impact Statement. The Martin Lake "D" Area Lignite Surface Mine would
supply part of the fuel source required for the generation of electricity
at Martin Lake S.E.S. to meet the continued need of our customers.
We believe that the draft EIS adequately addresses the environmental
concerns that are associated with the project and urge the Agency to
finalize the EIS.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft EIS and request
your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely yours.
GBerman:ln
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH A HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
I
l/l
NJ
3,
lc
Center! for Disease Control
Atlanta GA 30333
(404) 452-4257
April 25, 1983
. .
Dick Whittington, P.E.
Regional Administrator, Region VI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Whittington:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Martin Lake D
Area Lignite Surface Mine, Henderson, Rusk County, Texas. We are responding
on behalf of the U.S. Public Health Service.
The lignite seam to be rained is contained in Che shallow ground-water system.
It appears that the shallow aquifer system, particularly the upper Wilcox, is
a primary source of ground water in the project area. Approximately 142 active
wells are used for domestic and stock use. Although the trend is shifting away
from the upper Wilcox to use of the deeper Wilcox aquifer, some of these wells
will be eliminated and other wells indirectly affected during construction. It
is stated on page 6-47 that the "wells eliminated by mining would be compensated
for under terms of the lease agreement." The final statement should identify
what compensation measures are applicable. Specifically, what alternative water
supply would these people use if their wells are eliminated?
A second concern regarding ground water is the potential for the release of chemi-
cal constituents from the overburden into the ground water. "Some layers of the
overburden contain concentrations of certain constituents (e.g., pyrites) which
may cause short-term adverse impacts . . . ." "It is anticipated that concen-
trations exceeding water quality standards would be restricted to within a few
hundred feet downgradient of the mine" (p. 6-47). The identified constituents
of greatest concern are sulfate, iron, and total dissolved solids, all of which
pose no significant health problems, although sulfate may act as a laxative in
some people. Monitoring wells are planned by the applicant. However, since there
are numerous wells in the area, consideration should also be given to selective
sampling of existing wells, and a public awareness program which would alert the
local population to any changes in groundwater quality or drawdown which may affect
them.
We have some concerns regarding the maintenance of surface water quality and air
quality. However, the Draft EIS has addressed these potential impacts and
mitigation plans. Proper operation and maintenance of the proposed project is
essential in minimizing potential insults to the environment. Adequate operator
staffing, training, and laboratory and process controls are necessary for approp-
riate quality assurances. Standard conditions required for receiving and main-
taining NPDES Permits should ensure appropriate operation and maintenance of
pollution controls.
Responses to Comments by the
Department of Health & Human Services, P>LS.
I. The compensation measures applicable to eliminated wells are cash settlement,
redrilling the well, or connection to a public water supply. Which measure is selected
depends upon the lease agreement terms where well loss occurs on leased lands.
Replacement wells could be completed in the deeper Wilcox sands. Compensation by
connection to a water supply system could be to one of the existing systems
(depending upon the property location) or to another system, if one existed at the
time of compensation. Information provided by the existing systems (New Prospect
Water Supply Cooperative and Crims Chapel Water Supply Company) indicate that
sufficient capacity exists or is planned to accommodate additions. Surface mining
regulations (with RRC as the delegated authority) require compensation for affected
wells even if they are located on land the applicant does not own or lease.
Compensation measures would be the same as for wells covered by lease agreements.
The burden of proof for claims is on the well owner.
2. RRC regulations (Section .350) require monitoring by the permittee to determine the
effects of mining on ground-water quantity and quality. Section .350 states (in part)
that "Ground water levels, infiltration rates, subsurface flow and storage character-
istics, and the quality of ground water shall be monitored in a manner approved by
the Commission, . . ." and "Monitoring shall include measurements from a sufficient
number of wells and mineralogical and chemical analyses of aquifer, overburden, and
spoil that are adequate to reflect changes in ground water quantity and quality . . ."
The monitoring program must be developed on a case-by-case basis to take into
consideration any site-specific geologic or hydrological characteristics. TUGCO
states that, at the existing "A", "B" and "C" mining areas, most monitoring wells have
been installed by the company. EPA's review of water well monitoring data for areas
"A", "B" and "C", provided by TUGCO, notes that the location of wells is too great a
distance from mining that has occurred to date to indicate water quality effects.
TUGCO indicated that piezometers had not been installed in wells on mined areas and
no data on water levels or water quality analyses exist.
No structured, on-going "public awareness program" is conducted by EPA, RRC or
other agency. To date, the public has been made aware of general and some specific
project details during the NEPA process. This includes the Public Scoping Meeting,
DEIS and the Public Hearing on the DEIS and will continue with the FEIS and Record
of Decision. During the RRC permitting process, TUGCO must publish notice of its
application in local newspapers and file a copy of the application for public review.
Within 45 days of the last publication of the Notice of Application, the applicant or a
member of the public may request a Public Hearing. During this time, the RRC
may, on its own motion, call a hearing. The RRC must publish notice of any Public
Hearing in local newspapers, accept input from the public, and publish a summary of
its decision in a newspaper or similar periodical of general circulation in the general
area of proposed operation. The RRC also must provide a complete copy of its
decision to each person or agency who filed a written objection or comment to the
application. During mining operations the public may become aware of project
details. Upon request to the EPA and RRC, the enforcement files, monitoring
reports and other non-confidential data are available to the public. In addition,
Section .221 of the RRC regulations require that the permittee must notify any
person whose health and safety is in imminent danger due to a non-compliance on the
part of the permittee. According to the RRC (1983) to date no instance where a
-------
Page 2 - Dick Whittington, P.E.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft document. We would appreciate
receiving a copy of the Final EIS when it becomes available. If you should have
questions regarding our comments, please contact Mr. Ken Holt at (404) 452-4163
or FTS 236-4163.
Sincerely yours,
Department of Health & Human Services, P.H.S.
Page 2
permittee has needed to notify the public of imminent danger has occurred in Texas.
Instances have occurred in mountainous regions of eastern Kentucky and West
Virginia in relation to unsafe dams constructed from mine refuse.
3. EPA concurs regarding concerns for maintenance of surface water quality. Adequate
enforcement procedures apparently are necessary to approach appropriate operation
and maintenance of pollution controls. Violations of surface water discharge
limitations have occurred at mining areas "A", "B" and "C".
Frank S. Lisella, Ph.D.
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Service Division
Center for Environmental Health
I
tn
CO
-------
_^y\xJbe,
RIVER flOTHOBin
of/---' b
27 1933
ES
F* O BOX 579
77G3O
April 23, 1983
Response to Comments by the
Sobine River Authority
Based on further evaluation of information available to us, EPA has placed a
provision on the draft NPDES permit (see Appendix A) for long term monitoring at
three stations to establish ambient water quality baseline and to measure effects of
the mine project.
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
Ln
2.
Dear Mr. Spotts:
We are writing in reference to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) on the Martin Lake "D" Area Lignite Surface Mine Project proposed
near Henderson, in Rusk County, Texas by the Texas Utilities Generating
Company. The following comments are offered for your consideration.
As we stated in our comments on the Preliminary Draft EIS, the Authority
owns and operates Toledo Bend Reservoir jointly with the Sabine River
Authority, State of Louisiana. As a result, we are primarily concerned
with any potential impacts on water quality in principal tributaries,
the main-stem Sabine River and the downstream headwaters of Toledo Bend
Reservoir.
The draft EIS discusses a number of potential impacts that lignite mining
could have on surface receiving waters, and concludes that the effluent
limitations and the constituents to be monitored provide the necessary
protection for the area receiving streams. However, it appears to us
that there is a need for monitoring of Mill Creek, Tiawicki Creek, and
Lake Cherokee in order to document the effectiveness of the discharge
monitoring program presented in the draft EIS.
There are two major areas of general concern which we would like to
address. First, a significant area of the Sabine Basin upstream from
Toledo Bend Reservoir, a major drinking water supply reservoir, is
affected by existing and proposed lignite mining operations and their
associated steam electric stations. We believe increased water quality
monitoring is needed for the principal tributaries affected by mining
activities, the main-stem Sabine River and the headwaters of Toledo Bend
-------
s
mm DIVER RUTHORITY
page 2
Sabine River Authority
Page 2
2. We concur. Any further studies should be coordinated with Texas Department of
Water Resources and Sabine River Authority. See Part III, B for revisions to impacts
on water resources.
z.
Reservoir in order to assure that this drinking water supply reservoir
is not affected by any potential cumulative impact from all the mining
projects. Second, appropriate studies should be conducted and any necessary
action taken in order to assure that mining and reclamation activities
do not reduce the firm yield of downstream water supply reservoirs.
We would like to thank you for this opportunity to present our comments
on the draft EIS.
Sincerely,
Ja^k W. Tatum
Development Coordinator
Ln
Cn
JWT:njb
-------
25 (983
Response to Comments by
Mr. Bill Snow
?cC. £ TV?.
/7 "> J^fro-* ,
//f
r f*
.Ls //, E.lS. f.r
z.
*~,ji^. -**^ . .
A'/ "^ (7~*'^
The EIS will be revised to state that regardless of the final vegetative cover, a high
degree of management would be required for the initial period. For revegetation
with woody species, a cover crop must be established to prevent erosion early in the
process. Once established, forested land requires little management.
The use of a percentage range (10 to 50 percent) for reforestation is vague. This
represents the TUGCO commitment. It is unknown whether this will be acceptable to
the RRC. For any given acre of land the vegetative cover to be established may be
based upon factors such as: suitability of the land (e.g., steep slopes near water
courses may be most suitable to woody species); adjacent vegetative cover (e.g., a
small area of grassland partially surrounded by woody species may be most appro-
priate for mitigation of wildlife habitat loss); desires of the land owner (e.g., lease
conditions may specify the vegetative cover); or regulatory restrictions of the RRC
(e.g., reclamation to a pasture in a previously wooded area, which was not used for
grazing, may represent a land use change). TUGCO's practices in reforestation at the
"A", "B" and "C" areas have increased each year (during the past three years) and
reforestation areas presently amount to approximately 13 percent of the total area
disturbed to date.
v>-«»
-------
/,
^/-y y«J ;y
A-/ •> / c//.
*•« / fi>?e7
/*/"
-------
' /
«J -c , (f - ItO
tn
00
Mr. Bill Snow
Page 3
5. The percentage range for revegetation to pasture and woody species represents the
commitment made at this time by TUGCO.
6. The emissions from the crusher were calculated from information in the source
document (EPA, I977a) listed at the bottom of Table 6-20. This document states that
primary crushers release emissions at a rate of 0.02 Ib per ton of western coal
crushed. Lignite, since it contains more moisture than western coal, would release
emissions at a lower rate but actual emission rates for lignite are not available.
TUGCO states that they will mine (and crush) 3.5 million tons of lignite per year (pp.
5-19, DEIS). The crusher would release 35 tons of emissions per year under
uncontrolled conditions (0.02 Ib/ton x 3.5 million tons/year x 1/2000 Ib/ton). The
crusher emissions will be controlled by water sprays (Table 6-20, DEIS) which are
rated as 50 percent efficient (i.e., reduce the emissions to one-half the uncontrolled
amount). Thus, the actual yearly emissions are calculated as 18 tons/year (35
tons/year x 0.5 = 17.5 tons/year). The TACB, in a letter dated March 8, 1983 (see
Appendix B), has exempted the facility from the TACB permit procedures "because it
will not make a significant contribution of air contaminants to the atmosphere . . ."
According to the level of significance used by TACB, this means that the fugitive
emissions will add less than I microgram (1/1,000,000 grams) per cubic meter of air
for the annual average and less than 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air for the 2A
hour average. No dust problems from crusher emissions are expected beyond the
permit boundary nor at the nearest residences. See revisions to the text in Part III.
1. The analyses for construction and operational noise levels are conducted on "worst-
case" conditions (pp. 6-129 and 6-131) to assess the impacts. It is unknown whether
the worst-case conditions would occur; the noise experienced may be lower than
projected. The construction activities and many operational activities are short-
term. The only significant operational impact would be in the community of Oak Hill
when mining occurred at the edge of the nearest pit. This also would be a short-term
adverse impact. Operations near the edge of the nearest pit would occur for 24
hr/day for about a one week period four to five times per year over a one and one
half (Ife) year period. That is, the worst-case conditions might occur about seven to
eight times for one week periods. Possible mitigation measures include berms to act
as noise barriers. TUGCO has not committed to specific mitigation measures.
-------
.
C-ur
. r-J'-"*- A
* " /v~«
Mr. Bill Snow
Page 4
8. The figure for 1979 lumber production on pp. 6-139 is incorrect. The proper figure
for pine is 50,469 thousand board feet (i.e., 50,469,000 board ft). The figure for ties
is correct but it was not made clear that there were only 2,053 pine ties produced.
Total cross-tie production was 71,291 of which 69,238 were hardwood ties. The unit
of time associated is one year (i.e., 1979, the most recent year for which data were
available during production of the DEIS). The source for the data was the Texas
Forest Service (1980).
7U C.
'fck,
-------
f^< .
0^
'
o . ~
-^.^-»-!, , i r*» ^ c
f 7* / ^J"*" 7
> /."i
'// '*/cr*J7/ ^/ cr/
IS \t^f ^
y x / •
C/7/C
O\
O
Mr. Bill Snow
Page 5
9. The information on agricultural uses and commercial forest acreage was taken from
reports prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce (I98IW, the East Texas
Council of Governments (1977) and Earles (1976).
-------
SIERRA
CLUB
LONE STAR CHAPTER
601U Woodbrook
Houston, TX 7?:X>8
Ap. 21, 198?
Clinton Spoils, Reg. EIS Coordinator
U... E.P.A.
1201 Elm St.
Dallas. TX 75270
Re: Draft Environmental Impact St=te-nent
Martin Lake "D" Area Lignite Surface Mine Project
We are concerned about proposed reclamation method-alternative
number one. This method will admittedly adversly effect soil ph,
Increase acid runoff to contaminate surface and ground water and
adversely effect the "primary ofjective of revegetation operations
to establish an enduring self propagating and ecologically
sound vegetative cover..." It seems that the Texas R.R.C. definition
of prime farm land undervalues the long term land productivity
value by using farming history as a criteria. The protection of
the long term land productivity resource must be the chief concern
of any land reclamation project.
Wo propose that all 26,291 a. of U.S.Soil and Conservation
Service classified prime farmlands be protected by Alternative four •
methods of mining and reclamation. V.'e recommend that topsoil be
placed over oxidized spoil in these U.S.S.C.S. prime farmlands.
Special care should be taken to avoid contamination ofx ground
water. The applicant should monitor grcundwater at several sites
around the area to assure water quality.
Thank you for this opportunity to respond.
Yours_ truly,
Response to Comments by the
Sierra Club, Lane Star Chapter
I. Comment noted.
2. Comment noted.
3. The total acreage of Soil Conservation Service (SCS) prime farmland soils
within the project boundary is 8,365 ac with 6,152 oc occurring within the
mining blocks. Of the prime farmland soil acreage within mining blocks,
some 920 ac is luka fine sandy loam, which is associated with flood plains
of streams. Most of the luko fine sandy loam will not be disturbed since
mining will not occur in the flood plain of streams, except for the Dry
Creek diversion, which will disturb about 30 ac of luka fine sandy loam.
Construction of the railroad and transmission line could affect 76 oc of
prime farmland soils outside the mining blocks. It is estimated that
mining activities (including haul roads, facilities, railroad and trans-
mission line) could disturb about 5,340 ac (6,152 ac - 920 ac + 30 ac + 76
ac) of prime farmland soils.
4. Comment noted.
George Smith
Conservation Chair
"When we try to pick out anything by itself, wr find it hitched to everything else in the universe." John Muir
-------
RUSK COUNTY
Chamber of Commerce
2M-657-S528 * 201 NORTH MAIN
HENDERSON, TEXAS 75652
April 12, 1983
Response to Comment by
Rusk County Chamber of Commerce
The comments are noted. We encourage you to be interested in the natural
environment as the project may proceed through additional permitting, construction
and operation.
ON
tsj
Mr. Clinton Spotts
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75207
Dear Mr. Spotts:
In response to your request for comments on the Environmental Impact
Statement for the Martin Lake D Area Lignite Surface Mine, the Board
of Directors would like to go on record In support of the project.
We are aware that there will be short and long term beneficial
Impacts to the local economy resulting from wages, land purchases,
royalties and capital expenditures from the project.
Our people recognize that any large mining project will have some
environmental impacts. At the same time your document has done a
good job of identifying those Impacts and the procedures that will
be used to insure that there will be no major environmental effects.
Texas Utilities Generating Company has established a good reclamation
program at Its mines In Panola County, and we expect that they will
conduct a similarly beneficial environmental protection program at
the new nine in Rusk County.
Sincerely,
B. G. Davis
President
BGD/db
APR
-------
CO
501 Sautk M.in
HENDERSON. TEXAS
75652
APR £0 IS
6ES
HOWARD-DICKINSON HOUSE -US5
Restored 1f<7
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts, Regional EIS Coordinator
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas, 75270
April 16, 1983
Dear Mr. Spotts:
RE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MARTIN LAKE D AREA
LIGNITE SURFACE MINE
HENDERSON, RUSK COUNTY, TEXAS
(Draft)
The abstract on page 2, Mr. Myron 0. Knudsen, for Mr. Dick Whlttlngton,
P.E. Regional Administrator, is enough to scare the daylights out of us,
when It comes to environmental change generally and archaeological and
historic sites In particular. And Table 1-J, doesn't help much; for Instance
page 1-7 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES: "Adverse effect has been
determined on Walling Cabin, but minimized by re-location to Henderson ...."
Minimized Is right and we are glad to gat the cabin, but how come we weren't
given a chance to transfer some of the bulbs and ancient shrubs and plantings
around that cabin? The place was awash with blooms - and the ancient Bois d'Arc
tree near the road - not in the way of anything - could have been left there.
It may well have been the larges Bois d'Arc tree In Texas, but it went down
within hours - bull-dozed and burned. What was the hurry? Nothing has been
done there since.
Now as to 41RK86 - THE TOWN OF MILLVILLE. Se surely want that site disturbed
as little as possible, if at all. Before and for some time after the 1850's
Millvllle was a flourishing town, and an important one In Rusk County. There
were at least five Mills there - Tannery, Grist Mills, Cotton Gin, etc. I know
of my own knowledge that at least one of the Mills was owned by the Galloway
Family, and one of the Grist Mills was owned by Col. Jesse Walltng. Dr. O. L.
Sure, besides his medical practice, owned a Drug Store there in which the U.S.
Post Office was located. There were numerous other businesses Hotel, Stage
Coach Way Station, Churches and Schools.
We have numerous old Ledgers and accounts of life in Millville, and with the
exception of Gen. Sam Houston, It would be hard to find two more colorful
characters that old Col. Jesse and Dr. Burt.
Response to Comments by
Rusk County Heritage Association
EPA is also concerned regarding the disturbance and loss of the Walling Cabin site
shortly after archeological work was carried out. Oral assurance had been given to
EPA that work on the railroad corridor would begin at the power plant site and that it
would be months before the cabin site would be reached; adequate time was expected
to receive the Archaeologists reports and determine survey completeness and site
eligibility. At that time it was believed unnecessary to provide direction to the
applicant.
-------
Page 2 - Spotts
We are told thatthe Mlllvllle site will not be mined for ten years Yet.
7-. So tltlt We DO NOT want that site mined at all. It is Important to
Rusk County.
ABOUT 41RK87 - THE MONTGOMERY HOUSE. This house was a beautifully built
and decorated house, the scene of much entertaining in Its day. Whoever Is
3- responsible for the bull-dozing of the site did a dis-servlce to This County.
The House itself could have been saved years ago If we had had the money or/and
the cooperation of the family. We had neither.
41RK128 THE JOHN VINSON SR., house - still standing but in a sad state of
delapldatlon. Though an affluent man, his house did not reflect it.
THE RICHARD B. TUTT PLANTATION - so far as we know, Richard B. Tutt and his
family never lived on the plantation, but built and operated THE WHITE TAVERN
in Henderson, Texas.
THE RICHARD MAGEE PLANTATION - Part of this lies within the prospective
mining zone. There was a large plantation house, cotton gin , plus other
usual plantation structures here. I have personally seen (many years ago)
some of the foundation for the main house, a rather large excavation - perhaps
t cellar, other evidences of structures. Bulbs cover the slope where the
house was in the springtime, and many brambles from an evidently extensive
planting of roses. The saga of Richard Magee is an interesting one: from
Plantation owner, early Conmlssloner of Rusk County, to part owner and Captain
of a Steamboat called THE GENERAL RUSK, built by Rusk County men to ply the
waters of the Sabine River.
ON All of these sites should be marked, and some of them qualify for the National
Register of Historic places.
There are many archaeological sites: 41RK82 Bottom land wast side of Mlllvllle;
41RK83 - north of the confluence of Mill and Dogwood Creeks; 41RK106 East Bank
of Mill Creek at FM 782 and 42-RK109, West of 106 above knoll overlooking Mill
Creek, to name a few. These should all be checked out thoroughly before being
irretrievably lost.
We are not ANTI-Progress; we ARE Pro-Conservationists - from Historical sites
to Flora and Fauna, to the fullest extent possible.
Very truly yours,
RUSK COUNTY HERITAGE ASSOCIATION
RUSK CWKTY HJSWRICAkJCOMMISSION
BY:
Rusk County Heritage Association
Page 2
2. Regarding 4IRK86 - The Town of Millville. The information is appreciated and points
further to significance of the area.
EPA, instead of requiring identification and determination of eligibility and appro-
priate mitigation on all sites over the entire project area before any permit action,
entered into an agreement with the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (which has responsibility to see that
agencies carry out consultation on cultural resources according to the National
Historic Preservation Act) so this could be done over the 30-year period of mining,
one permit area at a time.
