United States
Environmental Protection
vjoncy
Region 6
1201 Elm Street
Dallas. TX 75270
&EPA Environmental Final
Impact Statement
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
Grimes County, Texas
-------
«< PBCI^fc0
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
1201 ELM STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 73270
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, INDIVIDUALS, PUBLIC GROUPS AND OFFICIALS:
Submitted for your review and comment is the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on the proposed issuance of a new source National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit to Texas Municipal Power Agency for,
discharges from the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project in Grimes County, Texas.
A Draft EIS was previously published April 26, 1980, which received sub-
stantial comment. In order to more fully develop responses to the questions
and comments, EPA has elected to publish a Final EIS in its entirety. The
proposed Final NPDES permit is included with this document. Effective date
of the permit is thirty days after publication. A Record of Decision will
be issued concurrent with or shortly after the permit effective date.
Sincerely,
Frances E. Phillips
Acting Regional Administrator
-------
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project, Grimes County, Texas
New Source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit TX 008310
Responsible Agency: US Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 (EPA)
Cooperating Agencies: US Army Corps of Engineers, US Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of Interior Office of Surface
Mining, US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
Proposed Action: Administrative - Issue new source National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to Texas Municipal Power Agency
(TMPA) for discharge of wastewater from the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project,
Grimes County, Texas.
Contact for Further Information:
Clinton B. Spotts, Regional EIS Coordinator
US Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270 (214) 767-2716 or FTS 729-2716
Comments on Final EIS Due:
EPA proposes to issue a NPDES permit for wastewater discharges from nine
sedimentation ponds located in the first 5-year permit area. Receiving
waters are Gibbons Creek, Rock Lake Creek, Lake Carlos, Heifer Creek, Dry
Creek, and Dinner Creek. Lignite will be mined from 10,300 acres at an
average annual rate of 3,000,000 tons for 30 years. Lignite will be
transported by 110-ton trucks to a conveyor system and then to the Gibbons
Creek Stream Electric Station (GCSES). Earth will be disturbed by mining to
depths of 200 feet and by construction of ponds, diversions, dikes, and haul
roads. Environmental changes include loss of existing topsoils, elimination
of native vegetation and wildlife habitat, reduction of species diversity,
diversion of streams with related water quality and stream flow changes,
disruption to water table, destruction of wetlands, and land use changes.
Mine and reclamation plans propose random mixing of overburden and
revegetation with bermudagrass and some pine. Potential exists for
secondary water quality problems and formation of acid conditions in soils
necessitating relatively high levels of management. Impacts will depend on
success of land reclamation, revegetation, and management. Air and water
quality control measures are proposed to reduce fugitive dust, stormwater
runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Surface and subsurface water monitoring
programs also are planned to report flow and water quality conditions
on-site. The project is estimated to cost about $145.6 million, provide 160
permanent jobs, and have a total 30-year operating payroll of $76.0 million.
Area health, educational, governmental, housing, and commercial service
needs will increase due to induced population increases.
Responsible Official:
Abstract
Frances E. Phillips
Acting Regional Administrator
i
-------
SUMMARY
1. Summary Description of Administrative Action
Under authority of the Clean Water Act, EPA Region 6 is considering is-
suance of a new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit to the Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA) for treated wastewater dis-
charges to tributaries of the Navasota River from the Gibbons Creek Lignite
Project.
The Clean Water Act requires that the issuance of an NPDES permit by EPA
for a new source discharge be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). NEPA requires all Federal agencies to prepare detailed environmental
statements on major actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. EPA determined that issuance of a new source NPDES permit for
the proposed Gibbons Creek Lignite Project to be such a major Federal action,
therefore, this environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared.
2. Summary of EIS Preparation and Cooperation of Other Agencies
A Draft EIS was prepared and distributed to public agencies, groups, and
individuals. EPA is grateful to all agencies and individuals who provided
comment on the proposed project and to those that cooperated in providing ad-
ditional information or further evaluation during the EIS process.
In particular, the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) provided a survey and
determination of jurisdiction for protection of wetlands in the project area
in response to EPA's request; through this, the applicability of Section 404
permits (nationwide and individual) will be determined by the COE for the
proposed construction of sedimentation ponds in wetlands adjacent to the
Navasota River in the first 5-year permit area and for mining and associated
activities in wetlands throughout the 30-year mine area. Because wetlands
will be Impacted adversely at different stages in the project, TMPA agreed to
develop a preliminary wetland restoration plan as necessary to meet Federal,
State, and local regulations in effect at the time of disturbance.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) provided technical input
regarding mitigative measures for restoration of wetlands should
disturbance by construction or mining be permitted in these areas. They also
provided guidance on the presence of threatened and endangered species within
the project area.
EPA is especially appreciative to the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) of
the US Department of the Interior who provided comment on the Draft EIS and
reviewed project information including the revised mining permit application
provided by the applicant. Further, OSM met with TMPA and the Texas Railroad
Commission (TRRC), the State agency responsible for carrying out regulations
ii
-------
of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, to help resolve en-
vironmental concerns shared by EPA.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and Texas Historical Com-
mission (Office of the State Historic Preservation Officer) also provided re-
view comments on the EIS and on other cultural resource-related information
submitted by the applicant. They offered technical assistance with respect to
Section 106 requirements including procedures for entering into "consultation"
and subsequent development of a Memorandum of Agreement.
TMPA entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the Navasota Soil and Water
Conservation District to receive assistance in preparation and implementation
of a post-mining land management plan. The need for this plan was determined
during the environmental review process because a de'tailed post-mining land
use plan had not been prepared in mine reclamation planning. Through this
agreement, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) is now providing expert tech-
nical assistance to the applicant in developing soil and water conservation
plans. The SCS has correlated, to National Cooperative Soil Survey standards,
a soil survey of the first 5-year permit area that was performed by TMPA. The
SCS also will provide a survey of the remaining 30-year mining area and will
assist TMPA and landowners in developing detailed land treatment plans.
A scoping meeting/site visit was held at the initiation of the EIS with
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), Texas Railroad Commission (TRRC),
FWS, SCS, and OSM participation invited. OSM and SCS staff attended along
with TMPA and their consultants, EPA staff, and the EIS consultant.
Through the environmental review, it became apparent that although ap-
plication had been made for the surface mining and NPDES permits, there were
areas that needed to be addressed in planning for
an environmentally sound project. The proposed mining and reclamation plans
Indicate potential for secondary and long-term water quality impacts. Some of
these areas were recognized by the TRRC and addressed through the issuance of
a surface mining permit with specific associated provisions under the interim
regulatory program. Later, the applicant submitted a revised surface mining
permit application under the permanent program regulations. Based on this re-
vised application and testimony presented by the applicant at a recent (11
February 1981) TRRC hearings, certain information deficiencies were addressed
while others remain. A revised list of mining permit stipulations has been
developed by the TRRC staff that address some of these unknowns. These permit
provisions are subject to further change following the final report by the
hearing examiner. To the maximum extent, the EIS has incorporated the most
recent proposals by the applicant to mitigate potential adverse effects.
3. Summary Description of Applicant's Proposed Project
The Gibbons Creek Lignite Project consists of a surface lignite mine and
associated features, to be located in western Grimes County, Texas. Its
purpose is to mine and supply lignite to the Gibbons Creek Stream Electric
iii
-------
Station for generation of electric power for the cities of Bryan, Denton,
Garland, and Greenville. The mine, power station, and related transmission
facilities comprise the Gibbons Creek Project; total project cost is estimated
at $792,800,000. The cost of the mine is $145,553,000 or 18% of the total
cost.
To determine the proposed plan, the need for additional energy capacity
for the TMPA service area was evaluated and various fuel alternatives and
generating methods were studied. The optimum choice was a lignite-fueled
steam electric station to begin operations duirng early 1982. The proposed
lignite project calls for approximately 100 million tons of lignite to be
mined during the 30-year life of the project at an average annual rate of 3
million tons. More planning has been completed for the first 5-year permit
area as outlined in the mining permit application.
Initial mining operations would include construction of nine sedimentation
ponds (to receive runoff from areas to be disturbed in the first 5-year permit
area), electric draglines, and haul roads. Principal operations for the min-
ing sequence include diversion of streams, clearing of trees and brush, re-
moving overburden using 78 cubic yard bucket capacity electric walking
draglines, loading the lignite into 110-ton bottom dump trucks, and trans-
porting of the lignite to a conveyor system which then transports the lignite
to the power station. The current mining plan proposes to place overburden
spoil in the previous pit for a random mix of overburden material. As basis
for this determination, TMPA primarily has used greenhouse studies and field
revegetation studies on mixed spoil from two test pits where lignite was
extracted from 25 and 35 foot depths. 1
Reclamation is to occur concurrently with mining. About 700 to 800 acres
may be involved in the mining sequence from initial clearing through the final
stages of reclamation. Proposed reclamation consists of grading the over-
burden spoil to the land's approximate original contour and revegetating. The
reclamation-- plan is proposed to be tailored to landowner preference. The
applicant now proposes revegetation largely with coastal bermudagrass or
reforestation with loblolly pine. Some native species also are planned along
fence rows, property boundaries, and streams based on interim mine permit
provisions. A cover crop of rye, oats, or ryegrass, or a combination, or
mulch is proposed for temporary cover where needed to prevent erosion before
bermudagrass can be planted. The applicant also has proposed to replace or
establish stock ponds, conduct seasonal maintenance to ensure successful
revegetation, and replace diverted and or mined streams and associated
riparian habitat to their pre-mining condition. Although the primary
pre-mining land use is grazingland, an important secondary land use is
wildlife habitat. The proposed reclamation plan is to be consistent with
lease requirements of the landowners which likely would dictate post-mining
land uses other than wildlife habitat. Generally a land use change from
grazingland to Improved bermuda pasture is proposed.
Mining regulations require bond for each mine area, therefore a surety
bond of $2.06 million has been established by TMPA on reclamation of the lands
iv
-------
to be disturbed during the first year of the permit. The TRRC may change the
per acre reclamation cost based on approved changes in mining or reclamation
methods or on increases in inflation.
Air and water quality control measures are to be incorporated into the
mining plan. Measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions include watering of
haul roads, vehicle speed control, and vegetation/stabilization of spoil
piles. Storm water runoff will be diverted around mine areas while runoff
from within the mine and facilities as well as seepage water in mine pits will
be diverted or pumped to sedimentation ponds. Pond design is to be based on
the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event. Water in these ponds will be tested
periodically and pH adjustments made. The discharge is to meet new source
performance standards for surface mines. Stream gaging stations have been
installed at three locations to monitor surface water flows and water quality.
Groundwater quality is proposed to be sampled from wells located in each
5-year permit area. No air quality monitoring has been planned as EPA has de-
termined monitoring at the mine site will not be required.
4. Alternatives Evaluated by Applicant
Alternatives included (1) alternate mining sites and mining technologies,
(2) alternate reclamation methods, and (3) alternate fuel resoures.
Alternative power sources and generating methods evaluated included nuclear
power, oil, natural gas, geothermal, solar power, municipal waste, western
coal, and Texas lignite. Each was evaluated for availability and cost. Texas
lignite proved to be the best overall alternative with the Gibbons Creek
reserve being most cost-effective. Alternative raining technologies included
use of alternate methods of operations and equipment, and alternate
transportation methods. Due to the low BTU content of the lignite, the
composition of the overburden and structural characteristics of the lignite,
surface mining is proposed as the most technically and economically feasible
mining method. Lignite extraction techniques considered included draglines,
shovel stripping, and bucket-wheel excavators; the dragline was found to have
the most favorable economics and flexibility. The evaluation of lignite
transport included conveyor belts, rail haulage, slurry pipelines, and truck
haulage. Truck haulage in combination with conveyors was selected for maximum
flexibility at reasonable capital investment.
One method of reclamation for developing a vegetative medium, use of mixed
overburden spoil, was considered in estimated cost comparison with segregation
of 12 inches of topsoil. Alternatives to the proposed reclamation/revegeta-
tion with bermuda grass and pine trees included row crop production, re-
establishment of hardwoods, and reclaiming the land for wildlife habitat. The
basis for selection of coastal bermuda pastures and pine trees involved legal,
practical, and economic considerations.
v
-------
5. Major Concerns Regarding Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project
The justification of the method proposed for use of random mixed over-
burden spoil as the revegetation medium in lieu of segregating soil layers was
questioned during the environmental review process. The proposed plan of us-
ing regraded mixed overburden spoils, detecting and isolating acid-forming
materials, and removing and placing such materials in the adjacent prev-
ious pit is believed to be a relatively high risk alternative. Primary con-
cern focused on the high pyritic content of area shales and potential for the-
se and other acid-forming materials to occur at the surface. Also concerns
were raised that acid conditions could cause leaching of trace metals such as
lead, beryllium, and selenium in potentially significant concentrations and of
the more abundant aluminum and manganese in toxic, concentrations and the
indirect effects on plant growth. The soil reports recommend that numerous
layers including highly alkaline deposits should be buried in the pit.
Additional field plot testing under natural site conditions are necessary.
Previous field trials used test pits where lignite was removed at 25 and 35
foot depths and overburden was returned and revegetated with coastal bermuda.
Because the overburden tested at these two depths probably was weathered, and
had less chance for toxics occurring, the conclusions regarding revegetation
potential may be too optimistic. Test results did not indicate equal or
higher pro-ductivity on the reclaimed test pit area, but that with lime
treatment (to neutralize acidity) and abundant fertilizer, bermuda grass would
grow on weathered overburden. Additional tests are necessary to address
productivity for post-mining land uses other than bermuda pasture. In
addition, field test plots to demonstrate post-mining land use for pasture
should include actual grazing by livestock and more representative land
treatment (i.e., low-level maintenance) to better predict the long-term
stability of the proposed post-mining land use following release of the
reclamation bond.
Post mining land use changes are expected, but to accurately assess poten-
tial short- and long-term effects following mining, a more detailed post-
mining land use plan by landowner tract (to be submitted as part of the mining
application) is needed. Economic analyses also are necessary for initial es-
tablishment of vegetation and long-term costs to maintain reclaimed lands
after release by the applicant to the landowners.
Potential for secondary and long-term water quality impacts after release
of reclaimed lands to the landowner exists. The level of management im-
mediately following mining is expected to be considerably higher than the cur-
rent level of management needed to sustain pre-mining land uses. Because of
this, long-term treatment may be insufficient to maintain vegetation and
productivity equivalent to pre-mining conditions. Without adequate land
treatment measures following bond release, erosion can be expected with poten-
tial for long-term problems from sedimentation and other undesirable water
quality effects from soil leaching and possible acid-forming materials. The
need for specific plans by the applicant for mitigation of potential adverse
impacts on wildlife habitats where a land use change is proposed after mining
was raised during the environmental review.
vi
-------
Regarding detection of acid-forming materials, questions were raised about
the method for classifying potential acidity in the overburden where the level
of overburden acidity is measured as CaC03 equivalent in excess of 15 tons/
1,000 tons of overburden would be buried. Based on the 15 ton/1,000 tons
standard, about 26% of the overburden is potentially toxic and would be buried
below 4 feet. By using a 5 ton/1,000 ton standard, which is generally used,
about 34% of the overburden of the area would be considered toxic and thus
would require burial at least 4 feet below the reclaimed surface.
The need for establishing a complete pre-mining baseline of water
quality conditions was raised. Monitoring to ensure return to pre-mining sur-
face water quality during reclamation and for release of bond cannot be ac-
complished fully with the data from the present three stations.
The adequacy of existing data to characterize the groundwater system was
questioned. More comprehensive, site-specific groundwater data are needed for
adequate prediction of impacts on water quantity and quality. This informa-
tion also is necessary to finalize the design of the mining and reclamation
plans. Until such information is developed, specific long-term effects of
mining on wetlands and the groundwater system cannot be determined.
Concerns were noted regarding permeabilities of overburden and underburden
materials and potential impacts of mining on aquifers under artesian con-
ditions in the later mining areas of the project. Specific plans for disposal
of solid wastes (fly ash and bottom ash) from the power plant in the mine
project area also have not been finalized and additional assessment of poten-
tial groundwater effects and other information will be required by the TRRC
before permitting waste disposal in the mine pits. Issuance of a permit also
is required by TDWR.
Twenty-two acres of prime farmland soils that have not been in crop
production the past 5 years exist north of the area proposed to be rained dur-
ing the first 5-year permit period; this area should be protected against dis-
turbance to the extent possible. Although there currently are no known or ex-
pected occurrences^of prime or unique farmlands on the remainder of the
project site, no detailed surveys have been conducted beyond the first 5-year
permit area. Additional mapping and analysis of these soils will be performed
prior to issuing mining permits.
Impacts to biological resources will result primarily from removal of
vegetation, construction of mining facilities such as haul roads, levees,
water quality control ponds, diversions, and from localized increases in
traffic, equipment emissions, noise, and human activities.
The most significant adverse impact on aquatic biota will be the direct
and indirect removal of stream segments, ponds, and associated riparian
habitat which will eliminate all aquatic life in the affected area over the
short-term. Restoration of streams to their approximate pre-mining course and
grade including features such as meanders, riffles, and pools where possible
and construction of new ponds is proposed to reduce long-term adverse impacts
on the aquatic communities. The success of these proposals are unknown.
vii
-------
Destruction or disturbance of wetlands, particularly in the areas adjacent
to the Navasota River and at the confluence of Gibbons Creek and the Navasota
River, is of concern primarily due to the importance of the areas for wetland
wildlife habitat. Other adverse impacts will occur to wetland communities as-
sociated with Gibbons Creek and several of its tributaries. Throughout the
30-year mine area approximately 2,760 acres of COG-designated wetlands could
be affected directly or indirectly from mining and associated activities.
After the applicant redesigned the sedimentation pond layout during November
1980, it was determined that two ponds were planned in wetlands in the first
5-year permit area. Therefore, Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit
requirements are applicable. Because of the value and sensitivity of
wetlands, careful planning is required to avoid or otherwise mitigate adverse
impacts to wetlands throughout the 30-year life of the project. Extensive
coordination with State and local resource agencies will be essential.
Mining over 10,000 acres on the project site will result in the removal of
existing woodlands and grasslands and replacement of bermuda grass
pasturelands and some pine woodlands. Estimated acreages of plant com-
muntities to be affected by mining over the 30-year life of the mine are 2,600
acres of pine-hardwoods, 2,300 acres of hardwoods, 480 acres of riverine
woodlands, from 200 to 300 acres of riparian woodlands, and 3,200 acres of
grasslands. The following adverse impacts are expected:
• Direct mortality of small ground dwelling animals during clearing and
overburden removal (no quantitative estimates available);
• Elimination and further fragmentation of aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife habitat caused by vegetation removal, mining, and conversion
to a more monotypic ecosystem;
• Reduction of food supply of those species of wildlife dependent on
aquatic ecosystems;
• Out migration of wildlife from fugitive dust, noise, and exhaust emis-
sions; and
• Long-term decrease in plant and animal diversity.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with EPA's determination
that no significant impacts are expected on State or Federally listed
endangered or threatened species.
Cultural resources exist on and adjacent to the project area. No re-
sources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and requiring
protection are known to occur within the first 5-year permit area which has
been surveyed. EPA must consider the resources of the 30-year project area
which has not been surveyed completely. Based on reports provided by TMPA, it
has been determined that potential for National Register sites in the 30-year
project area does exist as well as potential for adverse impact on cultural
resources. Consultation was held between the Advisory Council, EPA, the State
viii
-------
Historic Preservation Officer, and the applicant (as an invited non-Federal
party), with elements for a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to provide for
protection of cultural resoures over the project life being agreed upon.
Cultural resources of special interest are the Piedmont Springs (a State
historic site) and Kellum Springs sites which occur adjacent to the project
area and are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Information is being completed for a determination of eligibility and
subsequent nomination of these sites to the National Register. Secondary
impacts from mining on flow of the springs may occur but the two sites will
not be disturbed directly. Historic Mabry Cemetery is located in the first
5-year permit area but will not be mined. The cemetery is not considered
eligible for the National Register.
The regional economy will be diversified. The lignite mine operating
payroll over 30 years is estimated at $76.0 million with the power plant
payroll estimated at $131.6 million. An increase in wages and disposal
incomes will increase per capita incomes and expenditures. Other local income
increases are expected from local procurement of materials, land payments, and
mineral leases. Individual income losses to certain property owners may re-
sult from loss of hunting lease revenues. Increased costs for land
maintenance also is expected the extent of which will depend on stability of
the reclamation procedure used.
The mine should provide about 160 jobs. Unemployment in the area should be
reduced somewhat. The project also will induce a population increase that will
generate some cost impacts on surrounding communities. Additional health,
educational, recreational, governmental, and commercial services and housing
will be required; these needs are expected to be met with available community
resources.
Energy requirements for the mining operation are significant and will
include an average of 150,000 KWH and 5,700 gallons of diesel fuel daily. The
electric power demand will be met by the power station except initially and
during routine shutdowns and power outages.
Effects on air quality due to mining operations will include additions of
suspended particulate emissions in the form of fugitive dust, and exhaust
products from mining and lignite haulage equipment. Estimates of emission
quantities were made for fugitive dust and for point sources. Total suspended
particulates is the only National Ambient Air Quality Standard pollutant es-
timated to reach significant concentrations. State-of-the-art controls will
be used to minimize fugitive dust emissions.
The potential ambient air quality impact of vehicular emissions was es-
timated for sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen
dioxide and are expected to be insignificant.
On the basis of the distance from the mining pit to the nearest full-time
residences, the noise impacts of the stationary mining equipment will be neg-
ix
-------
ligible. The haul road noise Impacts also will be negligible at distances
greater than 30 meters (100 feet) from the haul road.
Aesthetic impacts will occur during site preparation, mining, and
reclamation activities. Such Impacts will result from the visibility of the
fugitive dust emissions, presence of draglines, haul trucks, and other mining
equipment in areas of grassland and woodland.
6. Proposed Mitigation
Mitigating measures have been proposed by the applicant or recommended to
avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts associated with the proposed
project. A summary of these mitigation plans/recommendations follows with the
major areas of concern being topsoil and overburden handling, surface and sub-
surface hydrology and water quality, reclamation/revegetation, land use,
wildlife resources, and wetlands.
Drainage Controls
Federal and State regulations require drainage controls for surface mining
that must be satisfied prior to issuance of mining permits. Controls proposed
by TMPA at the Gibbons Creek site include diversion channels to intercept
overland flow and creeks upstream from the mine pits and to divert this runoff
around the mining areas. Nine surface runoff collection ponds are planned
downstream from the mining areas to capture runoff from cleared and reclaimed
mining areas. Pit water, including intercepted groundwater and direct
rainfall, will be collected and pumped to control ponds. Levees will be
constructed as required to protect pit areas from the 100-year magnitude flood
event on the Navasota River and Gibbons Creek. According to pending mining
permit provisions design specifications for proposed diversions, pond levees
and haul roads including profiles, cross-sections, and construction and
maintenance methods must be approved by the TRRC prior to construction.
Surface and Subsurface Water Quality and Hydrology
Mining and associated activities has potential for adverse impacts to the
surface and groundwater systems as discussed earlier in the summary. Cur-
rently the applicant proposes to monitor surface and subsurface water quality
and quantity. Three stream flow recording stations for calculating daily and
peak flow rates have been Installed. The surface quality monitoring program
will include determination of total suspended solids, principal dissolved con-
stituents, total and dissolved minor constituents, total nutrients, selected
physical and organic properties or constituents, biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), and selected biological measurements as needed for the stream flow
stations. Additional water quality monitoring will be determined at the most
feasible and accessible downstream location prior to the convergence with the
Navasota River. The locations of other surface water monitoring systems also
should be considered by TMPA as possible mitigating measures to meet the need
for adequate baseline data and for monitoring during reclamation.
x
-------
Groundwater monitoring^ plans currently involve analysis of samples from
four wells during each 5-year mining plan; however, additional monitoring
wells should be installed down dip of the mine areas. Current pending final
mining permit conditions would require some wells to be installed to the depth
of the lowest lignite seam mined while others would be to a depth sufficient
to monitor the effects of mining on the first significant aquifer below the
lowest lignite seam to be mined. Piezometers also should be installed in
reclaimed areas to monitor restoration of groundwater.
Specific measures which are planned or required to mitigate water quality
impacts include use of erosion and sedimentation controls and achievement of
effluent limitations for any discharges to surface waters. Sealing of
sedimentation and treatment ponds is planned to reduce potential adverse
impacts from harmful leachates. TMPA also must submit more information re-
garding disposal plans for fly and/or bottom ash to the TRRC for approval
prior to final disposal in the pit as proposed in the first 5-year permit
area.
In addition, for those local water wells supplies that are adversely af-
fected by mining, TMPA plans to replace the well or otherwise compensate the
owner for the loss. To mitigate possible adverse effects on groundwater
hydrology, TMPA proposes to leave selected retention basins as permanent
impoundments. TMPA also has agreed to design the reclamation of stream chan-
nels and retention basins to accommodate any changes in infiltration rates.
(Other mitigating measures to reduce potential adverse impacts on water qual-
ity and hydrology are summarized under other headings.)
Topsoil/Overburden Handling
Under current applicant plans, excavated overburden will not be segregated
by strata. Two exceptions to this occur due to interim mining permit
provisions. These stipulations would help mitigate adverse effects. They
require:
• When the reclamation plan identifies an area to be reforested, a suit-
able topsoil must be replaced to a minimum depth of 12 inches pending
field trial test plot research that demonstrates the suitability of
mixed overburden for reforestation; and
• If any area to be rained contain prime farmlands, the topsoil must be
segregated, protected, and replaced unless documentation can be
provided showing that the resulting mixed soil medium is equal to or
more suitable for sustaining revegetation than the existing topsoil.
TMPA proposes to identify, segregate, and bury (at least 4 .to 5 feet)
below the surface carbonaceous and other potential toxic and/or acid-forming
materials encountered during mining. An agronomist is proposed to be hired to
help identify these materials. If successful, less liming should be required
to initiate vegetation.
xi
-------
Because TMPA has focused on only one overburden handling method -
replacing randomly mixed overburden - other overburden handling methods were
identified and evaluated qualitatively by EPA. These included replacing
topsoil (A-horizon) over randomly mixed overburden; replacing upper weathered
zone over randomly mixed overburden; and replacing topsoil over weather zone
above randomly mixed overburden.
These handling methods should be considered in more detail by TMPA as pos-
sible mitigative options to the currently proposed technique, which has a high
risk of revegetation problems occurring. Also, because it is unlikely that
the high levels of management required to maintain the proposed post-
mining land use will continue over the long-term (i.e., following bond re-
lease), TMPA should conduct additional field trials to determine the perform-
ance of reclaimed lands under different overburden handling methods and under
various levels of management and grazing patterns that are more representative
of actual post-mining conditions. The field test plots should be designed to
compare the relative productivity and stability of the pre-mining and post-
mining land uses. The testing should include treatments where fertilizer and
lime inputs cease and the land is overgrazed. TMPA has proposed to perform
such a testing program and modify its reclamation procedures if the research
shows the system will not be stable in the post-reclamation period.
Reclamatlon/Post-Minlng Land Use/Wildlife Resources
Measures proposed by TMPA to reclaim mined areas include returning over-
burden to the pit, grading the area to approximately the original contours,
measuring physical and chemical conditions of the soil making chemical and
fertilizer additions to the soil as needed, and replanting desired vegetation.
A permanent staff will be assigned to the reclamation effort. Present re-
clamation objectives generally include restoring mine areas to pastureland,
pinetree forests, and wildlife areas, particularly near streams. Any streams,
ponds, and riparian vegetation destroyed by mining are proposed to be replaced
as naturally as possible; creation of hedgerows, brush shelter, and wildlife
plantings along fence rows also are planned. Although a restoration plan has
been proposed by TMPA specifically relating to wetlands7, a more detailed
post-mining land use management plan must be prepared and submitted to TRC
pursuant to State mining regulations (Rule .399). TMPA has agreed to supply
this additional information prior to the commencement of mining. The
provisions of this plan should assist in mitigating short-to mid-term impact
to post-mining land uses.
The applicant also has agreed to perform additional field trials under
more representative post-mining conditions. TMPA also will be collecting and
analyzing composite samples of overburden to depths of 4 feet where random
mixing occurs as well as in areas where topsoils are selectively handled (the
composite sampling and testing program likely will be required via mining
permit provisions).
xii
-------
TMPA's current reclamation plan also proposes to construct stock watering
ponds or replace existing ones consistent with the request of the landowner
and approval of the TRRC. Development and management of end lakes would help
mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife. The locations and profiles of natural
streams also are to be duplicated to the maximum extent.
Lime and fertilizer requirements for each reclaimed area are to be
evaluated on the basis of analyses of the surface soil characteristics. The
initial fertilization will be supplemented where necessary, as indicated by
stunted vegetation growth. Also, if hot spots develop and retard vegetation
growth, TMPA will treat, remove, and replace these areas with suitable surface
materials to sustain plant growth.
The selected revegetation species for the site include permanent and tem-
porary grasses, and pine tres in selected areas. Temporary cover will be
provided by rye grass and similar grasses and mulch to mitigate erosion ef-
fects.
The maintenance of reclaimed areas will include selected application of
lime and fertilizer to enhance cover growth. The grass cover will be mowed
regularly to prevent excessive accumulation of dry grasses that would be sus-
ceptible to fire. Active grazing on suitable areas also is planned to control
cover growth.
TMPA has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Navasota Soil and
Water Conservation District which provides that a conservation/reclamation
plan will be developed and is consistent with the objectives and technical
standards of the District. Through this agreement TMPA will receive technical
assistance and supervision to help mitigate impacts following mining.
Other Planned/Recommended Mitigation
TMPA proposes use of water sprays, physical and chemical stabilization,
dust hoods, dust collectors, filters, vehicle speed controls, planting of
windbreak vegetation, and other appropriate techniques, to minimize adverse
impacts from fugitive dust emission sources.
TMPA also should prepare and have on file a Spill Prevention Containment
and Countermeasure plan to accommodate potential spill events from stored fuel
or other liquid materials on-site. This would help to mitigate long-term
impacts from accidental spills within the project area.
To ensure identification of any significant cultural resource found on-
site and to provide for mitigation of adverse impacts, a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between EPA, vthe Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
and the State Historic Preservation Officer was prepared. The major elements
of the MOA have been incorporated as a permit provision.
xiii
-------
7. Federal, State, and Local Agencies, Groups, and
Individuals Notified of this Action
The Final EIS has been made available to those agencies, groups, and
individuals who received copies of the Draft EIS. Following publication of
the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register, the Final EIS also will be
distributed to other individuals and agencies who request copies.
8. Alternatives Available to EPA
The alternatives available to EPA are to issue a new source NPDES permit
to TMPA for the mining project as proposed or to deny issuance of the permit.
Special requirements or conditions may be added to the permit where necessary
to ensure that the most environmentally sound project is permitted.
9. Major Conclusions
EPA proposes to issue a permit for discharge of wastewater from the
designated sedimentation ponds located on the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
site. These discharge are not expected to have a significant adverse
Impact on the natural environment.
Where pond locations are designed for wetland areas, (two such ponds are
in the first permit area), appropriate Clean Water Act, Section 404 permits
must be obtained from the COE before construction. Also before mining occurs
in later permit periods, through Gibbons Creek and wetlands adjacent to the
Navasota River, specific Section 404 permits may be required from the COE.
Information in this EIS will be considered for these permit determinations.
A provision to this NPDES permit and subsequent permits will require the
applicant to take measures to identify cultural resources eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places and avoid or mitigate adverse impacts.
The applicant is committed to working closely with the Navasota Soil and
Water Conservation District and the Soil Conservation Service. Implementation
of developed plans throughout the life of the mine will reduce potential for
significant adverse impacts to the natural environment.
TMPA also has recently agreed to conduct, in cooperation with SCS, actual
field tests under mining conditions. Field tests will be performed on areas
and to depths representative of the project site. During these trials,
various overburden handling methods, and types of vegetation and maintenance
levels are proposed. Such on-going testing should result in mining and
reclamation procedures most favorable for the area.
xiv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS xv
LIST OF TABLES xvii
LIST OF FIGURES xix
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE SCREENING PROCESS 2-1
2.1.1 Alternative Fuel Resources and Mining Sites 2-1
2.1.2 Alternative Mining Technologies 2-3
2.1.3 Transportation System Alternatives 2-5
2.1.4 Alternative Reclamation Plans 2-6
2.2 THE ALTERNATIVE OF NO MINING 2-7
2.3 THE APPLICANT.
-------
Page
3.1.7 Socioeconomic Characteristics 3-102
3.1.8 Energy Resources 3-125
3.1.9 Land Use 3-128
3.2 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA 3-133
3.3 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO OTHER PERMITTING AGENCIES .... 3-133
3.4 ALTERNATIVE OVERBURDEN HANDLING METHODS 3-134
3.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 3-154
3.6 COMPATIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND
LOCAL LAND USE PLANS/PROGRAMS 3-161
4.0 COORDINATION 4-1
5.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 5-1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIXES
Appendix A EARTH RESOURCES A-l
Appendix B WATER RESOURCES B-l
Appendix C AIR QUALITY ..... C-l
Appendix D BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES D-l
Appendix E CULTURAL RESOURCES E-l
Appendix F OTHER IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE F-l
Appendix G NPDES PERMIT G-l
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A SOILS MAP Pocket
Exhibit B 30-YEAR MINING AREA AND WETLAND BOUNDARIES . . Pocket
Exhibit C 5-YEAR PERMIT AREA AND MINE PLAN Pocket
xv i
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Summary evaluation of alternative sources of fuel 2-2
2-2 Estimated financing requirements for the total Gibbons
Creek lignite project 2-13
2-3 Estimated time table of reclamation activities 2-18
2-4 Equipment required during first 5-year mining phase 2-20
2-5 Characteristics of first 5-year mining pits 2-20
2-6 Estimated annual energy consumption 2-22
2-7 Surface drainage control systems for first 5-year
permit area 2-24
2-8 Potential emissions from the Gibbons Creek lignite mine. . . . 2-24
2-9 Physical properties of stabilized FGD sludge 2-28
2-10 Monitoring program parameters : 2-29
2-11 Applicable permit requirements 2-31
3-1 Summary of progress for Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station . 3-5
3-2 Geologic units and their water-bearing properties 3-8
3-3 Soils legend, survey of 5-year permit area 3-18
3-4 New source performance standards 3-41
3-5 Comparison of groundwater quality with State discharge
standards and USPHS safe drinking water limits 3-46
3-6 Detailed groundwater quality at three project sites 3-47
3-7 Air quality regulations and associated values potentially
applicable to the Gibbons Creek lignite project 3-62
3-8 Climatological summary for College Station, Texas (revised
November 1977), means and extremes for period from 1952-
1970 3-64
3-9 Total suspended particulate emission factors for
surface coal mines 3-67
3-10 Based case total suspended particulate controlled emissions
from Gibbons Creek surface mine using USEPA emission factors . 3-68
3-11 Predicted increases in settleable particulate concentrations
expected to result from the operation of the Gibbons Creek
lignite project 3-69
3-12 Proposed Texas lignite-fired steam electric generating
stations with known sites and which are required to obtain
PSD approval from USEPA for the period from 1979 to 1985 • . . 3-71
3-13 Noise survey data measured on the Gibbons Creek lignite
site, Grimes County, Texas 3-73
3-14 Representative sound levels from operation of mobile and
stationary mine equipment 3-88
3-15 Important species of wildlife on the project site 3-95
3-16 Important terrestrial animals in upland habitats 3-96
3-17 Threatened/endangered animals of Grimes County 3-99
3-18 Existing and projected population of cities and towns
within 30 miles of project site 3-104
3-19 Annual average employment by county and industry 3-106
3-20 Housing and public service characteristics 3-108
3-21 Existing traffic volumes on major access routes 3-112
3-22 Pipelines and electric transmission lines in the project
region 3-113
xvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
3-23 Estimated distribution of induced population 3-117
3-24 Schedules of payments by TMPA to Grimes County and
local school districts 3-121
3-25 Type and distribution of housing units required during
construction and operation phases. 3-122
3-26 Projected annual energy supplies and peak demand for TMPA
service area, 1978-1987 3-127
3-27 Land use trends in Grimes County 3-130
3-28 Projected conditions during first year following reclamation . 3-144
3-29 Projected conditions 15 to 30 years following reclamation. . . 3-144
3-30 Long term probability of successful reclamation under
different'levels of management and overburden
handling methods 3-153
3-31 Potential requirements for lignite production from
1978 to 2000 3-156
xviii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 Location of Gibbons Creek lignite reserve 2-8
2-2 Typical photographs of the project area 2-10
2-3 Preliminary stripping sequence plan 2-14
3-1 Layout of Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station 3-2
3-2 Artist's conception of completed Gibbons Creek Steam
Electric Station 3-3
3-3 Gibbons Creek lignite project boundary 3-4
3-4 Regional cross section of geologic formations 3-7
3-5 Block diagram of sedimentary sequences 3-9a
3-6 Navasota River watershed showing proposed Millican and
Navasota Dams 3-29
3-7 Stream drainages in the Gibbons Creek project area 3-31
3-8 Depth to groundwater and water well locations 3-34
3-9 Surface streams and drainage showing water quality
sampling and monitoring station 3-43
3-10 Locations of aquatic biological sampling stations 3-76
3-11 Vegetation communities on the project site 3-84
3-12 Relationship of strippable lignite to ecologically
sensitive areas 3-87
3-13 Existing land use and transportation routes in the
Gibbons Creek project area 3-111
3-14 Peak estimated construction population influx 3-115
3-15 Peak estimated operation population influx 3-116
3-16 Comparison of existing soil conditions to soils
resulting from each overburden handling method 3-135
3-17 Relationship of strippable lignite in the Wilcox and
Yegua-Jackson to major vegetation regions of Texas 3-159
xix
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND AND AUTHORITY
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by Federal agencies on actions that may
significantly affect the human environment. The Clean Water Act (CWA) re-
quires EPA to establish, standards of .performance for new source industrial
wastewater discharges. Before discharge of any pollutant to the navigable
waters of the United States from a new source (as defined in Section 306)
industry for which performance standards have been proposed, a new source
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit must be ob-
tained from either EPA or the State (whichever is the administering authority
for the State in which the discharge is proposed). Section 511(c)(1) of the
CWA also requires that the issuance of a permit under Section 402 by EPA for a
new source discharge be subject to NEPA.
The focus and subject of this EIS Is the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
only. An Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) and a subsequent Negative De-
claration and Environmental Appraisal were submitted previously for the
generating station. Selected aspects of the GCSES, however, are considered in
the evaluation of the mining operation to ensure a complete account of poten-
tial impacts.
Pursuant to the requirements of NEPA, and its authority under the CWA, EPA
issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS on 6 April 1979. A Draft
EIS was made available to the public on 17 April 1980. This Final EIS,
includes additional evaluation of impacts and evaluation of alternative
measures for a more environmentally sound project. The Final EIS also con-
tains comment letters received from the public on the Draft EIS and EPA's re-
sponses to these comments. A summary of comments by one individual at the
Public Hearing on the Draft EIS on 10 June 1980 is also included with EPA's
responses.
1.2 THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed Gibbons Creek. Lignite Project will consist of a new source
surface lignite mine, haul roads, and associated support facilities. The
lignite mine is proposed to provide fuel during the expected 30-year life of
the Gibbons Creek Stream Electric Station (GCSES), which currently is under
construction on a site adjacent to the proposed mine site. The lignite mine,
together with the GCSES and its related facilities, are referred to as the
Gibbons Creek Project. The purpose of the Gibbons Creek Project is to produce
electric power to serve the cities of Bryan, Denton, Garland, and Greenville,
Texas. The project was selected by TMPA as the optimum means to meet the fu-
ture energy demands of the service area. As part of the overall evaluation of
the proposed project, various fuel alternatives and generating methods were
studied. It was concluded that a lignite-fueled stream electric generating
station was the preferred choice among alternatives. Further, lignite re-
sources that could be mined feasibly and that were of suitable quality and
quantity were evaluated, and the Gibbons Creek reserve was selected. The ap-
plicant's proposed project is described in detail in Section 2.3.
1-1
-------
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BY
THE APPLICANT INCLUDING THE APPLICANT'S
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
In this EIS, only the fuel supply alternatives for the Gibbons Creek Steam
Electric Station (GCSES) are evaluated, since all other detailed evaluation of
the proposed station appears in a separate environmental assessment report
(TERA Corp. 1977). Therefore, this section does not address the need for
electricity in the project area or the specific impacts of the GCSES. It
presents an evaluation of possible alternate fuels, locations of these fuel
resources, technologies involved in extracting and transporting fuel resources
for use at the GCSES, and available plans for post-mining reclamation and land
management.
2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE SCREENING PROCESS
The alternatives evaluation process conducted by Texas Municipal Power
Agency (TMPA) was based on three major criteria: (1) the selected electricity
generation process must meet the overall project constraints, including
technical and schedule factors; (2) the energy resources must be available in
a location that would meet the service area needs; and (3) the selected fuel
and associated operations must meet government regulations concerning resource
use. Each of the following sections describes the screening process for the
various types of fuel supply alternatives.
2.1.1 Alternative Fuel Resources and Mining Sites
The first evaluation step for TMPA was to consider what kind of fuel would
be best suited to electricity generation at GCSES. This alternatives
analysis, summarized in Table 2-1, concluded that only a fossil-fueled station
could be implemented in time to avoid electricity shortages in the 1980's.
Because of the restricted availability of other fossil fuels, coal "won out"
as the best fuel option.
Following the selection of coal as the best ^fossil fuel for the GCSES,
alternative types of coal were evaluated for their economic and technical
feasibility. Two general alternatives were considered: (1) the use of Texas
lignite; and (2) the use of western coal. To evaluate the western coal
alternative, TMPA consulted with 10 coal suppliers in the Gillette, Wyoming,
area, as well as with coal companies in the Trinidad, Colorado, and Four
Corners areas. These consultations identified the economic factors and use
constraints for western coal. The lignite coal alternative was pursued by an
identification of lignite reserves in the TMPA service area that: (1) could
satisfy the 30-year energy needs of the project; (2) would be available for
TMPA use; and (3) would be economically recoverable. Also evaluated were
specific lignite locations relative to load center locations and transmission
system requirements, primarily because these affect transportation costs and
project economy.
2-1
-------
Table 2-1. Summary evaluation of alternative sources of fuel
for the Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station.
• NUCLEAR POWER
-Light Water Reactor
Pro: Commercially available technology; no particulate or
sulfur emissions.
Con: Design and construction time does not meet project
constraints; current issues concerning reliability and
safety.
- Fission Breeder Reactor: Not commercially available.
- Fusion Reactor: Not commercially available.
FOSSIL FUEL
-Coal Pro: Commercially proven technology; conforms to project
timing; multiple sources for fuel; economically attractive
fuel.
Con: Emission control requirements for particulates and sulfur.
-Oil Pro: Commercially proven technology; conforms to project
timing; intermediate level of emission controls.
Con: Long-term availability and cost is uncertain.
-Gas Pro: Commercially proven technology; conforms to project
timing; low emission control levels required.
Con: Government regulations eliminate use as boiler fuel
for new power plants.
OTHER SOURCES
-Geothermal
Pro: Potential sources exist in Texas and Gulf Coast area.
Con: Commercial utilization does not meet project schedule
constraints; economic viability of technique In service
area Is uncertain.
-Solar Energy
Pro: Untapped, inexhaustable resource; no emissions from use.
Con: Technology is not commercially proven.
-Municipal Waste
Pro: Replaces non-renewable resource use; can be economically
attractive combined waste disposal/power generation
project.
Con: Logistics and cost of transporting solid wastes;
project size constraint and solid waste energy content
indicate urban solid waste sources required
(e.g., Dallas - Fort Worth).
Source: Adapted from: TERA Corp. 1979. Gibbons Creek lignite project
environmental assessment report. Prepared for Texas Municipal
Power Agency. Dallas TX.
2-2
-------
A preliminary cost evaluation was performed to identify the financial
incentives associated with either alternative. As the following cost com-
parison reveals, the lignite alternative was clearly more advantageous from an
economic standpoint (cost comparison adapted from TERA Corp. 1977):
Western Lignite**
low
high
low
high
Fuel Cost*
$0.48
$0.48
$0.50
$0.55
Transportation*
0.50
0.75
-
-
Total*
$0.98
$1.23
$0.50
$0.55
* All costs represented as dollars per million BTU
** No transportation cost, assuming that the generating station is sited
at the mine mouth.
Assuming a required energy input of 11,000 BTU per KWH and these
preliminary coal costs, the incremental cost of using western coal versus
Texas lignite would be about 5 to 8 mills per KWH. This economic incentive
led to TMPA's selection of the lignite alternative for more detailed analysis.
Since the economic advantage of lignite over western coal is largely
attributable to the fact that its use would involve no transportation costs,
it was necessary to ascertain whether there was in fact a proven, available
reserve close to or within the service area that would be adequate for the
30-year project life. Because the total energy demand for the project is
great and the energy content of lignite in the area is low, it was judged that
a reserve of about 100 million tons would be required to meet the fuel needs
of the GCSES. After an analysis of the quantities available in the service
area and of the commitment of lignite resources in the area to other users,
TMPA determined that the resources available would be adequate. The company
therefore selected the alternative of using lignite coal supplies developed
from reserves within or closely proximate to the TMPA service area.
2.1.2 Alternative Mining Technologies
The Gibbons Creek lignite reserve is a multiple-seam, near-surface
resource. Owing to the low-BTU content of the lignite, the overburden
composition, and the structural characteristics of lignite, the only mining
method considered technically and economically feasible by TMPA is surface
mining (TERA Corp. 1977). The alternative of underground mining was dismissed
for the following reasons (TERA Corp. 1977):
2-3
-------
• Coal recoveries of only about 50%;
• Severe operational constraints such as faulting, folding, rapid thin-
ning or thickening of the coal, and rock splits or partings in the coal
seam;
• Weak compressive strength of lignite, which would necessitate large
coal pillars to maintain a structurally sound mine; and
• Labor-intensive nature of underground mining, requiring from five to
ten times the effort for surface mining.
TMPA did not evaluate auger mining, which is a supplemental technique to
recover lignite from a surface pit seam when the overburden of the highwall
becomes too thick for* economical recovery or when steep terrain precludes
ordinary surface mining (USEPA 1979). Auger mining recovery typically is
about 35% which in the Gibbons Creek reserve would be sufficient to meet
project needs. Recoveries can approach 80% when the auger can cut the seam at
almost full thickness. Although auger diameters up to 8 feet are practical,
the lignite seams in the Gibbons Creek reserve vary in thickness from 4.0 to
7.4 feet; they could therefore not be successfully mined to attain this higher
recovery (Paul Weir Company 1979). The use of auger mining might extend the
total lignite recovery from the Gibbons Creek reserve, but it could not
effectively replace surface mining as the principal extraction method.
Extraction operations consist basically of the removal and placement of
random mixed overburden, extraction of the lignite resource, and return of
the mixed overburden to the mine pits. The factors considered by TMPA as most
important in evaluating alternative extraction methods were (TERA Corp. 1979):
• Size and distribution of the lignite reserve;
• Nature of overburden to be removed;
• Impacts of equipment operations;
• Character and significance of geologic structures associated with the
lignite reserve;
• Physical and chemical conditions of the site that can render equipment
inoperable during unfavorable climatic events; and
• Life and production rate of equipment.
Three major alternative extraction techniques were considered for the Gibbons
Creek reserve:
(1) Draglines. These are most effective for removal of soft overburden
where greatest digging depths can be obtained. With a large bucket
capacity, this equipment has great flexibility in the material sizes
that can be removed.
2-4
-------
(2) Shovel Stripping. Shovels have the same flexibility as draglines,
but they have a more limited operating reach. Support equipment for
overburden removal and spoil pile management would be required at
Gibbons Creek as the deeper lignite reserves are recovered. This
overburden rehandling would not have any environmental benefits but
would increase project costs.
(3) Bucket-Wheel Excavators. These are high-production systems that are
effective for soft overburden removal. They result in more stable
pit slopes and wide benches that improve the operation of support
equipment. However, these are not effective in handling interbedded,
hard, dense rocks. Capital costs, reliability (reported as 50% or
less), and potentially high maintenance requirements would increase
project costs with these systems.
The dragline system was selected by TMPA as the most flexible system for the
Gibbons Lignite Project. Economic considerations also supported the selection
of draglines as the extraction technique.
2.1.3 Transportation System Alternatives
The mine mouth location for the GCSES will minimize transport distances at
Gibbons Creek, so that the main considerations in evaluating alternative
transportation systems were cost and volume efficiency. Several high-volume,
low-cost systems were investigated. The technical aspects of each alternative
are summarized below.
• Conveyor belt. Conveyor belt systems generally can operate for up to
15 miles, negotiate steep, adverse grades (up to 40%), and minimize
disturbance to land surfaces in the right-of-way. The equipment oper-
ates continously and must be protected by cover and fence from weather,
people, and wildlife. Capital costs for these systems are increased by
the need for large lignite handling facilities at the mine, the hand-
ling facilities would have to be moved with the conveyor belts as min-
ing moved to new areas. The noise and visual impacts for these systems
usually are significant. Lignite spills due to equipment malfunctions
also can increase the potential for fires.
• Rail haulage. This is a capital-intensive alternative that requires a
long amortization period. Operational constraints involve slope
limitations (4% downhill and 3% uphill hauls) that would require
increasingly greater railroad track space. Lignite would require dou-
ble handling, since it is trucked and dumped into the rail cars. Be-
cause the lignite will be developed for a mine mouth power plant, the
economics are not favorable for this approach with the Gibbons Creek
Lignite Project.
2-5
-------
• Truck haulage* This system has maximum flexibility, and the capital
investment can be spread throughout the project life. Haul roads must
be developed as mining proceeds. The costs of these systems increases
almost directly with the quantity of lignite to be hauled and the dis-
tance of the haul.
TMPA has selected a combination of truck haulage for short distance
transport and conveyor belt for final transport to the plant. Trucks provide
a high degree of flexibility for haulage out of the pit and can be used for
transport to the plant during initial stages when the total haulage distance
is comparatively short. The conveyor will be most effective for transport
from the mine area to the plant thereby minimizing long truck hauls.
2.1.4 Alternative Reclamation Plans
The selection of reclamation plans for the Gibbons Creek site will be an
ongoing process rather than a single, one-time choice. Reclamation
alternatives will be developed for each 5-year plan over the 30-year project
life. Post-mining plans for thie site must satisfy two major objectives (TERA
Corp. 1979): (1) to meet the State (Texas Railroad Commission) and Federal
(Office of Surface Mining) regulations defining reclamation requirements
(e.g., that the land must be returned to a productive state as good as or
better than the premined condition); and (2) to satisfy existing landowner
stipulations concerning post-mining land use requirements.
Land use following reclamation is limited by the original physical and
chemical nature of the overburden, which is modified by mining and return to
the pits. The major post-mining use that has been specified by landowners
granting lease agreements to TMPA is for return of the surface to productive
pastureland (TERA Corp. 1979). Other uses available for the land include:
• Row crop production. The project site is not conducive to high level
crop production owing to summer drought periods that require extensive
irrigation. Because no crops now are produced in the project area,
there is a lack of marketing and support services required for com-
mercial operations.
• Hardwood production. A reliable source of suitable native species
would have to be* established. Planting of nursery stock hardwoods
would be economically questionable on a broad scale, and the survival
rate of these transplants probably would be low. Moreover, hardwood
productivity is low relative to pastureland. The current and generally
desired trend in the area is to clear woodlands in order to increase
*
pasturelands.
2-6
-------
• Wildlife habitat. This alternative would be least expensive because
it would require only rough contouring and grass seeding. Native
species then would be allowed to reinvade from surrounding areas.
However, because it is expected that undesirable species would domi-
nate the reinvasion, some land management practices also would be re-
quired. The rough contouring would make management of the area dif-
ficult, particularly if mowing, fertilizing, or erosion control
activities were required.
The reclamation plan alternatives considered by TMPA include evaluations
or reclamation by each of these techniques and will consider: (1) natural
topography and vegetation; (2) landowner preferences; and (3) the specific
characteristics of the overburden. Specific post-mining land use plans do not
exist at this time, but the primary post-reclamation land use is expected to
be bermuda pastureland.
2.2 THE ALTERNATIVE OF NO MINING
TMPA could elect not to extract lignite from the Gibbons Creek lignite re-
serve. If this alternative were selected, the GCSES either would ,not be con-
structed or it would be constructed to use an alternative form of energy.
Fuel supply evaluations performed by TMPA indicate that low-sulfur western
coal supplies would be the most probable alternative fuel source for the
GCSES. Use of western coal would require long-term agreements with suppliers,
which would be subject to State regulations concerning transport of coal. The
current trend in most states is to discourage the interstate shipment of coal
as the resource increases in value.
Abandoning the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project could adversely affect TMPA's
ability to meet projected customer demands during the early 1980's. Other
fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas, are not likely to be available for
power generation at an economical cost, and nuclear energy could not be
developed in time to meet projected demands. Environmentally, the no raining
alternative would result in no immediate change to the existing environment
and thus no consequent impacts to earth, water, air, or biological resources.
Further, no significant changes would occur in socioeconomic conditions or
land use patterns in the project area.
2.3 APPLICANT'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative is development of the Gibbons Creek Lignite
Project in western Grimes County, Texas. The project location Is shown in
Figure 2-1. The lignite to be mined lies in a belt extending from near
Singleton, Texas, to the Navasota River in a northeast to southwest diagonal
trend. The lignite will be surface mined using an area mining system with
tandem draglines and truck transport combined with conveyors to move the
lignite to the adjacent stream electric station. According to current mining
plans, overburden soils will be randomly mixed and replaced. Special measures
are planned to identify and selectively remove potential acid-forming
materials to ensure burial below 4 feet of the reclaimed surface. Reclamation
2-7
-------
1 1L \ © I
¦ Cf-I VL 1 1
I I Sinai«ton
SCALE IN MILES 1 1 WsA^rloiMjf^ I
( ENLARGED AREA ) / ©l N.
/ ^^Roan» Prairi«A
Approximate Boundary of Lignite Reserve -¦— j / (Sol v
I H^l \ Anderson
/ J / GRIMES CO.
/ TEXAS
I f N«va»ota
i' :' ilfi
\ 1 f » j L1j "lil
V/\
V -i i -A jc
\ l/^y Figure 2-1. Location of Gibbons Creek Lignite
T~T_Y_j*J| Reserve within Grimes County, Texas.
Source: Texas Municipal Power Agency. 1979.
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project, En-
vironmental Assessment Report.
2-8
-------
will include establishment of temporary cover and permanent revegetation with
grasses (primarily bermuda) and trees (primarily loblolly pine). The project
has a 30-year design life, with approximately 100 million tons of lignite to
be mined. Detailed planning has been completed only for the first 5 years of
the project (1982-1987), as described in the permit applications for surface
mining submitted to the Texas Railroad Commission under the intermim and
permanent regulatory programs on 9 June 1979 and 1 August 1980, respectively
(Paul Weir Company 1979; TMPA 1980). Subsequent raining phases have been
described only preliminarily at this stage in project planning.
The following sections provide information about the lignite resource,
estimated costs for the project, proposed raining and reclamation plans,
various resource requirements, wastewater handling and pollution control, and
the project's status with regard t6 permit requirements.
2.3.1 Situation and Nature of the Gibbons Creek Lignite Resource
The proposed project site lies in a 27,500-acre tract that will contain
all of the actively mined areas, haul roads, and maintenance facilities.
Surface mining and support areas will not use all of this tract, but for this
analysis it was considered that any land not specifically excluded from the
site boundaries might be disturbed. The photographs in Figure 2-2 show
typical characteristics of the topography, vegetation, and land use in the
project area.
The available lignite resources within the site boundaries have been
estimated as follows (TERA Corp. 1979):
Cover (Overburden) Thickness Tons of Recoverable Lignite
Less than 40 feet 13,896,000
Less than 100 feet 67,407,000
Less than 140 feet 99,985,000
Less than 200 feet 139,749,000
Based on the design of the GCSES (438 MW with a 75% average use factor)
and the energy characteristics of the lignite, the mine must produce about 100
million tons of lignite during the 30-year life of the project. Therefore,
the proposed mining area has sufficient lignite resources to meet the
requirements of the GCSES with a margin of safety (i.e., an additional
39,764,000 tons over what is needed) represented by lignite resources at
depths greater than 140 feet.
The ratio of total overburden thickness to net thickness of the lignite
seam(s) will vary throughout the area. In general, the ratio will range from
10:1 to 20:1 but may be outside these limits in some areas. Details of the
stipping ratio for any given area are not currently available.
Although there are other layers of lignite within the overburden
material, they are primarily thin discontinuous layers of impure lignite or
2-9
-------
Cleared site west of Navasota River along State
Highway 30 during spring flood conditions
to
i
Typical scene of cattle grazing on a cleared
bottomland site
Whitetail deer are common on many upland sites
Carr Lake, post oak forest, cleared native
pastureland, and bottomland site converted to
coastal Bermuda grass
Figure 2-2. Representative views of the project area showing topography, vegetation, and land use
-------
Flooded riverine forest of overcup oak and cedar Post oak woodland with dense yaupon understory
elm
K)
i
Riparian forest habitat showing black willow as
the dominant overstory species
Source: Texas A & M University. 1973. Environmental studies lower Navasota River Basin: Final Report
prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock district. College Station TX.
Figure 2-2. Representative views of the project area showing topography, vegetation, and land use (concluded).
-------
sinuous channel deposit bodies. Most of these will be located during the
drilling program which precedes raining. When the extent of these layers is
known in detail, it will be possible to assess the economic feasibility of
recovering them. Exploration and testing is continuing in this regard.
As of 15 February 1979, TMPA had acquired surface rights (purchase or
lease) to land representing 69.949 million tons of lignite at less than 140
feet of cover (Paul Weir Company 1979). Owing to a 1977 decision by the Texas
State Supreme Court, TMPA actually owns about 31.463 million tons of this
lignite without legal question. Acquisition of the rights to the remainig
lignite deposits is a continuing activity and is not considered a major
obstacle to the project. TMPA has acquired all rights to mine the first
5-year permit area; however, the specific rights that are acquired for
subsequent mining may affect the later phases of the mining plan (e.g., change
in mining sequence or location).
2.3.2 Costs for the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
Total project costs for the mine have been estimated (as of August 1980)
to be $145,663 (TMPA 1980a). This is expected by TMPA to be adequate for
procurement of the lignite resource, development of the mine, and construction
of the needed support facilities. A breakdown of the estimated cost of the
mine, generating plant, and transmission lines, as well as other project
costs, is provided in Table 2-2. The entire projet will require financing of
nearly $800 million.
2.3.3 Applicant's Proposed Mining Plan
TMPA has a general 30-year mining plan which (1) confirms that sufficient
lignite is recoverable to meet GCSES requirements using existing raining
technology; and (2) identifies the mining costs expected for the lignite
reserve for the economic evaluation of the project. Specific mining plans
will be finalized according to project phase, and will be presented in
applications for State (RRC) mining permits as well as Federal (EPA) NPDES
permits. The first such permit has been requested by TMPA to cover mining
operations from 1982 to 1987. The following description of the overall mining
sequence is applicable to the entire 30-year mining plan. Proposed mining
activities during the first 5 years, as defined in TMPA's first mining permit
application, are described following the general mining plan.
2.3.3.1 General 30-year Mining Plan
The preliminary proposed 30-year mining sequence for Gibbons Creek is
shown on Figure 2-3 (this sequence will likely change following more detailed
mine planning). The total project site is about 27,500 acres, but only about
10,300 acres will be mined to meet the 30-year GCSES fuel needs of
approximately 100 million tons of lignite. The lignite will be mined
systematically through a six-step sequence of operations, described below.
2-12
-------
Table 2-2. Estimated financing requirements for the CLbbons Creek Project
including the lignite mine ($000).
Mine (1)
Land and Land Rights 5 24,900
Siruclurcs and Improvements 28,426
Mine Equipment and Supplies 61,223
Engineering 6,338
Construction Management 4,816
Owner's Costs 4,238
Contingencies 15,614
Total Mine $145,553
Generating Station (2)
Land and Land Rights $ 14,632
Structures and Improvements 71,300
Boiler Plant Equipment 155.117
Turbine Generator and Accessories 24,322
Accessory Electrical Equipment 29.594
Miscellaneous Power Plant Equipment 10.558
Engineering 11,789
Construction Management 12.023
Owner's Costs 37,853
Contingencies 19,524
ro
[Li Total Generating Station $386,712
LO
Transmission (1)
Construction and Equipment $ 38,284
Construction Management and Engineering 1,345
Owner's Costs • 1.424
Contingencies 16,265
Total Transmission $ 57,318
Total Construction $589,583
Other
Reserve Fund (3) $ 67,060
Working Capital (4) 10,000
Impact Payments (5) 2,113
Net Interest During Construction (6) 103,901
Financing, Legal and Other Costs (7) 20,143
Total Other $203,217
TOTAL FINANCING REQUIRED $792,800
Table 2-2. (Concluded)
(1) Based on estimates by Morrison-Knudson and TMPA.
(2) Based on detailed estimates by TMPA.
(3) An amount equal to the estimated average annual debt service allocated
to the Gibbons Creek Project based on actual debt service on the out-
standing bonds and assumed level debt service, with 28-year amortization
and an assumed 8.0% average Interest rate, on the Scries 1980 Bonds
and additional bonds.
(4) Estimated to provide adequate cash during initial operation.
(5) Impact payments required to be paid during construction pursuant to a
settlement agreement with Grimes County, Texas and three school districts
in the vicinity of the Cibbons Creek Project.
(6) Computed at actual interest rates on the outstanding bonds and an
assumed 8.0Z average interest rate on the Series 1980 Bonds and additional
bonds, adjusted for estimated Investment income.
(7) Based on actual costs to 1 April 1980 and an assumed 32 for the Series
1980 Bonds and additional bonds allocated to the Gibbons Creek Project.
SOURCE: Texas Municipal Power Agency. 1980. Official Statement.
Revenue Bonds Series 1980, 31 July 1980. Arlington TX,
variously paged.
-------
.1
V.-". i V Vts»? '
'1 .v'(\' ~-M
\ ,VJ> !. H *
Stripping sequence in first
five-year permit area:
c
1984-1987
1982-1986
1981-1985
1987-1989
'7-mm
:l!MM
-?—If*, \ : »
m
1
i
3!
$
STRIPPING SEQUENCE
1980-IMS 11996 - 2000
¦
1986 -1990
2 (XX -2009
:::::i2oo€-2oio
91 -1999
/ v\r
«.1 ^ >.
riMT l-TIU MINING AREA
FIRST ¦-YEAR MINI WT
' a!
AP
!(
Figure E-3 Preliminary stripping
sequence plan, Gibbons Creek
Lignite Project, Grimes County,
Texas
C?urec: Adopted from: TERA Corporation. 1979, Gibbons Creek Lignite Project, Environmental Assessment Report. Dallas T:c.
-------
Step 1; Construction of Facilities to Control Drainage
Federal and State regulations dictate drainage control requirements for
surface mining that must be satisfied prior to issuance of mining permits.
The controls expected by TMPA at the Gibbons Creek site include diversion
channels to intercept overland flow and creeks upstream from the mine pits and
to divert this runoff around the raining areas. Surface runoff collection
ponds will be located downstream from the raining areas to capture runoff from
cleared and reclaimed mining areas. Pit water, including intercepted
groundwater and direct rainfall, will be collected and pumped to control
ponds. Levees will be constructed as required to protect pit areas from the
100-year magnitude flood event on the Navasota River and Gibbons Creek.
Step 2: Clearing of Trees and Brush from Mining Area
Brush and trees will be removed only from areas to be mined immediately.
A crawler-mounted bulldozer will uproot and stack brush and trees, after,
commercially valuable timber has been selectively harvested. The dried refuse
will be burned in accordance with TACB regulations for open burning. The
average clearing rate will be about 344 acres per year (TERA Corp. 1979).
Step 3: Removal of Overburden
Electric walking draglines will be used for overburden removal. The
draglines will excavate the overburden and sidecast it into mined areas
adjacent to the cut, except for the initial cuts, which will be piled onto
adjacent surface areas. The cuts will progress from shallow to thicker
overburden in order to minimize earth-moving expenses. The draglines will be
supplemented by large crawler bulldozers that will level the surface ahead of
the draglines, move the dragline trail cable, and maintain drainage in the
immediate area.
Excavated overburden will not be segregated by strata based on conclusions
by the applicant (from research studies and testimony by the applicant's
consultant) that revegetation on mixed overburden soils will have a survival
rate at least equal to that on native soils (Paul Weir Company 1979; TMPA
1980.)* Currently however, there are two exceptions to the proposed plan of
mixing overburden spoils. These exceptions are contained in permit provisions
No. 21 and No. 34 of the Texas Railroad Commission's interim surface mining
operation permit to TMPA (these are subject to change pending decisions under
the final permit):
(1) when the reclamation plan identifies an area to be reforested, a
suitable topsoil must be replaced to a minimum, depth of 12 inches pending
field trial test plot research that demonstrates the suitability of mixed
overburden for reforestation;
1 During the environmental review, questions were raised about the proposed
method of randomly mixing overburden spoil. Therefore, alternative overburden
2-15
-------
(2) if any areas to be mined contain prime farmlands, the topsoil must be
segregated, protected, and replaced unless documentation can be provided
showing that the resulting mixed soil medium is equal to or more suitable for
sustaining revegetation than the existing topsoil.
It has been further determined (Brown 1979; Hearing Examiners Report 1980) and
agreed to by TMPA that certain overburden materials will require selective
identification, segregation, and burial of carbonaceous and other toxic- and
acid-forming materials encountered during raining. This procedure will help in
making overburden materials more suitable for reclamation requiring less pH
adjustment to achieve satisfactory revegetation.
If significant deposits of sand and gravel or other mineral resources are
discovered in the overburden, consideration may be given to a program of
segregation and use, or sale of the product.
Step 4. Preparation and Loading of Lignite
Bulldozers and front-end loaders will be used to remove the final layer of
overburden from the lignite seams. Electric shovels with 14-cubic yard
dippers will be used to load the lignite, with the front-end loaders available
as back up equipment.
During the environmental review, questions were raised about the proposed
method of randomly mixing overburden soil. Therefore, alternative overburden
handling methods have been identified and discussed qualitatively by EPA as
possible mitigative options to the currently proposed thechique. These
alternative methods are presorted in Section 3.4.
Step 5: Hauling of the Lignite to the GCSES
The lignite is not expected to require breakage before loading.
Therefore, bottom-dump tractor-trailer haulers of 110-ton capacity will be
used to transport the lignite either directly to the GCSES storage area or to
the terminus of a conveyor belt system which would transport the lignite to
the plant storage area. A main haul road will be supplemented by additonal
haul roads as mining progresses.
handling methods have been identified and discussed qualitatively by EPA as
possible mitigative options to the currently proposed technique. These alter-
native methods are presented iln Section 3.4.
2r-16
-------
Step 6: Reclamation of Mined Areas
Reclamation will involve returning overburden to the pit, grading the area
to approximately the original contours, measuring physical and chemical
conditions of the soil, determining chemical and fertilizer additions to the
soil, and replanting vegetation. A permanent staff will be assigned to the
reclamation.effort. Reclamation objectives at this time generally include
restoring mine areas to pastureland, pinetree forests, and wildlife areas,
particularly near streams. Any steams, ponds, and riparian vegetation
destroyed by mining will be replaced as naturally as possible.
The overall timetable for reclamation activities is described in Table
2-3. All mined areas will be reclaimed to restore approximately the original
contours and drainage patterns. Although the removed overburden will be
deficient in nitrogen and phosphorous, analyses of core samples indicate that
it contains adequate magnesium, potassium, and calcium to support growth. As
mentioned in the Step 3 overburden removal discussion above, previous studies
by the applicant have indicated that mixed strata are at least as suitable for
revegetation as the pre-existing soil structure (Paul Weir Company 1979).
Moreover, it is proposed by the applicant that the mixing will improve the
soil water holding capacity and root depth characteristics.
The current reclamation plan also proposes that stock watering ponds will
be constructed (or left in place) consistent with the request of the landowner
and approval of the Railroad Commission of Texas. Suitable soil materials
which will retain water will be used in the pond areas. The locations and
profiles of natural streams will be duplicated to the maximum extent possible.
Revegetation will be seasonally dependent, as described in Table 2-3.
Lime and fertilizer requirements for each area will be evaluated on the basis
of analyses of the surface soil characteristics. The initial fertilization
will be supplemented where necessary, as indicated by stunted vegetation
growth.
The selected revegetation species for the site include permanent and
temporary grasses, and pine trees in selected areas. Temporary cover will be
provided by rye grass or similar grasses and mulch until seasonal conditions
are suitable for planting permanent cover. As indicated in Table 2-3, Bermuda
grasses will be used for permanent grassland, and will be applied as spri gs.
Pine trees will be established in selected areas by disking the cover grass
and planting in strips.
The maintenance of reclaimed areas will include selected application of
lime and fertilizer to enhance cover growth. The grass cover will be mowed
regularly to prevent excessive accumulation of dry grasses that would be
susceptible to fire. Active grazing on suitable areas also will control cover
growth.
2-17
-------
Table 2-3. Estimated timetable of reclamation activities on the Gibbons
Creek Project site, Grimes County, Texas.
Item
Timetable
Leveling and contouring
of overburden
Complete within 3 to 6 months after mining
Collect surface soil samples
for stabilized pH determination
Apply lime to contoured area
Seed cover crop and fertilize
Within one week after final contouring
Within 4 to 6 weeks after final contouring
When final contouring occurs between March
15 and November 1
Sprig bermuda grass and fertilize
Disk cover crop and sprig
bermuda grass
Mulch to minimize erosion
Plant pine seedlings
Stock ponds
When final contouring occurs between January
1 and March 15; fertilize again 3 to 6
months later
Between January 1 and February 15; fertilize
again 3 to 6 months later
When final contouring occurs between November
1 and January 1
Plant in January and February one or two
years after grass is established
Build during final contouring or within one
year after revegetation
Source: TERA Corp. 1979. Gibbons Creek lignite project environmental assess-
ment report. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency. Dallas, TX.
p. 2-25.
2-18
-------
TMPA has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Navasota Soil
and Water Conservation District on 30 October 1980 at the request of the EPA.
Part of this agreement provides that a conservation/reclamation plan will be
developed and applied which is consistent with the objectives and technical
standards of the District. Through this agreement TMPA is provided
information, technical assistance, and supervision plus any other aid which
may be available at the time that work is to be done (Appendix F).
2.3.3.2 First 5-Year Mining Plan (1982-1987)
Superimposed on the 30-year mining sequence plan previously presented in
Figure 2-3 are the areas included in the first phase (5-year) mining permit
application. A more detailed plan for the first 5-year permit area is
described in Exhibit C (See map pocket at end of the E1S).
Initial site preparation activities will involve construction of the
maintenance area, the main haul road, and storage ponds. The initial main
haul road will extend from the southern boundary of the GCSES, under State
Farm to Market Road 244 and State Highway 30, and will run along the northwest
edge of the first phase mining area (TERA Corp. 1979; Paul Weir Company 1979).
The maintenance area will be used for construction of the draglines.
The current schedule for the first 5-year plan calls for construction of
the draglines and acquisition of the mining equipment to begin after
completion of the NEPA and permitting processes. First removal of overburden
is targeted for early 1982. The initial discharge from mining ponds is
expected during early 1982 (DeMarcus testimony 1981).
Mining will begin with the near-surface lignite deposits and progress
toward the areas of thicker overburden. The estimated area to be mined during
this initial phase is 2,762 acres (Paul Weir Company 1979). Equipment
required for the first phase and the characteristics of the first phase pits
are summarized in Tables 2-4 and 2-5, respectively. Of special interest are
the areas that will not be mined during this first phase. A cemetery located
in the first 5-year permit area will be outside the mine pit areas and will be
maintained in its existing condition. Gibbons Creek is not in the permit area
but will be in the mined area of the 30-year plan. Smaller streams in the
mined areas will be destroyed by mining, including parts of Dry Creek, Rock
Lake Creek, and several unnamed tributaries.
Once the mine is in full operation, it is expected to employ about 160
persons, including 40 supervisory and administrative personnel and 120 skilled
and unskilled workers.
2-19
-------
. Equipment required for first phaRP mining task? at the ribbons
Civrk Iigni to minr.
Task
Overburden removal
Lignite loading
Lip.nlt« haul InR
Mining and reclamation
Reclamation
Revcpctation
Ash hauling
Dust control
Mlscellaneous tasks
Equipment
Tvo-78 cu. yd. walking electric draglines
Two-14 cu. yd. electric shovels
Eight-100 ton trucks
Ten-bulldozers
One-100 horsepower tractor
0ne-70 horsepower tractor
Miscellaneous farm equipment
Two-85 ton trucks
Water trucks
Two-motor graders
Trucks, support equipment and facilities
Source: Paul Weir Company. 1979. Surface mining permit application to the
Railroad Commission of Texas, Gibbons Creek Lignite Mine. p. 46.
Table 2-5. Characteristics of first phase mining pits at the Gibbons Creek
1 ignite mine.
Characteristics
Depth to lignite, ft. (avg.)
Thickness of lignite, ft. (avg.)
Depth of excavation, ft. (max.)
Overburden to be removed,
million cu. yd.
Area to be mined, acres
Number of cuts (approximate)
Pit width, ft. (avg*)
Height of spoil banks, ft. (avg.)
Height of hlghwall at final
cut, ft. (avg.)
Lineal feet of hlghwall (avg.)
Mining Area (Refer to Figure a)
2-B
3-B
4-B
2=1
63
77
92
75
7.4
6.0
5.9
4.0
120
130
130
120
55.8
77.6
122
92.8
552
624
824
762
32
31
41
28
120
120
120
120
85
102
106
98
81
109
115
103
,600
5.200
5,700
4,000
Source: Paul Wclr Company. 1979. Surface mining permit application to
the Railroad Commission of Texas, Gibbons Creek lignite mine.
Chicago 1L, pp. 4a, Sa.
-------
2.3.4 Water Use Requirements for Mine Construction and Operation
The proposed surface mining alternative will result in a water requirement
of approximately 10,000 gallons per day for equipment washing and 160,000
gallons per day for dust control when this is necessary. This water should be
available primarily from drainage control ponds (TERA Corp. 1979). Potable
water requirements will be about 10,000 gallons per day, and this water is ex-
pected to come from the GCSES reservoir (TERA Corp. 1979). Fire control water
will be supplied from the drainage control ponds, with potable water available
to supplement this supply.
2.3.5 Energy Requirements
The major energy consumers during operation of the surface mine will be
the excavation equipment (electricity) and transportation equipment (diesel
fuel for trucks and electricity for the conveyor belt system). An earlier
energy consumption estimate, based on use of trucks only is given in Table
2-6. Energy requirements for a combined truck and conveyor system should be
less. Savings in costly diesel fuel would be significant. This ancillary
equipment energy consumption is equivalent to about 1.4 BTU per 1000 BTU's re-
covered*, which compares favorably to reported energy requirements ranging
from 1.92 BTU per 1000 BTU in the northwest to 6.6 BTU per 1000 BTU in
northern Applachia (USEPA 1979). Construction energy requirements have not
been detailed by TMPA, but these should be some lower than operation energy
requirements.
2.3.6 Transportation Requirements
The major transportation requirement will be haulage of the lignite to the
power plant storage area. This represents an average 4.3-mile one-way trip
(estimated range from 3.3 to 6.1 miles) for the initial mining phase, using a
specially constructed haul road. Based on the proposed 110-ton capacity
bottom-dump tractor trailer haulers and the 3 million tons per year lignite
requirement, an average of 82 round trips per day will be required to supply
the power plant. Use of a conveyor system for part of the distance would cut
the length of truck haulage so that fewer trucks would be required for the 82
round trips. The conveyor would substitute electricity for expensive diesel
fuel. Other transportation requirements will include the delivery of reclama-
tion materials (e.g., lime, fertilizer, grass seed and sprigs, trees) and con-
struction materials.
2.3.7 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Wastewaters generated during the construction and operation of the Gibbons
Creek lignite mine will include:
~Calculation based on diesel fuel at 139,000 BTU/gallon, electricity at 3.5 x
106 BTU/MWH, and 100 x 10^ tons of lignite at 10 x 10 BTU/ton.
2-21
-------
Table 2-6. Estimated annual energy consumption for the Gibbons Creek lignite
mine.
Year Diesel Fuel Electrical Energy
(Gallons) (MWH)
1981
130,000
865
1982
985,000
15,915
1983
1,730,000
40,090
1984
1,785,000
49,115
1985
1,785,000
49,115
1986
1,785,000
49,115
1987
1,905,000
49,115
1988
1,905,000
49,115
1989
1,905,000
49,115
1990
1,910,000
49,115
1991
1,940,000
49,115
1992
2,195,000
49,115
1993
2,205,000
49,115
1994
2,210,000
49,115
1995
2,170,000
49,115
1996
2,160,000
49,115
1997
2,160,000
49,115
1998
2,195,000
49,115
1999
2,175,000
49,115
2000
2,180,000
49,115
2001
2,160,000
49,115
2002
2,150,000
67,165
2003
2,185,000
73,185
2004
2,170,000
73,185
2005
2,165,000
73,185
2006
2,165,000
73,185
2007
2,290,000
73,185
2008
2,290,000
73,185
2009
2,290,000
73,185
2010
2,340,000
64,160
2011
2,215,000
59,225
2012
535,000
10,775
Total
62,370,000
1,654,560
Gibbons Creek lignite project
Prepared for Texas Municipal Power
2-22
Source: Adapted from: TERA Corp. 1979.
environmental assessment report.
Agency. Dallas TX. p.9-2.
-------
• Sanitary wastewater. About 10,000 gallons per day will be generated at
the maintenance facility.
• Fuel/wash area wastewater. This wastewater will be generated at a wash
operation designed to maintain the operation of the mobile construction
and operation equipment.
• Area runoff. Surface runoff from the mining areas, haul roads, and the
maintenance facility will be contaminated with sediments and other
suspended materials. This runoff will be associated primarily with
storm events.
• Subsurface seepage. Groundwater will collect in the pits that
interrupt the groundwater table. This water will be pumped from the
pits into surface runoff control ponds for treatment.
The sanitary wastewater control system will involve either a package
wastewater treatment plant or a septic tank system followed by an oxidation
ditch. The treated wastewater from either system will be disposed by spraying
onto reclamation areas, so there will not be a discharge to surface waters.
The combined area runoff and subsurface seepage wastewater will be controlled
by a system that includes diversion levees and retention ponds. The retention
ponds will be designed to accommodate runoff from the 10-year recurrence,
24-hour duration storm event. These ponds will be monitored for pH to ensure
that acid leaching is not occurring, and pH adjustments will be made if
necessary. Diversion levees will be constructed to direct runoff from upland
areas around the actively mined areas. The retention ponds and levees for each
area will be maintained for 2 years after mining has ceased, unless water
quality requirements indicate that longer operation is necessary (TERA Corp.
1979).
The specific drainage control plan for the initial mining phase
(1982-1987) includes:
• Diversions to redirect runoff from the undisturbed catchment of Rock
Lake Creek, Dry Creek, and other minor tributaries to Gibbons Creek;
• Levees to protect the mining area from encroachment by floodwaters of
the Navasota River; and
• Nine retention ponds to collect and hold runoff wastewater from the
mining areas, haul roads, and support facilities.
The specific characteristics of these control systems are summarized in
Table 2-7. All of these systems must comply with published Office of Surface
Mining regulations, as well as the Texas Railroad Commission requirements.
2-23
-------
Table 2-7. Surface drainage control aystems for first phase
of mining activity at the Gibbons Creek lignite mine.
• Diversions - designed to carry 100-year recurrence Interval flood-
waters at velocities less than 6 feet per second.
(1) Rock Lake Creek. Catchment Includes 2,200 acres upstream of
main haul road. Plow Is turned Into a channel to paas under
the main haul road through a culvert. Channel continues along
east side of the mine and re-enters natural channel downstream
of mined area.
(2) Dry Creek and two unnamed creeks. Catchment includes 1,100
acres north of the haul road. Flow from these streams Is di-
verted west and enters a tributary of Dinner Creek.
• Lfevee - designed to protect from 100-year recurrence Interval flood-
waters.
(1) Navasota River. Levee located at the west side of the mining
area.
hO
fsj * Ponds - designed on the basis of: 1) mining year involving the
maiimus disturbed area for each pond; 2) 2-year require-
ment to reestablish vegetation In disturbed areas; and
3) capacity to hold 10-year interval, 24-hour duration run-
off until adequate sedimentation occurs.
(1) North of mining area. Pive ponds are designed to contain
drainage from haul roads, support facilities* and mining areas.
(2) South of mining area. Four ponds are designed to contain
drainage from haul roads and mining areas.
Source: Adapted from Paul Weir Company. 1979 (updated by TMPA 198-0).
Surface mining permit application to the Railroad Commission
of Texas, Gibbons Creek lignite mine.. Volume 11, Annex B.
Chicago 1L.
Table 2-8. Potential emissions for the Gibbons Creek lignite mine
with and without proposed control techniques.
Uncontrolled Controlled
Bnisslons Emissions.
Pollutant (Ton/Year) (Ton/Year)
Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)
Fugitive Dust - low 2,240 1,140
- high 3,800 2,160
Point Sources - low 11.9 11.9
- high 52.9 52.9
Sulfur Dioxide (S02) 1.75 1.75
Carbon Monoxide (CO2) 14.6 14.6
Hydrocarbons (HC) 2.40 2.40
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO^) 24.0 24.0
Source:
TERA Corp. 1979. Gibbons Creek lignite project environmental .assess-
ment .report. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency for submission
to US Environmental Protection Agency. Dallas TX. pp. 2-41, 2-45.
-------
2.3.8 Pollution Controls for Mine Construction and Operation
Aside from water-borne waste materials described above, operations at the
mine will produce airborne and solid waste materials. Airborne pollutants will
include contaminants from mobile point source emissions (haul trucks, diesel
fueled equipment), and fugitive sources (haul road traffic, clearing and con-
struction activities, spoil pile wind erosion). The major mining operations
producing these emissions will be overburden removal and lignite loading,
hauling, and loadout (TERA Corp. 1979). The potential uncontrolled emissions
generated by the Gibbons Creek lignite mine operation (summarized in Table
2-8) represent mining at a rate of 3 million tons per year. The control
techniques planned by TMPA to achieve the controlled fugitive dust emissions
levels include: (TERA Corp. 1979; TMPA 1980):
• Periodic watering of unpaved roads;
• Chemical stabilization of unpaved roads with nontoxic soil cement or
dust palliatives mixed into the upper 1 or more inches of the road
surface;
• Establishment of a durable wearing surface on all haul roads;
• Prompt removal of coal, rock, soil, and other dust-forming debris from
the roads and frequent scraping and compaction of unpaved roads to
stabilize the road surface;
• Restricting the speed of vehicles to reduce the length and size of any
fugitive dust cloud caused by travel;
• Revegetating, mulching, or otherwise stabilizing the surface of all
areas adjoining roads that are sources of fugitive dust;
• Restricting the travel of vehicles on other than established roads;
• Enclosing, covering, watering, or otherwise treating loaded haul trucks
and railroad cars to reduce loss of material to wind and spillage;
• Substituting of conveyor systems for haul trucks and covering of
conveyor systems when conveyed loads are subjected to wind erosion;
• Minimizing the area of disturbed land;
e Prompt revegetation of regraded lands;
• Use of alternatives for coal-handling methods, restriction of dumping
procedures, wetting of disturbed materials during handling, and
compaction of disturbed areas;
• Orientation of mining operations so as to place temporary spoil piles
or ridges perpendicular to prevailing winds to reduce wind erosion;
2-25
-------
• Planting of special windbreak vegetation at critical points in the
permit area;
• Control of dust from drilling by means of water sprays, hoods, dust
collectors, or other controls;
• Restricting of activities causing fugitive dust during periods of air
stagnation;
• Extinguishing of any areas of burning or smoldering coal and periodic
inspection for burning areas ¦ whenever the potential for spontaneous
combustion is high;
• Reduction of the period of time between initially disturbing the soil
and revegetating or other surface stabilization; and
• Restricting of fugitive dust at spoil and coal transfer and loading
points with water sprays, negative pressure systems, and baghouse
filters, chemicals, or other practices.
Vehicle emissions are mobile point sources of TSP, SO2, CO, HC, and
NO2. No specific controls in addition to standard emission control equipment
and proper maintenance are proposed for controlling these emissions.
Solid waste materials generated during mining operations will include
cleared brush and trees, treatment facility sludges, and miscellaneous trash
from the support area. Brush and trees will be burned after sufficient drying,
in accordance with Texas Air Control Board regulations (TERA Corp. 1979). The
miscellaneous trash will include shop maintenance debris, wastepaper, and
similar wastes. Disposal will be consistent with the Texas Department of Water
Resources (TDWR) and Texas Department of Health (TDH) regulations (TERA Corp.
1979). Wastewater treatment sludges may arise from package plant treatment of
sanitary wastes (if selected by TMPA) and wash/fuel area wastes, which may
include oil residues. Disposal techniques have not been established for these
sludges at this time, but they also will have to comply with TDWR and TDH re-
gulations .
Although all potential impacts of the GCSES are not being evaluated in
this study, the disposal of solid wastes generated during operation of the
station has been evaluated in conjunction with the lignite mining project. The
steam electric station will generate three major solid waste materials. These
materials are identified below along with the proposed plans for their dis-
posal.
• Bottom ash. This will be sluiced to ash ponds., When ponds are full,
the ash will be dewatered and used for road building or sold to
commercial users (e.g., sand blast material).
• Fly ash. A part of this ash probably will be used in stabilizing flue
gas desulfurization sludges. The remainder has commercial value and
will be sold if adequate local markets can be found.
2-26
-------
• Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) sludge. TMPA plans to use the process
patented by IU Conversions Systems, Inc. to stabilize this sludge. Dis-
posal of the stabilized sludge remains under evaluation, with com-
mercial utilization as a gypsum substitute being the most desirable
alternative. If commercial utilization is not feasible, then disposal
is planned in areas of the Gibbons Creek Lignite Mine Project. These
mined disposal areas currently are not precisely known, but they will
be selected in accordance with TDWR and TDH regulations.
Because of these disposal plans, disposal of FGD sludge in the mine pits may
result in potential environmental impacts at the project site. The
characteristics of the stabilized sludge cannot be determined exactly until
the lignite is burned in quantities sufficient to permit more thorough tes-
ting. Data in Table 2-9 indicate the physical properties of a typical
stabilized FGD sludge, including data on the stability of specific sludge pol-
lutants. These properties are expected to be representative of the stabilized
FGD sludge from the GCSES (Paul Weir Company 1979). Additional information and
approval regarding final disposal plans for fly and bottom ash in the permit
area will be required by the RRC prior to actual disposal.
2.3.9 Monitoring Programs
Surface water and groundwater will be monitored at the Gibbons Creek
Lignite Mine Project. The surface water monitoring program will include
measurements of both water quantity and quality. Stream flow recording
stations for calculating daily and peak flow rates have been installed at the
following three locations (TERA Corp. 1979):
• Gibbons Creek in the vicinity of State Highway 30 about 1 mile east
of the intersection with State Farm to Market Road 244;
• Sulphur Creek about 2 miles southwest of the Singleton community and
downstream from the surface mining south of the Singleton community;
and
• Rock Lake Creek at County Road bridge west of Carlos and south of State
Highway 30.
The surface water quality monitoring program will include determination of
total suspended solids, principal dissolved constituents, total and dissolved
minor constituents, total nutrients, selected physical and organic properties
or constituents, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and selected biological
measurements as needed for the stream flow stations. Additional water quality
monitoring will be determined at the most feasible and accessible downstream
location prior to the convergence with the Navasota River. The parameters
measured and the corresponding measurement frequencies are described in Table
2-10.
2-27
-------
Table 2-9. Physical properties expected for stabilized FGD sludge from
the Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station.
Typical Structural Properties
Wet Density
Dry Density
Moisture Content
Cohesion
Unconfined Compressive Strength
Angle of Friction
Permeability Coefficient
Allowable Bearing Capacity
Typical Stable Fill Slope
Compressibility
When Compacted and Saturated:
Degree of Saturation
Attainment of Saturation
Reliquification Potential
85-100 lb/cu. ft.
65-85 lb/cu. ft.
25-50 Percent Moisture
>2000 lb/sq. ft.
>25 lb./sq. ft.
>30°
10~^-10~® cm/sec
>3 tons/sq. ft.
2:1 (horizontal to vertical)
Negligible
Incomplete
Years, if ever
None
Typical Material Characteristics
(All results except pH in mg/1)
Shake Test Runoff Test
PH
8.5
8.0
Phenolphthalein Alkalinity
30
0
Total Alkalinity
60
30
Hardness
400
480
Sulfite
20
10
Sulfate
450
480
Chloride
150
30
Total Dissolved Solids
1000
800
Calcium
200
240
Arsenic
<.01
<.01
Cadmium
<.01
<.01
Chromium
<.05
<.05
Copper
<.01
<.01
Iron
<.1
<.1
Mercury
<.001
<.001
Manganese
<.02
<•02
Lead
<.03
<.01-.03
Zinc
<.03
<.03
Source: Paul Weir Company. 1979. Surface mining permit application to
the Railroad Commission of Texas, Gibbons Creek lignite mine.
Volume II. Chicago ILL, pp. IX-3, IX-4.
2-28
-------
T.iblc 2-10. Monitoring program parameters for the Gibbons Creek lignite
nine;.
Water Quality Monitoring Parameters **
• Physical Parameters (monthly basis)
Temperature
pH
Dissolved oxygen
Total suspended solids
Electroconductlvlty
• Inorganic Chemicals (monthly basis)
Carbonate
Sulfate
Chloride
Fluoride
Total dissolved
solids
Nitrite nitrogen
Nitrate nitrogen
Total phosphorus
• Physical and Organic Parameters (monthly basis)
Color - Oil and grease
Turbidity - Chemical oxygen
demand (COD)
Total organic carbon (TOC) - Phenols
• Dissolved, Suspended» and Total Minor Elements (quarterly
basis)
-
Aluminum
Lithium
-
Arsenic
Manganese
-
Barium
Mercury
-
Boron
Molybdenum
-
Cadmium
Nickel
-
Chromium
Selenium
-
Copper
Silver
-
Iron
Strontium
-
Lead
Silica
- Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
- Bicarbonate
BOD and Nutrients (monthly basis)
- Biochemical oxygen demand,
5 day (BOD^)
to
fij - Organic nitrogen
vO - Ammonia nitrogen
Table 2-10 Monitoring program parameters (concluded).
Groundwater Quality Monitoring Parameters
• Physical Parameters
Temperature
PH
• Inorganic Chemicals
Alkalinity
Total dissolved solids
Conductivity
* Hardness
Bicarbonate
Chloride
- Sulfate
Fluoride
Nitrate
- Calcium
- Magnesium
- Sodium
- Potassium
• Cation-Anlon Balance
Air Quality Monitoring Parameters*
• Total suspended particulates
• Sulfur dioxide
• Nitrogen dioxide and oxides
• Wind speed and direction
* Parameters measured in conjunction with the Gibbons Creek Steam
Electric Station.
** Currently these parameters will be monitored at each of the locations
identified in Section 2.7.5.11. Other possible locations are being
investigated.
Arsenic
- Aluminum
- Cadmium
- Chromium
- Copper
Iron
Lead
- Manganese
- Molybdenum
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Source: Adapted from: TERA Corp. 1979. Gibbons Creek lignite project
environmental assessment report. Prepared for Texas Municipal
Power Agency. Dallas TX, pp. 2-51, 2-52.
-------
Groundwater monitoring as currently proposed by the applicant, would
involve analysis of samples from four wells during each 5-year mining plan
(Mathewson testimony 1981). The parameters to be analyzed are also indicated
in Table 2-10.
Pending final mining permit conditions likely will require additional mon-
itoring wells be installed down dip of the mine areas. Some wells will be
installed to the depth of the lowest lignite seam mined while others will be
to a depth sufficient to monitor the effects of mining on the first signific-
ant aquifer below the lowest lignite seam to be mixed.
Baseline surface water quality monitoring programs are presently in progr-
ess. Data will be made available as soon as they are received. Periods of high
storm water flows will be monitored for baseline water quality and quantity in
accordance with State and Federal regulations.
2.3.10 Status of Permit Requirements
TMPA must acquire at least one Federal and a number of State permits in
order to construct and operate the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project. The ap-
plicable permits, their issuing agencies, and their status with regard to the
project are summarized in Table 2-11.
2_ 30
-------
T.tMp 2-11. Statu* of applicable permit requirements for tlic Gibbons Creek"
! ir.«> i to projrc I .
I ssii i 11^ A^fin:y
USI'PA Region 6
lVrrol^t
Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air
Quality Construction Permit
Status
Application submitted
11 September 1979,
exempted from permit
requirements on 10
March 1980
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
Permi t
Application submitted
17 October 1979,
decision pending
NJ
Toxas Railroad
Commission,
Surface Mining
and Reclamation
Division, Austin
TX
Exploration Permit
Surface Mining Operation
Permi t
Application submitted
6 March 1980, permit
Issued 13 March 1980
Application under
interim program reg-
ulations submitted 7
June 1979; penult
issued 18 August 1980
Application under
permanent regulatory
program submitted 1
August 1980, permit
decision pending
Texas Department Sanitary Landfill Permit Application submitted
of Health, Austin, (Mine Maintenance Area R February 1980,
TX and Power Plant) division brief filed
1J June 1980, pprmit
Issued 16 July, 1980
Texas Department
of Water Resources
Austin TX
Exploration Permit
Application filed 6
March 1980, permit
Issued 13 March 1980
Table 2-11. Status of applicable permit requirements for the Gibbons Creek
lignite project (Concluded).
Issuing Agency
Permit
Status
Texas Department
of Water Resources
Austin TX
Water Impoundments -
Surface Water Control
TX Water Commission
Temporary Diversions Rock.
Lake Creek to Gibbons Creek
and Dry Creek to Dinner
Creek
Application submitted
mid - 1980, permit
Issued 24 February, 1981
Application will be
submitted
Registration of Industrial
Solid Waste Management Sites
to Serve Power Plant and
Mine
Permit application will
be submitted during mid-
1981
US Army Corps of Section 404 Permit - Disposal 404 permit applicability
Engineers of Dredged or Fill Materials (nationwide and individual
in Waters of the US now being determined; no
permit application made
-------
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES ON AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The nine sections of this chapter evaluate the consequences of implement-
ing the applicant's preferred mining alternative at the Gibbons Creek site.
Because the proposed mining operation is designed to provide fuel for the
Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station (GCSES) and work on the GCSES site has
begun, the discussion of baseline (i.e., existing) conditions at the site must
be understood to include site preparation and construction activities underway
for the GCSES. The following paragraphs contain a summary review of those
activities so as to provide a realistic context for understanding the baseline
and projected impacts of the proposed lignite mining operation.
Site preparation activities for the Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station
began during July 1977, and major construction work started about November
1978. Construction activities are to continue into 1982, with commercial
operation currently estimated to commence about October 1982. During this 5-
year period, a multitude of activities will occur, including land clearing,
excavation, laying of foundations, erection of structures, and the installa-
tion of many major systems, such as the cooling reservoir, pollution control,
and waste disposal. The potential impacts associated with these various acti-
vities are discussed in the Environmental Assessment Report on the Gibbons
Creek Steam Electric Station (TERA Corp. 1977). These impacts will not be
repeated in this analysis, but are integrated where appropriate. Specifi-
cally, the socioeconomic, air quality, and water quality impact areas will be
those that consider the combined effe'cts of both new source facilities (i.e.,
mine and power plant).
A conceptual image of the power plant site is provided in Figure 3-1,
which illustrates the layout of the various components of the GCSES and their
relationship to each other. Figure 3-2 is an artist's conception of the com-
pleted facility. The proximity of the power plant to the lignite mining area
is shown in Figure 3-3. The GCSES site covers an area of about 500 acres. The
areal requirements for prominent structures and facilities such as the switch-
yard, lignite storage piles, power block, ponds, and fuel handling facilities
are less than 100 acres (TERA Corp. 1977). In addition, the Gibbons Creek
reservoir will have an operational surface area of approximately 2,534 acres,
the dam site (excluding reservoir) 45 acres, a railroad spur (off-site) 105
acres, and access roads (off-site) 6 acres, for a total project area of 3,190
acres.
As of June 1979, the construction force at the site numbered about 432
workers. The work force is expected to peak at about 900 during the spring of
1981. A summarized account of the progress and status as of 1 February 1981
for the major components of the GCSES is presented in Table 3—1.
3-1
-------
30
29
20
27
\/
26
25
Switchyard
19
Lignite Receiving Hopper
2
Turbine Room
20
Lignite Dead Storoge
3
boiler
21
Limestone Receiving Hopper
4
Precipitator
22
Ash Pond
5
Office
23
Sewoge Treatment Plant
€
Warehouse
24
Ash Oewatering Tanks
7
Open Storage
25
Fly Ash Silos
0
Maintenance Building
26
Cooling Reservoir
9
Stock
2T
Cooling Water Intake Structure
10
Fuel Oil Storoge Focili ly
26
Fly Ash Disposal Focili ty
II
Sewoge Pump Station
29
Cooling Water Intake Pipeline
12
SO2 Scrubbers
30
Storoge Facility
13
Secondary Crusher
31
Limestone Preparation & Storoge
14
Fuel Transfer House
32
Fuel Transfer Tower
15
Storoge Silos
33
Cooling Water Discharge Pipeline
16
Ready Pile
34
Plant Railrood
17
Primary Breaker
35
Cooling Water Discharge Seal Well
18
Fuel Handling Conveyor
36
Storm Retention Pond Emergency Spillway
L000 0
1,000 2JOOOFECT
Source: TERA Corp. 1977. Environmental Assessment Report, Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station,
prepared for Texa3 Municipal Power Agency. Dallas TX.
Figure 3-1. Layout of Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station.
-------
LO
I
U>
Source: Texas Municipal Power Agency. 1979. Official Statement relating to its revenue
bond series. 1979. Dated 1 March 1979. Arlington, Texas.
Figure 3-2. Artists conception of completed Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station.
-------
IfYi v'/j:^ '
W4W
i *»*
ifrw - v. -*(7^
¦J. V \ i \ i ^Jfr'""- -Tisif
- \ ft j'
T* 1 * ^
"V \ \ ' *.
^t-v. '¦ *
\ 1 *£-
!KS^
*, 5 ~ « O
~ t
v ¦
siN^i.rioM
» f. I ' M
' ' -1"- ' ^WER**
PLANT
Ct&'Zi .V^ w W ¦*.'-» ^ li-' ¦'.' •/•'-•.' *S *\ •
« » m\' •*"•?.*• »•.• ••.•.• •'.••••;• • .o••.••.%• • .»>r " ¦]
*'» * •
PftAlAft
,-4
.,- Y
v£>W
«-ii hmont
ANi^Rscw
SCALE
1
4 MILES
Figure ?-3. Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
Boundary, Grimes Co., TX.
Source: TERA CORPORATION. .1979. Gibbons
Creek Lignite Project, Environmental
Assessment Report.
3-4
-------
Table 3-1. Summary of progress for Gibbons Creek Steam
Station as of 1 February 1981.
Active Construction Contracts
ACTIVITY/COMPONENT % COMPLETE
• Site Preparation 100
• Spur Railroad 100
Lime stabilization and base
being added to ROW. Iola
siding is in use. Track
laying complete south of
Highway 39.
• Access Road (Railroad) 100
Road is now open for vehicular
traffic, contractor cleaning,
and sprigging ditches.
ACTIVITY/COMPONENT % COMPLETE
• Lignite Storage Silos 98
Foundation and slipping
walls nearly complete.
• Boiler Chimney 100
Chimney shell is complete.
• Boiler Structural Steel 100
• Installation of Equipment 55
Continuing.
Foundations (Power Plant) 100
Grouted pile and pilecap con-
struction in the boiler area
is complete. Pilecap instal-
lation continues in precipitator,
and lignite handling areas. Bottom
mat of turbine pedestal has been
poured.
Circulation Water Pipe 100
Installation is 100% complete.
All pipe has been delivered
to site.
Work complete on the intake
structure, seal well, and plant
collection pond.
Warehouses (Power Plant) 100
Structural steel and siding
installation essentially
complete.
