United States Region 6 EPA 906/9-82-004
Environmental Protection 1201 Elm Street March 1982
Agency Dallas TX 75270
Water
Environmental Draft
Impact Statement
Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant
Unit-l / South Hallsville
Surface Lignite Mine Project
Harrison County, Texas
-------
This report is available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service, US Department
of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
I2O1 ELM STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 7527O
March 15, 1982
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS AND OFFICIALS:
EPA determined that the decision on its National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for wastewater discharges from the
proposed H. W. Pirkey Power Plant and South Hallsville Lignite Mine
represented a major action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment, and has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
Comments on the Draft EIS should be sent to Mr. Clinton B. Spotts,
Regional EIS Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75270. Substantive comments
received on the Draft EIS will be considered in the preparation of the
Final EIS. It is requested that comments on the Draft EIS be submitted
to EPA, Region 6, within 45 days of the "Notice of Availability" of the
Draft EIS in the Federal Register.
It should be noted that if changes to the proposed project and Draft
EIS are minor, the Final EIS will consist primarily of: (1) the summary,
(2) pages in the text with changes necessitated in response to comments
on the Draft EIS, and (3) the coordination section with EPA responses
to comments received on the Draft EIS. Therefore, we recommend that
the Draft EIS be retained.
EPA will hold a public hearing on the Draft EIS at the following location:
Marshall High School Auditorium
1900 Maverick
Marshall, Texas
Tuesday, April 27, 1982
7:30 p.m.
Fifteen separate studies utilized in the preparation of this EIS are
provided for public review as "Technical Support Documents" in an EPA
file at the following locations:
EPA Regional Office Marshall Public Library
1201 Elm Street, Suite 2800 300 South Alamo
Dallas, Texas 75214 Marshall, Texas 75670
Contact Mr. Norm Thomas Contact Ms. Dorothy Morrison
-------
The Final EIS will be sent to agencies and interested parties who
request a copy or make substantive comments on the Draft EIS.
Sincerely,
•A^Dick Whittington, P.E.
n Regional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
HENRY W. PERKEY POWER PLANT - UNIT I/SOUTH HALLSVTLLE
SURFACE LIGNITE MINE PROJECT
HARRISON COUNTY, TEXAS
Responsible Agency:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
Action being considered:
Cooperating Agencies:
Issuance of a new source National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to
Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO)
for construction and operation of a lignite-fired
power plant in Harrison County, Texas, and
issuance of a new source NPDES permit to Sabine
Mining Company (SMC) for construction and
operation of a surface lignite mine adjacent to
the proposed power plant.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New Orleans District
Fort Worth District
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Surface Mining
Bureau of Reclamation
Fish and Wildlife Service
NM and Ft. Worth, TX)
National Park Service
(Albuquerque,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Federal Emergency Management Agency
State of Texas
General Government Section, Budget and
Planning Office
Texas Department of Health
Texas Air Control Board
Texas Department of Agriculture
Texas Department of Water Resources
Bureau of Economic Geology
11
-------
Cooperating Agencies:
(Concluded)
State Department of Highways and Public
Transportation
Railroad Commission of Texas
Texas Historical Commission
Contact for further
information:
Abstract:
Clinton B. Spotts, Regional EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Phone: Commercial (214) 767-2716
FTS 729-2716
SWEPCO has evaluated numerous power plant and
transportive systems design and siting options,
alternative energy sources, as well as alternatives
not requiring the creation of new generating ca-
pacity in order to meet future electric generation
needs for its service area. SWEPCO proposes to
construct and operate a 720 MW (gross)/640 MW
(net) power plant. In association with the plant,
three 138 kV transmission lines, a makeup water
pipeline from Big Cypress Bayou and a railroad
spur are proposed for construction and operation.
SMC has evaluated several mine operation alter-
natives, as well as several reclamation alterna-
tives. SMC proposes to construct and operate a
2.8 million-ton-per-year surface lignite mine
under contract to SWEPCO. The proposed mine
will be a single-seam, dragline surface mining
operation designed to produce lignite for a period
of at least 24 years. EPA is considering the
issuance of new source NPDES permits for the
alternatives considered (as well as no issuance).
Land-use, water resources, mining and reclama-
tion impacts are among the more important areas
of concern that are considered in this statement.
Date Comments due:
Responsible Official:
10 MAY 1982
)itk Whittington, P.E.
Regional Administrator
111
-------
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires that all
Federal agencies prepare environmental impact statements on major actions signifi-
cantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Furthermore, Section
511(c)(l) of the Federal Water Pollution Act (FWPCA or P.L. 92-500) as amended by
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217) mandates that the requirements of NEPA
apply to issuing a permit under Section 402 of FWPCA for discharging any pollutant
by a "New Source" as defined in Section 306 of FWPCA. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) determined that the issuance of New Source NPDES
permits to Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) for the proposed Henry
W. Pirkey Power Plant-Unit 1 and South Hallsville Surface Lignite Mine represented
a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, this environmental impact statement (EIS) is prepared to assess the
impacts of EPA's New Source NPDES permit actions.
ALTERNATIVES
SWEPCO evaluated numerous power plant, mine, and transportive
systems design and siting options, as well as alternatives not requiring the creation
of new generating capacity, and alternative energy sources. Energy conservation,
purchasing power, reactivating or upgrading older plants and baseload operation of
existing peaking facilities were considered and found to be insufficient for future
electric resource needs. Energy sources such as geothermal, solar, wind, coal, and
petroleum gasification, natural gas, and western coal were evaluated and eliminated
as being technologically infeasible at present, not cost-effective, or contrary to
present governmental policy. Nuclear power was discarded for several reasons,
including dependence on limited sources of fuel, high capital costs, and licensing
IV
-------
uncertainties. Alternative design systems for the major components of an electric
generating station were also considered including cooling, biological controls, air
pollution controls, and waste treatment and wastewater handling. Twelve siting
options for the proposed power plant were considered using numerous engineering,
economic, and environmental criteria.
The proposed South Hallsville Surface Lignite Mine will be operated by
The Sabine Mining Company (SMC). Lignite extraction alternatives that were
considered included underground mining, auger mining, and surface mining. All
operating lignite mines in the United States are surface mined, and this method was
selected as the preferred lignite extraction alternative for the proposed mine.
Other mine operation alternatives for the major components of a surface mine were
considered including overburden removal, lignite-loading, lignite transportation, and
reclamation.
The no action alternative could be implemented by the permit applicants
or as a result of EPA's denial to issue NPDES permits for the proposed mine and
power plant. Other alternatives available to the EPA are to issue the NPDES
permits for the projects as proposed or to issue the NPDES permits for the projects
with certain conditions to minimize or alleviate adverse impacts.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The project area, which includes the power plant site and mine site, is
located approximately 10 miles southeast of the city of Longview in Harrison
County, Texas. The project area contains approximately 24,768 acres. Additionally,
power plant transportive systems will include a 20-mile makeup water pipeline
extending from Big Cypress Bayou to the proposed cooling reservoir, three 138 kV
transmission lines totaling 11.7 miles, and a 3.5-mile railroad spur. The pipeline
right-of-way (ROW) will cover approximately 700 acres; the transmission lines,
86 acres; and the railroad spur, 100 acres. At the mine site, overburden will be
-------
removed, and lignite will be extracted and hauled to the plant site. There, the
lignite will be crushed and used as boiler fuel for the proposed 720 MW
(gross)/640 MW (net) power plant.
Power Plant
The plant site comprises 3,111 acres of which 272 acres will be encom-
passed by the plant island. The plant site will be located in the northeastern portion
of the project area, adjacent to the mine site. The cooling reservoir will preempt
1,388 acres, and 1,451 acres surrounding the plant island and cooling reservoir may
be affected by plant activities. The cooling reservoir will be located adjacent to
and southeast of the proposed plant.
The proposed power plant will contain a Babcock and Wilcox balanced
draft, single-reheat, drum-type boiler and a Westinghouse Electric four-flow,
tandem-compound, reheat-type turbine. When operating at a maximum continuous
rating, the unit will generate from 707 to 720 MW. Approximately 8 percent of the
power will be consumed by various unit auxiliaries, leaving about 640 MW of usable
power produced. This power will leave the plant site and connect to existing
transmission lines located near the site. The unit will consume approximately
541 tons of lignite per hour. A 60-day supply of fuel will be stored on the plant site.
The heat dissipation system will be composed of Foster Wheeler twin-
shelf, single-pressure, two-pass surface condensers. Circulating water for con-
densing the turbine exhaust steam will be provided by a 1,388-acre cooling
reservoir, formed by constructing a dam across Brandy Branch Creek. Makeup
water for the cooling reservoir will be pumped about 20 miles from Big Cypress
Bayou, approximately 1 mile south of Ferrell's Bridge Dam. The makeup water will
be transferred by a proposed 36-inch concrete cylinder pipeline to the cooling
reservoir. The diversion rate will be 33.4 cubic feet per second, equivalent to
15,000 gallons per minute, with an annual diversion of 18,000 acre-feet.
VI
-------
Condenser cooling water taken from the cooling reservoir will be
supplied to the screen house at the plant island by three vertical wet-pit circulating
water pumps. The water will pass through a bar grill and traveling water screens,
which consist of a series of overlapping, self-draining screen trays mounted on
rotating mechanisms. Water will be removed from the condenser unit into a
discharge canal and returned to the northeastern corner of the cooling reservoir at
the most extreme point in the water flow circuit from the screen house.
Plant makeup water from the cooling reservoir will be stored in the
makeup water pond and supplied to the plant by a makeup pump. Traveling screens
will be washed with high-pressure service water. Low-pressure water will be used
to cool various unit auxiliaries, as makeup to the bottom ash hopper, and as makeup
to the SO^-removal system. High-pressure service water will be used to seal or
lubricate slurry pumps, to flush sump pump discharge lines, to wash the boiler
regenerative air heaters, to suppress dust in the lignite-handling system, and for the
fire protection system.
The power plant waste scheme will include a drain collector pit, service
water returns, storm drains, bottom ash basins, a lignite pile runoff basin, a waste
slurry sump, a surge pond, a reclaimed water sump, a filtrate overflow sump, and a
wastewater treatment system.
Bottom ash produced by the steam generator will be stored in a lined
bottom ash hopper. Bottom ash will be sluiced to either of the two bottom ash
basins. The bottom ash will be removed from the plant property and sold. Pyrites
rejected by the lignite pulverizer will be stored in the pyrite storage tank. Sintered
fly ash from the flue gas stream will be collected in hoppers for removal from the
plant. Fly ash collected in the precipitator hoppers will be removed by two dry
conveying systems of the positive-pressure type. Fly ash stored in the fly ash silo
will be mixed with the dewatered SCU-removal system sludge and removed from the
plant site for disposal.
Vll
-------
The fly ash and scrubber sludge will be mixed at the power plant site.
The waste will be disposed of within a tract of land owned by SWEPCO. The
proposed waste disposal plan features initial landfill and research into the use of ash
wastes as a soil amendment for mine reclamation and/or mine disposal. The type of
landfill proposed is valley fill, and the initial site in the vicinity of the power plant
has a sufficient capacity for 2 years production of ash sludge wastes.
Lignite to power the steam generator will be delivered to the plant site
by bottom dump trucks. Conveyors will transport the lignite to the breaker house,
to the transfer house, and then to the transfer tower. From the transfer tower,
lignite will be transported to a 15,000-ton-capacity emergency coal pile or to the
active reclaim storage building. A rotary plow reclaim tunnel will be used to
reclaim lignite from the active reclaim storage building and the lignite will be
moved by conveyor to the crusher house. From the crusher house, lignite will go
into crusher house surge lines and then fed into granulator crushers and into lignite
storage silos.
Flue gas will exit the power plant through a 525-foot chimney. NO
X
emissions will be maintained below acceptable limits by burner design, burner
arrangement, and furnace designs. Particulate matter will be removed from the
flue gas stream by Universal Oil Products' cold-side, twin casing, weighted-wire
type electrostatic precipitator. SO, will be removed from the flue gas stream by a
Universal Oil Products, limestone, double-loop-type scrubbing system consisting of
four vertical freestanding absorber modules.
Mine
The South Hallsville Surface Lignite Mine will be operated for SWEPCO
by The Sabine Mining Company. The mine site encompasses approximately
20,771 acres. Of this total area, 10,545 acres will be disturbed by mining, 430 acres
will be disturbed by the construction of haul roads, 43 acres will be preempted by
VUl
-------
mine facilities, and 9,753 acres surrounding the area to be mined may be affected by
mining activities during the 24-year life of the mine. Approximately 439 acres will
be disturbed each year by mining activities. These areas will be reclaimed to
existing or higher land-use productivity generally concurrent with overburden
removal. A maximum ungraded area of 741 acres will occur in the year 2008.
The area to be mined was determined from a single-seam deposit
containing approximately 72 million recoverable tons of lignite. An average of
2.8 million tons of lignite will be extracted from this deposit each year for 24 years.
The proposed mine will use conventional single-seam area mining proce-
dures with two dragline pits. The draglines will use a conventional dig and sidecast
procedure. Timber and brush will be cleared as soon as practicable in advance of
mining operations.
Drainage and erosion will be controlled by construction of sedimentation
control structures prior to surface disturbance in each area. As mining progresses, a
series of ditches and diversion structures will be installed to control surface water
runoff. The two types of ditches proposed to be used are interceptor ditches and
sediment diversion ditches. Additionally, upstream reservoirs will be constructed to
control drainage from undisturbed areas. Temporary stream channel diversions for a
portion of Hatley Creek, and several of its unnamed tributaries will be constructed.
Permanent diversions may be required to enable mining through or near the existing
channels and to prevent flood flows from interfering with mining operations.
Levees will be constructed to prevent flooding caused by backwater from
the Sabine River and other streams in the project area. Overland flow will be
controlled by overland flow diversion channels and catchment basins to prevent
runoff from entering mine pits.
IX
-------
Overburden will be removed using two 70- to 120-yard electric-powered
walking draglines in a conventional dig and sidecast procedure. Lignite will be
loaded from the two active pits by two 12 to 18 cubic-yard hydraulic backhoes, or
comparably sized front-end loaders or shovels.
Road construction in the mine area will consist of building lignite haul
roads, access roads, and temporary access roads. When roads are no longer needed,
the surface will be regraded and reclaimed to an approved postmining land use
compatible with the surrounding area.
The proposed surface (soil) reconstruction and revegetation operations
involve segregation and redistribution of topsoil and near-surface oxidized over-
burden for use as postmining soil. The reconstructed soil will consist of 6 inches of
soil (topsoil) over a mixture of the remaining soil and the near-surface overburden.
The two reconstructed layers will provide a minimum of 48 inches of cover over the
unoxidized overburden material. The reconstructed soil will be revegetated with
approved plant species that are adapted to the region.
Mine facilities will consist of two separate areas: one for dragline
erection and the other for mine personnel, storage, and maintenance facilities. The
dragline erection area will be partially reclaimed when dragline erection is
complete. The remainder of the site will be used to receive and store materials and
equipment shipped by rail over the life of the mine. The mine facilities area will
exist for the life of the mine.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF NO ACTION
If the proposed power plant and mine were not constructed, environ-
mental conditions within the project site would remain approximately as they
presently exist. However, economic development is presently occurring in the
project region and is expected to continue.
-------
Construction of the plant site commenced in the spring of 1979«
Construction was begun at that time in order to comply with a requirement
contained in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit issued by EPA
for the facility. This construction proceeded at the Company's own risk, as
stipulated in 40 CFR 6.906, the NPDES regulations in effect at that time. It was
the Company's interpretation of this regulation that the risk involved was whether a
final NPDES permit would be issued. The plant island (272 acres) has been cleared
of vegetation and construction of the power plant has begun. The cooling reservoir
site (1,388 acres) has been cleared of vegetation and construction of the dam is
underway. In addition, the railroad spur (100 acres) has been built, and the makeup
water pipeline is partially constructed. There has been a long-term non-irreversible
commitment of vegetation/wildlife habitat within the cleared areas. Irreversible
and irretrievable commitments focus on cultural resources and construction
materials/cost ($79,363,000-approximately) within the construction site boundaries.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT
Topography
Construction of the plant site facilities has resulted in a long-term
adverse impact on topography from leveling of the site (construction of the plant
site commenced in the spring of 1979). The foundation area for the main building
and waste water ponds have been built on the 272 acre plant island, and the
1,388 acre cooling reservoir has been cleared of vegetation. The 100 acre railroad
spur has been constructed, as well as a portion of the 700 acre makeup water
pipeline. Construction of the transmission lines has not been initiated.
Construction of the transportive systems has conformed to the present land surface,
and no adverse impacts will occur. No adverse impacts to topography will occur as
a result of power plant or transportive systems operation.
Short-term adverse impacts to local topography will be experienced
during mining of a given area. However, following mining, the mined surface will be
shaped to a configuration similar to premining topography. Construction of mine
facilities will result in some alteration to local topographic features.
XI
-------
Geological Resources
Construction activities associated with the power plant and transportive
systems has resulted in localized long-term displacement of shallow surface
sediments, but no detrimental impacts to geologic resources will occur. A minor
adverse impact of the proposed power plant would be the possible preclusion of the
use of small amounts of natural resources during the life of the project.
The geologic units of the mine area, which overlie the mineable lignite,
will experience unavoidable long-term alterations to the depth of the lignite
resource removed.
Soils
Soil erosion will be unavoidable during the construction of the power
plant and construction and operation of the mine. The severity of erosion and
related impacts will be lessened by employing erosion control techniques (e.g.,
seeding/sodding, mulching, etc.) until exposed areas are revegetated. Soil erosion at
the mine site will be short-term because the area will be stabilized by reclamation.
Approximately 52.6 acres of prime farmland, according to Texas Railroad
Commission criteria, will be affected by construction or operation of the proposed
power plant and mine. Approximately 30.4 percent of the soils in the mine area are
designated as prime farmland under U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil
Conservation Service criteria. These soils will be adversely impacted by mining and
reclamation activities.
Water Resources
The adverse short-term impacts on the project area ground-water system
are the lowering of ground-water levels and removal of ground water in active
mining areas. Short-term adverse effects on surface water will occur from
increases in sediment yield from construction and mining activities.
Xll
-------
Long-term adverse impacts on the ground-water system will be
disruption of stratification in the saturated overburden; probable reduction in
horizontal permeability and yield characteristics of overburden aquifer strata;
probable increase in porosity and storage characteristics of overburden aquifer
strata; and increase in dissolved solids concentrated in shallow ground-water
systems. A slight recharge of ground water will occur in the vicinity of the power
plant's cooling reservoir.
Long-term adverse surface water hydrologic impacts expected as a
result of mining activities are alterations in peak runoff rates and volumes resulting
from changes in the site topography, topsoil characteristics, vegetative cover
patterns, and land uses. Major streams will be altered due to permanent rerouting,
resulting in straighter stream channels and shorter flow lengths. Short-term adverse
surface water impacts will occur from temporary increases in overland runoff from
cleared areas, and increased transport of sediments and turbidity in receiving
streams during periods of heavy rainfall and increased streamflow.
Air Quality
Short-term, localized, adverse air quality impacts will occur during
project site preparation activities (e.g., clearing, burning, and construction). These
impacts will be minor, with only occasional exceedances of normal background
levels being realized. The principal air pollutants to be emitted during plant
operation are sulfur dioxide (SO_), oxides of nitrogen (NO ), and participate matter
from the proposed plant's stacks. Carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC) will
also be emitted in very small quantities. BACT will be applied to SO,, NO , and
^ X
total suspended particulates (TSP). Ground-level SO2 concentrations resulting from
power plant operations are predicted to be below threshold levels which may cause
damage to sensitive plant species in the vicinity of the plant site. Trace radioactive
emissions are expected to be below existing Federal standards protecting public
health. Sources of fugitive dust emissions include lignite and limestone handling,
Xlll
-------
processing, and storage operations. All reasonable air pollution control measures
will be undertaken to prevent fugitive dust from becoming airborne.
Sound Quality
Due to the large distances of noise-sensitive receptors from the proposed
project facilities (greater than 2,800 feet) and the attenuation effects of surroun-
ding topography and vegetation, only minor noise impacts will occur. Similarly,
increased noise levels associated with operation of the proposed project will not
have adverse effects on the surrounding area. Increased noise levels will be
localized, of relatively short duration, and attenuated with distance from the
source.
Ecology
Construction of the plant site and transportive systems has adversely
impacted local biological communities by the direct elimination of
vegetation/wildlife habitat. About 2,460 acres of vegetation/wildlife habitat were
preempted by construction of the proposed power plant, cooling reservoir, pipeline
corridor, and railroad spur. These areas consisted primarily of upland forest. A
portion of an additional 1,451 acres (primarily upland forest) comprising the plant
site ancillary activities area may be affected during construction and 86 acres will
be cleared for transmission line ROW's, which will cause short-term adverse
impacts.
During the life of the mine, approximately 10,545 acres of
vegetation/wildlife habitat will be cleared. Some of the vegetation/wildlife habitat
present in the 10,226-acre mine ancillary area will be cleared during the life of the
mine. These areas consist primarily of upland forest and pasture.
Intermittent and perennial stream habitats and associated aquatic com-
munities in the vicinity of the plant site, cooling reservoir, transportive system
xiv
-------
ROW's, and mine will be adversely impacted from clearing and construction. No
threatened or endangered species of vegetation, wildlife or aquatic biota are known
to inhabit the project area. Consultation between EPA and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, is
currently on-going and a Biological Assessment of the potential impacts to
threatened and endangered species is being prepared.
Short-term adverse impacts of the project will occur due to the removal
of vegetation during mining, but will be minimized by revegetation. Construction of
the power plant and mine facilities will produce increased noise and human activity
and disturb local wildlife. Additionally, clearing during reproductive seasons will
disrupt breeding activities of wildlife present in the vicinity of areas being cleared.
Stresses on wildlife populations in adjacent areas will occur during the sequential
mining program.
Increase in siltation due to construction activities will result in tempo-
rary decreases in some fish, larval insects, and aquatic clam populations and
temporary and localized algal blooms. Some insect larvae (e.g., Trichoptera, some
Odonates) and clam species preferring coarse substrates may be adversely affected
by increased sedimentation. Fish may avoid areas of high suspended material
concentrations. Nutrients associated with increased concentrations of suspended
solids, particularly following initial clearing may encourage algal production. Mine
operation will cause increased siltation.
Existing vegetation will be preempted by construction of the power
plant, cooling reservoir, and mine facilities for the life of the project. Long-term
impacts will result from the mining of lands presently supporting relatively mature,
diverse communities, which will take many years to fully re-establish.
Enlarging of Rogers Lake from 5 acres to the 1,388-acre cooling
reservoir will permanently change the character of the existing ecosystem. The
xv
-------
resultant lake will, however, contain a greater habitat diversity and support a
greater diversity of fish and other aquatic species than previously existed. In-
creased shoreline length, a greater range of water depths, and the potential for
inclusion of a greater variety of substrate types will all contribute to the increase of
habitat diversity in the cooling reservoir. The creation of sufficient water depth to
ensure a vegetation free zone will permit the development of a recreational fishery
in this reservoir.
Cultural Resources (Historic and Prehistoric)
Construction activities associated with both the proposed power plant
and mine have the potential of adversely affecting more than 500 cultural sites.
Thirteen of these historic sites and one prehistoric site have been recommended for
further testing. Surveying the remaining 80 percent of the mine site could reveal
additional sites that may require testing.
Construction related activities in the power plant and cooling reservoir
area have resulted in a total commitment of the existing cultural resources.
Construction of the railroad spur ROW has been completed. The extent of the
impact of this construction on sites that may have existed in the ROW has not been
determined as a cultural resources survey has never been conducted. Construction
related activities completed along approximately half of the makeup water pipeline
may have caused a negative impact on any sites that may have existed in this
segment of the pipeline.
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be drafted between the EPA,
the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in compliance with
Section 106 of the NHPA. The intent of this MOA will be to avoid or minimize
future construction related adverse impacts on cultural resources. During the
course of future construction activities, potential project-related adverse impacts
on significant cultural resources will be coordinated with the SHPO of Texas.
xvi
-------
Socioeconomics
The construction and operation phases of the South Hallsville
Mine/Pirkey Power Plant-Unit 1 will induce both beneficial and adverse effects in
the study area. Beneficial effects include the creation of new employment and
income in the area, which in turn may induce increased business investment,
secondary jobs, and income. In addition, electrical power will be generated through
consumption of domestic energy sources. Potential adverse effects associated with
the project include a short-term lag period in the flow of community services
(e.g., housing, public utilities, and retail services) resulting from the size and
transience of project construction employment as compared to the more permanent
project operation work force.
Beneficial impacts from constructing of the mine/power plant include
creating 825 primary jobs and 842 secondary jobs during the peak employment period
in 1984. Total local annual income generated by primary employment is estimated
to peak in excess of $20 million (1980 dollars). Over the 7-year construction phase,
nearly $109 million in construction expenditures is expected to be spent locally,
generating about $103 million in additional secondary income.
During peak construction, the population influx associated with worker
and family in-migration to the two-county project area is expected to total 2,155
new residents. By 1985, the in-migrant population is anticipated to decrease by
approximately 62 percent to 818 persons. The potential impact of in-migration to
local communities may be somewhat mitigated by the release of construction
workers from other projects already in the area, who become available for the
proposed project.
The benefits of project operation will accrue in the study area for a
period of 30 years. In addition to the generation of electrical power, it is estimated
that the project will provide 271 primary jobs and 273 secondary service jobs during
xvii
-------
full operation in 1986. Total annual operations expenditures for the power plant and
mine are estimated at $78 million (1980 dollars), with more than $122 million in
local secondary income. The new population is expected to peak at 276 persons in
1986. However, the movement of construction workers into operation jobs as well
as the release of workers from other area projects can potentially decrease
additional operation period in-migration. For instance, the secondary employment
generated from direct project activities during construction will likely remain to
serve the operation work force.
During both construction and operation of the combined project, the
local housing sector will need to expand to meet in-migration needs. While the
construction work force is more likely to use temporary housing (i.e., apartments
and mobile homes), the operation work force will require more permanent single
family housing.
Land Use
A total of 13,091 acres of land and associated land use will be adversely
affected by the proposed project (mine, power plant, cooling reservoir, and
transportive systems). Additionally, 11,677 acres of ancillary activities area may be
potentially affected. The predominant land use of the proposed plant site and mine
site is undeveloped forestry (2,068 acres and 4,983 acres, respectively). Operational
project impacts focus upon the conversion of existing agricultural land to industrial
use during the mining period. Approximately 10,205 acres of agricultural land
(pasture and cropland) and 12,594 acres of forested land (undeveloped forest and
forestry) would potentially be affected by the proposed project (mine, power plant,
cooling reservoir, transportive systems, and ancillary activities areas).
Changes in land use caused by the proposed project will result in the
short- and long-term removal of existing land uses on the mine and power plant
sites.
XVlll
-------
Although RRC regulations require that the permit area be restored to
conditions capable of supporting premining land uses, alternative land uses may be
approved through consultation with the RRC and landowner. Additional long-term
impacts in land-use resulting from the proposed project would be increased
urbanization, regionally, due to project-related in-migration and potential modifica-
tions of wildlife habitat and aesthetic qualities of the land.
xix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Abstract/Cover Sheet ii
Summary iv
List of Figures xxix
List of Tables xxxi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 EPA'S RESPONSIBILITY AND LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY 1-1
1.2 OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LEGISLATIVE 1-3
REQUIREMENTS
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT 1-3
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 2-1
2.1 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT 2-1
2.1.1 Project Demand 2-1
2.1.2 Projected Power Supply Capability 2-1
2.1.3 Materials and Energy Commitments 2-5
3.0 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION (SCREENING) OF ALTERNATIVES 3-1
3.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 3-1
3.2 ALTERNATIVES NOT REQUIRING THE CREATION OF 3-2
NEW GENERATING CAPACITY
3.2.1 Energy Conservation 3-2
3.2.2 Purchased Power 3-3
3.2.3 Reactivation or Upgrading of Older Plants 3-3
3.2.4 Baseload Operation of Existing Facilities 3-4
3.3 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES 3-4
3.3.1 Geothermal 3-5
3.3.2 Solar 3-5
xx
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.3.6
3.3.7
Wind
,Coal and Petroleum Gasification
Natural Gas
Western Coal
Nuclear
3-5
3-6
3-6
3-6
3-7
3.4 DESIGN AND SITING OPTIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION 3-7
AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED POWER PLANT,
TRANSMISSION LINES, WATER PIPELINE, AND RAILROAD
FACILITIES
3.4.1 Alternative Power Plant Sites 3-7
3.4.2 Alternative Electric Generating Station Designs 3-11
3.4.2.1 Cooling System Alternatives 3-11
3.4.2.2 Biological Control Alternatives 3-15
3.4.2.3 Air Pollution Control System 3-16
3.4.2.4 Waste Treatment Systems Alternatives 3-24
3.4.2.5 Wastewater Handling Alternatives 3-25
3.4.3 Alternative Transmission Facilities 3-33
3.4.4 Alternative Makeup Water Facilities 3-34
3.4.4.1 Sources of Makeup Water 3-34
3.4.4.2 Intake Structure Design 3-35
3.4.4.3 Makeup Water Pipeline 3-35
3.4.4.4 Circulating Water Intake Stucture Design 3-37
3.4.5 Alternate Railroad Facilities 3-40
3.4.6 Alternative Mining Systems 3-40
3.4.6.1 Mine Layout Alternatives 3-40
3.4.6.2 Mine Operation Alternatives 3-42
3.5 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 3-49
(Proposed Project)
xxi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section
3.5.1 Plant Systems and Operating Procedures 3-49
3.5.1.1 Boiler and Steam-Electric System 3-49
3.5.1.2 Heat Dissipation System 3-5Z
3.5.1.3 Cooling Reservoir 3-53
3.5.1.4 Makeup Water Pipeline and 3-53
Intake Structure
3.5.1.5 Intake and Discharge System 3-58
3.5.1.6 Other Plant Water Systems 3-61
3.5.1.7 Waste Schemes 3-63
3.5.1.8 Ash-Handling System 3-69
3.5.1.9 Fuel Handling Systems 3-71
3.5.1.10 Atmospheric Emission Sources 3-74
and Control Systems
3.5.1.11 Transmission Lines 3-76
3.5.1.12 Railroad Spur 3-80
3.5.Z Facilities Layout and Operation of the 3-80
Mining Area
3.5.2.1 Mineable Reserves and Engineering 3-82
Techniques
3.5.2.2 Mining Sequence 3-85
3.5.2.3 Mining Methods and Equipment 3-87
3.6 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA 3-126
3.7 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO OTHER PERMITTING 3-130
AGENCIES
3.8 OTHER REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES 3-130
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES ON THE 4-1
THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
xxn
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section Pa§e
4.1 EARTH RESOURCES 4-2
4.1.1 Topography 4-2
4.1.1.1 Existing and Future Environments 4-2
4.1.1.2 Effects of No Action 4-3
4.1.1.3 Construction Impacts 4-3
4.1.1.4 Operation Impacts 4-4
4.1.1.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine 4-4
4.1.2 Geology 4-5
4.1.2.1 Existing and Future Environments 4-5
4.1.2.2 Effects of No Action 4-6
4.1.2.3 Construction Impacts 4-6
4.1.2.4 Operation Impacts 4-7
4.1.2.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and 4-8
Mine
4.1.3 Soils 4-8
4.1.3.1 Existing and Future Environments 4-8
4.1.3.2 Effects of No Action 4-11
4.1.3.3 Construction Impacts 4-12
4.1.3.4 Operation Impacts 4-13
4.1.3.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine 4-17
4.2 WATER RESOURCES 4-17
4.2.1 Ground Water 4-17
4.2.1.1 Existing and Future Environments 4-17
4.2.1.2 Effects of No Action 4-19
4.2.1.3 Construction Impacts 4-19
4.2.1.4 Operation Impacts 4-22
4.2.1.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine 4-28
4.2.2 Surface Water 4-29
4.2.2.1 Existing and Future Environments 4-29
XXlll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section
4.2.2.2 Effects of No Action 4-38
4.2.2.3 Construction Impacts 4-39
4.2.2.4 Operation Impacts 4-42
4.2.2.5 Combined Impacts of the Plant and Mine 4-55
4.3 CLIMATOLOGY/AIR QUALITY 4-57
4.3.1 Existing and Future Environments 4-57
4.3.1.1 Climatology 4-57
4.3.1.2 Existing Air Quality 4-62
4.3.2 Effects of No Action 4-69
4.3.3 Construction Impacts 4-70
4.3.3.1 Power Plant 4-70
4.3.3.2 Mine 4-71
4.3.4 Operation Impacts 4-72
4.3.4.1 Plant Site 4-72
4.3.4.2 Mine 4-82
4.3.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine 4-83
4.4 SOUND QUALITY 4-84
4.4.1 Existing and Future Environments 4-84
4.4.2 Effects of No Action 4-85
4.4.3 Construction Impacts 4-85
4.4.3.1 Power Plant 4-85
4.4.3.2 Mine 4-86
4.4.4 Operation Impacts 4-87
4.4.4.1 Power Plant 4-87
4.4.4.2 Mine 4-88
4.4.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine 4-89
xxiv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section Pa§e
4.5 ECOLOGY 4-90
4.5.1 Vegetation 4-90
4.5.1.1 Existing and Future Environments 4-90
4.5.1.2 Effects of No Action 4-103
4.5.1.3 Construction Impacts 4-104
4.5.1.4 Operation Impacts 4-110
4.5.1.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine 4-117
4.5.2 Wildlife 4-118
4.5.2.1 Existing and Future Environments 4-118
4.5.2.2 Effects of No Action 4-125
4.5.2.3 Construction Impacts 4-125
4.5.2.4 Operation Impacts 4-127
4.5.2.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine 4-131
4.5.3 Aquatic 4-131
4.5.3.1 Existing and Future Environments 4-131
4.5.3.2 Effects of No Action 4-135
4.5.3.3 Construction Impacts 4-136
4.5.3.4 Operation Impacts 4-139
4.5.3.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine 4-142
4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES (PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC) 4-143
4.6.1 Existing and Future Environments 4-143
4.6.2 Effects of No Action 4-145
4.6.3 Construction Impacts 4-145
4.6.3.1 Power Plant 4-145
4.6.3.2 Mine 4-147
4.6.4 Operation Impacts 4-148
4.6.4.1 Power Plant 4-148
xxv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section
4.6.4.2 Mine 4-148
4.6.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine 4-149
4.7 SOCIOECONOMICS 4-150
4.7.1 Existing and Future Environments 4-150
4.7.1.1 Economic Profile 4-150
4.7.1.2 Demographic Profile 4-152
4.7.1.3 Housing 4-153
4.7.1.4 Community Services and Facilities 4-153
4.7.1.5 Local Government Finances 4-155
4.7.1.6 Transportation Facilities 4-155
4.7.1.7 Recreation Facilities and Aesthetics 4-156
4.7.2 Effects of No Action 4-157
4.7.2.1 Employment and Income 4-157
4.7.2.2 Population 4-157
4.7.2.3 Community Facilities and Services 4-158
4.7.2.4 Housing 4-158
4.7.3 Construction Impacts 4-158
4.7.3.1 Economic 4-158
4.7.3.2 Population 4-163
4.7.3.3 Housing 4-164
4.7.3.4 Community Facilities and Services 4-170
4.7.3.5 Transportation 4-172
4.7.3.6 Recreation 4-174
4.7.3.7 Aesthetics 4-174
4.7.4 Operations Impacts 4-176
4.7.4.1 Economic 4-176
4.7.4.2 Population 4-182
xxvi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section Pa§e
4.7.4.3 Housing 4-186
4.7.4.4 Community Services and Facilities 4-189
4.7.4.5 Transportation 4-189
4.7.4.6 Recreation 4-190
4.7.4.7 Aesthetics 4-190
4.7.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine 4-191
4.7.5.1 Community Services and Facilities 4-191
4.7.5.2 Local Government Finances 4-193
4.7.5.3 Combined Project Mitigation 4-193
4.8 LAND USE 4-196
4.8.1 Existing and Future Environments 4-196
4.8.2 Effects of No Action 4-199
4.8.3 Construction Impacts 4-202
4.8.3.1 Power Plant 4-202
4.8.3.2 Mine 4-204
4.8.4 Operation Impacts 4-205
4.8.4.1 Power Plant 4-205
4.8.4.2 Mine 4-205
4.8.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine 4-208
4.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-209
5.0 COORDINATION 5-1
5.1 SCOPING PROCESS 5-1
5.2 AGENCY COORDINATION 5-2
5.2.1 Section 7 Consultation - FWS 5-2
xxvn
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Section Page
6.0
7.0
8.0
5.2.2 Section 404/10 - USCE
5.2.3 Section 106-NHPA
5.2.4 Executive Order 11514
5.2.5 Other Agency Concerns
5.3 EIS REVIEW PROCESS
LIST OF PREPARERS
LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS TO WHOM
COPIES OF THE DRAFT STATEMENT ARE SENT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Glossary
Metric Conversion Table
5-4
5-4
5-4
5-5
5-6
6-1
7-1
8-1
xxxiv
xlv
Appendix A - Regulatory Requirements
Appendix B - Department of the Army Permit-Makeup Water
Pipeline
Appendix C - USCE Wetlands Determination
Index xlvi
XXVlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1-1 Project Location Map 1-2
3-1 Hallsville Area Site Selection Study Location Map 3-9
3-2 Alternative Makeup Water Facilities 3-36
3-3 Alternative Railroad Systems 3-41
3-4 Property Development 3-50
3-5 Plant Development 3-51
3-6 Vicinity Map of Proposed Pump Station 3-55
3-7 Plan View of Channel and Pump Station Site 3-56
3-8 Section Views of Pump Station 3-57
3-9 Vicinity Map of Makeup Water Line 3-59
3-10 Typical Trench Sections 3-60
3-11 Wastewater System 3-64
3-12 Lignite-Handling Facilities 3-72
3-13 138 kV Structure 3-77
3-14 Transmission Facilities 3-78
3-15 Mining Sequence and Facilities 3-81
3-16 Typical Mine Cut Cross Section 3-86
3-17 Type 1 Sedimentation Pond Design Specifications 3-90
3-18 Type Z Sedimentation Pond Design Specifications 3-91
3-19 Type 3 Sedimentation Pond Design Specifications 3-92
3-20 Typical Runoff Diversion Ditch 3-98
3-21 Typical Temporary Stream Diversion Cross Section 3-100
3-22 Typical Haul Road Cross Sections 3-104
3-23 Typical Stream Crossing 3-107
3-24 Process Flow Diagram Blending 3-117
XXIX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded)
Page
3-25 Process Flow Diagram Fixation 3-119
3-Z6 Ash Disposal by Valley Fill 3-121
3-27 Lignite Ash Disposal Site 3-122
3-28 Dragline Erection Area 3-124
3-29 Mine Facilities Area 3-125
4-1 Ground Water System Map, South Hallsville Project 4-20
4-2 Hydrographic Boundaries and Location of 100-Year Floodplain 4-30
4-3 Annual Wind Rose for Shreveport, Louisiana, 1970-1974 4-60
4-4 Large Pollutant Emission Sources (>5,000 tons per year) 4-65
Within 62 Miles (100 km) of the Project Area
4-5 Vegetation Map - Project Site 4-91
4-6 Land Use Map - Project Site 4-201
4-7 Existing Coal Mines and Generating Units 4-211
4-8 Planned Coal Mines and Generating Units 4-212
xxx
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1-1 Federal and State Permits/Regulations/Approvals 1-4
Applicable to the Proposed South Hallsville Project
2-1 Peak Load and Customers for Southwestern Electric 2-2
Power Company for the Past 13 Years
2-2 Southwestern Electric Power Company Forecast of 2-3
Capabilities, Peak Demands, and Reserves in Megawatts
(1976-1986)
2-3 Existing and Proposed Generating Units, Southwestern 2-6
Electric Power Company
3-1 Estimated Annual Disturbed Areas, South Hallsville Mine 3-83
3-2 Major Equipment List, South Hallsville Mine 3-88
3-3 Conceptual Surface Water and Sedimentation Control 3-94
Facilities for the South Hallsville Mine
3-4 Characteristics of South Hallsville Mine, Surface Soil 3-108
Horizons
3-5 Oxidized Overburden Core Data, South Hallsville Mine 3-113
3-6 Plant Selection List for Reclamation Stages, South 3-116
Hallsville Mine
3-7 Hourly Mine Labor Schedule 3-127
3-8 Salaried Mine Labor Schedule 3-128
4-1 Soil Map Units of South Hallsville Project Area with 4-9
Capability Subclasses and Prime Farmland Designation
4-2 Ground-Water Chemistry 4-21
4-3 Streamflow Records for Selected Gages, South Hallsville 4-31
Project
4-4 Drainage Area and Mean Discharge of Project Area Streams 4-33
4-5 Storm Events Used for the Determination of Critical Rates 4-34
and Volumes of Runoff
4-6 Sabine River Water Quality 4-36
4-7 Water Quality in Project Area Streams 4-37
xxxi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table Page
4-8 Projected TDS Concentrations in Cooling Reservoir 4-44
4-9 Effluent Limitations for Disturbed Areas, Office of Surface 4-51
Mining, New Source Performance Standards
4-10 Mass Balance Discharges from Disturbed and Active Mine 4-53
Areas
4-11 Mass Balance Analysis Discharges from Active Mine Area 4-54
4-12 Large Pollutant Emission Sources (>5000 tons/year) within 4-64
62 Miles (100 km) of the Proposed Project
4-13 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 4-67
4-14 Ambient Air Monitoring Summary of Nearest TACB Station: 4-68
Longview, Texas
4-15 Maximum Predicted Air Quality Concentrations Due to 4-76
Emissions from the Proposed Power Plant (yg/ml )
4-16 Areas of Existing Vegetation to be Pre-empted by the Power 4-93
Plant, Cooling Reservoir, and Pipeline Corridor, South
Hallsville Project
4-17 Acreages of Existing Vegetation to be Affected by the 4-94
Long-Term Mining and Ancillary Activities Associated with
the South Hallsville Project
4-18 Plant Species of Potential Occurrence in the South 4-101
Hallsville Project Area Cited by the FWS "Notice of Review"
4-19 Acreages of Vegetation Types Present Along the Three 4-107
Proposed 138 kV Transmission Lines
4-20 Combined Construction Employment, South Hallsville Mine, 4-160
Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant-Unit 1, 1979-1985
4-21 Total Direct Project-Related Expenditures by Year 4-162
Construction Phase
4-22 Total Construction-Related Population Increase in the 4-165
Project Area, 1979-1985
4-23 Housing Preference by Type of Housing and Level of Income 4-167
Construction Phase
xxxn
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)
Table PaSe
4-24 Unsubsidized Housing Units and Vacancy Rates, Gregg and 4-168
Harrison Counties
4-Z5 Combined Operations and Maintenance Employment, South 4-178
Hallsville Mine/Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant
4-26 Estimated Direct and Secondary Project-Related Income, 4-179
Operations Phase, South Hallsville Mine
4-27 Estimated Direct and Secondary Project-Related Income 4-180
Growth, Operations Phase Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant
4-28 Estimated Direct and Secondary Project-Related Income 4-181
Growth, Operations Phase, South Hallsville Mine and
Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant
4-29 Projected Operations- and Maintenance-Related Population 4-184
Increase, 1983-1987
4-30 Project-Supported Population Operations Phase 4-185
4-31 Housing Preference by Type of Housing and Level of Income 4-187
Operations Phase
4-32 Locally Based, Project-Related Population Housing Needs, 4-188
Construction, and Operation Phases, South Hallsville Mine/
Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant
4-33 Total Project-Related Population Increase, Water and 4-192
Sewage Requirements, Gregg and Harrison Counties
1979-Life of the Project (Construction and Operations Phases)
4-34 Additional Combined Project-Related Community Service 4-194
Requirements, Gregg and Harrison Counties, 1979-Life of
the Project (Construction and Operations Phases)
4-35 Additional Combined Project-Related Public Education 4-195
Requirements, Gregg and Harrison Counties, 1979-Life of the
Project (Construction and Operations Phases)
4-36 Land Uses Pre-empted by the Power Plant, Cooling Reservoir, 4-198
and Transportive Systems, South Hallsville Project
4-37 Areas of Existing Land Use to be Affected by the South 4-200
Hallsville Mining and Ancillary Activities
XXXlll
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared to assess the
effects of a proposed mine-mouth power plant and surface lignite mine located
within the Sabine River drainage basin of northeastern Texas (Fig. 1-1). South-
western Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) will own both the power plant and mine
facilities; The Sabine Mining Company (SMC) will operate the mine under contract
to SWEPCO. The proposed South Hallsville Project will consist of a single unit
mine-mouth, 720-MW (gross) (640-MW net), lignite-fired steam electric generating
station (Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant - Unit 1) and its fuel source, a 2.8 million-
ton-per-year surface lignite mine (South Hallsville Mine). Transportive systems
associated with the power plant will include a makeup water pipeline, transmission
lines, and railroad spur.
1.1 EPA'S RESPONSIBILITY AND LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
Before discharge of any pollutant into navigable waters of the United
States from a designated source in an industrial category for which performance
standards have been promulgated, a new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES) permit must be obtained from the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Section 511 (c) (1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) also requires that
the issuance of an NPDES permit by EPA for a new source discharge be subject to
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which may require preparation of an
EIS on the new source. Pursuant to the requirements of NEPA and its authority
under the CWA, a notice of intent to prepare an EIS on the issuance of an NPDES
permit for the proposed South Hallsville Project was issued by EPA on July 10, 1981.
This EIS evaluates alternative permit actions (i.e., issuance or denial of
permits) available to the EPA and other Federal agencies and the environmental
effects of undertaking each of these alternatives.
1-1
-------
SCALE 1 = 250000
4 0 4 Ml
Q C8KY. HUSTON & ASSOCIATES. INC.
I I ftt&f*f*#fG « fWMOMMttVMJ
Fig. l-l
PROJECT LOCATION
SOUTH HALLSVILLE PROJECT
-------
The purpose of this EIS is to evaluate the environmental consequences of
issuing new source NPDES permits for the proposed South Hallsville Project. With
respect to the objectives, the document addresses the following:
o purpose and need for the project;
o alternatives available to the permit applicants, EPA, and other
governmental agencies;
o environmental consequences of alternatives; and
o possible measures to mitigate adverse environmental consequences.
1.2 OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LEGISLATIVE
REQUIREMENTS
In order for SWEPCO to construct and operate the proposed lignite-fired
power plant and surface lignite mine facilities, compliance or conformance with
State and Federal laws and regulations is required. These requirements include
performance standards, limitations, agency reviews and approvals, and interagency
coordination. A list of these required permits and/or regulations is presented in
Table 1-1, and a brief discussion of certain requirements is included in Appendix A.
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT
Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) is a public utility
engaged in generating, purchasing, transmitting, distributing and selling electricity
in portions of northeastern Texas, northwestern Louisiana, and western Arkansas. It
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Central and South West Corporation, a registered
public utility holding company.
On December 31, 1980, SWEPCO supplied electric service to about
332,000 retail customers in a 25,000 square mile area with an estimated population
of 828,000. It supplied electric energy at wholesale to two municipalities, eight
1-3
-------
TABLE 1-1
FEDERAL AND STATE PERMITS/REGULATIONS/APPROVALS APPLICABLE
TO THE PROPOSED SOUTH HALLSVILLE PROJECT
Permit, Regulation or Approval
Agency51
NPDES (Section 402) permit under Clean Water Act
Section 404 permit for placement of dredge and
fill material under Clean Water Act
Section 10 permit under Rivers and Harbors Act
Compliance with Section 3l6(b) of the Clean Water
Act for makeup water intake
Compliance with Clean Air Act
Section 110: Implementation Plans
Section 111: Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources
Section 123: Stack Heights
Section 160-169: Prevention of Significant Deterioration
of Air Quality
Compliance with Endangered Species Act of 1973 as
amended
Compliance with the National Historic Preservation
Act and Executive Order 11593
Compliance with Archaeological and Historic Preser-
vation Act of 1974
Compliance with Protection of Historic and Cultural
Properties criteria
Compliance with Federal Aviation Administration
Regulations
Compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
of 1934 as amended (1965)
EPA
USCE
USCE
EPA
EPA, TACB
FWS
- EPA, Texas
SHPO, ACHP,
EPA, Texas
SHPO, ACHP
EPA, Texas
SHPO, ACHP
FAA
FWS
1-4
-------
TABLE 1-1 (Concluded)
Permit, Regulation or Approval
Agency*
Compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968
Compliance with the National Energy Act of 1978
Compliance with the Federal Aviation Act of 1958
Railroad Commission of Texas Surface Mining Permit
Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (power plant)
Construction Permit (power plant)
Operating Permit (power plant)
Appropriation of State Water Permits (power plant)
Wastewater Discharge Permit
Solid Waste Registration (power plant)
NPS
N/A
FAA
RRC
TPUC
TACB
TACB
TDWR
TDWR
TDWR
* Acronyms:
EPA
USCE -
FWS
FAA
SHPO -
ACHP -
USDA -
NPS
RRC -
TPUC -
TACB -
TDWR -
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Aviation Administration
State Historic Preservation Officer
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service
Railroad Commission of Texas
Texas Public Utilities Commission
Texas Air Control Board
Texas Department of Water Resources
1-5
-------
rural electric cooperatives, and five other electric utilities. The three largest
metropolitan centers served by SWEPCO are the metropolitan areas that include the
adjoining cities of Shreveport and Bossier City, Louisiana; Texarkana, Arkansas and
Texas; and the City of Longview, Texas. SWEPCO owns certain transmission
facilities in Oklahoma, but serves no customers there.
SWEPCO's 332,108 customers at year end 1980 were made up of 286,861
residential customers, 35,780 commercial customers, 7,260 industrial customers, and
2,207 other users of electrical power. The net system capability during 1980 at the
time of the peak was 3,215 MW.
The Sabine Mining Company is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Texas and having an office at Office Alpha, 13140
Coit Road, Suite 400, Dallas, Texas 75240. The purpose for which the corporation
is organized is to design, develop, construct, equip, and operate a lignite mine near
Hallsville in Harrison County, Texas, to supply lignite to Southwestern Electric
Power Company.
1-6
-------
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
2.1 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
SWEPCO has the obligation to provide dependable and reliable power in
the most economical and environmentally acceptable manner to customers in its
respective service territory. SWEPCO proposes to construct the South Hallsville
Project to continue to supply reliable electric service. As shown in Table 2-1, peak
demand for electricity, as well as the total number of customers to which SWEPCO
furnishes electrical service, has increased steadily during the past 15 years.
Major factors contributing to SWEPCO's need for additional generating
resources are to provide capacity to meet future needs; to provide adequate
reserves for reliable service during periods of maintenance and emergency outages;
and to lessen dependence on natural gas and fuel oil as a source of fuel.
2.1.1 Project Demand
The proposed Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant - Unit 1 is needed to help
meet the increasing demand for electricity within the SWEPCO service area even
though the rate of growth has decreased. Nevertheless, a positive growth is still
being experienced and is projected. A peak demand growth rate of 3.43 percent has
been projected for the SWEPCO service area through 1990 (Table 2-2). This will
result in a projected peak load of 3,140 MW in 1985, when the Henry W. Pirkey unit
is scheduled to begin operation.
2.1.2 Projected Power Supply Capability
As a member of the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), a group of inter-
connected utilities in the south-central United States, SWEPCO is required to
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1
PEAK LOAD AND CUSTOMERS FOR
SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS
Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1072
1973
1974
1975
1076
1977
1973
1979
1980
Peak Load
(MW)
939
981
1,104
1,309
1,383
1,517
1,653
1,768
1,932
2,075
2,117
2,404
(2,543-133)*
2,291
2,652
Residential
197,613
203,096
211,217
216,064
220,574
227,371
234,965
240,395
247,553
253,475
259,592
267,069
274,935
281,709
286,361
Commercial
27,541
27,912
28,291
23,628
29,163
30,188
30,984
31,104
31,457
31,966
32,963
33,553
33,986
34,910
35,730
Industrial
5,906
6,013
6,070
6,172
6,152
6,295
6,303
6,329
6,502
6,627
6,727
6,344
6,982
7,068
7,260
Other
1,473
1,454
1,505
1,555
1,661
1,723
1,773
1,876
1,937
2,029
1,944
2,017
2,067
2,148
2,207
Total
232,533
238,480
247,083
252,419
257,550
265,582
274,025
230,244
237,449
294.097
301,226
309,483
317,970
325,335
332,108
7/ith the addition of the Flint Creek Power Plant in 1973, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation assumed
responsibility for its own load. This portion (183 MW) of the system load (2,543 MW1 should therefore be discounted in
determining the SWEPCO peak load.
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-2
SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
FORECAST OF CAPABILITIES, PEAK DEMANDS, AND RESERVES
IN MEGAWATTS
(1978-1990)
NET PLANT CAPABILITIES
Dolct Hills
Pirkey
Flint Creek
Wr-lsh
Wilkes
Linbrrmnn
Knf>x Lee
Lone Star
Lone Star Has Turbines
Arsenal Hill
1. TOTAL
DELIVERIES WITHOUT RESERVES
PSO (from 4 units)
GSU
CLECO
CPL from PSO (mi-system)
CPL
PSO
PSO with VVTU
2. TOTAL
1978
0
0
264
528
879
276
537
50
40
161
2,735
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
Actual
1979
0
0
264
528
879
276
537
50
40
113
2,687
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
100
Forecast
1980
0
0
264
1,056
879
276
537
50
40
113
3,215
0
0
200
0
0
0
0
200
1981
0
0
264
1,056
879
276
537
50
40
113
3,215
0
250
0
0
0
0
0
7,50
1982
0
0
264
1,584
879 .
276
537
50
40
113
3,743
0
350
0
0
0
0
0
350
1983
0
0
264
1,584
879
276
537
50
40
113
3,743
0
260
0
0
0
0
0
260
1984
0
0
264
1,584
879
276
537
50
40
113
3,743
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1985
0
640
264
1,584
879
276
537
50
40
113
4,383
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1986
320
640
264
1,584
879
276
537
50
40
113
4,703
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1987
320
640
264
1,584
879
276
501
50
40
113
4,667
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1988
320
640
264
1,584
879
276
501
50
40
113
4,667
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1989
320
640
264
1,584
879
276
501
50
40
113
4,667
0
0
0
0
116
43
0
159
1990
320
640
264
1 , 584
879
276
501
50
40
113
4,667
0
0
0
0
231
136
20
387
-------
TABLE 2-Z (Concluded)
C-J
RRCKIPTS WITHOUT RESERVES
Tex-La Marrows
PSO for C.SU
TSO Cor CF'L (on -system)
3. TOTAL
4. TOTAL (1 -Zh3)
5. PEAK LOAD
6. INTERRUPTIBLE LOAD
INCLUDED IN PEAK LOAD
DELIVERIES WITH RESERVES
7. TOTAL
RECEIPTS WITH RESERVES
Tex-Ln Peaking
SPA-Br>ntonvilli>
TVA Diversity
8. TOTAL
9. LOAD RESPONSIBILITY
(5-6+7-8)
10. TOTAL RESERVES (4-9)
11. PERCENT RESERVES
1978
Z7
0
0
Z7
Z,66Z
2,360
0
0
117
18
100
235
Z.1Z5
537
Z5.3
Actual
1979
Z7
0
0
Z7
Z,614
Z,465
0
0
117
18
100
Z35
Z.Z30
384
17. Z
Forecast
1980
?,7
0
0
Z7
3.04Z
2,652
0
0
117
18
0
135
2,517
5Z5
Z0.9
1981
Z7
60
0
87
3,152
2.IS85
0
0
117
18
0
135
2,550
50Z
19.7
198Z
Z7
ZOO
0
ZZ7
3.6ZO
Z.790
0
0
117
18
0
135
Z.655
395
14.9
1983
Z7
145
0
17Z
3,655
2,905
0
0
117
18
94
ZZ9
2,676
409
15.3
19R4
Z7
0
0
27
3,770
3,OZO
0
0
117
18
133
Z68
Z.75Z
448
16.3
1985
Z7
0
0
Z7
4,410
3,140
0
0
117
18
13
148
Z.99Z
848
Z8.3
1986
Z7
0
0
27
4,738
3,Z65
0
0
117
18
13
148
3,117
854
Z7.4
1987
Z7
0
0
Z7
4,694
3,395
0
0
117
18
13
148
3.Z47
524
16.1
1988
27
0
0
27
4,694
3,535
0
0
117
18
13
148
3,387
529
15.6
1989
27
0
0
27
4,535
3,635
0
0
117
18
13
148
3,487
505
14.5
1990
27
0
0
27
4,307
3,715
0
0
117
18
13
148
3,567
554
15.5
((10/9) x 100)
-------
maintain a 15-percent reserve margin to provide reliable electrical service.
Without the Pirkey unit, reserves in 1985 would be 208 MW or only 7 percent. In
1986, reserves would total only 6.9 percent or 214 MW would exist, even with the
planned addition of 320 MW from another unit scheduled to become commercial that
year. These reserve margins would not provide adequate system reliability.
From Table 2-3, it is evident that SWEPCO has historically relied
primarily upon natural gas and/or fuel oil as a fuel source for its boilers. In the late
1960's, when the uncertain future of sources of natural gas and oil became apparent,
SWEPCO planned four coal-fired units using low-sulfur coal from Wyoming. Three
of these were put into operation in 1977, 1978, and 1980. The fourth generating unit
is scheduled to become operational in 1982. The coal for these units was contracted
for in 1972. However, due to increasing coal and transportation costs and the new
secure supply of local lignite that was not available when the coal-fired units were
planned, SWEPCO has determined that mine-mouth lignite fired power plants, such
as the South Hallsville Project, will provide the best all around service for additional
generating requirements at the lowest fuel cost.
2.1.3 Materials and Energy Commitments
The proposed project would commit approximately $340 million to such
materials as cement, lumber, steel, wiring, and other construction items to
long-term project use. Approximately $9 million per year would be spent annually
on power, consumables, and lubricants during the long-term operation phase of the
mine. About $1 million will be spent annually on consumables during the long-term
operations phase of the power plant. Some materials used in construction of the
power plant, such as steel and copper, would be salvaged at the completion of the
plant's usefulness.
While fuels and energy will be consumed in both construction and
operation of the proposed power plant/mine project, the net result of the operation
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-3
EXISTING AND PROPOSED GENERATING UNITS
SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
Name
Arsenal Hill
Unit 5
Lieberman
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
"
-------
TABLE 2-3 (Concluded)
Name
Location
In Service
Canabilitv
Primarv Fuel
Henry V7. Pirkey
Unit 1
Hallsville, TX
1985
640 MW (net)
Lignite
Dolet Hills
Unit 1
Unit Z
Naborton, LA
1986
1988-1992
320 MW*
320 MW*
Lignite
Lignite
*50% Ownership.
2-7
-------
of these facilities will be a positive contribution to the nation's energy production
and will reduce dependence on foreign fuel resources. The annual amount of lignite
to be mined is equivalent to about 5.5 million barrels of crude oil or about
33.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. At 60 percent capacity factor, annual
electrical energy supplied by the proposed power plant will total approximately
3.4 million MWh.
2-8
-------
3.0 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION (SCREENING) OF ALTERNATIVES.
This chapter presents information relevant to availability of alternatives
and their relative merits for the proposed mine-mouth power plant, surface lignite
mine, and respective facilities, including no action alternative. Two classes of
power plant alternatives are considered: (1) those that could conceivably meet the
power demand without requiring the creation of new generating capacity and
(2) those that do require the creation of new generating capacity. Design and siting
options for the lignite-fired steam electric generating plant are also discussed, as
well as alternative transportive systems associated with a power plant (i.e.,
transmission line, makeup water pipeline, and railroad spur). Mine alternatives that
were evaluated included 1) mine layout, 2) lignite extraction methods, 3) lignite
transportation systems, and 4) reclamation methods.
3.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The no action alternative could be implemented by the permit applicants
of their own choice, or as a result of EPA's denial to issue NPDES permits for the
mine-mouth power plant and surface lignite mine as proposed (i.e., with a point
source water discharge requiring an EPA permit). Implementation of the no action
alternative would mean that the site preparation, construction, and operation of the
proposed project would not occur.
If the proposed power plant and mine facilities were not built, it is
anticipated that the South Hallsville Project area would remain a rural, agricul-
turally based environment. Agricultural activities within the project boundaries are
limited principally to cattle grazing. Most upland areas have been previously
exploited through intense row crop production. Today, these upland areas are
typified by eroded topsoils and volunteer growths of mixed pine-hardwood tree
stands. However, areas of relatively productive agricultural activities (e.g.,
3-1
-------
pastureland and cattle grazing) and wildlife habitat are encountered in the
floodplains of major project area streams and the Sabine River. —
Furthermore, the SPP is a regional reliability council member of the
Coordinated Bulk Power Supply Program of the U.S. These councils interconnect
utilities and coordinate the reliability and adequacy of future electric power. The
SPP requires that it's members maintain a 15 percent reserve in order to retain their
membership. At the current rate of growth, SWEPCO's reserve capability in 1985
will be less than that required by the SPP. Within the respective service areas,
demands for electrical power will have to be reduced or met by other means. If
service is reduced, future economic growth in the area could be affected. If not
reduced and the proposed project is not constructed, the increased power needs must
be supplied from a new power plant in another region or supplied by other utility
companies.
3.2 ALTERNATIVES NOT REQUIRING THE CREATION OF NEW
GENERATING CAPACITY
Four conceivable alternative means of serving the electric demand
considered, without creating new plant capacity, are listed below:
o energy conservation;
o the purchase of power;
o the reactivation or upgrading of older plants; and
o baseload operation of existing peaking facilities.
3.2.1 Energy Conservation
Recent energy conservation has caused some reduction in load demands
on SWEPCO's system, primarily by reducing the rate of growth; however, an upward
trend in demand has persisted for the past 15 years (see Table 2-1), and it is
3-2
-------
doubtful that energy conservation can offset the need for new generating facilities.
The effects of conservation practices are monitored carefully by SWEPCO so that
accurate demand forecasts can be assimilated. A Load Management Group is active
within the Company, looking into various possibilities of controlling load, i.e.,
interruptable customers, control of industrial and commercial load, or residential air
conditioners by way of some externally applied method. Tests are planned for 1982
on a selected group of the above. Conservation alone is not a feasible alternative to
meet future needs.
3.2.2 Purchased Power
The purchase of power to replace an equivalent of that to be produced by
the proposed facility would require the purchase of bulk power over an extended
period of time from a neighboring utility with whom major interconnecting ties
exist. Some of these utilities are already scheduled to purchase power from
SWEPCO in 1985, indicating they will be in need of powej and therefore will be
unable to provide power for sale. Most other utilities will not have sufficient excess
power to provide this type of sale. Additionally, if any bulk power were available
for sale in 1985, it would have to be committed now to assure reliable service in
1985. The alternative of waiting until such time as the system demand exceeds
system capability to purchase replacement power is unacceptable from a reliability
standpoint.
3.2.3 Reactivation or Upgrading of Older Plants
To date, all other power plants on the companies' systems use gas, fuel
oil, or western coal as boiler fuels. (SWEPCO is currently constructing a mine-
mouth power plant in northwestern Louisiana that is slated for completion in 1986.)
To modify existing oil- and gas-fired units so that they can burn coal would require
extensive boiler modifications and the purchase of adjacent lands to facilitate coal
storage, coal handling, pollution control, and ash disposal systems. In many cases,
3-3
-------
adjacent lands are not available at existing power plant sites. Most power plants
now operating on SWEPCO's system that use water for cooling do not have sufficient
water supply to support an additional large generating unit.
Reactivation of older generating units would result in the increased use
of gas or oil as fuel. Given the relatively higher cost of these fuels, the decreased
availability of these fuels, and the relatively poor power plant efficiency of the
older units, the cost of electric generation would increase substantially. Sufficient
supplies of these fuels are not available for reactivation of gas/oil fired units on a
long-term or high use factor basis. This would also be contrary to national fuel use
policy and goals.
3.2.4 Baseload Operation of Existing Peaking Facilities
SWEPCO's gas-fired units are being phased out as new coal and lignite
units are added to their systems. During 1980, for instance, 40 percent of
SWEPCO's fuel requirements were met by coal and some 59 percent by natural gas.
By 1985, when the proposed facility is to be added, only 25 percent of SWEPCO's
needed fuel is expected to be supplied by gas.
The older gas-fired units are being moved into peaking service requiring
fuel during the summer peak load months. Sufficient gas cannot be obtained from
suppliers for use in future baseload operation of these units. Even if gas or oil was
available in sufficient quantities, current estimates project the cost of gas to be two
to three times that of the lignite to be used at the proposed Henry W. Pirkey Power
Plant-Unit 1 and the cost of oil to be four times as much. For these reasons,
baseload operation of existing peaking units is impractical.
3.3 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES
A limited number of alternative energy sources are available to electric
utilities at the present time, and they are discussed next.
3-4
-------
3.3.1 Geothermal
Geothermal energy is the energy of hot or molten rock. Geothermal
electricity can be produced by drilling into a reservoir of steam so that the steam
can be brought to the surface, passed through insulated pipes to a power plant, and
run through a low-pressure steam turbine. Geothermal electricity can be very
cheap, but a geothermal plant releases two to three times as much wasted heat as a
plant burning fossil fuel, and about 75 percent more waste heat than a nuclear plant
of equivalent capacity.
Deposits of geothermal resources occur in the Texas Gulf Coastal
Region. However, these deposits are untapped in Texas and do not appear to be a
feasible alternative for meeting demands of the early 1980's.
3.3.2 Solar
Solar energy is widely available, immense in quantity, non-polluting, and
free for the taking. Use of solar power is being studied with increasing emphasis;
however, present technology has not yet developed a low-cost method of power
storage that can be coupled with solar units. For that reason, solar energy remains
an unsuitable source of large-scale baseload power.
3.3.3 Wind
The energy of the wind originates from the sun, making it an unlimited
energy source. The technology of windmills is well-developed; however, wind power
is intermittent and unreliable by nature. It is limited by geographical location and
its inability to supply large amounts of power for heavy industry. Electrical power
generation from wind has been demonstrated on a 1-MW scale, but cannot compete
economically with other sources on a 1,000-MW scale. These combined dis-
advantages make wind power an unsuitable source of baseload power.
3-5
-------
3.3.4 Coal and Petroleum Gasification
Efforts to demonstrate that coal and heavy petroleum products can be
gasified and that gas can be used as a boiler fuel have had some success. Nationally,
studies are in progress to determine if it is possible to backfit present gas-fired
boilers with alternative gas fuel sources, such as those derived from heavy
petroleum products and coal. However, since successful research is uncertain and
large scale technology is undemonstrated, this source is not a feasible alternative at
this time.
3.3.5 Natural Gas
Natural gas is a clean fuel, requires no storage bins or tanks, and can be
piped in as needed. It is burned in simple, inexpensive, almost maintenance-free
furnaces. For these reasons, gas is the most sought-after member of the petroleum
family for home and industrial heating and electric power generation. However,
natural gas supplies are dwindling, and the Federal government is urging industry to
convert its boiler units to fuels other than gas. The Fuel Act of 1978 restricts the
future use of natural gas as a boiler fuel for power generation. Additionally,
SWEPCO has found that, during recent efforts to secure continued supplies of gas
for existing boilers, gas suppliers cannot provide the large quantities of the fuel
necessary for power generation on a long-term basis. The gas that is available has
increased in cost to the point that it is no longer competitive with other fuels as a
boiler fuel.
3.3.6 Western Coal
Western coal is a low-sulfur, medium-Btu coal, which is available in
adequate supply and can be used as fuel in an environmentally acceptable manner.
Historically, it has been more economical to transport than lignite. Even though
lignite has considerably more bulk and is, therefore, even less economical to
3-6
-------
transport long distances, it is nevertheless looked upon as an economical alternative
when associated with a mine-mouth power plant such as the proposed power plant
facility. However, the ever-increasing cost associated with the handling and
long-distance transporting of western coal has compelled users to evaluate other
alternatives. In addition, the environmental impacts associated with mining in
western states may, in some cases, be more severe than in the Gulf Coast Region.
3.3.7 Nuclear
Nuclear power plants lack the kinds of air pollution associated with
burning conventional fuels. The amount of fuel required for nuclear plants is small,
and partial refueling is conducted only once or twice a year. Because of this,
transportation costs are small, making the cost of a nuclear plant practically
independent of its location. As such, it is a good fuel alternative. However, it does
not seem wise to depend solely on limited sources of fuel as was done in the past
with the use of gas and oil. Nuclear technology has come of age, yet is encumbered
by high capital costs, lengthy lead time for siting, threatened moratorium (licensing
uncertainties), escalating fuel costs, and lack of development of new fuel processing
and waste disposal facilities. For these reasons, nuclear fuels were not considered a
feasible choice for a power plant needed by 1985.
3.4 DESIGN AND SITING OPTIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED POWER PLANT, TRANSMISSION
LINES, WATER PIPELINE, AND RAILROAD FACILITIES
3.4.1 Alternative Power Plant Sites
Lignite is a relatively economical fuel source when it is used in
proximity to its point of extraction. Therefore, all potential power plant sites were
located within a ZO- mile radius of the South Hallsville lignite reserve. A potential
power plant site is defined as any area that meets preliminary site selection
3-7
-------
(engineering) considerations and is characterized by features that make the area
appear feasible for project development and hence, worthy of further investigation.
A two-phase study was conducted to identify potential power plant locations in the
area south of Hallsville, Texas (Sargent and Lundy, 1978a). Phase I was a search of
published and unpublished literature about the study area and determination of plant
requirements. Twelve possible sites (S-l through S-12, Fig. 3-1) were identified
based on the following criteria generated in this phase:
o proximity to the lignite field,
o extra storage capacity to provide a sufficient supply of cooling
water in the event of a 1-year drought, and
o requirement of cooling towers for a potential second unit.
Phase n of the site selection study was evaluation and comparison of the
12 sites, based on environmental and engineering considerations, to choose the
optimum location for the plant. These 12 sites were assessed for the following
during preliminary screening: suitability of topography for a power plant and
cooling reservoir; geotechnical suitability, including an assessment of surface and
subsurface geology, ground-water levels, seepage potential, foundation conditions
for plant and dam, and seismology; and impact on such existing features as
population centers, airports, cemeteries, pipelines, transmission lines, highways,
railroads, and mineral extraction areas.
Three sites (S-8, S-10, and S-ll) were eliminated in the preliminary
screening, either because of interference with Interstate Highway 20 (1-20), or
because the proposed cooling reservoir would overlie economically recoverable
lignite deposits. Seven more sites were excluded in further screening procedures
(e.g., additional map studies, literature review, and field reconnaissance of engi-
neering conditions).
3-8
-------
FUTURE MILL
CREEK POWER
PLANT AREA
A R T! N LAKE
POWER PLANT
PREFE.RRED SITE
SITES EX CLUOED
AFTER SITE VISITS
SITES EXCLUDED
BEFORE SITE VISITS
Source: Sargent & Lundy (1978a)
Fig. 3-1 Hallsville Area Site Selection Study Location Map.
3-9
-------
The two remaining sites (S-l and S-Z) were considered in a study
designed to evaluate comparatively the different development considerations at
each site. Site development schemes were prepared and earthwork quantities
estimated for both sites. Two preliminary exploratory borings were made in the
proposed dike foundation area of Site S-2 to confirm the existence of suspected
highly permeable and, therefore, unsuitable foundation conditions. These borings
indicated that the proposed dike and cooling reservoir areas were underlain by up to
40 feet of moderately to highly permeable sand and gravels. Because of this
permeability, seepage beneath the dike and through the reservoir bottom could be
excessive and corrective measures too costly. Also, Texas Eastman had already
acquired water rights to Mason Creek, and a contract had been let for constructing
a cooling reservoir that would partially overlap the pond proposed for the S-2 site,
so this site was eliminated from consideration.
Additional activities were performed to establish site development
requirements and plant operating parameters conclusively before final determina-
tion of site location. Within the framework of the comparative screening metho-
dology used in Phase n of the study, Site S-l was the preferred site in the study
area. Advantages include proximity to, but nonencroachment on, economically
recoverable lignite deposits, a pond configuration resulting in an efficient water
circulation pattern, and minimal impact on existing land uses. In addition, this site
provides suitable foundation conditions for the plant and an earth-fill dam.
Favorable atmospheric dispersion characteristics are enhanced by the rolling terrain
and remoteness from other major emission sources, with the exception of the Martin
Lake Power Plant located 15 miles away. Disadvantages of the site include the
need to construct a railroad spur of up to 13 miles long; the apparent inability of the
cooling reservoir to support more than one unit for cooling purposes, if makeup
water to the pond is not available for a period of 1 year; the need to provide saddle
dikes in order to contain the pond at flood elevations; and the probable need to
provide some way to seal portions of the pond perimeter, under the dam, and on
abutments to prevent possible seepage problems.
3-10
-------
3.4.2 Alternative Electric Generating Station Designs
3.4.2.1 Cooling System Alternatives
The cooling system will remove excess or "waste" heat contained in the
steam passing through the condenser. "Spent" or "exhausted" steam (i.e., steam at a
temperature and pressure at which it cannot readily accomplish additional work) is
condensed into boiler feedwater by the circulating water system and returned to the
boiler, where it is again converted to useful steam. The waste heat of the "spent"
steam is thus transferred to the circulating water and must be removed before this
cooling water can be used again.
Seven alternative cooling systems to remove waste heat from circulating
water were considered: cooling reservoirs, spray canals, dry cooling towers, wet
natural draft towers, wet mechanical draft towers, wet-dry towers, and a. once-
through system on Lake O1 The Pines or the Sabine River. The cooling reservoir
scheme was chosen for the proposed plant for reasons elucidated in the following
subsections.
Spray Canals
In spray canals, heat dissipation is accomplished by evaporation,
convection, and radiation. The evaporative process occurs when the heated
circulating water is exposed to cooler air and is enhanced by continuously running
this water through the nozzles of spray modules. The resultant aerosol offers
increased surface area at a greater relative velocity for faster evaporation.
Water drift produced by spray modules could create ground fog under
appropriate weather conditions. The poor thermal performance and low cooling
efficiency of the spray module system, along with the high operating and mainte-
nance costs, diminish overall plant efficiency and make this a costly alternative
3-11
-------
cooling system. For these reasons, and because of limited operational success, the
spray canal system was eliminated from consideration.
Dry Cooling Towers
In dry cooling towers, heated cooling water from the plant's condensers
is pumped through banks of finned-tube heat exchangers. Fans force air past the
heated finned tubing and out of the tower, where the heat is dissipated by
conduction and convection to the ambient air. This totally closed system does not
depend on water evaporation for cooling. Since the heated water is never in direct
contact with the air, no evaporation or drift is lost and no makeup or blowdown is
required.
A very large cooling tower is needed to provide sufficient surface area
for heat transfer. Initial expenditures are great, and the high plant auxiliary power
requirements, due to the large number of fans needed for efficient operation, are
extremely costly. These considerations make dry cooling towers infeasible as an
alternative cooling system.
Wet Natural Draft Cooling Towers
Natural upward drafts through this type of tower are created as a result
of differences in density of the warmed air inside the tower and the cooler air
outside. Outside air, drawn in by the upward drafts, contacts the circulating water,
which is pumped to the fill elevation of the tower and allowed to fall. Mechanical
draft towers, therefore, need only be 50 to 60 feet high, much lower than those
using natural drafts. Like the spray canal, this type of tower can produce ground
fog under appropriate meteorological conditions. Evaporation pond capacity would
also be required to accomodate the cooling tower blowdown and prevent water
quality deterioration in nearby streams.
3-12
-------
Wet-Dry Cooling Towers
Dry and evaporative methods of cooling are combined in wet-dry cooling
towers. The par all el-path-type tower operates as follows: Ambient air is drawn in
parallel paths through a dry finned-tube heat exchanger system. The dry heat
exchanger system minimizes the potential for ground-level fogging and icing during
the winter months. The air leaves this section at a high dry bulb temperature and
low relative humidity and then mixes with the air leaving the wet evaporative
cooling section. This mixed air is emitted from the tower in a warm, unsaturated
condition, which reduces the plume and the potential for ground-level fogging and
icing. The reduced evaporation from the tower resulting from a reduced plume
permits a commensurate reduction in the amount of makeup water required.
The performance advantages of the wet-dry tower are best utilized when
the power plant is operating at a high load factor during, cold weather. However,
since peak electrical demand generally occurs during hot weather in the SWEPCO
service area, the benefits of this cooling system are not applicable to the proposed
power plant. Also, an evaporation pond for the cooling tower blowdown would be
necessary to safeguard water quality in area streams.
Wet Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers
The same principle of heat transfer as in wet natural draft towers is used
in wet mechanical draft cooling towers, but instead of depending on the "natural
draft" process, they employ an "induced draft" created by motor-driven fans. The
balance between relatively small tower height and the use of motor-driven fans
proved to be the most economical of the cooling tower alternatives. The lower
tower height also reduces local aesthetic impacts resulting from the presence of the
plant. Like the spray canal, this type of tower can produce ground fog under
appropriate meteological conditions. A makeup water pond is needed for this type
of facility.
3-13
-------
Once-through Cooling System
Once-through cooling was formerly the most commonly used means of
eliminating waste heat from power plants. Proximity to a sufficiently large and
stable source of water is requisite for efficient operation. This method consists of
pumping water from the water source to the plant, where this water absorbs waste
heat in a condenser and then is discharge back into the water source.
Lake O' The Pines is not considered close enough to the proposed plant
for efficient use of once-through cooling. When considering the Sabine River, the
plant would have to be shut down during periods of minimum flow as sufficient
cooling water would not be available. Moreover, Federal and State effluent
temperature requirements could be very difficult or impossible to satisfy.
Cooling Reservoir
The cooling reservoir is a closed-cycle, recirculating system. Cooling
water is discharged to the pond from the condensers, recirculated through the
reservoir for cooling, and again withdrawn from the reservoir. This cyclical flow
pattern induces artificial currents that permit a long retention time in the reservoir
for heated water, allowing it to cool enough (through evaporation, conduction and
radiation) to be reused in the condenser. Natural runoff and spillage from the
cooling reservoir are usually of sufficient volume and frequency to prevent
development of abnormally high TDS (total dissolved solids) concentrations in the
cooling reservoir.
The cooling reservoir was selected as the optimal cooling system due to
the availability of land for a pond site and the lower cost as compared to a cooling
tower system that requires expensive fans to be purchased and operated. This fact,
along with other system features discussed in the following sections, establishes the
cooling reservoir as the optimal cooling system for the Henry W. Pirkey Power
3-14
-------
Plant - Unit 1. The cooling reservoir will be formed by constructing a dam across
Brandy Branch.
3.4.2.Z Biological Control Alternatives
Organic-Based Microbiocides
Chemicals such as chlorophenols, amines, mercurials, copper salts, and
acrolein can also be effective in controlling algae and slime in cooling systems.
However, most are less degradable, more toxic, and more expensive than chlorine
and would be needed in large dosages. As no real advantage could be derived from
their use, the organic-based biocides were rejected as agents to control biological
deposits.
Ozonation
The introduction of ozone (O_) into water for biocidal purposes is
presently used to a limited extent in the tertiary treatment of municipal waste-
water. Ozonation is also employed in industrial waste treatment for oxidation of
phenolic wastes, destruction of cyanide wastes, decomposition of organic wastes,
purification of wastewater from coke plants, and other special applications. Its
operational cost, however, is prohibitively high, compared with traditional chlorina-
tion. Capital investment for an ozonation plant would be two to three times higher
than a comparable chlorination installation, and as present equipment for producing
ozone is very inefficient (conversion efficiencies are only about 10 to 14 percent),
operating costs would run three to four times higher. Thus, ozonation was not
considered a feasible alternative to chlorination for largely economic reasons.
Mechanical Cleaning
The design of the service water system makes mechanical means of
preventing biofouling impractical except in the main condenser. If a mechanical
3-15
-------
cleaning system were used in the main condenser, a separate chlorine injection
system would be needed to protect the service water system. Due to these
considerations, as well as the much greater capital and operating expenses of the
mechanical cleaning system, chlorination was determined the superior method.
Chlorination
Periodic chlorination will be used at the proposed power plant to control
biological deposits on the heat-transfer and other surfaces in the circulating and
service water systems. Chlorine was selected as the biocide because of its proven
effectiveness in a long history of use, its relatively short breakdown time, and its
low cost. Alternative control methods considered were organic-based micro-
biocides, ozonation, and mechanical cleaning.
3.4.2.3 Air Pollution Control System Alternatives
Stack Emission Control Systems
Particulates
Alternative particulate removal systems considered were "cold-side" and
"hot-side" electrostatic precipitators, mechanical collectors, fabric filters, and
Venturi scrubbers.
An electrostatic precipitator on the downstream side of the boiler air
heaters ("cold-side" installation) was chosen for removing fly ash from the flue gas.
The electrostatic precipitator will remove particulate matter by charging the
particles in the flue gas stream with an electrical current and collecting the charged
fly ash particles on surfaces having an opposite charge. Periodically, the collecting
surfaces will be rapped, causing the particles to fall into collection hoppers below.
3-16
-------
A "hot-side" precipitator works in much the same manner as a "cold-
side" precipitator, except it is located upstream of the air heaters. For low-sulfur,
sub-bituminous coal, a "hot-side" precipitator may be used to take advantage of
lower fly ash resistivities that usually exist at higher flue gas temperatures. For
lignites, however, ash resistivity usually does not decrease with increasing flue gas
temperatures. Therefore, a "hot-side" precipitator would not perform as well as a
"cold-side" unit and would have to be much larger physically to handle the larger
volumetric flue-gas flow at the higher temperature.
One mechanical means to remove fly ash from flue gases is by filtering
through porous fabrics. The performance of these fabric filters has not been
reliably demonstrated for fossil-fuel-fired power plants for extended operating
periods. Basic equipment in a filterhouse (baghouse) includes cylindrical fabric bags
that are supported top and bottom within a housing structure. The flue gases enter
from one end and are moved through the filter by either suction or propulsion.
Particles suspended in the gas stream adhere to the filter medium and are thus
removed from the gas stream. When dust buildup on the filter surface becomes
excessive, the unit is cleaned by one of the following methods: reverse flow
(backwash); shaking, rapping, or vibrating the filter element; complete or partial
collapse of the filter elements; or a combination of these methods.
The major disadvantage of fabric filters is the necessity for frequent
maintenance and repair due to short bag life (1- or Z-year guarantee) and sensitivity
to acid dew point variations. Filterhouse and other mechanical dust collectors do
not provide the particulate removal efficiency required to meet particulate and
opacity emission limitations. Their performance has, to date, not been reliably
demonstrated on large-scale utility power plants.
The use of Venturi scrubbers for particulate removal would require more
fan power than any of the above alternatives. Also, wet scrubbers would be very
susceptible to premature failure from wear and to plugging due to the abrasive
3-17
-------
nature of lignitic fly ash. The fly ash/water waste resulting from this process would
create an additional disposal problem.
Precipitator performance will depend on the physical and chemical
properties of the flue gas and of the collected fly ash particles.
Sulfur Dioxide (SC>2)
Alternatives to the chosen limestone system considered were fuel
mixing, fluidized-bed combustion, recovery FGD (flue gas desulfurization) systems,
lime/alkaline fly ash FGD system, lime FGD, double alkali FGD, the spray-dryer
type SO,-removal system, and fuel benefaction. Other methods for removing sulfur
Li
from the fuel prior to combustion, such as liquefaction or gasification, are not
technologically or economically feasible at this time for power-plant-sized instal-
lations and, therefore, were not considered.
Sulfur emissions can be controlled by mixing the fuel before combustion
to ensure that the fuel burned will be the average analysis fuel (a fuel mixture with
an averaged sulfur content). This control strategy was not selected because it alone
is not sufficient to meet the necessary removal efficiency requirement for the
project, since only one fuel source is currently being considered for use.
Sulfur dioxide can be captured during the combustion process in a
fluidized-bed boiler. Fluidized-bed combustion systems, however, are still under
development and are not commercially available for large-scale utility application.
They were, therefore, not selected.
Recovery FGD systems produce a marketable product, usually elemental
sulfur or sulfuric acid, from the SO2 collected from the flue gas. Many types of
systems are being developed, but operating experience on the two types of recovery
systems commercially available (the Wellman-Lord Process (W-LJ and the MgO
3-18
-------
Alkaline Process) is limited. There is only one full-scale (115 megawatt) WL Process
currently operating on a coal-fired utility boiler in the United States, although there
is additional experience on oil-fired industrial boilers. There is only one partial MgO
system (about 40 megawatts) currently installed on a coal-fired utility boiler in the
United States, and operation has been brief. There has been additional experience
with the MgO system on coal- and oil-fired utility boilers, but these systems have
been dismantled.
Although recovery FGD systems appeared to hold some promise for
future applications, there are at present only two systems operating in the United
States. The economic practicality of a recovery system depends on the quality of
sulfur produced by a regeneration facility, which may or may not be owned by the
utility and located on the site. The purity, amount, and local demand would
determine the credit to the utility for the sale of the product. As a result of these
considerations, recovery flue gas desulfurization systems were not selected.
Another technically feasible FGD system is the lime/alkaline fly ash
system. This design, however, has not been demonstrated to be capable of SO_
removal efficiencies greater than 65 percent, so that it would meet the SO_ removal
efficiency required to comply with the applicable NSPS limitations.
Of the throwaway-type flue gas desulfurization systems commercially
available, lime and limestone scrubber systems are the most technically advanced,
based on operating experience and system availability. One additional throwaway
scrubber system is the double alkali process, which may have some advantages over
lime/limestone systems. Lime and limestone systems have been demonstrated on
commercial installations similar to the proposed lignite-fired units. Double alkali
systems are promising, and the chemistry has been demonstrated at a prototype
system. All of the aforementioned throwaway systems operate in a similar fashion
but use different reactants for SO9 removal.
u
3-19
-------
The major advantages of a limestone system over lime and double alkali
systems are a lower reactant cost and the general availability of limestone in the
quantities required. Although a limestone system consumes more power than a lime
system, it is less energy intensive since substantial fuel is required to produce limes.
The spray- dryer- type SO- removal system is still in the developmental
u
stage, with only two pilot plants planned and no full-size commercial units yet on
order. The spray-dryer-type system uses a fabric filter to collect SO- and
participate matter from the flue gas stream. As mentioned before, the fabric-filter
particulate collector is still in the developmental stage.
A variation of the spray-dryer, utilizing air atomization and SO^
particulate matter collection by .electrostatic precipitator, is also still in the
developmental phase and has not yet been demonstrated to be suitable for full-size
power plant applications.
Washing the fuel before combustion to remove sulfur and ash (bene-
faction) was not considered practical due to the amount of water required, the
resulting water disposal problem, and the loss in fuel-handling capability resulting
from wet lignite.
The proposed system for SO? removal from the flue gas stream is a wet
LJ
limestone absorption FGD system. The flue-gas desulfurization system will consist
of several parallel vessels called "scrubbers" or "absorbers" that mix the SO,, -laden
Lj
flue gas with a limestone slurry. In the scrubber, SO- will react chemically with
water and limestone to form a precipitate in the limestone slurry removed by
blowing down. The SO,, in the flue gas will be converted to a sulfate (SO,) in the
precipitate and will be removed from the system as a waste in the blowdown stream.
The limestone slurry will be circulated through the absorbers continuously. Inside
the absorbers, the limestone slurry will be sprayed into the flue gas stream and will
be further dispersed by layers of packing to ensure close contact with the flue gas so
the chemical reaction can take place.
3-20
-------
Nitrogen Oxides (NO )
X
NO emissions will be controlled by burner design, burner arrangement,
X
and furnace design. The only other methods of controlling NO considered were
X
different forms of boiler design, such as flue gas recirculation and staged combus-
tion, which were offered by various boiler manufacturers during the plant predesign-
ing phase. NO scrubbing was not considered because this method is not yet
commercially available. Various boiler operating modes, such as low excess air
firing, reduced air preheating, and reduced load operation, were also not considered
as these are not positive means of controlling NO , but preventative measures that
rely on "off-design" operating to reduce NO emissions.
X
Boiler furnace design and arrangement of burners will be coordinated to
increase the burner-zone cooling surface, reducing the burner-zone heat release
rate and flame temperature to minimize NO formation. The boiler will be
X
equipped with dual-register circular burners that utilize an inner and outer burner
register. Initial burning of the fuel will occur near the burner in a fuel-rich
atmosphere. The balance of the secondary air will be introduced through the outer
register. This additional air will complete combustion and will maintain an oxidizing
atmosphere near the furnace walls, resulting in lower NO formation.
Flue gas recirculation inhibits NO formation by reducing combustion
X
temperature and oxygen concentration in the burner zone. Flue gas recirculation
requires additional ductwork, dust collection equipment, and gas recirculation fans.
These fans are often very troublesome because they must handle a flue gas laden
with sintered fly ash, which can cause premature fan erosion. Additionally, the fly
ash collected in the mechanical separators must be disposed of, which requires more
fly-ash removal equipment. Although some fly ash can be removed using flue gas
recirculation, no credit can be taken in the sizing specifications for the main
particulate collection equipment.
3-21
-------
Staged combustion also inhibits NO formation by reducing burner-zone
combustion temperature and oxygen concentration. In staged combustion, an
insufficient quantity of air is admitted with the fuel at the burners. This reduces
available burner-zone oxygen and causes a lower combustion temperature, thereby
reducing NO formation. Additional air is added through excess air ports at the top
of the burner zone to assure complete fuel combustion.
Fly Ash Removal
Alternative fly-ash removal systems considered were the vacuum-type
removal system and the pressurized, pneumatic-type removal system.
In the vacuum-type removal system, air under slightly negative pressure
is used to draw the fly ash through the pipeline conveyor. The motive force
(vacuum) is supplied by vacuum-producing equipment that requires large quantities
of water. Some water and fly ash get mixed, no matter how stringent the methods
used to keep them separated. The ash/water mixture creates another disposal
problem. The capacity of the vacuum-type system also is limited because the
amount of vacuum produced is limited. With lignite, a lot of fly ash occurs, which
will require many parallel vacuum systems to meet removal capacity requirements.
Operating facilities using this type of system have experienced considerable
operational and maintenance difficulties.
An alternative vacuum-type system considered was to produce a vacuum
by using mechanical vacuum pumps. However, small amounts of fly ash still manage
to reach the vacuum pumps and cause mechanical problems. Also, the capacity of
the system is limited by the amount of vacuum produced.
Fly ash collected in the electrostatic precipitators will be removed from
the precipitator hoppers by a pressurized, pneumatic-type removal system. The
pressurized removal system will essentially use air under positive pressure to blow
3-22
-------
the fly ash through a conveying pipeline to the fly ash storage silo. The motive
force (pressurized air) will be supplied by rotary blowers. Once in the storage silo,
fly ash will be removed for blending with waste sludge from the SO- removal
system.
Use of Tall Chimneys for Pollutant Dispersion
The electric power industry has, in many instances, employed the tall
chimney in an attempt to maintain reasonable ground-level air quality in the
vicinity of power-generating stations. Debate is active, however, both nationally
and internationally, regarding the effectiveness of these chimneys in overall
pollution management.
An EPA-supported research program conducted to determine the local
area! extent and effects of power plant emissions from tail chimneys found that tall
chimneys serve to reduce and, in some cases, eliminate the significant ground-level
pollutant concentrations that occur when using short chimneys (Schiemeir, 1972).
Since the ambient concentration of pollutants is the primary control
criterion, the effective height of emission is a very important parameter. The
height of emission is determined by two additive factors, the height of the chimney
and the height of plume rise due to buoyancy and momentum. The plume will
continue to rise as long as the flue gas temperature exceeds that of the ambient air.
The thermal rise achieved by particular emission rates and reduction of
ground-level concentrations in specific cases have been subjects of controversy. It
is clear, however, that increased chimney height and thermal rise will result in
lower ground-level ambient effluent concentrations. Notable benefits derived from
the use of tall chimneys include the following:
3-23
-------
(1) A tall chimney located in open, uncomplicated terrain will signifi-
cantly reduce local ground-level concentrations of gases and small
particles, compared to release of the same emission at a lower
level.
(2) A tall chimney can effectively remove a plume from special
localized wind circulation patterns, such as aerodynamic down-
wash, that tend to return pollutants to ground level in higher than
normal concentrations.
(3) A tall chimney of the proposed height of 525 feet could emit a
plume in an inversion that, because of its height, would dispense at
greater distances and result in lower ground concentrations at
point of impact.
EPA now has regulations limiting theoretical stack heights; SWEPCO will comply
with these requirements and achieve dispersion under air quality criteria. The
proposed stack meets the tall stack guidelines for credit given during modeling
emissions.
3.4.2.4 Waste Treatment Systems Alternatives
Sanitary Waste Disposal Systems
Three sanitary waste systems were considered for the proposed Henry W.
Pirkey Unit-1 Power Plant Project: 1) existing sewage treatment plant; 2) septic
tank; and 3) packaged plant.
Existing Sewage Treatment Plant
The sewage treatment plant nearest the proposed power plant site is
located in Longview, approximately 10 miles to the northwest. Piping sewage this
distance would be unacceptably costly, so this method of disposal was eliminated
from consideration.
3-24
-------
Septic Tank
A relatively large volume of sewage will be generated during both
construction and operation of the plant. Although small-volume (residential) septic
tank systems may be feasible given the soil conditions in the site area, the
permanent ground-water level would affect the disposal of large volumes of wastes,
resulting in adverse environmental effects. On these grounds, this waste disposal
technique was deemed unsuitable.
Packaged Plant
A packaged extended aeration unit with secondary treatment and chlori-
nation is the sanitary waste disposal system chosen for use at the proposed Henry W.
Pirkey Power Plant-Unit 1. The permanent sanitary waste system will discharge to
the ash pond system. An effluent discharge permit application has been completed
and forwarded to TDWR. (Impacts are discussed in Sec. 4.2.2.4). Maintenance and
operations of this system will be performed by SWEPCO.
3.4.2.5 Wastewater Handling Alternatives
SO? Removal System/Sludge-Treatment System Drains
Rainwater runoff, housekeeping drains, equipment drains, and system
emergency bleeds from the SO., removal system and from the sludge treatment
facility will all be collected and routed to a "surge" pond, an impervious holding
basin, and allowed to settle. From the surge pond, the decanted water will be
pumped back to the SO- removal system as makeup, or processed through the
wastewater treatment system. Sedimentation will be removed from the pond
periodically and conveyed to the sludge-treatment system, where it will be
processed like SO- removal system waste slurry. If the drains or bleeds contain a
large percentage of solids, they will be routed to an "auxiliary surge" pond, where
3-25
-------
they will be allowed to further thicken by evaporation. This thickened material will
be removed from the pond and processed through the sludge-treatment system. Any
water decanted from the contents of the auxiliary surge pond will overflow into the
surge pond and will be returned to the SO- removal system as makeup. There will
be no discharge of SO-, removal system contaminated water.
