United States Region 6 EPA 906/01-90-001
Environmental Protection 1445 Ross Ave. January 1990
Agency Dallas, TX 75202
EPA Environmental
Impact Statement
Freeport Harbor (45-Foot-Project)
Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site Designation
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DSP 2 6 1989
TO INTERESTED AGENCIES, OFFICIALS, PUBLIC GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS:
Enclosed is a copy of the Final Environmental Iapact Statement (EIS) concern-
ing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) designation of two ocean
disposal sites for nterial dredged fro* the Freeport Harbor and Jetty
Channels in conjunction with the Galveston District Corps of Engineer's 45-
Foot Project at Freeport Harbor, Texas.
Because changes fros the Draft EIS are Minor, this Final EIS incorporates the
Draft EIS by reference and includes the following: 1) a revised sunary; 2)
EPA*8 responses to conents received on the Draft EIS; 3) sodifications or
corrections to the Draft EIS as a result of agency and public conents; and 4)
EPA's proposed action.
Written conents or inquiries on this Final EIS should be sailed to Nr. Nora
Thoaas, Chief, Federal Activities Branch, at the above address by the date
staaped on the cover sheet following this letter.
Sincerely yours,
REGION 6
1445 BOSS AVENUE SUITE 1200
DALLAS TEXAS 75202
Robert E. Layton Jr., P.E
Regional Adninistrator
Enclosure
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FREEPORT HARBOR (45-FOOT PROJECT)
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SfTE (ODMDS) DESIGNATION
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION: The purpose of this action is to comply with the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 by providing an environmentally
acceptable ODMDS(s) in compliance with the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR Parts
220-229).
EPA CONTACT: Norm Thomas (6E-F)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
First Interstate Bank Tower
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
ABSTRACT: The proposed action is the designation of two ocean disposal sites. One site is
for the one-time disposal of 5.1 million cubic yards (mcy) of construction material; the other
site is for the disposal of 2.1 mcy of future maintenance material dredged annually from the
Freeport Harbor and Jetty Channels in conjunction with the U.S. Army Engineer District,
Galveston, 45-Foot Project at Freeport Harbor, Texas. The major adverse environmental
impact of dredged material disposal is the burial and high mortality of the benthic infaunal
community within the disposal sites.
COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EIS ARE DUE: FEB 1 2 1990
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL
1
Robert E. Layton Jr., P.t.
Regional Administrator
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ii
PART I. SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT AND FINAL EIS 1-1
A. Background 1-1
B. Alternatives I-2
C. Affected Environment I-5
D. Environmental Consequences I-9
E. Proposed Action 1-14
PART II. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 11-1
A. Public Review Process 11-1
B. Comments and Responses II-3
PART III. MODIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS 111-1
PART IV. EPA'S PROPOSED ACTION IV-1
UST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1. Freeport Harbor Area Showing Locations of the Interim-Designated
ODMDS and the Two Preferred Sites i-5
UST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-1. Summary of the Specific Criteria as Applied to the Preferred
Disposal Site 1-10
TABLE i-2. Summary of the General Criteria as Applied to the Preferred
Disposal Site 1-12
i
-------
PREFACE
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Free port Harbor (45-Foot
Project) Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation was issued by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in January 1989. The Draft EIS was distributed to
approximately 30 Federal, State, and local agencies and interested individuals. Ten
comment letters were received by EPA during the pubDc review period.
This Final EIS consists of four sections, which are (1) a summary of the alternatives
considered, the proposed action, and an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the
proposed action; (2) the comments received and EPA's responses; (3) modifications or
corrections to the Draft EIS; and (4) EPA's proposed action. A complete environmental
analysis of the proposed action is provided by the Draft EIS and Final EIS together.
The Final EIS was prepared with the assistance of BatteDe Ocean Sciences of
Duxbury, Massachusetts.
ii
-------
PARTI. SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT AND FINAL E1S
A. BACKGROUND
The existing Free port Harbor Project was authorized by the River and Harbor Acts of
May 1950 and July 1958. These acts provided for construction of entrance and jetty
channels to allow access to Freeport Harbor from the Gulf of Mexico. Authorized entrance
channel dimensions were 38 ft deep by 300 ft wide, with jetty channel dimensions 36 ft deep
by 200 ft wide, including an upper turning basin. Enlargement and relocation of the channels
were authorized by Congress in 1970 (Section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970, PL
91-611; House Document 289, 93rd Congress - 2nd Session, 31 Dec 1975) and by the
President in 1974. These authorizations allowed the jetty channel to be deepened to 45 ft
and widened to 400 ft by relocating the North Jetty northward. The relocated entrance
channel was authorized to be deepened to 45 ft and widened to 400 ft; it will extend 4.6
miles into the Gulf.
Total project construction activities are expected to generate 9.7 million cubic yards
(mcy) of dredged material for disposal. Of this, 600,000 cy of sand will be placed on
beaches north of the North Jetty, and 4 mcy of material dredged from the inner channel will
be placed at available upland disposal sites, leaving 5.1 mcy of dredged material for ocean
disposal (CE 1978). The purpose of this EIS is to evaluate and designate environmentally
acceptable ocean disposal sites for the 5.1 mcy of material to be dredged during expansion
of the outer channel and for the subsequent maintenance material, which Is expected to
accumulate at a rate of approximately 2.1 mcy per year. A disposal site designated on an
interim basis in 1977 has been used for ocean disposal of materials dredged from the
Freeport Harbor channels.
Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to designate ocean disposal sites
for dumping of dredged materials. The Galveston District of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (CE) is responsible for maintaining the Freeport Harbor entrance and jetty
channels to their authorized size through dredging and disposal operations. The CE has
requested that EPA permanently designate ocean dredged material disposal sites (ODMDS)
for the material dredged from Freeport Harbor (45-Foot Project).
1-1
-------
B. ALTERNATIVES
EPA's proposed action is the designation of two ODMDSs for the disposal of
construction and maintenance materials dredged from the Free port Harbor entrance and Jetty
channels. The disposal alternatives that were considered include no action, upland disposal,
and ocean disposal at near-shore, mid-shelf and continental slope sites.
Under the no-action alternative, EPA would not designate a disposal site. This
would increase navigational and safety hazards for shipping traffic and result in the eventual
closure of the channel, causing severe and unnecessary economic impacts. Continued use
of the interim disposal site is not feasible for two reasons: (1) the site is not large enough to
accommodate 5.1 mcy of construction material and the subsequent 2.1 mcy of maintenance
material to be dredged annualy, and (2) the interim disposal site was designated based on
historical use and not on the general and specific criteria for site selection as described In the
Ocean Dumping Regulations [40 CFR Part 228.5 and 228.6(a)]. In addition, EPA's failure to
designate a disposal site would prevent the CE from fulfilling their statutory responsibility for
maintaining the nation's navigable waterways. For these reasons, the no-action alternative
was not considered viable.
Non ocean-disposal alternatives that were considered include upland disposal and
beach nourishment. Sufficient upland sites are not available for disposing the large volume
of dredged material generated by construction and maintenance of the channels.
Designation of new upland sites would be costly and would result in the loss of valuable
wetland areas. Beach nourishment was not viable because the grain size of the dredged
material is not compatible with the beach environment. For these reasons, upland disposal
and beach nourishment were excluded from further consideration.
Five ocean disposal sites were evaluated including one mld-shetf site, one
continental-slope site, and three nearshore sites. The mid-shelf and continental-slope sites
were determined to be unacceptable for several reasons. The benthic community at these
deep water sites is not as well adapted to survival under conditions of temporary burial as
are their shallow-water counterparts which commonly experience sediment resuspension
caused by wave action and storms. Increasing the distance to the disposal site would
increase costs and time, as well as the safety hazards associated with disposal. In addition,
the feasibility of required monitoring and surveillance of the disposal site decreases with
1-2
-------
increased distance offshore. Further, there are no data to indicate that the deepwater sites
offer any environmental benefits over nearshore sites. Because of these considerations, the
mid-shelf and continental-slope sites were eliminated from further investigation.