Dam, Canal, Pond 100
Reservoir site clearing complete
Core trench and dam is complete.
SOURCE: Prepared by William Beck, Mining Engineer, Texas Municipal Agency on
5 June 1979. Arlington, Texas. Updated via verbal communication,
Dean Matthews, Texas Municipal Power Agency, to D. Keith Whitenight,
WAPORA, Inc., 20 April 1981.
3-5
-------
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES DURING SITE PREPARATION
AND ACTIVE MINING
In this section, the applicant's proposed alternative is evaluated with
respect to the environmental consequences that would result from its
implementation at the Gibbons Creek site. For each environmental component —
earth, water, air, etc. — two discussions are presented. First, the baseline,
or existing conditions are described; and second, the impacts, or changes in
those conditions, are projected and evaluated.
Current Federal guidelines for preparing EIS's have emphasized the
importance of focusing on impacts and requested that the EIS contain only the
baseline information necessary for decisionmakers and lay readers to
understand the projected impacts. This Final EIS is responsive to that
request. Therefore, much of the general "stage-setting" baseline information
presented in the Draft EIS and its appendixes has been eliminated here. For a
broader, less specifically focused description of the existing environment,
the reader is referred to the draft document.
3.1.1 Earth Resources
3.1.1.1 Existing Conditions
Geology of the Project Site
The project site is located centrally among the geologic formations that
outcrop in Grimes County. Local formations shown in a generalized cross
section in Figure 3-4, range in age from Eocene to Holocene. A summary of the
lithology and water-bearing properties of the major stratigraphic associations
in Grimes County is given in Table 3-2. The rock associations listed in Table
3-2 are of importance in Grimes County for their significance to general land
capabilities, as substrates for ecological and hydrologic environments, as
soil-genetic substrates, as sources of near-surface minerals and aggregate,
and as shallow groundwater media or aquifer recharge areas. In areas where
they are buried by more than 200 feet of overburden, the rock associations
take on more significance as deposits of economic (or potentially economic)
minerals requiring deep or in situ mining, as structural units of importance
in screening seismically sensitive sites, as sources of groundwater; and, to
depths of 12,000 feet or more, as possible deep injection repositories for
hazardous waste materials. For the purpose of this EIS, the stratigraphic
units of most interest are the 1,600 feet of Jackson Group sediments, in which
the lignite deposits occur, and the Pleistocene and Holocene terrace and
alluvium deposits along the Navasota River and Gibbons Creek.
The Jackson Group, which contains the lignite proposed to be mined, crops
out in a band 8 to 10 miles wide across the north central part of Grimes
County. The Jackson Group is divided stratigraphically into four formations
that include from oldest to youngest: (1) Caddell Formation, (2) Wellborn
Formation, (3) Manning Formation, and (4) Whitsett Formation. TMPA plans to
mine lignite beds, and to excavate and replace overburden material found in
3-6
-------
SEA LEVEL 0'
2.000' —
4.00? —
6000 —
a&DC —
O Ui
\0PQC —
i2.DOC —
v-V1^
'At,
e0j
^0,
'Cto
F0ff,
V,
'OA,
14,030' —
P'CCO'ed by ° E Lunreii, D G Bebouf. ond J h Seo
16,000'
"i r
10 20
h0RiZ0N"4l SCALE
30 MILES
LOCATION
MAP
Source:
Figure 3-4. Regional cross section of geological formations
in Grimes County, Texas.
Adapted from Bebout, D.G., P.E. Luttreii, and J.H. Seo. 1976. Regional Tertiary
cross-sections - Texas Gulf Coast. Bureau of Economic Geology, Austin, TX.
3-7
-------
Table 3-2. Geologic units and their water bearing properties in Grimes County, Texas.
OJ
t
oo
C
e
n
o
z
0
1
c
E
r
a
SYSTEM
SERIES
GEOLOGIC
APPROXIMATE
MAXIMUM
THICKNESS
(FT)
LITHOLOGY
WATER-SEARING
PROPERTIES
Holocene
Flood-
plain
alluvium
B0+
Fine to coarse, reddish tan sand, gravel, silt,
and reddish brown to brown clay.
Yields small to large amounts of fresh water
to irrigation wells south of Navosoto.
Pleistocene
T errace
deposits
32 +
Fine to coorie reddish brown to brown sand,
gravel, ail;, and clay.
Yields small to large amounts of fresh water to
rural-domestic and livestock wells and large pits
south of Navesota.
Tortiary(7)
Pliocene!?)
Willis
Sand
100
Fine to medium, reddish sand, sill, cJay, and
siliceous gravel of granule to pebble sizo,
including some fossil wood. Iron oxide concre-
tions are abundant.
Yields small amounts of fresh water to rural-
domestic and livestock wells.
Miocene
Fleming
Formation
1,200
Light-gray to yellowish groy, fine to coarse
sand, silt, end calcareous clay. Sand highly
Indurated In places.
Yiolds small to moderate amounts of fresh
woter to public-supply, Irrigation, rural-
domestic, end livestock wells.
Catahoula
Sandstone
1,500
Light-gray, sandy, tuffoceous clay ond mud-
stone In the upper part ond coarse quartz sond
In the lower part. Fossii wood is common.
Yields small to moderate amounts of fresh to
slightly saline wator to public-supply, irrigation,
rural-domestic, and livestock wells.
Jackson
Group
1.600
Gray, laminated to massive, lino to medium
sand; brown, lignitic cloy; Indurated, massive
fine- to medium-groined sandstone; and brown
tuffaceous siltstone.
Yields small to moderate amounts of fresh to
modoroteiy salino water to Irrigation, rural-
domestic, ond livestock wells.
Yegua
Formation
1,175
Light-gray, calcareous, glauconitic, fine to
medium sond, interbedded with indurated, fine-
grained sandstone and brownish sandy clay.
Fossil wood and lentils of lignite are common.
Yields small to moderate amounts of Iresh to
moderately saline wator to public-supply, rural-
domestic. and livestock wells.
Tertiary
Cook
Mountain
Formation
530
Brownish-gray to brown, fossiilferous clay and
some Sandy gl&uconltlc cliiy.
Not an aquifer.
Eocene
Sparta
Sand
350
Very pole orange to grayish-brown, well-sorted,
very fine to fine sand ond some lominated
carbonaceous clay interbeds.
Not known to be tapped by wells but is
capable of yielding large amounts of fresh to
slightly saline water in the northern third of the
county.
Weches
Formation
100
Dark-brown, glauconitic, siity clay and green
sand which is mostly glauconite.
Not an aquifer.
Queen
City
Sand
350
Llght-grav to yellowish orange, carbonaceous,
flno sand and some intorbcos q' brownish gray,
sllty, sandy cloy.
Not tapped by wells but Is capable of yielding
lorge amounts of fresh to slightly saline water in
the northwestern part of the county.
flak low
Formation
300
Brownish-blocW, carbonacoous, silly cloy end
minor omounts of fine to medium glauconitic
sond.
Not an aquifer.
Carrlzo
Sand
185
Lighi-giay, fine to coorsc. oootIv sorted, non-
CBlcarcou* sond. soma oor^ngs of light-gray to
biacV., siliy, carbonaceous cfov.
Not tapped by wells, but is capablo of yielding
largo amounti of slightly saline water in the
northwestern part of the county.
Source: Baker, E.T., Jr., C.R. Follett, G.D. McAdoo, and C.W. Bonnet. 1974. Groundwater resources of Grimes
County, Texas. Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the Texas
Water Development Board. Austin TX, 109 p.
-------
the lower Manning Formation. At least four minable lignite seams are present.
Figure 3-5 shows the general orientation and sequence of lignite and over-
burden materials. The B Bed and Purple Bed are approximately 6 feet thick. The
Super A Bed is thick enough to mine (i.e., thicker than 3 feet) in the south-
western part of the site. The B Bed, which is lowest in the sequence, is
present in the western two-thirds of the site and absent in the eastern third.
The A Bed has an average thickness of 5.8 feet (ranges from 3.0 to 9.5 feet)
and is stratigraphically 175 feet (Mathewson and Bishop 1979) to 190 feet
(TERA Corp. 1979) above the B Bed. It extends diagonally from the southwestern
quarter to the northeastern quarter of the site. The A Bed is thickest in the
southwestern quarter of the project site. The Super A Bed is 30 to 35 feet
above the A Bed; it is equally as extensive and also thins in the northwest
quadrant of the site. The Purple Bed is approximately 150 feet stratigraphi-
cally above the A Bed; it is located only in the southeastern part of the
project site. The lignites of the deposit are continuous for at least 6 to 15
miles along strike and 3 miles along dip, including areas too deep or too thin
to mine (Mathewson and Bishop 1979).
These four lignite seams were deposited as blanket peats over rooted clays
in forested swamp environments that developed on abandoned deltas and over
marine transgressive sands. The minable lignites spread across distributary
channels and have a relatively low (22%) ash and moderate (1.3%) sulfur
content, according to standards defined by Kaiser (1974).
The as-received analysis for the minable lignite beds is summarized below
(TERA Corp. 1979):
As-mined
B Bed
A Bed
Super
A Bed
Purple
Bed
Weighted
Average
% Moisture
33.1
36.6
35.6
39.0
35.5
% Ash
23.9
21.5
25.1
14.8
23.1
% Sulfur
1.1
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.3
BTU/lb
4,710
4,980
4,580
5,590
4,970
Estimated Economic
Reserve in thousands
of tons
42,728
32,932
6,001
18,324
% Recoverable Lignite
43%
33%
6%
18%
The analyses show that the region has lignite which is typical of the Jackson
deposits. The moisture and ash contents are somewhat higher than those of the
more desirable Wilcox deposits to the north, but are slightly above average
for Jackson lignites (Kaiser et al. 1980). The sulfur content is about as low
as can be found in the Jackson lignites and is within the range of low to
moderate for all coal.
3-9
-------
DELTA
PLAIN
LIGNITE
SEAM (
(Discontinue) js)
LIGNITE
SEAM 4
lignite
SEAM 3
LIGNITE
SEAM 2
LIGNITE
SEAM
DELTA SEQUENCE 4
MARINE TRANSGRESSIVE SEQUENCE 3
DELTA SEQUENCE I
—Discontinuous Seam
Seam 4/Purple Bed
|—Seam 3/Super A
¦Seam 2/A Bed
I—Seam l/B Bed
Figure 3-5- Block diagram of sedimentary sequences present at the
project site, Gibbons Creek Lignite Project, Grimes Co. TX.
Source: Paul Weir Company. 1979. Surface mining permit application, Gibbons
Creek lignite mine, Texas Municipal Power Agency. Volume III,
"Stratigraphic Analysis," by Christopher C. Mathewson.
3-9a
-------
In addition to the four lignite beds that TMPA proposes to mine, other
lignite beds occur on the project site as thin beds, interbeddings with clay,
and as discontinuous channel fill deposits or interdistributary lenses of
limited aerial extent. Some of these deposits are up to 4 feet thick. Although
mining of these beds currently is not contemplated because sinuous beds or
beds thinner than 3 feet normally cannot be mined efficiently, exploration is
continuing in order to determine more accurately the extent of these deposits
and the feasibility of recovering them. Even the thicker beds probably will
not be mined because their origin in overbank lowlands between distributaries
has resulted in relatively high sulfide and ash content.
Extensions of the four project site lignite beds or occurrence of analo-
gous deposits in the Manning Formation would be considered deep-basin re-
sources at depths between 200 and 2,000 feet. It is likely that some deep-
basin lignite deposits will be developed in the future by in-situ gasification
techniques. Current technology limits the working depths of such processes to
2,000 feet, but reserves have been calculated by some researchers based on
5,000 foot deep deposits (Fisher 1978). Kaiser has mapped deep-basin lignites
in the Wilcox and Yegua-Jackson Formations underlying the project area, based
on resources at 200 to 2,000 feet depth (Edgar In Kaiser 1978). Mapping and
exploration of both near-surface and deep-basin lignites is continuing.
Underburden and Overburden on the Project Site
The stratigraphy, lithology, and environment of deposition of the
sediments underlying and overlying the.minable lignite beds are discussed in
this section. A separate coring program was carried out during January 1977
under the direction of Dr. C.C. Mathewson to obtain samples for analyses of
the underburden materials below the B Bed, A plus Super A Beds, and the Purple
Bed. These cores were correlated with overburden cores and electric logs
obtained by Paul Weir Company, and1with limited (2-foot or less) core lengths
of underburden obtained during sampling. The Mathewson cores extend from 25 to
30 feet below minable lignite seams. Electric logs normally extend to depths
of about 200 feet below the surface (Personal communication, C.C. Mathewson,
10 July 1979).
B Bed Underburden
The sediments below the B Bed are of deltaic origin and include many
facies changes, especially in the dip direction. The underburden cores were
taken at two locations (3432 NE and 3633 CV), and strike and dip sections were
constructed.
At one location (3432 NE), cores show the following sequence of sediments:
25 feet below the B Bed (approximate depth, 171 feet), the sediment is very
clayey, very fine-grained sand that contains many burroughs. Overlying this
sand are 22.5 feet of interbedded clays, sandy clays, clayey sands, and
slltstones. The clay content varies from 25 to 40%. The sediments contain
small pyrite nodules, scattered lignite flakes, and many green pelletoid
3-10
-------
grains. Mottling, bioturbation, and rooting is common. This sequence is topped
by 1 to 3 feet of gray lignitic clay, that is burrowed and sandier toward the
bottom. The B Bed lies just above this clay unit (Paul Weir Company 1979).
The underburden core at location 3633 CV was taken at that site rather
than at 3533 VW because field conditions precluded access to site 3533 VW
during January 1977 (Paul Weir Company 1979). At site 3533 VW, the B Bed is
5.7 feet thick and was reached at a depth of 58.0 ft. The shallower depth of
the B Bed as compared with the B Bed at site 3432 NE is due mostly to the
downwarp of the stratigraphic structures along strike. The B Bed occurs about
20 feet closer to the surface at site 3633 CV than at site 3533 VW because of
the dip of the beds, but is analagous to the downdip location.
Core 3633 begins 21 feet below the B Bed in a light tan, very fine-grained
sand that is composed of 15 to 35% clay materials. The sand is cross-bedded
with increased bioturbation in the upper layers. The sand grades into 16 feet
of interbedded sandy clays, clayey sands, and silts containing lignite flakes
and rooting. The sand unit is overlain by 3.0 to 3.5 feet of dark brown lig-
nite and pyritic clay that is jumbled and burrowed. The B Bed lies above this
clay (Paul Weir Company 1979).
The sediments described above probably were deposited on a delta plain and
are part of an interdistributary system. The numerous facies changes would be
related to the location of the distributaries, their overbank flooding
patterns, and presence of natural levees and crevasse splays (lobes of flood-
borne sediments deposited at breaches of levees). Differential compaction of
underlying sediments may have caused depressions for localized, small surface
water bodies. These influences result in the small discontinuous lenses, split
and interfingered seams, and general noncyclic nature of the sediments under-
lying the B Bed (Paul Weir Company 1979). Thus, delta plain sediments and high
clay contents are found consistently, whereas facies change from one section
to another.
Delta Sequence 1
Delta sequence 1 is located above the B Bed and below the A Bed (Figure
3-5). Stratigraphic analyses were done by Mathewson (Paul Weir Company 1979)
using overburden and underburden cores and electric logs. Core 3432 primarily
is composed of delta plain swamp deposits alternating with lignite seams,
channel sands, and levee deposits. At the base of the section, swamp deposits
(clays) alternate twice with lignite seams in a 17-foot section. Deposited
upon this is a thoroughly burrowed clayey siltstone, 3.8 feet thick, probably
formed by overbank flooding. An 8.5-foot channel deposit rests on the silt-
stone. It is composed of sands and rock fragments at the base and grades up-
ward into clayey sand and clay. Above the channel deposit is a 1.5-foot clay
and silt channel fill. Swamp deposition then is reestablished for the next 21
feet, high in clay with some pebble conglomerate and with minor sandy laminae
probably from overbank floods. Above this level, the next 57 feet are thin
lignite deposits alternating with clay and silt swamp deposits. Above this is
the A Bed of lignite which is 11.4 feet thick in core 3432 NE.
3-11
-------
Core 3533 VW is characterized by similar deposition. Lignite deposits
alternate with clay-rich swamp and delta deposits. Fine sand belts and a
channel deposit occur at the top of the sequence. In general, delta sequence 1
is high in clays and organics, with discontinuous channel sands. Variations in
facies are related to distance from channels during deposition.
Marine Transgressive Sequences 2 and 3
Sequences 2 and 3 (Figure 3-5) represent intervals of marine transgressive
deposits which have been studied in areas south and east of the first 5-year
permit area. The mapped sequence above Bed A begins with one foot of massive
gray clay overlain by 28 feet of transgressive sands. Delta plain swamp de-
posits are represented by 1.8 feet of dark lignite clay and, above the clay,
the 3.4 foot Super A lignite.
Sequence 3 starts above the Super A Bed and is similar to sequence 2, but
contains a greater thickness of sand. Sequence 3 has 15 feet of swamp and del-
ta plain clays and silt at the base, with a marine clay at the top of the se-
quence. This clay-rich sequence is overlain by approximately 67 feet (approxi-
mate due to core loss) of marine sands, with several sequences of coarse sand
grading to fine sand, and numerous clay, lignite, and carbonaceous beds. These
probably indicate lagoonal or marshy interstages. Sequence 3, based on elec-
tric log correlations, is topped by 10 to 15 feet of silty clays, probably
swamp facies, and then by the Purple Bed lignite seam (Paul Weir Company
1979).
The sands of Sequence 2 and 3 correspond to the Tuttle and Yuman Sand-
stones mapped in this area in the Manning Formation. The Yuma Sandstone forms
ridges throughout the project area, with the exception of one location 2 to 3
miles east of Carlos, where Walton (1959) and Pedrotti (1958) (in Paul Weir
Company 1979) have mapped the Gallaspy Fault. Here a cross section (using lig-
nite as a datum), would show a greater thickness of clays and sands. During
transgression, this was probably the location of a local high, with sands on-
lapping around its margins. Compaction and subsidence of the clays probably
resulted in local subsidence faulting (Paul Weir Company 1979).
Delta Sequence 4
Delta Sequence 4 (Figure 3-5) is characterized by cores and log correla-
tions in the southeastern portion of the project site. Alternating prodelta
and delta front facies are deposited on top of the Purple Bed lignite for
thicknesses up to 125 feet. These are composed of interbedded clayey fine
sands, sandy clays, and silts. From 14 to 47 feet of clean to silty channel
sands and discontinuous clay laminae have been logged showing clean, well-
cemented sands in one location and an overlying 4.8-foot delta plain lignite
at another location. The total thickness of this overburden depends also on
surface topography. At one location, an overlying 16.4 feet of prodelta sandy
clays and clayey fine sands occurs. Interbedded with small lignite beds and
detritus, and 16.4 feet of clay with fine sands and silts (recent Navasota
River-related flood deposits) are encountered before reaching near-surface
3-12
-------
soil horizons. Delta Sequence 4 is dominated by clays, silts, and sands of
prodelta, delta front, and channel deposits (Paul Weir Company 1979).
Other Mineral Resources
Oil and Gas Fields
Preparations are currently proceeding for extraction of previously
untapped oil and gas reserves recently discovered in an old oil and gas field
near Kurten, Texas, in Brazos County, about 8 miles northeast of Bryan. In
addition, two oil fields, the Millican and East Millican, are located in
Miocene or younger sediments in Brazos County, just west and east, respec-
tively, of the town of Millican, The East Millican field extends to within 1
mile south of the mouth of Gibbons Creek (By letter [with map], James Smyth,
Fort Worth District COE, 5 June 1979).
Several small oil fields in Jackson Group sediments have been developed in
southern Walker and northern Montgomery Counties, to the east of Grimes County
(Fisher et al. 1979; Bureau of Economic Geology 1976). These are in deltaic
trend sediments, and suggestions for exploration (Fisher et al. 1970) favor
gulfward Jackson Group delta front lobes such as may be found in southern
Grimes County.
Oil and gas trends within other Gulf Basin delta systems, including the
lower Wilcox and Yegua Formations, are much more prolific. These correspond to
oil and gas fields mostly to the south, southeast, and east of Grimes County,
outside the project site.
Uranium Minerals
The Gibbons Creek project area is located in a zone of potential uranium
mineralization (Bureau of Economic Geology 1976). A factor promoting uranium
mineralization is presence of alkaline groundwater, as is common in arid or
semiarid climates. Because the climate in the Gibbons Creek area does not
promote alkalinity in groundwater, prospects for significant mineralization in
the delta system are judged marginal (Fisher et al. 1970). Detailed analyses
of two composite lignite samples from the minable lignites collected in 15
cores showed relatively low uranium content (2 ppra), but no uranium analyses
were performed on the interdisciplinary lignites or on organic clays of the
study area, which might also be effective host media.
Additional Resources
Other earth resources occur in the project area, but they are of minor
importance:
• Clay - compact, noncalcareous clays occur in this discontinuous beds
in the Yegua Formation, suitable for brick and tile (Sellards et al.
1978); some of the Jackson clays may be of economic value, depending
on content of sands and calcareous and organic material.
3-13
-------
• Fuller's Earth - fuller's earths are clay minerals used in industry
as absorbents and for filtering impurities. Fuller's earth derived
from volcanic ash deposits occur and have been developed in Grimes
County in the Jackson and Catahoula Formations.
• Geothermal Resources - sedimentary sequences containing fluids that
have abnormally high pressures and temperatures (geopressurized
systems) occur in the Gulf Coast region at depths generally of 10,000
feet or more. The nearest potential geopressurized geothermal zones
occur in the Wilcox Formation in a band that runs southwest to
northeast, about 5 miles south of Grimes County at its nearest extent
(Bureau Of Economic Geology 1976).
• Sand and Gravel - small sand and gravel sources are plentiful in the
project area from bedrock outcrops of loosely consolidated sandstones
and from alluvial floodplain deposits.
Soils of the Project Area
All project area soils have not been mapped systematically by the US Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) or other cooperators of the National Cooperative
Soil Survey. Individual plots and holdings have been mapped in the general
area in response to specific needs. The SCS will be continuing with detailed
soil surveys for the entire 30-year mining area including mineralogical and
productivity analyses. This information will be used by TMPA during mine and
reclamation planning. TMPA contracted to map and analyze the soil associations
of the project area and the soils series of the first 5-year permit area. The
results of these field and laboratory studies follow.
Analyses of soils in the project area were performed by Brown and Deuel
(1977, updated and revised by Brown 1980). The area selected for soils studies
includes part of the area surrounding the sites designated1 for mining and for
the GCSES and support facilities. The Brown and Deuel study involved general
delineation of regional soil associations. Soil samples were taken of the A
horizons at seven locations and then were physically and chemically analyzed
for pH, texture, water retention, nutrients (nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus,
and organic matter), and salinity (water soluble salts). Profile samples of
the major soil series also were analyzed for cation exchange capacity and base
saturation in addition to the above characteristics.
Brown and Deuel identified the soils in, the project area as Alfisols and
Ultisols. These are mineral soils with a surface characterized by low organic
content, relatively low base saturation, and generally light color. Alfisols
have a base saturation greater than 35%. Ultisols have less than 35% base
saturation. Both Alfisols and Ultisols have an argillic (clay) horizon and
typically' are acid in soil reaction. Although they occur in a humid moisture
regime, they may be seasonally droughty in part because of the textural dis-
continuity between the surface and subsurface, and because of the low water
holding capacity induced by the low organic and clay content of the surface.
Native fertility of both soil types is relatively low, and these soils are
fertilized to maximize production of pasture or crops (Brown and Deuel 1977).
3-14
-------
Soil Permeability
Soil permeability is of concern because it is important for soils to have
sufficient permeability to absorb and transmit water and neither allow excess
runoff, nor become water logged. The permeability of the existing surface
soils ranges from 0.45 to 3.66 centimeters per hour (cm/hr). The permeability
of the subsoil located at a depth of 6 to 8 inches is very low, and was
measured to be less than 0.05 cm/hr. At permeabilities less than 0.5 cm/hr,
the topsoil quickly fills with water and most of the remainder runs off. In
addition, the root systems are shallow, and the soils are not productive
during dry periods (Brown and Deuel 1977).
Agricultural Land Use Capability Classes
The following paragraphs identify the agricultural land use capability
classes for the major native soils in the project area. The area includes
capability classes 1 through 7, with several management groups in each.
• Class 1 includes only the Gowen soil series. It has few to no
permanent limitations and is subject to only slight erosion hazard.
• Class 2 soils have moderate permanent limitations. Subclasses s and w
are limited because of coarse textured soil and wetness respectively.
Soils in Class 2 include Bienville, Gowen, and Kaufman.
• Class 3 includes soils which have severe limitations that reduce the
choice of plants and require special conservation practices. They may
be used for cultivated crops only if special practices are used.
Subclass 3e includes soils which are limited due to erosion hazards;
subclass 3s soils are limited because of coarse texture; and subclass
3w soils are limited due to excess wetness. Soils in Class 3 includes
the Arol, Axtell, Bienville, Demona, Elraina, Falba, Gladewater,
Landman, Lufkin, Padina, Rader, Straber, and Wilson series.
• Class 4 has very severe permanent limitations restricting the choice
of plants, and requiring very careful management. Subgroup 4e is
limited specifically because of erosion hazards while subgroup 4w is
limited specifically because of flooding hazards. Soils in Class 4
include Arol, Axtell, Burlewash, Demona, Elmina, Falba, Gladewater,
Iuka, Padina, and Wilson series.
• Class 5 soils have little or no erosion hazards but have other
limitations that are impractical to remove that limit their use
largely to pasture, range woodland, or for wildlife food and cover.
Subclass 5w also is limited due to flood hazards. Soil series in
Class 5 include the Gladewater, Gowen, Kanebreak, Kaufman, Kosse, and
Nahtche.
3-15
-------
• Class 6 includes soils that have severe limitations making them
nearly unsuited for cultivation and limiting their use largely to
pasture or range, woodland or wildlife food and cover. Subclass 6e
soils are limited specifically due to erosion hazards. Soils in Class
6 include the Axtell, Burlewash, Falba, and Padina series.
• Class 7 soils have very severe hazards and limitations and only are
suited to permanent vegetation grazing. Subgroup 7w specifically is
limited by wetness. Of the soils in the area studied, only the
Koether series is in Class 7.
In review, the agricultural value of area soils is limited primarily to
pasture and range. Where attempts have been made to grow row crops, the yields
have been minimal, and would be insufficient to justify their use.
Other Uses of Native Soils
The native soils are not very useful for most non-agricultural purposes
evaluated by Brown and Deuel (1977). All these soils have moderate to severe
limitations on their usefulness for the disposal of sewage in septic tanks
because of the low permeability of the subsoil. Except for Landman and Padina
soils, which are good sources of road fill, all the soils are poor to fair
sources of road fill and topsoil, and are poor sources of sand or gravel. In
most categories, soils have moderate to severe limitations for community de-
velopment, mainly because of the shrinking-swelling characteristics of the
subsoil, which cause difficulties with foundations and slabs. Flooding or.
excess wetness during part of the year also limits their use for such purpose.
Considering the water management characteristics of the soils, it appears
that, except for the deep sands, all soils are suitable for the construction
of pond reservoirs within small watersheds. Most of the soils are not suitable
for irrigation or drainage due to slow percolation.
The Gladewater, Gowen, Kanebreak, Kosse, and Nahatche soils are flooded
several times per year; none of the other soils experiences flooding. The
water table for all but the Axtell, Burlewash, Goweji, Koether, Landman,
Padina, and Straber soils will be close to the surface during the wet periods
of the year because the low permeability of these soils does not allow the
surface layout to drain effectively.
For recreational activities, all soils have moderate to severe limita-
tions* The excess wetness during parts of the year limits their use for
camping, playgrounds, picnic grounds, paths, and trails.
The areas covered with unmanaged woods generally contain tree species of
low value. Seedlings often are difficult to establish and in some instan-
ces, introduced pine plantings have not survived (Arthur Benton, Texas A&M
University, interview 26 April 1979). In favorable years, however, plantings
of loblolly pine, slash pine, cottonwood, or sweet gum seedlings may be
3-16
-------
successful. Choices of species will depend on specific site characteristics.
In general, the native vegetation provides fair to good habitat for woodland
wildlife.
Soils of the Project Site
The detailed survey and mapping of the soils occurring on the first 5-year
permit area and certain contiguous areas was conducted by Brown and Wilding
(1979, 1980) under contract to TMPA. The area of study and the mapping units
are shown on Exhibit A (revised as presented in this final EIS) and described
on the soils legend in Table 3-3.
The area of the detailed soils mapping is 5,430 acres, in which 77 field
samples were collected in the A horizons. Depths of soil units were measured
at each sampling location. The samples were analyzed for pH, texture,
nutrients (nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, and organic matter), salinity
(water soluble salts), and water retention.
Approximately 35% of the area of study is comprised by Falba, Arol, and
Elmina soils. These are major soil series throughout the project area. The
remaining area is composed primarily of Nahatche, Kosse, Kanebreak, and Iuka
soils associated with floodplains, and Burlewash fine sandy loams on uplands
(Personal communications, Kirk W. Brown, Texas A 4 M University, 17 July
1979).
The upland soils, which dominate the project site, mostly are thin fine
sandy or silty loams overlying clay-rich subsoils. They are somewhat poorly
drained (except the Burlewash Series), with low to moderate runoff and very
low permeability. The soils are low in organic content and nutrients, and are
moderately to strongly acidic. Erosion hazards are moderate for soils in the
undisturbed state, but high for concentrated flow areas such as irrigation
channels, terraces and diversions, or grassed waterways. Piping, the situation
in which runoff water erodes beneath the surface of the soil, also may occur
with these soils.
The floodplain soils are silty to sandy loams and clay loams, and have low
organic content. The soil pH ranges from neutral to very strongly acid, with
some alkaline subsoils. The floodplain soil^ units typically have high water
tables, and moderate to low permeabilities.
3.1.1.2 Impacts on Earth Resources
Generally, the proposed mining process will cause complete short-term
instability during disruption of existing soil conditions, followed by a
long-term period of instability during which reclamation, settlement, and
revegettion of the mined areas will occur. The degree of success in
recovering lignite, mitigating long-term adverse effects, and achieving the
desired land reclamation and revegetation is unknown.
3-17
-------
Table 3-3 • Soils legend, survey of first 5-year permit area, Gibbons Creek
lignite project, Grimes County TX.
Map Symbol Soil Mapping Unit Slope (%')
0 Disturbed land 0-1
3 Bienville loamy fine sand 0-1
5 Landman fine sand 0-1
5-97 Landman - Gowen complex 0-1
6A Falba fine sandy loam 0-1
6BC Falba fine sandy loam 1-5
6BC3 Falba fine sandy loam, eroded 1-5
7 A Arol fine sandy loam 0-1
7BC Arol fine sandy loam 1-5
9 Koether stony loamy sand 0-1
10BC Wilson silt loam 1-5
13 Kaufman clay 0-1
18BC Lufkin fine sandy loam 1-5
20EF Padina loamy fine sand 8-12
25BC Rader fine sandy loam 1-5
32 Iuka fine sandy loam 0-1
32-5 Iuka - Landman, complex 0-1
74BC Axtell 1-5
44 Kosse clay loam 0-1
A7 Nahatche loam 0-1
48 Kenebreak clay loam 0-1
62 Burlewash - Gullied land complex, acid 1-20
70A Burlewash fine sandy loam 0-1
70BC Burlewash fine sandy loam 1-5
70BC3 Burlewash fine sandy loam, eroded 1-5
70D Burlewash fine sandy loam 5-8
74BC Axtell - Tabor 1-5
87BC Rader gravelly fine sandy loam 1-5
95BC Straber loamy fine sand (variant) 0-5
97 Gowen fine sandy loam 0-1
99 Gladewater clay 0-1
3-18
-------
Table 3-3 • Soils legend, survey of first 5-year permit area, Gibbons Creek
lignite project, Grimes County TX (Concluded).
Map Symbol
Soil Mapping Unit
Slope (%)
105BC
105D
132
Elmina loamy fine sand
Elmina loamy fine sand
Demona loamy sand
1-5
5-8
0-1
Source: Brown, K.W. and L.P. Wilding. 1979 (expanded and revised March 1980
by K.W. Brown). Characterization and classification of the soils on the
TMPA mine site in Grimes Co., Texas. A report to Texas Municipal Power
Agency. 84 p.
3-19
-------
The potential environmental impacts on earth resources fall into three
basic categories:
• Effects on surface landforms;
• Effects on the subsurface composition; and
• Effects on the soil cover.
Effects on Surface Landforms
Mining and reclamation will transform the subsurface to a mass of
fragmented materials with a variable (random) composition. During mining, the
land surface will be cut, removed, and then replaced. The physical impact of
these opertions will be short-term but unavoidable; any landform resembling a
natural environment will be temporarily lost.
Following reclamation, the land surface will be higher than it was prior
to mining. This is due to an initial "swell factor" of about 20%, an increase
in volume that will occur from the mechanical breaking and pulverizing of the
clay and shale materials. These materials in their pre-mining condition are
well compacted from the original sorting process during deposition by water
and the extended effects of pressure and time. Wheathering processes and
gravity will eventually reduce and dens ify the reclaimed sediments bat the
jumbled texture will persist, as well as some of the increase in volume. The
net amount of this residual volume increase, however, has not been determined.
Redensification may occur at a rapid rate immediately after reclamation (as
much as 10 inches/day during the first day) but quickly diminishes and reaches
0.2 to 0.05 ft/yr within about 5 years after mining (Mathewson et al. undated;
TMPA Corp. 1979; Schneider 1977). Based on this research, 80% of the
settlement of the mined surface may be expected to occur within 3 years.
However, scattered locations of slumping due to differential settling may
occur and may expose soils to increased erosion. TMPA would be required to
rectify any significant slumping or bank erosion to satisfy requirements of
the Railroad Commission of Texas for release of the reclamation bond.
Effects on Subsurface Composition
The physical and chemical characteristics of the mined overburden and the
mine floor underburden will be altered by the proposed project. Effects on
the underburden will be dependent on the care taken in the use of mining
machinery and haul trucks. Potential sources of impact include:
3-20
-------
• Excavation, accidental gouging, or traffic erosion (rutting) of the
mine floor;
• Introduction of slightly saline groundwater from Jackson Group aquifers
to less saline, lower-lying aquifers; and
• Introduction of spills, principally petroleum products and fuels, from
machinery.
The potential for adverse environmental effects varies with underburden
composition. In the first 5-yer permit area, .the underburden is rich in clays
and is of low permeability. Groundwater seepage into the mine will form
pools; pumping is proposed to remove groundwater, accumulated rainwater, and
any occasional spills. A minor portion of these liquids will permeate the
underburden, but most liquid is expected to be retained in the overburden.
Potential for impact can be minimized by:
• Limiting operations during extremely wet conditions until excess water
can be removed;
• Surfacing pit haul roads and rstricting truck traffic to surfaced
areas;
• Training and supervising dragline and bulldozer operators to avoid
gouging or removing clay layers; and
• Care and planning in site sumps so as to use thick clay deposits, or
lining sumps with impermeable material.
The underburdens of future mining areas are the top layers of either delta
or marine transgressive sedimentation sequences. The A-Bed underburden is de-
lta sequence 1 (Section 3.1.1.1) and is rich in clay, although sandy channel
deposits about 8 feet thick are known to occur in the top of the sequence.
Mitigation of impacts will be dependent on an effective sump, which may need
to be lined or located away from channel deposits.
The underburden materials of the Super A Bed and the Purple Beds are
sandy marine transgressive sequences. The Super A Bed has only a thin lignite
clay underlying it, then 28 feet of sands. The potential would be high for
breaking through these materials, but the preliminary mining plans (TERA Corp.
1979) specify that the Super A Bed will be mined only along with the lower A
Bed. This may minimize potential problems because the A Bed underburden is
more stable.
The Purple Bed underburden is 10 to 15 feet of silty clays overlying 65 to
70 feet of beds that primarily are sands. For practical and environmental
reasons, the mining machinery should avoid breaking into or disrupting the
silty clay underlying the Purple Bed. There will be a compaction of the
underburden materials in all cases, but sand materials, which compact the
least, are structurally the most fragile and environmentally sensitive. The
existing overburden materials are characterized by acidic clays and separate
3-21
-------
strata of silts and sands that produce more neutral and alkaline reactions
(Brown and Deuel 1977). the applicant proposes that the bulk of the deep-
lying mixed spoil will have very low permeability, impeding groundwater move-
ment and (deep seated) infiltration in the first 5-year permit area. Similar
conditions are expected in the Purple Bed mining areas. For thee reasons, the
chemical character of the mixed spoil in these two areas could be similar to
the existing overburden if complete mixing occurs. Acidic clays and pyrites
will be present in the mixed spoil, along with materials of neutral and alka-
line reaction. The clay shale overburden materials effectively will seal the
deeper portions of these reclaimed mine sites from surface recharge.
Although chemical reactivity will be low, there likely will be some effect on
the surrounding strata. The effect is expected to be insignificant.
The reclaimed spoil that will be associated with the A and Super A Bed
mining areas will be composed of marine transgressive sands that have a higher
permeability. These overburden materials would not be sealed effectively from
lateral artesian aquifer pressures. The restored overburden in these mine
areas has potential for leaching of metals, with consequent contamination of
groundwater, as discussed further in Section 3.1.2.2. Present knowledge of
the true groundwater regime of the area is based on relatively few ob-
servations. More exact understanding would require a comprehensive program of
observations wells and surface observation throughout the projected mine area.
Changes in the subsurface composition will affect not only the physical
and chemical features of the subsurface, but also will result in two other
kinds of Impact:
)
(1) Loss of the geologic record in mined areas - Sedimentary structures
and fossil records that serve as geologic tools in the study of pale-
oenvironment will be destroyed during mining and reclamation. Such
tools have been used in locating and selecting minable lignite beds
in this area, and could be applied to the location of other resources
of potential importance, or for increasing the body of scientific
knowledge. However, the information gained during the investigations
that mapped the lignite deposit constitutes a very detailed record of
the strata that are to be disturbed, and this information will be
retained.
(2) Preclusion or limitation of resource recovery for other minerals at
the site - The mining and reclamation process will result in the loss
of significant mixing of other potential mineral resources in the
overburden. A review of known uranium, sand and gravel, and ad-
ditional shallow lignite resources in the overburden does not reveal
the existence of deposits of economic importance. Development of
lignite deposits that may be very deep under the mining site would
not be jeporadized by this project because any use of these resources
3-22
-------
can be obtained without surface mining, using current technology.
Similarly, drilling for oil or gas, in the event they are discovered,
would not be restricted by the project, although geophysical pros-
pecting by seismic refraction could be more difficult in areas where
the overburden has been disrupted. The difficulty would be due to
decreased acoustic transmissivity.
Uranium concentrations at the site are too low for commercial development.
This is probably due to the unsuitable character of the groundwater condi-
tions in this area north of the Colorado River (Fisher et al. 1970). It would
be unlikely that a mining effort directed at uranium recovery would take place
in the future. In conclusion, the body of geologic knowledge that is now and
will later be assembled in connection with mining the lignite deposits proba-
bly exceeds the knowledge that would be gained by leaving the geologic record
undisrupted and forfeiting the economic stimulation of mining.
Effects on Soils
The routine mining procedure proposed by TMPA would remove all of the
overburden including topsoil, in one operation and replace the material in a
random mixed condition. Reclamation would seek to develop a new soil system
on the treated surface of the reclaimed replaced material. The process would
be modified where necessary to prevent placement of harmful material (general-
ly acid-forming pyrite deposits) at or near the reclaimed surface. The
procedure would be modified under certain circumstances such as when re-
forestation is the proposed post-mining land use or when prime farmland soils
are to be disturbed. For these situations (although they seldom should
occur), interim mining permit provisions currently specify (provisions are
subject to change pending issuance of the final mining permit):
• When the reclamation plan identifies an area to be reforested¦, a suit-
able topsoil must be replaced to a minimum depth of 12 inches pending
field trial test plot research that demonstrates the suitability of
mixed overburden for reforestation; and
• If any areas to be mined contain prime farmlands, the topsoil must be
segregated, protected, and replaced unless documentation can be
provided showing that the resulting spoil medium is equal to or
more suitable for sustaining revegetation than the existing topsoil.
The proposed method for handling overburden still has a relatively high
probability of undesirable soil conditions occurring, particularly over the
long-term. Success of the proposed procedure will depend on the realization
of the following conditions:
• Toxic and/or acid-forming materials must be recognized if present in
material which could be placed at or near the reclaimed surface. When
recognized, it must be placed at least 4 to 5 feet below the surface to
prevent formation of hot spots.
3-23
-------
• The nutrient levels and pH of the surface layer of the replaced mater-
ial must be adjusted to produce conditions favorable for sustained
growth of the desired vegetation.
• Management must continue until a viable soil system is established that
will maintain plant cover and the desired post-mining land use without
the need for sustained high levels of management.
Constraints on this procedure would include the following considerations:
• The manner in which the overburden material is replaced (in discrete
masses equal to the volume of the dragline bucket) will result in
many heteregenous patches of surface material. Adjacent surface
areas may have differing textures and chemical characteristics within a
distance of a few yards. Tfyis could make fertilization and pH
adjustments difficult to apply in a uniform coverage.
• If all harmful material is not identified and is placed at or near the
reclaimed surface, it would likely occur in the same random pattern of
small areas, making remedial treatment or removal more difficult.
• It is uncertain that the high levels of management required to maintain
the proposed post-mining land use will continue indefinitely following
release of the reclamation bond. Failure to adequately maintain the
land will contribute to loss of productivity, increased erosion, and
reduced stability.
Characteristics of Mixed Overburden
The soil characteristics (and revegetation potential) of the mixed over-
burden after reclamation were (predicted from) limited to field sampling and
laboratory testing done by Brown and Deuel (1977) and Mathewson (1979), and
from comparison with similar reclamation experiences at the Big Brown lignite
mine in Freestone County, Texas.
The permeability and water retention of the upper several feet of the
overburden generally should be improved over that of existing soils. Brown
and Deuel (1977) tested the permeability of the mixed overburden and existing
soils at seven core locations. Existing soil permeabilities range from 0.45
to 3.66 cm/hr, but at depths of 6 to 8 inches, measured permeabilities were
less than 0.05 cm/hr. This caused wet surface conditions after very little
infiltration of rainwater, and little wet water retention afterwards. The
permeabilities of mixed overburden cores ranged from 0.91 to 5.63 cm/hr, with
a minimum of compaction.
Kennedy and Mathewson (1978) have proposed in laboratory studies that
permeability of clay shale and clayey sand spoil in reclaimed Texas surface
minds decreases extremely rapidly at depth because of redensification of
the sediments. Sand, the least affected sediment studied, when disturbed
3-24
-------
and reclaimed by mining, showed reduction in permeability by a factor of 100
to 1000. For surface soils, however, the lower permeability subsoils, which
are now clay layers at depths of 6 to 8 inches, would occur at depths of 3
feet or more in the reclaimed soils. This would allow significantly higher
volumes of surface infiltration to enter the soil horizons and allow for a 4
to 5 times deeper root zone in the reclaimed soils (Brown and Deuel 1977).
Because water retention data are not available from actual field con-
ditions, they have been calculated by means of laboratory suction tests for
saturated surface soil and mixed overburden samples Brown and Deuel (1977).
These tests suggested that mixed overburden materials retain and release an
average of 20% more water than the existing soils. This water would be
available to plants. Existing soils also are sometimes lower in pH (more acid)
than mixed overburden samples at the same sites, as shown below (Brown and
Deuel 1977):
Location Surface Soil pH Mixed Core pH
3737
QQ
5.1
6.6
3636
VG
6.6
5.9
3534
EE
6.9
6.0
3432.
NE
5.2
7.0
3332
SS
6.2
6.3
3533
VW
-
7.0
3332
VQ
-
7.0
Because the field test plot only removed overburden to depths of 25 and 35
feet, there is the likelihood that any potential harmful material would have
already oxidized through weathering thus providing more favorable surface and
root zone material. Much of the actual mixed spoil, however, will not be
weathered, as are the present surface soils. Therefore, the potential acidity
of the mixed spoil at the surface could be in reality much higher than
indicated above, because of the presence of unoxidized pyrite and the capacity
for smectite clays to weather rapidly and release aluminum ions (Al+^) and
perpetuate excess hydrogen (low pH) in the presence of water.
Oxidative equilibrium studies also were conducted on mixed overburden
samples for an 8-week period in hot, humid greenhouse conditions. Samples
were ground fine to accelerate reactions and to simulate the equilibrium con-
ditions that would be attained in field conditions over longer periods (Brown
and Deuel 1977). The results showed that, of seven samples, three
equilibrated to slightly alkaline conditions (pH 7 to 8), two equilibrated to
moderately acid conditions (pH 4.5 to 5.5), and two equilibrated to very acid
conditions (pH 2 to 4.5). The most acidic samples were from cores 3534 EE and
3636 VG, which are outside the first 5-year mining area. The two samples that
fall within the first 5-year mining area (3533 VW and 3432 NE) gave slightly
alkaline reactions. No generalizations, however, can be made as to predicted
3-25
-------
the least affected sediment studied, when disturbed and reclaimed by mining,
showed reduction in permeability by a factor of 100 to 1000. For surface
soils, however, the lower permeability subsoils, which are now clay layers at
depths of 6 to 8 inches, would occur at depths of 3 feet or more in the re-
claimed soils. This would allow significantly higher volumes of surface
infiltration to enter the soil horizons and allow for a 4 to 5 times deeper
root zone in the reclaimed soils (Brown and Deuel 1977).
Because water retention data are not available from actual field con-
ditions, they have been calculated by means of laboratory suction tests for
saturated surface soil and mixed overburden samples Brown and Deuel (1977).
These tests suggested that mixed overburden materials retain and release an
average of 20% more water than the existing soils. This water would be
available to plants. Existing soils also are sometimes lower in pH (more acid)
than mixed overburden samples at the same sites, as shown below (Brown and
Deuel 1977):
Location Surface Soil pH Mixed Core pH
Because the field test plot only removed overburden to depths of 25 and 35
feet, there is the likelihood that any potential harmful material would have
already oxidized through weathering thus providing more favorable surface and
root zone material. Much of the actual mixed spoil, however, will not be
weathered, as are the present surface soils. Therefore, the potential acidity
of the mixed spoil at the surface could be in reality much higher than
indicated above, because of the presence of unoxidized pyrite and the capacity
for smectite clays to weather rapidly and release aluminum ions (Al+^) and
perpetuate excess hydrogen (low pH) in the presence of water.
Oxidative equilibrium studies also were conducted on mixed overburden
samples for an 8-week period in hot, humid greenhouse conditions. Samples
were ground fine to accelerate reactions and to simulate the equilibrium con-
ditions that would be attained in field conditions over longer, periods (Brown
and i Deuel 1977). The results showed that, of seven samples, three
equilibrated to slightly alkaline conditions (pH 7 to 8), two equilibrated to
moderately acid conditions (pH 4.5 to 5.5), and two equilibrated to very acid
conditions (pH 2 to 4.5). The most acidic samples were from cores 3534 EE and
3636 VG, which are outside the first 5-year mining area. The two samples that
fall within the first 5-year mining area (3533 VW and 3432 NE) gave slightly
alkaline reactions. No generalizations, however, can be made as to predicted
3737 QQ
3636 VG
3534 EE
3432 NE
3332 SS
3533 VW
3332 VQ
5.1
6.6
6.9
5.2
6.2
6.6
5.9
6.0
7.0
6.3
7.0
7.0
3-25
-------
acidity in broad areas; this is because the equilibrated acidities are the re-
sult of the composition of the cores before mixing, and composition varies
widely from core to core.
The acidity of the randomly mixed spoil has the potential to cause adverse
impacts through the production of acid leachates and through interference with
plant growth. Acid conditions in soils also can cause leaching of trace
metals such as lead, beryllium, and selenium in concentrations above recom-
mended standards, and of the more abundant aluminum and manganese in toxic con-
centrations. In addition, to the extent that plant growth (revegetation) is
unsuccessful, soils will be exposed to wind and water erosion, with attendent
increases in sediment and total suspended solid (TSS) levels in surface water
runoff.
To help mitigate these potential adverse impacts, it is expected that TMPA
will be required by mining permit provisions to test reclaimed soils and add
lime to the regraded overburden when necessary. Contamination by trace
metals, aluminum, and manganese toxicity can be prevented by maintaining pH
above 5.5 in reclaimed soils. This is a potentially serious but controllable
adverse effect of mining and reclamation that can be mitigated through
conscientious implementation and surveillence of reclamation activities. Some
monitoring of groundwater and surface waters also will be conducted by TMPA to
determine the extent of impact and appropriate remedial actions.
The fertility and tillage potential of the overburden spoil should be
improved over time through effective maintenance and proper soil treatments.
Mixed spoil generally would be characterized by sandy loam textures with high-
er clay content, higher permeability, and more available soil moisture in the
root zone than present soil. Chemical analyses and vegetative studies (Brown
and Deuel 1977) indicate that basic cations, metal ions, and potassium levels
also are higher in mixed spoil possibly resulting in improved plant growth.
However, nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic matter are low in both the existing
soils and the mixed overburden spoil. Furthermore, laboratory tests showed
that treatment with lime alone resulted in only one case of improved growth in
mixed overburden as compared with existing soil. Therefore, fertilization
with nitrogen, phosphorus, and or other elements that may be lacking in re-
claimed soils should be considered as necessary mitigative measures, along
with addition of lime.
Fluctuation in rainfall also is a sifnificant variable that could affect
revegetation success because of potential soil erosion. When reclamation
takes place during dry months, the available moisture content of the reclaimed
spoil will be low, thus the success of revegetation may be reduced because of
the lack of water at these times. Although artificial irrigation might help,
this could require large amounts of water, that have not been planned for in
the TMPA mine plan.
3-26
-------
Because TMPA primary focused on only one overburden handling method -
replacing randomly mixed overburden - other overburden handling methods were
identified and evaluated qualitatively by EPA (Section 3.4). These incuded
replacing topsoil (A-horizon) over randomly mixed overburden; replacing upper
wathered zone over randomly mixed overburden; and replacing topsoil over
weather zone above randomly mixed overburden.
These handling methods should be considered in more detail by TMPA as pos-
sible mitigative options to the currently proposed technique, which has the
highest risk of revegetation problems occurring. Also, because it is ulikely
that the high levels of management required to maintain the proposed post-
mining land use will continue over the long-term (i.e., following bond
release), additional field trials are needed to determine the performance of
reclaimed lands under different overburden handling methods and under various
levels of management and grazing patterns that are more representative of
actual post-mining conditions. The field test plots should be designed to
compare the relative productivity and stability of the pre-mining and "post-
mining land uses. Testing should include treatments where fertilizer and lime
inputs cease and the land is overgrazed. TMPA has agreed to perform such a
testing program and modify its reclamation procedures if the research shows
the system to be unstable during the post-reclamation period. It is expected
that TMPA also will be collecting and analyzing composite samples of
overburden to depths of 4 feet where random mixing occurs as well as in areas
where topsoils are selectively handled (the composite sampling and testing
program likely will be required via mining permit provisions).
Wind and Water Erosion of Soils
Wind erosion is not a significant problem under existing conditions, but
wind and water erosion of exposed soils could occur where reclamation is not
successful and additional treatment is necessary. Also problems could result
if heavy rainfalls or storm conditions o'ccur prior to reestablishment of
vegetation or other suitable ground cover. These effects should be mitigated
by planned measures to minimize the amount of exposed area, not remove ex-
isting vegetation sooner than necessary, and regrade, treat, and seed or sprig
soils as soon as feasible after mining.
Areas graded for dikes, levees, road fills, and diversion channels also
must be seeded and/or mulched as soon as possible following construction.
Diversion channels should have growing grass before they are put into use or.
gullying can be expected when the initial surface flows take place. These ef-
fects can be minimized by reseeding or resprigging in troublesome spots and by
compaction of the soils. Most sediments transported by surface runoff would
be directed to sedimentation ponds and are not expected to reach surface
streams.
The loose clay loams of reclaimed surfaces may exhibit the greatest potential
for erosion problems. The reclaimed soils are expected to be susceptible to
erosion until successful revegetation is complete (by telephone, C.C. Mathew-
3-27
-------
son, 6 July 1979). The presence of smectites, bentonites,. and other easily
weathered clays will result in some alternating ponding and drying of surface
soils, with potential for mud cracks during dry periods, and possible gul-
lying. These effects can be minimized through regrading, resprigging or re-
seedingj, or fertilization to promote initial growth.
TMPA has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Navasota Soil and
Water Conservation District (Appendix F). Under this agreement the District
will be providing technical assistance to TMPA on reclamation and revegetation
efforts. They also will assist TMPA in developing a conservation plan for the
area in a manner that is compatable with post-minning land use objectives. The
District likewise will help landowners in the area with longer-term man-
agement and land treatment problems.
Prime or Unique Farmlands
No potential prime or unique farmlands will be affected in the first
5-year permit area. In addition, there are no known occurrences of prime or
unique farmlands on the remaining 25-year mining area. Detailed mapping and
assessment of remaining soils on the project site will be completed for future
mining phases, prior to issuance of permits for mining.
Of the soils mapped in the first 5-year permit area, the Soil Conservation
Service has indicated that Rader gravelly fine sandy loam (87BC) series is a
prime farmland soil. An additional area of Rader fine sand loam (25BC) is
shown on Exhibit A, but falls outside the first 5-year permit area. Mapping
unit 87BC was found on one 2-acre tract within the permit area, but is nortjh
of the area to be mined. Field observations by Brown (1980) indicate that the
22-acre area was cleared of trees and brush approximately 5 years ago. The
windrows of debris still are evident. Owing to the use of the land for
pasture, the area is not classified prime farmland by the TRRC regulations
because it has not been cultivated for crops during at least 5 of the past 10
years.
3.1.2 WATER RESOURCES
3.1.2.1 Existing Conditions
Surface Water Hydrology
The Gibbons Creek Lignite Project is located almost entirely in the
Gibbons Creek watershed of east central Texas. Gibbons Creek flows in a
northeast to southwest direction through Grimes County and is a tributary of
the Navasota River (Figure 3-6).
The Navasota basin is approximately 122 miles long and maximally is 35
miles wide, with a drainage area of 2,211 square miles. Streamflows in the
Navasota vary greatly, probably because of the uneven annual and areal distri-
3-28
-------
5 0
H H H
15 Miles
ZD
Lake
47
Lake
Springfield
Lake
Limesfonk
T»ogu«
J
PROPOSED
NAVASOTA DAM
AND ^RESERVOIR
R08ERTS0/V
08 m /
College
Stotion
Madisonville
Navasoto
PROPOSED MILLh
f
DAM AND RESERVOIR
1
Source:
Figure 3-6. Navasota River
watershed showing proposed
Millican and Navasota Dams
and Reservoirs and USGS
monitoring station 08111.
Adapted from TERA Corporation. 1979. Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
Environmental Assessment Report. Dallas TX; and US Army Engineer District,
Fort Worth, file information, Fort Worth TX.
3-29
-------
bution of precipitation and the long, narrow shape of the watershed. Maximum
discharges generally occur during the spring, minimum flows during summer, and
moderate flows during winter; flow gaging from 1961 to 1977 showed average
daily flows near Bryan, Texas, of 646 cubic feet per second (cfs), and minimum
and maximum flows of 0 cfs and 38,200 cfs, respectively (By phone, Mr. Bernard
Massey, USGS, 30 August 1979). Near the project site, the majority of the
Navasota basin consists of grazingland and largely is undisturbed by
industrial or urban development. The Navasota River is a narrow, meandering
channel lying in a complex floodplain.
The project area includes several man-made impoundments (and proposed
impoundments) that will affect, and be affected by, the proposed mining
operations at Gibbons Creek. Lake Limestone was constructed by the Brazos
River Authority in the upper basin of the Navasota River in Limestone and
Robertson Counties (Figure 3.6). Lake Limestone is a 217,500 acre-foot
reservoir that is expected to supply over 69,000 acre-feet of water annually
by the year 2000. The lake was designed primarily to supply supplemental
cooling water for the operation of the Oak Knoll and Twin Oak steam electric
power plants, but it also will provide municipal, manufacturing, and
irrigation supplies (Texas Water Development Board 1977), as well as
recreational and fish and wildlife benefits in the Navasota basin.
Other proposed impoundments on the Navasota include Lake Millican
(downriver from confluence with Gibbons Creek) and Lake Navasota (upriver from
confluence with Gibbons Creek). Both of these US Army Corps of Engineers (C0E)
projects have been authorized by Congress, but have not been funded except for
feasibility studies. The purpose of these lakes would be to supply the
Bryan-College Station area with water to supplement available groundwater
resources (Texas Water Development Board 1977). The Gibbons Creek lignite
deposits lie within the proposed Millican Lake boundary. It does not appear
that the development of Millican Lake would be practical until after the
lignite has been mined. The COE presently is investigating alternatives for
replacing Millican Lake as the initial reservoir in its authorized plan.
Alternative plans include other reservoir sites upriver from the Millican
damsite and nonstructural measures. Millican Lake, as originally authorized
for construction by the year 2000, would inundate 42,400 acres at the
conservation pool elevation of 219 feet MSL and 66,000 acres at the top flood
pool elevation of 234 feet MSL (By letter, James Smyth, 1979). The Navasota
Lake project is authorized for construction during the period from 2000 to
2030. However, this project also is subject to revision pending additional
s tudies.
Upstream of its confluence with the Navasota River, Gibbons Creek receives
the inflow from a number of tributaries that drain the project site. These
include Dry Creek, Rock Lake Creek, Big Branch Creek, Peach Creek, and Sulphur
Creek (Figure 3-7). These creeks range from ephemeral to intermittent, with
base flow apparent only in the lower reaches of the larger drainages. The
northwest corner of the project site is drained by Dinner Creek, a tributary
of the Navasota River (TERA Corp. 1979).
3-30
-------
Figure 3-7. Stream drainages in the
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
area, Grimes County, Texas.
Source: TERA Corporation. 1979.
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project,
Environmental Assessment Report
Dallas, TX.
3-31
-------
The Gibbons Creek drainage area at the mouth of the creek is 110 square
miles, with an average annual runoff of about 43,533 acre-feet. Extreme
variations in discharge are characteristic of the watershed. Synthesized
discharges from Gibbons Creek were computed at the Gibbons Creek reservoir
damsite by Freese and Nichols (1976), who used rainfall records and
evaporation and runoff adjustments applicable to the area. These synthesized
flows indicate that zero discharge could occur in Gibbons Creek for periods of
a month or longer during any part of the year except April and May (TERA Corp.
1979). Analyses of more complete flow data (TERA Corp. 1979) are reported to
indicate that the flow of Gibbons Creek is less than 5 cfs more than 50% of
the time. Gibbons Creek is considered a permanent stream because of the
presence of standing water, but not in terms of a permanent base flow. During
times of no flow, standing water is present in large, deep pools in the
channel where overhanging vegetation provides protection from insolation (TERA
Corp. 1979).
Gibbons Creek soon is to be impounded to serve as a cooling reservoir for
the Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station (GCSES). The Gibbons Creek drainage
area upstream from the damsite is about 85 square miles, with an average
annual runoff of 33,639 acre-feet. The damsite is 12.7 miles upstream from the
mouth of Gibbons Creek and about 1.5 miles northeast of the town of Carlos.
The cooling reservoir will have a top conservation surface area of 2,534 acres
and a storage capacity of 27,214 acre-feet at an elevation of 245 feet above
MSL. The normal operating levels of the reservoir will range from 240 to 245
feet above MSL, with an average of 243.3 feet. Hog, Plum, and Sulphur Creeks
will be its major incoming tributaries (TERA Corp. 1977).
The Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR) Water Rights Commission
issued a permit to TMPA on 1 August 1977 to appropriate waters of the Gibbons
Creek watershed for industrial purposes. The permit allows the impoundment of
9,740 acre-feet of water per year and a maximum cooling water circulation rate
of 1,511 cfs. When the reservoir is at top conservation level (245 feet above
MSL), TMPA will discharge from the reservoir the amount of water that is
flowing into it. Inflow into the reservoir will be gaged for this purpose. At
least a 0.5 cfs discharge at the spillway on Gibbons Creek will be required as
long as 0.5 cfs or more is entering the reservoir. When the inflow into the
reservoir is less than 0.5 cfs, TMPA is not required to release water.
In addition to its effects with regard to low flow, the Gibbons Creek
reservoir will influence flood characteristics at the project site. The
streambed of the Navasota River is flat in the vicinity of the project site.
Because of this condition, long reaches of the Navasota and its adjacent
floodplain become inundated by backwater flooding from the main stem of the
Brazos River, even though no rain may have fallen in the Navasota River
watershed. Backwater from the Brazos has been known to inundate the Navasota
River and its floodplain for approximately 24 river miles. When this situation
occurs, the lower segments of Gibbons Creek also are flooded for extended
periods of time. In contrast, excess precipitation in the Gibbons Creek water-
shed causes rapid flooding and flood crests of short duration because of rapid
soil saturation and runoff and because of the watershed's small drainage area.
3-32
-------
Flood boundaries on the Navasota River and starting elevations on Gibbons
Creek were taken from 100-year flood profiles on the Navasota River developed
by the Fort Worth District COE. Flood discharges on Gibbons Creek are based on
a 30,000 cfs design discharge regulated by the future Gibbons Creek reservoir
(By phone, Mary Ann Radley, Freese and Nichols, 19 July 1979). It is estimated
that drainage area floods on Gibbons Creek will be delayed from 3 to 5 days
longer than under natural conditions by routing through the reservoir. Thus,
downstream flood severity will be reduced in Gibbons Creek overbank area (TERA
Corp. 1977) by reduction of the 100-year flood flow from 40,000 cfs to 30,000
cfs (Radley and Thompson 1978). TMPA's mine plan for the first 5 years does
not include areas affected by the 100-year flood on Gibbons Creek or the
Navasota River. During future mining phases, much of the Gibbons Creek flood-
plain and associated wetlands (Exhitit B) from a point just east of Carlos
down to 2.5 miles from the Navasota River will be mined. There also is a
small, unnamed tributary to the Navasota, that will be protected from Navasota
flooding by a levee and a section of Rock Lake Creek, that will be removed
"from flooding by the planned Rock Lake Creek diversion.
Groundwater Hydrology
Groundwater hydrology in the project region has been described in a com-
prehensive county-wide study conducted by Baker et al. (1974). Within the
project area, formations that contain aquifers include the Yegua Formation,
the Jackson Group, the Catahoula Formation, and the floodplain alluvium.
(These formations are shown on Figure 3-4 and described in Table 3-2 of
Section 3.1.1.1.)
No Wells tapping the Yegua or Catahoula formations have been recorded on
the project site (TERA Corp. 1979), and floodplain alluvium deposits in the
project area are not known to be used for wells. The Caddell and Wellborn For-
mations of the Jackson Group, which includes the Gibbons Creek lignite reserve
area, yield small to moderate amounts of fresh to moderately saline water for
irrigation, rural-domestic, and livestock uses. Water wells recorded in the
project area are shown on Figure 3-8.
An estimate of the water amounts available from the Jackson Group across
its 24-mile length near the Jackson-Catahoula contact in Grimes County is 2.2
million gallons per day (mgd). This estimate is based on a hydraulic conduc-
tivity of 3.2 x 10~3 (m/sec) (9.1 feet per day) determined by Winslow (1950)
for the Jackson Group in Walker County east of Grimes County. The average co-
efficient of transmissibility of Jackson Group sands containing water in
Grimes County is 2,500 ft^/day. According to Baker et al. (1974), the most
favorable location for the development of Jackson groundwater is adjacent to
the southern edge of the outcrop, where aquifer sands are more than 250 feet
thick. This location is between 1 to 4 miles southeast of the minable lignite
deposits and includes the town of Roans Prairie and Erwln; the town of Ander-
son is on the southern edge of the location. The formation decreases in impor-
tance downdip to the southeast, with diminishing sand thickness, increasing
depth, and increasing salinity.
3-33
-------
LO
UJ
¦ar/d^ Waft SypptyiGorp.
'~aKl.
iTT^ «;
-1- #"
iLA^Bifdmont •Spring^,
A r mi an
m - - ^ — «sl
v' \ • -*
V *
>1 V v /.,-
, /.V-t-A,* ,'. - .' .T-
•MYi ^1.- v, ^
Surface - to- Groundwater
Table (/0 foot contour interval)
0 Artesian Well or Spring
~ Domestic Well
— • — * FIRST 6 - TEAR MININO AM*
Figure 3-8. Depth to ground-
water and water well
locations, Gibbons Creek
Lignite Project, Grimes
Co. TX.
'•k i-W'J
11_. i - , •
i.K _. j ]„ See Exhibit 2 for v
^ ^ more detailed groundr
. I ' " k ' water, information
;l
i1 ¦¦ .
1 V'
! \ 1
I
i
i* **>
Source: Adapted froa: TERA Corpor.ition. 1979, Gibbons Creek Lignite Project, Environmental Assessment Report. Dallas Tx.
-------
The source of all groundwater in Grimes County is from aquifers recharged
by infiltration of the average 40+ inches of annual rainfall. The recharge
areas for the Caddell and Wellborn Formations are the outcrop areas that lie
just outside the Gibbons Creek lignite reserve area. The Caddell Formation,
which is 200 feet or more stratigraphically below the lignite reserves, out-
crops in a band from 1.5 to 2.5 miles to the northwest of the nearest minable
lignites, based on an average dip of 160 feet/mile in the Jackson Group (Baker
et al. 1974). The Wellborn Formation, which is inferred to occur at least 30
to 50 feet stratigraphically below the B Bed lignite seam, outcrops within a
half mile to the northwest of the minable lignite seams. The recharge areas of
these aquifer sands will not be affected directly by mining, but would be
crossed by the main haul road north of the first 5-year mining area and by
traffic and construction on the GCSES site. In addition, several minor and
discontinuous sandy beds and deltaic channel sand deposits which would not
have a significant effect on recharge, occur within the mine area.
Water well locations and groundwater elevations shown on Figure 3-8 indi-
cate that the groundwater table in the project area generally is within 20
feet of the surface. The groundwater table is a subdued expression of the sur-
face topography, and in some areas has a very steep hydraulic gradient. A
steep hydraulic gradient is a property of subsurface materials of low hy-
draulic conductivity.
Hydraulic conductivities of sand units associated with minable lignite
range from a high of 3.8 x lO-^ cm/sec (10.8 ft/day) for floodplain alluvium
to less than 6 x 10-^ cm/sec (0.02 ft/day) for a marine transgressive sand.
Measurements from shallow test pits (25 and 30 feet) near the project site
showed a coefficient of 'transmissivity for a fine sand unit of 24 ft^/day,
and near another test pit in the lignite field, tests measured 9.5 ft^/day
coefficient of transmissivity (TERA Corp. 1979). Seepage measurements at test
pits were done for groundwater yields from fractures in the lignite seam and
from permeable floodplain alluvium. The hydraulic conductivity of the lignite
was measured at 5.0 x 10"^ cm/sec (1.4 ft/day), and of the alluvium, at 1.0
x 10~3 cm/sec (2.8 ft/day). Although these values in general indicate slow
groundwater movement and low availability of groundwater to wells they were
predicated on relatively limited testing that is unlikely to represent all
conditions found on the project site.
Permeability tests of the sand units in underburden deposits associated
with the lignite seams have been made throughout the project site (Bowman 1978
in Mathewson 1979). One marine transgressive sand unit sampled had a hydraulic
conductivity of 10-^ cm/sec. In the deltaic channel sands and overbank de-
posits, the hydraulic conductivities range from 10"^ to 10~® cm/sec
(10~® cm/sec is considered Impermeable and is characteristic of the B Bed
underburden in the first 5-year permit area). These coefficients of permeabil-
ity range from 4.3 x 10~® to 8 x 10~® cm/sec (0.0001 to 0.0002 ft/day) for
sandy argillaceous units, which are the units that would appear to have the
greatest potential permeabilities.
3-35
-------
In future mining areas, outside the first 5-year permit area, higher
underburden permeabilities were found beneath the Purple Bed. The underburden
contains argillaceous, micaceous, and clean fine-grained sands. The hydraulic
conductivities of these samples ranged from 1.7 x 10"^ cm/sec to 3 x 10"^
cm/sec (4.3 ft/day to 0.075 ft/day). Results showed high variability in
several samples due to difficulties in laboratory testing of the soft sandy
materials.
Although low permeabilities are widespread throughout the project site,
there is high variability. Variations in hydraulic characteristics are due to
the complex interbedding and discontinuous extents of delta plain facies.
Marine transgressive sands display the higher permeabilities and would yield
moderate to low amounts of groundwater to wells or exposed seepage. No over-
burden cores intersected delta front distributary channel sands, so no permea-
bilities have been measured for these units on the project site. They are ex-
pected to be slowly permeable and to yield moderate to small amounts of
groundwater, usually less than 50 gpm (Mathewson 1978). They are not depend-
able as sources of water to wells because of their sinuous shape and dis-
continuity.
Shales and clays associated with the delta swamp environments, levees,
crevasse splays, low permeable channel sands, distributary mouths or bars, and
interdistributary swamps and lakes account for large volumes of poorly perme-
able to impermeable sediments. In addition, steep hydraulic gradients reach
maximums of about 320 ft/mile on some slopes in the project area (Mathewson
1978). These conditions indicate that the overall groundwater system in the
lignite mining area is unconfined. It is recharged through rainfall infiltra-
tion, and some discharge occurs through seepage into surface drainage features
(Mathewson 1978). The steep hydraulic gradients indicate that low overall hy-
draulic conductivities are common in water-bearing units, and that no signifi-
cant shallow regional aquifer exists in the project area or first 5-year per-
mit area. The dip trending channel sands do form small confined aquifers that
flow under pressure (artesian conditions) and will flow steadily if drilled or
mined through, but the generally low permeability and limited effective re-
charge areas of these units prevent the transmission of significant volumes of
groundwater.
Consideration of impacts on the groundwater regime is constrained by the
limited s amount of specific data which can be applied at the scale necessary
for exact prediction of the effects of mining. Extrapolation of well data to
evaluate the influence of an extensive pit is only approximately valid. The
test pits used were much shallower than what much of the proposed mining will
be so attempts to scale the data to the greater depth of the anticipated mine
pit are subject to considerable uncertainties. Valid prediction of groundwater
impacts will require detailed knowledge based on observation wells and/or
piezometers especially where there are possible interactions of the surface
and groundwater regimes in wetland areas.
3-36
-------
Effects on the regional groundwater regime must be assessed by means of a
system of groundwater monitoring wells placed around the periphery of the
mine. Most important is the down-dip (southeastward) direction. Interim
provisions of the mining permit specify that observation wells be installed in
pairs with one well penetrating the material above the lowest mining level and
the other well penetrating to the first aquifer below the lignite seam. There
will also be monitoring wells in the mined area to monitor the groundwater
situation as it develops in the replaced spoil and to detect any possible
contamination of layers below the bottom of the mine. This system will require
a rigorously planned procedure for selecting monitor well locations and making
observations. Findings from the initial wells should be incorporated in
planning the remainder of the system.
Applicable Operative State Classification and Standards for
Water Quality
Gibbons Creek is an unclassified stream segment, and no specific numerical
water quality criteria apply, with one exception: dissolved oxygen (DO) con-
centrations averaged daily over a 24-hour period may not fall below 2 mg/1 (By
telephone, Mr. Dale White, Texas Department of Water Resources, 18 July 1979).
Unclassified waters are further covered by the qualitative criteria published
as Section VII of the General Criteria, Texas Surface Water Quality Standards
(1978). These General Criteria apply specifically to the condition of waters
as affected by waste discharges or man's activities. Waters not receiving ef-
fluent discharge may, on occasion, have characteristics outside the limits
established.
Gibbons Creek discharges into the Navasota River, which is segment 1209 of
the Brazos River basin. Segment 1209 is classified as an effluent-limited
stream (Brazos River Authority of Texas 1977). This means that the Federal
water quality standards can be met if wastewater discharges are treated at
least to secondary levels prior to discharge. The following water uses were
considered in establishing the water quality criteria for this stream segment
(Texas Water Development Board 1978):
• Contact recreation;
• Noncontact recreation;
• Propagation of fish and wildlife; and
« Domestic raw water supply.
The following water quality criteria apply to the Navasota River segment
1209 of the Brazos River basin (Texas Water Development Board, 1978):
i
• Chloride - average not to exceed 100 mg/1 (1-year period);
• Sulfate - average not to exceed 50 mg/1 (1-year period);
3-37
-------
• Dissolved oxygen - not to be less than 5.0 mg/1 (not to fall short by
more than 1.0 rag/1 for more than 8 hours of any 24-hour period);
• pH range - 6.5 to 9.0;
• Fecal coliform - geometric mean not to exceed 200 mg/1 (30-day
period);
• Temperature - not to exceed 93°F.
The Railroad Commission of Texas has the responsibility to regulate and to
issue permits for surface mining operations in Texas. In regard to hydrologic
balance and water quality, the Railroad Commission is advised by the Texas
Department of Water Resources and uses TDWR criteria in its evaluation of
permit applications and mine operations.
Applicable Operative Federal Classification and Standards
for Water Quality
Drainage waters from surface mining activities are regulated by EPA
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) effluent
limitations applicable to the source. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement (OSM) regulates drainage from reclaimed land.* The Texas
Railroad Commission (TRRC) has adopted a regulatory program that meets the re-
quirements of the final OSM regulations; OSM still retains an overview
responsibility. As a result, the Railroad Commission is authorized to continue
regulation of surface mining in Texas and has been delegated the responsi-
bility for implementation of the OSM permanent regulatory requirements.
In accordance with the regulations, all coal mines that begin construction
after 12 February 1979, the date when the EPA New Source Standards of Perform-
ance for the coal mining industry went into effect, will require new source
NPDES permits. Therefore, the effluent limitations that apply to the Gibbons
^A Federal interagency task force has recently drafted a Memorandum of
Understanding between OSM and EPA for establishment of a process to integrate
the NPDES permit program under the Clean Water Act (30 USC 1251 et eq.) as it
applies to Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations (SCMR0) under the
permanent regulatory program permits system under Title V of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) (30 USC 1201 et seq.).
3-38
-------
Creek Lignite Project are standards for a new mining facility — a "new
source" of discharge to surface waters of the United States. The New Source
Performance Standards are subdivided for mines that produce drainage with
either alkaline or acidic/ferruginous characteristics before any treatment.
Based on the low pH value of clays occurring in the project area, and on the
presence of pyrites in the overburden, the Gibbons Creek mine is expected to
be in the acid or ferruginous mine drainage subcategory. The effluent stand-
ards that apply to the Gibbons Creek lignite project are summarized in Table
3-4.
The EPA new source effluent limitations, like the existing source limita-
tions, apply only to wastewater discharged from active raining areas. Runoff
from lands undergoing reclamation — lands that have been regraded but not yet
released from revegetation bonds by other agencies — are considered a separ-
ate subcategory from the wastewater from active mines (and coal preparation
plants) in the final regulations. However, effluent limitations for this new
subcategory have not yet been proposed.
NDPES discharge regulations do not address directly the long-term efflu-
ents from mined lands following the completion of revegetation and the release
of performance bonds. EPA Best Practices guidelines for coal mining, however,
mandate that mine plan engineering must prevent, minimize, or mitigate the
discharge of any noxious materials (including acid and sediment) that would
affect downstream water quality or uses adversely following the temporary
closing or permanent abandonment of a mine.^ The continuing treatment of
acid mine drainage is not considered by EPA to be the best permanent solution
for long-term discharges (Best Practices III.B.8, 9, and 14).
Quality of Surface Waters on the Project Site
The most prevalent form of water pollution associated with surface coal
mining are concentrations of total suspended solids (TSS), iron, manganese,
and acidity. Acid leaching can lower the pH of surface streams to levels harm-
ful to aquatic life and to many water uses. It also contributes to conditions
that facilitate leaching of compounds of iron and manganese into surface
waters. EPA, in Quality Criteria for Water (1978), recommends that concentra-
tions of iron not exceed 0.3 mg/1 for treated domestic water supplies or 1
mg/1 for protection of freshwater aquatic life, and that concentrations of
2The Best Practices guidelines have not been published formally, but they are
incorporated by reference in the new source discharge limitations. "Best
Practices for New Source Surface and Underground Coal Mines" were issued in a
1 September 1977 memorandum to Regional Administrators that provides interim
guidance on the application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to
new source coal mines.
3-39
-------
Table 3-4. New source performance standards applicable to point source
discharges from the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project.
1 2
Effluent Limitations '
Averages of daily
Effluent Characteristics
Maximum of
any one day
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not exceed
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
70.0 mg/1
35.0 mg/1
Iron, Total (Fe)
6.0 mg/1
3.0 mg/1
pH
VJithin the range of 6 to 9
Manganese, total (Mn)
3
4.0 mg/1
2.0 rag/1
(1) Overflows, volume increases or discharges from bypass systems resulting
from a 10-year/24 hour or larger precipitation event from the sediment
control ponds are not subject to these limitations.
(2) Drainage which is not from an active mining area is not subject to these
limitations unless it is comingled with untreated mine discharge which is
subject to these limitations.
(3) Manganese effluent limitations apply to acid or ferruginous mine drainage
which before any treatment either has a pH of 6.0 or less, or a total iron
concentration of more than 10 mg/1.
Source: AO CFR 434; 44 FR 9:2582-2596, 12 January 1979.
3-40
-------
manganese not exceed 0.05 mg/1 for treated domestic water supplies. There are
no specific criteria for the concentration of manganese with regard to aquatic
life. Current data suggest that levels up to 1 mg/1 would be safe for aquatic
animal life, although much lower levels may be hazardous to aquatic plants
(EPA 1976). Total suspended solids in streams can seriously inhibit the photo-
synthetic activity that supports aquatic life in surface waters.
To describe the existing and historical conditions of surface waters at
the project site, various water quality studies have been analyzed. From 1959
to 1978, the US Geological Survey (USGS) collected water quality data for the
Navasota River near Bryan, Texas (see Figure 3-6, Station 08111). Water
quality data for the Navasota were collected also at State Highway 30 (Station
5, Figure 3-9) by the Texas Railroad Commission from December 1977 to May
1979. Studies done by Texas A&M University during 1973 and 1976 characterize
the existing and past waster quality conditions in Gibbons Creek and its
tributaries.
The data collected by the USGS and the Texas Railroad Commission from 1959
to 1979, indicate that the water quality of the Navasota River near the Gib-
bons Creek project site meet the Texas Surface Water Quality Criteria. Dis-
solved oxygen values were approximately 8.0 mg/1, and pH values averaged about
7.33. Temperature values averaged 19°C, total dissolved solids (TDS) averaged
273 mg/1, sulfate values averaged 44 mg/1, and chloride concentrations were
approximately 89 mg/1. Total suspended solids levels were about 116 mg/1, and
average manganese values were 0.27 mg/1. Iron concentrations averaged 1.64
mg/1, which exceeds the EPA standards.
Values for water quality parameters in Gibbons Creek vary widely because
of the varying flows characteristic of the stream. The Gibbons Creek water
quality data acquired by the Texas Railroad Commission from 1977 to 1979 and
Texas A&M University in both 1973 and 1976 indicate that temperatures typi-
cally ranged from 10°C to 26°C, pH values ranged from 6.5 to 7, and TSS con-
centrations ranged from 50 mg/1 to 200 mg/1. Typical manganese values ranged
from 0.03 mg/1 to 1.00 mg/1, and iron values ranged from 0.33 mg/1 to 1.50
mg/1.
The values given above are generalized for the Navasota River and Gibbons
Creek. The following paragraphs describe the various parameters at specific
sampling locations on the two streams. The water quality of the Navasota River
at Station 08111 (Figure 3-6) meets the Texas surface water quality criteria.
Iron concentrations ranged from less than 0.01 mg/1 to 0.36 mg/1, and the
average was 0.09 mg/1 from 1972 to 1978. Turbidity values ranged from 10.0
Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU) to 130 JTU, and the average value was 48.7 JTU.
Manganese values at this station ranged from less than 0.01 mg/1 to 0.27 mg/1.
The average manganese value was 0.08 mg/1.
Water quality data collected from the Navasota River at State Highway 30
(Station 5, Figure 3-9 by the Texas Railroad Commission (1977-1979) met the
Texas suface water quality criteria. In these samples, collected under varying
flow conditions, total suspended solids ranged from 43 mg/1 to 364 mg/1, and
3-41
-------
Figure 3-9. Surface streams and drainage showing water quality sampling and
monitoring stations, Gibbons Creek Lignite Project, Grimes County, TX.
Grovt
Howa
. \
He servo*
Jonnsofi
Lake C
Lake
SINGLETON i\
' > P'Oirie
LEGEND
Lake
P»och
Ranch
y
F1EOMONT
Texas Railroad Commission (1977-1979)
1. - Rock Lake Cr. at CR 192
2. - Sand Cr. at FM 3090
3. - Gibbons Cr. at SH 39
4. - Gibbons Cr.
5. - Navasota R. at SH 30
6. - Branch of Sulphur Cr.
7. - Sulphur Cr. at SH 90
Texas A & M (1973)
4. - Gibbons Creek near Moody
Texas A & M (1976)
A. - Gibbons Cr. at SH 30
B. - Gibbons Cr. below Hog Cr.
C. - Lake Carlos
Stream flow and water quality
stations for Gibbons Creek lig-
nite project monitoring pro-
gram
Source: Adapted from (1) TERA Corporation. 1979. Gibbons Creek Lignite Project,
Environmental assessment report. Dallas, TX. and (2) Texas Railroad
Commission. 1979. Water quality data of Gibbons Creek. Austin, TX.
3-42
-------
the average concentration was 162 mg/1. Iron concentrations ranged from 0.30
mg/1 to 4.01 mg/1, and the average value was 2.16 mg/1. Iron concentrations
exceeded the EPA (1976) recommended value of 1.0 mg/1 for freshwater aquatic
life. Manganese values at this station ranged from 0.03 mg/1 to 0.78 mg/1, and
the average value was 0.34 mg/1.
Texas A & M University's data for the lower segment of Gibbons Creek near
Moody, Texas (Station 4, Figure 3-9), collected from April through August
1973, showed that the only water quality criteria that may have been violated
were those for fecal coliform (240/100 ml to 4600/100 ml.) Total suspended
solids values ranged from 16 mg/1 to 165 mg/1, and the average concentration
was 69 mg/1. Iron and manganese values were not measured during this study.
The Texas Railroad Commission obtained water quality data at this same station
from 1977 to 1979. In their samples, total suspended solids concentrations
ranged from 11 mg/1 to 203 mg/1, with an average of 98 mg/1. Iron values
ranged from 0.16 mg/1 to 2.22 mg/1, and the average was 0.81 mg/1. Manganese
values ranged from 0.03 mg/1 to 1.88 mg/l, with an average of 0.40 mg/1.
During August and September of 1976, Texas A & M University collected and
analyzed water quality data for the upper segment of Gibbons Creek. The sam-
pling station sites are shown in Figure 3-9. One sample was taken at State
Highway 30 (Station A), two samples were collected below Hog Creek (Station
B), and one sample was collected from Lake Carlos (Station C), which is a
small reservoir about 0.25 miles north of the town of Carlos. When the samples
were collected during August, the flow of Gibbons Creek was very low (less
than 0.5 cfs) and the chemical concentrations were higher than normally would
be recorded in the runoff from the Gibbons Creek watershed (TERA Corp. 1979).
Total suspended solids levels were not measured during this study. The iron
concentration for Gibbons Creek at Highway 30 was 0.28 mg/1. The average iron
concentration at Hog Creek was 0.04 mg/1, and in Lake Carlos, the iron con-
centration was 0.70 mg/1. The manganese concentration at Highway 30 was 0.03
mg/1; at Hog Creek, the average manganese value was 0.09; at Lake Carlos, the
manganese value was 0.01 mg/1.
In the water quality data for Gibbons Creek at State Highway 39 (Station
3, Figure 3-9) acquired by the Texas Railroad Commission from 1977 to 1979,
total suspended solids values ranged from 32 mg/1 to 84 mg/1, and the average
concentration was 59 mg/1. Iron values at this station ranged from 0.44 mg/1
to 1.09 mg/1. The average iron value for this sampling period was 1.0 mg/1.
The average manganese value was 0.21 mg/1, with concentrations ranging from
0.03 mg/1 to 0.46 mg/1. During this same study, water quality values were ob-
tained at Rock Lake Creek near C.R. 192 (Station 1), at Sand Creek near FM
3090 (Station 2), at Gibbons Creek near Moody (Station 4), and at two branches
of Sulphur Creek (Stations 6 and 7). Iron values greater than EPA's (1976)
recommended 1 mg/1 were observed at Rock Lake Creek, Sand Creek, and Sulphur
Creek (Station 6). Average iron concentrations at these stations were 1.71
mg/1, 1.05 mg/1, and 1.92 mg/1, respectively. Average TSS and manganese levels
were, respectively, 66 mg/1 and 0.73 mg/1 at Rock Lake Creek, 74 mg/1 and
0.61 mg/1 at Sand Creek, 98 mg/1 and 0.40 mg/1 at Gibbons Creek near Moody,
139 mg/1 and 0.39 mg/1 at Sulphur Creek, and 52 mg/1 and 0.25 mg/1 at Sulphur
Creek.
3-43
-------
To project how the water quality and discharges from the GCSES cooling
reservoir will affect water quality downstream of the project site, water
quality conditions were computer simulated by Freese and Nichols (1976). The
reservoir is expected to be initially nutrient-rich and highly productive due
to leaching of inundated soils and vegetation, and surface water runoff from
surrounding areas (Espey, Huston and Associates 1976 iji TERA Corp. 1977).
The GCSES reservoir will respond in a fully mixed mode (vertically) when
the GCSES is operational (TERA Corp. 1977). During much of the year, the tem-
perature at the intake structure is expected to be less when the plant is
operational than it would be in the absence of the plant. This would occur be-
cause the loaded reservoir will be fully mixed and homogenized, whereas the
natural reservoir would be stratified so that the surface layers would absorb
most of the solar heat. Temperatures in the reservoir at different locations
and during different times of the year are expected to range from 38° to
109°F. Temperatures as high as 95°F could be discharged into Gibbons Creek
under extreme drought conditions (TERA Corp. 1977). Dissolved oxygen levels in
the reservoir are expected to exceed 2 mg/1 and to be high enough to support
aquatic life at all times. The operation of the GCSES is expected to cause
circulation and turbulence in the reservoir that will help to prevent stra-
tification and associated oxygen depletions. Oxygen deficiencies caused by
high water temperatures have not been reported in case studies of Texas cool-
ing lakes. However, some case studies have reported that supersaturation of
dissolved gases in outfall waters presents a problem to migratory fish that
are subject to gas bubble disease (TERA Corp. 1977). Further, due to greater
water turbulence, increased turbidity levels probably will occur near the
reservoir water discharge on Gibbons Creek.
Quality of Groundwater on the Project Site
Analyses performed on samples from these wells (Figure 3-8) included total
salts, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, bicarbonate, sulfate, chloride,
sodium absorption ratio (SAR), sodium percentage (SSP), and, in some cases,
iron (Mathewson and Brown 1979). The data from these analyses are presented
fully in Appendix Table B—1 of the this EIS.
As a basis of comparison, maximum concentration discharge standards of the
Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR) for the Navasota River from its
confluence with the Brazos River to Lake Mexia are:
• Chloride - 100 mg/1
• Sulfate - 500 mg/1
e TDS - 400 mg/1
e pH - 6.5—9.0
Whereas US Public Health Service (USPHS) safe limits for maximum concentration
of the same mineral constituents are (USPHS 1962):
3-44
-------
Chloride - 250 mg/1
• Sulfate - 250 mg/1
• TDS - 500 mg/1
• pH -6.5-9.0-
A comparative analysis of the 70 groundwater quality determinations from
the project area with both the TDWR standards for the Navasota River and the
USPHS criteria is provided in Table 3-5. For this analysis, wells are classi-
fied by depth. There is a correlation between groundwater quality and depth.
The quality of the water generally is better in shallow wells than in deep
wells. Detailed water analyses were performed on three active wells. These are
all deep wells, located down the hydraulic gradient and downdip of the south-
ern limit of the lignite deposit area. Well 3333 NK is 670 feet deep, located
200 yards northeast of the store in Piedmont along the county road. Well 3534
CP is 518 feet deep, located one mile southwest of the intersection of FM 244
and FM 3090, on the southeast side of FM 3090. Well 3638 TA is 205 feet deep,
located about 1.5 miles north of Roans Prairie and about 1,000 feet east of
State Route 90. Results of the detailed analyses are presented in Table 3-6.
^The groundwater of the project area is available in only small to moderate
quantities suitable for public supply, rural-domestic, irrigation, and many
industrial uses with little or no treatment. The groundwater varies from fresh
to slightly saline, and approximately 60% exceeds the USPHS recommended maxi-
mum concentrations for TDS. In one sample (Well 3333 NK), fluoride concentra-
tions were enough above recommended levels to cause mottling of tooth enamel
in some children, but not above levels maintained intentionally in some public
water supplies to prevent tooth decay. Some wells also contained sufficient
iron to cause staining in home use. The major water quality limitation is the
dissolved solids, or salinity. This water quality problem is most serious in
the deeper wells in the area.
Existing Supplies, Uses, and Water Rights for Surface Water
Surface water supplies in the project area include Lake Carlos, the
Navasota River, Gibbons Creek reservoir, Gibbons Creek, six named tributaries
of Gibbons (Dry Creek, Rock Lake Creek, Peach Creek, Sulphur Creek, Heifer
Creek, and Big Branch Creek), and several other unnamed intermittent
tributaries.
The surface water supplies in the project area provide water for agri-
cultural uses and for livestock and wildlife consumption. The Texas Municipal
Power Agency is the only holder of surface water rights on Gibbons Creek.
There are no other municipal or industrial surface water users in the area
(TERA Corp. 1979). The major source of water for GCSES unit //I is the Gibbons
Creek reservoir (addition water rights on the Navasota River recently were
obtained by TMPA under contractual agreements with Brazos River Authority
primarily in anticipation of unit #2). During operation of the GCSES, water
will be required for condenser cooling, steam cycle makeup, ash handling,
3-45
-------
Table 3-5. Comparison of groundwater quality in the project area
with Texas Department of Water Resources discharge standards
and US Public Health Service drinking water safe limits.
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project, Grimes County, Texas.
Number of Wells
Chloride
Sulphate
TDS
Shallow Deep N/D Shallow Deep N/D Shallow Deep N/D
All Wells
Number exceeding
TDWR standards
Percent wells
exceeding TDWR
Number of wells
exceeding USPHS
standards
Percent of wells
exceeding USPHS
standards
15 47 8
3 31
47 8 15 47 8
25 4 3 29 7
20% 66% 88% 33% 53% 50% 20 62% 88%
13 0
28%
Household wells
10 37 6 10
13 4 3 28 7
28% 50% 20%
37 6 10 37 6
Number exceeding
TDWR standards
24 5
23 2 I 24 5
Percent wells
exceeding TDWR
standards
10% 65% 83% 20% 62% 33% 10% 65% 83%
Number of wells
exceeding USPH5
standards
Percent of wells
exceeding USPHS
standards
Agric wells
Number exceeding
TDWR standards
I 0
30%
5 10 2
7 2
23 5
30% 33% 10% 62% 83%
10 2 5 10 2
2 2
5 2
Percent of wells
exceeding TDWR
standards
Number of wells
exceeding USPHS
standards
Percent of wells
exceeding USPHS
standards
40% 70% 100% 60% 20% 50% 40% 50% 100%
0 2 0 0
20%
2 2 2 5 2
20% 100% 40% 50% 100%
Notes: Shaliow = less than 150 ft.
Deep = more than 150 ft.
N/D =. depth unknown
Based on Mathewson 1977.
Source: TERA Corp. 1979. Gibbons
mental assessment report.
Power Agency. Dallas TX.:
Creek lignite project environ-
Prepared for Texas Municipal
3-46
-------
Table 3-6. Detailed groundwater quality, three locations on the Gibbons
Creek Lignite Project site, Grimes County, Texas.
Well
Well
Well
Parameter
3333 NK
3534 CP
3638 TA
Temperature ^^
pH<2) m
Alkalinity' '
82
77
73
7.0
384
7.1
314
6.0
106
Total Dissolved Solids
760
580
380
Conductivity^)
1340
980
640
Hardness
4.0
18.0
146
Bicarbonate
468
383
129
Chloride
185
121
91.5
Sulfate
31
< 10
60
Fluoride
1.0
0.5
0.3
Nitrate
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Calcium
0.8
0.60
42
Magnesium
0.12
0.14
6.5
Sodium
300
208
67.5
Potassium
10
10
4.4
Arsenic
<0.005
<0.005
0.011
Aluminum
1.8
2.0
1.6
Cadmium
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
Chromium
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
Copper
0.002
0.002
<0.001
Iron
0.20
0.425
0.150
Lead
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Manganese
0.045
0.012
0.138
Molybdenum
<0.015
<0.015
<0.015
Mercury
<0.00006
<0.00006
<0.00006
Nickel
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
Selenium
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
Zinc
0.032
0.406
0.562
All units mg/l except as noted.
(1) °F
(2) pH units
(3) mg/l as CaCO~
(4) umho/cm
Source: TERA Corp. 1979. Gibbons Creek lignite project environmental
assessment report. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency.
Dallas TX.
3-47
-------
plant auxiliary water, dust suppression, and domestic services (TERA Corp.
1977). To help supply senior water rights, TMPA will be required to release
water from the Gibbons Creek reservoir if the flow in the Brazos River falls
below 1,110 cfs.
Existing Supplies, Uses, and Water Rights for Groundwater
As noted in Section 3.1.2.1, low permeabilities in the subsurface strata
result in slow rates of groundwater movement at the project site. Exceptions
are found where channel sands occur in the subsurface ancient delta plain se-
quences, but these are discontiguous, sinuous zones, inefficient for 'ground-
water development. Moderately permeable sands associated with ancient marine
transgressions have been sampled that have hydraulic conductivity as high as
10 cm/sec (2.8 ft/day) (Mathewson 1977). The permeability in sand units
ranges from about 1«5 to 3.0 ft/day in the project area (TERA Corp. 1979). The
water yields available from these units, considering the prevalent slowly per-
meable sediments, apparently have been insufficient to support many active
wells. Most of the active wells on the project site are thought to draw from
deeper (Wellborn and Caddell Formations) aquifers (TERA Corp. 1979).
A dry season survey conducted between 22 July and 20 August 1976, located
11 private wells within 4,400 feet of the first 5-year permit area. This sur-
vey included an artesian well at the southern edge of the mine area located on
Butt's Lease (Well Number 3433 WG). Another flowing well on Butt's Lease (3533
AF) has been plugged and was not included in the 1976 survey. That well will
be closed because of nearby mining and pond construction. The other 10 wells
are clustered along FM 244 east of the mining area, in the vicinity of Carlos.
The wells are 5,000 to 9,000 feet distant, offset either along strike or updip
and along strike, from the nearest mine pit delineated in the first 5-year
mining area. However, some of these wells occur in areas identified for future
mining.
Flow data were not determined for the surveyed wells, and access was
denied to two of them, but Baker et al. (1974) report that advantageously
situated wells in the Jackson Group are capable of yielding more than 500 gpm
of fresh to slightly saline water. Of the other nine wells surveyed (including
3433 WG on Butt's Lease), five are shallow wells of less than 150 feet depth.
Depth to standing water ranged from 2.5 to 40 feet. Surveys of four deep wells
indicated that standing water occurs at depths from 60 to 100 feet, except for
one that flows at the surface (zero depth). Access was denied to the remaining
two wells. In addition, the 1976 survey located 23 wells within approximately
1 mile of the first 5-year mining area.
The principal use of the surveyed wells is small withdrawals for household
uses, livestock watering, and irrigation of small areas. Two deep wells (3534
CP and 3534 HN) are used for large irrigation commitments on the Waltrip
Ranch. The Carlos Water Supply Corporation pumps water from a deep well south-
east of the mining area. These latter three deep wells are within 1-1/2 to 2
miles south and southeast of the project site. In general, those wells located
within 1,000 feet of the mine may be severely impacted by groundwater drainage
3-48
-------
into the pit; wells within 3,800 feet may show some effects but the full
magnitude of the potential effects cannot be predicted with the present,
limited information.
The wells described above, others in the project area, and springs are
thought to draw from Jackson Group aquifers. Of 1.6 million gallons per day
(mgd) of groundwater used in 1970, 3% was pumped from the Jackson Group, 4%
from the Yegua Formation, 43% from the Catahoula sandstone, 28% from the Flem-
ing Formation, 1% from the Willis sand, 21% from floodplain alluvium, and in-
significant amounts from terrace deposits (Baker et al. 1974). Virtually all
of the Jackson Group water is available for development. Of a computed 2.2 mgd
quantity of Jackson Group groundwater available in Grimes County, only 0.06
mgd (2.7%) was pumped during 1970 (Baker et al. 1974). This lack of develop-
ment reflects the fact that rainfall in the potential Jackson Group develop-
ment area is sufficiently well disturbed throughout most years to make ground-
water unnecessary for irrigation for most of the present land uses.
With regard to groundwater rights, and legal ownership, the State of Texas
distinguishes among types of groundwater. The ordinary underflow in well-
defined channels of every river and natural stream of the State are considered
the property of the State. Other subterranean waters, including subterranean
streams flowing in well-defined beds and having ascertainable channels, as
well as "percolating waters" are considered the property of the individual
landowners. Percolating waters are defined as those waters below the surface
of the ground not flowing through the earth in known and defined channels, but
percolating, oozing, or filtrating through the earth (TAMU 1978). The poten-
tial for overlap among these definitions demonstrates that laws on groundwater
in Texas are not completely settled.
With regard to competing rights in the use of percolating waters, Texas
subscribes to the English or common law rule that landowner has the right to
take for use or sale all of the water he can capture from beneath his land.
This rule is of value to the mine operator in the planning of his operation.
It should also be of concern to adjacent landowners. As owner of the land, or
as lessee, according to a standard provision in coal leases, the mine operator
can use all of the water he needs and can capture from a common underground
source (unless it is in a well-defined channel), to the possible detriment of
neighboring landowners. As a protection to landowners in this situation, Part
717(b) of the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 re-
quires an operator to replace the water supply of a landowner whose supply has
been contaminated, diminished, or interrupted by the surface coal mine opera-
tion. TMPA has agreed to comply in full with this provision.
3.1.2.2 Impacts on Water Resources
Effects on Surface Water Hydrology
Mining at the Gibbons Creek site will alter the hydrology of the area's
surface streams. Part of the mining effort is the filling and operation of
GCSES cooling reservoir. The reservoir will affect, and be affected by,
hydrological processes at the site. In this section, impacts related to the
3-49
-------
reservoir are discussed first, and consideration of impacts on the area's
natural drainage network follows.
Flow conditions expected in Gibbons Creek downstream of the reservoir will
be affected by the operation and discharge schedule for the reservoir. The
extent of impacts on the hydrology of Gibbons Creek is a function of the
weather and operation of the cooling reservoir. Operation of the reservoir
under the presently authorized system will result in three basic situations in
terms of the relationship between the actual flow and the flow that would
occur if the reservoir was not present. These situations are:
• During times when the natural Gibbons Creek flow (inflow to the
reservoir) is less than 0.5 cfs, no discharge is required from the
reservoir. Under these conditions, Gibbons Creek would not be flowing
even if the reservoir did not exist. Therefore, there should be no
effective difference in downstream hydrologic conditions with or
without the reservoir.
• When the reservoir is at the designed level (at top conservation pool),
all inflow will be passed through to the downstream channel of Gibbons
Creek. This will produce a situation in which the stream flow is
essentially the same as it would be without the reservoir, except that
presence of the large mass of water in the reservoir will equalize
short-term variations in the flow and will reduce peak flood flows.
• The most significant effects on the flow of Gibbons Creek will occur
primarily during times when the reservoir is not filled to its design
level (i.e., below top conservation pool) and the inflow is over 0.5
cfs. Under these conditions, all of the flow above 0.5 cfs can be
retained in the reservoir in order to store water. This means that the
creek below the dam will be in a low flow condition for a higher
proportion of the time than it otherwise would under natural
conditions.