Boiler Slowdown
Boiler blowdown will be routed to the bottom ash basin and mixed with
the ash sluice water. The quality of the boiler blowdown water will be good
compared with other plant waste streams, including the bottom-ash basin blowdown.
Alternatives considered were (1) using the blowdown as makeup to the unit's
demineralizer and (2) treating the blowdown in the wastewater treatment system.
Using blowdown as demineralizer makeup would require large storage tanks to store
and cool the blowdown until the need for demineralized water developed and the
demineralizer began to operate. This method was less economical than routing the
blowdown to the ash basins. Routing the boiler blowdown to an equalization basin
and treating it in the wastewater treatment system was also considered. This is
discussed in the section on bottom ash blowdown.
Demineralizer Wastes
Demineralizer regenerant wastes, pretreatment system clarifier blow-
down, and general water-treating area chemical drains will be routed to a chemical
sump, then pumped to the surge pond and finally travel to the wastewater treatment
system or the reclaim sump for use as plant water makeup. The acidic constituents
of these wastes will be neutralized by the alkaline constituents of the demineralizer
wastes. The only alternative considered was routing the demineralizer wastes to the
ash basin wastewater treatment system.
3-26
-------
Metal Cleaning Wastes
Waste generated during chemical cleaning of the boiler (performed once
every several years) may be routed to the metal cleaning waste pond. If discharge is
necessary, this waste will then be routed through the wastewater treatment system.
Disposal in the bottom ash basin was considered, but regulatory requirements
preclude this alternative without prior treatment for removal of dissolved metals.
Ash Hopper Overflow
Excess water added to the ash hopper for cooling, flushing, and sealing
will overflow into the ash hopper pit sump. From there, the water will be pumped to
the bottom ash basin and mixed with the ash sluice water.
Bottom Ash Slowdown
In addition to bottom ash sluice water, boiler blowdown and ash hopper
overflow will be routed to the bottom ash basin.
In the ash basin, these wastes will mix with the ash system sluice water.
In some cases, the chemical composition of the various waste streams will tend to
neutralize the bottom ash water, but usually not to any marked degree.
In addition to adding liquid volume to the basins, the wastes will cause an
increased concentration of dissolved solids. To regulate volume and to help control
solids buildup, a blowdown stream from the bottom ash basins will be used. This
blowdown stream will be routed to either the SO_-removal system, where it will
serve as makeup for the scrubber, or to the wastewater treatment system, where it
will be treated (if the SO_-removal system is inoperative).
3-Z7
-------
Bottom ash will not contain any trace metals that would result in a
discharge in excess of any water quality standards, criteria, or limitations. Bottom
ash system blowdown will be discharged to the cooling system reservoir.
Lignite Pile Runoff
Runoff water and sump discharges from all the lignite storage pile and
handling facilities will be collected and routed to the lignite-pile runoff basin.
Here, the water will be allowed to settle. The lignite pile runoff water will be
subject to regulation under applicable sections of 40 CFR 423. These standards of
performance require that the pH of the effluent be within the range of 6.0 to 9-0
and the TSP be less than 50 mg/1. If the pH and suspended solids are within
acceptable limits, the water will be discharged. If additional treatment is required,
the water will be routed to the wastewater treatment system.
Wastewater Treatment System Effluent
The wastewater treatment system effluent will be routed back to the
cooling reservoir. The only alternative would have been to pump this water to the
Sabine River. This is not considered necessary at this time.
Wastewater Treatment System Drains
Wastewater treatment system clarifier blowdown, equipment drains,
equipment overflows, and system recycle flows will be routed to the previously
mentioned "surge" pond. There, the wastes will settle and the decanted water will
be pumped back to the SO- removal system as makeup.
3-28
-------
Low-Volume Wastes
The following miscellaneous plant drains, not requiring treatment, will
be routed directly to the cooling reservoir: roof drains, storm drains, electrical
manhole sump pump discharges, demineralized water storage tank drains, and
uncontaminated plant runoff.
Miscellaneous plant drains will be routed to the cooling reservoir through
a drain collector pit (with oil separator) because (1) they may contain trace amounts
of oil in case of accidental spillage or, (2) routing will be easier to the collector pit
than directly to the cooling reservoir because of source location. These plant drains
are as follows: fuel oil pump drains, turbine oil room drains, transformer drains,
turbine oil tank drains, water treatment building drains (clean), pretreatment drains
(clean), and filtered water tank drains.
Cooler Drains
Service water used in various plant equipment coolers will be collected
in a common header and returned to the plant's circulating water system. From
there, the water will go to the cooling reservoir. Before being discharged into the
circulating water system, the equipment cooler drains will be monitored.
Service-Water Strainer Backwash
Backwash from the service-water strainer will be routed to the plant's
circulating water system and, from there, to the cooling reservoir. In the cooling
reservoir, the suspended solids in the backwash water will settle out.
An alternative method would have been to collect the backwash in a
low-volume equilization basin and then route the volume through the wastewater
treatment system at a regulated flow. Since the only unacceptable constituent in
3-29
-------
the backwash water would be suspended solids, originally from the cooling reservoir,
and since the cooling reservoir would provide a much longer retention time for
settling, little justification would exist for routing these drains to the wastewater
treatment system, which would have increased the system size.
Ash and Scrubber Sludge Handling and Storage
Bottom Ash Handling
One alternative considered for handling bottom ash was identical to the
method selected, except that it used dewatering bins. In this method, the ash
sluiced from the bottom ash hopper would be directed to these dewatering bins.
Here, the water would be drained off and stored in a holding pond and pumped back
to the plant to be reused in the sluicing operation. The dewatered ash would be
trucked to the ash basin for storage and eventually sold off-site, disposed of, or used
on-site. This system was not considered economically feasible due to the high cost
of extra equipment and the additional holding pond required.
Another alternative considered was the drag-link, wet-ash extractor
system, where a drag-link conveyor removes the bottom ash from a shallow ash
hopper beneath the boiler continuously. Once removed, this ash would be trucked,
sluiced, or conveyed to bottom ash basins for storage. This system was not
considered economically feasible, nor readily available from domestic suppliers.
Bottom ash produced by the boiler will be collected in a bottom ash
hopper under the boiler and hydraulically sluiced to one of two bottom ash basins
periodically. The sluice water will be decanted and pumped back to the plant to be
used again in the sluicing operation. Bottom ash will be sluiced approximately
3 hours during every 8-hour shift. Bottom ash will be stored in the ash basins.
Periodically, the basins will be drained and the bottom ash will be removed and sold
for use off-site, disposed of, or used on-site. Two basins would be provided so that
one can be cleaned while the other is in use.
3-30
-------
Economizer Ash Handling
Large particles of fly ash will be collected in the economizer hoppers
under the boiler rear pass. As the fly ash settles out in the hoppers, it will be
removed by gravity and stored in two dry volume storage tanks. Periodically, the
ash will be removed from the two storage tanks by a pneumatic-type, vacuum
pipeline transporting system and will be conveyed to an air separator. The
transported air will be separated from the ash/water mixture produced by the
vacuum equipment. This clean air will be discharged. The ash/water slurry will
flow to the bottom ash basins through the bottom ash hopper discharge lines. In the
basin, the water will be decanted off and returned to the plant for reuse in the
sluicing process.
The only alternative to this method considered was to store this ash in
two water-impounded storage tanks and to use jet pumps to sluice the stored water
and ash to the ash basins. Because this ash could possibly plug and solidify when
stored wet, this alternative was rejected.
SO- Removal System Sludge Handling
Lj
Landfill — Waste slurry blowdown from the SO- removal system will be
dewatered, blended with fly ash from the storage silo, and trucked to an on-site
landfill for disposal. Dewatering of the SO_ removal system waste slurry will be
u
accomplished by passing the slurry through parallel thickeners and then through
parallel rotary-drum vacuum filters. Water decanted from the sludge will be
returned to the SO., removal system as makeup. If the SO., removal system is not
L u
operating, but sludge is still being dewatered, the water will be sent to the plant
waste water treatment system.
From the vacuum filters, the dewatered sludge will be conveyed to
mixers where fly ash from the storage silo will be blended with the sludge. From
3-31
-------
the mixers, the dry sludge will be conveyed to a truck load-out area, where it will
be loaded into trucks and transported to the landfill site for disposal.
A lime additive system will be included in the sludge treatment facility
to provide the capability of producing higher-strength dry sludge for lining the
disposal area. The system includes 100 percent redundancy so that any piece of
system equipment can fail without reducing the system's capacity.
The proposed landfill(s) will be designated tract(s) of land owned by
SWEPCO. A total volume of 15,517 acre-feet is required for the life of the project
(24 years). The area(s) will be divided into landfill cells. Topsoil will be excavated
from the landfill cell site. Fixed ash will be placed in the cell as a lining base, if
required. The area will be filled to an appropriate depth and a cap of fixed waste
placed on top. The landfill cells will then be covered with topsoil and vegetated.
Sediment ponds will be required to receive and treat runoff during the landfill
operation. The completed landfill waste will be isolated from ground-water and
surface water systems (see Sec. 4.2.2A). Surface water treatment during the
landfill operation may be required.
Return to Mine — For this alternative the waste would be returned to
the valleys between spoil ridges in a fixed state for disposal prior to spoil grading.
The operational feasibility of this alternative in all weather conditions is uncertain.
The potential for the development of hazardous leachate from the fixed ash wastes
is unknown and will require further research under field conditions. There also exist
liabilities associated with this disposal method if these wastes are declared to be
hazardous by State or Federal environmental regulatory agencies. The EPA has
temporarily determined these wastes to be non-hazardous. However, this is
currently undergoing study, and a determination will be made at a future time.
Reclamation — There is a possibility that the ash/sludge waste could be
used as a soil amendment (substitute for lime) during reclamation in the adjacent
3-32
-------
lignite mine. The potential for this utilization of the waste will require considerable
feasibility research. The major advantage of this scheme, if practical, is that it
would provide for a final disposal of the waste and at the same time reduce the cost
of reclamation.
Mill Rejects — Pyrites and tramp metal incapable of being ground by the
boiler pulverizers (mills) will be rejected by the pulverizers and collected in
individual hoppers located on each pulverizer. Periodically, rejects will be sluiced
hydraulically to a common pyrite storage tank. Pyrites will be removed from this
tank from time to time and hydraulically sluiced to the bottom ash basins. As with
bottom ash, the sluice water will be decanted to the basin and returned to the plant
to be used again in the sluicing operation.
One alternative considered was to dump the mill rejects on the boiler
room floor and remove them manually. The rejects would then be trucked to a
disposal site. This method was rejected because it would create housekeeping
problems.
Another alternative considered was to sluice the rejects from each
individual pulverizer hopper to the bottom ash hopper. The mill rejects would then
be sluiced to the bottom ash basin simultaneously with the bottom ash. This method
was not used because introduction of pyrites into the bottom ash hopper could cause
water to splash on the hot tubes forming the floor of the boiler furnace.
3.4.3 Alternative Transmission Facilities
In order to tie the Pirkey Power Plant into its bulk transmission system,
SWEPCO evaluated several transmission alternatives. One alternative considered
was to build a 345 kV line to Shreveport and a. 345 kV line to the Knox Lee Power
Plant. The.other alternative was to rebuild and tie into the 138 kV lines that exist
in the plant area. The alternative of building 345 kV lines was rejected because of
3-33
-------
the higher cost as compared to the rebuilding of the 138 kV lines existing in the
plant area.
The preferred alternative is to rebuild the existing lines. Approximately
11.7 miles of new 138 kV line and ROW will be required. A description of the
proposed transmission facilities is provided in Sec. 3.5.1.11.
3.4.4 Alternative Makeup Water Facilities
3.4.4.1 Sources of Makeup Water
Local Municipalities
No local municipalities provide water service to the plant site area. It is
unlikely that if such service was available, the quantities of water needed for
makeup could be provided by existing municipal systems. Therefore, this alternative
was rejected.
Sabine River
The nearest major surface water system to the power plant site is the
Sabine River, located two miles to the south. The Sabine River Authority was
contacted regarding availability of water and it was determined that upsteam
industrial facilities had prior water rights claims on the existing water in the basin.
Also, it was determined that the flow in the Sabine River during low-flow conditions
was inadequate to provide needed makeup during drought conditions. Therefore, this
alternative was rejected.
Cypress Bayou
The nearest major surface water system to the power plant site,
discounting the Sabine River, is the Cypress Bayou Basin, approximately ZO miles to
the north. The Northeast Texas Municipal Water District advised that sufficient
3-34
-------
water was available in storage at Lake O' the Pines to meet the projected water
needs of the proposed facility. Therefore, this alternative was selected, despite the
lengthly distance of transport.
3.4.4.2 Intake Structure Design
The same screen-type alternatives were considered for this structure as
were considered for the cooling reservoir intake structure, which are discussed
below in Sec. 3.4.4.4. However, fixed panel screens were selected for use over
travelling screens due to the remoteness of the location from the plant site, an
important consideration since travelling screens must be operated at their location.
The intake velocity of water entering the pump house will be 0.5 feet per second or
less, thereby minimizing impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms. Fixed
panel screens have proven effective at other similar installations.
Several alternative pump house locations were considered, including off-
shore submerged, off-shore surface, and inland embayment. With the off-shore
submerged intake structure, water would be withdrawn through a submerged inlet
located in the Big Cypress Bayou channel. This alternative would be costly to
construct and would be difficult to maintain. An off-shore surface intake would
have these same disadvantages and might pose a hazard to navigation in Big Cypress
Bayou. The inland embayment would require some excavation to create a channel
inland from the shoreline to the pump house. Such channels have been found to be
attractive to certain fish species and would therefore increase the potential for
impingement and/or entrainment.
3.4.4.3 Makeup Water Pipeline
Six alternative pipeline routes were evaluated and are presented in
Fig. 3-2. The preferred route was selected because of environmental, engineering,
3-35
-------
BIG CYPRESS
3AYOU
, ESPEY, HUSTON 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
N ENGINEERI
ERING a ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
PRIMARY ROUTE
ALTERNATE ROUTE
Fig. 3- 2
Alternative Makeup Water
3-36
-------
and economic constraints. This route is also the shortest of the alternative routes
considered.
3.4.4.4 Circulating Water Intake Structure Design
The proposed circulating water intake structure for the Henry W. Pirkey
Power Plant - Unit 1 will consist of a screen house located within a bay on the shore
of the cooling reservoir. This screen house will contain circulating water pumps,
service water pumps and strainers, a fire pump, and debris-removal equipment.
Five types of intake screens were evaluated: 1) inclined screens; 2) fixed panel
screens; 3) horizontal screens; 4) revolving screens; and 5) conventional vertically
rotating screens.
Inclined Screens
The inclined traveling screen is a modification of the conventional
vertically traveling screen; its advantages and disadvantages are similar. Relatively
few installations use these screens as they usually experience debris loading that is
very heavy or of a nature that does not readily adhere to a screen. The longer
screen well required, along with other minor variations from the conventional
vertical screen design, make the inclined screen slightly more expensive.
Fixed Panel Screens
Fixed panel screens are mounted upstream of the pumps in vertical
guides that allow them to be raised above the surface of the water. A serious
drawback of these screens is that operators must be immediately available to
remove and clean the screens in the event of a limiting head loss. The possibility
always exists for a sudden heavy debris load to completely clog the fixed screens,
causing plant shutdown and possible collapse of the screens. Although the single
main advantage over conventional vertically traveling screens is a savings in costs
3-37
-------
of mechanical equipment and maintenance for the screen drives and spray wash
pumps, actual operating costs for the fixed screens may be higher if manual cleaning
is required frequently. Due to these factors, many fixed screens originally installed
for economic reasons have had to be replaced with traveling screens.
Horizontal Screens
The specific design purpose of the horizontal screen is to protect fish
and, as such, is a major advance in mechanical screening technology. This screen is
still in the experimental stage, however, and it will be some time before installment
in major steam electric power plants is economically feasible.
Revolving Screens
Vertically and horizontally revolving drum screens have never been used
at a United States power plant. Although these screens permit the return of fish to
a body of water, they offer no special advantages for fish protection over other
common screens and require a very large screen structure to limit approach
velocities to those optimal for fish survival. In the case of the proposed cooling
reservoir, returning fish to the pond is of little advantage as there is no current to
carry fish away.
Conventional Vertical Traveling Screens
The conventional vertical traveling screen is the most common mechani-
cally operated screen for power plant intakes in the United States. Other
economically and technically feasible intake structure designs exist, but none are
considered as efficient and reliable as the conventional vertically rotating
(traveling) screens with bar grill. It performs efficiently, has a long service life,
requires little operational and maintenance repair, applies to almost all water
screen situations, and readily adapts to changing water levels. A standard 3/8-inch
3-38
-------
screen mesh will be used because it not only allows effective water passage, but also
reduces the potential entrainment of aquatic organisms.
Deterrent Devices
Techniques other than traveling screens to divert fish from intake
structures include sonic and electrical devices, water jets, hanging chains, and
bubble screens. These devices have been termed "behavioral" screening systems
since their effectiveness depends, at least to some extent, on their ability to induce
fish to avoid them without using mechanical barriers.
The success of experimentation with sound generators has been limited.
Preliminary testing has indicated that fish can become conditioned to low frequency
sounds and have only limited responses to very high frequencies (US DOI, SSFR 403;
Maxwell, 1973; Moorehouse, 1953). Also, increased noise levels have been corre-
lated with detrimental effects on fish growth (Banner and Hyatt, 1973).
Results of experiments with electrical current barriers are conflicting.
The use of electric fields with intake canals is generally discouraged because
contact with the field can so disable fish that they drift into the intake structure.
Considerable variation exists in response of fish species to air bubble
screens (Maxwell, 1973). Moderate success has been achieved in diverting schools of
fish, but individuals respond unpredictably. Since avoidance of this barrier depends
upon its visibility to fish, success at night or in turbid water is limited (Riesbol and
Gear, 1972; Mayo et al., 1972).
Water jets, hanging chains, and other visual-mechanical systems also
have limited effectiveness (Raney, 1972). Numerous other combinations of physical
and behavioral systems for separating aquatic organisms from intake water have the
potential for improving fish protection, but further investigation is needed before
complete evaluations can be made.
3-39
-------
3.4.5 Alternative Railroad Systems
Four alternative railroad routes were established and evaluated for
connecting the proposed power plant with existing railway facilities (Fig. 3-3). The
railroad spur facilities will be used for delivery of materials during power plant
construction and for delivery of limestone and other supplies during plant operation.
As is shown in Fig. 3-3, the alternative routes involved either connecting
to the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad (AT&SF) to the southwest or west
(Alternates A and B) or connecting to the Texas and Pacific Railroad (T&P) to the
north (Alternates C-l and C-2). Alternate A parallels 1-20 to a point where it joins
the AT&SF Railroad southeast of Longview. Alternate Route B proceeds southwest
of the plant site, crosses the Sabine River, and joins the AT&SF Railroad near
Easton. Alternate routes C-l and C-2 both proceed north from the power plant site
and join the T&P railroad. Route C-l joins the T&P Railroad in an easterly
direction, while route C-2 joins it in a westerly direction. Alternate routes C-l and
C-2 are much shorter in length than routes A and B.
Route C-2 is considered the preferred railroad spur route. It is much
shorter in length than routes A or B; does not cross the Sabine River; and joins the
T&P Railroad in a westerly direction, which is the preferred direction.
3.4.6 Alternate Mining Systems
3.4.6.1 Mine Layout Alternatives
The general area considered for surface mining is bounded by 1-20 on the
north, the Sabine River on the south, the Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant - Unit 1
complex on the east, and by a north-south line from about 2 miles west of the
intersection of 1-20 and Clarks Creek, south to the Sabine River on the west
(Fig. 1-1). Some 38,300 acres of available lignite are present within this area, and
two mine layout alternatives were considered.
3-40
-------
, ESPEY, HUSTON a ASSOCIATES, INC
M ENGINEERING 3 £'IVIRO\'V£f!TAL CONSULTANTS
Fig. 3-3
Alternative Railroad
Systems
3-41
-------
Total Area
The total area alternative involves mining the entire 38,300 acres of
available lignite. Such an operation would require (1) the mining of four streams
(Hardin, Rogers, Clarks, and Hatley creeks) and preemption of important riparian
wildlife habitats and potential cultural resources areas associated with these
streams (particularly Clarks and Hatley creeks) within the project area; (2) mining
the entire portion of the Sabine River floodplain and related wetlands, agricultural
lands, and potential cultural resource areas contained in the 38,300-acre boundary;
and (3) relocation of 13 cemeteries reported in the area.
Partial Area
In the proposed partial area plan, approximately 8,751 of the
38,300 acres available will be surface mined. A portion of the Sabine River
floodplain will be mined, and a small portion of Clarks and Hatley creeks' floodplains
may be impacted by mining activities. A 100-foot buffer zone will be established
around all cemeteries.
3.4.6.Z Mine Operation Alternatives
Lignite Extraction Alternatives
Three alternative mining technologies can be used for coal extraction:
1) underground mining; 2) auger mining; and 3) surface mining.
Underground Mining
Underground mining of lignite is no longer practiced in the United
States. Sediments overlying the mineable lignite are largely unconsolidated and
would be extremely difficult to support safely and economically. The lignite seam is
3-42
-------
too thin to leave an appreciable thickness as roof material to provide sufficient
vertical clearance for mining equipment and personnel. Mining recovery by the
underground room and pillar technique averages about 50 percent of the recoverable
resource compared with the typical 85 percent mining recovery by surface mining.
Due to the relatively shallow overburden over the South Hallsville Lignite Deposit
and the generally flat nature of the topography, underground mining would cause
subsidence of the ground surface resulting in shallow depressions. Due to these
adverse technical factors and the anticipated high cost of underground mining, this
mining method is not suitable for the South Hallsville Lignite Deposit.
Auger Mining
Auger mining uses a horizontal boring-type machine to recover 20 to
30 percent of the coal resource remaining beyond the final cut highwall of a surface
mine. This type of mining is most prevalent in steep-slope contour surface mines
and has not been applied to any appreciable extent to lignite surface mining. Much
of the reserve limit in the South Hallsville Deposit is defined by lignite that is either
quite thin or of substandard quality. Final cuts delimited by depth of overburden
beyond which lignite could be effectively recovered are excavated in only four
places during the life of the project. Resource recovery and the area affected
would be negligible. However, keeping augering equipment and trained operating
personnel on hand for such limited and occasional use would render the augering
operation uneconomic. Keeping the final cut open until augering could be completed
would hinder contemporaneous reclamation.
Surface Mining
All lignite presently mined in the United States is surface mined. The
lignite seam is exposed by excavating equipment, such as bucketwheel excavators or
draglines, and loaded onto a means of conveyance (e.g., haul trucks) by power
shovels, backhoes, or front-end loaders. After the lignite has been removed from
3-43
-------
the mine pit, the pit is backfilled with overburden material removed from the
excavation of the next mining cut.
Surface mining will provide a maximum recovery level (normally ranging
from 85 to 95 percent) of the proposed South Hallsville Mine's lignite reserve. Also,
the potential for ground-surface subsidence is minimal (see Sec. 4.1.3.4, Subsi-
dence), allowing the mine site to be returned to its original or a higher land-use
productivity.
Overburden Removal Alternatives
Two overburden removal methods are generally accepted when operating
a lignite surface mine: (1) bucketwheel excavator and (2) dragline.
Bucketwheel Excavators
The use of bucketwheel excavators to excavate overburden and
conveyors to transport overburden has not been successfully applied on a long-term
basis in the United States coalfields. Experience and technology is largely
European. Depth of overburden over much of the deposit would dictate a multiple
benched bucketwheel system, which would result in larger disturbed areas, as
compared to a dragline system.
Draglines
In the lignite region of Texas, draglines are employed extensively for
overburden removal. A dragline will work from a bench on the mine pit highwall and
cast overburden into a mine cut from which lignite has been previously removed.
Dragline pits are normally long (i.e., more than 1 mile long) and relatively narrow,
varying from 90 to more than 150 feet wide. During the course of excavation,
rehandling excavated material may be necessary when overburden thickness
3-44
-------
approaches 90 to 100 feet. When slope stability is poor, mining lesser overburden
thicknesses may be required to have a highwall with a flatter slope. Under these
circumstances, the volume of overburden removed from a mine cut becomes greater
than the capacity available within the mined-out pit in the reach of the dragline.
To obtain sufficient capacity for the spoil, the dragline will rehandle a predeter-
mined amount of overburden by moving it farther away from the working mine pit.
However, in the South Hallsville Mine, the nature and depth of the overburden
materials are well-suited to dragline stripping and will result in a minimum
disturbed area. Where applicable, the use of draglines for overburden removal has
been demonstrated to be the most reliable, most flexible, and least costly stripping
method and, therefore, was chosen for use at the South Hallsville Mine.
Lignite-Loading Alternatives
Three lignite-loading methods are generally accepted: (1) power shovel,
(2) front-end loader, and (3) hydraulic backhoe.
Power Shovel
Power shovels are employed extensively when loading lignite in Texas. A
high breakout force enables a power shovel to remove lignite without blasting or
ripping. Shovels can load a haul truck parked on top of the lignite seam, thus
keeping trucks off the potentially soft mine-pit floor. Further, crawlers on the
shovels provide greater flotation in the event a wet, soft mine-pit floor is
encountered during later stages of lignite seam removal. However, the loading arc
of a shovel bucket is relatively fixed by machine geometry. This arrangement would
result in poor lignite recovery and unacceptable lignite dilution if used on the thin
seam of the South Hallsville deposit.
3-45
-------
Front-End Loaders
Front-end loaders require good floor conditions to work efficiently since
much of their breakout force is gained through driving into the face of the lignite
seam. Further, good traction is required to minimize cycle times, and trucks must
be loaded while on the mine-pit floor.
Hydraulic Backhoe
Throughout the United States, hydraulic backhoes are gaining acceptance
as a primary lignite-loading method. The hydraulic backhoe is diesel powered and
has both good mobility and the high breakout force necessary for digging unshot
lignite. When loaded by a hydraulic backhoe located on top of the lignite seam,
trucks are not required to locate on the mine-pit floor, eliminating potential
haulage problems caused by soft bottom conditions. The hydraulic backhoe operator
can also maneuver the bucket position tp avoid loading waste material, while
extracting virtually all the exposed lignite seam.
Lignite Transportation Alternatives
Three methods for transporting lignite to a mine-mouth power plant are
generally accepted: (1) conveyors (2) haul trucks and (3) trains.
Conveyors
Use of conveyors to transport lignite directly from the loading machine
to the power plant's lignite-handling facility provides a relatively continuous hauling
system. Conveyor haulage reduces the need for a complex haul road system.
However, conveyor systems must be moved as mining progresses and require a great
deal of maintenance.
3-46
-------
Haul Trucks
Compared with conveyors, trucks offer the distinct advantage of higher
mobility and flexibility. When a fleet of haul trucks is employed, mine production to
the power plant can be maintained in the event that several haul trucks are being
repaired.
Trains
A rail system would have to be frequently moved as the mining areas
advance. Rail systems are quite limited in grades that can be traversed and are
economically suited to longer hauls than required at the South Hallsville Mine.
Reclamation Alternatives
Currently two alternative reclamation options are evident. These are
(1) total mixed overburden utilization and (2) utilization of near surface oxidized
overburden.
The following are four potential scenarios for land use within the mine
area following mining and reclamation.
1) The present land use would change from primarily unimproved
timber to managed pasture after mining and reclamation.
2) The land use would be returned to the original configuration
following mining and reclamation.
3) The present land use would be changed to commercial forest after
mining and reclamation.
4) The present land use would be changed to unimproved fish and
wildlife habitat following mining and reclamation.
3-47
-------
The first scenario is considered to be the preferred alternative for land
use following mining and reclamation. Presently, of the leases with local
landowners that have been signed call for reclaiming the land to managed pasture
following mining. This is the land use preferred by the landowners. The leases
would have to be renegotiated if any of the other scenarios were to be followed.
Total Mixed Overburden
Reclamation of total mixed overburden is a common operating procedure
in the East Texas lignite fields. However, the application of this reclamation option
is somewhat questionable for the South Hallsville Project area.
Overburden core chemical data for the South Hallsville Project area
indicate that a total nonsegregated overburden mix might produce surface materials
that have high levels of acid-producing materials and soluble salts. Reclamation
costs for the "worst case" of this alternative are considered high when compared
with a reclamation plan utilizing a segregated zone of near-surface oxidized and
weathered materials.
Near Surface Oxidized Overburden
Reclamation success, using a combination of soil and near surface
oxidized overburden, seems highly probable. Mine site overburden data indicate that
the oxidized overburden is equal to or better than the natural B and C horizon
materials. The oxidized overburden data, in particular, percent sand, silt, clay;
percent N; ppm K; available water capacity; and acidity for many of the soil series
support the utilization potential of this zone as a topsoil (6 inches) substitute.
Comparisons between key soil parameters indicate that no significant difference
exists between the materials. Consequently, topsoiling may not cause a significant
postmining crop performance advantage.
3-48
-------
3.5 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (Proposed Project)
A description of the proposed Henry W. Pirkey Unit 1 Power Plant site
facilities is presented in Sec. 3.5.1. A description of the preferred alternative for
the proposed South Hallsville mine is presented in Sec. 3.5.2.
3.5.1 Plant Systems and Operating Procedures
Preliminary arrangement of the major facilities for Unit 1 of the
proposed H.W. Pirkey Power Plant is shown in Fig. 3-4. Provisions for a future
second unit are indicated. Orientation of the proposed plant site facilities is shown
in Fig. 3-5.
3.5.1.1 Boiler and Steam-Electric System
The proposed steam generator is a Babcock and Wilcox balanced draft,
single-reheat, drum-type boiler, designed for opposed firing of pulverized lignite.
The unit will be rated at 4.9 million pounds of steam per hour, with superheater
outlet pressure of 2,600 psig and 1,005 F. The proposed turbine is a Westinghouse
Electric four-flow, tandem-compound, reheat-type, with 28.5-inch, last-stage
blades. The turbine will have throttle-valve steam conditions of 2,500 psig and
1,000 F. The electric generator will be inner-cooled with hydrogen gas at 75 psig
and stator-cooled with deionized water.
The unit will have seven stages of regenerative feedwater heating, with
extraction steam for heating taken from the turbine. The lowest stage heater will
be a split-shell, horizontal-type mounted in the condenser neck. Five feedwater
heaters will be a single-shell, vertical-type located in the turbine room. The
deaereating heater is an open type horizontal heater located outdoors on the boiler
structure.
3-49
-------
''NJWtSEL 100 TOEL 3U-(S
8*CfcO »«S EL
BO" QESCH
EL 3i7
*r EL357'-O-
^^^ •»:
NORMAL
NORMAL LOWWATEH £1-^333-0'
EMEBGENCT UW W*TER
Figure 3-4
PROPERrf" DfiVEEOPSENT
HENRT W. PlfWEY
POWE« PLANT UNfT 1
SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
SOUTH HAIISV1UE. TEXAS
-------
TUMCU ENTRANCE-, «
>L EQUIPMENT BUILDING fUTURE)
J C FLY ASH
JJ BLOWERS
g PLANT OB
C WATER TREATING
SYSTEM TANK
(SEE M-S)
CONCRETE
BOTTLE
RACK —
CONSTRUCTION SCUD
BCf CIRCULATING
VWTEX RETUM
H-S BASE LIME E 29X1,769
HIGH WAtER LEVEL EL MB-K> -
NORMAL WATER LEVEL EJ..34O-O'-
NORMAL LOW WATER LEVEL EL.333-O'
EMERGENCY LOW WATER LEVEL O.
^igure 3-5
PLANT DEVELOPMENT
HENRY WTPIRKEY
POWER PLANT UNIT 1 &2
SOUTHWEST!RN ELECTRIC POWER CO
SOUTH HAUSVIUE. TEXAS
-------
The turbine will be operated with a combination sequential-valve/sliding-
pressure (hybrid) procedure. The boiler will be operated from maximum continuous
rating, down 70 percent, turbine throttle flow by maintaining a constant superheater
outlet pressure of 2,600 psig and by operating a sequential valve on the turbine.
Below 70 percent throttle flow, the turbine valve position will be kept constant and
the boiler superheater outlet pressure will be varied by adjusting the firing rate on
the boiler.
When operating at maximum continuous rating, each unit will generate
from 707 to 720 MW (depending on condenser backpressure). Approximately
8 percent of the power generated by the unit will be consumed by various unit
auxiliaries, which leaves about 640 MW leaving the plant as marketable power.
The boiler is designed to burn lignite from an adjacent surface mine
immediately west of the plant site. The unit will consume approximately 541 tons
of lignite per hour. The lignite will be delivered to the plant by 120-ton bottom
dump trucks. The seven lignite storage silos in the main plant unit will hold about a
12-hour supply of fuel. An inactive storage pile of 800,000 tons will be located on
the plant property and will hold about a 60-day supply of fuel. Additionally, a ready
supply of lignite (23,000 tons) will be stored in the active reclaim structure.
3.5.1.2 Heat Dissipation System
Steam exhaust from the turbine will be condensed in Foster Wheeler
twin-shell, single-pressure, two-pass surface condensers, each with a surface area of
371,200 square feet and a design backpressure of 4 inches mercury absolute. Each
condenser will contain 44,656 1-inch, 20 BWG copper-nickel tubes, each 30 feet
long. Cleanliness of the tubes during operation will be maintained at 95 percent by
screening incoming water and by chlorine treatment of the circulating water
system. A small auxiliary condenser will condense the small amount of steam used
to drive the feedwater pump turbine.
3-52
-------
3.5.1.3 Cooling Reservoir
Circulating water for condensing the turbine exhaust steam will be
provided by a cooling reservoir, formed by constructing a dam across Brandy Branch.
Maximum temperature of the water supplied to the condenser will be 102 F. When
passing through the condenser, the water temperature will be raised to 120 F.
The area of the cooling reservoir at normal pool elevation (340 feet msl)
will comprise about 1,388 acres, and the capacity will be about 29,500 acre-feet.
Due to surface irregularities, the effective area for cooling will be about 985 acres
and effective capacity will be about 25,033 acre-feet.
Makeup for the cooling reservoir will be pumped from Big Cypress
Bayou, approximately 1 mile south of Ferrell's Bridge Dam (Lake O' The Pines) and
will be stored in the makeup pond adjacent to the cooling reservoir.
An emergency spillway will be provided so the cooling reservoir can
overflow to Brandy Branch. Some seepage is assumed to occur through the dam,
which will serve as blowdown for the cooling reservoir.
3.5.1.4 Makeup Water Pipeline and Intake Structure
Makeup water will be withdrawn from Big Cypress Bayou below Ferrell's
Bridge Dam for transfer by pipeline to the cooling reservoir. SWEPCO has
contracted with the Northeast Texas Municipal Water District for purchase of the
makeup water and has obtained necessary permits from the TDWR for the
withdrawal and use of this water. Additionally, SWEPCO has received a Section 404
Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCE) for the pipeline and intake
structure (July 30, 1981, see Sec. 5.0).
3-53
-------
Figure 3-6 shows the proposed location of the makeup water intake and
pump station on the bank of an unnamed oxbow of Big Cypress Bayou, approximately
1 mile below Ferrell's Bridge Dam.
Approximately 10,000 cubic yards of native material will be dredged
from an abandoned creek running from the water's edge to the pump station site, a
distance of about 400 feet (Fig. 3-7). The dredge material will be deposited on dry
land as fill for the pump station site. Dredging operations will be performed by
dragline, backhoe, clam shell, conventional scraper, and/or truck combination. The
channel bottom will be 10 feet wide, expanding to 20 feet at the pump station site.
The pump station site will be located at the end of the channel, about
400 feet from the water's edge. This position will place the structure above the all
time record high water level for Big Cypress Bayou, an essential consideration for
operation of the pumps. Normal water level in the channel will be 9 feet.
Figure 3-8 presents section views of the proposed pump station site.
Stainless steel fixed screens with small mesh (0.5 x 0.5 inches) will be
used at the intake opening. Should the screen become clogged due to vegetation or
impinged fish, a float control will cut off the pumps when the water level behind the
screens draws down to a predetermined level. This will prevent pump damage and
allow healthy impinged fish to escape. No antifouling chemicals will be used at the
site. The structure will be low to minimize aesthetic impact.
Diversions rate will be 33.4 cubic feet per second (cfs), equivalent to
15,000 gallons per minute (gpm) with an annual diversion of 18,000 acre-feet of
water for industrial use. Screen openings will be 0.5 inch and intake velocity
through the screens will not exceed 0.5 feet per second. An access road to the pump
station site, shown in Fig. 3-6, is proposed to be developed by rehabilitation of an
old road ROW using crushed stone or road gravel, as needed, and by providing
necessary culverts and drainage.
3-54
-------
VICINITY MAP
From U.S.6.S. 7.5 Min. Quod. Maps
DATUM : N.G.V.D. OF 1929
Figure 3-6
PROPOSED PUMP STATION ON
BIG CYPRESS BAYOU
MARION COUNTY, TEXAS
APPLICANT: SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER CO
FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Source: SWEPCO, 1980b.
3-55
-------
NORMAL CHANNEL
SLOPE
[2:1 SLOPES
2M SLOPES
FLOW LINE AT
'El. 176
! DRY CREEK.
I BED BANKS
ATURAL SLO'E
F OLD CREEK
ED
RETAINING WALL(PILE)
EXCAVATED MATERIAL
FROM CHANNEL TO BE ~
USED AS FILL AT PUMP
SITE.
311 SLOPE TO NATURAL
GROUND
Figure 3-7
PLAN VIEW
CHANNEL AND
PUMP STATION SITE
SHEET 3 OF 5
FILL FOR APPROX.400 FT.
3-56
-------
MOTORS AND PUMPS
ELECTRICAL CONTROL PANEL
El. 206 -
^— Fl 9O* i x-
&
BOTTOM OF
CHANNE
El. I
U_1_L^
(J_1]_U
ry PILING TO REQUIRED DEPTH
-ttptt
ii
|__l_LlJ
SECTION A-A
SCALE : l"=20'
El. 175
CONCRETE FLOOR El. 173
Figure 3-8
SECTION VIEWS OF
PUMP STATION
SCREEN
TRASH RACK
NORMAL W.L.
EL. 185
^==r~ CHANNEL FLOWLINE
EL 177 El. 176
PILING TO REQUIRED DEPTH
SHEET 4 OF 5
SECTION B-B
SCALE : |"= 20'
Source: SWEPCO. 1980b.
3-57
-------
The proposed route for the makeup water pipeline is shown in Fig. 3-9-
The proposed pipeline will be 36-inch concrete cylinder pipe (Fig. 3-10). Normally,
the pipeline will be covered by 2.5 feet of the native soil removed from the ditching
operation. Excess bedding will be placed on top of the pipeline and spread smoothly
on the ROW. The pipeline will extend over approximately 700 acres and cross two
wetlands, identified in Fig. 3-9 as Big Cypress Bayou and Little Cypress Bayou.
Special bedding or structural support may be required in these areas. Typical trench
sections for wet areas and creek crossings are presented in Fig. 3-10.
3.5.1.5 Intake and Discharge System
Condenser cooling water will be supplied by three vertical wet-pit
circulating water pumps located in the screen house at the northwestern end of the
cooling reservoir. Water from the cooling reservoir will pass through a bar grill and
then through travelling water screens consisting of a series of overlapping self-
draining screen trays mounted on rotating mechanisms. Material small enough to
pass through the bar grill will be deposited on the traveling screen cloth. Periodi-
cally, the screen trays will be rotated and washed with high-pressure screen wash
water. The spray water will wash the debris from the screen cloth into a trough in
the screen house floor, where it will drain by gravity to a debris cart. Additional
water draining from the debris while in the cart will return to the cooling reservoir
by gravity. Debris will be disposed of on-site.
Water entering the screen house will be chlorinated to inhibit growth of
microbiological matter on the condenser's heat-exchanging surfaces. Chlorine will
be provided by a gas chlorination system located in the nearby chlorine building.
The chlorine dosage will be sufficient to maintain a residual chlorine level of
0.5 ppm in the circulating water system during chlorination.
In addition to the circulating water pumps, the screen house will also
contain the diesel-driven, emergency fire pump and electric motor driven screen
wash pumps. Both are vertical wet-pit-type pumps.
3-58
-------
LAKE O' THE PINES "v--
MARSHALL
LONGVIEW
:&
HALLSVILLE
LOCATION
PROJECT
1 " ' '^^^~jf*^~» 1 f' • ~ . . i
^!v^3f*L.c -T1
SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
PP. BOX ZII06 SHREVePORT. LOUISIANA TtlMl
HENRY W. PIRKEY PLANT PROJECT
H»««I90N COOMTY. TEXAS
0234
SCALE IN MILES
Fig. 3-9 Vicinity Map
MAKEUP WATER LINE~OF2
3-59
SOURCE:SWFPrn_ IQQHU
-------
SURPLUS EXCAVATION
BACKFILL WITH
EXCAVATED
TRENCH MATERIAL
NATURAL GROUND-
SELECT EMBEDMENT
TYPICAL PIPE TRENCH
•WATER SURFACE
FLOW
EXCAVATED MATERIAL USED TO DIVERT
WATER FROM OPEN TRENCH AND
PROVIDE ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION
FLOW
NATURAL GROUND
-BACKFILL WITH EXCAVATED
TRENCH MATERIAL
TYPICAL TRENCH IN WET AREAS
SURPLUS EXCAV.
SPREAD IN DRY AREAS
ALONG PIPELINE
-WATER SURFACE
BOTTOM OF CREEK^7
PIPE LAID IN DRY TRENCH
USING DRIVEN SHT. PILING
TO DIVERT FLOW. ALL
PILING AND DIVERSION
MATERIAL TO BE REMOVED.
BACKFILL WITH-"
EXCAVATED TRENCH
MATERIAL
Fig. 3-10
TYPICAL TRENCH
SECTIONS
SHEET 5 OF 5
CONCRETE
ENCASEMENT
TYPICAL TRENCH
AT CREEK CROSSING
Source: SWEPCO, 1980b.
3-60
-------
Warm cooling water from the condenser will be discharged back to the
cooling reservoir through a seal well and discharge canal. A seal well is essentially
a. concrete box that keeps a circulating water discharge pipe sealed so that a siphon
can be maintained in the condenser.
Water will overflow from the seal well into a pool area called the
discharge pond. This pond will be formed by two small man-made dikes and will
serve only to channel the condenser discharge water to the discharge canal.
The discharge canal will carry the condenser discharge water to the
northeastern corner of the cooling reservoir at the most extreme point in the water
flow circuit from the screen house, thus maximizing retention time of the cooling
reservoir. Because of a difference in the water surface elevation of the discharge
pond and the cooling reservoir, a drop structure will be used in the discharge canal
to lower water elevation.
3.5.1.6 Other Plant Water Systems
Makeup Water.Pond
Plant makeup water from Big Cypress Bayou will be stored in the
makeup water pond. Makeup water will be supplied to the plant by a makeup pump.
Makeup water pond overflow will be routed to the discharge pond and then to the
cooling reservoir.
Screen Wash Water
Traveling screens in the circulating water screen house will be washed
periodically with high-pressure water. This screen wash water will be supplied by
discharge from a screen wash pump located in the screen house.
3-61
-------
Low-Pressure Service Water
Low-Pressure Service Water (LPSW) will be used to cool various unit
auxiliaries, as makeup to the bottom ash hopper, and as makeup to the SO., removal
system. LPSW will be supplied by three LPSW pumps, which will take suction from
the circulating water system. Before being used in the plant, the LPSW will be
passed through a parallel pair of twin basket strainers with straining media
3/16-inch-diameter holes.
High-Pressure Service Water
High-Pressure Service Water (HPSW) will be used throughout the plant
where water pressure demand exceeds the capabilities of the LPSW system. HPSW
will be used to seal or to lubricate slurry pumps; to flush sump pump discharge lines;
to wash the boiler regenerative air heaters; and to suppress dust in the lignite-
handling system. HPSW will be taken from the LPSW system and will be boosted in
pressure by the HPSW pumps.
Fire Protection Water
The fire protection water system will be interconnected with the HPSW
system. Service water connections located throughout the plant for general use will
also serve as fire protection hose stations. Various underground fire headers will
surround the main plant building. The lignite-handling system will also have a pre-
action-type fire protection system.
Boiler Makeup Water Pretreatment System
Boiler makeup water from the makeup water pond will be pumped to the
makeup water pretreatment system. The makeup water will be chlorinated and
clarified to remove organic matter and suspended solids. The pH of the makeup
water will then be adjusted in the clearwell.
3-62
-------
Filtered Water
The clearwell transfer pumps will pump the pretreated water through a
series of sand and carbon filters, where any residual chlorine and remaining organic
or suspended matter will be removed. The filtered water will then be stored in the
filtered water storage tank.
Demineralized Water
The filtered water pumps will supply filtered water to two parallel,
mixed-bed demineralizer trains, each capable of producing Z50 gpm (net) water for
boiler makeup. While passing through the demineralizer, the metal and salt ions iii
the filtered water will be exchanged or removed chemically. The demineralized
effluent will be essentially neutral and will be stored in the demineralized water
storage tanks.
Potable Water
Filtered water from the filtered water storage tank will be pumped by
the potable water pump through a chlorinator and into a 1,000-gallon, pressure-type,
potable water storage tank. Potable water will be used in the plant for lavatories,
drinking water, eyewashes, and showers, and as makeup to the condenser vacuum-
producing equipment.
3.5.1.7 Waste Schemes
The plant wastewater scheme for the proposed South Hallsville Project is
presented in Fig. 3-11.
3-63
-------
AW HEATER
WASH WATER
SOI LEU CHEMICAL.
CLEANING WASTES
TRUCK LOAD OUT AREA
RAINFALL
MINUS
EVAPORATION
EMERGENCY
OVERFLOW
COj FOB
PH CONTROL
.t MtNUS
EVAPORATION —
BOTTOM
ASH BASIN
•l
80TTCM
ASH BASIN
• 2
RAINFALL
EVAPORATION
RUNOFF.
* 4O GPM
SURGE POND
PUMPS
| ©-*-©
AUXILIARY SURGE POND
ASH HO"PER
SUMP
T PH » 811. SOLIDS-133 GPM
\/ SLUDGE CONVEYORSN.
SECONDARY SETTLING BASIN
ACIC FOR
SCAtE -
CONTROL
ASH HOPPER
SUMP PUMPS
ASH MAfN ^ AUXILIARY
RECRCVLATIOK BCfLER BLQWOOW*
PUMPS
302! GPM AVG
439Q GPM MAX
ASH BASIN SLOWDOWN
841 GPM AVG
OVERFLOW
687 GPM
THICKENER
SUMP PUMP
R£CLAIM
WATER
PUMPS
BOTTOM ASH
SLUICE PUMPi
•470 GPM A»G
JSC5 GPM MAX
LIMESTONE
PREPARATION
MAHE UP PUMP
GPM AvG
lB-,3 GPM MAX
REGENERATIVE
WASTES
41 GPM AVG
400 GPM. MAX
SEE NOTE 2
BLOWDOV>N
7 5 GPM
30 GPM MA>
CIRCULATING WATEB
718 GPM Avi
749 GPM MAX
ARE CONDITIONS
wtu. DICTATE
SOURCE Qf MARE UP
300 GPM
AVG INEI
TO CYCLE
LIGNITE PILE
RUNOFF BASIN
It TEH
IBACHWASH
|
lua 3 GPM
• MAX.
SEE NOTE1
GPM AvC.
PLANT USE
HAINF ALL
MPNJS
EVAPOHATiON
LIGNITE PILE
RUNOFF BASIN
PUMPS
GPM CCS.5>«
35OO &PM MAX
ELECTS iCAl. MANHOLE
S-JMP OtSCMASGES
3tf1 0PM MAX
scr NOTE
f UE I OH
PUMP
OVERFLOW
dSA-,J7r SKANCH
(PJ DENOTES CAHBON STEEL PIPE
(F) DENOTES FIBCRGLASS PlPE
DENOTES PVC OR TRANSITS PIPf
HO r
GPM AvG BASED ON Out
OF SAND AND
CARBON FILTER PER DAT.
MAtN DAM EFFLUENT
i BLOW
TURB*€ Ol TAMKi
A -
i
.
i
2. BASED ON ONE REGENERATION
PER DAY. 14 BEGINS/ DA» FOR 3OO GPM NET)
3 A.tHAGi FLOWS ARE ON A 24 HOUR BASIS
4 USED IF BASiN CONTENTS EXCEED
SO ML/L TSL 1 6 9 PH
3 BETWEEN THIS POINT AND SLUDGE CONVEYORS. 1
(6; DENOTES FLOW BT GRAVITY
IN DITCH OR TRENCH
© DENOTES CAST IRON PIPE
fg) DENOTES RUBBER LINED
^ CARBON STEEL PIPE
TURBINE ROOM ..^.^^
TRANSFORMER DRAWS 7 B_
~- 6?> GCM
DISiGN
SCREEN MASr*
t
"^
1
i
^ i PLJ
SHOWN. INCL 24 GPM WATER OF HYDRATION.
t*»WM^MU4M ftlCOMO
«. UII «.«
MMO
MMOTB
AWMQVCO
wo*
r,.
0>UU>,»CMiU14 »tC.OM
""
B
C
D
IMTI MLQ> MKMIWQ ! MWVIO
il" ^1* .at '^ y/ ^""^^'^X"^ J " " ""
C O€ S?
' »^A! " f ' ' i^^ D tf i-
/ ^Mi>- Lf* 0^4- —
1
f
j .a... •-
w~o«o i
~— «"
&i?~ "4?Ti j Gt \ &i~ ^'tu'.N
-*P»
fC* INF
3t*MATfQN
'»"
. 4-
x?ffip%
f « f M"
^;-$
- f
1C**.«
Sv
mj
:>.£:
.•'
MiS
[ Fig. 3-
P i i D PLANT
WATER SCH
HENRY W PI
POWER PLANT
SOUTHWESTERN ELECT
SOUTH HALLSV11
GE
MEN
1ST
ji SJUiSDITkUiat!? !i
M-6S
-------
Drain Collector Pit
A drain collector pit will serve as a collecting point and oil skimmer for
various plant low-volume drains. This pit will be located near the screen house and
will discharge to the cooling intake canals. Various drains routed to the collector
pit will include; turbine room floor drains, transformer drains, pretreatment system
overflows and backwashes, and the filter water tank drain and overflow.
Service Water Returns
Discharges from various equipment coolers operating on LPSW will be
collected in the LPSW surge tank before being discharged to the cooling reservoir.
The LPSW strainer backwash will be discharged to the cooling reservoir. Backwash
(screen wash) water from the traveling screen will be discharged to the forebay area
of the screen house (after debris removal).
Storm Drains
Roof drains will lead to the storm drainage system, as will electrical
manhole sump discharges. The demineralized water storage tanks will also drain
into the storm drainage system. The storm drainage system will discharge directly
into the cooling reservoir.
Bottom Ash Basins
Blowdown from the makeup-water pretreatment clarifier will be routed
to the chemical sump. Chemical drains from the demineralizer and floor drains
from the water-treating building will also be routed to this sump. Discharges from
the boiler area ash-hopper pit sump will be pumped into the bottom ash basins.
Blowdown from the main and auxiliary boilers will also be routed to these bottom
ash basins. Blowdown from these basins will be treated by the wastewater
treatment system.
3-65
-------
Lignite Pile Runoff Basin
The lignite-pile runoff basin will be an equalization pond for lignite pile
runoff. Runoff from the lignite dead storage and temporary piles will drain through
ditches to the lignite-pile runoff basin. Floor drains, conveyor drains, etc., from the
lignite-handling system buildings will drain by gravity to the lignite-pile runoff basin
using the same ditch system. The sump pumps in the lignite-handling system
structures will discharge into the aforementioned ditches and will drain into the
basin by gravity.
Runoff in the lignite-pile runoff basin will not normally require more
treatment than sedimentation. Once suspended solids are within acceptable limits,
basin contents will be returned to the cooling reservoir by means of a sluice gate. If
additional treatment (such as pH adjustment) is required, basin contents will be
pumped to a surge pond and then to the wastewater treatment system.
Waste Slurry Sump
Waste slurry from the SO- removal system will be bled to the waste
slurry sump and from there will be pumped to thickeners. Moisture condensing or
falling out in the chimney will flow by gravity to the SO- removal system waste
LJ
slurry sump since chemical composition will range between waste slurry and
reclaimed water, with some acid from the flue gas. Rain runoff and housekeeping
drains from the absorber area will also drain to the waste slurry sump and will be
dewatered with the waste slurry. If the sludge treatment system is down, these
flows will be pumped to the auxiliary surge pond and allowed to dewater by
evaporation.
3-66
-------
Surge Pond
The surge pond will be divided into two sections: surge pond and auxiliary
surge pond. The auxiliary surge pond will be a storage basin and evaporation pond
for SO- removal system waste slurry, either from the waste slurry pumps, thickener
underflow pumps, or filtrate overflow sump pumps. Effluent from the chemical
sump will be pumped to the surge pond. Flows will be routed to the auxiliary surge
pond only under abnormal conditions. After waste slurry has been placed in the
auxiliary surge pond and allowed to thicken by evaporation, the sludge will be
removed by front-end loader and conveyed to the sludge treatment system for
stabilization. The auxiliary surge pond will overflow into the surge pond.
The surge pond will be a collection basin for various plant waste streams.
Drains, overflows, backwash, blowdown, and recycle from the wastewater treatment
system will drain into the surge pond by gravity. The reclaim water sump will
overflow into the surge pond. Rainwater runoff from the stabilized sludge-truck
load-out area, from under the sludge conveyors, and from the sludge reclaim area
will drain into the surge pond by gravity. Water in the lignite-pile runoff basin
requiring treatment will be pumped to the surge pond.
The effluent from the surge pond will normally be pumped to the
reclaimed water sump. The effluent can also be pumped to the wastewater
treatment system.
In an emergency only, the surge pond will overflow to the truck load-out
area, which is impounded. This emergency measure will prevent surge pond
overflow from entering the plant storm drainage system.
Reclaimed Water Sump
Water reclaimed from the SO- removal system waste slurry, including
additional miscellaneous drains, will not be sufficient to meet makeup requirements
3-67
-------
of the SO? removal system. To meet this difference, water will be added to the
reclaim water sump from the bottom ash basins, from the wastewater system
effluent, or from the LPSW system. Preference will be given to bottom ash water.
A full-capacity makeup line will also be provided from the LPSW system
to give SO, removal system makeup in the event the wastewater system or the
c*
bottom ash pumps are not operating. The reclaimed water sump will overflow into
the surge pond.
Filtrate Overflow Sump
Housekeeping drains in the sludge treatment building and chemical drains
from skid-mounted wastewater treatment system equipment will be routed to the
filtrate overflow sump. The effluent will normally be pumped to the surge pond for
dewatering. If the sludge treatment system is down, the effluent will be diverted to
the auxiliary surge pond.
Wastewater Treatment System
The wastewater treatment facilities will be provided to treat the
contents of the surge pond when the need arises. This system will consist of a
reaction tank where pH is adjusted, two clarifiers where solids are removed, a
gravity-type sand filter where suspended solids are removed, and a clearwell for
final adjustment of effluent pH.
Treated effluent from the wastewater treatment system will normally go
to the cooling reservoir, with alternative provisions for routing it to the reclaimed
water sump as SO--removal system makeup.
The wastewater system gravity filter backwash will flow by gravity into
the surge pond. Drains and overflows from the other system vessels will also be
routed to the surge pond.
3-68
-------
3.5.1.8 Ash-Handling System
The bottom ash produced by the steam generator will be stored in a lined
bottom ash hopper. This will be an independently supported structure, located under
the steam generator and having an air-tight water trough seal arrangement that
connects with the steam generator.
The bottom ash hopper will have a means of cooling its internal lining, a
method of limiting water level by discharging any excess, and provision for water-
assisted material discharge. This hopper will be furnished with four discharge
points, and each discharge point will have a sluice door and surrounding enclosure.
Beneath each enclosure, a material crusher will size the accumulated ash.
The discharge system will be the jet pump type; these four jet pumps will
discharge through two transport lines to ash basins. These pumps will be isolated
from each other by individual branch discharge sluice gates. The bottom-ash jet
pump arrangement will be able to remove collected bottom ash at the rate of
100 tons per hour.
Bottom ash will be sluiced to either of the two bottom-ash basins. While
one basin is being used to store ash, the other basin can be isolated and cleaned of
stored, dewatered ash. This bottom ash will ultimately be removed from the plant
property and sold, or disposed of or used onsite.
Sluice water from the bottom ash basins will be collected in the
secondary settling basin. The combined effluent from the secondary settling basin
will be recirculated back to the plant to transport more bottom ash. A high-
capacity bleed from the bottom ash recirculation line will lead to the reclaimed
water sump and will be used as SO- removal system makeup.
3-69
-------
Material rejected by the lignite pulverizers (pyrites) will be discharges
into a collection hopper located on each pulverizer. Each collection hopper will
have a wet-type jet pump. The hopper jet pumps discharge collectively into the
pyrite storage tank. Each hopper jet pump will be able to remove collected
materials at a rate of 30 tons per hour.
The pyrites stored in the pyrite storage tank will be removed by a larger
transfer jet pump system. A single-line discharge will tie into the two main sluice
discharge headers, allowing the pyrites to be sluiced to the bottom ash basins. The
transfer jet system will be able to remove materials from the pyrite storage tank at
the rate of 100 tons per hour.
Sintered fly ash falling from the flue gas stream in the rear pass of the
steam generator will collect in 10 economizer hoppers. No material will be allowed
to remain in these hoppers. Two storage/transfer tanks will be provided beneath
these hoppers into which the ash will fall and be stored.
Individual removal systems will be provided for each storage/transfer
tank. These dry conveying systems will be a negative-pressure type, with motive
force created by water exhausters. Exhausters will mix the ash with water in the
air separator, creating a slurry that will discharge through the main discharge lines
to the ash basins. A booster jet pump system will assure minimum velocity in the
sluice discharge line.
Two individual dry removal systems will be able to remove collected
material at a combined rate of 100 tons per hour.
Fly ash collected in the precipitator hoppers will be removed by two dry
conveying systems of the positive-pressure type. Each hopper will be provided with
an air-lock-type feeder that allows material to transfer from the low-pressure
collection hopper to the higher-pressure conveyor line. Motive force for these
3-70
-------
systems will be created by two rotary, positive-displacement blowers. Fly ash will
be removed from the precipitator hoppers by gravity and will be blown to the unit
fly ash silo. The fly ash silo will be vented to the precipitator inlet, where any
fugitive dust will be collected. Each of the two fly-ash conveying systems will be
able to convey collected materials at a rate of 150 tons per hour.
A venting system will be provided to allow air lock feeders under the
precipitator hoppers to change pressure during the filling/discharging cycle. Each
air lock feeder will be vented through a common header to the precipitator inlet.
Fly ash stored in the fly ash silo will be mixed with the dewatered SO_
removal system sludge in the waste treatment building. Fly ash will be fed directly
into sludge mixers by screw conveyors. Fly ash may also be unloaded from the silo
into trucks and transported to the mine area for disposal in a designated landfill
site. See Sec. 3.5.1.7 for details of the waste disposal operation plan.
3.5.1.9 Fuel Handling Systems
The primary fuel for the steam generator will be unwashed Texas lignite
from a nearby surface mine located in Harrison County. This fuel is of lignitic rank
and belongs to the Lower Eocene Calvert Bluff Formation of the Wilcox Group.
"Run-of-mine" lignite will be delivered to the plant site by bottom dump
trucks of 120 tons capacity each. There will be 470 deliveries per week, or
24,000 deliveries per year.
Figure 3-12 presents a schematic plan of the lignite-handling facilities.
A truck hopper will unload the lignite from bottom dump trucks. Each truck hopper
will discharge into a feeder-breaker. The feeder-breakers will size the lignite into
6x0 inch lumps and discharge a controlled flow onto conveyors B, and B .
•i c*
Conveyors B^ and B^ will be equipped with belt scales to weigh the lignite in transit
to determine the quantity of material received.
3-71
-------
S< 6EXT COMV. FROM Ml
1500 T*>H
M6TM- O*TE.cro«*
ROTARY PLOW RECLAIM
vvvvv
CRUSHER HCCSE
UNIT-Z
(FUTURE)
UNIT-
CONVEYOR. ROOM
UGNITE HANG-LING FAOLITIES
FLOW DIAGRAM
HENRY WPtRKEY
POWER PLA^^• UN1T-1
FIGURE
3-12
SCUD-WESTERN SHI IMC POWER CD.
SOUTH HfiL?,1LLE.TEXAS
-------
Conveys B- and B_ will transport the lignite to the transfer house where
1 w
two-position, power-operated diverter gates will direct the lignite flow from
Conveyor B.. to Conveyors E- or Conveyor S.., and from Conveyor B_ to Conveyor
E- or Conveyor S.. Conveyor B0 chutework will accomodate the "as received"
u L LI
sample system.
Conveyor S. will transport the lignite from the transfer house to the
transfer tower. This discharge (Conveyor SJ will be equipped with a two-position,
power-operated diverter gate. Lignite will be diverted to Conveyor S_ or another
stackout Conveyor S_.
Stackout Conveyor S, will transport the lignite from the transfer tower
to a 15,000-ton-capacity active stock pile or an 800,000 ton long-term storage pile.
This discharge of Conveyor S_ will be equipped with a motor-equipped telescopic
chute to reduce dusting of the lignite as it is deposited on the pile.
Tripper Conveyor S_ will transport the lignite from the transfer tower to
£
two active reclaim storage silos. Conveyor S_ will be furnished with a two-position,
power-operated diverter gate to direct the lignite flow into silo #1 or out Conveyor
S. that will discharge into silo #2.
A rotary plow reclaim tunnel will be used to reclaim lignite from the
active reclaim storage silos. Conveyors R- and R_ in the reclaim tunnel will each
1 U
be equipped with a variable-rate rotary plow reclaimer. Conveyors R.. and R? will
transport the reclaimed lignite to the transfer house and will discharge lignite onto
Conveyors E.. and E_.
A yard reclaim hopper will be located outside the active reclaim storage
silos. The rotary plow reclaimer will be capable of parking under the yard reclaim
hopper to discharge lignite reclaimed from long-term storage onto Conveyors R
and R*
3-73
-------
Conveyors E1 and E9 will transport the lignite from the transfer house to
1 w
the crusher house. At the start of Conveyors E. and E^ a belt scale with local and
remote totalization and local and remote flow indication will be provided. Each
discharge end of Conveyors EI . and E_ will be equipped with a self-cleaning, belt-
type magnetic separator for removing tramp iron from lignite. A tramp iron chute
will deposit tramp iron into a container located at grade outside the crusher house.
Conveyors E1 and E, will discharge lignite through chutes into the crusher house
1 u
surge bins.
Two separate surge bins in the crusher house will be equipped with a
variable-rate vibrating feeder at each bin's outlet. Each surge bin will be supported
on load cells to monitor the lignite level and to control the vibrating feeder rate.
From the surge bins, variable-rate vibrating feeders will feed lignite to
two ring-type granulator crushers to produce a uniform product size of
V/z x 0 inches. Material not requiring crushing will bypass the crushers. Lignite
from the crushers will be deposited onto Conveyors F- and F-.
1 <-i
Conveyors F- and F. will transport lignite from the crusher house to the
i. u
conveyor room in the main plant building, where Conveyors F1 and F_ will be
i Li
discharged onto tripper conveyors G1 and G_. These tripper conveyors G.. and G_
1 LI 1 Lr
will be furnished with a traveling tripper that will distribute lignite into lignite
storage silos.
3.5.1.10 Atmospheric Emission Sources and Control Systems
The chimney for the unit will consist of a concrete shell with a
freestanding, internal, acid-resistant brick liner. This chimney will be 525 feet high,
with a 25-foot-diameter exit. The chimney will be 58 feet wide at its base, and flue
gas velocity will be about 85 feet per second when exiting.
3-74
-------
NO emissions will be controlled using burner design, burner arrange-
X
ment, and furnace design. The burner design will minimize the amount of
combustable air introduced into the burner to that required to obtain fuel ignition
and to sustain combustion. The remainder of the secondary air required for
complete combustion will be introduced and mixed with the fuel in the furnace,
which will maintain an oxidizing atmosphere near the furnace walls, resulting in
lower NO .
x
Particulate matter will be removed from the flue gas stream by
Universal Oil Products', Cold-side, twin-casing, weighted-wire type electrostatic
precipitator. Each precipitator will be 99.75 percent efficient and the Specific
Collecting Area (SCA) is 544. The unit has 10 electrical fields in the direction of
gas flow and provides a flue gas treatment time of 12.Z seconds. The ash collected
in the precipitator hoppers will be removed pneumatically and stored in the fly ash
silo.
SO- will be removed from the flue gas stream by a Universal Oil
Products', limestone, double-loop-type scrubbing system consisting of four vertical,
freestanding absorber modules. The system will treat 85 percent of the boiler flue
gas. The remaining 15 percent of untreated gas will be mixed with saturated,
treated flue gas to raise its temperature and to improve plume buoyancy.
An automatic spray-type dust suppression system will be used to control
the dust at the truck hopper, conveyor feed and discharge points, telescopic chute
discharge, breakers, and rotary plows.
Lignite stored in the silos in the main plant building will be supplied to
the steam generator pulverizers by means of gravimetric coal feeders. The feeders
will supply fuel to the pulverizers at a rate consistent with boiler load demand.
3-75
-------
These pulverizers will be Babcock and Wilcox MPS 118, slow-speed
roll-and-race type units, using three large-diameter rolls equally spaced around the
mill to grind the lignite. The pulverizers will also dry the raw lignite by means of
preheated primary air supplied to the pulverizer and based on a predetermined
air/fuel ratio. A total of seven pulverizers will be used, each serving eight burners
on the furnace wall. Each pulverizer will have a maximum capacity of 105 tons per
hour. The preheated primary air used to dry the lignite will also be used to
transport the pulverized lignite dust to individual burners.
3.5.1.11 Transmission Lines
In order to tie the Pirkey Power Plant into its bulk transmission system,
SWEPCO plans to construct three (3)-138 kV transmission lines (4 circuits) from the
plant to tie into two (2) existing 138 kV lines in the immediate plant area. The two
(2) existing 138 kV lines will be up-graded in capacity to carry the 640 MW output
into the Major East Texas load centers of Longview and Marshall. An existing
345 kV line in the plant area will also be tied into the plant and will provide a direct
tie to the Welsh Power Plant (Fig. 3-13). While the primary purpose of the 345 kV
line is an interconnection with Gulf States Utilities to the south, and will not carry
the power from the plant, it will provide for transient stability in the operation of
the generator.
The following is a list and description of each transmission line section
shown in Fig. 3-14.
3-76
-------
DETAIL "A
15/16" HOLE
FIELD BORE
DETAIL "C
DETAIL "E"
ETAIL "D"
Optional Down Guy For
Small Angle (See
Structure List)
15/16" HOLE
FIELD BORE
SEE NOTE 1
CN
W
3
PL.
H
<3
M
w
CTES:
1.
|>^>^2>^>^^
-1
PASS GROUND WIRE
BENEATH POLE AND
WRAP AROUND POLE
6 TIMES.
HUGHES BRO. TYPE C-3849-A
NO X-BRACE FOR POLE HEIGHTS 55' OR LESS.
1 SET OF X-BRACES FOR POLE HEIGHTS 60' & 65'.
2 SETS OF X-BRACES FOR POLE HEIGHTS 70' & OVER.
" "• - ' ~' : 3-77
Figure 3-13
138 KV
HX "PACKAGED" STRUCTURE
WITH FIR CROSS ARMS
SOUTHWESTERN
COMPANY
ELECTRIC
APPROVED-
POWER
DIVISION
-DIV. SUPT.
DRAWN BYl
RLS
DATE:
3-1-72
SCALE: 3/16" = !' -0"
WORK
ORDER
138-KX-27
-------
MARSHALL
SUBSTATION^
WHITNEY SUBSTATION
H.W. PtRKEY
POWER PLANT i5
SUBSTATION
PROJECT
AREA
KNOX LEE POWER PLANT
N
A,B a G - New 138 KV Lines \^\
D,C,E 3 F - Existing 138 KV Lines I
0 MILES
3-78
., ESPEY, HUSTON 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
I") ENGINEERING d £'IV!RONMEN~6L CONSULTANTS
Figure 3-14
Transmission Facilities to
Tie H.W. Pirkey Power Plant
into SWEPCo's System
-------
Transmission
Line Section Length Description
"A" 7.2 mi Relocated section Knox Lee - Marshall
138 kV around mine area, (Pirkey Knox
Lee)
"B" 1.5 mi Cut Knox Lee - Marshall 138 into Pirkey
Sub (Pirkey - Marshall S.)
"C" 6.2 mi Section of Knox Lee - Marshall 138 kV
to be removed from mine area as mining
proceeds
"D" 5.8 mi Section of Knox Lee - Marshall 138 kV
to be rebuilt to 2000 A (Pirkey Knox
Lee)
"E" 6.8 mi Section of Knox Lee - Marshall 138 kV
to be left at 1200 A (Pirkey - Marshall
S.)
"F" 19.2 mi Marshall - Whitney 138 kV to be rebuilt
to 2000 A (Pirkey - Whitney) (Pirkey -
Marshall N.)
"G" 3 .0 mi Loop Whitney - Marshall 138 kV into
Pirkey Plant (Pirkey - Whitney)
(Pirkey - Marshall N.)
The 138 kV line between Marshall Substation and Whitney Substation at
Longview (Section F; Fig. 3-14) will be rebuilt and upgraded to 2000 Amp capacity
and supported on wood pole H-Frame structures as shown in Fig. 3-13. Approxi-
mately 3 miles of new 138 kV double circuit line (Section G) will be constructed on
100' wide ROW, to loop the line in and out of the Plant Substation (Fig. 3-14). The
ROW for the new line section will be adjacent to the existing 345 kV line coming
into the plant from the north.
3-79
-------
The 138 kV line between Marshall Substation and Knox Lee Power Plant
(SE of Longview) will also be looped through the Pirkey Plant Substation. A section
of this line is located in the mine area (Section C) and will be used to provide power
to the mining operation (Fig. 3-14). A new section of line will be constructed from a
point 1.5 miles north of the proposed power plant to the Plant Substation (Section B)
and a 7.2 mile section will be constructed from the plant, south of the mine area to
a point on the existing line (Section A) 5.8 miles from Knox Lee Plant ( ig. 3-14).
The 5.8 mile section of line to Knox Lee will be rebuilt and upgraded to 2000 Amp
capacity on wood pole H-Frame structures. The 6.8 mile existing section back to
Marshall (Section E) will not be rebuilt since the 1200 Amp capacity will be
adequate.
3.5.1.12 Railroad Spur
A 3.5-mile railroad spur has been constructed from the plant site to an
existing Texas & Pacific Railroad line to the north. This spur required the
construction' of an overpass over Interstate Highway 20 and a grade crossing of State
Highway 968. The right-of-way varies from 100 to 350 feet in width and covers a
total of 100 acres outside of the plant site area. No stream crossings were required.
The spur will be used for delivery of materials during construction and of
limestone and other supplies during plant operation.
3.5.2 Facilities Layout and Operation of the Mining Area
The proposed South Hallsville Mine is a single-seam, dragline surface
mining operation designed to produce an average of 2.8 million tons of lignite per
year for a period of 24 years. All mining and reclamation activities will be
performed according to Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) regulations for surface
coal mining (RRC, 1980). The mine will be operated for SWEPCO by SMC. The
orientation of the mine and mine facilities is presented in Fig. 3-15.
3-80
-------
r
N
2 MILE
Fig. 3-15 Mining Sequence and Facilities , South Hallsville Project
-------
The total area to be affected or potentially affected by the operation of
the mine is approximately 20,771 acres. Of this total area comprising the mine site,
approximately 10,545 acres will be disturbed over the life of the mine by mining
activities, 430 acres by construction of haul roads, and 43 acres by mine facilities.
Portions of the remaining 9,753 acres in the mine site may potentially be affected
by mining activities as mining progresses.
Of the total 10,545 acres to be disturbed by mining, approximately
8,751 acres will be mined, with an average of 365 acres to be mined (439 acres to be
disturbed) each year for 24 years (Table 3-1). The disturbed areas generally will be
reclaimed concurrent with overburden removal. The average ungraded acreage
resulting from mining operations will be 439 per year, with a maximum of 741 acres
ungraded in 2008.
The area to be disturbed by mining is surrounded by approximately
10,226 acres and comprises the mine ancillary activities area. About 430 acres of
this area will be disturbed by the mine roads over the life of the mine, with a
maximum of 57 acres disturbed in 1990. Areas disturbed by roads will be reclaimed
in accordance with RRC surface coal mining regulations when no longer needed.
Within the mine ancillary activities area, approximately 20 acres will be occupied by
mine facilities. About 23 acres will be disturbed by the dragline erection site; this
area may be used as an industrial site when dragline erection activities are
completed. The potential exists for disturbance of portions of the remaining
9,753 acres in the mine ancillary activities area, as mining progresses.
3.5.2.1 Mineable Reserves and Engineering Techniques
Through an analysis of 2,052 drill holes, an economically recoverable
single-seam deposit containing approximately 72 million recoverable tons of lignite
was outlined. Two additional lower seams, with sufficient continuity to be
correlatable, were identified during the drilling program. However, these seams are
3-82
-------
TABL2 3-1
ESTIMATED ANNUAL DISTURBED AREAS
SOUTH HALLSVILLE MINE
Year
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1938
:989
1°90
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Z001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
TOTAL
Acres
Mined
—
39
320
313
409
391
379
353
324
324
323
326
311
307
311
315
393
423
443
527
538
406
339
325
281
276
3,751
Total Acres
Disturbed
By Mining
—
76
424
355
490
429
432
408
445
341 ,
340
344
329
325
331
339
492
466
468
601
704
477
443
359
323
S04
10,545
Acres
Acres Disturbed
Disturbed By Mine
By Roads Facilities
5 20
23 •-
23
1
13
12
27
17
30
57
11
10
10
10
10
1 1
12
38
IS
15
13
22
16
14
10
3
6
11
430 43
Total Acres
Disturbed
25
23
23
77
437
367
517
446
462
465
456
351
350
354
339
336
343
377
510
4S1
481
623
720
491
453
367
329
815
11,018
Total Acres
Regraded
___
—
51
308
378
445
449
431
416
433
376
340
343
334
326
329
336
-441
475
467
557
669
553
454
387
535
644
741
11.018
Net Acres
Ungraded
25
48
71
97
226
215
237
2S4
315
364
387
362
372
333
388
398
412
453
522
528
542
60S
659
597
596
576
570
741
0
Source: NACI. 19SOa.
3-83
-------
too deep, too thin, and too discontinuous to be economically recoverable. Criteria
used in outlining this deposit include:
o lignite in-place density: 80.35 pounds per cubic foot.
o mining recovery: 85 percent of in-place tonnage.
o minimum mineable lignite thickness: 2 to 3 feet, depending upon
overburden depth.
o weathering depth: 20 feet of overburden. Lignite with less than
this amount of cover was judged to be of too poor quality to be
burned in the power plant.
o maximum overburden depth: 140 feet.
Maps depicting ground elevation, lignite elevation, and lignite thickness
were prepared on a 1 inch = 1,000 feet scale. Overburden yardage and lignite
tonnage for small specific mining areas were then estimated from these maps
throughout the economic deposit.
A mining sequence was then developed to provide the design tonnage of
2.8 million tons per year. Criteria used in selecting this mining sequence include:
o averaging the amount of overburden to be moved annually over the
life of the project.
o minimizing the number of dragline moves and box cut yardage.
o minimizing disruption of the natural drainage system consonant
with maximum recovery of the lignite resource.
o minimizing the length of haul roads and electrical transmission
lines, especially during the early years of mining.
Based on this mining sequence, mine facilities were layed out and
equipment selected on a class-type basis to handle the estimated quantities of
excavation, haulage, and construction activities required.
3-84
-------
The in-place quality of the lignite is based on laboratory analysis of 62
lignite cores of the Green Bed. The average estimated as-mined lignite quality over
the life of the mine (24 years) is as follows:
GREEN BED (As Received at Power Plant)
Diluted
14.7 percent Ash
1.08 percent Sulfur
6,418 Btu/lb.
3.5.2.2 Mining Sequence
Figure 3-15 shows the areas to be affected by mining and mine-related
activities and Table 3-1 lists the annual acreages scheduled to be disturbed by
mining and ancillary activities. Figure 3-16 portrays in cross section the sequence
of mining and reclamation activities under typical mining conditions. Box cutting
for the two draglines (designated A and B) will commence during the third quarter of
1984 along the southern margins of mining blocks 1984-1990A and 1984-1990B and
continue through 2008. The proposed sequence of mining for the two draglines and
the timing of major dragline moves is as follows:
DRAGLINE A DRAGLINE B MOVES
1984-1990 A 1984-1990 B
1991-1995 A 1991-1995 B "A" in 1991
1996-2000 A 1996-2000 B "B" in 1999
2001-2008 A 2001-2008 B "A" in 2003
Specific routes for the proposed moves have not yet been designated, but
in general the routes will be cleared and graded using crawler bulldozers to an
approximate width of 110 feet. The dragline routes will be regraded to approximate
3-85
-------
3.5 OF OXIDIZED OVERBURDEN TOPPED WITH 6 OF TOPSOIL
TYPICAL BOX CUT SEQUENCE
-GRADED AND REVEGETATED
(PERMANENT COVER)
-6" TOPSOIL REPLACEMENT —
(SOIL AMENDMENTS AND/OR
(COVER CROP AS NEEDED)
GRADED SPOIL
UNDISTURBED GROUND-
(SOIL AMENDMENTS ADCED
AND MIXED AS NEEDED)
-120-
IIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItlll!
TYPICAL MINE CUT SEQUENCE
LEGEND
ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE
REGRACED SURFACE
PREVIOUS SPOIL
PREVIOUS MINE CUT
UNGRADED SPOIL AND ACT1VI MINE CUT
J UNOXIDIZED OVERBURDEN ASD SPOIL
J UNDIFFERENT1ATED SPOIL
3 OXIDIZED OVER8UHOEN AND SPOIL
li!iiil!!li!ililli!!!fHI[li UNDISTURBED MATERIAL
POISED
3Y DATE
-
THE SABiNE MINING COMPANY
SOUTH HALLSViLLti MINE
Fig, 3-16
TYPICAL MINE CUT CROSS
SECTIONS
KA.E _.!'=4C'
e»A*»a* _ E.KKEE\'ER CA^E ..2/10/61
»"~C,E3 .S.WI ,,ArE 2/IC/8I ._.
PSO.'ECT NO ,ICg_ CPi'.V'.HG NO £1U_ MiP SHEET NO titL
-------
original contour and revegetated to an approved postmining land use compatible
with the surrounding area as soon as practicable after the routes are no longer
needed. Temporary earthen bridges with suitable culverts will be constructed for
stream crossings.
The C mining blocks will be mined by either of two methods. They will
be mined using dragline area mining wherever practicable. Otherwise, a modified
block cut mining method will probably be used with mobile equipment (scrapers,
loaders, crawler bulldozers, and/or trucks) as the overburden removal equipment.
This mining method consists of sequentially stripping relatively small (approximately
250- x 250-feet) blocks of lignite and hauling the excavated overburden to fill in an
adjacent block (from which the lignite has been previously removed) to the
approximate original contour.
There will be no surface mining within 100 feet, measured horizontally,
of a cemetery. Access to the cemeteries will be maintained at all times.
3.5.2.3 Mining Methods and Equipment
The proposed mine will use conventional single-seam area mining
procedures with two dragline pits. Several small outlying reserve blocks may be
mined using scrapers or other mobile equipment. Table 3-2 lists, by function, the
major items of mining equipment scheduled to be used. A narrative description of
mining procedures, mining equipment, and mine-related ancillary structures is
presented in the following subsections.
Land Clearing
Timber and brush will be cleared as shortly as practicable in advance of
mining operations. Merchantable timber will be removed by the landowner or local
contractors. The remaining subeconomic timber, brush, and tree stumps will be used
3-87
-------
TABLE 3-2
MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
SOUTH HALLSVILLS MINE
function
Description
Class Tvne
Number
Recuired
Land Clearing
Overburden Removal
Overburden Removal
Overburden Removal
Lignite Cleaning
Lignite Loading
Lignite Hauling
Spoil Grading
Spoil Grading
Miscellaneous Construction
Miscellaneous Construction
Miscellaneous Construction
Miscellaneous Construction
Miscellaneous Construction
Miscellaneous Construction
Miscellaneous Construction
Read Maintenance
Miscellaneous Hauling
Miscellaneous Hauling
Supply and Service
Personnel Transport
Crawler Bulldozer
Walking Dragline
Crawler Bulldozer
Scraper
Wheel Bulldozer
Backhoe or Front-End Loader
Bottom Dump Truck
Crawler Bulldozer
Motor Grader
Front-End Loader
3ackhoe Loader
Truck or Crawler Dragline
Scraper
Motor Grader
Crawler Bulldozer
Compactor
"iVater Truck
Rear Dump Truck
Rear Dump Truck
Various Trucks
Various Vehicles
D7, D8, D9
70-120 C.Y.
D9, D10
20-35 C.Y.
150-250 H.P.
12-18 C.Y.
100-170 Ton
D3. D9, D10
150-250 H.P.
3-12 C.Y.
4-6 C.Y.
4-3 C.Y.
15-25 C.Y.
150-250 H.P.
D7, D8, D9
150-350 H.P.
3.000-12,000 Gallon
15-25 Ton
30-50 Ton
1/2-10 Ton
1/2-1 1/2 Ton
1
1-2
1
5-10
7-14
Miscellaneous construction and hauling equipment to be used for construction, maintenance, and -.-eciamation of r^
?.nd irainage structures, with occasional use in overburden removal and inina reclamation.
ource: NACI, l"-80a.
3-88
-------
to construct brush piles for wildlife cover and/or burned or buried in accordance
with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. Houses and other structures
will be relocated or salvaged, when possible, prior to mining.
Drainage and Erosion Control
Sedimentation Ponds
Prior to surface disturbance in the permit area, sediment control
structures will be constructed to receive and detain the runoff from the disturbed
areas. It is anticipated that three types of sediment control structures will be used.
Type 1 (Fig. 3-17) is a sedimentation pond consisting of an embankment with
principal and emergency spillways. The design specifications for the type 1
Sedimentation Pond are detailed in the figure. The figure described the spillway
capacities, embankment configurations, use of anti-seep devices, sediment storage
volume, and dewatering device. The Type 1 Sedimentation Pond will be used in
natural drainageways near the head of small drainage areas. The Type 2
Sedimentation Pond (Fig. 3-18) is an excavated pond to be located offstream, as
needed. The crest of the spillway will be at an elevation that will provide storage
equivalent to the volume of runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour storm and 0.1 acre-foot
of sediment storage per acre disturbed. When the water level in the pond reaches
the elevation of the spillway after a storm event, the pond will be dewatered to the
sediment storage level by pump or siphon. The design specifications of this pond are
detailed in the figure. The Type 3 Sedimentation Pond (Fig. 3-19) is a combination
of excavated and embankment types. Water will be pumped to the pond from the
disturbed area. This type of pond will be used in lowland areas. Design
specifications for this pond are shown in the figure. The drawings shown in
Figs. 3-17 through 3-19 are representative typical drawings only.
Sizing of the sedimentation ponds is based on RRC requirements for
sediment storage and detention of runoff. Runoff volume for each sedimentation
3-89
-------
INFLOW
I
1 U
o
LEGEND
NUMBER
©
0
0
0
©
0
0
0
©
®
DESCRIPTION
COMBINED SPILLWAY CAPACITY
EMBANKMENT SLOPE
ANTI-SEEP DEVICE
ELEVATION OF EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
CREST ABOVE PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY
HEIGHT OF SETTLED EMBANKMENT ABOVE
WATER SURFACE IN EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
TOP WIDTH OF EMBANKMENT (FEET)
ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTED EMBANKMENT
HEIGHT FOR SETTLEMENT (FEET)
SEDIMENT STORAGE
DEWATERIMO DEVICE
DAM HEIGHT (H)
< 20 FEET HEIGHT
OR 20 ACRE- FEET
25 YEAR/24 MR. RUNOFF
2-1 MAX., 5'l MIN.
COMBINED
NOT INSTALLED
> 20 FEET HEIGHT
OR 20 ACRE-FEET
100 YEAR/24 HR. RUNOFF
2-1 MAX., 5>l MIN. COMBINED
I.8+- FACTOR OF SAFETY
INSTALLED
1.0 FOOT MINIMUM
1.0 FOOT MINIMUM
(H •• 35)/5
.03 x H
O.I ACRE- FOOT/ ACRE DISTURBED
LAND OR 3-YEAR ACCUMULATION
MAINTAINED AT TOP OF SEDIMENT STORAGE ELEVATION
MEASURED FROM UPSTREAM TOE
TO TOP OF EMBANKMENT
TYPE 1 SEDIMENTATION POND DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Fig. 3-17
-------
I
U.)
LEGEND
NUMBER
~TJT~~
~~®
&
0
DESCHIPTION
SPILLWAY CAPACITY
SEDIMENT STORAGE
DEWATEHINQ DEVICE
PUMP
< 20 ACRE FEET
25 YEAR/24 HR. RUNOFF
> 20 ACRE FEET
100 YEAR/24 HR. RUNOFF
O.I ACRE- FOOT/ ACRE DISTURBED LAND OR 3-YEAR ACCUMULATION
MAINTAINED AT TOP OF SEDIMENT STORAGE ELEVATION
MAINTAINED AT TOP OF SEDIMENT STORAGE ELEVATION
TYPE 2 SEDIMENTATION POND DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Fig. 3-18
-------
LEGEND
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
DESCRIPTION
COMBINED SPILLWAY CAPACITY
EMBANKMENT SLOPE
ANTI-SEEP DEVICE
ELEVATION OF EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
CREST ABOVE PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY
HEIGHT OF SETTLED EMBANKMENT ABOVE
WATER SURFACE IN EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
TOP WIDTH OF EMBANKMENT (FEET)
ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTED EMBANKMENT
HEIGHT FOR SETTLEMENT (FEET)
SEDIMENT STORAGE
OEWATERING DEVICE
0AM HEIGHT (H)
PUMP
<20 FEET HEIGHT
OR 20 ACRE- FEET
25 YEAR/24 HR. RUNOFF
2>IMAX., 5-1 MIN.
COMBINED
Nor INSTALLED
>20 FEET HEIGHT
OR 20 ACRE- FEET
100 YEAR/24 HR. RUNOFF
2'l MAX. , 3'l MIN. COMBINED
1.5+ FACTOR OF SAFETY
INSTALLED
1.0 FOOT MINIMUM
1.0 FOOT MINIMUM
(III 35)/5
.05 x H
O.I ACRE-FOOT ACRE/DISTURBED
LAND OH 3-YEAR ACCUMULATION
MAINTAINED AT TOP OF SEDIMENT STORAGE ELEVATION
MEASURED FROM UPSTREAM TOE
TO TOP OF EMBANKMENT
TYPE 3 SEDIMENTATION POND DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Fig. 3-19
-------
pond was computed using Soil Conservation Service (SCS) procedures. Each
sedimentation pond will be designed to have a detention capacity equal to the runoff
volume (from the effective drainage area) resulting from a 10-year, 24-hour storm
(7.1 inches of rainfall) plus a required sediment storage capacity of 0.1 acre-foot for
each acre of disturbed area. The total required runoff and sediment storage volume
of each sedimentation pond will be contained at an elevation equal to or below the
elevation of the overflow channel or principal spillway crest. Locations of the
sedimentation ponds and required diversion channels for diverting overland flow into
the ponds have been determined (EH&A, 1981a). Each pond is numbered according
to the year in which it should be completed. Effective drainage and disturbed areas,
estimated storm runoff and sediment storage volumes, and estimated total
capacities for each pond are listed in Table 3-3.
Ditches and Diversion Structures
As mining progresses, a series of ditches and diversion structures will be
installed to control surface water runoff. These ditches will consist of two types:
upstream interceptor ditches and sediment diversion ditches. Upstream interceptor
ditches will be used to direct drainage from undisturbed areas away from disturbed
areas to prevent co-mingling of drainage. Sediment diversion ditches will direct
runoff from the disturbed areas to sediment control structures.
All ditches and diversion structures will be designed according to RRC
specifications depending upon the nature of the structure (temporary or permanent).
Figure 3-20 depicts the characteristics of typical temporary and permanent
diversion structures.
Runoff from undisturbed areas is not required to pass through a
sedimentation pond. Therefore, to minimize the sizes of sedimentation ponds, much
of the runoff from undisturbed areas will be diverted away from channels leading to
the sedimentation ponds or will be detained in upstream reservoirs to be released
3-93
-------
TABLE 3-3
CONCEPTUAL SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FACILITIES
FOR THE SOUTH HALLSVILLE MINE
Pond
Number
198ZMF1
1982MF2
1982MF3
1982DE1
1982DE2
1984A1
1984A2
1985A1
1985A2
1985A3
1985A4
1985A5
1935A6
1985B1
1985B2
1985B3
1985B4
1985B5
1985B6
1985B7
1935B8
1985B9
1985B10
1986A1
1986A2
1986A3
1986A4
1986AS
1986A6
1986A7
1986B1
1986B2
1986B3
1986B4
1986B5
1986B6
1986B7
1987A1
1987A2
Drainage
Area
(acres)
5.1
7.8
4.9
9.8
18.9
43.4
27.9
18.4
36.0
29.2
23.8
40.9
7.1
72.8
61.5
35.3
23.3
9.8
60.0
31.1
33.6
35.3
23. 4
58.3
9.1
20.1
34.3
48.5
19.4
2.5
52.9
6.1
7.1
9.3
57.4
39.7
12.3
59.3
108.3
Disturbed
Area
(acres)
5.1
7.8
4.9
9.8
18.8
42.4
26.9
14.7
34.9
27.4
22.7
40.0
6.6
29.4
45.0
27.9
19.0
7.8
56.6
28.0
26.5
33.3
23.2
54.7
8.4
19.0
28.0
46.3
19.2
1.0
52.4
5.4
6.1
3.3
51.3
36.7
11.0
47.8
95.5
Design Storm
Runoff Volume
(acre- feet)
2.1
3.2
2.0
4.0
7.7
17.7
11.4
7.5
14.7
11.9
9.7
16.7
2.9
13.4
25.1
14.4
9.5
4.0
24.5
12.7
13.7
14.4
11.6
23.3
3.7
8.2
14.0
19-8
7.9
1.0
21.6
2.5
2.9
3.8
23.4
16.2
5.0
24.2
44.2
Sediment
Storage
(acre- feet)
0.5
0.8
0.5
1.0
1.9
4.2
2.7
1.5
3.5
2.7
2.3
4.0
0.7
2.9
4.5
2.8
1.9
0.8
5.7
2.8
2.7
3.3
2.3
5 .5
0.3
1.9
2.8
4.6
1.9
0.1
5.2
0.5
0.6
0.4
5.1
3.7
1.1
4.3
9.6
Total Pond
Capacity
(acre-feet)
2.6
4.0
2.5
5.0
9.6
21.9
14.1
9.0
18.2
14.6
12.0
20.7
3.6
16.3
29.6
17.2
11.4
4.8
30.2
15.5
16.4
17.7
13.9
29.3
4.5
10.1
16.8
24.4
9.3
1.1
26.8
3.0
3.5
4.2
23.5
19.9
6.1
29.0
53.3
3-94
-------
TABLE 3-3 (Cont'd)
Pond
Number
1987 A3
1987A4
1987 A5
1987A6
1987A7
198731
19873E
1987B3
198734
1988A1
19SSA2
19 88 A3
19S3A4
198SA5
193SA6
19S8A7
: 983 A3
1988A9
19S3A10
1938A11
19S3A12
1933 A13
1933A14
I9SSA15
193331
1 ^8832
19S3B2A
198S33
198334
1Q?835
198836
1983 37
1989A1
1989A2
193931
193932
19S'533
19S9B4
198955
Drainage
Area
(acres)
32
24
29
24
75
11
54
72
48
30
21
24
47
13
14
39
27
1
11
3
9
4
4
40
47
30
30
15
41
6
7
10
49
179
33
35
06
23
23
.4
.5
.4
. 5
.0
.3
.2
.1
.3
.9
.3
.8
.3
.7
.0
.2
. 5
.7
.0
_ i
.1
. 2
.4
.7
.5
.1
. 0
T
.9
.6
.1
.1
.5
.9
.3
.0
->
. 5
.0
Disturbed
Area
(acres)
27
17
16
16
73
9
54
64
47
23
16
23
45
3
10
33
25
0
10
6
7
4
3
38
40
29
29
10
38
r>
7
10
39
173
31
30
CO
^ ^
25
.3
.6
.2
.4
.9
.5
.1
.3
f
• l«
_7
-9
.0
.0
. 6
->
.1
. 1
.9
.3
.6
.7
.1
.3
.9
.6
•y
• o
. O
.1
.3
.6
.0
.1
.1
.7
.4
.3
.0
.0
.3
Design 3torma
Runoff Volume
(acre-feet)
13
10
12
10
30
4:
22
29
19
12
S
10
19
5
5
16
11
0
4
3
3
1
1
16
19
12
12
6
17
L,
2
4
20
73
13
14
27
9
11
.2
.0
.0
.0
.6
.6
.1
.4
.9
.6
.9
.1
.3
.5
. 7
.0
.2
.7
.5
.3
. i
.7
.3
.6
.4
.3
. 5
.4
.1
.7
.9
^ i_
.2
.4
.6
.3
.0
.6
.3
Sediment
Storage
(acre-feet)
i
1
1
1
T
1
5
6
4
-t
t*
1
^
4
0
1
3
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
4
2
3
i
3
0
0
1
3
17
3
3
6
2
2
.8
.3
.6
.6
.4
.0
.4
.4
. 7
.4
.7
.3
.5
.9
.0
. -3
. 0
.1
.0
. i
,<3
,4
.4
.9
. 1
.0
.0
.0
.9
_7
. 7
.0
.9
.9
.1
.0
.6
. 1
.5
Total Pond
Capacity
(acre-feet)
16
11
13
11
38
5
27
35
Z-=
15
10
12
23
6
t>
19
13
0
5
4
4
->
2
20
23
15
15
i
21
3
3
5
24
91
16
17
33
11
14
.0
.3
.6
.6
.0
.6
.5
.8
.6
.0
.6
.4
.3
. 5
,7
. 4
.3
.3
. 5
. 0
.5
.1
.2
. 5
. 5
. u
. 5
.4
.0
.4
.0
.1
.1
.3
.7
.3
. 0
.7
. 3
3-95
-------
TABLE 3-3 (Cont'd)
Pond
Number
1990A1
1990A2
1990A3
1990A4
1990A5
1990B1
1990B2
1990B3
1990B4
1990BS
1991A1
1991A2
199! A3
109131
19913Z
199331
1995S1
199731
1997E2
199351
199931
1999E2C
2000B1
:OOOB2
2COOB3
200034
200181°
2001S1
200132
ZOO 133
2001S4
2001S5
2001S6
2001S7
2001S3
200 139
2001S10
2003 Al
•:004B1
Drainage
Area
(acres)
82.0
70.0
123.3
51.1
51.9
42.5
22.5
17.0
69.3
36.0
145.7
310.9
2.259.3
301.6
2.408.9
234.2
33.3
171.7
94.5
71.5
2,232.6
—
702.9
92.2
246.8
110.1
31.7
27.1
93.3
23.0
40.9
35.8
73.5
67.5
34.0
33.5
57.4
439.4
Disturbed
Area
(acres)
35.5
39. S
123.3
26.1
42.6
42.5
15.2
17.0
69.3
28.0
115.9
490.1
1,133.8
250.3
1,386.3
184.6
67.5
152.0
94. 5'
29.4
1,714.7
—
655.3
19.7
205.0
?9.6
25.7
14.7
47. S
12.9
15.2
18.3
51.4
48.2
70.7
24.3
36.3
336.1
Design Storma
Runoff Volume
lacre-feet)
33.5
28.6
50.2
20.8
21.2
17.3
9.2
6.9
28.5
14.7
59.4
330.3
921.3
123.1
982.3
95.6
34.0
70.1
38.6
29.2
910.9
286.3
37.6
100.7
44.9
12.9
11.1
40.1
11.4
16.7
14.6
32.0
27.5
34.3
13.7
23.4
179.3
Sediment'
Storage
(acre-feet)
3.6
4.0
12.3
2.6
4.3
4.3
1.5
1.7
7.0
2.8
11.6
49.0
113.4
25.1
138.6
13.5
6.3
15.2
9.5
2.9
171.5
65 .6
2.0
20.5
10.0
2.6
1.5
4.S
1 . 3
1.5
1.9
5.1
4.8
7.1
2.5
3.6
33.6
Total Pond
Capacity
• acre-feet)
37.1
32.6
62.5
23.4
25.5
21.6
10.7
3.6
35.5
17.5
71.0
379.3
1,035.2
143. 2
1,121.4
114.1
40.3
35.3
48.1
32.1
1,082.4
352.3
39.6
121.2
54.9
15.5
12.6
44.9
12-7
18.2
16.5
37.1
32.3
41.4
lb.2
27.0
212.9
3-96
-------
TABLE 3-3 (Concluded)
Pond
Number
2005B1
Z007B1
2007S1
Drainage
Area
(acres)
222.9
75.1
44.1
Disturbed
Area
(acres)
83.3
34.1
13.3
Design Storma
Runoff Volume
(acre-feet)
90.9
30.6
18.0
Sediment
Storage
(acre-feet)
3.3
3.4
1.3
Total Pond
Capacity
(acre-feet)
99. 2.