Appropriate nearshore alternative sites were identified by using the Zone of Siting
Feasibility (ZSF) approach. This approach Identifies a large area within which an ODMDS
could be located, based primarily on physical and geographical constraints. Unacceptable
areas within the ZSF are then eliminated, based on the five general and eleven specific
criteria identified in 40 CFR Parts 228.5 and 228.6(a) of the Ocean Dumping Regulations.
The nonexciuded areas within the ZSF are the areas suitable for location of an ODMDS.
Data relevant to the project area were collected through a computerized literature
search. Because there were no significant reasons to locate the site farther offshore, a 10-
mile radius from the intersection of Freeport Harbor Channel and the beach line was chosen
as the boundary of the ZSF. Monitoring and surveillance activities are feasible within all
regions of the ZSF, and dimensions of the ZSF are not affected by political boundaries. The
enclosed area is approximately 157 square miles, and all areas outside the ZSF were
eliminated from further consideration.
A computer model was used to predict the fate of the dredged material after
discharge into the disposal area. The program models the initial behavior and final
deposition of the material based on the effects of gravity and currents. The approximate
height and area of the mound that would result from disposal operations is predicted, and
this information is used to determine the appropriate size of the buffer zones. Buffer zones
were excluded from the ZSF to protect biologically sensitive areas, navigation channels,
recreational areas and beaches, cultural or historical resources, environmental quality, and
living and nonliving resources. All locations northeast of the Freeport Harbor Channel were
eliminated from the ZSF based on natural sediment transport patterns that would carry the
dredged material back into the channel.
The model was also used to determine the necessary size of the ODMDSs. For
virgin construction material, the required ODMDS should be 7280 ft in a direction parallel to
the Channel and 13,380 ft in a perpendicular direction. For the maintenance material, the
ODMDS should be 4500 ft parallel to the Channel and 12,500 ft perpendicular.
Finally, preferred sites were located within the nonexciuded areas of the ZSF. The
Ocean Dumping Regulations state that preference will be given to historically used sites If
1-3
-------
these sites meet with all other criteria [40 CFR 228.5(e)]. However, part of the interim-
designated Freeport Harbor ODMDS falls within excluded areas of the ZSF. The preferred
sites were identified based on minimizing impacts on the biological community and locating
the site in appropriate sediments as near as possible to the area historically impacted by
dredged material disposal. The preferred sites are shown in Figure 1 and are bounded by
the following coordinates.
Vlroin Material ODMDS (Coordinates are revised from Draft EIS based on comments
from the National Ocean Service. See page II-9.)
28* 50' 51" N, 95* 13' 54" W, 28* 51' 44" N. 95* 14' 49" W;
28* 50* 15" N, 95* 16* 40" W, 28* 49' 22" N, 95* 15' 45" W.
Maintenance Material ODMDS
28* 54' 00" N, 95* 15' 49" W, 28* 53* 28" N. 95* 15' 16" W;
28* 52* 00" N, 95* 16* 59" W, 28* 52* 32" N, 95* 17* 32" W.
While the Ocean Dumping Regulations do not specifically require monitoring and
surveillance of ODMDSs, general consensus among the regulatory community is that such a
program should be developed as part of the site-designation process. Therefore, monitoring
programs are proposed for both disposal sites.
Because a large volume of construction material will be disposed over a short period
of time, monitoring of the Virgin Material ODMDS is focused on mounding. To prevent
excessive mounding, a disposal pattern array has been designed. Compliance with this
pattern should be verified through documentation of each discharge location. Regular
bathymetric scans are also recommended to monitor mounding and prevent navigational
problems. In addition, several representative stations should be sampled routinely tor
environmental analyses, including grain size and chemical and biological characterization.
Based on historical data, no long-term detrimental impacts outside the Maintenance
Material ODMDS are expected. Therefore, a Rmited monitoring program is recommended,
consisting of toxicological and chemical analyses of channel-sediment samples and chemical
analyses of ODMDS sediment and elutriate samples.
EPA's proposed alternative is the final designation of two preferred sites as the
Freeport Harbor (45-Foot Project) Virgin Construction Material and Maintenance Material
ODMDSs.
M
-------
MAINTENANCE
MATERIAL
ODMDS
WTERW-
DESJQNATED
. ODMOS
FIGURE 1-1. FREEPORT HARBOR AREA SHOWING LOCATIONS OF THE INTERIM-
DESIGNATED ODMDS AND THE TWO PREFERRED SITES
1-5
-------
rJ.a« i q »i 3: , 7, i q Z i
Freeport is situated on the Upper Texas Coastal Plain in a semltropical marine
environment dominated by the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf acts as an airmass source region,
and there is a persistent onshore flow of Gulf air deep into the state. This flow can be
interrupted by westerly winds in the winter and by tropical easterly winds in later summer,
both of which carry disturbances into the region. Average air temperatures in January and
July are 54*F and 83*F, respectively, with average monthly rainfalls for January, May, July,
and September of 3.4, 3.7, 5.0, and 6.5 in., respectively.
The hydrodynamic regime in the northwestern Gulf area is largely affected by the
complex interaction of meteorological forces, tides, freshwater inflows, and Coriolis
acceleration. The most significant dimatological effects on hydrographies result from
seasonal precipitation distributions and wind systems that affect circulation and wave motion.
The bays along the Texas coast are extremely responsive to meteorological forcing
associated with the passing of frontal systems. Meteorological forcing occurs when onshore
winds force water in through the passes and elevate water levels in the bays. This trend is
reversed when the frontal system passes. Inland pressure increases and winds shift,
depressing water levels and causing water to be forced back into the Gulf.
The astronomical tides in the Gulf are generally small, varying from diurnal to
semidiurnal, with a typical diurnal range of 2 to 4 ft Circulation in the eastern Gulf is
dominated by the Loop Current, which is a continuation of the Yucatan Current. There are
also two significant semipermanent currents present. One circulates clockwise in the
southwestern Gulf, and the other circulates counterclockwise in the northwestern Gulf. The
latter causes a net surface current component to the south in the project area. The zone of
convergence of these two currents occurs southwest of Freeport and typically has no impact
on currents in the project area, even during the summer when the convergence zone
migrates northward. Surface currents average 0.5 kt with high variability due to wind forces.
The currents diminish with depth to approximately one-half the surface velocity, and the
bottom currents are often in the opposite direction.
The bathymetry of the Freeport Area is similar to other sections of the Texas Gulf
coast, with a vertical:horizontal gradient of approximately 5:1000 from the beach to 3300 ft
1-6
-------
offshore. Beyond this the Continental Shelf begins with a more gradual vertical to horizontal
gradient of 5:10.000.
The CE performed chemical analyses of water samples collected from Freeport
Harbor, the interim-designated disposal site, and an undisturbed area northeast of the
channel. The results were compared to established EPA Water Quality Criteria and were
found acceptable for all parameters except copper, which exceeded the limit in 1973,1976,
1980, and 1984. However, calculations show that the concentrations are reduced to
acceptable levels following initial mixing.
Chemical analyses of virgin sediments and elutriates from the Freeport Harbor
entrance and Jetty channels in 1974 and 1976 indicated no sediment-quality concerns for the
virgin material. Elutriate analyses for copper may have exceeded the Water Quality Criteria,
but this cannot be determined because the detection limit for copper is higher than the
criterion. As stated previously, initial mixing would lower the concentration to an acceptable
level. Bioassay and bioaccumulation studies have not been performed on Freeport Harbor
virgin sediments, but similar studies conducted in nearby Galveston Channel have shown no
evidence of sediment contamination in the area.
Chemical and biological analyses were performed on Freeport Harbor Channel
maintenance sediments and elutriates made from those sediments. These analyses show no
particular pollution or toxicological problems associated with the sediments, which indicates
that the channel sediments are acceptable for ocean disposal.
Analysis of sediments not impacted by dredging and disposal activities indicates that
the Freeport Harbor area has no sediment-quality problems that would affect the site
selection process. Bioassays on unimpacted sediments showed high survival of test
organisms, and species studied for bioaccumulation did not exhibit significant increases in
contaminant concentrations. These results further indicate that the Freeport Harbor area has
no sediment-quality problems.