• If the flow in Gibbons Creek is not sufficient to maintain the
reservoir at the desired level, TMPA is authorized to divert water from
the Navasota River and pump it into the reservoir (Telephone
communication, Dean Mathews, TMPA, to W.E. French, WAPORA, 17 April
1981). During the months of April through September, the flow of the
Navasota River below the diversion point must not be reduced below 28
cfs plus the amount of other releases from Lake Limestone for the
benefit of downstream permit holders. The flow of the Navasota River
must not be reduced below 19 cfs (plus the amount of other releases)
during the remainder of the year. This diversion capability should
have an insignificant effect on the flow of Gibbons Creek because it is
intended only to supplement the supply of water to the reservoir when
3-50
-------
the flow of Gibbons Creek, is not adequate. However, the reality of
the situation would require that the pumping be done in anticipation
of low flow periods because the supply in the river might not be
available during the worst period of a drought. Thus the reservoir
would be kept at a higher level than the creek alone could supply,
and the period of low flow following the dry spell would be
shortened.
• The volume of water retained in the reservoir will be reduced because
of surface water evaporation. This water loss will result in a loss
of 3,450 acre-feet per year in overall discharge to Gibbons Creek.
This amounts to about 10% of the total annual runoff of 33,639
acre-feet obtained from Computer Printouts from Chemical Quality
Routing-Studies, One 400-MW Unit, Freese and Nichols (1976).
Mining at the Gibbons Creek site will remove parts of natural drainage
networks. Streams in the area that will be altered by mining operations in-
clude Rock Lake Creek, Dry Creek, Heifer Creek, and other unnamed creeks that
generally flow from north to south through the mine area. These streams "will
be redirected away from the mine area by dikes and diversion channels.
Surface drainage control during mining is necessary to prevent flooding of
the mine area and to prevent contamination of downstream surface waters by
particulate and chemical pollutants. Surface drainage control during the Gib-
bons Creek Lignite Project will be accomplished by:
• Construction of levees to divert runoff to Gibbons Creek from the
undisturbed catchment of Rock Lake Creek;
• Construction of levees to divert Dry Creek and several small creeks
west of Rock Lake Creek to the Navasota River;
• Construction of levees to protect the mine from floodwaters of the
Navasota River; and
1 • Construction of ponds for the detention and possible treatment of
water that contacts disturbed areas.
Upstream from the main haul road, the drainage area of Rock Lake Creek is
approximately 2,200 acres. The flow of Rock Lake Creek will be routed through
a culvert under the main haul road and will continue along the east side of
the mine to a point downstream, where it will re-enter the natural channel
(Exhibit C). At the east-west diversion, the combined catchment of Dry Creek
and two unnamed creeks is about 1,100 acres. This diversion will carry the
combined flows westward into a tributary of Dinner Creek (Exhibit C). Both
diversions are planned to carry 100-year floodflows at velocities not ex-
ceeding 6 feet per second (fps). The diversions will be grassed before use to
protect the channels from erosion.
It is unlikely that introduction of the collected flows from several
surface drainages into graded and newly grassed diversion channels will be
3-51
-------
accomplished without some erosion. Variability in rainfall patterns makes the
successful completion of diversions more difficult by alternate conditions of
minimal amounts of rain-(for germination and rooting of grasses) and excess
downpours and runoff at other times. These potential problems may be mitigated
by emplacement of rip rap or flow control structures at points of major inflow
streams. In addition, an increase in the frequency of higher discharges, with
commensurate increases in erosion and transport of suspended sediment, is
expected in the Dinner Creek, drainage system, which will receive the diverted
runoff from Dry Creek and the small creeks west of Rock Lake Creek. This
runoff will be received in turn by the Navasota River.
At least nine sedimentation ponds (Exhibit C) will be constructed to
detain water that contacts disturbed areas such as the mine area, advanced
clearing areas, support facility grounds, haul roads, and rehabilitation
areas. Water will reach the ponds by gravity drainage, either overland or by
minor diversions, and by pumping from mine pits. After the construction of
sedimentation pond embackments or levees, seeding or mulching will be required
to control erosion.
During mining, stream flow downstream from the mine area could be reduced
by:
• Infiltration into the soils of reclaimed areas, with subsequent loss
to groundwater system and to evapotranspiration, especially just
after reclamation;
• Surface evaporation from detention pounds;
• Use of water for dust control and road maintenance; and
• Diversion to other drainage systems.
The drainage area within or upstream of the first 5-year permit area
amounts to approximately 15 square miles (this represents 14% of the
110-square-mile drainage area of Gibbons Creek). An additional 3 square miles
drain into the Navasota River directly or via Dinner Creek (Paul Weir Company
1979). A maximum of 4.3 square miles may be mined during the first 5 years, of
which approximately 3.4 square miles (79%) drain into Gibbons Creek. These
mine pits, plus peripheral impounded runoff, will remove approximately 6
square miles of drainage area from Gibbons Creek. The diversion of Dry Creek
and several unnamed streams west of Rock Lake Creek will remove 1.7 square
miles of drainage area, the flow from which now reaches Gibbons Creek. Thus, a
total of 7.7 square miles of drainage will be diverted or impounded, and
portions of this will be lost to Gibbons Creek for varying periods of time
during mining and reclamation. The drainage of Rock Lake Creek upstream of the
mining area will be slightly diverted but will still reach Gibbons Creek.
The loss of runoff from part of this 7.7 square miles of drainage area to
Gibbons Creek will be an adverse impact. Of itself, the mining operation
during the first 5 years could possibly eliminate about 7% of the total
Gibbons Creek watershed runoff. This impact will be felt in phases, as the
3-52
-------
mine pits progress over the 5-year period. However, because there are plans to
retain impoundments for at least 2 years following reclamation, it is expected
that most of the affected runoff eventually will be diverted or impounded at
one time. The impacts of mining, in combination with the operation of Gibbons
Creek reservoir, will result in varying reductions in Gibbons Creek flows
throughout the year.
Whereas the reservoir will discharge to Gibbons Creek throughout much of
the year, diversions to the Navasota River will be lost to Gibbons Creek for
the duration of mining and reclamation in each area. TMPA plans to draw down
the levels in sedimentation ponds as much as possible, but the majority of
that water probably will be needed for dust control. The impoundments also
will retain the higher frequency flooding from tributaries to Gibbons Creek.
The effects expected are loss of overbank water in the lower floodplains and
some increase in the frequency and duration of periods of little or no flow in
Gibbons Creek.
The effects of mining on hydrologic conditions outside the first 5-year
mining area are expected to be similar to those described above, with the
exception of mine areas north of State Route 30. Most mining in that area will
be done in the heads of drainage systems that are not prone to flooding and
are not along streams affected by the Gibbons Creek reservoir. No detailed
mine plans have been prepared yet for these areas.
Stream valleys disrupted by mining operations will be restored to their
approximate original contour, and gradients will be smoother in some areas.
Ephemeral streams also will be routed through the recontoured land surface in
channels that will be similar to their natural courses. Water retention in
upper reclaimed soil layers and low permeabilities of deeper sediments are
expected to result in a gradual slowing of infiltration rates with time.
Within 2 to 3 years of reclamation, there should be little, noticeable
infiltration of surface water into soils — a condition quite similar to
existing conditions. This effect can be partly counteracted by routing surface
drainage. The existence of the reservoir will result in a decrease of mean
annual discharge to Gibbons Creek because of increased evaporation from the
impounded water surface. In summary, the flow conditions in Gibbons Creek
below the reservoir when the reservoir is in operation will be as follows:
(1) The proportion of time during which Gibbons Creek is reduced to isolated
pools and does not flow will remain about the same; (2) periods during which
the creek has a low flow (0.5 cfs) will be longer and more frequent; (3) the
frequency that Gibbons Creek overflows its banks and submerges the floodplain
will be reduced but the duration of each overflow may be greater; and (4)
major flood flows will be virtually eliminated.
Downstream water depletion in Gibbons Creek also will occur after mining
has been completed. This decrease will persist after mining because the
cooling reservoir probably will not be removed, and the GCSES will continue
operation even if TMPA decided to use an alternate fuel or nearby source of
lignite. Because the number of ponds created for the project will be
determined by the wishes of the landowners, it is likely that many will be
retained causing a net loss of runoff to Gibbons Creek and its tributaries.
3-53
-------
Effects on Subsurface Hydrology
The potential effects of construction of support facilities, mining, and
reclamation on groundwater hydrology are greatly dependent on the adherence to
sound environmental and operational standards, and on the physical character
of both the existing and reclaimed subsurface materials. Through strict adher-
ence to identification and disposal of potential acid-forming materials, use
of professional judgment in implementing soil treatment programs, sealing of
sedimentation and treatment ponds when necessary, and control of erosion, the
potential for adverse impacts will be minimized.
The description of the existing groundwater hydrology established that the
subsurface materials generally are slowly permeable to impermeable, with minor
discontinuous channel sand deposits occurring as aquifers with relatively
small groundwater yields (usually less than 50 gpm) scattered throughout the
project site. There also are two marine transgressive sandy units in the
project site that could yield moderate to low amounts of groundwater. These
units lie below the Purple Bed and will be excavated and reclaimed during the
extraction of the A and Super A lignite seams, which will occur under future
mining permits.
A key element in the groundwater hydrology after reclamation will be the
permeability of the replaced mixed overburden. Research by Schneider (1977) on
Texas surface mines with similar overburden materials indicated that the
reclaimed surface settles very rapidly, and that almost 75% of total
settlement occurs during the first 5 years. This settlement corresponds to
rapid redensification with increased depth of the subsurface; permeability
rapidly decreases to 10"^ cm/sec or less with increased depth. The
permeability of disturbed sand units is reduced by a factor of 100 to 1000
compared to original properties, although the permeability does not change
significantly with depth in the lower part of the spoil (Mathewson et al. no
date).
With existing knowledge of these properties and of the geology and
hydrology of the Gibbons Creek project site then it is possible only to
predict the general hydrogeology of the reclaimed mine areas (additional
testing is needed for a more site-specific analysis). In the first 5-year
permit area and in other areas where B Bed or Purple Bed seams will be mined,
and clay and shale overburden predominate, the reclaimed area would have
extremely low permeability at essentially all depths below about 20 feet. The
enhanced water retention in the surface soils and the decreasing permeability
with depth will effectively result in little or no recharge through
infiltration of rainfall. Because of the low permeability of the predominant
clay and shale facies in the adjoining highwalls of the mine pit, little water
may infiltrate the reclaimed overburden from those channels. Owing to these
site-specific factors, the groundwater table will probably not be
reestablished for 10 or more years (Mathewson et al. no date) although
additional testing is needed under more representative post-mining conditions.
In the event that major artesian units were intersected during mining, this
time might be reduced because of both the available pressure-fed recharge
source and the possibility that the presence of the aquifer would indicate
3-54
-------
higher sand content in the original subsurface and consequently in the
resulting reclaimed mined areas*. The only potential sources of artesian
groundwater in the first 5-year permit area, and similar overburden
environments, are channel sands and the lignite seam itself. These have both
been determined to be minor aquifers (Mathewson et al. no date) that would be
inadequate for rapid recharge of the reclaimed area.
During future mining of the A and Super A Bed lignites, TMPA will
intersect the marine transgressive sands. In these instances, although the
transgressive units are not major regional aquifers, they are relatively per-
meable and have artesian properties. Consequently, groundwater levels can be
expected to reestablish more quickly in these reclaimed areas through recharge
from the marine transgressive unit and greater acceptance of rainfall infil-
tration. Although the mixed overburden materials to be replaced in these mined
areas will contain high percentages of sand, the disturbance of the sand re-
duces its permeability by a factor of 100 to 1000, and some clay materials
also would be mixed in from above and below the marine sands. The resulting
reclaimed area will have low to moderate permeabilities that will allow for
recharge acceptance and for seepage to lower aquifers where the mine floor is
not of intact impermeable material. During the future mining of Purple Bed
lignites, any significant disturbance of the clay underburden could allow cir-
culation of groundwater from the underlying transgressive sands under artesian
pressure.
On the basis of these inferred hydrologic conditions and on the TMPA first
5-year mine plan, the following impacts on groundwater hydrology are
anticipated.
• Construction of mine support facilities and equipment will have no
significant impacts on groundwater hydrology because of the low
permeability of existing soil and subsurface materials.
• Mining in the first 5-year permit area should not affect the supply
of major or regional aquifers;
• Mine excavation will lower the groundwater level to a point near the
bottom of the pit in the vicinity of the mine. Owing to the low
permeability of the overburden material, groundwater will migrate
into the excavation very slowly. The resulting depression in the
groundwater surface will be significant only near the excavation, and
noticeable effects may extend to a maximum of 3,800 feet from the
excavation (Mathewson 1977 In TERA Corp. 1979).
• Reclamation in the first 5-year permit area will result in a
reduction in the groundwater level and content for a period of 10 or
more years following reclamation. Permeabilities in the mine area
currently are very low, and will remain so after reclamation.
Permeability in the' horizontal direction will be lower than
pre-mining conditions because of the disruption of minor aquifers and
the horizontal stratification of existing subsurface deposits.
3-55
-------
• No recharge areas for major aquifers will be affected directly by
mining or reclamation. Specifically, recharge areas for the Caddell
and Wellborn aquifers should not be affected significantly by the
main mine haul road or by traffic and construction on the GCSES site.
• The maximum potential for interaction of groundwater and surface
water is in the floodplain and wetlands associated with Gibbons
Creek. Any reduction in the flow of surface water will diminish flow
into the wetland/groundwater system to some extent. At present there
is not enough information on this system to enable an estimate of the
degree of impact.
• Evaluation of the downdip impacts of mining on the aquifers of the
area will require information from an observation well system.
Effects on Surface Water Quality
During site preparation and construction, the erosion of exposed soil may
transport sediments into nearby streams, with a resultant increase in the
turbidity of surface waters on the site. To reduce erosion impacts, surface
water runoff will be routed around areas of exposed soil. A minimal amount of
soil surface will be exposed at one time, and effective mulching or other
appropriate control measures will be used to protect exposed areas from wind
and water.
There will be a continuing wash of contaminants in runoff water from the
haul roads and the truck maintenance area. This water will contain minerals
dissolved from the haul road surface and from materials (lignite, fuel
lubricants, etc.) which fall from trucks. The runoff from these areas will be
impounded in the sediment ponds so that corrective steps can be taken to avoid
contamination of streams. A plan is being developed to deal with any major
spills of fuel from the storage facilities at the maintenance area, (telephone
communication Dean Mathews, TMPA, to W. E. French, WAPORA 17 April 1981).
The most common surface water pollutants associated with surface mining
are total suspended solids, -iron, and acid leachates. Sediment transported by
water during erosion and by air as fugitive dust generally is an abundant
pollutant from surface mining operations. Even though sediment loading into
streams will be controlled by routing runoff from disturbed land features to
settling ponds, mining operations still are expected to contribute some
sediments to surface waters on the Gibbons Creek project site. Also, increased
turbidity levels are likely in Gibbons Creek near the cooling water discharge.
Total suspended solids levels for Gibbons Creek averaged 84 mg/1 at Sta-
tion 4 near Moody and 59 mg/1 at Highway 39, Station 3. These levels may
increase during construction and active mining. However, because the sedimenta-
tion pond TSS discharge limitation for 30 consecutive days is 35.0 mg/1, TSS
concentrations discharged from sedimentation ponds must be lower than those
normally occurring in Gibbons Creek. EPA (1976) recommends that settleable and
3-56
-------
suspended solids should not reduce the depth of light "penetration for photo-
synthetic activity by more than 10% from the seasonally established norm. Sus-
pended solids levels higher than this in Gibbons Creek are likely to occur as
a result of mining. To the extent that this happens, water quality will be
affected adversely.
The average iron concentration in Gibbons Creek is approximately 0.91
mg/1, and concentrations for streams adjacent to Gibbons Creek generally are
greater. Increases in these iron concentrations during mining are probable
because discharges from the sedimentation ponds would be permitted at levels
not to exceed 3.0 mg/l average over a 30-day period. A limit of 1 mg/1 is
recommended for protection of freshwater aquatic life. Therefore, it is
possible that the displays could impact sensitive aquatic life.
Two potential sources of acid leachate are: (1) contaminated groundwater
that seeps directly into creeks, and (2) direct surface runoff that carries
acid materials from mine spoil into receiving streams. To mitigate potential
impacts from such leachates, surface runoff that contacts mined areas will be
routed to sedimentation ponds so that acid materials do not reach receiving
streams. The first mine refuse (spoil) may consist of shales, clays, and low
grade lignites that contain pyrite. When pyrite is exposed to moisture and
oxygen, it is chemically oxidized to produce acid. Acid materials and
sediments can be washed into receiving streams. However, the surface runoff
from this mined area will be routed to sedimentation ponds and the spoil will
be seeded as soon as possible so that vegetation will stabilize the land
surface and prevent erosion.
TMPA also proposes to identify, segregate, and bury down below the
reclaimed surface (at least 4 to 5 feet) carbonaceous and other potential
toxic and/or acid-forming materials encountered during mining. A full time
agronomist is to be hired to ensure this procedure is followed. This procedure
should help in making ovrburden materials more suitable for reclama tion
requiring less pH adjustment to achieve satisfactory revegetation with fewer
adverse water quality effects.
During reclamation, when fertilizers are applied to the soils for revege-
tation purposes, surface water runoff is likely to contain inorganic nutrients
such as nitrogen and phosphorus. When fertilizer applications are repeated
often, nutrient levels in streams may reach undesirable levels, causing algae
blooms, potential odor problems, and oxygen depletion.
Major concerns for impacts on surface water quality are related to recla-
mation. There may be high potential for secondary impacts from erosion, acid
leachate, salt and toxic materials near the surface, and excessive nutrients
depending on the procedure used to reclaim the spoil and develop a medium for
revegetation. Rapid establishment of a stable ecosystem on the surface that
does not require high maintenance is important to avoid water quality impacts
of acid leachate, leached metals, or suspended and dissolved solids. A key
factor in minimizing such problems is in the replacement of the overburden
spoil so that the best available material for revegetation (that is free of
acid- and toxic-forming materials) is at the reclaimed surface.
3-57
-------
The applicant's proposed method for random mixing of overburden has poten-
tial for significant indirect adverse impacts. Three other alternatives for
overburden handling have been developed and are discussed as possible
mitigative options to the applicant's proposed method in Section 3.4.
To ensure that the surface water quality of the Gibbons Creek project area
remains acceptable, three stations will be monitored regularly for water
quality and flow conditions. These station locations are described below and
are shown on Figure 3-9. In addition, TMPA has agreed to establish other
monitoring stations so each drainage could be monitored for purposes of bond
release. The existing three stations are not considered adequate for
characterizing baseline conditions.
Specifically, an additional monitoring station is planned for in the lower
segment of Gibbons Creek at a site located above the confluence with the
Navasota River. This and other stations should be used as a basis for
determining future water quality throughout the affected area.
Effects on Subsurface Water Quality
The environmental impacts of the project on groundwater quality are
closely related to the groundwater hydrology impacts previously discussed. The
following groundwater quality-related environmental impacts are anticipated:
• No significant effects on groundwater quality are expected from
construction of mine support facilities or equipment.
• The loss of groundwater to the mine pits during mining should have no
adverse environmental effects. Groundwater seepage will be pumped to
sedimentation ponds. Although groundwaters in the project area have
TDS levels that exceed Texas standards for discharge to surface
waters, this is not expected to be a problem. Rainwater falling in
mine pits will dilute seepage groundwater, as will other surface
runoff directed to the ponds. Ponds will be drawn down regularly
because they will be a source of dust control water. Further, any
discharge from the ponds would come during heavy rain events, further
diluting the waters prior to treatment and discharge.
• No significant adverse effects on groundwater quality or other
aquifers are expected in the first 5-year permit mining area or other
B-Bed lignite mine areas. Low permeability underburden of sufficient
thickness should protect lower-lying aquifers. These underburden
clays must be preserved to the extent possible in the mine floor.
3-58
-------
Mining in future permit areas has the potential for contamination by
leachates of the marine transgressive sands that occur above the A
and Super A lignite beds. This condition could lead to acid leaching
and toxic contamination by aluminum, manganese, iron, and trace
metals. Mitigative measures should be determined by future study of
techniques such as reduction of surface water infiltration, lime
amelioration, or other chemical treatment.
Future mining in the Purple Bed lignite seam should be done so as to
prevent the mine floor from being breached. Artesian conditions in
the underlying marine transgressive sands could cause problems with
mine floor stability, or mine leachates could enter the deeper
aquifers.
Acid leaching should not be a significant impact in the first 5-year
permit area. The low permeabilities of the mixed overburden materials
should effectively seal the reclaimed mine pit. As groundwaters
slowly reestablish in the reclaimed areas, the extremely low
permeability materials will allow very low reactivity and slow
groundwater movement, which should inhibit the formation of acid
leachates.
TMPA is considering disposal of stabilized flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) sludge, which is expected to be an impermeable material, in the
mine pit as solid waste. The FGD sludge may be located as small cells
throughout the mined parts of the first 5-year permit area. The 1989
pit is being considered as a long-term disposal area for FGD sludge.
Details of the plan are not yet final. Although this often is an
acceptable disposal technique and the low permeability of the
reclaimed mine spoils suggests an appropriate substrate, careful
planning and full justification will be required from the Texas
Railroad Commission to prevent contamination of groundwater by the
acid solution of calcium sulfate from the sludge. It should be noted
that mapping by Mathewson (1977) of a percentage of sand above the
lignite shows occurrence of 30 to 40% sand in a pattern through the
(1989 pit "which may suggest a channel sand deposit in that area").
Alternate sites for solid FGD sludge may be more suitable, but have
not yet been identified. Additional information regarding disposal
plans for sludges and ash must be submitted to the TDWR for approval
prior to final disposal.
TMPA is planning four groundwater monitoring wells in the first
5-year permit area, located just southeast of the 1989 pit. This
alignment is intended to give a close check, on the FGD sludge
disposal site. However, this alignment is not considered optimal for
monitoring the mining and reclamation of all areas in the permit
area. Current pending final mining permit provisions would require
wells to be installed to the depth of the lowest lignite seam mined
while others would be to a depth sufficient to monitor the effects of
mining on the first significant aquifer below the lowest lignite seam
to be mined.
3-59
-------
Effects on Water Supply Conditions
The operation of the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project will require moderate
amounts of surface water. Water supplies in the project area are considered
adequate to meet these needs. Additional water rights already, have been
obtained in anticipation of a second 400 MW unit to maintain the reservoir at
its required volume. The source of this supplemental water supply is the
Navasota River below Lake Limestone.
TMPA is the only holder of water rights in the mine area, so no other in-
dustry or municipality will be affected by water use at the lignite project.
Surface water in the mine area currently is used for wildlife habitat and con-
sumption in addition to livestock watering. The proposed lignite project will
cause the removal or alteration of some streams and stock ponds, but adequate
surface water will be available for upland wildlife and livestock both during
and after mining operations.
No long-term adverse effects are expected from consumptive use of ground-
water in the project area. TMPA does not intend to use groundwater as a source
of water for the Gibbons Creek lignite mine.
In the project area, there may be some interruptions in flows to water
wells as a result of mining. This impact is expected to be minor in the first
5-year permit area. Two wells in the area known as Butt's Lease will be closed
or affected by the mining. No other known active wells are close enough to the
proposed mining areas to be affected by the disruption of the near-surface
groundwater levels. The two wells affected are on lands already acquired by
TMPA. In the event that active wells are contaminated, diminished, or
interrupted during mining operations, TMPA will conform to regulations
pursuant to the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977,
which require the operator to replace the water supply for the affected
landowner.
The effect of the mine on groundwater supplies will range from a drastic
impact in the immediate vicinity of the mine to a negligible effect at dis-
tance. The long-term effect would consist only of a slightly altered recharge
potential for an area which presently has a very low recharge ability (the
first 5-year permit area), or a moderate and variable recharge capacity (parts
of the subsequent mining areas). To mitigate possible adverse effects on
groundwater hydrology, TMPA proposes to leave selected retention basins as
permanent impoundments. TMPA also has agreed to design retention basins to
accommodate any changes in infiltration rates.
Within the project area there may be some interruption of flows to water
wells and springs. This impact will be localized to the immediate mine area
in the first 5-year permit area but may extend farther from the pit boundary
in subsequent mining areas due to the higher transmissivity of some of the
sandy layers In the eastern part of the project site.
3-60
-------
In the 5-year permit area, the wells in Butt's Lease will be affected and
will be used for monitoring groundwater conditions during mining operations.
It is not expected that any wells or springs outside the project boundary will
be affected.
There are two sulfur water springs in the area of historical significance.
Both are located within 1 mile of the proposed mine excavation. If the
predicted maximum distance of influence (3,800 feet) is exceeded either of the
springs could have its flow diminished. Both springs are classified as Fifth
Magnitude springs (10 to 100 gpm) on the basis of a few discharge measurements
which range between 20 and 45 gpm.
Kellum Springs is located 5 miles east-northeast of Carlos and about 4,000
feet from the proposed pit margin. Owing to the fact that the spiring is 50
feet lower than the surface at the mine and the fact that this Is the shallow-
er edge of the mine, it is less likely that this spring would be impacted.
Sulphur Springs, 2,000 feet north of Piedmont, is somewhat more likely to be
impacted since it is only 25 feet below the level of the adjacent pit mar-
gin and the pit would be considerably deeper on this side of the mine.
Although it is not likely that either of the springs would be severely
impacted, the only feasible mitigative measure would be to provide for an
alternative water supply from one of the aquifers which are below the
influence of the mine. This would probably not provide a sulfur-bearing water.
3.1.3 Air Quality
3.1.3.1 Existing Conditions
Operative Regulations
This section summarizes the air quality requirements associated with the
proposed project.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were established by the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 for the protection of health and welfare.
Under these standards the levels of air pollution acceptable for health and
welfare were set by primary and secondary standards, respectively. Pollutants
for which these standards have been set are referred to as "criteria pollu-
tants." The criteria pollutants and their primary and secondary standards are
presented in Table 3-7.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 instituted a new method for achieving
and maintaining NAAQS. Under these amendments, States were required to submit,
for each AQCR, a report on the attainment status of each criteria pollutant.
Areas shown to possess air quality cleaner than the NAAQS for SO2 and
particulates were designated as prevention of significant deterioration areas.
AQCR's in which the air quality does not meet the NAAQS are designated as
Nonattainment (NA) areas for the pollutant which exceeds the NAAQS. It is
therefore possible for an area to be NA for one pollutant and PSD for another.
3-61
-------
Table 3-7. Air quality regulations and associated values potentially appli-
cable to the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project.
Pollutant
Sulfur Dioxide
Averaging
Time
Annual
Annual
24-Hour
24-Hour
3-Hour
3-Hour
Regulat ion
NAAQS, primary^
PSD, Class II increment
NAAQS, primary
PSD, Class II increment
NAAQS, secondary
PSD, Class II increment
(a)
(b)
(b)
Value
80 ug/ml
20 ug/ml
365 ug/ml
91 ug/ml
1,300 ug/ml
512 ug/m~
Particulate
Matter
(a)
Annual Geometric
Mean) NAAQS, primary
Annual (Geometric , .
C 3 )
Mean) NAAQS, secondary
Annual (Geometric
Mean)
24-Hour
24-Hour
24-Hour
5-Hour
3-Hour
1-Hour
PSD, Class II
ement
(b)
NAAQS, primary
NAAQS, secondary
PSD,,Class II increment
T4nc(c)
(c)
TAQS
TAQS
(b)
(b)
75
60
19
260
150
37
100
200
400
ug/m"
ug/m"
ug/ml
ug/ml
ug/m,
ug/m^
ug/m~
ug/m^
ug/m
Nitrogen Dioxide* Annual
NAAQS, primary and
secondary
100 ug/m"
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour NAAQS, prigary and
secondary 10 g/m
1-Hour NAAQS, primary and
secondary 40 g/m
Hydrocarbons
(corrected for
methane)
3-Hour
(6-9 a.m.)
NAAQS, primary and
secondary
160 ug/m (d)
Photochemical
Oxidants
1-Hour -
NAAQS, primary and
secondary
240 ug/m (e)
(a) = Not to be exceeded
(b) = Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
(•:) = Not contributions by a source, not to be exceeded.
(d) = Has not as yet been relaxed In accordance with Federal ozone change from
160 to 240 ug/m .
(e) = Not to be exceeded on more than one day per year.
* Within one year after the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1977 (PL 95-95) the US-EPA Administrator shall promulgate a national primary
ambient air quality standard for N02»
Source: Adapted from TERA Corp. 1977. Environmental assessment report:
Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station. Prepared for Texas Municipal
Power Agency. Dallas TX.
3-62
-------
In general, new sources can cause no increase in pollutant levels in NA areas
and are limited to an increment increase in PSD areas. The study area is de-
signated as attainment for all criteria pollutants, therefore it is subject to
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations.
There are three classifications of PSD areas based on the sensitivity of
the area. Class I areas are pristine areas where any effects from air pol-
lutants may be adverse. There are no Class I areas within 100 km of the Gib-
bons Creek Lignite Project. Class II areas are regions of nominal air quality
sensitivity (Gibbons Creek Lignite Project is located in a Class II area).
Class III areas have little air quality sensitivity and the air quality incre-
ment for these areas is the most lenient. Class I areas are scattered through-
out the US, while Class II areas comprise the remaining areas. As yet no areas
have been classified as Class III. The increments allowed for Class II areas
are shown in Table 3-7. Currently, PSD requirements only apply to particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide.
The proposed project is located in an area under the Federal jurisdiction
of EPA Region 6 and under the State jurisdiction of the Texas Air Control
Board (TACB). Further, the project area is located in AQCR 212. TACB Region
III encompasses the same geographical area as AQCR 212.
Permits
Current regulations (FR 45, No. 154: 52676-52692, 7 August 1980), specify
that fugitive emissions are quantified for PSD review only if the source (1)
belongs to one of the sources listed in paragraph i, subsection/7; or (2) is
being regulated under Section 111 (New Source Performance Standards) or 112
(National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Polluntants) of the Clean Air
Act. Surface coal mines are not one of the sources listed in paragraph i,
subsection 7 and are not regulated under Section 111 or 112 of the Clean Air
Act. Therefore, the fugitive emissions from the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
are not subject to PSD review.
Climatology
The climate of the project region can be characterized generally as sub-
tropical, with dry winters and humid summers. The proximity of the Gulf of
Mexico produces persistent southerly and southeasterly wind flows except in
winter, when invasions of dry, polar air masses produce a northerly prevailing
wind. The eastern edge of the region has adequate precipitation (a yearly
average of 56 inches) and hot summers typical of a humid, subtropical climate.
In contrast, the western edge of the region borders a semi-arid steepe of
southern Texas and northern Mexico, which is deficient of rainfall in the sum-
mer (about 32 inches annually). Climatological data representative of the Col-
lege Station (and the site) area are summarized in Table 3-8.
3-63
-------
Table .3-8, Cllmatological summary for College Station, Texas (revised November 1977),
means and extremes for period from 1952 to 1970.
u>
i
ON
¦P-
Temperature (°F)
Precipitation Totals (Inches)
Mean f"
lumber of Days
Means
Extremes
Snow, Sleet
Temperatures
c.
Max.
Min
.
s
s
Daily
Maximum
Daily
Minimum
Monthly
Record
Highest
Year
Record
Lowest
Year
D
o"!
n
s
c
o
a;
5
o
O
in
V
O
V
O
Year
Mean
Maximum
Monthly '
Year
Greatest
Depth
Year
Precip. .10"
or more
90° and
above
32° and
below
l!
°«M.S
o
c *
o ,2
Oo-S
o
2
(a)
19
19
19
19
19
15
19
19
19
19
15
15
15
15
15
15
Jan
59.5
40.0
49.8
81
1963*
14
1962
514
2.37
1.90
1952
T
T
1970+
T
1970*
5
0
1
9
0
Jan
Feb
63.3
42.8
53.1
88
1954
21
1967
364
3.42
3.34
1955
0.1
1.0
1965
1
1965
6
0
0
4
0
Feb
Mar
69.7
47.7
58.7
89
1967.
24
1965
234
2.03
2.81
1969
r
T
1968.
0
5
0
0
2
0
Mar
Apr
78.5
58.5
68.5
93
1963
36
1961
. 44
4.77
5.17
1969
0
0
6
•
0
0
0
Apr
May
84.9
65.0
75.0
98
1958
42
1954
3
4.04
3.72
1954
0
0
4 •
7
0
0
0
May
Jun
91.5
70.9
81.2
102
I960.
53
1970
0
3.59
4.18
I960
0
0
5
21
0
0
0
Jun
Jul
95.2
73.5
84.4
109
1954
58
1967
0
2.48
5.09
1968
0
0
3
28
0
0
0
Jul
Aug
95.7
73.1
84.4
107
1962.
61
1967
0
2.11
2.45
1957
0
0
4
28
0
0
0
Aug
Sep
89.6
68.3
79.0
102
1963
46
1967
1
4.83
4.63
1958
0
0
6
15
0
0
0
Sep
Oct
80.7
57.8
69.3
98
1956
32
1957
41
3.25
5.13
1967
0
0
4
3
0
•
0
Oct
Nov
69.6
48. 1
58.9
89
1955
24
1959
217
1.21
3.12
I960
r
T
1959.
0
5
0
0
2
0
Nov
Dec
62.1
41.9
52.0
85
1955
19
1963.
406
3.33
4.93
1965
T
T
1969 f
0
5
0
•
5
0
Dec
Year
78.3
57.3
65.2
109
Jul
1954
14
Jon
1962
1824
37.43
5.17
Apr
1969
0.1
1.0
Feb
1965
1
1965
58
102
1
22
0
Year
(o) Average length of record, years
T Trace, an amount loo smoll to measure
*• Base 65° F
Also on earlier" dates, months, or years
Less than one-Half
Source: NOAA. 1971. In TERA Corp. 1977. Environmental Assessment Report. Gibbons Creek Steam
Electric Station. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency. Dallas TX.
-------
Dispersion Potential
The meteorological phenomena of the project region are generally not con-
ducive to serious air pollution episodes, owing to the role of the Gulf of
Mexico in keeping the air masses passing over it in an unstable condition
Generally, the critical meteorological factors that influence pollutant con-
centration levels are wind speed, wind persistence, and atmosphere stability.
The ground level concentration of pollutants typically is inversely
proportional to wind speed. Wind persistence often is the critical factor in
instances where ground level concentrations accumulate to higher than normal
levels for a given time period. Atmospheric stability directly influences pol-
lutant dispersion - unstable conditions promote vertical mixing, and stable
conditions inhibit dispersion and mixing. Large scale air pollution episodes
tend to be associated with high pressure systems and light winds that remain
over an area for several days or longer. However, most high pressure systems
related to the climate of this project region are migratory and do not stag-
nate.
Atmospheric Emissions
Emission sources within 30 km of the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project bound-
ary were identified from TACB permits issued through September 1978. The only
major source within the 30-km radius is the GCSES. When operating at full
capacity, the GCSES will emit 670.3 g/sec (5,316 lb/hr) of SO2, 335.1 g/sec
(2,658 lb/hr) of NCty, and 55.9 g/sec (443 lb/hr) of particulate matter. The
maximum ground level SO2 impact (24-hour) for GCSES is only 5% of the NAAQS
(19 ug/m^ out of 365 ug/m^). All other sources are minor, being much
further from the project area, and having much lower emissions.
Background Concentrations
Ambient air quality for the project area is monitored by the Texas Air
Control Board (TACB) and the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA). Additional
measurements were made at the proposed GCSES site in the late summer and early
fall of 1976. All monitoring showed particulate concentrations below the prim-
ary and secondary 24-hour and annual NAAQS at all locations (the 60 ug/m^
annual guideline at the Bryan station was slightly exceeded, but this is not
significant because the 60 ug/m^ is a guideline value for meeting the 150
ug/m^ 24-hour standard, which was met by a considerable margin). The 3-hour,
24-hour, and annual concentrations of SO2 also were within the NAAQS.
Similarly, the nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide levels satisfied the
NAAQS. Hydrocarbons and oxidants were monitored only at the Austin and Aldine
sites, and exceeded the NAAQS.
The 1977 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments require each State to designate
areas that meet (attainment) or do not meet (nonattainment) the NAAQS primary
standards for TSP, SO2, CO, photochemical oxidants, and NO2. The EPA has
designated Travis and McLennan counties (which contain the cities of Austin
and Waco, respectively) as either attainment or unclassifiable for ozone. All
other counties, including Grimes, have been designated as unclassifiable for
3-65
-------
photochemical oxidants owing to the lack of sufficient ambient monitoring
data. For TSP, SO2, NO2, and CO, all counties in AQCR 212, including
Grimes, have been designated as attainment.
3.1.3.2 Impacts on Air Quality
Project Emissions
The mining of lignite can result in considerable dust emissions. The fugi-
tive dust emissions from this project will not require a PSD permit, but these
emissions and the affects are addressed. The specific activities that will re-
sult in dust generation at the Gibbons Creek site, and their corresponding un-
controlled emission factors, are shown in Table 3-9. In addition, the
evolution of windborne dust over exposed areas has been estimated to occur at
a rate of 512 lb/acre-year (TERA 1979). The emissions from an average and a
worst-case mining parameters are presented in Table 3-10. The expected point
source emissions and the resulting total emissions also are included in Table
3-10.
Predicted Concentrations
Most of the dust to be emitted by the lignite project will settle rapidly
as it is carried away by the wind. The fraction of the source emission that is
expected to remain airborne will be entrained rather than indefinitely sus-
pended, and will consist of large particles not associated with TSP effects
criteria and ambient standards. For this reason, modeling predictions of total
suspended particulate concentrations are not applicable, and were not
prepared. Instead, the expected average and maximum emission rates were com-
bined with fallout rates in order to obtain estimates of settleable particu-
late concentrations or dustfall rates. These are presented in Table 3-11, and
are considered to be quite high only at small downwind distances, and under
worst-case conditions.
For example, the maximum expected monthly dustfall at 0.4 km downwind is
49 mg/cm^. At a bulk density of 1 g/cm^, the ground in this location would
be subject to the deposition of a dust layer 0.5 mm thick, though this dust
would be partially absorbed and partially dissipated during the course of its
deposition. At greater downwind distances and under more typical mining and
meteorological conditions, deposition totals would be much less. The potential
effects of this dust on the ecosystem (e.g., through changes in abrasion,
transpiration, soil properties, etc.) therefore would be confined largely to
areas very near and downwind of the mining site.
Regarding other potential direct air quality effects of the lignite
project, gaseous contaminant emissions, and hence ambient concentration
increases, will be negligible. Furthermore, because the project's dust emis-
sions will primarily be large particles (which have (1) low surface area-to-
weight ratios, are (2) inefficient adsorbers of sulfur dioxide and other con-
taminants, are (3) alkaline neutralizers of acid gases and mists, and are (4)
unable to penetrate into the human respiratory system), no synergistic
3-66
-------
Table 3-9. Totaltsuspended particulate emission factors for surface coal mines.
Emission Factors
Activity
Units
Lowest
Average
Highest
Overburden Removal
Lb/Yd3
.003
.021
0.053
Coal Loading
Lb/Ton
.002
.006625
.014
Haul Road(a)
Lb/Veh-Mi
11.2
14.1
17.0
Spoil Piles
Lb/Acre/Hr
1.6(u)
1.6(u)
1.6(u)
Fly Ash Dump
Lb/Hr
3.9
3.9
3.9
(u) - wind 'speed in meters per second.
(a) - only vehicle miles by haul trucks; travel by other vehicles on haul
roads (pickup trucks, etc.) is incorporated into these values.
Source: (1) TERA Corp. 1979. Gibbons Creek Lignite Project Prevention
of Significant Air Quality Deterioration Application. Pre-
pared for the Texas Municipal Power Agency. Dallas TX.
(2) USEPA. 1978. Survey of fugitive dust from coal mines.
Washington DC.
3-67
-------
Table 3-10. Base case total suspended particulate controlled emissions from
Gibbons Creek surface mine using USEPA emission factors.
Mine Parameter Emissions (Tons/Year)
Activity (Annual) Low Average High
Fugitive Dust 30-Year Worst Case
Overburden Removal
58.5 x 10 cu.yd.
87.8
614.3
1,550.3
Overburden Replacement
7.05 x 10 ^cu.yd
10.6
74.0
186.8
Haul Road Trucks-Lignite
.61 92 x 10^ veh. mi.
1,733.8
2,182.7
2,631.6
Haul Road Trucks-Ash
. 1935 x 10^ veh. mi.
541.8
682.1
822.4
Spoil Piles
26.7 acres
580.6
580.6
580.6
Wind Loss - Exposed Areas
500 acres
128.0
128.0
128.0
Fugitive Dust Worst Case Total
3,082.6
4,261.7
5,899.7
qitive Dust 30-Year Averaqe Conditions
Overburden Removal
42.9 x 10 cu.yd.
64.4
450.5
1, 136.9
Overburden Replacement
6.42 x lO^cu.yd.
9.7
67.4
170.1
Haul Road Trucks-Lignite
.378 x 10^ veh. mi.
1,058.4
1,332.5
1,606.5
Haul Road Trucks-Ash
.1183 X 10^ veh. mi.
331.3
417.0
502.8
Spoil Piles
26.7 acres
580.6
580.6
580.6
Wind Loss - Exposed Areas
500 acres
128.0
128.0
128.0
Fugitive Dust 30-Yr. Average
Totals
2,172.4
2,981.4
4,124.9
Point Sources
Lignite Loading
3.0 x 10 tons
3.0
9.9
21.0
Ash Dump
312.5 hours
0.6
0.6
0.6
Point Source Total
3.6
10.5
21.6
Total Worst Case
3,086.2
4,272.2
5,921.3
Total 30-Yr. Average Conditions
2,176.0
2,991.9
4,146.5
Source: TERA Corp. 1979. Gibbons Creek Lignite Report Prevention of Signifi-
cant Air Quality Deterioration Application. Prepared for the Texas
Municipal Power Agency. Dallas TX.
3-68
-------
Table 3-11,. Predicted increases in settleable particulate concentrations expected to result
from the operation of the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
Downwind distance (km)
0.40
0.50
0.75
1.00
2.00
5.00
Fallout rate (%/km)
41.6
18.4
10.3
8.5
5.3
2.3
Average conc. (mg/cm^-mo)
3.74
1.32
0.49
0.31
0.10
0.02
Maximum conc. (mg/cm^-.no)
49.08
17.37
6.48
4.01
1.25
0.22
Note: Average concentration, based on 30-year average annual emissions of.2,991,9 tons, is
for all downwind directions at the indicated distance. Maximum concentration, based
on worst-case annual emissions of 5,921.3 tons, is for the prevailing downward direction,
based on the wind blowing from south to north with a maximum monthly frequency of 41-.4%.
(This occurs during July, based on Austin data).
-------
or adverse interactions with the contaminants emitted from the GCSES are anti-
cipated.
Emissions of lignite dust are accompanied by such radioactive elements as
thorium (4ppm) and uranium (2ppm), as well as unknown concentrations of
short-lived radon and decay products (Weir 1979). Radioactivity in the dust
emissions has been estimated by multiplying the worst-case maximum annual em-
ission total (5,899.7 tons, assumed to be all lignite) by these thorium and
uranium concentrations, and by appropriate conversion factors (0.109 and .333
picocuries per microgram, respectively; see Wang's Handbook of Radioactive
Nuclides, 67th edition, Chemical Rubber Company). The results indicate annual
emissions of 2.4 and 3.6 millicuries of thorium and uranium, respectively.
These totals are almost five times those to be expected from a typical new,
1,000-mw coal-fired power plant, but are not necessarily greater than those
from older plants having less efficient particulate emission controls. The as-
sociated potential impacts of these .estimated levels can be determined only
through complex modeling that has not been performed for the proposed lignite
project (e.g., see McBride et al. 1978, "Radiological impact of airborne ef-
fluents of coal and nuclear plants," Science pp. 1045-1050).
Indirect Effects
Indirect air quality effects of the mining operations will result from the
commuting of the labor force between surrounding towns and the project site.
However, because the work force will not be very large and the area currently
is not congested, no significant impact is expec'ted.
The potential cumulative effects of the further development of lignite
mining and burning, across southeastern Texas have been the subject of some
concern. A study prepared for the EPA (Harner 'et al. 1978), identified the de-
sirable buffer zones between such projects in the lignite belt, and listed ex-
pected additional projects that may need to be accommodated (Table 3-12). The
conclusion was that further lignite developments can be accommodated at this
time, but this situation may well change in the more distant future, as suit-
able sites become scarce.
3.1.4 Sound Quality
3.1.4.1 Existing Sound Levels
A background noise survey was conducted during the week of 28 June 1976
(TERA Corp. 1978) to document the ambient sound levels and to establish a
baseline from which the potential noise impacts of the proposed project could
be assessed. The survey obtained data from eight sampling locations chosen as
the most likely sites to be affected by increases in noise levels, specifi-
cally:
3-70
-------
Table 3-12.
Stat ion/Number
Monticello #3
San Miguel #1
San Miguel //2
Sandow #4
Proposed Texas lignite'
required to obtain PSD
Principal Utility
System
Texas Utilities
South Texas and
Medina Electric
Cooperatives &
Texas Municipal
Power Agency
South Texas and
Medina Electric
Cooperatives &
Texas Municipal
Power Agency
TUSI
-fired steam electric generating stations with known sites and which are
approval from US-EPA for the period from 1979 to 1985.
Estimated Buffer
Capacity Year of Distance
City/Town (MWe) Start-Up (mi).
County
Titus
Atascosa
Atascosa
Mt. Pleasant
Jourdanton
Jourdanton
750
400
400
1978
1979
1984
15
16
Milam
Rockdale
545
1981
11
Gibbons Creek
//I
in
TMPA
TMPA
Grimes
Grimes
Carlos
Carlos
400
400
1981
1985
16
Forest Grove
//I
Twin Oak #1
Twin Oak (f 2
South Hallsville
TUSI
TUSI
TUSI
SW Electric
Power Cooperative
Henderson
Robertson
Robertson
Marion
Athens
Franklin
Franklin
Longview
750
562
562
660
1982
1984
1985
1985
8
22
13
Note: Lignite-fired stations also are being considered by City Public Service Board of San Antonio (Bastrop Co.,
400-650 MWe, 1988), Houston Lighting & Power (Limestone Co., 2 x 750 MWe, 1985-6), and Lower Colorado River
Authority (details uncertain).
-------
Location
Number
Description
1 Northeastern section of the lignite deposit near Singleton
where several farms are located.
2 Eastern section of lignite deposit, point of closest public
approach to mine from this direction.
3 Southern section of the plant site, closest public approach
to the GCSES from the south.
4 Central section of lignite deposit, several residences near
location that will remain during some of the raining opera-
tion.
5 Southwestern section of lignite deposit near Piedmont where
several full-time residences are located.
6 Northwestern section of lignite deposit, point of closest
public approach from northwest.
7 Closest public approach to the GCSES site boundaries from
the west.
8 Northwestern section of the cooling pond and closest public
approach to the GCSES from the north.
Data from the noise survey are presented in Table 3-13. These data are
presented in the form of Lio> L50» and Lgg A-weighted sound levels. The
M0> ^50» an(* L90 noise levels provide a statistical description of the
ambient noise levels and indicate the nature and magnitude of the sound
sources in the vicinity of the sampling point. If there are large variations
in the L^g, L50> an^ ^90 n°lse levels, it can be deduced that the noise
sources are short-term, periodic, and high level. This type of noise is
characteristic of non-stationary sources such as highway traffic and movement
of equipment. When noise levels in the vicinity of the project do not vary
greatly, the noise sources are primarily stationary, and produce relatively
constant background noise levels. The rural setting of the project results in
these relatively constant environmental noise levels, a finding consistent
with other noise surveys in similar areas.
The EPA has identified a day/night sound level (l>dn) ^dn = ^5 ^BA
for outdoor areas to protect the public health and welfare. The measured sound
levels were converted to equivalent sound levels (Leq) to calculate the
at each of the noise measurement locations. Based on previous measure-
ments in rural areas similar to the project area, the Leq was found to be 2
dB higher than the L50 sound level (WAPORA 1979). The L(jn at each of the
measurement locations (Table 3-13) currently exceed the EPA guidelines at all
of the eight measurement locations in the range from 5 to 15 dBA.
3-72
-------
Table 3-13. Noise survey data measured on the Gibbons
Creek lignite site, Grimes County, Texas. *
Sampling
Location
1 **
3 -k-k
4
Level
Daytime
Nightime
L10
L50
L90
eq
71
70
60
51
63
56
Ldn =
71
62
65
i10
L50
L90
eq
78
51
68
58
58
55
Ldn =
70
70
60
L10
t50
,90
Li
eq
71
67
58
46
59
53
Ldn "
67
60
61
L10
L50
L90
eq
77
79
66
57
70
60
Ldn "
80
68 .
72
L10
L50
L90
eq
73
57
58
53
56
54
Ldn =
65
60
58
L10
L50
J:90
eq
71
52
57
48
50
47
Ldn =
60
59
52
L10
L50
L90
eq
87
52
78
69
61
51
Ldn
78
80
63
L10
L50
L90
eq
81
57
71
55
48
46
Ldn =
71
73
50
*Sound levels Lio> 1>50> ^90 were measured (TERA Corp. 1979); Leg and L
-------
The variations are the result of man-made noise from agricultural
activities, occasional highway traffic, natural environmental noise from in-
sect activity, and wind passing through trees and heavy underbrush. The night-
time noise levels reflect the discontinuation of the traffic and agricultural
activities, and show the consistency of the background noise caused by wind
and insect activity.
3.1.4.2 Impacts on Sound Levels
Noise impacts of the mining operation were evaluated for the various types
of proposed equipment and activities. Sound level"data obtained from an oper-
ational surface coal mine (USGS 1976) were evaluated to obtain representative
sound levels associated with mobile and stationary mine equipment. The peak
sound levels at that mine ranged from 71 to 81 dBA at distances of 6 to 30
meters (20 to 100 feet) from the source.
The equivalent point source noise level within the mine pit resulting from
the equipment noise sources was determined to be 85.7 dBA (TERA Corp. 1978).
This estimated level may well be higher than actually would occur because, for
estimating purposes, the sources were assumed to be all within 200 feet of one
another. The noise levels at various distances from the assumed sources of no-
ise in the mine pit were calculated. At a distance of 100 feet from the mine
sources, the measured background noise level, L^n, of 65 dBA, at the nearest
full-time residence will be increased 1 dBA (changes smaller than 5 dBA are
considered insignificant) (EPA 1979).
Aside from noise generated in the active mine pit area, another source of
potential noise impact is from the trucks that will transport lignite from the
mine to the power plant. The 110-ton haul trucks will have a cycle time of
36.93 minutes (Paul Weir Company 1977). A conservative estimate of the haul
road traffic for haul trucks is two round trips per hour for each of the six
haul trucks, or 24 vehicles per hour. The ash haul trucks returning the re-
sidual ash from the plant to the mine will have a cycle time of about 40.34
minutes. The two ash haul trucks will contribute six vehicles per hour to the
haul road noise. The total haul road truck traffic is assumed to be 30
vehicles per hour traversing any given point on the haul road. (These
statistics will be modified somewhat with the planned addition of a conveyor
system.)
The noise level of a single haul truck is 85 dBA at 300 meters (1,000
feet) and 91 dBA at 15 meters (50 feet) (CERL 1978). The operation of 30 haul
trucks per day will increase the measured daytime Leg» at Location #5 from
60 dBA to 70 dBA. As a result, the L^n at Location #5 will be 69 dBA, an
increase of 4 dBA. This increase in L^n will have a slight impact on narby
residences.
In summary, based on the distance from the mining pit to the nearest
full-time residences, the noise impacts of the stationary mining equipment
will be negligible. The haul road noise impacts also will be negligible at
distances greater than 30 meters (100 feet) from the haul road. With the
addition of a conveyor system, overall noise generation should be reduced.
3-74
-------
3.1.5 Biology
3.1.5.1 Aquatic Habitats
3.1.5.1.1 Existing Communities
The major aquatic communities on the project area include the Navasota
River (and associated floodplain ponds), Gibbons Creek, several intermittent
streams, and farm ponds (Figure 3-10). The description of the existing
aquatic communities on the project site are based on current literature and
field surveys conducted during July 1976 by Espey, Huston and Associates.
Navasota River and Associated Floodplain Ponds
Limited information is available concerning the abundance and distribution
of phytoplankton, attached microscopic algae, and submerged aquatic vascular
plants that inhabit the Navasota River. They are not of major importance as
primary producers in the river due to the highly variable flow regime and the
naturally turbid water (Clark 1973). The major source of primary production in
the river is probably dead plant material contributed by bordering marsh and
terrestrial vegetation (Gallaher 1974; Clark 1973). Diatoms, green, and blue-
green algae were the most numerically abundant groups of phytoplankton in the
Navasota River. The dominant alga was Melosira granulata, a species commonly
associated with eutrophic waters (Low 1974). Submerged aquatic plants were
limited to sluggish backwaters and shallows nearshore.
Rotifers, waterfleas, and copepods were the most abundant zooplankton.
These species are considered typical of running water environments, and a few
genera (e.g., Polyartha, Keratella) are also common inhabitants of eutrophic
waters (Whitton 1975).
The highest abundance and diversity of benthic invertebrates occurred
where organic debris accumulated or among tree roots and other vegetation
along the shore. The lowest numbers and taxa of aquatic invertebrates were
found in clay substrates in mid-channel following periods of peak flow. The
river also supports a diverse community of molluscs (snails, clams, and mus-
sels), oligochaete worms, leaches and flatworms. In the lower Navasota River,
10 species of crayfish and one species of grass shrimp (Palaemonetes) were
also reported (TERA Corp. 1979).
The diversity and abundance of benthic invertebrates in the Navasota River
are lower than in the adjacent tributaries (Clark 1973; Espey, Huston and As-
sociates 1976) due to highly variable flow rates and frequent high current
velocities.
Four shallow floodplain ponds sampled during the 1976 survey were
characterized by turbid water, soft muddy sediments, and submerged terrestrial
vegetation along their margins. Only portions of these ponds are permanent.
However, the diversity of benthic invertebrates in these communities was much
higher than in the Navasota River due to the greater habitat diversity and
3-75
-------
(1°)
c
,©l
>
u
\©r
©c
Figure 3-10. Locations of aquatic
biological sampling stations
in the area of the Gibbons
Creek Lignite Project, Grimes
Co. TX.
O
o «ooo' coo'
SAMPLING STATION
Source: TERA Corp. 1979. Gibbons
Creek Lignite Project,
Environmental Assessment •
Report. Dallas, TX.
3 -70
-------
food supply provided by associated vegetation. Gallaher (1974) also found
higher numbers and species of benthic invertebrates in floodplain ponds than
in the Navasota River. Seasonally, they provide important habitat for aquatic
life.
The fish community in the Navasota River is diverse and unique because it
contains elements from both the Texan and the Austroriparian (East Texas)
Biotic Provinces. None of the fish species present is endemic to the area.
Common species of non-gamefish include the bowfin, redfin pickerel, spotted
sucker, pirate perch, blackspotted topminnow, dollar sunfish, bantam sunfish,
banded pygmy sunfish, and the goldstripe darter. Currently none of these
species is considered unique, commercially valuable, endangered, or
threatened.
The most important gamefish of the Navasota River include channel catfish,
flathead catfish, freshwater drum, white bass, largemouth bass, crappie, and
other larger sunfish. Because access to the section of river included in the
project site is difficult, fishing pressure is low. No unique, endangered, or
threatened species of fish were observed.
Important fish habitats in the river include pools, that provide important
feeding and spawning habitats for larger species, and riffles, that are
important habitat and spawning areas for smaller fish (especially riffles over
gravel substrates) (LGL Ltd. 1976). Floodplain ponds also provide important
seasonal fish habitat.
Gibbons Creek
Distribution and abundance of aquatic animals in Gibbons Creek is
controlled primarily by variable flow rates. Therefore, inhabitats were
generally those characteristics of pool habitats. Biological productivity was
low much of the year, particularly in the intermittent segments of the upper
reaches of the creek. However, during spring and early summer (the rainy
season), the upper reaches of Gibbons Creek contained a high diversity and
abundance of benthic (bottom-dwelling) invertebrates.
Primary producers in Gibbons Creek include phytoplankton, periphyton, and
low numbers of vascular aquatic plants. Low phytoplankton densities (mostly
green algae and diatoms) were observed in Gibbons Creek during field surveys.
Several species (e.g., Chlamydamonas sp., Scenedesmus sp., Nitzschia sp.,
and several euglenoidsl present are typical of eutrophic waters (Whitton
1975).
Fish populations in Gibbons Creek, although poorly studied, are similar
to those of the lower Navasota River. During July 1976, 32 of 56 species of
fish occurring in the lower Navasota River were collected in Gibbons Creek.
The most common species included the mosquitofish, sharpnose minnow, pugnose
minnow, orangespotted sunfish, bluegill, and white crappie (11 of the 32 total
species are gamefish).
3-77
-------
Intermittent Streams
Several intermittent streams, such as Sulphur Creek, Peach Creek, and Rock
Lake Creek, occur on the project site (Figure 3-10). Primary producers include
phytoplankton, periphyton, and an occasional vascular aquatic plant. Diverse
populations of invertebrate larvae develop in these communities owing to their
high diversity of food and shelter during the spring-early summer rainy
season. During July 1976, the highest numbers and species of benthic
invertebrates observed on the project site were at station 22 in Sulphur
Creek, an intermittent stream located in the northeast section of the project
site. The mosquitofish was the most numerous fish. Intermittent streams host
fewer numbers and species of fish than the Navasota River or Gibbons Creek
(Rosenburg et al. 1972).
Farm Ponds
All three farm ponds sampled varied with respect to water chemistry,
turbidity, and composition of plant and animal species. Species of
phytoplankton and microalgae differed among ponds, and generally were typical
of euthophic waters.
No farm pond supported large number or species of invertebrates. Species
composition differed considerably among ponds. Sunfish, shiners, minnows,
topminnows, mosquitofish, and darters were the most numerous fish. Farm ponds,
many of which dry up periodically, do not represent unique or unusually
valuable aquatic communities on the project site, but are important as a
source of water for local wildlife, particularly during dry periods.
3.1.5.1.2 Adverse Effect on Aquatic Biota
The significance and magnitude of potential adverse effects on aquatic
resources largely is dependent on the type of land disturbing activity and
associated plans for mitigation. The following discussion is tailored to each
major phase of the project.
Adverse Effects From Major Land Modifying
Activities Prior To Mining
Major land modifying activities (i.e., sedimentation pond construction,
stream diversion, etc.) scheduled to occur prior to mining will damage or
destroy aquatic communities in the mining area and Immediately downstream.
Stream drainage diversions will drain streams and eliminate most aquatic
organisms between the diversion and sedimentation pond. During construction of
sedimentation ponds and drainage diversions, cleared areas and earth dams will
erode prior to, during, and after reclamation. Increased sedimentation from
erosion will occur down stream of sedimentation ponds. The following are
potential adverse effects associated with increased sedimentation from
activities prior to mining:
3-78
-------
• reduced phytoplankton diversity due to decreased light transmission
caused by increased turbidity;
• smothering of benthic invertebrates caused by increased sedimentation
and consequent reduction in the supply of food available to fish;
• reduction of benthic habitat deversity due to sedimentation;
• clogging of fish gills by sediment;
• elimination of fish spawning grounds or covering of fish eggs by
sediment;
• increased stream nutrient levels and increased eutrophication
potential;
• incresed stream bed and bank erosion near construction activities;
• reduced biological production and diversity.
The amount and intensity of rainfall during this construction period is
very important. Application of straw, matting , sod, or other materials to
prevent erosion can mitigate to some degree the magnitude of adverse effects
to aquatic organisms.
In addition to the above effects, the diverting of water, or holding of
water by sedimentation ponds will reduce downstream flows. Stream segments
directly below sedimentation ponds will receive diverted water from areas
above mining while others will be separated from headwaters or effectively
become headwaters. The characteristics of these streams will be altered;
channels will be narrower and shallower and will exhibit habitat qualities
approximating upstream segments. Changes in stream characteristics will
reconstruct downstream sections in a manner approximately equal to the removed
segment. Aquatic organisms associated with these segments will reflect similar
changes in diversity.
Many of the above adverse effects on aquatic communities may be short-term
if reclamation successfully returns stream channels to their original pre-
mining condition (Section 051.07.OA 364 TRC 1981 regulations).
Adverse Effects from Land Modifying Activities During Mining
Clearing of on-site vegetation will result in the loss of the remaining
aquatic organisms during the time the land is left exposed following site
preparation. Most stream segments that have been cleared of vegetation will
erode and fill with silt prior to or during mining. The following are major
adverse effects that lead to the elimination of aquatic communities during and
immediately after vegetation removal:
3-79
-------
• reduction of detrital (dead plant material) input to the receiving
streams and consequent reductions in stream productivity;
• reductions in stream benthos and fish;
• reduced nutrient and sediment filtering efficiency of surface runoff;
• increased sedimentation and turbidity resulting in the elimination of
primary producers (phytoplankton, zooplankton, etc.).
Removal of the overburden and lignite will eliminate remaining aquatic
communities on the project site by: (1) direct removal of stream segments, and
ponds, (2) creation of mine pits; and (3) creation of spoil piles. Removal of
stream segments will eliminate any aquatic life left in the affected area.
However, primarily intermittent streams with relatively low productivity
(during most of the year) will be disturbed during the first \5-year permit
period. Although the elimination of these habitats and animals represents an
irretrievable loss, mined streams, and ponds, eventually may become
repopulated if successfully reclaimed (see letter proposing plan for
restoration of wetlands in Appendix D.
Other potential adverse effects to the aquatic community could result from
disturbance of wetlands associated with area streams (wetlands have been
delineated in Exhibit B and are evaluated based on 404(b)(1) guidelines
described in 40 CFR 230) (Appendix D). Since relatively small amounts (305
acres) of wetland will be disturbed in the first 5-year permit area (Exhibit
C), the magnitude of adverse effects is expected to be low. Adverse effects
occurring in these areas are of less significance than effects to wetland
habitat along the main channel of Gibbons Creek, or the Navasota River. During
subsequent phases of mining, disturbance of wetlands along Gibbons Creek
and/or the Navasota River will require specific plans for effective mitigation
measures as required in TRRC regulations. Even with a successful wetland
restoration program, severe short to mid-term adverse effects to wetlands will
occur in these later mining areas..
Adverse effects caused by the creation of mine pits will be related to
potential changes in surface water quality. Water accumulating in the pits
from surface runoff and aquifer discharge will contain various trace metals,
and dissolved and suspended solids which will be discharged into temporary
holding ponds for settling and (if required) chemical treatment. This water
then will be discharged to a receiving stream at a specified rate (TERA Corp.
1979). All discharges will be monitored and adjusted when needed to meet
Federal and State standards (See Section 3.1.2.2). Therefore, adverse effects
to aquatic communities largely will depend on the prevention of subsurface
seepage and regulation of discharge volumes. Where necessary (i.e., where
natural substrate are not suitable to prevent percolation), ponds on the site
will be sealed to prevent seepage (TERA Corp. 1979), They also will be
designed to contain the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall equivalent. If these
measures are not effective, and seepage or unintended discharge occurs
3-80
-------
(i.e., those caused by unusual storm events), adverse effects to the aquatic
communities could include the following:
• increased stream sediment and nutrient loading with associated effects
(described above) on aquatic biota;
• discharge of untreated water into receiving streams with potential
toxicity effects to aquatic biota; and ~~
• increased discharge of dissolved solids into receiving stream causing
increased osmotic stress.
Creation of mine pits also could cause localized lowering of water tables
as water from surface runoff and aquifer discharges accumulates in the pits.
Riparian vegetation is sensitive to moisture changes and could be destroyed or
damaged by water level changes produced by the mine pit (Darnell 1976).
Consequences of runoff from spoil piles will consist of increased
sedimentation and possibly acid drainage. Some fugitive dust could originate
from spoil piles and be deposited in nearby streams and ponds. Soil pH on the
project site varies widely (Brown and Deuel 1976) and the potential exists for
Isolated acid leaching. If acid drainage enters streams, the following effects
on aquatic biota may occur:
• direct toxic effects by lowering pH;
• direct toxic effects through the introduction of trace metals;
• smothering of benthic invertebrates by iron and manganese precipitates;
and
• smothering of fish by coating gills with iron precipitates ("yellow
boy").
The potential for such adverse effects is directly related to the
effectiveness of mitigation, which includes collection of runoff in holding
ponds, chemical treatment of holding ponds to improve water quality, and
periodic watering of spoil piles to reduce fugitive (dust emissions. The
effectiveness of the mitigation techniques must be monitored closely by TMPA
as required by Federal and State regulatory agencies (EPA, TDWR, TRRC).
Additional potential adverse effects could result from increased levels of
sulfate runoff from mined areas. Sulfate (SO^-^) is formed as the result
of oxidation of pyrite (FeS2) in the mixed overburden, a process which
occurs even in well buffered soils (Hons et al. 1978). Therefore, levels of
sulfate will increase as long as oxidizable pyrite is present in the soil.
This is supported by the observation of steadily increasing exchangeable
sulfate levels in spoil material at the Texas Utilities (TU) lignite mine near
Fairfield, Texas (Bardsley and Lancaster 1965 jji Hons et al. 1978). Here,
sulfate levels of 6,000 ppm (parts per million) have been reported at a depth
3-81
-------
of 35 cm in the soils (Hons et al. 1978). This also implies that increasing
amounts of exchangeable sulfate could be carried by surface runoff into
receiving streams and ponds. Evidence that this may occur is provided by
measurements of up to 1,800 mg/1 sulfate in sedimentation ponds at the Texas
Utilities lignite mine near Fairfield, Texas (Lentz 1975). Discharges of
sulfate could adversely affect aquatic life in area streams by reducing pH to
levels that may inhibit spawning by fish and other aquatic animals.
Loading and hauling of lignite will produce fugitive dust, some of which
will be deposited in nearby streams and ponds. The effect of this deposition
should be localized and insignificant. Other potential effects of lignite
transport may include leaching of trace elements and other materials from haul
roads made with lignite-ash. Little is known about the possible effects on
aquatic life from lignite-ash materials.
Adverse Effects From Reclamation
Reclamation (revegetation) should reduce runoff and erosion and improve
stream water quality in previously mined areas. In areas where existing
forestland is converted to pastureland, increased levels of erosion and runoff
can result due to the loss of filtering layers. Water quality will degrade due
to the loss of these layers.
An additional potential long-term adverse effect could arise from sulfate
and trace metal ion runoff from reclaimed areas. Sulfate runoff can be
expected to continue in reclaimed £reas as long as oxidized pyrite is
available in the soil, even in well buffered soils (Hill and Grim 1975). Trace
metal and dissolved ion runoff also may occur following establishment of the
vegetation. The actual adverse effect on Gibbons Creek and other streams from
runoff will depend on the nature of the spoil, climatic conditions, and the
effectiveness of the TMPA's water control program. The near surface spoil
waste on the Gibbons Creek site initially will be characterized by higher
percolation and infiltration rates and lower ion binding capacity following
mixing of the overburden and therefore some leaching may occur. During the
period following mining when the soils are still compacting and during periods
of heavy rainfall, some increases in the runoff of dissolved solids can be
expected, with a corresponding adverse effect on aquatic communities. These
potential effects will be mitigated to some extent by leaving sedimentation
ponds and diversions in place for several years following mining (TERA Corp.
1979).
Reclaimed areas that do not respond to the first attempt at revegetation
may require reliming and/or refertilizing or complete replacement of
unsuitable soil. These activities also may increase sedimentation in area
streams. Further, ammonia fertilizers may not be totally usable by terrestrial
vegetation because (1) low soil pH inhibits biological nitrification of
ammonia to nitrite and nitrate (and subsequent use of nitrate by plants), and
(2) there is an overall lower efficiency of use of ammonia by vegetation as
compared to nitrate (Hons et al. 1978). For example, when ammonium nitrate was
applied at the TU Fairfield mine, almost 90% of the applied ammonia remained
3-82
-------
in the soil and was not utilized by the vegetation (Rons at al. 1978). To
avoid this problem, use of ammonia-free fertilizers (i.e., Ca(N03)2 or
KNO3) could be employed, although precautions such as split applications
should be considered to prevent runoff of excess nitrate (Hons et al. 1978).
A detailed post-mining land use plan as called for by the mine permit ap-
plication regulations currently does not exist. TMPA will be developing a plan
in cooperation with landowners and with technical assistance from USFWS, TPWD,
and the Navasota Soil and Water Conservation District.
3.1.5.2 Terrestrial Habitats
3.1.5.2.1 Existing Communities
This section describes the existing terrestrial vegetation on the project
site. Descriptions of the floristic structure and composition of terrestrial
environments in the project area were derived from studies by Allen (1974),
Cain (1973), TERA Corp. (1979), Smeins (1973), Truett (1972), US Army Corps of
Engineers (1968), Capps (1966), Koshi (1957), and Peterson (1950). In
addition, in August of 1980 the Corps of Engineers conducted a wetland
determination (404(b)(1) 40 CFR 230) in the 30-year mine area. The information
for the survey was submitted to EPA on 27 October 1980, and is included in
Appendix D.
Vegetation on the project site consists of approximately 58% forestlands
and 32% grasslands, hayfields, or pastures (Espey, Huston and Associates
1976). The two major regional vegetation types on the project site are the
Pineywoods and the Post Oak-Savannah. The Pineywoods is a southwestern ex-
tension of the Oak-Hickory-Pine Forest, whereas the Post Oak-Savannah re-
presents a transition zone between eastern forests, and grasslands (Harner et
al. 1978). A combination of soils, topography, and land use patterns determine
the distribution of major terrestrial plant communities on the project site
(TERA,Corp. 1979). About 565 species of vascular plants (including 75 species
of woody plants and 30 species of mosses) have been reported from the lower
Navasota River basin (Allen 1974; Smeins 1973; TERA Corp. 1979). All may oc-
cur on the project site. A brief summary of each major terrestrial vegetation
type on the Gibbons Creek project site follows:
Bottomland (Wetland)*
• Marshes. A large marsh covering about 140 acres is located at the con-
fluence of Gibbons Creek and the Navasota River (Figure 3-11). An ad-
ditional marsh is located in the northern-most reaches of Gibbons Creek
(Espey, Huston and Associates 1976). There is a total of approximately
156 acres of marsh in the 30-year mine area. The marsh vegetation is
dominated by chinful and to a lesser extent deergrass. Other species
* The acreage (3,041) determinations for this disucssion is based entirely
on vegetation cover, thus accounting for the difference in acreage from
that derived by the COE (2,760).
3-83
-------
LO
I
oo
8"»SSL*HDS, MAVriClDS. AND PUTIWI
**•*
«53—Sow Figure 3-11. Vegetational communities of the Gibbons
Creek Lignite Project area,Grimes County,Texas.
Source: TERA Corporation. 1979. Gibbons Creek
Lignite Project, Environmental Assessment
Report. Dallas TX.
-------
of plants Include wax myrtle, buttonbush, eryngo, mite-wort, water hys-
sop, and mercardonia. As part of the natural floodplain, the marsh is
flooded seasonally. Marshes provide important feeding, resting, and
breeding areas for local wildlife; most have been subject to grazing by
cattle. (No marsh occurs In the first 5-year permit area.)
Riparian Forest. Riparian forest totaling about 1,594 acres borders
Gibbons Creek, its tributaries, and other streams on the project site
(Figure 3-11). The riparian forest is a diverse and productive wetland
dominated by dense growth of overcup oak, water hickory, and Texas sug-
arberry. Other common species are water oak, willow oak, cedar elm,
and planer tree. Few grasses occur due to shading by the dense shrub
and overstory growth. Yaupon, grapevine, peppervine, and sessile-
flowered spike grass dominate the understory (TERA Corp. 1979).
The riparian community is significant because: (1) it is a primary
source of the detritus that helps support stream life; (2) it shades
the water and moderates stream temperatures; (3) it filters surface
runoff and thereby reduces sediment input; and (4) it provides optimal
habitat for numerous important wildlife species. Much of the riparian
forest on the project site has been logged and/or grazed.
(Approximately 247 acres occur In the first 5-year permit area.)
Riverine Forest. Approximately 1,291 acres of riverine forest are
located in the floodplain of the Navasota River along the western edge
of the project site (Fiigure 3-11). This community is dominated by bit-
ternut hickory and cedar elm. Overcup oak, willow oak, water oak, ash,
honey locust, Texas sugarberry, and planer tree also are common in the
canopy. The understory is dominated by various species of vines, lance
leaf, water willow, spanish moss, and resurrection fern (TERA Corp.
1979). Like the riparian habitats, much of the riverine forest on the
site has been logged and extensively grazed. (Approximately 58 acres
occur within the first 5-year permit area.)
Uplands
Pine-Hardwood Forest. This community occupies 7,089 acres on elevated
lands in the eastern half of the project site (Figure 3-11). The
dominant overstory species are loblolly pine and post oak. Blackjack
oak and black hickory are the most common subdominate canopy species.
The ground strata is dominated by sessile flowered spikegrass and pur-
ple top. In areas of deep sand along ridges, blackjack oak is the
dominant canopy tree. Sphagnum bogs are- found within the pine-hardwood
forests. They occur in poorly drained soils underlain by claypans, and
are characterized by low soil pH, high soil moisture, and high ac-
cumulations of organic material. Sphagnum bogs are unique because they
support an assemblege of plants not found elsewhere on the site (some
bogs also occur in the oak-hickory forest). Typical species include
chain ferns, and bluebells (Eustoma granudiflorum, a species listed as
3-85
-------
threatened by the Texas Organization for Endangered Species (TOES
1975). (No pine-hardwood communities exist in the first 5-year permit
area.)
• Hardwood Forest. Hardwood forest covering about 6,072 acres (Figure
3-11) occurs on'upland areas in the western half of the project site.
This community is dominated primarily by thickets of young post oak,
winged elm, buckleberry, and green hawthorne. Blackjack oak, black
hickory, southern red oak, black gum, and Texas sugarberry also are
present in fewer numbers. Common subcanopy species include sessile
flowered spikegrass, basketgrass, smutgrass, and nimble will. (About
3,920 acres of hardwood forest occur in the first 5-year permit area.)
• Grasslands, Hayfields, and Pastures. These communities cover ap-
proximately 8,710 acres on the project site (31.7% of the total land
area), in upland and lowland (floodplain) situations. Floodplain
grasslands are dominated by smut grass, carpet grass, and common
Bermuda grass. Upland grassland communities occur in sandy soils on
well drained knolls and ridges. Typical upland species include Carolina
horsenettle, wooly croton, indian blanket, drummond phlox, and
clammyweed. Trees also are scattered throughout grasslands. (About
1,926 acres occur within the first 5-year permit area.)
Noteworthy Biological Resources (Parks, Preserves, Refuges)
Two areas of possible concern in relation to the Gibbons Creek Project,
are the Navasota River Natural Area (unofficially designated by the Texas Out-
door Recreation Plan), a 100 square mile woodland located on the west side of
the Navasota River, and the Sam Houston National Forest, the eastern edge of
which is located approximately 10 to 15 miles east of the project site (Figure
3-12). No other noteworthy biological resources were identified in the
vicinity of the project site.
3.1.5.2.2 Adverse Effects to Terrestrial Vegetation
Adverse Effects Of Major Land Modifying Activities
Prior To Mining
Removal of terrestrial vegetation will occur prior to removal of over-
burden and during the construction of access roads, ancillary facilities, and
runoff control structures. Approximately 344 acres will be cleared annually
and a total of about 700 to 800 acres will be affected by mining operations at
any one time (TERA Corp. 1979). The estimated number of acres of each ter-
restrial vegetation type affected during the 30-year life of the mine and the
percent of the total acres of each community represented is provided in Table
3-14. Approximately 38% of each terrestrial habitat (less riparian) will be
affected directly by the mine, whereas from 13 to 19% of the riparian habitat
will be affected directly. During the first 5 years, 2,603 acres of forestland
and 1,388 acres of grassland (including pastures and old fields) will be af-
fected by the mining operations.
3-86
-------
Fort Worth,
Dallas
DAVY CROCKETT
NATIONAL FOREST
CUS A ENGLING
WILDERNESS
MANAGEMENT
„ AREA
Proposed
Wilderness Area
jf
l. ANGELINA
V NATIONAL
¦ FOREST
BASTROP
STATE.
PARK \
BIG THICKET
,SAM HOUST1
NATIONAL
FOREST
Austii
HABITAT FOR
RED WOLF
GUADALUPE
RIVER
ANAHUAC NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE
PALMETTO
STATE
PARK
San Antonio
SAN BERNARD NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE
ARANSAS
NATIONAL
, WILDLIFE'
REFUGE
Q PLANNED LIGNITE-FIRED POWER PLANTS
~ OPERATING LIGNITE-FIRED POWER PLANTS
¦ PLANNED COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
-------
Table 3-14. Total number of acres of each plant community
present on the project site, total number of acres of
each community type potentially affected by the mining
activities, and the percentage of the total acres of
each community potentially affected over the 30ryear life
of the mine.
Plant
Community
Total if
acres on
site
Total if Acres
Affected by
Mine
Percentage of
Total of Each
Type Affected
Upland
• Grassland
• Pine-Hardwood
• Hardwood
8,710
7,089
6,072
3,200
2,600
2,300
37
37
38
Bottomland *
• Riverine Woodland
• Riparian
1,291
1,594
480
200-300
37
13-19
Source: Modified from TERA Corp. 1979. Environmental impact assessment
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power
Agency. Dallas, Texas.
*About 2,760 acres of these two communities have been designated officially
as wetlands by the Corps of Engineers during a field survey of the area from
19-21 August 1980 (See Appendix D).
3-88
-------
Construction of stream drainage diversions (levees, drainage ditches,
ponds, etc.) on the project site could have the following adverse effects on
terrestrial vegetation:
• elimination of upland and bottomland plants;
f
• increased soil erosion;
• reduced flooding in areas diverted or leveed with consequent reduction
in productivity of wetlands; and
• localized lowering of the groundwater table.
Reducing wetland flooding will prevent nutrient regeneration, a process on
which the productivity of the community depends (Darnell 1976). Lowering of
the groundwater table along drainage structures could produce localized drying
and reductions in soil moisture, and inhibit the growth of terrestrial
vegetation in the immediate area around mining. These effects would be more
noticeable in riparian bottomland areas because wetland species are most
sensitive to changes in soil moisture (Darnell 1976).
Construction and operation of sedimentation ponds primarily will adversely
affect area streams, but there also will be the loss of forests, grasslands,
or agricultural lands as these communities are converted to ponds. These con-
versions may lower the local groundwater table, reduce soil moisture, and re-
duce groundwater discharge as a result of surface drainage into the ponds.
This could decrease terrestrial vegetation in the immediate area around the
sedimentation ponds.
Adverse effects of clearing upland vegetation types will include elimina-
tion of habitats and displacement of wildlife, increased wind and water ero-
sion, and air pollution from the burning of vegetation.
Clearing of bottomlands (forested wetlands), may cause significant adverse
effects because they are among the more productive, diverse, and sensitive
communities on the project site. Clearing will eliminate natural filtration
(green belts) along streams. Other potential adverse effects include reduction
of detrital input to streams, increased stream bank erosion, and possible
Increases in downstream flooding and erosion (Darnell 1976). Special
consideration should be given to reclaiming bottomlands quickly and
efficiently (see mitigation plans under "Adverse Effects from Reclamation
Activities" below).
Following clearing of vegetation and removal of marketable trees, the re-
maining vegetation is proposed to be used to establish brush shelters, or
burned. Burning will be conducted in compliance with Texas air control
regulations and is not expected to produce significant long-term adverse
effects on terrestrial plants and animals.
3-89
-------
Mobile emissions produced during the site clearing process will consist of
SO2, N0X, hydrocarbons, trace metals, and particulates. Fugitive dust will
be produced by vehicular activity. Adverse effects from mobile sources on ter-
restrial vegetation will be localized, and insignificant.
Removal of overburden will create spoil piles and mine pits. Where pits
extend below the groundwater table, aquifer discharge will occur into the
pits. The groundwater table in the area surrounding the pit will be lowered,
possibly adversely affecting vegetation by reducing available soil moisture.
Dewatering of the mine pits themselves could further lower the water table.
This could be most noticeable in wetlands, that are particularly sensitive to
such changes (Darnell 1976).
Spoil piles will be exposed to the atmosphere and subject to pyritic
oxidation and formation of acids. Section 3.1.5.1 discusses the effects of
acid formation from spoil piles. Revegetation could be inhibited in some areas
by acid build up in spoils.
Since the lignite will not be crushed prior to loading, no adverse ef-
fects from coal preparation are expected. Fugitive dust emissions and
vehicular emissions will occur during loading and transport of the lignite to
the GCSES. The adverse effects on terrestrial plants and animals will be
localized and insignificant. Fugitive road dust will be reduced by periodic
spraying with water and by maintaining low vehicle speeds.
Construction of haul roads will eliminate vegetation on the project site.
The effects will be similar to effects from other clearing operations. If
lignite ash is used as a bedding material in haul road construction, potential
adverse effects from leachates of various trace metals into the surrounding
soil and uptake by the vegetation is possible.
Adverse Effects From Reclamation
Current consultant studies suggest that mixing of the overburden may
increase water holding capacity and base exchange capabilities of the soil
(Brown and Deuel 1977 and 1980; Hons et al. 1978; Bryson 1973; Angel 1973).
Because some of the natural soils in the first 5-year permit area are
droughty, low in nutrients, and overlie a claypan (Brown and Deuel 1977) these
changes are expected to result in increased plant productivity. However,
mixture of the overburden, even with the proposed segregation of carbonaceous
and acid-forming materials, could result in exposure of some pyritic materials
to oxidation resulting in higher soil acidity and lower vegetation success.
Brown and Deuel (1977) have suggested placing layers containing pyritic
materials in the bottom of the pit to minimize acid leaching into surface
layers.
If soil pH drops below about 5.5, manganese and zinc will become available
for uptake by terrestrial plants and could exert a toxic effect on the vegeta-
tion (Brown and Deuel 1977). Soil pH and metal concentration are known to vary
widely in Texas lignite spoil (Angel 1973). For example, the pH of the over-
3-90
-------
burden as determined by core analyses, varied from 2.7 to 7.9. However, most
core samples showed the presence of ample alkaline material or other material
with low lime requirements to allow neutralization with lime or other buffer
agents. The pH of the overburden will be adjusted to the extent necessary to
support vegetation although hot spots may still occur due to the surfacing of
pyritic materials. Soil fertilization and irrigation will also be necessary.
Because 6 months may elapse between mining and complete revegetation, some
areas will experience water and wind erosion prior to permanent revegetation.
Mulching and other techniques can be utilized to reduce erosion and aid in
establishment of vegetation. If the current revegetation plan is followed (see
Appendix D) and TMPA complies with provisions in their surface mining
operation permit, wind erosion during reclamation should be insignificant.
Reclaimed areas will be converted to grasslands, therefore, the total
acres of forest on the site will decrease. In the 5-year permit area, a 60%
decrease in forestland is expected. Over the 30-year mining period, a similar
percent reduction in forestland is projected assuming there is no change in
post-mining land use. Habitat diversity will be reduced if native trees and
grasses are replaced by common and/or coastal Bermudagrass. When forests are
converted to grasslands, major reductions will occur in plant diversity. The
following information has been included to emphasize areas of concern with re-
spect to minimizing adverse effects (short-and long-term) to vegetation and
wildlife. This does not preclude the need for a complete reclamation plan in
the applicant's mine permit application, but suggests the types of actions
that various concerns (USFWS, TRRC, etc) have formally suggested by letter.
They include:
• restrict land clearing and other disturbances in advance of mining to
areas necessary for mining or operations;
• avoid disturbance or diversion of streams and associated vegetation
wherever possible;
• establish a vegetation buffer zone between mining activities and
surrounding areas to maintain habitat diversity;
• restructure and restore natural drainage patterns and streams to
original elevations and contours;
• reestablish streams and adjacent riparian habitat to their approximate
pre-mining course and grade, including restoring pre-mining stream
features (meanders, riffles, pools);
• select plantings of a diversity of native grasses, forbs, and legumes,
and other woody plant species that are beneficial to wildlife;
• establish permanent ponds or small water areas following reclamation;
• establish shrub plantings along fence rows and property lines and
establish hedgerows where appropriate to break up grasslands;
3-91
-------
• strategically locate brush shelters on reclaimed areas to provide
living space and escape cover;
• institute controlled hunting, when necessary;
• implement the formal cooperative agreement with the Navasota Soil and
Water Conservation District to receive assistance in implementing the
comprehensive conservation plan and post-mining land treatment measures
and conservation techniques; and
• maintain a close working relationship with the Texas Parks and Wildlife
and US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding technical assistance in
developing an effective fish and wildlife management plan throughout
the life of the project.
Because reclamation decisions largely reflect the preferences of the
local landowners (see Land Use Change Impacts), they should be made aware of
all consequences of their decisions. For example, landowners may convert
grassland or forest into improved pasture for grazing with little or no
initial expense; however, natural periodic flooding of lowland areas could
destroy the planted cultivated grasses and lead to further erosion and costs
to the landowner. To maintain quality pastureland, over the long-term after
reclamation bond is released, fertilization, mowing, etc. may be required at
the expense of the landowner.
A very general conceptual post mining land use plan prepared for the
interim mining permit application contained a list of plant species to be re-
vegetated as suggested by USFWS. However, a revised version indicates a much
less diversified selection, of plant species.
Other potential adverse effects to terrestrial vegetation during re-
clamation may result from earth moving, use and removal of haul roads, ap-
plications of lime and fertilizers, seeding, and planting of trees. Minimal
adverse effects of short duration and localized nature from these operations
would include increased vehicular exhaust emissions and increased fugitive
dust emissions.
A broader issue relative to adverse effects of reclamation at the Gibbons
Creek lignite mine (and other lignite mines in Texas) is the actual versus the
theoretical success of revegetation following mining. The following are
questions yet to be answered fully for this project with respect to post-
raining land use as defined in 30 CFR 816.133.
• Can reclaimed areas be sustained following initial liming, soil
fertilization, and irrigation; if not, what adverse effects will
occur?
• What are the adverse effects if continued reclamation is required
(i.e., potential adverse effects of continued fertilization, irri-
gation, retreatment for acidity, and rodent control)?
3-92
-------
• What are the long-term costs to maintain vegetation on reclaimed
lands?
The following quotation from Hill and Grimm (1975) perhaps best summarizes
the issue of reclamation "there are striking examples of surface-mined areas
that have recovered to productive use as forestland, high-yield cultivated
land, pasture, recreational parks, home and industrial sites. On the other
hand, there are even more examples of land that is still drastically dis-
turbed. The key to recovery has been the attitude and reclamation techniques
of the mine operator, and the physical and climatic conditions at the mining
site."
3.1.5.3 Terrestrial Wildlife
3.1.5.3.1, Existing Communities
The project site lies in an ecotone between the Texan Biotic Province and
the Austroriparian Biotic Province. There are no wildlife species endemic to
the area, although the project area represents the eastern or western limits
of the ranges of approximately 50 vertebrate species, 21 of these species oc-
cur on or near the project site (Espey, Huston and Associates 1976). Wildlife
habitats on the project site coincide with the major vegetation types (Figure
3-11).
All of the major terrestrial wildlife groups (amphibians, reptiles, birds,,
and mammals) are represented on the project site. Lists of each group are
included in the baseline assessment (Espey Huston and Associates 1976). The
most commonly observed amphibians were the southern leopard frog and cricket
frog. The most common reptiles were the red-eared turtle, chicken turtle,
ground skink, racer and western ribbon snake.
Some of the common bird species observed included the Acadian Flycatcher,
White-breasted Nuthatch, Wood Ibis, Roseate Spoonbill, and Spotted Sandpiper,
Great Blue Heron, Little Blue Heron, Great Egret, Turkey Vulture, Black
Vulture, Red-tailed Hawk, Bobwhite, Mourning Dove, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Com-
mon Flicker, Downy Woodpecker, Barn Swallow, Carolina Chickadee, Tufted
Titmouse, Carolina Wren, Mockingbird, Common Yellowthroat, Eastern Meadowlark,
Cardinal, and Painted Bunting.
The most common mammals observed were the whitetail deer, raccoon, fox
squirrel, plains pocket gopher, white-footed mouse, eastern cottontail rabbit,
and nine-banded armadillo. Based on the results of small mammal trapping, de-
nsities of small mammals were low in comparison to similar habitat in East
Texas (McCarley 1954 a,b; Cain 1973).
Deer were common on the project site with densities estimated to average
about 15 individuals/mi2. This is similar to estimates of 17 individuals/
mi2 calculated for Grimes County by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
(Espey, Huston and Associates 1976). The present deer population apparently
exceeds the carrying capacity of the area as indicated by their generally
3-93
-------
poor physical condition, small size, and poor antler development (Espey,
Huston and Associates 1976 ^n TERA Corp. 1979).
A detailed summary of preferred habitats, food, and nesting requirements
of commercially or recreationally valuable wildlife are provided in Tables
3-15 and 3-16. Deer, the most important big game mammal in Texas (Boydston
and Harwell 1980), were most abundant in bottomland forest and upland forests
in the southwest section of the project site. Other important game species
included the Bobwhite, Mourning Dove, fox squirrel and gray squirrel. The
raccoon, opossum, and coyote were the most important furbearers. The gray fox,
bobcat, and mink likely occur in small numbers on the project site.
3.1.5.3.2 Adverse Effects to Terrestrial Wildlife
Wildlife are dependent on the vegetation they inhabit (habitat). Removal
of vegeation will in varying degrees adversely affect virtually all wildlife
species. Less mobile groups, such as amphibians, reptiles, and some small
mammals, as well as young and weak of all groups including birds, will be
killed or injuured during clearing. More mobile wildlife, such as larger mam-
mals and most birds will escape the initial land clearing process. Some of
the species that escape will eventually die from exposure, natural predation,
or man-induced mortality. Secondary adverse effects, such as over crowding
(e.g., for species such as the whitetail deer) can eventually lead to de-
gradation of adjacent habitats, resulting in a dieoff or weakening of the lo-
cal affected population.
Populations of wetland species, including amphibians and reptiles as well
as numerous species of mammals and birds will decline locally. Bottomland
hardwood forest, characteristic of most of the wetlands on the project site,
are probably irreplaceable (Truett 1972). Populations of many associated
species will likely decline in proportion to the decrease in vegetation.
Where large acreages of available habitat exist adjacent to mining areas, pop-
ulation declines will be proportionally less.
Following successful reclamation, affected stream segments in wetlands
may reestablish and gradually (within 3 to 10 years) repopulate with benthic
organisms and plants that provide food for wildlife, and thus mitigate some of
the above losses. Further, it is TMPA's intent to return all disturbed water
courses to their approximate pre-mining condition which includes meanders, rif-
fles, pools, and riparian vegetation. Indigenous shrubs of suitable re-
planting size will be transplanted from pre-mined wetlands to reclaimed lands
along water courses to aid in revegetation of wetlands.
Wildlife species inhabiting uplands will also reflect population declines.
These species are generally more adaptable, and declines in local populations
are expected to be less. Population of grassland wildlife species will also
decline in the short-term, but in the long-term increase over the project
site, due to land use change (forest to grassland). Certain wildlife species
that can survive in grassland, but depend on forest margins may increase or
decrease depending on the success of revegetation with trees and shrubs.
3-94
-------
Table 3-15. Important species of wildlife
presumed to be present on site.
Species Reasons for Importance Status in Area^^
White-tailed Deer
Object of
Sport Hunting
Abundant
Fox Squirrel
Object of
Sport Hunting
Abundant
Eastern Cottontail
Object of
Sport Hunting
Abundant
Swamp Rabbit
Object of
Sport Hunting
Common
Wood Duck
Object of
Sport Hunting
Common
Mallard
Object of
Sport Hunting
Common Seasonally
Bobwhite
Object of
Sport Hunting
Common-Abundant
Mourning Dove
Object of
Sport Hunting
Common-Abundant
Bullfrog
Object of
Sport Hunting
Common
Raccoon
Furbearer
of
Commercial
Value
Abundant
Opossum
Furbearer
of
Commercial
Value
Abundant
Beaver
Furbearer
of
Commercial
Value
Uncommon
Mink
Furbearer
of
Commercial
Value
Uncommon
Nutria
Furbearer
of
Commercial
Value
Uncommon
Striped Skunk
Furbearer
of
Commercial
Value
Uncommon
Coyote
Furbearer
of
Commercial
Value
Common
Wading Birds (Egrets,
Aesthetic
Appeal
Common
Herons, Ibises)
(1) Relative to densities elsewhere in east Texas in habitats supporting that
species.
Source: TERA Corp. 1979. Environmental assessment report Gibbons Creek
lignite project. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency. Dallas TX.
3-95
-------
Table 3-16. Terrestrial animals of commercial or recreational value found
in upland habitats of the Gibbons Creek lignite project area.
Animal
Habitat
<1>
Preferred
Food
Nesting
Site
(2)
General
Information
White-tailed deer
Fox squirrel
Brush opening (areas be-
tween upland and im-
proved pastures)
Upland woods
Leaves, stems of woody
plants, herbaceous
broad leaved plants
Acorns, hickory nuts,
fruits and buds of
hardwoods, insects
Holes in old hard-
woods, tops of
trees
Eats very little grass;
spring Bermudagrass only
slightly palatable
Greatest densities in
woodlands
Eastern cottontail Old field
Grasses and herbs;
tree bark and roots,
shrubs
Bobwhite
Hedgerow
Seeds of herbs and
grasses
Stands of tall
bunchgrass
Frequently overwinter in
woodlands
Mourning dove
Wtoody vegetation of
disturbed pastures;
farmlands
Grass and weed
seeds
Woodland edges;
hedgerow
Most common and heavily
hunted
Raccoon
Upland woods
Crayfish, acorn
Hollow trees or
logs
Opossum
Upland woods
Insects, fruits,
carrion
Relatively abundant
Striped skunk
Coyote
Improved pasture
improved pasture
Insects, fruits
Rodents, small birds,
carrion, insects,
fruits
Well adapted to coexist-
ance with man
(1) Habitat in which animal is most commonly found
(2) Where known
Source: TERA Corp. 1979. Environmental assessment report Gibbons Creek lignite project. Prepared for Texas
Municipal Power Agency. Dallas TX.
-------
Game species in this category include the whitetail deer, eastern cottontail
rabbit, Bobwhite, and Mourning Dove. Overall the result of removal of
vegetation and shifting in land use to a less diverse vegetation cover (forest
to grassland) will be the most significant and long-term adverse effect to
local wildlife.
Fugitive dust created during various phases of the raining operation could
have the following potential adverse effects on the wildlife in the area
(Moore and Hittman 1977):
• irritation of mucous membranes;
• increased tooth wear in herbivores (which could cause increased dis-
ease);
• chronic eye irritation and abrasion; and
• immediate and long-term pulmonary problems.
These adverse effects should be mitigated by periodic watering of haul roads,
maintaining low haul truck speeds, and other dust suppression methods.
An additional potential adverse effect could result from ingesting of
toxic or low pH materials by animals as the result of consumption of
vegetation coated with fugitive dust (Moore and Hittman 1977). Because only a
small amount of fugitive lignite dust potentially containing high levels of
trace metals will be emitted, and because the sulfur content of the lignite is
relatively low, adverse effects on local wildlife should be minimal.
Adverse effects from noise associated with raining operations and vehicle
emissions are expected to be minimal. Noise will be limited to small areas
relative to the total project site. Vehicle emissions will occur, but at
levels far lower than that expected to affect the health and welfare of local
wildlife.
3.1.5.A Endangered, and Threatened Species
3.1.5.4.1 The Federal List
Two species of wildlife that potentially could occur on the project site
are the Bald Eagle and the American alligator. Both are listed as endangered
by the US Department of the Interior (USFWS 1980). The Bald Eagle, while
known to nest in Texas, primarily inhabits forested areas adjacent to the
coast or large lakes and rivers. The Bald Eagle could occur in forests, along
the Navasota River in the vicinity of the project site. No Bald Eagle
sightings were reported during the site survey (Espey, Huston and Associates
1976). A resident reported one alligator in the Baker Goodwin stock pond near
the eastern edge of the project site in 1973 (Espey, Huston, and Associates
1976). No species of plants considered to be endangered or threatened by the
USDI occur on the project site.
3-97
-------
Table 3-17. Threatened or endangered animals which potentially could occur in
Grimes County, Texas, or whose presence has been confirmed by TPWD.
Common Name Scientific Name Status^ Place of
Listing
**
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
E
USFW,
TPWD
***
Peregrine Falcon
Falco peregrinus
E
USFW,
TPWD
*
Whooping Crane
Grus americana
E
USFW,
TPWD
*
Eskimo Curlew
(Very slight possibility)
Numenious borealis
E
USFW,
TPWD
**
Least Tern (inland)
Sterna albifrons
E
TPWD
*
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
Dendrocopos borealis
E
USFW,
TPWD
American Alligator
Alligator mississipiensis
E
USFW,
TPWD
•irk
White-Faced Ibis
Plegadis chihi
T
TPWD
•sk'Jrk
Swallow-Tailed Kite
Elanoides f. forficatus
T
TPWD
1 Status: E = endangered
T = threatened
* Possible presence in Grimes County
Probable presence in Grimes County
*** Confirmed presence in Grimes County
Source: Adapted from correspondence with TPWD, by letter, Mr. Floyd Potter,
TPWD, to Dr. Steven Bach, WAPORA, Inc., 11 May 1979.
3
-------
3.1.5.4.2 The State List
A list of wildlife species classified by the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department (TPWD) as endangered or threatened that may occur or have been
observed in Grimes County is provided in Table 3-17. The list was compiled
from information provided by TPWD. Confirmed reports of the Arctic Peregrine
Falcon and the Swallow-tailed Kite, and the probable occurrence of the
Interior Least Tern and White-faced Ibis are included. All of these species
are migratory and would be expected to be only casual visitors to the project
site.
The State of Texas has not officially adopted a list of rare, threatened,
or endangered plants, although various concerns have made proposals. There
are no species of rare or endangered plants as listed by the Rare Plant Center
of the University of Texas at Austin known to occur on the project site. The
project should not have an adverse effect on any listed species.
In future years, mining activities along the Navasota River or in adjacent
wetlands will disrupt potential wetland habitat for the Bald Eagle and
American alligator. Careful consideration should be given to preserving these
wetlands. If any habitats and/or sitings of any endangered or threatened
species occur prior to or during each phase of mining, USFWS must be informed
so that formal mitigation and guidance can be inacted.
3.1.6 Cultural Resources (Archaeological, Historical, Architectural)
3.1.6.1 Existing Conditions
Cultural Resources of the Project Area
Cultural resources (prehistoric, historic and architectural) occur in and
adjacent to the project site and will be affected by the project. The only
cultural resource investigations in the area prior to those associated with
Gibbons Creek was a reconnaissance of the archaeological and historical
resources to be affected by the proposed Millican Dam and Reservoir on the
Navasota River (Sorrow and Cox 1973). Some of the sites located during this
earlier survey are within the boundaries of the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project.
The research conducted to date in conjunction with Gibbons Creek indicates
an occupation range extending from the Late Lithic (ca 1000 BC) up through the
Ceramic and into the Historic Period. No evidence for Early (Paleo-Indian) or
Middle Lithic occupations was found within the project boundaries. Sorrow and
Cox (1973), however, recovered an Early Lithic Angostura Point from a site
situated on a high terrace overlooking the Navasota River. The presence of
this point in proximity to Gibbons Creek indicates the possibility of eventu-
ally encountering Early and Middle Lithic material In the project area.
Prehistoric sites in the Gibbons Creek vicinity usually are found on sandy
ridges and knolls above the 260 foot contour. Most are small and often
deflated with low artifact densities. Cultural deposits, where present, are
3-99
-------
shallow.. This situation probably reflects the project's location along the
cultural divide between central and southeast Texas and in an upland region
between two major drainages, the Trinity and Brazos Rivers, that were focal
points of prehistoric and historic occupation.
The historic resources indicate that Anglo-Americans were present in the
area at least by the mid-1800's. There also is a possibility for evidence of
earlier French and Spanish incursions to the area. Rene Robert Cavelier,
Sieur de la Salle, may have visited the area in 1687 during his explorations
of the Mississippi Valley. He was supposedly murdered near the confluence of
the Brazos and Navasota Rivers.