34.0
19.3
a Volume of runoff resulting from a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event.
Sediment storage computed as 0.1 acre-foot per each acre of disturbed area.
c Ponds 1999B2 and 2001B1 are used only for extra (preliminary) sediment control before reaching pond 1999B1, -which
•vill be constructed with a capacity to contain the total sediment and runoff volumes from the drainage area.
Source: EH&A, 1981a.
3-97
-------
Freeboard =0.3'
Water surface elevation resulting from
2 year recurrance interval precipitation
event for temporary diversions, 10 year
recurrance interval event for permanent
diversions.
lining os
inquired for stability
bused upon design
velocity.
-vanes '
Typical Runoff Diversion Ditch
Fig. 3- 2O
-------
after runoff from disturbed areas has passed through the sedimentation ponds.
These reservoirs will be completed according to a predetermined schedule (EH&A,
1981b). Three of the largest of these reservoirs are located upstream of the mine
area to detain runoff from the upper watershed of Clarks Creek. The reservoirs will
je completed by the year 2000 to help minimize the size of sedimentation pond
ZOOOB1. Four other ponds will also be constructed by the year 2000 upstream of
sedimentation pond 2000B1. One of these ponds will be used only for detaining
runoff from an upstream undisturbed area. The other three (2000B2, 2000B3, and
2000B4) will be used initially to detain runoff from undisturbed areas and will be
used later as sedimentation ponds for runoff from disturbed areas as the mine
progresses. Similar runoff control schemes are conceived for the other watersheds
in the mine area. Additionally, storage capacities of several existing ponds in the
project area may be used to minimize runoff to sedimentation ponds.
Diversion and Rerouting of Streams
To control drainage from upstream areas, it will be necessary to
construct stream channel diversions for a portion of Hatley Creek and several of its
unnamed tributaries. It is anticipated that these diversions will be temporary in
nature and will be designed to prevent contribution of sediment to streamflow or
runoff from outside the permit area. These temporary diversions will be designed so
that the channel, bank, and adjacent floodplain will safely pass the peak runoff from
a 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event. The capacity of the channel itself will be
designed to equal the capacity of the unmodified stream channel immediately
upstream and downstream of the diversion itself. When no longer needed (years of
completion for various segments are indicated in EH&A, 1981b), the diversions will
be removed and the stream will be returned to a configuration that approximates
premining stream channel characteristics. Figure 3-21 shows the pertinent design
characteristics of a stream channel diversion.
3-99
-------
o
o
Floodway
Main Channel
Grassed Floodway
IOYr./24Hr
Flow Capacity
Equivalent to upstream
and downstream
channel
Main channel lining will be
selected to remain stable
and to support natural
biota of original stream.
TYPICAL TEMPORARY STREAM DIVERSION
CROSS SECTION
Fig. 3-21
-------
Permanent diversions may be required to enable mining through or near
the existing channels and to prevent flood flows from interfering with mining
operations. Permanent stream diversions will be designed to pass the peak discharge
resulting from a 100-year, 24-hour storm event.
Flood Prevention Levees
Levees will be necessary to prevent flooding caused by backwater from
the Sabine River and other streams in the project area. These levees will be
designed for a flood resulting from a 100-year, 24-hour storm. In some cases, the
levee will also be used as a haul-road embankment and/or a pond embankment.
Where a levee is used for a sedimentation pond embankment, the emergency
spillway for the sedimentation pond will consist of culverts with flap gates to
prevent flooding by backwater during high stage conditions.
Control of Overland Flow
Overland flow must be controlled during mining operations to prevent
runoff from entering active mine pits. An illustration of the planned method of
overland flow control is contained in EH&A, 1981b, which shows overland flow
diversion channels and catchment basins temporarily located for various stages
during the life of the mine. As mining progresses, runoff toward the mine pit will be
diverted around the pit or, in cases where diversion channel excavations would be
too great, catchment basins will be formed by temporary dikes to keep water out of
the pit. Runoff water in the catchment basins will be pumped to a channel to
convey the water downstream of the pit. Other overland flow diversions will be
necessary to direct runoff from disturbed areas toward sedimentation ponds.
Temporary overland flow diversion channels will be designed for a 2-year storm, as
required by the RRC regulations. Permanent overland flow diversion channels will
be designed for a 10-year storm.
3-101
-------
Overburden Removal
Overburden will be removed using two 70- to 120-yard electric-powered
walking draglines utilized in a conventional dig and sidecast manner. These
machines require a relatively firm and level working surface, which will be
constructed by a combination of dragline chop cutting (digging at or above the level
of the dragline base) and bulldozer grading. The depth of this working surface
(bench) will vary between 10 and 40 feet below the ground surface, depending on
soil/rock bearing strength, overburden depth, and drainage requirements.
Average pit width from the toe of the spoil to the base of the highwall
will be approximately 120 feet. Overburden depth varies from 20 to 140 feet and
averages 66 feet. Pit length ranges from 800 to 10,000 feet and averages about
6,000 feet.
Overburden removal for the initial dragline cuts (box cuts) will com-
mence during the third quarter of 1984, using scrapers and other mobile equipment
as the excavating units. Scrapers, bulldozers, and the two draglines will complete
the box cutting during the fourth quarter of 1984. Full dragline stripping production
is scheduled to be reached during early 1985. Figure 3-15 shows, in cross section,
the sequence of mining and reclamation activities under typical mining conditions.
Lignite Loading and Hauling
The top of the lignite seam will be cleaned and any persistent thick
partings will be removed by mobile equipment and deposited at the baseline of the
spoil pile. Two 12- to 18-cubic yard hydraulic backhoes, or comparably sized
front-end loaders, will load lignite from the two active pits. Lignite blasting will
not be required. Bottom dump coal haulers will haul the lignite to the truck dump.
3-102
-------
Spoil Grading
Spoil piles left by the dragline will be rough graded using large crawler
bulldozers. Final grading and ditching will be accomplished using a motor grader.
Final graded slopes and drainage patterns will approximate the general nature of
premining topography and. drainage.
Road Construction and Maintenance
Three major types of roads are to be constructed in the mine area:
lignite haul roads, access roads, and temporary access roads. Roads will be
constructed in accordance with prudent engineering and regulatory standards,
according to the size, type, and density of scheduled vehicular traffic. Typical cross
sections of these three types of roads are presented in Fig. 3-22. The road surfaces
will be maintained, as needed, on a regular basis by grading, ditch cleaning, and
adding additional surfacing material. A water truck will be used, as needed, to
control fugitive dust. When roads are no longer needed, surfacing material and
culverts will be salvaged, whenever possible, and the surface will be regraded and
reclaimed to an approved postmining land use compatible with the surrounding area.
Stream crossings by roads within the permit area will be designed in
compliance with RRC regulations, Rules 400 through 420. These rules specify the
requirements for roads according to Classes I, H, and HI. Culverts and bridges for
Class I roads (lignite haul road) will meet the following minimum requirements:
o Culverts with an end area of 35 square feet and bridges with spans
of 30 feet or less will be designed to safely pass the 10-year,
24-hour precipitation event without a head of water at the
entrance. Culverts with an end area of greater than 35 square feet
or less, will be designed to safely pass the 20-year, 24-hour
precipitation event. Bridges with spans of more than 30 feet will
be designed to safely pass the 100-year, 24-hour precipitation
event or a larger event as specified by the RRC.
3-103
-------
TEMPORARY ACCESS ROM) (CLASS Ml
"'"I
ACCESS ROAD (CLASS 3)-3OCMLL CUT » FILL
s'-J H-6'—
-—i/2" PER rocrr—- I
ACCESS fCttO (CLASS XI-UPLAMO SECTKMI
uaurre HAULMMO < CLAW 11—SIOEHLL cur a RLL
•1/2' PER FOOT-
uiwrrt
(ctjtss ij-unjwo
NOTE: DEPTH OF 31HW«C1W» »ATEm«L AND
CUT AHO FILL 3UOPC* WILL VARY
DEPeNDtN* OM THE STMN«TH Of
MATIVE 90\l. tMTEKIALS. OITCH
SIMEWSION3 ANOLINIW8 MATERIALS
«MLL y«KV DEPENDING ON LOCAL
HYOKOLOOIC PARAMETERS
Bt MTV
THE SAStNE MINING COMPAMT
SOUTH HAU.SVILLE WWG
FI0..3 - 22
TYPICAL HAULROAO CROSS
SECTIONS
scjue r=IO*
™_» 3.K.3. «. 9/K5/80
^™« s.w.1. «„ awo/ao
North Amwican ConBUlt«nW, Inc.
PROJECT NO. IQg CWAWtWS NO. PJii MA* 3HEET MO. 1^1
3-10^
-------
o Drainage pipes and culverts will be constructed to avoid plugging
or collapse and erosion at inlets and outlets.
o All culverts will be covered by compacted fill to a minimum depth
of 1 foot.
o Culverts will be designed, constructed, and maintained to sustain
the vertical soil pressure, the passive resistance of the foundation,
and the weight of vehicles to be used.
Culverts and bridges for Class n roads (access roads) will meet the
following requirements:
o Culverts with an end area of 35 square feet or less will be designed
to safely pass the 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event without a
head of water at the entrance. Culverts with an end area of
greater than 35 square feet and bridges with spans of 30 feet or
less, will be designed to safely pass the 20-year, 24-hour precipi-
tation event. Bridges with spans of more than 30 feet will be
designed to safely pass the 100-year, 24-hour precipitation event
or larger event as specified by the regulatory authority.
o Drainage pipes and culverts will be constructed to avoid plugging
or collapse and erosion at inlets and outlets.
o Culverts will be covered by compacted fill to a minimum depth of
1 foot.
o Culverts will be designed, constructed, and maintained to sustain
the vertical soil pressure, the passive resistance of the road
foundation, and the weight of vehicles to be used.
For Class in roads (temporary access roads) temporary culverts will be
installed for all flowing drainages and stream crossings. Temporary culverts and
bridges will be sized to safely pass the 1-year, 6-hour precipitation event.
3-105
-------
Figure 3-23 is a cross section and end view of a typical stream crossing
showing the pertinent design characteristics.
Reclamation and Revegetation
General Reclamation Procedure
Surface (soil) reconstruction and revegetation reclamation operations for
the South Hallsville Lignite Surface Mine to be operated by the Sabine Mining
Company involve the segregation and redistribution of topsoil and near- surface
oxidized overburden for use as a postmining soil. The surface 6 inches of soil
(topsoil) remaining in place after initial vegetation removal operations, will be
removed and redistributed as the final postmining surface layer. A mixture of the
remaining soil and near-surface oxidized overburden will be segregated and redis-
tributed on top of unoxidized overburden and will comprise the layer immediately
beneath the replaced 6 inch topsoil layer. The two reconstructed layers will provide
a minimum of 48 inches of cover over the unoxidized overburden material. Final
surface reconfiguration will approximate the original premining contour. The
reconstructed postmining soil will be revegetated with approved plant species that
are adapted to the region.
Soil Assessment
A detailed soil survey was performed by the SCS in order to identify soil
types and their physical location within the 24-year mine area.
Table 3-4 contains summarized data for the area's major soil mapping
units. A careful review of the data shows that the natural soils (1) are very sandy
within the solum (A and B horizons); (2) have solum cation exchange capacities of
generally less than 15 meq/100 g; (3) have base saturation levels of the cation
exchange sites of generally less than 20 percent; (4) generally have low to extremely
3-106
-------
I
o
Erosion Protection
ut Inlet-
Class I = 70'
-Class K-36'-
ClassIQ>20'
1/2" per ft
l/2"perfl.
Compacted Fill
Varies
(Min. 1.25'x pipe dial
Erosion Protection
at Outlet
Flow •
No Head during Peak Flow
Fill material should be compacted to 785%
density In 6" layers to top of pipe.
Min. 1.25 x pipe diameter
Erosion
Protection at Outlet
Place appropriate
bedding material
Typical Stream Crossing
Culvert size-ClassesISI
End areas35 ft2
Culvert must pass IO your
24 hour precipitation event with
no head at entrance
End area>- 35 fI.8
Culvert must pass 20 year
24 hour precipitation event
with no head at entrance.
Class III
Temporary culvert will safely
pass the I year 6 hour event.
Fig. 3-23
-------
TABLE 3-4
CHAKAOTKRIKTICS OF SOU'! [I HAL.LSVILLE MJHK
SURFACE SOIL HORIZONS
Soil
Serins Horizon
Ci.wit: A
B2U
B22i
13 .'31
R 1 1 w i o A
B2U
f B22i
0 B^3f
00
B24v
Cart-Erno A23
B214-
B22I-A
BX1
HXEi-A'Z
Cutlilierl A
BZlh
B22+
Or
Cullihert A1 + A2
B2I i-
B22f
HJiG
(~r
Depth
(inches)
0-11
11-22
22-35
35- 44
0 13
13-22
22-31
31-39
39- 45
0-20
20-23
23-37
37-44
44- 47
0-6
6-26
26-32
32- 42
0-9
9-38
38-48
-18-56
S6-60
Rand
1
56.95
51.09
38.50
37.96
72.82
51.02
44.33
41.81
37.34
74.07
57.00
56.52
58.14
56.88
86.14
54.23
46.93
53.27
70.43
68.24
77 .22
55.00
54. 56
Silt
[percent}
27.96
22.52
45.89
33.31
24 . 57
30.06
8.44
33.23
38.20
17.30
30.21
23.05
24.75
22.27
10.92
10.90
19-70
15.47
20.77
11.79
8.66
16. -15
10 . 17
Clay CEC
Base
Saturation
(m»,|/100 g) (meq/100 g)
15.09
26.39
15.61
28.73
2.61
18.92
47.23
24.96
24.46
8.63
12.79
20.43
17.11
20. R 5
2.94
34.87
33.37
31.26
8.80
22.97
14.12
28.55
35.Z7
7.4
10.0
12.4
10.2
2.2
10.9
10.4
11.3
9.7
1.7
6.7
10.2
7.2
5.9
8.5
13.5
13.7
14.8
9.1
5.9
8.')
13. 1)
1-1.8
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
.52
.73
.26
.59
.33
.23
.06
• 99
.92
.3
.58
.19
.1-1
.99
.52
.63
.72
.48
.04
.46
.65
.71
.72
^percent)
20
17
10
5
15
11
10
8
9
17
23
21
15
16
17
12
5
3
11
7
7
5
4
.5
.3
.2
.6
.0
.8
.2
.8
.5
.6
.6
.5
.8
.8
.9
.1
.3
.2
.4
.8
.3
^ 15
.9
Acidity
(ltu-q/100 g)
5.9
8.3
11.1
9.6
1.9
9.67
9.3
10.3
8.8
1.4
5.1
8.0
5.9
4.9
7.0
11.9
13.0
14.3
8.1
5.4
8.3
12.3
14. 1
OM
(percent)
0.38
0.48
0.17
0.07
0.55
0.32
0.2
0.12
0.21
0.34
0.25
0.28
0.07
0.07
2.3
0.71
0.25
0.91
3.64
0.52
0.52
0.80
O.ZZ
N
(percent)
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.10
0.03
0.05
0.04
O.03
Available
___ __
(ppin) (ppin)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-1
4
80
96
60
50
80
80
82
73
60
30
90
90
70
80
134
204
110
180
140
180
205
255
116
-------
TABLE 3-4 (Cont'd)
Soil
Kirvin
Kirvin
o
•*0
Knllit
Horizon
Al I \l
B2U
1',22.
B23I
A
B21i
B22i
B23I
A1
A 2
B21.
15221
Al
A2
B2H
13221
Al
A2
B2H
B22.
B21i
B.'.ti
IVpth
0-9
9-22
22-40
40- 47
0-14
14-26
26-35
35- 47
0-4
4-10
10-23
23- 40
0-3
3-15
15-23
23- 40
0-2.5
2.5-8
8-16
16-26
26-36
36- 41
Sand Silt
(percent)
71.47
28.37
31.00
9.39
82.38
54.22
47.18
37.65
72.72
73.12
53.24
48.24
66.99
65.29
48.65
27 .42
64.39
53.16
17 .05
3.00
2.01
6.24
23.93
22.76
14.52
25.74
10.97
14. 12
10.77
20.30
24.66
22.12
23.66
26 . 27
31.60
35.71
23.79
18.81
32.98
27.92
26.49
47 .05
46.70
45.49
Clay
4 . 60
48.87
54.48
64.87
6.65
31.66
42.05
42.05
2.62
4.76
23.10
25.49
1.41
1.00
27.56
53.77
2.63
18.92
56.46
49-95
5 1 . 29
4«.27
c w;
6.1
19.6
23.5
35.7
3.9
23.5
16.7
20.4
5.9
3.7
8.1
9-8
7.6
2.9
10.0
26.7
7.0
7.2
18.9
20.0
27 . 9
2-1 .4
Base
Saturation
(meq/100 g)
0.56
1.99
1.05
0.97
0.88
2.51
1.54
1.04
2.38
0.91
2.06
1.33
1.75
1.02
1.9
2.2
1.98
1.84
2.52
2.25
1.55
1.15
(percent)
9
10
4
2
22
10
9
5
40
24
24
13
23
35
19
8
28
25
13
11
5
4
.2
.2
.5
.7
.6
.7
.2
.1
.3
.6
.5
.6
.0
.2
.0
.24
.3
.5
.3
.2
.55
.71
Aridity
(mrci/100 g)
5.5
17.6
22.4
34.7
3.0
21.0
15.2
19-4
3.5
2.8
6.3
8.5
5.8
1.9
8.1
24.5
5.0
5.4
16.4
17.8
26.3
23.2
OM
(percent)
0.56
0.49
0.28
0.15
0.75
0.45
0.43
0.49
2.68
0.73
0.41
0.26
2.27
0.52
0.41
0.52
1.99
0.90
0.30
0.61
0.31
0.43
N
(percent)
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.13
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.13
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.10
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.04
Available
~ p K"
(pjuii) (ppinl
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
20
8
4
4
6
4
4
4
4
4
110
221
90
291
70
170
200
260
70
29
70
70
80
40
•>0
210
290
330
700
340
310
245
-------
TABLE 3-4 (Concluded)
Soil
Scries Horizon
Themis Al i-AZ
B21
BZZ
B23
BZ4
Depth
(inches)
0-4
4-11
11-31
31-44
44-48
Sand Silt
(jiurcent)
58.41
58.73
57.82
58.66
57.28
30.69
26.49
35.50
23.07
17.33
Clay
10.90
14.78
6.68
18.27
25.39
CEC
(mrq/100 g)
20.0
7.6
3.9
9.1
10.7
Base
Saturation
(meq/100 g) (percent)"
3,
2.
1.
1,
1.
.38
.72
.02
.82
.72
16
35
26
19
16
.9
.8
.1
.4
.1
Available
Acidity
(iueq/100 g)
16,
4.
2.
7.
9.
.6
,9
,9
,6
.0
OM
(percent)
4
0
0
0
0
.72
.84
.50
.30
.17
N
(percent)
0
0
0
0
0
.24
.06
.03
.03
.03
P
(ppm)
4
4
4
4
4
K
(ppm)
210
60
43
110
120
Source: Brown, 1980.
OJ
I
-------
low levels of organic matter (OM), plant-available phosphorus (P), plant-available
potassium (K), and organic nitrogen (N). The capacity of the natural soils to produce
sufficient quantities of forage dry matter is low to very low, based upon available N
without supplemental N additions. An estimate of the potential inorganic N supply
from the organic N pool (assuming that one surface acre 6 inches deep weighs
2.0 x 10 pounds) reveals that on an average, only 800 to 1,400 pounds of minera-
lizable organic N are present in the soil. Assuming an inorganic N release rate of 5
percent per year (a high value), an average of only 40 to 70 pounds of NH. -N and
NO_ -N, products of mineralized organic N, are potentially available for crop
utilization. Generally, 200 to 400 pounds of NH. -N and NO- -N are recommended
for improved pasture production systems. In addition, the capacity of these soils to
supply other major and minor nutrients is low to very low. A review of the data
clearly indicates that the existing soils are not good intensive agricultural soils. An
earlier but similar assessment of these soils was made as early as 1931 by W.T.
Carter. He described these soils as nonintensive agricultural soils due to their
adverse physical properties and low natural fertility.
Overburden Assessment
Nine continuous overburden cores were collected from the project site
by the Paul Weir Company during the lignite-drilling and mine-development study
for the South Hallsville Project. Overburden core samples were transported to
Texas A&M University's Departments of Soil and Crop Sciences and Geology, where
the overburden cores were analyzed for various chemical and physical properties.
Texas A&M researchers stated that the top 16 to 20 feet of overburden (apparently
oxidized zone) is the most desirable reclamation material when compared with
native soil A horizon materials.
Lithologic samples and logs obtained during hydrogeologic and lignite-
exploration drilling programs produced data showing that the surface 15- to 23-foot
increment is oxidized, based upon the vivid yellow, orange, and brown colors
3-111
-------
associated with the overburden. Statistical analyses of overburden core data show
that the mean levels of acidity, electrical conductivity, pyritic sulfur, soluble salts,
sulfate sulfur, and total sulfur in the oxidized zone (0 to 23 feet) are significantly
lower than the unoxidized zone (23 feet). The oxidized overburden data presented in
Table 3-5, are equal to, if not better than the B and C soil horizon data presented in
Table 3-4. The oxidized overburden data (Table 3-5) tend to be equal to the
undisturbed A horizon values of many soil mapping units (Table 3-4) for percent
sand, silt, and clay; percent N; ppm available K; available water capacity; and
acidity.
The oxidized overburden data indicate that this material potentially
could be used as a topsoil substitute. However, firm support for using oxidized
overburden as a topsoil substitute will require further research on organic matter
level and microbial transformation influences on postmining crop performance.
Until the results of the research are obtained, replacement of the surface 6-inch
layer, which contains the maximum supply of organic matter and maximum expected
microbial diversity in this region, is planned as an added measure to maximize the
postmining revegetation potential.
The Sabine Mining Company proposes to utilize the select oxidized
overburden zone as a portion of the reconstructed root zone (7 to 48 inch layer), and
will further investigate the potential of the near surface oxidized overburden
material as a topsoil substitute. The Sabine Mining Company also will investigate
the reclamation feasibility potential of mixed overburden as a soil substitute
material.
Topsoil and Oxidized Overburden Handling Procedures
Topsoil segregation operations will begin after the removal of vegeta-
tion. Topsoil will be removed by mobile field equipment (e.g., scrapers, bulldozers,
etc.) and redistributed on the oxidized overburden. Redistribution will begin after
3-112
-------
TABLE 3-5
OXIDIZED OVERBURDEN CORE DATA
SOUTH HALLSVILLE MINE
Variable1
Sand
Silt
Clay
OM
N
P
K
H^O available
Acidity
Electrical Conductivity
Mean
58.20
19.50
22.23
0.28
0.053
1.26
92.80
12.30
6.54
4.70
Standard
Deviation
21.13
11.23
13.53
0.26
0.086
1.53
52.30
4.23
7.80
9.30
Sand = percent
Silt = percent
Clay = percent
OM = organic matter concentration, percent.
N = nitrogen concentration, percent.
P = available phosphorus, ppm.
K = available potassium, ppm.
H?0 available = plant-available water, percent.
Acidity = measurable potential acidity, meq/100 g of oxidized overburden.
Electrical Conductivity = saturated paste conductance, mmhos/cm.
Source: NACI, 1981.
3-113
-------
the topsoil redistribution surface (interface plane) has been prepared to reduce
slippage potential and when chemical and physical topsoil properties can be
protected and erosion minimized (or controlled). If prompt topsoil redistribution
becomes impractical, the material will be routed to predetermined storage areas.
The stockpiled topsoil will be protected from wind and water erosion, unnecessary
compaction, and contaminants which lessen the capability of the topsoil to support
postmining vegetation. Nutrients and other soil amendments will be added to the
reconstructed soil in amounts determined by tests or experience in order to promote
stability of the approved postmining land use and maintain the vegetation as
required in the Texas surface mining revegetation rules.
Draglines or mobile field equipment will be used to excavate and place
near-surface oxidized overburden materials. The draglines will selectively chop cut
the oxidized overburden and deposit it on top of the unoxidized overburden so as to
ensure that the unoxidized materials are covered by a minimum of 3.5 feet of
oxidized materials. The distances between the regraded surfaces and the top of the
unoxidized overburden spoil piles are independent of spoil pile height. This distance
is independent of the overburden depth within the range capabilities of the draglines
at any given chop cut depth and spoil angle. When 20 feet or more of oxidized
overburden is present, unoxidized material will be placed in a normal, single, high
ridge. When a sufficient depth of oxidized overburden is not available to cover the
spoil, using the single ridge placement, the unoxidized spoil will be placed in a series
of low ridges. This is accomplished by reducing the length of cut at each dragline
position and varying the swing angle.
Wherever the nature and depth of the oxidized zone is insufficient for
segregating the material using draglines, reclaimable oxidized material will be
excavated by scrapers or other mobile field equipment and redistributed on a
prepared site without storage in a manner which ensures that unoxidized materials
are covered by at least 3.5 feet of oxidized materials.
3-114
-------
Revegetation
Revegetation will begin during the first favorable planting period after
the reconstructed soil has been conditioned and prepared by planting operations.
Species selection for vegetative cover is directly related to the reclamation stage,
reconstructed soil conditions, warm- or cool-season, and proven success capabilities
of the plant species selected. Table 3-6 lists the plant species to be selected for
each reclamation stage.
Three revegetation stages are proposed in this plan. Reclamation
Stage 1 is a temporary stage and requires establishment of a temporary cover crop
or mulch cover. Stage 2 is designed to prepare the site for the permanent
vegetative cover crop and requires establishment of the prepermanent cover crop.
Stage 2 can be initiated instead of Stage 1 if reconstructed soil conditions are
favorable. Vegetative species will be selected (1) to produce greater levels of dry
matter than the permanent vegetation; (2) to produce an initial supply of high
nitrogen-containing residues; and (3) to produce both deep roots and numerous
near-surface fibrous roots. During Stage 2, crop residues will be incorporated into
the reconstructed soil to improve both the physical condition of the material, with
respect to water movement and air diffusion, and the microbiological community.
This intermediate step has been shown to enhance the establishment of the
permanent vegetative species (Stage 3). Stage 3 will continue until the regulatory
authority, RRC, approves the postmining revegetation efforts and declares the area
successfully reclaimed.
Waste Disposal Operation Plan
Characteristics of the Waste
The fly ash and scrubber sludge will be mixed at the power plant site (see
Process Flow Diagram-Blending, Fig. 3-24). The blended fly ash and sludge will
3-115
-------
TABLE 3-6
PLANT SELECTION LIST FOR RECLAMATION STAGES
SOUTH HALLSVILLE MINE
Temporary Cover (Reclamation Stage 1)
Rye (Secale cereale) Wheat (Trlticum vulgare) Oats (Avena sativa) Annual
ryegrass (BoHum multiflorum) Pearl millet (Perrisetum typhoideum) Sorghum
sudangrass hybrids (Sorghum sp.) Mulch
Prepermanent Cover (Reclamation Stage 2)
Bahiagrass (Pasp alum notatum) Bermudagrass (Cynadon daclylon) Weeping
lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) Deertongue
(Panicum clandestinum) Arrow leaf clover (Trifolium vesiculosum Savi) Crim-
son clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.) Hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth) Subter-
ranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum) Sweet clover (Melilotus spp.) Kobe
lespedeza (Lespedeza striata) Korean lespedeza (Lespedeza stipulacea) Sericea
lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata)
Permanent Cover (Reclamation Stage 3)
Bahiagrass Bermudagrass Kleingrass 75 (Panicum coloratura L.) Arrowleaf
clover Crimson clover Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) Autumn olive
(Elaeagnus umbellata) Bicolor lespedeza (Lespedeza bicolor) Loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda) Southern red Oak (Quercus falcata) Sweetgum (Liquidambar
styracilflua)
Source: NACI, 1981.
3-116
-------
From FGD System
To FGD System
o a
Transporter
Disposal Site
Fig. 3-24
Process Flow Diagram-Blending.
Source: NACI, 1981.
-------
have the consistency of damp earth with a permeability range of 10 to 10 cm/s.
If desired, lime may be added as a fixing agent, which will cause the mixed ash and
sludge to set up like concrete (see Process Flow Diagram-Fixation, Fig. 3-25). The
mixed waste material will have a very low permeability (10 to 10 cm/s) and will
be suitable for lining waste disposal pits. The maximum rate of waste production
will be 172 tons per hour (tph) (150 cubic yards/hour). The average rate of waste
production will be 100 tph (87 cubic yards/hour). The total volume of waste to be
generated during the 30-year life of the plant is 25 x 10 cubic yards (15,517 acre
feet).
The characteristics of leachate from ash and sludge from the proposed
Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant-Unit 1 are expected to be similar to other lignite ash
wastes, but until ash has been produced and tested, actual characteristics will
remain unknown.
Waste Classification
Lignite ash wastes are at present classified as nonhazardous solid waste
by the EPA. The TDWR presently is classifying the waste as Class 1 or Class 2
industrial solid waste.
Disposal Plan
A waste disposal plan featuring initial landfill and research into the use
of the sludge/fly ash wastes as a soil amendment for mine reclamation and/or mine
disposal is planned. The waste will be disposed of within the boundaries of a tract of
land owned and controlled by SWEPCO. The disposal site will only accept waste
from the proposed Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant.
The waste loadout system will consist of one (1) 400 tph, covered,
inclined, movable, radial stacking conveyor with walkway and internally lined
3-118
-------
From FGD System
LO
I
1
Lime Storage
Tank
o o
Transporter
Disposal Site
Fig. 3-25
Process Flow Diagram-Fixation.
Source: NACI, 1981.
-------
loading hopper, suitable for loading trucks or depositing directly on the designated
temporary storage area. The radial stacker will be 36 inches wide by 120 feet
center-to-center, will operate at 350 feet per minute, and will be supplied with a
40-hp conveyor drive, a 3-hp motor for power travel, and a 15-hp motor for vertical
positioning. Sludge/fly ash wastes will be hauled from the power plant by trucks.
The trucks will be dumped and the sludge/fly ash wastes graded into disposal cells as
illustrated in Fig. 3-26. The landfill generally will be constructed and progress as
identified in Fig. 3-26.
The type of landfill planned for the initial disposal is a valley fill in the
vicinity of the power plant. The initial disposal area (identified in Fig. 3-27) has a
total volume of approximately 1,100 acre-feet and has sufficient volume for 2 years
production of sludge/fly ash sludge wastes. A landfill site in the upper reaches of
the drainage system was chosen so that the base of the landfill will be above the
ground-water table at all times. Sediment and/or treatment ponds for surface-
water runoff will be located as identified in Fig. 3-27. The clay pan of the soil in
the vicinity of the waste disposal area is expected to retard the downward migration
of any waste leachate generated within the disposal site. Field investigations to
determine vertical permeability of the soil in the proposed disposal site will be
performed. The placement of a fixed sludge/fly ash liner to inhibit seepage during
disposal will be provided, if necessary. Ground-water monitoring wells will be
installed around the perimeter of the landfill and monitored for quality and level
changes.
During the initial landfill disposal of sludge/fly ash wastes, research into
the technical feasibility and environmental suitability of use of these ash wastes as
a soil amendment (substitute for lime) and/or "in-mine disposal" will be conducted.
If the results of the research are positive, alternative disposal practices will be
adopted. In the event the results of the research are negative or inconclusive,
additional landfill disposal sites will be selected and the landfill practice continued.
3-120
-------
Disposal begins
A, A../.Mi yl ., .V,,'
reclaimed surface
fixed ash seal
ash disposal cell
Disposal continues
fixed ash seal
ash disposal cells
reclaimed surface
runoff pond
Disposal complete
Surf act reclaimed
fixed disposal seal
sludge/fly
ash disposal cells
Sludge/Fly Ash Disposal by Valley Fill
Schematic cross section
-------
PROJECT AREA
DISPOSAL AREA—-J3s8£..><
./ v./ T^W5^
®\ €
NORTH AMERICAN CONSULTANTS
\\\
Fig. 3-27
LIGNITE SLUDGE/FLY ASH
DISPOSAL SITE
SCALE: l"«400'
-------
Mine Facilities
Mine facilities will be localized in two separate areas: one for dragline
erection and the other for permanent mine personnel, storage, and maintenance
facilities. These areas are identified in Fig. 3-28 and 3-29. All facilities will be
constructed and operated in accordance with the Mine Safety and Health Act
regulations.
The proposed dragline erection area (Fig. 3-28) includes two graded areas
for erection of the draglines, a railroad spur and access road, a shop and warehouse
building, trailers as temporary office and bathhouse, parking areas for equipment
and vehicles, and sufficient utilities to support the intended use. These facilities
will be designed with worker safety and comfort as prime criteria.
Permanent mine facilities (Fig. 3-29) include an office with bathhouse, a
shop and warehouse building, an outside storage area, parking for equipment and
vehicles, and a diked fuel storage yard and fueling area. Mine facilities will occupy
an area of 20 acres. A potable water supply will be provided and all sewage will be
treated to applicable water quality standards prior to discharge. Fencing and
lighting will be installed for safety and security. These facilities will be designed,
constructed, and maintained to meet or exceed all applicable mining, safety,
environmental, and building regulations and codes.
Treatment of Sensitive Areas
There will be no mining within 100 feet, measured horizontally, of a
cemetery. Access to the cemeteries will be maintained at all times.
Electric Power
Power to the mine site will be provided by SWEPCO from a 138-kV
transmission line that passes through the mining area. This transmission line will be
3-123
-------
— _ r~ "*
—-"" "' _~~ J_ ^ ~~ / ^~^^^ ~~ \
ORAGUNE
ERECTION
DRAGGNE
e ESPSY, HUSTON 1 ASSOCIATES, INC
Figure 3-28
DRAGLINE ERECTION AREA
SOUTH HALLSV1L! -
-------
EMPLOYEE
PARKING
SHOP
WAREHOUSE
EQU1PME
PARKING
1982-3 —
ESPSY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, II
a
Figure 3-29
MINE FACILITIES AREA
SOUTH HAU1SV1LLE PROJECT I
3-125
-------
rerouted around the mining area prior to mining. Mine distribution will be routed
via pole lines to the dragline erection area, to the mine facilities area, and to within
6,000 to 8,000 feet of each of the two active mining pits. Further transmission to
the pits will be by trailing cable.
Labor Requirements
Tables 3-7 and 3-8 present schedules of the two estimated average
annual hourly and salaried personnel on the mine payroll. During full production 45
salaried and an average of 126 hourly personnel are scheduled, for a total of 171 on
the mine payroll.
Contractors with their own personnel will be hired to erect the draglines
and construct the mine facilities. These activities are scheduled to occur from
mid-1981 through the end of 1984. It is expected that contractor's mine site
personnel will vary between 10 and 100, with 1984 being the peak year.
3.6 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA
Three alternatives are available to EPA regarding its permit action.
These are: (1) issue the NPDES permit as proposed; (2) issue the NPDES permit with
certain conditions; or (3) deny the NPDES permit. The issuance of the NPDES
permit as proposed would allow SWEPCO to construct and operate the power plant
mining facilities as described in Section 3.5 and to discharge wastewater to the
limits set forth in the permit. However, EPA may determine that special conditions
should be added to the NPDES permit where necessary to minimize or avoid adverse
environmental impacts. Also, EPA may deny the NPDES permit if certain
environmental considerations are significantly adversely impacted and mitigation
measures are unacceptable. These considerations include violations of water quality
standards, significant impacts on the human environment, endangered species,
cultural resources, wetlands, floodplains and prime farmlands. Denial of the NPDES
3-126
-------
TABLE 3~7
HOURLY MINE LABOR SCHEDULE
Ynar
1981
1982
1983
1981
iVXr,
1986
1987
I9H8
OJ 1189
(-• 1990
IN)
-^ 1991
1992
1991
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2UOO
2001
2002
2003
20 (It
2005
2006
2007
2008
TOTAL
Clearing
---
2
i
2
i
2
2
2
2
2
T
2
Z
Z
2
2
2
Z
2
?.
2
2
2
2
---
50
Lignite
Loading/
Hauling
9
14
23
23
27
27
29
29
Z9
29
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
Z7
Z7
32
3Z
34
34
34
34
36
-"
718
Dragline
Stripping
—
___
Z4
Z4
16
19
21
19
21
22
24
26
31
31
30
Z8
28
38
34
28
29
31
30
36
34
42
z--
666
Srrapor
Stripping
-_-
11
---
9
— -
_...
---
— -
---
---
—
___
--_
16
15
28
15
16
12
20
21
20
IS
--_-_
204
Spoil
Grading
---
---
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
6
6
6
--_-
150
Supply and
Maintenance
4
15
35
35
35
35
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
_---
979
Drainage
4
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
IZ
IZ
IZ
12
12
I.--
304
Electrical
Distribution
—
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
-."
75
TOTAL
17
57
105
111
101
104
114
112
114
115
115
117
122
12Z
121
119
135
144
153
139
143
143
150
158
152
160
_--:_
3,146
Hourly I'orsonii"! Yi-arly \vcjr.ign -- 3,146
Sonr<-i>: iJ A< .'f, l'),".ll.i.
-------
TABLE 3-8
SALARIED MINE LABOR SCHEDULE
IN)
00
1981 198?, 1983 1984 1985
(Quarter) (Quarter) (Quartnr) (Quarter) Thru
Position 1st
H Oip ,
Project Manager I
FrojfH't Engineer 1
Mining Engineer 2
Goologj':nl Engineer 1
Draftsman 1
Wn.rRhou.so Mnu
Budget Coordinator 1
Secretary 1
Znd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st Znd 3rd 4th 1st Znd 3rd 4th ZOOS Z009
U\
)
/ 1 \
\ *• )
1 / 1 \
JL \ 1 /
1 / 1 \ i 7 \
( I \
1 / 1 \
1 - \ 1 )
11 1 1
1 \ i )
1( 1 \
1 ~ \ i )
1 \L)
i - (\.)
( * /
i
I \ L )
" 1 ( 1 )
1 - - 1 - - - ( ~) \
1 " \il
£ 1 ~ ( J )
(i)
- - - ... . i - (i )
-------
TABLE 3-8 (C.mrlndod)
OJ
1 — '
ro
vO
1981 1>78Z 1933 1984 1985
(Quarter) (Quarler) (Quarter) (Quarter) Thru
Position 1st Zud 3rd 4th 1st Znd }ni 4th 1st Znd 3rd 4th 1st Znd 3rd 4th ZOOS Z009
Il'iui'ti-1" & Rfdrim - - 1
F'iir(:iii;in
TOTAL 8 Z — - 1 1 Z 4 3 Z 1 -- - 1 Z Z Z 13 — (38)
CUMULATIVE TOTAL 8 10 10 j_l 1Z H 18 ZJ_ Z^ Z4 -— Z5 Z_7 29 31 44 _^u_ __6
( ) Inilicntos ilci:n:nsc in number of personnel.
Socu-c';: UACf, 1980a.
-------
permit by EPA could cause SWEPCO to redesign the project for no effluent
discharge or pursue the no action alternative.
3.7 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO OTHER PERMITTING FEDERAL
AGENCIES
The USCE may require Section 10/404 permits for certain activities.
The overall review of the Section 10/404 permit applications for this project,
including the environmental assessment, is the responsibility of the Fort Worth
District USCE. Each application is evaluated to determine the probable impact the
project will have on the environment, with particular interest given to wetland and
aquatic habitat. As a part of the environmental review conducted by the USCE
District Office, the information is made a matter of public record through the
issuance of a public notice. A comment period, normally of 30 days, is allowed
during which the application is reviewed by interested agencies, organizations, and
individuals. Other agencies having review responsibilities are: Texas Department of
Water Resources, EPA, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and U.S Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). After the comment period, a public hearing may be held.
Alternatives available to USCE include: 1) approval, 2) approval with conditions or
modifications, or 3) disapproval.
3.8 OTHER REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES
Other reasonable alternatives, not within the jurisdiction of the lead
agency or any cooperating agency, could be discussed but none have been identified.
3-130
-------
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES ON
THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This section presents an assessment of potential impacts associated with
the proposed Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant - Unit I/South Hallsville Surface Lignite
Mine, and associated transportive systems. For the purposes of discussion, the
3,997-acre power plant site is divided into the following components: plant
facilities (272 acres), cooling reservoir (1,388 acres), plant site ancillary activities
area (1,451 acres), and transportive systems corridors (886 acres). The proposed
mine site area comprises 20,771 acres of land. Of this total acreage, 10,545 acres
will be disturbed by mining at an approximate rate of 439 acres each year for the
24-year life of the mine. An additional 473 acres will be disturbed by construction
of roads and mine facilities. Portions of the remaining 9,753 acres in the proposed
mine site area will be potentially affected by mining activities as mining progresses.
The project transportive systems consist of the following: 1) makeup water pipeline
(20 miles long; 75-foot construction ROW and 50-foot operation ROW), 2) railroad
spur (3.5 miles long; 200-feet operation ROW) and, 3) three transmission lines (total
of 11.7 miles long; 100-foot construction and operation ROW width).
Section 4.0 is. arranged to present a description of existing conditions
under an "Existing and Future Environments" heading for each environmental
resource of the project area, followed by a discussion of the "Effects of No Action".
The impacts that have already occurred as a result of construction completed or
underway are addressed first, if applicable. This early construction was undertaken
at the Company's own risk, as stipulated in 40 CFR 6.906, the NPDES regulations in
effect at that time. Then, the potential "Construction Impacts" for the proposed
power plant and mine are discussed for each environmental resource. This is
followed by a discussion of the potential "Operation Impacts" of the proposed power
plant and mine. Construction impacts are defined as those impacts associated with
power plant and transportive systems construction, and construction of mine
facilities (e.g., shop, dragline erection pad, access/haul roads, etc.). Operation
impacts are defined as those impacts associated with power plant and transportive
systems operations, and actual mining operations. The potential construction and
operation impacts for the transportive systems are discussed under the power
4-1
-------
plant subheadings. Each environmental resource section is concluded with a
discussion of the "Combined Impacts of the Plant and Mine". At the conclusion of
Sec. 4.0, a section is provided that addresses the cumulative impacts of the proposed
project with respect to other projects in the area.
An exception to the overall format of this section focuses on socio-
economics. The existing conditions for socioeconomic resources combine plant site,
mine site, and transportive system features because the overall implications of
proposed project activities encompass a rather large area of impact.
Construction and operation of the proposed project will have both
beneficial and adverse effects on the existing biophysical and socioeconomic
environment of the project site and surrounding area. Environmental effects can be
either long-term or short-term, depending upon the interaction of project-related
activities with existing environmental parameters. Short-term impacts are defined
as those associated with the construction phase of the project and may last up to 4
or 5 years. Long-term impacts are defined as those associated with operation
activities and may last a number of years.
4.1 EARTH RESOURCES
4.1.1 Topography
4.1.1.1 Existing and Future Environments
The proposed project site lies within the Sandy Hills region of the Gulf
Coastal Plain Province. The region is typified by a rolling plain dissected by
intermittent and/or ephemeral tributaries of the Sabine River. Land surface
elevations within the project area range from 225 feet mean sea level (msl) along
the Sabine River, to 400 feet msl in the northwestern portion of the area.
4-2
-------
4.1.1.2 Effects of No Action
No impacts to the topography would result from the no action alterna-
tive.
4.1.1.3 Construction Impacts
Power Plant
Plant Site
Construction of plant site facilities has resulted in an adverse impact
with respect to a general overall leveling of plant site topography over approxi-
mately 272 acres of land surface.
Transportive Systems
Construction of the transportive systems (makeup water pipeline, rail-
road spur, and transmission lines) has and will conform to the present land surface;
minimal adverse impacts to the topography are associated with this phase of the
project.
Mine
Construction of mine facilities (e.g., shop and dragline erection pad) will
involve the disturbance of approximately 43 acres of land and will result in some
alteration to local topographic features, with minimal impact.
4-3
-------
4.1.1.4 Operation Impacts
Plant Site
Although the topography will be altered by necessity due to fly ash
disposal, it is believed that infilling of a lowland area is more desirable than
discarding the refuge of an area of positive relief. The placement of the disposal
material at the upper reaches of the drainage system, as suggested in Sec. 4.2.2.4
(surface water), will reduce any erosion or scouring due to high winds or heavy
rainfall that might otherwise occur. The change in topography that may result from
the fly ash disposal is necessary to avoid adverse impacts associated with alterna-
tive disposal areas exhibiting high relief.
Mine Area
Short-term adverse impacts to local topography will be experienced
during mining of a given area. However, reclamation will be generally concurrent
with mining of new areas; 1 to 2 years will be required to reclaim mined areas. The
mined surface will be shaped to a configuration similar to prernining topography, and
sedimentation ponds constructed on graded surfaces will be removed later when they
are no longer needed. Furthermore, because overburden materials removed during
mining are texturally similar to those presently existing on the surface, no adverse
impacts to topography as a result of subsidence are anticipated (see Sec. 4.1.3.4).
As discussed in the BID (EH&A, 1981b), it is expected that a 3- to 12-percent net
volume increase will occur in the replaced overburden after the initial swelling and
compaction is completed.
4.1.1.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine
Construction of the plant site facilities has resulted in an adverse impact
with respect to topography. Construction of the transportive systems and mine
4-4
-------
facilities will cause minimal adverse impacts. Plant site topography will be altered
by disposal of fly ash, and short-term adverse impacts will be experienced during
mining and reclamation. However, the mined surface will be shaped to a
configuration similar to premining topography.
4.1.Z Geology
4.1.2.1 Existing and Future Environments
The geologic formations that exist in the project area are lower Eocene
and Quaternary in age and are, in descending stratigraphic order, alluvium and
terrace deposits; the Queen City, Reklaw, and Carrizo formations of the Claiborne
Group; and the lignite-bearing Wilcox Group. Sediments within the project area are
predominately shales, clayey sands, and sandy clays.
The Wilcox Group has a cumulative thickness in the area ranging from
400 to 1,400 feet and consists of three major lithologic facies: interlaminated sands
and clays, finely laminated clays, and lignites. The bulk of the Wilcox section is
comprised of the interbedded sands and clays that were deposited during overbank
discharge in low-lying interchannel areas associated with the Mount Pleasant Fluvial
System. The finely laminated clays and lignites were deposited in freshwater
swamps. The main lignite seam occurs near the top of the Wilcox section and ranges
from 0 to 140 feet below the ground surface in the area to be mined.
The Carrizo Formation overlies the Wilcox Group unconformably and
consists of interbedded sands and clays, and sands that were deposited in a fluvial
environment. The Reklaw Formation conformably overlies the Carrizo and ranges in
thickness from 0 to 140 feet. Sediments of the Reklaw were deposited in a shallow-
water, transgressive marine environment. The lower member of the formation, the
Newby Sand, is made up of glauconitic sands and clayey sands, while the upper
4-5
-------
member, the Marquez Shale, consists of Inoturbated clays and shales. Unconforra-
ably overlying the Reklaw Formation is the Queen City Formation, a clean sand,
ranging from 0 to 25 feet thick, deposited as point bars in a fluvial environment.
Unconformably overlying the older Eocene formations are thin Quaternary age
sediments consisting predominately of loosely packed sands deposited by the ancient
and modern Sabine River and its tributaries. A more detailed description of the
geological formations within the project area is located in the Surface Mining
Permit Application document (Sabine Mining Company, 1981).
4.1.2.2 Effects of No Action
No adverse or beneficial impacts to the geology of the proposed area will
result from the no action alternative.
4.1.2.3 Construction Impacts
Power Plant
Plant Site
Clearing, grubbing, leveling, and construction of foundations at the
power plant site and cooling reservoir has resulted in localized long-term displace-
ment of shallow subsurface sediments.
Transportive Systems
Construction activities associated with transportive systems (i.e., trans-
mission lines, makeup water pipeline, and railroad spur) has resulted or will result in
localized long-term displacement of shallow subsurface sediments.
4-6
-------
Mine
Construction activities in the mine area will be limited principally to the
construction of shop facilities, dragline erection pad, and haul roads. The majority
of these activities will be confined to the mine ancillary activities area, and impacts
to geological features will be minor.
4.1.2.4 Operation Impacts
Power Plant
Plant Site
The principal impact of plant and cooling reservoir operations on the
geology of the area would be the possible preclusion of development of some natural
resource during the life of the project. Given the relatively small area to be
occupied by the facilities, adverse impacts are negligible.
Transportive Systems
No adverse impacts to geological resources are anticipated to occur as a
result of operation of power plant transportive systems.
Mine
Within the mine area, the geologic units overlying the mineable lignite
will experience unavoidable long-term adverse impacts as the overburden above the
lignite resource is removed. While the overall texture of the material (i.e., sand,
silt, or clay) will generally be unchanged, the stratigraphic relationships and the
physical characteristics of the specific geologic units above the lignite will be
permanently altered.
4-7
-------
4.1.2.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine
Adverse impacts on geological resources of the power plant and mine
site focus on the alteration of the geologic units located above the mineable lignite
and possible short-term preclusion of the development of other geological resources
(e.g. oil and gas, gravel) during operation of the proposed project.
4.1.3 Soils
4.1.3.1 Existing and Future Environments
A detailed soil survey does not exist for the plant site. The general soil
map of Harrison County (USDA, 1974) and the adjoining soil survey of the mine area
(Galloway and Roberts, 1979) indicate that Bowie, Cuthbert, and Kirvin soils
dominate the plant site. Characteristics of these soils are described in the following
paragraphs. A combination of slope, gravelly surfaces, acidity, and heavy clay
subsoils preclude the Cuthbert and Kirvin soils from being considered prime
farmland by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Bowie is classified as prime
farmland under criteria defined in Section 657.5(a) of the Federal Register, Vol. 43,
No. 21, Tues., January 31, 1978. However, under historical land-use criteria defined
by both the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) and Railroad Commission of Texas
(RRC) it is highly doubtful if the Bowie soils on the plant site qualify as prime
farmland. Land-use history in this area is one of increasing pasture and forestry at
the expense of cropland.
A detailed soil survey of the mine area has been completed by the SCS
(Galloway and Roberts, 1979). Thirteen soil map units, listed in Table 4-1, occur
within the mine area.
The Bibb and Thenas map units consist of nearly level, acid, sandy
bottomland soils that flood too frequently to support cultivated crops. Because of
flooding they are not designated as prime farmland.
4-8
-------
TABLE 4-1
SOILS OF THE SOUTH HALLSVTLLE MINE AREA
Soil
Bibb fine sandy loam,
frequently flooded
Bowie find sandy loam,
2 to 5 percent slopes
Cart-Erno complex,
0 to 2 percent slopes
Cuthbert fine sandy loam,
5 to 20 percent slopes
Cuthbert gravelly fine sandy loam,
5 to 20 percent slopes
Kirvin fine sandy loam,
2 to 5 percent slopes
Kirvin gravelly fine sandy loam,
1 to 5 percent slopes
Kirvin, graded
Kullit fine sandy loam,
1 to 3 percent slopes
Lilbert loamy fine sand,
2 to 6 percent slopes
Ruston fine sandy loam,
3 to 5 percent slopes
Sacul fine sandy loam,
5 to 20 percent slopes
Thenas fine sandy loam,
frequently flooded
TOTAL
Prime Farmland
Percent
of Area
0.7
22.7
4.1
7,8
19.9
4.4
17.8
2.2
3.3
3.4
0.3
6.5
6.8
100
Prime
Farmland
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
30.4 percent
Prime farmland as defined in Sect. 657.5(a) of the Federal Register, Vol. 43, No,
21, Tues., Jan. 31, 1978.
4-9
-------
The Cuthbert, Kirwin, and Sacul soils have fine sandy loam or gravelly
fine sandy loam surfaces and clayey subsoils that grade into stratified sandstone and
shale at depths of 20 to 60 inches. The Kirvin graded map unit consists primarily of
Kirvin soils from which the gravelly topsoil has been stripped (or graded) for use as
foundation material, roadbeds, or other construction purposes. These are all acid,
highly weathered upland soils. Because of acidity, heavy clayey subsoil and, in some
instances, gravelly surf aces or stripping, none of these soils are designated as prime
farmland.
The Bowie, Cart, Erno, Kullit, and Ruston soils are deep upland soils that
have fine sandy loam surface layers and loamy subsoils. They are acid and highly
weathered, but have fairly good soil-plant relationships. On slopes less than
5 percent, all are designated as prime farmland.
The Lilbert soils consist of deep upland soils that have thick (20 to
40 inches), sandy surface layers and loamy subsoils. They are highly weathered and
acid. The thick, sandy surfaces have a low water-holding capacity and the soils tend
to be droughty during dry spells. Primarily due to this, these soils are not
considered prime farmland.
In general all of the soils within the mine area require lime and fertilizer
for most crops and improved pastures. The upland soils, where cultivated for crops,
require erosion control practices in order to sustain production.
Table 4-1 shows that 30.4 percent of the soils within the mine area are
designated prime farmland as defined by the USDA-SCS in the Federal Register
(Sect. 657.5(a), Vol. 43, No. 21, Tues., January 31, 1978). This is defined as land that
has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically
produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water
management, according to acceptable farm methods. The disturbance of these soils
during mining and reclamation will cause an adverse impact.
4-10
-------
In addition to these criteria, OSM and RRC regulations require that such
lands must also have been used for cropland for any 5 years or more out of the
10 years immediately preceeding acquisition of the land for the purpose of
determining whether special reclamation techniques are required to return the land
to its original productivity following surface coal mining. The RRC defines cropland
as land used for the production of adapted crops for harvest along or in rotation with
grasses and legumes, and includes row crops, small grain crops, hay crops, nursery
crops, orchard crops, and other specialty crops. A study by Brown (1979) identified
only 52.6 acres as being prime farmland under these critiera. Of these, most were
in small gardens, used for home consumption. The Sabine Mining Company applied
for a negative determination of all lands not used historically to produce
commercial crops. An additional 40 acres (approximate) was identified in the
project area during later investigations; however, mining will not occur in this area.
The permit application that contained the request for the negative determination
was approved by RRC on 9 November 1981.
4.1.3.2. Effects of No Action
The effects of no action on soils of the project area depend to a large
extent on future land use and management. For several decades, land-use trends
within the area have seen a reduction in cropland, with a corresponding increase in
improved pastures and timber production. Within the foreseeable future, there is no
reason to predict a change in this pattern. Accelerated erosion under these uses
should be minimized, although erosion will continue where vegetative cover is
sparse. The acreage of "graded" soils will increase to some extent, as gravelly
surfaces of Cuthbert and Kirvin soils are removed for use in road foundations and
other construction purposes. Small bottomland areas of Bibb and Thenas soils may be
protected from flooding, thus becoming eligible for designation as prime farmland.
Large scale practices of this nature are highly unlikely because of the expense
involved versus monetary returns. In summary, under a no action alternative, soils
should experience few changes from that of the existing soils environment.
4-11
-------
4.1.3.3 Construction Impacts
Power Plant
Plant Site
The principal impacts of construction on soils within the plant site and
cooling reservoir will be associated with the potential for accelerated erosion during
construction stages. Land-clearing has taken place on the cooling reservoir (1,388
acres) site and the plant site (272 acres) prior to constructing plant facilities. The
exnosed soils, on most of these sites are subject to erosion. This impact is short-
term, but unavoidable and has been lessened by employment of appropriate erosion
control techniques.
TransDortive Svstems
ArmroxiTiately 700 acres and 14-2 acres will be reauired for makeun
water pipeline and transmission line construction, respectively. The potential for
soil erosion will exist on exposed soils during construction. These adverse imTiacts
will be short-term, but unavoidable and will be lessened bv prompt revegetation
following construction.
The construction of the railroad stiur resulted in the clearing of
approximately 100 acres. The exposed soils are subject to erosion. The adverse
impacts were short-term and unavoidable. The impacts have been lessened by
rrrompt revegetation.
Mine
Land-clearing Drier to construction of mine facilities within the mine
ancillary activity area will have short-term adverse inroacts associated with
4-12
-------
accelerated erosion, particularly on soils with steep slopes. These effects are
unavoidable, but lessened by delaying land-clearing until construction is necessary
and by prompt revegetation following construction activities.
4.1.3.4 Operations Impacts
Power Plant
Plant Site
There will be little adverse impacts on soils as a result of power plant
operations. However, the use of soils will be converted from agricultural and
forestry use to plant facilities (industrial) use. This impact is unavoidable for the
life of the project.
Transportive Systems
Small areas actually occupied by the proposed transmission line towers,
pipeline, and the railroad spur along their ROW will be converted from existing
agricultural and forestry uses to industrial use. Some of these areas may contain
SCS prime farmland soils. These areas, however, will comprise only a minor portion
of the ROW. On steeper slopes, roadside erosion will be a potential hazard along
roads used to maintain the facilities. Proper control measures can significantly
reduce the potential for long-term impacts associated with soil erosion.
Mine
The impacts of the mining operations on soils will concern:
0 chemical and physical properties;
o potential for accelerated erosion;
4-13
-------
o subsidence; and
o changes in prime farmland status.
Chemical and Physical Properties
A 2-year study by Brown et al. (1979) was designed to evaluate the
potential for revegetating the spoil material to be generated during mining
operations. Lithological layers down to the first layer below the lignite were
analyzed for a full range of physical and chemical parameters. These were
compared to studies of Brown (1980) concerning the physical and chemical
characteristics of predominant soils to be disturbed during mining. In addition,
greenhouse comparisons were made of the potential productivity of overburden
versus existing soils.
The overburden is devoid of concentrations of heavy metals that would
be considered toxic. However the unoxidized zone below 16 to 20 feet contains
pyrite in sufficient amounts to cause undesireable acidity without very large
applications of lime. The oxidized zone above these depths does not present this
problem. The water retention of the upper layer of overburden material is generally
greater than those of native topsoils, offering a greater yield potential than exists in
the present soils. Greenhouse tests indicated that additions of lime and fertilizer to
meet soil fertility test recommendations will allow yields from mixed overburden
materials to be as great as those from the native soils. The amount of lime and
fertilizer required is variable and will be added on an individual soil test basis.
It was concluded from the study that it will be possible to reclaim any of
the strata above the lignite without the replacement of topsoil. The 16-20-foot
thick layer closest to the surface is, however, the most desirable material and would
require the least amount of lime and other management inputs. The study also
concluded that topsoiling with the rather sandy existing topsoil might be less
desirable than a mixture of the top 16 to 20 feet.
4-14
-------
The mine plan proposes to use the select oxidized overburden zone (top
16 to 20 feet) as a portion of the reconstructed root zone (7- to 48-inch layer) and
to replace the 0- to 7-inch layer with the existing topsoil. Continued investigations
are proposed to determine if the near surface oxidized overburden material and
mixed overburden will provide a suitable substitute for topsoiling.
For the area as a whole, the initial overburden handling program should
provide beneficial impacts. The clayey subsoils of the Kirvin, Cuthbert, and Sacul
soils would be replaced with loamier material, more suitable as a root medium. The
thick, droughty sandy surface of the Lilbert soils would be largely replaced with
materials having higher water holding and cation exchange capacities. Overburden
coring and testing data indicate that, in these areas, the reconstructed soil would be
more responsive to good management practices than the existing soils. The
reconstructed Bowie, Cart, Erno, Kullit, and Ruston areas would be somewhat
similar to the existing soils. Thus, the relatively short-term use of soils for mining
purposes will, through reconstruction of soil profiles, eliminate undesirable
properties (as listed above) in many of the soils. This will enhance long-term
productivity on these soils.
The effects on soils will be long-term, much longer than the life of the
proposed mine, because in nature, soils properties change very slowly. In this sense,
the effects are irreversible, although continuing tests are designed to alter mining
operations should the need arise.
Potential Accelerated Erosion
Short-term effects of accelerated erosion will exist on sloping areas that
have been cleared of vegetation prior to mining. This adverse impact is unavoid-
able, but will be minimized by clearing only the land immediately ahead of the
overburden removal process and by initiating vegetation establishment measures as
soon as possible following soil reconstruction. The affected areas will be prorated
4-15
-------
over the life of the mine, thus only small areas will be exposed to erosion at any
given time. This impact is reversible in that erosion rates should return to normal
existing rates when vegetation is reestablished.
Subsidence
The potential for subsidence will be minimal. Studies in Texas
(Schneider, 1977) investigated the volume changes of mine overburden at the Alcoa
lignite surface mine near Rockdale in east central Texas. The conditions at this site
are geologically similar to those at the South Hallsville site, and reported volume
changes and settlement values are expected to be similar.
Schneider found that mined overburden had 24 to 47 percent increase in
volume. Over a period of time, mixed overburden consolidated 17 to 24 percent for
a net volume increase of 3 to 12 percent. Ultimate settlement is affected by
hydrologic conditions, since intermittently wetted soils tend to settle to a greater
degree than saturated soils.
Settlement rates vary widely with time. A fresh spoil pile settles at
rates of .85 to .02 feet/day for the first 20 days. These rates decrease rapidly and
range from zero to 0.221 feet/year within 2.5 to 10 years after mining.
The total amount of settlement as calculated from these rates indicates
that 75 percent of all settlement will occur within the first year after mining,
80 percent within the first five years, and most of the remainder over the next
30 years. The net increase in mixed overburden volume is generally equal to the
volume of lignite removed, thus yielding no gross change in surface elevation.
Differential settlement of up to 0.1 feet/year can be expected over a
distance of 350 feet on disturbed lands if no additional surface loads are imposed.
Differential settlement over short distances of 10 to 15 feet will occur at a rate of
4-16
-------
up to 0.02 feet/year if no surface loads are imposed. This may cause a micro-relief
of highs and lows that, if not modified, may cause localized drainage problems. This
impact will primarily affect areas devoted to intensive row crop production. It is
irreversible for a short period of time, but can be corrected by land-leveling.
4.1.3.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine
Accelerated erosion will result in short-term adverse impacts on soils
during construction activities associated with the plant site, transportive systems,
and mine facilities. These impacts are unavoidable, but minimized by employing
erosion control measures. Combined operational impacts will involve conversion of
soils from agricultural and forestry uses to power plant and mine facilities
(industrial) use. Prime farmland that exists within the project boundaries under both
SCS and RRC criteria will be adversely impacted during mining and reclamation.
4.2 WATER RESOURCES
4.2.1 Ground Water
4.2.1.1 Existing and Future Environments
Usable ground water in the region is contained in four hydraulically
interconnected geologic units: the Queen City, Reklaw, and Carrizo formations, and
the Wilcox Group, which collectively make up the Cypress Aquifer. Some ground
water is also contained in the alluvial deposits of area streams. Throughout the
Cypress Aquifer, and specifically in the overburden material of the project area,
ground water exists in thin layers (1 to 20 feet thick) of fine sands that are
physically separated, but hydraulically connected, through the interbedded clays and
sits. These lateral changes of alternating lithofacies over short distances within
the strata are common and reflect the fluvial-deltaic environment of deposition.
4-17
-------
The shallow ground-water system within the project area is recharged by
infiltration of precipitation. Ground water in the saturated material moves in
reponse to local hydraulic gradients, generally toward discharge points along surface
drainages. Ground-water discharge occurs as springs and seeps, by evapotrans-
piration (plant respiration), and by pumpage. Movement of ground water, as
indicated by a potentiometric map developed by North American Consultants, Inc.
from water level data collected (Sabine Mining Company, 1981), is generally in a
southerly direction, with localized topographically controlled flow towards discharge
sites along area streams.
Vertical leakage from the shallow saturated zone is inhibited by lignite
and a thick clay zone that underlies the lignite. The piezometers were installed and
completed in saturated material both above and below the impermeable zone (Sabine
Mining Company, 1981). Differences in static water level between the upper and
lower piezometers of 27.5 feet demonstrate the poor hydraulic connection that
exists between the sandy strata above and below the confining lignite and clay
strata.
To further define the ground-water flow characteristics within the
project area aquifer, pumping tests were performed by North American Consultants,
Inc. A detailed description of the tests and methods of determining aquifer
characteristics is located in the RRC surface mining permit application (Sabine
Mining Company, 1981). Results indicate that most of the strata above the lignite
contain limited area sources of potable ground water. Data were analyzed using a
Standard Theis Non-equilibrium Type Curve matching technique, and the non-
equilibrium flow formulae were used to calculate the aquifer coefficients. Also
used in the analysis, when situations warranted, was a technique for matching data
to a type curve for a leaky artesian aquifer system and associated modified
formulae developed by Cooper (1963). Transmissivities of the aquifer ranged from
16.4 gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft) to 4,825 gpd/ft, permeabilities ranged from
./ft7
-1
0.4 gpd/ft to 170 gpd/ft , and storage coefficients ranged from 1.5xlO~ to
2.35x10
4-18
-------
The Cypress Aquifer provides limited quantities of potable ground water
that is used throughout Harrison County, principally for single-household domestic
use. Well locations within and adjacent to the project site are located on Fig. 4-1.
In all, 177 wells were identified in service, and an additional 51 dry or abandoned
wells were located. The majority of the wells in the project area are less than
75 feet deep. Ground-water quality deteriorates with depth and is considered
unsuitable for most uses below depths of 400 feet. Water quality data from project
area wells (Table 4-2) indicate that concentrations of total dissolved solids increase
with increasing depth, and concentrations of many dissolved metal species decrease
with increasing pH and increasing depth. In general, pH averaged about 6.9, and
total dissolved solids ranged from 94 to 1,652 parts per million (ppm).
4.2.1.2 Effects of No Action
No impacts to the ground water of the project area would result from
the no action alternative.
4.2.1.3 Construction Impacts
Power Plant
Plant Site
Changes in ground-water flow and/or quality characteristics brought
about by construction of the power plant facilities will be minimal. Slight reduction
in infiltration rates in the vicinity of construction activities may have occurred;
however, no regional impacts to the ground-water system will occur because of the
relatively small area affected and the relatively short construction time.
4-19
-------
Fio.t- I
ii.vr.rtl
-
MAiWlfllJSjfc
;, „.„
.'":•'..".
,.,
i —
>- "J
. - GiouiMi Wuf S.ufnp* tW.alim Cor
ST5TEM MAT
'
-------
TABLE 4-2
GROUND-WATER CHEMISTRY1
Parameters
Date Collected
Total '.Tell Depth
Screen Internal
?H/25°C (Standard Units)
Total Dissolvtd Solids
Nitrogen. Nitrate as N
Solfate as SO ,
4
Chloride as Cl"
Fluoride as F
Dicarbonate
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium, as CaCO,
Chromium
Copper
Iron
L=ad
'Magnesium, as CaCO,
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
W-M! Numbers
2
10/14/80
68 fi
45-60 ft
7.1
74
0.08
7
2.9
< 0.01
24.00
C.I
< 0.01
< 0.01
34
< 0.05
0.02
0.2
< 0.05
0
'< 0.1
<0.001
< 0.1
0.02
7.8
-------
Transportive Systems
Construction activities associated with transportive systems will only
affect near surface geological features; therefore, no adverse impacts on ground-
water quantity or quality will be associated with this phase of the project.
Mine
Mine construction activities focus on the dragline erection pads, haul and
access roads, and shop and office facilities. These construction activities will cause
some disturbance of surface materials over approximately 1 percent of the project
area, but will not result in adverse ground-water quantity or quality impacts.
4.Z.1.4 Operation Impacts
Power Plant
Plant Site
Operation impacts of the power plant on ground water consists of effects
of water consumption by the heat dissipation system and effects of power plant
wastes. Approximately 29,500 acre-feet of water will be impounded in the proposed
cooling reservoir. Some ground-water seepage from the reservoir is expected to
occur, causing a subsequent rise of ground-water levels in the reservoir vicinity;
however, this would be minor. Reduction of infiltration amounts in areas paved or
covered by buildings will not create adverse local or regional impacts and will be
volume trie ally offset by the increased infiltration in the vicinity of the cooling
reservoir. Drainage from coal storage and waste disposal areas will be precluded by
impermeable liners and/or ponds and treated before release into the surface water
system, thereby preventing untreated water to infiltrate into the subsurface to
contaminate the shallow ground-water supply. Therefore, there will be no adverse
4-22
-------
impacts on the ground-water resource of the area due to operation of the power
plant.
Trausportive Systems
No adverse impacts to ground-water quantity or quality are anticipated
as a result of transportive systems operation.
Mine
Because of the fluvial nature of the Coastal Plain physiographic
province, which includes the East Texas Gulf Coast lignites, extensive horizontal
and vertical aquifers can only be conceptualized on a regional basis. Locally,
regional aquifers are more accurately envisioned as a series of sand lenses or
stringers with little hydraulic connection with adjacent, underlying or overlying
lenses or stringers. For this reason, disturbing near surface aquifers would not
impact the deeper and unassociated sand horizons.
An adverse impact of the mining operation concerns the water wells in
the mining area which will be abandoned or removed during mining or construction
activities. The extent of the loss of wells is indicated by Fig. 4.1 (provided by
NACI), which illustrates the water well inventory for the project area and its
relation to the mining plan.
When a well is not destroyed by excavating, it is subject to a water-level
drawdown dependent upon the depth of mining and distance the well is from the
excavated pit. In general, when excavation occurs to any level below the
potentiometric surface of the saturated sediments, movement of ground water in
the vicinity of the mine may be expected to be toward the open cut and/or its
dewatering system. For any given mine cut, the volume of ground-water inflow and
area influenced by ground-water dewatering and/or depressurizing will vary and
depend upon the following variables:
4-23
-------
o depth of active cut;
o duration of cut;
o position of potentiometric surface(s);
o exposed aquifer thickness;
o aquifer permeability;
o aquifer storage coefficient; and
o methods of dewatering.
During mining, the quantity of ground water removed due to dewatering
and/or depressurizing will vary, and withdrawal rates will depend upon the ground-
water conditions and control methods employed at any given time at the mine. The
primary result of the dewatering and/or depressurizing operation will be a general
lowering of ground-water levels over the area, thereby decreasing the yield of wells
within the area of influences of the core of depression created by the operation.
Although the net water level reduction and areal extent of influence for any given
cut will depend upon the variables aforementioned, a ground-water level reduction
between 2 and 15 feet at an appropriate distance of 3,000 feet has been estimated
(NACI, 1981). A more detailed discussion containing estimated drawdowns and areal
influence is located in the RRC permit application (Sabine Mining Company, 1981).
Dewatering in the mine will be achieved, in most cases, with sump pumping systems
along the high wall. In special cases (i.e., cuts in alluvial deposits where the highwall
may not be stable with a seep face) wells, well points, and/or other devices will be
employed to assist in the dewatering.
Once mining and dewatering have been completed, the spoil will be
subject to resaturation. There are three potential sources of water for resaturation
of the mine: (1) infiltration of precipitation, (2) upward leakage from sand bodies
beneath the mine, and (3) inflow from sand bodies adjacent to the mine.
Post-mine recharge from precipitation may be slightly reduced since the
overall permeability of the mine spoil is expected to be less than that of the
4-24
-------
pre-mine overburden. NACI approximated the existing perennial recharge to be
about O.OZ5 feet per year by calculating the base flow of Big Sandy Creek and
dividing by the area of the watershed. Therefore, post-mine recharge should be less
than this pre-mine recharge rate.
Recharge from below the mine is expected to be minimal, due to the
fact that the mine is underlain by a clay unit.
The mining operation will also result in the alteration of horizontal
stratification of the overburden materials. The horizontal permeability and
transmissivity is expected to be reduced, causing a reduction in the lateral flow
through the cast overburden material. With respect to inflow of ground water from
adjacent sand bodies, it is anticipated that inflow will be slower because the
horizontal permeability is lower than the undisturbed pre-mine overburden. From
studies by Schneider (1977) in eastern Texas on the effects of settlement of cast
overburden on its permeability, it may be surmised that the permeabilities in the
reclaimed areas will decrease with increasing depth through the cast overburden.
Recharge from adjacent sand bodies was evaluated using the Darcy
equation as follows:
v =— (Cedergren, 1967)
where:
v = velocity, in ft/day
k = expected permeability of lower overburden = 2.0 x 10 crn/sec
(204 ft/yr) (based upon observations in East Texas by Kennedy and
Pepper, (1980)
i. = hydraulic gradient = 40 T 60,000
n = effective porosity (20% assumed)
4-25
-------
The resulting recharge velocity equals 0.68 ft/day. The actual rate may
be lower due to capillary pressure heads in the unsaturated overburden.
Consequently, it is believed that recharge from lateral inflow to the replaced
overburden should only be effective within a few hundred feet of the mine
periphery due to high water table conditions adjacent to the mining area, and low
toward the interior of the mine due to the low velocity of lateral inflow and the
relatively large distances ground water would have to travel to saturate the more
interior portions of the mine. Therefore, this source of inflow is expected to
saturate only the more peripheral portions of the mine, with infiltration of
precipitation serving as the major sources of recharge to the interior portions.
In general, aquifer productivity in reclaimed spoil areas containing
shallow ground-water supplies may be diminished with respect to the original
conditions, in terms of the maximum possible yield, due to the decrease in
horizontal permeability of the overburden material. However, wells placed in the
reclaimed area should be able to produce, upon resaturation of the spoil material, a
yield of 5 to 10 gpm, which is the existing typical private consumption rate. The
amount of decrease in maximum yield will also depend upon the interrelationship of
altered ground-water levels and changes in aquifer storage characteristics. Wells
located within 3,000 feet of the mine area could be drawn down between 2 and
15 feet. Any private wells in the mining area will be eliminated and the water
supply will be replaced following mining.
As a result of the mining operations, mixed overburden material will be
subject to oxidation processes. The exposure of many mineral assemblages to
oxidation will result in their alteration and partial dissolution when contacted by
runoff or infiltration of surface or ground water. The concentration of any dissolved
ion species that may occur as a result of leaching of the cast overburden material at
any particular place or time will depend upon the following variables:
o rate, volume, and composition of recharge water;
4-26
-------
o nature, rate, and extent of chemical alteration of the cast over-
burden;
o composition and volume of surrounding ground water; and
o duration of contact of recharge water with altered cast over-
burden.
Overburden that lies below the existing water table exists under
anaerobic (chemically reducing) conditions. Once the water table is lowered by
dewatering, and the overburden is excavated and replaced as spoil, the material is
exposed to the atmosphere and oxidizing conditions. In this new environment,
certain mineral species are susceptible to chemical alteration to a leachable form.
The parameter of greatest concern in post-mine ground-water quality is total
dissolved solids (NACI, 1981). Most probably, the constituent that will contribute to
total dissolved solids is sulfate. However, this constituent poses no significant
health problem. Water high in sulfate tends to act as a laxative to people not
accustomed to it. The other constituents contributing to total dissolved solids (i.e.,
calcium, sodium, magnesium, etc.) are associated with taste preferences. Other less
common elements, such as the heavy metals, may become mobilized if pH of the
overburden is lowered to. 4.0 or less, through oxidation of iron disulfides. Some
zones were identified as having sufficient amounts of pyrite to cause undesirable
acidity that may mobilize heavy metals. However, heavy metal concentrations are
sufficiently low such that significant water quality impacts are not anticipated.
Upon recovery of ground-water levels within the mined area, chemically reducing
conditions will be re-established in the zone of saturation (James et al., 1976). Such
conditions are expected to retard the dissolution of minerals and the resulting
alteration of ground-water quality.
Once the water table is re-established, any leachate will have the
potential to flow from the mine to adjacent, down-gradient (i.e, southward),
ground-water bodies. As previously mentioned, the permeability of the spoil is
expected to be lower than pre-mine conditions. Consequently, the quantity of flow
from the spoil to adjacent ground-water bodies should also be reduced.
4-27
-------
Typically, peak leachate concentrations are found in the first pore
volume of water contained in leachate generating materials. Subsequent pore
volumes generally have lower concentrations. Therefore, the maximum potential
impact will exist during the time period when the first pore volume is migrating
from the mine spoil. The length of the time period is dependent upon the
permeability, porosity, and the hydaulic gradient in the spoil. General indications
based on these paramenters are that any leachate would move slowly from the spoil
area and would take several years to be completely flushed from the system.
Therefore, any plume of leachate should attain a steady-state condition. Based
upon experience of similar studies, it is probable that the edge of any steady-state
plume down-gradient of the mine will be within 2,500 feet of the mine area.
The leachate concentrations in any plume will be reduced with distance
from the mine area. The concentrations of dissolved constituents down-gradient of
the mine will be primarily dependent upon the ambient ground-water velocity,
physical processes of mechanical dispersion, and dilution by infiltrating precipi-
tation. It is anticipated that concentrations exceeding water-quality standards will
be restricted to within a few hundred feet downgradient (i.e, southward) of the
mine. Therefore, it is anticipated that ground-water contamination should not be a
significant problem at the site. Monitoring wells will be installed to assess the
extent of migration of any leachate.
The aquifer units below the mineable zone exist under confined condi-
tions and are protected by a thick, impermeable clay stratum and will not be
adversely affected by mining operations. Water supply wells can be installed into
this aquifer upon completion of reclamation activities to mitigate the loss of
shallow wells as a result of mining activities.
4.2.1.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine
The impacts of the power plant operation and construction and mine area
construction activities are considerably less than the impacts of the mining
4-28
-------
operation activity. Impacts of project construction activities will consist of the
disturbances of the unsaturated surface of a relatively small area. The principal
combined impacts on the ground-water system will be a local lowering of water
levels due to dewatering in active mine areas and a slight offsetting recharge of
ground water in the vicinity of the power plant's cooling reservoir.
4.2.2 Surface Water
4.2.2.1 Existing and Future Environments
Hydrology
The locations of the proposed power plant and mine area with respect to
natur'al drainage are shown in Fig. 4-2. Approximately 80 percent of the power
plant area is located within the Brandy Branch watershed. The remainder is drained
by a small tributary of Hatley Creek. The proposed mine site is located primarily
within the hydrographic boundaries of Clarks Creek, Hatley Creek, and Brandy
Branch watersheds. The southern portion of the mine area extends into the Sabine
River floodplain. The three streams traversing the mine site drain into the Sabine
River, and their drainage patterns are generally oriented in a southeastward
direction. Additionally, approximately 15 percent of the mine area is drained by
minor tributaries of Mason Creek, located to the west of Clarks Creek watershed.
Mason Creek drains into the Sabine River upstream of the South Hallsville Project
site.
Historical streamflow records for streams traversing the project site are
not available. Therefore, to characterize the runoff in the general area, informa-
tion from gaged watersheds in the vicinity was analyzed. Information on these
gaging stations, including mean discharges in cubic feet per second (cfs) and
drainage areas in square miles (sq. mi.), is presented in Table 4-3. The mean flow
per unit area in the vicinity of the project varies from 0.72 to 0.95 cubic feet per
4-29
-------
m
mmf\
. v****v <
-"^ ^r--^
^«—. BOUNDARY OF PROJECT AREA
AREAS TO BE DISTURBED BY MINING
COOLING POND
SCALE 1:62500
a MILES
3000
POWER PLANT
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF
100-YR FLOOD PLAIN
3000
6000 900O 120OOFEET
6 ESPEY. HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
I I ENGINEEftlHG & EHVIRONMfNTAL CONSULTMTS
Fig. 4-2
HYDROGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES AND
LOCATION OF IQQ-YR FLOOD PLAIN
SOUTH HALLSVILLE PROJECT
-------
TABLE 4-3
STREAMFLOW RECORDS FOR SELECTED GAGES
SOUTH HALLSVTLLE PROJECT
OJ
Number Stream
1 Frazier Creek
2 Little Cypress Creek
3 Big Sandy Creek
4 Prairie Creek
5 Rabbit Creek
6 Tenaha Creek
Basin
Cypress
Cypress
Sabine
Sabine
Sabine
Sabine
USGS
Station
Number
07346140
07346050
08019500
08020200
08020700
08023200
Period of
Record
1965-1975
1963-1975
1939-1975
1968-1975
1963-1975
1952-1975
Mean
Discharge
(cfs)
45.7
293.0
185.0
37.1
54.8
79.6
Drainage
Area
square
miles (sq mi)
48.0
383.0
231.0
48.9
75.8
97.8
Mean
Discharge
per unit
area
(csm)
0.95
0.76
0.80
0.76
0.72
0.81
Source: EH&A, 1977 a.
-------
second (cfs) per square mile (csm). The watersheds in the project area and the
expected mean flows at their outlet as a function of drainage area are shown in
Table 4-4.
The SCS's TR-20 rainfall-runoff computer model was used to determine
the hydrologic response of the watersheds in Fig. 4-2. The storm events used in the
analyses are listed in Table 4-5. Hydrologic response of the watersheds for other
storm events is presented in a baseline surface water report for the project area
(EH&A, 1977a).
The long period of flow records for the Sabine River at Tatum were
analyzed to determine flow frequencies. The 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year return
periods on the Sabine River were determined, and the HEC-2 computer program was
used to determine the corresponding water surface profiles. The delineation of the
100-year floodplain of the Sabine River along the project area is shown in Fig. 4-2.
Portions of the mine site are within the 100-year floodplain. As the probability of a
100-year flood occurring within the 24-year period of lignite production is about
21 percent, flood protection levees along the southern boundaries of the mine site
near the Sabine River floodplain boundary will be necessary, as well as along
floodplain boundaries of major streams within the project site.
Water Quality
Although no historical water-quality data are available for the minor
streams in the project area, an extensive data base is available for the nearby
Sabine River (Segment 0505) from the TDWR and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
These water-quality data base were supplemented with a data collection program
designed to characterize baseline water quality of project-area streams (EH&A,
1979e). During the period November 1977 through September 1978, monthly
physical and chemical data were obtained at several locations on Brandy Branch,
Hatley and Clarks creeks, and the Sabine River. In addition, stormwater data were
4-32
-------
TABLE 4-4
DRAINAGE AREA AND MEAN DISCHARGE
OF PROJECT AREA STREAMS AT CONFLUENCE
WITH THE SABINE RIVER
Drainage Area Mean Discharge
Stream (sq mi) (cfs)
Clarks Creek 27.1 22
Hatley Creek 37.5 30
Brandy Branch 10.2 8
Mason Creek Tributaries 3.4 3
Source: EH&A. 1977 a.
4-33
-------
TABLE 4-5
STORM EVENTS USED FOR THE DETERMINATION
OF CRITICAL RATES AND VOLUMES OF RUNOFF
Storm Event
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Return Period
(years)
10
25
50
100
10
25
50
100
Duration
(hours)
24
24
24
24
6
6
6
6
Depth of
Rainfall
(inches)
7.10
8.30
9.30
10.40
5.00
5.80
6.50
7.30
Source: Hershfield, 1961.
4-34
-------
collected on Hatley and Clarks creeks during a period of surface runoff resulting
from rainfall on June 6, 1978.
The TDWR's water-quality standards for the segment of the Sabine River
near the project site are presented in Table 4-6, along with the observed ranges for
the period 1973-19*78. Water uses deemed desirable in this segment include
noncontact recreation, propagation of fish and wildlife, and domestic raw water
supply. Regarding TDWR water-quality standards, several instances of noncom-
pliance with the dissolved oxygen criterion for Segment 0505 have occurred at the
State Highway 43 monitoring station. Occasional deviations of pH, temperature,
and fecal coliform from allowable levels have also been recorded. For the period of
data analyzed, other prescribed TDWR water-quality standards have been achieved.
The TDWR has indicated that water-quality problems in Segment 0505 of
the Sabine River are primarily associated with dissolved oxygen deficits due to
loading of oxygen-demanding material and variable streamflow. Significant waste
loadings are introduced by the City of Longview and Texas Eastman discharges
upstream of the mine site (TWQB, 1975).
Baseline water quality at Clarks Creek, Brandy Branch, and Hatley
Creek have been characterized using data collected during the period November
1977 through September 1978 (EH&A, 1979e). Although water-quality standards
have not been promulgated by the TDWR for these streams, observed ranges for
constituents previously discussed are displayed in Table 4-7 for comparative
purposes. Low dissolved oxygen levels were common in the local project-area
streams, most likely due to the low or negligible streamflow conditions frequently
encountered. Occasional high concentrations of total dissolved solids were detected
in Hatley Creek, which may also be attributed to the observed lack of streamflow.
High levels of fecal coliform were detected on two occasions in Clarks Creek.
Livestock, wildlife, or some other form of nonpoint source were possible contribu-
tors.
4-35
-------
TABLE 4-6
SABINE RIVER WATER QUALITY
Parameter
Chloride (mg/1)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
pH
Fecal Coliform organisms
per 100 milliliters (org/100 ml)
Temperature ( F)
TDWR Standards
(Numerical Criteria)
Not to exceed
Not to exceed
Not to exceed
Not less than
Not to exceed
Not to exceed
175
75
400
5.0
6.0-8.5
2,000b
93
Observed
Range
14-140
9-63
8-354
2.8-12.8
5.5-7.7
0-4,600
40.0-86.8
From data collected at State Highway 43 monitoring stations, 1973-1978.
Log (geometric) mean not to exceed 2,000.
Source: EH&A, 1979b.
4-36
-------
I
CiJ
-J
TABLE 4-7
WATER QUALITY IN PROJECT AREA STREAMS
Parameter
Chloride (rng/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
pH
Fecal Coliforrn (org/100 mL)
Temperature ( C)
Claries Creek
7-35
5-53
60-266
1.2-13.9
6.2-7.6
< 10-3,980
1.5-29.0
Observed Range
Brandy Creek
6-22
3-12
22-128
2.5-14.4
3.5-7.4
< 10-1,300
3.8-28.0
Hatley Creek
14-54
3-63
78-598
0-16.0
4.9-7.7
< 10-920
2.0-26.0
Source: EH&A, 1979b.
-------
The TDWR has encountered low dissolved oxygen levels on Hatley Creek
and attributed these depressed levels to the inability of the creek to fully assimilate
the wastewater discharged by the City of Hallsville (TWQB, 1975). The City of
Hallsville has recently constructed a wastewater treatment plant that discharges
into Ward Creek, a tributary of Hatley Creek. The discharge permit issued by the
TDWR allows an average discharge rate of 0.32 million gallons per day (mgd) and a
maximum discharge rate of 0.80 mgd. In addition, the Texas State Department of
Highways and Public Transportation has a discharge permit allowing an average
discharge rate of O.OZ mgd and a maximum discharge rate of 0.04 mgd into Hatley
Creek (TDWR, 1981a).
In summary, water quality in the project area appears generally
acceptable for a wide variety of uses. No constituents or unusual concentrations of
constituents were detected that would seriously impair use. Occasional instances of
low dissolved oxygen content are probably attributable to excess point-source
organic loadings on the Sabine River and to the critically low stream-flow conditions
that project-area streams experience seasonally.
4.2.2.2 Effects of No.Action
If the "no action alternative" is implemented, the surface water regime
of the project area should remain essentially unchanged from existing conditions,
barring the possibility that other independent development may occur in the
vicinity.
4-38
-------
4.2.2.3 Construction Impacts
Power Plant
Plant Site
Minor adverse impacts due to construction activities associated with the
proposed plant site and cooling reservoir are unavoidable. Clearing of brush and
trees will result in temporary increases in overland runoff from the cleared areas.
Some erosion is unavoidable, producing increased surface water transport of
sediments and increased turbidity in receiving streams during periods of heavy
rainfall and increased streamflow. During such periods, creeks in the project area
normally experience increased turbidity.
As in most dam construction projects, streamflow diversion is required
during dam construction, thereby resulting in little interruption of existing flows in
Brandy Branch. Upon completion of the dam, approximately 20 percent of the upper
Brandy Branch drainage area will be preempted by the inundating waters of the
cooling reservoir. Further, no discharges (except during flooding) will be made from
the cooling reservoir to Brandy Branch; makeup water will be transported by
pipeline from Big Cypress Bayou (Sec. 4.2.2.4). The existing intermittent nature of
flows in Brandy Branch will be adversely affected downstream due to the
construction of the cooling reservoir, which will only allow discharge during peak
runoff periods, thereby reducing the overall flow downstream. The establishment of
vegetative cover on the slopes of the dam and other areas of construction will
prevent impacts due to erosion.
In the impounded portion of Brandy Branch, certain changes in water
quality will occur. Initially, an increase in dissolved nutrient and organic material
leached from terrestrial soils and decaying vegetation will occur. Detention and
impoundment of waters will result in decreased suspended solids and lower turbidity
4-39
-------
than pre-impounded waters. Ranges in dissolved oxygen and pH fluctuation will
increase because of the influence of increased biological activity. Concentrations
of dissolved solids will increase due to evaporation.
Transportive Systems
Construction activities involving the transport!ve systems (makeup water
pipeline, railroad spur, and transmission lines) will result in some adverse,
short-term effects on the surface water resources of the area. The primary adverse
surface water impact of construction will be increased sediment loading to streams
resulting from such activities as tree and brush clearing, excavation, and grading.
However, revegetation of construction areas will reduce potential, long-term soil
erosion and subsequent increases in sediment loading in the area streams.
A 36-inch pipeline and associated intake structure will be used to divert
makeup water for the cooling reservoir from Big Cypress Bayou approximately
1 mile downstream of Ferrell's Bridge Dam (Lake O' The Pines), which is approxi-
mately 20 miles north of the power plant site. A permit from TDWR authorizes an
annual diversion of 18,000 acre-feet at a maximum diversion rate of 33.4 cfs (see
Sec. 5.0). Additionally, a Section 404 permit has been issued by the USCE (see
Sec. 5.0). Little Cypress Bayou is the only major stream crossed by the makeup
water pipeline. The pipeline also crosses several minor streams near the project
area. Some increased turbidity during construction of pipeline crossings with these
streams is unavoidable. However, these construction activities are short-term in
nature and are not expected to result in long-term adverse impacts on water quality.
The construction of the railroad spur across minor tributaries of Hatley
Creek and Brandy Branch will involve some disturbance along the banks and stream
beds. The construction of both the railroad spur and transmission lines will result in
such activities as vegetative clearing and grading. Increased turbidity of the
affected watersheds is likely to occur if periods of intense or prolonged rainfall
4-40
-------
occur during construction. Localized control measures will be implemented as
necessary to minimize these adverse impacts. Adverse impacts on streamflow rates
and volumes due to construction activities are expected to be very minor due to the
relatively small acreages being affected during construction. Adverse impacts on
surface water due to construction of transportive facilities will be of short-term
duration and will essentially cease upon completion of the facilities and revege-
tation of the affected areas.
Mine
Activities related to mine construction will result in some short-term
impacts on the surface water hydrology on and adjacent to the mine site.
Sedimentation ponds and other erosion control measures will be constructed before
any mining activity takes place, as is required by the RRC Surface Mining
Regulations. Activities such as clearing of vegetation, road relocation and
construction, and site preparation and construction of shop and personnel facilities
will result in some increases in peak runoff rates and sediment loading. Existing
drainage patterns may be altered somewhat by road construction. In addition,
excavation and grading activities in connection with the construction of overland
flow diversion facilities and sedimentation ponds are expected to result in short-
term increases in local surface water sediment concentrations. Adverse, short-term
hydrologic impacts resulting from construction-related increases in potential soil
erosion and subsequent sediment yield will be minimized by the establishment of
vegetative cover on disturbed areas as soon as possible after construction and by the
use of such temporary sediment-control measures as straw dikes or vegetative filter
strips in collection ditches.
Unavoidable short-term effects of the mining activities on surface water
hydrology will result primarily from increases in sediment production (soil erosion)
during premining construction activities and during the mine development. Mine-
related construction activities expected to cause the greatest potential increases in
4-41
-------
sediment yield are timber and brush clearing, road and pipeline relocations and
construction, and excavation and grading during construction of drainage channels
and sedimentation ponds. Other activities, such as local site preparation and
construction of shop facilities, are expected to result in minor increases in sediment
production.