3. 4IRK87. While the structure is lost and much of the area has been disturbed, (see
Part III) by gravel mining and other activities, the applicant has been informed that
the area is considered to have high probability for discovery of resources during
mining activities.
t\. 4IRKI28. Effects of mining and mitigation to John Vinson, Sr., house and site would
be addressed by the applicant about the year 2005. However, as noted in our response
to the Rusk County Historic Commission, other interested parties such as that
Commission or Rusk County Heritage Association could pursue a determination of
eligibility and/or nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, so that the
importance could become known earlier. This is also true for the other known sites.
5. EPA encourages you to be familiar with cultural resources protection requirements of
agencies that may have permit actions in this county so that you may continue to
assist, in all permit actions, with public input and to help ensure agency and applicant
compliance. We have forwarded a copy of the federal regulations EPA should comply
with regarding cultural resources. Under the National Environmental Policy Act,
EPA should ensure, before permitting, that a project meets all state and local laws;
to do so requires public input.
In addition, you are encouraged to follow actions by federal and state agencies which
propose changes to their requirements from time to time. (Federal regulations and
changes are printed in the Federal Register). Industry, as a regular work practice,
provides comments to agencies on regulations. It may be beneficial to the
environment for you to review and provide comments that promote your interests as
well.
The Association comments are sincerely appreciated.
information of the Draft EIS in Part III of this Final EIS.
Please note revisions to
Carl
rltage
Member of the Commission
ecretary
-------
APR
MAX H. TANNER, JR.
VICE PRESIDENT
April 19, 1983
6ES
Response to Comment by
Dallas Power & Light Company
I. Comments are noted. No response is necessary by EPA.
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts (6ESF)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
First International Building
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
Martin Lake "D" Area Lignite Surface Mine
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Dear Mr. Spotts:
Dallas Power 6 Light Company owns and operates production, transmission, and
distribution facilities to serve a population of approximately one million
within Dallas County, Texas. As part of the Texas Utilities Company System,
DPsL is a joint owner of the Martin Lake Steam Electric Station with the
Company's share of electrical output from the station distributed to customers
within the Company's service area. The Company has an Interest in the draft
OS EIS and the proposed operation of the Martin Lake "D" Area mine because of
the increasing importance of lignite as a fuel resource.
The Company believes that the draft EIS adequately addresses all environmental
issues associated with the project and urges the Agency to accept the document
as fulfilling the needs for which it was developed. The cost of fuel for the
Company's gas fueled generation continues to escalate. Lignite fuel has proven
to be a valuable stabilizing influence in our overall fuel cost. With the
continued and expanded use of lignite fuel, our Company is meeting the energy
needs of our customers at the most reasonable price.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on and to support the adoption
of this document.
Yours very truly,
DALLAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY • 1506 COMMERCE STREET • DALLAS. TEXAS 75201 (214) 698-7000
-------
xJSj\ United Stales
IflAJ}) Department of
\3B^ Agriculture
ON
ON
Soil
,-. rConservation
H Service
t. 0. Box 648
Temple, TX
' 76503
April 14, 1983
Mr. Dick Whittington, P.E.
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
Dear Mr. Whittington:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the
Martin Lake "D" Area Lignite Surface Mine Project proposed near Henderson,
Rusk County, Texas and have no comments for improvement. The comments
we made in January 1983 have been Included in this draft.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this EIS.
Sincerely,
Response to Comment by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture; Soil Conservation Service
I. Your letter is appreciated and your comments noted.
'State Conservad-foiTist
cc: Audrey Baker, AC, SCS, Nacogdoches
The Soil Conservation Service
is an agency ol the
Department of Agriculture
-------
(Ettg of jJbnbe
400 JBesl (flHahi
jMcnttcrean, QTexaa 75652
April 14, 1983
Mr. Clinton Spotts
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm St.
Dallas, Texas 75207
Dear Mr. Spotts:
We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
TUOCO proposed new Martin Lake "D" Area Lignite Mine. We found it
very interesting and informative as to the environmental conditions
that will result to the City of Henderson because of this mining
operation. It appears that the planning and study that has been made
will result in a successful operation for the area.
In reviewing the environmental concerns and effects upon the environ-
ment of the City of Henderson and its citizens, we conclude that the
project is in the best interests of all concerned. It appears that the
environmental impacts will not adversely affect the City of Henderson
in its operations and will be a contributing factor for the orderly
growth and development of the City of Henderson.
In conclusion, we would recommend to EPA that a National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System Permit be issued to Texas Utilities Generating
Co. for the project.
Sincerely
/Jack Dickerson
City Manager
JD:cka
Response to Comment by
City of Henderson, City Manager
The comment letter is appreciated and comments are noted. We encourage you to
continue to be interested in the natural environment as the project proceeds through
additional permitting, construction and operation.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
FORT WORTH REGIONAL OFFICE
P.O. BOX 3905
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 70113
CD
April 14, 1983
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
"twl
APR 15 1983
6ES
Dear Mr. Spotts:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Martin Lake D
Area Lignite Surface Mine near Henderson in Rusk County, Texas, has
been reviewed in the Department of Housing and Urban Development's
Dallas Area Office and Fort Worth Regional Office, and it has been
determined that the subject document adequately addresses this
Department's special areas of environmental concern.
Sincerely,
Response to Comment by the
U.S. Deportment of Housing ond Urbon Development
I. The comment letter is appreciated and comments are noted.
-------
Response to Comments by
Floyd ond Betty Holcomb
I. The area near the Oak Hill Community is planned to be mined after the year 2005
(see Fig. 1-2, DEIS). Present plans do not call for mining the land on which the
community itself is located. More details based upon the exact location of your
property may be obtained by contacting the TUGCO land office in Henderson.
Name -f.-
Address
(Secure folded sheet with tape or glue)
APR 15 '983
6ES
-------
Wildlife Managementlnstitute
. ,1 ii ,, "i. '(•• O
709 Wire Building; 1000 Vermont Ave., N.W.. Washington, D.C. 20005 •
202 /347-1774
EPA
-
DANIEL A. POOIE
Pr«/denf
I. R. |AHN
V»ce-fV«'denf
L. L WHIIAMSON
Sefretary
|ACK S. PARKER
Board Chairman
| f ICt"
Murny T. Wallon
Southcentral Representative
Star Route 1A, Box 30C
Dripping Springs, Texas 7B620
512-825-3475
April 7, 1983
I
^1
O
2.
3.
APR 14 1985
6ES
Mr. Dick Whlttington, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agancy
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Whittlngton:
The Wildlife Management Institute has reviewed the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Martin Lake D Area Lignite Surface Mine, Henderson,
Rusk County, Texas. The proposed action will disrupt approximately 15,000
acres including approximately 300 acres of wetlands and aquatic habitats
and over 1,000 acres of bottomland hardwood forest.
The Institute favors topsoll replacement (alternative 2) for overburden
handling, especially for all prime farmlands. We also favor the proposed
revegetation alternative of pasture and woodland, bu"t we recommend that
additional native species be used. The Institute does not find, however, that
the proposed actions are sufficient to mitigate wildlife losses. To further
mitigate such losses, we recommend that TUGCO make all suitable portions of
Its 5,460 acres of fee lands In the project area available to the Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department for Wildlife Management Area purposes upon the comple-
tion of mining and reclamation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document.
Response to Comments by the
Wildlife Management Institute
I. Within the mine blocks, 1,092 ac of bottomland hardwood forests (1,039 ac) and
hydric communities (53 ac) occur. These 1,092 ac include wetlands identified by the
COE. Activities to occur are: construction of ancillary facilities; the Dry Creek
diversion; construction of haul roads; pipeline/transmission line ROW relocations; and
mining. These activities would affect about 8^ ac of wetlands as determined by the
COE within the mine blocks. Construction of the railroad and transmission line
between the power plant and mine (outside the mine blocks) would affect about 2b ac
of bottomland hardwood forest and hydric communities (some of which might be
classified as wetlands) (see Table Ill-l). Mining activites would affect an
undetermined acreage of bottomland hardwood forest and hydric communities which
are not wetlands. A 100-ft. buffer between mining activities and a stream is stated
by mining regulations, although approval to mine more closely to streams can be
obtained. In the case of the Dry Creek diversion proposed by TUGCO, it is presently
unknown how the buffer requirement will be applied.
2. Comment noted.
3. Comment noted.
k. EPA has informed TUGCO of the mechanism to donate or lease land to the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) for wildlife management purposes. Decisions
by TPWD to accept or reject such offers are made on a case-by-case basis. Some
considerations in making such decisions are suitability of the land for management
purposes, need for the additional acreage and availability (long- and short-term) of
funding needed to develop and/or maintain the land. The disposition to make any land
available to TPWD would remain with TUGCO.
Your letter is sincerely appreciated. Thank you for the information on wildlife habitat
impact mitigation.
Sincerely,
Mufray T. tfalt
Southcent/a]/Representative
DEDICATED TO WILDLIFE SINCE 1911
-------
DONALD R. ROSS
Judic 4ih Judicial Dtmt
LINDA J. CARItOLL
Reporter 4th Judicial Dut,
JAMES B. PORTER
County Judge
TALMADOE MERCER
Co. CoRifnlinlomr. Pet. 1
HAROLD KUYKCNDALL
Co. Commtuioncr, Pet. X
DAN D1CKESON
CO. ComralMloner. Pet. 3
KENNETH 11. ASHBY
HELEN SILLICK
County Cter*
MIKE STRONG
County Sheriff
TOMMY IIASK1NS. JR.
Co. T« ArsMcorOrileclor
WM. H. FERGUSON
County Atu>rn«r
PAT ENDSLET
Dlitrlcl Clwk
RUSK COUNTY
HENDERSON, TEXAS
75652
vmdtl, COLE
County Tr«
OnAVES II. BPIVET
County Auditor
AMIEKT H. EVANS. JH
County Superintendent
STEVE COTTOELL
County Ubrarlan
JEFF JONES
County Scrvlc* Ofrinr
STELUA SWANN
Co WvUirc Worker
TOMMY McDANIEL
County ABCTIt
WILLIAM H. BROWN
Criminal InTMtlpitor
JON H. JOHNSTON
Probation officer
Response to Comment by
James B. Porter, County Judge
I. We appreciate your letter and note your comments.
April 12, 1983
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
Re: Rusk County Area D Lignite Mine
Dear Mr. Spotts:
I am writing with regard to the letter dated April 10, 1983,
from Ms. Virginia Knapp, Chairman of the Rusk County Histo-
rical Commission.
At this point, I have not received enough input all around
to take any particular position. The point of this letter
is to state that Ms. Knapp and the members of this commission
are all well respected and very practical minded people in
our County. Their concern for the protection of the environ-
ment is admirable and I wanted you to know that I have found
myself always in agreement with her.
Thank you for your courtesies in this matter.
Sincerely,
B.
On.
James B. Porter
CO|u|ity Judge
j
nk
APR 13
1983
6ES
-------
RFC
ENERAL SAVINGS
ASSOCIATION
April 11, 1983
P. O. BOX 250 • S. MAIN AT HWY. TO
HENDERSON, TEXAS 7M52
Response to Comment by
General Savings Association
The comments are noted. We encourage you to continue with an interest in the
natural environment as specific planning and additional permitting may proceed.
Mr. Dick Whittington, P.E.
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Whittington:
I have recently reviewed your Environmental Impact Statement on the
Martin Lake "D" Area Lignite Surface Mine Project proposed near Henderson,
Rusk County, Texas.
At this point, please allow the following comments:
A. Previous mining operations in the area have had positive
impacts on our local economy by providing jobs and a
source of new cash to land owners.
B. Inspection of mining operations and reclaimed land does
not, in my opinion, have an overall negative Impact.
C. Area "D" should be similar In final reclamation as other
areas in Panola/Rusk County due to the consistency of
operation for which Texas Utilities Generating Company is
noted.
D. The new citizens who have Joined the community in associ-
ation with the project have been of highest quality.
We encourage your agency to issue a favorable decision concerning the
necessary permits and/or permission to proceed as proposed In the report.
The short term as well as long-term impact of this project certainly has
more positive end results than negative end results In our opinion.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Hale
President
MRH:lsa
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION^ . , , r ,--,
LO
SOUTHWEST REGION
P. Q, BOX 1«B«
v
ct Statement - Martin Lake D Area
April 8, 1983
fcl
ASW-43A
INFORMATION: Environmental
Lignite Surface Mine, Hendersqp'j|iRuBk County, Texas
Manager, Budget and Planning Branch, ASW-43
Mr. Dick Whittlngton, P. E. ^_p=rv •" ~~ * " "" ^ iFi
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI j^H >\ 133'
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270 r fT^
Dear Sir:
We have reviewed the subject draft environmental impact statement and
find no interference with existing or planned FAA facilities/airports.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
E. B. McCoy
cc:
OST P-37, N. Cooper
FtW OST Rep, J. Abby
Response to Comment by the
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
I. The comment letter is appreciated and comment noted.
-------
Response to Comment by
Preston ond Lodie Gibson
April 8, 1983
Comments are noted. We encourage you to continue an interest in the natural
environment in the mine area as the project may proceed through additional
permitting, construction and operation.
-J
-P-
Mr. Clinton Spotts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75207
Dear Mr. Spotts:
This is in response to your request for comments on the Martin Lake
"D" Area Lignite Mine proposed by Texas Utilities Generating Company.
As landowners in "D" Area, we have a strong interest In the economy
and well being of Rusk County. We believe this project will be good
for the people of Henderson and surrounding areas.
We have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement. We believe the
project will be good for the overall economy of the area. It will
be large enough to provide increased employment opportunities and
significant tax revenue to Rusk County and Henderson ISO.
It seems that all the potential environmental impacts have been well
identified in the document and procedures will be followed to minimize
the environmental effects.
We are in favor of development of the project and request that a permit
be issued.
Sincerely,
Preston Gibson
V7 J
CT&LSf*'
Lunie Gibson
/da
-------
RUSK COUNTY
HISTORICAL COMMISSION
RUSK COUNTY HISTORY BOOK
COMMITTEE
Miss Virginia Knapp
Central Chairman
Mrs. Maid* Jaggers
Topical & General History Chairman
Mrs. Mary Frank Dunn
Field Representative Chairman
Mrj. Gene Lmeter
Publicity Chairman
Mrs. Susan Weaver
Artitl
Miss Ruth Kirkham
Editorial Chairman
RUSK COUNTY HISTORICAL
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Miss Virginia Knapp
Mr. Cecil Williims
Tatum
Mrs. Maida Jaggenj
Henderson
Mrs. Margaret Brown
Henderson
Mrs. Gene Lasseter
Henderson
Mrs. Nita Byrd ,
Henderson I
Mrs. Bertha Camp
Henderson
Mr. Homer BrycB
Henderson
Mr. Reuban Ellis
Henderson
Dr Dorman Winfrey
Austin
Mrs Dorothy Hunter
Henderson
Mr. James Porter
Judge of Rusk County
Mrs Bettye Streeter
Overton
Mrs Belly Jo Walker
Monroe ^..
Miss Mary Craig
Henderson
Mrs. Pud Patterson
Henderson
Dr. J. W. Griffith
Henderson
Mrs. Mabel Blackwell
Henderson
April 10, 1985
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Tx. 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
As chairman of the Rusk County Historical Cora-
mission, I wish to make some comments on both the
Environmental Impact Statement of the Martin Lake
Area D Lignite Surface Mine, Henderson, Rusk County,
Texas and to add to it some comments on the findings
in the same area by Jack Jackson and Henry Moncure
of the Texas Archeological Survey Commission.at
Austin.
In the last twenty years Rusk County has just
begun to uncover its past history. Prior to the
1960's only six historical sites had been located
by interested persons of the county. Since 1960
there have been a total of forty-eight historical
markings and four more are in the process of being
approved for markers.
While the coming of Texas Utilities Company and
its surveys have helped speed the findings of this
140-year-old county, it has also jeopardized some
of the preservation and investigations of the sites
within its mining areas.
The T.J. Walling Log Cabin was a special find,
and we are grateful for its recovery and the chance
to preserve it. Progress is being made in the
restoration of the cabin with the help of Texas
Utilities and the Archeological team that discovered
it. With all the Texas Utilities good intentions,
the site of the Walling Cabin was cleared, bulldozed,
and leveled the day after the archeologists finished
their excavations. No chance was given to either
the Rusk County Historical Commission or the archeol-
ogists to return to the site for more work. We of
the Historical Commission wanted to retrieve the
bulbs and other plantings to use around the cabin
in its new location. On the Monday following the
archeologists work, we of the Commission returned
to the site only to find the immense Bois-d'arc
tree, the flowers, and bulbs all flattened and in
a pile burning. No work was started on that part
of the rail line until the first of the year.
Response to Comments by the
Rusk County Historical Commission
I. Comments are noted.
2. The matter of the clearing and grading of the T. J. Walling Cabin site is also of
concern to EPA. While the cabin structure had been determined eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, a determination of eligibility of the cabin site
was pending on completion and review of the archeological investigations. A
summary of findings at the site is now included in Part III.
P.O. BOX 1773, HENDERSON. TEXAS 75652 - (214) 657-7B3 2>Z.6/
-------
I
-J
ON
Page 2
We are also concerned about the bulldozing of site
41RK87-The Montgomery House. Although TUGCO officially
denies any responsibility of this distruction, local observers
3. put the blame on them. The site could have provided us with
artifacts and knowledge to add to our county history. B.F.
Montgomery was a very important settler in our early history
and his many descendents would have profited from the
investigation.
If this is what is to be expected of TUGCO, we of the
Historical Commission are concerned about the other sites
A. listed for possible investigation. I speak specifically of
pre-historic sites 41RK82, 41RK83, 41RK106, and particularly
41RK109. The findings there may be far more significant than
preliminary investigations show.
In addition to the pre-historic sites, the historic site
of 41RK86-Millvil!fe Town site can and does play a great part in
our history. Although the Millville site is located in an
area that will not be mined for ten years, we are interested
in its preservation both as a National Historic Site and
possibly as a preservation open to the public for viewing.
Two plantations, the Richard Tutt and John Vinson, Sr. ,
are either within the project area or bounded by the project
area. These two are our concern, and we are wanting to make
plans for the marking of these sites.
Both Henry Moncure and Jack Jackson of the Texas Archeological
Survey Commission have been extremely helpful to the Rusk County
Historical Commission. They have offered advice and help
particularly in the recovery of the Walling Log Cabin.
Ms. Jeangne Peckham of the Evironmental Protection Agency
has spent much time and effort learning about our county and
our historical work and plans. She has covered on foot, with
me and other Commission members, many miles of Rusk County in
order to prepare herself for her report to the EPA. She has
sought our advice and our help in locating many sites within
this mining area. Her report on the "Archaeological and
Historical Resources" is fair, competent and shows her
understanding of our county and its history.
We intend to report to EPA if these sites are not examined
by competent investigators and if cooperation with the Rusk
County Historical Commission is not sought This is our
duty and responsibility to the County Commissioners Court,
Judge James Porter and the people of Rusk County.
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Impact
Statement.
ommission
Rusk County Historical Commission
Page 2
3. 4IRK87 - The Montgomery House and site is also of concern to EPA. The applicant
was informed at a meeting in Austin, November 30, 1982, that the area is considered
to have high probability for discovery of cultural resources during any clearing and
mining activities.
4. 4IRK82 and 4IRK83 are to be investigated further in the future by Texas Utilities
under the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) before any ground disturbance in the
mine permit area. Regarding 4IRKI06, I09, 110, and 11 I sites; the sites should not
be disturbed by mining or relocation of the SWEPCO transmission line according to a
map, recently submitted, of the transmission line route. See Fig. I-2B.
5. Under stipulations of the MOA on cultural resources and permit provisions, TUGCO
would be required to provide an intensive survey of the area before any ground
disturbance in the permit area. 4IRK86 has been recommended as eligible to the
National Register of Historic Places by the archeologists in the reconnaissance report
of I960. Mitigative measures, including the possibility of avoidance, would be
determined in accordance with stipulations of the MOA. However, prior to that time,
interested parties such as the Rusk County Historical Commission can take measures,
in conjunction with the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer at the Texas
Historic Commission (a State agency) to obtain a determination of eligibility to the
National Register of Historic Places. If eligible, the nomination to the National
Register could be carried out; this effort would include notification and concurrence
of the landowners.
6. A site number, 4IRKI28, has been assigned the Vinson plantation. While under the
present MOA, the applicant TUGCO would not be required to address the areas for
some time. The County Historic Commission or other interested party could proceed
earlier as described above on the plantations noted, to obtain a final determination of
eligibility. 4IRKI28 has been determined potentially eligible by the Texas SHPO and
EPA.
Please note the comment letter of the Texas Historical Commission and revisions to the
text of the EIS.
The comments are sincerely appreciated. We propose to the Rusk County Historical
Commission that where there are other permit or grant actions in Rusk County, that you
become involved very early in the process.
Rusk
-------
THIS FORM CAN BE USED TO SUBMIT COMMENTS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE MARTIN LAKE "0" AREA LIGNITE SURFACE MINE IN
HENDERSON. RUSK COUNTY, TEXAS.
Response to Comment by
Prentiss L. Irwin
The Irwin Cemetery was not included on project maps. The cemetery (see Fig. I-2A)
has been located and the archaeologists notified regarding inclusion of the cemetery
as an historic site in the project reports on cultural resources. The applicant has
been notified of the site, and if mining occurs in the area, the cemetery is to be
avoided. The following site number has been assigned by the Texas Archeological
Research Laboratory: 4 IRK 130. (Site numbers are interpreted as follows: 41 = Texas,
RK = Rusk County, 130 = specific site number in the county.) Additional information
has been included in Part III of the final EIS.
M£^J ^sC*>*~ - ,
-*- */jzk~ M^i^i« i/ <*«-'• ~"
-------
HENDERSON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
P.O. >OX 7JB 314 SSI.gSll
HENDERSON, TEXAS 75532
Response to Comment by
(Henderson Independent School District
March 25, 1983
Comments are noted. We encourage you to continue to follow the project through its
mine permitting process, and construction and operation, as well os enforcement of
requirements.
»»J
CO
Mr. Clinton Spotts
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75207
Dear Mr. Spotts:
After studying the draft copy of the Environmental Impact Statement
issued in connection with Texas Utilities Generating Company's proposed
0 Area near Henderson, I wish to express my appreciation for the opportunity
to comment.