Sediment grain size was also determined for the Freeport Harbor area. The surficial
sediment provinces tend to parallel the beach with nearshore sand to the northeast and
southwest of the Freeport Harbor Channel. The nearshore Freeport area is siity-sand, with
slity-ciay predominant further offshore. Sediments in the deeper waters within the study area
display a sand-silt-day composition. The virgin construction materials are most similar to the
1-7
-------
outer siity-clay regime, whereas the maintenance materials are a mixture of sand, silt, and
clay.
The beaches along the coast near Freeport Harbor are in a general state of sediment
deposition. Sediment dispersal on the Texas Continental Shelf results primarily from
meteorological events (winds and storms), with tidal events having a lesser impact The
predominant southeasterly winds combined with the counterclockwise current regime in the
northwestern Gulf generate a net longshore drift in a southwesterly direction at Freeport
While temporary mounding is expected at both ODMDSs as a resuit of dredged material
dbposal, natural sediment dispersion in the area will prevent any long-term effects.
Diatoms are the dominant phytoplankton species In the Freeport Harbor area, with
copepods among the most abundant zooplankton species. Surveys of nearshore and
offshore benthos show a greater variety of taxonomlc groups present at nearshore sites,
while offshore benthos consist primarily of potychaetes. Marine fishes in the project area are
largely dominated by members of the croaker family (Sclaenidae). Tropical fauna, including
grunts (Pomadasyidae) and mojarras (Qerreidae) are more abundant farther offshore,
although their young often migrate into nearshore areas during summer, in addition to
fishes, penaeid shrimp and various other crustaceans inhabit the offshore area to varying
degrees, depending on their life stage and the season.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has identified 10 species of aquatic vertebrates
considered endangered or threatened and that may inhabit the Texas Gulf area.* Eight
species of aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates considered endangered or threatened are listed
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 CFR 17).** In addition, the Texas Organization for
Endangered Species has identified seven species as threatened,*** and the loggerhead turtle
as endangered. Of the tour endangered cetacean species known to occur off the coast of
The fin whale, humpback whale, right whale, sei whale, sperm whale, green sea turtle,
hawksbill sea turtle, Kemp's ridtey sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and loggerhead
sea turtie.
The sperm whale, finback whale, blue whale, black right whale, brown pelican, Atlantic
leatherback and Atlantic Ridley turtles, and the West Indian manatee.
The streambeaked whale, goose-beaked whale, pygmy sperm whale, dwarf sperm
whale, pygmy killer whale, and diamondback terrapin.
1-8
-------
Texas, the sperm whale is the most common. This species prefers deep water and
approaches only shores that have a rapid dropoff in depth, unlike the gradual slope of the
Texas continental shelf. The West Indian Manatee is extremely rare, and has been recorded
only four times on the Texas coastline. The live federally protected species of turtles that
occur in the Gulf area are the leatherback, Kemp's rkMey, hawksbill, green, and loggerhead.
Very few data are available on the frequency of occurrence of these turtles in the vicinity of
Freeport Harbor. Brown pelicans are typically found farther south but may occasionally cross
Free port Harbor.
There are no marine sanctuaries near Freeport, although two unnamed reefs and one
fish haven/obstruction have been reported. The most important commercial fishery in the
project area is the penaeid shrimp fishery, in 1975, the shrimp catch in Freeport Harbor was
valued at $18.3 million. Other commercially valuable species include black drum, flounder,
cobia, snapper and unclassified food fish. At least 11 other species are caught in the area
by recreational fishermen. Surf fishing is common at Quintana, Surfside, and Bryan beaches,
which are located near Freeport.
Other considerations impacting site selection include the presence of several oil and
gas platforms in the Freeport Harbor area, in order to avoid impacts to two existing
platforms, the virgin material disposal site has been moved approximately 3000 feet
shoreward from Its previous location. This relocation is based on comments from the
National Ocean Service on the Draft EIS. One large gas pipeline and four smaller pipelines
also impact the project area.
Freeport Harbor is an active port. Chemical transport represents the majority of
shipping tonnage. Petroleum, petroleum products, and grains are significant to the shipping
industry as well.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL CTttg^CfcJENCES
The preferred sites have been evaluated by using the five general and eleven specific
criteria listed in the Ocean Dumping Regulations. This evaluation it summarized in Tables 1-1
and I-2.
1-9
-------
TABLE M. SUMMARY OF THE SPECIFIC CRfTERIA AS APPUED TO THE PREFERRED DISPOSAL SfTE.
SpedHc Criteria as Listed In 40 CFR $22&6(a)
Pi starred Dt^irwl Site
1. Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography, and
distance from the coast
2. Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or
passage areas of living mourca In adult or juvenile phases.
Water depth at the preferred site for virgin material dteposal ranges
from 54 to 63 ft In an area where the bottom topography Is flat and
the point closest to shore Is 6 miles from the coast Water depth at
the preferred site for maintenance material is 31 to 38 ft with the
closest point three miles from shore.
Fish havens and buffer zones around these totur« were excluded
from the ZSF, as were nonsubmerged shipwreck* wMch improve
fishing. At the southeast border, a white shrimp breeding area was
excluded.
3. Location in relation to beaches or other amenity areas.
4. Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of,
and proposed methods or release including methods of
packaging the waste, if any.
5. Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.
The preferred sites for virgin and maintenance materials are 6 and
3 mfles from beaches or other amenity areas.
5.1 mcy total of virgin cpnstrvatton material and 2.1 mcy of
maintenance material annually wM be disposed at their
sites. Based on chemical and biological analyses of these materials,
no special location or precautions are necessary for their disposal,
excepting selection of compatible grain-size regimes.
Monitoring and surveillance Is feasible at the preferred sites because
of their proximity to shore and reasonable depth which facilitates
sampling. Proposed monitoring at the virgin material ODMDS
includes a method of recording the location of each discharge,
bathymetric surveys, grain-size analyses, sediment chemical
characterization and benthic InfaunaJ anafysn. Monitoring at the
maintenance material ODMDS includes water, sediment and elutriate
chemistry, bioassay and bloaccumulation studies, as well as benthic
intaunal analyses.
-------
TABLE M. (Continue*)
Spedfic Criteria as Listed In 40 CFR §22&6(a)
6. Dispersal, horizontaMran^xxt, and vertical-mixing
characteristics of the area, including prevailing current direction
and velocity, if any.
7. Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and
dumping In the area (including cumulative effects).
8. Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral
extraction, desalination, fish and shellfish culture, areas of
special scientific Importance, and other legitimate uses of the
ocean.
9. Existing water quality and ecology of the site as determined by
available data or by trend assessment of baseline surveys.
10. Potentiality for the development or recruitment of nuisance
species In the disposal sita
11. Existence at or In close proximity to the site of any significant
natural or cultural features of historical Importance.
HiBMnwn I Jtapnwi SIR)
Both sites were sized with consideration of these parameters.
Historically, steady longshore transport to the southwest and
occasional storms have removed the material from the disposal site,
resulting In no long-term effects.
Chemical and bioasssy testing have shown no water- or sediment-
quality problems within the ZSF. Analyses of disposal material
Indicate that sediment from the Freeport Harbor entrance and jetty
channels Is acceptable for ocean disposal. Studies of the benthos
at the interkTHJesignated ODMDS and nearby areas do not Indicate
any significant decrease or change In species composition at the
OOMDS.
Items from this list that are applicable to selection of the Freeport
Harbor ODMDSs are shipping, mineral extraction, fishing,
recreational areas, and historic sites. Areas that would Interfere with
these uses were excluded whenever possible, and the preferred sites
were located accordingly.
Monitoring studies have shown that only short-term water-column
perturbations, turbidity and possibly COD result from disposal
operations, water and sediment quality within the ZSF are good,
Including sediments at the existing ODMDS, which indicates no
long-term disposal Impacts.
Nuisance species have not developed at the interim-designated site,
and there is no reason to anticipate such a problem at the proposed
ODMDSs.
There are sites of historical importance approximately 0.5 and 1.2
miles from the virgin and maintenance material sites, respectively.
However, both historical sites are crosscurrent from the proposed
ODMDSs, and disposal should have no Impact on either.