Current available technology will be employed, as necessary, to
minimize the potential adverse effects of construction on runoff and surface water
quality. Therefore, overall effects of mine-related construction activities on the
surface water of the project area should be minor in magnitude and of short-term
duration.
4.Z.Z.4 Operation Impacts
Power Plant
Plant Site
Due to the small area of the power plant site relative to the total
drainage areas of the Hatley Creek and Brandy Branch watersheds, no major impact
on downstream flooding and normal streamflows are anticipated. However, the
existence of the power plant cooling reservoir (Fig. 4-2) will have a much more
pronounced effect upon the hydrology of Brandy Branch. The cooling reservoir has a
surface area of approximately 1,240 acres and a storage volume of about
29,500 acre-feet at the normal operating elevation of 340 feet msl. Approximately
20 percent of the Brandy Branch watershed is inundated by the cooling reservoir.
Assuming the pond would be at normal operating level prior to the occurrence of a
storm, peak discharges of Brandy Branch are estimated to increase by approximately
50 percent for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event and as much as approximately
80 percent for the 10-year, 6-hour and 10-year, 24-hour storm events.
4-42
-------
Impacts on local water quality may result from the operation of the
proposed power plant's cooling water system. A maximum of 18,000 acre-feet per
year of makeup water from Lake O' The Pines in the Cypress Basin will be released
and diverted from Big Cypress Bayou, approximately 1 mile downstream from
Ferrell's Bridge Dam, to the cooling reservoir on Brandy Branch, which is located in
the Sabine River Basin. The operation of the cooling water system will result in
discharges of heated waste water and chlorine to the cooling reservoir. Discharges
of heated water to the cooling reservoir will result in increased evaporation rates of
water from the reservoir. Levels of conservative substances, such as total dissolved
solids (TDS), chlorides, and sulfates within the reservoir, may increase due to the
concentrating effect of evaporation. A portion of the water diverted from the
Cypress Basin, as well as runoff water from the cooling reservoir's watershed, will
eventually enter the Sabine River during flood events and through seepage. If levels
of conservative substances become sufficiently high, these discharges could
adversely impact local water quality.
Projected levels of TDS within the cooling reservoir have been
calculated for 25 years of project operation and are presented in Table 4-8. TDS is
shown to increase over the life of the project, reaching a maximum value of
314 mg/1. This projected concentration of TDS is below the 400 mg/1 TDS criterion
of the TDWR water-quality standards promulgated for the segment of the Sabine
River proximal to the project site (Segment 0505).
The TDS concentations in the cooling reservoir were estimated by means
of a mass balance analysis that used local water quality and meteorlogical data,
plant heat load, and assumptions concerning plant operation and waste charac-
teristics. Sources of TDS loadings included Brandy Branch, makeup water from Big
Cypress Bayou, and runoff from the limestone-lignite storage area. Losses of TDS
occur from seepage and water consumed in fly ash, bottom ash, and scrubber sludge
disposal. Water losses occur from natural and forced evaporation from the pond and
from evaporative losses in the power plant. Forced evaporation was estimated using
4-43
-------
TABLE 4-8
PROJECTED TDS CONCENTRATIONS IN COOLING RESERVOIR
Year After
Plant Startup
0
5
10
15
20
25
TDS Concentrations in Cooling Reservoir
mg/1
120
185
233
268
295
314
Source: Calculations based on data from EH&A, 1979b.
4-44
-------
the Harbeck diagram and assuming a power plant heat load based on operation at
100 percent capacity. Assumed TDS concentrations in Big Cypress Bayou (1ZO mg/1)
and in Brandy Branch (70 mg/1) were estimated from historical data. The TDS
concentration of limestone-lignite runoff was assumed to be 500 mg/1. The makeup
water flow to the pond from Big Cypress Bayou was assumed equal to the volume
necessary to maintain the pond at a constant operating level.
The analysis was shown to be fairly sensitive to changes in the seepage
estimate, which is, by far, the most difficult estimate to accurately ascertain. If
the seepage estimate of 1,447 acre-feet per year was halved, TDS concentrations in
the pond would reach 381 mg/1 after 25 years of operation, still below promulgated
State and Federal standards.
Based on this analysis, it is concluded that the operation of the power
plant's cooling system should not cause the concentrations of conservative dissolved
substances in the cooling reservoir to exceed State or Federal standards. Therefore,
no impact on local water quality is expected as a result of occasional discharges
from the cooling reservoir to Brandy Branch.
Condenser cooling water will be chlorinated periodically to prevent the
growth of fouling organisms within condenser tubes, which reduces heat transfer
efficiently. Chlorination will be performed within the intake bay, immediately
beyond the traveling screens in front of the intake pumps. Doses will be injected at
a maximum of three times daily for periods of 15 minutes each. The total dosage of
chlorine will be administered to achieve a free residual of 0.1 to 0.5 ppm at the
condenser outlet. This free residual concentration will comply with allowable
release concentrations under effluent limitation guidelines (40 CFR Part 423).
Chlorination will only occur seasonally, when water temperatures are at or above
70 F. Due to the projected limited use of chlorine, both on a daily and seasonal
basis, and the limited dosage that will be applied, no chlorine should be detected in
the cooling reservoir and, therefore, only minor adverse impacts, if any, on pond
4-45
-------
ecology will occur. These low concentrations will preclude toxic effects on
downstream aquatic organisms.
The disposal of fly ash and scrubber sludge by landfill will result in an
elevation increase of the original land surface within the disposal area from 2 feet
at the upper end of the valley to 40 feet at the lower end of the valley. The initial
disposal area has a total volume of approximately 1,100 acre-feet and has sufficient
volume for 2 years' production of ash/sludge wastes. A landfill site in the upper
reaches of the drainage system was chosen so that the base of the landfill will be
above the ground-water table at all times. Sediment and/or treatment ponds will be
located to capture surface water runoff from the disposal area.
Transportive Systems
Operations effects of the transportive systems on the surface water
resources of the area will be related primarily to the transbasin diversion of makeup
water from the Cypress Basin to the Sabine River Basin. Any consumptive use of
water due to evaporation and other losses represents an unavoidable deficit in the
overall water balance of the area. However, the diversion of the power plant water
from the Cypress Basin to the Sabine River Basin is not expected to result in
adverse impacts on the water resources of either basin. The total permitted or
claimed surface water for consumptive uses in Cypress Basin is approximately
375,000 acre-feet per year, while the maximum reported consumptive use has been
only about 80,000 acre-feet in any one year (TDWR, 1981b). Additionally a study by
the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) in 1977 indicates that the Cypress
Basin would still have an estimated surplus of 334,200 acre-feet per year by the
year 2030 (TWDB, 1977). Water diverted from the Cypress Basin into the cooling
reservoir will represent a surface water gain in the Sabine River Basin. This impact
will not be adverse considering the large magnitude of streamflows already present
in the Sabine River. No major effects on the surface water regime of the Cypress
Basin are expected because makeup water, which is supplied by the Lake O'The
4-46
-------
Pines, has already been appropriated to the Northeast Texas Municipal Water
District for consumptive use (TDWR Permit No. 1897C), and a contractual permit
(CP-454) based on this water right has been issued to SWEPCO by the State of Texas
for the diversion of 18,000 acre^-fest/year (see Sec* 5.0).
The crossing of minor tributaries by the railroad spur will result in minor
alteration of the floodflow regime in the Hatley Creek and Brandy Branch
watersheds. Normal overland flowpaths will be interrupted by the railroad spur
embankment and directed toward stream crossing structures. Major increases in
upstream flood elevations will be avoided due to the design of the stream crossing
structures. Operation impacts on surface water by the proposed transmission line
should be negligible after the completion and revegetation of affected areas.
Mine Area
Runoff control and management measures implemented prior to
construction will be adequate to handle runoff and to control sediment loadings to
levels that are acceptable to the regulatory agencies. Runoff and sediment volumes
resulting from rainfall events with frequencies up to 25 years and durations up to
24 hours will be positively controlled at the mining front, with the objectives of
arresting flooding potential and settling sediment-laden runoff originating at the
mine front or in the general vicinity. Off-channel sediment ponds with detention
times of 24 hours or greater will ensure the impoundment of storm runoff waters for
sufficient time to allow settling of most suspended sediment before any releases are
made. The sediment ponds will be located off the main channels. Therefore, there
will be little or no interference with streamflow during periods of normal flow. The
sediment ponds will be restored to initial capacities when 60 percent of the storage
volume has been filled with sediment. This activitiy will be implemented as a
general management practice throughout the life of the mine and during the
reclamation period, as is required under the RRC Surface Mining Regulations.
4-47
-------
A range of storm events of different magnitudes was simulated in order
to determine the hydrologic response of the watersheds affected by mining under
pre- and postmining (post-reclamation) conditions. For the post-reclamation simula-
tions it was assumed that land use in the reclaimed area would consist of
approximately 90 percent bermuda grass and 10 percent forestland.
By comparing the results obtained for the pre-and postmining hydrologic
simulations of the watersheds affected by mining activities, it was determined that
there would be a large percent increase in peak runoff for all storm events for the
Rogers Creek area of the Clarks Creek watershed. The increases vary from 62 to
92 percent. The increase for the remainder of the sub-basins in the Clarks Creek
watershed was determined to be fairly small and ranged from approximately 3 to
21 percent. Very small increases in peak runoff were determined for the Hatley
Creek watershed. Increases in peak flows from the Mason Creek tributary sub-
basins ranged from 7 to 23 percent. The computer simulations of the watersheds do
not reflect the attenuating effect of sediment ponds on runoff peaks due to ponds
that would be present at the site during and after reclamation. Therefore, the
simulated increases in peak runoff are conservative estimates.
Volumes of overland flow for the range of storm events were also
calculated for pre- and postmining conditions. Percent increases in volumes of
overland flow for the Rogers Creek sub-basin (Clarks Creek watershed) were about
68 percent for the 10-year, 24-hour storm event and about 57 percent for the
25-year, 24-hour storm event. Volumes of overland flow for sub-basins 13 and 16 of
the Clarks Creek watershed were determined to have been reduced by approxi-
mately 20 and 4 percent, respectively, for these storm events. Percent increases
for the other sub-basins in the Clarks Creek watershed varied from about 3 to
32 percent for the 10-and 25-year, 24-hour storm events. Overland flow volumes for
the Mason Creek sub-basins for the 10- and 25-year, 24-hour storm events increased
and varied from approximately 8 to 19 percent. Computations for sub-basin 14 of
the Hatley Creek watershed showed a decrease in overland flow volumes of
4-48
-------
approximately 10 percent for postrnining conditions. Increases in overland flow
volumes for the other sub-basins of the Hatley Creek watershed were moderate and
varied from about 6 to 39 percent.
The greatest volumes of overland flow for various storm events occur
from cleared land prior to removal of overburden. Assuming average antecedent
soil moisture conditions, estimated maximum increases in volumes of overland flows
(acre-feet per acre) resulting from the 10-year, 24-hour storm event would be
156 percent for soils in hydrologic soil group B, 61 percent for soils in hydrologic soil
group C, and 43 percent for soils in hydrologic soil group D. For the Z5-year,
24-hour storm event, the increases are estimated to be 120 percent for B soils,
54 percent for C soils, and 37 percent for D soils. These estimates are based on
previously wooded lands and assume a 5-percent land cover after clearing. Peak
discharge rates for the various storm events would be expected to change through-
out the mining phase due to changes in drainage characteristics associated with
diversion channels, dikes, sedimentation ponds, and other necessary flood prevention
and flood control structures.
The impacts of mining activities upon water quality of the project area
streams on the Sabine River have been investigated, considering discharges from
active mining areas and disturbed areas. A mining plan, developed by Sabine Mining
Company, was used to evaluate mining impacts upon water quality. The plan
presented a projected mining scenario, with delineation of the temporal and spatial
extent of mining activities. The mining plan was included as part of the mining
application to the RRC. The mining permit application was approved by the RRC on
9 November 1981 and is available for review.
One phase of this analysis examined water-quality impacts associated
with discharges from the active pit area and from the entire mining area in a
disturbed state. Therefore, this analysis constitutes a "worst-case" evaluation for
any particular storm event. The 10-year, 24-hour storm event was used for
4-49
-------
purposes of this analysis. In reality, as mining progresses, only a portion of the
mining area will be in a disturbed state, while other portions will have been restored
and others will be as yet undisturbed.
For all disturbed areas, sedimentation ponds (and other treatment
facilities, if necessary) will be maintained until restoration is complete and the
areas exhibit compliance with promulgated discharge requirements. Ponds will be
designed to contain runoff from the 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event. Dis-
charges from disturbed areas are subject to the numerical effluent limitations
described in Table 4-9, promulgated by the OSM (U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1979) and
adopted by the RRC. The EPA has promulgated effluent limitations applicable to
discharges from active mining areas, which differ from OSM regulations in that a
30-day average concentration of total iron of 3.0 mg/1 is prescribed for both existing
and new sources.
The present impact analysis addressed discharges from disturbed areas in
response to the 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event. Volumes of runoff were
derived from the baseline hydrology studies using the projected watershed areas
subject to mining activities. These volumes of runoff were assumed to be contained
in sedimentation ponds in each sub-watershed area. No specifications were
available describing discharge schedules from the sedimentation ponds. The analysis
assumed that ponds would be drained during a 2-week period, allowing quantification
of discharge rates. In addition to runoff water, discharges derived from ground-
water accumulation in the active mine area were also considered. Discharges from
the ponds were then routed to the Sabine River. Impact of these discharges upon
the Sabine River was examined upon a median flow of 800 cfs. A mass balance
technique was employed to evaluate impacts on the Sabine River. This technique
was particularly appropriate since the parameters addressed may be treated as
conservative materials; that is, they are assumed to exhibit no significant decay.
Discharges from the sedimentation ponds were assigned quality characteristics in
compliance with the promulgated effluent limitations. Background concentrations
4-50
-------
TABLE 4-9
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR DISTURBED AREAS,
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING, AND
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Effluent
Characteristics
*
Iron, total
#*
Manganese, total
TSS
PH
Maximum Allowable
6.0 mg/1
4.0 mg/1
70.0 mg/1
6,0 to 9.0
30-Day Average
3.0 mg/1
2.0 mg/1
35.0 mg/1
6.0 to 9,0
* Existing sources are limited to a maximum 7.0 mg/1 and an average 3.5 mg/1
total iron concentration.
** Manganese limitations do not apply to untreated discharges that are alkaline as
defined by the EPA.
Source: EH&A, 1979b.
4-51
-------
in the Sabine River were estimated from USGS data for Station 08022000 near
Tatum and from the baseline sampling program. Background concentrations in
Hatley and Clarks creeks were estimated from the baseline data collection program
(see Table 4-7). Characteristics of Mason Creek were assumed similar to Clarks
Creek. The impact of discharges from disturbed areas on project area streams was
also investigated. Streamflow from undisturbed areas was estimated at mean flow
levels, and quality characteristics were estimated from the baseline stormwater
runoff data. Input data and results of the mass balance analyses are described in
Table 4-10. In response to pond discharges following the 10-year, 24-hour
precipitation event, total suspended solids in project-area streams are shown to
increase by approximately 0.5 mg/1 (1.2 mg/1 maximum). The effects on the Sabine
River are very slight. Total suspended solids will decrease by 1.2 mg/1 due to pond
discharges from the project area. Iron and manganese are projected to increase by
0.14 and 0.17 mg/1, respectively. It should be realized that this analysis represents a
"worst-case," as all areas to be mined over the project life were considered in a
disturbed state, and the effects of reclamation were not included. However,
reclamation will proceed concurrently with mining and this "worst-case" condition
will not be realized under actual conditions.
Also addressed in the analysis were impacts from pond discharges
derived solely from the active mine area unaffected by runoff discharges from
disturbed areas. Mine discharges will be composed primarily of ground-water
seepage and direct rainfall on the active pits. Estimated discharge rates were
supplied by Paul Wier Company. Effluent limitations promulgated by the EPA were
assumed to characterize the quality of the discharges. These sedimentation pond
discharges were routed to the Sabine River as discussed previously. Impact upon the
Sabine River was examined under the 2-year, 7-day low flow of 62 cfs. Impacts of
active mine area discharges on project area streams (i.e., Clarks, Hatley, and Mason
creeks) were also investigated. Input data and results are presented in Table 4-11.
Calculations indicate impacts upon the Sabine River and the project-area streams
would be very minor.
4-52
-------
TABLE 4-10
MASS BALANCE DISCHARGES FROM DISTURBED AND ACTIVE MINE AREAS
CLARKS CREEK
Flow (cfs)
Quality
TSS (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Total Manganese (mg/1)
HATLEY CREEK
7!ow (cfs)
Quality
TSS (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Total Manganese (mg/1)
MASON CREEK
Flow (cfs)
Quality
TSS (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Total Manganese (mg/1)
SABDIE RIVER
Flow (cfs)
Quality
TSS (mg/ll
Total Iron (mg/1)
Total Manganese (mg/1)
Baseline
Conditions
(Undisturbed
Area)
14.8
10.0
1.S2
0.42
25.5
15.0
3.61
0.72
31.3
10.0
1.32
0.42
800
47.5
1.54
0.29
Discharge
from
Disturbed
Area*
42.8
35.0
3.0
2.0
26.7
35.0
3.0
2.0
11.9
35.0
3.0
2.0
81.4
35.0
3.0
2.0
Discharge
from
Active Mine
Area**
6.2
35.0
3.0
2.0
6.2
35.0
3.0
2.0
6.2
35.0
3.0
2.0
6.2
35.0
3.0
2.0
Mass
Balance
Results
63.8
29.2
2.30
1.63
58.4
26.3
3.27
1.44
49.4
19.1
2.25
0.99
887. 6
46.3
1.68
0.46
Change in
Concentration
+• 19-2
+ 0.4S
* 1.21
r 11.3
- 0.34
+• 0.72
+ 9.1
+ 0.43
+• 0.57
- 1.2
+ 0.14
+ 0.17
* Discharges from disturbed areas assumed a 2-week duration.
** Each watershed examined with entire mine area discharge.
Source: Calculations based on data from EH&A, 1979b.
4-53
-------
TABLE 4-11
MASS BALANCE ANALYSIS
DISCHARGES FROM ACTIVE MINE AREA
CLARKS CREEK
Flow fofs)
Quality
TSS dag/U
Total Iron (mg/1)
Total Manganese (mg/1)
HATLEY CREEK
Flow (cfs)
Quality
TSS (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Total Manganese (mg/1)
MASON CREES
Flow (cfs)
Quality
TSS tag/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Total Manganese (mg/1)
SABOTE RIVER
Flow (cfs)
Quality
TSS tag/I)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Total Manganese (mg/1)
Baseline
Conditions
(Undisturbed
Area)
14.3
10.0
1.32
0.4Z
25.5
15.0
3.61
0.72
31.3
10.0
1.32
0.42
62
25.1
1.54
0.29
Active Mine
Discharge*
6.2
35.0
3.0
2.0
6.2
35.0
3.0
2.0
6.2
35.0
3.0
2.0
6.2
35.0
3.0
2.0
Mass
Balance
Results
21.0
17.4
2.17
0.39
31.7
18.9
3.49
0.97
38.0
14.1
2.01
0-63
68.2
26.0
1.67
0.45
Change in
Concentration
- 7.4
+ 0.35
+ 0.47
r- 3.9
- 0.12
+ 0.25
+ 4.1
^0.19
- 0.26
+• 0.9
* 0.13
^ 0.16
* Each watershed examined with entire mine area discharge.
Source: Calculations based on data from EH&A, 1979b.
4-54
-------
The development of the mine and associated facilities will result in some
long-term changes in the hydrologic regime of the area. The primary long-term
adverse impacts expected as a result of mining activities will be alterations in peak
runoff rates and volumes resulting from changes in the site topography, topsoil
characteristics, vegetative cover patterns, and land use. Flood peaks will be
reduced if sedimentation ponds are allowed to remain in place permanently to be
used as runoff detention basins and for livestock, wildlife, and recreational purposes.
Major streams through the mine area will be altered due to permanent rerouting,
resulting in straighter stream channels and shorter flow lengths. The installation of
energy dissipation structures in areas of high streamflow velocities and establish-
ment of vegetative cover will reduce the potential for stream channel erosion. The
levees, which will be required to protect the mine from flooding on the Sabine
River, will remove a small portion of the existing Sabine River floodplain. Minor
rectification of the Sabine River floodplain in the affected reach should offset the
reduction in overbank conveyance.
In the project area, ditches will be provided along new roads to direct
runoff into local drainage channels. During mining, diversion ditches, channels, and
berms will be constructed to intercept runoff from disturbed areas and to divert it
to sedimentation ponds that will be constructed using various combinations of dams,
levees, and excavations. Runoff from undisturbed areas will either be diverted away
from the areas controlled by sedimentation ponds or will be detained in upstream
reservoirs to be released after runoff from disturbed areas has passed through the
sedimentation ponds.
4.2.Z.5 Combined Impacts of the Plant and Mine
The combined effects of the construction activities of the mine and
power plant on the surface water hydrology will not be any more severe than the
sum of their separate effects considered independently. Furthermore, all of the
construction-related hydrologic impacts of the combined project will not occur
4-55
-------
simultaneously. Most of the construction activities for the power plant will
essentially be completed prior to mining, and further construction will occur during
the sequential development of the mine.
The overall effects of the proposed power plant and mine construction
activities on the surface water hydrology of the area will be minor in magnitude and
of short-term duration. These impacts are temporary and will diminish with
increasing distance downstream of the construction site. Current available
technology will be employed, as necessary, to minimize the effects of construction
on runoff and sediment production in the project area.
The combined effects resulting from operation of the proposed power
plant and mine include effects on the Sabine River and its associated floodplain,
changes in topography and runoff patterns of local watersheds due to construction of
the power plant and development of the mine, and water quality considerations
associated with the various waste streams generated by the combined project.
Construction of the power plant cooling reservoir has reduced runoff to
the Sabine River. However, as the drainage area above the dam is very small in
comparison to the total drainage area of the Sabine River at the project site, there
will be only a very minor reduction in Sabine River flows. Also, only minor
decreases in the Sabine River flows due to mining operations are anticipated, as the
total drainage areas of the watersheds affected by the mine area are only about
1.5 percent of the total drainage area of the Sabine River at the project site. A
minor change in the floodplain boundary of the Sabine River and a minor increase in
flood elevations are expected due to required flood prevention levees along the
southern boundary of the project in the Sabine River floodplain.
Operational impacts of the combined project on the hydrologic regime of
the local (on-site) watersheds will also be composed of the separate effects of the
power plant and mine as discussed in Sec. 4.Z.2.4. The hydrologic impacts of the
4-56
-------
mine development on local watersheds, including changes in site topography and
alterations in peak runoff rates and volumes, will occur concurrently with mining
and reclamation activities throughout the life of the project. Sedimentation ponds
installed to control runoff and sediment from disturbed areas will be in operation at
various locations and at different times, as dictated by the mine plan. The
sequential development of the mine will result in greater overall impacts on local
watersheds during later stages of the project than in earlier years, while the
hydrologic impacts of the power plant facilities will essentially remain uniform
throughout the project life.
The combined effects of power plant and lignite mine operation on
surface water quality do not differ significantly from their individual impacts.
Occasional discharges from the power plant's cooling reservoir will affect only
Brandy Branch. Discharges from disturbed mining areas will affect Hatley, Clarks,
and Mason creeks. Discharges from both mine and power plant operations will
eventually enter the Sabine River. Any iron and manganese additions will be from
mining; power plant operations will not add to the levels of iron, manganese, and
total suspended solids in the Sabine River. Mine discharges may contain TDS
concentrations that are slightly higher than background levels, but should be well
below the 400 mg/1 TDS standard for the segment of the Sabine River near to the
project area (Segment 0505).
4.3 CLIMATOLOGY/AIR QUALITY
4.3.1 Existing and Future Environments
4.3.1.1 Climatology
Proximity to the Gulf of Mexico (approximately ZOO miles to the south)
greatly influences local meteorology and climatology. The climate of the project
area is a transition from the primarily humid, subtropical areas to the south and the
4-57
-------
less humid, continental areas of the Plains States to the north. The project area
experiences generally warm summers punctuated by occasional thundershowers.
Winters are mild to cool, with cold air intrusions every 3 to 5 days during the coldest
months. A more detailed discussion of the project area's climatology is contained in
a baseline climatology and air quality report (EH&A, 1979a).
Temperature
The average annual temperature for the project area is 65.2 F. Average
afternoon highs vary from the low 90's in July and August to the upper 50's in
December and January. Average nighttime lows range from the low 70's during July
and August, to the upper 30's during December and January (U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, 1972). The highest temperature on record is 106°F, and the lowest is
Precipitation
Rainfall is generally abundant in the project area, with most monthly
averages exceeding 3 inches (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1972). Most of the
precipitation, both in quantity and number of occurrences, is from convective
showers. Excessive rains of short duration occur frequently from thundershowers
during the April through September period. Heavy rains may also be associated with
squall lines during the spring or fall months. Rains of longer duration are normally
the result of warm- or stationary-frontal activity south of the area during the colder
months, or are associated with dissipating tropical weather systems during summer
or fall. Averages during the 1951-1970 period of record reveal an annual average
precipitation rate of 46.28 inches (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1972). During a typical
year, approximately one-fourth of the days will experience measurable
precipitation. September is the driest month, with an average precipitation of
2.3 inches, while December is the wettest, with 4.9 inches. In the project area, a
record annual maximum precipitation of 67.23 inches was measured in 1957, and a
4-58
-------
record minimum of 23.10 inches was recorded in 1899 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
1972).
Snowfalls of measur.ea.ble amounts rarely occur, averaging only once
every 2 years. Heavy snows have occurred, however, as in February I960, when
5.7 inches fell. Such rare and infrequent snows distort mean data so that such data
are not useful for determining expected amounts. For that reason, mean data are
not presented here. Sleet occurs more often than snow, but amounts and durations
are generally small (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1972). Sleet or icing conditions occur
most frequently from mid-December to mid-February.
Surface Winds
The windiest seasons are winter and spring, each with an average speed
of 8.5 mph (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1975). Fall is the next windiest season
(7.1 mph) and then summer (6.2 mph). The average annual wind speed for Shreveport
is 7.6 mph. The frequency distribution of wind direction ("wind rose") for the annual
case is presented in Fig. 4-3. The wind radials for each direction represent the
percentage of time the wind blows from that particular direction.
The most frequent annual wind direction is south (based on a 16-point
compass), occurring 16.4 percent of the time. Seasonal occurrences of the southerly
direction are 19.1 percent (summer), 18.8 percent (spring), 15.3 percent (winter), and
12.7 percent (fall). Annually, southeast is the second-highest occurring direction
(10.9 percent). The least frequent annual wind direction is northeast (3.1 percent).
Calm conditions prevail 12.2 percent of the time.
Severe Weather
Severe weather in northeastern Texas results from the occurrence of
decaying tropical storms and large thunderstorms (including tornadoes). During the
4-59
-------
Wind ?v.cse for Shrevepan:, LCUZ.S:
1970-1574
JTNI
2SW
0-5
17-21
)17.7 I 33.7134.3 i 13.31 0.9 I 0.1
4-6 11-16 21-f-
knots
12.27.
Source: EH&A, 1979a.
4-60
-------
coldest months ice storms may occur, but are very infrequent events. Thunder-
storms are generally limited to the spring and early summer months. In the project
area, maximum thunderstorm frequency usually occurs in the afternoon and evening
hours. Remnants of hurricanes and tropical storms may affect the project area
from June to November, while tornadoes can occur during any month of the year.
Dispersion Meteorology
Thermal and mechanical turbulence in the atmosphere act to disperse air
pollutants. A method for estimating the degree of turbulence in the surface layer is
used by the National Climatic Center (NCC) to produce a computer summary of
stability conditions for selected National Weather Service (NWS) stations. The
summary is called Stability Array (STAR) and was obtained for Shreveport for the
period 1970-1974. On an annual average, unstable conditions (Classes A, B, and C)
are estimated to occur 20.7 percent of the time. The most frequently occurring
class is the neutral Class D (D-day plus D-night) at 46.8 percent. Stable conditions
(Classes E and F) are estimated to occur 30.Z percent of the time (U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, 1975).
Mixing heights and mean transport wind speeds determine the volume
into which pollutants will eventually be mixed. Low mixing heights and light wind
speeds can mean high concentrations of pollutants, resulting from trapping of
pollutant plumes or decreased dilution of area source emissions. Holzworth (1974)
has analyzed worst-case annual and seasonal values of mixing heights and transport
winds for 62 United States stations, including Shreveport. Shreveport consistently
ranked high in the absence of extended periods with poor dispersion.
Strong atmospheric stability resulting from atmospheric temperature
inversions can effectively form a barrier limiting vertical dispersion of pollutants.
Hosier (1961) has estimated the frequency of occurrence of low-level inversions
below 500 feet. In the Shreveport area, the frequency of low-level inversions based
4-61
-------
below 500 feet (in percent of total hours) varies from 26 percent in the spring to
41 percent in the fall. The annual frequency of low-level inversions is 32 percent.
These inversions usually do not last more than a few hours.
Maximum concentrations of air pollutants also often occur at ground
level during periods of anticyclone (high pressure system) stagnation. A study by
Korshover (1971) indicates that the proposed project area experienced approxi-
mately 96 stagnation days and 23 stagnation cases (four or more continuous stagnant
days) during a 35-year study period. Based on his results, the maximum frequency
of stagnation days occurs during the fall, and the minimum frequency occurs during
the winter.
Relative dispersive capacity is estimated from the information on
atmospheric stability, mixing heights, and frequencies of inversions and stagnating
anticyclones for the project area. In general, the proposed project area is
characterized by atmospheric conditions favorable for the satisfactory dispersion of
air pollutants.
4.3.1.2 Existing Air Quality
Inventory of Emission Sources in the Project Area
Point sources of air pollution are industrially oriented and include items
such as flares, stacks, and vents. The largest individual source of sulfur dioxide
(SO.,), total suspended participates (TSP), and nitrogen oxides (NO ) emissions within
^ X
an eight-county region surrounding the proposed project is Texas Utilities Services'
Martin Lake Steam Electric Station (SES), located 15 miles south-southwest of the
Pirkey Power Plant site. The Martin Lake SES emits 154,268 tons per year of SO-,
13,006 tons per year of TSP, and 90,008 tons per year of NO . Another potentially
large individual source is Texas Utilities Services' proposed Mill Creek SES to be
located 18 miles southwest of the proposed power plant site. The Mill Creek SES
4-62
-------
has been permitted to emit 73,374 tons per year of SO^, 6,913 tons per year of TSP,
and 41,514 tons per year of NO . Together these two sources emit approximately
X
60 percent of each of the three types of pollutants discussed for the eight-county
region (Sargent and Lundy, 1979).
To conservatively investigate possible air quality impacts due to other
large sources in the region, an inventory of emission sources was compiled for an
area twice the radius of that of the maximum possible area of impact (50 km) and
defined by EPA's PSD guidelines.
These sources, whose emission rates exceed 5,000 tons per year for one
or more of the three aforementioned pollutants, are presented in Table 4-12 along
with the* two Texas Utilities Services' stations and the proposed Henry "W. Pirkey
Power Plant. Included in the table are plant locations and emission rates. The
sources are also located on a map of the region surrounding the project (Fig. 4-4).
Each source is identified with a number listed in Table 4-12. Of those sources,
several were permitted for construction or modification after the 1979 emissions
inventory was compiled for the purpose of permit application review under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of air quality regulations.
Ambient Air Quality Levels in the Project Area
The region surrounding the project area is primarily rural, much of which
is pasture or heavily wooded land. Few point emission sources of atmospheric
pollutants are located within 62 miles (100 km) of the site. The dispersed nature of
emissions in the region and the large distances to major industrial areas make the
air quality generally good in the proj ect area.
Ambient air quality standards set limits on concentrations of pollutants
in the air accessible to the general public. The existing applicable Federal standards
are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which encompass seven
4-63
-------
TABLE 4-12
LARGE POLLUTANT EMISSION SOURCES (>5000 TONS PER YEAR)
WITHIN 62 MILES (100 km) OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Map
ID
*
-)
3
4
3
S
7
S
9
12
1 T
•^
10
Source
3WEPCO
Pirkey
Texas Eastman
TTJSI
Martin Lake
TUSI
Mill Creek
SWEPCO
Wilkes
Lone Star Steei
Shell Oil
Bryons Mill
S'-TEPCC
Welsh
TUSI
Monticello
S'vTEPCO
Dolet Kills
International Paper
ICI United States
Exxon
Hawkins
County/
Parish
Harrison
Harrison
Rusk
Rusk
Marion
Morris
Cass
Titus
Titus
DeSoto
DeSoto
Harrison
Tood
Distance/
Direction
(mi/ TSP
16 p + compass)
__ _
12 W -
14 SS'vV 13,006
18 SW 6,918
27 N —
35 NNW —
52 N —
47 N",V
55 NW 13,464
60 ESE 3,266
53 ESE
7 NNE —
44 ',VNW -
Pollutants
SO
(ton/yr)
35,730
—
154,268
73,374
—
10,421
5,692
71,398
222,524
53,527
S.678
5 , 164
—
NO
X
17,365
15,217
90,008
41,514
3,794
15.425
-
38,386
53,180
39,354
-
5 , 23C
Source: Files of EPA'; National Emissions Data System. Texas Air Control Board, and Louisiana Office of
Environmental Affairs, Air Quality Division (1979-1981).
4-64
-------
I A K i \
'2.2°.<
1
ANNUAL WIND ROSE SHREVEPCRT. '970-1974
South Hnllaville P-ji*ct
GESFEY,HUSTON a ASSOCIATES, INC.
P! ENGINEERING a £.Wtf>OHM£:*mL COUSULWT'S
Fig. 4-4
Large Pollutant Emission Sources
(>5000 Tons Per Year) Within 62
Miles (100 km) of the Project Area
4-65
-------
pollutants (Table 4-13) including NO SO7, and TSP. Generally, data from
monitoring programs are compared with the NAAQS to determine compliance status
for the area monitored.
As of 1980, the three state-operated monitoring stations closest to the
proposed plant site, which collected TSP, SO-, and NO data, were: (1) Longview
(15 miles to the west-northwest), (2) Tyler (43 miles west), and (3) Shreveport,
Louisiana (43 miles east). Five additional TSP monitoring stations were located in
Shreveport. Other nearby monitoring stations include: one in Mt. Pleasant (TSP,
SO and NO-,), 56 miles north-northwest; one in Texarkana, Texas (TSP, SO.,, and
U U £>
NO-), 12 miles north-northeast; and two in Texarkana, Arkansas (TSP, SO-, and
It £>
N02).
The monitoring station closest to the proposed project is the Longview
station. It is also the only station that collects SO-, and NO-, data using continuous
sampling methods. Table 4-14 presents measured concentrations of SO-,, NO-,, and
TSP for Longview for the period 1977-1980. As indicated in the table, all measured
data were far below the applicable NAAQS. In addition, the SO., and NO
Li Li
concentrations measured at the other state-operated stations have remained well
below the NAAQS. However, SO-, and NO^ data from these sites were derived from
gas bubbler monitoring devices, which are considered unreliable. Standards for TSP
were exceeded at one of four stations in Shreveport, indicating that the high values
were due to very localized effects. In addition, the secondary annual TSP standard
was exceeded in 1978 in Tyler.
The area surrounding the proposed project site has been designated as an
attainment area for all criteria pollutants. The area is designated Class n under
PSD regulations. The nearest Class I area is Caney Creek National Wilderness Area
in Arkansas, approximately 130 miles north-northeast of the project site.
4-66
-------
TABLE 4-13
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
National Standards
Primary
Secondary
Total Suspended Paniculate
Matter !TSP)
Sulfur Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO.)
Non-methane Hydrocarbons
Ozone (O,j
Lead (Pbj
260 U g/m 24-hour average, not
to be exceeded more than once
a year
75 U g/m annual geometric
mean
365 Ug/m3 (0.14 ppm) 24-hour
average, not to be exceeded
more than once a year
!0.03 ppm) annual
SO
a* erage
40,000 Ug/m (35 ppm) hourly
average, not to be exceeded
more than once a year
10,000 ug/m (9 ppm) 8-hour
average, not to be exceeded
more '.han once a vear
100
average
(0.05 ppm) annual
160 ug/m (0.24 ppm) 6-9 a.m.
average, not to be exceeded
more than once a year
i
235 Ug/mJ (0.12 ppm) hourly
average, not to be exceeded
more than 1 day each year
1.5 ug/ns maximum arithmetic
mean averaged over a calendar
quarter
150 Ug/m" 24-hour average,
to be exceeded more than
a year
60 ug/mJ annual geometric
mean1"
1,300 u g/m (0.5 ppta) 3-hour
average, not to be exceeded
more than once a year
Same as primary
Same as primary
Same as primary
Same z.s primary
Same as primary
Primary standards define levels of air quality which the EPA Administrator judges necessary to protect the public
health with ac adequate margin of safety.
•**
Secondary standards define levels of air quality which the EPA Administrator judges necessary to protect the public
welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
These are for use as guides in achieving other standards. The con-methane hydrocarbon level relates to the ozone
standard; the SO u g/mJ annual geometric mean for TSP relates to the 24-hour standard for participates.
Source: 40 CFR. Part 50. National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
4-67
-------
TABLE 4-14
AMBIENT AIR MONITORING SUMMARY FOR NEAREST
TACB STATION: LONGVTEW, TEXAS
24-Hour 3-Hour
Annual Annual 2nd 24-Hour 2nd 3-Hour
Pollutant Year Mean+ NAAQS Highest NAAQS Highest NAAQS
S°2
(Ug/m3)
NO
(Ug/m3)
TSP
(ugM3)
1977
1978
1979
1980
1979
1980
1978
1979
1980
Qa.b
oa
Qa,b
oa
20
20b
34b
33
34
80
80
80
80
100
100
75
75
75
Oa
oa
oa
26
NA
NA
63
72
72
365
365
365
365
NA
NA
150
150
150
52
52
104
260
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1300
1300
1300
1300
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Annual means for SO2 and NO2 are arithmetic, annual mean for TSP is
geometric.
++ ^2 an<^ ^^2 concentra.tions were measured by the TACB in parts per million
(ppm). These data have been converted to Ug/m using a conversion factor of
2600 for SO. and 2000 for NO .
a
Monitored value below the threshold of the instrument.
Insufficient number of samples were collected for the annual mean to be
statistically valid.
Source: TACB, 1977-1980.
4-68
-------
4.3.2 Effects of No Action
With the possible exception of future construction and operation of other
nearby facilities proposing to emit large quantities of atmospheric pollutants, the
project area's air quality will remain unchanged from its present condition if the
proposed project is not constructed. If anticipated industrial development occurs in
the project area, the NAAQS or the allowable Class IE PSD increments could become
constrained at some future date. The greatest potential air quality problem would
be encountered if two or more major industrial facilities attempt to locate or build
adjacent to one another. Future new sources and modifications of existing sources
would not exceed the NAAQS, or violate of the PSD regulations or any other
existing or future air pollutant regulations. Most of the maximum PSD increment
concentrations predicted by computer modeling (Sargent and Lundy, 1979) for the
region surrounding the proposed plant are the result of emissions from other
permitted increment-consuming sources. For the maximum 24-hour and 3-hour SO-
concentrations, the Mill Creek SES is predicted to be the major consumer of the
allowable PSD increments at a location approximately 18 miles southwest of the
proposed plant. The maximum annual means for SO- was modeled to be located at
18 miles west-northwest of the proposed project. At this location, the proposed
plant's annual mean SO., concentration will be negligible.
w
Without the proposed plant, the maximum SO9 concentrations resulting
L 3
from permitted PSD increment sources are 10, 37, and 288 yg/m for the annual
mean, 24-hour maximum and 3-hour maximum, respectively. These concentrations
represent a consumption of 50, 41, and 56 percent of each of the allowable PSD
increments for SO-. With the proposed project, the maximum SO9 PSD increment
3
concentrations are 10, 42, and 307 ]i g/m for the annual mean, 24-hour maximum,
and 3-hour maximum, respectively. These values represent a consumption of 50, 46,
and 60 percent of each of the allowable increments for SO-. Therefore, the total
U
increase in the percentage of the allowable increment consumed, due to operation of
the proposed plant, is less than 1 percent for the maximum annual mean, 5 percent
for the 24-hour maximum, and 4 percent for the 3-hour maximum.
4-69
-------
4.3.3 Construction Impacts
4.3.3.1 Power Plant
Plant Site
Pollutant emissions resulting from construction and preparation of the
power plant site will cause some minor adverse air quality impacts in the area
immediately surrounding the construction activity. These impacts will be short-
term and localized, and air pollution levels will only occasionally exceed normal
background levels as a result of construction.
On-site open burning during clearing activities will cause periodic short-
term, minor, adverse impacts on air quality. All controlled burning adheres to
State, Federal, and local regulations. Burning was conducted during the hours
designated for such procedures and under meteorological conditions that would allow
for burning in a safe manner (TACB Reg. 131.03.01.00Z). Debris resulting from
clearing and grubbing activities was stockpiled to facilitate access to and control of
burning. These materials were left to dry for variable periods of time before
burning; time of burning was determined by dryness of the piles. Workers and
equipment were on-site during burning operations. Burning operations and
safeguards were designed to minimize adverse impacts on surrounding areas and
wildlife habitats.
Some smoke will also be produced by the operation of diesel engines and
by construction activities such as welding. Other vehicular exhaust emissions will
include small amounts of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen.
These mobile source emissions will not exceed any Federal or State standard.
On-site fugitive dust will result primarily from heavy earth-moving
equipment involved in excavation of fill material and from vehicular traffic on
4-70
-------
unpaved roads. When dust problems arise during construction, sprinkler trucks will
be employed to control dust in the area. These trucks will be used on the roadways
and in immediate construction areas where problems persist. The moderately high
frequency of occurrence of precipitation at the plant site area could, on the
average, further reduce the presence of fugitive dust. Dust and smoke emissions
will be controlled so that they will not cause or intensify any traffic hazard due to
impairment of visibility on nearby public roads.
Transportive Systems
Pollutant emissions resulting from construction of transportive systems
(e.g., vehicle exhaust emissions, fugitive dust) will cause some short-term air quality
impacts in areas immediately surrounding construction activities.
4.3.3.Z Mine
As with construction of the power plant, some fugitive dust emissions
will be produced by construction of mine support facilities. Any adverse air quality
impacts will be temporary and localized, and air pollutant levels will only
occasionally exceed normal background levels as a result of facility construction.
On-site open burning from clearing will cause periodic short-terrn,
minor, adverse impacts on air quality. All controlled burning will adhere to
applicable State, Federal, and local regulations. Burning will be conducted during
the hours designated for such procedures, and under meteorological conditions that
will allow for burning in a safe manner. Debris resulting from clearing and grubbing
activities will be stockpiled to facilitate access to and control of burning. Men and
equipment will be on-site during burning operations. Burning operations and
safeguards will be designed to minimize undesirable effects on adjacent areas and
wildlife habitats.
4-71
-------
Some smoke will be produced by the operation of diesel engines and by
construction activities such as welding associated with construction of draglines and
buildings. On-site fugitive dust will result from heavy earth-moving equipment
involved in excavation of fill material. When dust problems arise, sprinkler trucks
will be employed to control dust in the construction area and on nearby roadways.
4.3.4 Operations Impacts
4.3.4.1 Plant Site
Air Pollutant Emissions
The principal air pollutants to be emitted by the proposed Henry W.
Pirkey Power Plant - Unit 1 are sulfur dioxide (SO.,), oxides of nitrogen (NO ), and
Ci X
particulate matter (TSP). Minor amounts of carbon monoxide (CO), and hydro-
carbons (HC) will also be emitted. In addition to these pollutants, some trace
radioactive elements will also be emitted.
Impacts of Stack Emissions
The Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant - Unit 1 is located in a rural area, with
only one other major point source within a 10-mile radius of the plant. That source
is the ICI United States facility, located 7 miles to the north-northeast. Its emission
rates are as follows: 5,164 tons per year (tpy) of SO,,, 315 tpy of TSP, and 285 tpy
Ci
of NO . The predicted areas of impact due to emissions from the proposed project
X
were determined by dispersion modeling results (Sargent and Lundy, 1979). TSP and
CO were determined to have no area of impact as their emissions will be
insignificant. Thirty-one miles (50 km) was determined to be the area of impact for
SO_ and was conservatively assumed as the area of impact for NO . Specific
" X
discussions of various aspects of the stack emissions are included in the following
paragraphs.
4-72
-------
Emission Limitations
The proposed Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant - Unit 1 stack emission rates
are to be limited by the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for fossil fuel-
fired steam boilers. The NSPS applicable to Unit 1 of the power plant are those that
were in effect when Unit 1's boiler was purchased. The best available control
technology (BACT) proposed for the generating unit conforms with the applicable
NSPS. Detailed descriptions of the emission control equipment for SO., and TSP are
provided in the PSD application and its revision (Sargent and Lundy, 1978b and
1979). The maximum proposed SO-,, TSP, and NO r emission rates are all in
compliance with the applicable NSPS. The maximum emission rates of 1.2 pounds
of SO,, per million British thermal units (Btu) of heat input and 0.1 pounds of TSP
per million Btu of heat input will be in compliance with the NSPS of 1.2 and
0.1 pounds per million Btu of heat input for SO., and TSP, respectively. Also, the
maximum emission rate of 0.6 pounds of NO per million Btu or heat input will be in
X
compliance with the applicable NSPS for NO of 0.6 pounds per million Btu of input.
X
These emission rates per unit heat input correspond to 8,180 pounds per hour of SO7,
682 pounds per hour of TSP, and 4,090 pounds per hour of NO , as indicated in the
revision to the original PSD application (Sargent and Lundy, 1979). Emissions of SO-
o
will be controlled by a wet limestone flue gas desulfurization system. TSP emissions
control will be accomplished by electrostatic precipitators, and NO emission
X
control will be accomplished by the use of a specific boiler burner design and the use
of controlled combustion.
Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling Results
To determine the future impact of Unit 1 of the proposed plant on
ambient air quality, Sargent and Lundy performed two computer modeling analyses:
one as part of the PSD permit application (1978b), and one as a revision to the
application (1979). The revised analysis was performed to determine the effect of a
decrease in the Unit 1 stack height, from 625 feet to 525 feet. The EPA has
4-73
-------
reviewed the plant's PSD application (PSD-TX-064) and subsequent revision and has
determined that the proposed project will not violate the NAAQS for SO-, TSP,
NO-, CO, or HC, nor the Class H PSD increments for SO or TSP. The original
Z L
permit was issued March 30, 1978, while the revision to the permit was granted
during October 1979 (see Sec. 5.0).
Detailed descriptions of the modeling techniques employed (and results)
are contained in the PSD application and its revision (Sargent and Lundy, 1978b and
1979). The predicted SO- concentrations (maximum annual mean, 24-hour
maximum, and 3-hour maximum) resulting from emissions from the proposed plant
plus all other inventoried point sources were 12, 61, and 307 Ug/m > respectively.
These concentrations represent 15, 17, and 24 percent of the applicable NAAQS for
SO?. To determine compliance with the Class It PSD increments for SO.,, Sargent
and Lundy (1979) modeled emissions from the proposed plant combined with
emissions from other increment sources permitted within the area of impact (31
miles) of the proposed plant. The resulting concentrations were 10, 42, and
307 yg/m for the annual mean, 24-hour average, and 3-hour average, respectively.
These values represent a consumption of 50, 46, and 60 percent of each of the
allowable PSD increments for SO.,. The proposed plant's maximum individual
contribution to the ambient SO- concentration was modeled to be 4, 38, and
3
213 Ug/m for the annual mean, 24-hour average, and 3-hour average, respectively.
These concentrations represent 20, 42, and 42 percent of each of the respective
allowable Class IE PSD increments.
The predicted TSP concentrations (maximum annual geometric mean and
24-hour maximum) due to proposed plant emissions alone were 0.4 and 3 Ug/m ,
respectively. Because these values fell below the PSD significance levels for
-modeling impacts, no further PSD analyses were performed for TSP. The predicted
maximum annual average NO concentration resulting from plant emissions alone
was only 2 Ug/m and will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS for NO?- Modeling performed for CO and HC indicated that concentrations
4-74
-------
of these pollutants as a result of emissions from the proposed power plant will be
negligible, and will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
To further demonstrate that the ground^level concentrations (GLC's) in
the project area will not exceed the NAAQS, the predicted GLC's for the proposed
plant can be added to the ambient pollutant concentrations measured at regional
monitoring stations. As indicated in Sec. 4.3.1.2, the closest monitoring station and
the only one that uses reliable continuous monitoring methods for SO? and NO^ is
Longview, Texas. The existing ambient SO TSP, and NO7 levels measured at
LJ LJ
Longview are well below the NAAQS. Therefore, the predicted SO,, TSP, and NO
GLC's for emissions from the proposed project are far below the NAAQS when added
to existing ambient concentrations measured at Longview. A comparison of the
concentrations resulting from combining the highest-measured Longview monitoring
values with predicted GLC's due to plant emissions is presented in Table 4-15.
Ecology
The maximum average SO concentrations predicted for the proposed
3
power plant are far less than the 8-hour vegetation injury threshold of 800 U g/m
reported by Hindawi (1970). The maximum predicted annual, 24-hour, and 3-hour
SO- concentrations due to emissions from the proposed plant plus all other
333
inventoried sources are 12 ug/m , 61 ug/m , and 307 Ug/m , respectively (Sargent
and Lundy, 1979). The predicted maximum 3-hour concentration of SO? is also less
L 3
than the respective 4-hour and 8-hour injury thresholds of 1,333 Ug/m and
667 pg/rn for sensitive plant species as reported by Shurtleff et al. (1972).
The effects of predicted NO concentrations from the proposed power
X
plant are expected to be negligible. Results from experiments indicate that dosage
rates necessary to produce vegetative injury (2,000 Ug/m for one day (Mudd and
Kozlowski, .1975)) far exceed the predicted concentrations.
4-75
-------
TABLE 4-15
MAXIMUM PREDICTED AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATIONS
DUE TO EMISSIONS FROM THE PROPOSED POWER PLANT
(Ug/m3)
Pollutant
S°2
TSP
Averaging
Time
Annual
24-Hour
3-Hour
Annual
24-Hour
Modeled
Power
Plant
Concen-
tration
4
38
213
0.4
3
Maximum
Baseline
Concen-
tration
(1977-1980)
0
26
260
34
72
Predicted
Air
Quality
Concen-
tration+
4
64
473
34.4
75
NAAQS
80
365
1300
75
150
NO-
Annual
20
22
100
+ Values obtained by adding results of CRSTER modeling analysis (column 3) to
maximum baseline value recorded at Longview during 1977-1980 (column 4).
4-76
-------
Radioactive Emissions
Trace amounts of uranium and thorium are present in lignite, primarily
as Uranium-233 and Thorium-232, respectively, along with their 28 daughter
products. An analysis of the lignite from the proposed mine indicates that an
average value of 2.6 ppm of uranium is present in the fuel (Paul Weir Company,
1978). Thorium was not analyzed, but a conservative value of 5 ppm may be
considered representative, based on typical lignite deposits in the region. The
lignite will be mined from the Wilcox Formation. Typical values of uranium and
thorium found in lignite from this formation range from 1 to 5 ppm. Typical values
of uranium and thorium found in South Texas lignite range from 2 to 20 ppm (White,
1979). When the lignite is burned, some of these radionuclides are released into the
atmosphere. The particulate radionuclides will be collected by the electrostatic
precipitators (ESP's) with expected control efficiencies ranging from 98.5 to
99-75 percent. These expected radionuclide control efficiencies are different from
the overall particulate control efficiency of 99.75 percent because of the expected
enrichment of radionuclides as they go through the ESPs. Studies have shown that
the relative proportions of radionuclides going with various size fractions of the fly
ash are not uniform. Enrichment factors as high as 5 were found for the fine
particles (Coles, 1978). Radon gas (Rn-222) will be released into the atmosphere
with no planned control and is expected to present a negligible impact.
Based on the maximum expected individual dose rate of 1.8 millirems per
year due to estimated radioactive emissions from the proposed power plant stacks,
very small, if any, adverse health impacts resulting from exposure to radionuclides
released from the power plant are expected. Existing Federal standards protect the
general public from exposure to radiation of 170 millirems per year. A maximum
dosage of 500 millirems per year is allowed for a person who would receive a
hypothetical "worst-case" dosage (10 CFR 20). Because the dose rate presented is
based on a hypothetical worst-case, it should be added to the existing environmental
background dosage of 100 millirems per year before being compared to the
4-77
-------
500 millirems per year standard. The resulting dose rate is 102 millirems per year,
far less than the existing Federal standard.
Currently, no standards exist that specifically address the increases of
dose rates received by an individual or the general public due to the introduction of
a coal or lignite power plant. In an attempt to evaluate these increases, authors of
several articles and reports written during the past 3 years have presented
comparisons of the estimated dose rates from coal or lignite power plants with the
Federal guidelines for nuclear power plants. This approach to determine the level of
impact is not valid. The guideline (10 CFR 50, Appendix I), which permits an
individual to receive 5 millirems per year to the total body resulting from gaseous
effluents released from light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors, was developed as
a design criteria for the power reactors. This guideline cannot be used as an
indicator of whether or not adverse health effects will occur as a result of exposure
to radioactive effluents. This guideline was developed for use as a numerical guide
for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation of the nuclear power
reactor to meet the criterion for emissions to be "as low as practicable." These
figures were based on what power reactors would emit under optimum operating
conditions. They were not developed as a criterion for maximum allowable dosages
(above the natural background) for the general public.
It must be emphasized that the estimated dose rate presented here was
based on worst-case assumptions. The assumptions used in the algorithm that
predicted that an individual would receive a total body dose of 1.8 millirems per
year would be that the individual would have to live at a single location 500 meters
from the stack, and grow and consume all his food at that same location for one
year. The algorithm used gave no credit for stack heights greater than 100 m, a
result of claims that ground-level concentrations have little dependence on stack
height when continuous washout factors are used (McBride, 1977 and 1978). Periods
of intermittent rainfall were averaged to be used as a scaled-down one year
continuous rainfall. This technique overestimates the action of intermittent rainfall
4-78
-------
activity as a washout process and leads to an overestimate of the dosage (Slade,
1968; Christiansen, 1980).
The introduction of the proposed lignite power plant will cause only very
small, if any, adverse health impacts resulting from the release of uranium and
thorium decay series' radionuclides. The maximum expected individual dose rate for
the total body is 1.8 millirems per year. In comparison, the dosages obtained by
individuals from naturally-occurring radionuclides in the soil (the same radionuclides
that will be released from the lignite power plant) range from 15 to 55 millirems per
year throughout the country. Exposure to the body from the decay of potassium-40
in the bones of a typical human is about 20 millirems per year (National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurement, 1975).
Impacts of Fugitive Emissions
In addition to stack emissions, there will be fugitive dust emissions from
the lignite and limestone handling, processing, and storage operations. During
project operations, fugitive dust may be generated at loading and unloading points,
at the crusher-sampler house, at conveyor transfer points, and from storage areas.
Such emissions are not easily quantified but will cause minor, short-term, localized,
adverse impacts. All reasonable air pollution control measures will be undertaken to
prevent fugitive dust from becoming airborne.
Control technology to be applied at these emission sources will include:
wet dust suppression at the crusher-sampler house and at all transfer points,
compaction of the lignite storage pile, and bag-type dust elimination at enclosed
material storage points.
Permanent roads and parking lots will be surfaced to reduce any vehicle-
associated dust emissions. These emissions are small and will not exceed any
Federal or State ambient air quality standard, nor cause an impairment of visibility
on nearby public roads, nor create a nuisance on adjacent properties.
4-79
-------
In addition to fugitive dust emissions, there will be emissions of other
pollutants from vehicular activity. These emissions will be small and will not
exceed any Federal or State ambient air quality standard.
Cooling Reservoir Impacts
Fog produced by the cooling reservoir will probably occur during
atmospheric conditions conducive to the formation of natural fog. In general, the
cooling reservoir may slightly increase the duration and density of naturally
occurring fog. Although the cooling reservoir continually adds water vapor to the
air, the atmosphere will generally accept this vapor without producing significant
fog unless the atmosphere is already near saturation and capable of forming natural
fog. This occurs most frequently during the nighttime and early morning hours,
when the atmosphere has cooled to its dewpoint temperature and saturation has
occurred.
Depending on the existing atmospheric conditions, the fog produced by
the cooling reservoir will normally be observed only within a one-half mile distance
from the edge of the pond. Occasionally, the fog will evaporate a short distance
above the pond and recondense after rising to a higher level, forming a stratus cloud
that is visible a few miles downwind of the pond.
Icing from the cooling reservoir will occur when atmospheric water
droplets come in contact with objects that are at temperatures below freezing.
Icing from the transport and dispersion of water vapor results in very little
accumulation on horizontal surfaces such as highways. However, soft rime icing
may occur on vertical surfaces such as tree trunks and transmission towers. Even
though freezing temperatures occur periodically in the project area, the occurrence
of icing from the cooling reservoir operation is expected to be very slight.
4-80
-------
Transportive Systems
Lignite from the mine will be delivered by trucks. Limestone for the
SO7 emission control systems will be delivered to the power plant by train. As
£,
addressed in the impacts of fugitive emissions section, there will be some fugitive
dust generated at the rail and truck load-out points. These emissions will be
effectively controlled by the application of water sprays. In addition, there will be
some exhaust emissions from the railroad vehicles and trucks. The impacts of these
emissions will be localized and very minor. No adverse air quality impacts are
anticipated from operation of the makeup water pipeline and transmission lines.
Acid Rain
Recent studies have demonstrated that there is no confirmed trend
toward the occurrence of increasingly acidic rainfall in the eastern and northeastern
United States. The extent to which the utility industry may contribute to acid
deposition is the subject of much controversy. In Texas, acid deposition has not
been a major issue in the past. However, a plan to assess acid rain effects within
Texas is currently being developed. A TACB rainfall collection monitor has been in
operation at Tyler since 1979. The average sampling results have indicated the
presence of slightly acidic rainfall in the region. Any effect the emissions from the
proposed power plant may have on the regional precipitation chemistry cannot be
determined at this time. However, an acid precipitation monitor sponsored by
SWEPCO was scheduled to begin operation near Marshall in October 1981. This
monitor may provide data important for evaluating the effects of emissions from
the proposed plant.
4-81
-------
4.3.4.Z Mine
Air Pollutant Emissions
The operation of the proposed mine will cause particulate matter to be
emitted into the atmosphere. These particulate emissions will originate from
fugitive (non-point) sources.
Impact of Stack Emissions
The proposed mine will include no lignite processing facilities, and
therefore will produce no stack emissions.
Impact of Fugitive Emissions
The proposed mining operation, consisting primarily of removal and
replacement of large amounts of overburden material and the haulage of lignite, will
generate fugitive dust. However, because the emissions from the mine will be
intermittent and spread over a large area, and because significant particle settling
will occur very close to each source, air quality impacts are expected to be minor.
The surface mine does not include any coal preparation plant facilities or conveyors;
therefore, PSD permit review is not applicable to the mine.
Emission Limitations
The proposed mine will have no processing facilities that would consti-
tute point sources requiring compliance with performance standards. Emission
controls will be limited to the minimizing of fall distances at transfer points and the
application of water sprays to haul roads.
4-82
-------
Ecology
Dust traveling off the mine site can be expected occasionally to produce
a nuisance condition near the mine boundary. Dust particles will settle on
vegetation, potentially reducing its attractiveness. Dust control measures applied
at the mine, in combination with the abundance of annual precipitation and the high
moisture content of the overburden and lignite, should minimize any potential
adverse effects of fugitive dust on vegetation.
4.3.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine
The combined effects of construction of the proposed power plant and
mine on air quality will be an increase in fugitive dust during the time when both
construction projects are at peak activity. However, any potential adverse impacts
associated with construction-related dust emissions will be short-term.
Operation of proposed power plant and mine, located at adjacent sites,
will adversely impact the air quality of the project area. However, the maximum
adverse impacts from the mine and plant operations will not necessarily coincide.
Mining operation emissions (fugitive dust emitted at ground level) will impact at
points immediately adjacent to the mining area and will decrease rapidly with
distance. Power plant emissions (gases and particulate matter emitted at stack-top
level) will impact at greater distances downwind.
The power plant and the mine will each have an impact on the local
meteorology of the area. The primary impact from the power plant will be the
development of fog above and downwind of the cooling reservoir during humid,
stable conditions. The primary impact from the mine will be the potential of locally
reduced visibility due to blowing dust during dry, windy conditions. Therefore,
combined project-related meteorological impacts will be minor, as the impacts of
each operation generally occur during dissimilar atmospheric conditions.
4-83
-------
4.4 SOUND QUALITY
Neither the State of Texas nor Harrison County has any noise regulations
limiting maximum noise levels from power plant and/or mining operations such as
those levels proposed for the proposed South Hallsville Project. As directed by
Congress in the Noise Control Act of 1972 and amended by the Quiet Communities
Act of 1978, EPA has developed appropriate noise level guidelines. EPA generally
recognizes rural areas to have an average day-night noise level (L, ) of less than
50 dBA (EPA, 1978). L, is the 24-hour equivalent sound level with the nighttime
(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) sound level penalized by the addition of 10 dBA. Average
outdoor noise levels in excess of 55 dBA for 24 hours are considered annoying for
some persons, while levels of 70 dBA or more for 24 hours can result in hearing loss
(EPA, 1974). EPA has developed guidelines for a short-term goal L, of 65 dBA and
a long-term goal L, of 55 dBA for noise levels outside of structures such as
buildings, residences, etc. (EPA, 1977).
4.4.1 Existing and Future Environments
The proposed project area can be best classified as a rural, agriculturally
oriented (principally cattle grazing) environment. As such, it is anticipated that
sound levels within the proposed project boundaries are at or below the optimal
standard L, level of 55 dBA. An exception is that several county roads transect
the project site and a major highway (1-20) is in close proximity to the project's
northern boundary. Local traffic (e.g., farm equipment and passenger cars) along
project area county roads could periodically result in day-night sound levels above
55 dBA, particularly during work hour traffic (6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
to 7:00 p.m.). Also, one can reasonably assume that L, 's associated with traffic
along 1-20 will frequently exceed 65 dBA, with periodic levels exceeding 75 dBA,
when measured beyond 100 feet from the highway.
4-84
-------
4.4.2 Effects of No Action
Higher traffic volumes on 1-20 in association with general population
growth in the area could increase highway traffic noise levels by 1 to 2 dBA.
Otherwise, little or no change in the project area's baseline ambient sound level is
anticipated with the no action alternative.
4.4.3 Construction Impacts
Noise-producing site preparation and construction activities at the South
Hallsville Project can be categorized into two basic activities; power plant
construction and mine facilities construction. Typical major noise producing sources
and the equivalent sound level contribution (L ) during each activity are estimated
from data published by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI, 1978) and EH&A files.
4.4.3.1 Power Plant
Plant Site
The construction of the power plant facilities is considered to be similar
to the construction of an average industrial facility. The use of such equipment as
backhoes, bulldozers, scrapers, and dump trucks during clearing and excavation
related to site preparation will constitute the noisiest period of construction.
Railway and vehicular traffic will also contribute to construction noise levels. The
equivalent sound level (L ) during this period is estimated to be 84 dBA at 50 feet
from the center of activity. Hemispheric sound radiation analysis techniques show
noise levels to be within the EPA short-term goal of 65 dBA and the long-term goal
of 55 dBA beyond 450 feet and 1,425 feet, respectively, from the center of
construction activities. Power plant construction noise levels are expected to
attentuate to 49 dBA at the nearest residence to the project boundary (2,800 feet)
and to 46 dBA at the Red Oaks Church northeast of the plant site (4,200 feet).
Foundation finishing and structure erection noise levels may result in a short-term
4-85
-------
increase in overall noise levels when these jobs are performed simultaneously with
excavation and clearing at adjoining construction sites within the plant facility. In
summary, only minor short-term adverse impacts on local ambient noise levels are
anticipated as a result of power plant construction activities.
Transportive Systems
The construction of the railroad spur, transmission lines, and makeup
water pipeline, will occur during various stages of overall project construction.
Equipment such as backhoes, cranes, graders, and scrapers will be involved in all
aspects of the transportive systems' construction. The equivalent sound level is
estimated to be 84 dBA and 82 dBA at 50 feet from the center of railroad
construction and each of the other construction activities, respectively.
4.4.3.2 Mine
Noise levels associated with the construction of the mine facilities
(i.e., shop and personnel facilities, dragline erection yard, etc.) and haul roads will
be similar to the levels produced at the power plant construction site. Hence, an
equivalent sound level of 84 dBA can be expected at 50 feet from the center of the
mine facilities construction activities, though construction in the mine area will be
of a shorter duration than at the power plant site. The noise level will be within the
EPA short-term goal of 65 dBA and the long-term goal of 55 dBA beyond 450 feet
and 1,425 feet, respectively, from the center of construction activity. Mine
facilities construction noise levels are expected to attentuate to 41 dBA at the
nearest residence to the project boundary (7,400 feet) and to 42 dBA at the Sweet
Home Church north of the mine facilities site (6,100 feet). The plant and mine
construction sites are at a distance of approximately 8,000 feet apart, hence their
noise levels are not additive. In summary, only minor short-term adverse impacts on
local ambient noise levels are anticipated as a result of mine facilities construction.
4-86
-------
4.4.4 Operation Impacts
4.4.4.1 Power Plant
Plant Site
Noise-producing operations of the proposed power plant can be cate-
gorized into two separate activities: power production and lignite handling. These
activities can occur simultaneously and will be confined to an area of approximately
272 acres.
The noise assessment for the proposed power plant is based on a single
unit operating on a 24-hour per day basis. The major noise-producing equipment
associated with power production operations are: the two boilers, various induced
draft fans, and the two turbine generators. Noise levels were determined for each
piece of equipment at a distance of 6 feet with enclosure level attenuations of 10 to
30 dBA considered for applicable equipment (EEI, 1978).
An acoustic center can be determined for the proposed power plant
facility using a procedure provided by EEI (1978). Once the acoustic center is
located, it can be considered a point source with an attenuation rate of 6 dBA per
doubling of distance from the noise source. The acoustic center was found to be
near the turbine building and to have an L, of 103 dBA, with noise levels calculated
at a distance of 6 feet from each piece of equipment. Hemispheric sound radiation
analysis techniques show noise levels to be within the EPA short-term goal of
65 dBA and the long-term goal of 55 dBA beyond 504 feet and 1,600 feet, respec-
tively, from the acoustic center. Power plant noise levels are expected to
attentuate to 50 dBA at the nearest residence to the project boundary (2,800 feet)
and to 47 dBA at the Red Oaks Church northeast of the plant site (4,200 feet). In
summary, only minor adverse impacts on local ambient noise levels are anticipated
as a result of power plant activities.
4-87
-------
Transportive Systems
No adverse impacts on sound quality should result from the operation of
the transportive systems. Increased noise levels associated with occasional ROW
maintenance activities will be short-term. The train trips on the railroad spur will
occur about once every 1 to 2 weeks. Only minor short-term adverse impacts will
result from operation of the transportive systems.
4.4.4.Z Mine
Noise producing operation activities of the proposed lignite surface mine
can be divided into four major categories; timber and brush removal, overburden
removal, lignite mining, and spoil grading and revegetation. Overburden removal
will be the loudest activity with an expected L contribution at 50 feet of 92 dBA.
The mining of lignite (69 dBA at 50 feet) will occur on a 24-hour per day basis.
Based on a "worst-case'1 scenario with all mine operations occurring
simultaneously and within proximity to each other, day-night sound levels will be
within the EPA short-term goal of 65 dBA and the long-term goal of 55 dBA beyond
2,263 feet and 7,183 feet, respectively, from the center of mining activity. With
mining operations occurring along the project boundary, noise levels will attenuate
to 75 dBA at the nearest residence (700 feet) and 57 dBA at the Little Flock Church
northwest of the project area (5,900 feet). It should be emphasized that these are
worst-case noise levels with mining operations occurring along the project boundary.
With operations occurring towards the center of the mine, noise levels will decrease
to near the ambient baseline level beyond the project boundary.
In summary, any increased noise levels associated with mining operations
will be localized, of relatively short duration, and attenuated with distance from the
source. Hence, no adverse impacts on local ambient noise levels will result from
mining activities.
4-88
-------
4.4.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine
Construction activities at the proposed plant and mine and along the
transportive ROWS will be carried out at various sections of the combined project's
24,768-acre area. The mine ancillary facilities construction area will occupy
43 acres of this site and the proposed power plant will occupy 272 acres. Thus, only
a small percentage of the total acreage will be involved in the noise-producing
activities during the 39-month construction period of the mine facilities and the
56-month construction period of the power plant. The pieces of noise-producing
equipment used on the two sites are sufficiently distant from each other and of such
a nature that the combined effects, during the period when construction of the
power plant and mine are occurring simultaneously, are not measurably different
from the individual effects. Traffic flow along 1-20 will increase slightly and will
result in only minor contributions to the ambient noise levels.
The combined effects of operation noise from the proposed power plant
and mine are additive in that noise-producing activities will occur simultaneously.
However, the overall size of the combined site (24,768 acres) and orientation of the
respective operations on their individual sites (particularly the transient nature of
mining operations) are such that any combined effects will be changing as the
mining operations approach or recede from the stationary power plant. Noise
impacts will not be significantly more (less than 3 dBA) for the combined sites than
for the independently operating sites.
The indicated noise levels are based on "worst-case" conditions. The
attenuating effect of trees, vegetation, and earth barriers were not considered when
determinjn.g. the expected, noise levels and, therefore, it is. expected that the levels
will be lower than indicated.
4-89
-------
4.5 ECOLOGY
The following sections describe major baseline ecological characteristics
of the proposed South Hallsville Project site and potential project impacts. A more
detailed treatment of on-site ecological conditions is presented elsewhere (EH&A,
1977b, 1978a, and 1980a).
4.5.1 Vegetation
4.5.1.1 Existing and Future Environments
The South Hallsville Project site is situated in the Pineywoods Region of
Texas (Thomas, 1975). This area is included in the Deciduous Formation, which is
the characteristic vegetation assemblage of the eastern half of the United States
(Braun, 1950). The Pineywoods Region is characterized as gently rolling or hilly
country, averaging ZOO to 499 feet in elevation, with numerous streams and several
large rivers. Land uses include extensive pine and pine-hardwood forests, with
intermittent swamps and occasional pastureland or cultivated land. This is an area
of high rainfall (35-50 inches per year), which is fairly uniformly distributed
throughout the year. Humidity and tempertures are also relatively high (Thomas,
1975).
Vegetational Communities
Of the 24,768 acres associated with the mine site, plant site, and
transportive systems, a total of about 13,257 acres is forested land (Fig. 4-5).
Approximately 11,487 acres of the forestland occurs in the uplands and 1,770 acres
in the bottomlands. The remaining 11,511 acres is composed of pastureland and
hayfields (10,386 acres), wetlands (i.e., swamps and marshes (753 acres)), aquatic
habitats (161 acres), and pine plantation (211 acres). These vegetation types are
4-90
-------
Fig. 4-5
SOUTH HALLSVILLE
VEGETATION MAP
-------
further delineated in terms of vegetation preempted by the plant island, cooling
reservoir, pipeline corridor (Table 4-16), individual mining areas, total affected
mine area, and mine ancillary activities area (Table 4-17). Figure 4-5 and EH&A
(I931b) present the areal extent of these vegetation types.
Upland Pine/Hardwood Forest
Upland forest communities vary in tree species composition from pre-
dominantly pine through pine-hardwood mixtures to predominantly hardwoods. This
variation is the result of differences in topography, soils, and land-management
practices. For example, protected topographic situations with relatively high soil
moisture content frequently support sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), white oak
(Quercus alba), red maple (Acer rubrum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and
flowering dogwood (Cornus florida). The more exposed, drier areas tend to favor
blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), post oak (Quercus st ell at a), black oak (Quercus
velutina), and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata). Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) occurs
throughout the upland forests on both relatively mesic and xeric sites. Management
practices, such as periodic burning and selective hardwood cutting or girdling, favor
the maintenance of pure pine stands, whereas protection from burning favors the
development of hardwood stands. Cutover upland stands, which are presently being
regenerated by young tree species, are included in the upland pine/hardwood
mapping unit.
Pine Plantation
Pine plantations on the South Hallsville Project site are composed of
even-aged shortleaf pine and/or loblolly pine in the overstory. Most pine plantations
presently being harvested date from the mid-to late-1950's. Understory vegetation
is usuall sparse or absent as a result of periodic controlled burning. Fire is used as
a management tool in southern pine forests to eliminate undesirable transgressive
4-92
-------
TABLE 4-16
ACREAGES OF EXISTING VEGETATION TO BE PREEMPTED BY
THE POWER PLANT, COOLING POND, AND TRANSPORTIVE SYSTEMS
SOUTH HALLSVILLE PROJECT
Vegetation
Type
Upland Pine-
Hardwood
Forest
Pine
Plantation
Bottomland
Hardwood
Forest
Pastureland
and Hayfields
Wetland
(Swarnps and
Marshes)
Aquatic Habitat
GRAND TOTAL
Plant
Site
Ancillary
Plant Cooling Activities
Island Pond Area
150 1,020 634
0 0 20
0 140 131
122 200 655
050
0 23 11
272 1,388 1,451
Total
Plant
Site
Area
1,804
20
271
977
5
34
3.111
Trans-
Pipe- mission
line Line Railroad
Corridor Corridors ROW
303 55.6 54.7
50 0.9 0
51 7.3 0.6
273 21.7 42.9
23 0 0
0 0.5 1.9
700 86* 100**
Total
2,217
71
330
1.315
28
36
3,997
* An additional 56 acres of transmission line ROW is located in the power plant site.
* * This includes only the area outside of the plant site.
-------
TABLE 4-1 7
ACREAGES OF EXISTING VEGETATION TO BE AFFECTED
BY THE LONG-TERM MINING AND ANCILLARY ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH
THE SOUTH HALLSVILLE PROJECT
Vogr:tation
Type
Upland Pine-
Hardwood
Forest
Pine
PI nnl At Ion
Bottomland
Hardwood
Forest
Pasl iirelnnd
nnd
Wetlmul
(Swa nipw
and Mai-filios)
Arjiialir
T( )TAL
1984- 1984-
1990 1990
Al A2
192 417
0 0
11 0
307 330
0 0
0. 8 __Z^7
511 750
1991- 1991-
1995 1995
Al A2
112 312
0 0
0 0
142 314
0 0
__0,1 _3d
255 629
1996-
2000
A
366
0
0
259
0
6.1
631
2001-
2008
Al
362
0
0
322
0
_li°
687
2001- 1984-
2008 1990
A2 B
678 669
0 0
61 0
447 369
0 0
0 7.
1,186 1,045
1991-
1995
B
469
0
0
270
0
2 2/7
742
1996- 1996-
2000 2000
Bl B2
236 52
11 0
0 166
319 285
0 84
5.3 0
571 587
2001- 2001-
2008 2008
B Cj
582 184
0 0
248 68
1,287 47
32 0
_ 17-3 °
2,166 299
2001- Mine
2008 Disturbed
Cj Area
432 5,063
0 11
14 568
40 4,738
0 116
_J) _49
486 10,545
Mine
Ancillary
Activities
Area
4,206
130
872
4,333
609
76
10.226
,269
141
1 ,440
9.071
725
125
-------
species from the understory and to reduce the amount of accumulated fuel on the
forest floor, thereby reducing the severity of uncontrolled wildfire.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Bottomland forest communities occur along drainageways and in flood-
plains throughout the project site. The structure of lowland stands (i.e., the
floristics, size, distribution, and density of the components) is determined by the
frequency and duration of flooding, as well as those factors instrumental in upland
forest structure, discussed previously. At the South Hallsville Project site, the best
developed lowland forest stands occur along lower Hatley Creek and in the Sabine
River floodplain, which are more frequently inundated by floodwaters. Typical trees
in the bottomland forests include willow oak (Quercus phellos), sweetgum, American
hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), water oak (Quercus nigra), sugarberry (Celtis
laevigata), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), and water hickory (Carya aquatica).
Pastureland and Hayfields
Pastureland within the project site consists predominantly of tame
pastures composed of common and coastal bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and
native pastures composed mostly of broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus) or other
bluestem grasses. Hayfields are dominated by coastal bermudagrass. Broomsedge is
a common invader of abandoned upland farmlands and pastures and usually predomi-
nates by the third year. These upland oldfield sites provide habitat for pine
seedlings and other woody species, so that within 10 years pines frequently form
even-aged stands. This successional trend is occurring in the uplands at the South
Hallsville Project site, as evidenced by the presence of pine saplings and other
woody species in areas previously used for agriculture. Abandoned bottomland
farmlands and pastures are more typically invaded by such successional tree species
as sweetgum and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana).
4-95
-------
Wetlands
According to recent tentative interpretations of the Section 404 wet-
lands definition by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers "Waterways Experiment Station
(USCE, 1978), wetland communities within the project area consist of wet
bottomland forests, swamps, marshes, bogs, and aquatic communities. The most
extensive wetland type within the project area, therefore, would tentatively be wet
bottomland mixed hardwood forest.
Bottomland hardwood forests (described above as a discrete vegetation
type) that border streams traversing the project area contain species preliminarily
determined by the USCE (1978) to be wetland indicators. The specific type of
wetland so indicated is "lowland hardwood forest occurring along the floodplains of
streams lacking second bottoms". The determination of exactly how much, if any,
of such floodplains is subject to permit regulation under Section 404 of Public
Law 92-500 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) is not final
(USCE, 1978). However, "bottomland hardwoods technically satisfy the conditions
of the Section 404 wetlands definition because these floodplain forests are charac-
terized by cyclic inundation or soil saturation during portions of the growing season
and by the presence of plant communities and associations that have been selected
and maintained because of their ability to tolerate regular inundation or saturation"
(USCE, 1978). The majority of the dominant overstory species in the bottomlands of
the project area: loblolly pine, sweetgum, water oak, sugarberry, American horn-
beam, black-gum (Nyssa sylvatica), red maple, overcup oak, and water hickory are
tentatively listed by the USCE (197S) as wetland indicators.
The EPA has ultimate responsibility for Section 404 wetland determin-
ations, though responsibility is usually delegated to the USCE unless a special case is
determined to exist. In addition to vegetational criteria, the EPA and the USCE
also consider hydrologic and edaphic variables. The variables related to hydrology
include drift lines, silt deposition, water marks, an active water table in the root
4-96
-------
zone, stream gage data, flood predictions, historical records, visual observations,
and drainage patterns. Soil variables include a mottled or gleyed soil horizon, the
presence of iron or manganese concretions or nodules, the presence of free water
within the root zone, and hydric classification of soil series. The general consensus
among the regulatory agencies is that the definition of 404 wetlands should also
include annual inundation for a period of 30 days during the growing season.
The USCE Fort Worth District has determined that there are 3,780 acres
of wetlands in the project area (see Appendix C). However, it is anticipated that
the actual amount of wetland acreage may be as low as 1,500 acres (EH&A - in-
house data). More detailed field studies will be conducted in order to determine a
more accurate acreage. Additional coordination with the USCE will occur
throughout these studies, and USCE and EPA personnel will be present during the
field work. The results of these studies will be included in the FEIS.
Within the project site, marshes are less common than swamps. These
areas generally occur near swamps and stock ponds and where road construction
impedes drainage. Frequently, the marshes border pastures and are grazed to some
extent. Many marshes are dominated by a shrub layer consisting of black willow
(Salix nigra), bastard indigo (Amorpha fruticosa), common buttonbush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis), and woolly rose-mallow (Hibiscus lasiocarpos). The herb layer in these
shrubby marshes includes such common species as water horehound (Lyeopus
rubellus), horned-rush (Rhynchospora corniculata), camphor-weed (Heterotheca
subaxillaris), smart weed (Polygonum sp.), red-root flatsedge (Cyperus
erythrorhizos), and late eupatorium (Eupatorium serotinum). The marshes that lack
a well-developed shrub layer are dominated by powder-puff (Mimosa strigillosa),
canela (Pluchea purpurascens), creeping lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula), smartweed,
turnsole (Heliotropium indicum), and soft-rush (Juncus effusus var. solutus) in the
drier, more elevated areas, and by lizard's-tail (Gaura parviflora), cinnamon fern
(Osmunda cinnamomea), and hemp-weed (Mikania scandens) in the wetter, boggy
areas.
4-97
-------
Swamps within the project site are limited to the southern portion of the
mining area (Fig. 4-5) and where the northern portion of the pipeline route crosses
Big Cypress and Little Cypress bayous (EH&A, 1981b). Seasonal swamps associated
with broad depressions within the bottomlands have an overstory dominated by
overcup oak and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. integerrima), an under story
dominated by water-elin (Planera aquatica) and water hickory, and a sparse herb
layer containing camphor weed, lizard's tail, and smartweed. Many of these overcup
oak-green ash swamps have been invaded by beaver. The prolonged inundation
caused by the beaver dams kills the overcup oak, while the green ash is eliminated
due to the feeding activities of the beaver. Other preferred foods of the beaver are
sugarberry and black willow. Therefore, a second type of swamp impacted by
beaver dams may be characterized by a dead overstory of overcup oak and green
ash, an emerging overstory of water-elm, a shrub layer of common buttonbush-, and
a scattered herb layer almost solely consisting of beggar-ticks (Bidens frondosa).
The third major type of swamp within the project site is associated with narrow
sloughs. The short-statured overstory within these sloughs is dominated by
water-elm, though scattered individuals of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), black
willow, and water locust (Gleditsia aquatica) also occur. Dominant shrubs are
common buttonbush and swamp privet (Forestiera acuminata), while dominant vines
are eardrop vine (Brunnichia ovata) and hemp-weed.
Bogs constitute less than 1 percent of the project site. They occur in
wooded areas at the base of slopes and in draws where seepage water is continuous.
Herb species comprising the more or less distinctive flora of the bogs include peat
mosses, yellow fringed orchid (Habenaria ciliaris), southern twayblade (Listera
australis), violet (Viola primulifolia), and others. Uncommon herb species found in
bogs include monkey flower (Mimulus sp.), burmannia (Burmannia sp.), green adder's
mouth (Maiaxis unifolia), three birds orchid (Triphora trianthophora), and green rein-
orchid (Habenaria clavellata). Dominant tree species in bogs include sweet-gum,
blackgum, American holly (Ilex opaca), red maple, and American hornbeam, whereas
dominant shrubs include possum-haw (Viburnum nudum), viburnum (Viburnum sp.),
4-98
-------
tassel-white (Itea virginica), and azalea (Rhododendron sp.). These seepage bogs
were only found within the project site along Brandy Branch in the cooling reservoir
site and along the northern portion of the proposed makeup water pipeline route to
Big Cypress Bayou.
Aquatic Habitats
Plant communities characteristic of streams and ponds occur throughout
the project area. Woody species occurring along the margins of such aquatic
habitats include trees such as black willow, river birch (Setula nigra), overcup oak,
water-elm, red maple, and sugarberry, along with shrubs like common bottombrush,
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), common elder-berry (Sambucus canadensis),
swamp privet, wax-myrtle (Myrica sp.), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and sea-
myrtle (Baccharis halimifolia). Among herbaceous species, mosquito-fern (Azolla
caroliniana) and water lentil (Lemna minor) often occur in ponds, while lizard's-tail
(Saururus cernuus), smartweed (Persicaria spp.), meadow beauty (Rhexia sp.), false
nettle (Soehmeria cylindrica), and water-primrose (Ludwigia leptocarpa) are
common along the margins of ponds and streams.
Important Plant Species
Important species are defined as those that (a) are commercially or
recreationally valuable; (b) are threatened or endangered; (c) affect the well being
of some important species within criteria (a) or (b); or (d) are critical to the
structure and function of the ecological system or are biological indicators.
Threatened and Endangered Plant Species
None of the 10 species currently listed as endangered or threatened in
Texas by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (45 FR 82479-82569, 46 FR 3183-
3186) were observed in the South Hallsville Project area. None of these species are
known to occur in Harrison County (see FWS letter in Sec. 5.2, Coordination).
4-99
-------
Three species are currently proposed as endangered or threatened in
Texas by FWS (45 FR 82479-82569). These species were not observed in the South
Hallsville Project area and are not known to occur in Harrison County (see FWS
letter in Sec. 5.2, Coordination).
Approximately 240 species are currently considered as candidate species
in Texas by the FWS (45 FR 82479-82569). Though these candidate species are not
federally protected, they "should be considered in environmental planning"
(45 FR 82479-82569). Table 4-18 lists those candidate species that may occur in the
vicinity of the South Hallsville Project. Of these 10 species, one is known to occur
in the project area. Trillium texanum was found in the vicinity of the proposed
cooling reservoir. This species is listed as Status 2 in Table 4-18. However,
T. texanum is neither listed nor expected in the near future to be listed as
threatened or endangered by the FWS (Kologiski, 1981; Smith, 1981).
T. texanum is also listed on the Watch List of the Texas Organization for
Endangered Species (TOES, 1980), as is another plant that was observed on the site,
great Solomon's seal (Polygonatum biflorum). However, the species listed by TOES
(1980) are not protected since the State of Texas has not promulgated an official list
of endangered or threatened plant species.
Other Important Species
Commercially important species in the South Hallsville Project area
include hardwoods (American elm (Ulmus americana), southern red oak, water oak,
shumard oak (Quercus shumardii) and others), pines (loblolly pine, shortleaf pine),
and both forage and row crops. Coastal bermudagrass is the most important species
in the area's extensive improved pastures.
Dominant species are, by definition, critical to the structure and
function of the ecological system and, therefore, qualify as important species under
4-100
-------
TABLE 4-1H
PLANT SPECIES OF POTENWAL OCCURRENCE IN THE SOUTH HALLSVILLE PROJECT AREA CITED BY THE FWS "NOTICE OK REVIEW"1
I
t—*
o
Common Name
Creeping slimpod
P.ouf'hstem aster
Texas screwstem
Golden wave tickaeej
Atlantic coreopsis
Rigtree hawthorn
Warner hawthorn
Smallhoad pipewort
Drutnrnond nailwort
NC:N
Scientific Name
Status'1
Habitat Distribution-3
Ainsonia repens
Ajiter scahricaulis
Rartonia texana
Coreopsis intermedia
Coreopsis tripteris var. subrhomboidea
Crataegus berberifolia
Crataegus warneri
Eriocaulon kornickianum
Paronjrchia^ druinmoiiriii ssp. parvi flora
Trilliiini texanum*
Z
2
1
Z
3B
Z
Z
Z
Z
On prairies and along railroad tracks in eastern Texas; endemic
Rare in boggy ground, eastern Texas; endemic
On sphagnum moss along wooded streams in southeastern Texas;
endemic
Extremely rare in sandy woods in eastern Texas; endemic
Rare in extreme northeastern Texas
In low wet woods and on dryish hills in eastern Texas; endemic
In sandy woods and on dry banks in eastern Texas; endemic
In springy places on prairies and wet sandy soil in eastern Texas
In sandy soils in dry oak and pine woods and in loose sand of dunes
in southeastern Texas; endemic
Extremely rare in low moist woods, bogs, and stream banks in
eastern Texas
USDOI-FWS (1980).
Primary source for common names is Gould (1975); secondary source is Correll and Johnston (1970); USDOI - FWS (1980) followed when no common
nninf. is given in the preceding sources; NCN = no common name.
Correll mid Johnston (1970).
Status categories (USDOI- FWS.1980):
1 - Species currently under review that appear to be good candidates.
Z - Species whoso status is inr.ufficiently known and that need more study.
IB - Species no longer under consideration. Names that do not represent taxa meeting the definition of "species" under the Endangered Species Act of
1973-
* Al.sn listed on the Texas Organization for Endangered Species Watch J.ist (1980).
-------
criterion (d). Plant species important as browse or forage materials for wildlife in
the project area qualify as important species under three different criteria: (a), (c),
and (d). Removal of these species from the project area could temporarily alter the
structure and productivity of the ecosystem. The alterations would be primarily
local in effect and would not extend far into surrounding areas.
The importance of a particular area in terms of wildlife habitat varies
from one plant community to another. Pine plantations offer little in the way of
plant species diversity or structural diversity and, hence, are poor wildlife habitat.
The understory in mature bottomland hardwood stands is usually quite shady and,
hence, depauperate in forage and browse plants. The overstory is structurally
diverse, however, and a relatively large number of bird species occur there. In
immature or disturbed bottomland stands, herbs, shrubs, and saplings are usually
abundant and offer a variety of food sources for wildlife. The same is true of the
edges of most forested stands. Upland oak/hickory/pine stands in the project area
offer the most diversity in understory and overstory plant species in terms of
available wildlife food and structural characteristics. Improved pasturelands in the
South Hallsville Project area generally lack the cover necessary for good wildlife
habitat, but are used sporadically for forage. Oldfields and native pastures,
however, do provide good wildlife cover, especially for birds and small mammals.
Ecologically Sensitive Areas
No plant communities within the project area are unique to the area.
Similar vegetation occurs in the area contiguous to the project site as well as
throughout the Pineywoods region of northeastern Texas (Thomas, 1975) and the
Oak-Pine Forest Region (Braun, 1950) of the southeastern United States. Little, if
any, of the vegetation of the project area is undisturbed; nearly all of the existing
forest has been subjected to selective logging or clear-cutting in the past. The
possible exceptions are a few small stands that occur on mesic slopes along streams
or in lowlands, where a few trees are well over 100 years old.
4-102
-------
The FWS, although not a permitting agency, has significant reviewing
responsibilities for Federal actions such as the granting of permits for power plants
and associated transportive systems. In regard to vegetation, the FWS is concerned
with impacts to unusual or sensitive plant communities, including wetlands. In
general, an area may be considered sensitive if (1) it supports a rare plant
community or a rare, endangered, or threatened plant species, (2) it is a highly
productive plant community having substantial commercial or recreational value for
fish and wildlife, and/or (3) it supports plant species considered to be wetland
indicators by a regulatory agency (e.g., USCE).
Wetlands in the project area (i.e., bogs, swamps, and marshes) qualify as
sensitive habitats according to the preceding definition. Bogs are also ecologically
sensitive, since they are rare plant communities that potentially support endangered
or threatened plant species. Additionally, the wet bottomland hardwood forests that
border streams and bayous traversing the project area may be considered ecologi-
cally sensitive, since these forests contain species preliminarily determined by the
USCE (1978) to be wetland indicators. The specific type of wetland so indicated is
"lowland hardwood forest occurring along the floodplains of streams lacking second
bottoms." The determination of exactly how much, if any, of such floodplains is
subject to permit regulation under Section 404 of Public Law 92-500 (Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) is not final (USCE, 1978).
4.5.1.2 Effects of No Action
The no action alternative would eliminate the impacts of plant operation
and mine construction and operation detailed below. Impacts that have already
occurred as a result of clearing and construction activity on the plant site could, in
4-103
-------
large measure, be reversed by recontouring and revegetating. Initial reclamation
combined with natural ecological succession should restore productivity and floral
diversity. In the absence of the project, changes in the terrestrial vegetation could
be expected if current trends continue. The TPWD has stated that vegetation cover
is changing drastically in East Texas due to man's activities (Lay, 1969). In many
portions of the lignite belt, forest and shrub areas are being converted to pure
grasslands or farms. Natural hardwood forests are being replanted with pure stands
of pine. These changes to terrestrial vegetation generally result in reduction of
plant species diversity and less native, natural vegetation.
4.5.1.3 Construction Impacts
Power Plant
Plant Site
Plant site construction has impacted local biological communities by the
direct elimination of vegetation. About 2,460 acres of vegetation and wildlife
habitat were preempted by construction of the proposed power plant, cooling
reservoir, railroad spur, and pipeline corridor (Table 4-12). An additional 1,451
acres comprising the plant site ancillary activities area may potentially be affected
during construction. The plant site preempted 272 acres, which were composed of
about 150 acres of upland forest and 122 acres of pastureland and cropland. The
1,388 acres inundated by the proposed cooling reservoir consisted primarily of about
1,020 acres of upland forest, 140 acres of lowland forest, 200 acres of pastureland
and cropland, 5 acres of wetland, and 23 acres of aquatic habitat. The most
sensitive plant communities preempted by the cooling reservoir were the hillside
bogs along Brandy Branch. Though the total acreage occupied by these bogs was less
than 10 acres, the greatest number of uncommon plant species in the project area
occurred there.
4-104
-------
Construction within the plant site boundary will continue to be per-
formed in such a manner as to minimize adverse impacts on the vegetational
communities adjacent to and downstream from the plant site. Primary production in
vegetation immediately adjacent to construction sites may have been reduced due to
dust accumulation on foliage or foliar injury due to exhaust emissions. During
construction activities, erosion will continue to be controlled by commonly accepted
procedures such as sedimentation ponds, hay-bale barriers, and diversion ditches. As
soon as possible after construction activities cease within the site, pipeline corridor,
and ancillary activities area, perennial grasses recommended by the local state
agricultural extension agent will be planted to control erosion permanently. The
margins of the cooling and ash runoff control ponds will be allowed to re vegetate
naturally with herbs and shrubs, though tree species will be discouraged. The power
plant facilities site will be artificially surfaced and not allowed to revegetate during
construction activities. Therefore, vegetation within the plant site boundary will be
unavoidably eliminated or converted to mowed grasslands as a result of clearing the
aforementioned areas. This represents a long-term loss of local productivity for the
duration of the proposed project (24 years) or longer.
The permanent establishment of the proposed cooling reservoir will help
mitigate the modification or loss of aquatic and wetland habitats within the power
plant site. For mitigative purposes, two uncommon plant species (Trillium texanum
and whorled pogonia) found within the area of the proposed cooling reservoir were
relocated during construction activities to a large estate near Nacogdoches, Texas,
under the supervision of Dr. Elray Nixon.
Transportive Systems
Approximately 700 acres were preempted by pipeline corridor con-
struction. These 700 acres consisted of 303 acres of upland forest, 50 acres of pine
plantation, .51 acres of bottomland forest, 273 acres of pastureland and cropland,
and 23 acres of wetland.
4-105
-------
The preferred route of the pipeline ROW was altered within the pipeline
corridor in order to avoid wetlands, timberland, and cropland where possible.