I found the report to be very informative about the mine and environmental
conditions of the area, as well as the expected economic impact. As super-
intendent of the Henderson Independent School District, within whose boun-
daries Area D lies, I see no reason why the project should pose any threat
to property or people. On the contrary, TUGCO's plans for restoration of
land productivity and beauty should be beneficial.
In addition, the project will have a positive economic impact on Henderson
town and the school district. The long term project should blend in well
with the expected population growth of the county, and the added tax
revenues it will provide will also be beneficial. From personal obser-
vation of the mine areas in our neighboring county, and from personal know-
ledge of good citizenship qualities displayed by TUGCO staff people, I fail
to understand why an element of fear should be expressed.
I support the issuance of a permit as soon as possible, and again, I thank
you for allowing me to tell you how we feel about the question.
Very truly yours,
^^^s
VlM<
2ft
\°>&
6^S
-------
CRAIG A Tips
2B24 DANIEL COURT
^J
VO
Response to Comments by
Mr. Craig A. Tips
I. EPA has sent a copy of Figure 1-2 from the Draft EIS with the location of the
property in question imposed on it.
-------
C. THE FEIS AND RECORD OF DECISION
This FEIS was prepared after consideration of comments received on the DEIS, re-
evaluation of some analyses and to afford the inclusion of additional information. The
FEIS is divkled into four (4) parts in the main body and has two (2) appendices attached.
Approximately 100 copies were distributed: to agencies, organizations and individuals
commenting on the DEIS; to those requesting copies and to three (3) depositories in the
project area. The Notice of Availability of the FEIS appeared in the Federal Register and
included an announcement of a 30-day public review period during which comments will be
received from agencies, organizations and members of the public.
After the comment period ends, EPA will consider public impact and make a decision
concerning the issuance of an NPDES permit. A Record of Decision will be issued to the
mailing list.
Any permit would be issued simultaneously and would become effective 30 days after
issuance.
11-80
-------
PART III.
MODIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS
-------
PART 111 MODIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS
Modifications and corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
as a result of re-evaluations by EPA or because of comments or information from
agencies or individuals are presented in this section. Modifications to the
SUMMARY (DEIS, Chapter 1.0) are not included in Part III since the entire summary
has been updated and is included in Part I of this document. Revisions to Chapter
7.0 (COORDINATION) of the DEIS are included in Part II CONSULTATION AND
COORDINATION.
Revisions are located by Section, page number and paragraph and sometimes line
numbers. Reference to a paragraph means either a full or partial paragraph; number
one on a page is the first full or partial paragraph and the last paragraph may be
either full or partial. Line number is determined from the top of the paragraph.
Major and minor revisions are addressed in order, by DEIS page number.
A. REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 5.0-DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF
ALTERNATIVES
Section 5.1 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT
Page 5-1, paragraph 3, an error in the range of BTU per Ib of coal is corrected:
Western coal is a low-sulfur (less than 0.8 Ib SO^ per million BTU), medium-BTU
(8,300 to 10,500 BTU per Ib) coal, which is available in adequate supply and can be
used as a fuel in an environmentally acceptable manner.
Page 5-4, paragraph 4, the following is added to clarify the route of the railroad
from MLSES to the mine facilities area and the roads to be crossed by the railroad.
The selected route requires six (6) road crossings, none of which are at grade (i.e.,
the train will cross either over or under the road). All state and county approvals
have been obtained for these crossings (see Appendix B). The following roads will be
affected:
Distance from Railroad Type of Crossing
Origin in MLSES (railroad over or
Road (miles) under road)
FM2685 0.7 Over
Unnamed County Road 2.6 Under
Unnamed County Road 5.0 Under
Unnamed County Road 6.9 Over
SH43 8.2 Over
FM 1716 10.2 Over
Page 5-6, paragraph 3, the correct reference on mining equipment is:
(Bucyrus-Erie, 1982; Mattern, 1979; Price et al., 1973)
Page 5-11. The section on comparison of overburden handling alternatives should be
revised to include the following statements:
-------
Regarding alternatives 2 and 4-surface mining regulations prohibit excess compac-
tion when topsoil is redistributed (Section .337); therefore, this would not be a
limiting factor as previously indicated in selection of either alternative.
Page 5-13, paragraph 3, add the following to the section on Pasture and Woodland;
The final vegetative cover for any given acre of land would be determined based
upon factors such as: suitability of the land (e.g., steep slopes near water courses
may be most suitable to woody species); adjacent vegetative cover (e.g., a small
area of grassland partially surrounded by woody species may be most appropriate);
desires of the land owner (e.g., lease conditions may specify the vegetative cover);
or regulatory restrictions of the RRC (e.g., planting woody species may represent a
land use change).
Page 5-13. Forest. Delete the first three sentences regarding level of management,
expense, difficulty of accomplishment and commercial value to landowners
attributed to reforestation as an alternative for revegetation.
Page 5-16. Comparison of Alternatives for Revegetation and Reclamation.
Upon re-evaluation of the alternatives considered for revegetation based on
information provided by Texas Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service and
individuals, the alternative for reforestation may meet criteria for success, local
need and conditions, wildlife habitat and management costs as easily as an
alternative for combination of pasture and woodland.
Page 5-17, paragraph 5: The figure showing the general sequence of mine blocks
should be correctly identified as Fig. 1-2. The figure is included in this document as
Fig. I-1.
Page 5-18, paragraph 2, add the following information to describe how boundary and
other markers are re-established after mining;
Official monuments, such as property corner markers, highway right-of-way markers
and National Geodetic Survey (NGS) markers must be re-established. On leased land
the original property lines will be re-established. TUGCO-owned land will be
surveyed according to requirements for disposition and all original corners and
boundaries may not be re-established. Highway right-of-way markers and NGS
monuments would be re-established by the State Department of Highways and Public
Transportation and the National Geodetic Survey, respectively. Other surveying
would be done by TUGCO. All surveying in Texas is monitored by the Texas Board
of Land Surveyors under the authority of the Land Surveying Practices Act of 1979.
Surveying is monitored by registration of surveyors, release of manuals and
guidelines to determine acceptable practices and, in some cases, by an investigation
and hearing in response to complaints to the Board from a third party (or the Board
may institute proceedings on its own behalf).
Page 5-25, loading station revisions are shown on Fig. Ill-1.
Section 5.2 ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED BY APPLICANT
Page 5-18, lignite and ash characteristics are shown in a summary table (Table 111-2).
Page 5-26, paragraph I, add the following additional information concerning the FM
782 relocation:
1-2
-------
The relocations are planned to obtain lignite which lies beneath the present rights-
of-way. About a 4-mile portion of FM 782 in the southern part of the project area
would be diverted approximately 1,500 ft to the east onto land reclaimed after
mining. It would tie into the existing road through gentle curves (i.e., no right-angle
corners). No agreements have been established between TUGCO and the State
Department of Highways and Public Transportation for the proposed FM 782
relocation.
B. REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 6.0--ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF
ALTERNATIVES
Section 6.2 SOILS AND PRIME FARMLAND
Page 6-15, paragraph 6, the reference regarding Miscellaneous Land Types was
incorrect and should read:
Because miscellaneous land types occur in small scattered acres, this group could
not be shown at the map scale presented in Fig. 6-5 but is shown in Fig. 6-6 as Map
Unit 21.
Page 6-17, paragraph I, estimated acreage of prime farmland soil to be lost by the
Dry Creek diversion was incorrect and should read:
A 2,000-foot stretch of Dry Creek is planned to be diverted for mining a lignite
seam beneath the present channel during the first five years. Approximately 30
acres of prime farmland soils affected by the diversion are addressed in Sec. 6.2.3.4.
Page 6-18, paragraph 2, more detailed information shows that the acreage disturbed
by ancillary facilities construction would be greater than originally estimated and
should read:
The construction of the ancillary facilities would disturb about 210 acres, the
railroad about 273 and the transmission line about 114 acres. The SWEPCO
transmission line relocation and proposed TUGCO 138 kv line within the same
corridor would disturb about 100 acres. The activities would constitute a long-term
adverse impact on a total of about 697 acres where reclamation would not be
initiated for at least 30 years. Of these approximately 226 acres are prime
farmland soils.
The same total acreage applies to the entire discussion on page 6-18.
Page 6-18, paragraph 5, Characterization of Overburden. Physical and chemical
data from the five cores is provided in Appendix B. TUGCO proposes these cores
are acceptable to RRC as representative of the first five-year mine area. The five
cores do not characterize the entire project mine area.
Page 6-19, Table 6-2, to provide additional data on the calculation of average
potential acidity in each core with Alternative I. Mixed Spoil, footnote I should
read.
Tons of CaCO-j needed per acre to neutralize a six-inch layer of soil. The average
potential acidify in each of the five cores for Alternative I was calculated as: Core
No. 972, 0.0; Core No. 1128, 1.5; Core no. 964, 8.3; Core No. 1009, 21.3; and Core
No. 562, 27.5. See Fig. 6-2 for the location of the cores. The calculations can be
made in the following manner, using data for core hole //I 128:
111-3
-------
Segment
No.
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
TOTAL
(A)
Thickness
(ft)
11.8
16.2
12.0
7.0
1.3
3.3
9.8
(B)
Neutralization
Potential
-0.53
5.00
1.25
-0.95
0
2.73
3.80
(C)
% Total
Sulfur
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
23.4
11.3
14.7
(D)
B-C3
-0.84
4.69
0.94
-1.26
-23.40
-8.57
-10.90
(E)
AxD4
-9.91
75.98
11.28
-8.82
-30.42
-28.28
-106.82
-96. 995
The measure of residual bases in the soil expressed as tons of CaCO^ per 1,000 tons
material. A negative number means the soil is acidic.
The measure of pyritic sulfur (acidity) expressed as tons of CaCOg per 1,000 tons
material.
The acidity of each core segment calculated by substracting acidity value from residual
base value. A negative number indicates potential acidity.
The weighted average acidity of each core segment calculated by multiplying the acidity
times the segment length. A negative number indicates potential acidity.
The arithmetic total of weighted average acidity of each segment. The negative sign
indicates potential acidity.
Then the average acidity of a hypothetical random mixture of the core can be calculated
by dividing the total weighted average acidity (-96.99) by the length of the core (64.1
feet). The resulting number (1.5) expresses the potential acidity of such a mixture in
terms of tons of CaCCX, per 1,000 tons of material.
Page 6-20. Alternative I. With the use of lime to neutralize acid, reburial of the
acidic surface layers and/or covering the area with topsoil, impacts from excess
acidity and release of heavy metals are reversible on a relative short term for each
individual occurrence. As pointed out in other sections, acid forming materials
oxidize at varying rates and as this alternative has greatest potential for such
material to occur at or near the surface (as the layers just above the lignite are last
removed from a pit and placed on the adjacent open pit, then smoothed out) the
impacts may occur over a long period of time where maintenance of vegetation
after bond release may be less and breaks down to re-expose surface. Adverse
impacts would result from low fertility, little or no organic matter, little or no soil
microbial population, lack of surface structure and surface crusting. These would be
expected to be reversed as fertilizer is applied and vegetation re-established,
however, the short term, one to two years, is withdrawn from the prediction.
Page 6-25, paragraph 2, since the estimate of the total area to be disturbed by
construction of the ancillary facilities has increased, the area of prime farmland
soils to be disturbed also has increased and lines 2 and 3 should read:
111-4
-------
Construction of the ancillary facilities, railroad spur and transmission lines would
require disturbing a total of approximately 226 acres of prime farmland soils. As
much as 140 acres of prime farmland soils might be disturbed by construction of the
ancillary facilities area.
Page 6-25, paragraph 3 also should address the revised total acreage of disturbed
prime farmland soils;
The disturbance of 226 acres is considered a long-term adverse impact to prime
farmland soils. This impact is irreversible (therefore significant) for a presently
unknown portion of the 226 acres.
Page 6-26, paragraph I, should contain the corrected estimate of luka soil to be
disturbed;
Approximately 30 acres of luka soil would be disturbed by the temporary diversion
of a 2,000-foot section of Dry Creek.
Page 6-26, Revise discussions on mining regulations on soil. Mining regulations
require use of topsoil on all areas.
RRC designated prime farmlands would require selective handling of several layers.
To propose an alternative without use of topsoil, for any area, requires obtaining a
variance from RRC. To selectively handle a layer (such as topsoil) or a type of
material (such as oxidized material) need not mean stockpiling—but could be
accomplished by a combination of machinery such as bucket-wheel excavators,
conveyors and draglines.
Page 6-27, paragraph 3, the information on pyrites should be revised to read:
Pyrite can vary significantly in particle size and physical form. It has been found in
at least six different forms in coal deposits. The most reactive form is framboidal
pyrite which has particles less than 0.0004 inches in diameter. The rate of
breakdown (oxidation) of pyrite is not constant over time and may depend upon pH,
the amount of oxygen present, the presence of breakdown products and other
factors. The addition of lime, to raise the pH, tends to slow down the breakdown of
pyrite. The addition of lime to control pH during early reclamation efforts could
actually extend the period of time over which lime is needed. The low pH caused by
the breakdown of pyrite has an adverse effect on the growth of most plants and
interferes with successful reclamation. In addition to the direct effects on plants,
low soil pH also increases the rate of release of certain heavy metals (copper,
nickel, zinc, manganese or iron) causing the amount of these metals in soil to reach
a level which is toxic to plants. This causes further problems with reclamation and
revegetation. The RRC regulations call for the successful revegetation of mined
lands and establish a period of extended responsibility (during which the land is
under bond) for the permittee to demonstrate successful reclamation. No such
protection exists to guarantee control of pH and metals after reclaimed land is
released from bond.
Page 6-28, paragraph I, the discussion of fertilizer and lime requirements should be
revised to include the following statements:
Although given as data from 1981, the figures are proposed by TUGCO as the
requirements from year two through five of reclamation. No reclaimed mine land in
1-5
-------
Texas has been released from bond and fertilizer and lime requirements over time
cannot yet be determined.
Section 6.3 GROUND-WATER RESOURCES
Page 6-30. Existing Environment. The Draft EIS states that groundwater in the
shallow system (Carrizo and upper Wilcox) occurs under water table (unconfined)
conditions. It should be added that this is on part of the area; however, on some of
the project area, artesian conditions exist as demonstrated by on-site pump test
data.
Page 6-30, Paragraph I. Regarding water wells. It has come to our attention that
other water wells occur in the project area which are not shown on the Draft EIS
Map, Fig. 6-7. See the comment letters, including Mr. Green's letter and Mr. and
Mrs. Gus Brown's statement, pointing out wells that are not included. The
information has been passed on to TUGCO for addition to project plans and for
complete presentation in any mine permit application for determination of settle-
ment on wells affected (Final EIS, Part II).
Page 6-33. Regarding ground water recharge and movement. The question of
leakage can only be determined on the basis of appropriate pumping test and
observation well data with wells completed to the depth of the lignite seam and
wells completed in the first significant aquifer below the lignite seam to be mined.
Dr. Mathewson has described the reference cited as a generic study and states the
need for more site specific data exists (Telecommunication, August, 1983).
Page 6-37, Table 6-5 included data on TDS concentrations that were incorrect,
information now provided is:
Sample TDS
Location (mg/l)
Pump Well 240
Test Pit 140
Page 6-39, paragraph 2, line 17 included reference to the incorrect alternative and
should read:
Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in two layers (oxidized and unoxidized zones) with
permeabilities reflecting the percentage of sand, silt and clay in those layers prior
to mixing.
Page 6-39. Impacts of Project Alternatives on Groundwater. Regarding impacts on
the public water supply wells and other wells completed in the deeper Wilcox
aquifer—note that if depressurization of the deeper Wilcox is not required for
mining and there is no connection between that aquifer and the upper aquifer, then
reduction of water levels in the lower Wilcox, or of production from the wells is not
expected. There are numerous clay and lignite strata between the lignite to be
mined and the lower Wilcox as shown in Figures 6-3 and 6-4. The clay strata vary in
thickness from about 2 to 20 feet. Cumulatively they have a thickness of over 50
feet and extend over the entire area. Analysis of electric logs taken from the first
five-year mining area shows that these clays are typical of the low permeability
clays characteristic of the Wilcox formation. The clays should provide a barrier
separating the upper and lower Wilcox aquifers.
1-6
-------
Page 6-39, paragraph 2. Corrections to predicted effects should be added.
The proposed alternative I (mixed spoil) and Alternative 2 (topsail over spoil) would
significantly disrupt the aquifer system extending for a long-term after recharge is
complete. Alternatives 3 and 4 which include handling of two layers (oxidized and
unoxidized) of materials would provide some aquifer rebuilding—and could be further
refined to selective handling of Carrizo sands and of Wilcox materials.
Page 6-39. Section 6.3.3.2 Dewatering, the area of influence on water levels by the
dewatering that occurs from mining alone and by well pumping (to ensure highwall
stability) has been re-evaluated. Evaluation was based on the Theis non-equilibrium
equation using Selected Hand-Held Calculator Codes for the Evaluation of Cumula-
tive Strip-Mining Impacts on Groundwater Resources, prepared for the Office of
Surface Mining (Prickett and Voorhees, 1981). Transmissivities used were the high,
low, and average transmissivities from the pumping test data provided by TUGCO.
Storage coefficients of 0.01 (water table conditions) and 0.0001 (artesian conditions)
were used. Dewatering of a pit 5,000 feet long was simulated by evaluating a line of
pumping wells. Pumpage was adjusted to cause 150 feet of drawdown at the line
sink. The line sink model more closely approaches conditions that will occur during
mining operations—as actual dewatering would be expected as a lineal sink, in the
form of wells or seepage into the mine. The water level drawdowns at distances of
3,800, 10,000 and 15,000 feet from center of line sink were calculated:
Drawdown Due to Line Sink
Storage
Coefficient
Transmissivity
(gpd/ft)
Distance (ft)
Perpendicular from Center
of Line Sink
Draw--
down '
(ft)
Artesian Conditions
.0001 6,712
.0001
.0001
.01
.01
14,296
20,952
Water Table Conditions
.01 6,712
14,296
20,952
3,800
10,000
15,000
3,800
10,000
15,000
3,800
10,000
15,000
3,800
10,000
15,000
3,800
10,000
15,000
3,800
10,000
15,000
108
85
75
109
88
79
113
92
82
80
43
28
86
53
38
92
59
44
1-7
-------
These calculations assumed complete saturation of ISO feet overburden. For saturated
overburden of less than 150 feet use:
Thickness of saturated overburden
150
X Calculated drawdown = Drawdown
Drawdown would be affected (i.e., it could be less) by varying subsurface conditions in
the horizontal dimension; information available to EPA is not adequate to fully
determine these conditions.
The 3,800 feet radius of influence distance to zero drawdown stated in the Draft EIS could
not be verified using any of the transmissivity figures stated in the DEIS (from literature
on the region or from site data) and is withdrawn. (The radius of influence distance in the
DEIS also was based on 150 feet drawndown at the sink.) Subsurface conditions likely are
different in other areas of the project, therefore, other site-specific tests and data are
needed to estimate effects under different conditions.
Should Texas Utilities carry out additional studies to examine the varying subsurface
conditions at the site, it is desirable that the studies obtain data from appropriately
located and installed test wells—and that pumping test data based on pumpage of at least
a week's duration be utilized. It is desirable that such a study be planned and coordinated
with TDWR and EPA; both agencies are interested in accurate information on impacts
from the specific project as well as the addition of information to the State's hydrologic
information base.
Page 6-44, paragraph 3, lines 3 and 4 contained a mix-up in alternative number and
should read:
Postmine recharge from precipitation might be slightly reduced regardless of the
overburden handling alternative used since the overall permeability of the replaced
overburden would be less than that of the premine overburden. Alternatives 2 and 4
(those with topsoil replacement) would cause a greater reduction (than I or 3) in
infiltration rates if the "A", "B" and "C" horizons were used.
Page 6-44, paragraph 3. Regarding recharge. The statements on recharge are qualified
by other information regarding recharge in the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer. Information
from a surface lignite mine in Milam County indicates recharge occurred in 25 years.
However, this is considered an ideal situation, a "forced recharge" for groundwater
recovery, in that abandoned pits remained which held precipitation and recharged
horizontally. Calculations in the DEIS (pg. 6-44) based on recharge by infiltration used
a 20 percent porosity. Porosity could easily be 30 percent, requiring a longer recharge
period. Therefore, the estimated time for recharge at this area should be increased to
more than 25 years. Recharge from below would be essentially nonexistent because of
the multiple strata of low permeability clay (see corrections to pg. 6-39) between the
lower Wilcox and the replaced spoil.
Mitigation measures that could be undertaken to reduce the significant long-term
effects on the aquifer include use of end pit lakes to force recharge or/and use of
overburden handling procedures similar to alternatives 3 and 4, generally replacing
Wilcox material in the bottom of the mined pit and Carrizo material above that. Other
machinery could be combined with the draglines to reduce acreage involved as shown in
the Draft EIS for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4.
111-8
-------
Monitoring of wells (or piezometers) installed in mined/recontoured areas should be
used to determine the rate of recharge and the need for changes in mining procedures
to reduce impacts on ground water.
Page 6-46, delete paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.
Page 6-47, delete paragraphs I and 2. Add:
Data from Martin Lake "A", "B" and "C" monitoring wells was provided in Draft EIS
Appendix G. The data show there has been no contamination of those wells. However,
EPA now believes that the location of the wells are at such a distance from mining that
a conclusion cannot be drawn from the monitoring, as mine waters would not yet have
moved that far.
Measures could be taken early to monitor for and mitigate for degraded groundwater.
Piezometers could be installed in the mined areas to monitor changes in water quality
to determine need for lime (or other treatment) of spoil to prevent increased acidity
and leaching of constituents, or need for revising of mining/spoil handling alternatives
to prevent occurrence of unoxidized materials in the zone of infiltrating waters.
Surface mining regulations require monitoring but plans have not been developed for
this project and are not available for public review.