-------
TABLE 1-2 SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL CRITERIA AS APPLIED TO THE PREFERRED DISPOSAL SITES
Qmnl Crttwtal as Usted In 40 CFR §22&5 Pintamd SRe
(a) The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted
only at sites or in areas solected to minimize the interference
of disposal activities in the marine environment particularly
avoiding areas of existing fisheries or she! (fisheries and
regions of heavy commercial or recreational navigation.
(b) Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen
that temporary perturbations in water quality or other
environmental conditions during initial mixing caused by
disposal operations anywhere within the site can be expected
to be reduced to normal ambient seewater levels or to
undetectable contaminant awitratfona or effects before
reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known
geographically limited fishery or she)(fishery.
The preferred sites were sotoctod to avoid sport and commercial
fishing activities* as wefl as other areas of biological sensitivity. The
preferred sites are outside the channel, including the navigation
channel buffer zone, and they avoid known navigators!
obstructions.
Chemical analyses and toxicity studies Indicate that material dredged
in the past has been acceptable for ocean disposal. Both OOMDSs
and buffer zones were sized to ensure that perturbations caused by
disposal would be reduced to ambient levels at the boundaries of
the sites.
(c) If at any time during or after disposal site-evaluation studies It
is determined that existing disposal sites presently approved
on an interim basis for ocean dumping do not meet the
criteria for site selection set forth In $228.5-228.6, the use of
such sites will be terminated as soon as suitable alternate
disposal sites can be designated.
(d) The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to
localize for Identification and control any immediate adverse
impacts and to permit the Implementation of effective
monitoring and surveillance programs to prevent adverse
long-range Impacts. The size, configuration, and location of
any disposal site will be determined as a part of the disposal
site evaluation or designation study.
If the proposed monitoring and surveillance program at either site
Indicates the potential for problems and site dedesignation Is
required, there are other nonexduded areas in the ZSF that are
available and suitable for use as an ODMDS.
The sizes of the sites are the minimum size sufficient to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 228.5 and 228.6(a). The proposed
monitoring programs should provide adequate surveillance to
prevent adverse long-term effects.
-------
TABLE 1-2. (CaritnumJ)
Gvwal Criteria as Usted In 40 CFR |22&5 Piatanod Disposal SH»
(e) EPA will, wherevw feasible, designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites
that have been historically used.
Pta
-------
EPA's proposed action is the final designation of the preferred sites for the disposal of
the construction and maintenance materials dredged as part of the Freeport Harbor 45-Foot
Project.
1-14
-------
PART N. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
This section of the Final EIS summarizes the process by which the Draft EIS was
reviewed. The comments received during public review and EPA's responses to them are
A. PUBLJC REVIEW PROCESS
The Draft EIS entitled "Freeport Harbor (45-Foot Project) Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site Designation" was distributed to the public by EPA on January 27,1969 (EPA
906/01-89-003). The Draft EIS was coordinated with approximately 30 Federal, state, and
local agencies and interested Individuals. All comment letters received on the Draft EIS are
presented in this Final EIS.
During the public review process, 10 comment letters concerning the Draft EIS were
received from the Federal and state agencies and private industry listed below:
presented.
B. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Letter Number
Aoency
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Project Review,
Albuquerque, New Mexico
2
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for
Environmental Health and injury Control
3
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service
4
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Charting and Geodetic Services
5
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service
6
State of Texas, Texas Historical Commission
11-1
-------
7 State of Texas, Office of the Governor
8 State of Texas, Parks and Wildlife Department
9 State of Texas, General Land Office
10 Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S. Inc.
The comment letters received from the sources listed above are reproduced in this
section. Each comment within each letter is assigned a number in the left margin. EPA's
response to the comment is identified by comment number and is reproduced in the right
margin beside the letter.
II-2
-------
United States Department of the Interior
omce or environmental moiect review
tost orncE »ox 641
ALBUQUERQUE. NEW MEXICO
W
April II, IM
EH 89/132
m n
G
1.0
Chhl, Ffdwd AelMlItt Brvtcti tfE
-------
-t'**1 4> '¦ m. Ul'l ^ i1 ; ».ric H':'t im
-------
(D
UffTTtD STATC9 DtPAftTMtffT Of COXWWIWCI
Ocw
DC 1
CVfe* «f »• CMsM
March 22, 1M9
vT'JS
KAK n
bts
8.0
Nr. Nora Hmmi, Chief
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
riiit Interetate Bank hvir
14 4 J Ptoaa Mmh
Dalla*t Tltai 7S202-2711
Dear Nr. Ikoatfi
bieloiid are additional co—enti on your Draft environmental
Impact Statement on Preeport Harbor <4S-Foot Project), Teiaa.
Ocean Dredged Material Dlapoaal Site Dealgnatlon.
Sincerely
hal
David Cotttngha^
Director
Ecology and Bnvlronmen
Conaervatlon Office
Enclc
T1 Yftn Sllmslailnf Amtfka'i Pra|itM • HI)-I9tt
LETTO* NO. S
3.0 SMtw Mowing P«0» tor EPA* reep^—e to
•pacMe oommank.
-------
UMITtO STATfl DIMRTMfMT OP COMMINC!
V mN 1 MatlwMl Oaaasla and Mnipliwli MaMilnilM
\Vl^y WIOMi MWM nMHIl ICDMCI
•»"' Kouthuit Regional office
•490 Roger Boulavtrd
St. httriburf, PL 33702
^ n
Nr. Nora Ttioaaa, Chief
Federal ketlvltlM Branch . rC .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency O t- 1
Region XT
1449 Rom Avenue, nltk 1200 i '
Dallae, Texae 79202
Dear Nr. Kmhii
Tha National Narlna Piaharlaa Sarvica (HHPS) haa reviewed tha
Environmental Protactlon Agency's (EPA) Draft Environmental Iapaet
Statement (DEIS) for tha Fraaport llarbor (49-Poot Project) Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation off of Fraaport, Texaa,
In Bratorla County. Ne have the following cn—ante to offer for
your consideration.
general Cfinti
An alternative of dcnma* The pupoae ol Ma BS b to daakjnalo
em*u«n«HB*y acce^Ma ocean tocefcm tor rfhriiMf oI a porton ol tie
fnatorial drvdged from tie rre^iort Harbor channel. EPA'a iMiafai oI
OOMOSrtfoee-not predude totora mil dfcialiM twianrHI irnaa
ol tie maMal.
-------
thia IRI should include a discussion of wing tbs newly todqwl
material trsa ths fwipott Harbor 4S-Foot Project for baach
stabilization and nourlstasnt as an alternative to CXWN relocation.
A comparison of tbs envlrofaental as wall as aonetary costs of
laplaaentlng this alternative la lieu of OHM relocation also
should be presented to appropriately address sobs cumulative
lapacts.
a.3.4 nnmwwf w U1B BUBS XBE
Tgcmiopg.
a.3.4.3 mw» tan imamm.
Sincerely yoon,
Andreas Kager, jr. '
Acting Assistant Regional Director
Habitat Conservation Division
a.3.4.3.1 TOT/mmr." mwrFITB MM. r>9« 1-17 to 19.
Dm aaxiramntal Information developed for ths Bryaa Hound
Itratafle htrolsm Uiipri brlns discharge also should be utilised
In determining the tone of Siting Feasibility, especially the
shrlap spawning site survey performed by Callaway and Reltseaa
(l9ai). r
Callaway, B. J. and L. A. Reltseaa. 1M1. Chrlap spawning
¦ite survey. vol. ZZ1. In: Jackson, *. B. and S. P. Wilkens
(eds.). Ihrby and redflsh stadias; Bryan Hound brlns disposal
site off Freeport, Texas, 1979-1981. HOAA Technical Hsaorandua
KMTS-SEFC-47, u p. Available froa: HTIS, Springfield, Virginia.
LETTBI NO. S Mud)
Mb twn Qalnwy and RaftMmali 1081 ahrtmp mtonlnB ah* aurvvy hsve
been rwdswed. UHsuif \ tw> Hty found twt (1) wNto «Mmp In «cwan>w
oondWon iwd to hsve a petty rfcatmSui and (2) twr* ww* wadabtaa
mi UfllBMM «Mi w(tt ttw oeoMiwxm 01 wNte «hrtmp In mewnjug condition,
twy ucata*. "I* analpfc pnMded no addanc* aupportng tw
oonoq^of aftae1 paras.* ArtrMnriaty. tie Mto on+*+r) oI
tw rwaport grid ancompaaaad 78 aq wn miss, 01 wNch tw 00M03 la only
Baaed on Ma rwtmv, «• recoqnire twt minor kr^ack to (Mmp aownfcw
may occur wW*i toe aMa.