Clearing within the pipeline ROW was by shearing, not grubbing, in order to keep
soil disturbance to a minimum and promote the regrowth of shoots and root sprouts
of woody species. Clearing was done only where necessary to provide access and
working space. Through wooded areas, the edges of the ROW were "feathered back"
to produce a smooth transition from the herbaceous and low woody vegetation in the
center of the ROW and the adjacent tree growth. Revegetation of areas denuded by
construction activities was accomplished as soon after construction as was feasible.
Grasses and legumes recommended by the state agricultural extension service were
seeded into the operational ROW as soon as feasible following construction to
prevent erosion.
Approximately 142 acres of existing vegetation (Table 4-19) will be
cleared during construction of the three transmission line ROWS. Approximately
56 acres of area proposed for the transmission line corridors have been previously
impacted by power plant site construction. The vegetation that was present within
the power plant site and the impacts associated with construction have been
previously discussed. The major vegetational communities to be preempted in the
remaining 86.0 acres are grasslands/croplands (21.7 acres), upland pine/hardwood
forest (55.6 acres), pine forest/plantation (0.9 acres), and bottomland hardwood
forest (7.3 acres).
The preferred routes of the ROW will be altered in order to avoid
wetlands, timberland, and cropland where possible. Impacts to sensitive habitats
associated with the transmission line routes will also be minimized through the use
of poles with long spans. Clearing within transportive systems ROW will be by
shearing, not grubbing, in order to keep soil disturbance to a minimum and promote
the regrowth of shoots and root sprouts.
4-106
-------
TABLE 4-19
ACREAGES OF VEGETATION TYPES PRESENT ALONG THE
THREE PROPOSED 138-kV TRANSMISSION LINES
Transmission
Line Corridor A
Aquatic
Habitats
Bottomland
Hardwood
Forest
Upland
Pine-Hardwood
Pine Plantation
Grassland
Total
A = 7.21 mi.
B = 1.49 mi.
C = 3.02 mi.
Dis-
turbed
1.9 ac
(6.0%)
20.4 ac
(63.8%)
9.6 ac
(30.2%)
31.9 ac
(100%)
87.3
Undis-
turbed
0.3 ac
(0.5%)
4.2 ac
(7.6%)
44.8 ac
(80.9%)
0.9 ac
(1.6%)
5.2 ac
(9.4%)
55.4 ac
(100%)
ac
Transmission
Line Corridor B
Dis-
turbed
3.8 ac
(33.3%)
5.2 ac
(45.8%)
2.4 ac
(20.9%)
11.4 ac
(100%)
18.2
Undis-
turbed
4.4 ac
(64.7%)
2.4 ac
(35.3%)
6.8 ac
(100%)
ac
Transmission
Line Corridor C
Dis-
turbed
0.2 ac
(1.6%)
5.0 ac
(38.8%)
7.7 ac
(59.7%)
12.9 ac
(100%)
36.7
Undis-
turbed
0.2 ac
(0.8%)
3.1 ac
(13.1%)
6.4 ac
(26.9%)
14.1 ac
(59.2%)
23.8 ac
(100%)
ac
4-107
-------
Vegetation types previously present in the 3.5 mile railroad spur include
upland forest, 54.7 acres; grassland, 42.9 acres; bottomland forest, 0.6 acres; and
aquatic, 1.9 acres.
Mine
Site preparation and construction activities include the removal of
natural vegetation in those portions of the mine area to be mined, development of
haul roads, dragline pads, surface water control structures, powerlines, service
structures, and the various ROW relocations. During the life of the mine (24 yrs),
approximately 10,545 acres of primarily upland forest and pasture vegetation will be
cleared prior to actual mining activities. All merchantable timber will be sold and
removed prior to overburden removal. Thereafter, stumps and underbrush will be
removed by bulldozers and pushed into mined-out pits to be covered by waste. This
will be a continuous operation in advance of the overburden removal to minimize the
amount of disturbed area as mining progresses. The prernining clearing will proceed
incrementally over a span of 24 years and will be followed by reclamation. The
impacts to vegetation from premining clearing are considered to be long-term.
Construction of the various ancillary facilities will remove vegetation in
a portion of the 10,226-acre ancillary area. Some of the ancillary facilities will be
maintained for the life of the mine (24 years) or longer and, therefore, represent a
relatively long-term removal of existing vegetation. Construction of haul roads will
eliminate 430 acres of vegetation on the project site. This will have effects similar
to those resulting from other clearing operations previously described. Oil, grease,
and asbestos also may be found in runoff from haul roads, haul trucks, and other
vehicles. Any effects on terrestrial vegetation from these pollutants should be
localized and of short duration. Approximately 43 acres of pastureland and upland
pine/hardwood forest will be disturbed by construction of mine and dragline erection
facilities.
4-108
-------
Approximately ZO acres of pastureland/hayfield and upland pine hard-
wood forest will be preempted for the life of the mine by the construction of raining
facilities. Approximately 430 acres of various vegetation types will be disturbed by
construction of haul roads over the life of the mine. Additionally, a small portion of
the remaining 9,753 acres of the mine ancillary activities area (see Table 4-17 for
vegetation types) may potentially be disturbed by mining activities as mining
progresses.
In order to minimize soil erosion and associated adverse impacts on
downstream plant communities, including wetlands, a vegetative cover will be
established on areas disturbed by construction as soon as feasible. Vegetation
establishment on these areas will be done by use of equipment, such as hydroseeders,
that can apply seed, mulch, binder, and amendments in the same operation or by
using other acceptable equipment. Reclamation procedures are delineated in the
mine plan.
Site preparation and construction will produce some unavoidable nega-
tive impacts to vegetation left standing adjacent to cleared areas. Such impacts are
associated with the production of gaseous exhaust emissions and dust. Primary
production in vegetation immediately adjacent to construction sites may be reduced
due to dust accumulation on foliage or foliar injury due to exhaust emissions. In
addition to the natural dust suppression provided by the abundance of annual
precipitation in the region, several dust suppression measures will be incorporated
during construction activities to further reduce the entrainment of fugitive
emissions into the atmosphere. Such measures will include the spraying of roads and
disturbed areas by water trucks, as needed, and the control of vehicle speeds along
roads.
During construction activities, erosion and flooding will be controlled by
commonly accepted structures such as minor stream diversions, sedimentation
ponds, hay-bale barriers, catchment basins, and overland flow-interceptor channels.
4-109
-------
The impacts on surface and ground-water regimes in adjacent floodplains due to
construction of surface water control structures are short-term and minimal;
therefore, no adverse, water-related construction impacts will occur to vegetation
in the floodplain.
The potential impacts associated with construction activities of any
increased sedimentation in bottomlands within the mine area will be the same as
during operation activities discussed in Sec. 4.5.1.4.
4.5.1.4 Operations Impacts
Power Plant
Plant Site
Operation of the plant site facilities will result in the revegetation of
areas cleared or otherwise disturbed during construction. The extent to which
revegetation is accomplished will depend on management policies and the types of
reclamation plans to be implemented. The cooling reservoir and ash and runoff
control ponds will be allowed to revegetate naturally with herbs and shrubs around
their margins, although the establishment of trees will be prevented. The remaining
area comprising the proposed power plant facilities site will be artificially surfaced
and will not, for the most part, be allowed to revegetate for the life of the project
(30 years) or longer.
The heat dissipation associated with the proposed power generating
facility will cause some elevation of water temperatures in the cooling reservoir.
Aquatic vegetation may increase in biomass, but only minimally. No impacts on
vegetation are expected to occur along Big Cypress or Little Cypress bayous from
operation of the makeup water pipeline.
4-110
-------
Impacts to vegetation resulting from power plant emissions are expected
to be minimal since NAAQS will be met. Local vegetation will be the first to be
affected, if adverse levels of air contaminants are reached during operation of the
proposed power plant. The limits of air contamination by participates and gases,
beyond which biotic impacts become unacceptable, are considerably higher than
those concentrations predicted to be attained in the project area. Specifically,
concentrations of SO- predicted from operation of the proposed plant are discussed
in Sec. 4.3. The maximum predicted ground-level 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual
concentrations of SO- are 307, 61, and 12 y g/m , respectively. The maximum
LJ
average SO- concentrations predicted for the plant are far less than the injury
-3
threshold of 800 Ug/m sustained for 8 hours reported by Hindawi (1970). The
predicted maximum 3-hour concentration of SO., is less than the injury threshold for
3 3
sensitive plant species of 1,333 Ug/m for 4 hours and 667 y g/m for 8 to 24 hours
reported by Shurtleff et al. (1972).
Regional impacts on vegetation due to air contaminants will be minimal.
The predicted low stack emissions of suspended particulates (fly ash), SO7, and NO_,
b .\
will not have any adverse effects on the region as a whole, due to dispersion. When
stack emissions from the proposed power plant are reviewed in combination with
other regional sources of such air contaminants, the regional effects will be
alleviated due to the ecological adaptation of vegetation to the generally acidic
soils of the region.
It has been suggested that coal-fired power plants and other sources of
pollutants, particularly SO., and NO , may contribute to lower pH in precipitation.
Lt X
However, since any effect these sources may have on acid rain is still undetermined,
it is inappropriate to speculate regarding adverse impacts on vegetation.
Information reported in the literature on the effects of particulates on
vegetation is limited. Particulate emissions from power plants with properly
operating fly-ash removal systems will cause minor (if any) injury to vegetation,
however.
4-111
-------
Transportive Systems
Operation of the proposed transportive system corridors will mitigate
some adverse impacts to the areas previously disturbed during construction
activities. The area within the operational ROW will be maintained in grassland,
pastureland, and other low herbaceous or shrub communities. The additional
acreage of construction ROW cleared along the makeup water pipeline will be
allowed to naturally revegetate as forest, shrub, or herbaceous communities.
The revegetation of these ROWS will be enhanced by the planting of
grasses recommended by the State agricultural extension service. Since the clearing
during construction was done by shearing, not grubbing, soil disturbance will be
minimal and native seed sources will be preserved. Also, woody species will more
rapidly reinvade the ROW as shoots and root sprouts. Foliage along the operational
ROW will be sprayed with herbicides within 4 to 6 years or mowed within Z to 4
years after construction in order to maintain low herbaceous or shrub communities.
A maintenance cycle using one of the two above methods will continue for the life
of the project (30 years) or beyond in order to keep the height of woody species low.
Operation of the proposed transmission line corridors will result in
beneficial impacts to the areas previously disturbed during construction activities.
The 142 acres contained within the operational ROW will be maintained in grassland,
pastureland, and other low herbaceous or shrub communities.
The revegetation of these ROWS will be enhanced by the planting of
grasses recommended by the state agricultural extension service. Since the clearing
during construction will be done by. shearing, not grubbing, soil disturbance will be
minimal and native seed sources will be preserved. Also, woody species will more
rapidly reinvade the ROW as shoots and root sprouts. Foliage along the operational
ROW will be sprayed with herbicides within 4 to 6 years or mowed within 2 to
4 years after construction in order to maintain low herbaceous or shrub communi-
4-112
-------
ties. A maintenance cycle using one of the two above methods will continue for the
life of the project (30 years) or beyond in order to keep the height of woody species
low.
The actual ROWS will provide a greater diversity of vegetation and
subsequently will benefit wildlife species by providing "edge" habitats along the
borders.
Mine
Impacts upon vegetation within the mine site during operations will
include those noted previously for construction activities. A major adverse impact
during operation is the destruction of vegetation within the mine area. Other
impacts are associated with changes in environmental variables to which adjacent
biotic communities, including wetlands, have adapted.
A major impact of mine operation will be the preemption of existing
vegetation in the proposed mine area. During the 24-year life of the mining
operations, a total of 10,545 acres of vegetation within the mine site will be
disturbed by mining. Table 4-13 identifies the vegetation types to be affected, by
mining blocks, over the life of the mine. Mining will occur progressively, with
disturbed areas to be revegetated within 2 years following mining. Consequently, an
average of 439 acres will be disturbed per year and an average of 439 acres will be
revegetated per year. A maximum of 741 acres of disturbed acreage will occur in
the year 2008; however, this area will be reclaimed in the following year. Sensitive
areas to be disturbed during the 24-year life of the total mining operations include
approximately a total of 116 acres of swamps and marshes, 49 acres of streams and
ponds, and an undetermined portion of 568 acres of bottomland hardwood forest (see
Sec. 4.5.1, Wetlands).
4-113
-------
The temporal nature of the impact of habitat modification will vary,
depending on the type of plant community preempted and the reclamation plan
adopted. Pine plantations and pasturelands can be restored relatively easily.
Although agricultural systems contain ecologically complex communities of soil
microorganisms and chemical balances that influence productivity, they are rela-
tively simple with regard to both floral and fauna! diversity when compared with
undisturbed natural ecosystems such as forests, swamps, or prairies. Restoration of
more natural plant communities, predominantly upland pine/hardwood forest, in the
mined area will be more difficult and require a much longer period of time than for
pine plantations, pastures, and hayfields. Therefore, the alteration of the more
natural habitats will be a more long-term impact. Development of the natural
species diversity and relatively complex community structure characteristic of
natural forest ecosystems will depend to a large extent on the process of natural
succession. This process will be accelerated, at least with respect to common
species-, by the planting of woody species. During the early stages of succession
after reclamation, common, easily dispersed plant species will invade the area. The
early stages will generally be characterized by high net community productivity and
low species diversity.
The homogeneous environment of reclaimed surface-mined lands is not
an ideal environment for the reestablishment of diverse, complex, plant commu-
nities. In natural communities, species diversity is directly correlated with habitat
variability. Variability of and discontinuity in topography and subsurface features
are necessary to allow development of diverse communities, such as bogs and their
unique flora adjacent to seepages. As a result of general reconstruction of the
surface contours of the land along with the natural influences of wind and water
erosion and biotic factors, some habitat diversity should eventually become estab-
lished. Micro-communities such as bogs will have a low probability of becoming
reestablished. However, other suitable plant communities (e.g., mixed upland
hardwood forest) will be established.
4-114
-------
Surface water may be retained along diversion ditches and within local
depressions lacking drainage within the proposed mine area during mining operations
and reclamation periods. Such localized areas of surface water retention could
create wetland habitat. However, the area! extent of wetland types so created is
unknown.
Projected changes to the topography within proposed mine areas (i.e.,
smoothing of existing surface features and slight increase in surface elevation;
Sec. 4.1.1), in addition to devegetating those areas, tend to increase surface runoff
velocity from the slopes into adjacent bottomlands causing increased erosion and
sedimentation. Increased sedimentation in the bottomlands, which otherwise could
possibly raise the elevation and result in the desiccation of existing wetlands, will be
prevented by the construction of sedimentation ponds and other erosion controls.
The operation of surface water control structures, however, may reduce water flow
with consequent vegetational changes downstream. The reduction of water inflow
to forested and nonforested wetlands dependent upon these drainages may prevent
nutrient regeneration from occurring, a process upon which the productivity of
wetland communities depends (Darnell, 1976). The lowering of the water table along
drainage structures may produce localized reductions in available soil moisture.
Such desiccation effects would be most noticeable in wetland areas where the plants
are highly sensitive to changes in soil moisture levels (Darnell, 1976).
A ground-water impact unique to the operational phase will be the
lowering of the ground-water levels during dewatering in sands. This dewatering
will lead to an unknown reduction of recharge to surface streams and springs, which,
in turn, could locally lower water levels in areas adjacent to the proposed mine
areas. Specific wetland areas to be affected would be those frequently and
permanently inundated swamps and marshes at the base of slopes which are
hydrologically dependent upon tributary streams and springs which are, in turn,
dependent upon ground-water recharge. Hillside seepage bogs may be present in the
mine area and adjacent areas. Any bogs present in adjacent areas may be dependent
4-115
-------
on ground-water recharge from the mine area. The elimination of any bogs in these
areas during dewatering will be an adverse impact. However, no ground-water
impacts to wetlands in the Sabine River floodplains that are not hydrologically
dependent upon proposed mine areas are expected, since the normal flow and
seasonal flooding of major drainages will not be impeded. Impacts of dewatering are
generally temporary and exist for only a short period beyond the life of the mine.
However, even minor changes to the water input may be detrimental to wetland
communities that are dependent upon seeps and springs.
Impacts of the mining process caused by the redeposition of a generally
homogenous spoil will be more enduring than the impacts of dewatering. The
redistribution of geologic materials may prevent the up-gradient recharge of springs
and seeps. The ground-water flow to streams in the vicinity of the mine area may
be further reduced by being diverted around reclaimed areas and away from
traditional discharge points. The alteration of recharge zones of both alluvial and
shallow sand formations, in addition to the aforementioned ground-water impacts,
will greatly reduce the long-term baseflow to springs and streams. The vegetational
communities to be most adversely impacted by the disruption of recharge to streams
and seeps will be hillside bogs, riparian communities, and downstream wetlands that
are dependent on that discharge.
Dust and exhaust emissions associated with mine operations will have
minor impacts on local vegetation in the project area. Land clearing, mining
operations, and traffic will create wind-blown particulates of both soil and lignite,
which will accumulate to some extent on foliage surfaces and possibly reduce
primary production slightly in the area surrounding the mine. If sufficient pyritic
material is present in the dust; aluminum, manganese, and other trace metals may
be made available for uptake by plants, causing some minor toxic effects. This
phenomenon has been documented in studies by Hons (1978) and Bryson (1973).
However, these effects should be localized because the total amount of area
affected at any time will be small, road surfaces will be sprayed with water as
4-116
-------
needed, low vehicle speed will be maintained, and reclamation will immediately
follow mining.
The reclamation plan provides for proper reconstruction of mining block
contours, soil preparation, establishment of vigorous ground cover, and proper
management of vegetation following establishment. Erosion control prior to the
establishment of a permanent vegetative cover will include temporary cover crops
and mulching. If the mixed overburden technique is used, the pyritic material
generally found in association with lignite will undergo oxidation. The oxidation of
these materials can result in more acid soil conditions (Hons, 1973) and potentially
allow the accumulation of toxic concentrations of metals. Therefore, soils will be
tested regularly and chemically treated if necessary to ensure proper pH and
successful revegetation of the land during reclamation. Other potential effects on
terrestrial vegetation during reclamation may result from earth moving; use and
removal of haul roads; application of lime, pesticides, and fertilizers; seeding; and
planting of trees, which are current agricultural practices on-going in the area.
Effects arising from these operation may include increased vehicle exhaust
emissions and, increased fugitive dust emissions. However, these are not considered
to be adverse impacts on vegetation because of their short duration.
In addition to the effects from mining and associated activities, dis-
turbances will occur to vegetation from the construction of ROW for railroads and
electric transmission faciltiies. The expedient reclamation of these areas will help
mitigate the adverse effects to vegetation.
4.5.1.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine
Upland forest, lowland forest, and grassland to be preempted by the
construction of both the power plant and mine facilities will be converted to
industrial use for the life of the project (30 years). About 1,660 acres occupied by
the power plant and cooling reservoir and the portion of the 10,226-acre ancillary
4-117
-------
area occupied by mine facilities will be removed from existing vegetation for the
life of the project. About 10,545 acres in the mine site will be disturbed
incremently and a small portion of the 10,226-acre total ancillary area may
potentially be disturbed over the life of the project.
Since mining and reclamation will proceed sequentially, the adverse
impacts of habitat preemption by mining are generally considered to be short term.
Long-term impacts will result from the mining of lands presently supporting
relatively mature, diverse communities such as riparian vegetation along intermit-
tent tributaries of project area streams. Reestablishment of such communities,
even after contouring and revegetation, will be largely dependent on natural
succession and will require many years. The reconfiguration of surface contours,
along with the natural influences of wind and water erosion and biotic factors,
should produce the heterogeneity necessary for the development of forest
community diversity. However, some micro-communities, such as bogs, which are
dependent on local hillside seeps, will have a low probability of re establishment.
4.5.2 Wildlife
4.5.2.1 Existing and Future Environments
Wildlife Habitats and Species
The proposed South Hallsville Project site lies within the Austroriparian
Biotic Province (Blair, 1950), This province, which stretches from eastern Texas
through the southeastern United States to the Atlantic Ocean, is characterized by
extensive forests of pjne and hardwood. In Texas, this province generally cor-
responds with the Pineywoods Region.
The major wildlife habitats of the project site are upland pine-hardwood
forest; bottomland hardwood forest; hayfields and pastures; and wetlands and
4-118
-------
aquatic habitats. These habitats are distributed as a mosaic within the project site,
which results in intermixing of forest-adapted species with prairie or grassland
species. This is especially true of birds and the larger, more mobile mammals.
During the ecological survey, 28 species of amphibians and reptiles, 108 species of
birds, and 21 species of mammals were identified on the project site.
Upland pine-hardwood forest constitutes the most extensive wildlife
habitat on the project site. This general habitat type varies from pure pine to
mixtures of pine and hardwood to pure hardwood stands. Common mammals
associated with this habitat are the White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Fox
Squirrel (Sciurus niger), Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), Raccoon (Procyon
lot or), White-footed Mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and Nine-banded Armadillo
(Dasypus novemcinctus). Common breeding birds include the Downy Woodpecker
(Picoides pubescens), Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina Chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), Tufted Titmouse (Parus bicolor), Carolina Wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura), Black-and-white Warbler
(Mniotilta varia), Pine Warbler (Dendroica pinus), and Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata).
The density of breeding birds in upland forest habitats on the project site was
estimated at 438 birds per 100 acres (EH&A, 1977b). Amphibians and reptiles
characteristic of this habitat include the Three-toed Box Turtle (Terrapene
Carolina), Green Anole (Anolis carolinensis), Ground Slunk (Scincella lateralis), Texas
Rat Snake (Elaphe obsoleta), Southern Copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) and
Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus).
Bottomland hardwood forest comprises about 7 percent of the total
project site. Common mammals associated with lowland forest situations are the
White-tailed Deer, Raccoon, Swamp Rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), Gray Fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), Opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and Cotton Mouse
(Peromyscus gossypinus). The most characteristic breeding birds include the
Cardinal, Barred Owl (Strix varia), Red-Shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), Red-
bellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), Carolina Wren, White-eyed Vireo (Vireo
4-119
-------
griseus), Hooded Warber (Wilson!a citrina), and Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotaria
citrea). The density of breeding birds in bottomland forest was estimated at
526 birds per 100 acres (EH&A, 1977b). Common amphibians and reptiles in lowland
forest habitats include the Gray Treefrog (Hyla versicolor), Rough Green Snake
(Opheodrys aestivus), Five-lined Skink (Eumeces fasciatus), Ground Skink, and
Three-toed Box Turtle.
Pasture and hayfield habitats are only slightly less extensive than upland
forest habitats on the South Hallsville Project site, accounting for over 40 percent
of the total on-site acreage. Mammals common in open, non-forested habitats
on-site include the Nine-banded Armadillo, Eastern Cottontail, Hispid Cotton Rat
(Sigmodon hispidus), Fulvous Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys fulvescens), and
Plains Pocket Gopher (Geomys bursarius). Breeding birds characteristic of open
areas include the Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris), Lark Sparrow (Chondestes
grammacus), Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna),
Common Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottus), Scissor-
tailed Flycatcher (Muscivora forficata), Mourning Dove, Bobwhite (Colinus
virginianus), Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and Turkey Vulture (Cathartes
aura). Breeding bird density in grassland habitats on-site was estimated at 46 birds
per 100 acres (EH&A, 1977b). Reptiles and amphibians found in open habitats on the
project site include the Slender Glass Lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus) and Racer
(Coluber constrictor).
Wetland (marsh, swamp) and aquatic (stream, pond) habitat make up
about 3 percent of the total project site. Common mammals associated with these
habitats on-site are the Raccoon and Beaver (Castor canadensis). Common birds
include the Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors), Common Snipe (Capella gallinago),
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), and American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus).
Hydric communities on the project site support a diverse herpetofauna which
includes such species as the Northern Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans), Bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana), Southern Leopard Frog (Rana sphenocephala), Woodhouse's Toad (Eufo
4-120
-------
woodhousei), Red-eared Slider (Chrysemys scripta), False Map Turtle (Graptemys
pseudogeographica), Southern Water Snake (Nerodia fasciata), Diamondback Water
Snake (Nerodia rhombifera), and Cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus).
Important Species
"Important species" are defined as those that are (1) commercially or
recreationally valuable; (2) threatened or endangered; (3) critical to the survival of a
species satisfying criterion (1) or (2); or (4) critical to the structure or function of
the ecosystem, or biological indicators. No species present on site are judged to
satisfy criterion (3) or (4). Those which satisfy criterion (1) or (2) are discussed
below.
Threatened and Endangered Species
The Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and American Alli-
gator (Alligator mississippiensis) are the only species considered threatened or
endangered by the FWS (45 FR 33678-33781) that may permanently reside in the
project area. Neither species was observed on the project site. No habitats meeting
the specific requirements of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker were located during site
surveys, nor are any large areas of suitable habitat expected to occur in the project
area since logging practices preclude large stands of mature pine. The possibility
does exist, however, that some small areas of suitable habitat exist in isolated
portions of the project area.
American Alligators are known to occur in Caddo Lake (northeastern
Harrison County) and probably exist in the Sabine River south of the project area.
The lower portions of the small drainages on the project site may provide limited
habitat for the alligator, although none were observed during baseline surveys of the
area. The total alligator population in Harrison County has been estimated at 100,
with an average of 1.1 alligators per square mile of good habitat (Potter, 1981).
4-121
-------
In addition to potential resident species, two federally listed endangered
raptorial birds may occasionally pass through the area as migrants or winter visitors.
These are the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Peregrine Falcon (Falco
peregrinus). Neither of these species were observed during field surveys, nor were
any habitats found that would be expected to harbor either species for a significant
amount of time.
Coordination with the FWS, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, has been initiated (see correspondence, Sec. 5.2). The FWS has
requested a biological assessment of potential impacts of the project on the
American Alligator, Red-cockaded Woodpecker, and Bald Eagle. Plans for
conducting this assessment are currently being formulated in cooperation with the
FWS.
Commercially and Recreationally Valuable Species
Several species of mammals and birds are hunted in the South Hallsville
Project area and, therefore, represent an important recreational and economic
resource. The White-tailed Deer is the most important big game mammal in the
state (Davis, 1974). During the on-site ecological survey, deer tracks were fairly
common in the bottomland areas, especially along water courses. Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department (TPWD) population estimates for deer in Harrison County
averaged 13.2 deer per square mile during the period 1977-1979 (TPWD, 1980). Deer
densities in southern Harrison County (which includes the project area) tend to be
lower than those in the northwestern part of the county (Wallace, 1977).
The Bobwhite is an important game bird over much of Texas, although
densities of this species are relatively low in the Pineywoods region. The density of
Bobwhite in the project area is not known. However, the TPWD has annually
conducted a spring census of whistling birds along a 20-mile transect in Harrison
County with one station per mile. The average number of singing birds per station
4-122
-------
for the period 1966-1975 in Harrison County was 2.48 (Wallace, 1977). This datum,
which should be representative of the South Hallsville Project area, is consistent
with the generally low density estimates for the Pineywoods region as a whole
(TPWD, 1980b).
The Mourning Dove is the most widespread and abundant game bird in
Texas. No TPWD dove transects are located in Harrison County, but the data
collected in the Pineywoods Region are representative of that county. The average
number of doves heard per transect route in the Pineywoods Region for the period
1966 to 1979 was 13.5 (TPWD, 1980c). This is lower than the average of 20.1 dove
per transect for the entire state.
The Fox Squirrel and the Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) are
important small game mammals over much of the eastern half of the state. The
average density of squirrels in good habitat in northeastern Texas obtained by time-
area counts over a 19-year period is about one squirrel per acre (Wallace, 1977).
This estimate is probably representative of the squirrel habitat in the South
Hallsville Project area.
Rabbits (e.g., Eastern Cottontail and Swamp Rabbit), although not
strictly defined as game animals, are hunted throughout Texas. Population data for
rabbits in Harrison County were collected by TPWD personnel in conjunction with
deer track count census activities during the summer of 1976. The average number
of track exits per mile for southern Harrison County was 5.7 (Wallace, 1977). This
should be representative of the project area. Site survey data on the number of
rabbit pellets per 1.1 square feet sampled indicated that rabbits were much more
abundant in grassy areas than in either upland or bottomland forest habitats.
Furbearers (e.g., Raccoon, Opossum, Gray Fox, Striped Skunk (Mephitis
mephitis), Bobcat (Lynx rufus), and Mink (Mustela vision)) are of some economical
and recreational importance in Texas. Except for the Raccoon, Opossum, and
4-123
-------
Striped Skunk, furbearers do not appear especially numerous in the project area.
According to Boone (1977), a very low percentage of the furbearing animals
harvested in Texas is taken from the Pineywoods Region. Furbearers are most
abundant in wooded stands, especially riverine forests.
"Waterfowl provide a fairly important recreational resource in the project
area. Ponds and marshes within the floodplain of the Sabine River seem to provide
the best habitat for migrating or wintering ducks. A site field survey in January
1978 revealed that the "Duck Pond" (located in the Sabine River floodplain) was the
most important waterfowl habitat in the project area. However, very few ducks
were observed in the area, even though decoys and blinds were present on the pond.
Ecologically Sensitive Habitats
No wildlife habitats identified on the project site are unusual or unique
to the site. All are locally well- represented outside the site boundaries. The most
sensitive habitats on site, bottomland forest and wetlands, have, for the most part,
been previously impacted by human activity, including selective cutting and other
management techniques. These areas comprise about 10 percent of the total project
site.
The FWS, although not a permitting agency, has significant reviewing
responsibilities for Federal actions such as the granting of permits. The FWS is
concerned with impacts to wildlife and their habitat, especially unusual or sensitive
habitats, including wetlands. In general, an area may be considered sensitive from a
wildlife standpoint if it (1) supports a rare animal community, (2) supports an
endangered or threatened species, or (3) is a highly productive wildlife habitat (e.g.,
wetland). Habitats on the project site that meet these criteria are bottomland
forest and wetlands. Both of these habitats are considered highly productive
wildlife habitat, and, in addition, wetlands are potential habitat for the American
Alligator. No Red-cockaded Woodpecker habitat has been located on the project
4-124
-------
site; however, any such habitat found to occur there would be considered sensitive
according to the above criteria.
4.5.Z.2 Effects of No Action
Should EPA decline issuance of the requested permit and the project be
terminated, the projected impacts to wildlife on the project site will not occur.
Therefore, the wildlife on the mine site would remain in its present natural state.
Impacts that have already occurred as a result of construction activities on the
power plant, cooling reservoir, railroad spur, and makeup water pipeline could be
reversed by recontouring and revegetating cleared areas. Initial reclamation
combined with natural successional processes should restore the impacted areas to
some semblence of their natural states. Eventually, wildlife diversity and produc-
tivity in these areas should approach that which existed prior to initiation of
construction.
4.5.2.3 Construction Impacts
Power Plant
The primary impact of construction of the power plant, cooling
reservoir, railroad spur, and makeup water pipeline has been the direct disturbance
of wildlife habitat resulting from clearing operations.
Plant Site
The removal of vegetation (see Sec. 4.5.1.3) has rendered most of the
plant site unsuitable for wildlife. Larger, more mobile organisms have been
displaced into appropriate adjacent habitats. Although the initial effect of such
displacement is an increase in wildlife population density in adjacent areas, these
populations eventually will return to their normal levels (i.e., the carrying capacities
4-125
-------
of these habitats). The net result will be a decrease in local wildlife equivalent to
the carrying capacities of the habitats subject to direct impacts of clearing and
construction. Since most of the plant site was upland forest, the wildlife associated
with this habitat type (see Sec. 4.5.2.1) sustained the greatest adverse impact.
Habitat preemption for plant site facilities must be considered a major, long-term
adverse impact.
Transportive Systems
Construction of the makeup water pipeline, railroad spur, and transmis-
sion lines, will result in short-term, adverse impacts due to habitat modification
primarily in the forest communities through which the ROW are cleared. This
clearing has removed or will remove some upland forest (464-acres) and a small
amount of bottomland forest (59 acres). This reduction in available forest habitat
will be mitigated, to some degree, by the development of increased edge habitat
along the ROW, which typically attracts many wildlife species (including deer,
rabbits, Bobwhite, and Mourning Dove) and generally increases species diversity
through woodland habitats. Construction through non-wooded pasture and hayfield
habitats has or will have little effect on local wildlife beyond short-term habitat
disturbance. Overall, construction of the transportive systems is expected to result
in minimal, long-term, adverse impact to local wildlife.
Mine
The principal adverse impact of site preparation and construction on
terrestrial wildlife will be the removal of natural vegetation and wildlife habitat in
portions of the ancillary area. A portion of the ancillary area will be used for the
construction of the shop, dragline erection pad, haul and access roads, sedimentation
ponds, diversion ditches, and for topsoil storage. The construction of roads and mine
facilities will require 473 acres. The displacement of mobile wildlife into adjacent
areas will temporarily increase local wildlife population densities. However, the
4-126
-------
adjacent habitats are at or near their normal carrying capacities. Population
stresses due to increased densitites will activate density-dependent population
regulating mechanisms that will push local populations back toward their normal
pre-project levels. This impact will be long-term, extending over the life (24 years)
of the facilities. With proper grading and revegetating, these areas can be restored
to their approximate pre-mining biological productivity following decommissioning
and dismantling of the facilities.
Some small, relatively immobile forms (e.g., many amphibians, reptiles,
and small mammals) will be destroyed by heavy equipment. If construction occurs
during reproductive seasons (e.g., spring and early summer for most passerine birds
and many other animals), breeding activities will be disrupted and many young-of-
the-year lost.
Site preparation and construction will produce some unavoidable adverse
impacts to wildlife and vegetation associated with the production of gaseous exhaust
emissions, dust, and noise. Primary production in vegetation immediately adjacent
to construction sites may be reduced as a result of dust accumulation on foliage or
foliar injury due to exhaust emissions. Wildlife should be minimally affected by dust
and gaseous emissions. Large, mobile forms may retreat from the immediate area
of construction and may modify normal activity patterns in response to noise and
human activity.
4.5.2.4 Operation Impacts
Power Plant
Plant Site
Operation of the power plant will produce minimal impacts on local
wildlife. Revegetation of certain areas originally cleared within the plant site
4-127
-------
boundary will mitigate to some degree, the original habitat loss for wildlife species
tolerant of man. Although the noise and human activity at the plant site will cause
some species to avoid the periphery of the plant site and immediately adjacent
areas, many species readily adapt to human proximity. The ecotone that will
develop at the periphery of the plant site will attract certain species (e.g., many
species of songbirds) that favor edge situations.
Operation of the cooling reservoir should have no adverse impacts on
local terrestrial wildlife. The cooling reservoir will develop shoreline vegetation
and thereby provide increased habitat diversity. Terrestrial wildlife, which rely to
some extent on aquatic or shoreline habitats for food, shelter, and/or reproduction
(e.g., shorebirds, fish-eating birds, waterfowl, many reptiles and amphibians, some
mammals), should increase in abundance in the area and then stabilize during the
first few years of existence of the cooling reservoir. This could help mitigate the
initial loss through inundation of about 170 acres of bottomland forest, wetland, and
aquatic habitat.
Transportive Systems
Operation of the transportive systems (makeup water pipeline, railroad
spur, and transmission lines) should produce no major adverse effects on local
wildlife. Natural revegetation of the ROWs with shrubs and herbs will enhance the
value of the area for numerous wildlife species that favor edge situations.
Maintenance of clear (non-wooded) corridors will sustain early successional, highly
productive plant communities that are valuable as sources of food and shelter for
many animal species. Maintenance requiring the movement of trucks or other
machinery along the ROWS may cause some local disturbance producing short-term
impacts. However, no long-term adverse impacts to terrestrial wildlife should
accrue from operation of the transportive systems.
4-128
-------
Mine
By far the most direct adverse impact of mining activities on the
terrestrial ecology of the mine site will be the preemption of existing vegetation
and wildlife habitat and the alteration of many physical and chemical variables with
which the biotic communities have reached an ecological balance. A total of
4,738 acres of pasture and hayfields, 5,074 acres of upland forest, and 733 acres of
bottomland forest and wetland will be used for actual mining. Because the mined
area will be developed incrementally, habitat modifications will be distributed over
the 24-year life of the project. Mining will occur progressively with disturbed areas
(averaging 439 acres per year) to be re vegetated within 2 years following mining.
Maximum areal disturbance (741 acres) will occur in the year 2008.
A short-term adverse impact of incremental habitat modification will be
the reduction of some local wildlife populations and the migration of some fauna
into adjacent areas. Migration will occur in response to the noise and human
activities associated with mining, as well as to habitat losses. Mobile fauna will
move from the mined area to similar habitats contiguous to the impacted area; less
mobile forms will be lost. The migration of wildlife into surrounding areas will
temporarily stress local populations, resulting in increased mortality and/or
decreased reproductive success. The magnitude of this impact will depend on the
relative amount of migration; the carrying capacities and population levels of
surrounding habitats; and the amount of appropriate habitat in close enough
proximity to the site, as well as the speed and success of revegetation efforts.
Reproductive activities of local fauna will be adversely impacted where clearing and
mining activities occur during natural reproductive seasons (e.g., the spring-early
summer breeding period of most birds).
As previously discussed (Sec. 4.5.1.4), the temporal nature of the adverse
impact of habitat modification will vary depending on the type of community
preempted and the reclamation plan adopted. Pasture, hayfields, and pine forests
4-129
-------
can be restored relatively easily. Postmining areas revegetated with suitable
mixtures of pasture grasses should quickly be recolonized by appropriate birds, small
mammals, and other wildlife such that communities similar to those of premining
pastureland should develop within a few years after reclamation. However,
restoration of more complex natural communities in the mined area (e.g., upland
forest, bottomland forest, swamps, and marshes) will be more difficult and require a
much longer period of time (i.e., several decades for upland forest and, perhaps,
centuries for bottomland forests and swamps). Thus, the alteration of these habitats
is a long-term adverse impact. Natural species diversity characteristic of natural
forest ecosystems will develop as natural succession progresses. The early stages
will be characterized by high net community productivity and low species diversity.
Among the wildlife species favored in early successional communities are such
recreationally valuable species as the White-tailed Deer, Eastern Cottontail,
Bobwhite, and Mourning Dove. As woody vegetation becomes dominant and the
forest community develops, faunal diversity should increase while net community
productivity decreases.
Section 4.5.2.2 discusses adverse mine operational impacts to floodplain
and wetland habitats as a result of surface water diversion, changes in topography,
increased sedimentation, and dewatering. Any such activities producing adverse
impacts of floodplain or wetland habitats on the mine or in adjacent areas will
impact terrestrial wildlife (Sec. 4.5.2.1) associated with habitats.
The activity of men and machinery along with associated noise, dust, and
exhaust emissions will have minor adverse impacts on local wildlife over the life of
the project. Traffic on haul roads and access roads will increase road mortality of
terrestrial vertebrates. Some mobile mammals and birds may modify their behavior
patterns to avoid contact with men and machinery or leave the immediate vicinity
of the mine entirely.
4-130
-------
4.5.2.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine
Construction and operation of the South Hallsville Project will preempt
upland forest, bottomland forest, pasture and cropland, and wetland aquatic habitats
within the 24,768-acre project site. The most sensitive of these habitats,
bottomland forest and wetlands (swamp and marsh), comprise less than 10 percent of
the total area. This habitat preemption will adversely impact local wildlife by
reducing local populations for the life of the project. Reclamation of the mine site
will restore the carrying capacity of preempted wildlife habitats, rapidly (a few
years) for nonwooded habitats and slowly (decades or centuries) for forested and
wetland habitats. Creation of the cooling reservoir will increase shoreline and
aquatic habitats in the area, thereby increasing habitat diversity and mitigating, and
to some degree, the preemption of wetland and aquatic habitats by the plant and
mine facilities. The combined effects of construction and operation of the mine and
power plant should not exceed the sum of their separate effects.
4.5.3 Aquatic
4.5.3.1 Existing and Future Environments
Aquatic Habitats
The following description of aquatic ecosystems is based on the results
of an initial comprehensive baseline survey conducted in April 1977 (EH&A, 1977b)
and a bimonthly sampling program initiated in November 1977 that continued
through September 1978 (EH&A, 1978a).
The aquatic environment of the proposed South Hallsville Project site
includes six tributary streams that discharge into the Sabine River, two convergent
bayous, a few small impoundments (stock tanks), and seasonally inundated bottom-
land areas. The mean annual rainfall in the region (about 48 inches) is not evenly
4-131
-------
distributed; low summer rainfall, together with the general prevalence of
permeable, sandy soils, contributes to a high degree of variability in water levels in
both streams and impoundments.
The Sabine River, the floodplain of which forms the southern border of
the project site, constitutes a permanent riverine habitat. The reach is character-
ized by nearly vertical, sandy clay banks that allow only minor development of
rooted aquatic vegetation. The river channel varies from 65 to 130 feet in width,
and the substrate is of variable composition, consisting of a mosaic of scoured,
sandy clay, sand and gravel bars, and stoney riffles. Lignite outcrops are evident at
a number of locations. The water is typically turbid, of circurnneutral pH, and of
moderate conductivity.
The small streams within the project site (i.e., Mason, Clarks, Hardin,
Rogers, Hatley, and Brandy Branch creeks) are all intermittent tributaries of the
Sabine River. Numerous seeps occur in the stream channels on the upland portion of
the project site. Many of these seeps are marked by luxuriant growths of iron-
precipitating microorganisms. The substrate in all the streams is sandy clay,
although small areas of pure sand or gravel riffles are present at some locations.
Physical habitat diversity is low, for the most part, being a function of channel
morphology (e.g., pools, shallow areas) and the amount and type of organic debris
present. No major stands of aquatic vegetation are found in these streams.
Although circumneutral pH is the rule in these aquatic systems, water quality, as
reflected by conductivity, can vary considerably among streams and also varies
seasonally in a given stream.
In addition to several small intermittent streams, three perennial
streams, Big Cypress Bayou, Little Cypress Bayou, and Cold Water Creek, are
transected by the proposed cooling-pond makeup water pipeline. The two bayous
converge below Lake O' The Pines and ultimately discharge into Caddo Lake, while
Cold Water Creek is a tributary of the Sabine River. All of these stream systems
4-132
-------
typically flow through dense second-growth woodland and, consequently, are heavily
shaded in most places and receive a large amount of vegetative debris.
Impoundment (i.e., stock tank) habitats within the project site are not
common. They are typically shallow, mud-bottomed impoundments containing dense
stands of submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation. All of these ponds are
perched impoundments, except the largest (Rogers Lake), which resulted from the
damming of Brandy Branch.
The seasonally inundated bottomland areas are pasture and woodlands
within the Sabine River floodplain. These areas are of minor importance as aquatic
habitats, except for their periodic value as fish-breeding areas (spring) and
waterfowl refuges (winter).
Aquatic Biota
With respect to water-quality parameters studied and planktonic organ-
isms sampled, the Sabine River was considerably more stable than tributary streams.
In particular, conductivity and dissolved oxygen exhibited a wide range of values in
tributary streams during the year of study. The Sabine River tended to be
dominated by phytoplankton and zooplankton populations typical of warm, per-
manent river systems. The tributary streams, on the other hand, showed wide
variation in population sizes and dominant taxa. Many dominants were typical of
pool or littoral habitats, as expected in intermittent stream systems. The widest
variations in water quality and planktonic assemblages were observed in Clarks
Creek and Hatley Creek. During low-water periods, phytoplankton assemblages in
these streams appeared to be stressed by acidity from natural lignite outcrops in the
stream channels.
.Macroinvertebrate assemblages were generally dominated by oligoc-
haetes and dipteran larvae; groups usually regarded as tolerant of enrichment and
4-133
-------
low oxygen concentrations. These organisms are common in fine-grained substrates,
particularly where large amounts of detrital material are present, as is the case in
the vicinity of the South Hallsville Project site. The presence of appreciable
numbers of taxa in more sensitive groups (e.g., Trichoptera and Plecoptera) only
during the winter, when water levels and dissolved oxygen concentrations are high,
reflected the somewhat stressed conditions in these streams during other seasons of
the year.
The fish species observed in the project area were typical of this region
of Texas. The small stream samples produced a number of species of small
minnows, topminnows, and sunfish typical of the habitats represented. Observed
larger fish species common to the Sabine River are gar, carp, shad, catfish, and
black bass.
The extended periods of no flow in most of the project streams, with
accompanying high conductivities and low dissolved oxygen concentrations, have
resulted in assemblages capable of tolerating wide variations in environmental
conditions or of responding to those variations by rapid dispersal and population
growth. Water quality and, consequently, biological conditions are probably
affected by the natural lignite outcrops occurring in the stream channels. These
outcrops are the probable sources of the high concentration of metals, such as iron,
magnesium, and manganese, observed in water-quality samples. High iron concen-
trations have resulted in luxuriant growths of iron-precipitating microorganisms in
quiet water areas in all tributary streams.
Important Species
"Important Species" are defined as those that are (1) commercially or
recreationally valuable; (2) threatened or endangered; (3) critical to the survival of a
species satisfying criterion (1) or (2); or (4) critical to the structure or function of
the ecosystem, or biological indicators. No species present on site are judged to
satisfy criterion (3) or (4). Those that satisfy criterion (1) or (2) are discussed below.
4-134
-------
Threatened or Endangered Species
No rare or endangered aquatic species (e.g., fish, macroinvertebrates,
etc.) are known to occur or could potentially occur within the South Hallsville
Project site or in any area surrounding the project.
Re creation ally or Commercially Important Species
A number of species belonging to the families Ictaluridae (catfish) and
Centrarchidae (bass and sunfish) are common in the waters of the project area.
While these are important sportfish species, the project site creeks are too small to
support significant recreational fishing. Due to limited public access of the Sabine
River in Harrison County and the close proximity of a number of reservoir fishing
sites, sportfishing in the immediate vicinity of the project site is considered light.
In addition to catfish, smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus) and river
carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio) are considered commercially valuable species. How-
ever, no commercial fishing is currently permitted in Harrison County (EH&A,
1977b).
4.5.3.2 Effects of No Action
The effects on the aquatic systems of the project area resulting from
selection of the no action alternative are unpredictable. One result could be no
change from present condition, but alteration of land use or population density in
the area could have substantial impacts.
4-135
-------
4.5.3.3 Construction Impacts
Power Plant
Plant Site
The proposed power plant occupies approximately 272 acres of uplands,
largely in the Brandy Branch drainage area; although the western portion of the site,
which encompasses the ash storage basins, is in the Hatley Creek drainage area.
Aside from some siltation, the partially completed power plant facility is not
expected to have any impact on the aquatic systems of the site during construction.
Siltation in the streams of the project area will constitute only a minor, short-term
impact because the strearnbeds are predominately composed of fine-grained mater-
ials, and the biological communities are well-adapted to withstand or rapidly
recover from periodic siltation, such as occurs following storm events.
Siltation in the lower reaches of Brandy Branch resulting from construc-
tion may be expected to occur. However, any effects should be minimal and of
short duration since standard erosion control techniques were used during dam
construction.
Construction of the proposed 1,388-acre cooling reservoir has adversely
affected existing aquatic stream communities as a result of inundation of the
uppermost portion of Brandy Branch and its main tributary. The reach of Brandy
Branch inundated by the western arm of the cooling reservoir is small, although it
flows most of the year (except during extreme dry periods) due to a large number of
seeps in this area. The eastern arm of the proposed cooling reservoir has inundated
an intermittent creek that flowed through mixed woodland and pasture. Neither
creek channel is large enough to contain permanent populations of fish. The reach
of Brandy Branch above Rogers Lake is fed by a large number of seeps, and water
quality appears to be relatively poor because of low pH and high iron concentrations.
4-136
-------
In effect, cooling reservoir construction has enlarged the surface area of Rogers
Lake from 5 to 1,388 acres. It is expected to have caused no adverse biological
impacts relative to its former condition.
The approximately 1,388-acre cooling reservoir should constitute a con-
siderably more diverse aquatic habitat than previously existed in Rogers Lake.
These changes are functions primarily of the larger size, increased shoreline area,
and greater depth of the cooling reservoir. Rogers Lake has a mud bottom almost
entirely covered by dense stands of aquatic vegetation. While stands of aquatic
vegetation may eventually be expected to develop in marginal areas of the cooling
reservoir, the deeper water in this impoundment will result in extensive areas free
of vegetation. This, together with the other substrates available in the much larger
area of the cooling reservoir, and warmer year-round water temperatures, should
ensure conditions much more favorable for the growth and reproduction of sportfish
populations.
Transportive Systems
Adverse impacts to aquatic ecosystems associated with construction of
the transportive systems may include temporary erosion and sedimentation in the
immediate vicinity of stream crossings. Potential adverse impacts to stream
systems resulting from sedimentation may include temporarily reduced phyto-
plankton, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, and fish populations; temporary re-
ductions in benthic habitat diversity; temporary increases in stream nutrient levels;
and temporarily reduced primary productivity. Temporary and localized sedimen-
tation is not expected to result in adverse impacts to area streams since these
streams are characterized by low zooplankton populations; benthic invertebrate
populations adapted to soft, muddy substrates; and fish communities dominated by
species tolerant of turbid environments. The duration of any potential impacts
would be sh.ort-term and restricted to the duration of construction activities at each
stream crossing. Moreover, erosion control measures have been implemented to
reduce potential adverse impacts.
4-137
-------
Mine
Site preparation and construction will include clearing of terrestrial
vegetation for access roads, haul roads, service building sites, and a dragline
erection pad. Some of the roads will cross area streams. Each activity could
potentially discharge effluents to these streams, adversely impacting aquatic biota.
The immediate effluent constituent of concern, in addition to increased rainwater
runoff, is suspended solids (silt) delivered to streamflow. Initial changes to the
aquatic environments in the project area will be caused by clearing and disruption of
ground cover. Sedimentation ponds will be constructed to eliminate runoff water
carrying an increased load of suspended solids into the small tributary streams
draining the upland forest area. Some small amounts of suspended solids may
nevertheless reach these streams. The degree to which changes occur in the aquatic
biota will primarily be a function of the suspended solid load. Larval insects of the
Trichoptera and Plecoptera are usually the first riffle inhabitants to be adversely
impacted by high suspended solid loads. Clams (e.g., Sphaerium spp.) will also be
reduced or eliminated by the same conditions in pool areas of Clarks Creek.
Diptera (especially chironomid larvae) will be little affected, if at all, by
the changes in the aquatic environment. Oligochaetes, however, might increase in
abundance in areas where the suspended solids settle out. Also, there will be a
short-term increase in organic load to the streams from the deforested areas, which
will create a more suitable habitat for both chironomids and oligochaetes.
Fish will generally leave areas of high suspended solids and return when
conditions are more favorable. Suspended solid loads may have an abrasive action
on the gills of fish, and sudden increases due to extremely heavy precipitation on the
project site could temporarily eliminate some species of fish from the local creeks.
Potential changes in the algal populations are very difficult to predict.
Increased suspended solids and organic loading may result in increased populations of
4-138
-------
certain species of blue-green algae. However, the more acidic water conditions
normally present in the area may result in the dominance of various euglenoid
species.
The immediate increase in leaching of soil nutrients commonly associ-
ated with clearing of vegetation ("nutrient dumping") may temporarily enrich
streams in the project area. If this is accompanied by the clearance of riparian
vegetation for access roads, etc., the increased nutrient and light levels will
probably cause algal blooms in pool areas, if suspended solids concentrations are
sufficiently low. Nutrient release rates from cleared areas will decrease following
the initial pulse; however, nutrient enrichment is not anticipated to be a long-term
effect.
4.5.3.4 Operation Impacts
Power Plant
Plant Site
Operation of the power-generating facility will cause some elevation of
water temperatures in the cooling reservoir above those temperatures expected
without the facility. Considerable experience exists within the State of Texas for
stocking and management of sport fisheries in small impoundments receiving heated
discharges. Radian Corporation (1973) summarized fish standing-crop data from
both heated and unheated impoundments in the State of Texas. Their results showed
no difference in biomass, size, or condition factors between fish collected in heated
and unheated impoundments. The cooling reservoir will be stocked with forage and
sport fish by TPWD and will be open to the public for recreational fishing.
4-139
-------
Transportive Systems
Impacts associated with operation of the transportive systems may result
from ROW maintenance and intake of water from Big Cypress Bayou for the makeup
water pipeline. Maintenance of the transportive systems will require that woody
vegetation be restricted from colonizing within the ROW. Therefore, long-term, but
localized, impacts to aquatic ecosystems at ROW crossings will include localized
elevated temperatures, increased solar insolation, and increased phytoplankton
production at stream crossings. Rooted aquatic plants may also become established
in areas where canopy cover is permanently removed.
The makeup water intake and pump station will be located near the south
bank of Big Cypress Bayou, with the pump station located 400 feet from the water's
edge. Stainless steel fixed screens with 0.5 x 0.5 inch mesh will be used at the
intake opening. Diversion rate will be 33.4 cfs and intake velocity through the
screens will not exceed 0.5 feet per second. No antifouling chemicals will be used
at the site. The shore area around this structure is not expected to be an area of
high biological productivity, particularly with respect to fish spawning or nursery
waters. Therefore, impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms is expected
to be minimal.
Mine
Because the upland portions of the drainages of the streams of the
project area will be mined, disruption of normal volumes and patterns of flow may
be expected until backfilling has been completed, with minor adverse impacts on
aquatic species.
Much of the disturbance from mine operation will result from the
increased suspended solids loads entering the creeks, which will be a function of
rainfall and surface water runoff. Most of the runoff and other discharges from the
4-140
-------
mine site proper will be regulated by sedimentation ponds, and the releases from the
ponds will be controlled and treated to meet the standards set by regulatory
agencies. Adverse impacts of such releases will, therefore, probably be minimal.
The effects of siltation will be the same as those discussed.
Additional constituents of runoff from roads and service areas will be oil
and grease deposited during operation of vehicles. Runoff from service areas and
road surfaces will be well-controlled by sedimentation ponds
Under the proposed mining plan, Hatley Creek will be the first creek
influenced; disturbance in this drainage area should cease by the year 2000. Clarks
Creek would be affected next, in a manner similar to Hatley Creek. Crossing
streams with mining equipment will cause temporary, localized disturbances. As
revegetation of the backfilled areas progresses, the creeks will gradually sustain
lower suspended solid loads and will eventually return to a condition similar to that
observed prior to mining. Riparian vegetation will remain undisturbed in down-
stream reaches. The loss of woodland in surrounding areas will decrease the input of
organic matter. Although this means that the net energy base of these aquatic
systems will theoretically decrease, this decrease is not expected to be large since
most organic matter reaching the stream channels comes from the riparian
vegetation immediately adjacent to the channel. Where riparian woodland is
cleared, the resultant decreased shading and subsequent increase in water temper-
ature can be expected to cause an increase in algal and vascular plant development.
Disruption of natural stratification in the replaced overburden will result
in alterations in ground-water quantity and quality. The overburden will have lower
hydraulic conductance, resulting in less flowthrough to remaining portions of minor
shallow aquifers supplying seeps and springs along local creeks. This will make
minor tributaries more ephemeral and intermittent. Because most of the flow in the
larger creeks is supplied from areas upstream of the site, the effect of this
reduction is expected to be slight. If the mine pit is deeper than the level of
4-141
-------
existing streams, stream dewatering into the refilled mine pit will occur until
saturation is achieved.
4.5.3.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine
The combined effects of construction of the mine, power plant, and
associated facilities on the aquatic communities of the project area include the
removal (until backfilling is completed) of some upland, intermittent stream habitat;
disturbance of some habitat parameters in the lower reaches of project area
streams; creation of a large pond habitat; and fluctuations in resident species
population sizes and distributions. Population fluctuations are expected to be
manifested as local decreases in some fish, larval insect, and clam species, and by
increases in chironomids, oligochaetes, vascular aquatic plants, and certain algal and
microbial species. A minor net loss in the aquatic energy base may occur. The
ephemeral ecosystems and associated biotic communities in upper Brandy Branch
have been permanently replaced by a 1,388-acre lake, resulting in a significant net
increase in habitat diversity, species diversity, and biomass. Some degree of
increased intermittency is expected to occur in certain project area streams,
resulting in the replacement of some aquatic species in existing communities by
others.
The combined effects of operation of the mine, power plant, and
associated facilities on the aquatic ecology of the project area include fluctuations
in species populations associated with vegetation removal and watershed distur-
bance. Vegetation removal can be expected to decrease some fish, larval insect,
and clam species, while concurrently increasing populations of chironomids,
oligochaetes, vascular aquatic plants, and certain algal species. A minor net loss in
the aquatic energy base may occur as a result of decreased detrital production
associated with vegetation removal.
4-142
-------
Although the mining plan avoids the more productive bottomlands of the
lower reaches of the project area streams and the Sabine River, both the channels
and drainage areas of the upland reaches will be adversely impacted during
operation. Since the biota of the upland reaches consists primarily of organisms
adapted to ephemeral environments, these areas can be expected to be recolonized
rapidly by similar assemblages following backfilling and contouring.
The addition of small amounts of hydrocarbons in the runoff from roads
and vehicle service areas is not expected to produce any changes in species
composition, abundance, primary production, or benthic respiration on the streams
of the project area that could be demonstrated by a field program.
4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES (PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC)
4.6.1 Existing and Future Environments
Two reconnaissance-type studies of the general project area recorded
13 prehistoric sites (Whitsett, 1977; Dibble, 1977). Twelve of these sites have been
recommended for further testing to determine their eligibility for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
During a 100 percent survey of the proposed power plant site, ZO cultural
resources sites were located, including four prehistoric and 16 historic sites (EH&A,
1978b, 1979). One prehistoric and one historic site were recommended for further
testing to determine their eligibility for inclusion on the NRHP.
A 20 percent survey of the proposed mine area was conducted, resulting
in a predictive model for the remaining 80 percent of the area (EH&A, 1978b, 1979c,
198 Ib). One hundred and seventy-six cultural resources sites were
located; 83 prehistoric and 72 historic, including 14 cemeteries. Further testing has
been recommended for 40 prehistoric and 11 historic sites to assess their eligibility
4-143
-------
for inclusion on the NRHP. It is estimated that 287 prehistoric sites and an equal
number of historic sites may be located in the remaining 80 percent of the area. A
number of these sites may be significant and further investigations may have to be
conducted. Until a survey of the remaining 80 percent is completed, it is not
possible to indicate either the number of sites or the number that will require
further study.
In September 1980, a records survey of the proposed makeup water
pipeline route was conducted by EH&A. Eleven sites identified in the 100 percent
survey of the plant site (EH&A 1979c, 1981b) are located in the vicinity of the
southern portion of the proposed pipeline route. None of these have been included in
or nominated to the NRHP. Based upon the previous survey, it is likely that
additional unknown historic and prehistoric sites will be found along the streams and
terraces that will be crossed by the proposed makeup water pipeline.
A literature review of three proposed transmission lines was conducted
by EH&A in November 1981. Four cultural resource sites located during previous
surveys, one prehistoric, one historic and two multi-component, are located in the
vicinity of transmission line A (EH&A 1978b, 1979c) (see Fig. 3-14). Two of these
sites, one prehistoric and one multi-component have been recommended for further
testing to determine their eligibility for inclusion on the NRHP. No sites have been
recorded near lines B and G (see Fig. 3-14). Line G, the central portion of line A,
and the northern segment of line B have not been subjected to a cultural resources
survey. Based upon previous surveys, it is likely that unknown historic and
prehistoric sites will be found in high potential areas crossed by these proposed
transmission lines.
A records search of the recently constructed 3.5 mile railroad spur north
of the plant site was conducted at the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory.
No previously recorded sites were located within the ROW of the route. The effects
of this railroad spur on unrecorded cultural resources is unknown.
4-144
-------
A 100 percent archaeological survey was conducted of a 30-acre dragline
erection site (La Vardera, 1981). This site was located in the northeastern section
of the mine area. No cultural resource sites were recorded during the survey.
4.6.2 Effects of No Action
Construction to date has resulted in the irreversible and irretrievable
commitment of the one historic site that was recommended for testing to determine
its significance. If the proposed project is not developed, existing cultural sites
would not be adversely impacted, and there would be no need for determinations of
eligibility or any further work.
4.6.3 Construction Impacts
4.6.3.1 Power Plant
Plant Site
Cultural resources survey work completed to date has been coordinated
with and reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The SHPO
concluded (see letter of response dated 11 August 1981) that compliance procedures
for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have been only
partially accomplished and that a cultural resource assessment of all facets of the
Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant and South Hallsville Mine area must be dealt with in
order to be in compliance with Federal regulations.
No sites presently listed on the NRHP lie within the areas of the
proposed plant site and cooling reservoir. As a result of a 100 percent survey, 20
cultural resources sites have been recorded. One historic site has been recom-
mended for testing to determine its significance; the prehistoric site previously
recommended for testing fell outside of final plant site boundaries. The historic site
was associated with the Andrew Blair House Site. It consisted of several abandoned
buildings, one of log construction and the others of plank construction; and a hand
4-145
-------
dug well. Situated in light timbers with some associated brush, it appears to have
been either an extensive farm site or possibly several homesites. Construction
began on the power plant site during the spring of 1979. The power plant area has
been cleared and graded, and the cooling reservoir area has been cleared. Adverse
impacts to the historic site, as a result of the construction activity, have resulted in
the total commitment of this cultural resource.
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be drafted between EPA,
SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to avoid or .minimize
further adverse impacts on cultural resources in compliance with Section 106 of the
NHPA. During the course of future construction activities, if any significant
cultural resources are located, the SHPO will be contacted to afford an opportunity
to develop appropriate mitigative measures.
Transportive Systems
No sites presently listed on the NRHP lie within the 24 mile length
of the makeup water pipeline. Approximately one-half of the construction of the
pipeline has been completed. Construction-related activities may have caused an
adverse impact on any site that may have existed in this segment of the pipeline.
The possibility exists that cultural resources sites may occur along the yet-to-be
constructed portions of the pipeline north of the plant site, especially along the
streams and terraces to be crossed by the pipeline.
Construction-related activities along the proposed transmission lines
may create potential adverse impacts to any cultural resources determined to be
eligible for the National Register. No cultural resource sites known to be
significant will be affected by the proposed transmission lines (two recorded sites
have been recommended for further testing to determine their eligibility). How
4-146
-------
ever, as portions of these lines have not been surveyed, the possibility exists that
additional cultural resource sites may be located. Possible impacts will be
coordinated with the SHPO.
Construction-related activities along the railroad spur may have created
adverse impacts to any cultural resources that might have been eligible for inclusion
on the National Register. No cultural resources sites known to be significant have
been affected by the railroad spur. However, as the ROW has not been surveyed,
the possibility exists that cultural resource sites may be located within the ROW.
4.6.3.2 Mine
Construction-related activities within the proposed mine and ancillary
areas may create adverse impacts on cultural resources determined to be
significant. Building new roads (including haul roads) and rerouting existing roads
could increase public accessibility to some cultural sites, which may increase
collecting, vandalism, and looting. However, this is not expected to occur as access
to the mine roads will be controlled.
No sites presently listed in the NRHP lie within the proposed mine and
ancillary areas. A 100 percent survey of the first 5-year mining plan (excluding
those portions already surveyed as a part of the initial survey) and all haul roads,
access roads to the mine, and other associated ancillary activities will be conducted
to locate additional potential NRHP sites that may exist in the unsurveyed portion
of the mine area. Cultural resources sites located during these surveys will be
assessed as to their eligibility for inclusion on the NRHP and their degree of
mitigation. The type and extent of mitigation will be negotiated for each site with
the Texas Historic Commission (EH&A, 1981b). If, during the course of
construction, any additional important cultural resources are located, the SHPO will
be contacted to develop appropriate mitigation measures.
4-147
-------
4.6.4 Operations Impacts
4.6.4.1 Power Plant
Plant Site
Plant site operations will not impact cultural resources. No sitss
presently listed in the NRHP lie within the areas of the proposed plant site and
cooling reservoir. However, if at any time during operational activities, any
important cultural resources are encountered, the SHPO will be contacted to
develop appropriate mitigative measures.
4.6.4.2 Mine
No sites presently listed in the NRHP lie within the proposed mine and
ancillary areas. However, operation-related activities within the proposed mine and
ancillary areas may create adverse impacts on cultural resources determined to be
significant.
A 100 percent survey of the first 5-year mining plan, excluding those
portions already surveyed as a part of the initial survey, and all haul roads, access
roads to the mine, and other associated ancillary activities, will be conducted to
locate additional potential NRHP sites that may exist in the unsurveyed portion of
the project area. Cultural resources sites located during these surveys will be
assessed as to their eligibility for inclusion on the NRHP. If, during the course of
operation, any additional significant cultural resources are located, the SHPO will
be contacted to develop appropriate mitigation measures.
4-148
-------
4.6.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine
Recommendations concerning cultural resources sites encountered during
field surveys of the mine/power plant project site are given in Sec. 4.6.3 and 4.6.4.
The operation of the plant site and mine can result in a total commitment of any
cultural resources that lie within its bounds. Operational facilities such as
maintenance shops, offices, parking lots, landscaped lawns and sidewalks will
present differential effects on archaeological sites, causing heavy impacts in the
direct lines of construction, while peripheral areas may be left unexposed or subject
to minor disturbances. Facilities for mine operations also adversely impact cultural
resources sites. In ancillary areas, haul roads, highways relocations, railroad spurs,
power lines and pipelines all pose similar threats to cultural resources sites, yet vary
in degree of ultimate adverse effects. Maintenance of power line and pipeline
corridors will increase both pedestrian and vehicular traffic across any sites which
they affect, thereby creating a long-term, yet indirect, impact on the site. These
potential impacts can be reduced by altering plans to avoid significant sites,
adequately recording the data contained within the sites or, when possible,
relocating architecturally significant historic sites.
The mine and plant sites will have both short- and long-term effects
upon any cultural resources that they impact. Cultural resources are both limited in
number and non-renewable. These undertakings represent a total commitment of
any cultural resources site that is affected. However, adequate mitigation measures
would lessen these effects by preserving the data for research and the education of
future generations.
Combined activity at the two construction sites should not have any
more impact on the cultural sites than would the two sites independently. The
construction activities at one site do not affect the construction activities at the
other; therefore, the combined effects are no greater than the total of the separate
effects.
4-149
-------
Activities associated with both the proposed plant site and mine have the
potential of adversely affecting over 500 sites. The rnigitation of project-related
adverse impacts on significant cultural resources will be coordinated with the SHPO.
If, during the course of both power plant and mine-related activities, any significant
cultural resources are encountered, the SHPO will be afforded an opportunity to
develop or comment on appropriate mitigative plans.
4.7 SOCIOECONOMICS
4.7.1 Existing and Future Conditions
4.7.1.1 Economic Profile
Labor Force
Between 1974 and 1979, the labor force growth for Gregg and Harrison
counties (3.96 percent average annual growth) was approximately equal to the
growth of the state labor force as a whole (3.97 percent average annual growth).
The average 1979 unemployment rate was 5.3 percent in Harrison County,
4.Z percent for Texas, and 4.9 percent in Gregg County (Texas Employment Com-
mission (TEC), 1980).
Employment Characteristics
The average unemployment rate for 1976 was 7.2 percent for the
Longview-Marshall Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) (Gregg and Har-
rison counties), while the total labor force was 57,820. In 1979, the average
unemployment was 5.1 percent, and the labor force was 66,568 for the same area,
Unemployment had dropped 2.1 percentage points and the labor force increased
15.1 percent, suggesting a remarkable economic growth for the SMS A.
4-150
-------
By the fourth quarter of 1979, the manufacturing sector accounted for
48.8 percent of Harrison County covered employment (TEC covered employment)
and 21.Z percent of Gregg County covered employment. The relatively high
proportion indicated for Harrison County is due to data-collecting biases and the
existence of the large ordinance plant at Karnack (Harrison County), Texas.
Leading Industries
Manufacturing is one of the most important industries for Harrison and
Gregg counties, accounting for 48.8 and 21.Z percent, respectively, of the total
covered employment during the fourth quarter of 1979 (TEC, 1980). Retail sales,
another important industry, grew to 18.5 and 14.6 percent in Harrison and Gregg
counties, respectively, from 1975 to 1976. Mineral production in the two-county
area has historically been based on oil and gas production; however, lignite
development will substantially increase in the near future. Oil and gas production
dropped 18.4 and 7.7 percent, respectively, in Gregg County between 1975 and 1978.
Harrison County's oil and gas activities also decreased ZO.l percent in oil and
7.7 percent in gas production; natural gas production fell by 7.9 percent in the same
period. The construction industry has shown significant growth as authorized
building permits in the Longview SMSA were up 59.0 percent between 1976 and
1977. Agricultural income in the two counties is dominated by timber production
and livestock sales; livestock sales in 1976 slightly led value paid for delivered
timber products ($1Z.8 million and $11.5 million, respectively).
Income Characteristics
Between 1970 and 1973, total personal nominal income in the State of
Texas grew by an average annual 11.7 percent, exceeding the nominal growth in
income of 8.3 percent for Harrison County and 10.7 percent for Gregg County (U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1977). However, for the years
1973-1978, total personal income grew by average annual nominal rates of
4-151
-------
13.5 percent, 14.2 percent, and 15.4 percent for the State of Texas, Harrison
County, and Gregg County, respectively. In 1978, the per capita income levels in
Gregg and Harrison counties were $8,392 and $6,689, respectively, or 108.3 and
86.4 percent of the state per capita income level. Both project area counties
exceeded the regional level of per capita income of 1978 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1980).
4.7.1.2 Demographic Profile
Population Trends
Even though the regional population (the 14-county East Texas Council
of Governments (ETCOG) region) declined 8.2 percent between 1940 and 1970, the
area population in 1980 had rebounded to a total higher than the 1940 figure.
Migration trends of rural movement to urban areas outside the region have been
replaced by population movement to urban areas within the region.
Major population centers in the two-county area that have shared in this
urban growth are Longview (Gregg County) and Marshall (Harrison County). The
project site is located approximately midway between the two cities.
Population Projections
Taking into account 1980 Census data and 1960-1970 and 1970-1980
economic trends, "without project" population projections indicate that the Gregg
County population will expand by nearly 30 percent between 1985 and 2000. This
projection yields a Gregg County population of 137,500 in the year 2000. Harrison
County is projected to increase by 10.8 percent during this period, resulting in a
population of 60,800 by the year 2000.
4-152
-------
4.7.1.3 Housing
Based upon 1970 and 1980 Census information and discussions with
regional planners and local realtors, housing availability in the project area ranges
from poor to good in local communities. Longview experienced the greatest
increase in housing starts over the last 10 years. Accordingly, single-family and
multi-family units are available, although many of the 400 apartment units are
rented at the present time. Sufficient developable land within and outside the city
limits should enable continued building activity.
Marshall currently has a 6 percent vacancy rate, although the city
perceives a shortage in terms of the continuing demand for certain types of housing.
New apartment construction is anticipated within the year (Yaco, 1981).
The City of Hallsville experienced a temporary housing shortage due to
nearby energy projects. However, ZOO single-family units have been built in the last
year, and housing is available.
4.7.1.4 Community Facilities and Services
Marshall
Water treatment capacity in Marshall is 10 mgd, with a maximum daily
use of 8.2 mgd. The current water system is estimated to have sufficient capacity
to serve approximately 2,000 additional connections, although the Texas Department
of Health (TDH) recommends development of additional raw water sources (TDH,
1981). Marshall also has a surplus of wastewater treatment capacity, estimated to
serve an additional 22,500 people.
The teacher-student ratio in Marshall is 19.4, slightly higher than the
recommended 18.6. Marshall has adequate health service provision, with a 142-bed
4-153
-------
hospital and slightly greater than one doctor for every 1,000 residents. Police and
fire protection services are adequate to serve the existing population.
Longview
Longview is the largest urban and industrial center within a 50-mile
radius of the project site. The city has a water treatment capacity of 34.0 mgd,
with a maximum daily use of 21.0 mgd. Surplus capacity is estimated at slightly less
than 12,000 additional connections. The municipal sewage system is estimated to
have a surplus of 4,000 additional connections.
The teacher-student ratio in Longview is 17.8. Major health services
consist of two hospitals and 12 clinics, and a favorable doctor-population ratio of 1.6
doctors per 1,000 population. Police and fire protection services meet existing
needs and also allow for future population growth.
Hallsville
The municipal water supply system in Hallsville has a treatment capacity
of 2.7 mgd and a maximum daily use of 0.2 mgd. The city has recently completed a
12-inch line connecting its system with facilities in Longview, allowing for contract
purchase of a maximum 20 million gallons per month from Longview (TDH, 1981).
Hallsville has a surplus capacity of approximately 6,000 additional connections.
Sewage treatment facilities in Hallsville were deficient in meeting 1980 permit
parameters (TDWR, 198la). However, a new plant is expected to be completed in
the fall of 1981 with a service capacity for 3,200 people (Hatley, 1980).
The teacher-student ratio in Hallsville is 17.3. There are no major
health services in Hallsville, although proximity to Longview enables residents to
obtain adequate health care. Hallsville has one full-time police officer and a
30-member volunteer fire department.
4-154
-------
4.7.1.5 Local Government Finances
The effective 1980 tax rates in Gregg and Harrison counties are 0.26 and
0.37 per $100 assessed valuation, respectively. The effective municipal tax rates
are 0.24 in Hallsville, 0.34 in Longview, and 1.16 in Marshall. However, only
Longview uses a 100 percent basis of assessment. Under Senate Bill 621, all Texas
cities must use 100 percent by January 1982, the result of which will be an
adjustment in Hallsville and Marshall tax rates. Effective school district tax rates
range from 0.65 in Longview to 1.13 in Marshall.
Water and wastewater system debt coverage is greater than one in all
three cities, indicating an ability to service current debt. Hallsville has the lowest
debt coverage ratio of the three cities, and may experience difficulty raising funds
for improvements and/or expansions without raising service costs or taxes.
4.7.1.6 Transportation Facilities
The major form of personal transportation within Gregg and Harrison
counties is the private automobile; the major highways serving the area are 1-20 and
U.S. Highway 80, north of the project site; U.S. Highway 259, west of the project
site; and State Highway 43, east of the project site. There is no intracity bus
system in the two counties (although taxi service is available in Longview and
Marshall), but bus service between cities is available in Longview, Hallsville, and
Marshall.
Motor freight service is available in Longview from 12 terminals and in
Marshall from five terminals. Amtrak rail passenger service is available in
Longview on the St. Louis to Laredo route, both north- and southbound, daily. Rail
freight service is provided by three railroads in Longview and by one railroad in
Marshall. Air transportation facilities are available at Gregg County Airport,
10 miles south of Longview, and at Harrison County Airfield near Marshall. Gregg
4-155
-------
County Airport has comprehensive passenger and freight service, while the Harrison
County Airfield has no regular commercial schedule.
4.7.1.7 Recreation Facilities and Aesthetics
The major water resources closest to the project site are Lake O1 The
Pines and Caddo Lake, approximately 18 and 33 miles away, respectively. The
southern boundary of the project area occurs within the floodplain of the Sabine
River. However, the nearest active mining will be approximately one mile from the
Sabine River. The Sabine River from the headwaters of the Toledo Bend Reservoir
upstream to the town of Easton near Lake Cherokee is included in the Nationwide
Inventory as a potential component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems.
This segment of the river passes through Panola, Harrison, and Rusk counties. The
Sabine River is characterized by a low gradient streambed, infrequent riffle, rapid
and waterfall areas, and a broad, deeply cut channel. Associated with the river is a
diverse mixture of bottomland hardwood and pine forest. Sloughs, bayous, oxbows,
and wetland habitats, with a minimum of human development, characterize the river
floodplain.
The Texas Natural Area Survey inventoried seven natural areas and
landmarks within a mile of the river channel. In Panola County, the Sabine River
bottomland was characterized as potentially the most varied natural southern
floodplain forest in Texas (Fritz, 1966). No public recreation areas are located on
the power plant or mine sites; the closest facilities are in Longview and Marshall.
The major recreational activities of the general area include water sports, fishing,
hunting, sightseeing, hiking, and camping.
Longview has the largest array of urban recreational opportunities within
a radius of about 50 miles of the project site. Urban recreational opportunities
within Longview include a museum, movie theatres, nightclubs, and several parks.
Marshall and Hallsville have parks and golf clubs; Marshall has a wider variety of
recreation than Hallsville.
4-156
-------
Two museums exist in the area: the Harrison County Historical Museum
in Marshall and the Caddo Indian Museum in Longview. Throughout the year,
Longview has many cultural activities: the Civic Music Association and Longview
Symphony Orchestra sponsor concerts and the Community Theatre presents five
productions annually. Other places and events contributing to the local historical
appreciation and cultural enjoyment also exist in Marshall and Longview.
4.7.2 Effects of No Action
4.7.2.1 Employment and Income
Despite the project area's slowly increasing unemployment rate since
1974, unemployment is expected to remain below the national rate, which is
currently 7.1 percent. Various manufacturing and potential energy-related activ-
ities in the area enhance the likelihood of expanded employment opportunities in the
near future. Occupational skills in the area indicate that the labor force is
sufficiently skilled to meet a reasonable share of expanding employment needs. The
most consistently recurring skills among those employed in the area include
craftsmen, foremen, and operatives.
Personal and per capita income growth are directly related to employ-
ment growth and should similarly follow expanding trends. Mining, manufacturing,
and trades and services are expected to be the major sources of personal income in
the foreseeable future in the project area.
4.7.2.2 Population
Taking into account 1980 Census data and 1960-1970 and 1970-1980
economic trends, "without project" population projections indicate that Gregg
County population will expand by nearly 30 percent between 1985 and 2000.
Harrison County is projected to grow by a smaller 10.8 percent over the same time
period.
4-157
-------
4.7.2.3 Community Facilities and Services
Under the no action alternative, community facilities and services in the
project area will expand as necessary to meet "without project" population projec-
tions. Local water and sewage systems are currently well below capacity levels.
Police and fire protection are adequate for existing populations, and local
communities foresee adding one or two personnel if large population influxes occur.
Medical and school facilities can accommodate a moderate increase in demand,
although two to three additional teachers are expected to be hired over the next
several years.
4.7.Z.4 Housing
Housing availability varies among communities in the project area,
although most cities anticipate continued shortages in certain types of housing.
Building activity is expected to increase to accommodate the planned energy
projects in the region. Rental property is foreseen as a high priority. However, any
construction activity (single-family or apartments) will be greatly dependent upon
interest rates and financing arrangements.
4.7.3 Construction Impacts
The following discussion addresses the socioeconomic impacts of power
plant construction including the associated transportive systems (makeup water
pipeline, railroad spur, and transmission lines) and the mine.
4.7.3.1 Economic
Employment Effects
The clearing and construction phase of the Henry W. Pirkey Power
Plant - Unit 1 began in April 1979 and is expected to require a peak construction
4-158
-------
force of 832 in the second half of 1983, along with construction employment for the
proposed South Hallsville Mine (Table 4-20).
Major categories of workers needed for the primary project work force
during the construction phase include equipment operators, ironworkers, pipefitters,
electricians, carpenters, boilermakers, insulators, sheet metal workers, glaziers,
concrete finishers, painters for the power plant, and equipment operators, steel
workers, and manual laborers for the mine. Skills needed in the local secondary
work force include service-oriented skills and industrial skills associated with
materials supply and residential construction.
The maximum combined-project employment peak of 83Z new primary
jobs is expected to induce approximately 849 secondary jobs for a total of 1,681
project-related employment positions. The 82 new jobs created by the mine
construction are projected to induce 84 secondary jobs; the power plant construction
force peak of 750 is projected to induce 765 secondary jobs. The creation of both
direct project construction jobs and secondary support jobs represents a beneficial
impact to the local/regional economies insofar as contributing to a stable employ-
ment base.
The breakdown of locally supplied vs. in-migrant construction-related
employment is listed in Table 4-20. Total local employment (within 50 miles
commuting distance of the project sites) will consist of total primary employment
plus that share of local secondary employment attributable to wage expenditures of
primary workers. Assuming a 60 percent wage capture rate and one economic cycle,
locally based peak secondary employment is expected to consist of about 50 mine-
related jobs and about 459 power plant-related jobs.
Given the size and spatial distribution of the existing construction work
force, local workers are estimated to supply about 73 percent, or 60 of the
82 primary mine work force (SWEPCO, 1980a). Because of greater skill
4-159
-------
TABLE 4-20
COMBINED CONSTRUCTJOH EMPLOYMENT
SOUTH HALLSVILLE MINE/HENRY W. PIRKEY POWER PLANT-UNIT 1
1979-1935
Total Employment*
I
o
o
Year
1979
1980
19«1
1982
1983
1984
1985
Primary
20
30
111
404
832
825
300
Secondary
20
31
113
412
849
8-12
306
Total
40
61
224
816
1,681
1,667
606
Total Locally Based Empl
Primary
20
30
111
404
832
825
300
Socondaryc
12
19
68
247
509
505
184
oyment
Total
37
49
179
651
1,341
1,330
484
Jobs Filled by Local Residents
Primary*1
4
6
28
109
210
205
60
Secondary
6
10
34
124
255
253
92
Total
10
16
62
233
465
458
152
Primary
16
24
83
295
622
620
240
In-migrants
Secondary
6
9
34
123
254
252
92
Total
22
33
117
418
876
872
332
Note: Numbers represent highest projected employment for any quarter in u given year.
1 Includes the 40 percent of the secondary employment captured outside of the project area.
Using a 1.02 construction employment multiplier for secondary workers.
c'60 percent local capture rate for secondary employment.
c Power plant construction workers: 20 percent locally hired; mine construction workers: 73 percent locally hired.
Secondary workers: 50 percent locally hired.
Sources: Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO), 1980a; Denver Research Institute, 1979; EH&A, 1972.
-------
requirements associated with power plant construction, only 20 percent, or 150 of
the total 1983 peak power plant construction work force of 750, is expected to be
supplied locally. Approximately 50 percent, or Z30 of the total 459 locally based
secondary jobs arising from power plant construction activities and 25 of the total
50 locally based secondary jobs arising from mine construction activities will be
filled from the local labor force.
A peak of approximately 876 in-migrating workers will be required in
1983 for those jobs not filled by local workers. Mine-related in-migration will
supply an estimated 22 primary and 25 secondary workers; power-plant-related
in-migration is estimated at 600 primary skilled workers and 229 secondary workers.
Income Effects
Assuming an average annual income of $25,000 (1980 dollars) for power
plant construction workers, and $21,120 (1980 dollars) for mine construction
workers, the total local annual income generated from primary employment at the
power plant and mine project during peak construction is estimated to be approxi-
mately $18.75 million and $1.73 million, respectively. Secondary employment,
averaging a $15,000 annual salary, could contribute a maximum of $7.64 million to
the local economy during the peak period.
Because of the proximity of numerous other retail markets to the project
sites, project-related retail sales on the local two-county level will average about
30 percent of the total local income growth from project-related earnings, or about
$8.44 million. Total locally based employment associated with the combined peak
construction phase of the power plant and mine, 1,341 employees, will represent a
2 percent increase in the 1979 Harrison-Gregg County labor force (ETCOG, 1980).
Total construction expenditures (1980 dollars) are estimated to be $89.68
million for the mine and $400.00 million for the power plant, for a combined total of
$489.68 million during the 7-year construction period (Table 4-21).
4-161
-------
TABLE 4-21
TOTAL DIRECT PROJECT-RELATED EXPENDITURES BY YEAR
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
(millions of 1980 dollars)
Construction Year
Labor
Machinery
Materials
Other
TOTAL
1
1.35
6.30
.90
.36
8.91
2
2.85
13.30
1.90
1.76
19.81
3
4.21
21.19
2.78
2.66
30.84
4
20.49
99.96
13.52
8.77
142.74
5
22.02
110.76
14.35
13.85
160.98
6
12.14
67.67
7.63
14.21
101.65
7
3.75
17.50
2.50
1.00
24.75
Totals
66.81
336.68
43.58
42.61
489.68
Source: NACI, 1980b; SWEPCO, 1980a.
-------
Approximately 13.6 percent of the total project construction costs are
estimated to be for labor, 68.8 percent for machinery, and 8.9 percent for materials.
Construction expenditures for the power plant will peak 36 to 42 months into the
project, or in the 1982-1983 period; mine construction will peak around 1984.
Overall construction expenditures (mine and power plant) will peak in 1983 at
approximately $162.24 million.
Of the total $489-68 million construction expenditures, $108.67 million,
or roughly 22 percent, will be spent in the local area for labor services and materials
such as concrete, fuel, lubricating oil, and other consumables.
Based upon a regionalized input-output model estimated for the Long-
view SMSA, a series of income and employment multipliers were estimated for the
local economy in order to assess local secondary income effects. Of the
$489.68 million in overall project construction expenditures, $108.67 million is
expected to be spent in the local economy; this amount will generate approximately
$103.24 million in secondary income growth for an estimated total income growth of
$211.91 million during the 7-year construction period.
Increase income associated with project worker wages, as well as non-
labor project expenditures, represents a beneficial impact to the local/regional
economies. Project-related benefits would be reflected in a greater potential for
increased consumer spending (particularly in trade and service sectors) and
increased business investment and expansion.
4.7.3.2 Population
The peak construction phase of the mine/power plant project, with 832
primary employees in 1983, will support a project-related local population of about
3,260 persons (residents plus in-migrants). Of this total, 1,135 persons will comprise
the secondary population, assuming 60 percent of secondary employment is locally
based.
4-163
-------
Total population in-migration associated with project construction is
estimated at 2,155 with 734 new households in-migrating; these households are
expected to add 482 school-age children into the two-county area. Table 4-Z2 gives
data for the project-supported population in-migration during the construction.
The age distribution of in-migrants is likely to be slightly lower than the
existing population (median age equals 29 years). About 38 percent of in-migrants
will be in the 0 to 17 age group, 61 percent in the 18 to 64 age group, and 1 percent
in the 65 and older age group.
The expected 2,155 project-associated additional persons in the local
population will not cause a noticeable increase to the overall population density.
The location of the project is such that employees could choose to reside in almost
any portion of Longview, Hallsville, or Marshall and still be within commuting
distance of the project site, thus reducing the likelihood of a concentrated work
force population in the immediate project vicinity.
4.7.3.3 Housing
Based upon interviews of energy-related employees in a large develop-
ment area in the west and EH&A's in-house data, projected housing preferences of
direct construction and secondary service employees were compared with wage
constraints and current housing costs in the project area. Table 4-22 shows housing
preference of employees. Total housing demand can be calculated by comparing
preference with housing types that families would be able to afford if expending 35
percent of gross family income for housing (assuming one wage earner per
household).
Using wage data provided by SWEPCO for construction personnel income
and the U.S. Dept. of Labor's Handbook of Labor Statistics (1979) for service
employment income, it is estimated that in-migrants will need about 285 new single-
4-164
-------
TABLE 4-22
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION-RELATED POPULATION IN-MIGRATTON IN THE PROJECT AREA
1979-1985
1
h-»
On
Year
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Primary
41
61
212
753
1.589
1,583
613
Population
Secondary
13
20
76
274
566
562
205
New Households
Total
54
81
288
1,027
2,155
2,145
818
Primary
15
22
75
268
565
524
218
Secondary
4
6
23
82
169
168
61
Total
19
28
98
350
734
732
279
New Students
Primary
9
13
46
163
343
342
132
Secondary
3
5
19
67
139
138
50
Total
12
18
65
230
482
480
182
Note: Numbers represent highest projected for any quarter of a given year.
60 percent of construction workers are heads of household, 40 percent live alone; average family size is 3,59-
60 percent of secondary workers are heads of household, 30 percent are not heads of household; 10 percent live alone;
average family size is 3.55.
1.1 primary workers per household.
1.5 secondary workers per household.
SAverage number of school-age children per construction worker = 0.92.
f
Average number of school-age children per secondary worker = 0.91.
Source: Denver Research Institute, 1979.
-------
family homes, 102 multi-family units, 291 mobile homes, and 56 other housing types
(based on 734 new households for immigrating construction workers and housing
preference in Table 4-23). This housing demand will be spread throughout the
two-county area, but will probably concentrate in Longview, Marshall, and Halls-
ville. Less than 20 percent of the total land area of the two-county area is suitable
for septic tanks, thereby limiting the degree of settlement in unincorporated areas
(ETCOG, 1977). Table 4-24 depicts the vacancy rates of housing in the two-county
region.
In 1979, there were 9,092 unsubsidized housing units in Marshall, with a
vacancy rate of 7.5 percent, or 679 vacant units (ETCOG, 1979). There is ample
developable land within the city limits, and local builders are active; city subdivision
regulations offer substantial inducements to developers through refunding agree-
ments whereby the developer is repaid for new utility construction as additional
revenue from expansion is realized by the city.
Mobile home ordinances in Marshall allow mobile homes on single-family
zoned lots in some areas; mobile home parks are regulated to ensure adequate
density, utility infrastructure, and paved streets (Yaco, 1981).
The 1980 U.S. Census estimates a total of 9,310 housing units in
Marshall, an increase of 11.89 percent since 1970. Provided local builders remain
active in response to existing and proposed regional energy developments, the
demand for additional housing will not represent a significant adverse impact. This
also assumes that in-migrant residence preferences will be distributed among other
cities in the project area as well (i.e., Longview, Hallsville).
Sufficient developable land within the Longview city limits and a
capable, active building/construction sector should allow accommodation of power
plant/mine- .related in-migrants. In addition, Longview has subdivision regulations
that should prove extremely attractive to developers. The city furnishes the
4-166
-------
TABLE 4-23
HOUSING PREFERENCE BY TYPE OF HOUSING
AND LEVEL OF INCOME
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Type of Employment
Construction
($20,000-23,000 Secondary (Service)
Annual Income) ($15,000 Annual Income)
Type of Unit (percent) (percent)
Single-Family 46 15
Multi-Family 9 30
Mobile Home 38 45
Other 7 10
Source: Old West Regional Commission, 1975.
4-167
-------
TABLE 4-24
UNSUBSIDIZED HOUSING UNITS AND VACANCY RATES,
GREGG AND HARRISON COUNTIES
Vacancy Rate
Total Units Vacant Units (percent)
GREGG COUNTY
Longview
Kilgore
Gladewater
Balance of County
HARRISON COUNTY
Hallsville
Marshall
Balance of County
34
20
3
2
I
18
9
9
,457
,542
,963
,701
,251
,977
445
,092
.440
2,361
1,591
196
257
317
1,451
15
679
757
6.9
7.7
4.9
9.5
7.6
3.4
7.5
Source: ETCOG, 1979; Buchanan, 1981.
4-168
-------
materials for new subdivisions, with the developer paying the costs of installation
(Barrett, 1980). Mobile homes are restricted to licensed mobile home parks.
Because of current activity in manufacturing and oil and gas, Longview
is experiencing a considerable building boom, with over 400 apartment dwelling units
under construction as of October 1980. Of a total 20,542 housing units in 1979, 1591
or 7.7 percent, were vacant (ETCOG, 1979; Barrett, 1980). The 1980 Census
estimates a total of 24,352 housing units in Longview, an increase of 50.4 percent
since 1970. The availability of developable land, current construction activity, and
current industrial activity in the Longivew area are expected to contribute to a
favorable housing market in the city. Continued rental unit construction in
Longview will minimize potential adverse impacts stemming from proposed project
in-migration.
Hallsville has undertaken a progressive housing program to control
anticipated growth, while accommodating the maximum number of permanent
in-migrants consonant with the prevailing quality of life. Hallsville city officials
have been working with local and area developers through the newly passed Housing
Revenue Bond Program in Texas, whereby a county or city can issue tax-exempt
bonds for new home financing. Hallsville has participated with Harrison County's
Housing Bond Program and has a working agreement with the City of Tyler for
participation in that city's Housing Bond Program (Hatley, 1980).
In 1979, Hallsville had approximately 100 new homes built; another
100 are under construction or planned for 1980 and an additional ZOO are planned for
1981 through the Housing Bond Program. Hallsville has a subdivision ordinance
requiring the developer to install 100 percent of all streets and utilities; there are
no payback provisions or sharing of development costs by the city. However, city
officials work closely with developers in facilitating City Housing Bond new home
financing. As of October 1980, two subdivisions were under construction, and
another 200 building lots will be available in 1981. Current residential construction
4-169
-------
activity in Hallsville, including both single family units and apartments, is antici-
pated to lessen potential adverse impacts of in-migrant housing demand.
Mobile home placements within the city limits of Hallsville are
controlled by a mobile home ordinance, which stipulates that city council approval
must be obtained before placing a mobile home anywhere outside a licensed mobile
home park. Two such parks were under construction as of October 1980.
4.7.3.4 Community Facilities and Services
Construction of the combined power plant/mine project will support an
estimated locally-based population of approximately 3,260 persons, or 1,096 total
households (existing residents plus in-migrants) during the peak construction phase
from 1983 to 1984. Of the total project-related employment, approximately
75 percent, or 622 primary workers are estimated to in-migrate into the area, while
approximately 254 workers are estimated to in-migrate to fill jobs in secondary
industries. These total 876 in-migrating workers for the combined project represent
an in-migrating population of 2,155 in 734 households.
Based upon recent per capita water, sewer, police, fire protection and
educational services in the two-county project area, the 1983 in-migrating peak
construction work forces of the proposed mine/power plant are projected to require
an additional 0.903 mgd in potable water supplies, 0.404 mgd in wastewater
treatment or septic tank capacity, 2 firemen, 5 policemen, and 33 teachers.
The distribution of the in-migrants in the local area will depend on
availability of housing, adequacy of utility infrastructure, availability of services,
and the commuting distance to the project site. Longview, 12 miles to the west of
the site; Marshall, 10 miles to the east; and, to a lesser extent, Hallsville, directly
north of the site, will most likely receive in-migrants as new residents. Their
respective community resources are discussed in the following sections.
4-170
-------
Marshall
Existing water and sewer facilities in this city of 24,192 are apparently
adequate to accommodate in-migrants. Water treatment facilities have a capacity
of 10 mgd and an average peak daily consumption of 8.2 mgd; the wastewater
treatment plant capacity should be adequate for a population of 40,000.
Marshall is a progressively managed city offering a number of
community-supported inducements to in-migrating industry. Three industrial parks
with Industrial Revenue Bond financing are sponsored by the city. All of the city
streets are paved, and a well-timed program of bond issues has kept utility
infrastructure expansion capacity at a high level.
In summary, the City of Marshall appears to have the administrative
capability and physical infrastructure to accommodate a significant amount of in-
migration, thereby lessening potential adverse impact.
Long view
Longview, the county seat of Gregg County, is the largest and most
populous (61,085 in 1980) city in the study area. Longview has experienced
substantial growth in the past decade, with a large industrial/manufacturing
employment base.
Capacity of Longview's water treatment is 34 mgd, with an average
maximum daily consumption of 21 mgd, leaving a substantial margin for expansion.