Historic sites are primarily standing habitation structures or foundations
of such structures. In addition, a sawmill and a cemetery, the Mabry Ceme-
tery, are within the project boundaries. Two important historic sites are
Piedmont (Sulphur) Springs and Kellum Springs. Both are well-known in Grimes
County history as they functioned as health resorts in the late 1800's. Both
are on the edges of the project site. Piedmont Springs, which also served as
a stage stop on the Bahia Road and as a Confederate hospital towards the end
of the Civil War, is currently identified by a Texas Historical Marker.
Information on the cultural resources of the Gibbons Lignite Project are
contained in the following reports and documents: Bond (1977, 1981a, 1981b),
Baxter (1977), Ippolitto (1979), and Fletcher (1979). These references record
the cultural resource investigations undertaken so far at Gibbons Creek by
Texas A & M University, Cultural Resources Laboratory (TAMU) for the ap-
plicant. The majority of effort has been towards the location and iden-
tification of the resources although a number of sites have also been tested
for their significance and eligibility for the National Register of Historic
Places.
The plant site, dam spillway, and reservoir areas have been completely
surveyed. Due to land access problems, only about 50% of the mining area has
been surveyed. Initially, 44 sites were documented. Subsequently, two other
sites, Mabry Cemetery and a buried prehistoric site (identified by a broken
dart point and a waste flake) were located, bringing the total to 46. Recom-
mendations were made for further investigation at 19 of these sites and to
test locations that lacked surficial evidence of archaeological material but
that possibly contained buried sites. The recommendations included the fol-
lowing research formats (site numbers are interpreted as follows: 41=Texas,
GM=Grimes County, specific site number in the County):
• Additional surface collection (41 GM 55);
• Subsurface testing to determine Natinal Register eligibility (41 GM 26,
41 GM 37, 41 GM 44, 41 GM 53, 41 GM 57, 41 GM 58, 41 GM 59, 41 GM 62,
41 GM 64, 41 GM 66, 41 GM 68, 41 GM 70, 41 GM 71, 41 GM 75, 41 GM 76,
and 41 GM 78); and
3-100
-------
• Subsurface testing or additional historic research to determine
National Register eligibility (41 GM 63 and 41 GM 72).
It was also recommended that a qualified individual with archaeological
expertise monitor construction and mining activities on known sites and areas
that are thought to have a high site probability.
So far, only sites 41 GM 37, 41 GM 66, 41 GM 68, 41 GM 70, 41 GM 71, and
41 GM 78,^ all of which are in the first 5-year mining permit area, have been
tested. No further work was recommended for any of these sites. None of the
other sites has been tested, but all are outside of the first 5-year permit
area. To date, the first 5-year permit area has been surveyed completely and
all sites within it have been tested that were recommended for further
testing.
Laws and Regulations
The issuance of a Federal permit requires adherence to Federal laws, reg-
ulations, and procedures concerning cultural resources. These laws, regula-
tions, and procedures include:
• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (PL 89-665) (16 USC 470 et
seq.)
• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190) (42 USC 4321 et
seq.)
• Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of Cultural En-
vironment)
• Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (PL 93-291 (16 USC
469 et seq.)
• 36 CFR 800 — Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties
• 36 CFR 60.6 — National Register Criteria
These laws, regulations, and procedures require a 100% inventory of all
cultural resources in the project area, determination of their potential for
yielding data on the prehistory or history of the area, and their eligibility
for the National Register of Historic Places. Further, the Texas Antiquities
Code will have to be met if any public roads, right-of-ways, or thoroughfares
are affected.
3.1.6.2 Effects on Cultural Resources
Mining activities will result in the irretrievable loss of archaeological
sites in the project area, but adequate data recovery programs can mitigate
the loss of these sites.
3-101
-------
Piedmont Springs (41 GM 44) and Kellum Springs (41 GM 78) both appear to
be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places because of their con-
tributions to local and regional history. Neither will be affected directly
by the project. However, the proposed project will alter the surrounding
environment; also waters at Piedmont Springs, which are derived from an
aquifer, likely will be affected by the project. Mining activities could
significantly reduce or stop the flow of these springs and EPA considers this
an adverse effect to the site. One potential mitigative measure would be to
replace the original source with an artificial flow.
Mabry Cemetery is another site that could potentially be impacted because
it lies within the first 5-year raining permit area. Currently, the applicant
plans to mine around the cemetery because of the difficulty of obtaining legal
rights to remove the gravesites. The depth of overburden at this site also
will make mining uneconomical. Further, an all-weather haul road that is to
be constructed nearby will make the cemetery more accessible with both
beneficial (visitation) and adverse (vandalism) effects.
EPA considered the impact on cultural resources for the 30-year life of
the mine. To fulfill its responsibility under Section 106 of the Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (PL 89-665), Executive Order 11593, and 36 CRF 800
Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties, EPA has applied the Criteria
of Effects (36 CFR 800.3) and declared that the project has a potential for
adverse effects on cultural resources. EPA received concurrence from the
Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and has submitted a
Preliminary Case Report to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP) as specified in 36 CFR 800.13(b) (See Appendix E). These actions were
preparatory to entering into a formal Memorandum of Agreement (M0A) between
EPA, the SHPO, and the ACHP in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(c) (See Appendix
E).
Formal consultation between EPA, and SHPO, ACHP, and TMPA (invited as a
non-Federal party) was held on 14 January 1981. Elements necessary to provide
for cultural resource protection for the life of the mine were agreed upon and
included in the MOA. This MOA would constitute the comments of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation for the life of the proposed project.
3.1.7 Socioeconomic Characteristics
The following characterization of the existing and projected socioeconomic
setting considers not only the project site and region without the project,
but also socioeconomic changes due to construction and operation of the adja-
cent Gibbons Creek power plant.
3.1.7.1 Existing Conditions
Demography
The Gibbons Creek Lignite Project is located within 170 miles of four
major metropolitan areas (Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and Houston), and
within 30 miles of seven significant population centers. These seven centers
3-102
-------
along with Brazos and Grimes Counties are the areas most likely to be affected
by the lignite project. The 1975 and projected population levels reported for
these areas are indicated in Table 3-18. The three largest population centers
(Bryan, College Station, Huntsville) are projected to have the largest
population increases through the year 2000, with the Bryan-College Station
area increasing by approximately 59.8% and Huntsville increasing by 64.6%.
The other four centers are anticipated to have either minimal population
increases or small population decreases.
The population characteristics of Brazos and Grimes Counties are related
closely to the recent population growth trends in these areas. Whereas Grimes
County has had relatively small population increases between 1970 and 1975
(less than 3.0%), Brazos County has recorded nearly a 25% increase in popula-
tion during the same period (US Bureau of the Census 1975). Led by the growth
of Bryan-College Station, Brazos County has a more urbanized and affluent
population compared to the more rural and agriculturally-oriented population
of Grimes County.
Educational and occupational characteristics for the two counties indicate
that the population in Brazos County has attained a higher average educational
level (median school years completed is over 12 in Brazos County, compared to
approximately 9 in Grimes County) and is more highly skilled and trained than
the Grimes County population. This partially accounts for the major dif-
ference in income levels between the two counties. It can be anticipated that
the more urbanized and diverse character of Brazos County, particularly
Bryan-College Station, will more easily accommodate a major population influx.
Approximately 100 residences are located on the 27,500-acre project site,
most of which are farmhouses. Utilizing an average household size of 2.9
persons per unit (US Bureau of the Census 1970a) in Grimes County, it is es-
timated that approximately 290 persons are currently residing on the site.
Economic Activity and Trends In the Project Region
The economy of the project region is centered around Bryan-College Sta-
tion. The major economic activities in Bryan-College Station are Texas A & M
University and the related retail trade and service establishments required to
meet the needs of the College staff and students. The economic base of the
region is diverse, including major activity in the agriculture, manufacturing,
trades, services, and retail trade sectors.
Labor Force
The labor force in the project region increased by 38% between 1970 and
1977. During this period, unemployment varied widely increasing from 1.9% in
1970 to 5.0% in 1975. As of 1977, the unemployment rate was down to 3.8%, but
was subject to several seasonal variations due primarily to the dependence on
agricultural activities. Brazos and Grimes Counties have closely followed the
regional pattern of unemployment, with Brazos County experiencing the greater
.seasonal variation. Brazos and Grimes Counties have a total labor force of
3-103
-------
Table 3 18. Existing and projected population for the population centers
within 30 miles of the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project and Brazos and Grimes
Counties.
Percent Percent Percent
Population Center
¦ 1975
1980
Increase 1990
Increase 2000
Increa
Anderson
320
320
0.0
320
0.0
310
-3.2
Brenham
9,100
9,280
2.0
9,280
0.0
9,280
0.0
Bryan
39,860
46,000
15.4
54,090
17.6
63,680
17.7
College Station
20,900
24,120
15.4
28,350
17.5
33,380
17.7
Huntsvilie
20,260
22,900
13.0
27,610
20.6
33,340
20.8
Madisonville
3,160
3,450
9.2
3,600
4.3
3,710
3.1
Navaso ta
5,120
5,130
0.2
5,090
-0.8
5,040
-1.0
Brazos County
70,900
116,050
63.7
159,185
37.2
n/a
—
Grimes County
12,000
12,529
3.5
13,215
5.5
n/a
—
Source: (1) TERA Cotp. 1979. Environmental assessment report, Gibbons Creek
lignite project. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency. Dallas TX.
(2) Brazos Valley Development Council. 1978. Based on population pro-
jections from Population Projections for Texas Counties, 1980-2000,
University of Texas. Dallas TX. p. 3-115.
3-104
-------
over 42,350 people, with respective labor force participation rates of ap-
proximately 40% and 50%.
Employment Characteristics
There were 28,369 persons employed in Brazos County and 3,221 persons in
Grimes County during 1977 (Table 3-19). Agriculture (37.9%) and manufacturing
(20.8%) were the major employment categories in Grimes County, whereas State
government (37.2%), retail trade (16.6%), and services (12.4%) were the
dominant employment categories in Brazos County. During the past 5 years,
manufacturing employment has increased in Grimes County, while agricultural
employment has decreased. Between 1976 and 1977, Brazos County experienced
significant decreases in retail trade and State government employment due
largely to the fluctuations in enrollment at Texas A & M University in College
Station.
Regional Economic Activity
Manufacturing firms were the dominant economic activity in Grimes County
in terms of employment during 1975, although representing only 16 firms out of
the County total of 241. Major manufacturing categories included fabricated
metal projects and lumber and wood products. Over 50 manufacturing firms were
reported in Brazos County during 1975, the majority of which were located in
Bryan. The major manufacturing categories by number of firms included print-
ing and publishing (13), food and kindred projects (6), machinery except elec-
trical (6), and fabricated metal projects (5).
With the exception of State employment, the wholesale and retail trade
category represents the major economic activity in terms of employees and
number of establishments in the two-county project region. The wholesale
trade category consists of over 100 firms in the two counties, and over 500
retail trade establishments were reported during 1975. Automotive dealers and
service stations, eating and drinking places, and dry good stores were the
most prominent retail trade categories. Continued growth in this sector,
particularly in Brazos County, has resulted from increased population growth
and larger enrollments at Texas A & M University. Retail sales increased by
nearly 400% between 1960 and 1976 in Brazos County (1976 retail sales of over
$223 million), while Grimes County had an increase of only 65.6% during this
same period.
The service sector of the project region ranks third in terms of
employment, behind State government and retail trade. Service activities
employ approximately 4,000 employees in over 400 establishments, the largest
portion of which are located in Brazos County. Health services are the major
service activity followed by personal services (cleaning, beauty shops, etc.),
membership organizations (social and religious groups), and business services
(data processing, management, etc.). The related finance, insurance, and real
estate sector employs 852 people in 118 establishments, with real estate
activities the dominant concern.
3-105
-------
Table 3-19. Annual average employment by county and industry, Brazos and Grimes Counties, 1977.
1977*** TRANSPORTATION,
TOTAL COMMUNICATION &
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT* MINING CONSTRUCTION AGRICULTURE** MANUFACTURING PUBLIC UTILITIES
it
%
it
%
it
%
it
%
it
%
Brazos
28,369
68
.2
2,006
7.1
1,099
3.9
2,654
9.4
1,069
3.8
Grimes
3,221
4
.1
190
5.9
725
37.9
671 -
20.8
197
6.1
Region
46,834
183
.4
3,075
6.6
4,963
10.6
5,978
12.8
1,638
3.5
WHOLESALE
RETAIL
FINANCE
INSURANCE &
SERVICE
GOVERNMENT
COUNTY
TRADE
TRADE
REAL
ESTATE
& <
OTHER
STATE
FEDERAL
it
%
it
%
it
%
it
%
it
%
it %
Brazos
785
2.8
4,707
16.6
1,141
4.0
3,526
12.4
10,555
37.2
759 2.7
Grimes
226
7.0
542
16.8
123
3.8
478
14.8
46
1.4
19 .6
Region
1,946
4.2
8,307
17.7
1,964
4.2
6,136
13.1
11,718
25.0
926 1.9
:k
Total Employment figure does not include local government employees.
Agriculture figures for 1977 represent September, 1977.
•ffkie
All other 1977 figures are average employment for the first three quarters, ending September 30, 1977,
Source: Texas Employment Commission, no date. Annual average employment, 1970, 1975, and 1977 .
Austin TX.
-------
The continued growth and development of Bryan-College Station has created
a relatively large construction sector in Brazos County. Over 2,000 people
are employed in 200 construction firms ranging from general contractors to
heavy construction. In contrast, Grimes County, has only 190 people employed
in the construction sector, where building activity has been much slower in
recent years.
Agricultural activities have significantly declined during recent years in
the project region. The 1974 Census of Agriculture reported the number of
farms decreased from 1,786 in 1969 to 1,612 in 1974 in Grimes County, while
Brazos County underwent a decline of 158 farms to the 1974 level of 741 farms.
Accordingly, the amount of acreage devoted to agricultural activities also
significantly decreased during this period, with Grimes County declining by
16.1% to a 1974 acreage total of 339,505 acres, and Brazos County declining by
18.6% to a 1974 figure of 261,086 acres. The major area of decline has been
the production of row crops, while the dairy and cattle sector has increased
in importance. Despite the decline in the number of farms and the amount of
land devoted to agricultural activities, the market value of agricultural
products sold in the region has increased by more than 20% between 1969 and
1974.
Income Characteristics
The 1970 Census of Population reported per capita incomes of $2,669 and
$1,841 respectively for Brazos County and Grimes County. Although these
figures have increased substantially since 1970 [$4,180 (56.5%) for Brazos
County and $3,146 (70.9%) for Grimes County in 1975]. The absolute difference
between per capita incomes for the two counties has increased, reflecting both
greater employment potential and higher average wages in Brazos County. These
increases In per capita income have substantially increased the effective
buying income of the project region residents, accounting in large measure for
the significant increases reported in retail sales.
Government Services
The discussion of government services focuses on the current availability
of community facilities and services. In addition, a brief discussion of lo-
cal government finances Is presented to provide an understanding of the tax
implications of the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project.
Table 3-20 contains summary data of the major public service and facility
characteristics of the seven population centers. Currently, only Brenham and
Madisonville have school enrollments at 90% of capacity or above, and Brenham
is incurring an annual decline in enrollment that will increase future capac-
ity. Five of the population centers have full utility service (gas, electric,
water, sewer), although Brenham does not have sewer service and Anderson does
not have natural gas service. All of the utility services have adequate
capacity for at least limited residential expansion.
3-107
-------
Table 3-20. Housing and public service characteristics of population centers in the vicinity of the Gibbons
Creek lignite project.
Mobile School Full-time
Population Housing Motel Home Enrollment Police Fire Protection Health Care
Centers Availablity Units Spaces (% of capacity) Utilities Officers Personnel Vehicles Facilities Doctors
Anderson No rental n/a n/a 80% W,S,E County 25 (V) 1 None 1
limited
permanent
Brenham Rental and 142 200 90% W,E,G n/a 67 (V) 5 14 (2), NH 14
permanent 4 (FT) 12, A
limited
Bryan Fluctuates, 600 200 80% All 55 50 (FT) 10 H (2), NH 14
but rental (4), C (2)
limited
College Fluctuates, 200 n/a 85% All 29 17 (FT) 4 C (2) n/a
Station but rental 20 (V)
limited
Huntsville Rental 400 n/a 85% All 19 3 (FT) 16 H, C (6) 18
very 35 (V)
limited
Madisonville Rental 90 n/a 95% All 4 n/a 4 H, C 4
permanent
limited
Navasota Limited, n/a n/a 85% All 7 30 (V) 5 H, NH (2) 5
but
improving
1. G-Natural gas, W-Water, S-Sewer, E-Electricity
2. V-Volunteer, FT-Full-time
3. H-Hospital, NH-Nursing Home, C-Clinic, A-Ambulance Service
Source: TERA Corp. 1979. Environmental assessment report Gibbons Creek "lignite project. Prepared for Texas Municipal
Power Agency. Dallas TX.
-------
All of the full-time municipal police departments have officers per 1,000
population ratios of nearly one or above, which is in line with recommended
national standards. Fire protection service in all of the communities is
provided by full-time and/or volunteer fire departments that generally are
adequately staffed and equipped. Health service status is good, with seven
hospitals, six clinics, and nearly 70 doctors in the project region.
Government Finances
The three local tax districts that will be affected by removal of land
from the tax rolls for the Gibbons Creek Project are Grimes County, the Iola
School District, and the Anderson-Shiro School District. Assessed valuations
for these taxing districts during 1977 were $32 million for Grimes County, $5
million for the Iola School District, and $10 million for the Anderson-Shiro
School District, with respective budgets of $1.0 million, $0.25 million, and
$0.40 million. Other taxing districts in the project region also will be
affected by the project, but will not lose land from their tax rolls.
Housing
Housing in the seven population centers is currently very limited for both
rental and permanent units. Nearly all of the population centers have a
limited supply of available rental units, and permanent housing also is
limited in several communities. With the exception of Bryan-College Station,
most new units under development are permanent units designed to meet the de-
mands of existing residents. Mobile home spaces and over 1,400 motel units
also are available in the region.
Brazos County during 1970 had 18,619 dwelling units, nearly 75% of which
were single-family units. In comparison, Grimes County had 4,966 dwelling
units, consisting of approximately 95% single-family unit6. The larger number
of multiple-family units in Brazos County is due primarily to the need to meet
the housing demands of the university community in Bryan-College Station. The
availability of rental units is limited throughout the project region.
New housing construction within the project region primarily is occurring
in Bryan, College Station, and Huntsville. Although these three communities
represent the areas of greatest anticipated housing demand, there has been
very little residential construction in the other four population centers or
unincorporated sections of Grimes County. Unless efforts are made to en-
courage new residential construction in these smaller communities and uni-
ncorporated areas, Bryan, College Station, and Huntsville may bear an dis-
proportionate share of the housing demand. The other concern Is the af-
fordabililty of housing in the project region. Recent estimates of housing
prices indicate that new single-family units are selling for a minimum of
$35,000, with most units In the $40,000 to $50,000 range. With increased de-
mand and a limited supply, these prices could increase appreciably.
3-109
-------
Transportation Network (Highways, Railroads, Airports,
Electric Transmission Lines and Pipelines)
The project region is well served by major transportation facilities
including highways, airports, railroads, and electric transmission and
pipelines. Several of these facilities traverse the project site, including
State Highway 30, Farm to Market Road 244, six pipelines, and two electric
transmission lines (Figure 3-13).
The project region is served by Interstate Route 45, which . runs between
Houston and Fairfield; US Highways 75, 190, and 290; State Routes 6, 21, 30,
39, 50, 60, 90 and 105; and Farm to Market Roads 244, 1696, 2154, and 3090.
Table 3-21 indicates the major access routes from each of the population
centers to the project site and the current traffic volumes of each road. In
general, existing traffic volumes near the project site can be characterized
as light to moderate. Although substantial volumes of traffic travel near
the project site daily, relatively little of this traffic originates or
terminates in the project vicinity. The project site is traversed by several
major roads (State Routes 30 and 90 and Farm to Market Roads 244 and 3090) and
a number of gravel and unpaved roads that carry relatively small volumes of
traffic. Many of these roads are used only for local access to residences,
out buildings, and hunting areas.
The railroad lines extending into the project region are indicated on
Figure 3-13. None of the railroads extends into the proposed mining area,
^although the Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific (CRI & P) runs near the project
site. The other four rail lines provide freight, railway express, and trailer
or flat car service throughout Grimes County.
No private airfields or landing strips are located within the Gibbons
Creek Lignite Project site. The nearest airport is located at Navasota, where
a limited facilities municipal airport is in operation. Six other municipally
owned air strips also are located in the region. Commercial air service is
available in College Station, approximately 20 miles from the project site.
Petroleum pipelines and electric transmission lines that extend through or
near the project boundaries are indicated on Figure 3-13. Table 3-22
indicates the owner, size, and type of pipeline for each. In total, nine
lines traverse various portions of the project site.
Other Major Projects
There are no known Federal, State, or local projects presently being plan-
ned or developed for the area within the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project bound-
ary. There are two US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) projects proposed on the
Navasota River, that potentially could affect the Gibbons Creek Project. The-
se projects are the Millican Reservoir Project (downstream from Gibbons Creek
confluence with the Navasota River) and the Navasota Lake Project (upstream
from Gibbons Creek confluence). The Millican Project was authorized but not
funded for 1979. During the COE engineering and design studies, it was ack-
3-110
-------
LEGEND
Residential
Institutional
Commercial
Open Space/Cemetery
Traffic Volumes
Transmission Lines
Pipelines
Figure 9-13.Existing land use and
transportation routes in the
area of the Gibbons Creek
Lignite Project.
-------
Table 3-21. Existing traffic volumes of major access routes between population
centers and the Gibbons Creek lignite project.
Population
Center
Major Access
Routes
1976 - 1977
Traffic Volume'
Anderson
F.M.
244
290 -
380
Brenham
S.R.
105
2,540
-•2,840
S.R.
90
2,590
- 2,630
Bryan-College Station
S.R.
30
1,330
- 2,540
Huntsville
S.R.
30
1,070
- 1,760
Madisonville
S.R.
90
560
- 850
S.R.
30
1,070
- 1,150
Navasota
F.M.
3090
115
- 400
"^Annual Average 24 Hour traffic volume
Source: Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation,
1977 Traffic Map, Brazos County, Texas, and 1976 Traffic Map,
Grimes County, Texas.
3-112
-------
Table 3-22. Petroleum pipelines and electric transmission lines in the Gibbons
Creek project region.
Pipelines
Owner
Size
Type
Mobil Pipe Line Company
12"
Petroleum Products
10"
Petroleum Products
Santa Fe Pipeline Company -
Chapparal Division
12"
Petroleum Products
Lone Star Gas Company
30"
Natural Gas
Seaway Pipeline, Inc.
30"
Crude Oil
Diamond Shamrock Oil Company
8"
Petroleum Products
Amoco Pipeline Company
8"
Crude Oil
10"
Crude Oil
Transmission
Lines
Owner
Size
Texas Power & Light -
Houston Lighting and Power
345Kv
Brazos Electric Power
Cooperative
69 Kv
Source: TERA Corp. 1979. Environmental Assessment Report, Gibbons Creek
lignite project. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency for
submission to US Environmental Protection Agency. Dallas TX, p. 3-131.
3-113
-------
knowledged that major lignite reserves and oil and gas fields potentially
could be affected by the project (By letter, Mr. James J. Smyth, US Corps of
Engineers, 5 June 1979). Alternatives currently are being evaluated to make
the project compatible with the development of lignite and oil and gas re-
sources.
Although authorized as a separate project, the Navasota Lake Project is
one alternative being considered to replace the Millican Project. The COE has
indicated that even under the most favorable conditions, it will be at least 3
years before the final alternative can be selected (By letter, Mr. James J.
Smyth, US Corps of Engineers, 5 June 1979; and by letter Mr. Arthur D. Denys,
US Corps of Engineers, 17 May 1979).
3.1.7.2 Impacts on Socioeconomic Characteristics
Effects on Population
The lignite project is anticipated to require a relatively small con-
struction labor force, most of which will be shifted over from the GCSES
construction activities. The peak labor force during power plant construction
will consist of approximately 1,060 workers during mid-1981, which will
include 160 employees for lignite mining operations. The power plant oper-
ating work force will begin to phase in during late 1981 or early 1982, and
will reach its permanent level of 165 employees by mid-1982. At this time,
the permanent power plant/lignite mining operating force will reach 325 em-
ployees .
The projected employment totals and the secondary employment multiplier
associated with this employment will yield the peak construction-induced pop-
ulation increases and the permanent population increases indicated in Figures
3-14 and 3-15. The projected population increases result not only from the
employees and their families, but also from the potential inmigration of
additional workers and their families to fill job opportunities induced by the
plant and mining activities. As indicated in Figures 3-14 and 3-15, the
maximum projected induced population increases are 1,746 people during
construction and 488 people during operation.
A projection of the distribution of this induced population among the
seven population centers is presented in Table 3-23. The projection is based
on a population distribution factor resulting from observations of residential
choices of workers in 14 energy projects in western rural areas (Mountain West
Research, Inc. 1975). This study found that settlement patterns are
proportional to the ratio of community's population to the distance in miles
from the project site raised to the 0.849 power:
P = Population of community
D = Distance of community from project site
P/D .849 = Distribution factor
3-114
-------
Figure 3-14. Peak estimated construction population influx, 1981, Gibbons Creek Lignite Project, Grimes County,
Texas.
Peak Power Plant
Construction Labor]
Force: 900
40% Local
(Labor Force: 360
Induced Service
Sector Employment
** ¦
(0.7 Service/Basic) '630
75% Local
Labor Force: 473
5.1% of Construction
Workers Families: 32 g0% wlth
f Families: 100 x 2.9 persons/family
19.9% Service
Sector Influx: 125
20% without
Families: 25
<
48.19% married: 12 x 2-
51.9% single: 13
290
24
• 13
i
Lignite Mining
Operation Labor!
Force: 160
160% Labor ^
Force Influx: 540
50X Local Labor
'Force: 80
Induced Service
Sector Employment
**
(.7 service/basic) : 112
25% Commute: 135
Influx within .^^Famil ies:
Miles: 405
65% Married with
263 x 3.78 persons'/family
75% Local
Labor Force: 84
14.3% of Construction
Workers Families: 16
V*" 41 x
<*71 ,U
28.6% married:
2 persons/family
71.4 single: 101
with
es:
^20% without
fami1ies: 16
<
48.1% married: 8x2 persons/family
51.9% s inj;l e : 8
Total Induced Population Growth
* Based on actual experience at Fayette Power Project currently under construction in Lagrange, Texas.
** Texas Employment Commission, 1976.
*** US Census of Population, Brazos and Grimes County, Texas, 1979.
Source: Unless otherwise noted, all ;>opul .ition f.ir.tors iire derived from Construct ion Worker Profile, Old West: Regional.
I >11.n. i U <.¦ i . 1.1 1 (| 7 '"t - -l . - . . . "
~ 186
16
1 ,746
-------
Figure 3-15.
Texas.
Peak estimated operation population influx, 1982—2011, Gibbons Creek Lignite Project, Grimes Courity,
50% Local
Labor Force: 162
75% Local Labor
Fo rcc: 171
Total Power Plant
and Lignite Miningj
Operational Labor
Force: 325
Induced Service
Sector Employment
( .7 Service/Base) : 228]
14.3 Construction
Worker Families: 33
**
,80% with Families: 19 x 2.9 persons/family > 55
|10.7% Service
Sector Influx: 24
<48.1% married: 2 x 2^ 4
OJ
i
'20% without families:
>51.9% single: 3 ~ 3
80% with
'Families: 1 '30 x 2.c> persons/family
**
-~377
'50% Labor Force
Influx: 163
.48.1% married: 16 x 2 persons/family
-*¦ 32
I 20% wi thoul
Families: 33
51.9 7. single: 17
17
Total Tnduced Population Growth 488
* ~ " " " ' "
•kit Texas Employment Commission, 1976.
US Census of Population, Brazos and Grimes County, Texas,, 1970.
Source: Unless otherwise noted, all population factors are derived from Construction Worker Profile, Old West Regional
Commission, 1975.
-------
Table 3-23. Estimated distribution of population influx in population centers surrounding Gibbons Creek
lignite project.
1975 Distance from Distribution Peak Construction Operation
Population Center Population Project Site Factor Population Influx Population Influx
Anderson
320
7
.0075
13
4
Brenham
9,100
28
.0656
114
32
Bryan
39,860
19
.3996
698
195
College Station
20,900
17
.2303
402
112
Huntsville
20,260
25
.1609
281
79
Madisonville
3,160
21
.0291
51
14
Navasota
5,120
8
.1070
187
52
Total
98,720
1.0000
1,746
488
*Distribution factors determined from findings of the Construction Worker Profile, Old West Regional Commission
1975, as applied to estimated peak construction and operation population influxes from the Gibbons Creek lignite
project and power plant.
-------
This distribution factor does not take into account certain intangibles, such
as the unique qualities or programs in an individual community that might at-
tract more people. The distribution factors and resulting population for each
population center are designed merely to indicate approximate levels of pop-
ulation influx (Table 3-23).
The potential impact of population influx on each population center is
likely to vary from center to center, but should be minimal. During the tem-
porary construction phase, the potential population influx will increase the
197 5 population levels by a range of 1.3% (Brenham) to 4.1% (Anderson). Even
in small rural areas like Anderson and Madisonville, such small increases are
unlikely to significantly influence the character or composition of the
community, particularly over the relatively short 2- to 3-year period.
Although the long-term permanent population increase during operation are more
likely to influence community character and composition, the estimated
increases of from 0.4% (Brenham, Huntsville, Madisonville) to 1.3% (Anderson)
over the 1975 population levels will not have significant impacts.
Nearly 300 people would be relocated if all of the residences on the
project site were purchased or removed, but many of the dwelling units within
the project boundaries will not be located in mining areas. At this time, the
number of residences to be leased, acquired, or relocated cannot be determined
until each 5-year mining plan is finalized. During the first 5-year plan, it
is estimated that five to seven dwelling units will require acquisition or re-
location. This would displace from 15 to 20 people. Through TMPA's acquisi-
tion program, however, all owners of dwelling units to be acquired or re-
located will be compensated fully and should incur no major hardships.
(i
Effects on the Project Area Economy
In addition to the employment opportunities generated directly by project
construction and the operation of the lignite mine and power plant, there will
continue to be induced secondary employment opportunities resulting from
increased income and spending in the project area. The peak level of nearly
630 induced employment opportunities during construction of the GCSES and ini-
tial lignite mining operations will decrease to approximately 228 induced
permanent jobs by 1982, when the power plant and mine are fully operational.
It is estimated that 75%, or 171 jobs, will be filled by the local labor
force.
The power plant construction and lignite mine operation can be expected to
generate nearly 1,000 temporary employment opportunities that are projected to
occur in the construction, service, retail trade, and transportation sectors
of the economy between 1979 and 1982. During the power plant and lignite min-
ing operations, approximately 333 new employment opportunities will be created
in the mining, operatives, retail trade, and service sectors. The long-term
(30-year) nature of these jobs will aid in reducing unemployment in the
project area and allow current low-income workers to move into higher paying
jobs. Also, the types of job opportunities created, particularly the power
plant operatives and mining workers, will diversify the regional economy.
3-118
-------
Both the short-term and long-term increases in wages and disposable income
will benefit the regional economy. The total 30-year operating payrolls for
the power plant and the lignite mine are projected to be approximately $131.6
million and $76.0 million, respectively. Based on an income multiplier
derived from data from the Texas Employment Commission, this level of
operating wages will generate an additional $161.3 million in service sector
wages. This total wage level of $368.9 million would generate local ex-
penditures of approximately $183.1 million during the 30-year operating
period, or $6.1 million annually. These increases in wages and disposable
incomes will increase per capita incomes in the project region, particularly
in Grimes County, which currently has one of the lowest per capita income
levels in Texas. Other increases in local income can be expected from local
procurements of materials and sevices, as well as land payments and mineral
leases. During construction, local expenditures for materials and services
are estimated to be approximately $3.7 million per year.
Property owners will experience adjustments in personal income due to
changes in land use. Some portion of the land will be used (for 30 years or
more) for mining operations which will generate income in the form of mining
lease revenues. After reclamation a significant part of the land will no
longer be suitable as wildlife habitat. This reduction in area suitable for
wildlife habitat will result in individual losses in hunting lease revenues.
Post-reclamation, however, will present new and different ecomomic uses of the
land, such as pasture land for cattle production. Thus the uses of the land
and therefore the composition of an individual's income, will be altered, de-
pending on economic opportunity and personal preference. In general it is be-
lieved that pre-and post-reclamation revenues will not differ substantially,
although in some instances a landowner could incur economic hardships. This
could occur particularly where a significant portion of a landowners income
was derived from hunting leases prior to mining and wildlife habitat (which
requires minimal management) then is converted to pasture land (which requires
considerably higher management over time). The marginally subsistent
landowner may reach a point where the land maintenance requirements for pas-
ture land cannot be met, with a corresponding decrease in land productivity
and personal income over the long-term.
Effects on Government Services and Finances
The requirements imposed by new residents relocating in the project region
on either a temporary or permanent basis are not anticipated to constitute a
major burden on existing community facilities and services. During peak con-
struction activity, approximately 400 school-age children are expected to move
into the area; this estimate is based on past patterns at typical construction
projects (OWRC 1975). The largest distributional increases in school-age
children are anticipated in Bryan and College Station, but even during the
peak construction period, these increases represent only 1.6% and 3.0%, re-
spectively, of the existing enrollments. The percent increase in the other
five population centers range from 0.8 (Brenham) to 2.0% (Navasota). Increases
during operations generally are expected to be a third as large as the
construction period increases and will pose even less of a demand on the
existing school facilities.
3-119
-------
To settle outstanding litigation over the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project:
and to aid in the mitigation of adverse financial impacts, TMPA has agreed to
make payments to the Anderson-Shiro Independent School District in Grimes
County. These are areas where land for the project will be removed from the
tax rolls and property tax losses will be incurred. The payments to be made
by TMPA to each school district are presented in Table 3-24.
Community facilities and services in the project region are not anti-
cipated to be affected significantly by the projected population influx.
Health services and police and fire protection are currently at levels that
should be able to accommodate the population increases.
Both Bryan's and College Station's sewage treatment plants (STP's) are
being expanded, as are the STP's in Huntsville and Navasota. The STP in
Madisonville has adequate excess capacity for limited residential expansion,
while both Brenham and Anderson are served by septic systems only. These
planned expansions of local sewer systems in Bryan-College Station, Hunts-
ville, and Navasota should accommodate the majority of new hook-ups that will
be required for new housing construction. Only the smaller communities such
as Brenham and Madisonville, which either have no sewer system or have limited
excess capacity are expected to experience any problems in meeting potential
sewage treatment requirements.
The largest increased water demand caused by the project will occur in
Bryan-College Station, where a major expansion of the College Station water
supply will provide excess capacity in both communities. Anderson, Brenham,
Huntsville, Madisonville, and Navasota all have excess water supply capacity
available. The increased water supply needs of the new housing units required
to meet the increased population levels should be accommodated adequately in
each of the seven communities. Sewer and water demands largely will depend on
the type and distribution of new housing units constructed to meet the
increased residential demand.
Housing
Housing demand during the peak construction period is estimated to be be-
tween 600 to 625 new households. This figure is based on the anticipated pop-
ulation impact analysis and the distribution of the induced population growth
among the population centers. The figure may be considered high because it
includes one dwelling unit for each single person, when in fact some sharing
of units is possible. However, even with two single people per dwelling unit,
housing demand will remain at 550 to 575 dwelling units.
The projected distribution of housing demand by population center is
indicated in Table 3-25. The Bryan-College Station area is anticipated to
need nearly 400 new dwelling units to meet the peak requirements, whereas
Huntsville, Navasota, and Brenham will require approximately 100, 67, and 41
units, respectively. The types of housing units anticipated to be required
include over 225 single-family units, nearly 275 mobile homes, and
approximately 125 duplexes, townhouses, and other housing types. Demand for
3-120
-------
Table 3-24. Schedule of payments by TMPA to Grimes County and local school
districts.
30 year period
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982-2012 Total
Grimes County $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 $180,000 $220,000 $7,200,000
Anderson-Shiro
Independent
School District 49,500 59,400 69,300 79,200 99,000 3,227,400
Navasota
Independent
School District 25,500 30,600 35,700 40,800 51,000 1,662,600
Iola
Independent
School District 75,000 90.000 105.000 120.000 150.000 4.890,000
Total $270,000 $320,000 $370,000 $420,000 $520,000 $16,980,000
Source: TERA Corp. 1979. Environmental assessment report Gibbons Creek lignite
project. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency for submission to US
Environmental Protection Agency. Dallas TX.
3-121
-------
Table 3-25. Type and distribution of housing units required during construction
and operating phases of the Gibbons Creek lignite project.
Construction Operation
Anderson 4 1
Brenham 41 12
Bryan-College Station 392 117
Huntsville 100 30
Madisonville 18 5
Navasota 67 20
Total 622 185
Single-Family 227 103
Duplex/Townhouse 14 8
Apartment 59 24
Mobile Home 271 47
Other 51 3
Total 622 185
Source: Based on survey findings of Construction Worker Profile, Old West
Regional Commission. 1975.
3-122
-------
duplexes, townhouses, and apartments generally is low among construction
workers.
Based on the current availability of housing in the project region and on
current housing construction activity, Bryan-College Station probably will ex-
perience a higher proportion of the housing demand due to of the active hous-
ing market and the availability of needed facilities there. For these same
reasons, Huntsville and Navasota also may accommodate more people than es-
timated. Although these three areas may better accommodate the population
influx, it is uncertain whether they could meet the demand specifically
generated by this project for the 550 or more dwelling units. An influx of
population higher than that estimated also could overburden existing community
facilities and services.
Thus, it will be important that part of the project-generated housing de-
mand be met by the smaller population centers of unincorporated areas of
Grimes and Brazos Counties. TMPA may have to encourage housing development in
these areas because developers generally are wary of the uncertain demand and
unregulated development in Grimes County. Perhaps, as suggested in the
Socioeconomic Impact Assessment and Community Programs report prepared for
TMPA by Resources Communities, Inc. (1977), a site for mobile homes or actual
temporary housing may have to be provided by TMPA to meet the peak
construction-related demand for housing. The demand for such dwelling units
will be 'of a short-term nature and, probably would not warrant the con-
struction of permanent units.
During the long-term operating phase of the project, it is anticipated
that housing demand will be met satisfactorily. Not only will the demand be
significantly smaller, but units built to meet the construction-related demand
also will satisfy this permanent operation-related demand.
Effects on Transportation and Traffic
The potential impacts on transportation and traffic from the Gibbons Creek
Lignite Project are related to increased traffic generation and interference
with existing transportation routes and utility lines. The impacts, although
not substantial, are magnified by the combined effect of the GCSES and the
lignite mining activities.
The increase in traffic volumes is likely to be the most noticeable traf-
fic impact of the project. Based on the estimate of 600 to 625 new households
during the construction phase, there will be approximately 1,200 to 1,250 new
commuter trips in the 30-mile project region. In addition, there is anti-
cipated to be a labor force of approximately 135 workers who will commute from
outside of the project region, generating an additional 270 trips. Each new
household can be expected to generate other trips in addition to daily com-
muter trips to the project site. Delivery and service vehicles enroute to the
GCSES and lignite mine will generate minimal additional traffic. Many of the
potential commuter trips generated by the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project will
3-123
-------
be against the major flow of traffic, which generally is toward Bryan-
College Station, the primary employment center. Traffic capacities and
volumes of the major access routes to the project site indicate little con-
gestion and few problem areas with the exception of several high-volume inter-
sections.
The construction phase of the Gibbons Creek Project will increase traffic
volumes by a range of 0.6 to 82.9% over the 1976-1977 traffic volumes on the
project region roads. The largest increase will be 82.9%, on Farm to Market
Road 3090 because it is a shorter route from Navasota to Carlos than other
State Route 90 or Farm to Market Road 244. However, the relatively high
volume of traffic projected for F.M. 3090 may encourage greater use of other
routes that are designed to handle a higher volume of traffic. None of the
roads near the project site, even at these liberal estimates of increased
traffic volume, should be overburdened by the construction related traffic
increase. Most of the areas rural highways are designed to handle sub-
stantially higher traffic volumes; also, the relatively short time frame of
this peak construction-related traffic increase should serve to further reduce
the impact potential.-
Traffic increases during the long-term operating period are anticipated to
be significantly smaller than the construction-related traffic increases.
Maximum increases are projected for Farm to Market Road 3090 (15.5%) and State
Route 30 from College Station to F.M. 244 (14.3%). Any potential impact of
these small increases is reduced by the fact that mining activities will be
operated on a two or three shift per day basis; however, the impacts will be
long-term.
No deterioration of local roads will result from use of 110-ton trucks to
transport lignite to the GCSES as haul roads will be used in combination with
a conveyor system. The access road system has required the construction of
several grade separations^over the mine haul roads on State Route 30 and Farm
to Market Road 244. During construction of these over-passes, traffic was
temporarily rerouted. Those, projects along with other recently completed work
on S.H. 30 and F.M. 244 should provide adequate highway facilities during the
construction and mining period. The movement of mining equipment from one
mine area to another also will result in temporary traffic disruptions.
No relocation of State or County highways is anticipated in the first
5-year permit area; proper arrangements will be made if relocations become
necessary during later stages of the project. Several local access roads will
be closed or relocated during various stages of the mining activities. Con-
tinued access to residences, out buildings, and other areas dependent on these
roads will be provided as necessary.
In addition, several petroleum pipelines and electric transmission lines
may require relocation. There will be no relocation of petroleum or utility
lines during the first 5-year permit period. Thereafter some petroleum lines
and a gas utility line will be relocated. The respective pipeline company
will first construct the new line outside the project boundary; the content of
3-124
-------
the old line will be removed or bleed. The final hook-up of the old line to
the new line will be the only time there is an interuption of service. The
entire process will be conducted by the responsible pipeline company and paid
for by TMPA. This procedure is standard and would not require a State permit.
(Utility lines that cross State lines are the only ones subject to
regulation.) The lines are all either 10 or 12 inch diameter lines and there
is one 30" natural gas line owned and operated by the Lone Star Gas Company
that will require relocation. The relocation process is designed to eliminate
and/or minimize the risk of leaks or spills. The old lines would not be
removed until the hook-up process is completed and the contents of the
pipeline rerouted.
Effects Related to Other Major Projects
In regard to the Millican Lake Project, the COE believes at this time that
the proposed site cannot be best utilized until after the lignite reserves
have been mined. Even if the Millican Project as proposed is developed, it
will not directly affect the mining operations at the Gibbons Creek site.
Also the upstream location of the Navasota Lake Project should result in
minimal impact on the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project and vice versa, however an
adequate evaluation of impacts can be performed only after specific project
plans are known. Because both of the COE projects are situated on the
Navasota River rather than Gibbons Creek, there should be ho direct effect on
water quality or quantity on the project site. Similarly, the water quality
controls to be implemented at the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project should prevent
any significant deterioration of water quality in the Navasota River and
downstream projects. However if the Millican reservoir project is con-
structed, the State (TDWR) will prescribe appropriate water quality standards
for the impounded water, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, as amended. If the
mining operation is still active at that time, the mining discharge permits
will be modified accordingly and any water discharged from the permit areas
will be retained and/or treated to ensure that all prescribed effluent limits
are met. In the absense of the Millican Dam Project, it still will be neces-
sary for the permit applicant to comply with any permanent mining provisions
relative to effluent limitations and monitoring requirements, as well as to
any provisions associated with the pending NPDES discharge permit. Compliance
with these permits will help protect the existing as well as future water re-
sources in the project area.
3.1.8 Energy Resources
3.1.8.1 Existing Energy Supplies
Energy consumption In the project area is mainly associated with re-
sidential and commercial uses rather than heavy industry. Common forms of en-
ergy supplies include:
• Electricity. Adequate supplies of power currently are being provided
by Mid-South Electric Cooperative.
3-125
-------
• Natural gas. A good supply of natural gas exists for the area, and is
supplied by the Lone Star Gas Company. Demand during 1978 indicates
that a 12-year supply is available (By phone, A.L. Bartley, Lone Star
Gas Company, to Robert Stevens, 9 August 1979).
• Propane and butane. These are used in the rural areas where natural
gas service is not available. Propane has been readily available,
with usage increasing concurrent with population growth. At least two
suppliers are in the area (Cal-Gas Bryan, Inc. and Brazos Valley Gas).
Butane is being phased out as a fuel, because of increasing cost and
difficulty in use as a fuel (By phone, P. Herbert, Cal-Gas Bryan, Inc.,
to Robert Stevens, 9 August 1979).
• Diesel fuel. A tight supply condition exists for the Bryan area, which
is similar to the national situation. The projected TMPA demand (ap-
proximately 180,000 gallons per month) probably would be more than any
one distributor could now handle, and probably will require a set-aside
from the US Department of Energy (By phone, Mr. Morgan, D & B Oil Corn-
pay, to Robert Stevens, 9^ August 1979).
The area does not rely on lignite at this time, and the lignite reserve near
Bryan is not currently being used as a source of energy.
The specific generating capacity of the TMPA system and the recent demand
situation (1978-1987) is presented in Table 3-26 These data show that any ad-
ditional load imposed on the system after 1982 will have a significant impact
on the TMPA power grid, unless the GCSES is on-line or alternative means of
supplying electric power are found. The projected demand in the Bryan area
for other energy resources is unclear at this time because of the complex
interactions between price, availability, and government regulations.
3.1.8.2 Effects on Energy Supplies
The energy requirements of the Gibbons Creek lignite mining operations
will include consumption of 150,000 KWH of electricity and 5,700 gallons of
diesel fuel on an average daily basis. The electricity demand will be
satisfied by the power generated at the steam electric station, except during
the initial project phases, routine shutdowns, and power outages. The total
system capacity without the GCSES is 932 MWe. Electricity consumed during
mining activities will not represent a significant portion of the system
capacity, and overall, the mine will support the net generation of ap-
proximately 400 MWe of electrical energy, after the electricity consumption of
the mine has been satisfied.
The projected demand of 5,700 gallons per day of diesel fuel may have a
significant disruptive effect on local diesel fuel allocations. To minimize
the potential for shortages and impact to local supplies TMPA plans to obtain
set-asides or make other similar arrangements.
3-126
-------
Table 3-26. Projected annual energy supplies and peak demand for
the period 1978 to 1987 for the TMPA service area.
Peak Demand
+15% Load
Peak Demand -Reserves Existing Resource
Year Summary (MWe) + Losser. (t1We) Resources (MWe) Balance(MWe)
1978
602
692
932
+240
1979
633
728
932
+204
1980
683
788
932
+144
1981
735
853
932
+ 79
1982
788
913
932
+ 19
1983
861
999
932
- 67
1984
932
1,082
932
-150
1985
1,015
1,179
932
-247
1986
1,098
1,275
932
-343
1987
1,205
1,406
932
-474
Source: Texas Municipal Power Agency. 1978. Official Statement, August.
In TERA Corp. 1979. Gibbons Creek lignite project, environmental
assessment report. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency.
Dallas TX, p. 2-10.
3-127
-------
Induced growth will increase energy demand in the project area, but there
should be adequate natural gas, propane, and electricity for household and
commercial users. Gasoline, fuel oil, and diesel fuel requirements associated
with induced growth probably will not require an immediate modification to the
Federal government allocation. Any temporary shortfalls of these fuels should
not be significant because of the minor population increases resulting from
construction and operation of the project (0.5% growth, based on 488 persons
and a 1975 population of 98,720). The Federal allocation program for
petroleum resources also should provide adequate supplies for any induced
growth.
3.1.9 Land Use
The land use on and near the project site primarily is pastureland and
grazingland (as defined by the TRRC). The nearest major developed area
(Navasota) is approximately 8 miles from the site. Consequently, developed
land uses near the project site primarily consist of scattered residential
uses, farms and out-buildings, roads and highways, and utilities. The land
use pattern of the project site is consistent with that of the region.
3.1.9.1 Existing Land Use
3.1.9.1.1 Land Uses of the Project Region
The land use of Grimes County in 1979 was calculated to be 53.3% pasture,
29.6% forest, 12.3% range, 2.5% cropland, 0.2% urban, .2% miscellaneous, and
0.1% water (TDWR manuscript). The development pattern in the project region
consists of seven urbanized population centers, with a number of small un-
incorporated areas and strip development along the major highway routes con-
necting these areas. The Bryan-College Station area is the largest urban area
in the project region, and accordingly, the number of unincorporated villages,
rural subdivisions, and strip highway developments is greater on the roads
leading in and out of this area than in most parts of the region. Outside of
the Bryan-College Station area, there are relatively few rural subdivisions,
although mobile home parks are common throughout the region.
Other developed land uses in the region consist of airports (private),
various service and highway-oriented commercial uses, churches and cemeteries,
oil and gas pipelines and fields, and the Texas International Speedway (near
College Station). Small unincorporated communities, including Roans Prairie,
Shiro, Singleton, Carlos, Iola, Bedias, and Richards, are located near the
project region, except for energy and recreational developments.
Land Uses of the Project Site
During the past 20 years, the land in the area to be mined has been used
primarily for grazing, with much of the land being leased for deer hunting. A
small percentage of the project area has been utilized for hay production. A
large part of this grazingland is covered in mixed hardwoods, and receives no
management. Small acreages on the better soils have been cleared and planted
to permanent pasture grasses (TMPA Corp. 1980).
3-128
-------
Residential land uses represent 137 acres, or approximately 0.5% of the
total project site. An estimated 100 residences are located on the project
site concentrated primarily near Carlos, Singleton, and Piedmont and along
several of the roads which traverse the site (TERA Corp. 1979).
The project site contains no industrial activities, although several
abandoned quarry areas are located on the site. Commercial activities are
limited primarily to a small area along State Highway 30 and include a plant
nursery, grocery stores, eating and drinking establishments, and various other
commercial and service establishments. Commercial uses also are found near
Carlos and Piedmont. Other land uses within the project boundaries include
highways and roads, cemeteries, and numerous ponds, lakes, and streams (TERA
Corp. 1979).
Prime and Unique Farmland
A detailed soil survey study for the first 5-year permit area found one
soil type that could be classified as prime farmland. This soil type is
contained in a 22-acre tract north of the actual mining area. Based on these
findings and the general soil associations for the rest of the project site,
the US Soil Conservation Service has determined preliminarily that it is
unlikely that any prime farmlands occur on the site. Several areas, however,
including, the northeastern portion of the site (pineland vegetation) and the
area near the confluence of the Navasota River and Gibbons Creek, warrant
further study. TMPA has not completed a detailed soil study on the 30-year
mine area. When completed this study will be submitted to SCS for
verification of the soil classifications. The SCS also plans to complete a
soil survey for the remainder of Grimes County. A more detailed discussion of
prime farmland is contained in Section 3.1.1 (Earth Resources).
Land Use Plans and Trends
A comparison of the land use data for 1958, 1967, and 1974 (Table 3-27) re-
veals that there has been a trend toward converting cropland and forest to
range and pastureland. Urbanization trends that are anticipated for a seven-
county region including Grimes County were presented in two documents prepared
by the Brazos Valley Development Council. The major growth stimulus for
developed land uses has been and continues to be Texas A & M University which
currently has nearly 30,000 students, but service-related industry and new
basic industries in Bryan-College Station are increasingly contributing to
growth in the area by the development and expansion of the Brazos County
Industrial Park. In addition to Bryan-College Station, other developed areas
in the region with the greatest potential for growth are Brenham, Hearns,
Navasota, and Madisonville. Based on national and regional trends, the amount
of developed land in the region is expected to increase (Brazos Valley
Development Council 1978, 1979).
Due to the presence of lignite in this region of Texas, there has been and
will continue to be an increase in coal exploration, mining, and power produc-
ing industries. Thus, the trend toward the sale or leasing of land for the
3-129
-------
Table 3-27. Landv use trends in Grimes County (as defined by SCS).
Land Uses (acreage)
Year
Cropland
Pasture
Range
Forest
1958
138,100
108,700
37,800
209,700
1967
74,363
205,139
76,676
137,500
1974b
12,900
288,000
102,500
NA
NA = no data available
cl
These land uses are not inclusive of all uses in the counties, therefore
the totals will not equal the total acreage of the county.
^Adapted from: Texas Department of Agriculture. 1975. In Tera Corporation.
1979. Gibbons Creek lignite project: environmental assess-
ment report. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency,
Arlington, Texas. 3 vols. Submitted to US Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, Texas.
Source: Texas Conservation Needs Committee. 1970. Conservation needs
inventory, Texas, 297 p.
3-130
-------
development of coal resources is expected to continue throughout the life of
the proposed project.
Land use controls generally are found only in the major population centers
of the region, such as Bryan and College Station. Neither Brazos nor Grimes
County has zoning ordinances or subdivision regulations to control development
in unincorporated sections of the region.
3.1.9.2 Effects on Land Use
Approximately 10,300 acres of primarily pastureland and grazingland will
be temporarily converted to lignite mining operations. After reclamation the
proposed land use of the mined area will be approximately 97% pastureland and
3% developed water resources (as defined by TRRC). These percentages may vary
depending on the desire of the landowner. The major land uses existing prior
to mining are approximately 90% grazingland and pastureland, the majority of
which is grazingland. The percentage of the area that is wooded is not
reflected in these figures because the TRRC does not recognize an area as
forested unless it is actively managed for timber production. The wooded
cover of the mine area will be reduced from 58 to 27% in the proposed
reclamation plan. If reclamation is not successful there will be a definite
land use change due to loss of vegetation and erosion. The success of
reclamation as it relates to land use is primarily dependent on the success of
revegetatlon and the level and type of management that would be required. It
is expected that a higher level of management will be required following
mining to sustain productivity equal to pre-mining conditions and to
conditions prior to bond release regardless of the overburden handling method
used. The actual level of increased management that would be required will
depend, in part, on the effectiveness of the overburden handling method used.
Currently the majority of the land on the project site receives no
management. Small acreages have had some brush control and weed control.
There has been some infrequent liming of the pastures with minimal or no
fertilization (TMPA 1980). In some instances following mining, addition of
lime to neutralize the acidic soils, or the removal of acidic spots ("hot
spots") may be necessary; fertilization also will be required. This level of
management is expensive due to time requirements and costs, and differs
sustantially from the historical and current management practices for the
area. Realistically, the higher the level of post-mining management required
to maintain an area as a productive pastureland, the less chance the area has
of being adequately maintained. Over the long-term, it is uncertain exactly
how the different overburden handling methods will react under low-level
management conditions but it is expected that less intensive land treatment
would be necessary to maintain productivity where some form of topsoiling
occurs as opposed to randomly mixing overburden spoils (See Section 3.4).
Additional proposed field trials should provide more insights that can be used
in future mine and reclamation planning.
Hunting opportunities will be lost on the mine site during and immediately
after mining. The proposed post-reclamation Jand use also will reduce the
3-131
-------
amount of forested area and thereby reduce the hunting opportunities available
on the immediate site. If the acreage of ponds increases after reclamation
then the hunting and fishing opportunities associated with ponds may increase.
Some developed land uses also will be disrupted, relocated, or permanently
lost as a result of the lignite mine. Currently an unknown number of re-
sidences on the project site will be either destroyed or relocated. Each re-
sidence is treated as a separate property and has different lease or purchase
conditions associated with it. TMPA will either lease or purchase the land
and move the residence, or compensate the owner. During reclamation
activities, fences, roads, and ponds generally have to be restored. The pos-
sibility also exists that several residences that cannot be purchased will, be
mined around and TMPA will have to guarantee full-time access to the resi-
dence, but no relocation will be required.
The cemeteries which lie within the project boundaries also will be mined
around due to the difficulty in obtaining legal rights to remove gravesites.
Access to the cemeteries will be maintained. No commercial land uses should
be disturbed.
If the 22-acre tract that meets the SCS criteria for prime farmland is
mined the prime farmland characteristics will probably be lost if the topsoil
is not segregated, protected and replaced. Because this area has not been
farmed for 5 out of the previous 10 years, it does not meet the TRRC
definition of prime farmland and generally requires no special handling.
An indirect effect on land use from the Gibbons Creek Project will be the
secondary growth resulting from the population influx and the associated
services required. About 550 to 650 new dwelling units may be needed during
the peak construction period. In addition, new commercial and service es-
tablishments are likely to develop in response to the increased demand for
goods and services generated by the population influx. In areas such as Bryan
and College Station, where land use controls are being used, this new de-
velopment should be accommodated with minimal undesirable growth. Some un-
desirable land use patterns and development potentially could result in
unincorporated sections of Brazos and Grimes Counties where no land use con-
trols exist. Of particular concern in these areas is the potential de-
velopment of rural subdivisions, mobile home parks, and strip commercial de-
velopment along major highways. Such development, if not properly planned and
regulated, can result in increased traffic congestion, overburdened community
facilities and services, undesirable effects on the natural environment (water
quality degradation, etc.), and reduction In the aesthetic quality of the
area.
3-132
-------
3.2 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA
3.2.1 Issuance of the Permit
The issuance of the new source NPDES permit would allow TMPA to operate
the Gibbons Creek mine as described in Section 2.0 and to discharge wastewater
into Gibbons Creek up to the limits set forth in the permit. Special con-
ditions may be added to the permit where necessary to minimize or avoid en-
vironmental impacts in order to ensure that the most environmentally sound
project is permitted. A comprehensive overview of potential impacts resulting
from issuance of the permit is contained in the Summary and a detailed discus-
sion of impacts is contained in Section 3.0.
3.2.2 Denial of the Permit
If the proposed discharge(s) into Gibbons Creek violate effluent
limitations and/or water standards or have a significant adverse impact on the
human environment, USEPA may deny the new source NPDES permit. EPA could deny
the permit if environmental considerations such as endangered species,
historic and/or archaeologic sites, wetlands, floodplains, prime farmlands, or
other important resources are significantly and adversely impacted and mitiga-
tion measures are unacceptable. Denial of the permit would be equivalent to
the no action alternative and would result in no effluent discharge from min-
ing to area streams. The applicant would have the option of redesigning
project plans and resubmitting on application or pursuing the no action
alternative.
3.3 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO OTHER PERMITTING AGENCIES
Currently, one other Federal permit will be required. The US 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. Discharges of dredged or fill material which may occur
in the Navasota River or its adjacent wetlands will require prior individual
authorization under purview of Section 404. Discharges which may occur in
Gibbons Creek, its wetlands, or tributaries upstream of its confluence with
the Navasota River may be authorized by a nationwide permit. Such authoriza-
tion does not require administrative action provided the evaluation under the
404 (b)(1) guidelines (as defined in 40 CFR 230), does not cause significant
concern for the aquatic environment and the project is in compliance with the
following conditions:
(1) 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 species;
(2) that the discharge will consist of suitable material free from toxic
pollutants in other than trace quantities;
3-133
-------
(3) that the fill created by the discharge of material will be properly
maintained to prevent erosion and other non-point sources of
pollution; and
(4) 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.
Should work on Gibbons Creek or its tributaries not comply with the above
conditions or should the 404 (b)(1) evaluation show significant adverse
impacts to the aquatic environment the District Engineer may require an
individual permit for this portion of the work. A general 404 (b)(1)
evaluation was prepared in conjunction with this EIS and is contained in
Appendix D.
The Texas Air Control Board requires that a construction permit by applied
for and received prior to start of construction and that an operating permit
be applied for within 30 days after the first day of operations to ensure that
applicable air quality standards are being met. The Texas Railroad Commision
requires that the detailed mining plans and specifications for the first
five-year permit area be reviewed and that a permit for the operation of the
surface mine be issued based on this review. The Texas Department of Water
Resources also will review and approve the NPDES effluent limitations and
issue a Water Quality Waste Control Order, the State equivalent of NPDES
permit. In addition, a permit for the disposal of solid wastes is required
from the TDWR. Should one or more of thise permits be denied, the proposed
project schedule probably would be extended until appropriate clarifications/
modifications could be made to the project plans.
3.4 OVERBURDEN HANDLING ALTERNATIVES
This section discusses the characteristics of the overburden handling
method which is proposed by TMPA and compares it with other options that could
mitigate some of the possible impacts of the proposed method. In reality, the
excavation and replacement of overburden material (spoil) can be done in many
different ways depending on the depth to the lignite seam, the nature of the
overburden, the initial contour of the land surface, and the type of
excavating equipment which is available. The methods discussed here are
representative of a range of operations which can be considered.
Four overburden handling schemes have been identified and include (1)
replacing randomly mixed overburden (proposed alternative); (2) replacing
topsoil (A-horizon) over randomly mixed overburden; (3) replacing upper
weathered zone over randomly mixed overburden; and (4) replacing topsoil over
weather zone above randomly mixed overburden. These schemes as well as the
existing (pre-mining) conditions are illustrated graphically in Figure 3-16.
The alternatives considered here differ chiefly in the manner in which the
upper most portion of the spoil is replaced. Therefore, the following
considerations are common to all methods:
3-134
-------
CO
I
u>
U1
Existing
Conditions
'Topsoil
Weathered
= Sediments—— 10 ,
Water Table -J-j
t
-I-Unweathered >---- 20-150
:-I- Sediments
No. I
iO 'N Random "J>.
r'W Mixed Ci
Spoil
- '.Material vT'1
I— t -
V'1! "> O'i y»-
No. 2
'Topsoil
: Random *~o
'-V: Mixed
Vv°i spoil
Material ^>7'
'-(7
' s\\'-
w - i . I 1 . > . / ^ \ «
- V"
' \ / ^ «
•C . ^ 1 rt^ — '>.»
Vr'T^'^r
No. 3
Weathered Material
I \ / - V
x' V
O 0
>'<; Random 's',\
-o, Mixed ~s,y~,
f,\ Spoil /^'O,
w Material
No. 4
-Topsoil
^xXor.;-,io'>
/ i s-' ; 'v
- Random i'C'»*
ic Mixed
'V spoil T-;V
- - Material -'>-V
v^V.'-v'r
11 /\' n7 \
• V i -V i ->/i i •
>';>//?>//
Figure 3-K>. C'.ompar i son of the !r.xi.stin& Conditions, Tlie Proposed Overburden Handling
Method (No. 1) and the Alternate Overburden Handling Methods.
Note: In Hos. 3 and 4 the weathered materia 1 may he replaced either
in a layer which is 4-5 feet thick over a previously leveled
surface-, or as a thick irregular layer with a minimum thickness
of 4-5 froi.
-------
The lower part of the spoil will be replaced in the same manner for
all methods so that reestablishment of the water table and the
general groundwater regime will be similar for all alternatives. The
major difference will be that treatment of the surface material and
revegetation can affect the rate of infiltration of surface water
into the ground. Thus the rate of recharge of the groundwater system
may vary from system to system. In all cases the initial rate of
infiltration should be equal to or better than the existing low
subsoil permeability.
At present portions of the overburden contain pyrite and/or other
sulfide minerals. These minerals are comparatively inert so long as
they are not exposed to oxidizing conditions. When these materials
are oxidized in the presence of water, they react to form sulfuric
acid. This reaction may occur at the surface or at any level above
the water table. The material which is placed below the water table
is not exposed to much oxygen and forms little acid. This reaction
takes place at a slow rate so that, even at the surface, pyrltic
material may not show an acidic reaction for months or even years
after exposure. Potential impacts from this process are:
(1) All spoil will be exposed to the air during excavation and
handling, thus some acid formation will take place during the
period following replacement. Reestablishment of the water table
will arrest acid formation below its level but the reaction will
continue at all levels above the water table. The result will be
an increased acid content for the groundwater in the replaced
spoil.
(2) Acidic groundwater may dissolve toxic metals from the spoil,
leading to contamination of the groundwater.
(3) Pyritic material exposed at the surface or within the root zone
can lead to a soil condition that is strongly acidic and can
retard or prevent plant growth. Attempts to neutralize such
areas ("hot spots") by the application of lime must usually be
repeated many times as the pyrite continues to react with
atmospheric oxygen (weather). Hot spots are not present in the
natural soils of the region because pyritic material that was
anywhere near the surface has oxidized long ago. Any hot spots
that result from the proposed mining activities could require
decades or longer to neutralize naturally if not treated or
removed.
The mining operations are planned as a series of parallel cuts,
excavated in sequence. Except during the beginning and ending cuts,
overburden material is handled on a continuous basis and is not
stockpiled for replacement in the same location. Overburden which is
picked up during a given stage of the operation is , immediately
replaced in a space left vacant by a preceding cut. If there are
3-136
-------
multiple stages in the handling procedure, there will be multiple
locations in preceding cuts in which spoil or soil is being replaced.
3.4.1 Proposed Overburden Handling Method-Random Overburden Placement
(Alternative 1)
In the method proposed by TMPA, overburden would be excavated in a single
stage of removal and replaced unless zones of toxic material are known to
exist. If such zones or layers have been identified (from color-
differentiations in the field or from core log data), the replacement of spoil
in the mine pit would be modified to the extent necessary to ensure that none
of the potentially toxic material is placed near the surface (it generally
would be placed from 4 to 5 feet below the reclaimed surface). No other
sorting or segregation of the replaced spoil is planned. The resulting mass
of replaced material would consist of a conglomeration of relatively intact
portions of the original overburden generally the size of a dragline bucket
load (nominally 78 cubic yards) and would then be deposited in a random
manner. The surface of this spoil would be contoured to the desired land
configuration and prepared for reclamation. The actual sequence of operations
is as follows:
• Proposed Mining Procedure
(1) Clearing - Any useful timber or crops are harvested and the
remaining vegetation is cleared to be burned or landfllled for
disposal.
(2) Leveling - Bulldozers and/or scrapers level the surface so that
the dragline can operate. (It is also possible for the dragline
to excavate to a level surface ahead of its movement using two
stages of excavation Instead of the preliminary leveling.)
(3) Excavation - The dragline removes the overburden material from
above the coal seam and places it in the previously mined-out
area on the opposite side of the pit. Identified zones of
acid-forming materials would be placed down below (4 to 5 feet)
the surface .
(4) Mining - The lignite seam is broken up and loaded into trucks
for removal from the mine. Loading would be done either by power
shovels or front-end loaders.
(5) Replacement - Overburden from a subsequent cut would be placed
in mined-out pit. Potential acid-forming material would be
placed down below the surface of the reclaimed 1 and (4 to 5
feet deep).
3-137
-------
(6)
Recontouring - The irregular surface of the replaced spoil left
by the dragline is bulldozed to the desired contour.
(7) Surface Preparation - Tilling machinery is used to dress and
smooth the surface of the spoil. The pH of the surface material
is adjusted by the application of lime; the material is
fertilized and vegetation is planted. (If the season is not
suitable for planting the desired vegetation, a temporary cover
of mulch and/or rye grass will be used to stabilize the surface
until the proper season.)
(8) Maintenance - Land treatment and fertilization would continue
until a viable soil is formed that will maintain native plants,
or if a monoculture crop is desired, maintenance will continue
indefinitely.
If acidic zones (hot spots) develop which are not neutralized by
the treatment procedures, it will be necessary to remove the
upper 4 to 5 feet of the zone and replace it with non-acidic
material or to cover it with 4 to 5 feet of suitable material.
• Consequences
Since topsoil has not been preserved, it will be necessary to condition
the upper surface of the replaced spoil so plant growth can be initiated and
soil formation can begin. If plant growth is maintained for several years, a
new soil system can develop. Although the excavated overburden material is
handled only once during this method, with less effort and expense,
maintenance of plant growth is likely to require considerable sustained effort
over an indefinite period of time. Success of the short-and long-term
revegetation efforts largely will depend on the applicant's effective iden-
tification, handling, and disposal of acid-forming materials and the adequacy
of land treatment measures aplied by the landowner following bond release.
3.4.2 Topsoil Replaced Over Randomly Replaced Overburden (Alternative 2)
This overburden handling procedure replaces the original topsoil layer
over a surface which has been formed by recontouring the replace randomly
mixed overburden.
• Mining Procedure
(1) Clearing - (Same as Alternative 1)
(2) Topsoil Removal - The upper 12 to 18 inches of soil would be re-
moved (probably by a bottom loading scraper) and transported to
the recontoured area of a previous cut and leveled to its orig-
inal thickness.
3-138
-------
(3) Leveling - Bulldozers and/or scrapers level a path for the
dragline to operate.
(4) Excavation - One or two large draglines (depending on the depth
to lignite) excavate overburden and replace it in the mined-out
area on the other side of the pit. Zones of pyritic material
that are identified would be placed only in the bottom part of
the pit.
(5) Mining - The lignite seam is broken up and loaded into trucks to
be removed from the mine.
(6) Replacement - Randomly mixed overburden from a subsequent cut
would be replaced in the mined-out pit. Potentially harmful
material which has been identified is placed near the bottom of
the pit.
(7) Topsoil Replacement - The topsoil from a subsequent cut would be
spread over the recontoured surface and leveled to its original
thickness.
(8) Surface Preparation - Tilling machinery is used to dress the
surface. The pH and nutrient levels of the soil are tested and
adjusted for revegation by the application of fertilizer and
lime.
(9) Planting and Maintenance - The desired vegetation is planted and
maintained until it is well established.
• Consequences
Replacement of the topsoil layer will more closely restore the pre-mining
condition of the land surface. Because soil will usually be removed and re-
placed quickly, many of the soil organisms would survive to promote regrowth
of vegetation. The texture of the soil would be changed by about the same ex-
tent as deep plowing. The replaced topsoil layer would be relatively thin so
if acid-forming pyritic material is present close to or at the top of the
overburden, any acid that is formed could significantly influence plant growth
in the overlying topsoil.
3.4.3 Weathered Upper Zone Replaced Over Randomly Replaced Overburden
(Alternative 3f
This procedure is similar to Alternative 1 except that the method of ex-
cavating overburden is modified. The upper portion of the original material
that has been weathered (oxidized during the past) is replaced as the spoil,
so pyrite concentrations are not as likely to occur. This involves placement
of a layer at least 4 to 5 feet thick or dragline handling of a much thicker
layer to assure that a minimum of 4 to 5 feet remains after contouring and
leveling.
3-139
-------
• Mining Procedure
(1) Clearing - (Same as Alternative 1)
(2) Removal of Weathered Zone - The upper part of the overburden
(minimum 5 feet) is removed and transported to the recontoured
area of a previous cut. This could be done by repeated scraper
passes, or by using bulldozers and the dragline in combination
with Steps 3 and 4 below.
(3) Leveling - Bulldozers and/or scrapers would level a path for the
dragline to operate. Also, the dragline could excavate to a
level surface in advance of its movement.
(4) Excavation - If the weathered layer has not been removed during
an earlier step, the dragline excavation sequence would be ar-
ranged so that the upper part of the spoil (about 20% of the
total) is placed over the lower part of the spoil from an area
which has been previously excavated. Otherwise excavation is the
same as in Alternative 1.
i
(5) Mining - The lignite seam is broken up and loaded into trucks to
be removed from the mine.
(6) Overburden Replacement - If the dragline is being used for
selective handling, the upper 20% of the spoil is replaced over
the lower material from the previous excavation. Then the lower
80% of the spoil is placed in the adjacent pit bottom. If the
weathered zone is handled by scrapers, the spoil is replaced in
a single stage.
(7) Recontouring - The irregular surface left by the dragline is
bulldozed to the desired configuration.
(8) Replacement of Weathered Zone - The upper weathered zone from a
subsequent cut is brought to the site and spread over the
recontoured surface. If selective dragline handling is used,
this step is omitted.
(9) Surface Preparation - Tilling machinery is used to dress the
surface and the pH and nutrient levels of the soil are tested
and adjusted accordingly by the application of fertilizer and
lime.
(10) Planting and Maintenance - The desired vegetation is planted and
tended until it is well established.
• Consequences
Segregation and replacement of the upper several feet of weathered over-
burden material provides considerable assurance that no unoxidized pyrite is
3-140
-------
near the surface. Thus, the probability of hot spots occurring &t the surface
is low relative to other overburden handling methods //I and it2. Although the
original topsoil will be mixed in this layer, it will be necessary to prepare
the surface for revegetation with additions of fertilizer and lime as
necessary. This method also requires separate handling of a layer which is
relatively thick, so more earth moving machinery may be required with the
associated expenditure of fuel and effort. These added efforts may be offset
by not having to remove and replace surface areas if hot spots occur.
3.4.4 Replacement of Topsoil Over Weather Zone Above Randomly Replaced
Overburden (Alternative 4)
This overburden handling method combines the features of Alternatives it2
and #3 in that the topsoil (upper 1-2 feet) is replaced over a segregated
weathered material.
• Mining Procedure
(1) Clearing - (Same as Alternative 1)
(2) Topsoil Removal - The upper 12 to 18 inches of soil are removed
(probably by a bottom loading scraper) and transported to the
smoothed surface of the replaced weathered zone over a previous
cut.
(3) Removal of Weathered Zone - The upper part of the remaining
weather overburden is removedk and transported to the
re-contoured surface of the randomly placed overburden of a
previous cut. This also may be done by having the dragline
excavate the weathered zone to a level surface before moving.
(4) Leveling - Bulldozers and/or scrapers level a path for the
dragline to operate.
(5) Excavation - One or two large draglines (depending on the
depths) excavate the remaining overburden and replace it in the
mined-out area on the other side of the pit. Zones of pyritic
material would be placed only in the bottom of the pit.
(6) Mining - The lignite seam is broken up and loaded into trucks to
be removed from the mine.
(7) Overburden Replacement - Overburden spoil from a subsequent cut
is replaced in the mined-out pit. Potential acid-forming
material that has been identified is placed near the bottom of
the pit.
(8) Re-Contouring - The convoluted surface of the overburden
material dumped by the dragline is bulldozed to the desired
configuration.
3-141
-------
(9) Replacement of Weathered Zone - Material from the weathered zone
of a subsequent cut is replaced over the re-contoured surface of
the overburden.
J
(10) Replacement of Topsoil - Topsoil from a subsequent cut is spread
over the leveled surface of the replaced weathered material.
(11) Surface Preparation - Tilling machinery is used to dress the
surface and the pH and nutrient levels of the soil are tested
and adjusted accordingly by the application of fertilizer and
lime.
(12) Planting and Maintenance - The desired vegetation is planted and
tended until it is well established.
• Consequences
This method most closely approximates restoration of the pre-existing
conditions. The topsoil is disturbed to an extent about equivalent to deep
plowing so many soil microbes would remain intact. Provision of several feet
of weathered material below the topsoil should prevent acid-forming materials
from affecting the surface or lower root zone. Mixing of the weathered zone
material during handling should eliminate any claypan and provide a more
favorable rooting medium. Soil structure would be improved and infiltration
capacity increased. This overburden, handling procedure also involves the most
material handling, excavating and earthmoving equipment, as well as fuel,
energy, and time. The higher initial cost and time should be offset, to an
unknown extent, by lower short- and long-term land treatment and maintenance
requirements.
3.4.5 Differences in Potential Effects of Overburden Handling Alternatives
The following discussion of probable effects (results) of various
overburden handling schemes is qualitative due to current uncertainties in
planning. The primary contraints in performing this analysis are as follows:
• The exact procedures to be employed during mining have not been
established at this stage in mine planning. Present plans are general
and will remain flexible to allow revisions to meet new situations
and to reflect more detailed planning;
• The methods described are representative of many possible methods of
operation;
• The procedures described, plus many others, could be successful if
pursued without regard for consumption of supplies, time, and overall
expense;
3-142
-------
• The desirability of the different approaches depends largely on the
actual use which is to be made of the reclaimed land (e.g.,
forestland versus grassland versus pond habitat);
• The possibility of developing the area primarily to monoculture grass
is not necessarily compatible with the probable ultimate return to
the present land use situation of largely unmanaged grazingland;
• Continuation of present trends in the cost of fertilizer and
agricultural machinery may make the scheme of highly Inanaged
agriculture/pasture infeasible in the future.
Tables 3-28 and 3-29 present the qualitative estimates of the overburden
handling alternatives in terms of the predicted consequences immediately after
reclamation begins and 15 to 30 years later. At this level of detail,
predictions represent ranges of probabilities for the following consequences
or conditions:
• Avoidance of acid formation at or near the surface. This is an
indication of the liklihood that undetected pyritic material will not
be replaced at a level which could inhibit or prevent plant growth;
• Fertility and nutrient retention characteristics of the upper and
lower root zones. This largely depends on the initial content of clay
and organic material. Nutrient retention improves as successful plant
growth is established and can diminish if fine material and/or
organic matter is lost from the soil;
• Permeability of the upper and lower root zones. This also is an
indication of the texture of the soil;
• Economy level of management required. This is an estimate of how
little fertilization, lime treatment, and cultivation/weed control
measures will be required to establish and maintain the desired
vegetation. This is estimated for reestablishment of a native plant
community and for establishment of monoculture crops; and
• Surface infiltration. This is the ability of the surface to absorb,
and transmit surface water downward.
These conditions are predicted on a scale from 0 (low/negligible quality,
probability, or value) to 5 (high quality, high certainty, or high value).
3.4.5.1 Earth Resource-Related Effects
Subsurface Geology
The four overburden handling alternatives presented differ in the manner
in which the upper portion (about 20%) of the excavated spoil material is
replaced and reclaimed. Below this level in the mined material (i.e. in the
lower 80%) the effects of excavation and replacement will be relatively
3-143
-------
Table 3-28. Projected conditions during the first year following reclamation
on the Gibbons Creek lignite mine site.
ALTERNATIVE
CONDITION
1
2
3
4
a
Sandy
Loam
b
Clay
Loam
a
Sandy
Loam
b
Clay
Loam
•Avoidance of Acid
Formation Affecting
Surface
0
2
2
5
5
5
¦ Fertility
(Nutrient
Retention)
Upper
Root Zone
1
3
4
2-3
3
4
Lower
Root Zone
1
1
1
2-3
2
2
•Soil
Upper
Root Zone
3
5
4
3
5
4
Permeability
Lower
Root Zone
3
3
3
3
3'
3
i
* Economy
in
Management
Mono-
culture
0
1
2
2
3
4
Native
Plants
1
2
3
3
4
5
j • Surface
[ Infiltration
Upper
Root Zone
2
4
3
2
1 ^
3
Table 3-29. Projected conditions 15 to 30 years following reclamation of the
Gibbons Creek lignite mine site.
/
r^^^M.TERNATIVE
CONDITION ..
1
1
2
3
4
a
Sandy
Loam
b
Clay
Loam
a
Sandy
Loam
b
Clay
Loam
"Avoidance of Acid
Formation Affecting
Surface
1
3
3
5
5
5
•Fertility
(Nutrient
Retention)
Upper
Root Zone
2
3
4
3
3
4
Lower
Root Zone
1
1
1
2
2
2
•Soil
Permeability
Upper
Root Zone
4
5+
5
4
5+
5
Lower
Root Zone
3
3
5
3
3
3
•Economy
in
Management
Mono-
culture
1
2
3
3
4
5
Native
Plants
2
3
4
4
5
5+
•Surface j Upper
i Infiltration j Root Zone
3
5
4
3
5
4
i
Legend;
5= High probability of occurring and/or high value
0 = Minimal probability of occurring and/or low value
3-144
-------
similar for all alternatives. Other mineral deposits that might be present
would be broken up and dispersed to the point that future recovery would be
unlikely.
Following the initial period of settling and compaction, the replaced
material should be relatively stable for all methods. There would be no
difficulty in excavating this material, or in drilling a mine shaft or a well
so that there should be no major, deterrent to developing any mineral deposits
which might lie below the level of the present mining.
Soils
The basis of surface mine reclamation is the reestablishment of a soil
system that can support the desired post-mining land use which is equal to the
pre-mining 'use or an alternative better or higher use. The effect of the
alternative methods on soil formation is especially important for evaluation
of surface water, groundwater, revegetation, and other conditions.
Description of Effects
• Alternative No. 1 - Randomly Mixed Overburden (Applicant's Proposed
Method)
This method is the least complex in material handling requirements
and planning. It also has the highest risk and probability that
remedial handling of specific portions of the reclaimed area will be
required to remove or bury acid-forming materials. Higher
fertilization and soil neutralization also would be be required for
an indefinite number of years. The relatively high level of
management necessary to establish and maintain a soil system under
under this method would likely produce conditions more favorable for
a grass monoculture (i.e., Bermudagrass which is inherently less
stable than more complex and diverse natural vegetative communities).
The reclaimed spoil would approximate that of clay loam and is likely
to be more erosive than native soils.
• Alternative No. 2 - Topsoil Replaced Over Randomly Mixed Overburden
This method reduces some uncertainties of establishing a soil system
comparable to pre-mining conditions by selectively removing and
replacing part of the existing soil. However, the possibility of
toxic and/or acidic effects is only partially avoided because the
replaced soils layer is not thick enough to completely avoid the
influence of potential underlying toxic or acid-forming materials in
the lower root zone. Although the existing soil chemistry and biota
would be preserved and reestablishment of the previous vegetation
should be facilitated, the texture of the soil would be altered by
handling. The result would be a loamy fine sand to clay loam (10% of
the area) topsoil over a clay loam subsoil. (In a few localities
there will be a slightly sandier subsoil.) The exact nature of the
3-145
-------
reclaimed soil at each locality would depend on the properties of
the soil and handling method used at that site.
• Alternative No. 3 - Weathered Zone Replaced at Surface Over Randomly
Mixed Overburden
This method is a modification of Alternative 1 with less risk of
toxic and other acid-forming materials occurring at the surface. It
also has many of the same reclaimed soil properties of Alternative 1.
The basic difference is that this procedure requires a somewhat more
complex initial handling process but minimizes the chance of having
to remove or bury acidic or "hot spot" areas. Otherwise, the
potential effects on soils are similar for these two methods.
• Alternative No. 4 - Topsoil Replaced on Weathered Zone Above Randomly
Mixed Overburden
Alternative 4 improves on Alternative 2 in that the risk of toxic or
acid-forming materials inhibiting plant growth is greatly reduced by
providing weathered subsoil. This method would best approximate
pre-mining soil conditions and would be the most favorable for
reestablishing vegetation. Further, this method would eliminate some
of the undersirable features of the existing soil such as the claypan
layer, and would improve the tilth and moisture retaining capabi-
lities of the soil. The procedure is the most complicated of the
overburden handling methods considered and would require the highest
initial expenditure of effort and equipment. This method also is the
least likely to require extensive remedial work in reclamation so the
long-term estimate of total effort could be less than the other
alternatives.
3.4.5.2 Water Resource-Related Effects
Surface Water
Surface water impacts associated with the removal and replacement of the
overburden are critical for environmental control. Reclamation can affect the
quality and quantity of surface water runoff both directly and indirectly. To
evaluate surface water impacts, it is assumed that the final surface contour
will be the same for all alternatives and will approximate the pre-existing
form.
The quantity of surface water runoff is influenced by the infiltration
characteristics and storage capabilities of the soil. Major factors
controlling infiltration are pore size and structure of the surface sediments,
minerals present in the surface, slope and configuration of the surface, and
amount and type of vegetative cover. Examples of specific factors include:
(1) the presence of clay minerals that swell when wetted and seal the surface
pores; (2) a vegetative cover of bunch grasses that have bare soil between
3-146
-------
clumps of grass as opposed to turf-forming grasses that cover the soil
completely; and (3) the presence of contour furrows which retain water and
greatly reduce the downslope flow.
The chemical composition or quality of the surface runoff is influenced by
the nature of the surface soils over which it flows. In general a surface
which has been formed from a previous surface soil (i.e., as in Alternatives 2
and 4) will contribute less dissolved matter because the surface materials
have already been exposed to water over a long period of time so soluble
material will have been removed. If the new soil surface is formed from
previously buried material (i.e., as in Alternatives 1 and 3), there is a
possibility that soluble salts may be present which could contaminate the
runoff. It also is possible that pyrite or other potentially harmful material
that would react with the atmosphere might be exposed leading to a continuing
production of acidic and/or dissolved toxic material.
Groundwater
The impacts on groundwater must be evaluated for two general levels. The
groundwater in the upper layer of the spoil and any overlying soil zones are
influenced by the same factors as have been considered for the surface water
quantity and quality. The composition of the near-surface groundwater will be
approximately that of the surface runoff, whereas the quantity will be the
inverse of the amount of surface runoff. Any influence which increases surface
water runoff will diminish infiltration and any factor that would increase the
amount of dissolved material in the surface water would similarly affect
groundwater.
The mining operations will have the greatest effect on the groundwater
conditions in the sub-surface portions of the spoil mass. Mining will
effectively dewater the mass of the spoil, lower the water table in the area
immediately around the perimeter of the mine, and probably reduce the
horizontal permeability. Because the differences between the overburden
handling alternatives are mostly concerned with the handling of the upper 20%
or less of the material, the behavior of the groundwater in the major part of
the spoil will be essentially the same for all methods. The major difference
would be that those methods that produce a higher infiltration would increase
the supply of water to the system from the surface, and those methods that
place mixed material in levels above the water table (where pyritic material
could oxidize and form acid) would have higher potential for groundwater
contamination. These influences will affect the rate at which the spoil is
recharged with groundwater to regain a water table which should ultimately
reach equilibrium at or above its former level.
Groundwater also can be recharged by lateral movement from adjacent
undisturbed areas. In this case, however, the regional permeability is so low
that movement out of the surrounding areas would be very slight. There are
some sand layers of higher permeability in parts of the mine outside the first
5-year permit area, but these are of limited extent and probably would not
transmit water for any considerable distance. These will be destroyed during
3-147
-------
mining unless some system of selective handling is used to reform such layers.
The reclaimed spoil will have an increased permeability from mining activity
but this will persist only in the upper few feet of the material. As a result,
the upper layers may hold and transmit water permitting the reestablishment of
a near-surface groundwater system, long before there has been any effective
recharge of the bulk of the soil. It may require several decades before the
entire mass of spoil reestablishes a groundwater system.
3.4.5.3 Biological Resource-Related Effects
There are two> primary causes of impact to biological resources from the
proposed project: (1) the mining operation itself which immediately destroys
or degrades the existing land surface and associated plant communities, and
(2) the subsequent efforts to reclaim the land surface and establish and
maintain a productive plant cover and habitat for wildlife. The biological
impacts resulting from active mining operations will not be influenced by the
overburden handling method selected. Mitigation of these adverse effects is
limited to the provision of suitable nearby habitats where some of the more
mobile species of wildlife could escape, at least temporarily. Although it
appears clear there will be a permanent loss of wildlife habitat due to
differences in pre-mining and post-mining land uses (grazingland and woodland
to improved bermuda pastureland), the overburden handling method used could
significantly affect the initial and long-term establishment of vegetation,
the level of management needed to maintain the post-mining land use(s), and
the extent of mitigation to protect or reduce adverse effects on fish,
wildlife, and related environmental values.
• Randomly Replaced Mixed Overburden (Alternative 1)
This method destroys the existing native soil, and the new surface,
which now is composed of randomly placed spoil material, must be
heavily fertilized and managed during the initial period of regegeta-
tion to form a suitable medium for vegatative growth. This
alternative also will require the most intensive management over the
long-term (10-30 years) and thus is most suited to the establishment
of a herbaceous monoculture (pasture) rather than native vegetation.
The most severe potential adverse effect would occur if the
management level required for maintenance of ground cover was not
continued. The result could be loss of large quantities of soil and
plant from erosion and further loss or degradation of aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife habitat.
Even under a high level of land management this alternative has the
highest potential for acid-forming materials occurring at or near
(lower root zone) the surface of the reclaimed land. If such layers
occur, interference with vegetative growth could result and
additional available cover (habitat) would diminish.
3-148
-------
Topsoil Replaced Over Randomly Mixed Overburden (Alternative 2)
Replacement of the existing topsoil will further preserve the natural
fertility and soil organisms that help maintain the existing
vevetative cover. The disturbance caused by handling of the soil will
break up any part of the clay layer not remaining with the subsoil.
If a herbaceous monoculture is established on this it may require
less maintenance, but would otherwise have the same adverse effect on
wildlife resources as Alternative 1. If native vegetation were
replanted, maintainence should be minimal and the likelihood of a
more beneficial habitat for wildlife would be greater. As in
Alternative 1, acidic effects in the lower root zone still could
occur and reduce the amount of vegetative cover (habitat).
Weathered Upper Zone Replaced Over Randomly Replaced Spoil
(Alternative 3)
The consequences associated with this overburden handling technique
are similar to those described for the randomly mixed overburden
handling technique (Alternative 1). Because topsoils are lost, land
treatments of fertilizers are expected to be relatively high to
maintain productive vegetation. The major benefit of this alternative
over random overburden replacement is that there Is less risk of hot
spots occurring. Acidic layers should be sufficiently covered by
weathered overburden and revegetation would be more uniformly
successful. However, under low management conditions potentially
severe vegetative losses could occur with a corresponding increase in
erosion and secondary water quality problems.
Topsoil Replaced Over Weathered Zone Above Randomly
Mixed Overburden (Alternative 4)
Native soils initially may be a more difficult media for
establishment of non-native vegetation such as bermudagrass, but If
the period of time between distrubance and replanting Is not
excessive and topsoil is handled adequately, some native roots and
seed stock will be available for immediate regeneration. Natural top
soil also has higher nutrient retention and reduced need for inital
and long-term maintenance. With the spoil adequately covered by the
weathered' zone the possibility of acid layers surfacing and
disturbing revegetation is remote. Therefore, these native topsoils
should have the highest probability for successful long-term
reestablishment of native vegetation with minimal maintenance.
This alternative is the closest approximation of preexisting soil
conditions, except that elimination of the clay subsoil would
actually improve the water retention characteristics of the soils,
and increase the chances of successful revegetation. Over the
long-term under low management conditions, this alternative would
provide the best chances for maintaining a stable vegetative cover
and soil system relative to the other overburden handling methods.
3-149
-------
3.4.5.4 Land Use-Related Effects
Land use differences between the alternative overburden handling methods
depend on the selected ultimate land use and the success of revegetation. The
suitability of the post-mining soils system will effect the establishment and
maintenance of any selected land use following mining. Currently the mine area
is about 35% open range and 65% sparse to dense woodland, part of which is
used for range. The proposed post-mining land use is 70% grassland for pasture
and/or range, 27% pine woodland, and 3% water impoundments. The post-mining
land use is influenced by the level and type of management which affects the
long-term success of revegetation. The level and type of management depends
largely on the effectiveness of reclamation efforts and thus on the overburden
handling methods used.
If a high level of maintenance is maintained it is possible for the
grassland to continue, however, if maintenance levels decline over time this
use might not be supported. There will be less difference for the reforested
areas because under interim raining permit provisions, topsoil replacement is
specified for these areas so only Alternatives 2 and 4 or some variation could
be used where reforestation is proposed. For some of the overburden handling
methods (1 and 2) it is more likely that the addition of lime to neutralize
the acidic spots, or the removal of acidic soils ("hot spots") will be
necessary. This level of management is expensive due to time requirements and
fertilizer costs and differs substantially from the historical and current
management practices for grazingland in the project area. In general, the
higher the level of post-mining management required to maintain an area as a
pastureland, the less chance the area has of being maintained over the
long-term . Also, where improved pastureland is the perferred post-mining land
use, the maintenance costs will be higher than pre-mining conditions
regardless of the overburden handling method chosen.
Successful reclamation would result in a land use change from the present
mixture of grazingland and woodland to mostly improved pasture land. If
reclamation is unsuccessful, the change in land use would be more signficant
because of the long-term degradation of the land from erosion and soil
leaching.
Description of Effects
• Randomly Replace Mixed Overburden at Surface (Alternative 1)
Of the four alternatives this method of handling overburden has the
highest potential for revegetation problems occurring. This is due
primarily to the high permeability which could result in low nutrient
retention (reduced long-term fertility) and the higher probability
of acidic material occurring at the surface and/or within the root
zone. With a higher incidence of hot spots for mining, there is a far
greater chance that more areas will experience problems with revege-
tation. Thus, the potential for erosion and undesirable water quality
effects also is higher with this alternative. In a practical sense
3-150
-------
the success of long-term vegetation isreduced also by the high level
of management which may be required to maintain the desired plant
communities (improved bermuda pasture).
Topsoil Replaced Over Randomly Mixed Overburden (Alternative 2)
Selective replacement of the sandy loam topsoils would improve the
chances of successful revegetation (in short- and long-term) over
those of Alternative 1, as well as Alternative 3 (in short-term
only); however, they would be less than Alternative 4. The long-term
land management requirements associated with this method generally
should be less than for Alternative 1, but acid-forming materials
still could enter the root zone and retard reestablishment of
vegetation. Thus the liklihood of land treatments of lime and/or the
removal of acidic surface materials is greater than for Alternatives
3 and 4.
Wheathered Upper Zone Replaced Over Randomly Mixed Overburden
(Alternative 3)
The level of management immediately following reclamation as well as
over the long-term should be lower for this method than for
Alternative 1, and probably lower than for Alternative 2. This is
because the potential for acid-forming materials occurring at or near
the reclaimed surface is considerably less using this overburden
handling method, therefore, the land treatment measures needed to
maintain vegetation can be expected to be less extensive. Although
the potential for successful revegetation is greater and the erosion
and secondary water quality problems less, a relatively high level of
land management (relative to pre-mining) still will be necessary to
maintain productive pastureland as the post-mining land use.
Topsoil Replaced Over Weathered Overburden Above Randomly Mixed
Overburden (Alternative 4)
This alternative has lowest risk of acid-forming material occurring
at or near the surface and therefore has the highest potential for
success under low management levels. Under high levels of management,
this alternative would provide the best chance of establishing native
trees, shrubs, and grasses that would be more stable than monoculture
communities (e.g., bermudagrass pasture). Although this alternative
overburden handling method would restore the soil system closest to
the pre-mining soil characteristics (chemical and physical), a higher
level of land management and treatment can be expected to maintain
any of the post-mining land uses.
3-151
-------
3.4.5.5 Consideration of the Outcome of Reclamation Efforts
Under Different Levels of Management
There is a discrepancy between the proposed plans for the ultimate use of
the mined and reclaimed land, and the present land use practices prevalent in
the project area. The proposed land use of managed pasture or hay cropping
assumes that a relatively high level of management that will be required for
successful long-term reclamation would continue indefinitely in order to
support the monoculture burmudagrass vegetation. Even though this land use is
desired by many landowners, there is uncertaintly whether or not they would be
willing or able to sustain the expense of the high management. In the
existing system, vegetation consisting chiefly of native grasses, shrubs, and
trees is maintained with little effort and supports a low level of grazing.
Although the existing vegetation may not be as productive as the managed
pasture system, it is much less expensive to maintain.
Table 3-30 presents each of the reclamation alternatives in terms of its
success under a continuation of the high management practice and under a
situation in which the level of management declines to a very low level soon
after control of the land returns to the owner. Each reclamation alternative
is qualitatively evaluated under the proposed plan of monoculture grass and
pine plantation and for a plan in which the revegetation would be primarily
native grasses, shrubs, and hardwood trees. Table 3-30 presents a subjective
estimate of the expected success of each situation for the area as a whole.
Naturally there are many possible intermediate levels of management and
production as well as different vegetation patterns.
Summary
It is likely that reclamation under any of these alternatives can be made
to produce a revegetated landscape, particularly over the short-term when it
is reasonable to expect a higher level of land management and treatment.
Because there are differences between the overburden handling methods in terms
of final soil characteristics, level of management required and overall
probabilitity for success, the final selection and effectiveness of the
procedure to be used will depend greatly on the ultimate post-mining use of
the land (pastureland, rangeland, woodland, pond, etc); the amount of
management/maintenance that, can be reasonably expected in the future to
maintain this use; and the cost, practicality, and public acceptability of the
procedure.
3-152
-------
Table 3-30. Long-term probability for successful revegetation (grasses, pines,
hardwoods) under different levels of management for four overburden handling
methods.*
Overburden
Post-mining
Probability of Success
Handling
Vegetation
under
Intensive
Low
Management
Management
Random
Native herbs, shrubs,
Low
Low
Spoil
trees and hardwoods
Replacement
Bermuda Grass and
(Alternative 1)
pine seedlings.
Moderate
Low
proposed
Topsoil
Native herbs, shrubs,
Moderate
Low
over
trees and hardwoods
Random Spoil
Bermuda grass and
Moderate
Low
(Alternative 2)
pine seedlings.
Weathered
Native herbs, shrubs,
Medium
Low
Spoil at
trees
surface one -
Bermuda grass
High
Moderate
Random Spoil
and pine seedlings
(Alternative 3)
Topsoil
Native herbs, shrubs,
High
Moderate - High
over Weathered
trees
Spoil
Bermuda grass
High
Moderate
(Alternative 4)
and pine seedlings
* These probabilities are qualitative only and their interpretation
and use should not be overstated. To accruately quantify the
concepts presented in this matrix would require more extensive
site specific field trial data.
3-153
-------
3.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS
This EIS has focused on evaluating potential impacts of one surface
lignite operation in combination with selected impacts of one mine-raouth power
plant that will be fueled with lignite from the adjacent mine. There is a
preponderance of data to suggest that the number of lignite-fueled electric
generating stations and other lignite-fueled industrial operations in Texas
will increase rapidly and will be the trend for at least the next 25 years.
Thus, there is a growing concern within the scientific community and among the
lay public, about the long-term impacts from the proliferation of lignite
extraction and mine-mouth power plant development. It is beyond the limits of
this EIS to forecast and quantify the collective or cumulative impacts of the-
se projected activities. Instead, the intent of this brief section is to
alert decisionmakers and the general public that Texas (as well as other
southwestern States with minable lignite reserves) will experience a signific-
ant increase in surface strip raining to provide fuel for new power plants and
industrial boilers. Such awareness and knowledge will help to focus on the
right kinds of questions in order to obtain the information needed to make
informed policy and project decisions.
3.5.1 Lignite Development in Texas
Texas lignite commonly is referred to as a "transition fuel" because it
and bridge the gap between the depletion of the State's oil and gas reserves
with the acceptance and commercialization of some of the renewable sources of
energy - solar, wind, geothermal, and fusion. During the last 7 years, the
production of lignite in Texas has increased over ten-fold and is expected to
approximately triple during the next 7 years (Kaiser and Cooper 1978). This
is due largely to the shift from oil and gas to lignite and imported western
coal by electric utilities and more recently by industry. These two sectors
account for nearly 70% of all energy consumed in Texas. Among these two solid
fossil fuel alternatives as well as other sources of energy, Texas lignite
currently is the preferred choice for the following major reasons:
• Legal and regulatory constraints to development of nuclear power;
• Uncertainty of availability and cost of oil and natural gas;
• Economic and regulatory disincentives toward importation of western
coal (e.g., SO2 scrubbing requirements, rising rail transport costs,
Federal coal leasing policies, higher per ton reclamation and com-
pliance costs in the arid and mountainous regions -of the west; and
• Mandatory boiler fuel conversion policies requiring conversion from oil
and natural gas to coal (lignite).
These policies greatly increase the attractiveness of lignite. An analysis of
current plans for the use of coal and lignite by utilities in Texas indicates
that through 1987, approximately 60% of the solid fossil fuel demand will be
met by lignite. At the current projected rate of development, the known
3-154
-------
year 2000. Table 3-31 shows the amount of lignite that must be committed to
meet the solid fossil fuel demand by 2000 for utilities and industries in
Texas. It is significant to note that by the year 2000, about six billion
tons of lignite must be committed to fuel the assumed 30-year life
expectancies of the industrial and utility boilers which are planned through
this period (Texas Energy Advisory Council 1979). Present estimates of
reserves of near-surface lignite (less than 200 feet deep) range from 10 to 12
billion tons, of which about 6.7 billion tons are judged economically re-
coverable with present technology (Kaiser 1974b). Other estimates have ranged
from 2.5 to 8 billion tons. The ratio of size of seam to depth is the main
consideration. Estimates of deep-basin lignite reserves (from 200 to 5,000
feet) also range broadly, but generally are thought to be in excess of 100
billion, tons. Although no deep-basin lignite is being commercially mined now
in Texas, those reserves are being researched particularly with respect to ap-
plication of in situ (in place) gasification. Current prospects, based on the
presence of suitable geological formations and use of Russian technology, are
very favorable.
Near-surface lignite deposits primarily are located in two bands. One is
long and nearly continuous, extending from Laredo to Texarkana. The other is
a broken band which runs parallel and to the southeast of the first band.