-------
(INITIO STATtS DCPAKTMtlfT ff CtMMRMI
Hulwil Ourii and AkKMpMl MiMmMm
OMXNOMkM
MM t4
u Lb
Nt. Rata THoaaa ICB-P)
U.S. Bnvlronaantal Protection kftney
rlrat fntaratata lank TOwar
1445 Do a a A v anna
_ Dallaa, Taxaa 79202-2713
(So Daar Nr. Ihoaiai
4g Ttila la In rafaranca to your Draft Cnvlronaantal tapact Stataaant
on Fraaport Harbor (45-root Pro)act|> Taxaa, Ocaan Orad? ad
Natartai Dlapoaal llta Daalgnatlon.
Ha Hop* our cotaaanta will aaalat you. Thank jrou (or 91*109 ua an
opportunity to ra«law tha docuaant.
Slncaraly.
David CottlngMa
Dlr actor
ecology and BnvIronaantal
Conaarvatlon Off tea
Bncloaura
" v.... Amt.iM'i * iQtvtno
LETTS* NO. 4
N tatowtng paga tor EPA"« iwponM.
-------
LETTB* NO. 4 (txr+tmf)
VOTIO STATU MPMTMtttT OP COMMIRCI
W»**»ml BlHdl umt At
MATlOMul 0C(*M soviet
H'KI •» CIM»M M IHHW HWICII
wcmit >»
-------
»-on lauan
• . !. *V,<
I * < « - , H
lit i!« \ -U
L <», | I
i. ' *
if*
V*
> • mM
•mIav s
#%¦" * ,.7 1
•vvy . 1 -v
• '* «if .1: . vf - i v
-------
UMITtO STATCI OINRIMINT OF COMMCnCt
Nitlml Onuih Rtm**»hsrte UnlalMraUM
Ntrowi wmm ftxnis unci
Southeaat Regional Office
9490 Koger Boulevard
St. Patera burg, PL 33702
February 19< lflf /SER23«TAH:td
Ra. Pa sala x. Hints, Chlaf
Federal Aaslstance 8action
U.S. Iwltenaantal Protection Aqency
Region VI
1449 Roaa tviirna, Salt* 1300
Dallas, Taxaa 79202
Oaar Ra. Hlntti
Thla reapmrta to year February *, 198*, lotter regarding Uia
proposed designation of two ocean dredged aatarlal disposal altaa
offahore Freeport, Texas. A Biological Assessment (BA) waa
transmitted purauant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1*73 (ESA). Ha have reviewed the BA and concur with four
determination that populations of endangered/threatened speclea
under our purview would not ba adversely affected by the propoaad
action.
Although wa have no objection to the proposed designations, I would
like to point out tha fact that your site selection process nay be
flawed, becauae It lncorporatae the cost of transporting dredged
¦aterlala to the dlftpoaal site assuming that hopper dredges will
be used. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries)
opposea the use of hopper dredges In channels where turtles are
known to occur. Tha take of endangered and threatened sea turtles
by hopper dredges haa been well documented In Cape Canaveral,
Florida, and aore recently in Klnga Bay, Georqla. Therefore, your
lnclualon of transportation costs In the site aalectlon equation
¦ay ba Inappropriate, because NOAA Fisheries has not consulted with
the U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers regarding the aethod of dredging.
Should we determine that uaa of hopper dredges for this project
constitutes a jeopardy to Hated aea turtles, our recommended
alternative would be tha uaa of aoae other type dredge.
Thla coneludaa consultation reaponalbllltlea under Section 7 of
the ESA. However, consultation ahould be reinitiated If naw
information reveala impacts of tha Identified activity that may
affect Hated epeclea or their critical habitat, a new apeclea la
listed, the Identified activity la aubsequently Modified or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the proposed
activity.
/T\
•«
Wa"
ftl „ — u
6 LS
73 Yfirs Sllmvl«ilfi| Amnlci't • 1919*1991
&
-------
Xf yaw Imti any quaatlona, plaaaa contact Dr. Tarry Naiwoed,
rlahary llolefUt at m «2«-33M.
Slncaraly youra,
C)<»« it ¦> ft . 0« a
Charlaa A. oravati, Chlaf
Protfcttd Spaelaa Nanajaaant Branch
cot r/m
r/iiu
LETTBt NO. S (o*ud)
-------
¦cS.Eifc
namn%«iiL
•mci mt i
l£TTONO.«
*
6^
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
r.O. MM IttN
AUSTIN. TEXAS TtTII
April 3.1919
imwHM
Mr. NomTtam
rklal f I I i '-1 - - ^ - *
wWCIi ivDwV ACvvltlCl OvKn
EihIiiwuhiI ftt—itm Agency
I44J Rom Avenue
Suite 1200
Dallas. Texas 75202
Mr rmjul lienor Ocra Dredged Material Dl^osal
Btunli County, Texas (EPA. A2. A3, AS)
DcwMr.THm:
This office It In receipt of the Draft Environment]! Imptct Statement for the above referenced
undertaking. We have reviewed the document and note that there if a Memorandum of Agreement
for the undertaking. The Agreement It with the Corps of Engineers, Oalveilon District and has
e-t been In force for several yean. We would recommend that lliis document note the Agreement and
that compliance with Section 106 of the National I li sioric Preservation Act of I966 will be met
through tne stipulations of lhat document (copy enclosed).
Thank jroa for the eeeeetwilty to comment. If you have further qootloaa, please contact Nine/
Knmm (5120634096).
^ .
James E. wu*th. Ph.fw
Deputy State I ttnork Preservation Officer
NK/JEBflkm
cc Ms. Qmljni Good, OOS-OahrcsaM
®-1 EPA's afta dasIpnrton acton b not cowm) to ffw ntanncad_a(*MB«t nor
It EPA a p*Hy B Ungwwil, Thvafcra, wa do not consider Ms
iQFMtniHt ippDpflA tor ncMon aa fiQuNlid. f^olidlon ol Nriorlc illit Is
nun—a m Taw H"aa part ol ttw dawn apacMe criteria lalad In 40 CFR
§228.6(a). Al sHas of Nsfcaltsl signMcanoa war* asdudad from tha ZSF.
S7%r \5ttttr&fr*Ny/!»t fTfttlatie ,^«*irt*4ni
-------
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation-
HIlKSlnHWI
ac.
MOOS
icmMiwn or Acuceirr
WnilAJ, tba (iItiiui District, Cmryt of [({UMti, proposes
to laflNMt tbe fallwlaf eagaiag CMIcnctlaa projects; Mouth
of Calarada Ri«it,^fi;
Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries, Texafc;
Carpus Christ! Ship Channel, Texaa (4S-Feet Kavagatlaa
Project;
I
IETTBI NO. • |u4urf)
-------
h(« 2
lltMnrta af A|rNMU
Caryl i( Eagineers
1. Prior to my laad disturbing activities the Galveston
District will complete a ccltursl resources lacrty designed
la accordaaca with guidelines nttklliM la consultation
with the S!t?0 ta ldeatif7 tisiislc and cultural properties
ieclwia^ la at eligible far 1:<1:i1m ta the I'ttitul
af^ Historic P1i:ii 'Jit s>/ be aff«c'cd by the
tudt rtaklaf . The OilmUa District ahall provide the
C«—ell with a caff of the guidelines established.
A. Cultural resource surveys "111 be sdelnistered by tha
Calves tea District state arcbeeleglat.
B. Capias af tar-ray reports will W provided ta tka Texas
on.
C. All blstarlc sad ctltsnl properties identified fcy tha
surveys will be evaluated la consultation with tha
Tasas SDO ta identify tbaia properties that appear ta
¦eet >atlooal Register "criteria. Tar tbosa prop«-ties
that appear ta swet the criteria, tha Calvesten District
will seek deteralaatloss of elltlblllty frn the
Secretary at tha latarlar la accardaaca with National
Register pracadaras (JS CIS Sac. C3.3).