The sewage treatment capacity of 15.6 mgd is roughly double the existing present
load and should be sufficient for a population of 110,000 (SWEPCO, 1980a). No
adverse impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
4-171
-------
Longview sponsors three industrial parks totaling 1,331 acres, and offers
Industrial Foundation-assisted financing for in-migrating industries (SWEPCO,
1980a). In addition, the city has an arrangement with a large manufacturer that
stipulates payments in-lieu-of-taxes in return for a non-annexation agreement
through 1985. Such arrangements encourage industry to locate near the city, use
the city's utilities, and pay a set, agreed-upon amount instead of ad valorem taxes,
which can fluctuate from year to year (Municipal Advisory Council of Texas, 1980).
Hallsville
Hallsville is located directly north of the mine/power plant site and is
the community nearest the project, with a 1980 population of 1,556.
In anticipation of nearby lignite development, the City of Hallsville has
taken numerous positive steps to meet potential impacts. In 1978, Hallsville signed
a contract with the City of Longview for the purchase of a minimum of 1 million
gallons of treated water per month, up to a maximum of ZO million gallons per
month. The additional water gives Hallsville a total system capacity of 2.7 mgd.
The existing system should be able to handle an additional 6,000 connections.
A new EPA-financed sewage treatment plant is under construction and
will increase treatment capacity to 0.320 mgd when completed in the fall of 1981.
A current loading of 0.180 mgd on the existing plant exceeds the design capacity of
0.110 mgd. The new plant should be adequate for a population of about 3,200
persons, well in excess of potential in-migration stemming from the proposed
project.
4.7.3.5 Transportation
The project site is located in the south-central portion of the overall
study area, approximately 10 miles southwest of the City of Marshall and 12 miles
4-172
-------
east-southeast of the City of Longview. Based upon the geographical distribution of
the surrounding area construction work forces, it is projected that approximately
50 percent of the project workers will come from the west (Gregg County) and
26 percent from the east (Shreveport-Bossier SMSA), using I-ZO for access (EH&A,
1977c). Using a ridership factor of 1.5 persons per car, this would result in a peak of
416 workers using 554 vehicle trips per day between Gregg County and the project
site on Interstate Highway 20. From the Shreveport-Bossier City area, an estimated
216 workers using 288 vehicle trips per day would use 1-20 to the project site.
1-20 west of the site averaged 13,620 vehicle trips per day in the most
recent available traffic count, while east of the site traffic was reported at
12,690 vehicle trips per day. The projected addition of 554 project-related vehicle
trips west of the site on 1-20 would result in a 4-percent increase over reported
existing traffic levels, while the 288 additional vehicle trips on 1-20 east of the
project site would result in a 2-percent increase.
Another 13 percent of the total project construction force, or 108
workers, are expected to commute from the City of Marshall using State Highway
43 and U.S. Highway 80/Farm-to-Market Road 968 to gain access to the site.
Assuming 1.5 riders per car, this will result in an additional 144 vehicle trips per day
to be divided between the two access routes. The total combined reported average
daily traffic volume of 4,080 vehicle trips for State Highway 43 and FM 968 will
increase by 3.5 percent over reported existing traffic levels. It is expected that
these slight additional increases in average daily traffic on 1-20, State Highway 43,
and FM 968 will result in a significant increase in traffic congestion, or create
significant adverse impacts.
The remaining 11 percent of the construction work force, or 92 workers,
are expected to originate from surrounding counties such as Rusk, Panola, Marion,
and Upshur. This would result in an additional 122 vehicle trips per day spread over
a variety of access routes from every direction.
4-173
-------
4.7.3.6 Recreation
The power plant construction will continue to have minor adverse
impacts to existing recreational activities, but will provide expanded opportunities
for water-based leisure activities in the future. The area of the proposed power
plant has been used previously for hunting activities. A private gun club operated in
the area at one time.
The completion of the partially constructed cooling reservoir will have
beneficial effects upon expanding water-based recreation. The cooling reservoir
will be within easy driving distance of Longview, Hallsville, and Marshall.
Construction of the proposed mine is not expected to have a noticeable
effect on recreation facilities, although local roads will experience an increase in
traffic. In addition, construction of transportive and transmission line facilities will
cause temporary disruption of local traffic flow through the area, potentially
affecting recreational users. No existing or proposed recreational lands will be
directly impacted by mining activities.
The expected in-migration of 876 workers and their families associated
with power plant and mine construction will also create additional demands upon
available recreational resources in the area. It is likely that these additional
recreational demands will be most pronounced in the provision of urban leisure
activities, as this portion of the East Texas area has a large amount of outdoor,
rural recreational activities in nearby lakes, reservoirs, and national forests and
preserves.
4.7.3.7 Aesthetics
Construction activities of the proposed Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant -
Unit 1 will continue to have rather minimal adverse impact upon existing local
4-174
-------
aesthetics. The power plant is located 2.8 miles from State Highway 43 on the east,
1.7 miles from 1-20 on the north, and 3.6 miles from the intersection of 1-20 and
FM 968 on the northeast, the closest areas of intense human activity.
The site is surrounded by higher elevation terrain on three sides (31-foot
difference on the east, 21-foot difference on the north, and 6-foot difference on the
south) as well as forested areas on all sides (40- to 50-foot upland tree species and
75- to 80-foot bottomland tree species) between itself and the local highways. On
the east-northeast side, within about 1 mile, the terrain falls off to elevations 63 to
38 feet below the power plant construction site. However, the closest highway is
about 3.6 miles away, and tall trees generally abound in this direction.
The tallest structure to be erected during the construction phase is a
525-foot stack. About 460 feet of the stack will rise above the terrain difference
on the north and will probably be visible in certain portions of 1-20, 1 to 3 miles
away. However, nearby forested terrain generally intervenes in most areas and will
provide a barrier to visual contact of either the power plant construction or the
chimney stack presence.
The creation of the proposed cooling reservoir will certainly change the
existing aesthetics, but will provide water storage, recreational facilities, and its
own aesthetic values.
The proposed mining activities will alter local visual resources, although
the project site is sufficiently removed from population concentrations and heavy
traffic movement that the local impact will be minimal. Upon reclamation of the
mine site, local aesthetics will be restored.
4-175
-------
4.7.4 Operations Impacts
The following discussion addresses the socioeconomic impacts of the
operation of. the power plant including the associated transportive systems (makeup
water pipeline, railroad spur, and transmission lines) and the mine.
4.7.4.1 Economic
Employment Effects
The initial operations phase of the proposed South Hallsville Mine is
scheduled for July 1984, reaching full operation in January 1985, coincident with the
start of the proposed Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant - Unit 1. The project life is
estimated at approximately 30 years. During the long-term operations and main-
tenance activities of the project, approximately 100 workers will be directly
employed at the power plant and 171 at the mine, for a total direct employment of
Z71, representing a beneficial impact to the local/regional economies.
Major employment skills needed at the power plant during the long-term
operations phase include plant operators, coal handlers, machinists, welders, electri-
cians, instrument repairmen, security, and janitorial services. Major employment
skills at the mine include heavy machinery operators, oilers and maintenance men,
mechanics, laborers, machinists, electricians, welders, engineers, and clerical
workers.
Of the 100 workers directly employed at the power plant, approximately
40 will be hired from the local labor market and 60 will be transferred in by
SWEPCO. About 30 percent or 137 of the 171 mine workers will be hired locally,
with the remaining 20 percent, or 34 mine workers, in-migrating (SWEPCO, 1980a).
4-176
-------
The creation of 271 long-term direct jobs is estimated to create another
273 jobs in secondary (support) industries for a total of 544 long-term jobs related to
the project activities. Employment multipliers, of 2.05 for mining activities and
1.93 for power plant activities, were derived from the Longview SMSA regional
input-output model, which estimates 180 secondary jobs related to mining and 93
secondary jobs related to power plant operations.
Assuming a 60-percent local capture rate for secondary employment, the
operations and maintenance phase of the mine/power plant will create a total of 164
secondary jobs in the two-county area. However, because of the large increase in
secondary employment arising from the peak construction phase, it is likely that the
majority of these secondary jobs will carry over into the long term. Thus, it is
assumed that all local secondary employment associated with the operations phase
will not represent additional secondary jobs over those created by mine/power plant
construction.
Table 4-Z5 differentiates between jobs likely to be filled by local
residents and those filled by in-migrants. Total in-migration is limited to 94
primary employment positions at the mine/power plant, as all of the 164 locally
based secondary employment positions will be filled by area residents, some of
whom in-migrated during the construction phase.
Income Effects
Tables 4-26 and 4-27 indicate income effects of the mine and power
plant, respectively, and Table 4-28 shows the combined mine/power plant national
and local income effects. Total annual operations expenditures of $28.44 million
(1980 dollars) for the mine are estimated to generate a secondary income of
$20.92 million on the national level (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1979). Assuming that
78 percent of mine operations expenditures will be made in the local area, or about
$22.18 million (SWEPCO, 1980a), approximately $15.85 million annually in secondary
4-177
-------
TABLE 4-25
COMBINED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYMENT
SOUTH HAI.LSVILLE MINE/HENRY W. PIRKEY POWER PLANT
Total Employment3
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
^ 1987
1
Primary
100
202
255
271
271
Secondary
93
200
256
273
273
Total
193
402
511
544
544
Total Locally
Based Employment
Primary
100
202
255
271
271
Secondary
56
120
154
164
164
Total
156
322
409
435
435
Jobs filled by
Local Residents
Primary
40
122
164
177
177
Secondary
56
120
154
164
164
Total
96
242
318
341
341
Jobs filled
by Inmigrants
Primary
60
80
91
94
94
Secondary
0
0
0
0
0
Total
60
80
91
9-1
94
Oo a
Includes out-of-area secondary employment; local capture rate is estimated at 60 percent.
40 percent of the primary power plant employees and 80 percent of the primary mine employees will he hired locally (SWEPCO, 1980a); 100 percent locally
based secondary employees will be hired locally.
I,
Note: Numbers represent highest projected for any quarter of a given year. Secondary employment multiplier of 2.05 for mine operations and 1.93 for power
plant operations (Longview SMSA Regional Input-Output Model, 1972).
Sources: SWEPCO, 1980a; Denver Research Institute, 1979; EH&A, 1972.
-------
TABLE 4-26
ESTIMATED DIRECT AND SECONDARY
PROJECT-RELATED INCOME GROWTH
OPERATIONS PHASE
SOUTH HALLSVTLLE MINE
(millions of 1980 dollars)
Estimated Annual Expenditures
Labor $ 5.13
Lease Payments 5.66
Machinery/Equipment 2.77
Materials 4.59
Power 4.76
Taxes, Insurance, Interest 4.87
Other 0.66
TOTAL $ 28.44
Estimated Total Income Effect*
National Income $49.36**
Local Income 38.03***
* Represents additional income growth over "without project" income growth for
each year of mine operations.
** Income multiplier of 1.73554 obtained from U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis, 1979.
*** Local income multiplier of 1.7145 obtained from Longview SMSA Input-Output
Model, 1972. Assumes 78 percent of mine operation expenditures will be made
in local area.
4-179
-------
TABLE 4-27
ESTIMATED DIRECT AND SECONDARY
PROJECT-RELATED INCOME GROWTH
OPERATIONS PHASE
HENRY W. PIRKEY POWER PLANT
(millions of 1980 dollars)
Estimated Annual Expenditures
Labor $ 2.50
Materials 1.00
Machinery 1.00
Insurance, other 0.50
Power and Fuel 45.00
TOTAL $ 50.00
Estimated Total Income Effect*
National Income $94.62**
Local Income 84.34***
* Represents additional income growth over "without project" income growth for
each year of power plant operations.
** Income multiplier of 1.89245 obtained from U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis, 1979-
*** Local income multiplier of 1.7389 obtained from Longview SMSA Input-Output
Model, 1972. Assumes 97 percent of power plant operation expenditures will be
made locally.
4-180
-------
TABLE 4-28
ESTIMATED DIRECT AND SECONDARY
PROJECT-RELATED INCOME GROWTH
OPERATIONS PHASE
SOUTH HALLSVILLE MINE AND
HENRY W. PFRKEY POWER PLANT
(millions of 1980 dollars)
Estimated Annual Expenditures
Labor $ 7.63
Machinery/Equipment 3.77
Materials 5.59
Power and Fuel 49.76
Taxes, Insurance, Interest 5.37
Other 6.32
TOTAL $ 78.44
Estimated Total Income Effect*
National Income $143.98
Local Income 122.37
*Represents additional income growth over "without project" income growth for
each year of mine/power plant operations.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1979;
Longview SMSA, 1972.
4-181
-------
income will be generated locally by mining operations, making a total income (direct
and secondary expenditures) of $38.03 million for the Harrison - Gregg County area.
Average annual incomes of $20,000 for power plant workers and $23,300
for mine workers (SWEPCO, 1980a) are comparable to wages paid in the two-county
study area manufacturing sector, and are not anticipated to cause appreciable
change in either the local labor market or spending patterns of the existing work
force.
Total annual power plant operations expenditures are estimated at $50
million (1980 dollars) (SWEPCO, 1980a). This amount is anticipated to create a
national secondary income of approximately $44.62 million (U.S. Dept. of Com-
merce, 1979). Approximately 97 percent of power plant operations expenditures will
be spent locally, or about $48.50 million annually; this will generate an additional
estimated local secondary income of $35.84 million, for a total local income of
$84.34 million annually.
Combined total annual income generated by the project operations phase
will be about $143.98 million, with $122.37 million generated in the local area.
4.7.4.2 Population
The population in the two-county study area will be minimally affected
by changes in the local employment structure brought about by the operations phase
of the mine/power plant.
Increase wage and salary income and project-related non-labor expen-
ditures represent beneficial impact to the local/regional economies in terms of
additional trade and service sector activity and potential business investment and
expansion.
4-182
-------
Table 4-29 shows the population effects of the 271 long-term direct jobs
at the project. An estimated total of 273 secondary jobs are to be created by the
operations phase, for a total of 544 project-related jobs. In-migrants will fill
approximately 94 direct jobs at the project, bringing with them an estimated total
of 276 persons, or 78 households. The estimated 164 locally based secondary jobs
created by the operations phase of the project will most likely be filled by
carry-overs from the large secondary employment force generated by the construc-
tion phase. Therefore, no in-migrants are anticipated to fill secondary jobs arising
from operations.
Studies of large industrial locations have shown that operations and
maintenance workers may initially commute relatively long distances (i.e., up to 90
minutes travel time) if local housing is unavailable, but will locate close to the work
site if possible. The worker's choice of residential location is dependent upon
proximity to the site, the availability of services and housing, and educational,
cultural, and recreational opportunities (Summers, 1976). Assuming that all 94 in-
migrating workers, and the 273 long-term secondary employees carried over from
the short-term construction secondary work force will seek permanent residence in
the two-county area, a significant demand for single-family housing in the area
would prevail.
The operations phase of the mine/power plant will support a project-
related local population of about 1,163, or about 335 households (Table 4-30)
(Stenehjem and Metzger, 1976). Based on western energy-development county
averages, these households will contribute about 287 school-age children to the
project area.
As discussed in Sec. 4.7.3.2, the age distribution of the in-migrating
population is likely to be slightly lower than the existing local population (median
age equals 29 years). The age distribution of in-migrants is projected to be around
38 percent in the 0 to 17 age group, 61 percent in the 18 to 64 age group, and
1 percent in the 65 and older age group.
4-183
-------
TABLE 4-29
PROJECTED OPERATIONS- AND MAINTENANCE-RELATED
POPULATION IN-MIGRATTON
1983-1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
New Populationa
176
235
268
276
276
New Households
50
67
76
78
78
New Students0
44
58
66
68
68
Note: Population consists only of families of primary operations and maintenance
workers; secondary workers are assumed to be 100 percent local.
0.8 (in-rnigrating primary workers) X 3.55 + 0.1 (in-migrating workers).
1.2 primary workers per household.
0.8 (in-migrating primary workers) X 0.91.
Source: Denver Research Institute, 1979.
4-184
-------
TABLIi 4-30
PROJECT-SUPPORTED POPULATION
OPERATIONS JPHASli
Population Supported
it"
I— *
00
1963
1984
1985
19«6
1987
Assumes;
Total
294
594
750
797
797
1
Local
294
594
750
797
797
Secondary
Total
207
446
571
609
609
Local
125
268
343
366
166
Total Local
Population
Supported by
Opel dtions
Phase
419
862
1,093
1,163
1,163
Households
Primary
Total Local
83
168
213
226
226
83
168
213
226
226
Secon
Total
62
133
171
182
182
idary
Local
37
80
103
109
109
Total Local
Households
Supported by
Opera tious
Phase
120
248
316
335
335
Local
Primary
73
147
186
197
197
School-Age Children
Secondary Local
31 104
66 213
84 270
90 287
90 287
HO percent of primary operations employees are h^ads of family household; 10 percent live alone; 10 percent shore households; average family siise it; 3,b5.
60 percent of secondary employees are heads of faintly household; 30 percent are not hoads of household; 10 percent live alone; average family sine is 3.55.
1.2- primary employees per household.
4
1.5 secondary employees per household.
Average school-age children per primary employee family - 0.91.
Average school-age children per secondary employee family - 0.91-
Sources: SWEPCO,1980a; Denver Research Institute, 1979-
-------
The in-migration associated with the operations and maintenance phase
of the proposed project will be of considerably less magnitude than in-migration
associated with the construction phase, and will coincide with the out-migration of
construction workers leaving the completed project.
4.7.4.3 Housing
The additional 94 in-migrating workers and their families associated with
the operations phase of the proposed project will represent an additional long-term
demand on local housing. However, requirements will differ somewhat from those
of the peak construction period of the project. Table 4-31 shows anticipated
housing preferences of the operations work force; because operations workers tend
toward longer-term employment than construction workers, a larger percentage
prefers to invest in single-family dwellings. Of the total operations work force of
271, 70 percent are estimated to settle in single-family dwellings. Thus, 158 single-
family homes will be occupied by operations workers in the two-county area.
Because of the large peak construction force, of which 46 percent are estimated to
acquire single-family dwellings, the housing needs of the operations work force
should be met without additional housing or infrastructure requirements, as some
out-migration of construction workers can be expected after 1984.
Table 4-32 shows estimated project-related housing needs by preference
and income for the construction and operations phases. Peak demand for housing
will occur during the 1983-1984 period as the locally based, project-related
construction force reaches its highest level, requiring an estimated 399 single-
family homes and 440 mobile homes. As the construction phase ends, a maximum
net surplus of 225 single-family homes and 353 mobile homes could become
available in the two-county region as a result of construction worker out-migration.
However, the "without project" overall shortage of housing in the area and the area's
general upward economic trend, especially in manufacturing, should result in
absorption of a substantial percentage of the surplus single-family units.
4-186
-------
TABLE 4-31
HOUSING PREFERENCE BY TYPE OF HOUSING
AND LEVEL OF INCOME
OPERATIONS PHASE
Type of Employment
Operations
($20,000-23.000 Secondary (Service)
Annual Income) ($15.000 Annual Income)
Type of Unit (percent) (percent)
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Mobile Home
Other
70
11
17
2
15
30
45
10
Source: Old West Regional Commission, 1975,
4-187
-------
TABLE 4-32
LOCALLY-BASED, PROJECT-RELATED POPULATION
HOUSING NEEDS DURING CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION PHASES
SOUTH HALLSVILLE MINE/HENRY W. PIRKEY POWER PLANT
00
00
Construction Phase
1979-1984
Type of Unit
Single-Family
Multi -Family
Mobile Home
Other
Primary
348
68
287
53
Secondary
51
102
153
34
Total
399
170
440
87
Primary
158
25
38
5
Operations Phase
1984-2014
Secondary
16
33
49
11
Total
174
58
87
16
Source: Old West Regional Commission, 1975; Denver Research Institute, 1979-
-------
4.7.4.4 Community Facilities and Services
Operations phase population in-migration will require approximately
0.04 mgd of potable water supplies and 0.05 mgd of sewage treatment capacity over
the life of the project. As Sec. 4.7.3.4 points out, all three potentially impacted
cities will have substantial capacity for expansion by the time operations in-
migration stabilizes at its peak of 276 in 1986.
The operations-related in-migration should be able to rely on police and
fire service expansion and health care expansions occurring during project construc-
tion, thereby minimizing increased service improvements and any overall adverse
impacts. The peak in-migration of 68 new students during operations represents a
need for four additional teachers. The increased tax revenue gained by county, city,
and school district jurisdictions as a result of the project represents a beneficial
impact to the project area, and is expected to offset any additional service
demands. Harrison County and the Hallsville Independent School District will gain
substantial tax revenue increases with the addition of the $489.68 million
mine/power plant project in their taxing jurisdictions. Project-related growth
occurring in Longview, Hallsville, and Marshall will add a minimum estimated
$20 million to local tax rolls in new home construction alone.
4.7.4.5 Transportation Facilities
The addition of 94 in-migrating workers to the two-county area should
have minimum impact on existing loads of transportation routes to the project. As
described in Sec. 4.7.3.5, the most heavily travelled routes are likely to be 1-20,
State Highway 43, and U.S. Highway 80/FM 968.
The total 271 direct employees at the project will be split into three
work shifts, with about 52 percent on the day shift, 29 percent on the swing shift,
and 19 percent on the graveyard shift. This would place a maximum of 219 workers
4-189
-------
on area highways during peak rush hours. Given a ridership factor of 1.2 persons per
vehicle, this will result in an additional 182 vehicle trips per day (one way) on local
area highways during the shift change between the day and swing shift, about 4 to
5 p.m. Because the above local highways have ample room for this additional
traffic, no significant adverse impacts are projected to occur from this source.
The additional 94 in-migrant workers and their families in the local area
will also add traffic pressures on local streets and highways, especially if many of
them settle in Hallsville. In all cases, operations-related traffic levels will be less
than those occuring during the peak construction phase.
4.7.4.6 Recreation
While the additional 276 persons in the local population associated with
the mine and power plant operation will place some additional demands on local
recreational resources, the creation of a 1,388-acre cooling reservoir will provide
expanded outdoor recreational opportunities. However, there will be added demands
placed on urban-based recreational resources.
The operation and maintenance activities in the long-term will deter
hunting in the immediate plant area, although additional fishing opportunities will be
provided by the cooling reservoir.
4.7.4.7 Aesthetics
As discussed in Sec. 4.7.3.7, the tallest structure at the South Hallsville
Mine and the Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant - Unit 1 will be the 525-foot power plant
stack. The closest nearby major roads are 1.7 miles (1-20 on the north), 3.6 miles
(Interstate Highway 20 and FM 968 on the northeast), and 2.8 miles (State
Highway 43 on the east) away. On all four sides, forested lands intervene between
the power plant and local highways, and surrounding terrain exceeds the ground
elevation of the power plant on three sides.
4-190
-------
While the power plant chimney may be visible from certain portions of
local highways, the remoteness of its location from these highways and the presence
of intervening areas of higher elevation and forestlands will help mitigate the
stack's visual presence on the landscape. Further, emissions from the stack will
comply with applicable State and Federal standards. Opacity levels (measure of
transparency) of stack emissons should not exceed 20 percent reduction in
transparency levels. Again, due to its isolated location, noise sources attributed to
mine and power plant activities should not generally affect local aesthetic
characteristics.
Noise levels during normal operations of the mine and plant should not
have any adverse impact in areas outside the power plant property. During testing
periods and during emergencies at the power station, the safety valves will release
large volumes of steam, which will create extemely high dBA levels. This does not
pose a long-term threat because of their infrequent occurrence, short duration, and
remoteness of source from population centers.
4.7.5 Combined Impacts of Mine and Plant
Due to the overlapping schedules of the mine and power plant, as well as
the nature of the socioeconomic analysis, the combined employment, income,
population, labor, housing, transportation, and recreation impacts of the mine and
power plant have been addressed in Sec. 4.7.3 for construction and Sec. 4.7.4 for
operation. The associated community facilities combined impacts of the mine and
power plant are discussed below.
4.7.5.1 Community Facilities and Services
Water and sewage requirements of the combined construction and
operation phases of the mine/power plant are shown in Table 4-33. Ongoing facility
expansions in Longview and Hallsville are expected to provide the impacted cities
4-191
-------
TABLE 4-33
TOTAL PROJECT-RELATED POPULATION IN-MIGRATION
WATER AND SEWAGE REQUIREMENTS,
GREGG AND HARRISON COUNTIES
1979-LIFE OF THE PROJECT
(Construction and Operations Phases)
Year
1979
1980
1981
198Z
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Water
Average Use
(gpd)
8,250
12,300
43,800
156,150
353,850
361,350
164,550
68,850
68,850
Supply
Maximum Use
(gpd)
20,625
30,750
109,500
390,375
884,625
903,375
411,375
172,125
172,125
Sewage
Additional
Lagoon Acresc
0.6
0.8
2.9
10.4
23.6
24.1
11.0
4.6
4.6
Facilities
Maximum Need
(gpd)
9,240
13,776
49,056
174.888
396.312
404.712
184,296
77.112
77,112
Solid Waste Disposal
Additional
Landfill Acres6
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.22
0.50
0.51
0.23
0.10
0-10
Average 150 gpd per person.
2.5 x the average, or 375 gpd per person.
C10 acres per 1,000 people, estimated in tenths of acres,
168 gpd per person.
e0.21 acres per 1,000 people, estimated in hundredths of acres.
Source: Chalmers and Anderson, 1977.
-------
with additional service capacity for project in-migration, and therefore, adverse
impact will be slight.
Table 4-34 provides a breakdown of the potential public safety, health
and recreational requirements induced by combined project-related in-migration.
The greatest demand is associated with the peak employment period in 1983-1984.
Table 4-35 indicates anticipated educational service expansions due to the
mine/power plant.
4.7.5.Z Government Finances
The increased tax revenue gained by county, city, and school district
jurisdictions as a result of the mine and power plant is expected to offset additional
service improvements and/or expansions. Harrison County and the Hallsville ISD
will gain substantial tax revenues with the addition of the estimated $490 million
mine/power plant in their taxing jurisdictions. Using 1980 tax rates, the proposed
project represents approximately $1.8 million in property taxes to Harrison County
and approximately $4.2 million to the Hallsville ISD. In addition, project-related
growth occurring in Longview, Hallsville, and Marshall will add a minimum
estimated $20 million to local tax rolls in new home construction.
4.7.5.3 Combined Project Mitigation
Mitigating measures are available to three entities: local municipal and
county officials, regional planning bodies, and the proposed power plant and mine
owners-operators.
To assist local planners to rationalize the complex projected growth
process and to avoid local service and facility overload, a regional comprehensive
evaluation of overall in-migrant levels and project scheduling associated with
cumulative area development is recommended. In-migrant population increases
4-193
-------
TABLE 4-34
ADDITIONAL COMBINED PROJECT-RELATED COMMUNITY SERVICE REQUIREMENTS,
GREGG AND HARRISON COUNTIES,
1979-LIFE OF THE PROJECT
(Construction and Operations Phases)
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Police
Officers21
0
0
1
Z
5
5
Z
1
1
Public Safety
Office Space
(ft2)
0
0
200
400
1,000
1,000
400
200
200
Fire
Officers0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
Doctorsd
0
0
0
1
3
3
2
1
1
Health Care
Dentists6
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
Recreation
Hospital
Bedsf
0
0
1
5
11
11
5
2
2
Park
Acreage^
0
0
1
3
8
8
3
1
1
.2
.3
.0
,6
.3
.4
.8
.6
-6
aZ.l officers per 1,000 persons.
200 square feet of office space per officer.
cTwo fulltime officers per 1,000 dwelling units.
1.4 doctors per 1,000 persons (Texas state average).
eOne dentist per 2,000 persons.
f4.5 hospital beds per 1,000 persons.
g3.5 acres per 1,000 persons, estimated in tenths of acres
-------
TABLE 4-35
ADDITIONAL COMBINED PROJECT-RELATED
PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
GREGG AND HARRISON COUNTIES,
1979-LIFE OF THE PROJECT
(Construction and Operations Phases)
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Teachersa
1
1
4
14
32
33
15
7
7
Administrative Staffb
0
0
1
2
4
4
2
1
1
Additional Costc
$ 20.086.44
30.129-66
108.801.55
384.990.10
880-455,62
900.542.06
415.119-76
195,842.79
189,147.31
Based on a teacher:student ratio of 1:16.53 for Texas during the 1979-1980 school
year.
One administrative staff per eight teachers.
°Based on a per pupil cost of $1,673.87 for Texas during the 1979-1980 school year.
Source: Texas Education Agency, 1980; Denver Research Institute. 1979-
4-195
-------
attributable to the proposed power plant and mine construction and operations will
contribute to the overall increases in population, but unrelated additional (other
project) industrial activities will present an even larger cumulative impact.
New housing construction, facility requirements, and service expansions
necessitate planning and securing of resources approximately 3 to 5 years prior to
expected need. Early identification of financial alternatives available to local
counties, municipalities and other public and private providers of goods and services
will facilitate an orderly growth process.
Also, important mitigation action will include the coordination of local
zoning regulations through a regional planning body. Local zoning regulations
tailored to facilitate efficient and non-disruptive rapid expansion have been
developed in energy-related growth areas in western states. Planned development
strategies include requirements to phase subdivision expansion in coordination with
the ability of local municipalities to expand public facilities. A second planning
alternative available to local municipalities is that of annexation of developable
areas that may rely (in the future) upon municipal water and/or sewage require-
ments. The capture of growth-related taxable property will enable the local
communities to use in-migration as a primary source of additional tax revenues, as
in-migrants are likely to locate, in many instances, in areas just outlying the
municipal bounds. Some mitigative measures existent in local counties and
municipalities will tend to shift costs of growth to new permanent residents, who
will require additional services.
4.8 LAND USE
4.8.1 Existing and Future Environments
Harrison County's leading land-use classifications in 1976 (ETCOG, 1977)
were woodlands (63 percent) and agricultural land (24.1 percent), totalling
4-196
-------
87 percent of the county area. Of the total woodlands in Harrison County,
59 percent is commercial forest (Texas Forest Service, 1976). In contrast to the
rural nature of Harrison County, urban land uses accounted for 63 percent of Gregg
County, with the most rapid urbanization occurring in Longview where the
population is expected to double by 1996. Woodlands made up 17.2 percent, and
agricultural lands comprised 20.2 percent of Gregg County.
Agricultural acreage (land devoted to grazing and hay production) and
woodland acreage is expected to decrease by 33,700 and 38,346 acres for Gregg and
Harrison counties, respectively, by 1996, regardless of the proposed project. The
loss of agricultural lands is attributed to urbanization and major industrial site
acreage. An increase in surface water acreage in the two counties should contribute
to the loss of agricultural lands with the construction of two proposed reservoirs,
Marshall Reservoir and Caddo Reservoir.
In 1979, the major crop in Harrison County was hay (Texas Dept. of
Agriculture, 1979). Other crops of minor importance cultivated in the county are
oats, peaches, watermelons, and other vegetables. Cash receipts from all crops
accounted for only an average 14.2 percent of the total cash receipts from farm
marketings for 1979, not including timber marketings or government payments.
Receipts from livestock and livestock products accounted for the remaining
86 percent.
The following land-use discussion and associated mapping effort used
RRC land-use definitions with minor additions to more clearly identify existing land
use patterns (RRC, 1980). Although 934 acres of cropland are identified, in the
following narrative and on the land-use map, these areas are generally used for
production of hay and support of livestock raising.
As shown in Table 4-36 land uses of the 3,Ill-acre plant site include
pasture (955 acres), undeveloped forestry (2,068 acres), forestry (20 acres),
developed water resources (26 acres), and cropland (42 acres).
4-197
-------
TABLE 4-36
LAND USES PREEMPTED BY THE POWER PLANT, COOLING POND, AND
TRANSPORTIVE SYSTEMS
SOUTH HALLSVILLE PROJECT
Land-use
Type
Pasture
Undeveloped
Forestry
Forestry
Undeveloped
Water Cover
Developed
Water
Resources
Cropland
TOTALS
Plant
Island
151
120
0
0
1
0
272
Cooling
Pond
182
1,183
0
0
14
9
1,388
Plant
Site
Ancillary
Activities
Area
622
765
20
0
11
33
1.451
Total
Plant
Site
Area
955
2,068
20
0
26
42
3,111
Trans-
Pipe- mission
line Line
Corridor Corridors
273 21,7
354 63.1
50 1.1
23 0
0 0
0 0
700 86*
Railroad
ROW Total
42,9 1,293
55.3 2,540
0 71
0 23
1.9 28
0 42
100** 3,997
* An additional 56 acres of transmission line ROW is located in the power plant site.
** This includes only the area outside of the plant site.
-------
Land uses identified within the 700-acre makeup water pipeline corridor
include pastureland (273 acres), undeveloped forestry (354 acres), forestry
(50 acres), and undeveloped water cover (23 acres) (Table 4-31). The makeup water
pipeline is discussed in vegetation, Sec. 4.5.1.1 and EH&A (1981b). Land uses
present along the proposed railroad spur and transmission lines are discussed in
Sec. 4.8.3.1.
Land uses within the 20,771-acre South Hallsville mining and ancillary
activities area are shown on Table 4-37 and Fig. 4-6. Existing land uses are pasture
(38.4 percent), undeveloped forestry (47.3 percent), forestry (0.7 percent), cropland
(4.3 percent), developed water resources (0.4 percent), undeveloped water cover
(2.8 percent), undeveloped land (5.5 percent) and commercial-industrial' (0.6 per-
cent).
4.8.2 Effects of No Action
Trends in land use in the regional project area would follow a similar
pattern to those now occurring, should the no action alternative be adopted. Other
industrial development projects in existence and planned for the region will cause
increased urbanization and industrialization of the predominantly rural area. This
growth will likely be at the expense of land used for agricultural purposes, including
crop, livestock, and timber production.
Though management practices may increase production, farmland will
continue to decline. Existing trends show decreases in land used for production of
crops as well as that used for pasture (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, 1981).
4-199
-------
TABLE 4-37
AREAS OF EXISTING LAND USE TO BE AFFECTED EV
THE SOUTH HALLSVILLE MINING AND ANCILLARY ACTIVITIES
1984-
J.aiul TJsi! 1990
Type Aj*
PnatiirK 227
Undeveloped 274
F.irci.try
Foreslry
^ Cropland 10
O Developed
Water
Rosowcen
Wiilcr
O over
Co in tnercial/
Industrial
GRAND 511
TOTAL
Mine
1984- 1991- 1991- 1996- Z001- 2001- 1984- 1991- 1996- 1996- Z001- Z001- 2001- Mine Ancillary
1990 1995 1995 2000 2008 2008 1990 1995 2000 2000 2008 2008 2008 Disturbed Activities
A, A, A-, A A, A7 B B B, B7 B C, C7 Area Area
616 16 16 It,
150 73 199 341 287 607 458 376 326 122 1.341 107 88 4.702 3.276
425 176 319 206 394 565 -H8 36Z 237 241 676 192 398 4,983 4. 852
_ .. ... . _ 148
175 6 108 76 6 7 62 --- 5 33 43 --- -— 531 361
--- Tft- 77<13 - ^7 47
1 26
750 255 629 631 687 1,186 1,045 742 571 587 2.166 299 486 10,515 10.226
Grant!
Total
Arreape
7.978
9.835
148
892
74
576
1 . MZ
126
20,771
*A>H,<":, - mining blocks.
-------
Fig. 4-6
SOUTH HALLSVILLE
LAND USE MAP
EXPLANATION
P PASTURE
C CROPLAND
F FORESTRY
W DEVELOPED WATER RESOURCES
UF UNDEVELOPED FOREST
UW UNDEVELOPED WATER COVER
U UNDEVELOPED LAND
Cl COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL
TOTAL AFFECTED AREA
-------
4.8.3 Construction Impacts
4.8.3.1 Power Plant
Plant Site
Approximately 272 and 1,388 acres of land for construction of the
proposed Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant - Unit 1 and cooling reservoir, respectively,
have been preempted from existing land use. Additionally, portions of the 1,451-
acre plant ancillary activities area have been affected by construction of the plant
and cooling reservoir. Timberland production in Harrison County is valued at $625
to $1,200 per acre (EH&A, 1981b). Thus, the removal of 2,088 acres of forested land
(undeveloped forestry and forestry) from production for the long-term for
construction of the power plant and cooling reservoir is costing $1,305,000 -
$2,505,600 (1981) in timber production. An estimate of the cost of removal of 997
acres of agricultural land (pasture and cropland) is also available. The average value
per acre of farmland in Harrison County is $636 (1978) (U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1981). Thus the removal of agricultural land for
construction of the plant site and cooling reservoir is costing $634,092 (1978),
excluding the value of foregone production. This loss represents a major
irretrievable commitment of resources and a significant, long-term impact.
Transportive Systems
Approximately 700 acres in the makeup water pipeline corridor have or
will be affected during construction of the pipeline. Thus, the removal of 404 acres
of forested land (undeveloped forestry and forestry) from production in the long
term for construction of the pipeline corridor is costing $252,500 - $484,800 (1981)
in timber production. The removal of 273 acres pasture for construction of the
pipeline corridor is costing $173,628 (1978), excluding the value of previous
production.
4-202
-------
Land uses of the transmission line corridors were interpreted from color
infrared aerial photograpy (1:65,000, 2-26-80). The three segments of transmission
lines have a combined length of 11.7 miles and total acreage of 142 acres (100-foot
ROAV) approximately 56 acres of which have been previously disturbed by power
plant construction. Segment A is 7.2 miles in length, transversing the southeastern
extreme of the South Hallsville Mine site east-west from an existing 138 kV
transmission line to just east of Hatley Creek. The proposed segment A crosses the
Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant site in a southwest-northeast direction. This section
of segment A has been disturbed by construction of the power plant. Impacts to
land use have been previously discussed. Existing land uses of the undisturbed
portion of segment A are undeveloped forestry (89 percent), pasture (19 percent) and
forestry (2 percent).
Segment A crosses a 16" Arkansas-Louisiana Gas line, a 16" United Gas
line and an 18" Exxon Crude pipeline. Approximately 87.3 acres of existing and
previous land uses will be disturbed by construction of segment A.
Segment B is 1.5 miles in length, extending from the Henry W. Pirkey
Power Plant to an existing 138 kV transmission line. Approximately 1.4 acres of the
18.2 acres ROW have been disturbed by construction of the plant and land use
impacts previously discussed. Existing land uses of the undisturbed portion of
segment B are undeveloped forestry (65 percent), and pasture (35 percent).
Segment B crosses a 10" United Gas pipeline. Approximately 18.2 acres of previous
and existing land uses will be disturbed by construction of segment B.
Segment G of the proposed transmission line extends from the plant site
north to an existing 138 kV transmission line. Segment G of the proposed transmis-
sion line is 3 miles in length, approximately 12.9 acres of which has been disturbed
by power plant construction. Existing land uses of the undisturbed portion of
segment G are undeveloped forestry (40 percent) and pasture (60 percent). Two
large reservoirs are crossed by segment G. Segment G crosses 1-20 and FM 965 and
4-203
-------
an existing 138 kV transmission line. Approximately 36.7 acres of existing and
previous land uses will be disturbed by construction of segment G.
The 64.2 acres of forested land along the three transmission line
segments is valued at $40,125 - $77,040 (1981). The 21.7 acres of pastureland along
the three transmission line segments is valued at $13,801 (1978).
The railroad spur associated with the Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant is
approximately 3.5 miles long. The ROW width varies from 100 feet to 350 feet.
Construction of the railroad spur has impacted approximately 100 acres of land.
Previous land uses of the railroad spur include pastureland (42.9 acres), undeveloped
forest (55.3 acres) and developed water resources (1.9 acres). The pastureland is
valued at $27,284 (1978) and the undeveloped forest at $34,567 - $66,360 (1981).
4.8.3.2 Mine Area
Construction impacts of the proposed South Hallsville Mine area include
preemption of the mine ancillary activities area from existing land uses totalling
10,226 acres, 473 of which will actually be consumed by construction of roads and
mine facilities. Land uses that will be replaced by the mine ancillary activities area
are pasture (3,276 acres), undeveloped forestry (4,852 acres), forestry (148 acres),
cropland (361 acres), developed water resources (42 acres), undeveloped water cover
(514 acres), undeveloped land (907 acres), and commercial-industrial (126 acres).
Using the methodologies employed in Sec. 4.8.3.1 for estimation of the cost of
removal of timberland and agricultural land, cost for removal of 5,000 acres of
undeveloped forestry and forestry for construction activities of the South Hallsville
ancillary activities area would range from $3,125,000 to $6,000,000 (1981). Cost of
removal of 3,637 acres of pasture and cropland is estimated at $2,313,132 (1978),
excluding value of previous production. This loss represents a major irretrievable
commitment of resources and a significant, long-term impact.
4-204
-------
4.8.4 Operations Impacts
4.8.4.1 Power Plant
Operations impacts of the power plant, cooling reservoir, makeup water
pipeline, transmission lines, and railroad spur to existing land uses are the ongoing
affects of construction (Sec. 4.8.3.1) over the long-term.
4.8.4.2 Mine
The proposed mine site area comprises Z0,771 acres of land. Of the total
site acreage, 10,545 acres will be disturbed and reclaimed at a rate of approxi-
mately 439 acres each year for the 24-year life of the mine. (An additional
473 acres will be disturbed by construction of roads and mine facilities.) The
remaining 9,753 acres will potentially be affected by mining activities as mining
progresses.
Before land-clearing operations begin, existing buildings, pipelines, road-
ways, fences, and power and telephone lines within the boundaries of each mine
activitiy site will be cleared or relocated. In addition to clearing man-made objects,
all trees and brush will be felled, stacked and burned. The land-clearing operation
will be continued intermittently. As stated previously, an average 439 acres per
year must be disturbed, but this figure may vary as a result of the density of
vegetation and man-made objects on the proposed mine site.
Fourteen mining blocks, totaling 10,545 acres will be mined alternately
from the years 1984-2008 (Table 4-32). Current land uses in the mining blocks are
undeveloped forestry (47.3 percent), pasture (44.6 percent), cropland (5 percent),
undeveloped land (2.2 percent), undeveloped water cover (0.6 percent), and
developed water resources (0.3 percent). From 1984-1990, 2,306 acres will be
disturbed by mining activities. Between the years 1991 and 1995, 1,626 additional
4-205
-------
acres will be mined while the previous mining blocks are reclaimed. Two additional
phases of mining will occur between 1996-2000 and 2001-2008 preempting
1,789 acres and 4,824 acres from existing land uses, respectively. Since the land
will be reclaimed within several years of mining, the amount of disturbed surface at
any one time will be a small portion of the cumulative total. Additionally, as mining
progresses, there is a potential for disturbance of part of the 10,226-acre mine
ancillary activities area (Table 4-32).
A series of short-term, but intense land-use impacts will result from the
surface mining project. Lignite extraction activities scheduled for the sequential
mining area include: (1) land clearing, (2) topsoil removal, (3) overburden/lignite
removal, and (4) reclamation.
Potential land-use changes on the entire 20,771 acre mine and ancillary
activities area caused by the lignite extraction activities include the removal of
9,835 acres of undeveloped forestry, 148 acres of forestry, 7,978 acres of pasture,
and 892 acres of cropland. As mentioned in Sec. 4.8.3.1, per acre value for
timberland capable of producing pine ranges from $625 to $1,200 (1981) in Harrison
County (Risner, 1981). Commercial timbering will take place prior to mining.
However, it is possible that future timber production will not be practical and future
timber revenues would therefore be lost. The average value per acre of farmland in
Harrison County is $636 (1978) (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1981). Therefore, the
8,872 acres of agriculture land (pasture and cropland) is valued at $5,641,320 (1978),
excluding the value of previous production.
As described in Sec. 3.5, General Reclamation Procedure, the surface 6
inches of topsoil remaining in place after land clearing operations will be removed
and redistributed as the final postmining surface layer, unless a mixed overburden
technique is used. Topography of the site will be restored to approximate premining
contours.
4-206
-------
As described in Sec. 3.5, (Revegetation), after the reconstructed soil has
been conditioned, and during a favorable planting period, revegetation will begin.
Three revegetation stages are proposed in the South Hallsville Mine Reclamation
Plan. The first two stages are preparatory for the establishment of permanent
postmining vegetation. Stage 3 will continue until the RRC considers the site
successfully reclaimed.
Species selected for permanent cover (Reclamation Stage 3) are listed in
Table 3-6. These species should provide vegetational cover capable of supporting
pasture, woodland, and wildlife habitat. Distribution of postmining land uses has not
been determined for the entire project area at the present time. However,
reclamation plans have been proposed for the 5-year permit area. In agreement
with many land owners, the proposed prominant land use for the 5-year permit area
is pasture (Sabine Mining Company, 1981).
RRC regulations (051.07.04.399-Post Mining Land Use) require that the
permit area be restored in a timely manner to conditions capable of supporting
premining land uses or to conditions capable of supporting approved alternative land
uses. Alternative land uses may be approved by the RRC after consultation with the
landowner and land management agency having jurisdiction over the site. The
proposed alternative land use must also be compatible with adjacent land uses and
with local, state, and federal land-use policies and plans. The proposed alternative
must also meet other criteria detailed in the regulations (RRC, 1980). Although the
RRC does recommend species diversification in reclamation, final postmining land
uses are ultimately decided upon by the landowner (Launieus, 1981).
Greatest land-use effects will occur between the years 2001-Z008 in five
mining blocks. A total of 4,824 acres will be committed to industrial land use during
this period. Additionally, 20 acres occupied by the mine facilities, 1,660 acres
occupied by the power plant and cooling reservoir and a small area for the pipeline,
railroad spur, and transmission lines ROW will be removed from existing land use for
the life of the project.
4-207
-------
As previously mentioned, regulations require either that disturbed areas
be reclaimed to previous land uses or an alternative land use approved by the RRC,
giving a short-term aspect to lignite development. However, long-term effects of
lignite mining can involve possible impairment of potential future use of the land as
recreational or wildlife habitat. Surface mining may preempt or greatly modify
wildlife habitat and aesthetic qualities by altering chemical and physical properties
and topography of the land. Potential adverse effects upon significant wildlife
habitats or site-specific aesthetic/recreational values will be reviewed by regulating
authorities, and appropriate mitigative measures will be developed.
Increased urbanization due to in-migrant workers' housing, schools,
wastewater, and water treatment facilities will affect the surrounding area for the
long-term. Expansion of cities is at the expense of open lands generally used for
agricultural purposes. Marshall, Longview, and Shreveport are expected to receive
in-migrant populations.
4.8.5 Combined Impacts of Plant and Mine
Impacts of the power plant included the long-term removal of
3,997 acres for construction of the power plant, cooling reservoir, and transportive
systems. While 10,545 acres will be disturbed by mining, regulations require that
the land be reclaimed, giving a short-term aspect to lignite mining. Long-term
impacts of lignite mining involve the possible impairment of potential future use of
the land as recreational or as wildlife habitat.
Surface mining may disturb or greatly modify wildlife habitat and
aesthetic qualities by altering chemical and physical properties and topography of
the land. The RRC recommends that reclamation practices stress the importance of
multiple uses and the introduction of vegetation species that offer food and cover
for wildlife as well as those used for forestland or pastureland (Launieus, 1981).
4-208
-------
During the construction and operation of the two sites, existing land uses
in the 24,768-acre project area will be partially converted from agricultural
land/forestland/wetland uses to industrial use. As construction of the power plant is
underway, impacts to existing land uses are now being realized. During operation,
reclamation will proceed on the surface-mined acreage. When operations cease,
aquatic habitat will be increased by an approximately 1,388-acre cooling reservoir
on the proposed power plant site, which can be used to support certain aquatic biota.
On the mine site, 10,545 acres will have been disturbed by mining and 10,226 acres
in the mine site ancillary activities area could potentially have been disturbed. On
the power plant site, cooling reservoir, and transportive system, 2,546 total acres
will be disturbed, plus some additional acreage in the ancillary area. Further, in the
regional area, permanent urban expansion will cause the long-term conversion of
existing land uses (primarily agricultural) into urban areas.
4.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
To this point, the impact analysis covered in the EIS has been developed
in terms of the primary and secondary impacts associated with the H. W. Pirkey
Power Plant - Unit 1 and the South Hallsville Surface Lignite Mine. Assessing the
cumulative environmental effects of many power plants and surface mines located
in different locations is much more difficult. However, certain requirements and
characteristics relating to energy development demonstrate that cumulative
environmental impacts resulting from existing and planned projects are a real
concern. Therefore, for this assessment, "cumulative" refers to:
1) What? - Energy projects, primarily those associated with lignite
mines.
2) Where? - In Texas, mainly along the lignite belt.
3) When? - Over the next 20-25 years.
4-209
-------
The coal (bituminous and lignite) development picture for Texas is placed
in perspective as follows:
1) In 1981, roughty 95 percent of all coal produced in Texas was
lignite (about 40 million tons), and production is estimated to more
than double by 1990.
2) At this time, there are 12 coal mines and 10 coal-fired electric
generating stations operating in Texas (see Fig. 4-7).
3) By 1990, an additional 15 coal mines and 16 coal-fired electric
generating stations are estimated to be operating in Texas (see
Fig. 4-8).
In considering the cumulative effects of Texas energy development on
the environment, the following areas are addressed:
1) Air Quality - The cumulative impact on air quality of several
projects, particularly those located in the same general area, is an
issue because power plant emissions are usually carried for many
miles by the wind. However, the cumulative impact of criteria
pollutant emissions from these large point sources is modeled in
the PSD permit application and controlled by the PSD permit.
Therefore, our concern centers on the possible formation of acid
rain. Acid rain deposition effects on the environment are the
subject of many large on-going studies that directly involve EPA.
Some of them show predicted changes in pH and locations of acid
precipitation. Also, some promising abatement technology is being
explored that may reduce potential adverse impacts. Recognizing
that acid rain formation is a subject of nationwide concern, there
is still widespread study and discussion on how to
4-210
-------
N
i-OT-A*- ——O TT"
•A ;> ""•"•"- -,"—Js|;
Key: A - Mines ~
« - Plants
Sources: "Southwest Power Pool",
Electric Reliability Council of Texas"
and "Environmental Inventor-.1 of 90
Counties with Known Coal Resources in
Texas".
FIGURE i-7:
EXISTING COAL MIXES AND GEMERATIXG
-------
N
' ' "
-S-I^I.
r?aagr»»ca'5?r -ty**"
«»-;->. .•'» , ; ' iss—v^ I x~»5aE
i ; X; V. —— ' -v,i«H—_ A ••'
-Vj^^^.TiT^^I 1?^ " mi?C5ii?iir;
\; -< r?L--^
Bssa=i—-< L^^*~1* "- '. -- ^1TI '. ^_^««?L'.
Key: A - Mines
• - Plants
Sources: "Southwest Power Pool",
"Electric Reliability Council of Texas"
and "Environmental Invento^/ of 90
Counties with Known Coal Resources in
Texas".
FIGURE 4-3:
PLANNED COAL MINES AND GENERATING DUTS
-------
accurately assess cumulative effects of coal development in Texas
on this aspect of air quality. As future projects are developed,
more accurate and extensive monitoring is accomplished, and other
studies are complete, a more definite assessment may be made on
acid rain formation and impact.
2) Wildlife/Habitat - Since wildlife species and habitat are impacted
primarily from the land requirements associated with these energy
projects, the cumulative impacts can be assessed in terms of the
total acreages affected. It is expected that a total of about
375,000 acres will be disturbed in Texas by surface mining.
Generally, each mining area includes some good quality wildlife
habitat, especially along waterways and in bottomlands. The
cumulative impacts of these projects include the loss of various
wildlife habitat types during mining, and more importantly, the
possibility that many of the more sensitive habitat types
(e.g., marshes, swamps, bogs, etc.), cannot or may not be fully
re-established after reclamation. Therefore, these potential,
cumulative adverse impacts constitute an irretrievable
commitment of these important natural resources. Also,
landowner preference usually dictates the ultimate land-use type
after mining, and the trend appears to be more conversion to
improved pasture. A long-term cumulative effect of this trend
would be an adverse impact on wildlife habitat.
3) Land Use - Since this environmental category is also related to
overall land requirements, the cumulative impacts also relate to
the numbers of acres affected. Using the same habitat figures of
375,000 acres, it is clear that the amount of land affected is very
large. However, an important long-term criterion in assessing
impacts is the change in land use on the acreages affected. In this
4-213
-------
regard, it is important to note that a change in itself is not
necessarily an adverse impact. Generally, the value of the land
should remain the same since the productivity of reclaimed land
must, by law, be as good or better than it was before mining. But
the cumulative adverse impacts at the numerous power plant sites
could constitute a loss in land use from each of those areas. These
potential losses would depend on the amount of land involved and
whether mitigation plans compensate for these adverse impacts in
other areas.
4) Ground Water and Surface Water - Because of factors associated
with ground water, cumulative impacts are more difficult to
distinguish. These factors include the distances between projects,
the relatively low velocities of flow, and the natural forces that
help to replenish and cleanse ground-water resources.
Nevertheless, these energy products collectively can affect large
amounts of ground-water reserves, and many projects could cause
long-term impacts on individuals who may be in competition for
this resource, particularly if the reserve is depleted faster than it
can be recharged. Another important point is that for adverse
ground-water quality impacts, long-term may not only include a
20-year mining operation, but also some time after mining and
reclamation since the natural process to improve any ground-water
degradation is very slow. Therefore, cumulatively, increased
mining operations could increase the potential for more ground-
water resources to be adversely impacted. And adverse impacts on
ground-water quality could last beyond actual mining if left to
natural forces for improvement or recovery.
Cumulative impacts of surface water resources are also difficult to
distinguish because of the distances between projects and the
4-214
-------
natural forces that replenish this resource. Nevertheless, there
could be cumulative adverse impacts from these large energy
projects that divert water courses, increase runoff, and consume
water in operation. But since reclamation activities greatly reduce
the occurrence and severity of many surface hydrology impacts,
the long-term cumulative effects would be minimal.
5) Socioeconomics - Since these energy projects usually provide jobs
and income to individuals and families, there are beneficial
impacts from productivity and growth in local communities, towns,
and cities. However, because rapid population growth sometimes
increases the need and demand on public services faster than they
can be effectively provided, there may also be recognizable
adverse impacts. The greatest potential for cumulative adverse
impacts is in areas where projects are close together. But because
of the time required to develop these large-scale projects, many
potential problem areas can be anticipated, and city planning can
be done in advance. Therefore, these effects should be short-term
and not generally of a scale to constitute "cumulative" concerns.
6) Cultural Resources - Cultural resources are likely to be affected
by these energy projects because of the large land areas that are
required. However, State and Federal law dictates that impacts on
cultural resources be considered in each of these projects.
Compliance with these requirements should adequately protect
these resources. Cumulatively, an overall beneficial impact may
be derived from the expansion of knowledge regarding past cultures
through surveys provided with this compliance.
4-215
-------
The cumulative impact assessment of coal development in Texas
has been directed in this assessment primarily at air quality,
wildlife/habitat, land use, ground water, surface water, socioeco-
nomicsj. and cultural resources. However, these are not the only
environmental areas in which cumulative impacts can or will occur.
On the contrary, there could be some cumulative impacts from
energy projects in every environmental category. What is
intended, is to recognize that impact assessment and environ-
mental review of cumulative impacts is complex and is only now
beginning to be understood. As more projects are planned,
constructed, operated, and monitored, more accurate assessments
of cumulative impacts in each environmental category will be
possible.
4-216
-------
5.0 COORDINATION
Coordination with other Federal agencies, State agencies, and the public
are set forth in EPA's implementation procedures on NEPA (44 FR 64174-64193) and
in public participation final regulations (44 FR 10286-10297). Letters of comment,
notices, and other coordination documentation are presented in chronological order
at the end of this section.
5.1 SCOPING PROCESS
Pursuant to the requirements of NEPA, a notice of intent to prepare an
EIS on the issuance of an NPDES permit for the proposed South Hallsville Project
was issued by EPA, Region 6, on 10 July 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 a
proposed action. A public meeting was held on 18 August 1981 at the Marshall High
School Auditorium in Marshall, Texas. There were, however, no comments made or
questions asked by those who attended the public meeting.
On 10 July 1981, EPA sent the Notice of Intent to public interest groups
and to interested Federal, State, and local agencies; they were invited to participate
in the EIS process. Cooperating agencies for this statement are:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Fort Worth District
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Office of Surface Mining
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Energy
NEPA Affairs Division
5-1
-------
Federal Emergency Management Agency
State of Texas
Railroad Commission
Surface Mining and Reclamation Division
Historical Commission
Department of Highways and Public Transportation
Air Control Board
Department of Health
Department of Water Resources
Bureau of Economic Geology
5.2 AGENCY COORDINATION
5.2.1 Section 7 Consultation - FWS
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,
EPA requested information concerning the presence of threatened and endangered
species in the area of proposed power plant and adjacent lignite mine in Gregg,
Harrison, and Rusk counties. FWS responded with a letter dated 3 September 1981,
listing three federally listed endangered or threatened species as potentially
occurring in the project area. These species are the Red-cockaded Woodpecker,
American Alligator, and the Bald Eagle. The potential for each of these species
occurring on the project site has been previously mentioned (see section 4.5.2.1).
Informal conversation with FWS began in September 1981, for the
purpose of developing a suitable methodology for satisfying the requirement of
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. These and subsequent telephone
conversations with FWS (Curtis Carley and Gary Halverson (Region 2 FWS-
Albuquerque), primarily on 1-2 October and 21 December 1981) have resulted in a
tentative plan for conducting the Section 7 biological assessment.
5-2
-------
Because of the fact that many of the project activities associated with
the South Hallsville mine will not take place for many years in the future, the
biological assessment activities will be conducted in a time-phased manner. At this
time, a biological assessment of a mining block, which will not be mined until the
year ZOOO or later, is not appropriate since many factors may change during the
interim period (e.g. land use, vegetation and even the status, of the endangered
species which may occur on the project site). Therefore, prior to initiation of
physical activities (e.g. clearing, mining, etc.) associated with each phase of the
project, a biological assessment specific to that phase will be conducted and
provided to EPA for evaluation. This assessment will be completed in a timely
manner so as to allow sufficient time for comment by FWS and any formal
consultation procedures that may be necessary.
Specific survey and assessment methodologies are currently being
finalized; however, general aspects have been tentatively proposed. General areas
(i.e., upland forest) which may contain Red-cockaded Woodpecker habitat will be
determined through the use of infrared and black-and-white aerial photography as
well as existing baseline vegetation and land use maps. These general areas will
then be investigated on the ground by an experienced wildlife biologist with
Red-cockaded Woodpecker survey experience in order to determine if each block of
similarly managed land appears to fulfill the specific habitat requirements of the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (e.g., age of stand, openness of stand, lack of hardwoods
in excess of 15 feet in height, etc.). Any areas which then appear to be potential
habitat for the species will be searched in detail (100 percent coverage if practical)
so as to determine the actual presence or absence of the woodpecker.
Potential habitat for the Bald Eagle and American Alligator is believed
to be much more limited in extent and area! distribution. Any areas on the project
site which appear to be good habitat for either of these species will be noted,
photographed and evaluated in terms of the potential for usage by these endangered
species. Signs of the American Alligator will be searched for along the edges of any
good potential habitat which may be affected by project activities.
5-3
-------
5.2.2 Section 404/10 - USCE
The Ft. Worth District of the USCE was invited to participate as a
cooperating agency because their District boundary transects the proposed project
area (see letter of response dated 30 July 1981). The pipeline and water intake
structure for the proposed power plant was authorized under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 by Department
of the Army permit SWF-80-MARION-280 (see enclosures as stated in letter of
response dated 30 July 1981).
5.2.3 Section 106 - NHPA
Under Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, the SHPO was
contacted concerning the proposed South Hallsville Project. The Notice of Intent
was forwarded to the SHPO for review (10 July 1981). The SHPO staff concurred
that compliance procedures for Section 106 of NHPA and the pertinent federal
regulations have only been partially accomplished (see letter of response dated
11 August 1981). A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be drafted between
EPA, SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to avoid or minimize
adverse impacts on cultural resources in compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation ACE of 1966.
5.2.4 Executive Order 11514, Avoid or Mitigate Adverse Effects on Rivers in
the Nationwide Inventory
In response to the EPA's notice of intent to prepare an EIS, the U.S.
Dept. of the Interior, National Parks Service in their 13 August 1981 letter
requested a discussion on potential adverse effects on the scenic, historic, and
wildlife values of the segment of Sabine River included in the Nationwide Inventory
(Federal Register, September 8, 1980). In accordance with this request, the EIS
examines the relationship of the mining and power plant operation to the Inventory
5-4
-------
river segment in Sec. 4.7.1.7 and 4.9.5. No impacts that would lessen or foreclose
the options to classify any portion of the inventory segment as wild, scenic, or
recreational river area would occur.
5.2.5 Other Agency Concerns
Concerns expressed in letters from other Federal and State agencies are
listed below:
o Effects of discharges of dredge and fill material into waters of
United States on aquatic and terrestrial organisms, water quality
parameters, and the overall aquatic ecosystem (USCE, 30 July
1981; TDWR, 25 August 1981).
o A description of the proposals for restoration or mitigation of
wetlands adjacent to the Sabine River that will be affected by the
projects (USCE, 30 July 1981).
o Discussion of hydrologic impacts, including cumulative effects of
other projects affecting the same aquifer/recharge areas (OSM, 31
July 1981).
o Assess different overburden handling techniques and the resulting
potential for vegetation (OSM, 31 July 1981).
o Discussion of land-use changes, including a comparison of pre- and
post-mining scenarios (OSM, 31 July 1981).
o Impacts of construction and mining activities on natural and
cultural resources (National Park Service, 13 August 1981).
o Any possible adverse effects on the scenic, historic and wildlife
values of the segment of Sabine River included in the "Nationwide
Inventory" (Federal Register, September 8, 1980) (National Park
Service, 13 August 1981).
o Discussion of steps that will be taken to mitigate erosion,
increased run-off, and impact to the 100-year flood plain during
mining operation (FEMA, 13 August 1981).
5-5
-------
Additional letters from agencies acknowledging the notice of intent and
requesting copies of this EIS are included in this section. Also included are letters
from agencies granting various permit applications for construction of project-
related structures.
5.3 EIS REVIEW PROCESS
Upon notice of availability of this Draft EIS in the Federal Register, a
45-day comment period is initiated during which comments are solicited from
Federal, State, and local agencies, from the applicant, and from the public. A
public hearing will be scheduled. After the comment period and public hearing, and
after comments have been responded to by EPA, the Final EIS will be prepared and
distributed. The Final EIS will have a 30-day comment period, after which EPA can
issue a record of decision on the NPDES permit action.
5-6
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V!
12O1 ELM STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 7527O
July 10, 1981
NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) on the H. W. Pirkey Power Plant and the South Hallsvilie
surface lignite mine.
PURPOSE: In accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act, EPA has identified a need to prepare an EIS
and publishes this Notice of Intent pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.7.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region 6 (SA-F)
1201 Elm St., Suite 2800
Dallas, Texas 75270
Telephone: (214) 767-2716 or (FTS} 729-2716
SUMMARY:
1. Description of .Proposed Project - Southwestern Electric Power
Company (SWEPCO) is developing a lignite-fired steam electric
generating station near Hallsville, Harrison County, Texas. This
facility, designated the H. W. Pirkey Power Plant, will consist of
one generating unit with a net capacity of 640 megawatts. Major
appurtenances of the outdoor steam generator (boiler) and the
indoor turbine generator will be a 1,250-acre cooling pond for
condenser heat dissipation and a wet limestone flue gas desulfuri-
zation system for control of sulfur dioxide air emissions. Makeup
water for the plant will be provided by a pipeline from Cypress Bayou.
Construction of the power plant was begun in April 1979, and the
unit is scheduled to enter commercial operation during the spring
of 1985.
Fuel for the power plant will be provided by an adjacent surface
lignite mine in Harrison County, Texas, designated the South
Hallsvilie mine. This mine will be owned by SWEPCO but mining
operations will be conducted by the Sabine Mining Company, a
subsidiary of North American Coal Company, under contract to SWEPCO,
The surface mine will produce approximately 2.8 million tons per
year and actual surface mining is scheduled to commence in late 1984.
5-7
-------
2. Alternatives - The SIS will evaluate the impacts of reasonable
alternatives to project(s) construction and operation, including no
action, as well as alternatives regarding issuance or denial of
EPA's NPOES permits. In addition, the EIS will discuss any alterna-
tives available to other Federal and/or State agencies, and any
reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of EPA.
3. Scoping - EPA, Region 6, has initiated the "scoping process" and
will conduct a public meeting for the purpose of identifying issues
for consideration in the preparation of the EIS. The scoping
meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m. on August 18, 1981 at the Marshall
High School, 1900 Maverick Drive, in Marshall, Texas.
4. Public and Private Participati.on in the EIS Process - The issues
and concerns identified during the scoping process will help
determine the nature and extent of the impact analysis in the EIS.
EPA invites full participation by individuals, private organiza-
tions, and local, State, and Federal agencies. EPA will involve
and encourage the public to participate in the planning and EIS
process to the maximum extent possible.
5. Timing - EPA estimates the Draft EIS will be available for public
review and comment in November 1981. Time requirements have been
estimated for the environmental review at the following milestones:
0 Developing Scope of EIS September 1981
Availability of Draft EIS November 1981
3 Record of Decision March 1982
6. Mail ing List - If you wish to be placed on this EPA mailing list,
please submit your name and address to Mr. Clinton B. Spotts at the
above address and reference the South Hallsvilie .Project.
Frances E. Phillips If
Acting Regional Administrator
5-8
-------
SCALE 1=250000
4 0 4 Ml
PIRKEY
POWER
PUNT
li«Y. HUSTON t ASSOCIATES. INC
Flg.l.l-l
PROJECT LOCATION
SOUTH HALLSVILLE PROJECT
-------
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS
SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION DIVISION
»f*"****»
JAMES E. (JIM) NUGENT, Chairman •''•*•/%£>—^\>''- "*' RANDEL (JERR'0
MACK WALLACE, Comminioner / l-|p / ^^w'"' D'"
BUDDY TEMPLE, Comminion.r i = \$£^^b\>\ CHESLEY N. BLEV
Atiiitanl Din
105 W. RIVERSIDE DRIVE CAPITOL STATION - P. 0. DRAWER 12967 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78
July 15, 1981
RE: Sabine Mining Company, South
Hallsville No. 1 Mine
Docket No. 13
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agencv
MlTstreet S & A DIVISION
Dallas, Texas 75270 .j
Dear Mr. Spotts:
I have received your letter dated July 10, 1981, in which
you discuss the proposed H. \V. Pirkey Power Plant being devel-
oped by the Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) to be
located in Harrison County. The lignite mine to be developed
to supply fuel for the plant would also be located in Harrison
Count}7 and operated by the Sabine Mining Company.
Your letter specifically requests agencies wishing to co-
operate in the project review to notify you in writing. The
Railroad Commission of Texas' Surface Mining and Reclamation
Division wants to participate in the process, at least to the
extent that such review might in any way affect the Sabine
Mining Company mining operation.
As you are probably aware, pursuant to the federal Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act o_f_ 1977, the Railroad Com-
mission of Texas is the exclusive permitting and regulatory
authority for surface coal mining operations in this state.
The Sabine Mining Company operation must be reviewed in de-
tail by our staff and permitted prior to commencement of any
5-10
An Equal Opportunity
-------
Mr. CI in-con B. Spotts
July 15,
Page two
1981
raining activities. This review is very detailed and requires
the submission by the Sabine Mining Company of an application
which addresses water resources, hydrology, wildlife, vegetation
mining and reclamation techniques, and a myriad of other related
areas.
In the interest of avoiding duplicitous review of the
mining operation, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Division
would like to conduct its review as a cooperating agency in
conjunction with its review as Regulatory Authority. This
would also assure that any comments we might have are based
on complete information which is required by the state as a
part of any mining application. To the extent that the Rail-
road Commission does participate in the review process, we
would ask that our comments be made a part of the official
administrative record.
Please let me know if there is anything further you need
from us at this time.
Si
J. Randel (Jerry) Hill
Director
JRH/csp
5-11
-------
y.
WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, JR.
GOVERNOR
TO: " Review Participants
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
July 22, 1981
TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM
AUG
1331
DATE COMMENTS DUE
BUDGET AND PLANNING OFFICE: 8/27/81
_ Aeronautics Commission
_X Air Control Board
_^ Animal Health Commission
(/^Bureau of Economic Geology
_ Coastal and Marine Council
_X Department of Agriculture
_X Department of Health
_X Department of Highways and Public
Transportation
_X Department of Water Resources
_X Texas Forest Service
_X General Land Office
X Historical Commission
_ Industrial Commission
X_ Parks and Wildlife Department
_ Public Utilities Commission
X_ Railroad Commission
X_ Soil and Water Conservation Board
_ Texas Energy and Natural Resources
Advisory Council
_ Governor's Office of Regional
Development
fl Draft E1S fx] Other Nnrirp nf TntP.ru- EIS Number 1-07-50-008
•' • i- I
Project Title Pirkey Power Plant/South Hallsville Surface Lignite Mine
Harrison Countv
Originating Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-95, and the Texas Policy for the Environment (1975), the Governor's
Budget and Planning Office is responsible for securing the comments and views of loca
and State agencies during the environmental impact statement review process.
Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the above cited document. This
Office solicits your comments and asks that they be returned on or before the above
due date. You may find the questions, listed on the reverse side, useful in formulat:
your comments.
For questions on this project, contact
Ward Goessling
at (512) 475- 2427,
Please address your agency's formal comments to: Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director
Governor's Budget and Planning Offii
Attention: General Gover^mpnt Sect!
P.O. Box 1242S
Austin, Texas 787ll
SAM HOUSTON BUILDING
P. O. BOX 12^23 CAPITOL STATION
3~" J. u
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
-------
Questions to he Considered by Hoviewing Agencies:
1. Does the proposed project impact upon and is it consistent with the plans, programs
and statutory responsibilities of your agency?
2. What additional specific effects should be assessed?
3. What additional alternatives should be considered?
4. What better or more appropriate measures and standards should be used to evaluate
environmental effects?
5. What additional control measures should be applied to reduce adverse environmental
effects or to avoid or minimize the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of
resources?
6. How serious would the environmental damage from this project be, using the best
alternative and control measures?
7. What specific issues'require further discussion or resolution?
8. Does your agency concur with the implementation of this project?
As a part of the environmental impact statement review process, the Budget and
Planning Office forwards to the originating agency all substantive comments which
are formally submitted. If, after analyzing this document, you conclude that
substantive comments are unnecessary, you may wish to so indicate by checking the
box below ana forwarding the form to this office. This type of response will indicate
receipt of this document by your agency and that no formal response—will be prepared.
^^~~
_ E-. G . Tfermund, Associate Director
Comment.
_ Name anjd Title of Reviewing Official
Bureau or Economic Geoxogy
The University of Texas at Austin
University Station Box X
AubLili, T^Xd^ 78712
Agency
5-13
-------
WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, JR.
GOVERNOR
TO: "Review Participants
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
July 22, 1981
TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM
DATE COMMENTS DUE TO
BUDGET AND PLANNING OFFICE: 8/27/81
Aeronautics Commission
J[Air Control Board
. Animal Health Commission
X Bureau of Economic Geology
Coastal and Marine Council
UC Department of Agriculture
_X Department of Health
_X Department of Highways and Public
Transportation
_X Department of Water Resources
_X Texas Forest Service
T, General Land Office
X Historical Commission
_ Industrial Commission
X_ Parks and Wildlife Department
_ Public Utilities Commission
X_ Railroad Commission
X_ Soil and Water Conservation Board
_ Texas Energy and Natural Resources
Advisory Council
_ Governor's Office of Regional
Development
Nnfire nf Tnt-pnr
EIS Number 1-Q7-50-QQ8
[j Draft EIS" [xj Other
Project Title Pirkey Power Plant/South Hallsville Surface Lignite Mine
Harrison County __
Originating Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency : __^
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-95, and the Texas Policy for che Environment (1975), the Governor's
Budget and Planning Office is responsible for securing the comments and views of local
and State agencies during the environmental impact statement review process.
Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the above cited document. This
Office solicits your comments and asks that they be returned on or before the above
due date. You may find the questions, listed on the reverse side, useful in formulatir
your comments.
For questions on this project, contact
Ward Goessling
at (512) 475- 2427
Please address your agency's formal comments to: Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director
Governor's Budget and Planning Office
Attention: General Government Sectioi
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 73711
SAM HOUSTON BUILDING • P 0. BOX 12428.£ff£TOL STATION • AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711
-------
Suggested Questions to be Considered bv Reviewing Agencies:
1. Does the proposed project impact upon and is it consistent with the plans, programs
and statutory responsibilities of your agency?
2. What additional specific effects should be assessed?
3. What additional alternatives should be considered?
4. What better or more appropriate measures and standards should be used to evaluate
environmental effects?
5. What additional control measures should be applied to reduce adverse environmental
effects or to avoid or minimize the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of
resources?
6. How serious would the environmental damage from this project be, using the best
alternative and control measures?
7. What specific issues ' require further discussion or resolution?
8. Does your agency concur with the implementation of this project?
As a part of the environmental impact statement review process, the Budget and
Planning Office forwards to the originating agency all substantive comments which
are formally submitted. If, after analyzing this document, you conclude that
substantive comments are unnecessary, you may wish to so indicate by checking the
box below and forwarding the form to this office. This type of response will indicate
receipt of this document by your agency and that no formal response will be prepared.
No Comment.
""/Name and Title of Reviewing Official
5-15
-------
COMMISSION STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS ENGINEER-DIRECTOR
AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MARK G. GOODE
A
ROBERT H. DEDMAN AUSTIN, TEXAS 7870]
JOHN R. BUTLER, JR.
July 24, 1981
IN REPLY REFER TO
FILE NO.
D8-E 854
Notice of Intent to Prepare EIS
Pirkey Power Plant/South Hallsville
Surface Lignite Mine
Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director
Governor's Budget and Planning Office
Sain Houston Building, 7th Floor
Austin, Texas
Dear Mr. Wrotenbery:
Thank you for your memorandum dated July 22, 1981, transmitting the
Environmental Protection Agency's notice of intent to prepare an environ-
mental impact statement covering the Pirkey Power Plant/South Hallsville
Surface Lignite Mine in Harrison County.
The notice of intent was also received directly from EPA. Our District
Office responsible for Harrison County has been advised of the scoping
meeting to be held on the proposed project, and we have requested that EPA
furnish us a copy of the EIS when available.
Sincerely yours,
M. G. Goode
Engineer-Director
By:
Marcus L. YanceyxJJr .
Deputy Engineer-Director
/93,
5-16
-------
/•^-. ' United States
':/UJ'-; DePartment of
Cy Agriculture
Soil
Conservation
Service
P. 0. Box 648
Temple, TX
76503
July 27, 1981
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201. Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
JUl 29
S & A DIVISION
In regard to your letter of July 10 requesting our participation in the
preparation of an environmental impact statement for the proposed H. W.
Pirkey Power Plant and the South Hallsville surface lignite mine, Harrison
County, Texas; Mr. Paul Leggett, district conservationist at Marshall,
plans to attend the Scoping Meeting to be held August 18 as the Soil
Conservation Service representative.
Sincerely,
GEORGE C. MARKS
State Conservationist
cc: Blake E. Lovelace, Area Conservationist, SCS, Mt. Pleasant, Texas
Paul Leggett, District Conservationist, SCS, Marshall, Texas
The Soil Conservation Service
is an agency ot the
Department ot Agriculture
5-17
SCS-AS-1
10-79
-------
United States Department of the Interior
IN REPLY
REFER TO:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
SOUTHWEST REGION
COMMERCE BUILDING. 714 S. TYLER, SUITE 20]
AMARILLO, TEXAS 79101
JUL 2 9 1981
S & A DIVISION
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
1201 Elm Street, Suite 2800
Dallas, TX 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
We have received your July 10, 1981, notice of intent to
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) and notice
to Federal agencies inviting participation in EIS prepa-
ration regarding a proposed H.W. Pirkey powerplant and the
South Hallsville surface lignite mine, Hallsville, Harrison
County, Texas.
The Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) has historically been
involved in energy development primarily.at hydroelectric
sites; accordingly, our staff expertise is in the hydro-
electric field and not in thermal power generation. Because
of this and.. reductions in personnel assigned to our power
division, we do not have the personnel to participate in the
subject scoping meetings or to assist in preparation of the
subject document.
Regarding data that may be of help to you, the Bureau is
presently in the first phase of study for the Bon Wier Water
Supply Project, which is in the geographic area of the power
project. In-house water availability studies are currently
underway concerning the Sabine River. This information may
be available in early 1982. Should you need this information
or have further questions about this project, please contact
Mr. Dan Rubenthaler, team leader, at this office, telephone
FTS 735-5473 or (806) 378-5473.
Sincerely yours,
•^
Robert H. Weimer
Regional Director
5-18
-------
Robert Bernstein, M.D., F.A.C.P.
Commissioner
Texas Department of Health
R
1100 West 49th Street
Austin, Texas 78756
(512)458-7111
AUG S 1981
July 29, 1981
Budget/Planning
Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director
Governor's Budget and Planning Office
P.O. Box L2423
Austin, Texas 78711
ATTENTION: General Government Section
SUBJECT: Pirkey Power Plant, South Kallsville
Surface Lignite Mine, Harrison County
Notice of Intent to Prepare EIS
EIS No. 1-07-50-008
Dear Mr. Wrotenbery:
In accordance with a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental
Irr.pact Statement (EIS) for the Pirkey Power Plant and South Hallsville
Lignite Mine published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on July 10, 1981, a representative of the Texas Department of
Health will plan to attend the scoping meeting to be held on August 18,
1981, in Marshall, Texas.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the EIS preparation
procesj_.
JaVid M. Cochran, P.E.
Deputy Commissioner for Environmental
and Consumer Health Protection
DLH/bkh
cc: Public Health Region 1, TDH
Marshall-Harrison County Health District
Program Budgetary Services, TDH
5-19
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FORT WORTH DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O BOX 173OO
FORT WORTH. TEXAS 761O2
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
SWFOD-0 30 July 1981
Mr. Clinton M. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
Environmental Protection Agency ^yg o
1201 Elm Street
S & A DIVISION
Dear Mr. Spotts:
Thank you for your public notice and letter of July 10, 1981, concerning
the proposed H. W. Pirkey Power Plant and the South Hallsville surface •
lignite mine near Hallsville, Texas.
The pipeline and water intake structure for the proposed power plant has
been authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10
of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 by Department of the Army permit
SWF-80-MARION-280. It appears that our responsibilities for additional
portions of the project will be limited to authorization of any discharges
into waters of the United States resulting from the lignite mine.
The following comments are in response to questions in your letter of
July 10, 1981, and are presented in the same order as listed in the
referenced letter.
1. It appears that the mining operation may involve-discharges of
dredged and fill material into waters of the United States. If so, you
should evaluate the work using the 404(b)(l) guidelines published in
40 CFR 230. This analysis should include a discussion of how such discharges
will affect aquatic and terrestrial organisms, water quality parameters, and
the overall aquatic ecosystem. Additional requirements for a Department of
Army permit will include construction details such as amount, type, and
location of fill material, a description of the applicant's proposals for
restoration or mitigation of wetlands adjacent to the Sabine River which
will be affected by the project, and any additional information necessary
for a full public interest review of the proposed project.
2. Analysis of the issues described above should be as complete and
thorough as possible within the limits of available data.
3. Special expertise which we can provide includes determination of
the limits of our jurisdiction under Section 404 and Section 10.
5-20
-------
SWFOD-0 30 July 1981
Mr. Clinton M. Spotts
4. Under Section 404, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the
discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States
including adjacent wetlands. Under Section 10, we regulate any work or
structures in or affecting a navigable water of the United States.
5. The Statement of Findings, Environmental Assessment, and a copy
of permit number SWF-80-MARION-280 authorizing the makeup water intake
structure and pipeline are attached for your information.
I hope this information will assist you in development of the Scope of Work
for the EIS. If you should require further information on this matter,
please contact Ms. Vicki Goodknight at 817-334-2681.
Sincerely,
3 Incl ALLIE J. MAJORS .
As stated Chief, Operations Division
5-21
-------
United stales- Department c
OFFICE OF SURFACE MIXING
Reclamation and Enforcement EVp 7_g
818 Grand A\enue, Scarriu Building
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
July 31, 1981
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (SA-F)
1201 Elm Street, Suite 2800 5 & A DIVISION!
Dallas, Texas 75270 'OlflV
Dear Mr. Spotts:
Thank you for your letter of July 10, 1981, requesting OSM's participation
as a cooperating agency in preparing the Pirkey Power Plant/South Hallsville
Lignite Mine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) .
Under the provisions of 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5, OSM agrees to be a
cooperating agency. As stated in our letter of July 23, 1981, on the
Dolet Hills project, the level of our participation may be limited because
of the reorganization OSM is currently undergoing. Until further notice,
however, the principal OSM contact for this project will be Julie Elfving,
Regional Environmental Scientist (FTS 758-5109).
In your letter you also requested information on several questions as part
of the scoping process.
1. Significant issues: Cumulative hydrologic impacts, restoration
of a suitable growing medium for vegetation, land use changes.
2. Scope of analysis: Analysis of these issues should be detailed.
Discussion of hydrologic impacts should include cumulative effects of
other projects affecting the same aquifer/recharge areas. The EIS should
assess different overburden handling techniques and the resulting potential
for revegetation. The discussion of land use changes should include a
comparison of pre- and post-mining scenarios. All these discussions
should be within the context of the Texas Rules on Surface Mining and
Reclamation.
3. Special expertise: OSM has a variety of technical disciplines
that might be helpful. These include various earth sciences, hydrology,
soils, soil-plant relationships, forestry, wildlife biology, and others.
4. Jurisdiction by law: OSM's jurisdiction is indirect and probably
would not apply during the EIS preparation stage.
5. Information: Attached for your use is a list of references that
might be helpful.
5-22
-------
Because there is no field tour planned, OSM will not have a representative
at the scoping meeting on August 18, 1981. However, we would be interested
in going on a site visit when one is arranged.
Sincerely,
)ND L. LOWHIE
£gional Director
Enclosure
cy to: Eruce Blanchard
Frank Anderson
Ray Churan
5-23
-------
Literature
Adams, J., ana Vanston, J. H. July, 1S75. Coal and lignite in Texas:
a brief review. Public Information Report No. 1. Center for
Energy Studies. The University of Texas at Austin.
Askenasy, P. E. 1977. Soil factors influencing row crop production
and phosphate adsorption on leveled lignite mine spoil banks.
Ph.D. Thesis. Texas ASM University. 110 pp.
"Baker, J. September 11, 1977. South Texas ranchers vs. strip miners.
Austin American-Statesman.
Bryson, H. L. 1974. Early survival] total height, and foliar analysis
of eleven tree species grown on strip mine spoil in Freestone
County, Texas. M.S. Thesis. Stephan F. Austin State University.
Nacogdoches, Texas.
Groat, C. G. 1973. Inventory and environmental effects of surface
mining in Texas: preliminary report. Bureau of Economic Geology.
University of Texas at Austin.
Henry, C. D., Kaiser, W. R., and Groat, C. G- 1976. Reclamation at Big
Brown Steam Electric Station near Fairfield, Texas: geologic and
hydrologic setting (Research Note 3). Bureau of Economic Geology.
University of Texas at Austin.
Kightower, J. January 20, 1978. Spoiling the soil. The Texas Observer.
Hons, F. M. 1974. Potassium sources and availability in three east
Texas soils. Master of Science Thesis. Texas ASM University.
77 pp,.
Hons, F. M., Dixon, J. B., and Matocha, J. E. 1976. Potassium sources
and availability in a deep, sandy soil of east Texas. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. ' 40:370-373.
Hons, F. M. 1978. Chemical and physical properties of lignite spoil
and their influence upon successful reclamation. Ph..D, Dissertation
Texas ASM University. College Station, Texas.
Hons, F. M. , Askenasy, P. E. , Hossner, L. R. , and Whiteley, E. L. 0.978.
pp. 209-217. IN W. R. Kaiser (ed.). Gulf Coast Lignite Confer-
ence: Geology, Utilization, and Environmental Aspects. Bureau
of Economic Geology. The University of Texas. Austin, Texas.
Hossner, L. R., Dixon, J. B. , Senkayi, A. L., and Ahlrichs, J. S. 1980.
Chemistry and mineralogy of lignite overburden. pp. 15.1-15.11.
IN Christopher C. Mathewson ted.). Lignite: Texas ASM Univer-
sity Lignite Symposium. Center for Energy and Mineral Resources.
Texas ASM University. College Station, Texas.
House Report to Accompany HR 2. April 22, 1977. Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee. No. 95-218.
House Report to Accompany HR 13950. August 31, 1976. Interior and
Insular Affairs Committee. No. 95-218.
5-24
-------
TEX
A
JOHN L.BLAIR
Chairman
CHARLESR.JAYNES
Vice Chairman
BILL STEWART, P. E.
Executive Director
August 3, 1981
6330 HWY. 290 EAST
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78723
512/451-5711
v •O\ / T!) "
JLJ OARj
WILLIAM N.ALLAN1
) T r> ynTQmqic.pwtGENTo, P. E.
L \j L I V LRBID HARTMAN
D.JACK KILIAN.M. D.
OJTO R. KUNZE, Ph. D., P. E.
AUG t 1981 FRANK H.LEWIS
WILLIAM D. PARISH
Budget/Planning
Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director
Governor's Budget and Planning
Office
Attn: General Government Section
P. 0. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711
Subject: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement of the Pirkey Power Plant and South Hallsville
Surface Lignite Mine, Harrison County, Texas;
EIS Number 1-07-50-008
Dear Mr. Wrotenbery:
Our records indicate that the following Texas Air Control Board permits
have been applied for and have been issued for the above cited facilities:
(1) Number 6269—Indoor turbine generator, and (2) Number 6270—a lig-
nite handling facility. If new or additional facilities become necessary,
this agency should be contacted regarding permit requirements. Call AC
512 451-5711.
Harrison County meets the national primary and secondary air quality
standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and par-
ticulates (TSP) and is, therefore, in a designated "attainment area" for
these criteria pollutants. The county is designated "uhclassifiable"
for ozone. There has been no designation established for lead.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide assistance.
information is needed, please contact me.
Sincerely,
If additional
6ge R. Wallis,^
Standards and Regulations Program
cc: Mr. Richard Leard, P.E., Regional Supervisor, Tyler
5-25
-------
^SES^
Department of Eneray „ , ,
Washington, D.C. 20585 AUG
S&ADiV!3!ON
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
1201 Elm Street, Suite 2800
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
We have reviewed the notice of intent to prepare an environmental
impact statement (EIS) for the H. W. Pirkey Power Plant and
the South Hallsville surface lignite mine and your request
for our participation as a cooperating agency.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate as a cooperating
agency in the preparation of the EIS for the proposed project.
We do not have the resources available to participate at
this time, however, we would appreciate receiving a copy of
the draft EIS when it is available for review and comment.
Sincerely,
Robert \. Stern, Director
NEPA Affairs Division
cc: Curtis E. Carlson, Jr.
5-26
-------
,i,vT»N Mi KK.O . sh.. H\KLIM:EV
MO I'HAIKMVN
laKI'li. f 01.L1NM. DALLA>
J.»HN B r<>VV\LL1 . H')l -'I"1
MK.-> KtA'NETH DAVKLEF'.v AUSTI'i
SYBIL IJICKINSOV Al >TT
W(K)1>K'1W GLASSCOCk.Jk . JIH.MM
MKi. ALBERT G. HILL. UALLA:
MKS H. L. LONG. KIIX.OR1
MRS. AKGYLL A. McALLE.V LIN"
LOUIS P. TEKKAZAS. SAN ANTOM'
UK. DAN A. WILLIS. HOL'STO!"
P.O. BOX 12176
AUSTIN TEXAS 7S7I1
August 11, 1981
Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
AUG 13 tqg1
& A DIVISION
Re: EIS Preparation - South
Hallsvilie surface lignite
mine & Pirkey Power Plant
We have received the Notice of Intent on July 24, 1981, regarding the proposed
action referenced above. In reviewing our files on this matter pursuant to
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the pertinent
regulations, 36 C.F.R., Part 800, we note that the proposed area of the under-
taking;, i.e., the Pirkey Power Plant was surveyed by archeologists in 1979.
Recommendations for further testing at one site (41 HS 147)'have been made.
Further work determining the significance of the site in light of National
Register criteria has not been completed. A 20% sample survey of the mine area
has been accomplished (1979). Potential eligibility of some sites located
during the survey have not been determined as of yet. It has been requested
by this office that a 100% archeological survey of the initial permit area be
accomplished before construction and mining takes place (letter to R.R.C.,
June 22, 81). The makeup water pipeline from Cypress Bayou to the Pirkey Power
Plant has not been archeologically surveyed or assessed. This pipeline and
any railroad spurs and attendant transmission corridors have not been located
or dealt with by this agency. Cultural resource assessment of all these facets
of the Pirkey Power Plant and the South Hall svi lie Mine Area must be dealt
with in order to be in compliance with the federal regulations.
According to our files and reports compliance procedures for Section 106 of
NHPA and the pertinent federal regulations have been only partially accomplished.
Archeological testing of recommended sites both historic and prehistoric to
determine their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register and further
survey and assessment on the initial permit area has of yet not been accomplished.
Our review of this proposed action (the EIS) and subsequent studies are
appropriate and we look forward to completing these procedures in a timely
manner.
./he Jtcdz^aeswu. for
-------
Clintion E. Spotts
U.S. EPA
Page 2
Auaust 11, 1981
Attached please find a list of the studies and reports generated as a
result of the compliance procedures thus far accomplished. We look forward
to participating in the review process in the future. If there are any
questions, please advise us.
Sincerely,
Truett Latimer
State Historic Preservation Officer
by
LaVerne Herrington, Ph.D.
Director
Resource Conservation
PEP/LH/lft
cc: Paul T. Wrotenbery
Enclosure
5-28
-------
Dibble, David S.
1977 Cultural Resource Survey - Phase I Reconnaissance South
Hallsvilie Project, Harrison County. Espey, Huston &
Associates for SWEPCO
Espey, Huston & Associates
1979 Cultural Resources Survey Phase II Plant Site/Cooling
Pond Survey Mine Area Predictive Model South Hallsville
Project, for SWEPCO
Freeman, Martha D.
1978 A Preliminary Assessment of the Historical Resources
of the South Hallsvilie Project Area, Harrison County,
Texas. Espey, Huston and Associates, for SWEPCO
5-29
-------
-^
\
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
REGION VI
FEDERAL CENTER
-DENTON, TEXAS 76201
__ ,.
f- '
August 13, 1981
" v
Mr. Frances E. Phillips
Acting Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street ,
Dallas, Texas 75270 J £. i\ L'[\ IL'iUN
Dear Mr. Phillips:
This letter is in reference to the Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS on
the H. W. Pirkey Power Plant and the South Hallsville surface lignire
mine. Harrison County has been identified by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) as having areas of special flood hazard, 100-
year flood plain, however is not participating in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) . This would be a good opportunity to encourage
the County to apply for participation in the NFIP.
We would like to see the EIS address steps that will be taken to mitigate
erosion, increased run-off, and impact^ to the 100-year flood plain
during mining operations. Will the generating units be located in the
flood plain, and if so, will they be protected from flooding? We would
like to comment on the EIS when it is completed.
We hope our comments will be helpful in preparing the EIS. If we may be
of further assistance, please let us know by writing or calling (817)
387-5811, extension 271.
Sincerely,
/"/1 " o r : i
/ ' ; W '
Cheryl A. Hoke
Emergency Management Specialist
Insurance and Mitigation
5-30
-------
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
N REPLY REFER TO:
L7619(SWR)SNR
ER 81/1493
SOUTHWEST REGION
State and Local Affairs
5000 Marble N £., Room 211
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110
AUG 1 3 1981
AUG 17 193',
S & A DIVISION-
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
This responds to the Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental
impact statement for the H. W. Pirkey Power Plant and South Hallsville
Surface Lignite Mine, South Hallsville, Harrison County, Texas. The
following comments are provided on a technical assistance basis.
Planning for the proposed project should include appropriate
consideration of historical and archeological resources, as required by
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and implemented by the
Council on Environmental Quality regulations, and in accordance with
historic preservation laws and regulations. The Council on
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.25) specify that draft
statements should integrate surveys, studies and impact analyses
required by the National Historic Preservation Act. In addition, the
draft statement should describe impacts to historical and archeological
resources, and discuss how these impacts will be mitigated (1502.14(f),
1502.16(g) and (h)). Further guidance is provided by the regulations
of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800.9), which
direct that compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act be
initiated no later than during the preparation of the environmental
assessment/draft environmental statement, and that the assessment/draft
statement "should fully describe any National Register or eligible
properties within the area of the undertaking's potential environmental
impacts and the nature of the undertaking's effect on them."
To comply with these requirements, please contact the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) to determine if any cultural resources of
local significance and any cultural resources which may be listed on or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places are located
within the affected area. In addition, you should obtain the opinion
of the SHPO on the adequacy of present knowledge of cultural resources
in the areas to be affected, as well as the type and level of resource
inventory that may be needed. If the SHPO indicates that a survey is
needed, it should be undertaken early in the planning process and
results reported in the draft statement. The statement should also
include determinations of eligibility for the National Register of
5-31
-------
Historic Places, pursuant to 36 CFR 1204 (formerly 36 CFR 63), for any
resources which might be affected. The SHPO in Texas is Mr. Truett
Latimer, Texas Historical Commission, P. 0. Box 12276, Capitol Station,
Austin, Texas 78711.
Information concerning possible impacts on recreational resources on a
statewide basis can be obtained from Mr. Charles D. Nash, Jr., P. 0.
Box 1007, San Marcos, Texas 78666. In addition, local parks department
officials should be contacted for impacts to specific parks.
Possible impacts to significant natural resources should be considered
in project planning. Coordination with Mr. John Hamilton, Texas
Conservation Foundation, P. 0. Box 12845, Capitol Station, Austin,
Texas 78711, would be helpful in identifying natural resources in the
project area.
A 50 mile segment of the Sabine River, from the upper end of Toledo
Bend Reservoir upstream to the town of Easton, has been included on the
Nationwide Rivers Inventory prepared by this agency. It is recognized
for its significant scenic, historic, and wildlife values. If impacts
on this segment of the Sabine River are anticipated, please contact
this office, pursuant to the "Procedures for Interagency Consultation
to Avoid or Mitigate Adverse Effects on Rivers in the Nationwide
Inventory," (Federal Register, September 8, 1980).