Page 6-47, paragraph 3, Discussion on Ground Water Supply should be revised to provide
a more detailed explanation of possible procedures for compensation if water wells are
affected, directly or indirectly, by mining activities:
Some of the 142+ wells in the mine area would be eliminated and other wells could be
indirectly affected. The compensation measures applicable to eliminated wells are cash
settlement, redrilling the well, or connection to a public water supply. Which measure
is selected depends upon the lease agreement terms. Replacement wells could be
completed in the deeper Wilcox sands. Compensation by connection to a water supply
system could be to one of the existing systems (depending upon the property location) or
to another system, if one existed at the time of compensation. Surface mining
regulations (with RRC as the delegated authority) require compensation for affected
wells even if they are located on land the permittee does not own or lease.
Compensation measures would be the same as for wells covered by lease agreements.
The impact to ground-water production in the units above the mined lignite is
considered a significant and long-term adverse impact but not irreversible.
Section 6.4 SURFACE-WATER RESOURCES
Page 6-51, Hydrologic Characteristics, the discussion of soil associations categorized
into different Hydrologic Groups (based on runoff potential) does not relate those
associations to Soil Group I through IV (pg. 6-11) which are based on features other than
runoff potential; to clarify this, both Hydrologic Group and Soil Group designations
should be given for each association and the following changes are needed:
Paragraph 3:
The Kirvin-Bowie-Cuthbert soil association (Soil Group II, pg. 6-14) has an overall
Hydrologic Group Classification of C.
111-9
-------
Paragraph 4:
The Nacogdoches-Trawick soil association (Soil Group I, pg. 6-11) has a hydrologic
classification of B.
Paragraph 5:
About 10 percent of the project area is made up of soils in the Lilbert-Tenaha
association (Soil Group III, pg. 6-14).
Paragraph 6:
Soils of the Nahatachie-Mantachie association (Soil Group IV, pg. 6-15) are found along
Mill Creek and Tiawichi Creek in the project area.
Page 6-68, paragraph 2, sentences 3 and 4 regarding retention of flood waters due to
need to meet pH, iron, manganese and total suspended solids limits.
It should be noted that due to changes in the standards, Federal Register, October 13,
1982—treatment pond discharges from mines are exempt from limits on pH, total
suspended solids, manganese and iron during rainfall events. Instead, less stringent
limits using the "settleable matter" parameter are in effect. Therefore, retention time
could be less than previously explained. Additionally, based on the above and re-
evaluation of other assumptions, for example, that soil runoff characteristics from
premining conditions remain unchanged for all overburden handling alternatives—EPA
has determined a level of confidence cannot be placed on the study. It may be
considered reasonable for a preliminary study; any further study should be fully
coordinated with the Texas Department of Water Resources and the Sabine River
Authority.
Page 6-73, paragraph 2, add the following to clarify that the past performance of an
applicant is considered during the mining permit application process:
TUGCO's record of compliance (past performance) also will be considered by the RRC
during the mining permit application process. The Texas Surface Mining and Reclama-
tion Act requires the RRC to deny a permit to any applicant "with a demonstrated
pattern of willful violations." See Appendix B for a listing of violations and corrective
actions by the company which were submitted for an RRC permit at the railroad
loading and dragline maintenance facility. The RRC did not find a pattern of willful
violations.
Page 6-73, paragraph 2. Revise to include these concerns on surface-water quality;
A state agency has pointed out that sediment pond treatment has not been effective in
preventing excessive sediment from entering streams from mined areas. Also, while
sediment pond water discharge samples have not indicated toxic levels to fish (at the
existing Martin Lake areas), data from sediment in streams below discharges is not
available. Further, inconsistencies in ambient stream data on and below the Martin
Lake D project area are noted by Texas Department of Water Resource (TDWR letter
to EPA, Part II.B, Final EIS). The Draft EIS discussed (page 6-58 and page 6-62)
constituents that exceeded water quality standards or drinking water standards. These
are: mercury, phenols, pH, alkalinity, dissolved solids, suspended solids, turbidity, and
ammonia. Additionally, groundwater data for the area show manganese, mercury, iron,
phenols, copper, and pH levels that exceed limits—with ammonia and arsenic close to
111-10
-------
limits. Groundwater will be pumped out of pits to sediment ponds and eventually
discharged to streams with mine area surface runoff and constitutes a source to be
considered in determining limits on pond discharges to streams. Further, surface spoil
materials constitute a source of acidity of surface waters.
With these concerns in mind, EPA has made the following determinations to protect the
surface water: based on occurrence of surface waters, on site, with pH as low as 5.3 and
4.3 at TUSI I and 2 sampling stations shown on Fig. 6-13 (Draft EIS) and groundwater
with pH as low as 4.3—any NPDES permit should be based on the acid mine drainage
sub-category new source performance standard. Effluent characteristics, discharge
limitations and monitoring requirements would be as follows:
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations
Daily Avg. Daily Max
3
Flow-m /Day (MGD) Report flow Report flow
Total Suspended Solids 35.0 mg/1 70.0 mg/1
Iron, Total 3.0 mg/1 6.0 mg/1
Manganese, Total 2.0 mg/1 4.0 mg/1
pH shall not be less than 6.0
standard units nor greater than
9.0 standard units.
Effluent Characteristic Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample
Frequency Type
Flow-m /Day (MGD) One/day. Estimate
Total Suspended Solids One/day. Grab
Iron, Total One/day. Grab
Manganese, Total One/day Grab
pH One/day Grab
When discharge occurs
EPA has determined to require, by special provision to the permit, water quality
monitoring on a quarterly basis at the TUSI I, 2 and 5 sampling stations. Parameters to
be sampled, analyzed and reported are pH, ammonia, mercury, phenols, alkalinity,
turbidity, total suspended solids, and total dissolved solids (see Appendix A, Part III of
draft permit). Locations of proposed sampling stations are shown on Fig. 111-2 of this
FEIS. Previous sampling locations were shown in the DEIS on pages 6-59 and 6-63.
Because of concerns for potential water quality impacts to the downstream drinking
water supply and due to the important water quality function of wetlands—a provision is
applied to the permit to require the company to submit site specific plans to the Corps
of Engineers for each proposed wetland area discharge and obtain a Clean Water Act
Section 404 authorization from the Corps of Engineers.
A sewage treatment plant, for secondary level treatment of sanitary waste, is proposed
at the railroad loading and mine maintenance facility. Effluent characteristics,
discharge limitations and monitoring would be as follows (see Appendix A, draft
permit):
-------
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Other units (specify) Measure-
ment Sample
Freq. Type
Daily Avg Daily Max
Flow-m3/Day (MGD) Report Flow I/week Grab
Total Suspended Solids 30mg/l 45mg/l I/week Grab
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (5-day) 30mg/l 45mg/l I/week Grab
pH Not less than 6.0 I/week Grab
standard units nor
greater than 9.0
standard units
Page 6-75, the TDWR allowable concentrations given in Table 6-15 were for daily
averages (of multiple samples in a 24-hour period) when the applicable standards are for
grab samples, i.e., the concentration of an individual sample collected in less than 15
minutes. Insert the following standards:
Revised Table 6-15 (in part)
TDWR Allowable
Concentration, Crab
Metal Sample (ppm) '
Manganese 3.0
Selenium 0.2
Arsenic 0.3
Cadmium 0.2
Chromium 5.0
Lead 1.5
Mercury 0.01
Zinc 6.0
2
ppm - parts per million
^SOURCE: Texas Department of Water Resources, 1979.
Permanent Rules, as amended. Section 156.19.15.002.
Austin, Texas.
111-12
-------
Section 6.5 WETLANDS AND FLOOD PLAINS
Page 6-79. Impacts of Project Alternatives, add the following regarding value of
wildlife habitat and recommendations;
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) classified the bottomlands and wetlands as
Resources Category 2, of high value for wildlife evaluate species and scarce or
becoming scarce (Federal Register 46(15): pages 7644-7663, January 23, 1981). FWS
recommends "in kind replacement of floodplain wetland communities during reclama-
tion and calls for specific measures to restore the hydrologic balance in wetland areas,
establishment of wetland vegetation and management practices to promote long-term
recovery of the ecosystems (U.S. Department of Interior letter to EPA, Final EIS, Part
II.B).
EPA has further evaluated potential impacts of the project proposed, including the
concerns stated above and particularly the water quality improvement function of the
wetlands in relation to the downsteam drinking water supply. In addition, no site
specific plans regarding restoration of the hydrologic regime (which includes surface
and ground water) based on site specific information regarding characteristics of mine
spoil that will occur at the surface or near surface in these wetland areas, are
available. EPA has coordinated with the Corps of Engineers regarding this project
evaluation. Subsequently, a provision has been put on the draft permit which requires
that TUGCO submit specific plans for each wetland area discharge proposed to the
Corps of Engineers for authorization by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act.
Section 6.6 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY
Table III-1 in this Final EIS is provided as a comparison table of vegetation types and
land use categories in the project area. The table may be used as a reference to
prevent misunderstandings which could be caused by different acreages for similar
categories.
Page 6-95, paragraph 3, the sentence concerning the transmission line relocation should
be changed to read:
The SWEPCO transmission line relocation and the TUGCO 138 kv line construction
within the project area would preempt an additional 100 acres; of which 6 acres are
bottomland hardwoods, 5.5 acres are pine plantations, 31 acres and pastureland, and
50.5 acres are regeneration/cutover areas and upland pine/hardwood forest.
Page 6-95, paragraph 3, add the following sentence to reflect the improved estimate of
total acreage and vegetation types to be disturbed by construction of the mine facilities
area;
The mine facilities area (Fig. Ill-1) (office, shop, train loading station, dragline erection
pad, etc.) would preempt about 210 acres composed of pastureland (126 acres); upland
pine/hardwood and regenerative forest (55 acres); pine plantations (21 acres); and
cropland (8 acres).
Page 6-96, paragraph 3, in response to several comments about the percentage range
for planting of woody species and to better explain the factors involved in determining
final vegetative cover, add the following sentences between lines I I and 12:
111-13
-------
This percentage range is vague but represents TUGCO's commitment. The final
vegetative cover established on any given acreage may be based upon factors such as:
suitability of the land (e.g., steep slopes for woody species); adjacent vegetative cover
(e.g., establishing "pockets" of woody vegetation within pastureland); landowner desires
(e.g., lease conditions); and regulatory decisions of the RRC (e.g., on land use changes).
To be consistent with the total acreage to be mined (17,916-2,000 = 15,916), the 10 to
50 percent range for upland pine/hardwood reforestation would amount to 1,592 and
7,958 acres respectively.
Page 6-98, Table 6-17, revegetation species for wildlife habitat, should have the
following note added at the bottom:
Note: This list represents those species which might be used during reclamation.
Inclusion of any species does not mean that it would be used, only that TUGCO has the
option to use it if conditions warrant. Some nonnative species are included for
potential use in special circumstances such as: (I) unavailability of native species; and
(2) more optimal growth compared to native species.
Page 6-100, paragraph 3, line 5 should be changed to emphasize that the percentage
range for final vegetative cover represents TUGCO's commitment at this time:
From 50 to 90 percent of the mined area would be reclaimed as improved pasture
(TUGCO's commitment).
Page 6-100, paragraph 4, change sentence 2 to include that a gound cover such as clover
also would be planted, delete sentence 3 and add the following sentence after the
sentence ending ". . . mature forests.":
Immature forests not only represent future timber resources but provide benefits such
as; rebuilding the soil, soil stabilization and cover for wildlife.
Page 101, last paragraph, and page 102. Add the following regarding mitigation to
wildlife habitat loss;
While a project specific revegetation or a fish and wildlife plan has not been developed,
the general measures discussed in the Draft EIS would reduce habitat loss where carried
out.
Other possible mitigation measures for loss of wildlife habitat from the reclamation
proposed could include making lands available to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
for wildlife management after bond release. Through their programs, areas may be
utilized for displaying applied range and wildlife management practices as well as for
research under controlled conditions. Some areas may be used to provide brood stock
for depleted wildlife ranges. Possibilities for recreational use by the public are
considered. Measures are taken to ensure lands have food and cover for wildlife, for
example, this may require planting grain or providing other vegetation such as woody
shrubs if an area contains primarily coastal bermuda grass. Management may include
grazing practices and utilization of hunting to regulate wildlife populations. Where
public recreation is considered, access to an area and the number of persons are taken
into account in planning; for example, this may include hunter permit drawings where
hunting is part of the management. Actual procedures for a given area are based on a
mutual agreement between TPWD and landowners, which in this case would be TUGCO.
This information has been forwarded to TUGCO with a request for their consideration
for entering into such an agreement as a potential enhancement measure for the Fish
1-14
-------
and Wildlife Plan for the mining permit application to the Railroad Commission of
Texas.
Section 6.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Page 6-113, Table 6-18 should have the following added after Site No. 4IRK 124 to
incorporate additional information about the Vinson Plantation which was provided by
the Texas Historical Commission; as well as recommendations for the four prehistoric
sites:
Site No.
4IRKI28
4IRKI30
4IRKI06
4IRKI09
4IRKIIO
4IRKIII
Site Name
Vinson Plantation
Irwin Cemetery
Unnamed
Unnamed
Unnamed
Unnamed
Survey/
Reference
THC 1983
TAS 1983
TAS I960
TAS I982b
TAS I982b
TAS I982b
.
Cultural
Affiliation
Historic
Historic
Prehistoric
Prehistoric
Prehistoric
Prehistoric
•
Recom-
mendation
"NRHP" '
Avoid
Test/"NRHP"'
Test/"NRHP" '
Test/"NRHP"'
Test/'-NRHP"1
Page 6-116, after paragraph 5, add the following paragraph regarding the Vinson
Plantation;
Site 4IRKI28, Vinson Plantation may fall within the project area. The house, a single
story classic Anglo center-hall house, is still standing but is not in good repair. The
Texas Historical Commission, in a letter to EPA dated April 26, 1983 (see Part II),
states that the Vinson Plantation is potentially eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places.
Page 6-117, paragraph I, add the following information concerning the Irwin Cemetery
and other cemeteries which could occur in the project area:
Several cemeteries, in addition to those listed in Table 6-18, occur throughout the
project area. One such cemetery, the Irwin Cemetery, was located for EPA by Mr.
Prentis Irwin (letter, Part II, FEIS) and was then surveyed by archaeologists from the
Texas Archaeological Survey in 1983. The cemetery contains 13 graves with the oldest
burial date being 1863 and the latest 1880. Three family names (Irwin, Sanders and
Jones) are represented with traditionally shaped markers. The cemetery is located just
east of SH 322 about 0.3 miles south of the Crims Chapel Cemetery (see Fig. I-2A. It is
not located in the first five year period area, but if mining takes place near the
cemetery at a later date, RRC regulations as well as specific state law require that it
be avoided. Texas Utilities has been notified to place the cemetery location on mine
plans.
Page 6-118, after Paragraph I, add the following on mitigation measures and findings on
the Walling Cabin;
1-15
-------
The Walling Cabin, 4IRKI04, was determined eligible for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places based on surface survey information, archival determination
of its age (1841) and its attribution to an early Rusk County settler. Mitigation was
required by EPA and the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer to provide
protection for the historic and architectural significance of the cultural property.
Texas Archeological Survey of the University of Texas at Austin was responsible for:
I) Archival search and review aimed at establishing as complete a documentation/
background as possible.
2) Mapping the site.
3) Producing a photographic record to Historic American Building Survey standards.
4) Surface and subsurface artifact recovery, fracture identification and appropriate
documentation utilizing visual and metal detector search, hand excavation and
machine dug test trenches.
5) The conduct of collection, sampling, testing and salvage operations as dictated by
the initial surface and subsurface collections/excavations.
6) The production of a report on the above actions and their results.
Archival study has enriched the history of the cabin's occupancy and given important
insights into its possible furnishings. Photographic documentation fulfills Historic
American Building Survey criteria for National Register of Historic Places nominees
and provides a basis for reconstruction. Analyses of the building materials has
identified construction techniques and differentiated between original and replacement
structural components. As the restoration and eventual nomination to the National
Register at the new site depends upon accurate reconstruction using original materials
or reuse of others of that time period, this facet of the study, coupled with the
subsurface excavations, was of prime importance. For example, the original hypotheti-
cal plan of the structure indicated a masonry chimney based on the exposure of a rock
base. Excavations at the foundation uncovered undressed dry-masonry laid stone which
was considered evidence for foundation for a mud cat type chimney originally.
Handmade bricks uncovered indicate that a brick chimney was later constructed, but
probably after 1843, when bricks as well as brickmasons were more available (according
to the census). No stone masons were listed on the census.
Metal detector searches, followed by subsurface sampling, provided a large sample of
artifacts, largely from the later periods of the cabin's occupancy. The few early
examples will be used as part of a museum display in the reconstructed cabin.
Numerous associated features such as wells, root cellars, and chicken houses, were
documented in this study and the absence of others explained by modern land use which
probably obliterated any traces.
Restoration of the cabin is expected to be complete in mid-September in time for
Henderson's centennial celebration. Data derived from the archeological study has been
supplied to the Rusk County Historical Commission to assist them in determining the
original materials and construction techniques used. All replacement parts, necessary
where original materials had deteriorated or were absent, have been obtained from
sources known to date to the appropriate period. The structure, when nominated for
the National Register, will consist of the original single-pen log structure slightly
modified by the addition of entrances cut during its first decade and a fireplace-
chimney of handmade brick, the first permanent materials employed.
111-16
-------
A complete report in the form of a Technical Bulletin will be available from Texas
Archeological Survey.
Page 6-118, last paragraph. Regarding four significant prehistoric sites in first 5-year
area, add:
The route for relocation of the SWEPCO transmission line and a recently proposed
TUGCO 138 kv line in the same corridor is proposed as shown on Fig. I-2B. While the
corridor is proposed to avoid 4 IRK 106, 109, 110, and I I I, the area is considered a high
probability area for cultural resources and construction of the new line and the
relocation of the SWEPCO line present a source of potential impact. The east-west
segment of the proposed corridor (Fig. I-2B) has now been intensively surveyed
(October, 1983). Preliminary information is that no sites were found. Texas Utilities is
expected to provide any measures necessary to comply with the MOA regarding high
probability areas and discovery of sites during construction.
Section 6.10 AIR AND SOUND QUALITY
Page 6-120, paragraph 2 should be deleted and replaced with the following paragraph to
clarify the existing regional air quality and to include information provided by the
Texas Air Control Board.
The air quality in the project area is acceptable. The project is located within Air
Quality Control Region (AQCR) 022. The proposed facilities are in a location that
meets both national primary and secondary air quality standards for carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulates (TSP). It is, therefore, in a designated
"attainment area" for those criteria pollutants. Rusk County has been designated as
"unclassifiable" for ozone and there has been no designation established for lead.
Page 6-126. The question of the amount and impacts from controlled crusher emissions
was raised; calculations of the primary crusher emissions and impacts should be added
to the section on impacts of project alternatives:
The 18 TPY of controlled process emissions are calculated from data for release of
emissions from crushers (EPA, I977a) and project-specific information. Crushers
release emissions at a rate of 0.02 Ib per ton of material crushed and TUGCO states
they will process 3.5 million tons/year of lignite. Thus the crusher would release 35
tons/year of uncontrolled emissions (0.02 Ib/ton x 3.5 million tons/year x 1/2000 Ib/ton).
The crusher emissions will be controlled by water sprays which are 50 percent efficient,
so the controlled release will be about 18 TPY (35 tons/year x 0.50 = 17.5 tons/year).
The TACB, in a letter dated March 8, 1983 (see Appendix B), has exempted the facility
from the TACB permit procedures "because it will not make a significant contribution
of air contaminants to the atmosphere . . ." According to the level of significance used
by TACB, this means that the fugitive emissions will add less than 1 microgram
(1/1,000,000 grams) per cubic meter of air for the annual average and less than 5
micrograms per cubic meter of air for the 24 hour average. No dust problems from
crusher emissions are expected beyond the permit boundary nor at the nearest
residences.
Page 6-126, paragraph 4, delete the EIS reference to a generic dust control plan; it is
unknown what will be submitted to RRC, but the regulation appears to call for a site
specific plan per mine area.
1-17
-------
Page 6-132, paragraph 2, insert the following sentences between lines 12 and 13 to
provide additional information on the frequency and length of time worst-case noise
conditions might occur near the community of Oak Hill;
If worst-case conditions were to occur, operations near the edge of the nearest pit
would occur for 24 hr/day for about a one week period four to five times per year over
a one and one-half (^2) year period. That is, worst-case conditions might occur about
seven to eight times for one week periods.
Section 6.1 I LAND USE AND RECREATION
Table III-1 in this Final EIS is provided as a comparison table of vegetation types and
land use categories in the project area. The table may be used as a reference to
prevent misunderstandings which could be caused by different acreages for similar
categories.
Page 6-139, paragraph 3, the description of timber production should be corrected to
state:
In 1979, there were five saw mills in Rusk County producing 50,469,000 board feet of
pine and 2,053 pine ties (from a total of 71,291 cross-ties produced).
Section 6.16 TRANSPORTATION
Page 6-164, paragraph I, add the following additional impacts from construction of the
over- and underpasses for the railroad between MLSES and the mine area:
The construction of railroad overpasses on SH43 and FM 1716 will cause disruption of
traffic for about 4 months. All necessary state and county approvals have been
obtained for the railroad crossings and all crossings will be constructed before expected
traffic increases occur from other mining activities and induced population. See
Appendix B for approvals.
Page 6-164, paragraph 5, add specific impacts expected to existing roads;
Based on past experience with similar operations by the State Department of Highways
and Public Transportation (SDHPT) area highways deterioration would be escalated by
project activities such as hauling heavy equipment to and from the mine; hauling
lumber, topsoil, ore, gravel and clay from the mine; and hauling crushed limestone to
the mine. Many loads would be expected to require SDHPT permits due to load weight.
Presently, due to overweight hauling, farm road rebuilding projects over more than ten
miles of roads in Rusk County are costing an average of $80,000 a mile (SDHPT
comment letter to EPA, Part II FEIS).