B. rorthose sites included la ar faaad ta be eligible
far laclnslea la the bitiaul Register, the Galveston
District will evaluate, la consultation with the Texaa
SIIPO, tha proposed aalirtiUai ta determine effect
pursusnt ta 3* CTR Sac. 800.4(b). If "no effect" is
faand through such CMialtaClat, the undertaking nay
praceed.
t. Upon fladlag that tha cadertahlag will affect a property
included la ar ellglblt far tfce National Register, tha
Calvesten District will davele? a aet of alternatives
that weuld reaalt la aioIdi:c«, ar Bltigstlen of
adverae affects, la cecsgltatlen vlth the Texas SHPO,
the east prudent and feasible alternative will be
. aelected.
1. If the selected alteraitlve results in avoidance,
the Calves too District will dacuaent a determination
of ao effect and rttala it In its files; the
project oay proceed.
2. If the selected alternative would result In
preservation af the cultural property and not
create an adverse effect, the Galveston District
will docmscnt this finding and forward s copy of
the decwaeotatioa ta tht Cenecll and a fieri! the
LEIIfcn NO. •
-------
Page 3
Hnorigdua of A|rnmt
Carps of Eaglaeers
CMidl the oppertoalty ta abject parauaat t* 36
CT* See. 100.6(a), bafara ;necifli| with the
project,
2. ..UMct It Is Mt frajrti asJ feasible ta avoid ar ta preserve
historic sad nltuiil properties lecl-aded la ar illsi^li
far laclastea la Ui Katleaal Register, the Calvtitoa
Dlatrlct will ceosalt with Ui Tui» SKPO aad,
A. If It 1* iitanliH that tha affected hlatarlc or
cultoral praperty la Included la ar eligible far
laclusloa la tha Natlaaal Raglatar primarily biciut
it nay ha likely ta jlald lafa nation lapertaat la
prehistory ar history, and Beets tha crltarla d stall ad
la Part I al tha "Caldallaaa far Haklag ' Adveraa
Effect' aad 'Ka Adverse Effect' Deteralaatleos far
.Arcfceolegleal Itiaarcal la Accerdance-wlth 36 CFH Fart
¦00" (Galdellaca), the Calvemtaa District will Institute
a data recevery pragraa la ceaaaltatlea with the Texas
SKPO, la accerdaacc with' Part 2 af the Guidelines aad
* the Departatnt ef the laterlar's "Ikwmj of Scleatiflc
Prehistoric, Historic, and Arcbealegcal Data: Method a,
ttandarda, aad Repartlag Requirement!" (36 CIS fart.
66). (Ceales af the Caldelloea aad 36 CFR Part 66 are
attached.)
• •
I. If It la determined that the affected hlatarlc er
cultaral praperty Is llated la ar eligible far incla-.
alea la the Katleaal Ktglster.primarily far criteria
ether thaa the crlterlen that It la likely ta yield
laforaatloa lepertaat la the prehlstery er hlitory ef
the area, hat Is aet a Katleaal Hlatarlc Laodaark ar ¦
Rati ana I Hlatarlc Site, aad It Is aet kaevn to have
hlatarlc ar caltaral algelflcance ta any covmalty ar
serial ar ethnic greap, the Galveston District will
develop Masurei acceptable ta the Texas SI!P0 to
¦ltlgate the l^act af the pre pa sad actios.
C. 'The Calvestea District shall provide tha Caoacil with
deciaaeatatlea sappartlag the agreeoeata reached with
the Texaa SHFO aider the prevlaloas af A aad ¦ of this
aectloa aad shall affard tha Council an eppartnalty ta
abject within 39 days after receipt af adequate decoaea-
. tatlen before ondertaklag data recovery pragraa ar
preposed altlgatlve oeaaares.
D. If It Is deteralaed that the affected hlatarlc er
cultural praperty Is s Natlaaal Historic Laodaark,
• Katleaal Hlatarlc Site, er la known to have alcalfl-
cance te aay casualty ar aaclal er ethalc group, or
agreeaeat caanat be reached between the Calveatoa
IETTO MO. •
-------
r|nnnt
Coifi of Engineers
District sad tbe Texas SKPO en satisfactory attlgatlon
aeaaures, ar if tb« Causeil objects ta tbe aeaaures
i|tnd open, the cnaMti of tbe Council will be
requested la iccordaact with 3S C7K Pare BOO.
3. • 9arlag (nttnctioi ictlvltlti covered Vy t!>« Ajrtrovac. sad
aftar tba cultcril resource aurtty* required by Stipulation
1 have been completed, should pttfloiulf mkaoui historic
or cultural frepirtlti bo discovered, tba Calvestoa District
will caaaa poteetlally daaagiag tctlrltin to ba delayed
until It baa bad aa opportunity to coaaalt wltb tba Texas
SMPO aad baa caaplied wltb }i CT8 Sac., 100.7 af tba Coodl'i
regulatieas.
4. Tba 6aIvestea District aay request that tUi A|macat ba
aaeaded at aay tlae ta caver additional aathorised coaattnctloa .
project* by subolttlag a foraal raqaeat to the Council with
a prelialaary caat report concerted la by the Ttm SR?0.
Iba Caaacil will rirltv tba ?oceDaatatiea provided aa>l
advise tba Cilmtea District of Its coacarxeace or objactioa.
•If tba Coaacll objects, caasaltatioa wltb tin Galveston
District will caatlaaa aatll aa aoeadotat occaptabla to all
partlas is agraad fee.
5. Tallare t* carry out tba tan* af tbis t|newat requires
tbat tbe Calveston District sgaia request Council's
caaatata la accordance wltb 36 CIH Part tOO. If tbe Calvestea
District cannot carry oat tba terns af tbe tjreatat, it
aball not take ar sanction any action or aak« say Irreversible
coaaltaeat tbat woald resnl * la aa adverse effect wltb
reapact ta Kstloaal Register or eligible properties covered
by tbe Agreaoant or would foredeae tbe Caoidl'i consideration
of ¦edifications or altereatlves ta tba ongoing construction
projects that could avoid ar altlgate tbe adverse effect
until the ceneatlag process aa bees ceaplecsd.
i. If Bay af the algaatoriea to this Agreeaeat determine that
the term af tba Agreeoeat cannot be act or Itelieves a
cbaage is aecessary, that signatory aball l^aedlately
request the coasultlag parties ta consider as aacadaett or
addeadma to tbe Agreeosat. Such aa Mtafaat or addeadua
shall be executed in tba si a* Banner ts tba original Agreement.
^ (&1—uLl
Esccutive Director
' Adviiety Council orOUetorlc Presarvatla
l£TTB« NO. •
-------
i «<;« j
llcsoriadaa af Agraaaaat
Carps af Englaaars
3
[datglT^^
Dlj^lct Eaglace
W EaglaaarCalvaacaa Dlacdct
(4»te)3--/
-------
STATC or Tex At
Orriet or tm« Govknnon
Austin. Tcxao titm
KIUJWI P. CLtMCWTO. J*.
•oviiinom
6£S
March t«, IN*
Darleno Cs« 1 ten
U. S. Em(rmnti) Protection Agency
1445 Rots bum, Suit* 1100
Pillas, Toms 75107
its n-R-tf-OZ-15-OOlO-SO-O)
FttEHWT MMM* OCCAM OftEOtCD MTERIM. OISfCSAl
Dear Applleant:
= 7.0 Tear xrvlruimtll Inpact statement far tin project referenced ibni
¦t has kM No MbttMlin cements w*r* received.
CO
Me appreciate the opportunity affirM to review this doewnt. Please
let ae know If we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
/,
T.C. Man, State Single Point of Contact
TCA/rb/pon
LETTBt NO. 7
No raeponoo nqulnd,
-------
State or Texas
OFFICE or THE GOVERNOR
Austin. texa> 7S7II
Ipssw
WltllAM ClIMIHTIt M.