Deep-basin lignite deposits are found in a broad band which underlies and ex-
tends both bands of near-surface lignite. Most lignite in central and east
Texas is of higher quality than that which is found south of the Colorado
River. South Texas lignite generally has low heat content and relatively high
contents of ash, sulfur, and moisture.
3.5.2 Major Impact Areas of Concern
When considering potential impacts of surface lignite mining, it is dif-
ficult to isolate the impacts of mining from the impacts of using the resource
which is mined. The relationship of lignite mining and utilization is
particularly close because most of the lignite is used at mine-mouth power
plants. The user also is often the producer. The major areas of potential
cumulative impact are as follows:
• Air Quality - The primary air pollutants from lignite mining include
fugitive dust and equipment exhausts. Air pollutants from lignite and
coal combustion include particultes, sulfur, dioxide (SO2) and
nitrogen oxides N0X) as well as small amounts of carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons, and trace metals. Because Texas lignites generally have
higher sulfur and ash contents than western sub-bituminous coals,
potential emissions are greater. Pollutant controls are available to
substantially reduce emissions from combustion.
Currently, most of Texas is in attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for both SO2 and N0X, but a few small
areas are designated nonattainment for particulates. Even under the
stringent new source performance standards proposed by EPA, coal and
lignite emissions of SO2 are expected to increase to 865,000 tons per
3-155
-------
Table 3-31. Potential requirements for lignite production from 1978 to 2000.*
Sector
Year
1978
1985
2000
Total Energy Required
(10^5 Btu's or Quads)
Utilities
Industry
1.8
2.4
2.6
3.1
4.8
5.2
Solid Fuel Demand
(10^ Btu's or Quads)
Utilities
Industry
0.50
0.05
1.0
0.2
3.1
1.2
Lignite Demand
(10^ Btu's or Quads)
Utilities
Industry
0.30
0.05
0.6
0.1
1.9
0.7
Lignite Reserve Commitment
Required (Billions of Tons
@6500 Btu/lb)
Utilites
Industry
Total
0.70
0.10
0.80
1.4
0.2
1.6
4.4
1.6
6.0
*Data assume a 60/40 proportional split between use of lignite and coal
for utilities and industries.
Source: Texas Energy Adivsory Council. 1979. Integrated assessment of
Texas lignite development. Volume I, Technical Analysis, Report
No. ES-011. Prepared by the Radian Corporation of Austin, Texas.
Jointly sponsored by US Environmental Protection Agency and US
Department of Energy. Austin TX.
3-156
-------
year by 2000 or six times the 1973 levels. Nx emissions will
increase from 32,800 tons per year in 1973 to 1.3 million tons per year
in 2000. Particulate emissions will increase from 30,000 tons to 75,000
tons in 2000 (Texas Energy Advisory Council 1979)
The key issue is not the total amount of increased emissions but rather
how net air quality will be affected. The Federal PSD regulations are
designed to prevent significant deterioration of air quality within a
given area while the NAAQS are established to protect public health and
welfare. The principal conclusions of the recent studies were that the
PSD and NAAQS requirements generally can be satisfied within the
forecast level of lignite and coal combustion. Still there are
uncertainties regarding the effects of fine particulates, sulfates,
radioactive emissions, and acid rain. The potential also exists for
long distance transport of air pollutants.
• Solid Waste Disposal - A by-product from coal and lignite combustion is
the creation of large amounts of solid waste - primarily scrubber
sludges and ash. In principle, the tranformation of air pollutants to
solid waste pollutants results in a more easily managed disposal
problem. The potential for adverse health impacts from scrubber sludge
and ash disposal, however, is a source of significant concern. The
concern over improper disposal surrounds groundwater quality. This
concern is based on:
(1) Documented evidence that groundwater contamination has occurred
from improper disposal of solid wastes.
(2) Groundwater often is used without treatment for drinking water.
(3) Contaminants from solid waste usually persist in groundwater
indefinitely.
The volume of waste produced is proportional to the volume of coal or
lignite combusted, the type of emission controls employed, and the
degree of air emission cleanup. Based on average estimates for coal
and lignite consumption, and EPA's proposed NSPS, the amount of wastes
to be produced by utilities alone by the year 2000 could require 1,600
acres of 20-foot deep disposal ponds (Texas Energy Advisory Council
1979).
A major problem regarding solid waste disposal in Texas is the
coincidence of the lignite belt with one of the State's major aquifers,
the Carrizo-Wilcox. Careful site selection and disposal techniques are
needed to avoid contamination because both groundwater use and solid
waste generation and disposal can be expected to increase.
3-157
-------
• Water Resources - Water consumption for lignite development by the year
2000 is estimated to vary with the different geographical regions in
Texas. Regardless, this consumption will result in reductions in
stream flow, both near major diversions and cumulatively. These
reductions can affect navigation, groundwater recharge, stream ecology,
coastal freshwater inflows to bays and estuaries, and capacity to
assimilate pollutants. Although flow reductions may be relatively
small, they can be critical during low-flow conditions. Therefore,
because of variable site-specific conditions, local impacts may be
significant. Conflicts also may develop over water use rights and
water quality.
The quality of surface waters will be affected by effluent discharges
from power plant operations and lignite mining. Power plant cooling,
boiler blowdown, ash and scrubber sludge handling, and other power
plant operations will increase dissolved solids levels in return flows
to receiving water bodies. These effluents also may contain toxic
substances and therefore discharges should be monitored carefully.
Site runoff from active mining areas also has potential to affect
significantly the quality of surface streams through the addition of
TSS, acid leachates, and toxicants. Any concentration of mining
activity in a particular watershed or sub-watershed area should be
evaluated closely using representative watershed models to assist in
cumulative assessment of impacts. Pre- and post-mining water quality
monitoring (surface and subsurface) also should ^ be conducted to
establish a baseline and to alert officials as to potential water
quality degradation during or following coal development. The
long-term (following bond release) success of reclamation is unknown
and undocumented, therefore, careful review of mine reclamation plans
is essential to maintain and improve existing water quality conditions.
Surface mining may result in a long-term reduction in groundwater re
charge owing to the disruption of aquifer recharge areas. The
permeability of a mined area also may affect the degree to which
groundwater quality problems develop (particularly from leaching of
overburden materials and solid waste disposal). /
Surface water likely will continue to be preferred for power plant
cooling. Groundwater use may be increased indirectly however, by
growing competition for surface supplies. Many of the study region's
aquifers already have both quality and drawdown problems arising from
overpumping.
• Wildlife and Fish Resources - Potential impacts on wildlife from
lignite development primarly result from direct destruction of upland
and wetland habitats caused by surface mining, haul roads, impoundments
for cooling reservoirs, and induced population growth. Surface raining
alone is expected to result in the cumulative disturbance of
approximately 374,000 acres by the year 2000. About one-half of this
acreage is anticipated to occur in the northeast Texas region. Figure
3-17 shows the relationship of strippable lignite to major vegetation
regions in Texas.
3-158
-------
w
Fort Worth
" - '.-yfe^- i 'i ¦: V-i
Yj^SSu^^i^ VrVc'>:?tv>\1-:' > cV» •
t-.j. ix>w>.'s i ~, .• v i. \ ¦( . >*. k \../
\.*'\ " mk'»\v i-;" •*" "x-«. o\ k\>« f
~4
:rs. *•••. ¦••- > < * \y /'oa
\\m^\
- *». '¦ ,¦••> i
"'• . l- '. i '~
>¦¦<.».*. V-V
LVHpuston
AntoAu ¦'(::::;
Corpus Chrisfi
100
Miles
PLANNED LIGNITE-FIRED POWER PLANTS
OPERATING LIGNITE-FIRED POWER PLANTS
PLANNED COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
NEAR SURFACE LIGNITE DEPOSITS
PINEYWOODS
POST OAK SAVANNAH
BLACKLAND PRAIRIE
SOUTH TEXAS PLAINS
EDWARDS PLATEAU
Figure 3-17. Relationship of strippable
Lignite in the Wilcox and Yegua-
Jackson units to major vegetation
regions of Texas.
Source: Adapted from Harner, D., K. Holland, D. James, J. Lacy, and J. Norton. 1978. En-
vironmental overview of Texas Lignite Development. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, D.C., 235 p.
3-159
-------
Whereas mined land usually will be reclaimed and revegetated within 3
years of mining, the amount of disturbed surface at any one time
generally will be small relative to the cumulative total. Currently,
the total acreage which may be mined is less than 1% of the total
habitat available. The real impact of lignite development, however,
must be measured against the quality of the habitat affected. Another
primary concern over wildlife impacts is the significant quantity of
habitat being lost following mining because of direct land use changes.
Commonly, the primary post-mining land use is pastureland. When major
land use changes occur it will be necessary to plan specific mitigative
measures to reduce adverse affects to wildlife resources.
• Socioeconomic Resources - According to the results of a recent study
(Texas Energy Advisory Council 1979), the spatial, temporal, re-
gulatory, and social characteristics of Texas lignite development may
reduce the potential for serious socioeconomic problems as summarized
below:
(1) Spatial - The lignite belt is bounded on either side by the
State's two largest urban concentrations - the Gulf Coast, and the
Dallas-Austin-San Antonio corridor. Within the lignite belt are
numerous, rather evenly distributed small cities and towns. This
pattern of development indicates that no single community will
bear all the impacts resulting' from large developments located in
rural areas.
(2) Temporal - The lignite development scenario forecasts sustained
growth and increased development throughout the 1980's and 1990's
rather than a large and sudden exploitation of the resource fol-
lowed by the "bust" as the resource is depleted.
(3) Regulatory - Environmental regulations, particularly the Preven-
tion of Significant Deterioration (PDS) of air quality, will tend
to discourage concentration of development. This will tend to
spread the benefits as well as impacts of population growth as-
sociated with lignite mining and use.
(4) Social - The lignite belt is a region of earlier oil and gas de-
velopment which has had slow economic growth and population out-
migration in recent decades. As a result, many view lignite
development as an econmic stimulus which is an extension of the
earlier oil and gas development.
But, regardless of whether the impacts of new lignite mines and power
plants are shared among several towns or concentrated in a few
communities, demand for new services and facilities will occur in the
areas of housing, public safety and fire protection, water supply and
wastewater treatment, health care, and education.
3-160
-------
The common dilemma will be providing early financing before the
increased tax revenues are available. The problem of financing can be
compounded when a new facility is sited in one taxing jurisdiction and
the impacts are borne by another jurisdiction. This is an equity con-
sideration which should be addressed on a regional level.
It also must be noted that the energy industry forecasts show that
cumulative investments in surface mining and power plant activities in
Texas will greatly stimulate economic growth, provide new jobs, and
increase tax revenues. Between 1975 and 1985, the capital investment
in lignite alone is expected to exceed $750 million (Texas House of
Representatives 1978).
3.6 COMPATIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAND USE
PLANS/PROGRAMS
The Brazos Valley Development Council (BVDC) has prepared a Comprehensive
Regional Plan and a Land Resource Management Report which discuss land use
plans and trends for a seven-county region. Owing to Federal and State en-
ergy policies, the exploration and development of lignite resources in this
area will continue to grow in importance and provide a new stimulus to the re-
gional economy. The future land use plan for the project region indicates
continued expansion of the primary population centers; a significant decrease
in forested, agricultural, and range land; and the potential development of
several reservoir and energy resource projects.
Land use controls generally are found only in the major population centers
of the project region such as Bryan and College Station. Neither Brazos nor
Grimes County has zoning ordinances or subdivision regulations to control de-
velopment in unincorporated sections of the region such as Anderson. No land
use requirements or controls currently exist for the project site except for
environmental protection requirements pursuant to the State and Federal sur-
face mining regulations where a land use change occurs following mining.
Thus, the proposed project should not contradict any known existing or
proposed Federal, State, or local land use plans or programs.
3-161
-------
4.0 COORDINATION
This document has been prepared by WAPORA, Inc. under contract to EPA
Region 6. NEPA requirements for environmental review associated with the
proposed issuance of a new source NPDES permit will be fulfilled with this EIS
and subsequent Record of Decision.
During preparation of the EIS, technical input was received (see summary)
from other Federal agencies and through discussions with interested State and
local agencies, groups, and individuals.
A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on the project was issued on 20 April
1979. A Draft EIS was prepared and distributed to local, State and Federal
agencies, groups, and individuals for review. A Notice of Availability of the
Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on 27 April 1980. A Public
Hearing on the Draft EIS was held on 10 June 1980 at Grimes County Courthouse
Annex in Anderson, Texas. All comment letters received on the Draft EIS
during the public review period and EPA's responses are included in the Final
EIS. The Final EIS has been distributed to those who commented on the Draft
EIS and to others on request. A Notice of Availability of the Final EIS has
been published in the Federal Register. The comment period will extend for 30
days following the date of publication.
Following the comment period, EPA will prepare a public "Record of
Decision" that will document in summary form, (1) disposition of the final
decision; (2) all alternatives considered by EPA in reaching the decision,
specifying the alternative(s) which were considered to be environmentally
preferable; (3) all factors that contributed to the decision; and (4) whether
or not all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the
selected alternative have been adopted, and if not, why they were not.
4-1
-------
5.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
This section has been added to the Environmental Impact Statement in order
to respond to the comments received on the Draft EIS during the public review
period. Included first are the comment letters from the responding agencies,
groups, and individuals each of which is followed by EPA's responses to the
numbered questions or comments. The questions and comments contained in these
letters are answered either in the response immediately following the letter
and/or in the text or appendix sections of this Final EIS.
Comments from one person who spoke at the Public Hearing on the Draft EIS
also have been summarized and included with EPA's responses.
5-1
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
In Reply Refer To:
ER 80/378
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
First International Building
Dallas, Texas 75270
JUN 1 0 1980
¦^ttt
£
. i-J ; — i
. h0!
. •>,
\-o.
/ r
-------
Overburden and topsoils will be mixed during reclamation activities on the basis of soil
tests indicating improved physical and chemical conditions for plant growth. The results
of the field test on mixed soils and the location where the tests were performed need to
be presented. If the material presented in the EIS is expected to be the proof needed to
grant a variance for soil mixing, it is not adequate. Approval for mixing of soil horizons
should be discussed in the EIS, since this mixing appears to be an integral part of the
proposed mining operation.
In the soils section, the statement is made that the area will be reclaimed by planting on
graded overburden without using topsoil. The geology section discusses the high pyritic
content of much of the shales and their acidity. The statement is made (page 85) that
there will be no adverse effects on ground water during the first 5 years but there may be
a problem in future years and that this problem needs further study. OSM regulations
require burial of such toxic overburden to reduce the oxidation of acid-forming materials.
Statements are made indicating that within 2 or 3 years after reclamation, infiltration of
surface water into soils would be negligible as is the existing situation. These statements
do not appear to be realistic. The soils described in the appendix are predominantly sandy
loams or loamy sands, which are for the most part relatively deep. Such soils, even with B
horizon soils that are high in clays, are not impermeable but do transmit water to lower
strata. The backfilled spoil is also described as becoming impermeable, yet the
overburden is described as being more permeable than the existing soils (page 51).
Gibbons Creek would be the pioneer mining effort in the multiseamed, lignite-bearing
Manning Formation. Disposed of submarginal lignite to the spoil banks for subsequent
reclamation, without some precautionary considerations, may induce long-term
water^related environmental problems. Separation of significant volumes of lignite-rich
waste for subsequent deep burial to clayey zones seemingly would enhance reclamation
efforts by reducing the possibility of long-term contamination of confined waters in the
project area.
Wildlife
The EIS does not adequately discuss the proposed project's impacts on fish and wildlife
resources or the measures necessary to offset adverse impacts. The discussion concerning
biology lacks quantitative and qualitative evaluations of fish and wildlife habitat.
Especially weak are evaluations of the quality of existing habitats and analysis of
potential impacts to habitat due to mining operations, including habitat mitigation and
enhancement practices.
The narrative provides very few proposals or definitive remarks that describe what is
planned to mitigate disturbances to habitats. Several miles of streams and thousands of
acres of major habitat components such as wetlands, hardwood and pine-hardwood forests,
and indigenous grasslands will be converted to predominantly coastal bermudagrass
pastures and pine plantations with little or no consideration given wildlife. There is no
indication that definitive mitigation or fish and wildlife plans have been formulated. Such
plans should be developed as part of the action and evaluated in the EIS.
-------
Existing wetland communities on the project site are generally described as not being
prime or high quality wildlife habitat because of previous grazing or logging activities.
We do not believe an area must be "pristine" or nonimpacted by man to be considered high
quality habitat. In many instances, selective logging and grazing are used as primary
wildlife management tools to enhance habitats, not to degrade them. The final EIS should
reflect these concerns.
For further technical assistance on the planning of fish and wildlife mitigation and
management please contact Thomas 3. Cloud, Coal Coordinator, Texas and Oklahoma,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Worth, Texas (phone: 817-334-2961).
The project area is described as being of little hydrologic importance, but all of the
information tends to describe a system that is capable of storing and transmitting massive
amounts of water. The project will mine through two apparently artesian sandstones that
have been correlated with well-known sandstone units. The EIS should discuss the
importance of these two sandstones. It is possible that disturbance of these sandstones on
the project area may have effects some distance from the project area. These impacts
should be discussed. In addition, information needs to be included describing the
potentiometric surface of any artesian system under the project area.
The statement should include more specific information on the ground- and surface-water
interrelationship. During mining and reclamation, such information would be useful in
evaluating any significant adverse effects on the baseflow of streams within the maximum
3,800-foot (horizontal distance) zone of influence.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft statement and hope these comments
will be helpful to you in the preparation of the final statement. If you have any questions
regarding these comments or need technical assistance, please contact Randall Overton,
Office of Surface Mining, Region IV, Kansas City, Missouri (phone: 816-374-5431).
Hydrology
Sincerely,.
JamVs
/ special Assistant
Assistant SECRETARY
Attachment
-------
Specific Comments
P. vi; A statement is made that no prime farmlands are known to exist on the first
5-year permit area. There should be documentation on this. Under certain conditions in
some of the surrounding counties, the soils described here are eligible as prime farmland
areas. It is difficult to determine if those conditions are met for these soils at the
Gibbons Creek site.
P. viii; In the second paragraph it is indicated that approximately 7.7 square miles or
about 7% of the Gibbons Creek Watershed will be destroyed during the first 5 years of
mining and that this loss would be insignificant. At what point does the loss of a
watershed become significant? What cumulative impacts will future mining have on the
watershed?
P. xvi: This section of the document states that many hunting lease revenues lost by
project operation will be offset by mining lease revenues. This may or may not be true
depending on the amounts of income involved and the method of payment. It should be
noted that income derived from hunting leases is based upon a renewable wildlife
resource, whereas mining incomes are derived from a nonrenewable resource. Also, land
restoration techniques commonly practiced in Texas (e.g., monoculture pasture) will
generally not provide wildlife habitats and populations useful for hunting leases following
mining.
P. 9; Wildlife habitat is included in the analysis as a primary land-use consideration.
Good wildlife habitat does not always have to be characterized by rough contouring and
undesirable vegetation species as indicated in the statement. Wildlife can often be
adequately considered during mine reclamation as a secondary land use, and appropriate
measures can be'adopted for wildlife that are compatible with pasture land or other land-
use alternatives. Crossfencing, use of native range plants, and pond development are
some examples of wildlife features entirely compatible with other land-use alternatives.
Section 2.2.5.3 Proposed Mining Plan; Maximum resource recovery practices should be
considered in the mine operations plan. At the Gibbons Creek project four lignite seams
of minimum 3-foot thickness would be mined. Other lignite resources are destined for the
spoil banks. Some of the lignite now viewed as submarginal may prove to be economically
recoverable as operators gain experience in the mine. The extent of this submarginal
resource should be evaluated in the EIS.
Also, near-surface Pleistocene terrace deposits of sand and gravel probably will be
encountered in close-order premining drilling. Goiod quality sand and gravel is
marketable; therefore, if any deposits prove to be extensive, recovery plans should be
incorporated in the stripping phase of mining.
| Table "(aug.)" should read "(avg.).M
-------
f\_16: The EIS indicates that bermuda grass pasture will be the predominant land use on
the reclaimed areas. In our opinion, this constitutes a postmining land use change on the
mine site and requires specific mitigation features for fish and wildlife. To date specific
mitigation features have not been formulated by the applicant.
P. 22, 23: We recommend that the presentation of water-quality monitoring parameters
and their corresponding frequencies for the Gibbons Creek lignite mine (table 10) indicate
specific parameters for surface-water sources. Also, the water-quality monitoring
program should include coverage of any periods of high storm-water flows on Gibbons
Creek, Sulphur Creek, and Rock Lake Creek.
P. 31: The sections on topography and geology are well written and fairly compre-
hensive. The geology section is complete and little has been overlooked. However, the
thickness of the A bed (Seam //2) should be included in the discussion of lignite beds on
page 31. Also, it would be desirable to include a discussion of the stripping ratio to better
quantify the economics of the proposed plan. This would probably fit best in the
"Overview of the Proposed Project" section starting on page 10. An alternate location for
this discussion would be under the "Lignite Beds on the Project Site" section starting on
page 31.
P. *»7: Redensification of 10 inches/day is a phenomenal rate. Even if the material is to
be dropped in a very loose state and dependent on vehicular compaction, it seems unlikely
that this rate of redensification would be achieved.
P. fr7, 70: On page ^7, the EIS states that the backfilled overburden will have a swell
factor of 20% and that the effects of increased voids will be long term. This is consistent
with experience throughout the mining and construction industries. However, on page 70,
the EIS states that due to settling, redensification will occur to the^ extent that the
backfilled sandy clays and clay shales will have permeabilities of 10 cm/sec or less
while the permeabilities of the sandstone will be reduced by a factor of 100 to 1,000
compared to original conditions. All of this is described as occurring in backcast
materials that are, at the same time, to have a general 20% increase in voids.
Apparently, the statement stems from a graph contained between pages 71 and 72 that
illustrates permeabilities as a function of depth for various materials described as
"overconsolidated" as determined in the lab. The graph shows that sands might have
permeabilities decreased by a very small amount while the narrative states the reduction
will be by a factor of up to four orders of magnitude. The claims of decreased
permeability are not possible as described.
P. fr9: Perched water tables that support local vegetation occur in this area. Loss of
these water tables would be an additional impact that would occur when the clay subsoil is
broken.
P. 50, 51: Contradictory evidence is presented concerning permeability of mixed
overburden. Mathewson says permeability will decrease, while Brown says permeability
will increase. This is an important issue and should be resolved.
P. 51: The statement is made that clay shale overburden materials effectively will seal
the deeper portions of the reclaimed mine sites. The next paragraph states reclaimed
overburden materials would not be sealed effectively from artesian aquifer pressure.
These apparently conflicting statements should be rectified.
-------
27 I P. 56, paragraph4: Lake Limestone is a 217,500 aere-foot reservoir (not 217.5).
P. 58: The Gibbons Creek reservoir would only be required to discharge 0.5.cubic feet
per second (cfs) for stream maintenance as long as more than 0.5 cfs of inflow to the
reservoir occurs. In figure 27, mean monthly flows for a period extending from 1940-1975
show that, even in August, the mean flow exceeds 5 cfs. The effects of such a reduction
in flow on wildlife/fisheries or riparian vegetation is not adequately discussed anywhere in
the EIS.
_Z|
P. 63: ^ Permeabilities are described as ranging from 5 x 10 cm/sec for the lignite to
1 x 10" cm/sec for alluvium. The narrative then states that these values indicate low
availability of ground water. This statement is misleading. For example, a highwall 1,000
ft. long and 100 ft. high with material of such permeability exposed would yield in excess
of 1,000 gallons of water per minute.
Section 3.1.2.1.2: Construction of Gibbons Creek Reservoir will inundate approximately
2,534 acres, including portions of Gibbons, Hog, Plum, and Sulphur Creeks. These creeks,
with their associated riparian forest, comprise palustrine wetlands and. contribute
substantially to biological productivity within the project area. Have adequate plans to
mitigate losses of these wetlands been adopted by the applicant?
P. 66, 67: Since the combined drainage of Dry Creek and two unnamed tributaries within
the project area will be diverted into a tributary of Dinner Creek the effects of increased
runoff, especially from high-intensity rainfall, on downstream flooding of Dinner Creek
also should be considered.
P. 72: The basis for determining the zone of influence should be clarified.
P. 88: The effect of mining upon the 80 wells and additional springs that occur on the
36
project area has not been addressed adequately. On page 88, the statement is made that
the wells in the project area probably occur in the Jackson Group aquifers, but that the
Jackson Group is not important to the county as a whole; however, the effect on the 80
wells is not mentioned. The coal seams to be mined are contained in the Jackson Group.
P. 125: The EIS indicates that the project area's deer herd is in relatively poor
condition. The deer herd will probably continue to decline in quality during and after
mining due to density-dependent mortality and competition. Sporthunting or other
appropriate management techniques as previously recommended by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department have been noted in the
draft, but specific commitments regarding their adoption have not been made by the
applicant. Therefore, we believe the statement does not adequately address actions or
alternatives necessary to reduce adverse project impacts on fish and wildlife.
P. 137, 1st sentence: The reader is referred to figure 43 for the identification of 7
population centers within 30 miles of the project. However, upon examining figure 43 one
finds 6 towns identified, not 7, most of which are several times more distant than the
30-mile radius of the site. This inconsistency should be corrected.
P. 138, 2d sentence: The EIS should be updated to reflect the most recent available
county data (post-1970 U.S. Bureau of the Census information).
5-7
-------
P. 148, 3d sentence, 2d full paragraph: Data must be provided to support the statement
that planned expansions in local water and sewer systems can accommodate hookups of
new housing required for population growth caused by projects.
Table 46: Brazos County Transportation, Communication and Public Utilities—the
employment figure 9,069, apparently in error, should be about 1,069.
Section 3.1.9 Land Use: This section does little more than list the percentages of
different land use types. There is little discussion as to effects of the major changes in
land uses that are to occur following reclamation. Also, the EIS is devoid of any
discussion on the impacts of the project on recreation resources. The EIS should describe
the recreation environment in the project area and discuss potential impacts and
mitigation measures.
P. 160, paragraph 3: ".. . depth of the overburden .. . ." better stated as ".. . thickness
of the overburden . . . ."
5-8
-------
Response to Comments From the US Department of Interior,
Office of the Secretary, Washingon DC (10 June 1980)
(1) The concerns expressed are valid. Where possible, the Final EIS iden-
tifies the natural and raanmade resources throughout the project area
(i.e., the 30-year mining area and beyond) as well as the potential en-
vironmental impacts that may occur to these resources over the full
lifespan of the project. More definite analyses were possible for the
first 5-year permit area because more information was avialable for this
area. The level of impact analysis closely correlates with the
specificity of the mining and reclamation plans available at the time of
the analysis. Although conceptual 30-year mining and reclamation plans
have been prepared by the permit applicant and discussed in the EIS, no
detailed plans are available at this time. As more definitive plans and
research data are developed, the permit applicant has committed to mak-
ing them available to appropriate regulatory/resource agencies for re-
view and approval.
(2) The analyses presented in the Draft EIS were based on the best technical
data available at that time. Since the publication of the Draft EIS,
additional technical basis information/reports (e.g., applicant's re-
vised surface mining permit application to TRRC) have become available
relative to soil mixing, acid formation, post-mining land use, fish and
wildlife mitigation, protection of groundwater resources, wetland
restoration, and protection of cultural resources. This information has
been incorporated as appropriate into the Final EIS. We have tried to
clarify contradictory statements made in the Draft EIS in our responses
to specific comments that follow and in the body of this Final EIS. We
do feel, however that deficiencies remain in planning of the project
relative to regulatory provisions. These deficiencies are identified
and discussed in appropriate sections of the Final EIS.
(3) The discussions presented in the Draft EIS relative to topsoiling versus
mixing of overburden represent an interpretation, summarization, and
reporting of the technical data that were available at that time. As
presented in this EIS, we also agree that the field trials performed to
date are not fully representative of post-mining soil and land
management conditions, and therefore conclusions drawn from those
studies may be too optimistic with respect to success of revegetation,
particularly over the long-term (10-30 years).
Since publication of the Draft EIS, additional information on this issue
has become available and has been incorporated into the Final EIS. Dur-
ing the public hearing held by the TRRC on 16 April 1980, testimony was
given by Dr. Kirk W. Brown relative to reclamation. Based on Dr.
Brown's testimony and other hearing evidence, the Hearing Examiner
concluded that "the applicant has demonstrated that reclamation as
required by the Act can be accomplished under the reclamation plan
contained in the application [Section 21(b)(2)]. However, based on the
lab analyses, greenhouse testing, and actual field trials it was
5-9
-------
further determined that the applicant's request for authorization to mix
overburden was valid only so long as any carbonaceous and other toxic-
or acid-forming materials encountered during mining are properly
identified, segregated, and buried to preclude formation of "hot spots"
and to minimize leachate and/or surface runoff problems, TMPA has
agreed to selectively handling such materials and to ensure that they
are buried well below the reclaimed surface.
Based on this initial hearing, TMPA was granted an interim mining permit
(subject to change' pending issuance of the final permit) that also con-
tains specific soil handling provisions for certain areas. These re-
quire:
• when the reclamation plan identifies an area to be reforested, a
suitable topsoil must be replaced to a minimum depth of 12
inches pending field trial test plot research that demonstrates
the suitability of mixed ovrburden for reforestation; and
• if any areas to be mined contain prime farmlands, the topsoil
must be segregated, protected, and replaced unless doucmentation
can be provided showing that the resulting mixed soil medium is
equal to or more suitable for sustaining revegetation than the
existing topsoil.
However, no specific areas of reforestation currently are planned and it
has been determined by the TRRC that no prime farmlands exist in the
first 5-year permit area.
In addition, because TMPA primary focused on only one overburden hand-
ling method, i.e., replacing randomly mixed overburden, other overburden
handling methods were identified and evaluated qualitatively by EPA in
the Final EIS. These included replacing topsoil (A-horizon) over
randomly mixed overburden; replacing upper weathered zone over randomly
mixed overburden; and replacing topsoil over weathered zone above
randomly mixed overburden.
We believe further consideration of these handling methods is necessary
as possible mitigative options to the currently proposed technique,
which has a high risk of revegetation problems occurring. Also, because
it is unlikely that the high levels of management required to maintain
the proposed post-mining land use will continue over the long-term
(i.e., following bond release), additional field trials are needed to
determine the performance of reclaimed lands under different overburden
handling methods and under various levels of / management and grazing
pataterns that are more representative of actual post-mining conditions.
The field test plots should be designed to compare the relative
productivity and stability of the pre-mining and post-mining land uses.
The testing should include treatments where fertilizer and lime inputs
cease and the land is overgrazed. TMPA has agreed to perform such a
testing program and modify its reclamation procedures if the research
shows the system will not be stable in the post-reclamation period.
5-10
-------
Brown and Deuel (1979) indicate through an analysis of core samples and
mixed overburden that some cores contained sufficient neutralizing
materials to produce burmudagrass yields on mixed overburden material.
Brown and Deuel also found through their oxidative equilibrium study
that:
Pyrites were oxidized creating strongly acidifying conditions in
those cores without sufficient neutralizing materials. It is
impossible to extrapolate the extent of this problem to the land
area involved due to the variability within core samples and core
sites.
Further, findings showed that a 0.1 HCL extract of surface soils and
mixed core material exceeded current EPA criteria-for beryllium, lead,
and selenium in drinking water; however, they also found that:
The potential problem of metal contamination from seepage of mine
spoil leachates into water supplies can be easily circumvented by
maintaining the spoil areas above pH 5.5. This is required to
prevent aluminum and manganese toxicity.
Mr. Bruce DeMarcus, testified 16 April 1980 that toxic overburden will
be identified and deposited by the dragline at the bottom of the
previously rained pit.
TMPA has proposed to
selectively identify, segregate, and bury down below the reclaimed
surface (at least 4 to 5 feet) carbonaceous and other potential toxic
and/or acid-forming materials encountered during mining. Although a
full time agronomist is to be assigned to monitor this procedure,
concerns still exist regarding the ability to identify and dispose of
these potentially harmful materials during overburden removal by the
dragline, particularly with a 24-hour operation as proposed. To better
evaluate the success of this procedure a more detailed plan is necessary
along with review of actual results during active mining.
Information in the appendix and in the text of the EIS also indicate
that most of these sandy loams grade vertically into clay. Table A-2 in
the appendix of the Draft EIS (updated and revised as presented in this
Final EIS) presents the uses and characteristics of the existing soil
series. The majority of these soils have slow percolation, moderate to
severe shrink-swell characteristics, and perched water tables that range
from 0 to 1.5 feet. These descriptions indicate that generally these
soils would recharge the subsurface relatively slowly. This does not
mean, however, that there are not areas of deep sand soils that provide
recharge.
Brown and Deuel (1977; 1980) indicated that all soils have a fine sandy
loam surface, except the Tuscumbia which has a silty clay surface, and
that "all soil grade into clay starting at depths from 4 to 32 inches."
The permeability of the existing surface soils ranges from 0.45 to 3.66
cm per hour. The permeability of the subsoil located at a depth of 6 to
5-11
-------
8 inches is very low and was measured to be less than 0.05cm/hr. This
permeability is sufficiently low that one the topsoil is saturated, most
of the remainder runs off. In addition, the root systems are shallow
and the soils are not productive during dry periods. The permeabilities
of the mined area core samples were given in Table 19 of the Draft EIS.
The data were obtained using a standard permeater with a minimum of
compaction. The permeabilities of the mixed overburden (ranged from
0.91 to 5.63 cm/hr) appear to be sufficient to allow adequate water
movement and infiltration. Also, because they would be more uniform
with depth, the mixed material may not have the restricting properties
associated with the present soils. These findings can be verified
through further testing.
We agree. TMPA has testified that carbonaceous materials or potentially
toxic materials encountered during mining will be segregated from other
overburden. The dragline would deposit this material in the previously
mined pit below the reclaimed
surface in order to minimize adverse surface water-related impacts.
Investigations also are continuing that will determine the economic
feasibililty of mining and retrieving some of the shallower, submarginal
lignite seams (less than 3 feet thick). Specific equipment will be
required to permit recovery of these lignite deposits. If raining proves
infeasible, detailed plans should locate such seams for disposal in the
pit.
The Draft EIS did present available quantitative data on the relative
abundance and distribution of aquatic and terrestrial organisms
(Appendix D). Information also was presented on existing plant and
animal communities (pp 113-115; 122-126) and potential impacts from the
major mining activities (pp 116-121; 126-130). This Final EIS has been
significantly revised to incorporate new Information regarding
reclamation and specific fish and wildlife mitigative techniques to help
reduce the extent of impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
The extent and significance of wetland communities in the study area,
including marshes, riparian forests, and riverine forests has been
further discussed in the Final EIS. The intent of these discussions was
to reflect the present conditions of the wetlands in the area as they
have been affected by selective logging and grazing. We agree that in
certain cases these practices are used to enhance certain types of
habitats. The disturbance of riverine bottomlands and other wetland
habitats in this case has reduced their value and function as a wetland
community to an unquantified extent, although they do exist and have
important local functions. The Final EIS better reflects concerns of
your office. Also a separate (Appendix D) qualitative analysis has been
performed based on Section 404(b)(1) guidelines to more thoroughly as-
sess impacts to wetlands throughout the project site.
Comment noted. Mr. Cloud has provided recent technical input to the de-
velopment of a wetlands restoration plan and 404(b)(1) analysis that
has been incorporated in ,the Final EIS.
5-12
-------
(10) We recognize that deficiencies exist with the hydrology of the area. A
more comprehensive groundwater study for the project site is necessary
to adequately characterize the groundwater conditions, particularly to
assess long-term impacts from mining. Information provided by the
applicant for the first 5-year permit area stated:
Ancient deltas are hydrogeologically characterized by low permeable
to impermeable clays, shales, and carbonaceous shales interrupted
by moderate to low permeable channel sands, distributary mouth or
bar silty sands, and overbanked (crevasse) sands. The low
hydrodynamic energy of Gulf Coastal deltas results in the de-
position of fine grained elastics which are low permeable units.
Surface mining lignites deposited in deltaic environments has very
little to no inpact on the groundwater resources of the area,
because no significant aquifer sands are associated with the
lignite deposits. The few permeable sand units that can provide
some groundwater to wells (usually less than 50 gallons per minute)
are discontinuous, sinous, bodies that once were distributary
channels.
Groundwater seepage into a mine trench is at a minimum due to the
low permeability of the overburden material. As a result, the
amount of seepage water that must be discharged and treated is low,
generally less than 500 gallons per minute per mile of trench for a
100 feet highwall. By far, the most significant amount of mine
trench discharge will be rainwater that falls in the trench. The
very low seepage rates into the trench will have no significant
impact on local groundwater resources except when a channel sand
aquifer is intersected and drained.
The interfingering of permeable channel sands throughout imperme-
able shales can produce local artesian conditions. The dip tren-
ding channel sands can form confined aquifers that may cause some
artesian conditions to develop. However, the generally low
permeability of these units will act to prevent significant volumes
of drainage water.
To forecast potential groundwater effects beyond the first 5-year\permit
area, additional data are necessary. The applicant's proposed ground-
water monitoring plans currently involve analysis of samples from four
wells during each 5-year mining plan; however, additional monitoring
wells should be installed down dip of the mine areas. Current pending
final mining permit conditions would require some wells to be installed
to the depth of the lowest lignite seam mined while others would be to a
depth sufficient to monitor the effects of raining on the first
significant aquifer below the lowest lignite seam to be mixed.
(11) Comment noted. No further information describing this interrelationship
is available for the first 5-year permit area. However, groundwater
generally feeds surface water flow at points where the ground surface
5-13
-------
and the water table intersect (Springs also occur on the project site).
Streams in the mine area will be diverted and it is likely that streams
outside of the permit area have not been monitored to establish
baseline flow information. To adequately describe these interrelation-
ships, additional groundwater study is necessary. This is particularly
important to assess potential effects of raining on wetland communities.
(12) -The Final EIS includes a revised discussion of the prime farmland de-
termination.
(13) Although a total of 7.7 square miles of watershed area is expected to be
affected during the first 5 years, the effect on runoff will not be a
loss of 7% of the total volume. The mining sequence will require at
least 2 years from the original undisturbed land surface to reestablish
a permanent vegetated surface with approximately the same land contour.
During this interval water that normally would have run off the mined
and reclaimed areas will be withheld from surface drainage. Therefore,
less than half of the above cited area should be out of the drainage
system at any one time. This condition will be modified to an
undetermined extent by plans to retain runoff from the haul roads and
equipment handling areas throughout their life in the project, and by
the possibility that any problems encountered during reclamation might
require continuation of diversions and retention for more than the
anticipated 2 years (TMPA 1980). The net long-term effect of the
project on surface water hydrology should be a slight moderation of the
extremes of runoff due to the expected higher water retention charac-
teristics of the upper soil layers.
(14) Comment has been noted and changes have been made accordingly. The
comparison of revenue losses or gains to an individual property owner
must consider four factors: (1) hunting lease revenues; (2) mining lease
revenues; (3) pre- and post-reclamation land use, and (4) land management
costs. For a particular property owner who currently is receiving income
from hunting leases, an individual decision is made regarding the value
of hunting leases and current land use versus the value of mining leases
and post-reclamation land use. The mining revenues are derived from a
non-renewable resource (lignite) and the hunting revenues are based on a
renewable resource (wildlife), but the post-reclamation income potential
from cattle production also represents a renewable resource. The
individually negotiated and largely undisclosed nature of the mining and
hunting leases doete not permit an income comparison to be made. In
addition, other factors such as changes in land management costs should
be included.
(15) The intent of Section 2.2.3 is to identify all feasible alternative
reclamation plans. Therefore, improved pastureland, row crop production,
hardwood production, and wildlife habitat all were identified as possible
primary, post-mining land use considerations. The factors that determine
the primary post mining land use were listed in the EIS. Although
reclaiming the land to pastureland appears to be the "preferred" post-
5-14
-------
mining land use, it is recognized that the other important post-
mining land use options are compatible as "secondary uses" and, as
such, are often beneficial to both the landowner and wildlife forms.
To ensure that impacts to fish and wildlife resources are minimized and
that wildlife habitat is considered as at least a secondary land use
following mining, interim mining permit provisions states that:
Prior to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Division starting the
extended responsibility bonding period for any designated area, the
permittee shall submit a map showing the proposed postmining land use
to the Director of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Division. The
map shall specify the areas which will be reclaimed to pasture,
cropland, woodland, and fish and wildlife habitat. The map shall also
indicate the location of fences, hedgerows, roads, culverts,
stockponds, -terraces, and the approximate completion schedule for
each feature. The permittee shall intersperse the large reclaimed
coastal bermuda pastures (approximately 200 acres) with stands of
trees, hedges, and/or fence rows to provide habitat diversity for
both wildlife and domestic livestock. Pastures which will be used
exclusively for hay production need not be planted with trees or
hedges (see Rules .395(b)(1) and .399).
TMPA's current reclamation plan also proposes to construct stock watering
ponds or leave existing ones in place consistent with the request of the
landowner and approval of the TRRC. Development and management of end
lakes may be considered by the applicant to mitigate impacts to fish and
wildlife. Suitable soil materials which will retain water should be used
in the pond areas. The locations and profiles of natural streams are to
be duplicated to the maximum extent; wildlife plantings also are planned
along hedgerows and property lines.
(16) The Paul Weir Company (1977) has compiled a report entitled Lignite
Resource and Quality Evaluation for the Gibbons Creek Steam Electric
Station. This report has been identified as proprietary and has not been
released. However, it is known that the permit applicant is investigating
the feasibility of mining lignite seams less than 3 feet thick. No
definite decision has been made regarding recovery of these submarginal
deposits. If the decision is to mine these deposits, the purchase of
additional specialized equipment will be necessary. If these seams are
not mined, there will be an increased potential of acid-forming materials
occurring at the surface.
(17) The geological map (Baker 1974) does not show any sizeable terrace
deposits in the mine area. The chance of finding an economically
significant sand-gravel deposit in the mine overburden is low, however,
should drilling or subsequent excavation locate such a deposit, it could
be developed either for internal use as a source of raw materials for
mine/plant operations or for outside sale. Both of these options are
expected to be considered if a sufficiently large deposit is found during
mining operations.
5-15
-------
(18) Comment noted and corrections have been made.
(19) We agree. Following the Texas Railroad Commission hearing on the is-
suance of the interim surface mining operation permit, TMPA submitted ad-
additional information regarding their commitment to and implementation
of fish and wildlife mitigation plans. These statements have been
incorporated into the Final EIS (Section 3.1.5) and represent a
compilation of statements developed over time by the permit applicant.
(20) The exact location of proposed surface water monitoring locations is
included in Appendix B. Since not all affected watercourses currently are
being or are proposed to be monitored, data deficiencies will exist. A
more extensive surface water monitoring program would be necessary to
establish pre-mining water quality and quantity conditions for all area
streams. Also because baseline surface water quality monitoring programs
are presently in progress, some data have been received and are
incorporated in the Final EIS. As required by PL 95-97 and OSM
regulations, periods of high stormwater flows are expected to be
monitored for baseline water quality and quantity.
(21) Comment is noted and appropriate changes have been made in the Final EIS.
The thickness of the A Bed averages 5.8 feet and ranges from 3,0 to 9.5
feet. Although no specific information presently is available concerning
the stripping ratio it appears the general range will be between 10:1 and
20:1.
(22) As referenced in the Draft EIS, Mathewson et al* (1979) derived this
figure based on a study by Schneider (1977) of a gulf coast
(central-Texas) mine site in which this rate of redensification occurred
for 1 day.
(23) Statements made in the EIS are based1 on information available from
similar (off-site) although not identical circumstances. Therefore,
without more site-specific data and testing on actual side cast
materials, definite statements about impacts are impossible. The Draft
EIS states on page 47 that due to an initial "swell factor of
approximately 20%, the reclaimed land surface will be higher than prior
to mining." The last sentence in this paragraph states "weathering
processes and gravity will reduce and densify the reclaimed sediments to
some extent, but the effects of"the jumbled texture will persist and some
increase in volume will be long term."
The graph relates decreased permeabilities as a function of burial depth
for side casted clay-shale, clayey sand, and sand. It does not relate
original permeabilities of sand and shale deposits. Mathewson et al.
(1979) indicates that the original permeability of sand to be 10~2
cm/sec after stripping and sidecasting with a dragline. This decrease In
permeability is within the order of magnitude presented in the EIS (i.e.,
1000).
(24) We concur. The EIS indicates that these perched aquifers will be rained
through.
5-16
-------
(25) Mathewson's (1979) study "Hydrology of Reclaimed Gulf Coast Lignite
Mines"), is concerned with groundwater recharge and movement within the
reclaimed mine pit. His studies indicate that the mixed overburden
materials decrease in permeability as a function of increased depth, and
clay content. His data also show that infiltration of rainwater is
confined largely to the upper 30 feet of mixed overburden with high clay
(shale) content. Brown and Deuel (1977) performed research to determine
the suitability of mixed overburden soils as a medium for plant growth
and to characterize the existing soils at the proposed mine site in
Grimes County. Their studies did not attempt to compare permeability
versus depth for mixed overburden soils.
(26) The proposed conditions discussed related to the first 5-year permit area
and to subsequent mine areas where different conditions are expected to
occur. Additional clarification has been made in the text.
(27) Comment noted; correction has been made.
(28) We believe the reference to "figure 27" was intended to be Figure 26
and/or Table 20. The extent of impacts on the hydrology and, in turn, the
biological resources (wildlife and vegetation) of Gibbons Creek is a
function of both weather conditions and operation of the GCSES cooling
reservoir. In assessing the impacts of stream flow conditions in this
region it is necessary to consider the extreme variation in flow regime
that exists. Although there is no history of flow measurement for
Gibbons Creek, an adjacent watershed (Bedias Creek) has been gaged since
1967. From October 1967 through 1978, the flow of Bedias Creek near
Madisonville has ranged between 0 and 33,800 cfs (Appendix B-23 & B-24).
Whereas the watershed of Gibbons Creek is about one-third that of Bedias
Creek it can be estimated that Gibbons Creek would range between 0 and
10,000 cfs. Moreover, these records show that for a period of as long as
5 months there was no effective discharge and that the total discharge
for a year can be 10 times that of the previous year. Under these
conditions the environment of the stream valley is more dependent on the
extremes of flow that are encountred rather than on the average
conditions. The general constraints of the environments include (1) the
biological environment of the floodplain is limited to those populations
that can withstand being flooded at infrequent intervals; (2) the wetland
communities can withstand frequent submergence combined with periodic
drying out; and (3) life in the stream must be able to survive prolonged
periods when the stream does not flow and the only water is in isolated
stagnant pools. The following circumstances and potential impacts are
anticipated:
5-17
-------
During dry periods when the stream flow into the reservoir is
below 0.5 cfs no discharge to Gibbons Creek is required. Under
these conditions there would be no significant flow in Gibbons
Creek with or without the reservoir so effects would resemble
those that would occur under natural (i.e., without project)
conditions.
TERA Corporation (1977) estimated that the reservoir will be at
conservation pool capacity approximately 30% of the time, during
which all inflow would be discharged thus largely reflecting
original flow conditions.
During periods of high rainfall and runoff after extended dry
periods, there will be a delay in resumption of normal discharges
downstream to Gibbons Creek. This is due to the expected need to
restore the reservoir to operating levels. The 0.5 cfs discharge
still will be required, but during this stage a portion of inflows
greater than 0.5 cfs will be captured in the reservoir. During
floods, releases will be regulated to reduce inundation of
downstream areas with a consequent reduction of resupply water to
floodplain pools and wetlands. The effect of reduced flows on
riparian vegetation, wetland wildlife species, and stream
fisheries cannot be predicted from current data.
5-17a
-------
• During about 50% of the time, there will be a mix of flows that
results in a net decrease in annual discharges, but discharges
will occur with less variability. This conditionwill result from
the retention of some of the normal inflows into the reservoir
during periods when operating levels are building up and from
temporary storage of occasional higher inflows. This practice
will result in minor adverse effects to pool levels and biota
but smoothing out of flow fluctuations should have an
insignificant overall effect. The volume of water in the
reservoir also will be reduced due to surface water evaporation.
This water loss will result in a reduction of 3,450 acre-feet
per year in overall discharge to Gibbons Creek. This amounts to
about 10% of the average annual runoff of 33,639 acre-feet
projected at the Gibbons Creek damsite. Short-term effects from
hydrological changes on the biological resources of Gibbons
Creek will occur but should be minimal; however, long-term
adverse changes are likely to occur at least in the extent of
downstream riparian habitat.
• There is an additional plan to withdraw water from the Navasota
River to supplement the supply to the plant cooling reservoir.
The exact amount and pattern of this augmentation will depend on
the requirements for plant operation, but generally it would be
done by'pumping from the river during times when its flow is
adequate to maintain the reservoir level when inflow from the
Gibbons Creek watershed is insufficient. Discharges from the
reservoir to Gibbons Creek should not be affected significantly
because pumping primarily would occur only when it would be
needed for plant operation.
(29) The original reference indicated that the permeability was measured for
fractures in the lignite to be 5 x 10-^ cm/sec (Mathewson 1979). It
also stated that measurements of seepage from floodplain alluvium yielded
values of 1.0 x 10-^ cm/sec. The permeable sand units in the first
5-year permit area, that provide groundwater to wells are discontinuous,
sinuous, bodies that were distributary channels. Mathewson further states
"groundwater seepage into a mine trench is at a minimum due to the low
permeability of the overburden material ..." and . .as a result, the
amount of seepage water that must be discharged and treated is low,
generally less than 500 gallons per minute per mile of trench for a 100
ft highwall." The findings can be verified by a comprehensive testing
program.
(30) Any plans to mitigate losses of these areas that have been or will be
affected by the GCSES and associated cooling reservoir would have been
presented in (1) an Environmental Assessment Report prepared during 1977
by TMPA specifically dealing with the power plant facility, and/or (2) a
subsequent negative declaration and supporting environmental appraisal
prepared by EPA Region 6 on the Gibbons Creek power plant and reservoir.
5-18
-------
(31) The diversion of Dry Creek and Heifer Creek into Dinner Creek is being
reconsidered and investigated more thoroughly by the applicant. If these
diversions do occur as discussed in the EIS, erosion-related impacts are
expected as well as possible localized flooding downstream in the Dinner
Creek drainage during high intensity rainfall events. The overall impact
of additional sediment loads and higher flood frequencies has not been
determined.
(32) In this study, the Singleton test pit was excavated to a depth of 30 to
35 feet. The actual slope of the groundwater surface was measured from
observation wells at various distances from the pit. The above cited
radius of influence (i.e., 3,800 feet) is based on the lowest slope
observed in the actual test and therefore represents a "worst case"
prediction of the maximum distance at which drawdown effects will be
observed (oral communications via telephone, Dr. C.C. Mathewson, Texas A
& M University, to Dr. William French, WAPORA, Inc., 1 December 1980).
Additional testing at other sites is desirable due to the shallow depth
and possibility that the overburden was not representative of the site.
(33) The concerns are valid. The information provided on wells is sketchy
which indicates the need for more site-specific groundwater monitoring
wells. A survey of water wells within 1 mile of the permit area was
initiated between 22 July and 20 August 1976. Analysis of water quality
from these wells was made for total salts, calcium, magnesium, potassium,
sodium, bicarbonate, sulfate, chloride, sodium absorption ratio, sodium
percentages, and iron. Detailed water quality analyses of the water
discharged from a flowing> well also were made. These data establish a
baseline of information for future reference.
The geology of the permit area is such that any leachate or mine drainage
into or below the mine is at a minimum. The clay-shale overburden and
underburden has a hydraulic conductivity of less than 10-^ cm/sec.
Three samples of sandy clays, located below the lignite, were tested for
hydraulic conductivity using a falling head permeameter.
An isopach of the material below the lignite shows that only a few small
areas have less than 5 feet of low permeablity material below the
lignite. Most of the permit area has a moderate to minimum level of risk
of deep aquifer pollution.
If any active wells are adversely affected during mining operations, TMPA
is expected to comply with regulations pursuant to the Federal Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, which require the operator to
replace the water supply for the affected landowner.
To assist in determining the magnitude of potential effects to existing
groundwater wells, provisions were attached to the interim surface mining
permit that establish a need for groundwater monitoring and reporting
requirements and well-point piezometers in the first 5-year rained area.
The well-point piezometers would be located in the reclaimed area to
monitor restoration of the hydrological system. The nature of any final
mining permit provisions is unknown.
5-19
-------
(34) The applicant proposes to utilize selective deer hunting to control the
deer population as recommended by the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department. More definite statements regarding wildlife management have
been made in the Final EIS. Also interim mining permit provisions
previously set forth requirements to ensure some fish and wildlife
protection and mitigation of unavoidable adverse impacts. Fish and
wildlife management plans are necesssary due to the projected changes in
land use.
(35) The Gibbons Creek Lignite Project is located within 170 miles of four
major metropolitan areas (Figure 43) and within 30 miles of seven
significant population centers. The text has been corrected accordingly.
(36) When available, updated Census data or local planning agency data were
U6ed during the preparation of this EIS. However, neither the Census
Bureau nor the Brazos Valley Development Commission, has an updated
figure for average household size. Consequently, the 2.9 persons per unit
figure from the 1970 Census was utilized.
(37) Both Bryan's and College Station's sewage treatment plants are being
expanded as are the plants in Huntsville and Navasota. The sewage
treatment plant in Madisonville has adequate excess capacity for limited
residential expansion while both Brenham and Anderson are served by
septic systems only. Based on the projected distribution of new housing
units required (Table 50), these planned expansions of local sewer
systems in Bryan-College Station, Huntsville, and Navasota should
accommodate the majority of new hook-ups required for new housing
construction. Only the smaller communities such as Brenham and
Madisonville which have either no sewer system or limited excess capacity
are expected to experience any problems in meeting potential sewage
treatment requirements.
The largest increased water demand caused by the project will occur in
Bryan-College Station where a major expansion of the College Station
water supply will provide excess capacity in both communities. Anderson,
Brenham, Huntsville, Madisonville, and Navasota all have excess water
supply capacity currently available. Thus, the increased water supply
needs of the new housing units required to meet the increased population
levels should be adequately accommodated in each of the seven
communities.
(38) Correction has been made in the Final EIS.
(39) The Final EIS presents revised discussions of impacts from land use
changes induced from the proposed project in Section 3.1.9.2 as well as
the need for specific plans to meet the requirements where a land use
change occurs. Recreational resources were discussed in Section 3.1.5.2
(Draft EIS) under the topic of Noteworthy Biological Resources including
parks, preserves, and refuges.
(40) Comment noted; text has been changed accordingly.
5-20
-------
*It should be noted that subsequent to the submittal of these comments, the
Office of Surface Mining agreed to perform a technical review of other
available and additional information supplied by the applicant through EPA.
Additional information was requested by EPA including the proposed overburden
handling method, reclamation and revegetation plans, wildlife management
plans, post-raining land use, and surface and groundwater monitoring. Also a
copy of the revised mining permit application under the permanent regulatory
program submitted to the Texas Railroad Commission and additional soils
reports were provided to EPA and were subsequently forwarded to the OSM for
review. Therefore, some of the OSM comments made during review of the Draft
EIS were answered by this technical review. Information from these comments
and this further review has been incorporated into the EIS as appropriate.
5-21
-------
JUN 161980**-
EPA
REGI3N VI I
S & A DIV. A
V. FED. ASST.
Serving the cities of Bryan. Denton. Garland & Greenville
June 16, 1980
Mr. Clinton Spotts
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
SUBJECT: GC-1, B-0825
Comments on Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Gibbons Creek
Lignite Mine
Dear Mr. Spotts:
We have reviewed the draft EIS which has been prepared by WAPORA, Inc. and
have the following comments to offer.
1. Page xii, paragraph two. We realize that wildlife populations
and corresponding habitats are a dynamic system and are constantly
changing. We believe these animal habitats will tend to re-establish
themselves and various forms of wildlife will eventually return. In
addition, the areas' reclaimed to pasture land, ponds, and hedgerows
will probably result in an increase of wildlife preferring these
habitats. These would probably include bobwhite quail, mourning
dove, shore birds, and some water foul.
2. Page 12, paragraph three. The sequence of mining operations should
properly note that the control of surface water and sub-surface
drainage should be accomplished first rather than last. Water
management plans are required to be approved by the Railroad
Commission of Texas and constructed prior to any major land
disturbance.
3. Page 13, paragraph three. Dr. K. W. Brown has indicated that
certain overburden materials may require selective deposition
below the surface to avoid surface reclamation problems. This
procedure will ensure that mixed overburden materials will be
more suitable for ready reclamation and will require less in-
tensive pH adjustment to achieve satisfactory revegetation.
4. Page 14, paragraph four. In addition to the use of rye grass,mulch
will also be utilized to control erosion.
5. Page 15, paragraph four. It is the plan of TMPA that stock watering
ponds will be constructed or left in place consistent with the re-
quest of the land owner and approval of the Railroad Commission of
Texas. At this time, the establishment of a stock watering pond
Ink/ municipal Pouier Agency
5-22
600 Arlington Downs Tower
Arlington. Texas 76011
(0171461-4400
-------
Page 2
5 con't.
8
10
II
for every 50 acres of reclaimed land may not be in the best interest
of environmental protection.
6. Page 19, paragraph seven. We plan to provide a durable wearing
surface on haul roads rather than actual "paving of roads". Further,
we believe you may wish to verify the reference for dust control as
quoted from the Environmental Assessment Report prepared by TERA.
7. Page 83, paragraph one. All controlled discharges from ponds in
the mine area must comply with regulations of the Railroad Commission
of Texas as well as the Environmental Protection Agency effluent
standards and we believe the quality of this water should not adversely
affect existing aquatic species currently in the Gibbons Creek System
of the Navasota River.
8. Page 107, paragraph one. We believe the impacts on aquatic communities
will be minimal if the water management plan and discharge criteria
of the Environmental Protection Agency and Railroad Commission of
Texas are met in our mining operation.
9. Page 120, paragraph three. Reclamation programs are approved by the
Railroad Commission of Texas following agreement by the local land
owner.
10. Page 121, paragraph seven. We believe that a comparison of a
reclaimed area at the Big Brown Lignite Mine may not be a valid
comparison with operations to be carried out at the Gibbons Creek
Lignite Mine. Such observations, however, do point to areas of
concern that TMPA will make special effort to control and to prevent
adverse impacts.
11. Page 135, paragraph four. In our opinion, the cultural resources
laboratory of the Texas A&M University is well staffed with highly
qualified archeologists and that they have conducted surface and
sub-surface explorations to the extent necessary to identify
significant cultural resource in the project area. The Texas
Historical Commission has been informed of the reports by Texas
A&M University and have concurred in their recommendations.
The above comments have been made in order that accuracy will be prevalent
and to minimize the occurrence of any future regulatory problems in the
event that any modifications in this project may be required. We urge your
inclusion of these comments in the final environmental impact statement.
Sincerely,
Larry C. Hearn, P.E.
Director
Engineering & Operations
DSM/lep
5-23
-------
Responses to Comments From Mr. Larry C. Hearn,
Texas Municipal Power Agency,
Arlington TX (16 June 1980)
(1) Although it is true that "animal habitats will tend to reestablish
themselves. . . ," it is clear that post-mining habitats will not
duplicate pre-mining conditions because the area will be dominated by
nonpalatable (to wildlife) bermudagrass pastureland. To the extent that
post-mining land uses can successfully include forestland (pines and
hardwoods), ponds, hedgerows, and riparian habitat to diversify the
landscape, adverse effects on area wildlife populations will be
mitigated. However, bottomland habitats may require many years to
re-establish, if at all.
(2) Comment noted; the text has been modified to clarify this point.
(3) Comment noted; the text has been modified to include identification,
segregation, and burial of selected overburden materials to improve the
success of revegetation efforts.
(4) Comment noted; the text has been changed to include use of mulch as an
erosion control measure.
(5) Comment noted; the text has been modified.
(6) Comment noted; the text has been modified.
(7) Comment noted; the text has been modified. Concern also should be
focused on the potential for erosion from diversions, restructured
streams, and long-term effects from possibly ineffective reclamation
ef forts.
(8) Comment noted; we feel the Draft EIS accurately presents the potential
impacts that likely will occur.
(9) Comment noted. These plans are to be prepared and submitted in the
application. Landowners are to be informed of costs associated with
maintenance on proposed land use(s). Where land use changes occur,
specific information requirements apply.
(10) Comment noted.
(11) Comment noted; no response necessary by EPA.
5-24
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
GALVESTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1229
GALVESTON, TEXAS 77553
REPtY TO
ATTENTION OF:
SWGED-E
\\ J UN 1980
Ms. Adlene Harrison
Regional Administrator (6A)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Ms. Harrison:
This is in response to your letter dated 7 April 1980, which provided a
draft copy of the Environmental Impact Statement, Gibbons Creek Lignite
Project, Grimes County, Texas, for our review and comments.
The project appears to involve placement of fill material in wetlands.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should contact the Fort Worth
District, Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, for a determination
as to the necessity for Department of the Army permits.
Although it is recognized that the proposed project could have significant
effects on water quantity or quality on the Lower Brazos River within
the boundaries of Galveston District, we will defer specific comments
to Fort Worth District where the primary impacts would occur. A copy
of the Final Environmental Impact Statement is requested.
Sincerely
JAMES M. SIGLER
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Copies furnished:
District Engineer, Fort Worth
Division Engineer, Southwestern
5-25
-------
Responses to Comments From Department of the
Army, Galveston District, Corps of Engineers
Galveston TX (11 June 1980)
(1) Comment noted; coordination with the Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth
District has occurred relative to delineation of wetlands and
applicability of Section 404 permit.
(1) Comment noted; a copy of the Final EIS will be sent to both the Galveston
and Fort Worth District offices.
5-26
-------
^TES 0*
UNITED STAT. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Assistant Secretary for Productivity,
Technology, and Innovation
Washington. D.C. 20230
(202) 377-3111
Ms. Adlene Harrison
Regional Administrator (6A)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
June 10, 19 80
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Ms. Harrison:
This is in reference to your draft environmental impact statement
entitled, "Gibbons Creek Lignite Project, Grimes County, Texas." We
have the following comments to offer.
Appendix, Table C-7
There appears to be a computational error in the calculation of
emissions due to windborne dust. Using the factors given, we
calculate emissions of 127.92 tons per year, not 118.9 as given.
Our value of 127.92 is equivalent to 512 pounds/acre-year, as
reported on page 96. We suggest that the emission factors be
rechecked and the emission value recalculated.
Enclosed are comments prepared by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide these comments,
which we hope will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate
receiving eight (8) copies of the final environmental impact statement.
Sincerely,
Bruce R. Barrett
Acting Director
Office of Environmental Affairs
Enclosures Memos from: Isaac Van der Hoven
Environmental Research Laboratories - N0AA
Robert B. Rollins
National Ocean Survey - NOAA
5-27
-------
Responses to Comments From US Department of
Commerce, Assistant Secretary for Productivity,
Technology, and Innovation, Washington DC
(10 June 1980J
(1) An error was made in the emissions due to windborne dust. The correct
value for these emissions is 127.92 tons per year. Appendix Table C-7 has
been adjusted to reflect the correct value. However, the value of 512
pounds per acre-year (page 96) remains correct; no other changes are
required.
5-28
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30333
Ms. Adlene Harrison
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Ms. Harrison:
June 4, 1980
We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project (GCLP) in Grimes County, Texas. We are
responding on behalf of the U.S. Public Health Service and are offering the
following comments for your consideration.
We have concerns about the potential water supply and air quality effects of
the proposed action. It may be important to condition the approval of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit on the estab-
lishment of a long-term monitoring program. This monitoring program would
serve as a basis for evaluating and mitigating the long-term effects upon
local and regional water supplies and air quality.
Water Quality
It appears that the mine site lies within part of the recharge zone for certain
formations in the Jackson Group, and many of the local wells surveyed near the
mine site actively use the Jackson Group. While the underburden is rich in
clays impermeable to groundwater, some introduction of leachate water from
the Jackson Group to lower-lying aquifers could occur. The possibility of
horizontal migration of leachates to wells which tap formations in the
Jackson Group should be discussed. The potential effect upon wells used for
domestic and livestock water supplies should be clarified. Will a survey be
instituted during the project to monitor the quality and quantity of water
in local wells?
To protect landowners, we understand that Part 717(b) of the Federal Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 will be imposed upon the mine
operators to replace the water supply of a landowner whose water supply is
adversely affected. For the landowner's protection, an explanation should be
provided in the EIS on what constitutes a supply that has been "contaminated,
diminished or interrupted." Is there sufficient background well data to
document "existing conditions" for all the wells that might be potentially
affected? Was the well sampling program for groundwater data conducted during
a wet, dry or average season? Do well levels in the area currently fluctuate
because of annual or seasonal meteorological conditions?
5-29
-------
Page 2 - Ms. Adlene Harrison
The potential effects of locating a sedimentation pond site above an existing
surface water supply such as Lake Carlos should be addressed. Will discharges
from these ponds require an NPDES permit?
Since considerable amounts of water will be required for the operation of the
GCLP, the ability of the project area to provide the existing and future GCLP
with a suitable water supply without degrading the quality of existing surface
and subsurface water supplies should be further discussed.
According to the EIS, site preparation and construction impacts of the Gibbons
Creek Steam Electric Station (GCSES) and associated facilities would be considered
in this EIS. Additional information on the Gibbons Creek reservoir, the predicted
long-term water quality effects, and the compliance of the operator with appli-
cable water quality standards in and below the reservoir should be provided.
Air Quality
The significance of this project in causing and/or contributing to acid rains
should be explained in more detail. We believe the potential effects of acid
rain from the use and combustion of lignite at the power plant is an important
issue and needs to be better addressed. The EIS indicates that the projected
effects of the GCSES and associated facilities were addressed separately at an
earlier time and permits were issued. Was an environmental assessment prepared?
Did this environmental assessment evaluate the potential acid rain effects
from using lignite?
According to the EIS, we understand that a Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permit will not be required for the surface mine, and air quality monitoring
or modeling of particulate emissions will not be necessary. What health and
welfare effects will fugitive emissions have upon local residents?
Why is fugitive dust defined (page 93 of the EIS) as a "particulate matter
composed of soil?" Particulate generated from lignite or other mined materials
are not necessarily soil. The Glossary of Geology and Related Sciences of the
American Geological Institute defines soil as "the unconsolidated material above
the bedrock that has been in any way altered or weathered; that layer or mantle
of loose, incoherent rock material of whatever origin that nearly everywhere
forms the surface of the land and rests on the hard or 'bed' rocks." It would
be helpful to explain the. applicability of EPA's PSD regulation in terms of
those particulates associated with bedrock and other underburden materials
that are not considered soils.
Instead of burning cleared brush and tree debris, it could be chipped and
stored to provide a protective ground cover for reclamation activities. This
material would be beneficial in preventing wind and water erosion until a
vegetative cover is in place. Any proposed use of herbicides in clearing or
managing project lands should be indicated in the EIS.
Health and Safety
The EIS should briefly describe what precautions will be taken to protect the
workers and the public from mining activities. The general nature of the
5-30
-------
Page 3 - Ms. Adlene Harrison
10 con't
program and the staff to minimize occupational and safety hazards should be
mentioned.
In conclusion, we are interested to know if a programmatic EIS has been
prepared to assess the potential cumulative impacts of the planned lignite-fired
power plants and associated lignite development? If not, what efforts have
been conducted to fully assess the long-term cumulative effects of the planned
lignite development in Texas or in the country?
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Draft EIS. Please send one copy
of the final document when it becomes available.
Sincerely yours,
Frank S. Lisella, Ph.D.
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Bureau of State Services
5-31
-------
Responses to Comments From Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
Health Service, Atlanta GA (4 June 1980)
The concern is valid. It appears establishment of additional surface
water monitoring stations are necessary to provide more complete baseline
data requirements for measuring the success of post-mining reclamation
and ensuring adequate mitigation for adverse effects where pre-mining
water quality is not obtained.
With respect to groundwater, the applicant previously proposed to use
four monitoring wells for each permit area. An adequate system for
monitoring would include pairs of wells completed above and below the
lignite seam and downdip of the mine area. Monitoring is especially
needed at the northwest end of the first 5-year permit area and at the
confluence of the Navasota River and Gibbons Creek to predict impacts on
the wetlands adjacent to the Navasota River and at the confluence. This
information will be necessary to adequately characterize groundwater and
surface water relationships and potential impacts on the hydrology of the
area.
The mine site is located about 4 miles to the north of the area which
Baker et al. (1974) have identified as best for groundwater development
within the Jackson Group. Mathewson et al. (1979) states that the
groundwater of the first 5-year permit area represents an unconfined
system in which the water table generally parallels the land surface at a
depth from 20 to 40 feet. This suggests that groundwater movement in the
area Is essentially local with some flow toward stream valleys. The
presence of slowly permeable strata in the first 5-year permit area
immediately below the lignite seam makes it unlikely that there will be
any significant flow into the lower more permeable layers; however, it
cannot be quantified without additional specific testing. Testing is
also necessary to predict impact of dewatering on streams and/or to
supplies down dip of the project site.
Groundwater contamination within the local system is possible only after
cessation of mining activity. As long as the mine pit exists there will
be groundwater flow into the pit from the highwall (which has not
yet been mined). This water will be pumped out of the pit, stored in
retention ponds, and if necessary, treated prior to any discharge to
surface drainage. After the pit has been finally filled, the depressed
water table left by mining activity still will Induce flow into the area
from the surrounding region for a period of several years. During this
time, any wells which are very near or within the mined area would be
affected. The natural configurations will reestablish eventually and it
will be possible for contaminated water to move out of the immediate mine
area. Although this flow may occur slowly, the longer term effect is
5-32
-------
unknown; additional groundwater monitoring is necessary to accurately
determine groundwater conditions during and following raining.
(2a) Mathewson (1979) conducted an investigation of the first 5-year permit
area and described the findings of a survey of water wells conducted by
Mr. Duane Heckelsberg within 1 mile of the permit area. Twenty homes,
businesses, and landowners were interviewed and 11 wells were located. An
additional 23 wells were located outside of the permit area. Appendix
Tables B-l and B-6 (in the Draft EIS) present water data (quality and
quantity) that were available at that time0 These water wells were
surveyed between 22 July and 20 August 1976 which would be considered as
the dry season. The well survey did not determine the extent of seasonal
fluctuation.
(3) Currently, none of the sedimentation ponds is proposed above a potable
water supply source (including Lake Carlos); however, regardless of the
proximity of the sedimentation/water quality control ponds to existing or
future water supply sources, any discharge from the ponds will require an
NPDES permit and will be subject to effluent limitations established by
EPA/TDWR to protect the public health and welfare. Discharges from these
ponds also will be monitored (quality and quantity) for full compliance
with the NPDES permit requirements during the mining process.
(4) The proposed GCLP will use approximately 10,000 gallons per day of water
for equipment washing and 160,000 gallons per day for dust control when
this is necessary. This water will be available primarily from drainage
control ponds. Potable water requirements will be about 10,000 gallons
per day and this water is expected to come from the GCSES reservoir„ Fire
control water will be supplied from the drainage control ponds, with
potable water available to supplement this supply.
Because TMPA is the only holder of surface water rights in the mine area,
no other industry or municipality will be affected by the water use of
the lignite project. Surface water in the mine area currently is used for
wildlife habitat in addition to livestock watering. The proposed lignite
project will cause the removal or alteration of some small streams and
stock ponds but adequate surface water should be available for upland
wildlife and livestock both during and after mining operations. It is
expected that wells in the area will have to be replaced and
reestablished in formations below the lignite mined.
(5) Relative to the GCSES and associated reservoir, TMPA is to comply with
all discharge permits and must meet any applicable water quality
standards in and below the reservoir. Detailed discussions of the
applicable permit requirements, water quality conditions, and other
characteristics associated with construction and operation of the GCSES
cooling reservoir are presented in the 1977 Environmental Assessment
Report prepared by TMPA on the GCSES. The EIS on the GCLP only considered
for the proposed releases from the cooling reservoir and their effect on
the hydrological regime downstream. The potential impacts associated with
5-33
-------
the proposed release schedule are presented In Sections 3.1.2.1.2 and
3.1.2.2.2 of the Draft EIS. State classifications and standards also are
discussed in Section 3.1.2.2.1. Updated and revised discussions also are
presented in the Final EIS.
(6) An Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) was prepared by TMPA for the
Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station (GCSES). This EAR did not evaluate
the potential acid rain effects from using lignite. However, it did
estimate maximum ground-level sulfur dioxide (SO2) concentrations - a
main constituent of acid rain. The computer dispersion analysis predicted
maximum SO2 concentration substantially below the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and below the allowable Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) increment for a Class II area. The
problem of acid rain, because of its complexity and wide-scale regional
nature, is beyond the scope of analysis required for any single project.
This problem presently is being investigated in detail primarily by the
EPA's Office of Research and Development using a multidisciplinary team
of researchers.
(7) Fugitive emissions, if controlled as outlined in the Draft EIS, should
have minimal health and welfare effects on local residents. Most of the
fugitive emissions will occur on-site, with very little dispersion to
residential areas. In addition, fugitive dust emissions consist mostly of
particles larger than 10 microns in diameter, and it is the much smaller
particles (i.e., from combustion sources) that can be breathed easily
into the lungs and contribute most to adverse health effects.
(8) While the term "soil" probably is not as precise as it could be, the
important point is that "fugitive dust" is uncontaminated by pollutants
resulting from industrial activity, and that it may include emissions
from haul roads, wind erosion of exposed soil surfaces and soil storage
piles, and other mining and reclamation activities in which earth is
either removed, stored, transported, or redistributed.
(9) TMPA Intends to salvage as much of the cleared timber and brush as is
possible. Markets (e.g., firewood) for the higher quality timber are
being explored and some of the residual brush and wood debris will be
used to provide shelters and escape cover for wildlife. Although no
specific plans now exist to chip and store the remaining wood debris,
TMPA proposes to consider this option during the clearing operations. If
burning does occur, permits will be required from the Texas Air Control
Board. No use of herbicides and other biocides currently is anticipated.
(10) TMPA has committed to meeting all requirements of the Mining Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA). The MSHA identification number is 41-02847.
No other program Is available that addresses occupational hazards and
safety precautions.
(11) To our knowledge, a programmatic EIS has not been prepared that addresses
potential cumulative Impacts of planned lignite-fired power plants and
5-34
-------
associated lignite development in this region. Because of the enormous
complexity of the problem in accurately determining long-term cumulative
effects of lignite development, very little quantitative work has been
performed in Texas or throughout the US. A number of qualitative areawide
studies (EISs) have been performed by several Federal agencies (e.g.,
Department of Interior and Development of Energy in connection with
developing coal/lignite on Federal lands primarily in the west.
Specifically in Texas and the surrounding States, several studies as
discussed in Section 3.7 "Cumulative Impact Considerations" of the Draft
EIS (Radian 1978, 1979; Texas Energy Advisory Council 1979; Texas House
of Representatives 1978; Ozarks Regional Commission 1979; and Committee
on Health and Ecological Effects of Increased Coal Utilization 1977a,
1977b) have been performed to establish a framework for assessing
cumulative impacts. EPA Region 6 also is conducting an areawide study of
lignite/coal development in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New
Mexico. The overall objective of the study is to develop an environmental
database that can be used by EPA and other regulatory/resource agencies
to evaluate future coal development projects within their jurisdiction.
It is intended to provide a means to (1) systematically screen new coal
development proposals in the context of sensitive environmental
resources, (2) determine the need for and scope of regional and/or
site-specific EIDs or EISs (3) alert permit applicants early as to areas
of concern that may require special emphasis, and (4) provide needed key
sources of available information or special studies. The study also will
serve to alert decisionmakers as to the potential for and nature of
cumulative effects from multiple coal development projects.
5-35
-------
june 3, 1980
Wr. C£Lnton B, Spotty,
£cLc.
conc-entratLonA. (Pag&A. i/L and uLL) . A Lino, the. mUced owe.rburd.erL
wLtt have, a de.fLnLte, effect on. tfie water quatLty. of the. proposed
VI-LLLLcjan Xahe. Proj.ex^t, whLch &houJLd have. prec.edenc.e-. 3 am Ln com-
plete agreement wLth the. tette.r dated. 17 Vlay. 1979 to CtLnton B.
Spotty, from Arthur 2. j5e/iy.A, ChLe.f Crvg.Ln.e-e.rL/vg. 2LvL&Lon, Sort Worth
ZL{k.trLc.tt VS-COC (AppendLx. C) "...and poLnt 4ourc.es idL&charge. of
ac-Ld waAtewate-r from the. -LLgnLte. project, area would affect the. wate.r
quasLLty. of the mu£.tLpf.e. purpose. J!]LLLL
-------
tyr. CJtLnton B. Spotty.
~2-
JJu/te 3, 1980
4. Pag.e 98, SLnc-e. UTflPA '•&. 400 1JW p-tant haA. fLve. -fcImeA aA mucA.
thorLum and uranLum, oa woAX. aA. unknown cx>nc,eJitra.;tLoni>. of -iJ^ort-
£.Lved radon, and d&caif. product*. emLtsLLng. from the.Lr proposed. pLant
c,ompa.red -to the. annual. cmtiMon. e*pec.-tet new 1 f 000 11W
c.oaJL fLrod. fxower p-tant, and aA th*L& L&. a new p-tant not. an o-td oae,
they. -tihou-td have. 4.trLc,te.r emL^t-Lon cxtntro-C*.. Uh-Q.ro. 4h.0u.-t-d bo. dome
t.Qjihsvo-togjj. a.vaL&a.b-Le. to ctt-t down on -t/vcA em-La^-Lon.
5. UtyP A -(JriousLd be re/juLred -to comp-de/te -t/ie -bJurvey. on. -fcA.e dotuu—
merited artog.L.0
If'. Q-Lou/-iJzL
4131 BeXKeJL
ttou&ton, UescaA. 77092
W$$:j.dg.
5-37
-------
Response to Comments From W. J. Glowski,
Houston TX (3 June 1980)
Your concern regarding use of randomly mixed overburden is vali£. The
Office of Surface Mining expressed similar concerns and we refer you. to
comment and response #3 of their letter.
Construction and location of the Millican Lake Project currently is
tentative, and is estimated at 12 to 15 years in the future. If the
reservoir project is constructed, the State (TDWR) and EPA will
reevaluate water quality standards for the impounded water, pursuant to
the requirements of the Clean Water Act. If the mining operation is still
active, the NPDES discharge permits will be modified accordingly and
water discharged from the mining areas would be expected to meet all
prescribed effluent limits. In the absence of the Millican Dam Project,
the applicant still must comply with surface mining permit provisions as
well as any provisions associated with the pending NPDES permit.
Compliance with these permits will help to protect the existing as well
as future surface water resources. There is potential for adverse impact
after mining ceases if reclamation and handling of acid-forming materials
are ineffective.
Currently, project activities (primarily construction of sedimentation
ponds) within the first 5-year permit area are being reviewed relative to
Section 404 permit requirements. Future mining adjacent to the Navasota
River and at the confluence of the Navasota River and Gibbons Creek
indicate that dredge and fill activities will occur in wetlands and
likely will require individual Section 404 permits from the COE. The
permits are required before construction. Exhibits B and C in the Final
EIS show the Corps' 404 jurisdictional boundaries relative to the 30-year
mining plan and first 5-year permit area, respectively. A general
wetlands impact analysis in comparison to Section 404(b)(1) guidelines
also is presented in Appendix D of the Final EIS.
Comment noted; currently there are not plans to monitor uranium and
thorium.
The lignite being transported from the mine to the Gibbons Creek steam
electric plant already has a high moisture content, therefore, the
lignite loading and transport is expected to be an insignificant source
of fugitive dust emissions. The physical movement of the transport trucks
on the haul roads will be the most significant source of fugitive dust.
Dust controls, as discussed in the EIS, will be used to reduce these dust
emissions. Also, a conveyor system now is proposed in combination with
haul trucks, thus further reducing fugitive dust emissions.
5-38
-------
A comparison of radioactive emissions from the Gibbons Creek lignite
project, not TMPA's 400 MW power plant, was made with a coal-fired power
plant to obtain an indication of the magnitude of these emissions
relative to those of a known facility type. A comparison was not made of
the radioactive emissions from the Gibbons Creek lignite project
with those of a comparable coal mining facility (because no data were
available). Only more efficient control of emissions of lignite dust
could result in a decrease in the amount of emissions of these
radioactive elements. The applicant is proposing to use best available
technology (BAT) to control fugitive emissions.
All three documented sites in the reservoir area have been tested. None
was found to meet the National Register criteria by TMPA's
archaeological consultants. A final report will be required for
concurrence by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). A
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between EPA, SHPO, and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation, and concurred on by TMPA, has been developed to
provide that cultural resources throughout the 30-year project area will
be properly surveyed, tested, and mitigated where necessary (pursuant to
36 CFR 800). Measures for protection of any archaeological or historical
resources discovered during raining also are provided.'
Uranium analyses were performed on two core samples (composite CB1 and
CB2). Analytical data presented by the applicant for consideration was
minimal. Generally, lignite in this area has very low, background level,
traces of uranium which should pose no serious health or environmental
problems.
Your comment is valid. Present plans are based on mining and recovering
the most economic lignite seams (generally 3 feet thick or more). As
stated in the Draft EIS there are other beds which may or may not be
mined depending on their quality and quantity (economic feasibility).
The use of dragline, loader, dozer, and truck operations will allow for
some flexibility in making short-term field decisions to recover or spoil
a subeconomic lignite deposit. A report by the Paul Weir Co. (1977)
entitled, Lignite Resource and Quality Evaluation Report for the Gibbons
Creek Steam Electric Station," has been unavailable for review. This
report likely provides more details relative to the extent of lignite
deposits and the possible feasibility of mining previously disregarded
submarginal deposits. If recovery of these seams proves feasible, it is
likely that some additional equipment purchases will be necessary.
5-39
-------
UNITED STATES DEPAR •
-------
Response to Comment From US Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Survey, Rock-
ville MP (23 May 1980)
(1) There are no geodetic control survey monuments in the Gibbons Creek
lignite project area which will be disturbed by the proposed mining
activities. If additional lignite reserves are located which require such
removal, adequate notice will be provided to the NOS office for
consideration.
5-41
-------
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
SWDPL-R
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MAIN TOWER BUILDING. 1200 MAIN STREET
DALLAS. TEXAS 75202
2 2 MAY
1330
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts / .'
Regional EIS Coordinator '
EPA, Region 6
1201 Elm Street * ¦ * '
First International Bldg.
Dallas, TX 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
We have reviewed EPA's Draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning the
proposed Gibbons Creek Lignite Project in Grimes County, TX, and have the fol-
lowing comments:
a. The project location is confined mostly to the Gibbons Creek area in
the Navasota River watershed, extended northeastward from the Navasota River
at a point approximately 3 river miles upstream from the authorized Millican
Damsite. Approximately two-thirds of the lignite project area is located
within the authorized Millican Lake guide taking line.
b. The Corps is investigating alternative plans for water resource devel-
opment in the Navasota River watershed that would replace Millican Lake as the
current authorized project and be compatible with the mining of all lignite in
the Gibbons Creek lignite project area.
c. The US Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged and
fill material into waters of the United States, including their adjacent wet-
lands. It appears the proposed mining project will involve such discharges,
particularly in a marshland adjacent to the Navasota River just north of its
confluence with Gibbons Creek. Inclosed is an application form and a pamphlet
with detailed Instructions for completing the application. Authorization for
mining activities in wetlands must be obtained prior to commencement of such
activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments.
Sincerely,
2 Incl
As stated
JARRY Of. ROUGHT, /.E.
Chief, Planning Eavision
5-42
-------
Responses to Comments From Department of
the Army, Southwestern Division, Corps
of Engineers, Dallas TX (22 May 1980)
(1) Comments noted. No response necessary by EPA.
(2) In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and
the Corps of Engineers (COE) concerning geographical jurisdiction of the
Section 404 program, the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 6
specifically has requested that the Corps, as a cooperating agency,
determine the jurisdictional limits of Section 404 for the Gibbons Creek
Lignite Project. On 27 October 1980, a report was made available to EPA
that defined the extent of waters of the United States including adjacent
wetlands as identified by the COE in the 30-year project area (see
Appendix D). The total area within the Corps' jurisdiction is shown in
Exhibit B. Based on this wetlands designation, the applicability of
Section 404 permits (individual and nationwide) is being determined for
construction of sedimentation ponds in the first 5-year permit area.
Subsequent mine plans also will affect wetland areas within the Corps'
404 jurisdiction. The permit applicant is expected to apply for any
applicable 404 permit prior to any disturbance in these areas.
5-43
-------
Tl.XAS DI.I'AR I MI-N I' Ol WATI-IK KISOliKCI S
17(H) N. < vss Avcini'.-
Austin, Ti-xiis
rrxAs WATKR oevf.i.opmi-nt hoard
A. L. lilack, Chairman
John H. Garrett, Vict Chairman
George W. McClcskey
Glen E. Roncy
W. O. Bankston
Lonnie A. "Bo" Pilgrim
V fr
*..."0
Haivrv l);ivis
Li.sccutivc Director
May 22, 1980
Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director
Governor's Budget S Planning Office
Executive Office Building
411 West 13th Street
Austin, Texas 78701
I I XAS WA I I-K COMMISSION
!• cl i \ iVU I . < !li.-i iriiuji
I )
-------
Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery
May 22, 1980
Page 2
we offer the following clarification regarding the extent of our actual
and potential conmitments.
TDWR notes the following special conditions and limitations' adopted by
the project applicants and the authors of the DEIS, reflecting current
uncertainties in project development:
(1) While the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project site includes a total
area of about 27,500 acres, only about 10,300 acres will be mined
during the 30-year life of the project, in order to mine a total of
100 million tons of lignite, at an average annual rate of 3 million tons.
However, detailed planning has been completed by the applicant, TMPA,
only for the first five years (i.e., 1982-1987) of the proposed 30-year
(i.e., 1982-2012) operation; and, current permit actions, including the
new source NPDES permit are restricted to the initial five-year operation
phase. (Reference: DEIS, p. ii, and Table 11.) During this initial
five-year phase, an estimated area of only 2,762 acres will be mined.
(Reference: DEIS, p. 15.)
(2) The DEIS emphasizes that "subsequent mining phases have been
described in preliminary fashion," and that the "30-year plan is subject
to continuous revisions designed to optimize project economics; to avoid
sensitive areas defined by this EIS or other sources; and, to incorporate
advanced mining techniques." In addition, it is emphasized thai" "the
mining plan will be finalized according to project phase, as represented
by applications for Federal and/or State mining permits." (Reference:
DEIS, pp. ii and 12.)
(3) The DEIS emphasizes that the proposed reclamation plans "will remain
flexible and will be developed for each five-year mining area... based
on natural topography and vegetation, landowner preference, and the
specific characteristics of the overburden in a given area." (DEIS,
p. v.)
(4) The DEIS anticipates that the applicant is "expected to have
varying degrees of success in recovery of lignite fuel resources, the
planned mitigative measures to protect environmental quality during
mining, and the desired land reclamation and revegetation." (DEIS,
p. vi.)
(5) The DEIS emphasizes that the focus and subject of the referenced
DEIS is the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project only, pointing out that an
Environmental Assessment Report (EAR), and a subsequent Negative Declara-'
tion and Environmental Appraisal was submitted previously for the
Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station (GCSES). However, selected
aspects of the GCSES were considered in the evaluation of the mining
operation to ensure a complete account of potential impacts. (DEIS,
p. 2.)
5-45
-------
Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery
May 22, 1980
Page 3
In the light of the above-listed constraints, ^nd the extensive mitigative
and monitoring measures proposed in the DEIS relative to use of interceptor
sedimentation ponds (pp. iii, vii, viii, ix); pollution controls (pp. 18,
et seq); and, liydrologic and water quality monitoring plans (pp. iii, ix,
x, 22, et seq), TDWR offers the following views regarding each of TDWR's
actual or potential permitting commitments regarding the Gibbons Creek
Project:
a. Review of Proposed USEPA New SourceNPDES Permit: TDWR concurs
in principle with USEPA's proposed issuance of the NPDES permit (sub-
stantially as shown in Appendix F) to TMPA for the periodic di scharge of
effluent from site sedimentation and/or water quality control ponds
of the surface drainage control system, associated with the initial
five-year phase of mining activity at the Gibbons Creek Lignite Mine.
(Table 7, and p. 2.) TDWR foresees no obstacles at this time to the*
expeditious favorable review of the final NPDES permit when it is
forvjarded by USEPA for our review. As indicated on page 73 of the
DEIS, with the view of expediting the review process on the said waste
discharge permit, TDWR advised the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC)
in letter of February 6, 1980 (containing our review comments on TMPA's
application to RRC for a regular mining permit (RRC Docket Mo. 026)) that
use of the liners to seal the proposed sedimentation ponds (DEIS, pp. viii
and 67) probably would not be needed if the liquid discharge from these
ponds: (1) complies with the pollutant limitations stipulated in federal
regulations, 40 CFR Part 434 (USEPA: Coal Mining Point Source Category);
(2) complies with TDWR Rules 156.19.15.001—009, regarding hazardous
metals, and (3) has a low concentration of total dissolved solids (i.e.,
1000 milligrams per liter, or less). In the said February 6, 1980
letter we indicated, and we now reaffirm, that storm water runoff from
undisturbed mine land areas need not be regulated; however, the above-
listed three criteria should be considered in the pending RRC mining
permit insofar as other surface water discharges are concerned.
b. Issuance of a State Water Quality Waste Control. Order: The prepara-
tion of federal NPDES discharge permit and of the corresponding State
discharge permit (or waste control order) is closely coordinated between
USEPA and the State so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of agency effort
and loss of time. Essentially, both permits are based on the effluent
standards stipulated in federal regulations, 40 CFR Part 434. Therefore,
based on our concurrence in principle with the NPDES permit, TDWR
foresees no obstacle to an equally expeditious action on the State dis-
charge permit.
c. Water Use Permit: We understand that the water to be used for equip-
ment washing (10,000 gallons per day), dust control (160,000 gallons per
day), fire control, and revegetation during reclamation will be diverted
from mine pits that will capture ground water and/or diffused surface water.
5-46
-------
Mr. Paul T. Wroteribery
May 22, 1980
Page 4
(DEIS, pp. 16-17.) In addition, we note that some of the 11 sedimenta-
tion ponds may remain as permanent stock ponds, or as water quality
control ponds for up to two years after mining operations are completed.
(DEIS, p. 112.) These contemplated water uses do not require a water
use permit from the TDWR. A permit will not be required for the sedimenta-
tion ponds as long as their normal individual operating capacities do
not exceed 200 acre-feet of water. However, any dams associated with
the ponds must be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance
with acceptable engineering standards and applicable laws. On August
1, 1977, TMPA was issued a permit to appropriate water from Gibbons
Creek in connection with the Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station (GCSES)
project. (DEIS, pp. 58, 65, 86.) Hence, no major water rights problems
are currently involved or foreseen with regard to the GCSES project, or
the initial five-year phase of the Gibbons Creek Lignite Mine (GCLM).
project.
d. Approval of Levee Construction Projects: In reviewing the applica-
tion for a mining permit, submitted by TMPA to RRC on June 7, 1979,
TDWR determined that proposed levee construction projects resulting
in changes to floodwater flows of Gibbons Creek, would require plan
approval by TDWR under the provisions of Section 16.238 of the Texas
Water Code.
e. Solid Waste Disposal Permit: As indicated on page 21 and in Table
11 of the DEIS, TMPA's final plan for the disposal of solid wastes to
be generated by the Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station (GCSES) (i.e.,
bottom ash, fly ash, and flue gas desulfurization sludge) is being
developed by TMPA, and will be submitted by TMPA to TDWR with an applica-
tion for an industrial solid waste disposal permit, pursuant to TDWR
Rules 156.22.01.001-.014. Special cognizance already has been taken
by all concerned of the fact that the characteristics of the flue gas
desulfurization sludge, which may have to be placed in mine pit disposal
areas, cannot be determined precisely until Gibbons Creek lignite is
burned in quantities sufficient to permit more thorough tenting and
analysis of its chemical composition and stability. The potential magni-
tude of the waste disposal requirement is significant. The DEIS (pp.
165 and 167) indicates that an estimated 3,000,000 tons of lignite per
year will be mined and burned as fuel in the GCSES during the 30-year
project life, totalling approximately 90% of the estimated 99,985,000
tons of recoverable lignite within the Gibbons Creek reserve.
2. Reference: Appendix F, Proposed New Source' MPDES Permit,
and Table II-2, page F-IO.
^art_III-B,
In the interest of meeting practical field and operational needs, TDWR
suggests that the captioned tabulation of the locations of the sedimenta-
tion pond discharge points (water quality sampling points), the receiving
5-47
-------
Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery
Hay 22, 1980
Page 5
waterways, and the subsequent flow patterns should be supplemented by a
map showing an accurate plot of these essential locations and data.
3. Reference: Appendix F, Part III, pages F-9 and F-10; Appendix E:
and page 57.
In the interest of consistency, TDWR agrees in principle with the views
of the Corps of Engineers, as expressed in letter dated. May 17, 1979,
to USEPA (see DEIS, Appendix E) indicating that if current investigations
for alternative sites for the authorized Millican Lake project conclude
that the optimum, recommended site is at or below the confluence of
Navasota River and Gibbons Creek, then any point source discharge of
aeid wastewater from the lignite mine project area would affect the
water quality of the proposed multiple-purpose Millican Lake project.
Therefore, the Corps of Engineers suggests that a permit issued for1 point
source wastewater discharge from TMPA's Gibbons Creek Project should
be conditioned to preclude pollutants discharging into a future Millican
Lake. In view of the foregoing Corps of Engineer's suggestion, TDWR
recommends that Part III of the proposed New Source MPDES penn:i t for the
initial five-year phase of mining operations, and future New Source
NPDES permits for subsequent five-year increments of operation, contain
a specific provision under Part III of the permit, regarding the protection
of Millican Lake from mine acid wastes.
TDWR appreciated the opportunity to participate in the interagency review of
the referenced comprehensive DEIS on the vital Gibbons Creek Project. We find
that the DEIS adequately fulfills the analytical, coordinative, and assessment
purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. We will continue
to work closely with all agencies concerned in order to ensure that timely
expeditious action, consistent with applicable laws and regulations, is taken
on project matters referred to this Department, within the purview of the
Department's statutory statewide responsibilities and functions relative to
water resources planning, development, and regulation, including water supply
and quality, liquid and solid waste disposal, water rights, flood control and
drainage. Therefore, please advise if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Ilarvey Davis
Executive Director
6 con't.
7
5-48
-------
Responses to Comments From Texas
Department of Water Resources,
Austin TX (22 May 1980)
(1) Comment noted. No response is necessary by EPA.
(2) Comment noted. No response is necessary by EPA.
(3) Comment noted. No response is necessary by EPA.
(4) Permit provision No. 31, which was established by the Texas Railroad
Commission in the interim surface mining permit for the Gibbons Creek
lignite project, states:
The permittee shall obtain written verification from
the Director of the Surface Mining and Reclamation
Division that any diversion, dam, embankment, pond
or impoundment complies with the Division's "Rules"
prior to construction. To verify compliance the
permittee shall submit final plans and
specifications detailing for each facility:
(a) The design basis and capacity;
(b) construction and maintenance methods; and
(c) appropriate profiles, and cross-sections.
The permittee shall submit data, drawings, plans,
written discussion, or other relevant information
demonstrating compliance with Rule .342(d) for
permanent diversions and restored stream channels
and Rule .347 for permanent and temporary
impoundments.
These plans and specifications likewise will be submitted to the TDWR for
review and approval under the provisions of Section 26.238 of the Texas
Water Code.
(5) Registration will be sought from the TDWR for specific industrial solid
waste management sites to serve the mine area (and power plant). The
application for an industrial solid waste disposal permit pursuant to
TDWR rules 156.22.01.001-.014 will be submitted for review about
mid-1981.
(6) Comment noted. Inclusion of the suggested map in the NPDES permit will be
considered.
(7) Comment noted. Suggested provision under Part III of the NPDES permit
will be considered at the appropriate time. In subsequent correspondence
(letter file, 1980) the TDWR determined it was premature to add a
provision regarding the proposed Millican Lake at this time.
5-50
-------
Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department
COMMISSIONERS
PERRY R.BASS
Chairman, Fqrt Worth
JAMES R. PAXTON
Vice-Chairman, Palestine
PEARCE JOHNSON
Austin
May 20, 1980
CHARLES D. TRAVIS
EXECUTIVE DinECTOH
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, I cxas 78744
COMMISSIONERS
JOE K. PULTON
Lubbock
EDWIN L. COX, JR.
Dallas
RECEIVED
W. B. OSBORN, JR.
anta Elona
MAY
21 1980
Budget/running
Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director
Governor's Budget and Planning Office
411 West 13th Street
Austin, Texas 78701
Attention: General Government Section
Re: Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
Grimes County, Texas
Dear Mr. Wrotenbery:
This agency has reviewed the above-referenced document and offers
the following comments.
Numerous statements are made in the document concerning the areas
affected and the resulting impacts caused during the first 5-year
mining period. Since the project is scheduled for 30 years, each
reference to the 5-year mining impacts should also state the total
areas to be impacted during the entire 30-year mining period.
A reference is made on page 126 that the Texas Municipal Power
Agency received technical guidance and recommendations from this
agency relative to feasible mitigation measures that could be im-
plemented into the project. However, the document should also
state which, if any, recommendation would be utilized during pro-
ject construction and reclamation.
Section 3.5: IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS
This Section indicates that the net decline in wildlife population,
caused by the project, will be minimized by the planting of Bermuda
grass and reforestation (pine trees) efforts during reclamation.
5-51
-------
Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director
Page Two
May 20, 1980
3 con't
The utilization of native grasses and woody plants, stated in this
agency's letter on page D-44 and D-45, would provide a more suit-
able habitat and would lessen the net decline in wildlife population.
I appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this document.
Sincerely,
Am
CHARLES D. TRAVIS
Executive Director
CDT:RWS:nw
5-52
-------
Responses to Comments From the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, Austin TX (20 May 1980)
(1) The Final EIS has been revised to identify to a larger extent the natural
and man-made resources that will be affected throughout the project area
(i.e., the 30-year mining area and beyond) as well as the potential
environmental impacts that may occur to these resources over the full
lifespan of the project. Agreeably, more definitive analyses were
possible for the first 5-year permit area because more information was
available for this area (e.g., specific locations for mining, size and
location of water control ponds, reclamation plans, and post-mining land
uses, etc.). Although conceptual 30-year mining and reclamation plans
have been prepared by the permit applicant and discussed in the EIS, no
detailed plans are available at this time. More detailed raining plans and
specifications as well as on-going research efforts will be developed in
accordance with all laws and regulations that are applicable at that
time. Further, these plans must be approved and permits granted before
any subsequent mining activities commence (i.e., beyond first 5-year
permit area).
(2) It is unknown to what extent applicant will utilize all recommendations
regarding fish and wildlife mitigation except where there are specific
permit provisions. Specific measures/techniques which may be used have
been identified and are incorporated in this Final EIS. By letter, the
applicant has proposed to reestablish any wetland areas that are affected
and has outlined a plan for restoration of wetlands (see Appendix D). The
mining permit also may address (via provisions) some specific measures
for protecting wetlands.
(3) The statement referenced has been revised. We believe a land use change
1 to monoculture bermuda pasture would adversely affect certain populations
of wildlife. The applicant proposes to utilize native grasses and woody
plants wherever required to benefit wildlife. During these efforts, TMPA
Intends to follow the guidelines set forth by the TPWD, USFWS, and the
Navasota Soil and Water Conservation District.
Where a post-mining land use change occurs, such as from grazinglands to
improved bermuda pasturelands, the applicant is required to include in
the mining permit application detailed mitigation measures to reduce
adverse impacts on fish and wildlife. Mitigation plans are expected to be
proposed over the course of the project in cooperation with appropriate
resource agencies.
5-53
-------
United States Soil p. o. Box 648
Department of Conservation Temple, TX
Agriculture Service 765Q1 '
May 19, 1980
Mrs. Adlene Harrison
Regional Administrator (6A)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
Dear Mrs. Harrison:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the proposed
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project, Grimes County, Texas, and have the following
comments for your consideration:
Page 40 - Soils of the Project Area, second paragraph, third sentence -
Statement concerning alfisols is in error. "Alfisols have base
saturation greater than 35 percent" is a true statement. The
addition of "but less than 50 percent" is in error.