Page 6-164, paragraph 5, in response to a comment from the State Department of
Highways and Public Transportation more information was obtained concerning poten-
tial mitigation of road deterioration caused by construction-related truck traffic; the
following sentences should be added to the end of the paragraph:
Several methods could be useful in mitigating the impact of road deterioration. Truck
routing could be specified to prevent continued passage of heavy trucks over the same
roads. Contractual agreements could be effective in reducing the incidence of
overweight vehicles reporting to the job site. This approach requires that suspect
vehicles be individually weighed at the job site prior to delivery of materials and that
1-18
-------
overweight shipments be rejected. Maintenance agreements, between constructors and
the SDHPT, could be negotiated which call for the constructors to provide maintenance
on affected roads. TUGCO and the SDHPT do not presently have any agreement
covering mitigation of road deterioration (SDHPT, telecommunication, 1983).
Section 6.18 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Figure II1-3 shows the general location of the eight projects considered during the
cumulative impacts analysis. Figure 111-4 shows a more detailed relationship of four of
those projects to the "D" area.
Page 6-168. Geology and Topography. The sentence regarding the acreage of site
specific impacts should read:
The mine projects would cause site specific adverse impacts to more than 100,000 acres
of presently undisturbed geologic units.
Page 6-168. Groundwater Resources. Delete the last three sentences and state:
Recharge of the spoil would likely take more than 25 years, but would depend on site
specific factors and whether any measures to force recharge (such as with end pit lakes)
or to rebuild the aquifer (with selective spoil replacement) are taken. The level of
groundwater contamination by leached constituents from the spoil will depend on spoil
handling/reclamation procedures. (Some mine projects in the Carrizo-Wiicox predict
significant increase in Total Dissolved Solids and in leached metals.) No monitoring
data available on present mine projects can be utilized to predict as wells are at a
distance from active mining that affected waters have not moved that far.
Page 6-169. Surface Water Resources. Add:
Several of the mine projects propose stream diversions which will provide sediment
loading and leached constituents (extent depending on overburden handling). The
proposed Martin Lake "D" diversion of Dry Creek (.38 miles) may not contribute
significantly to adverse water quality in the Sabine River and Lake Cherokee if
overburden is replaced by selective handling as close to existing conditions as possible
and remaining wetlands are left intact. Monitoring included in the draft permit
(Appendix A to this Final EIS) is proposed to detect changes in water quality in streams
tributary to the Sabine River, that may be affected by this project, so that changes in
limits can be instituted if necessary.
Page 6-171, paragraph 3, line 13 and Page 6-172, paragraph I, line 2 contained
typographical errors and should read:
Two of the projects (the proposed plant/mine in Harrison County and the Troup project)
are in planning stages and are not scheduled to begin in the near future. These projects
could become operational within the Martin Lake "D" Area project life (about 30 years).
C. REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 9.0-BIBLIOGRAPHY
The following references were used (in addition to those references listed in the DEIS)
during the preparation of the FEIS and should be added to the bibliography in Chapter
9.0:
1-19
-------
Fresquez, P. R. and W. C. Lindemann. 1982. Soil and rhizosphere microorganisms in
amended coal mine spoils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46:751-755.
Miller, R. M. 1978. Laboratory research studies on the reestablishment of the below
ground ecosystem. |n Argonne Land Reclamation Program Annual Report. Jul.
1976-Oct. 1977, ANL-LRP-2.
Rusk County Tax Collector. 1983. Personal communication with Dr. Larry Sanburg of
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
State Department of Highways and Public Transportation. 1983. Personal communi-
cation by Mr. Marcus L. Yancey, Jr. with Mr. Charles Jasper of Espey, Huston &
Associates, Inc.
Texas Historical Commission. 1983. Letter dated April 26. 1983 from LaVerne
Herrington, Ph.D. addressed to Mr. Dick Whittington, P.E., Regional Adminis-
trator, EPA Region 6.
Prickett, T. A. and M. L. Voorhees. 1981. Selected Hand-Held Calculator Codes for
the Evaluation of Cumulative Strip-Mining Impacts on Groundwater Resources.
Prepared for the Office of Surface Mining, Region V, Denver, Colorado.
D. REVISIONS TO APPENDIX A-SECTION 404(b)(I) ANALYSIS
Revisions to the analysis of impacts from the discharge of dredged and fill materials
into Waters of the U.S. according to the Clean Water Act, Section 404(b)(l) guidelines
will be made as site-specific plans are provided by the applicant to the Corps of
Engineers.
E. REVISIONS TO APPENDIX B-MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Page B-3, paragraph 2, the address for the National Architectural and Engineering
Record has changed since establishment of the Memorandum of Agreement. The new
address is:
National Architectural and Engineering Record (NAER) (Chief, Division of Cultural
Resources, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region, P.O. Box 25287, Denver,
Colorado 80225).
Page B-3, paragraph 6, the reference to the Interagency Archaeological Service was
incorrect in the Memorandum of Agreement and should read:
Interagency Resources Division (National Park Service, Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C. 20240).
F. REVISIONS TO APPENDIX C-PRELIMINARY NPDES PERMIT
See Appendix A for revisions to Outfall 001 regarding discharges from mine areas; and
Outfall 002 regarding discharges from the sewage treatment plant; and Part III
regarding special provisions.
1-20
-------
TABLE Ill-l
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND USE
MARTIN LAKE "D" AREA PROJECT SITE
Total Project Mine Site
Category
Vegetation Communities:
Pine Plantations/Managed Pine
Forests
Regeneration/Cutover Areas
Upland Pine/Hardwood Forests
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Communities
Pasturelands (Improved, Native,
Hayfields, Oldfields)
Croplands
Hydric Communities
Other Aquatic Habitats
TOTAL
Land Use:
Pasture (P)
Forestry
Mature (F)
Transitional (F*)
Grazingland (G)
Cropland (C)
Undeveloped
Water (UW)
Forest (UF)
Water (W)
Commercial-Industrial (C-I)
TOTAL
Acres
1,218
3,795
3,290
1,924
13,135
1,229
162
210
24,963
10,396
1,949
3,749
1,589
1,336
257
5,327
200
160
24,963
Percent
4.9
15.2
13.2
7.7
53.6
4.9
0.6
0.8
41.6
7.8
15.0
6.4
5.4
1.0
21.3
0.8
0.6
Within Mine Blocks^
Acres
665
2,822
2,079
1,039
10,259
865
53
134
17,916
7,915
1,452
2,804
1,211
979
188
3,186
130
51
17,916
Percenl
3.7
15.8
11.6
5.8
57.3
4.8
0.3
0.7
44.2
8.1
15.7
6.8
5.5
1.0
17.8
0.7
0.3
The categories listed for vegetation are based upon different criteria than land use
categories. Thus, acreages for categories with similar names are not the same in both
tables.
"See Fig. 1-2 A and B for location of generalized mine blocks.
1-21
-------
TABLE II1-2
SUMMARY OF LIGNITE AND ASH CHARACTERISTICS
Component
Average
Std. Dev.
Maximum
Minimum
Lignite
Total Sulfur
Moisture
Ash
BTU/Lb.
Ash Load ///MMBTU
Sulf. Diox. ///MMBTU
Thickness in Feet
Ash
Silicon Dioxide
Ferric Oxide
Aluminum Oxide
Calcium Oxide
Magnesium Oxide
Sodium Dioxide
Potassium Oxide
Titanium Oxide
Base/ Acid Ratio
Iron/Calcium Ratio
1.34
34.94
7.09
7,112.16
10.18
3.85
7.58
34.33
18.88
18.73
10.65
2.38
.36
.00
1.17
.64
2.76
.56
5.21
2.42
774.07
4.12
1.73
3.57
9.22
9.55
5.52
5.28
1.17
.20
.00
.43
.29
3.16
3.56
44.40
18.29
8,477.00
31.52
10.33
32.96
57.28
45.08
34.65
23.81
5.81
1.05
.00
2.14
1.47
19.71
.49
6.52
3.16
2,310.00
4.74
1.33
1.60
4.32
1.22
4.74
.06
.39
.01
.00
.08
.18
.21
Number of Records with no area // = 0
Wed, Oct. 27, 1982, 2:50 P.M.
Mill Creek Area - 363
Seam I
73 prox
75 ash
1-22
-------
FACILITIES
CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT BOUNDARY
j
T ol K
001- TO TRIBUTARY OF DRY,
THEN TO MILL CREEK
002- TO MILL CREEK THROUGH
POND AND 001
L—
^^^^~~~~™J
N
NOT TO SCALE
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.
MARTIN LAKE 'D1 AREA
Fig.m-l
LOADING STATION OPERATION
-------
PROJECT BOUNDARY
T I CORRESPONDS TO(V)ON FIG. 6-13'
IN DEIS
Martin
Laxe SE5
Texas Utilities Generating Co
Martin Lake ' D" Area
SURFACE WATER
MONITORING SITES
SOURCE SWR1, ;37«.
-------
ElDDO\B3SSIER V.'EESTER CLftlBORNE
LOUISIA-NA
Project
Acres
(1)
(2)
(3)
W
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Martin Lake "D" Area Mine
MLSES and Mining Areas "A", "B", "C"
Darco Mine and plant
Henry W. Pirkuy Power Plant/South Hallsville Mine
Proposed power plant and mine
Proposed Troup Project, mine and facility
Dolet Hills Power Plant and mine
Castor Bayou Mine
Project
Area
25,350
24,680
20,770
30,000
1 1 , 200
Directly
Disturbed
18,400
23,000
_
11,000
-
36,000
16,200
10,300
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.
MARTIN LAKE "D" AREA
FIG. ffl- 3
PROJECTS CONSIDERED IN
CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
-------
PROPOSED
MINERS
154
v_>
MARSHAL
LONGVIEW
I
PIRKEY POWER PLANT '
AND SOUTH HALLSVILLE
MINE (A
DARCO MIN
MARTIN
MINING AR
PROJEC
LOCATION
CARTHAGE
HENDERSON
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROJECTS CONSIDERED FOR
CUMMULATIVE ANALYSIS
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.
MARTIN LAKE "D" AREA
FIG. H-4
PROJECT LOCATION AND
NEARBY PROJECTS
-------
PART IV.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
-------
PART IV. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES AND ERA'S PROPOSED ACTION
A. APPLICANT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The applicant preferred alternative is summarized in Part I, B of this document and
described in Section 5 of the Draft EIS. TUGCO proposes to mine lignite utilizing a
random mix spoil mining and reclamation procedure, with revegetation to 10 to 50
percent woodlands and 50 to 90 percent pasture (using mainly bermuda grass).
TUGCO proposes reclamation will be at a level to meet surface mining regulations
under authority of the RRC of Texas. Wastewater discharges to streams during
mining would be in accordance with new source performance standards for alkaline
mine drainage.
B. MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND ALTERNATIVE
While significant disruption to the natural environment will occur from surface
mining regardless of the alternative procedures used, the most environmentally
sound alternative would be to proceed according to surface mining regulations with
no variances to replacement of earth layers or required buffer zones. Replacement
of earth for aquifer reconstruction would be utilized. Additionally, stream diversion
would not occur; designated wetlands would be avoided; and all SCS designated
prime farmland soils would be replaced; in-kind revegetation would be utilized.
Wastewater discharge limits would be based on acid mine drainage category new
source performance standards.
C. EPA PROPOSED ACTION
With reservations due to the lack of an approved mining/reclamation plan, EPA
proposes to issue a permit for the project, with modifications, conditions, and
provisions as follows.
Mine wastewater discharge limitations are according to acid mine drainage new
source performance standards with effluent limits on pH, total suspended solids, iron
and manganese. Discharges during and immediately following rainfall events of
magnitude up to the 10-year, 24 hour precipitation event could qualify for effluent
limits on pH and settleable solids only. Discharges within 24 hours of a rainfall
greater than the 10 year, 24 hour event could qualify for only pH limitations.
However, the operator must prove that discharge during or following precipitation
was caused by the applicable rainfall event to qualify for the less stringent limits.
Mining discharges from reclamation areas during the bonding period would have
limits on pH and settleable solids. The reference for the above standards is 40 Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 434.35. See the draft permit in Appendix A, Parts I
and III for the limits.
Sanitary waste discharge limitations would be according to the secondary level
treatment effluent limits for total suspended solids, pH, and biochemical oxygen
demand. (See Appendix A, Part I of draft permit).
TUGCO would provide instream water quality monitoring at sites on Mill Creek and
Tiawichi Creek. Sampling, analysis and reporting for pH, mercury, phenols,
ammonia, alkalinity, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, and turbidity
would occur quarterly.
IV-1
-------
No discharge into any Corps of Engineers designated wetlands would be allowed
unless Clean Water Act, Section 404 authorization is obtained from the COE for
each discharge, based on site specific plans. This includes any mining or construc-
tion activity proposed as well as transmission line or pipeline relocations.
Stipulations of the Memorandum of Agreement on cultural resources (Appendix B of
draft EIS) must be complied with for consideration of historic and archaeological
resources before earth disturbance in a permit area and for instances of discoveries
during earth disturbance.
IV-2
-------
APPENDIX A.
DRAFT NPDES PERMIT FOR THE MARTIN LAKE "D"
AREA LIGNITE SURFACE MINE
-------
DRAEI
Permit No. TX0091120
Application No. TX0091120
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 Utilities Generating Company
2001 Bryan Tower
Dallas, Texas 75201
is authorized to discharge from a facility located at Martin Lake Mining Area D,
near Henderson, Rusk County, Texas
to receiving waters named the Sabine River via Mill, Martin and Tiawichi Creeks
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other
conditions set forth in Parts I, II, and III 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)
A-
-------
PART I
Page 2 of 19
Permit No. TX0091120
PART I
REQUIREMENTS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - Outfall 001
During the period beginning the effective date and lasting through the
expiration date
the permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfall(s) serial number(s) 001,
intermittent discharge from various retention ponds**-
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified
below:
Effluent Characteristic
Discharge Limitations
kg/day(lbs/daylOther Units (Specify)
Daily Avg Daily Max Daily Avg Daily Max
Flow-mS/DayfMGD)
Total Suspended Solids
Iron, Total
Manganese, Total
Effluent Characteristic
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A * *
N/A 35.0 mg/1 70.0 mg/1
N/A 3.0 mg/1 6.0 mg/1
N/A 2.0 mg/1 4.0 mg/1
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement
Frequency
One/day
One/day ****
One/day ****
One/day ****
Sample
Type
Estimate ***
Grab
Grab
Grab
Flow-mS/DayfMGD)
Total Suspended Solids
Iron, Total
Manganses, Total
* Report
** See Part III, Paragraph B
*** See Part III, Paragraph E
**** When Discharge occurs
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard
units and shall be monitored one/day**** 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): At the flow measuring device prior
to discharge to a tributary of the Sabine River.
A-2
-------
PART I
Page 3 of 19
Permit No. TX0091120
PART I
REQUIREMENTS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - Outfal1 002
During the period beginning the effective date and lasting through expiration
date
the permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfall(s) serial number(s)
002, discharge from a sewage treatment plant.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified
below:
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations
kg/day(lbs/da7JOther Units (Specify)
Daily Avg Daily Max Daily Avg Daily Max
Flow-mS/DayfMGD) N/A N/A * *
Total Suspended Solids N/A N/A 30 mg/1 45 mg/1
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (5-day) N/A N/A 30 mg/1 45 mg/1
Effluent Characteristic Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample
Frequency Type
Flow-nP/DaytMGD) I/week Grab
Total Suspended Solids I/week Grab
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (5-day) I/week Grab
* Report
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): Prior to discharge from the
treatment plant to Dry Creek, tributary to Mill Creek.
A-3
-------
PART I
Page 4 of 19
Permit No. TX0091120
SECTION B. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
The permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent limitations
specified for discharges in accordance with the following schedule:
NONE
-------
PART II
Page 5 of 19 DRAFT
Permit No. TX0091120
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 non-
compliance 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 sub-
ject 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. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or correct any adverse
impact on the environment resulting from noncompliance with this permit,
including such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine
the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge.
4. 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; or
c. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or
permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge.
The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation
and reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned changes or antici-
pated noncompliance, does not stay any permit condition.
A-5
-------
PART II
Page 6 of 19
Permit No. TX0091120
5. Toxic Pollutants
Notwithstanding paragraph A-4, above, if a toxic effluent standard or prohibi-
tion (including any schedule of compliance specified in such effluent standard
or prohibition) is established under Section 307(a) of the Act for a toxic
pollutant which is present in the discharge and such standard or prohibition is
more stringent than any limitation for such pollutant in this permit, this per-
mit 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 in the regulations that establish those standards or prohibitions, even
if the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement.
6. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" Section B, Paragraph B-3
and "Upsets" Section B, Paragraph B-4, nothing in this permit shall be construed
to relieve the permittee from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance.
7. Oil 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 is or may be subject under Section 311 of the
Act.
8. 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 Act.
9. 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.
10. 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.
A-6
-------
PART ,1 *>RAFT
Page 7 of 19
Permit No. TX0091120
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 includes effective performance,
adequate funding, adequate operator staffing and training, and adequate labora-
tory and process controls, including appropriate quality assurance procedures.
This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or
similar systems only when necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of
the permit.
2. • Duty to Halt or Reduce Activity
Upon reduction, loss, or failure of the treatment facility, the permittee shall,
to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with its permit, control produc-
tion or all discharges or both until the facility is restored or an alternative
method of treatment is provided. This requirement applies, for example, when
the primary source of power of the treatment facility fails or is reduced or
lost. 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. 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
paragraphs c and d of this section.
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.
A-7
-------
PART II
Page 8 of 19
Permit No. TX0091120
(2) Unanticipated bvpass. The permittee shall submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass as required in Section D, Paragraph 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 the permittee
could have installed adequate backup equipment to prevent a
bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment down-
time or preventive maintenance; and
(c) The permittee submitted notices as required under paragraph c
of this section.
(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 above in paragraph d(l) of this
section.
4. Upset Conditions
a. Definition. "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is unin-
tentional 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.
b. Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an
action brought for noncompliance with such technology-based permit effluent
limitations if the requirements of paragraph c of this section are met. No
determination made during administrative review of claims that noncompliance
was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is 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:
A-8
-------
PART II DRAFT
Page 9 of 19
Permit No. TX0091120
(1) An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the specific
cause(s) of the upset;
(2) The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated; and
(3) The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in Section
D, Paragraph D-6.
(4) The permittee complied with any remedial measures required under
Section A, Paragraph A-3.
d. Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding the permittee seeking to
establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof.
5. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in 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-9
-------
PART II
Page 10 of 19
Permit No. TX009112Q
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 ands 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 insure 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 opera-
tion 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.
CIS.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. (Available
from the General Services Administration [8FFS], Centralized Mailing Lists
Services, Building 41, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225).
A-10
-------
PART II
Page ll of 19
Permit No. TX0091120
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 for each month and reported on a DMR form postmarked no
later than the 28th day of the month following the completed reporting period.
The first report is due . Duplicate copies of DMR's signed
and certified as required by Section D, Paragraph D-ll, and all other reports
required by Section D, Reporting Requirements, shall be submitted to the
Regional Administrator and the State at the following addresses:
Myron 0. Knudson, P.E., Director Director, Surface Mining & Reclamation
Water Management Division (6W) Texas Railroad Commission
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Drawer 12967, Capitol Station
Region VI Austin, Texas 78711
First International Building
1201 Elm Street
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 136 or as specified in this
permit, the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and
reporting of the data submitted in the DMR. Such increased frequency shall also
be indicated.
7. Averaging of Measurements
Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall
utilize an arithmetic mean unless other wise specified by the Director in the
permit.
A-1
-------
PART II
DRAFT
Page 12 of 19
Permit No. TX0091120
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, time and methods 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 moni-
toring 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-12
-------
PART II
Page 13 of 19
Permit No. TX0091120
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.
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 noncompliance with
permit requirements.
3. Transfers
This permit is nontransferable 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
in Section C, Paragraph 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
noncompliance shall include the cause of noncompliance, any remedial actions
taken, and the probability of meeting the next scheduled requirement.
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.
A-13
-------
PART II
Page 14 of 19
Permit No. TX0091120
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.
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
Section D, Paragraphs D-l, D-4, D-5, and D-6 at the time monitoring reports are
submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed in Paragraph 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 occurred or will occur which would result in the
discharge of any toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if
that discharge will exceed the "notification levels" described in 40
CFR 122.61.
b. That they have begun or expect to begin to use or manufacture as an
intermediate or final product or byproduct any toxic pollutant which
was not reported in the permit application.
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 should 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 in advance but no later than the permit expira-
tion date.
A-14
-------
PART II
Page 15 of 19
Permit No. TX0091120
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 principal executive officer of at least
the level of vice-president;
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or
the proprietor, respectively; or
(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: by
either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official.
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 in writing by a person described above.
(2) The authorization specified 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. (A duly authorized representative may
thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a
named position.); and
(3) Certification. Any person signing a document under this section
shall make the following certification:
"I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined
and am familiar with the information submitted in this document
and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of
those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the
Information, I believe that the information is true, accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment."
12. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under 40 CFR Part 2, all reports
prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for
public inspection at the offices of the State water pollution control agency
A-15
-------
PART II
Page 16 of 19
Permit No. TX0091120
and the Regional Administrator. As required by the Act, 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 in any record or other document sub-
mitted 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-16
-------
PART III
Page 17 of 19
Permit No. TX0091120
PART III
OTHER CONDITIONS
A. The "daily average" concentration means the arithmetic average (weighted by
flow value) of all the daily determinations of concentration made during a
calendar month. Daily determinations of concentration made using a composite
sample shall be the concentration of the composite sample. When grab samples
are used, the daily determination of concentration shall be the arithmetic
average (weighted by flow value) of all the samples collected during that
calendar day.
The "daily maximum" concentration means the daily determination of concentration
for any calendar day.
B. The sampling points (sedimentation ponds) shall be numbered and reported as
101 through 991 as developed within the areas identified in the Mining Sequence
Map, Figure 1-2 of the consolidated application.
C. 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 location.
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.
D. Drainage which is not from an active mining area shall not be required to
meet the limitations set forth in Part I-A of this permit as long as such
drainage is not commingled with untreated mine drainage which is subject to the
limitaions in Part I-A of this permit.