•OVHIIM April 20, 1919 MR M
6 ES
Ha. DuImm CovltM
0.8. Inrirot*»antal Protection Hfwiey
1445 Roee >»«nu«i Salt* 1200
Dallae, Tmu 75202
Mi TX-R-19-02-15-0010-50
rreeport Harbor*Ocean Dredged Material Dlapoaal
Dear Ha. Coulaoni
Attached aro anbaequeat comnti racalved on the above
captioned prepoaal.
If we can be of "farther eeeletance, pleaee let ae know.
Sincerely,
T. C. Maaa
State linglo Point of Contact
TCA/pon
Enclosure
L£nB(N0. •
no rmponm fwq/umwo.
-------
"PR I I Wj
Texas "nanm-n
c« mm Parks and Wildlife Department
WMiMM IWlHIM OMKNdHHM
• • IIOWI
April 10. 19M
Nr. T.C. M«m
•tat* Single Point of Contact
Governor's of flea of Mftt and Planning
P.O. 9nu 11411
Austin, Tom* 7*711
Doar Nr. Mu«l
The Draft Envlronaantal Iapact Stataaant by tha
Envlronaantal* Protection Agency on tha rraaport Harbor
(4S-root Project) Ocaan Dradqad Material Dlapoaal Slta
Designation has baan reviewed. Tha proponal Includes
designation of two ocean dlapoaal eltea (or aatarlal froa
tha rraaport Harbor Project. Disposal of S.l Billion
coblo yarda of virgin aatarlal la proposad at a alta about
flva alleaoffahora. Dlapoaal of 2.1 allllon cubic yarda
of aalntananca aatarlal (annually) la propoaad at a alta
about 2.5 alias offahora.
Offahora dlapoaal of thaaa aatarlala la a aultabla
alternative. Tha BIS dlacuaaaa varloua llaltatlona on
locations for dlapoaal altaa, Including lapacta to
biological reeourcee. Curiously, however, tha EIS uees
biological data froa tha Seadock atudlaa of tha aarly
1970a, but oalta any rafarancaa to biological data froa
Bora racant atudlaa for tha Bryan Mound Strategic
Patrolaua Reserves Project. Thaaa lattar data should ba
Included In tha final EIS and analyzed along with data
•Iroady Included for any further raflnaaanta In
delineation of offahora dlapoaal araaa.
Thank yoa Cor tha opportunity to eoaaant on thla docusant.
Exaoutlva'Dlraotor
COT ILEX
LETTER NO. S
9m iMponoo to oomnwnt M.
-------
OwrfMwee
Qtnvri land OMea
nBul lf| UPW
lm# HBOI mBM |WB"FJ
Oiiaf, Mml Actlvitlaa Indii Dk
IMS to* tMm
OOIm, VMM 73J02-J7J3
Hit ttwft ftwlxtnMntal n^actL fltstaHNfe Cor !TF*^po*fc Undbor (45-ftaofc
huj«ct) r» Ml OndgMI ttatarial Dlsp*l Site (OCKB) Oaaigntlm
Mar Nr. IIomi
A* |s wittariMd Iff Hi* ^¦¦iJtid lui of thi itata of ^bm, thB Hmmi Qmmi ¦!
land Of flea mutism itito oxnri l%t—* School M lmto, InclulisK) mrffia
•nl ilnml «t«tii of ¦iMiyd imdi in fcfw Gulf of Nedoo fra ths fult
#mJUra Mtwinl for tiaras Mrino loBgoNU
H* ovtim of aiiJijiigMi, ffciwyt md litai In
tta Gulf of HadflD watara Im placid alTlif leant r—Ulctlcna on tt» nataa
and latter* of ntM drilling altaa ndd tee aaRliwd davalqpant of
llml rnoURMi
Dill of fioa haa bast wcrtlnj with tta 0.8. Cbaat Ml and Abod Oil QJQJwy
ainoa 1985 at • propoaal to ralocata portien of tha aoutNaxn W^nl Hubor
Art*or»j» Amo to isfguvw •oma to atata-ownad ainanl iniiiw.
Significant hydrocaihxi inuia in krowi to odst in titla ana, and Uw
osnt two nautical ail* apaclnj prcwialon haa al^iificantly 1 lid tad tha
atata'a ability to davalcp thaaa rmairam tor tha famflt of tha M»lio
Sctiool fUrd.
Vw OMianl land Offica la '"¦ "¦ ¦»*, thei«*e, tfiafc ovation of tfta two
mC8 ppcpnaat In ttia dtaw safaraotfl ^oowstt wilfeufe full owidacaticn of
aurfaoa locatlcn naadi of ttta atata will Aothar cnplimta ongoing
mtd will Halt ftUaam allocation and davalcpaait affacta.
Na baliava ttat oaecdlnatlcn of an «n^»iM« aoluticn tor all putlaa la
(naalfcla, aa il—¦¦Ualal by an aiiji ai—it caactiaJ in vataca off tha Alit—
tfvnlina (aaa artlela attarfiad).
VErmm.9
-------
LETIBt NO. 9 (oaWkaf)
DolnMtel Miction Dfmy
Much 14, IM(
hfi t
In muyi this offloa
•-1 *• A *Uilel aaplamtioi of mp llaltatlcra Uildi muM t* bp«l oitta »-1 According to •» Oak>Mton CC, tw pteiH of
plkM* at itMta* vitM/i (hi dlapml iltM.
Ml H pfOnDHiOi PlQM9Mi| WW CQfOTUCvOn nHWflM 1R9 H nHOPO VOv
M l< An qvortmltr to Mat villi lyitotiwi of tta Btvlnnantil •» ¦*•'• ^fhlNB^uto maflaiM, and «i ba tor olhar
iwtatlm ^mfi ttw Orb of bqlnan, mri ttw Cfcaat Qari to MM In N luln.
llmftat
illp i— Ua !>¦>¦ at llmitaticna ai itvdira vlttil/i
hlnqit «M altaa.
M '• of bw-tste cos*ne In the riml Dwlm**al ^ By Mar datad Saptambar 28,1980. EPA mquaaled your oftc* to pro*«a K*
I cawm raMng M1 * "*> to ^A'a alto daatgnafcxi acton. To
= Ha ^^ndita thl* mtwltf to nnt cn ttn p»n*—d work, and look data no Mar tdwmatmi haa baan noakad. Wa ara hopafci tttal Wa tsaua
M fon^td towufcli* vith yai to dralcp an a^iltabla aolutloi to tha cnrvm cw, ba mM tnufgh ooonftwton of Ma FM B8.
Q VD1CB iDOVfi
lllMlri
JjiUlifC*' ^dWytM/
Bally a. Bwayuit ' "~/d
ftii*18; *»¦¦»¦! —
-------
0* i ft* Tw""*- -
K«nokt bnH on cwnK price*,
tort It j p^reptlon »tw| operators
tot gas prkes have started to ww.
Thal'i likely le father encowi|e (he
Urge upfront capital outlays required
to play to Norphlet Irend.
Anotor Incentive to eipb* and
develop Norphlet prtMpotft H to ap-
proaching eapiralion of lewi #ih
year.
OpFttn mmt pcdvfcr lito •••
Ei till*— bull^if In to (*n>
wi, h»ihf a pUp In gas
Whifi Wen done. AdMv In At
Hp^hlct trend flowed aher to 1904
00 and |it price collapse at cvnpa-
nies rrvmpnj strategies In an area
where dry hole costs are f I mil-
BorvVeH «nd con«pl«ttd well cos*
IJS million.
There have been ontv seven Norj*-
M well* drilled off Alabama and Mis*
sisslppi since 1906, compared with
I) In ihe peak year 190S and nine In
1904.
Som« operator* pulled out of to
teraf. Phillips Petroleum Co.. far ex-
ample. told all of ks Norphlet acreage
to partners.
Operator) tot stayed. hpw^n. lay
Ihey now are ready to move forward
In the trend. Two NorpfiM welh are
under way off Mississippi and Ala*
b*ma and another H about to be
Spxfcierf, compared with only toe*
lor all of last year.
One reason tor the nr* wid aclMty
h that opetaton haw adjusted to low-
er prkei. In addition, to* confidence
In to cconomk viability of Norphlet
projgcti hat been supported by suc-
cessful operations al the trend's only
IPodudng field: Mary Ann field,
whkh went on stream last year fOQ,
Mv 10. 1900, p. <01.