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
Sincerely yours,
''^•James J. Donoghue
Chief, Division of Natural Programs
5-32
-------
TL/x.v.S DLI'ARTMI.VI if V.-\TI.R RLSOuRCLS
1700 N. (.',• r--..'.,A-. .•:.'--.
A i: -.:;; i. 1 c \ a s
A'^'I""">\
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD ''*'/,jU'.'~\ TEXAS \VATl;K COMMISSION
Louis A. licechcrl. Jr., Chairman '^\^>'''^ r- r\ V 1 i f 'TT' FVDona^- C1''"' "'"
John H. Garrctt, Vice Chairman \:• T?= vi-'*' „- (R F C L » V*0^^- Harcicman
George W. McCleskey ^i^ \J X U Joe R. Carroll
Glen E. Roney Harvey Davis
W. O. Bankston Executive Director ^ £|JQ 31 1981
Lonnie, A. "Bo" Pilgrim August 25, 1981
gu^;3t/Planning
Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director
Governor's Budget and Planning Office
P. 0. Box 13561, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Mr. Wrotenbery:
Re: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)—Public Notice of Intent to
Prepare Environmental Impact Statement: H. W. Pirkey Lignite-Fired Steam
Electric Generating Station and South Halisville Surface Lignite Mine Project,
Near City of Halisville, Harrison County, Texas. July 10, 1981. (State
Reference: EIS-1-07-50-008).
I ,
In response to your July 22 memorandum, the staff of the Texas Department of
Water Resources (TDWR) suggests that in the pending preparation of the environ-
mental impact statement (EIS) relative to the issuance of NPDES waste discharge
permits for the referenced energy facilities project, USEPA should consider and
discuss the following topics relative to water resources:
1. The potential site-specific impacts of the project on local
water resources and water quality. Since the impact on
the local environment of power plant and related surface
mining operation is principally a function of the water it
withdraws, alters, or discharges, we believe that it is
important to examine the critical characteristics of the
project design that affect this water requirement and
usage.
2. The feasible measures (e.g., special dewatering of excava-
tions; proper sloping of excavations and fills) which will
be adopted during construction and future operations to
reduce and control soil erosion; stream sedimentation and
turbidity; and acidified or ferruginous drainage from
mining operations and from coal stockpiles and fly-ash
piles at the power plant into adjacent bodies of water.
P.O. Box 13087 Capitol Station • Austin. Texas 78711 • Area Code 512/475-3187
-------
Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director
Page 2
August 25, 1981
The adoption of proper procedures can produce a sub-
stantial improvement in the control of temporary pollution
generated by power plant and associated mining projects.
The suspended impurities that originate from site excava-
tions and equipment cleaning should be made to collect in
leak-proof settling basins. Rainfall runoff, usually rich in
suspended solids prior to plant completion, as well as that
extracted during dewatering operations, should be retained
until it clears sufficiently to be released in conformance
with water pollution standards. The use of chemical feed
equipment, filters, and oil skimmers can help hasten the
process when large quantities of water are involved.
Construction of intake and effluent structures within dikes
and weirs would also mitigate some of the temporary
adverse earth excavation and fill effects.
3. The monitoring plan to be adopted to ensure protection of
existing local authorized water rights and applicable
stream water quality standards, and also to ensure
compliance with the provisions and terms of waste
discharge and industrial or hazardous solid waste permits
to be issued by USEPA under the NPDES Program of the
federal Clean Water Act, and by TDWR under the Waste
Discharge Program (Chapter 26, Texas Water Code) and
the Hazardous Waste Management Program (Article 4477.7 ,
Texas Civil Statutes). Special mention should be made of
the proposed measures to be adopted to detect and to
prevent or reduce the potential leaching of metals and
other toxins associated with unburned lignite, fly-ash that
results from the partial combustion of coal, or with sludge
produced from stack-gas scrubbers.
TDWR appreciated this opportunity to offer suggestions on the scope of the pending
EIS to be prepared by USEPA in connection with the issuance of federal NPDES
waste discharge permits for the proposed H. W. Pirkey Steam Electric Generating
Station and associated Hallsville Lignite Mine Project. TDWR will be pleased to
review the draft EIS when it is received from USEPA through the State A-95
Clearinghouse in November 1981. Please advise if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
AvHarvey Davis
/ Executive Director
5-34
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
I201 ELf" ^TREET
DAU_*S, TEJ. .S 7527O
Fact Sheet on Environmental Impact Statement
H. W. Prikey Power Plant and
South Hallsville Surface Lignite Mine
August 31, 1981
TO: EIS MAILING LIST:
The following is a brief update of project EIS events of public interest:
1. The Availability of the Scoping Meeting Responsiveness Summary -
tne Responsiveness Summary (copy enclosed] presents the Environ-
mental Protection Agency's (EPA) response to comments received
during the subject EIS scoping process which ended August 28, 1981.
2. Information Depository Established - an Information Depository has
oeen estaonsnea at tne roarsnaii Public Library, located at 300
South Alamo, in Marshall, Texas. An EIS project file is available
for public review at this location, and it will be updated with the
latest information regarding EPA's environmental review of the
proposed projects. The library is open from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
, Monday through Friday. Copies of the material in EPA's file
' can be made at the library for $0.20 per page (8 1/2" x 11" size).
Please ask at the Circulation Desk for access to this EPA file.
3. Distribution of Draft EIS - In addition to the Federal and State
agencies tnat wi11 receive and review the EIS, many groups and
individuals have demonstrated interest in these projects and are on
the EIS mailing list. However, we believe that some of these
persons may not still want a copy of the EIS, or may be satisfied
with receiving and reviewing only the Summary instead of the
complete document. Therefore, in the interest of conserving time
and resources in the printing and distribution of the Draft EIS,
please provide your name and mailing address to me at the above
address if you still wish to receive a copy of either the Summary
or the complete document (see below).
Thank you for your cooperation^
Sincerely,
Clinton B. Spotl^s
Regional EIS Coordinator
Enclosure
. (detach here)
Please send me a copy of:
only the Summary to the Name:
South Hallsville EIS to:
Address:
the complete Draft City:
State: Zip;
5-35
-------
,\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
° REGION VI
12O1 ELM STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 7527O
Responsiveness Summary
to the Public Scoping Meeting on the
H. W. Pirkey Power Plant and
South Hallsvilie Lignite Mine EIS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a public meeting at
7:30 p.m. on August 18, 1981 at the Marshall High School Auditorium in
Marshall, Texas. The public was invited to identify significant issues
which they believed should be addressed, and the extent to which they
should be evaluated, in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). There
were, however, no comments made or questions asked by those who attended
the pub!ic meeting.
To date, the~~ts"sues i-dent-if-j^ed—during the scoping process resulted from
written comments received from other Federal and State agencies.. After
reviewing these comments, EPA has determined that they are all signifi-
cant, and therefore shall be included in the scope of the Draft EIS.
The following is a list of those issues:
1. Effects of discharges of dredge and fill material into waters of
United States on aquatic and terrestrial organsims, water quality
parameters, and the overall aquatic ecosystem.
2. A description of the proposals for restoration or mitigation of
wetlands adjacent to the Sabine River which will be affected by the
projects.
3. Discussion of hydrologic impacts, including cumulative effects of
other projects affecting the same aquifer/recharge areas,
4. Assess different overburden handling techniques and the resulting
potential for revegetation.
5. Discussion of land use changes, including a comparison of pre- and
post-mining scenarios. -'••
6. Impacts of construction and mining activities on natural and
cultural resources.
7. Any possible adverse effects on the scenic, historic and wildlife
values of the segment of Sabine River included in the "Nationwide
Inventory" (Federal Register, September 8, 1980).
8. Discussion of steps that will be taken to mitigate erosipn, increased
run-off, and impact to the 100-year flood plain during mining
operation.
Li inton b. bpotts /
Regional EIS Coordinator
Date: &' 3/ ~ 2 I
5-36
-------
0 ft/ P3 ^]
U U iv I •• • i
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
p. CLEMENTS, JR. SEP 1Q !PV
September 2, 1981 S & A DIVISION
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
Region VI, Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spctts:
The notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement on the
Pirkey Power Plant /South Hallsville Surface Lignite Mine, Harrison
County, prepared by your Office, has been reviewed by the Budget and
Planning Office and interested state agencies. Copies of the review
comments are enclosed for your information and use. The State Environ-
mental Impact Statement Identifier Number assigned to the project is 1-
07-50-008'.
The Budget and Planning Office appreciates the opportunity to review
this project. If we can be of any further assistance during the en-
vironmental review process, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
William C. Hamilton, Manager
General Government Section
Budget and Planning Office
kle
Enclosures: Comments by Texas Department of Health
Texas Air Control Board
Texas Department of Agriculture
Texas Department of Water Resources
Bureau of Economic Geology
State Department of Highways and
Public Transportation
O. BOX 12551 • A'JSTi\'. TEXAS 7S711
5-37
-------
« TO:
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SE
POST OFFICE BOX 1306
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87103
September 3, 1981
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
This is in reply to your letter of August 21, 1981, which requested
information about species which are listed or proposed to be listed
as threatened or endangered, as provided by the Endangered Species
Act. Your area of interest is the Pirkey Power Plant and South
Hallsville Surface Lignite Mine; Gregg, Harrison, and Rusk Counties,
Texas.
As provided by Section 7(c)(l) of the Endangered Species Act, the Fish
and Wildlife Service is required to furnish a list of. those species,
both proposed and listed, that may be affected by Federal--construction
activities.
Upon receipt of the Fish and Wildlife Service's species list, the Federal
agency authorizing, funding or carrying out the construction action is
required to conduct a biological assessment for the purpose of identifying
listed and proposed species which are likely to be affected by such action.
The biological assessment shall be completed within 180 days after receipt
of the species list, unless it"'is mutually agreed to extend this period.
If the assessment is not initiated within 90 days after receipt of the
species list, I suggest its accuracy be verified before conducting the
assessment.
Biological assessments - should include as a minimum:
1) an onsite inspection of the area affected by the proposed
activity or program, which may include a detailed survey
of the area to determine if species are present and whether
suitable habitat exists for either expanding the existing
population or potential reintroductions of populations;
2) interview recognized experts on the species at issue, including
the Fish and Wildlife Service, State conservation departments,
universities, and others who may have data not yet found in scien-
tific literature;
5-38
-------
3) review literature and other scientific data to determine the
species distribution, habitat needs, and other biological
requirements;
4). review and analyze the effects of the propos, on the species, in
terms of individuals and populations, including consideration of
the cumulative effects of the proposal on the species and its
habitat;
5) analyze alternative actions that may provide conservation actions;
6) other relevant information;
7) report documenting the assessment results.
For purposes of providing interim guidance, the Fish and Wildlife Service
considers construction projects to be any major Federal action authorized,
funded or carried out by a Federal agency which significantly affects the
quality of the human environment and which is designed primarily to result
in the building or erection of man-made structures such as dams, buildings,
roads, pipelines, channels, and the like.
If the biological assessment indicates the proposed project may affect
listed species, the formal consultation process shall be initiated by
writing to the Regional Director, Region 2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103. If no effect
is evident, there is no need for further consultation. I would, however,
appreciate the opportunity to review your biological assessment.
In addition, the Act (Sec. 7(c)(l)) now requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed as endangered
or threatened or adversely modify critical habitat proposed to be desig-
nated for such species. The purpose of this requirement is to identify
and resolve at the early planning stage of an action, all potential
conflicts between the action and the respective species and critical
habitat. The informal consultation process can accomplish this requirement.
The attached sheet provides information on listed species which may occur
in the araa of interest. If you have need of further assistance, please
call the Office of Endangered Species at (505) 766-3972 or FTS 474-3972.
Sincetfely^yours,
/ /
Assistant Regional Director
Attachment
cc: Austin Area Office, Austin, Texas
Ecological Services Field Office, Fort Worth, Texas
5-39
-------
Pirkey Power Plant and Hallsville Lignite Mine
Gregg, Harrison, and Rusk Counties, Texas
LISTED SPECIES
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - may occur in pine forests
with mature trees 50-years-old or older.
American bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - over-winter and forage
on any large body of water and a few pairs may nest in east Texas.
American alligator (Alligator mississipiensis) - may occur on any permanent
body of water or wetland.
PROPOSED SPECIES
None.
CRITICAL HABITAT
None.
5-40
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FORT WORTH DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 173OO
FORT WOP.TH. TEXAS 761O2
REPLY TO
ATTENTION Oti
SWFOO-R 1 December 1977
Mr. Jay A. Pruett
Southwestern Electric Company
P. 0. Box 21106
Shreveport, Louisiana 71156
Dear Mr. Pruett:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 22, 1977, with
map attached, regarding your proposed electric generating station, cool-
ing pond and lignite mining operation in Harrison County, Texas.
Under present criteria, the headwaters of Brandy Branch, Hartley and
Clark's Creeks occur at the mouth of these streams or their confluence
with the Sabine River. Any discharge of dredged or fill material in
ncn-tidal streams, including their impoundments and adjacent wetlands
located above the headwaters, is oermitted by a nationwide permit for
purposes of Section 404, orovided the following conditions are satisfied:
(See paragraph 323.4-2(a)(l) published July 19, 1977).
a. That the discharge will not destroy a threatened or endangered
species as identified under the Endangered Species Act or endanger the
critical habitat of such snecies.
b. That the discharge will consist of suitable material Free from
toxic pollutants in other than trace quantities.
c. That the fill created by the discharge will be properly maintained
to prevent erosion and other non-point sources of pollution.
d. That the discharge will not occur in a component of the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System or in a component of a State wild and scenic
river system.
This declaration docs not relieve you of the responsibility to deterrrir.e
and obtain other anolicable Federal, Stats, or local permits or certifi-
cations. Other agencies you nay wish to contact regarding work under
5-41
-------
SWFOD-R 1 December 1977
.'•'r. Jay A. Pruett
their jurisdiction would include hut would not necessarily be limited to:
Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines; Environmental Protection Agency
and Texas Department of \-iatar Resources,
If we may be of further assistance, please advise.
Sincerely yours,
ALLIE J. MAJORS
Chief, Operations Division
5-42
-------
i ±iAAS AIR CONTROL BOARD
JOHN L BLAIR
Chairman
CHARLES fl.JAYNES
Vies Chairman
BILL STEWART, P. E.
Executive Director
Mr. Jay A. Pruett
Environmental Coordinator
SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
Post Office Box 21106
Shrevepcrt, Louisiana 71156
3520 SHOAL CREEK BOULEVARD
AUSTW, TEXAS 78758
512/451-5711
WILLIAM N.ALLAN
JOEC. BRIDGEFARMER, P. E.
FRED HARTMAN
D.JACK KILIAN, .VI. D.
FRANK H. LEV/IS
WILLIAM 0. PARISH
JEROME W.SORENSON, P. E.
May 5, 1973
Re: Permit No. C-5269 & 6270
Boiler (720 MW Lignite Fired)
Lignite Handling Facilities
Marshall, Harrison County
and
Dear Mr. Pruett:
A construction permit for your new facility is enclosed. We appreciate
your cooperation in sending us the information necessary for us to
evaluate your proposed facility.
We have enclosed an application for a permit to operate (Form PI-3).
Section 3.23(a) of the Texas Clean Air Act requires that you apply for
such permits within sixty (60) days after the facility has begun op-
eration. Please complete and return each application in triplicate.
We also wish to inform you of federal regulations promulgated by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) which may apply to the subject fa-
cility regarding "Prevention of Significant Deterioration". These reg-
ulations, in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 52, (40 CFR 52),
require review of the plans for your proposed facility and approval by
the Administrator of the EPA prior to commencing construction. For
additional information on this requirement, the EPA requests that you
contact Mr. Oscar Cabra of the Region VI office at 1201 Elm Street,
Dallas, Texas 75270, telephone (214)767-2742.
Sirfterely,
Bjll Stewart, P. .
Executive Director
Enclosures
-i p V
I o 11
Fyler
5-43
-------
TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOARD
A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
IS HEREBY ISSUED TO
SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF
Boiler - 720 MV Lignite Fired
.No. 1
TO BE LOCATED AT
Marshall, Harrison County, Texas
Lat. 32°26'4-'! Long. 94°28'05"
»n
-------
GENERAL PROVISIONS
C-6269
1. This permit covers only those sources of emissions listed in the attached
table entitled "Emission Sources - Maximum Allowable Emission Rates" and
those sources are limited to,the emission limits and other conditions
specified in that attached table.
2. Where measured emission values are not available, calculated emission
levels shall be based on emission factors published in the current AP-42,
where applicable. When valid measured emission values become available
they shall take precedence over calculated values.
3. Records of production and operating hours, fuel type and fuel sulfur
content shall be maintained at the site of tne permitted unit(s) and
made available at the request of the Executive Director of the Texas
Air Control Board or any appropriate local air pollution control agency.
4. When required, sampling and testing shall be conducted in accordance
with appropriate prccecures of the Texas Air Control Board Sampling
Manual or with applicable EPA Code of Federal Regulation procedures.
Any deviations from these procedures must be reviewed and approved by.
the Executive Director prior to sampling or testing.
5. If sampling is required the holder of this permit is responsible for
providing sampling and testing facilities and operations at his own
expense.
6. Start of construction, construction delays exceeding 45 days, comple-
tion of construction and start of operation shall be resorted to the
appropriate regional office of the Texas Air Control Board not later
than ten (1G) working days after occurrence of the event.
7. If special provisions are attached to this permit and thers is a con-
flict between any general provision and any special provision, the
special provision shall be followed.
5-45
-------
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
C-6269
1. The holder of this permit shall forward to the staff of the Texas
Air Control Board more detailed engineering data on the participate
and^ sulfur dioxide abatement equipment as it becomes available. In
no event shall any on-site work be done with regard to the abate-
ment equipment until the staff has reviewed and the Executive
Director has approved the final detailed engineering data. Opera-
tion of the boiler while firing coal shall not begin until the
approved abatement equipment has been installed and is operational.
2. Within 130 days of start-up of this facility the holder of this
permit shall perform stack sampling and other testing as required
to establish the actual pattern and quantities of air contaminants
being emitted into the atmosphere. Sampling must be conducted in
accordance with appropriate procedures of the Texas Air Control
Board Compliance Sampling Manual or in accordance with applicable
EPA Code of Federal Regulations procedures. Any deviations from
those procedures must be approved by the Executive Director prior
to sampling. The Executive Director or his designated represen-
tative shall be afforded the opportunity to observe all such
samp!ing.
3. Air contaminants to be tested for include (but are not limited to)
particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and
carbon monoxide.
4. Operation, monitoring, recording and testing of the facility shall
comply with Environmental Protection Agency Regulations on Standards
of Performance for New Stationary Sources existing for fosstl-fired
steam generators in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60,
(40 CFR 60).
5. Three copies of all sampling reports shall be furnished to the
Executive Director within sixty days after completion of sampling.
6. Upon request by the Executive Director or any local air pollution
control program having jurisdiction, the holder of this permit
shall provide a sample and/or an analysis of the fuel(s) utilized
in this facility or shall allow air pollution control agency repre-
sentatives to obtain a sample for analysis.
7. An instrument system shall be installed which continuously records
sulfur dioxide concentrations in parts per million and computes and
records from this data hourly averages of pounds of sulfur dioxide
emitted per million BTU heat input.
8. Opacity of emissions from the boiler and the fly ash handling
system must noi exceed 20'.", averaaed over a five-minute period,
except for those periods described in Rule 131.03.03.001 of
Regulation I.
9. Disposal of ash must be accomplished in a manner which will prevent
the ash from becoming airborne
5-46
-------
This table 7ists all sources of air contaminants on applicant's property emitted by the facilities covered by this -
perfr.it. The emission rates shown are those derived from information submitted as part of the application for peririit
and are the maximum rates allowed for these facilities. Any proposed increase in emission rates may require an
application for a modification of the facilities covered by this permit.
EMISSION
POINT
ID
(1)
1
2
SOURCE NAME
(2)
Unit 1 Boiler Stack
Fly Ash Handling
- System
AIR CONTAMINANT DATA
EMISSION RATES*
HC (3)
#/HR
600
T/Y
MOx (4)
#/HR
4124
T/Y
S02 (5)
#/HR
8243
T/Y
PART (6)
#/HR
687
7.2
T/Y
(7) CO
fr/HR
600
/,'
T/Y
(7) 1
#/HR
T/Y
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Emission point identification - either specific equipment designation or emission point number from plot plan.
Specific point source name. For fugitive sources use area name or fugitive source name.
Hydrocarbons or carbon compounds as defined in General Rule 131.01.00.001(5) excluding carbon monoxide.
Tot.il oxides of nitrogen. ^ r- • • ,. ui.uu.cn-
Sulfur dioxide Emission rates are based on the following operating schedule:
Paniculate matter Hrs/day 24 Days/week 2 Weeks/year 52 or Hrs/year
(7) Other contaminants not listed; should be specific.
-------
TEXAS AIR CONTROL
A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
IS HEREBY ISSUED TO
.SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF
Lignite Handling Facilities
No. 1
TO BE LOCATED AT
Marshall, Harrison County, Texas
Lat. 32°26'44" Long. 94°28'05"
and which ij to be conitructed in accordance with and subject to the Texas Clean Air Act. as amended (Article 4477-5,
VATS), and all Rules. Regulations and Orders of the Texas Air Control Board. Said construction is subject to any
iddition.il or amended rules, regulations and orders of the Board adopted pursuant to the Act, and to ail of the
foUo*mj conditions:
1. This permit may not be transferred, assigned, or conveyed by the holder and applies only to the location
specified herein.
0
2. This permit is automatically void if construction is not begun within one year of the date of issuance.
3. This permit ij automatically void when an operating permit is issued or denied.
4. The facility covered by this permit shall be constructed as specified in the application for permit to construct.
5. The Board shall be notified prior to the start-up of the facility authorized by this permit in such a manner
that a representative of the Texas Air Control Board may be present at the time of start-up.
5. The Board shall be notified prior to the start of any required monitoring of the facility authorized by this
permit in such a manner that a representative of Ihe Texas Air Control Board may be present during monitoring.
7. This permit is not a guarantee that the facility will rer-ive an operating permit at the end of the construction
period, nor does it absolve the holder from the responsibility for the consequences of non-compliance with all
Rules and Regulations and orders of the Texas Air Control Board or with the intent of the Texas Clean Air Act.
8. Emissions from this facility must not cause or contribute to a condition of 'air pollution' as defined in
Section 1.03 of the Texas Clean Air Act or violate Section 4.01 of the Texas Clean Air Act, Article 4477-5,
V.A.T.S. If the Executive Director of the Texas Air Control Board determines that such a condition or
violation occurs, the holder shall implement additional abatement measures as necessary to control or
prevent the condition or violation.
9. special Provisions: See attachments labeled "General Provisions C-6270", 1-7, and
"Special Provisions C-627Q", 1-3.
Acceptance of the permit constitutes an acknowledgement and agreement that the holder will comply with all Rules,
Regulations and Orders of the Board issued in conformity with the Act and the conditions precedent to the granting
of this permit. Failure to comply with all special provisions of this permit will subject the holder to the enforcement
provisions of the Texas Clean Air Act, Article 4477-5, V.A.T.S.
PERMIT NO. C- 527° DATE 5"--S""
5-48
-------
GENERAL PROVISIONS
C-6270
1. This permit covers only those sources of emissions listed in the attached
table entitled "Emission Sources - Maximum Allowable Emission Rates" and
those sources are limited to the emission limits and other conditions
specified in that attached table.
2. Where measured emission values are not available, calculated emission
levels shall be based on emission factors published in the current AP-42,
where -applicable. When valid measured emission values become available
they shall take precedence over calculated values.
3. Records of production and operating hours, fuel type and fuel sulfur
content shall be maintained at the site of the permitted unit(s) and
made available at the request of the Executive Director of the Texas
Air Control Board or any appropriate local air pollution control agency.
4. When required, sampling and testing shall be conducted in accordance
with appropriate procedures of the Texas Air Control Board Sampling
Manual or with applicable EPA Code of Federal Regulation procedures.
Any deviations from these procedures must be reviewed and approved by
the Executive Director prior to sampling or testing.
5. If sampling is required the holder of this permit is responsible for
providing sampling and testing facilities and operations at his own
expense.
6. Start of construction, construction delays exceeding 45 days, comple-
tion of construction and start of operation shall be reported to the
appropriate regional office of the Texas Air Control Board not later
than ten (10) working days after occurrence of the event.
7. If special provisions are attached to this permit and there is a con-
flict between any general prevision and any special provision, the
special provision shall be followed.
5-49
-------
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
C-6270
Opacity of emissions from the lignite handling facility must not
exceed 2QZ, averaged over a five-minute period, except for those
periods described in Rule 131.03.03.001 of Regulation I.
The holder of this permit shall forward to the staff of the Texas
Air Control Board more detailed engineering data on the abatement
equipment as it becomes available. In no event shall construction
of the abatement equipment begin until the staff has reviewed and
the Executive Director has approved the final detailed engineering
data. Operation of the lignite handling facility shall not begin
until the approved abatement equipment has been installed and is
operational.
Operation, monitoring, recording and testing of the facility shall
comply with Environmental Protection Agency Regulations on Standards
of Performance for New Stationary Sources existing for coal prepara-
tion plants in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60, (40 CFR
60)
5-50
-------
C-6270
This table lists all sources of air contaminants on applicant's property emitted by the facilities covered by this
permit. The emission rates shown are those derived from information submitted as part of the application for perm
and are the maximum rates allowed for these facilities. Any proposed increase 1n emission rates may require an
application for a modification of the facilities covered by this permit.
EMISSION
POINT
ID
(1)
'
f Fugitive
SOURCE NAME
(2)
Coal Transfer Points
AIR CONTAMINANT DATA
EMISSION RATES*
HC (3)
0/HR
T/Y
NOx (4)
#/HR
T/Y
SO? (5)
0/HR
T/Y
PART (6)
#/HR
10
T/Y
(7)
rf/HR
T/Y
(7)
rf/HR
T/Y
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Emission point identification - either specific equipment designation or emission point number from plot plan,
Specific point source name. For fugitive sources use area name or fugitive source name.
Hydrocarbons or carbon compounds as defined in General Rule 131.01.00.001(5) excluding carbon monoxide.
Total oxides of nitrogen. .
Sulfur dioxide Emission rates are based _on the fol lowing_ operating schedule:
Particulate matter
Other contaminants not listed;
Hrs/day 8 Days/week ^_ Weeks/year 52 Or Hrs/year
should be specific.
-------
TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOARD
3330 HWY. 290 EAST
AUSTIN, TEXAS 73723
JOHN L. BLAIR 5^L!™ WILLIAM N. ALLAN
Chairman ygjU^V VITTORIO K. ARGENTO, P. E.
CHARLES R. JAYNES j^'*? "-^J* FRED HARTMAN
Vica Chairman j ^^jLls'A^* D- JACK KILIAN, M. 0.
4*vC^V >;"•£' OTTO R- KUNZE, Ph. 0., P. E.
V*\rHL£t^::?/4'!/ FRANKH I FWK
BILL STFW ART. P.E. \>^SS^$3$^ WILLIAM D. PARISH
October 25, 1979
Mr. Jay A. Pruett
Environmental Coordinator
SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
Post Office Box 21106
Shrevcport, Louisiana 71156
Re: Permit Amendment
Construction Permit C-6269
Boiler No. 1
Marshall, Harrison County
Dear Mr. Pruett:
This is in response to your recent letter concerning your proposal
to install on the above referenced facility a chimney having a height
of 525 feet rather than 625 feet as originally proposed. We also
understand that the latest design information on the proposed facility
indicates that the emission of air contaminants will be less than
' originally expected. Pursuant to Rule 131.03.00.005 of Regulation VI
of the Texas Air Control Board, Permit C-6269 is hereby amended in
accordance with your proposals. This information will be incorporated
into the existing permit file. Enclosed is a revised emission
allowable table. Please return the original table to this office.
Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. If you have further
questions, please contact Mr. James Caraway of our Permits Section.
Sincerely,
Bill Stewart, P.E.
Executive Director
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Richard Leard, P.E., Regional Supervisor, Tyler
5-52
-------
*— f~ ^ f\ Q
table 7ists an sources of air contaminants on applicant's property emitted by the facilities covered by this
permit. The emission rates shown are those derived from information submitted as part of the application for permit
and are the maximum rates allowed for these facilities. Any proposed increase in emission rates may require an
application for a modification of the facilities covered by this permit.
ii ssi on
•01 NT
ID
«1)
1
2
Ul
VJ
' —
SOURCE NAME
(2)
Unit 1 Boiler Stack
Fly Ash Handl ing
System
AIR CONTAMINANT DATA
EMISSION RATES*
VOC (3)
0/HR
5
T/Y_
"
NOx (4)
#/IIR
4090
l_
1
1 . .
T/Y
S02 (5)
tf/IIR
8180
T/Y
PART (6)
*/HR
682
7.2
T/Y
L
L
(7)
#/HR
541
T/Y
(7)
#/m
T/Y
Emis
Spec
ion point identification - either soecific equipment designation or emission point number from plot plan.
ific point source name. For fugitive sources use area name or fugitive source name.
) VoutilH organic compounds as defined in General Rule 131.01.00.001(68) including methyl chloroform and Freon 113.
Total oxides of nitrogen. .x. E(Ilission rates are based on the following operating schedule:
24 _Days/v/eek_ 7 Weeks/ycar_5i_pr Hrs/ycarjB760
•• ••"
)
) Other contaminants not listed; should be specific.
-------
PERMIT NO. 02496
(Corresponds to
NPDES PERMIT NO. TX 0087726
TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
Stephen F. Austin State Office Building
Austin, Texas
PERMIT TO DISPOSE OF WASTES
under provisions of Chapter 26
of the Texas Water Code
Southwestern Electric Power Co.
whose mailing address is
P.O. Box 21106
Shreveport, Louisiana 71156
is authorized to dispose of wastes from the Henry W. Pirkey
Power Plant (SIC-4911)
located adjacent to Red Oak Road, at a point approximately 6
miles southeast of the City of Hallsville, Harrison County, Texas
to Brandy Branch; thence to the Sabine River in Segment 0505
of the Sabine River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements
and other conditions set forth herein. This permit is granted
subject to the rules of the Department, the laws of the State of
Texas, and other orders of the Commission.
This permit and the authorizations contained herein shall expire
at midnight, five years after the date of Commission approval.
APPROVED, ISSUED, AND EFFECTIVE this 21st day of September __
1981 .
ATTEST:
// For the
5-54
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
U1
Ol
During the period beginning effective date and lasting through expiration date
the riarmiUts is authorized to dhelvir^ froi i outfall(s) serial number(s> 010, Intermittent flow, sewage
treatment plant effluents.***
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee OB specified below:
Effluent Giaructbristic
Discharge Limitations
Monitoring Requirement*
Flow—ms/Buy (MGD)
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (5-day)
Total Suspended
Solids
kg/day (Iba/dyy)
Daily Avg
N/A
1.2(2.5)
1.2(2.5)
ay)
aily Max
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other UniU (Specify)
Measurement
Daily Avg Daily Max Frequency
(Report)
20 mcj/1
20 mg/1
(Report)
65 ing/1*
65 mg/1*
I/day
I/week**
I/week**
Sample
Type
Insta
Grab
Grab
* Instantaneous Maximum.
** When discharging.
*** This waste stream shall be chlorinated sufficiently to maintain a 1.0 mg/1.
chlorine residual after at least 20 minutes contact time (based on peak flow)
The pH shall not be lesa 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):
At outfall 010, at the flow measuring device after the chlorination chamber
prior to mixing with any other waters.
y y
3
-------
Pije of
Permit No.
B. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent limitations specified for
discharges in accordance with the following schedule:
None.
2. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the above schedule of
compliance, the permittee shell submit either a report of progress or, in the case of
specific actions being required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or
noncompiiance. In the latter case, the notice snail include the cause of noncompliance,
any remedial actions taken, and the probab'lity of meeting the nest .scheduled
requirement.
5-56
-------
C. MONITORING AND REPORTING
1. Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall
be representative of the volume and nature of the
monitored discharge.
2. Reporting* (See Footnote for Applicable State Requirements)
Monitoring results obtained during.^&he previous
months shall be summarized and,.*s«epcst!.ed on a
Monitoring Report Form (ES<^tJot^32L2S-ri1 ,
no later than the 28tht'!'i*:Y/' o* ,t^* month^*?olld;vi
completed reporzir. " ^er^c-d."" The f i:r=, - report i's
following the reporar-ri^g" period '.v-irir'g 'jwfri'ch the permit
becomes effective. Ther^a ''~=r V^eporting periods shall
end on the last da.y ^--^ .the j.^afhs of March, June,
September ar.d Seqe^b,-.:'!"^ 'assess requested by the Executive
Director. ^icr'c"?. ^3jj^r;?i€ted more frequently. Duplicate
7'3i?-.^-^!i' these, and all other reports required
her e i- ; y^^-fa4! 1 be submitted to the Regional Administrator
and ttfe Texas Department of Water Resources at the
following addresses:
(a) Environmental Protection Agency (b) Executive Director
Region VI Texas Department of Water Resourc
First International Bank Bldg. P. 0. Box 13087, Capitol Station
1201 Elm Street Austin, Texas 78711
Dallas, Texas 75270
3. Definitions
a. The "daily average" discharge means the total dis-
charge by weight during a calendar month divided by
the number of days in the month that the production
or commercial facility was operating. Where less
than daily sampling is required by this permit, the
daily average discharge shall be determined by the
number of days during the calendar month when rhe
measurements were made.
*This section does not apply to permits issued by the Texas Water
Commission. Until notified by the Executive Director, Texas
Department of Water Resources, or the Corumission to do otherwise,
the permittee shall comply with the recorting requirements of
Rules 156.19.05.001-.010, Rules of the"Department.
5-57
-------
b. The "daily maximum" discharge means the total
discharge by weight during any calendar day.
4. Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analyses of pollutants shall
comply with procedures specified in Rules of the Depart-
ment of Water Resources and shall conform to regulations
published pursuant to Section 304 (g) of the Act, under
which such procedures may be required.
5. Recording of Results
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the
requirements of this permit, the permittee shall record
the following information:
a. The exact place, date, and time of sampling;
b. The dates the analyses were performed;
c. The person(s) who performed the analyses;
d. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
e. The results of all required analyses.
6. Additional Monitoring by Permittee
If the permittee monitors any pollutant at the location (s)
designated herein more frequently than required by this
permit using approved analytical methods as specified
above, the results of such monitoring shall be included
in the calculation and reporting of the values required
in the Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1).
Such increased frequency shall also be indicated.
7. Records Retention
All records and information resulting from the monitor-
ing activities required by this permit including ail
records of analyses performed and calibration and mainte-
nance of instrumentation and recordings from continuous
monitoring instrumentation shall be retained for a minimum
of three (3) years or longer if requested by the Regional
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or
the Texas Department of Water Resources.
5-58
-------
PART II
A- MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
1. Change 'in Discharge
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent
with the terras and conditions of this permit. The
discharge of any pollutant identified in this permit
more frequently than or at a level in excess of that
authorized shall constitute a violation of the permit.
Any anticipated facility expansions, production in-
creases, or process modifications which will result
in new, different, or increased discharges of pollu-
tants must be reported by submission of a new applica-
tion or, if such changes will not violate the effluent
limitations specified in this permit, by notice to the
permit issuing authority of such changes. Following
such notice, the permit may be modified to specify
and limit any pollutants not previously limited.
2. Noncompliance Notification
If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply with
or will be unable to comply with any daily maximum
effluent limitation specified in this permit, the
permittee shall provide the Regional Administrator and
the Executive Director, Texas Department of Water Resource.
with the following information, in writing, within five
(5) days of becoming aware of such condition:
a. A description of the discharge and cause of non-
c omp1i anc e; and
b. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates
and times; or, if not corrected, the anticipated
time the noncompliance is expected to continue,
and steps being taken to reduce, eliminate and
prevent recurrence of the noncomplying discharge.
3. Facilities Operation
The permittee shall at all times maintain in good working
order and operate as efficiently as possible all treat-
ment or control facilities cr syctcms installed or used
by the permittee to achieve compliance with the terms
and conditions of this permit.
-------
4. Adverse Impact
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any
adverse impact on the waters to the State of Texas resulting
from noncompliance with any effluent limitations specified in
this permit, including such accelerated or additional monitoring
as necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncom-
plying discharge.
5 - Bypassing
Any diversion from or bypass of facilities necessary to main-
tain compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit
is prohibited, except (i) where unavoidable to prevent loss of
life or severe property damage, (ii) where excessive storm
drainage or runoff would damage any facilities necessary for com-
pliance with the effluent limitations and prohibitions of this
permit, or (iii) where authorized under a program of preventive
or corrective maintenance as approved by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency or the Executive Director, Texas Department of
Water Resources. The permittee shall promptly notify the Regional
Administrator and the Executive Director, Texas Department of Wats
Resources, in writing of each such diversion or bypass.
6. 'Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed
from or resulting from treatment or control of wastewaters shall
be disposed of in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from
such materials from entering the waters of the State of Texas.
7. Power Failures
In order to maintain compliance with the effluent limitations
and prohibitions of this permit, the permittee shall either:
a. in accordance with the Schedule of Compliance contained in
Part I, provide an alternative power source sufficient to
operate the wastewater control facilities)
or, if no date for implementation appears in Part I,
b. Halt, reduce or otherwise control production and/or ail
discharges upon the reduction, loss, or failure of ona or
more of the primary sources of power to the vastewater
control facilities.
5-60
-------
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Right of Entry
The permittee is hereby notified that the State and/or
local governments specifically reserve all rights of
entry and* inspection granted them by the law.
The permittee shall allow the Regional Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency and/or his
authorized representative, upon the presentation of
credentials:
a. To enter upon the permittee's premises where an
effluent source is located or in which any records
are required to be kept under the terms and condi-
tions of this permit; and
b. At reasonable times to have access to and copy any
records required to be kept under the terms and con-
ditions of this permit; to inspect any monitoring
equipment or monitoring method required in this
permit; and to sample any discharge of pollutants.
2. Transfer of Ownership or Control
In the event of any change in control or ownership qf
facilities from which *~he authorized discharges emanate,
the permittee shall notify the succeeding owner or
controller of the existence of this permit by letter,
a copy of which shall be forwarded to the Regional
Administrator and the Texas Department of Water Resources.
3. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under
Rule 156.01.01.013, Rules of the Department,
Section 26.134 of the Water Code and Section 308
of the Act, all reports prepared in accordance with the
terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection
at the offices of the Texas Department of Water Resources :
and the Regional Administrator. As required by the Act,
effluent data shall not be considered confidential.
Knowingly making any false statement on any such report
may result in the imposition of criminal and/or civil
penalties.
-------
4. Permit Modification
After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit
may be modified, suspended, or revoked in whole or in
part during its term for cause including, but not limits
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.
5. Toxic Pollutants
Notwithstanding Part II, B-4 above, if a toxic effluent
standard or prohibition (including any schedule of com-
pliance specified in such effluent standard or prohibit!
is established under Section 307(a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 for a toxic
pollutant which is present in the discharge and such
standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limi-
tation for such pollutant in this permit, this permit
shall be revised or modified in accordance with the toxi
effluent standard or prohibition and the permittee so
notified.
6. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing"
(Part II.A-5) and "Power Failure" (Part II,A-7), nothing
in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action nor relieve the permitte
from any responsibilities, liabilities or penalties
established pursuant to any applicable State law or
regulation under authority preserved by Section 510
of the Act.
5-62
-------
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 Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972.
8. State and Federal 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
or Federal law or regulation.
9. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property
rights in either real or personal property, 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 of Conditions
The conditions 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 co other
circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall
not be affected thereby.
5-63
-------
Southwestern Eleci E.C Power Co. 02496
PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
For the purpose of Part I of this permit, the following
definitions shall apply in lieu of those under "Part I,
Section C, 'Monitoring and Reporting1", where limitations
are expressed in concentration:
' a. The "daily average" concentration means the
arithmetic average (weighted by flow value)
of all the daily determinations of concen-
tration 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 concen-
tration shall be the arithmetic average
(weighted by flow value) of all the samples
collected during that calendar day.
b. The "daily maximum" concentration means the
daily determination of concentration for any
calendar day-
For the purpose of Part III of this permit, the following
definition shall apply:
Grab sample quality means the quality determined b}
measuring the concentration in milligrams per lite:
parts per million or other appropriate units of
measurement in a single grab sample of the-dischar1:
of a defined waste.
When three, four or five consecutive grab samples have baen
collected at various times on separate days by the same entit
the existence of concentrations of any specific pollutant in
more than two samples in excess of the value shown for the
specific pollutant in Column 1 of Table 1, Part III of this
permit, is a violation. Each failure to comply with the abo^,
requirement for a specific pollutant is a separate violation
except the case where the pollutant parameters involved are
expressions of the same characteristic of the effluent.
Each grab sample containing pollutants in excess of the con-
centrations shown for such pollutant in Column 2 of Table I/
Part III of this permit, is a violation. Each failure tc cor
ply with the above requirement for a specific pollutant is a
separate violation except the case where the pollutant para-
meters involved are expressions of the same characteristic o:
the effluent.
The foregoing requirements shall be applied with judgment,
and in the context of the other relevant information avaiiab.
5-64
-------
Southwestern Elec Lc Power Co. 02496
PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
1. The following additional limits apply to Outfall 010:
Volume; Not to exceed a daily average flow of 15,000 gpd.
Not to exceed a daily maximum flow of 30,000 gpd.
Table 1
Grab Samples, mg/1
Pollutant Column 1 Column 2
i
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day) 35 65
Total Suspended Solids 35 65
2. Stormwater runoff from any point source associated with
the construction equipment maintainance area or the fuel
storage area shall comply with the following maximum grab
sample limits; Chemical Oxygen Demand - 200 mg/1, Oil and
Grease - 15 mg/1, pH range 6.0 to 9.0 standard units.
3. The permitted is hereby placed on notice that this, permit
may be reviewed by the Texas Department of Water Resources
after the completion of any new intensive water quality
survey on Segment No. 0505 of the Sabine River and any sub-
sequent updating of the water quality model for Segment
No. 0505, in order to determine if the limitations and
conditions contained herein are consistent with any such
revised model. The permit may be amended, pursuant to
Rule 156.25.31.005 of the Texas Department of Water Re-
sources, as a result of such review.
5-65
-------
DEFINITIONS
All definitions contained in Section 26.001 of the Texas Water Code
Paragraph 502 of the Act shall apply to this permit and are incorporated
therein by reference. Additional definitions of words or phrases used
in this permit are as follows:
1. The term "Act" means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, Public Law 92-500 (33 USC 1251 et seq) .
2. The term "Environmental Protection Agency" means the U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
3. The term "Administrator" means the Administrator of the U. S. Environ
mental Protection Agency.
4. The term "Regional Administrator" means one of the Regional Adminis-
trators of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
5. The term "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" (hereinaft:
referred to as "NPDES") means the system for issuing, conditioning, and
denying permits for the discharge of pollutants from the point sources
into the navigable waters, the contiguous zone, and the oceans, by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to section
402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
6. The term "applicable effluent standards and limitations" means all
State 'and Federal effluent standards and limitations to which a discharge
is subject under the Act, including, but not limited to, effluent
limitations, standards of performance, toxic effluent standards and
prohibitions, and pretreatment standards.
7. The term "applicable water quality standards" means all water quality
standards to which a discharge is subject under the Act and which have
been (a) approved or permitted to remain in effect by the Administrator
following submission to him pursuant to Section 303 (a) of the Act, or
(b) promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to section 303 (b) or203(c)
of the Act.
8. The term "sewage" means human body wastes and the wastes from toilets
and other receptacles intended to receive or retain body wastes.
9. The term "sewage sludge" shall mean the solids and precipitates
separated from wastewater by unit processes.
5-66
-------
10. The terra "treatment works" means any devices and systems used in
the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage
or industrial wastes of a liquid nature to implement section 201 of the
Act, or necessary to recycle or reuse water at the most economical cost
over the estimated life of the works, including intercepting sewers,
sewage collection systems, pumping, power, and other equipment, and
their appurtenances; extension, improvement, remodeling, additions, and
alterations thereof; elements essential to provide a reliable recycled
supply such as standby treatment units and clear well facilities; and
any works, including site acquisition of the land that will be an integral
part of the treatment process or is used for ultimate disposal of residues
resulting from such treatment.
II. The term "grab sample" means an individual sample collected in less
than" 15 minutes.
12. The term "uncontaminated water" means water which has no direct
contact with any product or raw material and which does not contain a
level of constituents detectably higher than that of the intake water.
13. The term "permitting authority" means the State water quality
control agency or the Environmental Protection Agency, who physically issue*
the permit.
14. Items stamped N.P.D.E.S. REQUIREMENTS ONLY do not apply to this
permit and are retained in this permit to preserve the form and
numbering system of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permit. The items stamped N.P.D.S.S. REQUIREMENTS ONLY in this permit
were secured from a standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency permit
format existent in February, 1974, and they may or may not be identical
to the requirements or conditions of the actual N.P.D.E.S. permit
applicable to the facility covered by this permito It is necessary to
examine the issued N.P.D.E.S. permit authorizing discharge to determine
the actual N.P.D.E.S. requirements.
5-67
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Southwest Region
P. 0. Box 1689
Fort Worth, Tes»s 76101
IN »CPLT UfFtR TO
AERONAUTICAL STUDY
"°- 81-ASW-468-OE
CORRECTED *
DETERMINATION OF MO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION
a.
a
ft
X
a,
V*
Southwestern Electric Power Company
P. 0. Box 21106
Shreveport, Louisiana 71156
Attn: Jay Pruett
DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED Concrete Chimney
CONSTRUCTION LOCATION
PLACE HM«£
Marshall, Texas
LATITUOC
32°27'38"
HEIGHT ll
526
LONGITUDE
94°29'06"
N FtCI 1
i«OVC MSL
387
An aeronautical studv of the proposed construction described above -has been completed under the provisions of Part 77 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations. Baaed on the studv it is found that the construction would have no substantial adverse eft'ecll
on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace fay aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. There-
fore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the construction would not be a hazard to air navk
pation provided the following conditions are met:
Conditions: The structure Should be lighted and monitored in accordance with Chapter:
4, 6, and 9 or Chapters 4, 7, and 9 of FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1, Obstruct!
Marking and Lighting. The circular is available free of charge from the Departme
of Transportation, Publication Section M443 .1, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20590.
Supplemental notice of construction ia required any time the project is abandoned (use tha enclosed FAA form), or
t XX) At least 48 hours before the start of construction (use the enclosed FAA form).
! XX) Within five days after the construction reaches its greatest height (use the enclosed FAA form).
( ) Not required.
This determination expires on * January 15. 1933 unless:
(a) extended, revised or teriranaieu Jy the issuing oiiice:
(b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission and an application!
for
-------
DO NOT REMOVE CARBONS Form Approved o.M.a. NO. OA-ROOOI
DEPAHTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION AOMINISTIATION
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION
1. NATURE OF STRUCTURE
A TYPE S. CLASS C. PROPOSED LENGTH Of
' . ,—1 TIME TO COMPLETE
[T] NEW CONSTRUCTION [_jjj PERMANENT (J/onJA.I
Q] ALTERATION Qj TEMPORARY g
2. NAME AND ADDRESS Of INDIVIDUAL. COMPANY. CORPORATION. ETC. PROPOSING
THE CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION I.Vumixr. xtrrrt. City. *tate and Zip Cade)
r ~i
Southwestern Electric Power Co.
TQ P.O. Box 21106
Shreveport, Louisiana 71156
L -J
3. COMPLETE DESCRIPTION Of STRUCTURE ilnclxile fifrrfir-r ,ailinte,l poircr at proposed v
modified JJ/, f-'M or TV it'itinn anil namijntil freq>n ni-ii : *i;r and i'onfiijurattun of jioiffr
trati4mi«*ian line in I'lcinit'j of t'JL.l facilities at appi ornate}.
2-171 ft high concrete coal silos having 77.5 ft
outside diameter at top with one silo having a 20 '-0" x
37 '-6" x 54 '-0" high open steel frame structure ever
it.
FOR FAA USE ONLY
AERONAUTICAL STUDY NO.
FAA will *lth*r return mil former
l**u* a «*p*r*te acknowledgement.
A. The proposed structure:
O Oo«* not require • nolle* lo FAA. 1
a Would not exceed my abilrucllon '
llindlrd ol Pi't 77 «nd would not &•
ihjurd to air navigation. |
G Should b« obstruction G mirtsd
C lighted par FAA Advisory Circular
70/7460— 1,Chapl«r<3)
O Obttructlon marking and lighting art :
not n*c«>aary.
Q Require* suppl*m*nt*l notice.
U**) FAA (orm enclosed.
B. FCC C wa* G was not advlavd.
REMARKS:
ISSUING OFFICE;
REVIEWING OFFICER DATE
4. LOCATION OF STRUCTURE
A. COORDINATES (To nearest second) 3. NEAREST CITY OR TOWN. AND STATE
LATITUDE LONGITUDE Marshall, Texas
' 1 • • (1) DISTANCE FROM 4&
32 27 126.7 94 29 10.7 9.3 MILES
t'
(2) DIRECTION FROM 4&
SW
C. NAME OF NEAREST AIRPORT, HELIPORT. OR SEAPLANE BASE (1) DISTANCE FROM NEAREST .'OINT OF V2) DIRECTION FROM
NEAREST RUNWAY AIRPORT
Harrison Co. (near Marshall, Texas) 11.2 SW
D. DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION OF SITE WITH RESPECT TO HIGHWAYS, STREETS, AIRPORTS, PROMINENT TERRAIN FEATURES, EXISTING STRUCTURES,
ETC. (.ittnch ;i /.tijiiiniit, street, or any ijtlifr 'jDpt'opruitt map or scnti'il ./retiring ,tltoicinfj tlte relatton.yfiip of co.'ijfruc/'OH xite lo utart'ac
airport It). If more apace 13 required, continue on a separate sheet of paper and attack to this notice.)
The site is located in Harrison County, Texas, approximately 9 miles southwest
of Marshall, Texas. The site is bounded by Interstate Route 20 at the north, the
Sabine River on the south, State Route 43 on the east and Hatley's Creek on the
west. The site consists of wooded pastureland.
5. HEIGHT AND ELEVATION iCoinplctr .{., Jt :inii C to the ncnrc*t foot)
A. ELEVATION OF SITE ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL 356 '-0" A
, HEIGHT OF STRL
' (if any) A&OV
CTUPC INCLUDING APPURTENANCES AND LIGHTING — —
E GROUND, OR WATER IF SO SITUATED 225'— 0" 5'
c. OVERALL HEIGHT ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL pii.sujnt lo iii';!.un HO!
of :.'ic r*;;;erj( A-.i.jcon Act of
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Southwest Region
?. 0. Box 1689
Fort Worth, Texaa 76101
IN «H.Y »m» TO
AER9NIUTICAL STUDY
•W- 81-ASW-468-OE
DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION
iPOKJft* |
Southwestern Electric
P. 0. Box 21106
Shreveport, Louisiana
CE'CSIPTICW
Power Company
71156
CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED Concrete Chimney
CONSTRUCTION LOCATION
H.ACI NAME
Marshall, Texas
LATITUDE
32«27'38"
LONGITUDE
94°29'06"
ME IGHT i • • Fee' i
526
»to»c M 5 L
887
An acronaulical study of the proposed conotruction described above-has been completed under the provisions of Part 77 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations. Based on the study it is found that the construction would have no substantial adverse effect
on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. There-
fore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it ia hereby determined that the construction would not be a hazard to air navi-
gation provided the following conditions are met:
Conditions: The structure should be lighted and monitored in accordance with Chapters
4, 6, and 9 or Chapters 4, 7, and 9 of FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1, Obstruction
Marking and Lighting. The circular is available free of charge from the Department
of Transportation, Publication Section M443.1, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20590.
Supplemrnial notice of construction is required any time the project is abandoned (use the enclosed FAA .form), or
(XX ^ Al least 4fl hours before the start of construction (use the enclosed FAA form).
(XX ) Within five days after the construction reaches its greatest height (use the enclosed FAA form).
( ) Not required. £
Thi* determination exr .:es on January 15, 1982 / unless:
(a) — '
extended, revised or termmaiea oy We
(ii) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission and an application
for a construction permit is made to the FCC on or before the above expiration date. In such case the determination
enpirp* on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or on the date the FCC denies the application,
Flu* determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition on or before Julv 5, 1981 In the
everu d pennon for rrvjew is filed, it should be submitted in triplicate to the Chief, Airspace Obstruction and Airports Branch,
A I-240, l-erieral Aviation Administration, Washington. D.C. 20590. and contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is
marie.
Thi* determination becomes final on July 15, 1981 unless a petition for review is timely filed, in which case
the determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested partiem will be notified of the grant of
any review.
An .trrniim of the study findings, aeronautical objections, if any. registered with the FAA during the study, and the basis for
tlie r \ \ -, decision in this matter will be found on the following pagr(s).
M il.f ..nurture is subject to the licensing authority of the FCC. a copy of this determination will be sent to that Agency.
^ \
"'n^-vvlA—J-lt*
-------
CONCRETE COAL
SILOS
SITUATION PLAN
SCALE M FEET
PROPOSED COM. SILO if.
STEEL STRUCTURE
T/ SKELETAL STEEL STRUCTURE
EL.S60-15'
CONCZ£TE CO/XL
SILOS
WEST ELEVATION
COAL -5iLO '
!r*^ c—
LOCATION PLAN
COPIED FROM MEMPU\S SEC-
T10UAL AEBOWAUT1CALCUACT
&Y U.S QEPT. of COMV,l£lZCS,MATl.
OCEAM1C AWP ATMOSFWK1C AP-
WIHIST^ATIOH, ZiU!
P1KKEY
FLAi^T
PROPOSE? CCWC^ETE CO,\L SILO
AT UENKY W. FIEXEY FWEK FLAUT
COUMTY OF HAK^lSOSl,STATE OFTE^AS
APFL!CATION &Y
SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC PCY,^Z CO.
SHCEVEFOCT. LOUISIAWA
j.^t^^.cv.M !
fIKi«tS TL J >rj -' • M-V
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
1201 ELM STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 7327O
September 3, 1980
Mr. Jay A. Pruett
Environmental Coordinator
Southwestern Electric Power Company
P. 0. Box 21106
Shreveport, Louisiana ""71156
Dear Mr. Pruett:
The information which you submitted July 1979, regarding the construction of
a surface lignite mine, has been reviewed. The purpose of this letter is to
inform you of the applicability of Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) regulations to Southwestern Electric Power Company's proposed surface
lignite mine described in the PSD application (PSD-TX-273).
The mine as proposed, will provide fuel for the planned expansion (beginning
1983) of Southwestern Electric Power Company's adjacent existing electric
generating plant (PSD-TX-64). Based on the previous PSD regulations
(June 19, 1978), the new mine proposed by Southwestern Electric Power Company
was defined as a modification to their existing power plant and therefore
subject to the necessary permit requirements. However, the definition of
"Source" has been redefined in the new PSD regulations promulgated on
August 7, 1980.
Based upon the definitions in the revised PSD regulations (45 FR 52735),
stationary source is defined as any structure, building, facility, or
installation, which emits or may emit any air pollutant regulated under the
act, which belongs to the same industrial grouping, located on one or more
contiguous or adjacent properties, and are under the common control of the
same person. Pollutant emitting activities which belong to the same "Major
Group" (i.e. which have the same two digit Standard Industrial Code) are
considered as part of the same industrial grouping.
The proposed surface lignite mine is classified in "Major Group" 12 according
to the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972, as amended by the
1977 supplement. The adjacent existing power'plant, also owned by Southwestern
Electric Power Company is classified in "Major Group" 40. Therefore, the
proposed mine is now defined as a new lignite mine, rather than a modification
to the existing power plant.
5-72
-------
The proposed PSD regulations list 25 source categories for which fugitive
emissions are to be considered when calculating potential to emit. The
proposed surface lignite mine is not one of the 26 source categories and
therefore fugitive emissions from the proposed source need not be quantified
when calculating potential emissions. Since the only emissions from the
proposed new mine are fugitive emissions, this new source will not have the
potential to emit greater than 250 tons/year of any applicable pollutant
regulated under the act. Therefore, the proposed South Hall svi lie surface
lignite mine is not a major stationary source and therefore is exempt from
PSD review requirements. However, this determination in no way exempts the
new mine from any other necessary permit requirements including those of the
Texas Air Control Board (TAGS).
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call Mr. Tom Diggs
at (214) 767-1594.
Sincerely,
1}
Jack S. Divita, Chief
Air Programs Branch
cc: Eli Bell
Deputy Director, Prevention & Control
Texas Air Control Board
6330 Hwy. 290 East
Austin, Texas 78723
5-73
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
12OI ELM STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 7527O
Mr. Jay A. Pruett
Environmental Coordinator
Southwestern Electric Power Company
P. 0. Box 21106
Shreveport, Louisiana 71156
Dear Mr. Pruett:
This letter is to notify you that permit number PSD-TX-64 issued
to Southwestern Electric Power Company has been amended per your
request of July 24, 1979. As you requested, the reduction in your
permitted stack height from 625 to 525 feet has been made. It is
also necessary to amend the third condition of your permit. The
condition listed below is to be substituted for the condition with
the same number on page 2 of said permit:
3. The maximum emission rates of SOj and TSP for the
proposed unit shall not exceed 8180 pounds per
hour and 682 pounds per hour, respectively.
Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this change.
•erely,
Diana Dutton, Director
Enforcement Division
cc: Bill Stewart
Texas Air Control Board
5-74
-------
; ara t UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ W^7 «
\^ +A,f4*f FIRST INTERNATIONAL BUILDING
*'«, ma** >20t ELM STREET
DALLAS. TEXAS 7S270
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED (856421)
MAR 30 1973
Mr. Jay A. Pruett
Environmental Coordinator
Southwestern Electric Power Company
P. 0. Box 21106
Shreveport, Louisiana 71156
Dear Mr. Pruett:
A review of your application for authority to construct a steam gener-
ating unit near Hallsville, Texas as specified in your Significant
Deterioration Review, replication 'lumber PSD-TX-64 dated November 30,
1977, has been completed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A
determination has been made to approve your project. Our final determi-
nation indicates that you have met the requirements of the prevention of
significant deterioration regulations of 40 CFR 52.21, as amended by the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, that is, the operation of your proposed
project at the location specified, (1) will not cause a violation of the
Class II air quality deterioration increments, (2) will not cause a
violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, (3) will not
have an impact on the air quality of any mandatory Class I areas, and (4)
will use best available control technology to control emissions of sulfur
dioxide (S02) and participate matter (TSP).
A violation of any condition issued as part of this approval as well as
any construction which proceeds at variance with information submitted
in the application- is regarded as a violation of construction authority
and is subject to enforcement action. Also, before you start construc-
tion you must meet, if applicable, all other Federal EPA requirements
such as the 40 CFR part 60 (New Source Performance Standards^, the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Commencement of construction
prior to the completion of the NEPA process may result in enforcement
action pursuant to Section 6.906 of 40 CFR Part 6, Preparation of
Environmental Impact Statement. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that
issuance of your prevention of significant deterioration certification
does not free you of the responsibility to comply with other air
pollution control strategies and all local, State, and Federal regula-
tions which are part of the Texas State Implementation Plan.
This approval is issued in accordance with the following conditions:
1. The source will be constructed in accordance with the applica-
tion and supportive facts submitted for EPA review.
5-75
-------
2. The source shall meet the requirements for the application of
best available control technology as follows:
a) The source shall comply with the requirements of the New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Coal-Fired Steam
Generators (40 CFR, Part 60, Subpart D); i.e., the maxi-
mum emissions of sulfur dioxide (S02) and total suspended
particulate (TSP) shall be 1.2 and 0.1 pounds per million
BTU, respectively.
b) The source shall comply with the NSPS for Coal Prepara-
tion Plants (40 CFR, Part 60, Subpart Y).
3. . The maximum emission rates of S02 and TSP for the proposed unit
shall not exceed 8234 pounds per hour and 686 pounds per hour,
respectively.
4. Compliance with the above required emission limitations shall
be determined by the test methods and procedures as outlined in
40 CFR, 60.46 and 60.254.
5. Approval under the prevention of significant deterioration
requirements shall take effect on the date of this notice. In
accordance with the proposed prevention of significant deteri-
oration rules which appeared in the Federal Register of
December 8, 1977, construction must commence before
December 1, 1978. If construction is not commenced by
December 1, 1978, (where the term "commenced" is defined under
40 CFR 52.21(b)(7) as promulgated in the Federal Register on
November 3, 1977), then this approval shall become" invalid,
and it will be necessary to resubmit an application under the
new prevention of significant deterioration regulations which
are expected to be promulgated on March 1, 1973.
The complete analysis including public comments, which justifies this
approval, has been fully documented by the EPA Regional Office for future
reference, if necessary. Any questions concerning this approval may be
directed to Oscar Cabra by phone at (214) 767-2742 or by letter to this
office.
Sincerely,
'
/ Adlene Harrison
"Regional Administrator
cc: Sill Stewart, P. E.
Executive Director
Texas Air Control Board
5-76
-------
AFFIDAVIT OF INTENT
Southwestern Electric Power Company
P. 0. Box 21106
Shreveport, Louisiana 71156
PSD-TX-64
Construction of a steam generating unit near Hallsville, Texas.
This permit would have been issued on or before this date, February 28,
1978, but for the order entered in Environmental Defense Fund v.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 78-281 (D.D.C.) on February 24,
1978.
Adlene Harrison
^ Regional Administrator
5-77
-------
PEH-IIT TO
APPKOJ'RIATJ; STATE WATKH
APPLICATION NO, ''OOf! PERM [TWO. 5618 TYPIv Section 1 1 . 12 1
Permittee : Soutlr.yestern Electric Add' r.-*s : P. <">. Hox 21106
Power Company Shf.-vt-port
Lorn' si ana 71156
Received : Apri' 17, 1978 Filed : A'.'.rrist 21, 197,1
Grnnted : .Novombcr 6, 19"fl' County : Harrison
Watercourse : Brandy Branch, tribu- Watershed: S.iiriac River Bnsin
tary cf Sabine R'ver
WHEREAS, th-.1 Te:-:ns Water Commission finds llisit jurisdicfion of the appli-
cation is established: and
-\*
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held and So'if ii-vestc'-n i^c-rtrk- Fo-vr-r
Company named as -n party; and
WHEREAS, bj- law the Excc-jtive nh-rscf-or a'ld Mie Public In|'?r'*st A-i- o-Tti-
of the Department ot' Water Resources -3 TV parties; ai'.ri
WHEREAS, no person appsai-sd fo protest tlio gr:1..'.' ing of f.hjc P.pplinti-Mi; and
WHEREAS, the issuance of this p«r;pit gran tint; tl'i.s appiionrion is not p.civers
to any party; and
WfJKKBAS, the Commission has 'ss^sred the nffo'-f.- of isiii-rir" of !hi =
permic on the bayr, ?"d es'.uaries of Texa = .
NOW, T!innETrORiv. this permit t.o appropriate- -.JK! MSO Si.nff 340 feet sbo"e r:"-n>: s"a 'c'-'-i. 'i'^o drm '.-.•; il b" i-- 'I- d
in the V-'m . \V?.lTon Sur\ cy, A'y-tract .\-74.",. ."'"I 'J;-1 V.'ipny fO-'i'" S'n
vey, Abstract A.-43D, I!:;rris?" Cc-.int/, Te-n^. StA'io': n \ 00 "n 'ln>
centcriine of tin; clam i~ .\' 0- : 1~' \V, G.'H ~ ft".' !ro:p iin Survey , 10 mil1'"1 S'.",;f Iv.""?:! cf
Marrhnil, Tex^s.
(a) P"vrni:tec is autho: ,:cd '.o .;;•(•-
fc-ct c1' v/a^-jr per y r. r fi 'v-.i =?i antiy J~i ..... r;> '01 i i •. •• •.•<*•! rs !"i~ uc'n-
struction of t.ho Jam, plant and ancillary ;':.ciiitics.
(b) Permittee is ~i;','io:-;-c .: lo :>r. ;o>!"ri in. iho i-csorvoi~ ro:' i;idus'.rial
purposes '.'tic lui-uv/:!:;' :'ouiC'.-s ci.'iii rucunu . ,.. o. •,•/>...;•:
(1) K"t !o e\-rcc;i 55C" .icre -1'c;^: o:' u-a'o" :><":r a!'.;:u:r, o!' '!:>-• sui i\.'.:e
.1";" of '.jrnni.iv if rrvnv;n. ~nd
('.'.) Not t;i .:\ceod :8."00 -\crr- - fee', ui \v;ilrr per ;u"i'.:m '.•-.. -5 •': d nn
a vw.'i'.r.-ict -iati-'d i )i. c.. nib or 5, 1077, r.;. ;';::. •-•:'. i '-•:!, •'•:'*' :-\-:'t!--' ' -;t
5-78
-------
fr) P--M-mi"cc is r'.uUiori/.c-d ID divert, • •ii'-'i'nl? •nH rc''irculato walcr
frrmi tli'j reservoir fur industrial purposes and lo use ccnsump-
tivo'y, through forced evaporation and c'.hcr inirccH'inecrjs indus-
trial uses, not to exceed 11,000 acrc-f'-ct of \vaU:r per annum.
3. DIVERSION
(a) Point of Diversion: a point on the perimeter of '.he reservoir which
is S 74° 02' '.V, 5,923 feet from the northert.s<. corner of the Zion
Roberts Survey, Abstract No. 595, Harrison County, Texas.
(b) Maximum Diversion Rate: 1850 cfs (023,000 gprn).
4. TIME LIMITATIONS
Construction of the dam herein authorized shall be in accordance wi'h
plans approved by the Commission and slmll be commenced within two
years anr watrr riplits in the
Sabir.e River Ea.-in.
Permittee ar.'reos to be bourc by the terms, c-Miclil'nns and prn'-isiotiS coi';.iincd
herein and such agreement is a conditioi; precedent '.o the cri".inliiia of this oeinnt.
All other matters requested in the application v.-liicli arc r:ot Sj^ecificajl v »i-3:itcd
by '.his permit are denied.
This permit is issued subject to tho IV-iles or t!'^ Texns C'^nav'men1 nf \Valer
Resources and to l!ie r-'ght of continual supervision '~>r Stn'e ••. ater resonrcj'S exer-
cised by the Der^rttnc-U.
T^XAS '.'.-A'rrn COJ.IMISSION
. Dat.p.. Issued:
''''''"'
Felix .McDonald, ' Ciiairman
-.ber 20, 1978 _
/Joe R. C.irroil, Commissioner
A
\Y ;;V ,M»ry, A'.:A,Hefner, Chief .(..Lurk Dorsey i-f. i ilardeman,
;^;-,' •' '""•• Pof;c 2 of 2
-5-79
-------
MENT TO
PKHMIT TO
APPROPRIATE STATK w\ I-K
APPLICATICr.' MO. .:OG:>C PERMIT NO. tlirnc T'i'ITi: Amendment
Pcrinittcc : Northeast Texas Municipal Address- : P. O. Dox GOO
Water District D'linc'-'rficid
Texas 75333
Received : J'.ine 6, 1978 Tiled . : August 21, 197f!
Granted : November G, 1?73 Counties : Marion and Harrison
Watercourse : J'.ig Cypr-.-ss Creek to Watershed: Cypress PnsiT to
JJramly Hianch, tribu- Sabino River Basin
tary of Sabine River
WHEREAS, Uu> Toxas Water Commission finds that jurisdiction of the appli-
cation is established; and
WHEREAS, applicant has requested an amcixlm'vi. to Permit No. 1H07B to
authorize a Irans'.vai.i.'rsiicd diversion of iv.H !o exceed 1 ", OfX1 acre-fret ')( indus-
trial use '.vatcr ricr anntiMi as rtilrnscci I mm Lal;e O' 'ho pin<:5, T'ypress i-.api'i,
for bed and banks conveyance; and for pipeline lrr\:isfor t:> the S'U:ino Rivur
l!asin; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has liccn held and Nnrlhcast Texas Municipal
\Vatcr Districl irini'.v! ;us a party; and
WHEREAS, by law the Exnc'ilivf Piroctor n'-d !'"- 1'vblif I.':l"rcst Advocate
of the Depnrtirent of Wa'cr Resources r.i-r- p;irtic?; and
«
WHEREAS, nc person appeared !o protest t!r.' fir-nn'.ing of this application; and
WIIEDE/'.S, '.!•'' Commission has ^'jpossecl t1'? r-lTert."5 of 'ssitr.m:n of MILS per-
mit on the bay? and '.'Stun:-ios of Texas: r"id
WHEREAS, tiiv issuance <'f !lns p-.-rnu! fjrinl'Mc 'i'is aj>r!i"~'- \«n i.« no', adverse
to any party.
NOW, THEREFOR E. '-his Pk'.cndii-.c-i'. i'.i J'o!---ii! ":•• I!'''7;1- jp is.'ii:'."1 '<'
Northeast Texns ".-lunicip-il \Vater Pisti ;cf. subject ';i f!i" f'rilc'.vi'-f; '.?r;ns -i."-.! con-
ditions:
1. USE
\
i
Pcrr-iiMcc is r.'.i'.lmrized 'o r^'c'-'sr sufrii'i?!'! p.mou!'1'3 'jf inu'iPt'-i'1.! ''S'.1
\vatcr- from Lake ()' ti-.n Pine? 0:1 fiif; Cyprus r.'i-c^^, f.'yprrs? Hapi'i,
Maries- Co 'nty, to provide f:ir the ' rnnsv. n.t'M --li^d div1 r-s;nn o1 1 !', '''"'C
acr'-'-fvet t-f \v;'tcr per i-nnui:: t'.' tl-i" .V'll'in'.- !'ivi;r lU::-i''.. Water :IM eased
will l;o tr.".:is|)orted appr^xin^1' c:i y one i'ii1" hv l.'erf and 'nnnk." c^f '',i:;
Cypress C'rcch, thence via ;.:p(:l in'.: to .Sen: '.:• •.•.•••:;' ern l-"i ••"•' '. '"' Pi-'..'er
Company's cooling pond on r?randv RITUH-II, tributai'y of Sabine River,
Harrison Co;:n!y. Tlic transfer of i!ie water is pursuant to the terms of
of a contract dated December f>, 1M77, \vitli Southwestern Electric Power
Company upon which Contractual Permit No. CP-'t5-? is hascd.
Pa'(;e 1 of '2
" "5-80
-------
This ani'-mlmcnt is issued subject to all .superior niifl senior \v:it»r rights in
the Cypress Bn^in.
Permittee ngr"(:s to bo bounrl by the terms, rntuli'icms and provision:; ron-
taincd herein and such jigrecment is a. condition prcc-.'dent lo the frranliii/j of this
amendment.
All other mPttrrs requested in the- application -.vhirh arc not specifically
granted by this niiienilmnul nre denied.
This amrji'-Jinent is issued subject to tho Rule.--' of '.lie T'-x-ns Dcpn rtin-.-nt of
Water Resources and to His right cf coii'.in'jal supervision ftf State wf.tcr resources
exercised by tiic r?epartmcnt.
TEXAS \VATKH C
(s/ Felix McDonald
I-'ulix McUoi-.-iJd, Chairman
/s/ Joe H. C.^f
Joe]'?. Clnrrcll, Coiimii.ssi
Date Issued:
November 20,rU'7'i
(SEAL)
Attest:
/£/ Mary ACi:: ::"f-er
arv Ann Hefner, Chic!'
s/ DPT-SC-V H. H?-rd'-'inan
Iior.su-. M. I [;irdcM-:ir, C
I. MJ-. ATI I1'' -• Ct- r' ''•'••"' of !!'? T?x':S
•,Val':r C.-— vi-,3".- c- ,V-r- •.:"•:>•!'•!(//•—
.^o^_-.. <-.
-------
FILE NO.
PEP MIT TO
APPROPRIATE STATE WATKH
APPLICATION NO, CA-45-S PERMIT NO. CP-4M TYPE: Contractual
Permittee : Southwestern Electric Address : P. O Bex 2 1 106
Pov.-er Company Shr'' veport
Louisiana 71155
Received : April 17, 1970 Filed : Ai.'Giist21. 1"7P.
Granted : November 6, 1978 Counties : Marion and Harrison
Watercourse : T3ig Cypress Creek and Watershed; Cypress Basin and
Brandv Branch, tribu- Sabine River Basin
tary of Sabine River
WHEREAS, the Texas Water Commission finds that jurisdiction of the appli-
cation is established; and
WHEREAS, ?. p-.'lilic hearing has been held and South-western Electric Po'.ver
Company named as a party; and
WHEREAS, by iaw tl:e Executive Director and the Public Interest Advocate
of the Department of Yi'ater Resources arc parties; and
WHEREAS, no person appeared to protest the urarUirg of this application; and
WHEREAS, the issuance of tin's permit granting fhir-; nnpl ic-< ion is no' adverse
to any party.
NOW, THEREFORE. this permit to use Slate water is is°-.nH f.o F'juihvept-ji n
Electric Power Company, based en a contract daled Qpc"mher 6, lf?7". with North-
east Texas Municipal \Vator District. o\vn?r of Pi-r'.nit No ISS^C. v.-hicii a-.iMinrizes
the use of water granted by this permit. The 'erins and ^vMulitions of tin's permit
are as follows:
1.
The i'nprar"i:nenr is La'-cc O' fie Pines (formed i'v Fi:i-r'-:i'i..<5
Dain). as ai''hor:7.ed by Permit N". 18!'7C.
Perrnit'.L-e is authorized fc divert - nrl use not 10 exceed 1 •r|, 00" arrf-f-et
of waf'ji1 ner year for industrial '.:?e (st'-am cier'.ric ;x'V';r pen err"1 ir>>)
Sufficic1:'.1. a:i:oupls of water to s"'isfv tlie 'livrirPi'-iis :\ \U !:f reiiT ?"ti
from Lake O' the Pisies oil Big Cvpr^ss Creek, Cyptos.^ "rsin. r-.I^rtcvi
Count\-. rn•.." P!' r'lg (."-. rress Crci1': r::d
ther.ce t-y p:i-.cli:ie to pcr'vitte1?'.- : e.-cr 'O- •• i'cc-oi:;ip jv:i-l) c"i ]',! aivly
Branch. Saline iliver F.^asin, Harrison CV'-'niy. -."iiic1 is n'ltnnrised by
Permit No. 1307C.
•'3. DIVERSION
(a) Point of Diversion; /On l!:c ri^i'.t, or south, ban'.; of I?ig Cypress
Creek, about one :i:'i!e dov.-ns'.rea.-n o:" Fcrrclls Ijridge-Dam and
eight miles west of Jefferson, Texas.
(b) Maximum Diversion Rate; 33. ! cfs (15,000 ttpm).
Pa<'e 1 of 2
5-82
-------
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1 FAUE 5(1
'
(a) Nothing in this permit sh-ill be construed' as author! /.ing an oppro-
priptivo rifjht in c::c~ss of that presently hold by Nor'honst Texas
Municipal Water District as evidenced by (Iv: af:>rcm^nl ionc'i
permit. Those public waters diverted pur-punnt to this prrimt
shall consist wholly of waters previously ainhori/crl '.o be diverted
by Northeast Texas /Municipal Water District which waters shall be
released from Lake O' the Pines in such qucin.tilir-s as
-------
NORTHEAST TEXAS riilNICTPAr.. V.'ATISU n.ISTRICT
an'd
SOUTHWESTERN HLDCTRTC POWER COMPANY
THIS AGREEMENT, iride and finl-prod into this ths _5.th_.
clay of December 19 77 ', i,y ail,i bcl:wT?n NORTHEAST TEXAS MUNICIPAL
WATER riSTRICT (horc.i nr> r'-er called D.TSTRICT) , a body politic?
and corporat", created «"»ut existing under and. by virtue of f
rspecial act of the Lncri •= Va t'.T" of t'i«.-< -?t-T te of Texa? (Act? .1551,
^.ird Lcai?]ni;urr., P?a° 1 '.4, C*b ? p t e r" 7R1, bring Article 0280 -
1.47 of V.A.T.S., aci:ii":| 'nef in by U vn kl tv 5 to e r m g r __ , j t"
Vice PresidrnU, and _B._3. "-VnMrofi _ , >t~ P^rrotary, both of vrini'i
•TG dulv norc-unto nni-.l-S- 17.01! '.'V j-vo11^'' '•'•-^r-] uticn of the !7o? r'.1
of Dirc'jt-.nrs of or.STiUCl. and r-Oi'TH'7F:~Tr;v' ELECTRIC PC'V/ER COMPANY,
•i Delawn'ro corporal: i.(?'i , Iinviny i l'.«s nvit'ri. t';' 1. place? -of htisiiipss at
'128 Travi" Street", ?hro'r-~por (• , TiC'.'i ^i. nii"i ni'-.irei.nafftsr rall^c.1
SV^EPCU) , hoin-g tl'O own'?'- and hc.'.c'Ti: oC i "^lid perinit to do,
-ind aoi'ig, a ^en-Tiil )n=;.n2s= \n -'o1: !:'••-- -i; Toxr.s of nerieratinc:,
tir-Jius'KJ '-. i.i ng . dii-'-ril^n!:1' 'irr CT"! ?«.'.!• in ^lo'rtric pO'-:'-.r nnu on^rcy,
acting 'icT'.iin by Jain^rs J,-::iar .Stn.l.L, !>-..'• Fee1". \dent, and i-7. iienry
Jackson, .i ':.s Secretary, ^oth o f. wiior- -T--; d'.'ly hereunto autlioris^d
by proper rer-ilut.'.on oC -lies' HcFivd of rvroc tcrs of ?'.-'ErCO,
That l.or and in considcr-iUion oC Die mutual covenants and
ayrccMicnts horcinnftor set foi'Lh l-.o 1)'.: clone, kept and performed
by the parties hereto respectively,. DISTRICT and SV.'EPCO have and
do hereby contract and agree, c-ic!i wj th the othar, as follows:
5-84
-------
l.l *,T.'l-:rco i-ron templates l.ho •Ton'-.h.ruc1:.! on of n new stcnm
clcctr> t; cjcv.ar.-itinr] rf.--itLon in Harrison CT'nty, T«xnn, upon
land rv lie owned i.n re-' by SW/Tl'O, and anticipates, v/ithaut
being obligated to dr .-o, thai: ; t may eventually install therein
steam i-.urbine driven oioctrir: g^nnr.-i ting facilitj.es of a capacity
of approxin-n tely 1,400,000 kilo/watts nnrr.e plate rating.
1.2 DISTRICT proposes to prcvirie for S'CEPCO the necessary
water for the gr»ncrnl incj of iflerlri.c: pov.'pr ancl ensrgy in said
new s.t?ciTi elsctric cirr-i-nting si-.rtion •-'nd water for ether uses'--'
incidental to said sta'-.ion and SWBPCO agrees to purchase all
of its water, other'irl:->n thai: from Hie natural inflow and drain-*
age of the reservoir v;-Tt:«r slio.d and nv=i.i.lable from ,-mining
operatiors for the p1?*'1;, fcr s-'id r*-ii:i.on fron DISTRICT
subject to the concli.H.r;;s h^rr-of. In fx;niioction with this
proposal, DISTRICT i.-rp-nsc!'!.? thn!: .it is th*'owner .and holclrc
of a permit granted .Vy (-}\<=> "r-nr''. of. V.'ntrr f7ngii\c2r£> of tlie
State r-f Tcvas, flntr-r! r----.v.f-!;rl- ??.. .I1.1?'', bearing fJo. 1P9T,
i
and l-'j'f'Nc. 2^?.fj, nt-cl:": V'-- >-.c, mn op v:h J fli DIPTRCCT \s
author i.-'".l -'nd rinp'n-.'ci:"'.! lv -nrprrjpr.i ••> to . .'.inpo'.ind, .divert and
use mi'-rprTpri-nlTd p'.'i)i vc •/•••'l.c-r of O..-I-VT- Crsei:, P. strerim
in the "••:! i'ivE-r Wntif'C^Hcd '.*> Titir; r"id Marion Counties, i>xi.-!,
•said w^!:-?r -'O b': stc.r-7-' in l-r^s 0' th-? ~iii'-^ (form or ly Fevrcll' s
Oridge Pe'servoir) crr^ •-.••d '•>•>•• ' e.'rro) 1' r- 'Tr.'.dge from, constructed
by the Corpr: of /T,ncjin^-:-s, "fitted St-n!:?r- ,A!:ny... Cnid permit
authorir.cs --'nd pornits PlS'iniCT. to appropriate nnd use not more
than 42,900 acre Hoot ^f. write1: per annur! for r.unicipal and
domestic purposes r.r.ci n"t r.-.crr Lhan !''•!. !!CO acre1 feet of water
per annum fnr industrial use purposes.
DISTRICT further represents that it has, by contract
with the United States cf America, acauired rights and
privileges of storing v.-atcr i-n the conservation pool of said
5-85
-------
resu'rvnir I-Q tin? oxi-.ent of 351,000 aer-? r?nt bet"'ie?i elevations
201 (••':(: and 228-1/2 feet.
PISTRICT expressly covenant.? with and warrants to
SWEl'CO thai: th« water permit nnd r:toragra rights and privileges
described in this paragraph are vrli.d and subsisting and that
DISTRICT- ha" taken all actions required by, and cc.-npliad with
all the terns, provisions and conditions of, said permit and
said contract with th-.- United .?i:al'.«:is cC America and that th«?
rights and ariviifiy«ri of DISTRICT under and pursuant to said
permit and said contract: are in all 'things firm and effectual.
1.3 DISTRICT agrncr that it will, acting in concart with
SWEPCO cnuso to l>a £'.lr^d an app'ropri •-'.to joint application or
other pleadi.ng r-idd':?-<:-od 'to tiie To:::"* Wntfr Coirmipsicn,
praying Uor an order oi: said Ccnunir;?: op. awarding SW.EFCO, in its
own right and for i t~ i~wn v~-r> and bn;i'n i".i. t, a;1 con tractuai permit
under H.hn pnrrnit irron, ':he ''onrd of V.'.ito" i^ngiiiGer'i of the
State- cC Tr;^:as rv.vTiod ;nid h-'-i by )M£Vn;T.CT, datrd November 27., 1957
and d--."cr ilvid in 1'nrncp-nph \..?. linjroo1". 'p'-afar and _c tho r-xt-'nt
that 11: '-ay be necesPtury to ofTf-rct r.p'l ri I low th? av/arrl >y r.ci-l
Tcxns '..'-ii:or Cotn>:'.i.s.
-------
coal-. .-ind e::pon:-.c. of l-ikiir? waU-r pornii.l:'.f."l to ni.'iTi'.TCT
from that stored in Lri:c O' t.ho Pino.-;, and tran-mitting
it to tho .lake to ba b'lilt. tt .1.". r>'^CTVP ti')t< of V/-T l:.2r stonr-d and
perr,ii(.-!:.ciV to DISTRICT, .i'l i;!io rop.scrv-i t: on portion of l:he
Ijfike 0' !:ho I?ir-:.'j re=cv-oir, PV/PirCQ •.-ov'-'jinn ts and ^qr
-------
1.7 SWKI-CO r;hall IUT./C the r.v.|h': l-.o p*wp the v.'Mter reserved
in ac^rdcince v/LLli P.ir'iyraj-h l. .-1 EMIC! 1.? hereof Crow Lake 0'
the Pinor;, and/or Cypress Cre^k, and slinl.1 pay Cor ruch amounts
of wa'irr in quarterly payment^ at- l-.ho rate of fifteen uo.llars
($15.00) per acre foot., per calendar year, -payments shall
begin '-/ith the pumpiny of -.vater or no later than January 1,
1983, whichever occurs; first:.
For the ?rs after payments beg.i.n
o-f tlio chiraliion of tbi^ agreement, payment for v-'citar putrporl
by SWEPCO from Laics 0' the Pinar wi.ll be bnsed upon the creator
of (n) tha nctual nunO^T of acrr- fant pumped by SWErCO purr.ua-it
j
to th\r, contract fron T,;ike 0' t'''Q Piii-rr; or Cypross Creek i]i
any fi;ll c?.Iend?.r yi3~i: or (b) tlio '•.i?.::i"i'.i~ nuin.b'ar of acre f'irt
puir.pco by S'.'/EPCO froi-i J.-ike 0' tb.e. Piiv.»s .or Cypress Croek in
any pr'2vj.o\>.^ full ^n.'.ci'-lar ys'ir witii.'n the ten cnlandnr yoar-
pcrioc!, (c) a ir.i.n.iiv.ui-,'o.r ].n,QPO ?cr:r (!';et par, full calendar
year.
After the fi.rrl: ten ("uJl ca Irivlr. r, years nfter payments
begin, pc'yn-.ont ro>- v.--L-"- pn-'ipr-d by ?;-T:rc') Crosi Lako 0' thr;
Pines or Cyprerr- Ci'ork purr.M:>nt tn tlirt C'Ttrr.ct in ?ncct?2flinq
ten cc"i'::'cic". yr-'r p"rJ''p.is •..•i\.i-:h f o I j'•••.- i:".: ic-.li at1? ly aii'if-r i:"no
la.st c:;'lcnrli.r yar in ''he jurnc^rlin'j '•.-^•i r^londnr yr-'i- rr-'i.od
shall bo b;i~Gd t'pcn t.l"? gfv"1. t-->r of (•"') ^ctM-il aero foot p'.ir.'pa'l
by SV.'rrrO from J-ake 0' the ['insf in any contract year v:ithin '.".'ac
then appropriate ton y^ar.-period, or ('.:) ':}ia rrnjrimyrr. number oC
acre feet rr.mpocl by rvvi^CO pur~ii3nt ':c !:h>.s contract iTron L^ite
0' the Pines in ar.y previous contract year within the then
applicable ten calendar year period, (c) a minimum of 12,000
acre .Tcct per full calendar year.
V.'atcr pu~pcd under the provisions of Paragraph 1.7
shall bo mctcrcd by calculatinq (iiie Clow from the Capacity-
Head Test curve of the pump and by use of an hourly operation
5-88
-------
clock, pr -nich other ir.^thcvl arj mny ba imifiu'i lly -inrefd upon;
SWEPCO rha.l I. furnish pimp records to DISTRICT prior • to,-the
tenth '1-?y f-C each month, rnd npyni'Mit:; for v;ater punir"?d by
SWEPCO under terms oE ir'nis Paragraph 1.7 shall !• d-;-- and
payable? quarterly wi'ihi.n twenty dti'y:; following the end of
each calendar quarter.
Not .Later than GO days -TlJtcT tlia elapse of each full
five calendar year periods thflt tMn agreement may be in effect,
the parties shall rp.vj'.rv nil payments and water rates as sot
forth herein. The connensaticn due the DISTRICT under the
terms of. th.'.s. agreompii t shall b~ ?cl-juf!ted if the review inrijcntes
there hrv~ b~en an increase or d"cr?:.u-.r! in costs and the ad"U'sied
payments an', woter rnt"- shnl.l --ipply to tile next ensuing five (5)
year period followinei -\i\ adTustr-pn t of- :-aid pavments and .wnte-r
rates. -uc'n adiuptnuMitr; sli-i.l I •"•pply 1-.fJ the :$3.00 par acre foot
for wpter r'-served. ;:n-l sli^j .1 net -ipr''/' '•.•? the pri.ca for •..•fte1:
actucil.1v divert.rd, pi c'.-i.Jc-1. iiovevei:, thnt the adjusted rate
shall n'-v»r be losp i-.li-'in $"-.nn p«ir ?c\:r. foot per annum..
Ilia revi'-w of' civipon^atinn of l:h>? PISTRICT 5ha.ll b« bared
\ipon the fc i.lov.!i' ng mrt:'.-••>rs;
(:\) i'ne I^^oC1 r?c'.or i"ov ci ••>'.•.•>].'!••'. nn I • <^n c.f. increase'; cv
decro."1'—• .i'1 cc-'^t sh? I' ha Hi--« «• ve:.-f»':o nnn".,-1.! pnys-i'-nt by the
DISTilTCT to the Corp.1? <"•" iJ:••;.'' norcr; f"v '-n ;.n ten?nc-: and op'.in !:.ion
ciiarges during ths five- (5) v'e:ir P^rLrd, .1.972-197^, v.-iiich a-r.onnt
is $34,674."!.
(!-) "he -iverng': "nnu.il payn-'n'- by the DISTRICT to ':ho
Corps 9!: Engineers for r.-aintcn.'irice and operation charges during
the Civc years irr,n!odi.n t«ly precod i nq i:!',o tine of review shall
be divided by the base factor to dctcrriinc the cost increase
or decrease ratio.
(c) TC there lias been .in increase or decrease in costs
as reflected by the above ccr.L rati.o, tl'.c payments for the
^5-89
-------
rM'-r'.'-it.'->n rl f v/Ai-.->r ui'.d-T ro '.•••it|r--inli 1. ^ of tlii:: rKirecnicn t
shall. IJG adjusted by .imil'. ipl y isi'j tho cost chanye ratio times
fivr- (SS.'JO) dollars.
In the cvrnl-. '-hat; eil'tvr party during the period for
review is of the opinion th;it the foregoing formula is unfair
or prejudicial and v/nnts chiuv.ies or revifions thereof, then
said party shall endeavor l:c neqoti al:o with the other party a
new nroce'lure and nnji-.liodc for the ridetsrinir.ation cf cayrrents
and v.-ntar ratss.
1.8 SV.'EPCO agrees that i.t will., upon written request of
-ij-
mSTRTCT, transmit wn tor for PISTI'.ICT1 s account through PKFll'CO's
Iracj 1.1 ties, if, at tii" tims o.1! s'.icli ):^qn
-------
ye-ajrg, mid llicnsfifLpr ••hnli.-b'? .-i,r union.'.; 'vied ; rd by .",v;i:r>CQ by giving at le^st
twelv- months wrrifcto!! "Otire "f sv-c-.h rnnc-c 1 la t ton, prior bo
any nnniver^ary date.
1.11 It is agreed L-MPI: vhrin 'VISTITCT's sales or conunitnients
for s-nlo of watar in L-'.'cc 0' tin NUTS rcsch ^n a-v-eragc of
apprnxinitt?ly 100,000,nOC en I'oi:s' nor day, including the usiigs
of Lor,': Star Steel Cor-i-.'iiiy ?i:io otf-flvr, DISTRICT will notify
SWCTCO in writing bo!?rrc! OJSTRICT st-ils any more -.-.'nter. S'-.'nrCQ
shall have Corfcy-fivi* (45) days affcc?i: .rscsipt of sue1,: notice
to.exercise its opt.ion under rarayrjiph 1.? hereof to purchase
addit.^onnl vatcr at, ;i fric1? !nvt*'all.y ;inr^cable. J.n the cvr:it
SWP;PCC C!TG? exeircisn i'.:~ c:-t?"n to j-i'ir-i-ir.?-; additional vatrr,
payment for sucii w^tcr shai.1 bs ni?''j" in CT;'.'Til qu? r tcirly r^v~
mants bc^iinr.ing w.ii:li I'"'1 f:r-l: r-?i 1 cf"1!-"1 r qf.nrfeor after receipt
of wr.i tt^n notice by !7'^TTJ.'"!TT f'rcri .'TVM'^C"'? - i; airs intent to
purcli?1^" ncVitJ.onnJ vni.T. .'.n f-.hc s-.--7nt '-''.it- F'-'.'ljrcO elect?
not to r'irr!'aso nucli a-'.-'i. t-.«it;>l v/n :rr '.'i'.l'in t-h« ••'•? days, cr
dops noi. OX-TC:. f;f! J (:.=• •^;?t.\"". 'cho "31""''''1C'!' is reiscipnO. from i.l:s
oblirj'T'.:.v-n .'.'ndcr Pa r?:] •• -y'\ 1 . !"• -
1.12 .^' 'I'TC'O r^sarvr-? ''he '-^--hf- t"1 ":i!i':v 1 'uiir T'j.nt'.-ct ; r
its ontirot'. by v/vi 1: t r-i •.-.'7' ;'••? 1. v:o' v- (!."1 '-.oiiths in •-idv.iKn
should S'-.'3FfJO cv; tfirrni M "• th-1:: '.iu- r-".o''.!'i rl^ctric: cm errs tir. g
plant c-.--, ts":ol? tad in !'-Tr.-v-t.:i L. \ h-T•.•".'C v:ill not be
constir'ictod.
i.].3 Tiiis -igrr"2r.icru: ^i-al.l r?1-. bc^o--"? bin'ting or effective,
except f'^r I'he roscrv 5!- i on ••• v/rtr?rr •.•n-1<-r <":'racjr?.pih 1.4 r^n-Ling
the processing and r>ppi:ovcil by i-.hc Toxns l\ator Ccrvr.isnion,
nor any water delivered -imlcrss asid until:
(a) The Texas Water 'Jcr-i-.ii-r-icn shall hava iccucd a
5-91
-------
contract per-nit in favor of SWKTCO covering the' tni'.ina of
water from Lake 0' the Pinor, so that the right of SWhTCO to
receive water under the terms; of thin nqr<3fiient shall ba in
all thinn- firm and o E f^ctunl .
.1.14 If by reason of force mnj'Uire beyond the control and
without the fault or negligence of th-3 party failing to
perform, aither .party is rendered unable to carry out its
obligations under thJ~ agreement, than on such party's giving
notice and full particulars of such reasons in v.-riting to the
other party within a reasonable time, after the occurrence of
the cause relied on, then the obligation of the party givinq such
notics, r;o far as it is affected by .-.uch force ma j sure, shall
be suspender during the continuance' of any inability so caused,
but for no longer period and such cn'.ir.e -ihall, so Car as possi-
ble, bo remedied with nj. 1 vrnson^blc dipj:ntch.
i . '
"Forn Majcur-?1'1 as v-eil lurcin sh-'i1.! mean acts of God!
striken, or other indn.'-':ri? 1 disturb.'Mures-, acts of. public
enemy, oi:der:>, lnv/s, rii' -id ; nnr of any V. i:nhor:. l:y, in?ijv.rc':t.ion:?, riot1?, epidemics, landslides,
lightnir.c!, '-ar tiiqur.kes, Eiren, h'u.-vir-ano-; utenns, flcods,
'.•'•an!i •<.)•< '•••. dvcii'-''' tr., -~i-r^sst-p:, e.xpl.es :c'>" , '•":ea!:a^i3 or ae^id^nt
io'dnir.s, i-achinevy, pi ;•.-••:•' j ne", -?r cnnlr; or other structures or
machinevv, partial or entii's failure of •.•.•nter supply ind :nai:ility
on the prrt of CIPTl^JCr to rieliver water h.eraunder, or of S'-TITCO
to trai'-f-or'. or receive watc::, en acee'int •? f any ether causs
not v.'iLiun ; ;ic control .-f ti'.c ;->arty c.i..ii;:i: n-.j sue;; inability.