Page 41 - Second paragraph, first sentence - Reference is made to "Falba-Loma-
Axtell Shallow Variant Association." This must have come from very
old reference materials. Axtell variant or Loma soils don't occur
on the detailed map that was included in this report.
s
Inconsistency is noted on Tuscumbia soils. Tuscumbia has clay loam
surface and clay below. The clay below wasn't listed (word omitted).
However, the Tuscumbia soils do not occur on the permit area that
was mapped.
| Figure 20 - Soil map is not legible.
j Table 18 - Straber loamy fine sand should be Straber variant, loamy find sand.
I It does not qualify as prime farmland.
Page 46 - First paragraph, last sentence, and second paragraph, first sentence
State "It is assumed" that reclamation procedures will be redesigned
upon failure and TMPA will be sensitive to implementation of surface
mine regulations. Suggest deleting the wording "It is assumed."
Pages 51-53 - Discussion in this section is centered on the premise that the
spoil materials are mixed thoroughly and uniformly from top to bottom
In actual mining, this Is not the case. The overburden materials
are removed by 78 cubic yard buckets and are dumped. Data is noted
that some layers are very acidic (cores 3534EE and 3636VG). If 78
cubic yards of this kind of material is dumped on the surface, there
will be the problem of revegetation. When these acidic layers are
mixed in the laboratory, the alkaline layers neutralize the acidic
5-54
-------
Mrs. Adlene Harrison
May 19, 1980
2
layer arid plants can grow.
The mixed overburden material is stated to be high in basic cations
and phosphorus. I question if these are available to plants or if
they will only become available after weathering and time.
This section also points out how the soil permeability is improved
by the mining operation, by laboratory methods. We question the
feasibility of using lab data here. Mine spoil areas have lost all
the natural soil pores and cleavage lines that occur in natural soils
This makes the spoil areas rather impermeable to water penetration
after it is wet thoroughly in the field. This condition with the
absence of any soil organic matter sheds water rather well and may
result in severe sheet and rill erosion.
Page 55 - Prime or Unique Farmlands - Straber soils meet the requirements for
prime farmland soils.
We appreciate the opportunity of reviewing this draft environmental impact
statement.
Sinrprpl \r
(L t—
George C. Marks
State Conservationist
5-55
-------
Responses to Comments From the US Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Temple TX (19 May 1980)
(1) Comment noted.
(2) This discussion was based on a study by Brown and Deuel in 1977. No
specific reference was provided in that report for the source of the
soils association map. Revised information has been incorporated into
this Final EIS and essentially replaces the previous soils information. A
revised soils map (Exhibit A) also is included in the Final EIS.
(3) An updated and revised soils map is included (Exhibit A) in the Final
EIS.
(4) Comment noted. Table 18 has been revised and updated.
(5) Comment noted. Text has been changed accordingly.
(6) This problem is recognized. To minimize revegetation problems, the
applicant proposes to identify and segregate as much carbonaceous and
acid-forming material during mining as possible, however, a detail plan
has not been made available. The most recent report by Brown (1980)
states that random spoiling will result in a complex pattern of textures
on the surface. A variety of layers are recommended for segregation and
burial in the pit, e.g., low water retention layers, highly alkaline
layers, low pH layers, layers with salts, etc., which indicate there are
important qualifications for successful revegetation particularly using
the proposed method of reclamation. Currently, potentially harmful
material is to be buried
below the reclaimed
surface. The extent of success in segregating acid or toxic-forming
materials and other potentially harmful layers during mining will have a
direct influence on reestablishing vegetation in selected project areas
after mining.
The surface material will be analyzed for acid-producing potential and
neutralized by the application of lime as appropriate at the time of
initial fertilization.
(7) Brown and Deuel (1980) indicate that the phosphorus content of the
general overburden material is highly variable. In all cases they suggest
that phosphorus content be determined so that the proper amount can be
added as fertilizer if necessary. It appears it will be necessary to
systematically test for phosphorus content especially during the initial
(8) We share the concern regarding use of only laboratory data to determine
permeability. Other testing has been recommended in the Final EIS.
(9) The section on "Prime and Unique Farmlands" has been revised to reflect
new soils information.
5-56
-------
Texas Department of Health
Robert Bernstein, M.D., F.A.C.P. 1100 West 49th Street A. M. Donnell, Jr., M.D., M.P.H.. F.A.C.P.
Commissioner Austin, Texas 78756 Deputy Commissioner
(512)458-7111
^ »
I '), l-C ^ | ¦§' ^
iir. Paul T. V'rct.enbc rv Director f
C "4 ^
Governor's 3u' to the
| loss of ag.ri cul tural land (which is i! ' scussoc; -bel ow) cor 5 d 1 f f rc.i.
the proposed Project,. Should additional exsrs-io;.. t i on of the '.'"tat ' . -'.-r.!.
reveal other possible : tens of adverse public or env.i ron-ior-ta 1 '! ea it:,
concerns, v.'e w j 11 so advise r.z- scon as poss i bl e-.
The loss of productive agricultural lands to surf are minie;. or <¦•!:.) ei:
nonagricu 11ura 1 development !i?s r.he potent ial for. conr'ribut ii^ to ?
2 serious lon^-ran^e public health problem. Tie cumulative effect of the
conversion of agricultural lands to nona^ric.u 1 tura 1 uses will ulti-
mately result in reduced agricultural productivity wh ic.h in turn wi 11
5-58
-------
Mr. Paul T. l.'rotenbery
Page Two
Hay 19, 19G0
have adverse effects on pu';1. !.c health. V'c arc pleased th«t con-
sideration l;as been g.ive.n in the Sta ter 'ent (pa;_.c: vi ) to the .serious
long-ran^e^publ :.c; ] <• .n 111 ¦ issue of tl'.e loss of / loiuc L j. ve r ; cu 1 t u r.? 1
lands. i!owever t it .is rec.ort'enued that sue?' cons i('erst I.or !..c e;'.l.ended
beyond the first f 1 vc*-ye*i r :>crn.j t area .*>t t.l is Lj :i>c—that •' r,, det. a i. 1 ed
assessiient of the possible loss of p r i :i>e a^ricul t ural v?: rlii n the
total 10,300 acre, area for the entire 30 year period should be
accomplished at this time.
Enclosed for your information is a copy of a document entitled
and Environmental Health Irr.p.l i'cet'i ons of Surface i' ini r.<," v.l :e.h nutl.ir.es
the overall concerns and responsibilities of the Tex.-'s i.oj arttw-nt oF
Health regarding, surface mining.
We appreciate the opportunity to review arid cowment on the subject
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project ?tater.:ent.
Since rely ,
Vj • i\ • I i I £. i U | J I • j
deputy Con.r;i \ s s i one r for Knvi ron-ertnl
and Consumer Health Protecton
HLJ/dbs
Enclcsure
ccs: Bureau of Slaf.e Health Plann.' ny
and Resource "eve 1 opr.ient, TIM!
Pulilie Health region 0, TDK
Division of Water Hygiene, TDK
(
n
5-59
-------
Responses to Comments From Texas Department
of Health, Austin TX (19 May 1980)
(1) Comment noted; no response necessary by EPA.
(2) The reduction and/or loss of prime agricultural land (i.e., prime
farmlands) will be evaluated as permitting proceeds. Public Law 95-87 and
the resulting permanent Federal regulations require that the SCS evaluate
soils for prime farmland status; the crop history of the land also is
reviewed by the regulatory agency. If crop production has occurred during
5 of the last 10 years, the land is designated by the regulatory agency
as prime which results in conditions being applied during mining
and reclamation.
Further, the interim surface mining operation permit granted by the Texas
Railroad Commission under the interim regulatory program, contains
specific provisions to minimize potential impacts to any prime
agricultural lands. They are as follows:
Soils resource information of the total permit area shall
be submitted to the Director of the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Division prior to opening the initial box cut
(see Rule .134).
and,
The permittee shall segregate, protect and replace the
topsoil on the approximately 22 acres described in its
testimony as prime farmland until such time as further
documentation is provided by TMPA, accepted in writing
as sufficient by the Director of the Surface Mining
and Reclamation Division, which demonstrates that the
resulting soil medium is equal to or more suitable for
sustaining revegetation than the existing topsoil.
(3) Comments noted; no response necessary by EPA.
5-60
-------
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
This response does not constitute
Council comment pursuant to
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act nor Section 2(b)
of Executive Order 11593.
1522 K Street. NW
Washington, DC 20005
Reply to:
Lake Plaza South, Suite 616
44 Union Boulevard
Lakewood, 00-80-220,
May l6, 1980
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator "x. 1 ¦ 1
Environmental Protection Agency V . " '
First International Building 'X;- • ; •;
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
On April 21, 1980, the Council received your draft environmental
statement (DES) for the proposed Gibbons Creek Lignite Project in
Grimes County, Texas. Having reviewed the document, we have determined
that, pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 and the Council's regulations, "Protection of
Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), your DES does not
indicate compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. Sec. hJOf, as amended, 90 Stat. 1320). To this
end, your DES must demonstrate that either of the following conditions
exist:
1. No properties included in or that may be eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places are located within the area of
environmental impact, and that this undertaking will not affect any
such property. In making this determination, the Council requires
evidence that you have consulted the latest edition of the National
Register (see Federal Register, March 18, 1900, and its monthly
supplements). Furthermore, your environmental statement must demonstrate
an effort to ensure the identification of all properties within the
area of impact that are eligible for inclusion in the National
Register. This effort focuses upon a complete survey for cultural
properties within the area of environmental impact and evidence of
contact with the State Historic Preservation Officer. The SHP0 for
Texas is Mr. Truett Latimer, whose comments should be included in the
final environmental statement.
2. Properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register are located within the area of environmental impact, and the
undertaking will or will not affect any such property. In cases where
there will be an effect, the final environmental statement should
contain evidence of compliance with Section 106 in accordance with the
Council's regulations.
5-61
-------
Page 2
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
May 16, 1980
The Council notes (page 136 of the DES) that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has indicated an interest in developing a
Memorandum of Agreement with regard to continued cultural resource
investigations within the project area. Should this be the case EPA,
pursuant to Section 800.13(b), should submit a Preliminary Case Report
to the Council and a proposal for the development of such an agreement
in accordance with Section 800.6(c). A copy of the Council's regulations
is enclosed for your convenience.
Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please do
not hesitate to contact Charles'M. Niquette of the Council staff at
(303) 23k-h9k6, an FTS number.
stern Division
of Project Review
Enclosure
5-62
-------
Responses to Comments From the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, Lakewood
CO (16 May 1980)
At present no National Register sites are located within the project
boundaries (based on review of Federal Register, 18 March 1980; and
monthly supplements to 4 November 1980). Two adjacent sites are believed
eligible for the National Register: Kellum Springs (41GM78) and Piedmont
Springs (41GM44). Nomination forms for determinations of eligibility for
these sites are being completed by TAMU. Both of these sites will not be
directly impacted by mining, but are believed worthy of protection as
they may be indirectly impacted (by letter, Dr. LaVerne Herrington, Texas
Historical Commission, to Mr. Dean Matthews, TMPA, 8 April 1980). Only a
portion of the project area has been completely inventoried and, while
sites were found, no sites of National Register eligibility
were located in this area. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between EPA,
SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has been
developed to ensure adequate identification, protection, and/or
mitigation of cultural resources for the 30-year project area.
Even though the first 5-year permit area has been completely surveyed and
no sites of potential National Register eligibility were identified, EPA
recognizes that there may be eligible sites in the unsurveyed portions of
the project area. For this reason, EPA has made an Adverse Effect
Determination pursuant to 36 CFR 8003(6) and has entered into a formal
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the SHPO and the Advisory Council to
ensure adequate protection of cultural resources in accordance with 36
CFR 800.6(c).
5-63
-------
Hay 5, 1980
Hr. CJinton B. SpoCts
Regional E1S Coordinator
Keginn 6
1201 Elm Street
First Internal Building
Dallas, Texas 75270
Gentleoen;
For years we had In our lake an amerlcan alligator approximately
10 feet long. He would roan between our two lakes and the Goodwin»Baker
lake. Three years ago, he was last Been In the Goodwin-Baker lake.
This was the last tine anyone saw hlo.
Best regards.
Ln 1.. K. Fuller
I
on
cc: Dean Mathews
TWA
000 AtliiiKton Downs Tower
Arlington, Texas 76011
Response to Comments From Mr. L> E. Fuller <5 Hay 1980)
(1) The comment is noted. He appreciate the update on the information we had
regarding an alligator in the project area. If this area is mined it
would result in the elimination of the habitat for this Individual. The
animal could possibly relocate to another pond on the site. No other
siting reports of alligators have been received*
-------
j-i'' ¦ Silver Spring, Haryland 20910 R32
May 15, 1980
TO: PP/EC - Joyce Uood
FROM: RD/R32 - Isaac Van der Hoven
SUBJECT: ConDent9 on DEIS 8004.22 - Cibbons Creek Lignite Project
The 15 percent frequency of "calm" as shown In the annual wind rose
presented in figure 35 Is suspect. The Climatic Atlas of the United States
(U.S. Dept. of Couroerce, ESSA, 1974), based on ten years of hourly obser-
vations. shows the following annual frequency of calm for cities surrounding
the site:
Houston IX
Dallas 2%
San Antonio 3Z
Shreveport 4%
The measurement of the frequency of calms is strongly a function of the
"starting speed" of the anemometer (wind speed and direction instrument).
Since Air Force bases are primarily interested in high wind speeds, the instru-
mentation is often of the more rugged type having starting speeds on the order
of 3 mph or more. This would mean that a wind of at leaBt 3 mph would have to
occur if any speed Is to be registered. The frequency of calms and its use
in the STAR program (Appendix Table C-6) needs to be explained since in the
commonly-used Gaussian diffusion model* concentrations downwind are Inversely
proportional to the wind speed.
Responses to Comments From US Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Environmental Research Laboratories,
Silver Springs MP (15 May 19B0)
Although the 15X frequency of "calm" might be somewhat high due to the
Air Force anemometer* It can not be directly compared to the annual
frequency of calm for cities surrounding the site all of which have much
higher prevailing wind 6peeds. An on-site meteorological monitoring study
performed In the City of Austin for the Fayette Power Project also showed
a 15Z frequency of "calm". Figure 35 was Included to depict the general
wind flow patterns in the area, and was not utilised in determining the
maximum monthly dustfall rates. These rates are based on the particle
fallout rate (for an assumed worst case "0" stability), the distance from
the facility, and a conservative maximum monthly prevailing wind
direction (from the south) of 41.4Z.
-------
commission " STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS engineerowecior
, r..„ ANU PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ^*bj*rv
PrWiTl C C«t£B Xl'STfN. 1KXAS WW
04* a BAHNMAOf
May 16, 1980
LM REPiV REFER TO
«LE NO
Draft Environmental Statement
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
Crimes County
Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director
Governor's Budget and Planning Office
Attention: General Government Section
4IL West 13th Street
Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Sir:
Your memorandum dated April 30, 1980 solicited our covncnts regarding the
draft environmental statement covering the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
In Grimes County.
Ui
I
On
On
Currently, grade separations are being constructed over the mine haul roads
on S.H. 30 and F.K. ?&4V and reconstruction work is being done on S.H. 30
between Carlos and the Walker County Lino, and on F.H. 244 between Carlos
and S.ll, 90. These projects nlong with other recently completed work on
S.H, 30 and F.M. 244 should adequately provide highway facilities during
the construction and mining period. Provisions for the overpasses over
the haul roads were covered by agreements between the State and Texas
Municipal Fower Agency.
It is noted that mining operations arc not anticipated to cause relocation
of State highways during the first five years of the lignite project. The
E1S further acknowledges that proper arrangements will be made If highway
relocations ultimately become necessary. Although the Department avoids
relocation of Its highways unless Improved locations are available to
better serve communities and the traveling public, the Department extends
its cooperation should negotiations for possible relocations become necessary
in the future.
Sincerely yours,
B. L. DeBerry
Response to Comments From State Department
of Highways and Public Transportation,
Austin TX (16 May 1980)
(1) CoooentB noted. No response Is necessary by EPA.
-------
DEPARTMENT Of HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
FORT WORTH REO'ONAl OFfICE
331 WtST LANCASTER AVENUE
P.O. SOX 7909
FORT WORTH. TEXAS 76113
IN REPLV REFER TO:
Hay 16, 1980
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts, Regional CIS Coordinator
Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Gibbons Greek Lignite Project,
Grimes Count/* Texas, has been reviewed in the Department of Housing and
Urban Development's Dallas Area Office and Fort Worth Regional Office, and
it has been determined that the department vill not have comments on the
1T*
statement. .»-•*. *
\"
' Sincerely, '
CJv !;
Billy G. HcKenzie * 1 . .. )
Acting Regional Director for t ./*
Community Planning and Development •./, .; C\''
*V-' •' /"> » \ O
ARKA OFFICES
Response to Comments From Department of Housing
and Urban Development» Fort Worth TX
U6 Hay 19807
(I) Commute noted* No response Is necessary by EPA.
-------
. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
rCOCKAl. HMHWAY NDWNItrRNTIOH
an rcDcnAL oFrrcc quiloing
AUSTIN. TEXAS TiTOl
Hay 1, 1980
m kit acni to
HB-TX
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
Grimes County, Texas
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
First International Building
Dallas, Texas 75270
Attention: Hr. Clinton B. Spotts
Dear Sir:
He have reviewed the subject document and have no connents to offer. It
is our understanding that the State Department of Highways and Public
Transportation Is reviewing the document and will provide appropriate
comments on the Impact of the action on the highway environment.
Sincerely yours.
J A*
JdhnE. 1nab(net
/District Engineer
SB
Response to Comments by US Department of Transportation.
Federal Highway Adolnlstratlon, Austin TX
(1 Hay 19807
(1) Cocmaents noted. No response 1b necessary by EPA.
-------
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
WASHINGTON 20426
IN REPLY nerEH TOI
April 30, 1980
Ms. Adlene Harrison
Environmental Protection Agency
.1 20J Plm Ptrr»et
Dallas. Texas 75270
Dear 11s. Harrison:
I am replying to your request of April 7, 1980 to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Gibbons Creek Lignite
Project in Texas. This Draft E1S has been reviewed by appro-
priate FERC staff components upon whose evaluation this response
is based.
The staff concentrates its review of other agencies' environ-
mental impact statements basically on those areas of the electric
power, natural gas, and oil pipeline industries for which the Com-
mission has jurisdiction by law, or where staff has special experti
in evaluating environmental impacts involved with the proposed
action. It does not appear hat there would be any significant
impacts in these areas of concern nor serious conflicts with this
agency's responsibilities should this action be undertaken.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement.
Sincerely,
(jlack M. Heinemann
Advisor on Environmental Quality
Response to Comments From the Federal
Energy Reftulatory Commission. Washington DC
(30 April 1980)
(1) Comments noted. No response Is necessary by EPA.
-------
Summary of Comments by Mr. A. G. Allen, Jr. at the
Public Hearing on the Draft EIS, Anderson TX (10 June 1980)
Mr<, Allen stated that he did not understand the Environmental Impact Statement
and stated that people did not know what they were getting into with this
projecto Further discussion with Mr. Allen disclosed that he felt the EIS did
not identify the problem people would face if the land was reclaimed without
replacing topsoil. Mr. Allen stated 12 inches of topsoil should be replaced
and he did not agree with the plan to reclaim the area to coastal bermuda
after mining. He felt that to properly maintain the land would require
additional water and fertilizer (more than pre-mining).
EPA Response
The development of alternate methods for handling and reclaiming soil and
overburden will reveal that vegetative mediums with less risk for failure may
be available. It also is likely that revegetation with coastal bermudagrass
almost exclusively following mining will require a highly intensive
maintenance program. These circumstances and resulting potential adverse
effects are addressed in the Final EIS.
5-70
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, H» G. 1974. Woody vegetation of Che lower Nuvasotn River watershed*
Texas A&M University, CotLege Station TX, 80p*
An^el, Patrick Nicholas. 1973, A soli analysis of the strip nine spoil
bank at Fairfield, Texas* Stephen P. Austin State University.
Atlee, U.A., W. C. Elslk, D. E. Frazier, nnd R* P. ZlnguLa, R. P. 1968.
Envlrunntents of deposition, Wilcox Group, Texas Gulf Coast. Houston
Cool. Soc., FLeld Trip Guidebook, 43 p.
Raker, E. T., Jr., C. R. Follett, 0. D, McAdoo, and C* W. Bonnet* 1974.
Ground water resources of Grioea County, Texas. Prepared by the U.S.
Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the Texas Water
Development Board. Austin TX, 109p.
Bamltisel, Richard I. 1977* Reclamation of surface nine coal spoils.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati OH, 67p*
Bass-Becking, L. C. H., I. R. Kaplan, and D. Moore, i960. Llraits of the
natural environment In terns of pH and oxidation-reduction potentials*
Jour. Ceolngy, v. 68, p. 243-284.
Bebont, D. C., P. E. Luttrell, and J. H. Seo. 1976. Regional Tertiary
Co cro6S sections - Texas CulE Coast. Bureau of Economic Geology, the
Y* University of Texas. Austin TX, 9p.
Bernard, H. A., R. J. LeBlanc, and C. F. Major* 1962. Recent and pleistocene
geology of southeast Texas. Geology of the Gulf Coast and Central
¦Texas and Guidebook of Excursions. Houston Geol. Soc. Ann. Meeting Geol.
Soc. America and Associated Societies, Houston TX, p. 175-224.
Blair, W. F. 1950* The biotic provinces of Texas* Texas J. Sclen.,
2:93-l17m.
Bond, Clell L. 1977. An archaeological assessment of the Bryan lignite
project. Anthropological Research Laboratories, Texas A&M University,
College Station TX. Report No, 36* March. 77pp.
Boydston, G. and F. Harwell* 1980, A look at the harvest • • * Seasons past.
Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin TX. 38:18-23.
Brazos River Authority of Texas. 1977. (Draft) 208 water quality management
plan for the Brasos Basin and adjacent coastal areas. Volume l. Prepared
for the Texas Department of Water Resources. 122p.
Brazos River Authority of Texas and the Texas Department of Water Resources.
1978. 208 water quality mnagement plan for the Brazos Basin and adjacent
coastal areas. Volune II plus appendices. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 687p.
Brazos Valley Audubon Society. Undated. Checklist of birds for Brazos anrl
adjacent counties. lp. mlneo.
Brazos Valley Development CounclL. 1978. OveralL economic development
program 1978. OEDP Committee Working Copy. Bryan TX, 123pp.
®riS8s» Gary. 1973. Diffusion estimation for small enlssions. Unpublished
manuscript, draft No. 79* Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion
Laboratory. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Oak
Ridge TN.
Brown, L. F., Jr. 1969. Geometry and distribution of fluvial and deltaic
sandstones (Pennsylvanlan and Permian), north-central Texas* Gulf
Coast Assoc. Geol* Socs. Trans., v. 19, p. 23-47.
Brown, K* W* and L. E» Deuel. 1977. The suitability of overburden as a
medium for plant growth and characteristics of existing coils at
the proposed mine area in Crimes County Texas A&M Research Foundation
and the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 64p.
Brown, K. W. and L* P, Wilding. 1979. Characterization and classification
of the soils on the THPA mine site in Grimes County, Texas. Variously
paginated.
Brown, K. W* 1980. Characterization and classification of the soils on the
THPA mine site in Grimes County, Texas. [Represents updated and revised
version of Brown and Wilding (1979) report]. March 1980. Prepared for
THPA. Texas A&M University, College Station TX, variously paginated.
Brown, K* W. and L. E* Deuel. 1980. Final report - analysis and characteri-
zation of overburden material from the GibbonB Creek lignite deposit.
Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency. Texas A&M University,
College Station TX*
Brown, K* W. and Morrlson-Knudsen Company, Inc. 1980. Evaluation of reclama-
tion costs for Gibbons Creek Lignite Hine, Grimes County, Texas.
Prepared for THPA. 2 Hay 1980*
Brown, K. W. and J. C. Thomas. 1980. Progress report - to THPA on the field
demonstration of the potential for reclamation of mixed overburden from
the proposed Grimes County mine site (covering period from 1 Hay to 30
June 1980). Texas A&M University, College Station TX.
Brown, K. W* et al* 1979 (revised September 1980). Interim report on the
reclamation of the Singleton teat pit on the THPA lignite base in Grimes
County, Texas. Texas A&M University, College Station TX.
Hryson, Hoy Lee. 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.
Bureau of Business Research* 1976. Atlas of Texas. University of Texns at
Austin, Bureau of Business Research, Austin TX.
Uureau of Economic Geology. 1976. Energy resources of Texas. The University
of Texas at Austin. Austin TX.
Cain, B. W. 1973. Biological inventory, fauna. Ln: R. W. Hann, Jr*
Environmental Studies, Lower Navasota River. Texas A&M University
Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Cairns, Jr., J., K. L. Dickson, and E. E. Herricks (editors). 1975. Recovery
and restoration of damaged ecosystems. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on the Recovery of Damaged Ecosystems. Charlottesville VA,
53 lp.
Capps, R. C. 1966. The characteristics of the woody vegetation on three
soiLs in Brazos County, Texas. M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M University,
College Station TX, 96p.
Carr, J. T., Jr. 1967. The climate and physiography of Texas. Texas Water
Devel. Board Rept* Inv* 53, 35p.
Carroll, D. 1958. The role of clay minerals In the transpoitatloi: of iron.
Gcochim, et Cosmochira. Acta, v. 14, p. J-27.
-------
Carter, Ralph P. et al. 1977. Reclamation. Prepared for the Committee
on Health and Ecological Effects of Increased Coal Utilization.
Washington DC, 63p.
Carucclo, Frank T., John C. Bern, John Home, Gwendelyn Geldel and Bruce
Bnganz. 1977. Paleoenvironoent of coal and Its relation to drainage
quality. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Cincinnati OH, I18p.
Chalekode, P. K. and T. R. Blackwood. 1978. Source assessment: coal
refuse piles, abandoned, nines and outcrops. Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati OH, 51p.
Clark, W. J. 1973. The ecology of the Navasota River, Texas. Texas
A&M University, Water Resources Institute. College Station TX, 276p.
Cloud, Thomas J. 1978. Texas lignite: environmental planning opportuni-
ties Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Fort
Worth TX, I5p.
Coiner, A. R., and M. E. Hinkle. 1947. The role of micro-organisms in acid
mine drainage: a preliminary report. Science, v. 106, p. 253-256.
Committee on Health and Environmental Effects of Increased Coal Utilization.
1977a. Report of the Cocimlttcc on health and environmental effects of
increased coal utilization. Washington DC, 21p.
Committe on Health and Ecological Effects of Increased Coal Utilization.
1977b. Agenda and transmittal memo for report of fundings. lOp.
CP
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. 1978.
ho
Cooper, B. S., and D. G. Murchison. 1969. Organic geochemistry of coalv J_n
Egllnton, G., and Murphy, H. T. J., ed. Organic geochemistry, methods
and results: Berlin, Sprlnger-Verlag, p. 699-726.
Correll, S. D. and H. C. Johnston. 1970. Hanual of the vascular plants of
Texas. Texas Research Foundation, Renner.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1978. Final regulations for Implementation
of the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.
AO CFR Chapter V. PartB 1500 - 1508.
Ctimning, K. G., and D. M. Hill. 1971. Stream faunal recovery after manganese
strip mine reclamation. Environ. Protection Agency, Water Pollution
Control Res. Ser. 18050-DOH 06/71, 36p.
Curtis, W. R. 1972. Chemical changes In streamflow following surface mining
in eastern Kentucky. ^In Fourth Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage
Research. Monroevllle PA.
Czapowskyl, H. M. 1976. Annotated bibliography on the ecology and reclama-
tion of drastically disturbed areas* USDA For. Scrv. General Tech.
Rep. NE-21, 98p.
Darnell, R. N. 1976. Impacts of construction actlvltls on wetlands In the
United States. EPA 600/3-76-045.
Davis. W. B. 1966. The mammals of Texas. TP&W Bull* No. 41.
Down, C. G. and J. Stocks. 1977. Environmental impact of mining.
Halstead Press. New York NY.
Elslk, W. C. 1978. Palynology of Culf Coast lignites: the stratlgraphlc
framework and deposltlonal environments. In Kaiser, U. R., ed.,
Proc. 1976 Gulf Coast Lignite Conference: Univ. Texas, Austin. Bur.
Econ. Geology. Austin TX.
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 1978. Assessment of selected
O.S.H. Proposed final reclamation regulations. Prepared for the
U.S. Department of Energy. Arlington VA, I58p.
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. 1976. Ecological baseline survey and
Impact assessment of the Bryan lignite project site. Prepared for
Technckron Energy Resource Analysts Corporation. Berkeley CA,
variously paged, 49p.
Fisher, W. L. 1963. Lignites of the Texas Culf Coastal Plain: Univ. Texas
Bur. Econ. Geology Rept. Inv. 50, 164p.
1978. Texas energy reserves and resources. Bureau of Economic
Geology, the University of Texas. Austin TX, 30p.
1968. Variations in lignite of fluvial, deltaic, and lagoonal
systems, Wilcox Group (Eocene) Texas (abs.): Geol. Soc. America Ann.
Mtg. Program with Abstracts, p. 97.
Fisher, W. L., C. V. Proctor, Jr., W. E. Galloway, and J. S. Nagle, 1970.
Deposltlonal systems in the Jackson Group of Texas; their relationship
to oil, gas, and uranium. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. Trans, v. 20,
p. 234-261.
Fisher, W. L., and J. H. McGowen. 1967. Deposltlonal systems in the Wilcox
Group of Texas and their relationship to the occurrence of oil and gas.
Culf Const Assoc. Geol. Socs. Trans., v. 17, p. 105-125.
Fletcher, Charles S. 1979. Gibbons Creek Lignite Project. Survey and
appraisal of cultural resources in the first five-year mining area.
Cultural Resources Laboratory, Texas A&H University. College
Station TX. 78pp.
Frazlcr, David E. 1974. Deposltional-eplsodes: their relationship to the
quaternary stratlgraphlc framework in the northwestern portion of the
gulf basin. Bureau of Economic Geology, the University of Texas.
Austin TX, 28p.
Kreesc and Nichols Consulting Engineers. 1976. Gibbons Creek reservoir
water quaLlty study. Fort Worth TX, 19p. plus appendices.
. 1976b. Texas Municipal Power Agency — Bryan Lignite Project:
Gibbons Creek Reservoir water quality study. Prepared for Texas
Municipal Power Agency, Fort Worth TX, 19p. plus appendices.
. 1979. Proposed surface water monitoring plan. Fort Worth
TX, I sheet.
Friedman, Gerald M. and John E. Sanders. 1978. Principles of sedlmentology
John WfJey & Sons. New York NY, 792p.
C.illnhcr, W. G. 1974. A llcmologlcal Investigation of the relationship
between.the Navasota River, Texas, and a selected floodplaln. Texas
A&M University Ph.D. Dissertation, I78p.
Gammon, J. R. 1970. The effect of inorganic sediment on strenm biota.
Environ. Protection Agency, Water Pollution Control Res. Scr. 18050-DWC
12/70, 141 p.
-------
Carrels, R. M., and H. E. Thompson. I960. Oxidation of pyrlte by Iron
sulfate solutions: Amcr. Jour. Science, v. 258, p. 57-67.
Gavande, Sam. 1977. Developing reclamation plan for proposed surface mined
lands of Texas* Radian Corporation, Austin TX.
Georgia Surface Mined Land Use Board. 1971. Symposium proceedings:
rehabilitation of drastically disturbed surface mined lands. Macon GA,
129p. plus appendix.
Gould, F. U. 1975. Texas plants - a checklist and ecological summary.
Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. MP-585/Revlsed.
Governor's Energy Advisory Council. 1977. Policy position on selected
energy issues of the Governor's Energy Advisory Council, Austin TX.
Graves, F. M., H. P. Bretsch, F. A. Glover, C. A. Miller, and M. E. Berger.
1977. Energy, public choices and environmental data needs. US Dept.
Inter., Fish and Wildl. Serv., FWS/OBS-77/04, 67p.
Grin, Elmore C. and Ronald D. Hill. 1974. Environmental protection in
surface mining of coal. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Cincinnati OH, 29ip.
Groat, C. G. 1974. Inventory and environmental effects of surface mining
in Texas: preliminary report. Univ. Texas at Austin, Bur. Econ.
Geology, Austin TX, 16p.
Grubb, Herbert W. 1977. Structure of the Texas economy. Vol. 2, Draft
Final Report. Department of Water Resources. Austin TX.
W
H- Hann, R. W. 1971. Environmental study: Navasota River Watershed. Final
I Report, Vol. I, Texas A&M Univ., College Station TX.
OJ
Harner, D., K. Holland, S. James, J. Lacy, and J. Norton. 1978. Environ-*
mental overview of Texas lignite development. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington DC, 235p.
Ilartman, Howard L. (Editor). 1969. Case studies of surface mining. Pro-
ceedings of the li International Surface Mining Conference, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, September 18-20, 1968. The American Institute of Mining,
Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc. New York NY, 322p.
Hearing F.xaminer Report. 1980. Examiner's report and proposal for decision
regarding application of Texas Municipal Power Agency for a lignite
surface raining operation permit (Docket No, 026). Austin TX.
Henry, C. D. 1976. Land resources inventory of lignite stripminlng areas,
East Texas - An application of environmental geology. Univ. Texns at
Austin, Bur. Econ. Geology, Geological Clrc. 76-2, 28p.
Henry, C. D., W. R. Kaiser, and C. G. Groat. 1976. Reclamation at Big Brown
Steam Electric Station near Fairfield, Texas: geologic and Itydrologlc
setting. Univ. Texas at Austin, Bur. Econ. Geology, Res. Note 3, lOp.
Hill, R. D. 1969. Reclamation and revegetatlon of 640 acres of surface
mines, Eikins, West Virginia. Pages 4I7-45U In Geology and Reclamation
of Devastated Land. Gordon and Breach Publishing Company, New York.
Hill, Ronald D. and Edward P. Bates. 1977. Health and ecological effects
of Increased coal utilization. Prepared for the Committee Health and
Ecological Effects of Increased Coal Utilization. Washington DC, 42p.
Hill, R. and Grim. 1975. I_n K. L." Dickson and E. E. Herrlcks, Recovery
and restoration of damaged ecosystems. Proc. Intl. Symp. Recovery
Damaged ecosystems. Charlottesville VA, 53lpp.
Hoffman, W. H,, Jr. 1976. Water for lignite development in Texas. Texas
Water Dev. Board, Austin TX. Unpubl. Rep.
Holloway, M. 1977. Texas energy outlook: the next quarter century. The
Governor's Energy Advisory Counc., Austin TX, 167p.
Holm, M. 1975. A preliminary study of biological assemblages of east Texas
lignite belt. Univ. Texas at Austin, Bur. Econ. Geology, Res. Note 1,
23p.
Holzworth, G. C. 1972. Mixing heights, wind speeds, and potential for
urban air pollution throughout the contiguous United States. EPA,
Research Triangle Park NC.
1974. Meteorological episodes of slowest dilution In the
contiguous United States. EPA-650/4-74-002. Washington DC.
Hons, F. M., P. E. Askenasy, L. R. Hossner, and K. L. Whiteley. 1978.
Physical and chemical properties of lignite soli material as it
influences successful revegetatlon. pp 209-217. ^In W. R. Kaiser
(Editor). Proceed. Gulf Coast Lignite Conference: Geology, Utilization
and Environmental Aspects. Sponsored by Bureau of Economic Geology,
The University of Texas at Austin; U.S. ERDA, NSFRAMM.
Hubbs, C. 1957. Distributional patterns of Texas freshwater fishes.
S. W. Nat. 2(23):89-104.
Ippollto, John E. 1979. The Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station Project:
An archaeological test and survey supplement. Anthropology Laboratory,
Texas A 6 M University. College Station TX. 60pp.
James, W. P., J. F. Slowey, R. L. Garrett, C. Ortiz, J. Bight, and T. King.
1976. Potential impact of the development of lignite reserves on water
resources of east Texas. Texas A&M University, Texas Water Resources
institute. Rep. TR-78, 179p.
Johnston, J. E. 1977. Deposltional systems in the Wilcox Group and Carrlzo
Formation (Eocene) of Central and South Texas and their relationship
to the occurrence of lignite. Univ. Texas, Austin, M.A. Thesis, 113p.
Jones, J. K., Jr., D. C. Carter, and H. H. Genoways. 1973. Checklist of
North American Mammals North of Mexico. Occasional Paper No. 12.
The Museum, Texas Tech. University. l^pp.
Jordan, T. G. 1969. Population origins in Texas, 1850. Geograph. Rev. 59,
83-103.
Jutze, George and Kenneth Axetell. 1974. Investigation of fugitive dust:
Volume 1 - sources, emissions and controls. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park NC, 88p.
Kaiser, W. R., and C. G. Groat. 1973. Lignite geology, mining, and reclama-
tion at Big Brown Steam plant near Fairfield, Texas. Univ. Texas,
Bur. Econ. Geology, 24p.
Kaiser, W. R. 1974a. Arkansas-Texas economic geology field trip, Feb. 23
and 24, 1974. Arkansas Geological Commission, 47p.
1974b. Texas lignite: near-surface and deep-basin resources.
Univ. Texas, Austin, Bur. Econ. Geology Rept. lnv. 79. Austin TX,
7 Op.
1976. Calvert Bluff (Wilcox Group) sedimentation and the
occurrence of lignite al Alcoa and Butler, Texas. Univ. Texas, Austin,
Bur. F.con. Geology Res. Note 2. Austin TX, lOp.
-------
Kaiser, *?. ft. (Editor). 1973. -?,srocce 19p.
Kaiser, W, R. et al. 1980. Lignite resources in Texas. Report of
Investtfiattons No. 104, Bureau of Econonic Geology, Univ. of Texas
at Austin, Austin TX, 52pp.
Karublan, John F. 1974*. Polluted groundwater: estimating the effects
of man's activities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Las Vegas
NV, I39p.
Kath>irla, 0. Vir, Michael A. Nawrocki, and Burton C. Becher. 1976.
Effectiveness of surface mine sedimentation ponds* Prepared for U.S.
Knvlronmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati OH, 109p.
Knapp, F. f. 1953. Fishes found in the freshvatr3 of Texas. Ragland
Studio and Litho Printing Co., Brunswick GA} 166p.
Ko^hi, P. T. 1957, An evaluation of foroge production, vegetatlonal
composition, tree growth, and physical charactristlcs of soils under
varying densities of Oakland uoodlan'd overstory. Ph.D. Theslo,
Texas A&H University. College Station T-'i, U6p.
W
H*
I
Lowe, R. L. 1974. Environmental requirements and pollution tolerance of
freshwater diatoms. NT1S No. PB-239490.
Lower Colorado River Authority. 1977. Environmental Assessment of the
Fayette Power Pro,)ect.
: * 197B- (fciarterly Data Report No. 2, Fayette Power Project Air
Monitoring System.
Mali loch, J. L., D. E. Everett, and M. J. Bartos, Jr. 1976. Pollutant
potential of raw and chemically fixed hazardous industrial wastes and
flue gas desulfurlzatlon sludges. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Cincinnati OH, H7p.
Mathcwson, C. C. 1977. Stratigraphic analysis and engineering geologic
analysis, THPA Fuel Deposit, Crimes County, Texas. Prepared for Paul
Weir Company.
• 1978. Groundwater and hydrology and their impact on mining.
Proceedings of the Gulf Coast Lignite Conference, May 1978. pp. 59-67.
Mathewson, Christopher C. and Dr. Kirk W. Brown. 1979. The impact of sur-
face lignite mining on surface and groundwater quality (Draft). Prepared
for the Center for F.nergy and Mineral Resources, Tex,is ASM University.
Mathewson, Christopher C. and Mary A. Bishop. 1979. Geology of the Gibbons
Creek lignite deposit, Manning member (Jackson Group), Grimes County,
Texas. Claiborne sediments of the Brazos Valley, southeast., Texas.
Kuhn> J. K., L. 3. Kohlenberger, and N. F. Shioip. 1973. Comparison of
oxidation and reduction methods In the determination of forms of
sulfur in coal: Illinois Ceol. Survey, Environmental Geology
Nn t e s 66, 11p.
LCL Limited - U.S., Inc. !976. Preliminary biological field investiga-
tions for Bryan lignite project. Prepared for Teknetron Energy
Resource Analysts Corporation. Berkeley CA» 24p.
Mathewpon. Christopher C.. Jamej: L. Kennedy, and Gaii L*. repper. uo date.
(Abstract) Hydrogeology"or reclaimed gulf cosat lignite raines, Texas
A£M Univernity. College Station T£, ip.
HcCarleys W. H. 1954a. The ecological distribution of the Peromyscus
leucopvs specieo group in eastern Texes* Ecology 35:375-379.
. 1954b. 'fluctuations and structure of Peromyscus gossypinus
populations in eastern Texas. 0* Mamnol. 35:526-532.
Moore, R. and T» M. Hittman. 1977. An environmental guide to western
surface mining part two: Impacts, mitigation and monitoring. Prepared
for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FHS/OBS-78/CA,
Mountain West Research, Inc. 1975. Construction worker profile, suamary
report. Prepared for the Old West Regional Commission. Washington DC.
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. 1977. Occupational
safety and health implications of incrensed coal utilization. Prepared
for the Committee on Health and Ecological Effects of Increased Coal -
Utilization. Washington DC, 44p,
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. Undated. Wind Direction by .
Pasquill Stability Classes (STAR Program}. Descriptive Document.
National Climatic Center, Ashevllie N(J.
. 1971. Climatological summary: College Station TX.
1973. Climates of the United States. U.S. Department of
Commerce. Asheville NC.
1975. Local Clictatological Data. Environmental Data Service.
National Climatic Center. Ashcvllle NC.
Norwlne, .1. 1977. Twentieth-century semi-arid and sublumid climates of
Texas and northeastern Mexico. International Conference on the
Meteorology of Semi-Arid Zones, Tel Aviv, Israel.
National Weather Service. ¦ 1973. Climatography of Texas. National Weather
Service. Austin TX.
Orton, Robert. No date. Climatography of Texas. National Weather Service.
Austin TX.
Ozarks Regional Commission. 1979. Environmental implications of lignite
development - final report. Synergic Resources Corporations. Little
Rock AR. 12pp.
Parker, Frank L. 1977. Thermal pollution consequences of the Implementation
of the President's energy message on increased coal utilization. Prepared
for the committee on Health and Ecological, Effects of Increased Coal
Utilization. Washington DC. 38p.
Pasquill, F. 1961. The estimation of the dispersion of windborne materials.
The Meteorological Magazine. February, 1961.
PattaroKzl, Michael, B. A. 1975. Economic and environmental aspects of
lignite Htrip mining, Bastrop County, Texas. Thesis, Presented to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin.
Austin TX.
Paul Weir Company. 1977. Mining study and cost estimates. Texas Municipal
Power Authority. Clbbons Creek (Revision No. 1).
-------
. 1979. Surface coal mining permit application for the Gibbons
Creek lignite project. Grimes County, Texas. Prepared for Texas
Municipal Power Agency for submission to Che Texas Railroad Commission.
Submitted on 7 June 1979. Chicago 1L.
Pennington, D. 1978. Hydrogeologlc factors which influence the reclamation
of LLgnlte mines, pp 218-227. J_n W. R. Kaiser (Ed) Proceed. Gulf Coast
Lignite Conference: Geology, Utilisation and Environmental Aspects*
Sponsored by Bureau of Economic Geology, the University of Texas at
Austin; U.S. ERDA; NSFRAMM.
Peterson, R. L. 1950. Amphibians and reptiles of Brazos County, Texas.
Amer. Midi. Mat. 43(1):157-164.
Peterson, R. T. 1963. A field guide to the birds of Texas. Houghton
Mifflin, Boston MA.
PIass, William T. Unpublished manuscript. Changes in water chemistry
resulting from surface mining coal on four West Virginia watersheds.
U.S. Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station,
Princeton WVt
R. W. Beck and Associates. 1975. Preliminary power supply study. Pre-
pared for the Texas Municipal Power Agency. Waco TX, 37p« plus
appendices.
Radian Corporation. 1978. Environmental overview of Texas lignite
development. Interagency Energy-Environmental Research and Develop-
ment Program Report. EPA-600/7078-003. Austin TX.
td . 1978. Integrated assessment of Texas lignite development,
^ summary report. Prepared for Texas Energy Advisory Council. 39p.
Ui
Radley, M. A. 1979. Gibbons Creek Lignite Project sedimentation pond
storage. Fort Worth TX, 2p.
Radley, K. A. and R. A. Thompson, 111. 1978. Planning of surface drainage
control for lignite mining areas in the southern United States.
Prepared for American Geophysical Union. San Francisco CA, 17p.
Ralston, S., D. Hllbert, 0. Swift, 8. Carlson, and L. Mengles. 1977. The
ecological effects of coal strip mining: a bibliography with abstracts.
U.S. Dept. later.. Fish and Wlldl. Scrv., FVS/OBS-77/09, 4l6p.
Rare Plant Study Center. 1974. Rare and endangered plants native to Texas
(3rd ed.)» Univ. Texas Rare Plant Study Center, Austin TX.
Raun, C. C., and F. R. Gehlbach. 1972. Amphibians and reptiles In Texas.
Dal* Mus. Nat. Hist* Bull. No. 2.
Rawson, Jack. 1967. Study and Interpretation of chemical quality of surface
waters in the Brazos River Basin, Texas. Prepared by the U.S. Geological
Survey in cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board and Che
Brazos River Authority.- 113p.
Reld, George W. and Leale E. Streebln. 1972. Evaluation of waste waters
from petroleum and coal processing. Office of Research and Monitoring,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington DC, 205p.
Relmer, R. D. and W. J. Clark. 1974. Decapod crustaceans of the Navasota
River System la Central Texas. The Southwestern Nat. 19(2):167—178.
Resource Communities, Inc. 1977. Gibbons Creek power project: socioeco-
nomic impact assessment and community programs. Prepared for the Texas
Municipal Power Agency* Arlington TX, 58p.
Richard, George and Dallas Safrlet. (977. Guideline for development of
control strategies in areas with fugitive dust problems. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park NC, 158p.
Rideout, D. 1975. A checklist of fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals
of Brazos County, Texas. Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, Austin
TX, lip.
Rozenburg, E. R. J970. The composition and distribution of the fish fauna
of the Navasota River. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&M University. College
Station TX, 121p«
Rozenburg, E. R., R. K. Strawn, and W. J. Clark. 1972. The composition and
distribution of the fish fauna of the Navasota River. Texas Water
Resources institute Tech. Rpt. No. 32, I20p.
Rusek, S. J., S. R. Archer, R. A. Wachter, and T. R. Blackwood- 1978.
Source assessment: open mining of coal. Office of Research and Develop-
ment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati OH, 67p.
RusselL Moore Ecology Conspltants, inc. and Thomas Mills Hirttman Associates,
Inc.. 1977, An environmental guide to western surface raining, part two!
Impacts, mitigation and monitoring. Performed for the Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Fort Collins CO, 482p.
Sato, M. I960. Oxidation of sulfide ore bodies, 11. Oxidation mechanisms
of sulfide minerals of 25cC: Econ. Geology, v. 55, p, 1202-1231.
Schneider, V. J. 1977. Analysis of the redensification of reclaimed surface
mined land. Unpublished masters thesis, Texas A&M University, College
Station TX.
Self, D. M. and D. R. Williamson. 1977. Trend areas and exploration
techniques. Geology of Alternate Resources in the South-Central
United States, Hlchale D. Campbell, et al., eds. Houston Geological
Society, Houston TX.
Sellards, E. I!., U. S» Adklns, and F. B. Pluamer. 1978. The geology oif
Texas, Volume 1, stratigraphy. Bureau of Economic Geology. The
University of Texas. Austin TX, 1007p.
Sheridan, David. 1978. Designating areas unsuitable for surface coal
mining: a preliminary Interpretation of section 522 of public law
95-87. U.S. Department of the Interior. 27p.
Shultz, David W. (Editor).. 1978. Land disposal of hazardous wastes.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati 0Hf A35p.
Sinclair, John. 1969. Quarrying, opencast and alluvial mining.
Elsevier Publishing ComDanv. Ltd. New York NY. 375d.
Singer, P. C. and W. Stumm. 1965. Acidic mine drainage: the ratJ
determining step: Science, v. 167, p. 1121-1123.
Shumate, Kcnesav S., E. E. Smith, Vincent T. Ricca, and Gordan M. Clark.
19 7 Resources allocation to optimize mining pollution control.
OCCice of Kesoarch and Development, U.S. F„nvlronmenta 1 Protection
Agency. Cincinnati OH, 493p.
-------
Smelns, S. E. 1973. Biological Inventory, flora and vegetation. In:
R, W. Hann, Jr. Environmental Studies, Lower Navasota River. Texas
A&M University Report to US Army Corps of Engineers.
V
Smith, J. W., and B. D. Batts. 1974. the distribution and lsotopic com-
position of sulfur In coal:. Geochio. et Cosmochlm. Acta, v. 36,
p. 121-133.
Smith, Richard M., Andrew A. Sobeck, Thomas Arhle, Jr., John C. Soncidiver,
and John R. Freeman. 1976. Extensive overburden potentials for soli
and water quality. Prepared for U.U. Environmental Protection Agency.
Cincinnati OH, 329p.
Society for American Archaeology. No date. Archaeology and archaeological
resources: A guide for those planning to use, affect, or alter the
land's surface. Washington DC, 24p.
Soil Conservation Service* 1971. General soil map Crimes County, Texas*
US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Temple TX.
Spauldlng, U. M., Jr., and R. D. Ogden. 1968. Effects of surface mining
on the fish and wildlife resources of the United States. US Dept.
Inter., Bur. Sport FlBh. and Wildl., Resour. Publ. 68, 51p.
Spore, R. L., E. A. Nephew, W. W. Lin. 1975. Costs of coal surface mining
and reclamation: A process analysis approach. Oak Ridge National
Lab., Oak Ridge TNt 15p.
State Department of Highways and Public TransportatIon. 1968. Ceneral
50 highway nap of Crimes County, Texas, revised 1979. Austin TX,
H* 1 sheet.
I
^ , 1976, Traffic map of Grimes County, Texas. Austin TX, 1 sheet
• 1977. Traffic map of Brazos County, Texas. Austin TX, 1 sheet
Sternberg, Y. M., and A. F. Agnew. 1968. Hydrology of surface mining -
a case study: Water Resources Research, v. 4, p. 363-368.
Sutton, Paul. 1973a. Reclamation of toxic strlpalne spollbanks. Ohio
Agrlc. Res. and Dev. Cent., Wooster OH. Ohio Rep. 58(1):18-20.
• 1973b. Establishment of vegetation on toxic coal mine spoils.
In Proceedings of the Res. and Appl. \Tech. Synp. Bltum. Coal Res.,
inc., Monroevllle PA, p. 153-158.
Sykorj, J. L., E. J. Smith, H. A. Shapiro, and M. Synak. 1972. Chronic
effect of ferric hydroxide on certain species of aquatic animals. J^n
Fourth symposium on coal mine drainage research, proceedings. Mellon
Institute, Pittsburgh PA, p. 347-369.
TERA Corporation. 1976a. Gibbons Creek Steam Electric station waste
disposal study. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency. Waco TX,
92p.
. 1976b. Power plant siting study - Bryan Lignite Project.
Prepared for the Texas Municipal Power Pool, Inc., Waco TX.
. 1977. Environmental assessment report: Gibbons Creek Steam
Electric Station, Crimes County, Texas. Prepared for Texas Municipal
Power Agency. Dallas TX.
. 1978. Analysis to clarify PSD air monitoring requirements for
TMPA Gibbons Creek Surface Mine. Prepared for the Texas Municipal
Power Agency. Dallas TX.
1979. Gibbons Creek lignite project: environmental assess-
ment report. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency, Arlington
TX. 3 vols. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VI, Dallas TX.
Texas A&N University. 1973.• Environmental studies, Lower Navaaota River.
Texas A6M Research Foundation, 210p.
1976. Potential impact of the development of lignite reserves
oil water resources of east Texas. Prepared for the Office of Research
and Technology. Washington DC, 179p.
1978. Impact assessment manual and regulatory procedures for
Lignite surface mining operations In Texas. College Station TX, ll3p
plus appendices.
Texas Air Control Board. 1977a. Annual data summary. Austin TX.
. 1977b. Continuous air monitoring network data summaries.
Aust in TX.
Texas Department of Water Resources - manuscript. Erosion and sedimentation
by water In Texas (draft out for review). Austin, Texas, variously paged.
Texas Department of Agriculture. 1975. Texas county statistics - 1974.
Texas Crop Reporting Services* Austin TX.
Texas Department of Water Resources. 1978. Texas surface water quality
standards (draft). I16p.
Texns Conservation Needs Committee. 1970. Conservation needs inventory,
Texas, 29 7p.
Texas Employment Commission. No date. Annual average employment by county,
1970, 1975, and 1977. Austin TX.
Texas Energy Advisory Council. 1979. Integrated assessment of Texas lignite
development. Volume I. Technical Analysis. Report No. ES-OIL Pre-
pared by Radian Corporation. Austin TX.
Texas House of Representatives. 1978. House 6tudy group special legislative
report number 28. Austin TX, 53p.
Texas Municipal Power Agency. 1978. Soll^survey of Gibbons Creek Steam-
Electric Station, initial mining and support area. 1 sheet.
• 1979. Official statement of the Texas Municipal Power Agency
relating to its $300,000,000 reserve bonds, serlcfi 1979. Underwritten
by Solomon Brotlirs; Coldman, Sachs & Co.; Merrill Lynch White Weld
Capital Markets Group; and Smith Barney, Harris Upshaos & Co. Arlington
TX, 42p. plus appendices.
TMPA. 1960. Surface coal mining permit application for the Gibbons Creek
lignite project Crimes County, Texas. Revised for submission to the
Texas Railroad Commission to obtain a permit under the permanent regula-
tory program. Submitted October 1980. (Docket 006).
• 1980a. Official Statement: Revenue Bonds, Series 1980 relating
to $250,000,000 revenue bonds. Arlington TX, variously paged.
Texas Organization for Endangered Species. 1975. Provisional list of
Texas* threatened and endangered plant species. TOES, Temple TX.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1975. Outdoor recreation In the rural
areas of Texas. Part I Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan. Austin TX.
-------
Texas Railroad Commission, 1976. Procedural and substantive rules of the
surface raining and reclamation division, general rules of practice
and procedure. Railroad Commission of Texas, Austin TX, 75p.
. 1979. Water quality data of Gibbons Creek at Sfl 39, Navasota
River at SH 30, Sand Creek at FM 3090, Unnamed Branch of Navasota
River, Rock Lake Creek at CR 192, Sulphur Creek at SH 90, and a
k Branch of Sulphur Creek from December 1977 to Hay 1979. 46 pages.
Texas Soil and Water Conservation Heeds Committee* 1970* Texas conserve-*
tlort needs Inventory. l/S Soil Conservation Service, Temple TX.
Texas Water Development Board. 1977. Continuing water resources plannLng
and development for Texas (Draft). Volumes 1 and 2. Austin TX, 1033p.
Thames, John L. Reclamation and use of disturbed land In the southwest.
The University of Arizona Press. Tucson AZ, 362p.
Truett, J. C. 1972. Ecological survey of the lignite mining area of the
Big Brown Steam Electric Station, Freestone Countyt Texas. Texas A&M
University Report Prepared for Industrial Generating Company, 103p.
Tumor, D. Bruce. 1964. A diffusion model for an urban area. Journal of
Applied Meteorology. February 1964.
IJngar, £. E., W. N. Patterson, C. L. Dym, and C. L. Galaltsls. 1975.
Noise control in surface mining facilities: Chutes and screens. Pre-
•pared for US Bureau of Mines, Washington DC, by Bolt Beranek and
Newman, inc., Cambridge HA, 152p.
—
I US Arny Corp of Engineers. I960. Review of reports on Brazos River and
tributaries, Texas, covering Navasota River watershed. US Army
Engineer Distr., Ft. Worth Serial No* 137.
1965. Review of reports on Brazos River and tributaries, Texas,
covering Navasota River watershed. US Army Engineer Dlstr., Ft. Worth,
Serial No. 140,
. 1968. Navasota River Watershed, Texas. 90th Congress, House
Document 0341, 254p.
US Bureau of the Census* 1970a. Census of Population. State of Texas.
Department of Commerce, Washington DC.
. J 979b. Census of Housing* State of Texas. Department of
Commerce, Washington DC.
. 1975. Current Population Reports. Series P-25. Department
of Commerce, Washington DC.
. 1976. Estimates of the population of counties, July 1.
J973and 1974. Current Population Reports Series P-25. No. 620.
Washington DC.
US Bureau of Mines* 1967. Surface mining and our environment. US Depart-
ment of the Interior, USGPO, Washington DC, 127p.
. 1973. Methods and costs of coal refuse disposal and reclamation*
Bureau of Mines Inf. Clrc. 8576, Washington DC, 36p.
US Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh Mining nnd Safety Research Center. 1975.
Noise control; proceedings of Bureau of Mines Technology Transfer
Seminar, Pittsburgh PA. Bureau of Mines Information Circular B686,
Pittsburgh PA, 113p,
. 1976. Mining research review, an annual review of selected
mining research activities of the Bureau of Mines. Bureau of Mines
Special Publication 5-76. Pittsburgh PA, 66p.
US Bureau of Nines. 1978. Mineral commodity summaries. US Dept. of the
Interior, Washington DC, p. 40-41.
US Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. 1971a.
The Issues related to surface mining, 92nd Congress, 1st Session.
Committee print serial 92-10. USGPO, Washington. DC, 255p.
US Department of Agriculture. 1968. Restoring surface-mined land. USDA
Misc. Publ. 1082- Washington DC, 18p.
US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1972. National
engineering handbook, section 4, hydrology. US Government Printing
Office, Washington DC, variously paged*
. 1975. Standards and specifications for soil erosion and sediment
control in developing areas. College Park MD, variously paged.
US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Horgantovn District.
1974. Erosion and sediment control handbook for urban areas. Morgan-
town WV, 154p. with appendices A-D,
US Department of Commerce. 1969. Climates of the states, Texas. US Depart-
ment of Cocnaerce, Environmental Data Service* Washington DC.
* 1973. Climates of the United States. US Department of
Coiod'Srce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington DC.
. 1976. Local clltnatologlcal data, Houston, Texas (and other
south Texas stations)—annual summary with comparative data. US
Department of Commerce, Environmental Data Service, 1976-1977.
. 1977. Cllmatologlcal data. Vol. 82, No. 13, US Department
of Commerce, Environmental Data Service, Annual Services for Texas.
US Department of Energy Leasing Policy Development Office. 1978. Federal
coal leasing and 1985 and 1990 coal production forecasts, 139p.
US Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1972. Criteria for a
recommended standard . . . occupational exposure to noise. HSM-73-11001,
1972.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1971a. Noise assessment
guidelines, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington
DC.
. 1971b. Noise abatement and control: departmental policy,
Implementation responsibilities, and standards. Circular No. 1390.2,
Revision 1. Washington DC.
US Department of the Interior. 1970. Hydrologic Influences of strip mining.
US Geological Survey Professiona1 • Paper 427, Reston VA.
US Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement. 1978a. Permanent regulatory program Implementing
section 501(b) of the surface reining control and reclamation act of
1977: Draft environmental statement. Washington DC, 296p.
_ • 1978b. Permanent regulatory program of the surface mining
control and reclamation act of 1977: Draft regulatory analysis. US
Covernment Printing Office, Washington DC, I37p^-
-------
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 1979.
Final regulations for permanent regulating program: Surface coal
mining and reclamation operations* 44 FR 50, 15311 - 15463, 13 March
1979,
US V.nvlrunmental Protection Agency. 197la. Mine spoil potentials for water
quality and controlled erosion. Water Pollution Control Research
Series Project 1401 EJE 12/71, 207p.
1971b. Community noise, US Environmental Protection Aency,
Office of Noise Abatement and Control. NTIO 300.3. Washington DC,
12/7 U
. 1971c. Transportation noise and noise from equipment powered
by internal combustion engine. NT1D 300.13. Washington DC.
. 1973a. Processes, procedures, and methods to control pollution
from mining activities* EPA-430/9-73-011. USGPO, Washington DC, 390p.
. 1973b. Groundwater pollution from subsurface excavations.
Washington DC, 236p.
. 1974a. Investigation of fugitive dust. Volume I. Sources,
Emissions and Control. Washington DC.
. 1974b. Development of emission factors for fugitive dust
sources. Washington DC.
. 1974c. Polluted groundwater: Estimating the effects of man*s
Activities. EPA-680/4-74-002. Washington DC, 99p.
, 1974d. Information on levels of environmental noise requisite
to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety,
EPA 550/9-74-004, U.S. Envlronnental Protection Agency, Office of
Noise Abatement and Control. Washington DC.
. 1974e. Levels requisite to protect the public health 6 welfare
with an adequate margin of safety. Washington DC.
. 1975a. Review of mining and mining-related environmental
Impact statements (surface coal mining section draft). Office of
Federal Activities, Washington DC, typescript, 153p.
. 1975b. Criteria for developing pollution abatement programs for
inactive and abandoned mine sites. EPA-440/9-75-008. Washington DC,
467p.
. 1975c. Federal machinery noise research, development and
demonstration: FY73-FY75. Office of Research and Development,
EPA-600/2-75-008. Washington DC.
. 1976a. Development document for Interim final effluent limita-
tions guidelines and new source performance standards for the £onl
mining point source category. Washington DC, 288p. EPA-440/l-76/057-a.
. 1976b. Quality criteria for water. Washington DC, 256p.
, 1976c. Environmental assessment of surface raining methods:
hcad-of"hollow fill and mountaLntop removal. Monthly Progress Report,
31 July 1976. Region II, Philadelphia PA, 17p.
. 1976d. Erosion and sediment control, surface mining In the
eastern United States, planning and design, EPA-625/3-76-006. USGPO
Region 5011, 238p.
. 1976e. Atmospheric pollution potential from fossil fuel resource
extraction, on-site processing, and transportation. Washington DC.
. 1977a. Compilation of air pollution emission factors. Third
Edition. (Including Supplements 108) USEPA, Washington DC.
. 1977b. Guideline for development of control strategies in
areas with fugitive dust problems. USEPA, Washington DC.
. 1977c. Fugitive dust policy: SIP's and new source review.
USEPA, Washington DC.
. 1977d. Health and environmental Impacts of increased generation
of coal ash and FCD sludges. Prepared for the Committee on Health and
Ecological Effects of Increased Coal Utilization. Washington DC, 62p.
. 1978a. Survey of fugitive dust from coal mines. USEPA,
Washington DC.
. 1978b. Draft Guidelines for determining best available
control technology (BACT). Office of Air and Waste Management, Office
of Air QmLLty Planning and Standards. USEPA, Washington DC.
« 1978c. Best available control technology analysis. USEPA,
Region VI, Dallas TX.
• 1979a. Working guidelines for preparation of environmental
Impact statements. Memorandum dated 7 March 1979 from C. B. Spotts
to KIS Preparers. USEPA Region VI, Dallas TX.
• 1979b. Effluent guidelines and standards for the coal mining
point source category: Final standards of performance for new sources.
40 CKR 434 (44 FR.No. 9, 2586 - 2592, 12 January 1979.
• 1979c. Protective noise levels, condensed version of EPA
levels document November 1979. EPA 550/9-79-100, Washington DC, 25p.
US Fish and WLldlife Service, 1974a. Threatened wildlife of the United
States. USDl Fish and Wildlife Service Res. Publ. Il4;289p.
• 1974b. United States list of endangered fauna. USDI FlBh
and Wildlife Service Publ: 22p.
• 1977. Classification of wetlands and deep^fiiter habitats of
the United States. Department of the Interior. Operational Draft.
• 1979. List of Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.
Federal Register Vol. 44 (12) Wednesday January 7, 1979.
US Geological Survey. 1967. Water resources data for Texas. 1966 2 Parts:
Part I, Surface water records; Part 2, Water quality records, Washington
• 1968. Water resources data for Texas. 1967 2 Parts: Part 1,
Surface water records; Part 2, Water quality records, Washington DC.
• 1969. Water resources data for Texas. 1968 2 Parts: Part 1,
Surface water records; Part 2, Water quality records, Washington DC.
• 1976a. Water resources data for Texas. 1975. 3 Vols.
USGA/WKD/HD-76/025, Austin TX.
• 1976b. Final environmental statement - proposed 20-year plan
of HiJnJng and reclamation. Westmoreland Resources Tract III, Crow
Indian Ceded Area, Montana. US Geological Survey. Billings MT.
-------
. 1978. USCS surface water quality data. STORET System. Station
08111000 on the Navasota River near Bryan, Texas. 4 sheets.
US Public Health Administration, Occupational Health Progran National Center
Urban and Industrial Health. 1907. A noise and hearing survey of earth-
moving equipment operators. Paul LaBeuz, SC.D., Alexander Cohen, Ph.D.
¦ind Benjamin Pearson.
University of Texas. 1968. Geologic atlas of Texas, Beaumont sheet. Austin
TX, 1 sheet.
University of Texas. 1974. Geologic atlas of Texas, Austin sheet. Austin
TX, 1 sheet.
Van Hook, R. I. 1977. Potential health and environmental effects of trace
elements and radionuclide from Increased coal utilization. Prepared
for the Committee on Health and Ecological Effects of Increased Coal
Utilization. Washington DC, 54p»
Vogel, Willis C», and U. A. Berg. 1968. Crasees land legumes for cover on
acid strlp-taine spoils. Jour. Soil and Water Conservation. 23(3):
96-104.
Wall, Kohan K. (Editor). 1975. Practices and problems of land reclamation
in western North America. The University of North Dakota Press, Grand
Forks ND, 196p.
WAPORA, Inc. 1978. Environmental impact assessment guidelines for new source
surface coal mines. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
155p.
WAPORA, Inc. 1979. Noise Impact assessment of Rockport Generating Station,
Rockport, Indiana. New York NY.
Warner, Don L. 1974. Rationale and methodology for monitoring groundwater
polluted by mining activities. Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington DC, 64 p.
Warner, R. W. 1973* Acid coal mine drainage effects on aquatic life. In
Ecology and Reclamation of Devastated Land, Volume 1. Gordon and Breach,
Scl. Publ., Inc., New York NY, p. 227-237.
Weaver, Dallas B., Curtis J. Schmidt, and John P. Woodyard. 1977. Data base
for standards/regulations development for land disposal of flue gas
cleaning sludges. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Cincinnati OH, 299p.
Wermund, E. C. (Fxlltor). 1974. Approaches to environmental geology. Bureau
of Economic Geology, the University of Texas. Austin TX, 268p.
White, D. M. 1976. Coal and lignite power generation. Texas Energy Report,
No. 22, 6-8 <1976).
White, 0. M., and 0* B. demons. 1977. Coal and lignite: nlnlng, trans-
portation, and utilization needs for Texas. The Governor's Energy
Advisory Council, Austin TX, Tech. Rep. 77-003, 352p.
White, R. L. 1978. Land reclamation In Texas - an opportunity, pp 199-208.
In U. R. Kaiser (Editor) Proceeding Gulf Coast Lignite Conference:
Geology, Utilization and Environmental Aspects. Sponsored by Bureau of
Economic Geology, the University of Texas at Austin.
Whitton, B. A. 1975. River ecology. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Winslow, A. G. 1959. Geology and groundwater resources of Walker County,
Texas. Texas Board of Water Englners, Bulletin 5003.
-------
APPENDIX A
EARTH RESOURCES
A-l
-------
Appendix Table A-l. Detailed analyses of two composite lignite samples showing
uranium content, Gibbons Creek lignite project, Grimes County, Toxas.
COMMERCIAL TESTING & ENGINEERING CO.
OCHtMAl OFFICII: 121 MOUTH LA SALll Stflfll. CNICAOO. ILLINOIS W01 • ARIA C00E 311 7114434
PAUL WEIR COMPANY
20 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
PLEASE ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
16130 VAN ORUNEN RO.. SOUTH HOLLAND. II 60473
OFFICE TEL. (312) 204-1173
October 14, 1976
Kind of sample
reported lo us
Sample taken at
Sample taken by
Oate sampled
Dale received
xxxxx
xxxxx
Paul Weir Canpany
xxxxx
xxxxx
Sample identification
by Paul Weir Canpany
PROJECT: 2165
Composite CB1
Analyala report no.
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS As received Dry baste
71- 454751 % WeiflM
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS Aa received Dry basis
~w % Moisture
| % Ash
ro % Volatile
% Fixed Carbon
Blu/lb
% Sulfur
% Alk. as Na,0
SULFUR FORMS
% Pyfitic Sulfur
% Sulfate Sulfur
% Organic Sullur
WATER SOLUBLE ALKALIES
% Na,0 =
% K,0 =
FUSION TEMPERATURE OF ASH
Initial Oeformation
h co« Ha4iAJI Cocv
For You* PfUtttliOt
24.18
29.02
30.74
16.06
100.00
5690
1.43
xxxxx
0.34
0.06
1.03
xxxxx
xxxxx
Reducing
2225 '
2360 '
2465
2610
xxxxx
38.27
40.55
21.18
100.00 (HAP BUJ
7504 12161)
1.88
0.63
Moisture
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Chlorine
Sulfur
Ash
Oxygen (diff)
'F
»F
•F
•F
33.21
*
xxxxx
0.45
0.08
1.35
0.302
0.051
Oxidizing
2235 f
2385 *F
2525 'r
2640 *
MINERAL ANALYSIS OF ASH
Silica. SIO,
Alumina. AI,Oj
Tilania, TiO,
Ferric oxide. FeaO,
Lime. CaO
Magnesia, MgO
Potassium oxide. K,0
Sodium oxide, Na,0
Sulfur trioxide, SO,
Phoa. pentoxide. P,Os
Undetermined
SILICA VALUE =
BASE: ACID RATIO
T,J0 TemperatufQ -
Respectfully submitted.
COMMERCIAL TESTING & ENGINEERING CO.
24.18
xxxxx
31.93
42.11
2.69
3.55
0.67
0.89
0.01
0.01
1.43
1.88
29.02
38.27
10.07
13.29
100.00
100.00
% Weight Ignited Be
66.98
16.67
0.76
2.43
4.97
0.55
0.81
1.11
4.78
0.03
0.91
100.00
90.37
xxxxx
>2900°F
RAH/1 £
umCt
' •MOOUIAOOO
R. A. HOUSER. M»nog«r. Midwosi Division
U«*(llu«C, WW - CI I VII AMD OM • UNVIR.CO-COlMfi CO
*VA •miVILlI , ¦* • VANCOUVf «.«C CAM
Appendix Table A-l. Detailed analyses of two composite lignite samples (continued).
~
COMMERCIAL TESTING & ENGINEERING CO.
A
October 14, 1976
PAUL WEIR COMPANY
20 North Hacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Kind of sample
reported to ua
Sample taken at:
Sample tafcon t>y:
XXXXX
xxxxx
Paul Heir Co.
CONCENTRATION IN PPH WEIGHT
Analyst^ Rsp^r^N^r^ber:
^pl,pTMr2165
Composite CBl
ELEMENT
CONC.
ELEMENT
CONC.
ELEMENT
CONC.
ELEMENT
CONC
Uranium
2
Terbium
0.3
Ruthenium
Vanadium
27
Thorium
4
Gadolinium
0.6
Molybdenum
*14
Titanium
890
Bismuth
Europium
0.3
Niobium
8
Scandium
10
Le ad
2
S&uriuD
0.9
Zirconium
110
Calcium
ND
Thallium
Neodymium
2
yttrium
42
Potassium
ND
ercury
ND
Praseodymium
Strontium
no
Chlorine
32
Gold
Cerium
22
Rubidium
18
Sulfur
ND
Platinum
Lanthanum
9
Bromine
0.3
Phosphorus
650
Iridium
Barium
68
Selenium
0.6
Silicon
ND
Osmium
Cesium
3
Arsen ic
2
Aluminum
ND
Rhenium
Iodine
0.9
Germanium
1
Magnesium
ND
Tungsten
Tellurium
Gallium
13
Sodium
ND
Tantalum
Ar.-imony
Zinc
8
Fluorine —
53
Hafnium
Tin
2
Copper
8
Oxygen
ND
Lutecium
Indium
STD
Nicke1
5
Ni trogen
ND
ytterbium
Cadmium
0.5
Cobalt
4
Carbon
ND
Thulium
Silver
0.8
Iron
ND
Boron
71
Erbium
Palladium
Manganese
270
Beryl1ium
3
Holtoium
Rhodium
Chromium
16
Lithium
16
Dysprosium
Hydrogen
ND
Respectfully subi
COMMERCIAj
GINEERING CO.
ND = Not Determined
All elements not reported <0.3 ppm
HC = Major Casponent; greater than
* Heterogeneous
A-2
weight
or equal to 101
1AM. ' 'UWil • C
-------
Appendix Table A-l. Detailed analyses of two coaposlte lignite saaples (continued).
>
1
COMMERCIAL TESTING & ENGINEERING CO.
PINMUL OtHCll: If WOWTH 1.A HlH >TW£IT. CmCAQO. IlLINOllWOl • «Ui COOI >•»
Ah*
^ PAUL HEIR COMPANY
20 North Wacker Drive
Chicago,. Illinois 60606
Kind at sample
reported to us
Sample taken a)
Sample taken by
Oats templed
Dale received
Paul Weic Company
XXIX*
UIXI
PLEASE ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
lAIW VAN DRUNEN RD, SOUTH HOLLAND. IL A0473
OFFICE TEL. (3121 2*4-1173
October 14, 1)76
Sample tdentfflcailon
** Paul Weir Company
PROJECT: 2165
Composite CB1
Analysts report no. 454751
Pluorine, F
Mercury, Hg
Slurry, pB
26 ppm
0.16 ppm
5.9
Tons CaC03 equivalent/thousand tons soil - 0.030 (on as rec'd basis}
Kax. CaC03 Requirement for Neutralization - 44.7 Ion as rec'd basis)
R*tp«ciful>y •utMniiitd.
COMMERCjArjTESTlNG 4 ENGINEERING CO
A— 3 R< A HOUSER, M«n«ger. Mtdwcil CHvulcn
RAN/1f
Mfttt* «T ¦ HKKlt«0»C ¦ W HiatK
Appendix Table A-l. Detailed analyses of two coaposlte lii-.nlte sacpfut. (continued).
COMMERCIAL TESTING & ENGINEERING CO.
oiwcimi orncit in month i* iuu anted. c*hc*oO. uumoii *moi
am* coot JU IIIXH
ztk
PAUL WEIR QDKPAHV
20 North Wacker Drive
Chica904 Illinois 60606
please aooress all correspondence to:
IAI30 VAN ORUNEN RD.. SOUTH HOLLAND. IL 60473
OFFICE TEL. pi21 364-1171
October 14, 1976
Kind of sample
reported lo us
Sample taken ai
Sample taken by
XIXXX
xxxxx
Paul Weir Ccmpany
Sample identification
by Paul Weir Company
PROJECT: 2165
Conpoeite CB2
Date sampled xxxxx
Date received
Analysis report no. 71- 454752
% Weigr.:
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS
As recatved
Dry basis
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
As received
Cy basis
% Moisture
26.11
XXXIX
Moisture
26.11
xxxxx
% Ash
28.41
36.45
Carbon
31.98
43.26
% Volatile
29.79
40.32
Hydrogen
2.66
3.63
% Fixed Carbon
15.69
21.23
Nitrogen
0.57
0.77
100.00
100.00
(MAF BID
Chlorine
0.00
0.00
Btu/lb.
5531
7465
12161)
Sulfur
1.09
1.47
% Sulfur
1.09
1.47
Ash
26.41
36.45
% Alk. as Na,0
KXXXX
0.63
Orygen (diff|
9.16
12.40
100.00
100.00
SULFUR FORMS
Mineral analysis of ash
% We«p-
• -gnitefl Basis
% Pyiitic Sullur
% Sulfate Sullur
% Organic Sulfur
0.21
0.02
0.66
WATER SOLUBLE ALKALIES
% Na:0 =
% K,0 s
FUSION TEMPERATURE OF ASH
Initial Deformation
h ,»;.<,•* xr.g-.i Sofieninj (H = W)
* .. c— * am. Softening (H = '.^Wj
Fluid
EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE =
HAHOGROVE GRlNDABILlTY INDEX =
f REE SWELLING INDEX =
* 98 § 30.57% Hoist.
)0B 9 12.171 Hoist.
LU G 6.28* Koist.
xxxxx
xxxxx
0.29
0.02
1.16
0.263
0.039
Reducing
227S "F
2380 "F
24BS "F
2610 *F
Qikjizinj
2265*
2380 "f
2495 "F
2640 *F
3 5.63
xxxxx
S.nca. SiOj
Aiu.Tsna. AliCJ
Titsnia. TiC;
Ferric o*:-c. Fc:0,
Ume. CaO
Masn^sii. MgO
Potassium oside. K:0
Sodium enido, Na^O
Sullur tnc»'de. SO |
Phos. pen!o*i(lft. P.O.
li^ociprmined
SILICA VALUE s
BASE. ACID RATIO
T,Ja Temptroture =
ftescMclluity iiibmiiird.
COMMERCIAL TESTING i ENGINEERING CO.
54.42
19.99
0.B5
1.75
4.97
0.59
0.96
1.02
4.55
0.03
0.87
"100.00
99.Hi
XXXKX
>2900aF
R A HOUSER. Md- »g«W.D«e»l Djvitton
Cmiic'lMntti
RAII/lf
-------
Appendix Table A-L. Detailed analyses of two composite lignite samples (continued)
COMMERCIAL TESTING & ENGINEERING CO.
C&Nia*l OMiCll in HO*IM IA llill ftllllt. ChiC*0O, •IHNO"* »0«0' - A»l» COOl 113
Ah*
. PAUL WEIR COMPANY
^ 20 f^LHi Vfacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
October 14/ 1976
>
I
j>-
Kmd ol Mmpt*
r«poM*d 10 ui
Stmpl* iak«n at:
S*mpl* l*ken by:
Analytlt Repon Number:
71-454752
Sample tdmiittcaiiofl
b,: PROJECT 2165
Composite CB2
Paul weir Co.
CONCENTRATION IN PPM WEIGHT
ELEMENT
COMC.
ELEMENT
CONC.
ELEMENT
CONC.
ELEMENT <
CONC.
Uran ium
2
Terbium
0.3
Ruthenium
Vanad ium
2B
Thorium
4
Gadolinium
0.5 .
Molybdenum
2
Titanium
590
Bismuth
Europium
0.3
Niobium
10
Scandium
10
Lead
3
Samarium
0.7
Zirconium
110
Calcium
ND
Thailium
Neodymiuffl
4
Yttrium
40
Potassium
ND
»rcury
ND
Praseodymium
1
Strontium
110
Chlorine
38
Gold
Cerium
23
Rubidium
17
Sulfur
ND
Platinum
Lanthanum
9
Bromine
0.9
Phosphorus
230
Irid ium
Barium
71
Selenium
0.6
Silicon
ND
Osmium
Cesium
1
Arsenic
3
Aluminum
ND
Rhenium
Iodine
0.2
Germanium
0.9
Magnesium
ND
Tungsten
Tellurium
Gallium
9
Sodium
ND
Tantalum
Antimony
Zinc
9
Fluorine
70
Hafn ium
Tin
*7
Copper
8
Oxygen
ND
Lutetium
Indium
STD
Nickel
7
Nitrogen
ND
Ytterbium
Cadmium
<0.5
Cobalt
2
Carbon
ND
Thu lium
S i1ve r
<0.2
Iron
ND
Boron
130
Erbium
Palladium
Manganese
280
Beryl 1ium
3
Holroium
Rhodium
Chromium
28
Lithium
17
Dyspros ium
Hydrogen
ND
ND ° Not Determined
All elements not reported <0.3 ppra weight
MC « Major Component; greater than or
equal to 1000 ppra
* Heterogeneous a-5
Re«p«ctluliy ftut>miit*o.
COMMERCIAL TESTING A ENGINEERING CO
Appendix Table A-l. Detailed analyses of tuo composite llsnlle samples (coi :l..ded).
COMMERCIAL TESTING & ENGINEERING CO.
GENERAL OMlCfi. !?• NOKIH I* &AIIC 81*ECf. CHICAGO. IlllNOlS W«OI »HEA COPE )l>
PLEASE ADDRESS All CORRESPONDENCE TO:
16130 VAN DRUNEN RD, SOUTH HOLLAND. IL 60473
OFFICE TEL. (3)2) 2b«»173
PAUL WEIR COMPANY
20 North Wacker Drive
Cnicago, Illinois 60606
October 14, 1976
Sample Identification
by Paul Weir Company
Kind o* sample
reported to us
Sample taken at
Sample taken by
Date sampled
Date -eceived
xxxxx
Paul Weir Company
xxxxx
xxxxx
PROJECT: 2165
Composite CB2
Analysis report no. 7^- 454752
Fluorine, F 47 ppm
Mercury, Hg 0.12 ppra
Slurxy, pH 6.2
Ions CaCOj equivalent/thousand tons soil = 0.036 (on as ree'd basis)
.rax. CaCOj Requirement for Neutralization D 34.1 (on as ree'd basis)
Sr.icts: Paul Weir Co. 1979. Surface mining permit application. Gibbons Ciuck lignite
mine. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency. Chicago II..
Respectfully joDfniiied,
COMMtRClAL-tESIING & ENGINEERING CO.
R 0HtfuSEfi. M.tndQef. MiO«e)l Diviloo
RAH/1 £
-------
Appendix Table A-2 uses and characteristics of tiie existinc sou. series
ARUI. A*TELL BIENV1I.LE BURLEWASH DEHONA
SeptIc
tanks
aevere-slow
perro1 at Ion
severe-slow
percolat ion
protected: moderate-wet
Rare: node rate-wet, floods
1-15Z: severe-percolates
15*t: severe-percolates
slovlv, depth to rock,
91 ope
severe-wet noss,
percol alos slowly
Sewage
lagoon
areas
0-2Z slight
2-JZ Moderate slope
0-2Z slight
2-7Z moderate
slope
7-I2Z severe
slope
severe-percolates
rapidly
1-7Z: severe-depth
to rock
0-72: severe seepage,
wetness
7*Z: severe-seepage
slope, wetness
Sanitary
land fill
(trench)
severe-too clayey
depth to rock
nevere-too clayey
severe-too sandy,
percolates rapidly
1-I5Z: severe-depth to
rock, tno c1ayey
15+Z: severe-depth to
rock, slope, too clayey
severe-wetness, too
c 1 .iyt'y
Sanl t ar y
landllll
(area)
severe-wetness
0-8Z slight
8-I2Z moderate
slope
severe-percolates
rapid 1y
1-15X: severe-depth to rock
I5*Z: severe-depth to rock,
slope
severe-seepage
for
landf111
poor-thin layer
poor-loo clayey
falr-too sandy
poor-area reclaim, too
clayey, hard to pack
poor-ton clayey, hard
to pack
Road
fill
poor-shrInk-swel1
low strength
poor-shrInk-swel1
low strength
fair-low strength
poor-area reclaln, low
strength, shrink swell
poor-low strength
Sand
unsul ted-excess
fine particles
unsulted-excess
fine particles
poor-excess fines
Improbable-excess flnes
Improbable-excess fines
Crave 1
unsulted-excess
fine particles
unsulted-excess
fine particles
unsulted-excess fines
Improbable-excess flnes
Improbable-excess fines
TopsolI
poor-thin layer
area reclaln
poor-thin layer
poor-too sandy
I-15Z: poor-too clayey
15*Z: poor-too clayey,
si opc
l.S, I.FS: falr-too sandy
FS, poor-too sandy
High water
table
depth 0-1.5 feet
kind perched
months Oct-H.iy
depth > 6.0 feet
kind -
aonths-
depth 4.0-6.0 feet
kind apparent
months Dec.-Apr.
depth > 6.0 feet
kInH -
mont hs-
depth 1.5-3.5 feet
kind perched
Months Nay-Oct.
Shallow
excuvAtInn
severe-wetness
too clayey
severe-too clayey
eevere-too sandy
cutbanks cave
1-8Z:moderate-too clayey,
depth to rock
8-1SZ:moderate-ton clayey,
slope, depth to rock
15+Z: severe-slope
severe-cutbacks
cave, wetness
Duel 1Ings
without
baseMent.s
severe-shrlnk-
awel 1
aevere-shrInk-
•wel 1
low strength
protected: slight
rare: severe floods
I-I5Z: severe-shrlnk swell
15+Z: severe-shrlnk swell
slope. ,
moderate: wetness,
shrInk-swel1
Saall
co—crctal
h
-------
Appendix Table A-2. Uses and characteristics of the existing soil series (continued).
>
I
E1J4INA
GI.ADEUATF.R
CO WEN
SeptIc
tanks
SewaRr
lagoon
areas
severe-slow
percolatIon
severe-s low
percolatinn
rare: severe-peros slowly, rore: moder.itP-perca slowly,
wttnaos floods
common: severe-percs slowly, occasional: severe-floods
floods, wetness frequent:severe-f1oods
severe-f lood I ng ,•
water table
severe-seepnRe
occurs
0-21 slight
2-8% moderate
slope
siiRht
rare: moderate-seepage
common: severe-floods
moderate-permeahlllty,
uuIfIed group ing
eevere-where flooded
Sani tary
landf11 1
(trench)
Sanitary
landfill
(area)
moder.it e
severe-depth to
rock
too clayey
rare: severe-too clayey, rare: moderate-ton clayey,
wetness floods
common: severe-floods, too conroon: severe-floods
clayey, wetness
moderate-wetness
severe-wetness
rare: severe-wetness
common: severe-f loods,
wetness
rare: moderate-floods
coomon: severe-floods
Dally cover
for
landf11 I
Road
fill
falr-too sandy
fa 1r-uet ncss
poor-thin layers poor-too clayey, wetness
CL: fair too clayey
FSI., L: good
poor-shrlnk-svel1
low strength
Sand
poor-excess fine
particles
unsuited-excess
fine particles
poor-shrtnh-swcl1. low
strength, wetness
improbable-excess fines
poor-low strength
fa 1r-wetness
unsuited-excess fInes
poor-not available
unsuited-excess
fine particles
unsuited-excess
fine particles
improbable-excess fines unsu1ted-excess fines
poor-nnt available
Topsotl
poor-too sandy
poor area reclaim
thin layer
poor-too clayey, wetness
CL: falr-too clayey
FSL.L: good
fair-wetness
High water
table
Shallow
excavatIon
Owe I I Ings
without
basement s
Snnl I
coretM-rr I -i I
hulIdlngs
l.ocnl roads
and streets
depth 1.5-3.5 feet depth 0-1.5 feet
kind-perched kind-perched
months-Oct.-June months Oct.- Hay
depth 0-3.5 feet
kind-apparent
months Nov.-Hay
depth s 6.0 feet
kind-
months
severe-wetness
too sandy
severe-wetness
too clayey
rare: severe-too clayey,
wetness, floods
•oderate-wetness nevere-shrInk-
swe 11
modernt e-wetness
severe-wetness
shrInk-swe11
severe-f loods, t«hr Ink-
swe) I, wetness
f req. severe-fIoods,
shrInk-KweI 1, wetness
rare: moderate-too
clayey, floods
connon: severe floods
scvere-floods
severe-f1oods
modnr.il e-wetness
severe-Iow
st rengt li
shrInk-sweI 1'
rare: severe-shr1nk-ewo11,
low strength, wetness
severe: floods, wetness,
1'»u Ktrrn^lli
rare: severe-low strength
ronvnon: severe-low strength
f1oods
frequent: severe-f1oods
severe-f1oodIng
-------
KANEBREAK
KAUFMAN
KOETHER
KOSSE
LANDMAN
Sepclc
tanks
severo-floods,
procecced, rare: severe-
5-15Z: severe-depch co
severe-floods
severe-percs slowly,
perco slowly,
percs slowly
rock, large scones
wetness
wecness
occasional: severe-percs
15*X: severe-depch co
slowly, floods
rock, slope, large
frequent: severe-percs
scones
slovly, floods
Sewage
severe-floods
slight
5-7X: severe-depch co
severe-floods
ltgoon
rock seepage
i
ereas
7+t: severe-depch to
rock, slope, seepage
Sanitary
procecced,rare: severe-
3-13X: severe-depth co
severs-wecness
landfill
coo clayey, wecness
rock, large stones
(crench)
occasional: severe-
15+X: severe-depth to
floods, too clayey,
rock, slope, large
wecnens
scones
frequent: severe-floods
a I
! Sanitary
I landfill
; (»r«a)
t j
d I Topsoll
at .
1!
.. I
£ ¦
severe-cloods
rare; severe-coo clayey,
wetness
occasional: severe-
floods, coo clayey,
wetness
frequent: severe-floods
5-13X: severe-depth to
rock seepage, slope
••floods
aoderate-wethess
Daily cover
for
landfill
good
poor-coo clayey
wecness
* -
poor-area reclaia,
seepege, large scones
falr-coo clayey
falr-coo sandy
toed
fill
falr^toueee
poor-ehrlnk-ewe
11
}-25X: poor-large
stones, area reclaia
25+X: poor-large atones,
slope, area, reclaia
poor-low strength
good
Sand
unsulted-excess
fines
unsulced-excess
fines
laprobeble-large stonee
unsulced-excess fines
poor-excese flnee
Gravel
unsuitad-excess
fines
unsuited-excess
fines
loprobable-coo sandy,
large stones
unsulced-excess fines
unsuiced-excess tines
fair-thio layer
poor-coo clayey
5-15X: poor ar»« raclaio,
large scones
15+X: poor area reclaia,
slope, large scones
falr-coo clayey
poor-coo sandy
2 ; High water
2 : table
depch 0-1.5 feet
kind-perched
aonchs Oct.-May
depch 0-3.5 feee
klnd-apparenc
months Nov.-Apr.
depch > 6.0 feet
kind -
aonchs *
depch 2.0-^.0 feet
klnd-apparenc
aonths Occ.-Hay
depch 4.0-6.0 feec
kind-perched
aonchs Occ.-May
jc ; Shallow
z ' excavation
£;
savere-floods
protected,rare: severe-
coo clayey, wetness
occasional: severe-coo
clayey
fTequenc: severe-coo
clayey, wr.tness
5-13X:severe-depch co rock,
large scones
15+t: severe-depth co rock,
large scones* slope
severe-floods
severe-coo sandy
fi Swellings
: vichouc
"" : baseaents
severe-floods
procecced,rare: sevore
floods, shrlnk-svell
occasional: severe-floods,
shrlnk-svell
frequent: severe-floods.
shrink-swell
5-15X: severe-depth co
rock, large scones
1W: severs-depth co rock,
slope, large scones
severe-floods
slight
Small
I eoaoercial
'buildings
i
I
savere-floode,
wecness
procecced,rare: severe-
floods, shrlnk-svell
occasional: severe-floods,
shrink-swell
frequeue: sovere-floods,
ehrlak-evell
S-8X: severe-depth co cock,
large scones
8+Z: severe-depth co rock,
slope, large scones
floods
slight
I Local roads
S and screecs
severe-floods
procecced.rsre: severe-
ehrlnk-swell
occasional: severe-
floods, shrink-ewe11
frequent: severe-floods,
shrlnk-*w«ll
S-15X: severe-depch co
rock, large stones
15+1: severe-depth co
rock, slope, large
stones
severe-floods
slight
A-7
-------
Appendix Table A-2. Uses and characteristics of the existing soil series (continued).
IXfFK IN
NAHATCHE
PADINA
RADRR
>
I
00
Septlc
tanks
Sewage
lagoon
areas
Sanitary
landfill
(trench)
severe-percs
slowly, wetness
9evere-flooda, wet 0-81: moderate-peree
slowly
8-15X: moderate-percs
slowly, slope
severe-wetness, percs
bI owly
STRABF.R
severe-percs slowly
0-2X: slight
2-3X: moderate-slope
severe-floods, wet 0-7X: severe-seepage
7-151: severe-seepage t
slope
s1Ight
0-2X: slight
2-5Z: moderate
severe-too clayey,
wetness
severe-floods, wet severe-wetness
severe-too clayey-
San ltary
landf1II
(area)
severe-wetness
severe-ffoods, wet 0-8Z: moderate-seepage
8-I5Z: moderate-seepage,
slope
moderate-wetness
moderate-too clayey
si Iglit
Dally cover
for
landfill
Road
fill
poor-ton clayey
fair, wet
poor-too sandy
poor-shrInk-sweI I,
low strength,
wetness
poor-low strength, good
wet
poor-too clayey, hard
to park
poor-low strength
f a Ir-too r1ayey
fa Ir-shrInk-swe11, low
st rength
unsulted-excess
f lnes
unsulted
fair-excess fines
Improbable-excess fines
unsulted-excess fines
Cravel
unsultcd-excess
fines
unsulted-excess fines Improbable-excess fines
nsulted-excess fines
Topsol1
poor-thin layer,
wetness
falr-too clayey, poor-too sandy
wet
falr-thln l.iver
poor-too s.indy
High water
table
Shallow
excavatIon
depth 0-1.0 feet depth 0-1.5 feet depth J.0-6.0 feet
kind-perched kind - apparent kind - perrhed
months net.-Mar. autnths Nov.-M.iy months Oct.-Nay
severe-wetness,
too clayey
Owe 11 lugs
without
basement s
Sm.i I I
comaerrI t I
bulIdlngs
l.ocal roads
and s!reels
severe-shrlnk-
swcl1, wetness,
low strength
severe-shr Ink-
pwe 1 I , wet iicss ,
low sirength
severe-shrInk-
swcl1, wotnpss,
low st ronp.I h
severe-floods, wet sevcre-cotbanks cave
sevei'e-floods, wet 0-8X: slight
R— 13Z : moderate slope
8i*voi c-flomls , wet, 0-4Z: Kllght
low strength 4-8X: moderate slope
8-15Z: severe slope
depth 2.0-5.0 fret
k Ind - priched
mont lis Hec . - Ma r .
severe-wetness
modern! e-wet ness
mode r««t e-wrt ness
depth > 6.0 feet
k I nd -
months -
moderate-too clayey
moderat e-shr I nk-swe 11
severe-floods, wet, 0-8X: slight
low strength 8-15Z: moderate slope
s I 1 p,ht
moderate-shr Ink-swel I
moderatc-shrInk-swelI,
low st rrngl h
-------
Appendix Table A-2. Uses and characteristics of the existing soil series (continued)
TUSCHMRIA
WII.SON
SeptIc
tanks
flevpre*slnw pcrnea- severe-percs slowly,
hi I Ity-seasonal high wetness
voter table flooding
Sewage
Iagoon
areas
Sanitary
Iandf 111
(trencli)
siIght
0-2X: slight
2-5X: moderate slope
severe-too clayey,
wetness
Sanitary
1andf111
(area)
Dally cover
f or
Iandf111
severe-wetnes*
Road
fill
Sand
Gravel
poor wetness-
sltr tnk-sw^lI,
potential traffic
supporting capacity
poor
poor
poor-thin layer* wetness
poor-shrlnk-swel1, low
strength, wetness
unsulted-exress fines
unsulted-excess fines
TopsolI
High water
table
poor texture
Mnd wetness
poor-thin layer,
wetness
depth 0-1.6 feet
kind -
•out lis Oct. -Apr i I
depth 0-1.0 feet
kind - perched
Months Nov.-Hnr.
Shallow
excavatIon
Owe11Ings
w11hoot
baseoents
severe flooding
shrink swell
severe flooding
ultrlnk swell
severe-wetness, too
clayey
aevcre-shr1nk~swet I , low
strength, wetness
-------
USES
AND CHARACTERISTICS OF
THE EXISTING SOU. SERIES
(Cont.)
AR0L
AXTELL
BIENVILLE
BURL EWASH
DEMONA
Pond
slight
slight
severe-percolates
1-32: moderate-depth to
severe-seepage
reservoir
rapidly
rock
area
3-82: moderate-depth to
rock, slope
8+2: eevere-slope
Embankments,
moderate-
moderate-
moderate-
severe-thin layer
moderate-hard to pack.
dikes, and
compressible
unstable fill
percolates rapidly.
wetness
levees
piping
Excavated
severe-no water
severe-no water
severe-no water
ssvere-oo water
severe-no water
ponds
Aquifer
no water
no water
field
Drainage
percolates slowly
complex slope.
not needed
deep to water
0-32: cutbanks cave
percolates slowly
3+2: slope, cutbanks cave
Irrigation
olov intake,
percolates slowly
percolates slowly,
slow intake
0-12: percolates
rapidly, droughty
1-52: percolates
rapidly, droughty,
slope
FSL,GR-SL:percs slowly,
depth to rock, erodes
easily
LFS: fast Intake percs
slowly, depth to rock
wetness, droughty, fast
Intake
Terraces and
diversions
percolates slowly,
erodes easily
percolates slowly,
erodes easily
0-12 not needed
1-52 coo oandv,
piping
1-82: depth to rock,
erodes easily, percs
slowly
8+2: slope, depth to
rock, erodes easily
wetness, soil bloving
Grassed
waterways
droughty, percolates
slowly
percolatas slowly,
erodes easily
droughty, erodes
casilv
1-82: erodes easily,
depth to rock, percs
slowly
8+2: slope, erodes
ooeily, depth to rock
droughty
Camping
areas
severe-wetness,
percolates slowly
severe-wetness,
percolates slowly
moderate-too
sandy
1-82 FSL, LFS: moderate-
percs slowly
8-152: moderato-percs
slowly, slope
15+2: severe-slope
LS„ LFS: moderate-wetness
FS: severc-too sandy
Picnic
areas
moderate-wetness
0-62 slight FSL:L
8-122 moderate slope,
GR-L.GR FSL, moderate
small stones
moderate-too
sandy
1-62 FSL,LFS: moderate-
percs slowly
8-152: moderate-percs
slowly, slope
15+2: severe-slope
LS,LFS: moderate-wetness
FS: severe-too sandy
Playgrounds
severe-wetness,
percolates slowly
FSL,L, severe-
percolates slowly,
GR-L GR-FS2, severe,
percolates slowly
0-22: moderate-
too sandy
2-52: moderate-coo
sandy, slope
1-62 FSL,LFS: moderate-
percs slowly, depth to
rock
1-62 GR: severe small
otones
6+2 FSL,LFS:severe-
slope
6+2 GR:oevere-olope,
sbaI1 atooes
0-22 LS, LFS: slight
2-62 LS, LFS: moderate-sio
6+2 LS, LFS: severe-sl ope
0-62 FS: severe, toe sancy
6+Z FS severe slope, toe
sandy
CN
1
<
0)
{ Paths aad
j trails
i
1
moderate-wetnoos
(FSL,L) fine aandy
loan, alight, GR-2,
GR-FSL, moderate,
email stones
moderate-too aandy
oovere-crodes oaaily
LS.LFS: Boderote-vetnesfr
PS: eevere-too aandy
03
H
| Erosion
j hazard
1 ——
slight
30-42" affra-slight
25-30 affra-slight
—
X
*o
c
(1)
O-
o.
i Equipment
; limit
—
slight
30-42" affra-moderate
25-30" affra-moderate
—
£j Seedling
mortality
severe
30-42" affro-moderate
25-30" affra-severe
•<
h} Wind
l/J
i nazard
§¦
slight
—
—
2j Plan: coapct.
aoderate
—
—
5; Important
| trees
1
i
post oak
eastern red cedar
30-42" offra-loblolly
pine; oh'ortleof pine
25-30" affra-loblolly
pine; ohortleaf pine
none
none
j Trees to
I plan:
!
...
30-42" affra-loblolly
pine; slash pine
25-30" affre-loblolly
pine
A-. 10
-------
ELMINA
FALSA
CUDEWATER
GOWEN
tUKA
Pond
reservoir
area
ooderace
slight
slight
ooderate-penDear:1i cv
severe-where (lrraec
Eabankaents,
dikes, and
levees
moderate-easily
erodes
noderste-coopressible
severe-wetnese,
hard co pack
slight
slope stability
ponds
severe-slow refill
3x»derate-peraea:ilicy in
substrata
ooderace-aepch dry seas:
water taole, fluctuating
water cable
Aquifer
field
no water
Drainage
•percolates slowly,
cucbanks, caves
percolates slowly
floods, percolates
slowly
not needed
Irrigation
fast intake
slow intake,
percolates slowly
slow intake,
wetness, percolates
slowly
rare: favorable
cotnaon: floods
...