E. 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.
A-17
-------
PART III
Page 18 of 19
Permit No. TX0091120
F. Effluent Limitations for Precipitation events
(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 10-year,
24-hour precipitation event (or series of storms or snowmelt of equivalent
volume) may comply with the following limitations instead of the otherwise
applicable limitations:
Affluent Limitations During Precipitation
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
j)H Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
(b) Any discharge or increase in volume of a discharge caused by
precipitation within any 24-hour period greater than the 10-year, 24-hour event
(or series of storms or snowmelt of equivalent volume) may comply with 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 conseenit 1 ve days
jpJH Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
(c) 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 (a) and (b).
G. 10-year 24-hour Precipitation Event
The term "10-year, 24-hour precipitation event" means the maximum 24-hour
precipitation event with a probable recurrence interval of once 1n 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.
H. Effluent Limitations for Reclamation Areas
The following standards apply to discharges from reclamation areas until
SMCRA bond release
A-18
-------
PART III
Page 19 of 19
Permit No. TX0091120
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
j>H Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
I. Determination of Settleable Solids
The following procedure shall be used to determine settleable solids:
Fill an Imhoff cone to the one-liter mark with a thoroughly mixed sample.
Allow to settle undisturbed for 45 minutes. Gently stir along the inside
surface of the cone with a stirring rod. Allow to settle undisturbed for 15
minutes longer. Record the volume of settled material in the cone as
milliliters per liter. Where a separation of settleable and floating materials
occurs, do not include the floating material in the reading.
The method detection limit for measuring settleable solids shall be
0.4 ml/1.
J. The Memorandum of Agreement executed by EPA, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, and the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer for the coal
mining operation which is the subject of this permit is hereby incorporated by
reference and expressly made a part of this permit. The permittee shall comply
with the stipulations of such Memorandum of Agreement.
K. There shall be no discharge of dredge and fill material into wetlands as
designated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers unless TUGCO obtains a Clean
Water Act, Section 404 authorization from the Corps of Engineers for each such
discharge, based on site specific plans.
L. In-stream sampling, analysis and reporting shall be provided for phenols,
ammonia (as N), pH, alkalinity, turbidity, total suspended solids, total
dissolved solids and mercury on a once/3 month basis at Stream Sampling Stations
TUSI 1, 2 and 5, as used in the Sabine River Authority's 1977-1980 Water Quality
Monitoring Program. Grab samples shall be collected both prior to, and during,
periods when discharges from the mine area are actually occuring.
A-19
-------
APPENDIX B.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX B-TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item Page
I Letters Concerning Early Construction Requests B-l
2. TUGCO Violations Submitted to RRC B-10
3. TACB Letter Exempting Martin Lake "D" Area
from PSD B-l4
t\. Overburden Core Analyses - 5 Cores B-17
5. Agreement for Railroad Crossings B-29
B-i
-------
I. Letters Concerning Early Construction Requests
B-l
-------
TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
2()01 HHYAN TWVfcH • DA1.LAS. TKXAS 7r,2Ol
June 11, 1982
Mr. Clinton Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Martin Lake Mining Area "D"
Environmental Impact Statement
Railroad Start of Construction
Dear Mr. Spotts:
The purpose of this letter is to seek concurrence for start of construction
of the railroad that will transport lignite from our proposed Martin Lake
Area "D" lignite mine to the existing Martin Lake Steam Electric Station.
An environmental impact statement is currently under preparation to obtain
an NPDES permit for the mine. The EIS preparation schedule calls for
review and effective permit date of March 22, 1983. Construction of the
mine will begin immediately upon receipt of the NPDES period in order to
maintain a reliable fuel supply required for continued operation of the
existing three generating units at Martin Lake Steam Electric Station.
Start of construction for the railroad will be required earlier than
for the mine so that the railroad can be in service by the time the mine
begins producing lignite. To meet this schedule requirement, construction
of the railroad must begin with preliminary clearing on September 1, 1982.
Based upon our review of the applicable regulations and definitions per-
taining to NPDES permit requirements, we believe that the railroad is
an off-site transportation facility that is separate from the NPDES new
source mine. The railroad has no water discharges and is not included in
the definitions of "coal mine" or "active mining area" in the EPA Effluent
Guidelines for Coal Mining (40 CFR 434). Since the railroad is a separate,
off-site facility that does not require an NPDES permit, we believe the
on-site construction commencement requirements of 122.66(c)(4)(i) do not
apply to the railroad start of construction.
We recognize that the NEPA regulations require the EIS to address all
the environmental impacts resulting from construction of the mine includ-
ing secondary impacts from construction of the railroad. The impacts of
the railroad have been addressed in the Preliminary Draft EIS and no
significant or irreversible adverse environmental impacts have been
identified. The following factors can be used in justifying no significant
or irreversible impact:
B-2
-------
Mr. Clinton Spotts
U.S. EPA
June 11, 1982
Page 2.
1. The selected rail route passes through a rural, low populated
area.
2. No endangered species or habitat will be affected.
3. Overpasses will be constructed at all public road crossings so
that there will be no effect on automobile traffic.
A. There will be no adverse effect on archaeological or historical
National Register or eligible properties. A plan has been
developed and will be implemented to protect and gather all
historic information from the one potential National Register
eligible site located on the railroad right-of-way.
5. The Corps of Engineers has reviewed the proposed rail route and
determined that the rail crossings occur above the headwaters of
area streams and are therefore authorized by a nationwide permit.
Crossings will meet the requirements of 33 CFR 323.4-2(b).
In summary, we request that EPA concur in the start of construction based
on either (1) the railroad is a separate off-site transportation facility
from the NPDES permitted mine or (2) a determination that start of con-
struction of the railroad will not cause a significant irreversible adverse
impact.
If there are any questions about this request or if any additional information
is required, please contact me or Mr. Dick Robertson.
Very truly yours,
nan
JRRrjl
B-3
-------
UNITED S' ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A
Mr. Howard B. Coffman
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
2001 Rryan Tower
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Coffman:
This letter 1s 1n response to your request for concurrence on early
construction of the railroad to be used to transport lignite froin the
proposed Martin Lake "D" mina north of Henderson, Texas to the Martin
Lake Steam Electric Station. We have determined that the area proposed
for location of the railroad 1s part of the new source project site, and
the regulations, 40 CFR Part 122.6 (c)(4)(l), do apply.
Based on review of all the Information submitted, we offer our approval
to proceed with the railroad construction provided that the following
conditions are met:
1. Clearance 1s provided from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort
Worth District, regarding construction 1n wetlands;
2. Measures are developed for minimizing of effects on the prime
farmland soils so that no irreversible Impact will occur on
these;
3. The mitigation plan for protecting the significance of the
Walling Cabin, as related to the archeologlcal survey of the
site and recordatlon and relocation of the cabin property, is
completed before any construction begins.
We resarve the right to withdraw this authorization should further
Information Indicate the conditions will not be met or that construction
work will cause significant environmental Impact.
-------
In the event the final HS reveals that your project cannot be under-
taken as presently planned, we are Informing you that any construction
activities commenced on the proposed railroad corridor are at your own
risk. If you have any questions, please contact Clinton Sootts at (214)
757-2716.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Framces E. Phillips for
irlck WhHtlngton, P.E.
Administrator
B-5
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
iNTERFlRST TWO BUILDING. I2OI ELM STREET
DALLAS.TEXAS 7527O
August 1, 1983
Mr. L. F. Fikar
Texas Utilities Generating Co.
2001 Bryan Tower
Dallas, Texas 75201-3050
Dear Mr. Fikar:
We have reviewed your June 8, 1983, request for approval to begin construction
at the site of the loading station and dragline erection area associated
with the Martin Lake "0" area lignite mine project. The recent application
made by TUGCO to the Railroad Commission of Texas for construction at"this
particular site was obtained and reviewed in addition to information supplied
to us for the EIS.
Based on our review of the information available, we offer our approval to
proceed with construction at the designated site in accordance with variance
procedures in 40 CFR 122.66(c)(4)(i), provided the following conditions are
met:
1. Site specific measures are carried out to minimize effects on the prime
farmland soils so that no irreversible impact will occur to them. The
measures are to include removal of a minimum of the top four inches of
topsoi 1 in any area that is to be cut or covered with fill and placement
of that soil at one or more locations in the loading station area to be
available for future use. Exposed areas should be revegetated to control
erosion immediately as construction activities in an area are completed.
2. The appropriate stipulations of the Memorandum of Agreement for protection
of cultural resources between EPA, the Texas State Historic Preservation
Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation are complied
with to ensure protection of archeological or historic properties that
may be discovered during earth disturbance.
We reserve the right to withdraw this authorization should further information
indicate that the conditions will not be met or that construction will causo
other significant environmental impact. In such an event, TUGCO shall
immediately cease construction activities and take measures to restore the
affected environment.
B-6
-------
-2-
You should be aware that although this construction may include construction
of a sedimentation pond(s), you are not authorized to discharge from a pond to
any surface water without a final NPDES permit.
EPA's approval for this limited construction does not obligate EPA in. any
way regarding the final NPDES decision for the Martin Lake D Area mine project.
Should the NEPA review underway by EPA, Region 6, result in a determination
that the NPDES permit is denied or that the proposed facility should not be
constructed at the proposed location, TUGCO shall return the area disturbed
to its approximate original contour and revegetate the area to the satisfaction
of EPA.
We ask that you keep us apprised of your activities relative to this author-
ization. If you have any questions, please contact Clinton Spotts at 767-2716.
Sincerely yours,
Dick Whittington, P.E.
Regional Administrator
cc: Howard Coffman
B-7
-------
TKXAS rriUTIKS SKKYIU.S i.V.
• 'i n M m n i, x n »\\ i i { 11 \ i i \*- ' i \ '. •' ' > > >
June 8, 1983
- i-O
6 E-b
Mr. Clinton Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Martin Lake Mining Area "D"
Environmental Impact Statement
Loading Station Start of Construction
Dear Mr. Spotts:
With this letter we are requesting approval to begin initial construction
activities at the site of the loading station and dragline erection area
for our proposed Martin Lake Mining Area "D" project. We seek this appro-
val based on the provisions of 40 CFR 122.66(4)(i) which allow certain
construction activities prior to obtaining a final NPDES permit when the
Administrator determines that the construction will not cause significant
or irreversible environmental Lmpact.
We believe this determination can be made based on the limited acreage
involved for the proposed construction as well as the data and analysis
of impacts that have already been evaluated and commented on by agencies
and the public in the ongoing preparation of the Environmental Impact
Statement for the project.
The proposed construction would be limited to Company owned property within
the boundaries of the 428 acre site designated as the loading station and
dragline erection area. Proposed facilities as described in the DEIS and
Railroad Commission Permit Application would only occupy 140 acres within
the larger boundary. The environmental review of this area has indicated
there are no wetlands, sensitive areas, national register archaeological
sites or endangered species in the aroa. No mining or handling of lipnite
would be conducted before obtaining the NPDES permit. No work would begin
until authorization is provided by the Railroad Commission.
The projected date for completion of the final EIS and issuance of the NPDES
permit is still several months away. We have delayed the start of the pro-
posed work for several months and additional delay would jeopardize the entire
project schedule and projected fuel supply for the Martin Lake Power Plant.
We seek to begin by July 1, 1983. This would allow us to have an area and
facilities prepared to receive dragline parts scheduled to arrive in December
of this year. There would be an environmental benefit in starting early
enough in the year to allow growth of vegetation on some of the disturbed
areas prior to the winter season.
B-8
-------
Mr. Clinton Spotts
U.S. EPA
June 8, 1983
Page 2.
We have previously submitted the drawings, maps and descriptions of the
loading station area and facilities.
If you need additional information, or if there are any questions,
please call me or Mr. Dick Robertson.
Very truly yours,
JRRtjl
B-9
-------
2. TUGCO Violations Submitted to RRC
B-IO
-------
DATE: August 6, 1979
AUTHORITY: Texas Railroad Commission, Surface Mining Division
DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION: Failure to meet water quality standards and
effluent limitations at pond B-l-D.
DESCRIPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS:
None
STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS: N/A
ABATEMENT ACTION TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT: B-l-D sediment pond enlarged to meet
the 10-year, 24-hour.,rainfall event.
DATE: August 6, 1979
AUTHORITY: Texas Railroad Commission, Surface Mining Division
DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION: Failure to use best technology on "C" haul road
adding excessive suspended solids to Pin Oak and Prairie Creeks.
DESCRIPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS:
None
STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS: N/A
ABATEMENT ACTION TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT: Hay bale and rock check dams
installed in roadside ditches. Reroute water (where possible) through
sediment ponds.
DATE: October 16, 1979
AUTHORITY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation Enforcement
DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION: Discharge from disturbed area failed to mee-t
minimum effluent limitations.
DESCRIPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS:
None
STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS: Completed.
ABATEMENT ACTION TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT: Treatment system installed.
B-ll
-------
DATE: October 16, 1979
AUTHORITY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation Enforcement
DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION: Exceeding discharge limitations.
DESCRIPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS:
$2300 assessment proposed. No penalty following assessment conference.
STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS: Assessment conference scheduled.
ABATEMENT ACTION TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT: Treatment pond B-5 installed to
treat water from B-2 and B-3 sediment pond.
DATE: November 4, 1979
AUTHORITY: Texas Railraod Commission, Surface Mining Division
DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION: Failure to meet water quality standards and
effluent limitations at pond B-4.
DESCRIPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS:
None
STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS: Not applicable.
ABATEMENT ACTION TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT: Water treatment system installed.
DATE: May 29, 1980
AUTHORITY: Texas Railroad Commission
DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION: Drainage from a new scraper pit spoil is leaving
the permit area without passing through a sediment pond.
DESCRIPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS:
None
STATUS OF-PROCEEDINGS: Not applicable.
ABATEMENT ACTION TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT: Drainage control facilities
constructed.
B-12
-------
DATE: August 26, 1980
AUTHORITY: Texas Railroad Commission
DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION: Excavation within 100 feet of a pipeline during
exploration activity.
DESCRIPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS:
None.
STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS: Not applicable.
ABATEMENT ACTION TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT: Exploration activities within 100
feet of pipeline were discontinued.
DATE: July 14, 1981
AUTHORITY: Texas Railroad Commission, Surface Mining Division
DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION: Failure to cover acid-forming materials.
DESCRIPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS:
None
STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS: N/A
ABATEMENT ACTION TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT: Chemical treatment.
B-13
-------
3. TACB Letter Exempting Martin Lake "D" Area from PSD
B-14
-------
6330 HWY. 290 EAST
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78723
JOHN L. BLAIR 51^^11 VITTORIO K. ARGENTO, P. E.
Chairman XP=3X, BOB G. BAILEY
CHARLES R.JAYNES /§S=^K\ FRED HARTMAN
Vice Chairman / M^W\ D- JACK KILIAN- M- D-
OltT^ NOT/ OTTO R. KUNZE, Ph. D., P. E.
BILL STEWART. P. E. \?£&&7 FRANK H' LEWIS
Executive Director X^TT^X R. HAL MOORMAN
March 8, 1983
m
Mr. L. F. Fikar JUS I
Vice President
TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES, INCORPORATED
2001 Bryan Tower
Dallas, Texas 75201
Re: Permit Exemption
Permit Application No. C-9243
Lignite Train Loading Facility
Henderson, Rusk County
Dear Mr. Fikar:
This is in response to your permit application, Form PI-1, concerning
the proposed construction of a lignite train loading facility. We
understand that fugitive particulate matter emissions from this
facility are estimated to be 18.2 tons per year.
Pursuant to Section 3.27(a) of the Texas Clean Air Act, I have deter-
mined to exempt your proposed facility from the permit procedures of
this Agency because it will not make a significant contribution of air
contaminants to the atmosphere if constructed and operated as described
in your application. You are reminded that regardless of whether a con-
struction permit is required, this facility must be in compliance with
all Rules and Regulations of the Texas Air Control Board at all times.
The issuance of this exemption is contingent upon the condition that
this facility shall comply with all requirements of Environmental
Protection Agency Regulations on Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources promulgated for coal preparation plants in Title 40
Code of Federal Regulations Part 60 (40 CFR 60), Subparts A and Y.
Celebrating 150 Years of Texas Independence 1836 • 1986
-------
Mr. L. F. Fikar -2- March 8, 1983
Thank you for providing the information necessary for our evaluation of
your proposal. If you have further questions concerning this exemp-
tion, please contact Mr. James E. Crocker of our Permits Division.
t P.E.
Executive Director
cc: Mr. Richard Leard, P.E., Regional Supervisor, Tyler
B-16
-------
4. Overburden Core Analyses - 5 Cores
B-17
-------
CORE LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL REPORT
13 HAY 81
DISTRIBUTION OF FINAL REPORTS
COPIES SENT TO:
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
P.O. BOX 519
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78704
ATTN: MR. RAY RISNER
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
P.O. BOX 948
FA1RFIELD. TEXAS 75B40
ATTN: MR. I.EGETT CARRETT
CLIENT I.D.:
M810U2
P.O. NO. G90-0533
OVERDURDEN PROJECT ANALYSTS FOR TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
MILL CREEK PROJECT
HOLE 1128 E1IA 5 0' 64.1'
HOLE 562 E!IA 2 0' 87.2'
HOLE 100'J EI1A 1 0' - 131.4'
HOLE 972 EI1A 3 0' - 82.2"
HOLE 964 EI1A 4 0' 122.5'
B-18
-------
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
MILL CHEEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
MS1002
COMPOSITE LIST OF SAMPLES
CD
VO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
1128
1128
1123
1128
1128
1123
1123
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
1009
1009
1009
1009
1009
1009
1009
1009
1009
1009
1009
1009
1009
1009
972
972
972
EHA
EHA
EHA
EHA
EHA
EHA
FHA
EHA
FHA
EHA
EHA
EHA
EHA
FHA
FHA
FHA
EHA
EHA
EHA
FHA
EHA
EHA
EHA
EHA
EHA
FHA
FHA
FHA
EHA
EHA
EHA
EHA
FHA
EHA
EHA
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
i-a
1-9
1-10
1-11
1-12
1-13
1-14
3-1
3-2
3-3
0-11.
11.
28
40
49
51
.
.
,
54.
0'
10
14
17
21
24
34
50
63
74
75
0'
3.
16
29
33
41
51
59
65
78
92
a
0
0
7
0
3
1
1
t
'
1
1
-10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
5
5
0
0
5
0
0
0
3
•
1
'
'
'
1
1
1
1
1
-8.
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
0
2
5
0
4
7
7
0
0
107.
119.
121.
O1
7.
10
-
'
1
1
1
1
1
t
t
1
2
6
5
-7.
6
.
8'
-28.
-40.
-47.
-51.
-54.
-64.
.0'
-14.
-17.
-21.
-24.
-34.
-45.
-63.
-64.
-75.
-87.
0'
16.0
-29.
-33.
-41.
-48.
-59.
-65.
-78.
-92.
-107
0'
0'
0'
0'
3'
1'
5'
5'
0'
0'
5'
5'
0'
6'
3'
2'
1
2'
5'
0'
0'
7'
7'
0'
0'
.2'
'-109.2'
'-121.5'
'-131.4'
6'
'-10. r
1
1
-11.
2 *
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
MILL GREEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
MS 1002
COMPOSITE LIST OF SAMPLES (CONT.)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
S3
34
LI
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
SI
32
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLS 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 1128
HOLE 562
HOLE 1009
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 964
EHA 3-4
EHA 3-5
EHA 3-6
EHA 3-7
EHA 3-3
EHA 3-9
EHA 3-10
EHA 3-11
EHA 3-12
EHA 3-13
EHA 4-1
EHA 4-2
EHA 4-3
EHA 4-4
EHA 4-5
EHA 4-6
EHA 4-7
EHA 4-8
EHA 4-9
EHA 4-10
EHA 4-11
EHA 4-12
LI
LI
LI
LI
U
LI
11.2'-14.2'
15.2'-20.7'
20.7'-36.1'
36.1'-52.3'
54.2'-55.7'
55.7'-59.0'
59.0'-61.4'
68.6'-69.5'
69.5'-75.0'
75.0'-82.2'
O'-IO.O1
10.0'-22.0'
22.0'-35.4'
35.4'-47.8'
47.3'-54.4'
56.6'-60.3'
60.3'-75.1'
75.1'-90.a'
90.8'-104.7'
104.7'-105.6'
112.1'-114.0'
114.0'-122.5'
47.0'-49.7'
64.6'-74.0'
109.2'-119.6'
52.3'-54.2'
6l.4'-68.6'
105.6'-H2.1'
-------
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
MILL CREEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
CORE LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL REPORT
DATE: 27 MAR 81
ANALYST: JMA/ETK
FILE NO.: MB 1002, pg. 1
LOCATION: TYLER COAL LAB
SAMPLE
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10 DUP
11
12
13
14
15
16
CLIENT I.D.