'!he above rcvjuire;:ien t that any force "i.'ijeure shall be remedied
v/ith all reasonable dicpatcij shall not require the settlement of
strikes and lock-outr. by accodisvu l'o the demands o£ the opposing
5-92
-------
pnirtir--! v.'hcn sc-l tLcw.n'' is >m.f:avornbl c i n Lhe jM'ia;nont ol: the
party ii.ivirn tho ciiCf.i cnLty.
*'o d-'inwvcio shall ':e r'jct.-'varn'u l.a CrcM DISTRICT or SWETCO
by rcamn cf the suspension o1: thn rlolivery of water, or
acceptance of. w-itar, d'.T~ tn rmy of 1:1 1" causes abov;-mentionad.
Force rr.njeure shall r.ot relie-'3 Sl-J"PCO of its obligation to
makd pnynujnfcs for water as prcv'.dca liTV«in, EXCEPT, HOWEVER,
that i !: force aiajsurc ^'-.ould c^ruso ? Cnilu.rr; of the water supply,
prevent DISTRICT from^ reserving, do.li.vcring or selling all ox-
part of the water hcrri.M-i contrncl-.od f^r', or prevent SV.'EPCO frc-rn
purchnping, res'jrvir.q , -torin;; or 'it i. l.j ring in v/lioli? or in pnrt
the Writer horain cent: '.:^r ted £or, tlicn tho- obligation cf S".-<"KFCO
to nsako 'payri'.antp for s'-'.-li 'v.-ator cluri.iv.! 5?uch . tiiv.e shall bs
.•jUspciTTiC!'.!, or if such rvrc'n nnjcuin' c^'t'-'?? nn i'?."bility *:o
deliver, re?ervo, or r-roiv^ only JI-T r!' j •> '< aniovnts of1 the •.v;\':---v
herein Contracted !!or, '•ale1 «!i Li ga'-.i^v <1 <:. SvrzrCO tc pny for
i . '
water -MS provided hTr-^1:! slvl. J be jir'/pnv': i cnately adj'ist^'i
in a r.'i.:.i: nr-J eq'.'.j. i:nhl-t inatuvv: .
'.-.'! VK'v^S '.:hc hair'- or |-h« pa-.-fc-'.'--? r.-'"!to.
TTEST
(/ SEC.
5-93
-------
6.0
LIST OF PREPARERS
This environmental impact statement was prepared by EH&A for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI under the guidance of the EPA
Project Officer, Mr. Clinton Spotts, and the Project Monitor, Mr. Norman Thomas.
Key personnel from EH&A include:
Topic
Principal Reporter
Title
Project Manager
Project Consultant
Soils
Hydrology
Socioeconomics
Land Use
Climatology/Air Quality
Noise
Vegetation
Rob R. Reid
M.S. Wildlife and
Fisheries Sciences
George L. Vaught
M.S. Biology
James A. DeMent
Ph.D Soils/Geology
Dwayne Stubblefield
M.S. Civil Engineering
Ellen Cross
M.S. Urban and
Regional Planning
Dan M. Roark
M.L.S. Library Sciences
Curtis A. Harder
B. Eng. Science
Arthur V. Bedrosian
B.S. Physics
Thomas D. Hayes
M. For. Sci. Botany
and Systems Ecology
Staff Ecologist
Associate Ecologist
Senior Soil Scientist
Senior Staff Hydrologist
Staff Urban and
Regional Planner
Staff Urban and
Regional Planner
Staff Meteorologist
Senior Staff
Meteorologist
Staff Ecologist
6-1
-------
Topic
Principal Reporter
Title
Wildlife
Archeology
Geology/Ground-Water
Aquatic
Project Coordinator
Editing
Jerry C. Grubb
Ph. D. Zoology
Clell L. Bond
M.A. Anthropology
Tom Partridge
M.S. Geological
Engineering
Paul Price
B.A. Zoology
Diane Mumme
B.S. Aquatic Biology
Pat Wilkins
B.S. Fine Arts
Associate Ecologist
Manager, Environmental
Division
Staff Archeologist
Senior Ground-Water
Hydrologist
Senior Staff Biologist
Environmental Technician
Technical Editor
6-2
-------
7.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM
COPIES OF THE DRAFT STATEMENT ARE SENT
FEDERAL AGENCIES
U.S. Coast Guard, 8th District, New Orleans, LA
Central Region, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO
Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VI, Denton, TX
Regional Manager, Office of Coastal Management, Washington, D.C.
Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe, NM
U.S. Department Health, Education and Welfare; Public Health Service
Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA
Office of Legislation, EPA (A-102), Washington, D.C.
Office of Environmental Project Review, U.S. Department of Interior,
Washington, D.C.
Deputy Asst. Secretary for Environmental Affairs, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D.C.
Asst. Secretary for Environmental and Urban Systems, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Quality Acts., Office of the Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Water Resources Council, Washington, D.C.
Farmer's Home Administration, Washington, D.C.
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Director, Office of NEPA Affairs, Washington, D.C.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Advisory Council of Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.
Office of Federal Activities, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Reston, VA
Office of Surface Mining, Denver, CO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, TX and Dallas, TX
7-1
-------
STATE AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
Director of Budget and Planning Office, Office of the Governor, Austin,
TX
Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Austin, TX
Texas Department of Water Resources, Austin, TX
Surface Mining and Reclamation Division, Texas Railroad Commission,
Austin, TX
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX
Texas Energy and Natural Resource Council, Austin, TX
Texas Environmental Coalition, Austin, TX
Texas Organization for Endangered Species, Austin, TX
Texas Water Conservation Assoc., Austin, TX
Honorable Bill Clements, Governor of Texas, Austin, TX
Texas Air Control Board, Austin, TX and Tyler, TX
Economic Development Administration, Austin, TX
Texas Department of Community Affairs, Austin, TX
Liaison Officer, Bureau of Mines, Austin, TX
Department of Agriculture, Austin, TX
Geological Survey, Austin, TX
Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board, Temple, TX
Texas Department of Health Resources, Austin, TX
INTERESTED ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS
Honorable Lloyd Bentsen, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Honorable John Tower, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, D.C.
National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.
Honorable Sam Hall, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
Honorable H. T. Atkinson, Jr., Gregg County Judge, Longview, TX
7-2
-------
Honorable Richard Anderson, Harrison County Judge, Marshall, TX
Honorable T. T. Carlisle, Mayor of Longview, Longview, TX
Honorable Sam Birmingham, Mayor of Marshall, Marshall, TX
Honorable T. B. Hatley, Mayor of Hallsville, Hallsville, TX
Editor, News Messenger, Marshall, TX
Editor, Longview Morning Journal, Longview, TX
Grant R. Brown, Wayne, PA
Bob Witkiowski, Wilkes Barre, PA
Pat Wilson, Billings, MO
Scott Anderson, Austin, TX
Daniel E. Boxer, Portland, MA
Carl Huff, Longview, TX
Joe K. Ainsworth, Bremond, TX
Sportsmen's Club of Texas, Inc., Austin, TX
Greater Marshall Chamber of Commerce, Marshall, TX
James E. Hoelscher, Jr., Fayetteville, AR
A. J. Thompson, Tyler, TX
John Wallace, Marshall, TX
Sandra Cason, Marshall, TX
Monti G. Wade, Atlanta, TX
Paul Leggett, Marshall, TX
Jason Searcy, Marshall, TX
Scott Geister, Dallas, TX
7-3
-------
8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Banner, A. and M. Hyatt. 1973. Effects of noise on eggs and larvae of two
estaurine fishes. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 102:134-136.
Barrett, C. 1980. Personal communication. Realtor, Longview, Texas.
Blair, W.F. 1950. The biotic provinces of Texas. Texas J. Sci. 2:93-117.
Boone, D. 1977. Personal communication. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., Port
Arthur, Texas.
Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous forest of eastern North America. The Blakiston
Company, Philadelphia.
Brown, K.W. 1979. An assessment of the prime farmland status of the soils on the
SWEPCO lignite base in Harrison County, Texas. Report prepared for
Southwestern Electric Power Company. Shreveport, Louisiana..
. 1980. Evaluation of the characteristics of soil properties on the South
Hallsville project. Southwestern Electric Power Company Report, Shreveport,
Louisiana.
Brown, K. W., L. E. Deuel, J. C. Thomas, and K. Lanius. 1979. Characterization of
overburden material and revegetation analyses for the SWEPCO lignite deposit
in Harrison County,. Texas. Texas A&M Research Foundation, College Station,
Texas.
Bryson, H. L. 1973. Early survival and total height, and foliar analyses of eleven
tree species grown on strip mine spoils in Freestone County, Texas. Stephen
F. Austin State University, Nacodoches, Texas.
Buchanan, V. 1981. Personal communication. East Texas Council of Governments,
Cedergren, H. R. 1967. Seepage drainage inflow nets. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Chalmers, J. and E. Anderson. 1977. Economic/demographic assessment manual.
Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation, DOI, by Mountain West Research,
Inc.
Christiansen, C.S. 1980. Problems in modeling the effects of radionuclide
emissions. Presented at the Second Conference on Air Quality Management in
the Electric Power Industry, January 22-25, 1980, Austin, Texas.
8-1
-------
Coles, D.G. 1978. Behavior of natural radionuclid.es in western coal-fired power
plants. Environmental Science and Technology, 12:4, 445, April 1978.
Correll and Johnston,. 1970. Manual of vascular plants of Texas. Texas Research
Foundation, Renner, Texas.
Darnell, R. 1976. Impacts of construction activities in wetlands of the United
States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
EPA-6 0013-76-045.
Davis, W.B. 1974. The mammals of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlif e Dept. Bull. 41.
Austin.
Denver Research Institute. 1979. Socioeconomic impacts of western energy
resource development.
Dibble, D. 1977. Cultural resource survey - phase I reconnaissance of South
Hallsville project. EH&A, Austin, Texas for Southwestern Electric Power
Company, Shreveport. Doc. No. 7737.
East Texas Council of Governments. 1977. Regional land resource management
plan for the East Texas planning region.
. 1979. Regional housing plan addendum.
. 1980. East Texas regional labor market analysis.
Edison Electric Institute. 1978. Electric power plant environmental noise guide.
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. 1972. Regionalized Texas input-output model,
Longview SMSA.
1977a. South Hallsville project surface-water hydrology, phase I, Austin,
Texas.
_. 1977b. Baseline ecological studies. South Hallsville Project.
_. 1977c. South Hallsville project socioeconomic baseline analysis.
1978a. South Hallsville project supplemental aquatic baseline survey.
"November 1977 - September 1978. EH&A Doc. No. 78189.
_. 1978b. A preliminary assessment of the historical resources of the South
Hallsville project area, Harrison County, Texas, EH&A Doc. No. 78102.
_. 1979a. Baseline climatology and air quality for the South Hallsville Project
area. EH&A Doc. No. 79133.
-------
. 1979b. Computer program DISTRI.
. 1979c. Cultural resources survey-phase IL Plant site - cooling pond survey
mine area predictive model, South Hallsville project. EH&A Doc. No. 78102.
. 1980. Field notes: September 1980, wetland and pipeline vegetation survey.
. 1981a. Preliminary conceptual surface water and sedimentation control plan
for the South Hallsville lignite mine. January, 1981.
. 1981b. Environmental information document. South Hallsville Project,
(Doc. No. 80383).
Fisher, W. 1978. Texas energy reserves and resources. Geological Circular 78-5.
Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin.
Fritz, E. C. 1966. In: Texas natural area survey. No date. Natural areas of Texas.
Galloway, T. L. and K. Roberts. 1979. Soil survey in Harrison County, Texas.
Client Confidential Report.
Gould, F. W. 1975. Texas plants - A checklist and ecological summary. Texas
Agricultural Experimental Station. MP-585/Revised. College Station, Texas.
Hatley, T. 1980. Personal communication. Mayor, Hallsville, Texas.
Hershfield, D.M. 1961. Rainfall frequency atlas of the United States for durations
from 30 minutes to 24 hours and return periods from 1 to 100 years. Technical
paper No. 40, Cooperative Studies Section, U.S. Weather Bureau.
Hindawi, I.J. 1970. Air pollution injury to vegetation. National Air Pollution
Control Administration Publication No. AP-71. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
Holzworth, G. C. 1974. Meteorological episodes of slowest dilution in contiguous
United States. EPA-650/4-74-002.
Hons, F. M. 1978. Physical and chemical properties of lignite spoil material as it
influences successful revegetation. In: W. R. Kaiser (Ed.). Proceedings of the
Gulf Coast Lignite Conference: Geology, utilization and environmental
aspects. Sponsored by Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at
Austin, p. 209-217-
Hosier, C.R. 1961. Low-level inversion frequency in the contiguous United States.
Monthly Weather Review 89:319-339.
8-3
-------
James, P.J., J.L. Slowey, R.L. Garrett, C. Ortiz, J. Bright, and T. King. 1976.
Potential impact of the development of lignite reserves on water resources of
East Texas. Texas Water Resources Institute Technical Report 78, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas. 179 pp.
Kaiser, W. 1978. Electric power generation from Texas lignite. Geological
Circular 78-3. Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin.
Kaiser, W., W. Ayers, and L. Labrie. 1980. Lignite resources in Texas. Report of
investigations No. 104. Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at
Austin.
Kologski, R. 1981. Personal communication. Endangered species specialist, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Korshover, J. 1971. Climatology of stagnating anticyclones east of the Rocky
Mountains, 1936-1970. NOAA tech. memo. ERL-ARL-34. Silver Spring,
Maryland.
Lanuieus, K. 1981. Personal communication. Railroad Commission of Texas.
La Vardera, L. W. 1981. Personal communication.
Lay, D. W. 1969. Quail management handbook for East Texas. Texas Parks and
Wildlife Dept. Bull. 34.
Louisiana Office of Environmental Affairs. 1979. Ambient air quality annual
report. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Louisiana Office of Environmental Affairs, Air Quality Division. 1979-1981.
Pollutant emissions data from data files. New Orleans, Louisiana.
Maxwell, W.A. 1973. Fish diversion for electrical generating station cooling
system. A state-of-the-art report. NUS Corporation, Dunedin, Florida.
Mayo, R.D., W.T. James, and J.L. Congleton. 1972. A rational approach to the
design of power plant intake fish screens using both physical and behavorial
screening methods. Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Seattle, Washington.
McBride, J.P. 1977. Radiological impact of airborne effluents of coal-fired and
nuclear power plants. ORNL-5315. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee.
. 1978. Radiological impact of airborne effluents of coal-fired and nuclear
power plants. Science, Vol. 202, December 8.
5-4
-------
Moorehouse, F.H.K. 1953. Reaction of fish to noise. Canadian Biol. and Fish.
7:465-467.
Mudd, J. B. and T. T. Kozlowski. 1975. Responses of plants to air pollution.
Academic Press, New York.
North American Consultants, Inc. 1980a. Partial project statement, geologic and
mining engineering aspects of the South Hallsville mine.
. 1980b. South Hallsville lignite surface mine, socioeconomic questionnaire.
. 1981. South Hallsville project. Environmental information document,
Sections 1.5.3.8, 1.5.3.9, 2.7, 3.1.1.5.1, 3.1.2.2.1, 3.1.2.2.3, 3.2.1.5.1, 3.2.2.2.1,
3.3.1.5.1, 3.3.2.2.1, 3.4.1.1, 3.4.2.1, and 3.7.2.1.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement. 1975. Natural
background radiation in the United States. Volume V, #45, Washington, B.C.
Old West Regional Commission. 1975. Worker profile final report. Mountain West
Research, Inc. Construction, Washington, DC.
Paul Wier Company. 1978. Lignite resource investigation, Southwestern Electric
Power Company, South Hallsville Lignite Project. Harrison County, Texas.
Potter, F.E. 1981. Status of the American Alligator in Texas. Texas Parks and
Wildlife Report 7000-74, January 1981.
Radian Corporation. 1973. Review of surface water temperatures and associated
biological data as related to the temperature standards in Texas. Radian
Corporation, Austin, Texas.
Railroad Commission of Texas, Surface Mining and Reclamation Division. 1980.
Surface coal mining regulations.
Raney, E.G. 1972. Biological problems associated with intake entrapment of
organisms. Symposium on Water Quality Consideration Siting and Operating of
Nuclear Power Plants, Washington, DC.
Riesbol, M.S. and P.J.L. Gear. 1972. Application of mechanical systems to
alleviation of intake entrapment problems. A.I.F. Conference on Water
Quality Considerations, Washington, DC.
Risner, L. 1981. Personal communication. District forester, District 3, Marshall,
Texas.
Sabine Mining Company. 1981. South Hallsville mine surface mining permit
application to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Division, Railroad Commis-
sion of Texas, Dallas, Texas.
8-5
-------
Sargent and Lundy. 1978a. Site selection study. Report prepared for Southwestern
Electric Power Company, SL-3277, Sargent and Lundy, Chicago, Illinois.
. 1978b. An analysis of air quality impact of the proposed South Hallsville
Power Plant - Unit 1. Report prepared for Southwestern Electric Power
Company, SL-3622, Sargent and Lundy, Chicago, Illinois.
. 1979. An analysis of the air quality impact of the proposed Henry W. Pirkey
Power Plant-Unit 1, based upon revision of the chimney height in the approved
PSD permit. Chicago, Illinois.
Schiemeir, F.A. 1972. Large power plant effluent study (Lappes). Vol. HI. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Schneider, W.J. 1977. Analysis of the densification of reclaimed surface mined
land. MS Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
Shurtleff, M.C., M.B. Linn, and J.B. Sinclair. 1972. Plant damage from air
pollution. University of Illinois Extension Service, Report on Plant Diseases
No. 1005 (revised), Urbana, Illinois.
Slade, D.H. Editor. 1968. Meteorology and atomic energy. U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission, National Technical Information Service, TID-24190, Springfield,
Virginia.
Smith, L. 1981. Personal communication. Endangered Species Specialists, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Southwestern Electric Power Company. 1980a. Longview community profile.
. 1980b. Application for a Department of the Army Permit. June 19, 1980.
Shreveport, Louisiana.
Stenehjem and Metzger. 1976. A framework for projecting employment and
population changes accompanying energy development, Phase I. Argonne
National Laboratory.
Summers, G. 1976. Large industry in a rural area: demographic, economic, and
social impacts. Final report to the Office of Economic Research, Economic
Development Administration.
Texas Air Control Board. 1977-1980. Continuous air monitoring network data
summaries; and annual data summaries for noncontinuous monitoring, 1977-
1980. Austin, Texas.
Texas Department of Agriculture, Texas county statistics. 1979.
8-6
-------
Texas Department of Health. 1981. Water system data. Environmental Engineering
Division.
Texas Department of Water Resources. 198la. Personal communication with staff
of TDWR, 9 October 1981.
. 198 Ib. Water use and water rights data. Austin, Texas.
Texas Education Agency. 1980. School enrollment statistics.
Texas Employment Commission. 1980. Employment and wages by industry and
county, Texas.
Texas Energy Advisory Council. 1979. Intergrated assessment of Texas lignite
development. Volume I, Technical Analysis, Report No. ES-011. Prepared by
Radian Corp. of Austin, TX. Jointly sponsored by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the U.S. Dept. of Interior.
Texas Forest Service. 1976. Forest statistics for east Texas pineywoods counties.
Texas Municipal Advisory Council. 1980. Municipal advisory report for Longview,
Texas.
Texas Organization for Endangered Species. 1980. Endangered and threatened
plants native to Texas.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1980a. Big game harvest regulations (Texas
White-tailed Deer population trends). Performance report. April 15, 1980.
. 1980b. Upland game harvest recommendations. Performance report. 28
October 1980.
. 1980c. Population trends and distribution of Mourning Doves. Performance
report. 16 October 1980.
Texas Water Development Board. 1977. Continuing water resources planning and
development for Texas, draft. Austin, Texas.
Texas Water Quality Board. 1975. Intensive surface water monitoring survey for
Segment 0505. Report prepared by Surveillance Section,, Austin, Texas.
Thomas, G.W. 1975. Texas plants—an ecological summary. In: F.W. Gould, Texas
plants—a checklist and ecological summary. Texas Ag. Exp. Station.
MP-585/revised.
3-7
-------
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. Preliminary guide to wetlands of the Gulf
Coastal Plain. Technical Report Y-78-5, Environmental Laboratory, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1974. General soil map, Harrison County, Texas.
Soil Conservation Service, Temple, Texas.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1972. Local climatological data - annual summary
with comparative data, Shreveport, Louisiana. Environmental Data Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
1975. STAR computer program output for Shreveport, Louisiana, 1970-1974.
National Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina.
. 1981. 1981 census of population and housing, Texas.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1977. Personal and
per capita income by industry and county, Texas. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
. 1979. Survey of current business, February. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
. 1980. Local area personal income, 1973-1978. Vol. 7, southwest region.
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Notice of review.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation. 1979.
Surface coal mining and reclamation operations. Federal Register 44(50):
14901-15309.
U.S. Department of Labor. 1979. Handbook of labor statistics.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Characterization of construction site
activities. Phase I Interim Report, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
Washington, DC.
. 1978. Protective noise levels: condensed version of EPA levels document.
Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
U.S. EPA National Emissions Data System. 1979-1981. Listing of pollutant
emissions data from EPA computer files.
Wallace, J.D. 1977. Personal communication. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.,
Marshall, Texas.
-------
White, D.M. 1979. Written communication to Bill Honker, Energy Policy Office -
Region VI, U.S. EPA, Dallas. 24 April 1979. Texas Energy Advisory Council,
Austin.
Whitsett, H. 1977. An archeological survey at Hallsville, Harrison County, Texas,
Report No. 1270, Texas Water Quality Board, Austin.
Yaco, D. 1981. Personal communication. Director of Planning, Marshall.
8-9
-------
GLOSSARY
Acid Rain. Specifically, rain of low pH (usually less than 5.7) that has been
postulated to have many detrimental effects on calcareous structures or on
aquatic and terrestrial systems in areas with low buffering capacity. Caused
by airborne gases and soluble particles that form acids in rainwater, either
emitted from man-made (industrial, automobiles) or natural (fires, volcanoes)
sources. In general use, includes dry deposition of acidifying materials as well.
Acoustic Center. A point source that is the sum of the sound levels of all sources
that radiate in the direction of the receiver. When the distance from the plant
to a receiver is more than twice the distance between the most separated
major sources of the plant, the plant can be considered as a point source.
Algal Bloom. A pulse in the population density of algae in a water body caused
usually by the occcurrence of optimal conditions for a few species. Frequently
used in the negative sense to refer to conditions in which populations reach
nuisance levels, producing surface scums, taste and odor problems, and/or
dissolved oxygen depletion. Can cause fish kills.
Alluvial. Relating to clay, silt, sand, gravel, or similar detrital material deposited
by running water.
Ambient. The surrounding environment or atmosphere.
Ancillary. Subsidiary or supplementary.
Aquifer. A water-bearing stratum of permeable rock, sand, or gravel.
xxxiv
-------
BACT. An acronym for Best Available Control Technology. A regulatory air
pollutant emissions limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction
of a particular pollutant, taking into account energy, environmental, and
economic impacts.
Baseline. Existing conditions.
Berm. A narrow shelf, path, or ledge at the top of bottom of a slope.
Biomass. The amount of living matter, as in a unit area or volume of habitat.
Bioturbate. Mixing of aquatic sediments by the activities of benthic
organisms.
Boiler Slowdown. Method of preventing buildup of naturally occurring solids
found in boiler feedwater.
Bottom Ash. Coal ash that either settles or adheres to the interior furnace
surfaces in the form of fine particulate or sludge.
Chlorination. The application of chlorine to water or wastewater, generally
for the purpose of disinfection, but frequently for accomplishing
chemical results, such as oxidation of odor-producing compounds.
Circumneutral pH. Around neutral pH (~7.)
Conductivity. The ability to carry an electrical charge, in ions. The
conductivity of aqueous solutions is increased by dissolved salts and thus
is a measure of the amount of ionized salts in solution.
Convection. The transfer of heat by automatic circulation of a liquid at a
nonuniform temperature.
xxxv
-------
Convective Showers. Precipitation falling from clouds induced by the solar
heating of moist, unstable air.
Cubic feet per second (cfs). Units used to measure flow at a gaging station;
equals the rate of flow in a channel with a one-square-foot cross-section
and velocity of one foot per second. One cfs for a 24-hour period equals
86,400 cubic feet or 1.98 acre-feet.
dBa. The sound level obtained by the use of A-weighting. The unit is the
decibel, dB, and is followed by the letter A to indicate A-weighting. The
A-weighting network best simulates the human ear's response to sound
pressure.
i
Dewater. Removal of water.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO). In the course of breaking down excess organic matter
in water, microbes may deplete the oxygen, causing stress from lack of
oxygen on fish and other aquatic life.
Diversions. The amount of water taken from a stream (or spring, well); also
called withdrawals.
Ecosystem. A community and its environment treated together as a functional
system of complimentary relationships involving the transfer and
circulation of energy and matter.
Ecotone. The boundary line or transitional area between two adjacent
ecological communities usually exhibiting competition between
organisms common to both.
Effluent. Waste water or other liquid, partially or completely treated, flowing
out of a reservoir, basin, or treatment plant.
xxx vi
-------
Electrostatic Precipitator. A device that uses an electrical charge to remove
particulates from an effluent airstream.
Entrainment. Incorporation of organisms into water that flows through an
industrial process (as in the cooling water of a power generating station)
and are subsequently discharged. Entrainment effects may be incurred
from mechanical impacts, turbulence, abrasion, and heat among other
factors.
Ephemeral. Short-lived; taking place once only.
Evaporation. A physical process by which a liquid is transformed into a
gaseous state.
Euglenoid. Any of a taxon of varied flagellates (as a euglena) that are
typically green or colorless, stigma-bearing solitary organisms with one
or two flagella emerging from a well-defined gullet.
Fecal Coliforms. A large and varied group of bacteria flourishing in the
intestines and feces of warm-blooded animals, including man. Large
amounts of these bacteria in the water indicate sewage or feedlot
pollution.
FGD. (flue gas desulfurization) any process that removes sulfur containing
compounds from the flue gas.
Fixed Ash. Fly ash that has been processed with FGD sludge to create a
product that is easier to dispose than the powdery fly ash and that is
suitable for landfilling.
xxxvn
-------
Fixed Waste. Waste products that have been processed with one or more
chemical additives to stabilize the untreated waste in order to improve
its channel and/or physical properties for ponding or landfill disposal.
Floodplain. Level land that may be submerged by floodwaters; or a plain built
up by stream deposition.
Floristics. A branch of phytogeography that deals numerically with plants and
plant groups.
Flue Gas. Any gas that is ducted through flue or chimney and expelled to the
atmosphere.
Fluvial. Relating to, or produced by stream or river action.
Fly Ash. Coal ash particulate matter that is entrained into the flue gas
stream.
Fugitive Emissions-. Air pollutant emissions that cannot be traced to a
particular point or stack.
Gasification. To convert into gas.
GLC's. (ground level concentration) Pollutant concentrations in Ug/m
measured or estimated at ground level at some distance away from the
source.
Heavy Metals. Soluble trace elements found in the coal that tend to
concentrate in the waste by products and that are leachable and
potentially toxic.
XXXVlll
-------
Heterogeneity. The quality or state of consisting of dissimilar ingredients or
constituents.
Herpetofauna. Reptiles and amphibians.
Hydrology. A science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation
of water on the surface of the land, in the soil and underlying rocks, and
in the atmosphere.
Impingement. The capture and retention of aquatic organisms on screening
structures at the water intake point of a facility.
Infiltration. To enter, permeate, or pass through a substance or area by
filtering gradually.
Infrastructure. The underlying foundation or basic framework, as in a system
or organization.
In-migration. Movement of population into a community or region.
L,, •,. Day-Night Sound Level. The 24-hour equivalent sound level with a
penalty value of 10 dBA added to the average levels occurring during the
nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Lignite. A brownish-black coal in which the alternation of vegetal matter has
proceeded further than peat, but not so far as sub-bituminous coal.
Lithological. Pertaining to the study of rocks and rock formations.
Littoral. Relating to the shore.
xxxix
-------
Long-term. Occurring over or involving a relatively long period of time.
Mean Sea Level (msl). The average height of the sea for all stages of the tide.
Megawat (gross) MW. The total amount of power that is produced in a power
plant including that used by the plant itself.
Megawat (net) MW. The amount of power that is transmitted from a power
plant.
Microbiocides. A substance that is destructive to many different organisms,
microorganisms in particular.
Milligrams per litter (mg/1). One part by weight of dissolved chemical, or
suspended sediment, in 7 million parts by volume (= 1 liter) of water.
(see parts per million).
Million gallons per day (mgd). A unit of measurement for expressing the flow
rate of water through a certain point.
Millirem. A unit of radiation dosage, a thousandth of a roentgen (rem).
Mitigate. To make less harsh or severe.
Monitoring. Periodic or continuous determination of the amound of pollutants
present in the environment.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The permitting
system authorized under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, including
any state or interstate program that has been approved by the
Administrator, in whole or in part, pursuant to Section 402.
xl
-------
NO,- Nitrogen dioxide. A gaseous atmospheric pollutant formed primarily
1 • ——Li
duing combustion of fossil fuels.
NO A combination of various oxides of nitrogen, the most common of which
X
are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)- Formed by combustion
processes.
Overburden. Material of any nature, consolidated or unconsolidated, that
overlies a deposit of useful minerals, ores, or coal; especially those
mined from the surface.
Parts per million (ppm). One part by weight of dissolved chemical or
suspended sediment in 1 million parts by weight of water.
Particulates. Small particles of solid or liquid materials that, when suspended
in the atmosphere, constitute an atmospheric pollutant.
Passerine Birds. Songbirds with perching habitats.
Permeability. A quality of having pores or openings that permit liquids or
gases to pass through.
pH. The measure of hydrogen-ion activity in solution. Expressed on a scale of
0 (highly acid) to 14 (alkaline) pH 7.0 is a neutral solution, neither acid
not alkaline.
Piezometer. An instrument for measuring pressure or compressibility of a
material subjected to hydrostatic pressure.
Preempt. To acquire by taking the place of: replace.
xli
-------
Radionuclide. A radioactive species of atom characterized by the energy level
and the number of protons and neutrons contained in its nucleus.
Radiation. The emission of energy in the form of waves or particles.
Reclamation. Restoration to the original or some other use.
Revegetation. New vegetative cover.
Riparian. Relating to the bank of a natural water course, such as a river, lake,
or stream.
Runoff. The portion of the precipitation on the land that ultimately reachs a
stream (s), especially from rain that flows over the surface.
Scrubbers. An apparatus for removing impurities, especially from gases.
Sediment Control. The planning and construction of facilities for prevention
of excessive damage by water in flood stages.
Short-term. Occurring or involving a short period of time.
Sludge. A concentrate in the form of a semi-liquid mass deposited as a result
of waste treatment.
SO.,. Sulfur dioxide - a gaseous air pollutant that is produced primarily by the
combustion of fossil fuels and petroleum refining.
Spoil piles. Piles of debris or waste material from a coal mine.
Stagnating Anticyclone. A area of slow-moving high pressure, dominated by
light winds and limited vertical dispersion of pollutants.
xlii
-------
Subsidence. A sinking of a large part of the earth's crust.
Surge Pond. Ponds designed to accommodate the surge of water resulting
from gate closures on discharge pipelines.
Temperature Inversion. A stable layer in the atmosphere in which tempera-
ture increases with altitude.
Topography. The configuration of a surface including its relief and position of
its natural and manmade features.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). The anhydrous residues of dissolved constituents
in water. Actually, the term is defined by the method used in
determination. Standard Methods are used in water and wastewater
treatment.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The sum of the solids that either float on the
surface or are in suspension in water, wastewater, or other liquids.
These can be removed by filtering.
Turbidity. Defined as capacity of material suspended in water to scatter light.
Highly turbid water is often called "muddy", although all manner of
suspended particles contribute to turbidity.
Waste Slurry. A watery mixture produced by flue gas cleaning to remove SO-,
from the flue gas and that contains only 5-15 percent solids prior to
dewatering.
Wastewater. The spent water of a plant or a community. A combination of
liquid and water-carried wastes from residences, commercial buildings,
industrial plants, and/or institutions.
xliii
-------
Watershed. A region or area bounded peripherally by a water parting and
draining ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of water.
"Worst Case". A situation in which the combination of factors that would
produce the worst potential impact on the environment.
100-Year Floodplain. Land that becomes/or will become submerged by a flood
that chances to occur every 100 years.
xliv
-------
METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
Approximate Conversions to Metric Measures
Length
Area
Mass
(weight)
Volume
Temperature
(exact)
Speed
Symbol
in
ft
yd
mi
in2
ft2
yd2
mi
02
Ib
fl 02
qt
gal
i
ff
yd3
UF
ft/s
ft/s
mi/hr
mi/hr
mi/hr
When You Know
inches
feet
yards
miles
square inches
square feet
square yards
square miles
acres
ounces
pounds
short tons
(2,000 Ib)
fluid ounces
quarts
gallons
cubic feet
cubic yards
Fahrenheit
degrees
feet per second
feet per second
miles per hour
miles per hour
miles per hour
Multiply by
2.5
30.48
0.9
1.6
6.5
0.09
0.3
2.6
0.4
28.3
0.45
0.9
30.0
0.95
3.8
0.03
0.76
5/9 (after
subtracting 32)
0.3048
1.097
0.447
1.6093
0.8684
To Find
centimeters
centimeters
meters
kilometers
square centimeters
square meters
square meters
square kilometers
hectares
grams
kilograms
tonnes
milliliters
liters
liters
cubic meters
cubic meters
Celsius
degrees
meters per second
kilometers per second
meters per second
kilometers per hour
knots
Symbol
cm
cm
m
km
2
cm
I
m
m
, 2
km
ha
g
*g
t
ml
1
1
m
rn
°C
m/s
km/3
ta/'s
km/hr
kts
xlv
-------
APPENDIX A
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
-------
APPENDIX A -REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
National Energy Act
The National Energy Act of 1978 consists of five separate pieces of
legislation:
1. National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978
2. Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978
3., Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978
4. Energy Tax of 1978
5. Natural Gas Act of 1978
The National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978 contains provisions
applicable to electric utility companies meeting specific requirements which are
contained in Part 1 of Title H and Part 4 of Title VI of the Act. Part 1 of Title H
contains provisions to effect residential energy conservation by requiring through
State residential energy conservation plans, that each "public utility" implement a
program to assist its customers in conservation efforts through education, energy
audits, and other means. A "public utility" is defined as "... any persons, State
agency or Federal agency which is engaged in the business of selling natural gas or
electric energy ... to residential customers for use in a residential building."
Because SWEPCO/CLECO sell electric energy directly to residential
customers, it is considered a public utility by the Department of Energy's (DOE)
definition and is therefore subject to Part 1 of the Act including the implementation
of a utility program.
Part 4 of Title VI, Section 661, amends the Energy Policy and Conserva-
tion Act to incorporate, with one modification, the provisions of Section 125 of the
-------
Clean Air Act that require the use of locally or regionally available coal or coal
derivatives if such use is determined by the proper authorities to be necessary in
order to minimize significant local or regional economic disruption or unemployment
that would result from the use of other than locally or regionally available coal,
petroleum products, or natural gas.
The primary purpose of the Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of
1978 (FUA) is to minimize the use of petroleum and natural gas in industrial and
electric utility boilers. To accomplish this purpose, the FUA prohibits, except for
exemptions that may be granted by DOE, the use of petroleum and natural gas by
new electric utility power plants.
The Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA) of DOE has issued final
rules (45 FR 38302-38308 (June 6, 1980)) to implement certain provisions of the
FUA. Section 503.Z of the ERA/DOE rules impose prohibitions on: (1) the use of
petroleum or natural gas as primary energy sources in any new electric power plant
and, (2) the construction of any new electric power plant without the capability to
use an alternate fuel as a primary energy source. According to Section 500.2(a)(66),
"primary energy source" is defined as "... the fuel or fuels used for normal
operation by any existing or new electric power plant . . . except . . . minimum
amounts of fuel required for unit ignition, startup, testing, flame stabilization and
control use ..." "Alternate fuel" is defined in Section 500.2(a)(7) as "Electricity or
any fuel other than natural gas or petroleum. The term (alternate fuel) includes
. . . lignite . . . ".
SWEPCO/CLECO currently have mineral rights to an over 30,000-acre
lignite reserve just south of the proposed power plant and will burn lignite as its
primary energy source. Consequently, the prohibitions of Section 503.2 of the FUA
do not apply to the proposed power plant.
-------
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Associated Statutes
Projects that require Federal financing, licensing or permitting also
require cultural resource assessment. These requirements are included in and
defined by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
(PL 89-655). These regulations stipulate that EPA, as the Federal permitting
agency, shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation with a reasonable
opportunity to comment on such undertakings that affected properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, as specified in
36 CFR Part 800.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires
that Federal agencies consult with the Secretary of the Interior and take such steps
as are necessary to insure that activities and programs which are authorized,
funded, or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of
endangered or threatened species. Similar precautions are required for federal
actions which could result in the destruction or modification of their critical
habitat.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended, requires
that a public or private agency under Federal permit or license consult with the
USFWS Service, as well as the State Wildlife Agency, with a view to the
conservation of wildlife resources by preventing loss of and damage to these
resources, and also by providing for the development and improvement there of in
connection with the proposed action.
-------
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 establishes the policy of the
United States that certain rivers of the nation, which "... possess outstanding
remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or
other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and
their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit of future genera-
tions."
Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands
Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands directs each Federal
agency to "... take action to minimize the destruction, loss of degradation of
wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands
in carrying out the agency's responsibilities for ... (2) providing Federally under-
taken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting
Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to
water and related land resource planning, regulating and licensing activities."
Specifically, the direction is to be carried out in furtherance of Section 101(b)(3) of
NEPA and, to the extent possible, follow the procedures of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and Water Resources Council.
Wetlands on the plant site and transportive systems corridors were
determined from aerial photographic analysis and field reconnaissance during
environmental baseline studies. Assessment and mitigation of potential impacts are
considered in Sec. 4.5 (Ecology).
Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management
Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management, directs that each
Federal agency ..." shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize
-------
the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and
preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains in carrying out its
responsibilities for ... (2) providing Federally undertaken, financed or assisted
construction and improvements; and (3) conducting Federal activities and programs
affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources
planning, regulating and licensing activities."
Secretary's Memorandum No. 1827 Revised; Statement on Land-Use
Policy
The Secretary's Memorandum No. 1827 Revised: Statement on Land Use
Policy expresses concern for the continued loss of lands well suited to the
production of food, forage, fiber, and timber, and the degradation of the environ-
ment resulting from those losses. Consequently, major consideration must be given
to important farm, range, and forest lands, and the long-range need to retain the
productive capability and environmental values of American agriculture and
forestry.
The Secretary's Memorandum sets policy requiring that Department of
Agriculture personnel carefully explore land-use alternatives which would minimize
impacts on important farm, range and forestlands, and, where possible, avoid
land-use decisions that irrevocably commit important lands to non-farmland and
non-range land uses, thereby foreclosing the options of future generations.
Clean Air Act
Existing Federal and State air pollution standards and regulations are
aimed at controlling atmospheric pollutant emissions from major proposed projects
and modifications and minimizing their associated air quality impacts. Current
standards and regulations include NSPS, NAAQS, and PSD of air quality regulations.
-------
The NSPS are emission standards for air pollutants emitted by specific
classes of new air pollution sources, including lignite-fired steam boilers. The
NAAQS are ambient concentration standards for seven criteria pollutants, including
the five principal air pollutants to be emitted from the proposed plant.
The NAAQS consist of two sets of standards: (1) the primary standards,
which the EPA has promulgated to protect the public health with an adequate
margin of safety, and (2) the secondary standards, which define levels of air quality
necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects caused by the criteria pollutants.
PSD regulations have been promulgated by the EPA to ensure that the
air quality in clean air areas, i.e., areas attaining the NAAQS, does not significantly
deteriorate. Under PSD regulations, new sources and modifications proposing to
emit significant quantities of air pollutants are required to submit a PSD permit
application to the EPA or other delegated reviewing authority for approval. The
application must demonstrate: (1) that the proposed project has utilized the best
available pollution control equipment in designing the project. (2) that the proposed
pollution emissions will not cause an exceedance of the NAAQS or allowable PSD
pollutant concentration increments, and (3) that the proposed emissions will not
cause significant adverse effects on local soils, vegetation, and atmosperic visi-
bility. Allowable PSD increments are ambient pollutant concentration increases to
be allowed above specified baseline air quality levels defined under the EPA's PSD
regulations promulgated on June 19, 1978. and amended August 7, 1980.
The standards and regulations limit the design and operation of proposed
new pollution-emitting sources such that source emissions will cause only small and
infrequent impacts on air quality. In order to satisfy the limitations set by the
NSPS, NAAQS, and PSD regulations on a proposed major source such as the proposed
Dolet Hills Power Plant Project, the source must implement high-efficiency
pollution control equipment, i.e., BACT. A complete BACT analysis considering
-------
energy, economic, and environmental impacts for various control alternatives is
required for proposed sources under PSD review.
The applicant has submitted a PSD permit application to EPA and a draft
permit has been issued that complies with NSPS, NAAQS and PSD regulations. In
addition, BACT will be applied to emissions sources at the power plant (see Sec. 4.3,
Climatology/Air Quality).
10/404 U.S. Corps of Engineers Permit
The Department of the Army (USCE) permit program is authorized by
Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 404 of Public Law 92-500
and Section 103 of Public Law 92-532. These laws require permits to authorize
structures and work in navigable waters of the U.S., the discharge of dredge or fill
material, and the transportation of dredge material for the purpose of ocean
dumping. Through this permit program the USCE seeks to protect the quality of the
nation's water resources and to maintain water quality by protecting swamps,
marshes, and similar wetland resources.
-------
APPENDIX B
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PERMIT - MAKEUP WATER PIPELINE
-------
Name of Applicant Southeastern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO)
CH . ^ 3 February 1931
effective Date .
Expiration Date (If applicable]
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PERMIT
Referring to written request dated 1 Q .Tn-no ^QgQ _ for a permit to:
(X) Perform work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, pursuant
to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403);
(X) Discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States upon the issuance of a permit from the Secretary of the Army
act,ng through the Chief of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (86 Stat. 816, P.L. 92-500);
( I Transport dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters upon the issuance of a permit from the Secretary of the
Army acting through the Chief of Engineers pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(66 Stat. 1052; P.L. 92-532);
SWEPCO
P.O. Box 21106
Shreveport , Louisiana 71156
is herebv authorised by the Secretary of the Army:
10 construct a makeup water intake structure, pump station, and distribution line
>nBig Cypress and Little Cypress Bayous
at Marion and Harrison Counties, Texas
in accordance with the plans and drawings attached hereto which are incorporated in and made a part of this permit (on drawings: give
file nurnbei or other definite identification marks.)
8 1/2 x 11 inch drawings designated Sheets 1-5 of 5
subject to the following conditions:
I. General Conditions:
a. Thai aii activities identified and authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit; and that any
activities no; specifically identified ard authorized herein shall constitute a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit which
mav result m the modification, suspension or revocation of this permit, in whole or m part, as set forth more soecifically m General
Conditions j O' k hereto, and m The institution of such legal proceedings as the United States Government mav consider appropriate
wnetne- or not this permit has been previously modified, suspended or revoked in whole or in part.
Ei\'G F°Rr'l- 1721 EDITION OF 1 APH -& IS OBSOLETE. (£ R 11 45-2-303!
-------
b. That all activities authorized herein shall, if they involve, during their construction or operation, any discharge of pollutants into
waters o* tne United States or ocean waters, be at all times consistent with applicable water quality standards, effluent limitations and
standards of performance, prohibitions, pretreatment standards and management practices established pursuant to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816), the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532,
36 Stat. 10521, or pursuant to applicable State and local law.
c. Thai when the activity authorized herein involves a discharge during its construction or operation, of any pollutant (including
drecged or fill material), into waters of the United States, the authorized activity shall, if applicable water quality standards are revised
or modified during the term of this permit, be modified, if necessary, to conform with such revised or modified water quality standards
within 6 months of the effective date of any revision or modification of water quality standards, or as directed by an implementat on
plan contained in such revised or modified standards, or within such longer period of time as the District Engineer, in consultation witn
the Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, may determine to be reasonable under the circumstances.
d. That the discharae will not destroy a threatened or endangered species as identified under the Endangered Species Act, or
endanger the critical haoitat of such species.
e. That the permittee agrees to make every reasonable effort to prosecute the construction or operation of the work authorized
herein m a manner so as to minimize any adverse impact on fish, wildlife, and natural environmental values.
f. That the permittee agrees thathewiil prosecute the construction or work authorized herein in a manner so as to minimize any
Degradation of water quality.
g. That the permittee shall permit the District Engineer or his authorized representative(s) or designee(s) to make periodic
inspections at any time deemed necessary in order to assure that the activity being performed under authority of this permit is in
accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed herein.
h. That the permittee shall maintain the structure or work authorized herein in good condition and in accordance with the plans and
drawings attached hereto.
i. That this permit ooes not convey any property rights, either in real estate or material, or any exclusive privileges; and that it does
not authorize any injury to property or invasion of rights or any infringement of Federal, State, or local laws or regulations nor does it
obviate the requirement to obtain State or local assent required by law for the activity authorized herein.
j. That this permit may be summarily suspended, in whole or in part, upon a finding by the District Engineer that immediate
suspension of the activity authorized herein would be in the general public interest. Such suspension shall be effective upon receipt by
the permittee of a written notice thereof which shall indicate (1) the extent of the suspension, (2) the reasons for this action, and
(3i any corrective or preventative measures to be taken by the permittee which are deemed necessary by the District Engineer to abate
imminent hazards to the general public interest. The permittee shall take immediate action to comply with the provisions of this notice.
Witnin ten days following receipt of this notice of suspension, the permittee may request a hearing in order to present information
relevant to a decision as to whether his permit should be reinstated, modified or revoked. If a hearing is requested, it shall be conducted
pursuant to procedures prescnDed by the Chief of Engineers. After completion of the hearing, or within a reasonable time after issuance
of the suspension notice to the permittee if no hearing is requested, the permit will either be reinstated, modified or revoked.
k. That this permit may be either modified, suspended or revoked in whole or in part if the Secretary of the Army or his authorized
representative determines that there has been a violation of any of the terms or conditions of this permit or that such action would
otherwise be in the public interest. Any such modification, suspension, or revocation shall become effective 30 days after receipt by the
permittee of written notice of such action which shall specify the facts or conduct warranting same unless (1) within the 30-day period
the permittee is able to satisfactorily demonstrate that (a) the alleged violation of the terms and the conditions of this permit did not. in
fact, occur or (b) the alleged violation was accidental, and the permittee has been operating in compliance with the terms and conditions
of the permit and is able to provide satisfactory assurances that future operations shall be in full compliance with the terms and
conditions of this permit; or (2) within the aforesaid 30-day period, the permittee requests that a public hearing be held to present oral
and written evidence concerning the proposed modification, suspension or revocation. The conduct of this hearing and the procedures
for making a final decision either to modify, suspend or revoke this permit in whole or in part shall be pursuant to procedures prescribed
by the Chief of Engineers.
I. That in issuing this permit, the Government has relied on the information and data which the permittee has provided in connection
with his permit application. If, subsequent to the issuance of this permit, such information and data prove to be false, incomplete or
inaccurate, this permi- may be modified, suspended or revoked, in whole or in pan. and/or the Government may, in addition, institute
appropriate legal proceedings.
m. That any modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit shall not be the basis for any claim for damages against the
United States.
n That the permittee shail notify the District Engineer at what time the activity authorized herein will be commenced, as far in
advance of tne time of commencement as the District Engineer may specify, and of any suspension of work, if for a period of more than
one week, resumption of work and its completion.
-------
,(-?.r. ,s no;
, o- oefore r_ day c' L eL ^uarv 19 iii-
- _ .., . ._ ••me" years irom me date of issuance o! THIS permit unless otherwise specified; This perm.-., '
not previousis' revcxed or specif.canv extenaec. snail automatically expire.
P Tha: this permit does not authorize or approve the construction of particular structures, the authorization o- approval of wmcn
may reauire authorization by the Congress or other agencies of the Federal Government.
q. That if and wnen the permittee desires to abandon the activity authorized herein, unless such abandonment is part of a transfer
procedure by which the permittee is transferring his interests herein to a third party pursuant to General Condition t hereof, he must
restore the area to a condition satisfactory to the District Engineer.
i. That if the recording of this permit is possible under applicable State or local law, the permittee shall take such action as may be
necessary to record this permit with the Register of Deeds or other appropriate official charged with the responsibility for maintaining
records of title to and interests in real property.
s. That there shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the existence or use of the activity authorized herein.
t That this permit may not be transferred to a third party without prior written notice to the District Engineer, either by the
transferee's written agreement to comply with all terms and conditions of this permit or ; y the transferee subscribing to this permit in
the space provided below and thereby agreeing to comply with all terms and conditions of this permit. In addition, if the permittee
transfers the interests authorized herein by conveyance of realty, the deed shall reference this permit and the terms and conditions
specified herein and this permit shall be recorded along with the deed with the Register of Deeds or other appropriate official.
II. Special Conditions: (Here list conditions relating specifically to the proposed structure or work auinonzed by this permit):
Construction in the wetland areas adjacent to Big Cypress and Little Cypress
Bayous will be accomplished during the drier portions of the year (June through
October).
-------
The following Special Conditions will be applicable when appropriate:
.STRUCTURES IN OR AFFECTING NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES:
a Thai This permit does not authorize the interference with any existing or proposed Federal project and that the permittee shall not
be entitled to compensation for damage or injury to the structures or work authorized herein which may be caused by or result from
existing or future operations undertaken by the United States in the public interest.
b That no attempt shall be made by the permittee to prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent
to the activity authorized by this permit.
c. That if the display of lights and signals on any structure or work authorized herein is not otherwise provided for by law, such
liahts and sianals as may be prescribed by the United States Coast Guard shall be installed and maintained by and at the expense of the
permittee.
d. That the permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this permit or upon its expiration before completion of the
authorized structure or work, shall, without expense to the United States and in such time and manner as the Secretary of the Army or
his authorized representative may direct, restore the waterway to its former conditions. If the permittee fails to comply with the
direction of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, the Secretary or his designee may restore the waterway to its
former condition, by contract or otherwise, and recover the cost thereof from the permittee.
e. Structures for Small Boats. That permittee hereby recognizes the possibility that the structure permitted herein may be subiect to
damage by wave wssh from passing vessels. Tne issuance of this permit does not relieve the permittee from taKing all proper steps to
insure the integrity of the structure permitted herein and the safety of boats moored thereto from damage by wave wash and the
permittee shall not hold the United States liable for any such damage.
MAINTENANCE DREDGING.
a. That when the work authorized herein includes periodic maintenance dredging, it may be performed under this permit for
years from the date of issuance of this permit (ten years unless otherwise indicated);
b. That the permittee will advise the District Engineer in writing at least two weeks before he intends to undertake any maintenance
Dredging.
DISCHARGES OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES:
d. That the discharge will be carried out in conformity with the goals and objectives of the EPA Guidelines established pursuant to
Section 404(b! of the FWPCA and published in 40 CFR 230;
b. That the discharge will consist of suitable material free from toxic pollutants in other than trace quantities;
t. That the fill created by the discharge will be properly maintained to prevent erosion and other non-point sources of pollution; and
d. That the discharge will not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System or in a component of a State wild
and scenic river system.
DUMPING OF DREDGED MATERIAL INTO OCEAN WATERS:
a. That the dumping will be carried out in conformity with The goals, objectives, and requirements of the EPA criteria established
pursuant to Section 102 of the Marine Protection', Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, published in 40 CFR 220-228.
b. That the permittee shall place a copy of this permit in a conspicuous place in the vessel to be used for the transportation and/or
dumping of the dredged material as authorized herein.
This permit shall become effective on the date of the District Engineer's signature.
Permittee hereby accepts and agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
January 22, 1981
L/ PEFJWI
PEFJWITTEE DATE
8V AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:
FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER:
DONALD J. PALLADINO DATE
Colonel, CE
DISTRICT ENGINEER,
U S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
i ransferee hereoy agrees to comely with the terms and conditions of this permit.
TRANSFEREE QATE
-------
VICINITY MAP
From U.S.G.S. 7.5 Min. Quod. Mops
DATUM : N.G.V.D. OF IS29
PROPOSED PUMP STATION
ON BIG CYPRESS BAYOU
MARION COUNTY, TEXAS "
APPLICANT: SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
PROPOSED
CONC
___,
-SB-
SHEET
OF 3
FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
AUG.
1979
-------
LAKE O' THE PINES
I"* V^t -M --^ -r*Hf -*£
feh&^&*
SLONGVIEW ;' r r
30U1 M^CSTF.RN ELECTRIC POWER COMPA
P.O. nor. tiip°iHBev^roaT, IQUHI*"*
HF.NRY W PIRKEY PLANT PfiOJECl
coutrr, TEX *s
AREA OF
vJURISDICTIOrM
MAKEUP WATER LINE z
-------
NORMAL CHAN.NE!
NORMAL CHANNEL
SLOPE
2M SLOPES
i 2s. I .SLOPES
RETAINING WALL(PILE)- h
FLOW LINE AT
El. 176
; DRY CREEK
BED BANKS
ATURAL SLO
F OLD CREEK
ED
EXCAVATED MATERIAL
FROM CHANNEL TO BE
USED AS FILL AT PUMP
SITE.
3:1 SLOPE TO NATURAL
GROUND
^El. 2051
17
ott
0'
S1 B—
\
\
^ &\
PLAN VIEW
CHANNEL AND
PUMP STATION SITE
SHEET 3 OF 5
FILL FOR APPROX.400 FT.
-------
MOTORS AND PUMPS
ELECTRICAL CONTROL PANEL
Ei. 206 i
BOTTOM OF
CHANNE
UJ..LLH
U-LLLi^lTll UUIJ-J
diL'Jij °
PILING TO REQUIRED DEPTH
SECTION A-A
" '
SCALE : |"= 20
DISCHARGE & '
PIPE — *
, H. 205*^ ^
S*il=*r-s%=rr,ji=w/ ///j£^F//£=?//A&lf}:
1
1
I
El. 175 --.
CONCRETE FLOOR El 173 \
\ \ £
\ —
\
IM \/icru/c nc:
9*f
JI
-=5=
—
5
Zi
[I
1
^~
-r=- CHANNEL FLO\V
j EL_I77_ El. 176 —
. t -^y:-.^^j?x-^^fe.v st/&=j.;j3!?"'
j
\
i
PUMP STATION
SHEET 4 OF 5
PILING TO REQUIRED DEPTH
SECTION B-B
SCALE: i"= 20'
-------
SURPLUS EXCAVATION
BACKFILL WITH
EXCAVATED
TRENCH MATERIAL
NATURAL GROUND-
SELECT EMBEDMENT
TYPICAL PIPE TRENCH
•WATER SURFACE
FLOW
EXCAVATED MATERIAL USED TO DIVERT
WATER' FROM OPEN TRENCH AND
PROVIDE ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION
,FLOW
NATURAL GROUND
•BACKFILL WITH EXCAVATED
TRENCH MATERIAL
TYPICAL TRENCH IN WET AREAS
SURPLUS EXCAV.
SPREAD IN DRY AREAS
ALONG PIPELINE
-WATER SURFACE
FLOW
BOTTOM OF CREE
PIPE LAID IN DRY TRENCH
US1NG DR|VEN SHT. PILING
TO DIVERT FLOW. ALL
PILING AND DIVERSION
MATERIAL TO BE REMOVED
BACKFILL WITH
EXCAVATED TRENCH
MATERIAL
ENCASEMENT
TYPICAL TRENCH
SECTIONS
TYPICAL TRENCH
AT CREEK CROSSING
SHEET 5 OF 5
-------
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
The following information is provided concerning issuance of Department of
Army Permit No. SWF-80-MARION-280 under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899.
1. The applicant, Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO), proposes to
construct a makeup water intake and pump station on the above named waterway.
Diversion rate will be 33.4 cfs with an intake velocity through the screens
not to exceed 0.5 feet per second with 0.5 inch screen openings. The proposed
pipeline from the pump station to the point of discharge will be a 36-inch
concrete cylinder pipe. The pipe will be covered with 2 1/2 feet of the native
soil removed during ditching operations. Excess backfill will be placed on top
of the line and spread smoothly over the right-of-way. The applicant further
proposes to rehabilitate an old road right-of-way to be used as an access road.
Crushed stone or road gravel will be used as needed and necessary culverts and
drainage will be provided. The project will maintain preconstruction drainage
patterns; all wetland areas and stream crossings will be restored to their
original contours.
2. I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public interest the
documents and factors concerning this permit application as well as the stated
views of other Federal and non-Federal agencies, relative to the proposed work
in waters of the United States.
3. The possible consequences of this proposed work have been studied in
accordance with regulations published in 33 CFR 320, 322, 323, and 40 CFR 230.
Factors considered in my review include: conservation, economics, aesthetics,
general environmental concerns, historic values, fish and wildlife values,
flood damage prevention, land use, navigation, recreation, water supply, water
quality, energy needs, safety, food production, and in general, the needs and
welfare of the people.
4. In evaluation of this work and in consideration of comments received from
coordination of Public Notice 280 dated 14 July 1980, the following points are
considered pertinent.
a. Federal Agencies:
(1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): In a letter dated August 6,
1980, the FWS stated that significant impacts could occur to fish and wildlife
resources as a result of the proposed project. These impacts would be lessened
and the FWS would not object to the issuance of the permit provided the following
three conditions were met:
The oxbow affected by the project should be left open.
Wetlands crossed by the pipeline should be restored to their original
contours.
-------
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS, SWF-80-MARION-280
Construction should be accomplished during the driest season to reduce
impacts on wetlands.
In addition, the following operational recommendations were made to
lessen adverse impacts on aquatic organisms.
Make-up releases should be carried out during mid-day. Reduced
activity of fish during this time period would lessen adverse impacts upon
them.
Water to be released should be taken from that portion of the reservoir
water column which represents the best water quality from a fishery standpoint.
A bubbler screen could be located at each end of the oxbow to prevent
excessive migration into the intake bay prior to the start-up phase, thereby
reducing impingement losses during this critical phase.
The intake pipe screens should be equipped with a cleaning mechanism.
Fish and other detritus removed from the screens should be disposed of down-
stream of the oxbow or buried to reduce attraction of foraging fish.
Pumping should be scheduled for fewer, longer duration period. This
would reduce the number of times the pumps are activated. This is an important
factor in reducing fish mortality as impingement rates are higher during the
start-up phase.
The need for make-up releases should be anticipated to allow the
receiving reservoir to be at or near capacity during the spawning season (late
April through July). This would reduce impingement and entrainment during the
critical spawning period.
SWEPCO's proposed project will not cut off flow into the affected
oxbow lake. Flow patterns will remain similar to preconstruction conditions.
During the public hearing, SWEPCO described the following protective
measures to be implemented during construction and project operation.
Protective screens will be located in front of the intake structure to
prevent fish and other aquatic vertebrates from entering the pump bay. The
velocity of the water through the screens will be relatively low and will mini-
mize impingement of fish and other organisms. There will be a dual set of
screens. Any debris removed from the screens will be disposed of away from the
site.
Construction will take place during drier months of the year and use
standard sedimentation control procedures. Following construction, SWEPCO
will restore the affected areas to their original contours and establish
grasses on the right-of-way.
-------
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS, SWF-80-MARION-280
(2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): In a letter dated
July 31, 1980, EPA stated that the environmental impacts of the project would
be minor and therefore had no objection to the issuance of the permit.
(3) National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS): In a letter dated
July 24, 1980, NMFS anticipated that any adverse effects that might occur on
the fishery resources for which it is responsible would be minimal and there-
fore it did not object to issuance of the permit.
b.. State and Local Agencies:
(1) Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR): In a letter dated
July 31, 1980, TDWR certified the proposed project with the following quali-
fications :
Work must be done with the minimum production of turbidity in the waters
where the work is taking place.
The discharge of oil, gasoline, or other fuel or materials capable of
causing pollution arising from the operations is prohibited.
Spoil must be placed in spoil areas approved by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in such a manner as
to minimize the runoff of spoil or highly turbid waters into adjacent waters.
During construction, adequate erosion control methods shall be used in
order to minimize runoff and consequent elevations of turbidity in Big Cypress
and Little Cypress Bayous.
Areas devegetated during construction shall be replanted to the maximum
extent practicable after project completion, to avoid excessive erosion and the
runoff of turbid waters to waters of the State.
Appropriate water control structures must be placed, in construction of
the access road, to provide adequate drainage and circulation in wetlands.
Pipeline construction across creeks and wetlands must maintain minimum ,
cover of 30 inches, and original contours and shoreline configurations must be
restored.
(2) Texas Historical Commission-State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO): In-a letter dated October 7, 1980, the SHPO stated that there would be
no impact on known properties either listed or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO advised that numerous sites of
cultural significance had been located in the general area and that there was
a high likelihood that sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the National
Register may be found during the construction phase of the project.
c. Organized Groups:
(1) The Greater Caddo Lake Association Inc. (GCLA): In a letter dated
July 28, 1980, the GCLA requested a public hearing on the proposed project. The
-------
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS, SWF-80-MARION-280
GCLA expressed concern that the water withdrawn from the watershed as a
result of the project would cause severe environmental and ecological damage
to Caddo Lake and Big Cypress Bayou. The preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the project was also requested.
In another letter dated September 12, 1980, GCLA reaffirmed its
objection to the proposed project and requested that the cumulative impacts
of the proposed project be addressed. A list of twenty-five (25) questions
concerning the project was submitted for review by the District Engineer.
The majority of these questions were directed to the impacts that the proposed
project could have on water levels of Caddo Lake and state water rights.
The hydrologic impacts of the proposal on stage elevation at Caddo Lake
were calculated considering historical flow records in the drainage basin, part
of which covered the period during the construction and impoundment of Bob
Sandlin, Cypress Springs, Monticello and Johnson Creek Reservoirs. Calculation
of the impacts of all water withdrawals within the basin were not made due to
the complex and expensive nature of the task. It was found that the proposed
diversion would have resulted in only a 0.30 foot decrease in the elevation of
Caddo Lake if applied to the lowest flows for the period of record. Increased
water usage in the drainage basin of Caddo Lake may ultimately reduce flows to
the lake. However, the proposed project in combination with present uses will
not significantly or permanently lower the level of Caddo Lake during periods
of low flows.
Section 101 of the Clean Water Act states that it is the policy of the
Congress that the authority of each State to allocate quantities of water within
its jurisdiction shall not be superceded, abrogated, or otherwise impaired by
the Act.
GCLA requested the public hearing be postponed until answers to its
questions were received. Lt. Colonel Lively denied this request because the
Corps of Engineers function at the public hearing was not to answer questions,
but to allow presentation of information concerning the project.
GCLA requested a response to two additional questions at the hearing.
What minor modifications have been made in the project and to what degree must
impacts be before they are considered environmentally substantial? SWEPCO
responded to the initial concerns of GCLA in a letter dated July 31, 1980.
Only water released from Lake 0' The Pines under TDWR permit number CP-454 will
be used for the proposed project. Therefore, the normal flows downstream to
Caddo Lake would not be affected and no substantial environmental impact would
result from the proposed project. In addition, SWEPCO addressed a portion of
GCLA's 25 questions at the public hearing.
In a subsequent letter dated October 12, 1980, GCLA requested a 45 day
extension to the comment period. GCLA's request for extension was denied by
letter dated December 11, 1980.
-------
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS, SWF-80-MARION-280
d. Individuals:
During the public hearing, one individual questioned the legality of
diverting 18,000 acre feet of water from the Red River basin into the Sabine
River basin. He was concerned that such a transfer would violate the Red River
Compact. TDWR permit number CP-454 was approved on November 6, 1978, authorizing
diversion of this water. The conditions of this permit do not violate terms
of the Red River Compact.
The Honorable Judge Richard J. Anderson, Jr., Harrison County Judge,
asked that the net reductions of downstream flows to Caddo Lake on a monthly
and annual basis be identified. He also requested the average normal flow
from Caddo Lake without the pipeline and the average flow from Caddo Lake after
the proposed pump station is fully operational. In addition, Judge Anderson
wished to know the feasibility of withdrawing water at the proposed pump station
on Big Cypress Bayou during periods of high flows so as to minimize the impacts
upon Caddo Lake during low flows. His concerns dealt mostly with the impacts
of water diversion on the stage levels of Caddo Lake. As previously discussed,
hydrologic records from 1961 to 1977 indicate that even at times of low flow
the proposed diversions would have resulted in a maximum 0.30 decrease in the
elevation of Caddo Lake. The demand for water at the H.W. Pirkey Power Plant
will be continuous and storage at the facility will not be adequate to meet
demands between hydrologic cycles. Therefore, it would not be feasible to limit
withdrawals at Big Cypress Bayou to periods of high flows.
In a letter dated October 10, 1980, Mr. H. C. Bradbury requested an
extension of the comment period and the preparation of an EIS for the project.
In a letter dated 4 December 1980 , Mr. Bradbury was advised that all signifi-
cant issues concerning this permit application were a matter of record and
further delay in the decision process was not in the public interest.
e. Other Considerations:
Preliminary considerations of environmental impacts were approved
8 July 1980. There have been no significant adverse environmental effects
identified that would result from the proposed work; therefore, an Environmental
Impact Statement is not required.
5. I find that the decision to issue this permit, as prescribed in regulations
published in 33 CFR 320, 322, 323, and 40 CFR 230, is based on evaluation of
the various factors enumerated in paragraph 3; that no significant adverse
environmental effects relating to the work have-.been presented; that the
issuance of the permit is consonant with National policies, statutes and admin-
istrative directives; and that on balance the total public interest should
best be served by issuance of a Department of the Army permit. Further, it is
my finding that to serve the total public interest, I must require that a
special condition be imposed upon the applicant to protect water quality, fish-
eries resources, and in general serve the overall public interest.
-------
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS, SWF-80-MARION-280
Construction in the wetland areas adjacent to Big Cypress and Little
Cypress Bayous will be accomplished during the dryer portion of the year (June
through October).
RECOMMENDED BY:
DATE
ALLIE J. MAJORS
Chief, Operations Division
REVIEWED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
DATE
ALBERT C. PROCTOR
Chief, Office of Counsel
DATE
CHARLES W. LIVELY
LTC, CE
Deputy District Engineer
DONALD J. PALLADTNO
Colonel, CE
District Engineer
DATE
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
APPLICANT: Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO)
P.O. Box 21106
Shreveport, Louisiana 71156
WATERWAY & LOCATION: Big Cypress Bayou near Jefferson, Marion and
Harrison Counties, Texas
PERMIT NUMBER: SWF-80-MARION-280
1. Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to construct a makeup water intake an
pump station on the above named waterway. Diversion rate will be 33.4 cfs with an
intake velocity through the screens not to exceed 0.5 feet per second with a 0.5 in
screen opening. The proposed pipeline from the pump station to the point of releas
will be a 36-inch concrete cylinder pipe. The pipe will be covered with 2 1/2 feet
of the native soil removed during the ditching operation. Excess backfill will be
placed on top of the line and spread smoothly over the right-of-way. The applicant
further proposes to rehabilitate an old road right-of-way to be used as an access
road. Crushed stone or road gravel will be used as needed and necessary culverts a:
drainage will be provided.
2. Purpose of the Project: If authorized, the proposed project will transfer up ti
18,000 acre feet of water per year located in Lake 0' the Pines from Big Cypress
Bayou to the applicant's H.W. Pirkey Power Plant currently under construction in
Harrison County, Texas. Transferred water will be stored in a cooling reservoir
until needed in the operation of the lignite-fired steam electric generating statioi
Use of the water will constitute an interbasin transfer from the Red River Drainage
Basin to the Sabine River Drainage Basin.
3. Environmental Impact:
a. Socioeconomic Impact: Direct socioeconomic impacts of this project will in\
the expenditure of funds for labor, equipment, and supplies to be used in construct!
activities. Such funds will be recouped from the profits of the power plant. A.
temporary and slight benefit to the local economy may result from wages and other
expenditures during construction of the pump station and pipeline.
The proposed project site was the most economically feasible of 12 alternatives exan
It will enable SWEPCO to meet the increasing energy needs of its 320,000 customers.
SWEPCO must maintain a 12 percent power reserve to meet its commitments to the
Southwestern Power Pool. Without the H.W. Pirkey Power Plant these reserves would t>
only 4.3 percent by 1985.
b. Natural Resources: The project site is located within the Outer Coastal Pla
Forest Ecoregion. Precipitation averages 40 to 60 inches per year. Mild winters an
hot humid summers are the rule; average annual temperature is 60 to 70 F. Primary
plant species in the river bottoms of Big Cypress and Little Cypress Bayous consist
dogwood, sweetgum, bald cypress, river birch, deciduous holly, swamp privet, and
American holly. Approximately 14 acres of these forested bottom lands would be
cleared during construction of the pump station and the 75 foot wide pipeline right-
of-way. This clearing will produce an edge effect in the midst of forested bottom
lands which should prove beneficial to some wildlife species. Some disturbance of
-------
Environmental Assessment, SWF-80-MARION-280
soil will result from this clearing and constrctuion. However, the affected areas wil
be revegetated with grasses and drainages will be restored to preconstruction conditic
Work in wetland areas will be limited to times of the year with the least precipitatic
June through October. Such construction techniques will preserve the functional
integrity and value of these wetlands.
Some fish and wildlife species may be temporarily displaced by the proposed project,
but most will probably reestablish shortly after construction is completed. Some
benthic organisms will be lost due to dredging and filling associated with the project
The intake structure will be fitted with double screens to minimize impingement of
fish and other aquatic vertebrates by the pumps. Localized elevations of turbidity
during construction of the project should have minor impacts on the fisheries resource
due to the temporary nature of these conditions.
c. Cultural Resources: The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) advised
that the project should not adversely affect known properties which are either listed
or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. However, present
unknown archeological, scientific, prehistoric or historic data may be lost or
destroyed by the work if approved. The applicant will notify the construction
contractor and crew of the high likelihood of buried sites in the area. If cultural
resources are found during project construction, the applicant will notify the
District Engineer immediately. In accordance with Part 325 of our regulatory program
the District Engineer will notify the SHPO and the Heritage, Conservation, and
Recreation Service of these findings.
d. Air, Noise, and Water Pollution: Some temporary air and noise pollution may
occur as a result of equipment use during the construction phase of the project. Duri
operation of the pumps, increased noise levels will occur at the intake structure.
Turbidity may increase both locally and downstream from construction activities in
Big Cypress and Little Cypress Bayous. These effects will be temporary and water qual
should return to preconstruction conditions upon completion of the project.
e. Aesthetics: The natural appearance of the project area will be permanently
modified by the construction of the pump station and pipeline. A small amount of
erosion may be associated with the project until vegetation can be established.
f. Energy: The project is necessary to support a lignite coal fired electrical
generation plant. Reserve power produced by this plant in 1985 would require 5,836,OCX
barrels of fuel oil to produce. This plant is scheduled to provide 19.4 percent of
SWEPCO's total generation capacity once it becomes operational.
g. Cumulative Impacts: In evaluating the cumulative impacts of the proposed
work we considered the affects of similar type discharges of fill associated with like
structures in the Big Cypress Drainage Basin. Most intake structures would have
impacts similar to those described for this project. Since these impacts are mostly
temporary and localized the cummulative total would not be significant. Cummulative
impacts of clearing pipeline right-of-ways associated with such- work could be
appreciable to the aesthetics of the area; however, such work might benefit wildlife
by providing some openings in the dense forest canopy. It is probable that additional
-------
Environmental Assessment, SWF-80-MARION-2SO
such projects may be constructed within the drainage basin, but sufficient
environmental considerations should reduce the cummulative impacts to acceptable
levels.
4. Conclusion: Based on the above considerations, I have determined that the propc
work will not have any significant adverse impact on the natural environment nor is
environmentally controversial and that the issuance of a permit for the proposed wen
will not adversely affect the quality of the human environment. An Environmental Ii
Statement will not be prepared.
RECOMMENDED BY:
DATE: . ;•- -
ALLIE J. MAJORS
Chief, Operations Division
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
•ALBERT C. PROCTOR
Chief, Office of Counsel
DAT
CHAlLES W. LIVELY
LTC, CE
Deputy District Engineer
-------
APPENDIX C
USCE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FORT WORTH DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 173OO
FORT WORTH. TEXAS 76IO2
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OFi
SWFOD-0 21 January 1982
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
Reference your letter of 21 August 1981 requesting a wetland determination on the
Southwestern Electric Power Company's South Hallsville Surface Lignite Mine in
Harrison County, Texas.
A determination of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act for the South Hallsville Mine area is inclosed.
If you have any questions concerning this report, you may contact Marje
Schlangenstein at 817-334-2681.
Sincerely,
1 Incl ALLIE J. MAJORS
As stated Chief, Operations Division
Copies furnished:
Mr. George Vought
Espey, Huston, and Associates, Inc.
916 Loop 360 South
Austin, Texas 78701
Mr. Jay Pruett
SWEPCO
P.O. Box 21106
Shreveport, Louisiana 71156
-------
SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
SOUTH HALLSVILLE SITE
WETLAND DETERMINATION
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates the discharge of dredged and fill
material into waters of the United States including adjacent wetlands under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)- The Regional Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ultimate authority to determine the
reach of waters of the United States as described in the CWA. In accordance with
the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with EPA concerning geographical jurisdiction
of the Section 404 program, the COE has been requested by EPA to establish the
boundaries of waters of the United States which do not involve significant issues
or technical difficulties where EPA has declared a special interest.
The South Hallsville Surface Lignite Mine Site along the Sabine River, Harrison
County, Texas, proposed by Southwestern Electric Power- Company (SWEPCO), does not
involve any such special interests, therefore the Regional Administrator of EPA
has requested that the COE, as a cooperating agency, determine the jurisdictional
limit of Section 404 for the South Hallsville Surface Lignite Mine Project. This
determination is being prepared in support of the COE permit program and its purpose
is to detail the extent of the waters of United States including adjacent wetlands
in the proposed project area.
METHODS
Field investigations of the project area were conducted 26-29 October 1981 by
representatives of the COE, SWEPCO, and Espey, Huston, and Associates, Inc.
Transect lines were established at six sites and spot checks conducted at additional
locations dispersed throughout the project area, primarily at the road crossings of
major creeks within the project boundary. These sites were selected on the basis
of accessibility, representativeness, drainage characteristics, and range of topo-
graphic changes. Their locations are shown on the accompanying photograph.
Transects were extended into nonwetland areas to discern differences in key
characteristics and estimate a line of demarcation. Investigation along each
transect included the identification of vegetative communities, examination of soils
and observation of positive hydrologic indicators (i.e. flood debris, silt depositio
on vegetation, standing water, etc.).
The limit of COE jurisdiction was established where the appearance of positive
hydrologic indicators was found in conjunction with saturated soils supporting a
predominance of water tolerant vegetation. Color infrared and black and white
aerial photographs were used to aid in distinguishing wetland boundaries.
SUMMARY OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS
The wetlands within the project area which are part of the waters of the United
States are shown on the accompanying aerial photograph. These wetlands nrimarilv
-------
Wetland Determination
South Hallsville Site
support water oak, willow oak, overcup oak, and black willow. Herbaceous species
include lizard tail and broomsedge bluestem; woody vine species are peppervine
and green briar. The soil is predominantly Mantachie clay loam, frequently flooded,
however, some wetlands are supported by Marietta and Urbo clay loam, frequently
flooded soils.
The southwestern portion of the project area is characterized by a series of ridges
and sloughs. The slough areas are typically comprised of the wetland species
referenced above on Mantachie or Marietta soils. The ridges primarily support
loblolly pine, sweetgum, some post oak and blackjack oak, and wax myrtle. Soils
are predominantly of the Thenas fine sandy loam, frequently flooded series. Sandier
soils supporting species such as loblolly pine indicate drier conditions.
CONCLUSION
Wetlands are transition areas between the aquatic and terrestrial zone. For
purposes of the regulatory program, wetlands are defined as those areas inundated
or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil
conditions. The prevalent vegetation which occurs in wetlands designated in this
report has been shown by various studies to be flood tolerant. In addition, most
of these species maintain a competitive advantage in wet soils. It is significant
that species known to have little tolerance to flooding do not occur within the
wetlands. The wetlands in the South Hallsville site principally occur in associa-
tion with Mantachie, Marietta, and Urbo clay loams. The Soil Conservation Service
reports that these soils occupy the wetter, lower areas whereas Thenas
soils occupy sandier ridges.
Of the approximate 25,000 acres of the project area, 3780 acres were delineated
on the accompanying photograph as wetlands under the jurisdiction of the COE.
It should be noted that the southwestern portion of the project area is a series
of ridges and sloughs which could not be accurately delineated on the aerial photo-
graph, and therefore, some upland areas are included in the 3780 acres.
In summary, areas within the project boundary which exhibit Mantachie, Marietta,
and Urbo soils as previously described and support water tolerant vegetation
(Appendix A), are considered to be within COE jurisdiction. Conversely, those areas
in the project boundary which exhibit Thenas or Bibb soils supporting vegetation
which is not generally suited for life in saturated soils are excluded from COE
jurisdiction.
It is my determination that the areas designated on the attached map and further
described in Appendix A are wetlands consistent with the above definition and com-
prise a portion of the waters of the United States under our regulatory jurisdiction.
In the absence of adjacent wetlands, the lateral limit of COE jurisdiction is the
plane of the ordinary high water mark.
-------
Wetland Determination
South Hallsville Site
RECOMMENDED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
DAVID B. BARROWS
Chief, Permits Section
. HAWKINS,
Chief, Office Operations Branc)
ALLIE J. MAJORS /"
Chief, Operations Division
DATE:
DATE:
DATE: 2 / JsrMZ
-------
APPENDIX A
The forest cover types used here are taken from the Society of American
Foresters 1980 publication Forest Cover Types of the United States and
Canada.
Site 1; This transect was conducted generally parallel to Mason's Creek
for approximately 345 yards: This area is comprised of a series of ridges
and sloughs. The forest cover type of the slough areas is Sweetgum-Willow
Oak (92). Water oak, overcup oak, and water hickory are associates found
along this site with dwarf palmetto and American hornbeam in the understory.
Other species along this transect in smaller numbers include water elm,
bitternut hickory, and river birch. The soils in the lower regions are
Mantachie clay loam, frequently flooded with mottling.in the upper 15 inches.
The ridge areas contain species associated with the forest cover type Loblolly
Pine (81). The primary associate is sweetgum; the understory includes wax
myrtle and American beautyberry. The soils along the ridge areas are Thenas
fine sandy loam, and are dark brown and friable in the upper 24 inches,./"-" =.
Site 2: This transect began at the most southwestern corner of the project
area and proceeded northeasterly from the AT and SF railroad. A large portion
of the area was inundated due to recent heavy rainfalls. A slough approximately
30 feet in width bisects the transect line. The forest cover type in this area
is not easily categorized. The dominant species within the slough is water elm.
Soils are extremely saturated. The species which comprise the edge of the slough
include sweetgum, water hickory, river birch, black willow, some willow oak,
and water oak. Buttonbush is dominant in the understory. Herbaceous species
present are lizard tail and goldenrod.. A grassy area on the north side of the
slough is the transition zone between the inundated area to the east and a
loblolly pine plantation to the west. Soils are a saturated loam underlain by
clay exhibiting mottling. The area to the east contains overcup oak that wass at
the time, standing in 18-24 inches of water. Water willow is present in this area.
This area is usually inundated for approximately 30 days of the year. Moving
west, the topography rises gently into the grassy transition area with black willow
in the overstory; buttonbush, dwarf palmetto, and scattered alder comprise the
understory. A species of paspalum, and some smartweed are the dominant herbaceous
components. A little further to the west, the forest cover type is Sweetgum-
Willow oak (92) on the Mantachie soils (10YR 5/2) with very little mottling.
Dwarf palmetto and black willow comprise the understory.
The western portion of the area is a loblolly pine plantation with sweetgum and
wax murtle understory and a few other associated hardwood species including
mockernut hickory, blackjack oak, and some palmetto. The soils are a sandy clay
loam (Thenas series) to 40 inches..dawn,'--—.
Site 3: Site 3 is located parallel to a dirt road approximately 1.5 miles east
of Site 2. The transect line was inundated by 18-24 inches of water. This area
is composed of overcup oak and water elm in the overstory. Some water locust
and willow oak are also present in this area.
-------
"*-. r>'»
.j^^fefeidfo^^^ Tr^Vv^'^a^'^M^^^^-1^-^^
FORT WORTH DIST.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FORT WORTH, TEXAS-
PHOTOGRAPHER:
Schlangenstein
DATE: LOCATION:
27 Oct 81 Site 2, SWEPCO South
Hallsville Mine
Looking NE from road adjacent to AT and Sf railroad at large inundated
area. Loblolly pine plantation is to the west.
Figure ]
--
FORT WORTH DIST.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
PHOTOGRAPHER:
Marje Schlangenstein
DATE: LOCATION:
27 Oct 81 Site 2, SWEPCO South
Hallsville Mine
Swamp area to NE of transition zone. Note herbaceous growth and stand-
ing water. Black willow is in the understory,
Figure 2
SWF FDRJf
12 Jan 55
-------
Site 4; The transect line for this site is located approximately 2.7 miles east
of Site 3. Clark's Creek runs west-east on the northern edge pf the transect
line. The majority of this area along the southwestern portion of the site is.
composed of an overcup oak forest inundated by approximately one to two feet of
water. Most of the trees are dead; beaver activity in the area has raised the
water level significantly enough to kill the trees. The soils in the area a,re
extremely saturated and exhibit gleying with little evidence o^ oxidation in the
upper 15 inches. A large pasture composed of broomsedge is directly north and
east of the overcup oak forest. A swamp adjacent to the east side of the pyerr
cup oak forest includes species such as water elm and overcup oak. Dead trees
which appeared to be sweetgum are also located within the swamp. The edge pf the
swamp is composed of water locust and buttonbush in Mantachie soils with some
mottling above 15 inches. At the most eastern portion of the swamp^ the forest
cover type could be described as a variant of Overcup Oak-Water Hickory (96)
where pure overcup oak stands are present with swamp privet in the understory.
A slough runs along the northern edge of the swamp. On the upland.bank of:the,slough,
southern red oak comprises the overstory; overcup oak, willow oak? and deciduous
holly are also found along the slough banks. Upland areas include post oak pn
sandier soils.
Site 5: Site 5 is located along Hatley Creek in the more southeastern portion 9$
the project area. Creek banks are composed of southern sugar maple with oye^cup
oak and deciduous holly in the understory. Loblolly pine and sweetgum are found
as dominants in the overstory in an area adjacent to the creek banks. Also found
in the area are eastern redcedar and eastern hop-hornbeam? This area is supported
on Thenas, fine sandy loam soils with no mottling. Approximately 75 feet from
the banks, a gently slope in topography- results in a depression where the over->
Story is comprised of water oak; river birch, American hornbeam, and redbud are in
the understory and herbaceous species include Japanese honeysuckle. This area
reveals Mantachie soils, slightly mottled in the upper 12 inches.
Due to the prevalence of Thenas soils adjacent to the creek, the area along the
bank and in the floodplain for a width of 75 feet could be classified as drier tha,n
the depressed areas away from the creek which exhibit Mantachie soils with some
mottling.
Site 6; Site 6 along Brandy Branch in the most eastern portion of the project
was completely cleared of vegetation and work had begun in this area. Biologists
from Espey, Huston, and Associates, Inc. stated that the area had included seme
bogs and bottomland hardwoods that could be classified as wetlands, The acreage
of wetlands cleared in this area is not known.
A-2
-------
fea^^^^^ .^t .
FORT WORTH DIST.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
PHOTOGRAPHER:
Marje Schlangenstein
DATE: LOCATION:
28 Oct 81 Site 4, SWEPCO South
Hallsville Mine
Overcup oak forest. Note dead trees due to inundation. An egret rook-
ery is present in the forest but has been abandoned for this season.
Figure 3
FORT WORTH DIST.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
PHOTOGRAPHER:
Marje Schlangenstein
DATE: LOCATION:
28 Oct 81 Site 4, SWEPCO South
Hallsville Mine
In foreground, note broomsedge bluestem. The background depicts the
swamp to the east of the overcup oak forest. Dead trees may be sweetgum.
Figure
SWF FORM
12 Jan 55
-------
FORT WORTH DIST.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
PHOTOGRAPHER:
Marje Schlangenstein
DATE: LOCATION:
28 Oct 81 Site 4, SWEPCO South
Hallsville Mine
This picture was taken to illustrate flood debris in areas adjacent
to the swamp.
Figure 5
7 •.> -. ' '." ,- - ••- •f7?~*!*i* y*J"' '—
WORTH DIST.
CORPS OF EHGIN3BRS
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
PHOTOGRAPHER:
Marje Schlangenstein
DATE: LOCATION:
26 Oct 81 Site 6, SWEPCO South
Hallsville Mine Site
Illustrates area which was cleared along Brandy Branch prior to field
investigation.
S7TF FDRlf i£-J
12 Jan 55
Figure 6
-------
FORT WORTH DIST.
. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
PHOTOGRAPHER:
Marje Schlangenstein
Same as Figure 6
DATE:
26 Oct 81
LOCATION:
Site 6, SWEPCO South
Hallsville Mine
iFigure 7
*&&
as^^jf^a^a^a^ag
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FORT WORTH
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
PHOTOGRAPHER:
Marje Schlangenstein
DATE: LOCATION:
26 Oct 81 Site 6, SWEPCO South
Hallsville Site
Brandy Branch off of the project area depicting vegetation similar to
that cleared (see Figures 6 and 7)
Figure
SVTF FORM
12 Jan 55
-------
APPENDIX B
INDEX OF PLANTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT
alder
American beautyberry
American hornbeam
bitternut hickory
blackjack oak
black willow
broomsedge bluestem
buttonbush
deciduous holly
dwarf palmetto
eastern hop-hornbeam
eastern red cedar..
green briar
Japanese honeysuckle
lizard tail
loblolly pine
mockernut hickory
overcup oak
paspalum
peppervine
post oak
redbud
river birch
smartweed
Southern red oak
southern sugar maple
swamp privet
sweetgum
water elm
water hickory
water locust
water oak
water willow
wax myrtle
willow oak
Alnus sp.
Callicarpa americana
Carpinus caroliniana
Carya cordiformis
Quercus marilandica
Salix nigra
Andjopogon virginicus
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Ilex decidua
Sabal minor
Ostrya virginiana
Juniperus virginiana
Smilax rotundifolia
Lonicera japonica
Saururus cernuus
Pinus taeda
Carya tomentosa
Quercus lyrata
Paspalum sp.
Ampelopsis arborea
Quercus stellata
Cercis canadensis
Betula nigra
Persicaria hydropiperoides
Quercus falcata
Acer barbatum
Forestiera acuminata
Liquidambar styraciflua
Planera aquatica
Carya aquatica
Gleditsia aquatica
Quercus nigra
Decodon verticillatus
Myrica sp.
Quercus phellos
-------
INDEX
Agency Alternatives 3-126
Agency Coordination 5-2
Air Emissions 4-72; 4-214; 4-215
Radioactive 4-77
Stack 4-73
Fugitive Emissions 4-79
Air Pollution Control System
Alternatives 3-16
Preferred 3-75
Air Quality 4-63
No Action Alternative 4-68
Construction Impacts (Plant and Mine) xii; 4-70; 4-72
Operations Impacts (Plant and Mine) xii; 4-72; 4-82
Ecological Impacts (Plant and Mine) 4-77; 4-83
Combined Impacts (Plant and Mine) 4-83
Alternatives iv; 3-1
No Action iv; 3-1
Alternatives Not Requiring Project iv; 3-2
Energy Sources iv; 3-4
Power Plant Sites v; 3-7
Electric Generating Station Designs 3-11
Transmission Facilities 3-33
Makeup Water Facilities 3-34
Mining Systems v; 3-40
Applicant (Description of) 1-3
Aquatic Biology 4-99; 4-132
Important Species 4-135
Threatened or Endangered Species 4-135
No Action Alternative 4-136
Construction Impacts (Plant and Mine) xiii; 4-136; 4-138
Operations Impacts (Plant and Mine) xiii; 4-140; 4-141
Combined Impacts (Plant and Mine) 4-142
Ash Handling System
Alternatives 3-30
Preferred 3-69
Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling 4-74
xlvi
-------
INDEX (Cont'd)
Biological Control Alternatives
Organic-Based Microbiocides 3-15
Ozonation 3-15
Mechanical Cleaning 3-15
Chlorination 3-16
Bottomlands 4-91; 4-95; 4-96; 4-105; 4-106; 4-108; 4-114; 4-1ZO; 4-143
Clean Air Act Appendix A
Climatology 4-58
Community Services and Facilities 4-154; 4-158; 4-171; 4-187
Cooling Reservoir 3-14; 3-53
Cooling System
Spray Canals 3-11
Dry Cooling Towers 3-12
Wet Natural Draft Cooling Towers 3-12
Wet-Dry Cooling Towers 3-12
Wet Mechnical Draft Cooling Towers 3-13
Once-through Cooling Stytem 3-14
Cooling Reservoir 3-14
Coordination 5-1
Cultural Resources 4-144
No Action Alternative 4-145
Construction Impacts (Plant and Mine) xv; 4-146; 4-147
Operations Impacts (Plant and Mine) xv; 4-148; 4-149
Combined Impacts (Plant and Mine) 4-149; 4-220
Cumulative Impacts 4-210
Demography 4-153; 4-158; 4-164; 4-183
Design and Siting Alternatives 3-7
Drainage and Erosion Control (Mine) 3-89
Dry Cooling Towers 3-12
Ecologically Sensitive Habitats 4-103; 4-125; 4-217
Employment 4-151; 4-158; 4-159; 4-177
Endangered Species Act (Section 7) Appendix A
Environmental Consequences of Proposed Project 4-1
Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management (FEMA) Appendix A
xlvii
-------
INDEX (Cont'd)
Executive Order 11514: Nationwide Inventory
Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Flow Duration
Geology
No Action Alternative
Construction Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Operations Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Combined Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Ground Water Hydrology
No Action Alternative
Construction Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Operations Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Combined Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Housing
Important Species
Vegetation
Wildlife
Aquatic
Income
Land Use
No Action Alternative
Construction Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Operations Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Combined Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Local Government Finances
Makeup Water Facilities
Alternatives
Preferred
Mining System
Alternatives (Layout and Operation)
Preferred (Layout and Operation)
National Energy Act
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
5-4
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
4-30
4-5
4-6
xi; 4-6
xi; 4-7
4-7
4-18
4-21
xii; 4-21
xii; 4-23; 4-141
4-29; 4-142; 4-216
4-153; 4-159; 4-165; 4-185
4-100
4-121
4-135
4-152; 4-158; 4-162; 4-178
4-197
4-200
xvi; 4-200; 4-209
xvi; 4-205
4-209; 4-219
4-155; 4-195
3-34
3-53; 3-61
3-40
3-80
Appendix A
Appendix A
xlviii
-------
INDEX (Cont'd)
Nationwide Inventory 5-4
Need for Project 2-1
Nitrogen Oxides 4-63; 4-72
No Action (Effects of) x
Noise, see Sound Quality 4-84
NPDES Permit 1-1; 1-3; 3-126; Appendix C
Once-through Cooling System 3-14
Overburden 3-44; 3-101; 3-111; 5-1
Pollutants
Nitrogen Oxides 4-63; 4-72
Radioactive Emissions 4-77
Sulfur dioxide 4-63; 4-72
Power Supply Capability 2-1
PSD Appendix A
Project Demand 2-1
Project Description (Preferred Alternative) v; 3-49
Plant Systems and Operating Procedures vi; 3-49
Facilities Layout and Operation of Mining Area viii; 3-80
Prime Farmland 4-9; 4-17
Radioactive Emissions 4-77
Railroad Facilities
Alternatives 3-40
Preferred 3-80
Reclamation . 3-32; 3-47; 3-107; 4-114; 4-117; 4-207
Recreation Facilities and Aesthetics 4-156; 4-174; 4-175; 4-191
Revegetation 3-114; 4-105; 4-109; 4-111; 4-113; 4-117
Sanitary Waste Disposal 3-24
Secretary's Memorandum No. 1827 Appendix A
Section 10/404 Permit (USCE) 3-130; Appendix A
Socioeconomics 4-151
No Action Alternative 4-158
Construction Impacts (Plant and Mine) xv; 4-159
Operations Impacts (Plant and Mine) xv; 4-176
Combined Impacts (Plant and Mine) 4-192; 4-217
xlix
-------
INDEX (Cont'd)
Soils
No Action Alternative
Construction Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Operations Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Combined Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Sound Quality
No Action Alternative
Construction Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Operations Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Combined Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Spray Canals
Sulfur Dioxide
Surface Water Hydrology
Hydrology
Water Quality
No Action Alternative
Construction Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Operations Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Combined Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Threatened and Endangered Species
Vegetation
Wildlife
Aquatic
Topography
No Action Alternative
Construction Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Operations Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Transportation Facilities
Transmission Facilities
Alternatives
Preferred
USCE Permit: Makeup Water Pipeline
Vegetation
Important Species
Threatened and Endangered Species
No Action Alternative
Construction Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Operations Impacts (Plant and Mine)
Combined Impacts (Plant and Mine)
4-8
4-11
xi; 4-12
xi; 4-13
4-18
4-84
4-85
xiii; 4-85; 4-86
xiii; 4-87; 4-88
4-89
3-11
4-63; 4-72
4-30
4-30
4-33
4-39
xii; 4-39
xii; 4-43
4-56; 4-216
4-121
4-100
4-121
4-135
4-2
4-3
xi; 4-3
xi; 4-4
4-156; 4-173; 4-190
3-33
3-76
Appendix B
4-90
4-100
4-100
4-104
xiii; 4-104; 4-108
xiii; 4-111; 4-114
4-118
1
-------
INDEX (Concluded)
Waste Treatment Systems Alternatives 3-24
Wastewater Handling
Alternatives 3-25
Preferred , 3-64
Wet-Dry Cooling Towers 3-13
Wet Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers 3-13
Wet Natural Draft Cooling Towers 3-12
Wetlands 4-91; 4-96; 4-103;
4-105; 4-106; 4-110;
4-114; 4-115; 4-125
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Appendix A
Wildlife 4-119
Important Species 4-121
Threatened and Endangered Species 4-121
Ecologically Sensitive Habitats 4-125
No Action Alternative 4-125
Construction Impacts (Plant and Mine) xiii; 4-126; 4-127
Operations Impacts (Plant and Mine) xiii; 4-128; 4-129
Combined Impacts (Plant and Mine) 4-131; 4-217
li
------- |