Terraces and
diversions
piping erodes easily
percolates slowly.
percolates slowly,
wetness
floods
Craased
waterways
eroaes easily
droughty, percolates
slowly
percolates slowly,
favorable
•o
-------
KANEBREAK
KAUFMAN
K0ETHER
KOSSE
LANDMAN
Pond
moderate-seepage
slight
5-82: severe-depth to
moderate-seepage
severe-seepage
reservoir
rock, seepage
area
8+2: severe-depth to
rock, seepage, slope
0)
s:
M-4
o
CA
o
u
Q)
i-i
o
nj
u
JZ
o
t3
C
CO
-------
LUFKIN
MAHATCHE
RADER
STRABLR
Pond
reservoir
area
slight
moderate-seepage
slight
slight
Embankments,
dikes, and
levees
moderate-hard to pack
moderate-unstable fill
moderate-seepage,
piping
moderate-hard to
pack, wetness
moderate-compressible
Excavated
poods
severe-deep to water
severe-deep to wacer
Aquifer
field
Drainage
percolaces slowly
floods, wet
cuebanks cave
percolates slowly
percolates slowly
Irrigation
slov intake,
percolates slowly
floods, wet
fast Intake, soil
blowing
wetness, percolates
slowly
percolates 9lowly
Terraces and
diversions
percolates slowly,
erodes easily
floods, wet
piping, erodes
easily
wetness, percolaces
slowly
percolates slowly
Grassed
waterways
percolates slowly,
erodes easily
floods, wet
droughty
percolates slowly
favorable
Camping
ar««a
severe-wetness,
percolates slowly
e-floods
0-152 FS: severe-
coo sandy
0-81 LFS: moderate-
coo sandy
8-1SZ LFS: moderate-
coo saody, slope
soderate»wetness,
percolates slowly
aoderate-percolates slow!
coo sandy
Picnic
areas
moderate-wetness
moderate-floods
wee
0-15Z FS: severe-
coo saody
0-8Z LFS: moderate-
too sandy
8-151 LFS: moderate-
slope, too sandy
moderate-witness,
percolates slowly
soaerate-coo sandy, soil
blowing
Playgrounds
severe-wetness,
percolates slowly
severe-floods,
wet
0-6Z FS: severe-
too sandy, slope
6-15Z FS: severe-
Slope, coo sandy
0-6* LFS: moderete-
too sandy
6-15Z LFS: severe-
slope
0-2Z: moderate-
wetness, percolates
slowly
2-3X: moderate-slope,
wetness, percolates
slowly
\
0-2X: moderate-too sancy
2-5Z: aoderate-too sanay
slope
Paths ana
trails
moderate-wetness
moderete-floods,
wet
0-15Z FS: severe- alight
too sandy
0-13X LFS: moderate-
»daraca-coo sandy, noil
blowing
Erosion
haxard
slight
slight
equip. Unit
moderate
— —
Needling
oortality
moderate
— —
Wind hazard
slight
slight
— —
.Jlant compet.
slight
slight
— —
Important
trees
Icololiy pine
shortleaf pine
water oak
willow oak
eastern cottonwood
loblolly pine
none nont
nont
Trees eo 1
plane
loblolly pine
eastern coteonwood
—
A-13
-------
TUSCUMBIA
WILSON
TJ
0>
T5
3
i—l
-------
Appendix Table A-3 unm.it>: sihurimtt m* rm: native soii.s
fulctH l;il (nt B.itill.u tlimnti | ''.s . .
N*»1 J
r la**
Ci.ilu 1
ft
Wild
Vtardvd.
Conl fir
Sliruba
Ui'l land
Shallow
Opvnld
Uuodld
W'l 1 Hid
h.in/.chi
S« I l.a
Sct.il
l.ci*us*
Herb
Trin
Plants
Montr
Water
t'lldlf
UIIJH
vii,in
t.'lldll
Atcl
o-it
lair
|innI
lair
fair
fair
fnlr
fnlr
fait
l.ilr
Al ol
1- r
fdlr
|wnI
fair
fair
—
poor
poor
fair
lair
pt-or
Vr
good
V. pi«»r
g.»id
f):«« li W.l-i-li
pitor
fair
gwd
B^»d
V.poor
V .plHH
fal r
V.pool
food
|)4 *»>il.l
All
fair
gnoj
B«Mid
good
poor
V.poor
good
V.poor
p.ui.l
AH
|hhir
fair
good
(nl r
fair
I^H»r
poor
lair
lair
p.n»r
—
1 .iIIm
II- ti
fall
llNid
lair
fair
lair
fair
lair
lair
talr
1 .alli.i
l-Si
fair
good
fair
lair
poor
piN»r
fair
lair
p«Mir
...
i.i a.
i-BH
fair
good
fal r
fair
poor
V.pnor
fair
l.ilr
V .piH»r
Mi
poor
fnlr
lal r
f at •
poor
g< HlJ
fair
fal i
lair
«!•
hltli'i'tvd, fl-IX H lopCM
#
•Mltl IX ( jlM||ilt.|||V floodthj
good
gd
V .p4Kir
I nk .i
—
fair
goinl
lair
l'r«*«|iur*t
poor
fair
hlr
|(iM»d
good
C«hmI
r.tnij
lair
|*4M»«I
i:«'» «d
—
I'ruittli'd, fiir*?
good
flti»ta|
poor
Rood
frtlr
|HHM
|*«Htd
fair
goi»d
fill
—
K
r
Rood
fnlr
|MM»r
g"»nl
fair
goinl
l.ilr
Iri^iiciK
(iiNir
p«M«r
In Ir
glHld
Inlr
p«w»r
R«Hid
p«H*r
g«tod
fair
...
AM
V.|HHir
V.piNir
V.|h »or
|HH*f
V.poor
V.fxHir
V.poor
'V. poor
V .piHir
K.'SrU-
All
poor
fair
fair
HCmhI
fnlr
fal r
fair
fair
fal r
l.tli
1. Mlttte.HI
All
p«*OI
lair
fnlr
fair
fnlr
poor
p*»or
fair
lair
pi*i r
---
1 olllrt
All
lair
gtunl
lair
»'H»d
got»d
tit 1 X
fair
fair
good
fall
N.riMt«In*
All
V.pttor
poor
fair
good
good
fair
fair
pour
Inl r
lair
r.Mtllhl
n-n: is, i>s
latr
Ai«>d
fair
*
fair
p*«nr
V. poor
lair
V .|»o«i|
i.il •
f 111 lo.t
1-IV! IS, n s
|N«r
fill
lalt
la It
V .fwn»r
V.|NHir
lulr
V
l.ilr
fc*.l< •
All
lulr
fOOs)
good
RINVd
«.*od
pmir
poor .
good
pIN^I
good
Alt
lol?
good
good
food
poor
poor
good
plttll
Not rlittilM^
N|l«m
o-n
fair
lair
|mid
fal r
fair
lair
fair
lair
(air
If II. J. HI
i-«
lair
fair
g«Md
—
fair
poor
p'N*r
• air
...
pn.ii
l.ilr
Source: Brown 1980.
-------
Appendix TABLE A-4 PIIISICAl PROPERTIES Of SURFACt SOUS AT lilt PROPOSED IMPA
MINE SITE IN MIMES COINIT. TEXAS
BLUESHEETS FIELD SAMPLES
MAPPING UNIT HORIZON OEPTII TEITURAL RANGE DEPTH SANO SILT CIA* USOA - 1/3 - 15 AVAILABLE
) Ap 0-7 LFS, FS 0-6 4B.3 25.2 26.5 SCL 30.1 17.5 12.6
A2 7-20 LFS. FS 6-17 61.7 17.1 21.2 SCL 24.4 11.6 12.B
Bienville B2lt «A2 20-48 LFS. FSL 17-37 78.6 10.6 10.B SI 13.4 6.3 6.9
B22t 48-72 LFS. FSL 37-60 B5.9 8.8 5.J IS 7.7 2.9 4.8
C 72-80 60-74 86.7 8.6 4.8 LS 7.3 2.7 4.6
5 Al 0-7 LFS, FS. LS 0-7 80.0 16.7 3.3 IS 6.9 2.4 4.5
L«iutun A2I 7-23 LFS, FS. IS 7-21 79.1 17.4 3.5 LS 8.0 2.0 6.0
A22 23-43 LrS. FS, LS 21-38 82.0 14.5 3.5 LS 8.3 2.0 6.3
A23 43-74 LFS, FS. IS 38-50 75.2 20.0 4.8 SL 9.8 2.2 7.6
B2lt 74-82 SCL, FSL 50-58 69.7 24.5 5.8 SL 11.3 3.2 8.1
B22t 82-90 58-69 62.3 19.0 18.7 SL 19.8 9.2 10.6
6 AP ~ A2g 0-7 FSL 0-7 61.9 31.6 6.S SL 15.2 3.6 11.6
F«lb* B21tg 7-17 C.CL 7-14 IB.5 17.8 63.7 C 51.2 32.6 17.6
822tg 17-24 C.CL 14-24 20.9 32.6 46.5 C 41.7 24.3 17.4
B23tg«CR 23-33 SCL. a. C 24-30 21.8 35.3 42.9 C 43.8 28.0 15.8
CR 33-55 VUB 30-40 19.2 3B.4 42.4 C 44.8 27.7 17.1
7 AP 0-6 FSL. L 0-9 54.3 33.7 12.0 I 18.4 7.6 10.8
Arol B2Itg 6-18 C. CL 9-29 50.5 26.8 22.7 L -26.6 13.8 12.8
B22tg 18-30 C, CL
Ol 30-45 UWB 29-40 60.2 27.2 22.6 I 26.3 17.9 13.4
9 Al 0-16 CL. I. SCL 0-15 80.0 9.6 10.4 SL 14.5 5.4 9.1
R 16* CL. I. SCL
ieoc AI»A2 0-7 FSL. SIL, L 0-8 60.2 30.0 9.8 SL 23.1 8.0 15.1
LufHn B21tg 7-20 C. CL. SICL 8-23 47.0 23.2 29.8 CL
B22tg 20-46 C. CL. SICL 23-42 47.5 22.9 29.6 CL 23.4 10.3 II.I
Cg 46-65 C.CL. SCL 42-50 4H.0 22.6 29.4 a 23.0 10.4 12.6
20 Al 0-8 FS. ITS 0-9 78.3 18.2 3.5 LS II.0 1.5 9.5
|d|na A2 8-49 FS, LFS 9-50 78.4 18.6 3.0 LS 10.7 1.8 8.9
B2lt 49-65 SCL. FSL 50-61 65.8 24.0 10.2 SL 13.9 5.0 8.9
B22t 65-82 SCL. FSL 61,69 58.0 17.5 24.5 SCL 25.8 15.3 10.5
47 Ap 0-B I. CL. SICL 0-9 25.2 41.4 33.4 SICL 39.3 21.2 18.1
(bhatche Clg 8-19 L, CL, SICL 9-17 30.8 40.1 29.1 SICL 33.2 16.9 16.3
C2g 19-29 I. CL. SICL 17-26 28.2 37.0 34.8 SICL 34.4 18.8 15.6
C3g 29-49 SR- I- SICL 26-4S 22.8 42.5 34.7 SICL 34.7 20.2 14.S
C4g 49-59 SR- I- SICL 45-52 22.6 43.1 34.3 SICL 35.5 20.5 15.0
Abg 59-03 SR- L- SICL 52-62 21.9 47.4 30.7 SICL 35.6 21.7 13.9
48 Allg 0-8 FSL 0-8 46.8 40.5 12.7 I 26.4 9.0 17.4
AI2g 8-14 rSL, SCL, CL 8-15 37.9 41.7 20.4 SL 30.1 13.4 16.7
nebreck A|Ja 14-20 FSL. SCL. CL 15-20 47.9 31.4 20.7 I 25.B 12.4 13.4
AI4g 20-28 FSL. SCL. CL 20-25 44.4 33.6 22.0 L 26.5 14.1 12.4
Clg 28-41 SR. FSL, CL 25-38 38.3 35.0 26.7 L 29.7 16.9 12.8
C2g 41-70 SR. FSL. CL 38-44 44.5 31.6 23.9 L 29.9 14.S 15.4
A-lb
-------
Appendix 'ABLE A-4 PIITSICAL PROPERTIES or SURFACE SOILS AT Till PROPQSEO THPA
(CONTINUED) NIN£ SIT! III CRIMES COIMIV. TEIAS
BLUESHECTS FIELD SAMPLES
NAPPING IMI! HORIION OCPIII IEITURAL RANGE OEPTII SAND SILT CLAV USOA - 1/3 - IS AVAILABLE
70
A
0-6
rsi. irs. GR-SL
0-7
70.2
23.8
6.0
SI
16.3
3.5
I2i8
Burlewash
¦a
6-21
C. SC
7-20
34.6
22.9
42.5
C
44.1
24.7
19.4
B)
21-27
CI. SCL, C
20-28
32.5
23.7
43.8
c
44.5
24.8
19.7
CR
27-40
UB
28-36
24.7
24.4
50.9
c
46.4
28.5
17.9
87
A
0-6
FSL. 1
0-10
--
--
--
--
--
...
Rider
A2I
6-19
rsi. l
10-17
68.8
25.5
5.7
SL
16.1
3.4
12.7
A22
19-25
FSL. 1
17-21
68.8
25.5
5.7
SI
11.8
3.4
8.4
a»b
25-32
SCL. L. CL
21-31
61.7
28.4
9.9
SL
14.4
5.4
9.0
B2lt
32-39
SC. C, CL
31-50
46.2
24.7
29.1
CL
28.3
15.4
12.4
B?2t
39-52
sc. c. a
50-52
34.)
27.9
37.8
SICL
39.2
25.4
13.8
B23t
52-67
SCL. SC. C
62-63
29.8
29.3
40.9
SIC
45.3
26.8
18.5
IOS
Al
0-4
iFS, rs
0-6
80.1
17.0
2.9
IS
13.1
2.6
10.5
(lain*
A2I
4-24
LFS. rs
6-18
79.0
18.1
2.9
LS
13.8
2.0
II. 8
A22
20-32
LFS, rs
18-30
76.7
20.7
2.6
LS
12.8
1.4
11.4
B2lt
32-40
C. SC
30-35
44.1
10.9
37.0
CL
31.9
9.4
20 .5
B22t
40-52
c. sc. set
35-40
54.3
20.4
25.3
I
31.4
17.7
14.2
CR
52-60
1MB
40-45
56.5
21.0
22.5
I
25.9
13.8
12.1
Source: Brown 1980.
A-17
-------
Appendix
Tabl* A-4a
CHBftCAL PROPERTIES OF
SJRPACE 31LS Al
THE PROPOSED TMFA
STE IN
CRIMES
CO.
TEXAS
Map I'nlc
Horizon
Depch
N
P
K
C*
Mg
OH
PR
is!: s
3 Bienville^
Ap
0-6
.08
li >:
372
VH
i860
H
500
H
.8
5.9
<400
A2
6-17
.02
00 7L ¦
228
H
1280
H
385
H
.16
6.2
<600
B21 ~ A2
17-37
.01
00 VL
128
M
920
H
255
H
.05
5.5
<600
B22t
37-60
.00
16 M
80
VL
520
H
120
.03
6.0
<600
C
60-76
.00
00 VL
66
VL
480
M
115
M
.03
5.7
<600
5 LADQDOn
A1
0-7
.02
26 H
176
H
480
V
75
w
.23
5.8
<600
A21
7-21
.01
19 H
168
M
440
M
70
M
.08
6.0
<400
A22
21-38
.00
18 M
192
H
480
M
75
M
.03
6.6
<600
A23
38-50
.00
01 VL
166
M
600
50
L
.03
6.5
<600
B23t
50-58
.00
01 VL
128
M
520
>:
65
u
.03
6.3
<400
B22c
58-69
.00
00 VL
196
K
760
M
355
H
.03
5.6
<600
6 Fl*ba
Ap + A2g
0-7
.01
00 VL
168
M
160
L
110
M
.13
5.6
<60C
B21 Eg
7-14
.01
OC VL
176
H
960
H
500
H
.13
4.6
<400
B22cg
16-26
.01
00 VL
160
M
1120
H
soo
H
.08
6.6
<600
B23tg
26-30
.01
00 VL
120
L
1320
K
500
H
.08
6.5
<60C
Cr
30-60
.01
00 VL
120
I
2080
VH
500
u
.08
4.7
500
H
*0.03
6.0
<600
47 Nahatchia
.**
0-9
0.09
0 VL
166
M
2160
VH
385
H
0.85
5.6
<400
cig
9-17
0.02
0 VL
106
L
1B40
H
330
H
0.18
5.1
*600
C2g
17-26
0.01
0 VL
92
L
2160
VH
600
H
0.11
5.5
700
C3g
26-45
0.00
0 VL
92
L
2200
VH
440
H
*0.03
5.9
1000
C4g
65-52
0.00
0 VL
100
L
3360
VH
475
H
0.04
6.7
L000
Ai>g
52-62
0.00
2 VL
112
L
3060
VH
475
H
<0.03
7.6
900
48 Kanabreak
Alig
0-8
0.03
0 VL
240
H
1280
H
230
H
0.28
6.2
*600
Ai2g
8-15
0.01
0 VL
128
M
1800
H
315
H
0.14
6.3
<600
A13g
15-20
0.01
0 VL
86
L
1800
H
320
H
0.06
6.6
<600
AUg
20-25
0.01
0 VL
88
L
1800
H
335
K
0.06
6.5
500
H
0.23
5.8
500
H
0. U
5.0
600 pcz.
Cr
28-36
0.01
0 VL
148
M
2960
VH
>500
0.10
5.2
700 sot
87 R^dar
A21
10-17
0.01
03 VL
80
VL
560
M
75
M
.13
5.9
<600
a22
17-21
0.06
09 L
100
L
720
M
70
M
.36
5.9
<60C
A + B
21-31
0.01
00 VL
86
I
320
M
90
M
.12
5.6
<600
B21C
31-50
0.01
00 VL
106
L
1520
H
355
H
.08
6.0
<600
B22t
50-52
0.01
00 VL
112
L
2280
VH
490
H
.08
5.6
<600
B23c
52-63
0.01
00 VL
112
L
2360
VH
>500
H
.08
5.5
<600
105 Elaiaa
Al
0-6
0.03
00 VL
80
VL
760
M
55
M
.33
6.0
<600
1
A21
6-18
0.02
00 VL
60
VL
560
M
50
L
.15
6.1
<600
A22
18-30-
0.01
00 VL
68
VL
600
M
40
L
.08
6.6
<600
B2U
30-35
0.01
00 VL
112
L
2040
VH
7500
H
.12
6.0
<600
B22t
35-40
0.01
00 VL
88
L
1720
H
460
H
.06
5.7
<600
Cr
60-65
0.03
00 VL
80
VL
1000
H
425
H
.28
6.0
<600
Source: Brovm 1980.
-------
T4RT.E A-5 . CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY AND EXCHANGEABLE BASES GIVEN IN MEQ/lOOg FOR H1B SURFACE
SOILS AT THE PROPOSED TMPA MINE SITE IN GRIHES CO. TEXAS
Mapping
Unit
Horizon
Depth
ft
CEC Ca Mb • Ni
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ - ¦ ¦ ¦ meq/lOOg
X Base
Saturation
3
Ap
0-6
21.23
3.82
1.65
0.46
1.09
33.6
Bienville
A2
6-17
14.96
2.50
1.16
0.22
0.59
29.9
B21t + A2
17-37
8.77
1.27
0.52
0.44
0.26
28.4
B22t
37-60
5.95
0.76
0.21
0.33
0.19
25.0
C
60-74
4.85
0.50
0.21
0.33
0.26
26.8
5
A1
0-7
5.26
0.50
0.10
0.22
0.39
23.0
Landman
A21
7-21
5.89
0.62
0.10
0.44
0.32
25.1
A22
21-38
4.04
0.56
0.10
0.54
0.58
44.1
A23
38-50
4.48
0.50
0.10
0.33
0.38
29.2
B21t
50-58
4.50
0.69
0.10
0.22
0.39
31.1
B22t
58-69
10.59
1.09
0.95
0.67
0.46
29.9
-------
Appendix
TABLE A-5
(OONT.)
CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY AND EXCHANGEABLE BASES GIVEN IN MEQ/lOOg FOR T1IE SURFACE
SOILS AT THE PROPOSED TMPA MINE SITE IN GRIMES CO, TEXAS
Mapping
Unit
Horizon
Depth
ft
CEC
Ca
Mg . N*
meq/IOOg ¦
K
% Base
Saturation
70 Burlewasti
105 Elnlna
A1
0-7
3.84
0.57
0.21
0.33
0.19
33.9
B2t
7-20
27.20
4.75
2.68
2.60
0.21
37.7
B3
20-28
30.48
5.59
3.32
4.09
0.27
43.5
Cr
28-36
31.91
6.60
4.11
5.28
0.28
51.0
A21
10-17
2.72
0.69
0.21
0.33
0.19
52.2
A22
17-21
2.62
0.38
0.10
0.65
0.26
53.1
A + B
21-31
4.42
0.82
0.21
0.88
0.39
52.0
B21t
31-50
14.52
2.67
0.86
1.93
0.27
39.5
B22t
50-52
22.71
4.32
1.40
2.28
0.27
36.4
B23t
52-63
24.60
4.68
1.54
4.08
0.27
43.0
At
0-6
3.71
0.88
0
0.33
0.26
39.6
A21
6-18
2.51
0.56
0
0.11
0.19
34.3
A22
18-30
1.20
0.31
0
0.33
0.19
69.2
B21t
30-35
23.88
4.08
1.74
2.52
0.34
36.4
B22t
35-40
15.80
3.30
1.39
2.48
0.27
47.1
Cr
40-45
12.56
2.96
1.27
2.69
0.33
57.7
-------
Appendix
TABLE a-5 . CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY AND EXCHANGEABLE BASES GIVEN IN MEQ/lOOg FOR 11IE SURFACE
(CONT ) S0ILS AT 1118 PR0P0SED 'mpA MINE SITE IN GRIMES CO. TEXAS
Mapping
Unit
Ilorison
Depth
ft
CEC
Ca
Hg • Ni
meq/lOOg ——
Z Base
Saturation
20 Padina
47 Natahache
48 Kanebreal
A1
0-9
2.30
0.50
0.20
0.22
0.39
57.0
A2
9-50
1.97
0.31
0.10
0.11
0.39
46.2
B2I
50-61
3.17
0.88
0.31
0.35
0.32
65.0
B22t
61-69
12.34
2.78
1.53
1.50
0.54
51.5
Ap
0-9
22.30
4.89
1.44
1.98
0.48
39.4
cig
9-17
18.36
3.70
1.07
3.74
0.27
47.8
C2g
17-26
17.91
4.12
1.30
5.13
0*20
60.0
C3g
26-45
21.05
4.58
1.42
7.17
0.20
63.5
C4g
45-52
25.12
8.87
1.67
8.84
0.35
78.5
Abg
52-62
22.36
6.45
1.51
7.57
0.27
70.7
Allg
0-8
8.45
2.17
0.63
0.55
0.72
48.2
Al2g
8-15
13.37
3.25
0.97
1.13
0.40
43.0
A13g
15-20
12.53
3.33
0.97
1.25
0.20
45.9
A14g
20-25
12.45
3.35
0.85
1.46
0.20
47.1
cig
25-38
15.85
4.51
1.40
2.85
0.34
57.4
C2g
38-49
15.94
5.50
1.42
3.40
0.48
67.8
-------
Appendix
TABLE A-5 . CATION EXCIIANCE CAPACITY AMD EXCHANGEABLE BASES GIVEN IN MEQ/lOOg FOR T1IE SURFACE
C CONT.) SOILS AT HIE PROPOSED TMPA MINE SITE IN GRIMES CO. TEXAS
Mapping
Unit
Horizon
Depth
ft
CEC
Ca
Mg . Na
tneq/lOOg -~--
Z Base
Saturation
6
Faiba
Ap + A2g
0-7
6.70
0.31
0.21
0.33
0.39
18.5
B21tg
7-14
33.61
2.98
1.78
2.12
0.42
21.7
B22tg
14-24
31.70
2.88
1.76
2.68
0.41
24.4
B23tg + Cr
24-30
29.52
3.11
1.75
3.58
0.41
30.0
Cr
30-40
32.09
4.50
2.10
4.92
0.34
37.0
7
Arol
Ap
0-9
7.06
2.09
0.52
0.99
0.26
54.7
B21tg
9-29
14.39
3.84
1.18
2.72
0.20
55.2
Cr
29-40
14.21
4.01
1.41
3.09
0.20
61.3
9
Koethec
A1
0-15
5.74
1.39
0.42
0.22
0.32
40.9
18
BC Lufkin
A1 + A2
0-8
8.56
2.49
0.63
0.11
0.20
40.1
B21tg
8-23
6.02
1.47
0.42
1.12
0.26
54.3
B22tg
23-42
10.24
2.49
0.84
1.45
0.20
48.6
eg
42-50
10.68
3.09
0.96
2.58
0.20
64.0
Source: Brown 1980-
-------
APPENDIX B
WATER RESOURCES
B-l
-------
Appendix B General criteria of the Texas surface water quality standards (1978)
The general criteria enumerated below are applicable to all surface
waters of the State at all times and specifically apply with respect
to substances attributed to waste discharges or the activities of man
as opposed to natural phenomena. Natural waters nay, on occasion,
have characteristics outside the Units established by these criteria;
In which these criteria do not apply. The criteria adopted herein
relate to the condition of waters as affected by waste discharge or
man's activities. The following criteria do not override a specific
exception to any one or more of the following If the exception is
specifically stated In a specific water quality standard.
1. Taste and odor producing substances shall be limited to con-
centrations in the waters of the State that will not interfere
with the production of potable water treatment methods, or im-
part unpalatable flavor to food fish, including shellfish, or
result in offensive odors arising from the waters, or otherwise
interfere with the reasonable use of the waters.
2. The surface waters of the State shall be maintained so to be
essentially free of floating debris and settieable suspended
solids conducive to the production of putresclble sludge deposits
or sediment layers which would adversely affect benthic biota or
any lawful uses.
qj 3. The surface waters of the State shall be maintained so as to be
I essentially free of settieable suspended solids conducive to
^ changes in the flow characteristics of stream channels, to the
untimely filling of reservoirs, lakes, and bays which might result
in unnecessary dredging costs.
4. The surface waters of the State shall be maintained in an aesthet-
ically attractive condition.
5. There shall be no substantial change in turbidity from ambient
conditions due to waste discharges.
6. There shall be no foaming or frothing of a persistent nature.
7. There shall be no discharge of radioactive materials in excess
of that amount regulated by the Texas Radiation Contral Act.
Article 4590(f), Revised Civil Statutes, State of Texas and
Texas Regulation for Control of Radiation.
Radioactivity levels in the surface waters of Texas, including
the radioactivity levels in both suspended and dissolved solids
for the years 1958 through 1960, were measured and evaluated
by the Environmental Sanitation Services Section of the Texas
Department of Health in a report prepared For at the direction
of the Health Department by the Sanitary Engineering Research
Laboratory at the University of Texas. The document is entitled,
"Report on Radioactivity—Levels in Surface Waters—1958-1960"
pursuant to contract No. 4413-407 and is dated June 30, 1960.
This document comprises an authoritative report on background
radioactivity levels in Che surface waters in the State and
quite importantly sets out the locations where natural radio-
activity deposits have influenced surface water radioactivity.
The impact of radioactive discharges'that may be made into the
surface waters of Texas will be evaluated and judgements made
on the basla of the information in the report which was at the
time made, and may still be the only comprehensive report of
its kind In the nation.
Radioactivity in fresh waters associated with the dissolved
minerals (measurements made on filtered samples) shall not
exceed those enumerated in the Interim Primary Drinking Hater
Regulations, December 1977, or latest revision, unless such
conditions are of natural origin.
8. The surface waters of the State shall be maintained so that they
will not be toxic tD man, fish and wildlife, and other terrest-
rial and aquatic life.
With specific reference to public drinking water supplies, toxic
materials not removable by ordinary water treatment techniques
shall not exceed those enumerated in the Interim Primary Drink-
ing Water Regulations, December, 1977, or latest revision.
For a general guide, with respect to fish toxicity* receiving
waters outside mixing cones should not have a concentration of
nonperslstent toxic materials exceeding 1/10 of the 96-hour
LC50, where the bloassay is made using fish indigenous to the
receiving waterB. Similarly, for persistent toxicants, the
concentrations should not exceed 1/20 of the 96-hour LC50.
For evaluations of toxicity, bloassay techniques will be selected
as suited to the purpose at hand. As a general guideline, bio-
assays will be conducted using fish indigenous to the receiving
waters, and water quality conditions (temperature, hardness, PH,
salinity, dissolved oxygen, etc.) which approxlamte those of the
stream as closely as practical.
9. Ab detailed studies are completed, limiting nutrients identified,
and the feasibility of controlling excessive standing crops of
phytoplankton or other aquatic growths by nutrient limitations
is determined, it is anticipated that nutrient standards will be
established on the surface waters of the State. Such decisions
will be made on a case-by-case basis by the Department after
proper hearing and public participation. The establishment of
a schedule for decisions as to the need for nutrient standards
should be adopted is not feasible at this time.
10. The surface waters of the State shall be maintained so that no
oil, grease, or related residue will produce a visible film film
of oil or globules of grease on the surface, or coat the banks
and bottoms of the watercourse.
-------
UPDATED HYDROLOCIC AMD STRUCTURAL
DATA FOR GIBBONS CREEK LIGNITE
MINE SEDIMENTATION PONDS
DISCMARGE SERIAL NUMBER
001 Sedimentat
Pond
Number
Information
Table 11 -1 below itemizes the beginning dates of discharge from
each of the nine sedimentation ponds.
TABLE 11-I
BEGINNING DATES OF DISCHARGE
FOR EACH SEDIMENTATION POND
2B
Pond Number Date Qischarqe to Beqln sft
1, 2B May, 1981
5A, 7A November, 1981
14 July, 1982
9, 10 July, 1984 6A
6A, 11A July, 1986
Table 11-2 on 11-11 provides the coordinate locations of discharge 7A
points of the nine sedimentation ponds. These discharge points
are also plotted by arrows on EXHIBIT A.
Names of the waterways receiving the discharges from each of the 9
nine sedimentation ponds are listed in Table 11-2 on page 11-11.
10
UA
14
Table II-2
LOCATIONS OF NINE SEDIMENTATION POND DISCHARGE POINTS,
RECEIVING WATERWAYS, AND SUBSEQUENT FLOW PATTERNS
Latitude Longitude Receiving Waterway and
Discharge (North) (West) Subsequent Flow Patterns
001a 30°36'17° 96,,4,58" To Carlos Lake, thence to Big
8ranch Creek, thence to
Gibbons Creek, thence to
Navasota River
001 b 30°34'50" 96*5'22" To diversion of Rock Lake
Creek, then to Gibbons
Creek, thence to Navasota
River
001c 30®34'37" To unnamed tributary of
Dry Creek, thence to
Pond No. 7 A
OOld 30°33'37" 96°5'38" To Dry Creek, thence to
Gibbons Creek, thence to
Navasota River
OOle 30°33'20" 96°6'7"
To unnamed tributary of
Gibbons Creek, thence to
Gibbons Creek, thence to
Navasota River
OOlf 30°33'44" 96°8'49"
OOlg 30°33*44" 96°8'37"
To unnamed tributary of
Navasota River, thence to
the Navasota River
To unnamed tributary of
Dinner Creek, thence to
Dinner Creek, thence to
the Navasota River
001h 30°34'26" 96°5,9"
0011 30°32'32" 96°7'32"
To diversion of Rock Lake
Creek, thence to Gibbons
Creek, thence to the
Navasota River
To unnamed tributary of the
Navasota River., thence to the
Navasota River
-------
TEXAS MUNICIPAL POWER A6ENCY
GIBBONS CREEK LIGNITE MINE
DISCHARGE 001
TABLE M
SEDIMENTATION POND DISCHARGE CHARACTERISTICS
Discharge
Pond
No.
Contributing
Discharge
Area (ac)
Estimated
Top of Dan
Elev. (ft nsl)
Emergency
Spillway Crest
Elev. (ft msl)
Principal*
Spillway Crest
Elev. (ft msl)
Allocated Sediment
Storage (ac-ft)
Stora<
Pr1nc:
Crest
ie Volume at
ipal Spillway
Elev. (ac-ft)
Surface An
Principal !
Crest Elev,
001a
1
111
264.5
260.7
259.7
5.4
51
13.2
001b
2B
370
243.0
238.8
237.5
18
166
25
001c
5A1
971
266.8
263.6
252.0
36
0
12.5
001 d
6A
705
213.3
208.3
207.3
58
570
111
' 001 e
7A
1,675
220.2
215.2
214.2
60
803
68
001 f
9
501
212.1
207.1
206.1
. 21
242
39
001 g
10
530
210.5
205.5
204.5
46
674
63
001 h
UA
224
230.0
226.0
222.5
17
121
32
0011
14
1.470
231.6
226.6
225.6
92
761
139
1) Pond 5A 1s a flood control pond with 419 acre-feet of temporary detention storage above the sediment pool.
2) Principal Spillway Crest Elevation 1s determined by sediment and required detention storage or by backwater elevations from
Gibbons Creek and the Navasota River, whichever 1s higher.
3) Storage volume at principal spillway crest does not Include allocated sediment storage.
Discharge
Pond
No.
Hydroloqlc/Hydraullc Data Related to the 10-yr. ^"^''f^clpltatlon Even
im Water Surface Detention Release Rate (1000's gpd) Approx. D
Maximum
Elev. (ft msl)
Storage (ac-ft) Maximum
Average Time (dey
wdown
001a
1
259.7
51
6,200
3.500
001b
2B
237.5
166
17,500
7,500
001c
5A
263.6
419
42,000
33.600
001 d
6A
205.4
388
25,500
17.400
OOle
7A
214.2
803
57,800
41,700
001 f
9
206.1
242
14,600
12,200
001 g
10
197.6
296
27,500
14.500
001 h
11A
222.5
121
14,900
11,800
0011
14
225.6
761
40,800
28,200
B-4
-------
TEXAS MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY
OF
GIBBONS CREEK POWER PLANT
AND
SURFACE MINING AREA
„ PRE DEVELOPMENT
I
i_n
FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC.
NOVEMBER 1979
HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY OF
GIBBONS' CREEK POWER PLANT
AND SURFACE MINING AREA HYDROLOG1C AND HYDROLOGIC DATA COLLECTION
PRE-DEVELOPMENT
To monitor the water discharge conditions, three streamflow measuring
and water quality sampling stations have been established as follows:
1. Sulphur Creek near Singleton at a County Road Bridge at the
downstream point of surface mining 1n that watershed.
(Dally discharge and monthly sample.)
2. Gibbons Creek at State Highway 30, .7 mile east of Carlos.
(Dally discharge and monthly sample.)
3. Rock Lake Creek at a county road 1 mile west and .3 nlle south
of Carlos.
(Dally discharge and monthly sample.)
4. Gibbons Creek at County Road Bridge 1.3 miles west of Piedmont.
(Monthly sample.)
Attached Is a description of the above gages and sampling points.
During the 1979 spring flood peak Sulphur Creek overflowed the road to
the north of the present gage location and deposited debris on the
wooden bridge floor.
The flood of 1979 was high enough on Gibbons Creek to pass water over
State Highway 30, .7 mile east of Carlos.
A local.resident said flood flow frequently caused the closing of Farm
Road 244, 1 mile southeast of Carlos.
Three precipitation gages have been purchased, each to operate above
streanrflow gages and evaluate precipitation - ninoff relations. One
gage 1s planned for the Sulphur Creek, Rock Lake Creek and Upper Gibbons
Creek watersheds.
- 2 -
-------
TEXAS MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
SURFACE HATER MONITORING SYSTEH
SULPHUR CREEK NEAR SINGLETON. GRIMES COUNTY, TEXAS
Description of Gaging Station
LOCATION -- Lat. 30°37'34", Long. 95°58'56" attached to the downstream
right bank of Sulphur Creek, 16 feet downstream of the downstream
edge of a bridge over Sulphur Creek on Grimes County's light duty,
bladed earth road which departs west from State Highway 90 0.2 mile
south of Singleton.
DRAINAGE AREA -- 14.3 square mile
ESTABLISHMENT — Established for the Texas Municipal Power Agency. Mon-
thly discharge measurements began January 18, 1979 and monthly
water quality samples began April 17, 1979. The water-stage .re-
corder was put Into operation and computation of dally discharges
began Hay 25, 1979.
6AGE -- Stevens continuous automatic water-stage recorder Type A Model
71 Serial No. 89433-79, under a steel plate submergence cover, over
24-Inch corrugated galvanized steel' pipe stilling well, connected
to the right downstream bank by the service walkway. The gage well
W 1s connected to the stream with 1-1/2-Inch galvanized steel Intake
^ Pipes.
An 8-1nch diameter float and steel tape activate the Instrument.
The float tape Is graduated to hundredths of a foot, will read 0 to
12.96 feet and Is limited by the float striking the Instrument
shelf.
The zero of the gage Is approximately 270 feet above mean sea level
based upon a Singleton Quadrangle contour crossing Sulphur Creek
about 200 feet downstream from the gage.
Pertinent elevations of the gage structure, 1n feet, are as follows
(gage datum):
Top of hinged steel Instrument coyer 14.42
Top of Instrument shelf 13.43
Top of stilling well 13.3
Sill of float and adjustment door 11.3
Sill of clean out door 5.5
Intake flow line 4.1, 3.1. 2.1, 1.1
Intake flow line 0.1
Inside silt bottoai -0.8
Bottom of stilling well -1.3
- 3 -
iulpnur tr. nr. Singleton
Outside staff gage sections, in feet, are as follows:
0 to 6.66 on right Inside wall of bridge,
6.66 to 13.33 secured to the gage structure with a redwood
backing.
CONTROL -- Bed and banks of the shifting sand channel up to bankfull
stage.' The large flat pasture flood plain to the right of the
channel 1s the control for flood flows.
DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS -- Low and medium flow can be measured using a
top measuring rod, wading approximately 50 feet upstream from the
bridge at the gage structure. Flood flows can be measured using
a handline from the upstream side of the same bridge which 1s
stationed 1n 2 foot Intervals.
POINT OF ZERO FLOW -- Estimated to be 1.00 feet gage datura.
REGULATION — None known.
DIVERSIONS -- None known.
REMARKS -- Monthly discharge measurements, monthly water quality samples
and continuous water stage recorder charts are taken and the results
kept by Freese and Nichols, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas. Water quality
samples are analyzed by the Environmental Engineer Division of the
Civil Engineering Department at Texas A&H University.
The recording gage structure was Installed In Its location with the
permission of the landowner, Mr. Earnest R. Poteete.
REFERENCE MARKS --
R.P. Roofing rail 1n downstream wooden bridge rail, 4 feet left
of the right abutment. Elevation 10.00 feet gage datum.
R.M. 6-inch galvanized spike 1.8 feet above the ground 1n a 2.2
feet diameter oak tree which is 46 feet north northwest of the
right abutment. Elevation 11.94 feet, gage datum.
F. L. Kelly IU
0. H. Montgomery
7/9/79
-------
TEXAS MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
SURFACE HATER MONITORING STATION
GIBBONS CREEK NEAR CARLOS COMMUNITY. GRIMES CO., TEXAS
Description of Gaging Station
LOCATION -- Lat. 30°Z5'40", Long. 96°03'54" attached to a pile cap on
the downstream side, 250 feet from the east end of State Highway
30 bridge 1n the low water channel, over Gibbons Creek, which Is
0.7 alle east of Carlos Coominlty, Grimes County, Texas.
DRAINAGE AREA — 91 square Biles
ESTABjJSHMENT -- Established for the Texas Municipal Power Agency.
Monthly discharge measurements began January 18, 1979 and water
quality samples began April 17, 1979. The water-stage recorder was
put Into operation and computation of dally discharges began May
29, 1979.
GAGE -- Stevens continuous automatic water-stage recorder Type A Model
71 Serial No. 69435-79,'Under a steel plate submergence cover, over
24-1nch corrugated galvanized steel pipe stilling well, connected
to a pile cap with 6-1nch channels. The gage well 1s connected to
the stream with 1-1/2 Inch pipe couplings through the well.
An 8-1nch float and steel perforated tape activate the instrument..
The float tape Is graduated to hundredths of a foot, will read from
0 to 17.35 feet and Is United by the float striking the Instrument
shelf.
The zero of the gage Is 204.65 feet above mean sea level from
U.S.G.S. B.M. described as follows: Carlos, 67 feet south and 31
feet west of Intersection of State Highway 30 and Farm Road 244; in
concrete post projecting 0.3 feet; standard tablet stamped "TT 44
JUG 1959", elevation 295.04 -feet.
Pertinent elevations of the gage structure, in feet, are at follows
Top of hinged steel Instrunent cover 18.62
Top of Instrument shelf 17.63
Sill of float adjustment door 16.0
Sill of cleanout door 3.6
Intake flow line 1.8
Intake flow line 0.8
Intake flow line -0.2
Inside silt bottom -0.0
Intake flow line -2.6
Outside staff gage sections, 0 to 13.33 feet, are secured to the
well with a redwood backing.
CONTROL -- Low and medium state - discharge (up to bankfull) Is controlled
By the bed and banks of the channel. Flood flows will spread over
the wide and flat floodplaln.
DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS -- Low and medium flow can be measured using a
top measuring rod, wading approximately 100 feet downstream of the
Highway 30 bridge. Flood flows can be measured using a handlJne
from both sides of the same bridge, the downstream handrail being
sectioned 1n 5 foot Intervals.
POINT OF ZERO FLOW — About 1.0 foot gage height.
REGULATION — None at present. The Gibbons Creek Dam will impound flow
frora~85 square miles. Flow will be controlled by the gated struc-
ture.
DIVERSIONS — The Gibbons Creek Lake will be used for cooling Water for
the TMPA steam-electric generating plang.
REMARKS ~ Monthly discharge measurements, monthly water quality samples
and continuous water-stage recorder charts are taken and the results
kept by Freese and Nichols, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas. Water quality
samples are analyzed by the Environmental Engineering Division of
the Civil Engineering Department at Texas AIM University.
The recording gage structure was attached to the State Highway 30
bridge by a five year provisional permit dated January 15, 1979
from B.L. DeBerry, Engineer-Director and Wayne Henneberge, Bridge
Engineer, with the State Department of Highways-and Public Trans-
portation.
REFERENCE MARKS —
R.M. Center line of bridge deck at right (west) end of the highway
bridge. Elevation 15.66 feet, gage datum; 220.31 feet above mean
sea level.
R.M. Center line of bridge deck at left (east) end of the highway
bridge. Elevation, 15.67 feet, gage datum; 220.32 feet above mean
sea level.
R.P. Top 12 Inch handrail, 245 feet from left (east) end. Eleva-
tion, 19.06 feet, gage datum; 223.71 feet above mean sea level.
R.P. Stove bolt head, right upstream corner of instrument shelf.
Elevation, 17.63 feet, gage datum; 222.28 feet above mean sea level.
F. L. Kelly III
J. H. Montgomery
7/9/79
-------
TEXAS MUNICIPAL POKER AGENCY
SURFACE HATER MONITORING SYSTEM
ROCK LAKE CREEK NEAR CARLOS COmUNITY, GRIMES CO.. TEXAS
Description of Gaging Station
LOCATION -- Lat. Long. 96°05'45" attached to the downstream left
abutment of a timber bridge over Rock Lake Creek 0.6 mile southwest
of State Highway 30 on a light duty, graded and drained soil surfaced
county road. The Intersection of this (Grimes County) light duty
road and State Highway 30 is 0.6 mile west of Carlos, Texas.
DRAINAGE AREA -- 2.77 square miles
ESTABLISHMENT — Established for the Texas Municipal Power Agency. Monthly
discharge measurements began January 18, 1979 and monthly water
quality sample began April 17, 1979. The water-stage recorder was
put in operation and dally discharge records began May 29, 1979.
GAGE -- Stevens continuous automatic water-stage recorder Type A Model
71 Serial No. 89434-79, under a steel plate submergence cover, over
24-Inch corrugated galvanized steel pipe stilling well, connected to
the bridge's left downstream wingwall by a 2-inch steel angle Iron
frame and service walk. The stilling well 1s connected to the
stream with 1-1/2-Inch galvanized steel Intake pipes.
An 8-Inch diameter float and perforated steel tape activate the
recorder. The float tape Is graduated to hundredths of a foot,
will read from 0 to 16.38 feet and Is limited by the float striking
the shelf.
The zero of the gage Is 226.49 feet above mean sea level from U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Bench Mark described as follows: Carlos, 67 feet south
and 31 feet west of Intersection of State Highway 30 and Farm Road
244; 1n concrete post projecting 0.3 feet; standard tablet stamped
"TT 44 JWG 1959*, elevation 295.04 feet.
Pertinent elevations of the gage structure, In feet (gage datum), are
as follows:
Top of hinged steel instrument cover 17.65
Top of Instrunent shelf 16.66
Sill of float adjustment door 15.1
Sill of clean out door 4.6
Intake flow line .7
Intake flow line -0.3
Inside silt bottom -.5
Bottom of pipe stilling well -1.6
Outside staff gage sections, in feet, are as follows:
0 to 10.00 on left inside wall of bridge
10.00 to 13.33 on left downstream wing wall pile.
CONTROL -- The stage-discharge relation 1s controlled by the brush choked
rough rocky channel. The narrow floodplain 1s brushy and thickly
wooded.
DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS — Low and medium flow can be measured using a
top measuring rod, wading approximately 150 feet upstream of the
bridge at'the gage. Flood flows can best be measured using a handline
from the upstream side of the same bridge which is stationed 1n
2 foot Intervals.
POINT OF ZERO FLOH — Approximately 0.8 foot gage datum.
REGULATION -- None
DIVERSIONS — None
REHARKS -- Monthly discharge measurements, .monthly water quality samples
and continuous water stage recorder charts are taken and the results
kept by Freese and Nichols, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas. Hater quality
samples are analyzed by the Environmental Engineering Division of
the Civil Engineering Department at Texas ASM University.
The recording gage structure was attached to the Grimes County bridge
with the permission of Grimes County through the Texas Municipal Power
Agency.
REFERENCE HARKS —
R.P. Two roofing nails in the wooden downstream bridge rail. Eleva-
tion, 13.00 feet, gage datum; 239.49 feet mean sea level.
R.P. Instrument shelf bracket, right side, at the end of the third
board downstream. Elevation, 16.53 feet, gage datum; 243.02 feet,
mean sea level.
R.P. Gage service walk (plank), left upstream corner. Elevation
13.75 feet, gage datum; 240.24 feet mean sea level.
R.M. 6-1nch galvanized spike 3-feet above the ground In 14-inch
oak tree, 60 feet northeast from the left upstream corner of the
bridge. Elevation 14.26 feet, gage datum; 240.75 feet, mean sea
level.
R.M. 6-Inch galvanized spike above staff gage section on left down-
stream wingwall pile. Elevation 13.92 feet gage datum; 240.41 feet
above mean sea level.
F. L. Kelly III
J. H. Montgomery
7/9/79
- 8 -
-------
TEXAS MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING STATION
GIBBONS CREEK NEAR PIEDMONT, TEXAS
Description of Sampling Station.
LOCATION — Lat. 30°31'30n Long. 96°06'58" at a steel truss county
road bridge over Gibbons Creek, 2.6 niles upstream from confluence
with Navasota River and mouth, 1.3 miles west of Piedmont, Grimes
County, Texas.
DRAINAGE AREA — 115 square miles
ESTABLlSWiENT — Monthly sampling was started on April 17, 1979, for the
Texas Municipal Power Agency. The site was selected by Dean S.
Mathews, P.E., of TMPA, and John H. Montgomery, P.E., with the
consulting firm of Freese and Nichols, Inc.
SAMPLING -- Samples are taken monthly with a few extras at selected times.
Monthly analysis will usually include the following:
Temperature, pH and conductivity. Nutrient analysis 5 day
BOD, organic nitrogen, aononia nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen,
nitrate, nitrogen and total phosphorus. Inorganic chemicals
to be analyzed are si 1 lea calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium,
bicarbonate, carbonate, sulphate, chloride, color, turbidity,
total organic carbon, chemical oxygen demand, phenols, total
suspended solids and oil and grease.
Three month interval analysis to Include the so called heavy metals
as follows:
Aluainum, arsnic, barium, baron, cadium, chromin, copper, iron,
lead, lithium, manganese, mercury, molybedenum, nickel, seliniun,
silver and strontium.'
J. Frank Slowey, PhD of the Texas ASM Environmental Engineering
Division supervises the taking of samples, furnishes necessary con-
tainers and nakes or supervises the laboratory analysis.
DISCHARGE -- Due to frequent backwater from the Navasota River a streanr
flow station is not feasible at this location.
Discharge can be estimated by adding the flow at Gibbons Creek
near Carlos and Rock Lake Creek near Carlos and nultiplying the
total tines 1.2 to correct for the drainage area ratio.
Gibbons Ck. nr. Piedmont
REMARKS - This sampling point will include flow from the affected are«
except about 4 square miles at the southwest portion of the sur-
face mining which will drain into the Navasota River.
John H. Montgomery, P.E.*
11/29/79
- 10 -
-------
EXPECTED STREAMFLOW CONDITIONS
No recording streamflow stations had been operated In the Gibbons Creek
Watershed prior to those established by the Texas Municipal Power-Agency.
Bedias Creek near Hadlsonvllle. Texas.
Bedias Creek near Hadlsonvllle, Texas has a cornnon boundary (about
15 miles) with the Gibbons Creek Watershed and can best be used to
estimate long tern runoffs in the area.
Bedias Creek at the U.S. Geological Survey gage near Hadlsonvllle has a
drainage area of 321 square miles and has continuous dally flow records
since October 1967.
The extremes discharges for the Bedias Creek streamflow station 1s as
follows:
Maximum discharge 33,800 cubic feet persecond Sept. 14, .1974.
Minimum discharge 0 at times.
The average discharge for the period October 1967 to September 1977
is 229 cubic feet per second or 165,900 acre feet per year or 517 acre
feet per square mile per year.
w The highly variable yields of local watersheds are Illustrated In the
A following table.
- 11 -
-------
SURFACE WATER MONITORING
DATA AVAILABLE SINCE PUBLICATION
OF THE DRAFT EIS
GC-l. B-S045
Surface Hater Analyses
SC Lignite Nine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas Mil University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
GC-l, B 5045
Surface Uatei Analyses
GC Llgnl e Mine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas ASM University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification 61bbons Creek » I near Carlos
Date Collected 10/18/79 at 4:40 a.ffl.
Field Data: pH
By F.L. Kelly 111
S.9
Conductivity
700
umhos/cm
Temperature 22.5 *C
GENERAL PARAMETERS
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS -
Lab f 298
Date Received
Parameter
mg/l
Parameter
mg/l
Carbonate (CO3)
0
pH
6.3
units
Bicarbonate (HCQj)
39
Conductivity
649
umhos/cm
Sulfate (S0„)
175
P. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
0
Chloride (CI)
85
T. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
32
Fluoride (F)
0.20
Total Suspended Solids
145
Nftrate (NO3-N)
0.05
Total Dissolved Solids
575
Nitrite (NO2-N)
< 0.01
Phenols
< 0.01
Amnonia (NH3-N)
0.02
Oil ft Grease
< 1
Organic N
0.58
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODj)
2.5
Total Phosphate (P0..-P)
0.08
Clinical Oxygen Demand (COD)
36
Silica (SiOj)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
36.0
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
8.5
in
Turbidity
79
NTU
HETALS *
Parameters mg/1
Parameters mg/l Parameters
mg/l
Aluminum (A1)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Catalum (Cd)
Calclun (Ca)
Chromlw (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
17"
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Lithium (LI) ^
Magnesiisn (Hg)
Manganese (Kn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Ho)
Nickel (N1)
Q.I? (4.0)
4.2
0.06 (0.5)
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag>
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
_Li_
*5T
Sample Identification
Date Collected
Field Data: pH _
Rock Lake Creek near Carlos
10/18/79 at 5:00 a.m. By F.L. Kelly III
3.8
Temperature
Conductivity
J2 °c
1400
umbos/cm
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Lab f 300
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Date Received 10/18/79
mq/1
Parameter
"¦9/1
Carbonate (C03)
Bicarbonate (HCOj)
Sulfate (SO^)
Chloride (CI)
Fluoride (F)
Nitrate (N03-N)
Nitrite (N02-N>
Amnonia (NH3—N)
Organic N
Total Phosphate (P0i,-P)
Silica (S102)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
-425.
Ji2_
0-70
001
0-01
O.M
JLL
0.02
15.0
PH
Conductivity
P. Alkalinity (as CaCO))
T. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Phenols
Oil & Grease
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (600$)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Turbidity
4.1
1270
848
< 0.01
~o~
IT
METALS *
Parameters
Parameters
mg/l
Parameters
units
umhos/cm
NTU
WW
Aluminum (Al)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
~5T
Iron (Fe),
Lead (Pb)
Lithium (Li)
Magnesium (Hg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (N1)
0.04(0.9)
7T~
-rr
mn
Potassiun (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
9.9
17V
Analyst
Remarks
. Checked by /V]&T~
* total soluble (Fe and Hn in parenthesis represent total
Including particulate)
Analyst
Remarks
, Checked by /}l
* total soluble (Fe and Mn in parenthesis represent total
Including particulate!
-------
GC-1, B-5045
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite Hine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas AJII University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
CO
I
Sample Identification
Date Collected
Field Data: pH
Gibbons Creek i 11 (Duplicate)
10/18/79 at 5:40 a.m.
6.3
Temperature
Conductivity
n s °c
_ By F.L. Kelly Ml
890 umhos/cm
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS -
Lab I 296
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Date Received 10/18/79
nq/1
Parameter
HSZL
Carbonate (CO3)
0
pH
6.6
units
Bicarbonate (HCO3)
48.8
Conductivity
850
umhos/cm
Sulfate (SOJ
200
P. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
6
Chloride (CI)
120
T. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
40
Fluoride (F)
0.50
Total Suspended Solids
72
Nitrate (NO3-N)
0.01
Total Dissolved Solids
536
Nitrite (NOz-N)
< 0.01
Phenols
< 0.01
Antnonia (NH3-N)
0.06
Oil & Grease
< 1
Organic N
0.54
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODs)
1.4
Total Phosphate (P0i,-P)
0.08
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
28
Si 1ica (S10?)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
22.0
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
7.0
7(1
Turbidity
27
" NTU
HETALS «
Parameters mg/1
Parameters og/1 Parameters
mg/1
Alumlnum (A1)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper J( Cu)
_52_
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pbj
Lithium (LI)
Magnesium (Hg)
Manganese (Hn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (N1)
0.Q6 (1.51
12.3
0.33 (0.5)
Potassium (Kj
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
10.0
IF
Analyst
Remarks
Checked by '
* total soluble metals (Fe and Hn In parenthesis represents total
Including particulate)
Yerv low flow
GC-1, B-5045
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite Mine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas ASI1 University
for
Texas Munlc pal Power Agency
Sample Identification
Date Collected
Field Data: pH
Gibbons Creek I II
10/18/79 at 5:40 a.m.
6.3
Conductivity
Temperature 22.5 °C
. By .
890
F.L. Kelly III
umhos/cm
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS -
Lab f 295
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Oate Received 10/18/79
Carbonate (CO])
Bicarbonate (HCOj)
Sulfate (SOu)
Chloride (CI)
Fluoride (F)
Nitrate (N03-N)
Nitrite (N02-N)
Amnonla (NH3-N)
Organic N
Total Phosphate (P0«,-P)
Silica (S102)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
mg/1
Parameter
raq/1
0
PH
6.7
units
41
Conductivity
855
umbos
IBB
P. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
0
116
T. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
34
0.50
Total Suspended Solids
43
0.02
Total Dissolved Solids
424
< 0.01
Phenols
< 0.01
0.0S
Oil & Grease
< t
0.54
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOOs)
1.6
0.10
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
20
24.0
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
8.0
M ...
Turbidity
23
~ NTU
METALS »
Parameters
mg/1
Parameters
mg/1
Parameters
Aluminum (A1)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
~6F
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Lithium (LI)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (HI)
0.08 (1.2)
12.5
0^33 (0.5)
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
mg/1
10.0
TT
Analyst
Checked by /Y1j$T~
Remarks * total soluble metals (Fe and Mn In parenthesis represents total
Including particulate)
-------
6C-1, B-S04S
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite Nine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas Aull University
for
Texas Rjnlclpal Power Agency
Sample Identification
Oate Collected
Field Data: pH _
Sulphur Creek
10/18/79 at 3:40 a.m. By F.L. ICelly 111
6.0 _
Temperature
Conductivity
11 "C
580
umhos/an
• LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS -
Lab f 297
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Date Received 10/18/79
Parameter
ng/1
Parameter
mq/1
Carbonate (C03)
0
PH
5.9
units
Bicarbonate (HCO3)
24.4
Conductivity
549
umhos/cm
Sulfate (S0U)
112
P. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
0
Chloride (CI)
90
T. Alkalinity (as CaCOs)
20
Fluoride (F)
0.40
Total Suspended Solids
13
Nitrate (N03-N)
.< 0.01
Total Dissolved Solids
381 '
Nitrite (N02-N)
< 0.01
Phenols
< 0.01
Annonia (NH3-N)
0.14
Oil i Grease
< 1
Organic N
0.86
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
2.7
Total Phosphate (P0<,-P)
0.22
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
24
Silica (Si02)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
5.0
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
7.8
fl
Turbidity ~
lfi
NTU
HETALS *
Parameters nq/1
Parameters mg/1 Parameters
mg/1
w
¦C-
Aluroinum (Al)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
_1L
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Lltfilus (LI)
Magnesium (Hg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (N1)
0.117 (1.5)
9.2
Q.03 (0.Q3)
Potasslun (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
2.6
~?T
Analyst
Remarks
Checked by /MAT"
total soluble (Fe and tti In parenthesis represent total
Including particulate) ;
Very low flow - essentially nil
GC-1, B-5045
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite Mine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas ASH University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification Rock Lake Creek near Carlos
Date Collected 9/13/79 at 4:25 a.m. By Fred L. Kelly III
Field Data: pH 3.6 Conductivity 2400 umhos/an
Temperature
_24_
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS -
Lab I 226
GEHERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Oate Received 9/13/79
_23Z1
Parameter
Carbonate (CO3)
Bicarbonate (HCO3)
Sulfate (SO.,)
Chloride (CI)
Fluoride (F)
Nitrate (N03-N)
Nitrite (N02-N)
Annonia (NH3-N)
Organic N
Total Phosphate (P0i,-P)
Silica (Sf02)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
0
~7W
~WT~
—T.T
0.01
w
w
"TT2T
0.«
69
pH
Conductivity
P. Alkalinity (as CaCO])
T. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Phenols
011 & Grease
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOO;)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Turbidity
JJ-
2500
IT
278
ir~
IT
METALS *
Parameters
wg/1
Parameters
JSZ1
Parameters
units
umhos/a
1720
"OT
NTU
Aluminum (Al)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calciun (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
17H
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Lithium (LI)
Magnesium (Hg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Ho)
Nickel (N1)
0.6
T9
-nr
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
20
1ST
Analyst —- .
Remarks * Total Soluble (Total Including particulate Fe *¦ 3^6 mg/1. fti ¦ 2.0 ng/1)
Checked by
Ca m l'C hm / 1 Mn ¦* O A m
Flow conditions - nil
-------
GC-1, B-5045
Surface Hater Analyses
GC Lignite Hine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas Au)i University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification Gibbons Creek i 1 npar Carlos
Date Col lected 9/13/79 at 4:30 a.m. By Fred L. Kelly 111
Field Data: pH 6.6 Conductivity 72Q umhos/cm
Temperature 71 1
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Lab I 228
Date Received
9/13/79
mg/l
Parameter
mg/l
Carbonate (CO3)
Bicarbonate (HCO3)
Sulfate (SOu)
Chloride (CI)
Fluoride (F)
_Nitrate (NO3-N)
I Nitrite (N02-N)
MAnmonia (NH3-N)
^Organic N
Total Phosphate (PO^-P)
Silica (Si02)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
_L3fl_
J2L
0-3
0-01
Q.Q1
0-01
0.49
£s_
.26
pH
Conductivity
P. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
T. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Phenols
Oil & Grease
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODs)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Turbidity
_ZJL
6BQ
.units
umhos/cm
-52.
_UL1_
481
< n.m
4.3
_L£_
4«
_B~L
_43_
NTU
METALS *
Parameters
Parameters
mq/1
Parameters
mg/l
Aluminum (Al)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
"IT
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Lithium (LI)
Magnesium (Hg)
Manganese (Hn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
0-029
IT
0.94
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
_aj6_
145
Analyst
: Checked by //^;
Remarks .* Total Soluble ( fetal including particulate Fe 3 2$ m
mq/1. Hn J 1.4 mq/1)
Flow conditions - nil
GC-1, B-5045
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite Nine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas Auli University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification Gibbons Creek # I (Duplicate)
Date Collected 9/13/79 at 4:30 a.m. By Fred L. Kel ly 111
Field Oata: pH 6.6 Conductivity 780 pmhos/cm
Temperature 23.S °C
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS -
Lab I 229
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Oate Received 9/13/79
Parameter
mg/l
Parameter
mg/l
Carbonate (CO3)
0
pH
7.(1
units
Bicarbonate (HCO3)
68
Conductivity
710
umhos/cm
Sulfate (SOi,)
138
P. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
0
Chloride (CI)
116
T. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
56
Fluoride (F)
0.3
Total Suspended Solids
76
Nitrate (NO3-N)
< 0.01
Total Dissolved Solids
500
Nitrite (NO2-N)
< 0.01
Phenqls
< 0.01
Anmonta (NH3-N)
0.02
011 & Grease
4.8
Organic N
0.68
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODs)
2.4
Total Phosphate (P0i«-P)
0.23
Chemical Oxygen Demand (CfiD)
44
Silica (S102)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
41.5
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
10.2
Turbidity
44
" NTU
METALS *
Parameters mq/1
Parameters mq/1 Parameters
mq/1
Aluminum (Al)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
45
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Lithium (Li)
Magnesium (Hg)
Manganese (Hn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (NI)
0-025
11.3
0-94
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
8.3
J2L.
Analyst —'~r
Remarks
^ Checked by //.<¦¦> •/n -n j
Total Soluble (Total including particulate Fe ° 1.9 ma/1. Hn « 1.4 mo/1)
Flow conditions - nil
-------
GC-1. B-5045
Surface Mater Analyses
GC Lignite Mine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas AU1 University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification Gibbons Creek t II
Date Collected
Field Oata: pH
?i«i)ygvr
9/13/79 at 5:30 a.m.
6.2
Temperature
Conductivity
23.5 *C
.By.
950
Fred L. Kelly III
umhos/an
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS -
Lab « 225
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Oate Received 9/13/79
Parameter
"9/1
Carbonate (CO3)
0
PK
6.7
units
Bicarbonate (HCOj)
53
Conductivity
BIS
umhos/cm
Sulfate (SOi,)
225
P. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
n
Chloride (CI)
141
T. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
32
Fluoride (F)
0.3
Total Suspended Solids
140
Nitrate (N03-N)
< 0.01 "
Total Dissolved Solids
645
Nitrite (N02-N)
« 0.01
Phenols
< 0.01
Aunonia (NHj-N)
Organic N
O.DZ
011 & Grease
5.5
0.6U
Biochemical Oxygen Oemand (8OD5)
2.0
Total Phosphate (PQ<,-P)
0.26
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
37
Silica (S102)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
56.5
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
8.5
?n
Turbidity
72
NTU
METALS *
Parameters mg/1
Parameters mg/1 Parameters
mg/1
Aluminum (Al)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
_fi2_
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Lithium (Li)
Magnesium (Hg)
Manganese (Hi)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (N1)
0.021
S.5
0.3fl
Potasslua (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
11.4
116
Analyst Checked by /X1? • o»' ^
Remarks * Total Soluble Metal (Total Including particulate Fe « 1.6 ma/1. Hn - 0.B6 mo/n
Flow conditions - nil
GC-1, B-5045
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite Mine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas AU1 University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification Sulphur Creek near Singleton
Date Collected
9/13/79 at 3:20 a.m.
.By Fred L. Kelly III
Field Oata: pH
JLIL
Temperature
_ Conductivity
-»_:c
590
umhos/cm
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Lab I 227
Date Received
9/13/79
m/l
Parameter
Carbonate (C0j)
Bicarbonate (HCOj)
Sulfate (S0J
Chloride (CI)
Fluoride (F)
Nitrate (N03-N)
Nitrite (N02-N)
Annonta (NHj-N)
Organic N
Total Phosphate (P0i,-P)
Silica (S102)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
40
~TTT
"ToT
"or
0.01
w
"or
"0TTT
~or
"5T
HE
P« 6-4
Conductivity S55
P. Alkalinity (as CaCOj) 0
T. Alkalinity (as CaCOj) 33
Total Suspended Solids 42
Total Dissolved Solids 403
Phenols < 0.01
Oil & Grease 6.5
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOOj) 2.0
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 40
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 6.1
Turbidity 24
METALS *
Parameters
mq/1
Parameters
Parameters
. units
umbos/cm
NTU
mq/1
Aluminum (AT)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
TT
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Lithium (LI)
Magnesium (Hg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (N1)
0.10
9.5
0.043
Potasslua (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Hai
Strontium (Sr)
Z1nc (Zn)
Analyst
Remarks
-J^L
-Li-
Be
Checked by k'p
-------
GC-1, B-5045
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite Mine
by
environmental Engineering Division
Texas Aull University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification Rock Lake Creek near Carlos
Date Collected 8/15/79 5:05 a.m. By Fred L. Kelly HI
Field Data: pH 3.5 Conductivity 2400 mnhos/cm
Temperature 71 °C
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Lab t 180
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Date Received 8/15/79
Parameter
IKt/1
Parameter
mq/1
Carbonate (CO3)
0
PH
4.0
units
Bicarbonate (HCOj)
n
Conductivity
74(10
umhos/cm
Sulfate (SOu)
700
P. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
0
Chloride (CI)
TOR
T. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
0
Fluoride (F)
n.m
Total Suspended Solids
1
Nitrate (NOj-N)
0.05
Total Olssolved Solids
1754
Nitrite (N02-N)
< 0.01
Phenols
< 0.01
Anmonia (NHj-N)
0.06
Oil 4 Grease
2.2
Organic N
< 0.1
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOOs)
< 1
Total Phosphate (P0..-P)
0.02
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
14
Silica (S102)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
56
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
4.5
m
Turbidity
2
" NTU
METALS *
Parameters mg/1
Parameters
mg/1 Parameters
mg/1
Aluminum (All 4.BO
Iron (
Fe)
0.28 Potassium (K)
18.1
Arsenic (As) * 0.01
Lead (
Pb)
« 0.001 Selenium (Se)
< 0.005
Barium (Bal < 0.2
Lithium (Li)
0.125 Silver (Aq
)
< 0.001
Boron IB) 1.2
Magnesium (Mg)
43 Sodium (Ha)
204
Cadmium (Cd) 0.003
Manganese (Hn)
2.5 Strontium (Sri
1.54
Calcium (Ca) 19Z
Mercury (Hg)
< 0.0002 Z1nc (Zn)
0.57
Chromium (Cr) « 0.001
Molybdenum (Mo)
< 0.001
Copper (Cu) 1 O.OOZ
Nickel
(ND
0.05
Analyst ' -
1 '"'-1. - ---
Checked by S
>
TT
Remarks flow conditions - nil
Total Soluble Hetals
GC-1. B-5045
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite H1ne
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas AU1 University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification
Date Collected
Field Oata: pH
Gibbons- Creek # I near Carlos 9 State Hwv 30
8/15/79 4:35 a.m. By Fred L. Kelly III
6.0
Temperature
Conductivity
26 "C
610
umhos/cm
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS -
Lab I 178
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Date Received 8/15/79
mg/1
Parameter
mq/1
Carbonate (CO3)
Bicarbonate (HCOj)
Sulfate (SO,,)
Chloride (CI)
Fluoride (F)
Nitrate (NOj-N)
Nitrite (N02-N)
Aiimonia (NHj-N)
Organic N
Total Phosphate (PO^-P)
40
jsa_
66
JLiL
0.13
0.01
0.09
0.41
Silica (S102)
Color (Pt-Co
METALS
Units)
0.
~Z7
13
IS!
pH
Conductivity
P. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
T. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Phenols
Oil & Grease
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODj)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COO)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Turbidity
570
-i2_
_Z1_
_2Z2_
6.4
_L2_
_22_
_4fi_
. units
umhos/cm
¦ 0.01
NTU
Parameters
mg/1
Parameters
mg/1
Parameters
mq/l
Aluminum (Al)
0.068
Iron (Fe)
0.03B
Potassium (IC)
5.7
Arsenic (As)
< 0.01
Lead (Pb)
< 0.001
Selenium (Se)
< 0.005
Barium (Ba)
< O.Z
Lithium (Li)
0.025
Silver (Ag)
< 0.001
Boron (B)
1.2
Magnesium (Mg)
7.3
Sodium (Na)
49
Cadmium (Cd)
< o fjfji
Manganese (Mn)
0.24
Strontium (Sr)
0.23
Calcium (Ca)
34.5
Mercury (Hg)
< 0.0002
Zinc (Zn)
0.077
Chromium (Cr)
< n.nm
Molybdenum (Mo)
0.003
Copper (Cu)
0.006
Nickel (N1)
< 0.01
Analyst —
Checked by
" O
Remarks -flow conditions
- nil
( /
* Total Soluble Hetals
-------
GC-1. B-5045
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite Nine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas AU1 University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification
Date Col lected
Field Oata: pH
Gibbons CreekJII
#*T"*
8/15/79 5:45 a.m.
6.4
Temperature
_ Conductivity
27 *C
.By
Fred L. Kelly III
730
Knhos/cn
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS -
Lab # 179
GENERAL PARAHETER5
Parameter
Date Received 6/15/79
_°9ZI
Parameter
£SZL
Carbonate (C03)
0
P»
6.7
units
Bicarbonate (HCOj)
j 2
Conductivity
670
iimhos/cm
Sulfate (S0<,)
2UU
P. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
0
Chloride (CI)
89
T. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
26
Fluoride (F)
0.50
Total Suspended Solids
96
Nitrate (NOj-N)
0.1Z
Total Dissolved Solids
495
Nitrite (N02-N)
< 0.01
Phenols
< 0.01
Amonia (NH3-N)
0.11
Oil i Grease
5.8
Organic N
0.19
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODj)
1.2
Total PhosphateN(P0.,-P)
0.18
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
32
Silica (Si02)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
40
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
12
175
Turbidity
51
NTU
METALS *
Parameters mg/1
Parameters mg/1 Parameters
mg/1
CO
I
Aluminum (Al)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Cadmium fed)
Calcium (Ca>
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu),
. fl.fl?!
< n ni
< n t
_U_
0.001
JL
0.001
0.002
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Llthlan
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
JLJl.
< 0.005
< 0.001
_Z5_
0.69
0-017
Analyst
Remarks '
Checked by ;
flow conditions - nil
ay
1
Total Soluble Metals
GC-1. B-5045
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite Mine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas AM University
for
Texas Municipal Pd*er Agency
Sample Identification
Date Collected
Field Data: pH _
Sulphur Creek near S
ngleton
8/15/79 3:40 a.n
By Fred L. telly til
5.8
Teaq>erature
_ Conductivity
J6 'C
620
nmhos/cm
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Lab f 181
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Date Received 8/15/79
_aZl
Parameter
mg£L
Carbonate (COj)
0
PH
5.8
units
Bicarbonate (HCOj)
22
Conductivity
570
umbos/cm
Sulfate (SO*)
150
P. Alkalinity (as CaCO,)
0
Chloride (CI)
79
T. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
18
Fluoride (F)
0.58
Total Suspended Solids
46
Nitrate (NO3-N)
0.03
Total Dissolved Solids
438
Nitrite (NO2-N)
< 0.01
Phenols
< 0.01
tamonla (HHs-N)
0.O9
Oil & Grease
8.1
Organic N
0.16
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODj)
1.8
Total Phosphate (P0<,-P)
0.14
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COO)
38
Silica (S102)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
40
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
12
80
Turbidity
27
" NTU
METALS*
Parameters mg/1
Parameters mg/1 Parameters
mq/1
Aluminum (Al)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calciun (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
0.025
"oToT
072
TT
< O.ddl
58
< 0.00l
0.007
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Lithium (LI)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
... P.P53
< 0.001
0.033
9.4
0.08
0.0003
< 0.001
< 0.0)
Potassim (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr}
Zinc (Zn)
JLL
0.005
0.001
44
~OT
O.044
Analyst- i'--
Remarks ^ flow conditions - nil
Checked by
* Total Soluble Metals
-------
GC-1, B-5045
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite Hlne
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas AMI University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification" Sulphur Creek near Singleton (Duplicate)
Date Collected
Field Data: pH
8/15/79 3:40 a.m.
5.8
Temperature
Conductivity
26 °C
By Fred L. Kelly, III
umhos/cm
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS -
Lab # 182
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Date Received
8/15/79
mg/1
Parameter
mg/1
Carbonate (COj)
Bicarbonate (HCOj)
Sulfate (S0b)
Chloride (CI)
Fluoride (F)
Nitrate (N03-N)
Nitrite (N02-N)
Anmonia (NH3-N)
Organic N
Total Phosphate (POv
Silica (S102)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
19,5
_L§2_
82
0.58
0.02
P)
< 0.01
0.09
0.16
0.13
"TO"
js:
pH
Conductivity
P. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
T. Alkalinity (as CaCO])
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Phenols
Oil 4 Grease
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODj)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Turbidity
_fcj_
JLZ1L
_4fi_
429
jLi.
_L4_
36
10
_25L
METALS
Parameters
mg/1
Parameters
mg/1
.Parameters
o.ns?
Potassium (K)
< 0.001
Selenium (Se)
1)
0.033
Silver (Ag)
iHq!
9.9
Sodium (Na)
iHn)
0.077
Strontium (Sr)
l)
(Ho)
0.0003
Zinc (Zn)
< 0.001
units
umhos/cm
0.01
NTU
nm/l
Aluminum (A1)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
0.046
< (J.OI
nn—
1.3
< 0.001
"55"
Iron
Lead
IS
0.001
0.003
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (H
Molybdenum
Nickel (Hi)
f, 1
< n nn-i
< n-nm
47.fi
0-69
0.01
< 0.
Analyst
Remarks
i f
^ . J. : ¦.
Checked by
flow conditions - nil
cr ¦' _ /
'¦J.'- 7
* Total Soluble Metals
GC-1, B-5045
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite Mine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas ASH University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification Rock Lake Creek (Duplicate)
Date Collected 7/16/79 By Fred Kelly III
Field Oata: pH 3.2 Conductivity 3400 umhos/cm
Temperature 28 "C
LABORATORY CHEMI AL ANALYSIS -
Lab I 153
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Date Received 7/16/79
Parameter
mq/1
Parameter
mq/1
Carbonate (CO3)
0
pH
4.0
units
Bicarbonate (HCO3)
0
Conductivity
33UU
umhos/cm
Sulfate (SOi,)
950
P. Alkalinity (as CaCO])
U
Chloride (CI)
452
T. Alkalinity (as CaCO])
U
Fluoride (F)
0.68
Total Suspended Solids
b
Nitrate (NO3-N)
0.02
Total Dissolved Solids
7494
Nitrite (N02-N)
< 0.01
Phenols
< <1.(11
Anmonia (NH3-N)
0.07
Oil J Grease
1.8
Organic N
0.34
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD*) ^ ]
Total Phosphate (PO1.-P)
0.01
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) so
Silica (S102)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
SS
Total Organic Carbon (TOO a
75
Turbidity
I.I
NTU
METALS
Parameters mg/1
Parameters mg/1
Parameters
mq/1
Aluminum (A1)
Iron (
Fe)
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
26
Arsenic (As)
Lead (
Pb)
Barlun (Ba)
Lithium (LI)
Silver (Ag)
Boron (B)
Maanesium (Ha) <54
Sodium (Na)
265
Cadmium (Cd)
Manganese (Mn)
Strontium (Sr)
Calcium (Ca) 2SU
Mercurv (Ha)
Zinc (Zn)
Chromium (Cr)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Cooper (Cu)
Nickel
(N1)
Analyst
Remarks
Checked by
-------
GC-l, B-6045
Surface Mater Analyses
GC Lignite Nine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas AU1 University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification
Date Collected 7/16/79
Fteld Data: pH 6.7
W
I
NJ
o
Gibbons Creek II *T 3 * 3£>
.By Fred telly III
Temperature
Conductivity
_azfl_
_ idnhos/cn
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Lab f 155
Oate Received
7/16/79
Parameter
Parameter
_ML
Carbonate (CO3)
Bicarbonate (HCOj)
Sulfate (SO,,)
Chloride (CI)
Fluoride (F)
Nitrate (N0,-N)
Nitrite (N02-N)
Aninonia (NH3-N)
Organic N
Total Phosphate (P0S-P)
0
TTT
~rer
~nr
TT3T
w
"rrrtrr
"U7W
u.w
U.UV!"
Silica (Si02)
Color (Pt-Co
METALS
Parameters
Units)
¦"9/1
"37"
pH K 1
Conductivity 7
-------
GC-1, B-S045
Surface Hater Analyses
GC Lignite H(ne
by
Environmental Engineering Oivision
Texas Aull University
. for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification
Oate Collected
Field Data: pH
Gibbons Creek I 11
7/16/79
£_2_
Temperature
Conductivity
28 °C
_ By Fred Kelly HI
930 • umhos/an
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS -
Lab I 156
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Date Received 7/16/79
nq/1
Parameter
ML
Carbonate (COj)
0
pH
6.3
units
Bicarbonate (HCOj)
44.2
Conductivity
795
umhos/cm
Sulfate (SOJ
164
P. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
0
Chloride (CI)
114
T. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
36.2
Fluoride (F)
0.44
Total Suspended Solids
264
Nitrate (HOj-N)
0.04
Total Dissolved Solids
620
Nitrite (N02-N)
< 0.01
Phenols
< 0.01
Anmonia (NHj-N)
0.16
Oil & Grease
6.8
Organic N
1.29
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (800$)
2.0
Total Phosphate (P0«,-P)
0.02
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
55
Silica (SIO2)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
39
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
12
70
Turbidity
10
" NTU
METALS
Parameters mg/1
Parameters mq/1 Parameters
mq/1
Aluminum (A1)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
_43_
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Lithium (Li)
Magnesium (Hg)
Manganese (Hn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Nl)
17
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
e.z
T7~
Analyst
Remarks
Checked by
GC-1, B-5045
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite Hlne
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas AU1 University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification Rock Lake Creek
Date Collected 7/16/79 By Fred Kelly III
Field Data: pH ¦» ? Conductivity 3400 umhos/era
Temperature 28 "C
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS ¦
Lab I 154
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Oate Received 7/]fi/7q
Parameter
mg/1
Parameter
mg/1
Carbonate (C03)
0
P«
i.n
unl ts
Bicarbonate (HCOj)
0
Conductivity
3400
umhos/cm
Sulfate (SOti)
950
P. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
n
Chloride (CI)
450
T. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
0
Fluoride (F)
O.fi?
Total Suspended Solids
< o.l
Nitrate (N03-N)
0.03
Total Dissolved Solids
2496
Nitrite (NOj-N)
< 0.01
Phenols
< 0.01
Anmonia (NHj-N)
0.10
Oil i Grease
2.1
Organic N
0.4B
Biochemical Oxyqen Demand (BOOO < ]
Total Phosphate (POu-P)
0.02
Chemical Oxyqen Demand (COD) 47
Silica (Si02)
55
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 10
Color (Pt-Co Units)
in
Turbldlty
6.5
NTU
METALS
Parameters mg/1
Parameters mg/1
Parameters
mq/1
Aluminum (A1)
Iron
(Fe)
Potassium (K)
21
Arsenic (As)
Lead (Pb)
Selenium (Se)
Barium (Ba)
Lithium (LI)
Silver (Ag)
Boron (B)
Maanesium (Hq)
Sodium (Na)
260
Cadmium (Cd)
Manganese CMn)
Strontium (Sr)
Calcium (Ca) 745
Mercury (Hq)
Zinc (Zn)
Chromium (Cr)
Molybdenum (Ho)
Copper (Cu)
Nickel (N1)
Analyst
Remarks
Checked by
-------
GC-1, 8-5045
Surface Water Analyses
6C Lignite Mine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas ASH University
for
Texas Ninlclpal Power Agency
Sample Identification
Date Collected
Field Data: pH
Sibbons Creek I II
( Duplicate ) AT
6/14/79
By Fred Kelly
4.6
Temperature
Conductivity
590
umhos/cm
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS —
Lab # 102
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Date Received 6/14/79
Parameter
ng/1
Parameter
mg/1
Carbonate (CO3)
0
PH
5.5
units
Bicarbonate (HCOj)
24
Conductivity
540
umhos/cm
Sulfate (S0„)
404
P. Alkalinity (as CaCO,) n
Chloride (CI)
SO
T. Alkalinity (as
CaCOO ?n
Fluoride (F)
q Total Suspended Solids 22R
Nitrate (H03-N)
n 7? Total Dissolved Solids 44A
Nitrite (N02-N)
< 0.01 Phenols
< 0.01
Amnonia (NH3-N)
n_15 Oil S Grease
6.4
Organic N
q 35 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODO ' 2.2
Total Phosphate (POs-P)
n na Chemical Oxvaen Demand (COD) 11.1
Silica (Si02)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
19
Total Oroanlc Carbon (TOC) 6.4
?n
Turbidity
26
NTU
METALS
Parameters mg/1
Parameters mg/1
Parameters
mg/1
Aluminum (Al)
Iron (Fe)
Potasslun (K)
2.6
Arsenic (As)
Lead (Pb)
Selenium (Se)
Barium (Ba)
Llthlw (L1)
Silver (Ag)
Boron (B)
Maanestum (Na) 13
Sodium (Na)
52
Cadmium (Cd)
Manaanese (Mn)
Strontium (Sr)
Calcium (Ca) 17
Mercury (Hq)
Zinc (Zn)
Chromium (Cr)
Molybdenum (No)
Corner (Cu)
Nickel (N1)
Analyst .» 1 ^ .
Checked
Remarks
c? a
tvi
t-O
GC-1, B-5045
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite Nine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas AuH University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification
Date Collected
Field Data: pH _
Rock Lake Creek near Carlos
6/14/79
. By Fred Kelly
1.2
Temperature
Conductivity
_2S °C
1910
ymhos/cm
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS -
Lab I 104
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Date Received
6/14/79
"9/1
Parameter
"9/1
Carbonate (COj)
Bicarbonate (HCO3)
Sulfate (SO.,)
Chloride (CI)
Fluoride (F)
Nitrate (N03-N)
Nitrite NO2-N)
Aimonia (NH3-N)
Organic N
Total Phosphate (P0i,-P)
Silica (S102)
Color (Pt-Co
METALS
Parameters
Units)
ng/1
0 pH
0 Conductivity
962 P. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
248 T. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
0.50 Total Suspended Solids
0.06 Total Dissolved Solids
< 0.01 Phenols
< 0.01 011 A Grease
0.38 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (B0D5)
< 0-01 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
15 Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
in Turbidity
_4JL
J64Q
1346
2.7
1.5
774
378
IT
Parameters
mg/1
Parameters
. units
umhos/an
0-01
NTU
mq/1
Aluminum (Al)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B) •
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Analyst
Remarks
IU4
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Lithium (L1) .
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Hn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Ho)
Nickel (HI)
TO"
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag>
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
8.8
157
Checked by
-------
GC-1, B-5045
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite H1ne
by
Environmental Engineering Oivlsion
Texas Alii University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification
Date Cotlected
Field Data: pH _
Gibbons Creek # I at Hwy. 30 near Carlos
6/14/79
4.9
Temperature
Conductivity
22 °C
.By _
590
Fred Kelly
umbos/an
GENERAL PARAMETERS
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS -
Lab I 103
Date Received
6/14/79
Parameter
mq/l
Parameter
mg/1
Carbonate (COj)
0
pH
5.4
units
Bicarbonate (HCO3)
34
Conductivity
550
umhos/an
Sulfate (SOu)
279
P. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
0
Chloride (CI)
82
T. Alkalinity (as CaCOs)
28
Fluoride (F)
0.24
Total Suspended Solids
234
Nitrate (tlOj-N)
0.13
Total Dissolved Solids
463
Nitrite (NOj-N)
< 0.01
Phenols
< 0.01
Amnonia (NHj-N)
0.08
011 & Grease
5.4
Organic N
0.17
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOO;)
1.1
Total Phosphate (POu-P)
O.OB
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
18.5
Silica (S102)
Color (Pt-Co Units) .
19
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
5.9
sn
Turbidity -
28
" MTU
METALS
Parameters mg/1
Parameters raq/1 Parameters
mq/l
CO
I
tvj
u>
Aluminum (A1)
Arsenic (As)
Barlim (Ba)
Boron (8)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Analyst
Remarks
_Lfl_
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Lithium (LI)
Magnesium (Hg)
Manganese (Hn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Ho)
Nickel (HI)
_L2_
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
2.4
59
Checked by
a g
GC-l, B-5045
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite Nine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas Auii University
for
Texas Hun1c1pal Power Agency
Sample Identification
Date Collected
Field Oata: pH
Sulphur Creek near Singleton
6/14/79
5.9
Temperature
Conductivity
" °C
By.
359
Fred Kellv
urahos/an
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS -
Lab # 105
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Date Received 6/14/79
Parameter
£3/1
Carbonate (CO3)
0
PH
6.0
un1 ts
Bicarbonate (HCO3)
56
Conductivity
400
umhos/cm
Sulfate (SOu)
188
P. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
0
Chloride (CI)
59
T. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
46
Fluoride (F)
0.35
Total Suspended Solids
196
Nitrate (NOj-N)
0.09
Total Dissolved Solids
200
Nitrite (N02-N)
< 0.01
Phenols
< 0.01
Anmonia (NH3-N)
0.12
Oil & Grease
9.3
Organic N
0.63
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD;)
< 1
Total Phosphate (P0i,-P)
0.04
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
7.4
Silica (S102)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
1
-------
GC-1, B-5045
Surface Hater Analyses
GC Lignite Nine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas Aut1 University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification
Date Collected
Field Data: pH
Temperature
Rock Lake Creek
5/16/79 at 8:35 a.m. By Fred L. Kelly III
3.9
_ Conductivity
72 "C
1930
initios/cm
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
ng/1
Date Received 5/16/79
Paraneter
"9/1
CO
i
K)
4>
Carbonate (CO3)
Bicarbonate (HCO3)
Sulfate (SOt,)
Chloride (CI)
Fluoride (F)
Nitrate (N03-N)
Nitrite (NO2-N)
Anmonia (NHj-N)
Organic N
Total Phosphate (P0i,-P)
Silica (SiOj)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
0
15T
T5T
Q. 53
o-oi
Q.Q1
_M3_
_QJL
0.0
"51-
JsL
ph
Conductivity
P. AlkaUnlty (as CaC03)
T. Alkalinity (asCaCOj)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Phenols
Oil 1 Grease
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODs)
Chanleal Oxygen Demand (COD)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Turbidity
_lx2_
178Q
JM.
3.8
IT
TT
T
TTT
. units
umhos/cm
0.01
NTU
METALS
Parameters
Parameters
"¦9/1
Parameters
_2SZ1
Alurainuro (Al)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
0.98
0.01
0.30
0.005
W
0.001
irw
Iron (Fe)
Lead {Pb)
Lithium (Li)
Magneslim (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (N1)
0.096
004
0,00
TTJ
TO"
0.15
< 6.0661
< 0.001
< 0.002
Potasslun (K|
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
19.0
< 6.61
< 6.001
154
0.67
0.012
Analyst
Remarks
-±J-
f '
Checked by
-L-.-f-i.
Total Soluble Metals
<¦
GC-1. B-504S
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite Nine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas ASH University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification Gibbons Creek I 1 at Highway 30
Oate Collected 5/16 at 9:30 a.m. By Fred L. Kelly III
Field Data: pH 6.6 Conductivity 700 gmhos/an
Temperature
_ia_
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
6ENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Oate Received 5/16/79
rag/1
Parameter
JSSLL
Carbonate (CO3)
Bicarbonate (HCOj)
Sulfate (SOJ
Chloride (CI)
Fluoride (F)
Nitrate (NO3-N)
Nitrite (N02-N)
Anmonia (NHj-N)
Organic N
Total Phosphate (P0i,-P)
Silica (S102)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
0
~~TT
T5T
89
0.35
TIT
~CTT
"OT
"or
"OT
"5T
35:
PH
Conductivity
P. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
T. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Phenols
Oil & Grease
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODs)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Turbidity
JL2-
680
18
"37"
44
TT
~TT
units
wmhos/aa
T5T
< 6.61
—TT"
—TT"
NTU
METALS
Parameters
mg/1
Parameters
mg/l
Parameters
"9/1
Aluminum (Al)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
0.01
Q.01
0.35
39-6
< 0.001
0.007
' / '' r'
Analyst '—) - /.
Total Soluble HetaVs
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Lithlira (Li)
Magnesium (Hg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (N1)
0-031
¦ Q.W2
_JLJ245_
11.2
0.074
< 0.0001
< 0.001
< O.OOZ
Potasslun (K.)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
5.8
< 0.01
< 0.001
58.0
0.16
0.009
Checked by' —)'/ j
r / / —>
Remarks
-------
GC-1, B-5045
Surface Water Analyses
GC Lignite Mine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas ASH University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Temperature iq
-LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Date Received 5/16/79
ag/1
Parameter
mg/l
Carbonate (C03)
Bicarbonate (HCO3)
Sulfate (SOu)
Chloride (CI)
Fluoride (F)
Nitrate (NOj-N)
Nitrite (N02-N)
Araronia (NH3-N)
Organic N
Total Phosphate (P0i,-P)
Silica fS101)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
METALS
22
_Lil_
84
0.57
0.20
0.01
0.09
0.3)
0.02
IT
HE
ph
Conductivity
P. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
T. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Phenols
Oil & Grease
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOOs)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Turbidity
s.g
sun
units
iimhos/cm
la
51
_545_
0-01
JL£_
JL4_
_4J_
_3£L
NTU
Parameters
mg/l
Parameters
mg/l
Parameters
mg/l
Aluminum (Al)
0.01
Iron (Fe)
n mn
Potasslun (K)
6.2
Arsenic (As)
< 0.01
Lead (Pb)
0.001
Selenium (Se)
< 0.01
Barium (Ba)
< 1
Lithium (LI)
0.043
Silver (Ag)
< 0.001
Boron (B)
0.45
Magnesium (Hg)
11.2
Sodium (Na)
83
Cadmium (Cd)
0.002
Manganese (Mn)
0.074
Strontium (Sr)
0.15
Calcium (Ca)
39.6
Mercury (Hg)
< 0.0001
Zinc (Zn)
0.011
Chromium (Cr)
< 0.001
Molybdenum (Mo)
< 0.001
Copper (Cu)
O.OOB
Nickel (N1)
< 0.002
GC-1, 8-5045
Surface Hater Analyses
GC Lignite Mine
by
Environmental Engineering Division
Texas AMI University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification Gibbons # 1 (Duplicate)
Date Col lected 5/16/79 at 9:30 a.n. By Fred L. Kelly III
Field Data: pH 6.6 Conductivity ZQQ umhos/an
Sample Identification
Date Collected
Field Data: pH
Gibbons Creek I 2
"Pi£.y yi»vr
5/16/79 at 1:50 p.m.
By Fred L. Kelly HI
6.3
Temperature
Conductivity
32 °C
430
umbos/en
¦ LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Date Received
mq/1
Parameter
"9/1
Carbonate (C03) 0
Bicarbonate (HCOj)
Sulfate (S0„) 152
Chloride (CI) 91
Fluoride (F) 0.46
Nitrate (N03-N) 0.17
Nitrite (NO2-N) < 0.01
Airmonia (NH3-N) 0.08
Organic N 0.65
Total Phosphate (P0<,-P)
Silica (SI02)
Color (Pt-Co Units)
0.03
50
_35_
pH
Conductivity
P. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
T. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Phenols
Oil & Grease
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (B0DS)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Turbidity
6.tl
6flQ
_2Z_
702
.557
_Li_
44
_LL
_5fL
METALS
Parameters
nig/1
Parameters
JSlL
Parameters
units
iimhos/cm
Q.Q1
NTU
mg/l
Aluminum (Al)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
0.01
0.01
0.45
0.002
'36.5
< 0.001
0.008
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Lithium (Li)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (NiJ
Q.05Q
0-016
0.042
11.2
0.042
c 0.0001
< 0.001
< 0.002
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
< 0-01
< 0.001
6j,P
0.16
0.016
-------
GC-1, B-5045
Surface Mater Analyses
GC Lignite Hlne
by
Envlronaental Engineering Division
Texas Aull University
for
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Sample Identification Sulphur Creek
Date Collected 5/16/79 at 11:20 a.m. By Fred L. Kelly III
Field Data: pH _
6.0
Temperature
Conductivity
22.5 #C
250
Illlltios/CH
LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Date Received 5/16/79
wg/1
Parameter
¦"9/1
o>
i
a*
Carbonate (CO3)
Bicarbonate (HCOj)
Sulfate (S0„)
Chloride (CI)
Fluoride (F)
Nitrate (N03-N)
Nitrite (N02-N)
Aomonla (NHj-N)
Organic N
Total Phosphate (P0<,-P)
Silica (S102)
Color (Pt-Co
Units)
JL
JflL
39
0.48
ol 13
Tof
0.10
~OT
0.02
"53
HE
PH
Conductivity
P. Alkalinity (as CaC03)
T. Alkalinity (as CaCOj)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Phenols
011 i Grease
Blochenlcal Oxygen Demand (800s)
Chenleal Oxygen Demand (COD)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Turbidity
5.8
145
IT
nr
~TT
"173"
-5r
TT
IT
units
umhos/cm
¦or
ITT"
TT
NTU
METALS
Parameters
"9/1
Parameters
"9/1
Parameters
jng£L
Aluminum (A1)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
CaMuo (Cd)
Calclua (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
0.012
< 0-01
-------
Appendix Table B-l. Water data for wells known to occur
on the project site, Grimes County Texas.
Est. Depth to
Location Total Depth Standing Surface Method of
Well No. Owner (ft) (ft) Usage Completion
3331
FM
H. Husfeld
*
*
H,L
•
3332
GQ
G. Husfeld
190-200
5
H
*
3333
LL
G. Husfeld
owner
denied access to this well
3333
NK
J.D. Moody, Ests.
670
150
H,L
*
3333
PF02
J.A. Moody
190
30
L
•
3333
PF0I
J.A. Moody
600
160
H,L
*
3333
SL
C.C. Arington
*
*
H
*
3333
TM
Piedmont Springs
spring
f
—
—
3333
FP
M. Allen
530
47
H
Cased:
0' to 510'
Plastic Perforated
Screen 2fc"
515' to 530'
Pump at 140'
3433
BP
M. Biggers
49
6
NU
*
3433
GU
D. Miner
60
2
SI
1
3433
JL
D. Allen
72
12
H
Dug
3433
WG
Butt's Lease
200
f
L
*
3433
BG
J.D. Moody, Jr.
680
80
H,L
*
3434
GK
J. Lands
536
10
H,SI
#
3434
NJ
A. Lipps
180
23m
L
*
-------
Appendix Table B-l. Water data for wells known to occur on the
project site, Grimes County Texas (continued).
Est. Depth to
Location Total Depth Standing Surface Method of
Well No. Owner (ft) (ft) Usage Completion
3434 PJ
3435 KK
3435 KL
3533 AF
3532 KL
3534 CP
3534 DP
3534 HH
3534 HN
3534 KR
3534 WA4I
3534 WA£2
3534 WB
M.S. Allen
J. Briers
J. Briers
Butt's Lease
W. Church well, Sr,
R. Waltrip
R. Waltrip
R. Waltrip
R. Waltrip
Carlos Water Supply
Corp. (Mr. Butts)
B. Kolbochinski
B. Kolbochinski
C. Prescott
40
250
150
?
well is abandoned
518
60
368
279
350
32
245
240
10m
?
9
f
92
40
100
60
130
10
100
60
h «
H,SI •
NU •
well was plugged
L,LI
L
H
L,LI
Commercial
Water Supply
H
H
H
Cased: 6" Steel
0 to 473 PVC
Screen, 4" 478'
to 518'
Cased: 10" Steel
0 to 247 PVC
Perforated Screen,
6" 249* to 279'
Pump at 240*
Cased: 8-5/8"
Steel 0 to 295
Bar Hug Stainless
Steel WOP, 4"
296' to 336'
dug
Cased: 0 to 2'
4" pipe 0 to
240' slotted
plastic screen
-------
Appendix Table B-l. Water data for wells known to occur on the
project site, Grimes County Texas (continued).
Est. Depth to
Location Total Depth Standing Surface Method of
Well No. Owner (ft) (ft) Usage Completion
3535
BC
J.
Stone
148
30
H
Cased: 4", 0 to 148
3535
CB
C.
Krause
170
40
SI
Cased: 0 to 170
3536
NG
P.
Sechelski
120
40
H,L
*
3536
NH
W.
Paukert
100
40
H
*
3533
BW
G.
Davis
30
2fe
SI
dug
3633
BW02
T.
Kolbachinski
110
40
H
•
3633
HW
no one home,
but 2 wells visible
3633
LR
H.
Trat
refuses access to
property
3633
NS
F.
Kolbachinski
40 not
presently being used
3634
AB//I
T.
Colby
20
15
SI
dug
3634
AB//2
T.
Colby
242 (270)
65 (40)
SI y L
Cased: 4" 0 to 230
Slotted Screen
230 to 240
3636
GV
A.
Jordan
no
12
H
*
3636
HQ
F.
Smith
18
6m
H
dug
3636
HS
L.
Borski
70
20m
H,L
*
3636
JC
T.
Pazdral
168
50
H,L
Cased: new Steel
4", 0 to 148'
Cemented 50' to 14€
Plastic 21*"f 153 to
168.
3637
DC
T.
Slaton
200
?
H
*
3637
FG
D.
Slaton
120
25-30
H,L
*
3637
MT0I
L.
Floyd
185
50
H,L
«
-------
Appendix Table B-l. Water data for wells known to occur on the
project site, Grimes County, Texas (continued).
Location
Well No.
Owner
Total Depth
(ft)
Est. Depth to
Standing Surface
(ft)
Usage
Method of
Completion
3637 NR
L. Floyd
185
50
L
•
3637 NT02
L. Floyd
185
50
L
*
3637 NT03
L. Floyd
185
50
*
3638 TA
V. Wilson
205
80
H,LI
*
3733 FT
M. Altimore
•
*
L
*
3735 MW
Kellum Springs
spring
f
--
—
3737 RP
J. Robinson
187
40
H
*
3737 RQ
R. Ogrodowitz
*
*
H
*
3737 SP
j
T; Perry, Jr.
155
40
H
*
3737 TP
T. Perry, Jr.
155
40
H
«
3737 WW
P. Peteete
205
35
H,L
*
3836 RN
S. Brown
300-400
100
H
•
3837 BD
L. Perry
195
10
H,L
Perforated
3837 FM
M. Shook
90
20
H
Perforated
3837 FP
C. White
315
no
H,L
~
3837 HK
E. Perry
100
20
H,L
.*
3837 KW
R. Cox
317
90
H
*
3837 LL
C. Truett
205
40
H,L
*
3837 LM
E. Dreher
205
40
H
*
3837 LM02
F. Dixon
201
40
H
*
3837 SN
M. Wilson
600
170
H,L
*
3837 TF
S. Foldy
348
110
H,SI
*
-------
Appendix Table B-l. Water data for wells known to occur on the
project site, Grimes County Texas (concluded).
Est. Depth to
Location Total Depth Standing Surface Method of
Well No. Owner (ft) (ft) Usage Completion
3837
VQ
E. Dreher
385
60
H
3838
DA
? no
one
home after
2 visits
3838
DA(GC)
K. Gorsuch
333
110
H,L
3838
HB
L. Hall
300
(00
H
3838
JB
D. Byars
296
?