HOLE 1128 EHA 5-1 O'-ll.S1
HOLE 1128 EHA 5-2 11.8'-28.0'
HOLE 1128 EIIA 5-3 28.0' -40.0'
HOLE 1128 EHA 5-4 40.0'-47.0'
HOLE 1128 EHA 5-5 49.7'-51.0'
HOLE 1128 EHA 5-6 51.0'-54.3'
HOLE 1128 EHA 5-7 54.3'-64.1'
HOLE 562 EHA 2-1 O'-IO.O'
HOLE 562 EIIA 2-2 10.0'-14.5'
HOLE 562 EHA 2-3 14.5'-17.5'
HOLE 562 EIIA 2-3 14.5'-17.5'
HOLE 562 EHA 2-4 17.5'-21.0'
HOLE 562 EHA 2-5 21.0'-24.0'
HOLE 562 EHA 2-6 24.0'-34.5'
HOLE 562 EHA 2-7 34. 5 '-AS. 5'
HOLE 562 EHA 2-8 50.0'-63.0'
HOLE 562 EHA 2-9 63.0'-64.6'
B!i*
4.5
4.7
5.0
5.6
4.4
4.4
5.8
4.2
3.9
3.7
3.7
3.1
3.8
3.1
4.3
4.3
4.1
COND*
32
18
25
21
317
213
317
53
62
94
93
718
82
823
416
291
374
«pll AND CONDUCTIVITY ON A 1:1 HATER AND SOIL MIXTURE
CONDUCTIVITY EXPRESSED AS Umlioa @ 25°C
ALL OTHER ANALYSIS PERFORMED ON 1 : 3 HATER EXTRACT OF Ala
ppm
Ca
2.4
2.0
2.0
1.9
21
19
19
1.9
1.7
2.8
3.3
9.2
2.4
30
25
11
26
ppm
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
11
10
9.5
0.9
0.8
1.4
1.2
4.2
1.1
20
24
8.6
18
ppra
Ha
14
12
18
231
29
21
26
8.7
11
9.6
9.3
12
21
20
26
26
32
ppm
K
2.7
2.0
1.6
1.1
19
11
15
5.4
9.0
11
11
22
4.3
18
29
25
30
ppm
Cl
21
15
17
18
12
9
5
24
29
25
25
11
27 •
22
20
15
18
ppra
1ICO
0
3
5
7
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ppra
J C03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ppm
50^
<10
<10
<10
171
146
160
-------
CORE LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL REPORT
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
DATE: 27 MAR 81
ANALYST: JMA/ETK
FILE NO.: M81002, pg
LOCATION: TYLER COAL
. 3
LAB
MILL CREEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
SAMPLE
NUMBER
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
42 DUP
43
44
45
46
47
HOLE 1009
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
CLIENT I
EHA 1-14
EHA 3-1
EIIA 3-2
EIIA 3-3
EIIA 3-4
EHA 3-5
EIIA 3-6
EIIA 3-7
EIIA 3-8
EIIA 3-9
EIIA 3-10
EIIA 3-10
EIIA 3-11
EIIA 3-12
EIIA 3-13
EIIA 4-1
EIIA 4-2
.D.
,21. 5'-. 31. 4"
0'-7.6'
7.6--10.1'
10.1--11.2'
11.2--14.2'
15.2'-20.7'
20.7'-36.1'
36.T-52.3'
54.2--55.71
55.7'-59.0'
59.0 '-6 1.4'
59.0'-61.4'
68. 6 '-69. 5'
69.5'-75.0'
75.0'-82.2'
O'-IO.O1
10.0'-22.0'
pll*
7.7
4.5
4.4
3.7
6.5
7.4
8.1
8.3
7.8
8.3
7.4
7.4
7.2
8.1
8.4
5.1
5.1
COND*
451
44
80
580
755
539
652
637
1225
789
853
867
745
406
629
92
89
ppm
Ca
41
2.0
2.8
78
26
39
57
53
91
54
59
59
41
20
26
2. 1
1.3
ppm
16
1.2
1.6
39
16
20
26
24
41
22
26
25
19
7.0
10
0.3
0.1
ppm
Na
28
11
12
34
32
34
47
49
77
70
76
76
78
57
88
28
28
PP">
K
21
6.9
12
28
22
19
20
19
41
35
32
31
31
18
20
9.0
1.5
ppm
Cl
25
14
13
15
31
8
11
15
12
9
24
25
39
57
42
27
22
ppm
HC03
52
0
0
0
24
71
124
105
315
235
314
312
213
118
200
a
8
ppm
COj
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ppm
SO/i
190
21
45
495
216
198
249
234
294
155
134
135
132
84
63
39
50
*pH AND CONDUCTIVITY ON A 1:1 WATER AND SOIL MIXTURE
CONDUCTIVITY EXPRESSED AS Umlioa @ 25°C
ALL OTHER ANALYSIS PKI1FORMED ON 1:3 WATER EXTRACT OF AIR DRIED SAMPLE
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
MILL CREEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
CORE LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL REPORT
DATE: 27 MAR 81
ANALYST: JMA/ETK
FILE NO.. M81002, pg. 4
LOCATION: TYLER COAL LAII
SAMPLE
NUMBER
48
49
50
50 DUP
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
S3
S4
CLIENT I.D. pll*
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
964
964
964
964
964
964
964
964
964
964
964
EHA 4-3
EIIA 4-4
EIIA 4-5
EIIA 4-5
EIIA 4-6
EIIA 4-7
EIIA 4-8
EIIA 4-9
EIIA 4-10
EIIA 4-11
EIIA 4-12
22.0'-35.4' 4.4
35.4'-47.8' 3.0
47.8'-54.4' 4.2
47.8'-54.4' 4.2
56.6'-60.3' 3.3
60.3'-75.1' 4.2
75.r-90.8' 4.4
90.8'-104.7' 5.2
104.7'-I05.6' 4.7
112.r-114.0' 5.2
114.0'-122.5' 7.3
6.2
4.2
COND*
75
926
41
38
395
104
71
34
44
458
499
540
210
ppm
Ca
1.1
16
1.3
1.1
9.2
1.1
1.1
1.3
2.6
31
30
46
7.2
ppra
0.2
8.4
0.5
0.4
2.7
1.4
0.9
0.8
1.3
14
12
23
5.6
ppm
Na
22
19
12
13
17
27
27
20
11
32
38
22
22
ppm
K
3.3
44
4.1
4.4
21
9.0
8.4
4.6
4.7
20
17
33
22
ppm
Cl
25
12
23
22
17
19
18
23
13
•15
9
20
19
ppra
IIC03
3
0
3
3
0
2
2
5
2
11
71
30
0
ppm
CO 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ppm
28
1125
14
14
332
61
45
12
24
196
143
263
102
•pll AND CONDUCTIVITY ON A 1:1 WATER AND SOIL MIXTURE
CONDUCTIVITY EXPRESSED AS llnilioa @ 25°C
ALL OTHER ANALYSIS PERFORMED ON 1:3 WATER EXTRACT OF AIR DRIED SAMPLE
B-21
-------
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
HILL CREEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
CORE LABORATORIES, INC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
DATE: 27 MAR 81
ANALYST: JMA/ETK
FILE NO.. H8I002, |)g. 5
LOCATION: TYLER COAL LAI)
SAMPLE
NUMBER CLIENT I.D.
1 HOLE 1128 EHA 5-1 O'-ll.B'
2 HOLE 1128 EI1A 5-2 11.8'-28.0'
3 HOLE 1128 EIIA 5-3 28.0'-40.0'
4 HOLE 1128 EHA 5-4 40.0'-47.0'
5 HOLE 1128 EHA 5-5 A9.7'-5l.O'
6 HOLE 1128 EHA 5-6 51.0'-54.3'
7 HOLE 1128 EIIA 5-7 54.3'-64.1'
8 HOLE 562 EHA 2-1 O'-IO.O'
9 HOLE 562 EIIA 2-2 10.0'-14.5'
10 HOLE 562 EIIA 2-3 14.5'-17.5'
10 DIIP HOLE 562 EIIA 2-3 14.5'-17.5'
11 HOLE 562 EHA 2-4 17.5'-21.0'
12 HOLE 562 EHA 2-5' 2).0'-24.0'
13 HOLE 562 EHA 2-6 24.0'-34.5'
14 HOLE 562 EHA 2-7 34.5'-45.5'
15 HOLE 562 EIIA 2-8 50.0'-63.0'
16 HOLE 562 EHA 2-9 63.0'-64.6'
Z TOTAL Z TOTAL
SULFUR SULFUR*
<0.0l <0.31
<0.01 <0.31
<0.01 <0.31
<0.01 <0.3l
0.75 23.4
0.36 11.3
0.47 14.7
0.01 0.31
0.02 0.62
0.02 0.62
0.02 0.62
1.37 42.8
<0.01 <0.31
2.16 67.5
1.53 47.8
0.70 21.9
1.10 34.4
NEUTRALIZATION
POTENTIAL*
-0.53
5.00
1.25
-0.95
0
2.73
3.80
-3.05
-1.70
-0.75
-1.03
-4.25
-0.48
-1.75
9.25
4.00
0.78
CATION EXCIIANCF.
CAPACITY**
9.53
1.17
3.68
0.61
15.2
4.51
11.1
13.3
8.44
4.00
3.94
9.26
3.25
4.78
13.1
16.8
16.4
EXCIIANGEAnl
CATIONS*'
2.21
0.76
1.14
0.48
8.43
2.70
8.01
1.13
0.51
0.38
0.33
0.36
0.33
0.61
5.29
6.89
6.10
*CaC03 EQUIVALENT: TONS PER 1,000 TONS MATERIAL
**M[|.LIEQUIVALENTS PER 100 CRAMS
CORE
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
MILL CREEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
SAMPLE
NUMBER CLIENT I.D.
17 HOLE 562 EIIA 2-10 74.0'-75.3
18 HOLE 562 EIIA 2-11 75.3'-87.2'
19 HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-1 0'-8.0'
20 HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-2 8.0'-16.0'
20 DUP HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-2 8.0'-16.0'
21 HOLE 1009 EHA 1-3 16.0'-29.2'
22 HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-4 29.2'-33.5'
23 HOLE 1009 EHA 1-5 33.5'-41.0'
24 HOLE 1009 EHA 1-6 41.0'-48.0'
25 HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-7 51.4'-59.7'
26 HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-8 59.7'-65.7'
27 HOLE 1009 EHA 1-9 65.7'-78.0'
28 HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-10 78.0'-92.0'
29 HOLE 1009 EHA 1-11 92.0'-107.2'
30 HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-12 107. 2'-109.2'
30 DUP HOLE 1009 EHA 1-12 107.2'-109. 2 '
31 HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-13 1 19.6'-121.5'
LABORATORIES,
ANALYTICAL REPORT
DATE: 27 MAR 81
ANALYST! JMA/ETK
Z TOTAL Z TOTAL
SULFUR SULFUR*
0.10 3.13
0.04 1.25
0.02 0.62
<0.01 <0.31
<0.0l <0.31
0.04 1.25
1.28 40.0
2.74 85.6
0.36 11.3
1.43 44.7
1.82 56T9
0.12 3.75
0.04 1.25
1.18 36.9
1.33 41.6
1.28 40.0
0.14 4.38
INC.
FILE NO.: M81002, pg. 6
LOCATION: TYLER COAL I.AB
NEUTRALIZATION
POTENTIAL*
2.78
4.50
-1.25
-2.28
-2.25
-2.50
-1.25
-2.50
0.05
-0.75
0
0.30
0.50
5.38
5.38
5.75
4.00
CATION EXCHANGE
CAPACITY**
11.2
13.2
9.66
8.42
8.46
9.03
7.50
12.9
2.40
8.55
10.8
1.13
0.65
11.7
17.7
17.8
9.33
EXCHANGEABLE
CATIONS**
6.18
9.23
0.94
0.56
0.51
0.43
0.59
3.13
0.51
3.01
3.36
0.46
0.43
8.35
15.5
14.9
7.14
*CaC03 EQUIVALENT: TONS PER 1,000 TONS MATERIAL
**MI!.I.TEOIIIVAI.ENTS PER 10O CRAMS
B-22
-------
ESPEY, HUSTON AMD ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
HILL CREEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
CORE LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL REPORT
DATE: 27 MAR 81
ANALYST: JMA/ETK
FILE NO., H81002, pg. 7
LOCATION: TYLER COAL I.AB
SAMPLE
NUMBER
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
42 DUP
43
44
45
46
47
CLIENT 1.1).
HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-14
HOLE 972 EIIA 3-1
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 972
HOLE 964
0'-7.6'
EHA 3-2
EIIA 3-3
EIIA 3-4
EIIA 3-5
EIIA 3-6
EIIA 3-7
EHA 3-8
EIIA 3-9
HOLE 964
lO.r-11.21
11.2'-14.2'
15.2'-20.7'
20.7'-36.1'
36.T-52.3'
54.2'-55.7'
55.7'-59.0'
EIIA 3-10 59.0'-61.4'
EIIA 3-10 59.0'-61.4'
EHA 3-11 68.6'-69.5'
EIIA 3-12 69.5'-75.0'
EHA 3-13 75.0'-82.2'
EHA 4-1 O'-IO.O1
EHA 4-2 10.0'-22.0'
X TOTAL
SULFUR
0.03
0.03
0.04
3. 19
1.28
0.42
0.27
0.17
0.33
0.12
0.19
0.20
0.22
0.18
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
I TOTAL
SULFUR*
0.94
0.94
1.25
99.7
40.0
13.1
8.44
5.31
10.3
3.75
5.93
6.25
6.88
5.63
0.94
0.31
0.31
NEUTRALIZATION
POTENTIAL*
5.25
-1.50
-1.25
-2.75
3.63
12.7
14.2
15.0
6.85
4.50
8.20
8.13
10.3
5.50
10.0
0
-1.78
CATION EXCHANGE
CAPACITY**
7.20
8.85
7.07
36.9
23.4
10.5
9.25
10.3 '
25.9
21.3
31.7
31.7
22.5
8.66
23.0
10.0
9. 11
EXCHANGEABLE
CATIONS**
6.56
1.14
1.52
3.43
20.1
9.47
9.60
10.3
26.6
22.3
28.3
27.8
18.8
8.08
20.6
3.92
1.37
*CaCOj EQUIVALENT: TONS PER 1,000 TONS MATERIAL
**MILI.IEQIUVAI,ENTS PER 100 GBAMS
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
MILL CREEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
CORE LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL REPORT
DATE: 27 MAR 81
ANALYST: JMA/ETK
FILE NO.: M81002, pg. 8
LOCATION: TYLER COAL LAB
SAMPLE
NUMBER
48
49
50
50 DUP
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
S3
S4
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
HOLE 964
CLIENT I.D,
EIIA 4-3
EIIA 4-4
EHA 4-5
EIIA 4-5
EIIA 4-6
EIIA 4-7
EIIA 4-8
EIIA 4-9
EIIA 4-10
EIIA 4-11
EHA 4-12
22.
35.
47.
47.
56.
60.
75.
90.
104
112
114
.0'-35.4'
4'-47.8'
8'-54.4'
8'-54.4'
6--60.3'
3'-75.1'
P-90.81
8'-104.7'
.7'-105.6'
.l'-114.0'
.0'-I22.5'
I TOTAL
SULFUR
<0.01
1.75
<0.01
<0.01
0.92
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.42
0.82
0.28
1.12
0.59
I TOTAL
SULFUR*
<0.3l
54.7
<0.31
<0.31
28.7
<0.3l
<0.31
<0.31
13.1
25.6
8.75
35.0
18.4
NEUTRALIZATION
POTENTIAL*
-1.
-3.
0
0
-1,
1.
1.
0.
0.
5.
6.
3.
25
00
.25
.23
.75
0
.00
,00
75
50
50
63
38
CATION EXCHANGE
CAPACITY**
8.
96
10.6
1.
1.
6.
1.
2.
0.
0.
18
17
10
16
06
06
48
84
19
58
99
,5
.3
.5
.3
EXCHANGEABLE
CATIONS**
1.23
0.34
0.32
0.37
0.28
0.34
0.30
0.42
0.65
12.3
15.7
8.68
7.75
*CaC03 EQUIVALENT: TONS PER 1,000 TONS MATERIAL
"MILLIEQUIVAI.ENTS PER 100 GRAMS
B-23
-------
ESPEY. HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES. INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
MILL CREEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
CORE LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL REPORT
DATE: 27 MAR 81
ANALYST: .IMA/ETK
FORMS OF SULFUR (OVERBURDEN)
FILE NO.: H81002, pg. 9
LOCATION: TYLER COAL LAB
SAMPLE
NUMBER
5
6
7
11
13
14
15
16
22
23
24
25
26
29
30
30 UUP
35
X TOTAL
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
1128
1128
1128
562
562
562
562
562
1009
1009
1009
1009
1009
1009
1009
1009
972
CLIENT I.D
EHA 5-5
EI1A 5-6
EHA 5-7
EHA 2-4
EHA 2-6
EHA 2-7
E1IA 2-8
EHA 2-9
EHA 1-4
EHA 1-5
EHA 1-6
EHA 1-7
EHA 1-8
EHA 1-11
EHA 1-12
EHA 1-12
EHA 3-3
SULFUR
49.7'-51.0'
51.0'-54.3'
54.3'-64.1'
17.5'-21.0'
24.0'-34.5'
34.5'-45.5'
50.0'-63.0'
63.0'-64.6'
29.2'-33.5'
33.5'-41.0'
41.0'-48.0'
51.4'-59.7'
59.7'-65.7'
92.0'-107.2'
107.2'-109.2'
107.2'-109.2'
lO.l'-ll^1
0.
0.
0.
1.
2.
1.
0.
1.
1.
2.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
75
36
47
37
16
53
70
10
28
74
36
43
82
18
33
28
19
X SULFATE
SULFUR*
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
03
09
16
26
40
15
08
17
41
34
U
22
20
21
18
14
10
I PYRITIC
SULFUR**
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
1.
1.
0.
40
11
08
97
60
10
38
69
75
16
20
06
33
75
0.80
0.
2.
87
46
Z ORGANIC
SULFUR***
0.32
0.16
0.23
0.14
0.16
0.28
0.24
0.24
0.12
0.24
0.05
0.15
0.29
0.22
0.35
0.27
0.63
*IICl EXTRACTADLE
"IINOj EXTRACTABLE
***HON-EXTRACTABI.E
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
MILL CREEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
CORE LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL REPORT
DATE: 27 MAR 81
ANALYST: JMA/ETK
FORMS OF SULFUR ( OVERBURDEN)
FILE NO.: M81002, pg. 10
LOCATION: TYLER COAL I.AB
SAMPLE
NUMBER
36
49
51
55
56
S3
S4
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
972
964
964
964
964
CLIENT I.
EHA 3-4
EHA 4-4
EHA 4-6
EHA 4-10
EHA 4-11
D.
11.
35.
56.
104
112
2'-14.2'
4'-47.8'
6'-60.3'
.7'-l05.6'
.l'-114.0'
X TOTAL
SULFUR
1.28
1.75
0.92
0.42
0.82
1.12
0.59
X SULFATE
SULFUR*
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
27
46
21
20
14
06
04
X PYRITIC
SULFUR**
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
81
09
61
14
41
65
32
X ORGANIC
SULFUR***
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.08
0.27
0.41
0.23
*HC1 EXTRACTABLE
**HN03 EXTRACTABLE
***NON-EXTRACTABLE
B-24
-------
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
MILL CREEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
CORE LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL REPORT
DATE: 27 MAR 81
ANALYST: JMA/ETK
FILE NO.: MB 1002. pg. 11
LOCATION: TYLER COAL LAD
SAMPLE
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10 OUP
11
12
13
14
15
16
CLIENT I.D.
HOLE 1128
HOLE 1128
HOLE 1128
HOLE 1128
HOLE 1128
HOLE 1128
HOLE 1128
HOLE 562
HOLE 562
HOLE 562
HOLE 562
HOLE 562
HOLE 562
HOLE 562
HOLE 562
HOLE 562
HOLE 562
EHA 5-1
EI1A 5-2
EHA 5-3
EHA 5-4
Ell A 5-5
EHA 5-6
EHA 5-7
EHA 2-1
EHA 2-2
EHA 2-3
EHA 2-3
EHA 2-4
EHA 2-5
EHA 2-6
EHA 2-7
EHA 2-8
EHA 2-9
o'-u.a'
11.8'-28.0'
28.0'-40.0'
40.0'-47.0'
49.7'-51.0'
51.0'-54.3'
54.3'-64.1'
O'-IO.O1
10.0'-14.5'
14.5'-17.5'
1«.5'-17.5'
17.5'-21.0'
2I.O'-24.0'
24.0'-34.5'
34.5'-45.5'
50.0'-63.0'
63.0'-64.6'
ppm
B*
0.16
0.06
0.08
0.06
2.09
' 0.48
0.48
0.17
0.27
0.18
0.13
0.58
0.09
1.83
0.87
1.23
2.29
ppm
Cd
1.0 •
1.5
1.0
1.5
2.5
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
1.5
ppm
Cr
41
12
19
10
68
39
38
56
43
19
25
41
18
35
58
69
57
ppm
Cu
11
4.5
7.0
3.5
35
11
16
15
7.5
3.5
4.5
7.5
4.5
6.0
18
22
23
ppra
Mn
49
19
13
a.s
62
89
167
31
21
22
23
18
13
77
395
405
159
ppra
Ho
10
5.0
15
10
25
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
10
ppm
Pb
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
35
35
40
20
15
20
25
25
15
20
35
30
ppm
Zn
21
4.5
6.0
4.5
140
105
77
25
12
9.5
10
19
7.0
60
82
90
87
ppn
Aa
37
a
29
13
118
84
82
86
45
21
19
51
25
41
70
75
78
ppra
Se
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
2.8
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
2.3
2.0
<2.0
ALL ANALYSIS DONE ON TOTAL BASIS
*IIOT WATER EXTRACTABLE
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
MILL CREEK OVERBURDEN ANALYSIS
CORE LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL REPORT
DATE: 27 MAR 81
ANALYST: JMA/ETK
FILE NO.: M81002, pg. 12
LOCATION: TYLER COAL LAH
SAMPLE
NUMBER
17
18
19
20
20 DUP
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
30 DUP
31
CLIENT I.D.