H,L
3838
MB
Crawford
«
*
*
3936
GV
no one home after 2
visits
3936
GM
R. Grant
186
50
H
3936
KM
W. Bishop
250
?
H
3937
GE
R. Sheffield
114
30
H
3937
PC
C. Smith
345
130
H,L
H
- Household
SI
- Small Irrigation
LI
- Large Irrigation
L
- Livestock
f
- flowing well
m
- Water level measured
•
- no data available
- no estimate available
Source: TERA Corp. 1979. Gibbon Creek lignite project environmental assessment report.
Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency for submission to US Environmental Protect-
ion Agency. Dallas, Texas, pp. 3-24-3-28.
-------
Appendix Table B-2. Water quality of the Navasota river ( USGS Station 08111 )
near Bryan* Texas for the period from 1 January 1959 to 21 December 1978.
Parameter
Avr.
Max.
Min.
# of
samples
Begin
Date
End
Date
Temperature (°C)
19
33
6.
265
07/21
72
12/21/78
Flow (CFS)
768
24,100
0
575
01/01
59
12/12/73
Instantaneous Flow
2077
15,500
2
279
10/02
72
08/17/77
Depth (Ft.)
4.2
4.2
4.2
1
10/17
73
10/17/73
Turbidity (JTU)
48.7
130.0
10.0
36
07/21
72
08/09/78
Color (Platinum Colbalt Units)
55
180
5
37
07/21
72
10/02/78
Conductivity ( u ohms at 25° C)
555
3,370
59
643
10/01
59
12/21/78
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
7.6
11.3
4.9
36
07/21
72
10/02/78
Dissolved Oxygen (% saturation)
83.3
112.0
64.0
36
07/21
72
10/02/78
Biochemical Oxygen Demand(mg/1)
2.1
5.5
0.8
37
07/21
72
10/02/78
pH
7.03
8.30
5.50
639
10/01
59
12/21/78
C02 (mg/1)
14.6
181.0
0.9
84
05/20
72
12/21/78
Total Alkalinity as CACOjOng/l)
57
123
5
412
10/01
59
12/21/78
Total Nonfilterable Residue
(mg/1)
100
383
16
37
07/21
72
10/02/78
Total Nitrogen (mg/1)
0.87
2.40
0.35
27
04/15
74
12/21/78
Organic Nitrogen-N (mg/1)
0.70
2.20
0.13
38
07/21
72
12/21/78
NH3 - N (mg/1)
0.52
0.18
0.0
38
07/21
72
12/21/78
N02 - N (mg/1)
0.005
0.021
0.0
38
07/21
72
12/21/78
N03 - N (mg/1)
0.377
2.80
0.0
149
07/21
72
12/21/78
Tot. Kjel - N (mg/1)
0.814
2.300
0.300
27
04/15
74
12/21/78
Tot. Phosphorus - P (mg/1)
0.125
0.570
0.050
38
07/21
72
12/21/78
Tot. Organic Carbon(mg/1)
10.6
23.0
3.0
36
10/04
72
12/21/78
Tot. Hardness CACO^Ong/l)
107
355
14
642
10/01
59
12/21/78
Calcium (mg/1)
29.7
94.0
4.2
617
10/01
59
12/21/78
Magnesium (mg/1)
7.7
24.0
0.9
617
10/01
59
12/21/78
Sodium (mg/1)
68.93
606.00
5.30
517
10/01
59
12/21/78
Potassium (mg/1)
4.39
7.20
2.00
186
10/01
59
12/21/78
Chloride (mg/1)
110
1020
4
643
10/01
59
12/21/78
Sulfate (mg/1)
' 41
123
/
5
639
10/01
59
12/21/78
Fluoride (mg/1)
0.24
0.60
0
312
01/03
60
12/21/78
Silica (mg/1)
12.1
26.0
1.0
618
10/01
59
12/21/78
B-3.2
-------
Appendix Table B-6. Summary of groundwater quality data
from wells e>n the Gibbons Creek project site.
Well No. Depth Chloride Sulfate TDS pH
Household
3332 FM
*
119
16
597
7.7
3332 GQ
190
122
61
570
7.7
3332 NK
670
144
16
929
8.2
3333 PF//I
600
211
16
836
7.7
3333 SL
*
211
16
836
7.6
3333 (S) TM
*
194
632
1140
6.9
3333 Hp
*
188
20
809
7.5
3433 JL
72
33
20
179
6.9
3434 GK
536
130
16
627
8.0
3435 KK
250
61
12
157
6.3
3534 HH
368
149
16
738
8.8
3534 IVA//I
32
77
33
299
6.4
3534 IVB
245
665
163
1900
7.6
3534 IVB
225
498
41
1393
7.6
3535 BC
148
55
196
348
5.5
3536 NG
120
61
16
148
5.8
3536 NH
100
39
16
125
5.9
3636 HG
18
22
16
125
6.3
3636 HS
70
44
25
125
6.5
3636 JC
187
188
326
784
6.2
3637 DC
200
122
49
348
6.1
3637 FG
120
166
143
502
6.2
3637 MT-I
185
194
25
738
8.3
3638 TA
205
89
25
418
6.7
3737 RP
187
180
245
738
6.8
3737 RQ
*
177
424
1049
7.2
3737 SP
155
80
73
348
6.6
3737 TP
155
83
61
330
6.5
3737 WW
205
+ 166
+286
+697
6.4
3738 EE
177
44
16
167
6.3
3835 DQ
165
+ 166
+ 122
+570
7.5
3835 FH
165
+260
+694
+T607
7.3
B-33
-------
Appendix Table B-6. Summary of groundwater qualitv data
from wells on the Gibbons Creek project site (continued).
Well
No.
Depth
Chloride
Sulfate
TDS
pH
3836
CV
262
39
49
285
7.5
3836
PV
400+
233
139
738
8.2
3836
PN
423
374
510
1393
7.6
3836
RL
179
277
326
1049
7.7
3836
RN
300+
305
510
1363
7.7
3837
FM
90
33
20
132
6.2
3837
FP
315
77
65
348
6.3
3837
BD
195
22
20
125
5.8
3837
HK
100
89
41
299
5.7
3837
KW
317
55
85
348
6.8
3837
LM
205
61
16
209
6.3
3837
SN
600+
277
673
1650
7.3
3837
TF
348
277
408
1140
7.7
3837
VQ
385
553
204
1279
5.7
3837
LL
205
55
41
228
6.6
2827
LM//2
*
69
16
209
6.2
3838
DC
333
39
69
299
7.5
3838
HB
300
55
57
261
6.4
3936
KM
250
498
857
2508
7.4
3936
GM
186
255
277
II94
10.4
3937
PG
345
211
424
1094
7.0
Non-Household
3333
PF//2
190
61
20
314
8.0
3433
GV
60
222
245
697
5.9
3434
NJ
180
582
694
1694
5.6
3434
PJ
40
55
25
330
7.5
3533
AF
*
161
510
1049
7.1
3534
CP
518
116
16
627
7.8
3534
DP
60
194
118
660
3.6
3534
HN
279
127
20
660
8.5
3534
KR
350
144
20
627
7.7
3535
CB
170
233
510
12
7.3
3633
BW
30
42
102
330
7.0
3634
AB//I
20
17
16
139
6.9
B-34
-------
Appendix Table B-6. Summary of groundwater quality data
from wells on the Gibbons Creek project site (concluded).
Well No. Depth Chloride Sulfate TDS pH
3634 AB//2 270 498
3637 NR 185+ 72
3637 NT-2 185+ 66
3631 NT-3 185+ 66
3733 FT * 100
k\ 1393 7.5
25 228 7.2
25 178 6.6
25 193 6.9
551 896 6.2
tfe
Depth unknown
Source: TERA Corp. 1979. Environmental assessment report Gibbons Creek
lignite project. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency for
submission to US Environmental Protection Agency. Dallas, Texas,
pp. 3-30-3-32.
B-35
-------
APPENDIX C
AIR QUALITY
C-l
-------
Appendix Table C- L rrob.iblI Icy of receiving the given annual
prcclpltat Ion (CCSES Site)
Annual
PrcclpltntIon (inches) Probability (X)
20
99
25
95
30
85
35
70
40
50
65
30
50
20
55
10
60
5
Source: National Weather Service. 1973. Clinatography of Texas,
f) Austin, TX.
I
fs>
Appendix table C-_*. 100-year recurrence interval of precipitation in given
time period* (GCSES Site).
Tine Period Anount of Precipitation
(houra) (Inches)
1/2 3.5
1 4-5
2 5.5
3 6.5
6 8
12 10
24 U
Source: TERA Corp. 1979. Environmental assessment report. Gibbons Creek
Lignite Project. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency.
Dallas TX.
Appendix Table CAverage atmospheric mixing heights (o) for the area
of the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project.
Morning Afternoon
Winter
450
1,000
Spring
600
1,300
Suoaer
650
1,700
Autumn
500
1,400
Annual
550
1,350
Source: Holnrorth, George C. 1972. Mixing heights, wind speeds, and
potential for urban air pollution throughout the contiguous
United States. EPA Publication AP-101. Research Triangle
Park, NC. 118 pp.
Appendix Table C-'. Wind direction frequencies by season for bergstrom AFB
for the period from 1955 to 1964.
Frequence
of Occurrence
(Percent)
Direction
Winter
Sprinq
Sumner
Fall
Annual
N
19.1
10.1
3.1
15.5
11.8
NNE
11.2
7.6
2.5
9.8
7.7
HE
5.9
4.8
3.2
7.0
5.2
EKE
2.6
2.4
2.4
3.6
2.8
E
3.3
3.9
5.0
5.8
4.5
esc
2.1
2.6
3.6
2.6
2.7
SE
3.5
6.9
7.9
5.5
6.0
SSE
4.6
14.9
13.9
e.6
10.6
S
14.0
26.7
35.2
20.0
24.1
ssw
9.5
7.0
12.4
7.0
9.0
sw
5.0
2.9
5.7
3.8
4.4
wsw
2.3
1.5
1.7
1.4
1.7
w
3.7
1.9
1.3
2.3
2.3
WNW
2.6
1.4
0.5
1.1
1.4
NW
4.1
2.4
0.7
2.4
2.4
NNW
6.3
3.0
0.9
3.6
3.4
CALM
16.2
11.8
13.0
19.6
15.1
Source: TERA Corp. 19*79. Environmental assessment report. Gibbons Creek
Lignite Project. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency.
Dallas TX.
-------
Appendix Table C--r. Stability array (star) data for Austin/Bergstcom.
Frequency of Stability Occurrence (Percent)
Neutral Neutral
Day Day
Period
A
B
C
D
D
E
F
G
Annual
1.7
7.0
10.8
22.9
23.5
9.9
12.4
11.9
winter
0.3
3.6
6.4
24.7
32.4
8.7
11.8
12.0
Spring
1.4
5.1
10.2
28.9
28.3
8.8
9.5
7.9
Summer
3.7
11.2
16.7
17.9
13.7
12.5
13.9
10.4
Fall
1.1
8.1
9.8
20.2
19.7
9.4
14.5
17.1
Average Wind Speed (Knots)
Day Night
Period
A
B
C
D
D
E
F
G
Total
Annual
2.0
4.4
7.7
11.3
9.5
7.2
3.4
0.9
7.2
winter
0.0
2.9
6.5
11.4
9.0
7.4
3.4
0.9
7.4
Spring
1.5
4.5
8.7
12.0
10.1
7.1
3.1
0.8
8.4
Sumner
2.6
5.3
8.2
10.9
10.2
7.4
3.6
1.0
6.9
Fall
1.2
3.8
6.8
10.6
9.0
6.9
3.3
0.8
6.2
Source: TERA Corp. 1979. Environmental assessment report. Gibbons Creek
Lignite Project. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency.
Dallas TX.
Appendix Table C-4, Computation of particulate enissions due to wind loss
in exposed areas.
E a AIKCL'V* ton/acre/yr
where> A ° portion of losses which become suspended (0.041)
I « soil erodibility (52 ton/acre/yr)
K «* surface roughness factor varies from 0.5 to l»0f
1.0 is normally used.
C - climatic factor (.12) a C'/100 (See Appendix Figure C-l)
' L1" unsheltered field width factor
¦¦0.7 for 1000* and 1.0 for 2000' and greater
V*« vegetative cover factor (use V' » 1.0)
EMISSIONS » (.041)(52)(1.0)(.12)(1.0)(500 acres)
(tons/year)
ENISSIONS - 127.92 tpy
(ton/year)
Source: TERA Corp. 1979. Gibbons Creek Lignite project prevention of
significant deterioration application. Prepared for the Texas
Municipal Power Agency. Dallas TX.
-------
APPENDIX D
BIOLOGY
• Wetland Impact Analysis
• Determination of Wetland Jurisdictional Limits
• Fish and Wildlife Management Program
• Determination of Effects on Endangered Species
D-l
-------
APPENDIX D
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF
THE DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WATERS OF THE US USING SECTION 404(b)(1)
GUIDELINES, GIBBONS CREEK LIGNITE PROJECT,
GRIMES COUNTY, TEXAS
INTRODUCTION
The US 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 water of the United States as
they apply to pre-application Inquires which do not involve significant issues
of technical difficulties where EPA has declared a special interest. The
Texas Municipal Power Agency's (TMPA) proposed Gibbons Creek Lignite Project,
Grimes County, Texas does not involve any such special interests, therefore
the Regional Administrator of EPA requested the COE, as a cooperating agency,
to determine the jurisdictional limit of Section 404 for the Gibbons Creek
Project.
The following sections generally discuss the potential effects from
dredging and filling activities associated with mining in COE-designated
wetlands included in the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project, first 5-year permit
area and 30-year mining area (Exhibit B). (The 5-year permit area is included
within the 30-year mining area.) Wetlands considered in this assessment are
those delineated in Exhibit B, as representative of wetlands defined by the
COE in October 1980. Adverse effects to wetlands are discussed in a format
closely conforming to the 404(b)(1) guidelines defined in 40 CFR 230.
Because the 30-year mining plan is general at this stage of the project,
only a general qualitative in 404(b)(1) evaluation has been performed. To
adequately determine site-specific impacts and the need for nationwide versus
Individual 404 permits, more detailed 404(b)(1) evaluations are needed by the
COE following specific proposals by TMPA to disturb wetlands through discharge
of dredged or fill materials.
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
The Gibbons Creek 30-year mining area encompasses approximately 2,760
acres of wetlands as designated by the COE (Exhibit B)*. Within the first
5-year permit area, mining will not occur in wetlands; however, activities
associated with mining (e.g., sediment pond construction) will occur in wet-
^Exhibit B shows those wetland areas that are expected to be affected by
mining throughout the 30-year mining period. Although wetlands are shown in
the mine area within the first 5-year permit boundary, these will not be mined
during the first 5 years. The nature of the mining plan projects reentering
the original first 5-year permit area during later mining phases. The wetland
areas to be affected during the first 5 years of mining are shown in Exhibit
C.
D-2
-------
lands (Exhibit C). All wetlands in the 30-year project boundary are
associated with Gibbons Creek and/or the Navasota River. The following
description of wetlands was provided to EPA by the COE.
Transect 1 - This line transected a first bottom terrace and adjacent
upland along Gibbons Creek immediately upstream of State Highway 30. The
ground cover in this area consisted primarily of nutsedge. The gray, loamy
clay soils exhibited numerous crayfish mounds. The forest overstory consisted
predominantly of bitter pecan (Carya aquatica) American elm (Ulmus americana),
slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) and water oak
(Quercus nigra). The understory was primarily decidous holly (Ilex decidua).
Stands of swamp privet (Forestiera acuminata) occurred along the creek bank
and depressions throughout the terrace. This flat terrace was bordered by a
ridge with a steep descent. Prevalent species along the ridge and in
surrounding uplands included post oak (Quercus stellata), yaupon holly (Ilex
vomitoria) and pecan hickory (Carya illinoensis). Soils on this ridge were
gray, loose, sandy loams.
Transect 2 - Areas along either side and between the forks of Gibbons
Creek immediately downstream of Farm to Market Highway 244 were examined.
Tree species on the right descending creek bank Included hackberry (C.
occidentalis), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), eastern hophornbeam
(Ostrya virginiana), water oak (Q. nigra), western soapberry (Sapindus
drummondii), osage-orange (Madura pomifera), American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis) and yaupon holly (I. vomitoria). Additional species along the
left descending bank included eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and
bitter pecan. Species noted along a fence row 100 yards from the creek
included common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), sumac (Rhus sp.), American
beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), and trumpet creeper (Bignonia americana).
Soils in the area were light colored sandy clays and there was no first bottom
terrace along the creek. Evaluation of factors at this site indicated that
our jurisdiction was limited to the ordinary high water mark of Gibbons Creek.
Transect 3 - This area was along and near the left descending bank of
Gibbons Creek west of an abandoned railroad grade. The most abundant species
at the edge of the clearing was bitter pecan with persimmon and honeylocust
(Gleditsia triacanthos) codominant in the stand. The understory consisted of
honeylocust, deciduous holly, greenbrier (Smilax smallli), and Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia). Further into the stand the dominant
overstory was composed of willow oak (Quercus phellos), water oak, hackberry
and slippery elm interspersed with some bitternut hickory. Progressing
towards Gibbons Creek, a small slough was noted with an abundance of very
water-tolerant species such as planertree (Planera aquatica), several ash
(Fraxinus sp.) bitter pecan, bitternut hickory and a predominance of palmetto
(Sabal sp.) in the understory. On the leas.t side of this drainage, a sharp
rise in topography revealed a drier area near Gibbons Creek which supported
stands of post oak, hackberry, and water oak. Drainage areas two to three
feet deep near the creek supported bottonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis),
sesbania (Sebania sp.), palmetto, and planertree. The banks of Gibbons Creek
supported such species as river birch (Betula nigra), and hophornbeam.
D-3
-------
Osage-orange, river birch, live oak (Quercus virginiana), and slippery elm
were found growing on the bank of the creek. To the southwest away from the
creek, and across another drainage, a large flat area revealed a predominance
of water oak and willow oak in the overstory with deciduous holly and yaupon
holly in the understory. The ground cover consisted of sedges and ragweed.
In and adjacent to the borrow ditch northwest of the abandoned railroad
grade water elm, bitter pecan, seania, and palmetto was found. Outside of the
borrow ditch were such species as honey locust, swamp privet, slippery elm,
common permisson, water oak, and willow oak. The soils in this area were a
gray clay with several crayfish mounds indicative of wet conditions.
Next the northeast corner of area 3 was examined. This segment was
disected by numerous stream channels and supported species such as sycamore,
ash, bitter pecan, eastern hophorbeam, hackberry, water oak, bitternut
hickory, elm, common cane, and Chinaberry (Melia azedarach). Soils in this
area appeared to be alluvial sands.
Transect 4 - South of Gibbons Creek on the edge of a ridge adjacent to the
creek bank sandy soils supported stands of post oak, water oak, yaupon and
deciduous holly, persimmon, winged elm, black gum (Nyssa sylvatlca), Eastern
hophornbeam, and overcup oak (Quercus lyrata).
Transect 5 - This area revealed a mixture of species with a wide range of
tolerance for soil and moisture conditions including water oak, black gum,
deciduous holly, American elm, Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), persimmon,
bitter pecan, sebania, cedar elm, (Ulmus crassifolia), willow oak, and
hawthorn (Crataegus sp.). This community type is indicative of moist
conditions brought about by occasional flooding of short duration and
moderately well drained loamy soils. Upland vegetation located on a nearby
ridge included post oak and yaupon holly.
Transect 6 - This area was located near the confluence of Gibbons Creek
and the Navasota River. The vegetation was indicative of seasonally saturated
soils and included cedar elm, overcup oak, willow oak, bitter pecan, and water
locust (Gleditsia aquatica). Swamp privet, Eastern hophornbeam, and water
locust were noted adjacent to a small slough.
Transect 7 - The remnant vegetation present in this pasture area consisted
of overcup oak and water locust north of the pasture. At an approximate
elevation of 185 feet msl, a topographic rise revealed sandy s«ils supporting
yaupon holly, gum bumelia (Bumelia lanuginosa), post oak, and red mulberry
(Morus rubra). The woodlands on the eastern side of Transect 7 included
bitter pecan near the edge with willow oak, hackberry, American elm, overcup
oak, and Eastern hophornbeam dominant further into the stand. Deciduous holly
and palmetto composed the understory. Indications of frequent flooding
included minimal ground cover, open space understory, and conspicuous flood
debris in the area.
D-4
-------
Just north of the confluence of Gibbons Creek and the Navasota River,
waterlocust was identified along the east bank of the river with eastern
hophornbeam, cedar elm, bitter pecan, swamp privet, and overcup oak identified
on the west bank.
Transect 8 - Along the right descending bank of Dinner Creek stands of
eastern hophornbeam, overcup oak, and willow oak dominated the overstory.
Sesbania and persimmon were identified as primary understory vegetation.
Traversing the central portion of this area revealed a flat forested
bottomland composed of cedar elm, overcup oak, persimmon, blackgum, deciduous
holly, hawthorn, ash, and swamp privet. One substantial area noted along this
transect was predominantly ash with a swamp privet understory. It was not
readily apparent at the site, however, such an area might be caused by a
slight depression or local drainage.
Discussion - A thorough field investigation by the COE of representative
sites within the proposed TMA mining area revealed the presence and lateral
extent of vegetative community types typically adapted to life in saturated
soil conditions. Field observations also incuded soil drainage
characteristics and evidence of flooding. These data were combined with the
calculated elevations of known discharges within the Navasota River and
information from aerial photography to establish the limit of the waters of
the United States in the project area.
These limits extend along the east side of the Navasota River from Sulphur
Spring to a point immediately south of its confluence with Gibbons Creek.
They generally follow the primary bank of Gibbons Creek to a point near
Transect 3 where a broad flat floodplain occurs bounded by sharp rises in
topography. These rapid changes in topography may act to accelerate and
concentrate drainage from adjacent uplands thereby producing local flooding
and saturated soil conditions. Further upstream the defined limits follow the
established stream course except for areas of significant depressions.
A. Effects on Food Chain Production
A variety of animals including most of the common game species of the area
(gray squirrel, fox squirrel, whitetail deer, Bobwhite, Wood Duck, etc.)
utilize wetlands. Most of the species, along with most of the areas predator
species (top of the food chain species) conduct primary activities (breeding,
nesting, feeding, etc.) in wetlands. A more thorough discussion of all levels
(phytoplankton through mammals) of the food chain is presented in Section
3.1.5 of the E1S.
The transition from water to land occurring in wetlands, reflects an
increase in habitat diversity and a corresponding increase in diversity of
species. Wetlands are unique in function and purpose, because only in
wetlands do both aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals occur
concurrently.
Where mining and associated activities occur directly, in wetlands, food
chain production will be disrupted for an indefinite period. Recovery will
D-5
-------
depend on the effectiveness of the restoration work which is described
generally in Section 3.1.5 of the EIS. Within the first 5-year permit area,
disruption to food chain interrelationships should be minimal, owing to the
small acreages (305) affected and nature of the disturbance. However, during
subsequent mining phases when land modifying activities will occur in
wetlands, adverse effects on food chain production will be more extensive.
Food chain production will be completely interrupted during active mining, but
may reestablish slowly over the long-term assuming that wetland restoration
activities are successful. The long-term significance of the disruption of
food chain production is difficult to determine and should be evaluated on a
case by case basis following specific proposals for disturbance to wetlands
throughout the 30-year mining period.
If reclamation is successfully accomplished in reclaimed areas, herbaceous
wetlands would be expected to take from 5 to 10 years to reestablish, while
forested wetlands, similar to those presently existing over much of the area,
would take considerably more time (50 to 100 years).
B. Nesting, Spawning, Rearing, and Resting Sites
In the first 5-year permit area minimal disturbances will occur to primary
wildlife activities owing to the relatively small amounts of wetland habitat
affected by sedimentaton ponds (approximately 305 acres). In subsequent
permit areas as raining activities encroach into wetlands of Gibbons Creek and
the Navasota River, the magnitude of disturbances in habitat of primary
wildlife activity will increase possibly to a point of affecting all 2,760
acres. Mining and associated activities will probably lower the numbers of
local populations, including game and commercial species, relative to the
number of wetland acres affected. Whether or not this reduction is signifi-
cant, depends largely on the availability of suitable wetland habitat in
adjacent areas and how these areas are managed. Habitat of species, such as
the whitetail deer, is already limited due to existing poor conditions.
C. Maintenance of Water Quality
Detrimental effects to wetland species of plants and animals from
chemical-biological interactions will depend largely on the prevention of
subsurface seepage and regulation of pH and concentrations of TSS and total
iron from temporary holding ponds. If potentially toxic materials (e.g.,
pyrite, sulfur, iron, etc.) are not effectively contained and seepage or
unintended discharges occur, detrimental effects could result to aquatic
communities from contamination or degradation of local water quality.
Wetland systems also can function in the maintenance and improvement of
surface and subsurface water quality because the physical and biological
processes within wetlands neutralize and absorb or metabolize waste materials
in waters which pass through. The function is analogous to the operation of a
conventional sewage plant in that silt, sediments, and potentially toxic
metals are trapped, 'organic matter is broken down by microorganisms, sulfates
are reduced, and nitrates are broken down by bacteria. It is clear that this
wetland function will be reduced temporarily, or completely eliminated during
-------
and immediately following mining due to interference with the hydrologic
system, soils, and biota of the wetland areas. The long-term effect of water
quality changes from disturbances to wetlands will relate to the effectiveness
of the reclamation and wetland restoration programs. If reclamation is
moderately successful, no significant long-term change from existing water
quality conditions is expected. Short-term changes will result in degradation
of water quality conditions downstream from the disturbed wetlands (primarily
from sedimentation). These adverse effects are expected to be locally
significant, but of short duration. If wetland restoration is not successful,
the long-term effects are difficult to predict, but the worst case analysis
would indicate a complete loss of wetlands communities on the site.
D. Groundwater Recharge
The effects of sediment control ponds on or adjacent to wetlands in the
first 5-year permit area and later mining areas are difficult to predict with
the limited data available. Construction of dikes or embankments, or direct
mining in wetlands will dewater some areas and effectively reduce the local
infiltration of surface water. To offset this, impoundments may induce
infiltration of water and increase local recharge of groundwater. The
compaction of soil resulting from the construction of dikes, haul roads, or
other access roads may reduce lateral movement of shallow groundwater and
decrease recharge to some wetland areas.
In subsequent permit areas, mining will occur in wetlands and cause
complete disruption of the local groundwater regime. Dikes necessary to
isolate the mine and the effects of excavation, could effectively dewater
surrounding areas. The material replaced after mining could have different
groundwater transmission characteristics and could inhibit recharge in some
areas for an indefinite period.
The groundwater regime of wetlands will continue to be supplied primarily
by the infiltration of surface water. Most groundwater recharge from wetlands
occurs during highwater periods when the wetland is flooded. The replenished
groundwater system will maintain the wetlands and the stream discharge until
the supply is depleted or until another high water period occurs.
E. Retention of Storm and Floodwaters
The effects of mining and associated construction in wetlands will alter
floodwater movement, retention, and discharge characteristics of the stream
system. Any encroachment on wetlands will reduce the area ordinarily
functioning as a storage retention area for water during flood periods. This
alone could cause flood levels to become slightly higher and peak flood
velocities to increase. However, the creation of sedimentation ponds and the
upstream Gibbons Creek cooling reservoir will increase the storage for high
runoff flows, (which otherwise would flow onto the floodplain) and will reduce
overall flood levels and peak discharges. The long-term net effect cannot be
determined specifically without detailed knowledge of the design and extent of
alterations. Long-term projected stormwater conditions are not expected to
differ substantially from pre-mining conditions.
D- 7
-------
Beginning with the first 5-year permit area, parts of Gibbons Creek and
its associated wetlands, as well as wetlands associated with the Navasota
River are to be disturbed. In this circumstance the mine would be cut off
from the floodplain by a dike system. This reduction in floodplain/wetland
area would reduce significantly the capacity of the wetlands to store
floodwater without any compensating increased storage elsewhere (as in the
case of sedimentation ponds). The result would be a localized increase in
both flood level and peak stream discharge.
2.0 HYDROLOGY OF 30-YEAR MINE PLAN AREA
The present hydrologic regime of the mine plan area is influenced by the
interaction of surface runoff and storage water as groundwater or in
impoundments and wetlands. Owing to the generally low permeability of the up-
land soils, runoff is relatively high and groundwater recharge low.
Floodplain soils have more potential for absorbing and storing groundwater es-
pecially in wetlands. Consequently, the low flow of streams depends largely
on the groundwater from adjacent areas. Although currently not quantifiable,
reduction in wetlands could slightly reduce normal stream flow.
At present there is a little definite knowledge concerning the groundwater
regime or stratigraphy of the wetland sediments. Without such information
it is impossible to make detailed evaluations of the effects of pond
construction or mining in the stream drainages on the hydrologic system.
Mining operations in wetlands will have very different effects on the surface
and subsurface hydrologic regime from the effects of similar operations in
adjacent uplands. The effects to wetlands will potentially be greater due to
their higher sensitivity to changes in water levels. A more comprehensive
monitoring program Is needed to characterize the groundwater system throughout
the project site. This information is necessary to assess potential impacts
to wetlands (as well as other areas) and to make informed decisions on
individual 404 permit applications.
3.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Four alternatives are included in this discussion:
(1) no mining or associated activities in wetlands;
(2) no mining or associated activities in wetlands of the Navasota River,
or wetlands associated with the confluence of Gibbons Creek and the
Navasota River;
(3) no mining or associated activities in wetlands of Gibbons Creek; and
(4) perform mining and associated activities as in proposed alternative.
Alternative (1) would avoid direct or indirect disturbance to approxi-
mately 2,760 acres of wetlands designated by the Corps of Engineers. It would
generally ensure that the integrity of wetlands in the 30-year mine plan area
D-8-
-------
be retained, assuming mitigative measures were effective in controlling
drainage problems and other associated indirect effects from adjacent mined
lands. Neither individual nor nationwide 404 permits would be necessary.
Alternative (2) would exclude mature forested wetlands from mining
(approximately 800 acres) as well as another 1,000 acres of similar wetlands
from raining and/or associated activities. The circumstances described in
Alternative (1) would also apply here. This alternative would enable the
applicant to develop mining activities possibly without need for individual
404 permits, although a nationwide permit would probably be necessary.
Alternative (3) would ensure that major forested wetlands along Gibbons
Creek (approximately 900 acres) would not be disrupted. Through effective
planning, TMPA could mine down to the defined wetlands and potentially not
alter the flow regime, contour, bank stabilization, and associated wetland
dependent plants and animals of Gibbons Creek. An individual 404 permit would
still probably be required due to mining activities adjacent to the Navasota
River.
Alternative (4) could result in the degradation and/or destruction of
2,760 acres of wetlands. In the first 5-year permit area, about 305 acres of
wetlands would be affected, due to the construction of sedimentation ponds.
No mining would occur directly in wetlands, although pond construction could
cause minor changes in wetlands adjacent to Gibbons Creek and the Navasota
River. Subsequent mining plans indicate complete destruction of the upper
reaches of Gibbons Creek and its adjacent wetlands. Some wetlands associated
with the Navasota River and Gibbons Creek at the confluence with the Navasota
will also be mined. Effective restoration of wetlands would be critical under
this alternative in order to mitigate long-term adverse effects. Restoration
efforts will require careful planning, extensive land management, and
effective maintenance. Individual 404 permits would be required on a case by
case basis throughout the 30-year mining period.
4.0 EFFECTS OF WETLAND DESTRUCTION ON FEDERALLY LISTED
ENDANGRED OR THREATENED SPECIES
Two species of animals, the Bald Eagle and American alligator, potentially
could occur in the 30-year mine plan area. The American alligator is
dependent entirely on wetland habitat, while the Bald Eagle feeds over and
generally rests and roosts near wetlands. Although neither was observed
during surveys of the 30-year mining area, potential habitat exists in the
30-year mining area for both species.
Loss of wetlands in the first 5-year permit area will have no effects on
listed species or potential habitat of listed species. In subsequent years,
potential habitat, primarily near the Navasota River, and the confluence of
Gibbons Creek and the Navasota River, for both species will be modified or
destroyed under current mine plans. No significant adverse effects (declines)
are estimated to the respective populations of listed species, since currently
they are not known to inhabit the 30-year mine plan area.
D- 9
-------
No Federally listed endangered or threatened species of plant are known to
occur in wetlands on the 30-year mine plan area. Therefore, no effects are
expected to listed plant species.
5.0 PHYSICAL EFFECTS AND CHANGES IN COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
The wetlands in the Gibbons Creek 30-year mine plan area provide a diver-
sity of important habitat for a variety of wildlife species. These wetlands
provide year-round habitat for most of the game species that occur in the
area, as well as provide seasonal habitat for waterfowl and many other migra-
tory bird species. In the first 5-year permit area the loss of a small amount
of wetland habitat will occur due to construction of sedimentation ponds in
wetlands associated with Gibbons Creek and Navasota River (Exhibit C).
In future years, sizable acreages of wetland habitat will be removed from
production (Exhibit B). The primary detrimental effects to wetlands on the
project site include:
• further fragmentation of existing wetland habitat;
• reduction of stream flow maintenance potential through destruction (de-
watering) of wetlands;
• reduction of food supply for wetland wildlife species;
• reduction of primary habitat for amphibians, some reptiles, mammals,
and birds;
• disruption or destruction of potential habitat for the American al-
ligator;
• reduction of nutrient and sediment filtering efficiency of surface run-
off due to elimination of wetland vegetation; consequent increase in
eutrophlcation potential and stream sedimentation effects;
• elimination of potential wetland spawning areas for certain fish
species and wetland wildlife;
• increased stream temperatures caused by removal of shade trees and pos-
sible consequent reductions in stream benthos and fish; and
• reduction of detrital (dead plant material) input to the receiving
streams and consequent reductions in stream productivity.
6.0 EFFECTS TO OTHER BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
In the first 5-year permit area there will be little or no loss of
plankton. In future permit areas if stream segments (e.g., Gibbons Creek) are
mined, complete loss of populations of plankton will occur in these segments.
However, the net loss to the local plankton population, is not expected to be
D- 10
-------
significant. The loss of benthic invertebrates also will be minimal in the
first 5-year permit area. In future years, as mining activities occur in
wetlands containing at least seasonal standing or running water, populations
of benthic organisms occurring in these areas will be destroyed. The overall
magnitude of these losses is unknown.
7.0 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE DEGRADATION OF WETLANDS
The following measures are proposed or should be considered to reduce
degradation to wetlands:
• Mining and other disturbances in wetlands will be avoided to the
maximum extent practicable (no direct mining in wetlands is planned in
the first 5-year permit area);
• Careful placement of haul roads, diversions, and levees will reduce
potential adverse effects on wetlands from dewatering or contamination
from polluted runoff;
• Strategic placement of sedimentation/retention ponds will help trap
runoff from active mining and reclamation areas and reduce water
quality degradation;
• Providing natural buffer areas adjacent to disturbed wetlands and
between mining and undisturbed wetlands; and
• Effective and timely restoration of destroyed wetlands will reduce
adverse effects on any contiguous wetland communities (e.g., rapid
restoration of wetlands will reduce erosion and sedimentation as well
as adverse effects from hydrologic and water quality changes).
8.0 EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT ON NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC
RIVER SYSTEMS OR COMPONENTS THEREOF
No nominated or designated National Wild and Scenic River Systems or
associated components are within the 30-year plan area.
9.0 EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT ON SANCTUARIES AND REFUGES
No State or Federal sanctuaries or refuges are located In the 30-year mine
plan area.
D- u
-------
10.0 PROPOSED RESTORATION PLANS
Presently TMPA has proposed to implement restoration measures to minimize
long-term adverse effects to wetlands and wetland wildlife. In brief, the
plan includes:
• restablishing original elevations and contours within the wetland
areas;
• restructuring stream channels and natural drainages;
• replanting appropriate wetland vegetation species along reclaimed chan-
nels and wetland areas;
• removing any proposed levees at the southwest end of the mining area to
restore normal Navasota River backwaters;
• providing adequate budget for reclamation equipment as necessary to op-
timize timing of reclamation activities; and
• consulting with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department to obtain guidance in the use of effective
mitigating techniques.
The effectiveness of these restoration techniques should be monitored
closely by TMPA and by Federal and State regulatory agencies
through specific provisions in the surface mining permits,
individual 404 permits, NPDES permits, as well as through agreements with the
Navasota Soil and Water Conservation District.
D-. Ha
-------
TEXAS MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
GIBBONS CREEK LIGNITE PROJECT
WETLAND DETERMINATION
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
INTRODUCTION
The US Army Corps of Engineers 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 US Army
Corps of Engineers (COE), has been requested by EPA to establish the boundaries
of waters of the United States as they apply to pre-application inquiries which
do not involve significant issues or technical difficulties where EPA has
declared a special interest.
The Texas Municipal Power Agency's (TMPA) proposed Gibbons Creek Lignite Project,
Grimes County, Texas 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 Gibbons Creek Project.
The purpose of this report is to detail the extent of waters of the United States
including adjacent wetlands as they have been identified by the COE.
METHODS
A field investigation of the project area, Grimes County, Texas was conducted
19-21 August 1980 by representatives of the COE, Fort Worth District and TMPA.
Transect lines were established at eight sites ranging throughout the project area.
These sites were selected on the basis of accessibility, representativeness,
land use patterns, drainage characteristics, and range of topographic changes.
Their locations are shown on the accompanying maps.
Investigation along each transect included identification of vegetative communities,
examination of soils, and observation of drainage characteristics. Transects were
extended into nearby upland communities to discern differences in key characteristics
and estimate a line of demarcation. Upon completion of the field investigations
hydrologic data was obtained in order to correlate the presence of water-tolerant
species with a specific flood duration elevation.
Topographic maps were used to establish cross sections of the floodplain at
several locations within the project area. Various flood duration elevations were
plotted along each cross section and these were compared with the extent of flood
tolerant plant communities observed in the field. The strongest apparent correlation
of these two factors occurred at the two percent flood duration elevation (flood
elevation equaled or exceeded two percent of the time for the period of record).
D-12
-------
Wetland Determination, Gibbons Creek
Using topographic maps this elevation was plotted as our limit of jurisdiction
along the Navasota River.
Detailed flow data was not available for Gibbons Creek; therefore stereoscopic
examination of aerial photographs was used to denote an elevation and jurisdictional
line which appeared to agree with field observations of soils, drainage patterns,
and vegetation.
RESULTS
Transect 1 - This line transected a first bottom terrace and adjacent upland along
Gibbons Creek immediately upstream of State Highway 30. The ground cover in this
area consisted primarily of nutsedge. The gray, loamy clay soils exhibited
numerous crayfish mounds. The forest overstory consisted predominantly of bitter
pecan (Carya aquatica) American elm (Ulmus americana), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra),
hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) and water oak (Quercus nigra). The understory was
primarily deciduous holly (Ilex, decidua). Stands of swamp privet (Forestiera
acuminata) occurred along the creek bank and depressions throughout the terrace.
This flat terrace was bordered by a ridge with a steep descent. Prevalent species
along the ridge and in surrounding uplands included post oak (Quercus stellata),
yaupon holly (Ilex vomitoria) and pecan hickory (Carya illinoensis). Soils on this
ridge were gray, loose, sandy loams.
Transect 2 - Areas along either side and between the forks of Gibbons Creek
immediately downstream of Farm to Market Highway 244 were examined. Tree species
on the right descending creek bank included hackberry ((J. occidentalis), bitternut
hickory (Carya cordiformis), eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), water oak
((^. nigra), western soapberry (Sapindus dr-ummondii), osage-orange (Madura pomifera),
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and yaupon holly (I.- vomitoria). Additional
species along the left descending bank included eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides),
and bitter pecan. Species noted along a fence row 100 yards from the creek included
common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), sumac (Rhus-sp.), American beautyberry
(Callicarpa americana), and trumpet creeper (Bignonia americana). Soils in this area
were light colored sandy clays and there was no first bottom terrace along the creek.
Evaluation of factors at this site indicated that our jurisdiction was limited to the
ordinary high water mark of Gibbons Creek.
Transect 3 - This area was along and near the left descending bank of Gibbons Creek
west of an abandoned railroad grade. The most abundant species at the edge of the
clearing was bitter pecan with persimmon and honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos)
codominant in the stand. The understory consisted of honeylocust, deciduous holly,
greenbrier (Smilax smallii), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
Further into the stand the dominant overstory was composed of willow oak (Quercus
phellos), water oak, hackberry and slippery elm interspersed with some bitternut
hickory. Progressing towards Gibbons Creek, a small slough was noted with an
abundance of very water-tolerant species such as planertree (Planera aquatica),
several ash (Fraxinus sp.) bitter pecan, bitternut hickory and a predominance of
D-13
-------
Wetland Determination, Gibbons Creek
palmetto (Sabal sp.) in the understory. On the least side of this drainage, a
sharp rise in topography revealed a drier area near Gibbons Creek which supported
stands of post oak, hackberry, and water oak. Drainage areas two to three feet
deep near the creek supported buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), sesbania
(Sesbania sp.), palmetto, and planertree. The banks of Gibbons Creek supported
such species as river birch (Betula nigra), and hophornbeam. Osage-orange, river
birch, live oak (Quercus vlrginiana), and slippery elm were found growing on the
berm of the creek. To the southwest away from the creek, and across another
drainage, a large, flat area revealed a predominance of water oak and willow oak
in the overstory with deciduous, holly and yaupon holly in the understory. The
ground cover consisted of sedges and ragweed.
In and adjacent to the borrow ditch northwest of the abandoned railroad grade we
found water elm, bitter pecan, sesbania, and palmetto. Outside of the borrow
ditch were such species as honey locust, swamp privet, slippery elm, common
persimmon, water oak, and willow oak. The soils in this area were a gray clay
with several crayfish mounds indicative of wet conditions.
We next examined the northeast corner of area 3. This segment was disected by
numerous stream channels and supported species such as sycamore, ash, bitter pecan,
eastern hophornbeam, hackberry, water oak, bitternut hickory, elm, common cane,
and Chinaberry (Melia azedarach). Soils in this area appeared to be alluvial
sands.
Transect 4 - South of Gibbons Creek on the edge of a ridge adjacent to the
creek bank sandy soils supported stands of post oak, water oak, yaupon and
deciduous holly, persimmon, winged elm, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), Eastern
hophornbeam, black gum, and overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
Transect 5 - This area revealed a mixture of species with a wide range of tolerance
for soil and moisture conditions including water oak, black gum, deciduous holly,
American elm, Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), persimmon, bitter pecan, sesbania,
cedar elm, (Ulmus crassifolia), willow oak, and hawthorn (Crataegus sp.). This
community type is indicative of moist conditions brought about by occasional
flooding of short duration and moderately well drained loamy soils. Upland vegetation
located on a nearby ridge included post oak and yaupon holly.
Transect 6 - This area was located near the confluence of Gibbons Creek and the
Navasota River. The vegetation was indicative of seasonally saturated soils and
included cedar elm, overcup oak, willow oak, bitter pecan, and water locust (Gleditsia
aquatica). Swamp privet, Eastern hophornbeam, water locust were noted adjacent to a
small slough.
Transect 7 - The remnant vegetation present in this pasture area consisted of overcup
oak and water locust north of the pasture. At an approximate elevation of 185 feet msl,
a topographic rise revealed sandy soils supporting yaupon holly, gum bumelia (Bumelia
lanuginosa), post oak, and red mulberry (Morus rubra). The woodlands on the eastern
D-
-------
Wetland Determination, Gibbons Creek
side of Transect 7 included primarily bitter pecan near the edge with willow oak,
hackberry, American elm, overcup oak, and Eastern hophornbeam dominant further
into the stand. Deciduous holly and palmetto composed the understory. Indications
of frequent flooding included minimal ground cover, open space understory, and
conspicuous flood debris in the area.
Just north of the confluence of Gibbons Creek and the Navasota River, waterlocust
was identified along the east bank of the river with Eastern hophornbeam, cedar elm,
bitter pecan, swamp privet, and overcup oak identified on the west bank.
Transect 8 - Along the right descending bank of Dinner Creek stands of Eastern
hophornbeam, over,cup oak, and willow oak dominated the overstory. Sesbania and
persimmon were identified as primary understory vegetation.
Traversing the central portion of this area revealed a flat forested bottomland
composed of cedar elm, overcup oak, persimmon, blackgum, deciduous holly, hawthorn,
ash, and swamp privet. One substantial area noted along this transect was
predominantly ash with a swamp privet understory. It was not readily apparent at
the site, however, such an area might be caused by a slight depression or local
drainage.
Discussion - A thorough field investigation of representative sites within the
proposed TMPA mining area revealed the presence and lateral extent of vegetative
community types typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. Field
observations also included soil drainage characteristics and evidence of flooding.
This data was combined with the calculated elevations of known discharges within
the Navasota River and information from aerial photography to establish the limit
of the waters of the United States in the project area.
These limits extend along the east side of the Navasota River from Sulphur Spring,
to a point immediately south of its confluence with Gibbons Creek. They generally
follow the primary bank of Gibbons Creek to a point near Transect 3 where a broad
flat floodplain occurs bounded by sharp rises in topography. These rapid changes
in topography may act to accelerate and concentrate drainage from adjacent uplands
thereby producing local flooding and saturated soil conditions. Further upstream
the defined limits follow the established stream course except for areas of
significant depressions.
RECOMMENDED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
DAVID B/ BARROWS"
Chief, PerroTft Section
"HAWKINS, JR. /
Chief, Office Operations/ Branch
DATE
DATE
DATE: 3,7 /0,tk7)
APPROVED BY:
MOTORS ' /
ALLIE J . MOTORS /
Chief, Operations Division
Drl4
-------
(,:4P
Mr. Clinlcn b. Spotts
ftegfon.ij f.lS Coordinator (6ASAF)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Pallas, Texas 7572(1
Subject: CC-1; B-0825
Final Environmental Impact
Statement - GCLM
Dear Mr. Spotts:
Your letter of November 5, 1980, describes information required from the
Texns Municipal Power Agency to complete the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for our Gibbons Creek Lignite Mine and the related National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination Systea (NPDES) Permit. You are correct In understanding
that we have received a copy of the report "Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
Uetland Deteroination," dated OctobeT 27t I9&0, which was prepared by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Consistent with your request, we are providing the following:
1. Your letter dated September 25, i980, requests a commitment frozs THPA to
complete archaeological testing from sites 41GH37, 70, and 76. While ve
believe that we have fulfilled this cocialtment, as further evidence of
our intent we are enclosing copies of two (2) purchase orders, numbered 2233
and 2259, which have been approved for additional archaeological studies
(budget detail has been deleted). Also included for your review Is the
proposal entitled, "Archaeological Testing of Sites 41GM37, 70, and 76 for
the Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station, Grimes County, Texas."
2. In a meeting-on October 16, 1980, your Staff requested that a Cooperative
Agreement be developed between the Navasota Soil and Uater Conservation
District and Texas Municipal Power Agency as It relates to the development
and implementation of a land osnagement program consistent with the
objectives of established soil and water conservation practices* This
Cooperative Agreement was completed on November 6, 1980, at a meeting vlth
this District, and Is enclosed with this letter.
3. A reproducible ®ap of the most recent boundary of areas proposed to be mined
during the 30-year project (scale 1:24,000). This map (which is dated July,
1978) is submitted herewith.
6. A commitment to restoration of the wetlands that may be affected by mining
during the 30-year project.
November 10, 19B0
FEC-m
X
- u ;
^M'£D ¦
t
Ln
mvnitipnf PoKin Ogriuj hOO Do*-';, »p*Pf Amnpinr- If.as 76U"i 1 lb'7l dtf l-diUl'
Letter to Mr. Clinton Spotts
November 10, 1980
File No. CC-1; B-0825
Page 2
5. A commitment to develop a plan for the restoration of any mined wetlands
which will Include the following:
a. establishment of original elevations and contours within the wetland
areas,
b» restructuring stream channels and natural drainages,
c. replanting of appropriate wetland vegetation species along reclaimed
channels and wetland areas,
d. removal of any proposed levees at the southwest end of the mining area
to restore normal Navasota River backwaters,
e. provide for natural buffer area adjacent to restored wetland areas, and
f. commitment to adequate budget for reclamation equipment as necessary to
optimize timing of reclaiaation activities*
With regard to Item 4 above: This is our coa&alt&ent to develop a plan to
restore any wetlands that may be mined for the recovery of lignite during the
30-year period of the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project consistent with accepted
reclamation statutes, regulations, rules and practices in existence at the time
of permitting for the affected areas. Our intentions are further amplified in
the following paragraph, consistent with your request.
A plan will be developed for the restoration of wetlands which stay be
affected by lignite raining to Include the following:
a. establishment of original elevations and contours within the wetland
areas,
b. restructuring stream channels and natural drainages,
c. replanting of appropriate wetland vegetation species along reclaimed
channels and wetland areas,
d. retcoval of any proposed levees at the southwest end of the mining area
to restore normal Navaeota River backwaters,
e. provide for natural buffer area adjacent to restored wetland areas, and
f« commitment to adequate budget for reclamation equipment as necessary to
optimize timing of redaction activities*
0-
-------
Letter to Mr. Clinton Spotts
Novc-nbcr IP, 1980
File Ko. CC-t; B-0825
Pape 3
With regard to Item f. above Jt 16 our positive commitment to provide for
adequate resource?: of personnel, equipment and vegetative stock materials to
carry out an effective reclamation program in any wetland areas that may be
disturbed by lignite raining. Further, for your information the regulatory and
statutory requirements of the Federal Surface Mining and Reclamation Act and
the Texas Surface Mining and Reclamation Act establish clear performance
requirements for restoration of all lands disturbed by surface mining for the
recovery of coal or lignite. We are clearly committed to meet all those Federal
and State statutory and regulatory requirements relating, to mining and
reclamation following mining which relate to the achievement of environmental
quality, including the restoration of any wetlands disturbed by the mining of
lignite. While these comments may seem redundant, we are trying to express in
the most clear language possible that the Texas Municipal Power Agency is
committed as a matter of policy and resources of personnel and equipment to
conduct an environmentally well-managed program that will effectively meet all
reasonable challenges related to conformity with statutes, rules, regulations
and accepted management practice. We are further bonded to the Railroad
Commission of Texas to carry out an effective reclamation program. Such bond
cannot be released if the work is not performed according to the required
standards. The reclamation performance bond le provided in a sum that would
allow for the satisfactory reclamation if there were any default. Since TMPA is
tp a joint-power agency enabled by the State of Texas as a separate municipal
jL corporation, a political subdivision of the State and a body politic and
corporate, (Article 1435(2), Section 4(a) V.A.T.C.S.), its debts and obligations
are further guaranteed by the Cities served. Ve believe all the above provides
the commitment you are requesting of the Texas Municipal Power Agency.
We are pleased to note that you have received a letter from the Texas
Historical Commission dated October 24, 1980, indicating that our cultural
resources protection plan is acceptable to then and that nomination of Piedmont
and Kellum Springs has been completed. It is our understanding that, with this
determination in hand you will now be able to proceed with the final preparation
of this Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Gibbons Creek Lignite
Project; and that it 1s not necessary to further delay any of the required
actions pending cotonents of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Will
you please Inform me promptly if any further action or information le required
since each delay is drastically increasing the overall cost of this project with
no change In our environmental management commitment.
D-
Letter to Mr. Clinton Spotts
November 10» 1980
File No. CC-1; B-0825
Page 4
We believe that this transmittal provides you with all of the information
necessary to Issue the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Gibbons
Creek Lignite Mine and the related NPDES Permit. We are appreciative of yout
efforts to expedite the preparation and timely publication of this Envlronmer
Impact Statement.
Sincerely
TE^AS MUN1C1
POWER AGENCY
Dean S/Mathevs, Py
Manager,
Environmental Services
DSM/WHC:bh
Enclosures
D-
-------
APrENDlX D
GIBBONS CREEK LIGNITE MINE
FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PHOGRAM
The mission of the applicant, Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA), is the
generation, transmission end sale or exchange of electric energy within the "state
of Texcs. As peri of this mission, TMPA is developing the Gibbons Creek Project
which consists of the Gibbons Creek Steom Electric Station, associated transmis-
sion facilities, and the adjacent lignite surface mine. The Gibbons Creek Project
will provide electrical power through the use of lignite fuel and will reduce the
demend cn rotural gas end oil which is consistent with national energy goals.
In line with TMPA's mission to develop and provide electric power, the Agency is
committed to sound engineering, construction, mining end management practices
that will provide beneficial uses of project lontij and waters. These proctices,
however, must be consistent with TMPA's mission, the wishes of land owners
within ths mine permit area, prcrtical considerations, and legal constraints.
In ord';r to develop mcrragsment practices that could benefit fish and wildlife in
the mine permit orea, TMPA has conducted site visits'with Texas Porks and
Wildlife Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel, solicited
comments and recommendations from experts ot these agencies, aid met with
wildlife specialists ot Texcs A&M University. In addition, TMPA recently held o
meeting in the project vicinity with land owners, members of the Grimes County
Commissioner's Court, the agricultural extension agent from Grimes County,
representatives of the Parks end Wildlife Deportment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service aid the Texas A&M extension service to discuss wildlife aspects of the
mining project.
Letters received from the Parks end Wildlife Department and the U.S. Fish Bid'
Wildlife Service in response to TMPA's request for technical assistance and
rccon;.rxndaticns for the planning of fish and wildlife aspects of the mining
pinje>jl ore attach?--,'. TMPA is en basic agreement with the management
sugg«ticns contained in these fetters. Meny of these suggestions will be
incorporated in TMPA's wildlife management program for the permit areo and
TMPA will continue to solicit recommendations from these agencies in the
development of practices to be applied to specific acreoges.
To the extent possible consistent with the project purposes, sound engineering
construction end mining practices, and constraints of lea.e.arrangements and the
wishes of the land owners, TMPA will apply management practices to provide
habitat far fish end wildlife species In the permit area. These practices will
Include the following:
1. TMPA will avoid disturbance or diversion of streams and associated fish
and wildlife habitat, wherever possible. Natural drainage patterns and strecm
channels will be restored cn mined lands.
2. Land clearing and disturbance in odvonce of mining will be held to o
minimum end only those areas necessary for mining or related focilities will be
affected.
3. TMPA will provide shrub plantings along fence rows established after
mining. Placement of fences and any shrub plantings will be done with the
approval of the lend owner.
ft. Permanent stock ponds far livestock end wildlife will be provided to
replace ponds removed during mining.
5. Revegetation cs presently planned consists mostly of bermuda pasture
af the direction of the various land owners. TMPA is not opposed to
revegetation with improved varieties of range or pasture grasses depending upon
the wishes of the lend owners and the availability of these varieties. Reclama-
tion studies hove demonstrated the ability to successfully reclaim using coastal
bermudagross.
6. TMPA will provide brush shelters cs habitat for birds and other small
animals. Thi size, locations and numbers of these shelters will be coordinated
with the land owners.
-------
7. In addition 1o the coordination of project octivitits with state ond
Federal agencies that has already taken place, TMPA' will continue to solicit the
cdvice end recommendations of these agencies especially as it relates to hunting
on lands that are owned and managed (under the control of) TMPA. Hunting will
be restricted on lends that are within the active mining or reclamation arecs as o
safety measure.
The procedures described above relate to the fish ond wildlife management
aspects of the first five-year permit area shown In the application before the
Texas Railrood Commissicn. The specific management practices to be followed
by TMPA on specific laid areas will be developed prior to the initiation of
clearing aid mining. These practices will be reviewed with Texas Parks and
Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife personnel prior to mining.
a
i
(-¦
00
-------
. UNITED STATES
['^>",7, | DiPAHTMSlNT Or THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
:c]cfic^l Services
T r. 3 _* .'Titz L £ Ti h £ tt Building
f 1 ? 7 £ y 4 c- r Street
Fort Worth, Ur.ts 76102
April 9, 1979
Mr. Deen y.a thews,' Environmental Coordinator
Texas Municipal Power Agency
600 Arlington Downs Tower
2225 Z. Randol Kill
Arlington, Texas 76011
Dear Mr. Mathews:
This letter respond* to youT request for technical assistance and
recezaendacions for the planning of fish and vildlife management aspects
at the Gibbons Creek Lignite Surface Hire, Grimes County, Texas. A
joint field inspection of the proposed mining area vas conducted on
March S, 1979, with representatives of the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Dep&rtoent. The felloving comments have been coordinated vith the
Depsrttaent.
M It is »y understanding from this March Sth meeting that Texas Municipal
^ Fover Agency anticipates filing for a Texas Railroad Commission surface
M cir.ing permit in approximately 2 to 3 months. This permit application
oust meet the applicable provisions cf the Federal interim surface
cinin£ reg-ulatcry program, cated December 13, 1977. In addition permanent
regulatory progras. provisions of the Office of Surface Mining, dated
Marcn-13, 1979, vill also require cine operators to submit nev permit
applications after approval of the State regulatory program. Therefore,
it may benefit your company to supply decai'ed fish and vildlife information
during the initial permit' application process.
The following comments are provided for use in the development of your
mining application and fish and vildlife management program at Gibbons
CTeek. I have tried .to cross-reference Texas Railroad Commission
(TRC) and Office of Surface Mining (OSM) permit requirements where
appropriate. Section numbers (e.g. Section 779.20) refer to the Federal
interia or permanent regulatory program provisions.
T.A. - Environmental Considerations (Hvdrologic Conseouence6)
This section of the TRC surface mine penait application requires a
discussion on the consequences of the disruption of natural stream
^conserve
\*WCWCA-fl
eNs^sr
Save Energy and You Serve.America!
svsterns sac what measures vill be taken to E_inici2£ environmental
damages.
Eased upon our field inspection, I believe Gibbons Creek and Rock Lake
Creek can be classified as intermittent streams vithin the pentit area.
Tnese streams provide significant fish and vildlife habitat and should
be protected in compliance vith Section 715.17(d) of the interim OSM
program and Sections 816.64 and S16.57 of the permanent OSM program.
Specifically, I encourage you to design your mining plan tc avoid the
diversion of these creeks vhenever possible. Should diversion be
approved by TRC, the streams should be returned to their approximate
pre-mining condition which includes meanders, riffles, pools, and riparian
vegetation.
V.E. - Environmental Considerations (Vildlife)
Effects of the proposed mining operation on vildlife and plans to
protect vildlife are to be discussed vithin this section of the TRC
permit.
Interim OSM regulation 715.20(e)(4) requires that tec lactation activities
fulfill the habitat needs for vildlife, vhere vildlife habitat is to be
included as a posmining land use. Also, Sections 780.16 and 816.97 of
the permanent program vill-require the development of a fish and vildlife
plan and the use of best technology currently available (BTCA) to
minimize adverse impacts or to enhance environmental values at mine
sites.
To effectively meet these regulatory requirements, 1 recommend that the
following measures, as a minimum, be considered in the development of
your fish and vildlife protection plan.
(1) Land Disturbance - Pre-project planning measures should be
adopted to avoid adverse impacts to fish, vildlife, and their
habitats. Such measures should include (1) restricting land
clearing or disturbances to only those areas necessary for
mining, coal processing, or other project operations; (2) creation
of vegetation buffer zones to maintain habitat diversity; and (3)
placing special emphasis upon the preservation of important fisb
and vildlife production area6 such as vetlands, streams, ponds, or
riparian habitats.
(2) Topography - Natural drainage patterns and streams should be
restored on mined lands. Vhere possible, lands should be
reclaimed to rolling to moderate topographic relief rather
than flat, featureless plains. Such relief generally provides %
greater vildlife cover and promotes the establishment of a more
diverse biotie community.
-------
r.evegetstior. - A diversity of native grass, forb, legume, and
voody plan: species should be considered ic the reclamation plan.
Even 1' the primary lend use for the proposed mine site is to be
pt«tureland, woody plantings beneficial for wildlife food and cover
should be established along the natural drainage, streams, ponds,
and fencerovs or planted as shelterbelts or motts. Quick growing shrubs
should be planted to serve as Intermediate wildlife food and cover
until slower growing trees become established.
Kative grasses and forbs should also be used as a supplement to
introduced, tamp pasture species such as coastal bermudagrass.
These species may be seeded as a mixture on reclaimed lands or
established as vildlife food plots at selected locations within the
mining area.
Ponds - Poods or small water areas should be strategically
constructed throughout the reclaimed area. Depending upon size and
configuration, these ponds can provide fish habitat and peripheral
vildlife habitat for numerous species of shoreblrds, songbirds,
waterfowl, amphibians and reptiles, and small mammals.
To maximize the pond's value for fish and vildlife production, the
shoreline should be contoured to provide shallow water littoral
zones. A gradual slope to 6 feet in depth, then a 3:1
slope to the bottom of the pond should promote the growth of
aquatic macrophytes and eoergents useful for fish and vildlife food
and cover. Only one-half or less of the pond should be contoured
io this manner in order to prevent too much aquatic vegetation.
The rest of the pond should have shoreline depths of at least 3
feet.
Where possible, water levels within the pond should be stabilized
through the use of a control device. Rye, oats, or some other
quick growing annual may be planted in the pond's bottom prior to
impoundment to reduce turbidity and provide stable substrates.
Fencing - Fencelines should be used to break up extensive,
monodominant pastures. Fencerows planted in trees, shrubs, and
woody vines create niches for numerous upland game birds and snail
camsals. Large animals such as the white-tailed deer also use
these wooded fencelines Tor shelter or for migratory corridors.
Properly designed fencerovs create not only good wildlife habitat,
tbey also can enhance livestock management practices by promoting
proper pasture rotation. In order to provide sufficient edge and
diversity, pastures generally should not be an; larger than 150-200
acres in size.
4
In most circumstances, it mav also be desirable to fence wildlife
food and cover plantings, ponds, woodlots, ditches, or other
vildlife production areas for their protection.
(6) Habitat Development - Brush shelters or other habitat Improvement
structures should be considered for construction on'the reclaimed
areas in order to provide living space and escape cover for vildlife.
Trees cleared from proposed mining areas can be used to economically
construct brush shelters on previously reclaimed pasturelands.
These shelters should be located near wooded cover when possible
and be about 6 feet high and 25-30 feet in diameter. Logs should
be criss-crossed at the bottom of the shelter to provide liveable
area for small manuals and birds.
The above measures are Just a few of the major habitat development or
management practices which can be utilized at the Gibbons Creek site to
mitigate or enhance fish and vildlife resources. Unless these or other
appropriate best management practices are undertaken, vildlife vlll not
be able to reestablish comparable communities and populations on reclaimed
mine lands.
VIII. A. - Reclamation Plan (land Ose)
This section of the TRC permit application should contain Information on
the quantity and quality of fish and vildlife populations and habitats
within the project area. A vegetation type-map and narrative descriptions
of the vegetation and associated vildlife populations Is necessary to
effectively determine pre-alnlng land use conditions.
Should an alternative land use be developed on the reclaimed areas (e.g.
forest land or range'land converted to pasturelano), Section 715.13 of
OSM's Interim program and 816.133 of the permanent program require that
measures necessary to prevent or mitigate adverse effects on fish and
vildlife be formulated within the mining plan. These measures could be
discussed vithin the vildlife section of the permit.
VIII. C. - Reclamation Plan (Revetetatlon)
As previously discussed, It Is recomended that a diversity of grass,
forb, legume, and woody plant species be utilized In the reclamation
plan. For the land resource area under consideration, 1 believe the
following species should be evaluated for their desirability in establish-
ing wildlife food and cover on the reclaimed lands. This listing is
not inclusive but Is meant to serve as a guide In plant selection.
-------
Crasset - svitc.hg.rass, Indi&r.grass, little and big bluesten,
sioeoets graca, western vheatgrass, buffalograss, lovegrass,
end vile Ciller.
Fcrbs - Mar.icillian sunflower and smartveed.
Legumes - lespedeza and sweetclover.
Shrubs and Vines - autumn olive, American elder, dogwood, sumac,
bush or Japanese honeysuckle, and dewberry.
Trees - black locust, wild plus, eottonyood, green ash, persltatooa,
oaks, h-ackberrr, mulberry, osage-orange, sveetgua, crabapple.
Eastern redcedaT, and pine. *
I hope the preceding information fill assist your company in the develop*
oentof its mining application and fish and vildlife management program.
If you have any questions regarding this information or desire further
assistance, please feel free to call upon me.
The opportunity to work vlth you on this project is appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
©
Is?
Thomas J. Cloud, Jr.
Coal Coordinator-Texas* Oklahoma
cc: Resource Protection Branch, TPWB, Austin, Tx.
Regional Director, FWS, BSP, Albuquerque, K.N.
Area Manager, FVS, Austin, Tx.
Ed Povell, TEKA Corporation, Dallas, Tx.
-------
TEXAS
RKS and Wildlife departk.£nt
r-A
cma*\ t* tv twavii fw-1
1,1 lN I ncciltivl DiniCloi' l,,M '
<700 Mk School NomI
Awim. TiiH TB744
Kjy 7. 1979
Mr. Cean Matthews, Environmental Coordinator
Teias Municipal Power Agency
600 Arlington Oowns Tower
222b East Randol Hill
Arlington, Texas 76011
Dear Kr. Matthews:
This letter responds to your request for technical assistance and
recommendations for fish and wildlife resources associated with the
Gibbons Creek Lignite Surface Hlne near Carlos In Grimes County, Texas.
The follwlng background Information is provided which outlines this
agency's understanding concerning the referenced project. If any are
in error, please make appropriate corrections.
1. Approximately 30,000 acres are contained within the 30-year
project area.
2. Approximately 320-350 acres will be mined annually. No more
than ISO acres are planned as an 'exposed window" at any given
time.
Jir.
3. Lignite characteristics: approximately 6500 BtuAlfif; low
sulphur content; mlnable seams between 40 and 140 feet; seams
are shallow near the Navasota and become deeper eastward.
4. First mining operations are scheduled to begin in 1981.
5. No logging of hardwoods is expected in the project area.
6. Land clearing will occur no sooner than six months prior to
mining.
7. Grazing leases with local landowners will be secured during
the premlnlng phase.
8. Hunting will not be permitted on lands held In fee.
*atthe.s
„Qr 1 WO
«y 7, 1979
The project area has crr.slderable acreage of post oak-black hickory
forest with a node-aie to dense yaupon understory.
The area south of C4'l,s i, recoonlied as »ome of the best deer range In
Grimes County. Gratia'is a-f typically overgrazed ranges although coastal
bernudagrass pasture* «rc cowwn*
Recommendations:
1. The train thrust of reclamation of wildlife habitat on the proposed
lands should be toward benefiting snail game and nongame wildlife
species.
2. The use of shrub plantings should be considered 1n lieu of tree
plantings on adaptable sites.
3. Retention of permanent water would be beneficial. A portion should
be allocated to shallow-water conditions.
4. Reveaetation of woody species should be promoted along fence lines
and in notts. The size and configuration should be coordinated
with Department biologists prior to installation.
5. Logging and/or clearing operations should be delayed until shortly
before mining.
6. Improved varieties of range and/or pasture grasses should be^consldered
in lieu of coastal benraidagrass. Grasses which should be considered
include klelngrass, swltchgrass and indlangrass. Partrldgepea,
engelmanndaisy and max1m1ll1an sunflower will add diversity to re-
claimed grazing lands.
7. In the allocation and distribution of acreages proposed for wildlife
habitat reclamation, efforts should be made to maximize diversity
and intersperslon of habitat types. In most cases, this can be done
without significant cost Increases.
8. Cessation of hunting on company-owned lands could result 1n local
overpopulation of deer herds. Controlled hunting Is a means of
regulating these herds and should be considered.
These recommendations are offered at the request of.your agency. If you have
any questions, please contact Hr. Hike HcCollum, Resource Protection Branch.
-------
,'ra« M«tthpws
l£y 7. 1979
Thank you for your concern and Interest 1n the fish and wildlife resources
of the project area.
If this agency can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely,
ft
CHARLES 0. TRAVIS
Executive Director
CDT:KM:dzl
cc: ¦ Too Cloud, Coal Coordinator
FWS
Fort Worth, Texas
0
1
NJ
u>
-------
IN REPLY REFER TO:
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
SE
POST OFFICE BOX 1306
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87103
¦¦ ! '¦
May 6, 1980
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
V
Regional EIS Coordinator
United States Environmental Protection Agency ^
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
This Is In response to your request for review of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) of the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project. It is my
opinion that no threatened or endangered species or species proposed
for listing as threatened or endangered will be affected by the Gibbons
Creek Lignite Project as described in the DEIS. If the project should
be altered to any degree, however, please reinitiate a review of project
affects upon listed or proposed species.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Acting
Deputy
Sincerely yours
Regional Director
cc: Austin Area Office, (SE), TX
Ft. Worth Field Office, (ES), TX
D-24
-------
APPENDIX E
CULTURAL RESOURCES
E-l
-------
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
1522 K Street. NW
Washington, DC 20005
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to issue a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit to the Texas
Municipal Power Agency (TMPA) for a surface mine, the Gibbons Creek Lignite
Project, Grimes County, Texas; and,
WHEREAS, EPA, in consultation with the Texas State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), has determined that this undertaking may have an adverse
effect upon properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470(f), as amended, 90 Stat. 1320) EPA has
requested the comments of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(Council) in accordance with the Council's regulations, "Protection of
Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 CFR Part 800); and,
WHEREAS, representatives of the Council, EPA, and the Texas SHPO have
consulted and reviewed the undertaking to consider feasible and prudent
alternatives to avoid or mitigate any adverse effect; and,
WHEREAS, TMPA, the applicant, was invited to participate and participated
in the consultation process;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed that the undertaking will be
implemented in accordance with the following stipulations to avoid or
mitigate adverse effects.
Stipulations
I. EPA will incorporate by reference the following conditions into the
original and any subsequent NPDES permits for TMPA's Gibbons Creek
Lignite Project.
A. Prior to any ground disturbing activities, TMPA will complete a
historic and cultural survey of the permit area plus any other
areas that will be impacted by construction of related roads and
facilities, with sufficient buffer zones to ensure the identification
of all National Register or eligible properties that may be
affected, directly or indirectly, by the subsequent mining activities
in accordance with the standards in 36 CFR Part 66, Appendix B
(attached). TMPA will develop an investigation strategy plan in
consultation with the Texas SHPO for review and approval. Unless
the Texas SHPO notes an objection within 15 working days after
receipt, the survey may proceed.
E-2
-------
Page 2
Memorandum of Agreement
Environmental Protection Agency
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
B. TMPA will provide sufficient documentation to the Texas SHPO
about the historic and cultural properties identified by the
survey(s) to enable the SHPO to assess the eligibility of the
properties for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
C. Should the Texas SHPO determine that a property does not meet the
criteria for inclusion in the National Register, TMPA will identify
the property on the detailed mine plans and no special protection
need be afforded it.
D. Should a property be found to meet the criteria for inclusion in
the National Register, and where it is not possible to avoid or
to protect it from subsequent mining and related actions, TMPA
will, prior to any ground disturbing activity in the vicinity of
the property, treat the property as follows.
1. If the property is significant (as documented in the nomination
to or determination of eligibility for the National Register)
primarily in the data it contains so that retrieval of the
data in an appropriate manner may preserve this significance,
TMPA, in consultation with the Texas SHPO, will develop and
implement a data recovery prrgram in accordance with the
Council's Handbook on the "Treatment of Archeological Properties"
(attached). TMPA will submit a data recovery plan to the
Texas SH?D for review and approval prior to its implementation
and prior to initiating any action that would affect the
property. Unless the Texas SHPO notes an objection within
15 days after receipt, the plan may be implemented.
2. If the property is significant (as documented in the nomination
to or determination of eligibility for the National Register)
primarily for architectural or historical values, TMPA will
consult with the Texas SHPO zo develop a mutually acceptable
program which is to be implemented by TMPA to ensure preservation,
relocation, and/or recordation of the property. If the
property is to be relocated or otherwise rehabilitated and
preserved, the mitigation program will conform to the approved
approaches in the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for
Rehabilitation."
Prior to demolition or alteration of any such property, TMPA
will record the property so that there will be a permanent
record of its present appearance and history. TMPA will
first contact the National Architectural and Engineering
Record (NAER) (National Park Service, Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C. 20243, 202-343-5217) to determine
what documentation is required. All documentation must be
accepted in writing by NAER prior to the demolition or
alteration of the property. TMPA will also provide copies
of this documentation to the Texas SHPO.
F. the permittee will ensure that all survey, evaluation, data
recovery, and mitigation measure monitoring will be conducted
E-3
-------
Page 3
Memorandum of Agreement
Environmental Protection Agency
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
under the direct supervision of a person(s) who meet, at a minimum,
the applicable professional qualifications set forth in 36 CFR
Part 66. TMPA's consulting archeologist will be present during
ground disturbing activities in areas where it can be predicted
that subsurface cultural material is likely to occur. The archeo-
logist will train equipment operators to recognize cultural
properties should they be encountered in areas where they were
not predicted.
G. TMPA will stop activities that would adversely affect a historic
or cultural property that is discovered during construction
related or mining operations until the Texas SHPO has been given
an opportunity to inspect the property, and whatever preservation
or recovery measure' is agreeid upon has been completed.
H. TMPA will provide at least two copies of final reports of the
data recovery to the Texas SHPO. A copy of any final technical
reports will also be furnished to Interagency Archeological
Services, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20243) for
possible submission to the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS). Any precise locational data must appear in a separate
appendix and will be withheld from NTIS publication pursuant to
Section 11 of the General Authorities Act to 1970, as amended
(Public Law 94-453).
I. TMPA will ensure that all notes, photographs, negatives, and
processed data (tables, maps, etc.) will be stored in good order
and in a manner that makes them available for future study at an
appropriately equipped institution that meets the standards set
forth in the proposed 36 CFR Part 66 (copy attached) and that
makes these data available to other parties for research or other
appropriate purposes. All archeological material or other physical
property recovered, removed, or otherwise relocated in carrying
out the studies required by this agreement will be returned to
the property owner after the completion of the study unless the
property owner agrees in writing that they can be retained.
II. Upon written notice from the Texas SHPO or the Council that any of the
conditions of this Agreement are being violated, EPA, the Texas SHPO,
and the Council will consult to determine how the concern should be
resolved.
III. If a signatory determines that the terms of this Agreement cannot be
met or believes a change is necessary, the signatory will immediately
request the consulting parities to consider an amendment of the Agreement.
Amendments will be executed in the same manner as the original Agreement.
Executive Director
Advisory Council on Histdric Preservation
E-4
-------
Page 4
Memorandum of Agreement
Environmental Protection Agency
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
(date)
Environmental Protection Agency
(date)
Texas State Historic Preservation Officer
(date)
Chairman
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Concur:
(date)
Texas Municipal Power Authority
-------
Preliminary Case Report
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
1. Description of the agency's Involvement with the proposed undertaking
with citations of the agency's program authority and applicable Implement-
ing regulations, procedures, and guidelines:
Issuance of a new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit is under consideration by the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6, Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. (33USC et seq.)
authorizes EPA to administer NPDES permits to industries that discharge
to waters of the United States. New source regulations were published
on January 12, 1979, in 40 CFR Part 434; 44 CFR 2589.
The National Envi/onmental Policy Act of 1969 requires that all Federal
agencies prepare detailed environmental statanents on major actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Section
511(c)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA or
P.L. 92-500) as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217)
mandates that requirements of NEPA apply to the issuance of a permit under
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act for discharge of any pollutant by
a New Source as defined in Section 306 of P.L. 92-500. Regulations
in effect are 40 CFR Part 1500, Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
which were published on November 29, 1978 and 40 CFR Part 6, EPA
Regulations for Implementation of Procedures on the National Environ-
mental Policy Act which were published November 6, 1979.
2. Status of this project in the agency's approval process:
A proposed-permit (containing necessary provisions for mltlgative
measures) will be prepared and distributed to the public with the
Final Environmental Impact,Statement (EIS). Permit will become effec-
tive 30 days after being made public - estimated date February 1981.
3. Status of this project in the agency's National Environmental Policy
Act compliance process and the target date for completion of environ-
mental responsibilities:
The Final EIS is in preparation and is planned to be made public
February 1981 with a 30-day review period following.
4. A description of the proposed undertaking including, as appropriate,
photographs, maps, drawings and specifications:
A lignite surface mine is proposed to be located in western Grimes
County, Texas. The lignite reserve to be mined extends from the
Navasota River to near Singleton, Texas in a southwest to northeast
diagonal trend. The project has a 30-year design life with approxi-
mately 100 million tons lignite to be mined at an annual rate of
3,000,000 tons. The project site includes about 27,500 acres and
about 10,300 acres will be mined. Principal operations include
clearing the mining area of trees and brush, removing overburden
to depths in a range of 40 to 200 feet using electric walking draglines,
loading the lignite on 110-ton bottom dump trucks, and transporting
lignite to the Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station over mine haul
E-6
-------
2
roads. Reclamation Is to occur concurrently with mining. Sedimenta-
tion ponds will be used to collect storm water runoff from the mine
and facilities area and seepage water 1n mine pits will be diverted
or pumped to them. Pond water will be tested and PH adjustments made
1f needed before discharge to a stream. Maps (Attachments 1-5)
are attached which indicate the project area as well as areas
surveyed, locations of sites, areas unsurveyed.
5. A description of the National Register or eligible properties affected
by the under taking, including a description of the properties' physical
appearance and significance:
As the project area of 27,500 acres has not been completely surveyed
this is unknown. However, based on the fact that some 44 sites which
may be affected by the proposed action were documented by TAMUCRL recon-
naissance in the Texas ASM Report No. 36, "An Archeological Assessment
pf the Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station," 1977, sites were recom-
mended for further testing in the first 5-year mining area and adjacent
reservoir area associated with the steam electric generation station.
Certain sites in the reservoir area remain to be tested (by TAMUCRL
under contract to TMPA). While certain other sites in the mining
area were tested and found not significant enough for further testing,
the potential for eligible sites does exist.
Based on area background information provided in the TAMUCRL reports,
it appears potential for sites from the early to late Lithic period
(6000 B.C. to 200 B.C.) may be possible. Some resources in the reservior
area were identified to be a Late Lithic or Early Ceramic Stage site.-
In addition, based on information the TAMUCRL reports,' it appears
there is potential -for historic cultural resources dating back to
French and Spanish European explorersas well as the more recent
colonization of the State.
Two historic sites, Kellum Springs and Piedmont Springs, which are
believed to be eligible for the NRHP, occur adjacent to the project area
and are not to be mined. These two sites are to be nominated by
the permittee with coordination through the SHP0 and EPA. The sites
will not be mined but secondary impacts may occur. For example,
impacts on the flow of the springs at the Piedmont Springs site may
occur.
6. A brief statement explaining why any of the Criteria of Adverse
Affect (800.3) apply:
For unknown properties that may occur in the mining area, 800.3(b)(1)
applies due to the nature of the project where an area is mined all
vegetation would be uprooted and moved and earth removed to depths
of 200 feet which could destroy entire sites and alter specific
properties. 800.3(b)(2) applies where a property may be avoided,
but mined around. It cannot be determined whether 800.3(b)(3) and (b)
(4) may apply without a survey of the area. In the case of the
Kellum Spring and the Piedmont Springs sites, 800.3(b)(1) and (b)(2)
may apply.
E- 7
-------
3
7. Written views of the State Historic Preservation Officer concerning
the effect on the property:
See enclosed December 21, 1980, letter from the Texas SHPO
(Attachment 6).
8. The views of other Federal agencies, state and local governments,
and the other groups or individuals when known:
See page 2 of the attached letter of comment on the Draft EIS, Gibbons
Creek Lignite Project from W. J, Glowski. (Attachment 7).
9. A description and analysis of alternatives that would avoid the
adverse effects:
Alteration of the mining plan, including omitting certain areas to
be mined, placement of sediment ponds, diversions, and haul roads
to avoid disturbing earth of any sites discovered during surface
and sub-surface surveys could be carried out.
10. A description and analysis of alternatives that would mitigate
the adverse effects:
Due to the nature of the project proposed and the fact that much
of the area has not been surveyed, even under undesireable conditions
as described in the TAMUCRL reports, specific mitigation measures
for unknown properties could not be described here. However,
data recovery,-photographing of resources, excavation and curation
of objects and information to be accessible to the public would be
expected as a minimum.
11. An estimate of the cost of the undertaking, identifying Federal
and non-Federal shares:
Costs associated with the Gibbons Creek Lignite Project are
estimated at $110,000,000. No Federal funds are involved.
NOTE: (1) Attachment 1 to this preliminary case report is the same as
Exhibit B at end of the EIS.
(2) Attachment 7 is a letter from Mr. W. J. Glowski and is contained
in Section 5.0 (Response to Comments) of the Final EIS.
E- 8
-------
P5
I
GIBBONS CREEK =
AREAS COVERED BY PRESENT AN5 PREVIOUS SURVEYS.
AN3 UNSURVEYED AREAS
i
r." : ' .
r.,-r
i .r-
,.;'t J-.Vr,"
lyl't'.r l' *' l -< ¦¦ »•¦
¦ --' r
m*5 ¦ ¦ ¦
AREA UM3ER PRESENT SURVEY
AREA INDER PRESENT SURVEY. NO ACCESS
AREA TO BE SURVEYED
AREAS PREVIOUSLY SURVEYED
e
S
K
J gy>M|«rp f mpem*
5a
-------
GIBBONS CREEK-
EASTERN LIGNITE SURVEY AREA
'¦ Q «l fit •'
n
r"
n to
c o
H H w O
r
fl w w o
K o . SB
-------
PI
I
flltt
GIBBONS CREEK- ¦
LIGNITE SURVEY AREA WEST
¦ i r
tlf«lt« ||«M lfl«
(KlitMl |i ft| It
f«J OUJJ
i
lilt IMItfU
ffctl «li«i
lM» tt «•!•]
I il on SO
4J CM 44j/Jyr4l QM 1
,•> ut^
"'VJ-ii'd-ii! Jfei&t
I0M »S
gf • 41OM 13
«l OU II
«feutj
I1 ^ J *#c»i
l/ J
yi^s* i o* u
£ .4.0..,
41 OH 14 \ ^ 41 Old fa
it*
i — y r^Y*
• t :
'" ^-r^5 *
'¦wf*'
,3^
^Ph0
o w
a o
w
8
m
in > *0
f 90
\0 h ^ O
-------
M
I
ro
POWER PLANT AND RESERVOIR
SURVEY AREA,
_r
gcWaM tiiat
(<«f to
y «0 *r\Tj*i
— pepoitc V*>*
CARLOS
41 CM 36
H » O
M W C
>< r1
H SO
W
05
W
-------
ATTACHMENT 6
r.VETT UTlMtfi
XECLTIVE DIRECTOR
¦ - ._..A . *•«. \
Dececber 21, 1980
*. O, BOX Kt
TEXAS 7K.
Clinton B. Sports
Regions! EIS Coordinator (6ASAF)
U.S. E^vironssn^sl Protection Ageney
Region VI
1201 £1-2 Street
Dallas. Tesso 75270
Re: Proposad Sjbbon Creek Llgnits 5*r=jecc
Dear Mr. Spotts:
In response to your letter tpf Dcc5S-tr S, 1§SQ_ th= State Historic l^eservsiiiG*--
Officer nat^s that^no sites eligible for Inclusion within >»acisu=l Regist-r
of Historic located vithin the first five-year penait are? of the
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project. However, the remainder of the E:ine£T^^'iaf>y
contain cites eligible for ineluftler? =ifhia the national Register, sua thass
sites .may be adversely affected ..by Ehs projects
The State Historic Preservation Officer does concur with the.Environmental
Prote?tio= Agency's ducensifis^ipn of effect for hath the first five-year pereit
area and for in? retasiiiiitg taiae ares.
Sincerely,
Truett Latit=£isf
StstG Historic Presets?loss Officer
by
:0 _ r ;j} ¦ .
(j ~ ""
LaVerne He??iT>gCon. Ph.D.
Di r£Cu:*";^*
Kesource Cori5vslion
LU/iif::
< S '- . _v r
_s/>r s/r/rffCy fi-T tftl.i tests' stArrvafiOf,
/ //
-=-- ¦---' — -E=M
-------
TRUETT LATIMER V
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
vt4"—i.-T',. ir"". r 'i:
f/
October 24, 1980
'¦ ©• BOX J 127a
AtSTl.N TEXAS 78HI
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator (6ASAF)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Re: Texas Municipal Power Agency
Gibbons Creek Lignite Project
Attn: Jeanne Peckham
Dear Mr. Spotts:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Cultural Resource Management Plan for the
Gibbons Creek Project. The plan has been reviewed by this office and found
to be satisfactory for management requirements of this office.
The nomination forms for Kellum Springs and Piedumont Springs are being com-
pleted at this time. In a conference on October 21, 1980, Dean Matthews of
TMPA, and Clell Bond of TAMU, confirmed that the nominations will be submitted
shortly, and in any event within six months.
Sincerely,
Truett Latimer
State Historic Preservation Officer
by
n
oo
' I f c£;
3 \J
I
/
LaVerne Herrington, Ph.D.
Director
Resource Conservation
LK/lft
cc: Dean Matthews
Clell Bond
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
~7/ip /fu/c //ye/ity ^tir ,/fi.\furu Pr?.\prrufton
E-14
-------
APPENDIX F
OTHER KEY CORRESPONDENCE
F-l
-------
^CONSHYATION Yl\
*( DISTRICTS J
A 0F A/
\A AMERICA. / /
Navasota, Texas
Hempstead, Texas
Farmer-District Cooperative Agreement
This agreement is entered into by the^Navasota Soil and Water Conservation District, referred to hereinafter
as the "District", and the TEXAS MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY,
(a joint powers agency established as a separate municipal corporation authorized
under Article 1435 (a), Section 4(a), VATCS).
2225 East Randol Mill Road
referred to hereinafter as the "Farmer".
Arlington, Texas 76011
THE DISTRICT AGREES TO:
Assist in carrying out a conservation plan by furnishing to the Farmer such (1) information, (2) tech-
nical assistance and supervision, and (3) other assistance as it may have available at the time the work
is to be done.
THE FARMER AGREES TO:
1. Use his land within its capabilities.
2. Treat his land in keeping with its needs.
3. Develop as rapidly as feasible a conservation plan for his entire farm.
4. Start applying one or more conservation practices in keeping with these objectives and the technical
standards of the District.
5. Maintain all structures established in an effective condition, and to continue the use of all other
conservation measures put into effect.
6. Use any materials or equipment made available to him by the District for the purpose and in the
manner provided for it.
IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT:
1. This agreement will become effective on the date of the last signature and may be terminated or
modified by mutual agreement of parties thereto.
2. The provisions of this agreement are understood by the Farmer and the District and neither, shall
be liable for damage to the other's property resulting from carrying out this agreement unless such
damage is caused by negligence or misconduct.
JESS Tfrfl? FOLLOWING SIGNATURES:
30 QcroePR /03a>
(Witness) (Date)
Jo|
General Manager
(Witness)
(Date)
NAVASOTA SOIL AND/WATER CONSE
Date /tfrv" lo I $0
N DISTRICT
Zone:
F-2
-------
SMX»-4i!C
RAILROAD COM1SSION OF TEXAS
Surface Mining and Reclamation Division
Surety Bond for Surface Mining Reclamation
Permit No. 0?6
Mine Name Gibbnns Creek nine
Permittee: Texas Municipal Powpr Anpnrv
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
WHEREAS, the above bound Principal has submitted to the Railroad
Comnission of Texas, Surface Mining and Reclamation Division, a Reclamation
Plan, as a part of an application for a permit to engage In surface
mining, and whereas said permit and plan were approved on the ifti-wflav
of Aurust , 19 BO .
WHEREAS, the granting of the Permit is conditioned on ttie Permittee's
posting bond to Insure the reclamation of the Permit Area;
That we Texas Municipal Power Agency
as Principal, and!>t. Haul nre and Marine Insurance Company
as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the State of Texas in the full
sura of Two Million Sixty Thousand-Dollars (t?.060,000.00---)» *r°r
payment of which will and truly be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs,
executors, administrators, successors and assigns. Jointly and severally
by these presents.
NOW, THEREFORE, the conditions of this obligation are such that 1f
the above bound Principal shall faithfully and fully perform the require-
ments set forth in the permit Issued pursuant to the "Texas Surface Coal
Hlning and Reclamation Act" and faithfully and fully perform the require-
ments set forth in the rules of the Railroad Coonlsslon of Texas,
Surface Hlning and Reclamation Division, pertaining to the reclamation
of surface rained lands promulgated in accordance with the provisions of
the "Texas Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act" (Article 5920-11
V.A.C.S.) and the "Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act"
(Article 62S2-13a V.A.C.S.) as now or hereafter amended, and faithfully
fulfill all obligations under aforementioned Reclamation Plan, U«en this
obligation shall be void; otherwise of full force and effect.
And the Surety to this bond, for value received, agrees that no
amendment to existing laws, rules or regulations, no adoption of new
laws, rules or regulations and no modification of the Reclamation Plan
shall in any way alleviate its obligation on this bond, and it does
hereby waive notice of any such amendment, adoption, or modification.
SMRD-4ZC
Page 2
2
The Surety further agrees to give prompt notice to the Permittee
and to the Railroad Coonlsslon (1) of any notice received or action
filed alleging the Insolvency or bankruptcy of the surety or which
could result in suspension or revocation of the surety's license to do
business; and (2) If 1t becomes unable to fulfill Its obligations under
the bond.
It 1s agreed that this bond shall be In full force and effect for
the duration of the reclamation obligation on the land affected by the
Reclamation Plan, or substituted therefore, or until the operator 1s
otherwise relieved of his obligation t>y the Railroad Comnission of
Texas. Surface Mining and Reclamation Division.
It Is further agreed that upon the Incapacity of a surety by reason
of bankruptcy. Insolvency or suspension or revocation of Its license,
the permittee shall be deemed to be without bond coverage in violation
of the permit and shall discontinue surface coal mining operations
until a new performance bond coverage Is approved.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Principal and Surety have caused these
presents to be duly signed and sealed this lRth day of Aunmt .
19 BO-
ATTEST
TFXAS MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
Principal
500 Arlington Downs Tower
Arlington. Texas 76011
Address
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY
Surety
385 Washington Street
St Paul. Minnesota 5510?
Address
By:
Jool T. Rod~er3
Cpneral Manager
By:
Title
TTtTi
Attorney-in-Fact
v\.
C.arC Signature . Donald H. Lipper1''
Signature
Joel T. Rodgers
Approved
19
ssTOHtR
-------
APPENDIX G
NPDES PERMIT
G-l
-------
Permit No. JXOO 83101
Application No. JXOO 831 01
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the "Act"),
Texas Municipal Power Agency
600 Arlington Downs Tower
2225 E. Randol Mill Road
Arlington, Texas 76011
is authorized to discharge from a facility located at
Gibbons Creek Lignite Mine
approximately two miles south of Carlos in Grimes County,
Texas
to receiving waters named
various tributaries to the Navasota River
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth
in Parts I, II, and III hereof.
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight,
Signed this day of
Diana Dutton
Director
Enforcement Division
€PA Form 3540-2 (2-74)
REPLACES EPA FORM 3320-4 (10-73) WHICH MAY BE USED UNTIL. SUPPLY IS EXHAUSTED
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning the effective date^d lasting through fvnm an*/
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s). ^* in^®rTT1 9 p ,
sedimentation pond containing drainage from lignite miVing operations (see Part III, Paragraph B).
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Monitoring Requirements
Effluent Characteristic
Discharge Limitations
kg/day (lbs/day) Other Units (Specify)
Daily Avg Daily Max
Flow—m3/Day (MGD) N/A N/A
Total Suspended Solids N/A N/A
Total Iron N/A N/A
Daily Avg
~
Daily Max
N/A
35.0 mg/1 70.0 mg/1
3.0 mg/1 6.0 mg/1
Measurement
Frequency
one/day
one/day**
one/day**
Sample
Type
Estimate***
Grab
Grab
* Report
** When discharge occurs
*** See Part III, Paragraph E.
The pH shall not be less than g. o standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored
one/day by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above sfiall be taken at the following location(s):
at the flow measuring device(s) of the various holding ponds in operation
(See Part III, Paragraph B).
-------
PART I
Page 3
Permit No.
B. SCHEDULE UF COMPLIANCE
1. The permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent limitations specified for
discharges in accordance with the following schedule:
TX00B31O1
None
2. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the above schedule of
compliance, the permittee shall submit either a report of progress or, in the case of
specific actions being required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or
noncompliance. In the latter case, the notice shall include the cause of noncompliance,
any remedial actions taken, and the probability of meeting the next scheduled
requirement.
-------
PART I
pj^c 4 of 11
Pcrn.il No. TX0083101
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
Monitoring results obtained during the previous 3 months shall be summarized for
each month and reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1),
postmarked no later than the 28th day of the month following the completed reporting
period. The first report is due on October 28, 1980 . Duplicate signed copies of
these, and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the Regional
Administrator and the State at the following addresses:
3. Definitions
a. The "daily average" discharge means the total discharge by weight during a calendar
month divided by the number of days in ^he 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 summation of all the
measured daily discharges by weight divided by the number of days during the
calendar month when the measurements were made.
b. The "daily maximum" discharge means the total discharge by weight during any
calendar day.
4. Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants 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;
Director
Enforcement Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Texas Department of Water Resources
P. 0. Box 13087, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Mr. Harvey D. Davis
Executive Director
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
c. The person(s) who performed the analyses;
-------
PARTI
Page ^ of 11
Permit No. TX0083]Q1
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
Ail records and information resulting from the monitoring activities required by this
permit including all records of analyses performed and calibration and maintenance 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 or the State water pollution control agency.
-------
PART II
Page 6 of 11
Permit No. TXOOQ3"JO"|
MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
1. Change in Discharge
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms 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 increases, or process modifications which will
result in new, different, or increased discharges of pollutants must be reported by
submission of a new NPDES application 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 State 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 noncompliance; 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 treatment or control facilities or systems 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 to navigable
waters 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 noncomplying discharge.
6. Bypassing
Any diversion from or bypass of facilities necessary to maintain compliance with the
terms and conditions of this permit is prohibited, except (i) where unavoidable to prevent
loss of life or severe property damage, or (ii) where excessive storm drainage or runoff
would damage any facilities necessary for compliance with the effluent limitations and
prohibitions of this permit. The permittee shall promptly notify the Regional
Administrator and the State in writing of each such diversion or bypass.
-------
PART II
Page 7 of 11
Permit No. TX0083101
6. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or
control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant
from such materials from entering navigable waters.
7. Power Failures
IA 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;
of, if such alternative power source is not in existence, and no date for its implementation
appears in Part I,
b. Halt, reduce or otherwise control production and/or all discharges upon the
reduction, loss, or failure of the primary source of power to the wastewater control
facilities.
RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Right of Entry
The permittee shall allow the head of the State water pollution control agency, the
Regional Administrator, and/or their authorized representatives, 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 conditions of this
permit; and
b. At reasonable times to have access to and copy any records required to be kept under
the terms and conditions 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 of facilities from which the 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 State water pollution control agency.
3. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308 of the Act, all reports
prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for public
-------
PART II
Page g of I]
Permit No. JX0083101
inspection at the offices of the State water pollution control agency 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 penalties as provided for in Section 309 of the Act.
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 limited to, the
following:
a. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;
b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant
facts; or
c. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or
elimination of the authorized discharge.
5. Toxic Pollutants
Notwithstanding Part II, B-4 above, if a toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including
any schedule of compliance specified in such effluent standard or prohibition) is
established under Section 307(a) of the Act for a toxic pollutant which is present in the
discharge and such standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation for such
pollutant in this permit, this permit shall be revised or modified in accordance with the
toxic 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
Failures" (Part II, A-7), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee
from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance.
7. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or
relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the
permittee is or may be subject under Section 311 of the Act.
8. State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or
relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant
to any applicable State law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 510 of the
Act.
-------
PART II
Page 9 of 11
Permit No. TX0083101
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
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or the
application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit,
shall not be affected thereby.
PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A. The "daily average"-concentration means the arithmetic average (weighted by
flow value) of all the daily determinations of concentration made during a
calendar month. Daily determinations of concentration made using a composite
sample shall be the concentration of the composite sample. When grab samples
are used, the daily determination of concentration shall be the arithmetic
average (weighted by flow value) of all the samples collected during the calen-
dar day.
The "daily maximum" concentration means the daily determination of concentra-
tion for any calendar day.
B. The sampling points (sedimentation ponds) shall be numbered and reported as
01A through OIK, for locations A through K or designated in the following
table. Sampling of the discharge is mandatory whenever pumping from the mined
area into the sedimentation pond causes the pond to discharge.
-------
TEXAS MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
GIB30NS CREEK LIGNITE MINE
DISCHARGE 001
TABLE 11-2
Page 10. of 11
Permit No. TX0083101
LOCATIONS OF ELEVEN SEDIMENTATION POND DISCHARGE POINTS,
RECEIVING WATERWAYS, AND SU3SEO'JENT FLOW PATTERNS
Sedimentation
Pond Latitude Longitude
Number Discharge (North) (West)
Receiving Waterway and
Subsequent Flow Pctterns
01A 30° 36'17" 96" W 58
O h, con
II
2 Q1B 30° 35-27"
3 Qlc 30° 35-00"
010 30° 35' 00" 96" 5' 33
01E
01H
011
01 p 30° 33' 00"
016 30° 33' 35" 96" 6' 20
30° 33' 12"
30° 33' 43"
10 oi J 30° 33' 14"
OIK 30° 33' S9" 96" 5'19
96° W 52"
96° 5' 23"
o
30° 3V 30" 96° 6' 6"
96° 5' 38"
o f
96° 6' 43"
96° 9' 2"
96° 8' 5"
O e. ion
To Carlos Lake, thence to Big
Bronch Creek, thence to
Gibbons Creek, thence to
Novcsoto River
To unnamed tributary of
Gibbons Creek, then to
Gibbons Creek, thence
to the Novasotc River
To diversion of Rock LGke
Creek, thenfe 1o Gibbons
Creek, thence to the Navcsota
River
To diversion of Rock Lake
Creek thence to Gibbons
Creek, thence to the Navosota
River
To unnomed bronch of Dry
Creek, thence to Pond
No. 6
To Dry Creek, thence to
Gibbons Creek, thence to
the Navasoto River
To unnomed tributcry of
Gibbons Creek, thence to
Gibbons Creek, thence to
• the Navosota River
To unnomed tributary of
Gibbons Creek, thence to
Gibbons Creek, thence to
the Navasoto River
To unnamed tributary of the
Novcsoto River, tSince to the
Novcsoto River
To unnamed tributary
of the Navosota River, thence
to the Navasoto River
To unnamed tributary of
Gibbons Creek, thence to
Gib6ons Cret*, thence to
the Navasoto River
-------
Page 11 of 11
Permit No. TX0083101
C. Upon satisfactory demonstration by the permittee and approval by EPA
and the TDWR that this facility is designed, constructed and main-
tained to contain or treat the volume of water which would fall on the
areas covered by this permit during a 10-year 24-hour or larger preci-
pitation event (or snowmelt of equivalent volume), any overflow, in-
crease in volume of a discharge or discharge from a bypass system
caused by precipitation or snowmelt shall not be subject to the limi-
tations set forth in Part I-A of this permit.
D. Drainage which is not from an active mining area shall not be required
to meet the limitations set forth in Part I-A of this permit as long
as such drainage is not coram'ngled with untreated mine drainage which
is subject to the limitations in Part I-A of this permit.
E. Methods of flow estimating shall be by the "California Pipe Method" as
described in section 7.4.2.2. of the Handbook for Monitoring Indus-
trial Wastewater, August 1973, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Technology Transfer.
F. This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued,
to comply with any applicable effluent standard or limitation issued
or approved under sections 301(b)(2)(C), and (D), 304(b)(2), and
307(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act, if the effluent standard or limita-
tion so issued or approved:
a. Contains different conditions or is otherwise more stringent
than any effluent limitation in the permit; or
b. Controls any pollutant not limited in the permit.
G. The conditions applicable to all permits under 40 CFR 122.14 (as pro-
mulgated in the June 7, 1979, Federal Register) are hereby incorpor-
ated into this permit and prevail over any inconsistent requirements
of this permit.
H. The Memorandum of Agreement executed by EPA, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, and the Texas State Historic Preservation
Officer for the coal mining operation which 1s the subject of this
permit is hereby incorporated by reference and expressly made a
part of this permit. The permittee shall comply with the stipula-
tions of such Memorandum of Agreement.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
------- |