HOLE 562
HOLE 562
HOLE 1009
HOLE 1009
HOLE 1009
HOLE 1009
HOLE 1009
HOLE 1009
HOLE 1009
HOLE 1009
HOLE 1009
HOLE 1009
HOLE 1009
HOLE 1009
HOLE 1009
HOLE 1009
HOLE 1009
EHA 2-10
EHA 2-11
EHA 1-1
EHA 1-2
EHA 1-2
EHA 1-3
EHA 1-4
EHA 1-5
EHA 1-6
EHA 1-7
EHA 1-8
EHA 1-9
EHA 1-10
EHA 1-11
EHA 1-12
EHA 1-12
EHA 1-13
74.0'-75.3'
75.3'-87.2'
0'-8.0'
8.0'-16.0'
8.0'-16';0'
16.0'-29.2'
29.2'-33.5'
33.5'-41.0'
41.0'-48.0'
51.4'-59.7'
59.7'-65.7'
65.7'-78.0'
7B.O'-92.0'
92.0'-I07.2'
107.2'-109.2'
107.2'-109.2'
119.6'-121.5'
ppra
B*
2.39
0.71
0.71
0.15
0.17
0.21
0.66
1.37
0.17
0.47
2.72
0.27
0.09
0.58
0.90
0.83
1.21
ppra
Cd
2.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2.5
ppm
Cr
54
54
51
50
55
48
30
46
17
42
44
13
12
60
72
69
51
ppm
Cu
23
23
42
9.5
9.5
9.0
6.0
8.5
2.0
6.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
23
31
31
20
ppn
Mn
145
287
82
22
20
23
26
40
22
36
35
49
53
342
169
167
114
ppm
Ho
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
ppm
Pb
35
35
80
30
40
20
25
30
15
25'
20
15
15
30
40
40
30
ppra
Zn
82
95
80
22
22
19
56
75
15
61
41
10
9.0
97
110
110
77
ppm
Aa
60
66
71
47
50
36
23
34
13
32
28
21
11
66
99
105
100
ppm
Se
3.5
2.5
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
2.5
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
ALL ANALYSIS DONE ON TOTAL BASIS
•MOT WATER EXTRACTABLE
B-25
-------
ESPEY. HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, IMC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
MILL CREEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
CORE LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL REPORT
DATE: 27 MAR 81
ANALYST: JMA/ETK
FILE NO.i MB 1002, pg. 13
LOCATION: TYLER COM. LAB
SAMPLE
NUMBER
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
42 DtIP
43
44
45
46
47
CLIENT l.D.
HOLE 1009 EHA 1-14 121 .5' -131.4 '
HOLE 972 EHA 3-1 0'-7.6'
HOLE 972 EHA 3-2 7.6'-10.1'
HOLE 972 EHA 3-3 10.1'-11.2'
HOLE 972 EHA 3-4 H.2'-14.2'
HOLE 972 EHA 3-5 15.2'-20.7' '
HOLE 972 EHA 3-6 20.7'-36.1'
HOLE 972 EHA 3-7 36.1'-52.3'
HOLE 972 EHA 3-8 54.2'-55.7'
HOLE 972 EHA 3-9 55.7'-59.0'
HOLE 972 EHA 3-10 59.0'-61.4'
HOLE 972 EHA 3-10 59.0'-61.4'
HOLE 972 EHA 3-11 68.6'-69.5'
HOLE 972 EHA 3-12 69.5'-75.0'
HOLE 972 EHA 3-13 75.0'-82.2'
HOLE 964 EHA 4-1 O'-IO.O'
HOLE 964 EHA 4-2 10.0'-22.0'
ppm
B*
0.70
0.52
0.26
5.28
0.43
0.32
0.27
0.31
1.95
0.86
5.05
5.22
4.24
0.60
0.79
0.67
0.35
ppm
ca
3.5
2.5
4.0
2.5
2.5
1.0
0.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.5
4.0
0.5
I'P'»
Cr
52
40
61
55
71
50
36
39
62
74
68
58
66
44
56
78
48
PPm
Cu
15
23
21
35
34
18
12
13
61
30
30
29
43
15
23
25
8.0
ppm
Mn
138
43
31
22
60
512
497
710
73
103
49
49
141
166
367
145
32
ppm
Mo
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
15
5.0
5.0
10
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
10
10
5.0
ppm
Pb
30
35
25
20
20
30
25
25
40
35
30
30
35
25
25
55
30
ppn
Zn
72
36
13
77
210
95
65
60
100
110
40
39
87
82
87
85
20
ppm
Aa
92
49
96
62
125
83
57
55
106
99
110
103
51
48
25
48
20
ppm
Se
<2.0
<2.0
2.0
<2.0
<2.0
2.0
<2.0
<2.0
2.5
3.5
2.3
2.8
3.3
2.8
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
ALL ANALYSIS DONE ON TOTAL BASIS
*IIOT WATER EXTRACTABLE
CORE
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
MILL CREEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
SAMPLE
NUMBER
48
49
50
CLIENT l.D.
HOLE 964 EHA 4-3 22.0'-35.4'
HOLE 964 EHA 4-4 35.4'-47.8'
HOLE 964 EHA 4-5 47.8'-54.4'
50 DUP HOLE 964 EH A 4-5 47.8'-54.4'
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
S3
S4
HOLE 964 EHA 4-6 56.6'-60.3'
HOLE 964 EHA 4-7 60.3'-75.1'
HOLE 964 EHA 4-8 75.T-90.81
HOLE 964 EHA 4-9 90.8'-104.7'
HOLE 964 EHA 4-10 104. 7 '-105.6'
HOLE 964 EHA 4-11 112.1'-114.0'
HOLE 964 EHA 4-12 114.0'-122.5'
LABORATORIES,
ANALYTICAL REPORT
HATE:
ANALYST
ppm
B*
0.41
1.30
0.19
0.27
0.50
0.24
0.25
0.17
0.25
2.48
0.19
0.82
1.81
INC.
27 MAR 81
: JMA/ETK
ppm
Cd
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
<0.5
0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
ppm
Cr
49
44
12
a
40
23
18
10
13
77
49
54
61
ppm
Cu
8.5
11
4.0
3.5
8.5
4.5
4.0
7.5
9.5
37
20
23
26
ppm
Mn
21
25
12
12
16
12
7.5
10
7.0
48
220
335
340
ppm
Mo
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
15
10
10
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
FILE
LOCAT
ppm
Pb
20
25
15
15
25
20
20
15
10
35
35
25
30
NO.i
J.ON:
ppm
Zii
20
31
3.0
4.0
24
5.0
2.5
2.0
6.0
135
95
95
90
MB 1002
TYLER
ppm
As
26
33
7.0
9.0
16
11
8.0
11
6.0
98
70
72
69
. PB. 14
COAI. LAB
ppm
Se
<2.0
2.8
<2.0
(2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
2.8
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
ALL ANALYSIS DONE ON TOTAL BASIS
*IIOT WATER EXTRACTABLE
B-26
-------
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
MILL CREEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
CORE LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL REPORT
RATE: 27 MAR 81
ANALYST: JHA/KTK
FILE NO.: MB 1002, pg. IS
LOCATION: TYLER COAL LAB
SAMPLE
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
WATER HOLDING CAPACITY**
CLIENT I.D. 1/3 BAR
HOLE 1128 EIIA 5-1 0'-11.8'
HOLE 1128 EHA 5-2 11.8'-28.0'
HOLE 1128 EIIA 5-3 28.0'-40.0'
HOLE 1128 EIIA 5-4 40.0'-47.0'
HOLE 1128 EHA 5-5 49.7'-5l.O'
HOLE 1128 EHA 5-6 51.0'-54.3'
HOLE 1128 EHA 5-7 54.3'-64.1'
HOLE 562 EHA 2-1 O'-IO.O'
HOLE 562 EHA 2-2 10.0'-14.5'
HOLE 562 EHA 2-3 14.5'-17.5'
HOLE 562 EIIA 2-4 17.5'-21.0'
HOLE 562 EHA 2-5 21.0'-24.0'
HOLE 562 EHA 2-6 24.0'-34.5'
HOLE 562 EHA 2-7 34.3'-45.5'
HOLE 562 EIIA 2-8 50.0'-63.0'
HOLE 562 EHA 2-9 63.0'-64.6'
12.2
7.5
8.3
3.9
36.2
19.6
20.5
25.4
16.3
9.0
21.1
10.7
14.6
25.3
30.3
19.0
SOIL TEXTURE ANALYSIS
Z 15 BAR Z ZSAND
6.0
2.8
4.1
3.4
16.6
7.4
7.4
10.6
6.4
3.6
8.3
3.8
5.9
15.7
13.6
8.5
52
86
86
94
10
62
48
24
58
68
40
80
58
36
24
22
ZSILT
22
12
10
4
32
18
36
38
22
20
32
a
18
30
42
48
ZCLAY
26
2
4
2
58
20
16
38
20
12
28
12
24
34
34
30
CLASSIFICATION
SANDY CLAY LOAM
SAND
LOAMY SAND
SAND
CLAY
SANDY CLAY LOAM
LOAM
CLAY LOAM
SANDY LOAM
SANDY LOAM
LOAM
SANDY LOAM
SANDY CLAY LOAM
CLAY LOAM
C1.AY LOAM
CLAY LOAM
"REPORTED AS % DRY HEIGHT
CORE
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
MILL CREEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
SAMPLE
NUMBER
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
LABORATORIES,
ANALYTICAL REPORT
PATE:
ANALYST:
27 MAR 81
JMA/ETK
INC.
WATER MOLDING CAPACITY**
CLIENT I.D.
HOLE 562 EIIA 2-10 74.0'-75.3'
HOLE 562 EHA 2-11 75.3'-87.2'
HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-1 O'-B.O1
HOLE 1009 EHA 1-2 8.0'-16.0'
HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-3 16.0'-29.2'
HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-4 29.2'-33.5'
HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-5 33.5'-41.0'
HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-6 41.0'-48.0'
HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-7 51.4'-59.7'
HOLE 1009 EHA 1-8 59.7'-65.7'
HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-9 65.7'-78.0'
HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-10 78.0'-92.0'
HOLE 1009 EHA .1-11 92.0'-107.2'
HOLE 1009 EHA 1-12 107. 2'-109. 2'
HOLE 1009 EIIA 1-13 119.6'-121.5'
1/3 BAR
24.0
22.0
20.0
13.0
12.8
16.4
15.9
31.2
15.1
13.3
3.5
2.6
24. 1
31.9
19.5
Z 15 BAR
2.0
9.0
11.0
9.0
7.6
14.4
7.6
15.0
5.4
5.7
1.3
1.0
9.1
16.9
13.3
Z ZSAND
36
16
60
42
64
68
30
74
40
50
82
88
24
6
50
FILE NO.:
LOCATION:
MB1002, pg. 16
TYLER COAL LAD
SOIL TEXTURE ANALYSIS
ZSILT
38
80
12
28
10
10
40
22
30
30
a
6
38
38
26
ZCLAY
26
4
28
30
26
22
30
4
30
20
10
6
38
56
24
CLASSIFICATION
LOAM
SILT
SANDY CLAY LOAM
CLAY LOAM
SANDY CLAY LOAM
SANDY CI.AY LOAM
CLAY LOAM
LOAMY SAND
CLAY LOAM
LOAM
LOAMY SAND
SAND
CLAY LOAM
CLAY
SANDY CLAY LOAM
"REPORTED AS Z DRY WEIGHT
B-27
-------
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES. INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
HI I.I. CREEK OVERBURDEN PROJECT
CORE LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL REPORT
DATE: 27 MAR 81
ANALYST: JHA/ETK
FILE NO.i H8I002. pg. 17
LOCATION: TYLER COAL LAB
WATER HOLDING CAPACITY**
SOIL TEXTURE ANALYSIS
onnri.lj
NUMBER
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
1009
972
972
972
972
972
972
972
972
972
972
972
972
972
964
964
CLIENT I.D.
EIIA 1-14
EIIA 3-1
EIIA 3-2
EIIA 3-3
EIIA 3-4
EIIA 3-5
EIIA 3-6
EIIA 3-7
EIIA 3-8
EIIA 3-9
EIIA 3-10
EIIA 3-11
EIIA 3-12
EIIA 3-13
EIIA 4-1
EIIA 4-2
121.5'-1
0'-7.6'
7.6'-10.
lO.l'-ll
11.2--14
15.2'-20
20.7'-36
36.T-52
54.2'-55
55.7'-59
59.0'-61
68. 6 '-69
69.5'-75
75.0'-82
O'-IO.O'
10.0'-22
31.4'
r
.2'
.2'
.7'
.1'
.3'
.7'
.0'
.4'
.5'
.0'
.2'
.0'
1/3 BAR Z
17.3
21.3
15.8
30.1
37.6
22.1
34.3
31.3
34.6
34.2
42.6
28.4
41.7
25.6
20.1
17.9
15 BAR Z
7.9
10.2
13.5
24.2
34.1
18.2
20.0
14.7
23.0
30.6
31.7
25.2
13.9
2.1
10.8
9.0
ZSAND
36
50
26
42
12
50
66
68
8
8
12
46
54
20
50
38
ZSILT
42
18
38
34
64
30
22
22
24
32
28
30
34
56
16
40
ZCLAY
22
32
36
24
24
20
12
10
68
60
60
24
12
24
34
22
CLASSIFICATION
LOAM
SANDY CLAY LOAM
CLAY LOAM
LOAM
SILTY LOAM
LOAM
SANDY LOAM
SANDY LOAM
CLAY
CLAY
CLAY
LOAM
SANDY LOAM
SILTY LOAM
SANDY CLAY
LOAM
"REPORTED AS Z DRY WEIGHT
ESPEY, HUSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
HILL CREEK OVERBURDEN PRO.IECT
CORE LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL REPORT
DATE: 27 MAR 81
ANALYST: JT1A/ETK
FILE NO.: M8I002, pg. 18
LOCATION: TYLER COAL LAB
WATER HOLDING CAPACITY **
SOIL TEXTURE ANALYSIS
SAMPLE
NUMBER
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
S3
S4
CLIENT I.D.
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
IIOLK
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
964
964
964
964
964
964
964
964
964
964
EIIA 4-3
EIIA 4-4
EIIA 4-5
EIIA 4-6
FIIA 4-7
EIIA 4-8
EIIA 4-9
EIIA 4-10
EIIA 4-11
EIIA 4-12
22.0
35.4
47.8
56.6
60.3
75.1
90.8
104.
112.
114.
'-35.4'
'-47.8'
'-54.4'
'-60.3'
'-75.1'
'-90.8'
'-104.7'
7'-105.6'
l'-114.0'
0'-122.5'
1/3 BAR I
8.9
16.8
4.0
13.1
A.I
3.7
6.9
2.7
32.5
12.4
27.7
29.3
15 BAR Z
6.0
7.3
2.6
2.6
2.9
3.0
3.4
1.5
18.2
11.7
16.4
15.1
ZSAND
70
34
86
48
74
94
94
94
10
22
30
16
ZSILT
10
40
10
28
18
6
4
4
34
50
46
58
%CLAY
20
26
4
24
8
0
2
2
56
28
24
26
CLASSIFICATION
SANDY CLAY LOAM
LOAM
LOAMY SAND
LOAM
HANDY LOAM
SAND
SAND
SAND
CLAY
CLAY LOAM
LOAM
SILTY LOAM
"REPORTED AS Z DRY WEIGHT
B-28
-------
5. Agreement for Railroad Road Crossings
B-29
-------
Rusk County
P.M. Road 2658
State Highway 43
P.M. Road 1716
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE STATE OF TEXAS
AND
TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
OF RAILROAD STRUCTURES OVER P.M. ROAD 2658,
STATE HIGHWAY 43, AND P.M. ROAD 1716
STATE OF TEXAS j
COUNTY OF TRAVIS j
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this /$"• day of A4*S*= 1982,
by and between the State of Texas, hereinafter called the "State",
represented by the Engineer-Director of the State Department of Highways and
Public Transportation, acting for and in behalf of the State Highway and
Public Transportation Commission, and Texas Utilities Services Inc.
hereinafter called the "Company", acting by and through >EM.
-------
A iill-ii^ T
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual
covenants and agreements of the parties hereto, to be by them respectively
kept and performed as hereinafter set forth, it is agreed as follows:
ARTICLE 1. For and in consideration of one dollar ($1.00) paid by
the Company to the State, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
State grants to the Company license and permission to construct, maintain,
and use highway-railway grade separation structures, hereinafter called
Structures, and suitable approaches over and across Farm to Market Road
2658, State Highway 43, and Farm to Market Road 1716 at the approximate
locations indicated on Exhibit "A".
ARTICLE 2. The Company at its entire cost and expense shall prepare
complete construction drawings and specifications for the Structures,
approaches thereto, and any incidental work required. No construction
work shall be performed on highway right of way until these plans and
specifications have been approved by the State and after such approval
has been given, no changes or alterations shall be made without the
written approval of the State.
The plans and specifications, after having been approved in writing
by the State, are hereby adopted as the plans and specifications covering
the construction of said Structures,approaches thereto, and incidental
work as required. A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall
be marked Exhibit "B", attached hereto, and made a part of this agreement.
ARTICLE 3. The Company shall provide such detours, barricades, warning
signs, flares, flashing light signals, and flagmen as are deemed necessary
by the State to direct and protect vehicular traffic while the construction
work and related activities, as hereinafter described to be done on
highway right of way, is in progress. Details of these traffic handling
measures shall be shown on the plans. If, during construction, it becomes
necessary or desirable to modify the traffic control measures shown on the
plans, prior approval must be obtained from the State's District Engineer
in Tyler.
ARTICLE 4. The Company agrees that where structural steel is used in
construction of the Structures, the plans will show what protective
coating, if any, is to be applied to those portions visible from the
roadway, and that future maintenance of the Structures shall retain the
same appearance and color as that shown on the approved plans unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the State. The Company also agrees to
keep the Structures free from all advertising matter or insignia except
such identification lettering as may be approved by the State.
ARTICLE 5. The Company shall construct, at its entire cost and
expense, the Structures and incidental items referred to in Articles 1 and
2. The State shall have the right to inspect the work on highway right
of way at any time during the progress of the work and to make a final
inspection thereof. The Company shall correct any deficiencies revealed
B-31
-------
by the State's inspection of the work or the traffic protection measures
where such deficiencies could have an adverse effect on public use of
the highway or the safety and convenience of the travelling public.
ARTICLE 6. The Company shall reimburse the State for all expenses
it incurs in connection with construction of the Structures. These may
include, but are not limited to, expenses for review of plans, construction
inspections, travel, and meetings related to the project.
Upon execution of this agreement, the Company shall pay to the State,
by check made payable to the State Treasurer, Account Trust Fund No. 927,
an amount of $10,000 which is estimated to be the total of all costs
that will be incurred by the State in connection with the construction of
the Structures.
If, at any time, it becomes apparent that the amount previously
deposited by the Company will not be sufficient to cover the State's costs,
the Company, upon request from the State, shall make additional payments
to the State to cover these costs.
After all construction is completed, the State will make a final
accounting in accordance with its established accounting procedures. Any
funds previously deposited by the Company and not expended for the cost of
these Structures will be returned to the Company.
ARTICLE 7. The Company shall assume the entire financial responsibility
for the maintenance and use of the Structures on the State's right of way
as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B", and nothing contained herein shall ever
be construed to place upon the State any liability for injury to or death
of persons, or for damage to or loss of property arising from or in any
manner connected with the construction, maintenance, or use of the tracks
and Structures on State property.
ARTICLE 8. It is understood that should any or all of the Structures
licensed hereunder cease to be required or cease to be maintained for the
intended purpose for a period in excess of two years, the license for the
affected Structure or Structures shall expire and be terminated and the
Company agrees that it shall then, at its entire expense, remove the
Structure or Structures from the State's right of way and restore that right
of way to a condition satisfactory to the State.
ARTICLE 9. The Company agrees to indemnify the State against any
damages or claims for damages, including those under the Texas Torts Claims
Act, which may be inflicted upon the property of others or to persons,
whether one or more, arising out of, incidental to, or in any manner
associated with or attributed to the construction, use, maintenance, or
possible subsequent removal of the Structures covered in this agreement.
ARTICLE 10. The license granted hereby shall not in any way prevent
the State, at its expense, from changing the highway on the right of way over
which license has been granted, provided such changes will not adversely
B-32
-------
affect the intended use of the Structures or compromise the safety of the
rail traffic.
ARTICLE 11. The State reserves the right to attach vertical clearance
information signs to the fascia of the Structures. Said signs will
thereafter be maintained by the State in a manner which will not interefere
with the Company's operations.
ARTICLE 12. The contract or contracts let by the Company for con-
struction of the Structures and incidental work shall provide for
insurance as follows:
1. Standard Manufacturers' and Contractors' Liability Insurance.
The Contractor shall furnish evidence to the State that, with respect
to the operations he performs, he carries regular Contractors'
Liability Insurance providing for a limit of not less than one
million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for all damages arising out of bodily
injuries to/or death of one or more persons in any one occurrence,
and Property Damage Liability Insurance providing for a limit of not
less than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) for all damages
arising out of injury to/or destruction of property in any one
occurrence and subject to that limit per occurrence, a total (or
aggregate) limit of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for all
damages arising out of injury to/or destruction of property during
the policy period.
If any part of the work is sublet, similar insurance shall be
provided by or in behalf of the subcontractors to cover their
operations.
2. Contractors' Protective Liability Insurance.
The Contractor shall furnish evidence to the State that, with respect
to the operations performed for him by subcontractors, he carries in
his own behalf regular Contractors' Protective Liability Insurance
providing for a limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00)
for all damages arising out of bodily injuries to/or death of one or more
persons in any one occurrence, -and Protective Property Damage Liability
Insurance providing for a limit of not less than five hundred thousand
dollars ($500,000.00) for all damages arising out of injury to/or
destruction of property in any one occurrence and subject .to that limit
per occurrence, a total (or aggregate) limit of one million dollars
($1,000,000.00) for all damages arising out of injury to/or destruction
of property during the policy period.
ARTICLE 13. The approval hereby granted shall cease and be null and
void unless actual construction of the Structures herein described is
commenced within three years and completed within five years.
ARTICLE 14. The terms of this agreement shall transfer to and be binding
upon any successors and/or assigns of Texas Utilities Services Inc.
B-33
-------
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents
to be executed in duplicate on the day above stated.
TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
ATTEST:
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Certified as being executed for
the purpose and effect of acti-
vating and/or carrying out the
orders, established policies, or
work programs heretofore approved
and authorized by the State
Highway and Public Transportation
Commission:
By:
Engineer-DiVector
Executed and approved for State
Highway and Public Transportation
Commission under authority of
Commission Minute Order No. 78501,
dated May 20, 1981.
RECOMMENDED FOR EXECUTION:
District Enaineer
Chief Engineer of Highway
Director, Finance
-—
ssistant Ewirfeer-Director
B-34
-------
ON
------- |