More than I million ft of hole hat
been drilled In to search lor offshore
Norphlet pi^ni<
and to slate of Alabama, persuaded
to U.S. Coast Guard to adiusi a
portion of to shipping fairway to it
could have a surface location on
Block 069 Irom which to drill. Vlte
block {knWy wat entirely In (he
(airway.
If to weR It successful. Texaco
may make a decision late (hit year to
move ahead with de*elopme«e.
(iton last week wat awaiting to
anival of a rig to spud a 2).OSOftMO
Norphlet lest on Alabama Trad 6)
with bmfcyntaAe location on neigh-
boring Alabama Tract 70.
(¦ton h to region's biggest player
In termt of reserves, lb Norphlet re*
Knt position today h about 2.0 Id,
based on Mi dbcoveries of Bon Sec our
Bay. North Central, and Northwest
Gulf Mds.
The corv^tany once wet to region's
largest lessee In termt of net acres, but
It currently'll fourth aher droiymg
•am* leases It considered marginal.
The region'! currently largest lessee
h Union (tploratlon Partners Ltd.,
which holds about 100.000 net acres
In to trend. Union It followed by
Amoco Production Co.. Conoco Inc.,
and ton (uon.
Mobil's activity. CD. Sabathler.
Mnhtl*t Mobile area protect manager,
laid Ms company Ms launched a
toee phase. 9 year devefopmer* pro-
gram of Its Norphlet Irend acreage.
The IWst phase IwvoKes utiliilng
Mary Ann's current Infrastructure to
lull capability.
Three of Mary Ann's ah Norphlet
wells are poductng. One of to field's
two Miocene wettt h on stream. The
field's gas treatment plant has a design
capacity of 00 MMcld. Production at
Mary Ann amend* It #0 MMcld.
(apansion of tne field Involves
iinyMIng one of to welts previous-
ly drilled, drilling one additional well,
and Installing more offshore produc-
tion facilities.
In conjunction wfth Mary Ann ei-
Cnston, uid Sabathler, Mobil has
gun development of Its Mobile
Block SI) discovery. The current well
being drilled on to Mock It an offset
to to dlicand. where gat Is J
hydrogen sulfide.
Other devehnpnerd plans, (i
plans to begin dHiveriet Irom
Norphlet fields In 1992.
ftS plans include a )00 MMcfd Sr.
ment plant that can be eipandeo
600 MMcfd 10 bring at many is
wettt on Mream (tee mapc OGJ. N
10, I9«6. p. 401.
In federal waters, Itton has w
lied Mobile Blocks B66, 067. 0
911, 912. and 91) as part of '
development! plan.
Shell, meanwhile. H moving ahr
with evaluation of Mt Fairway h
under Alabama Tracts 11) and I )2
hat drilled Norphlet discoveries
both tracts.
"We have not announced any pi.
yet. but obviously we are very enco
aged by our discm****," said f
Voiland. production manager
Shell's coastal division.
Shell has no immediate plans
drill on its recently acqubed acrea
otf Oauphln Island, p*rhiln| Imk
to gather technkal data and work »
other lesves In the area.
Shell, (uon, and Mobil have I
gun the lentthy process of obtain*
state and feoeral permits lor deveh
ment operations off Alabama. Tl
currently requires about ) yean.
New metallurgy needed. (I*
where. Chevron has asked MMS
allow a delay in a field delineate
progr»m on Mobile 0lockt 060, 06
and 062 lor lack of metallurgy tec
nology (OGJ. Nov. 21, 1900. p. )1
The company encountered do*
hole pressures greater than 10.000 r
with Norphlet wells on 0locks 0<
and 062. Chevron Is attempting
develop a safety valve that can op)
ate at more than 250^ f. in to pre
ence of elemental sulfur with as mm
•s 20,000 psl pressure.
Chevron has formed a unN Invoi
Ing to three Mocks. It plans to reent>
and lesi to Block 062 well om
appropriate metallurgv has been d
ve>oped, which might occur later Pi
**To to Nidi of llock 041, Mr
hot unMavd Mobrte Blocks 904. 90
94B, and 949. Udon't weff on Oloi
904 wat mt drrw tested, but to con
pany Is worklnf under to aitm^h
tot M tncnwiifcied to same Mr
pit ltun tone Owron Ibund In i
Block Ml well, lot analysis of #>¦
Union well showed more ton 100
of net pay In to lti«|Ml.
NlMirrfihM^ttlt
LETTHH NO. • (aAiad)
-------
Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S. Inc.
»
• v. S. ImlremiUl Protection Agency
1445 Hoes In.
Dallas, hui IlltMIl)
DttHtlm Dora 1
Chief. Fxhril Activities
(ranch (t(-P)
6 ES
April 20. 1W
7.0*.OS.00
CM fmyueed Ocaen taflnf Site
Offahora Freeport Harbor, Taiaa
Dredged Material Dlapoaal
— 8a«tt«M*l
rv>
CH Hobll Exploration I Produclnq U. 8. Inc. (NEPV8) aa eqent (or Hob11 Producing
Texee I Ne» Mexico Inc. (MPTO) appreciate! tta opportunity to mamt on the
propoeed ocean dunplng altee offahora rreeport, Texaa, designated for ona tliaa
dlapoaal of conetructlon material and annual disposal of Maintenance Material
dredged for the expanded and relocated rreeport Harter Entrance and Jetty
Channela, aa further daecrlbed In the rederal Ragieter. Vol. 54, Ho. 47, dated
Monday, March 13, IW, pages 10106-10)09.
While UNI haa no objectloa to the concept of of fahore dlapoaal of dredged
¦¦tar la La, aa do lw»»nr object to the cloee prosljalty of the Maintenance
¦atarlal dlapoaal alta to oar eilitlnf producing operatlona In trexoe
Block 306-3. Our producing platfora, M 3M-I "A", located at
Letltude IB JJ'OJ'N end Longitude 95 I7'00*W# la epproxlpetely 200 - M0 ft.
aouthMeat of the propoeed enmiel Maintenance dlapoaal area (aaa attached
drawing). The predominant longehore current end transport la thla area is
eouthweaterly end will therefore depoalt Material taped In the propoeed slta
onto our platfora location. Mille there are currently no regulationa
requiring the eaaqiling of botton eadlaants st the tiaa of platfora raeveal
or laaaa abandotwent. It Is not unlikely that eona typo of aaapllng snd
.snalysls of bottoa sedlneats nay tin, iwa a future requirement to a ecu re slta
clearance approval. Ttie ispaet to aadlaant quality at BA JM-S "A", due to
the annual depoaition of 2.1 Billion cubic yards of dredged Material for an
Indefinite period of tiaa, baa the potential of Making Hobll liable for the
quality of diechargaa over which wa have no control.
LETTO MO. 10
10-1 Tho ar*a wtHn tw trmhtmrnxM mortal afta wtora dbcftv wM occur la
ahown In Rgure 1-1. No Impact la aMd* tm tUm bound after
-------
Ataln, n thank fan for thla apportanlty to amt an thla propaMl. Should
yon km Mf fmtlem or roquir* further Intonation on Umm nmti,
ptaaaa contact D. C. rorboa, bilrawntal and Regulatory Mfalra Hai»a;ar. at
(MM) SM-JMi.
tara vary tnl|,
I^J. t. mil
Productn«
LETTd NO. 10
-------
/ I J ci. .5 . !
n-
* \ \'i
\xV-.
¦-1 i : • l.
11-27
-------
PART III. MODIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT BS
The Freeport Harbor (45-Foot Project) ODMDS Designation Draft EIS was reviewed by
the public and Internally by EPA. This section of the Final BS presents minor revisions to the
Draft BS based on errors identified during the review process. For each correction, the
page, paragraph, and line of the Draft BS requiring revision Is noted, the necessary
correction Is specified, and the corrected text Is presented in boldface.
Page 2-1, paragraph 2, lines 2 and 3. Remove 'ocean disposal" from the 1st of non-ocean
disposal alternatives.
Page 3-40, paragraph 3, line 5. Replace "Caribbean" manatee with West Incflan manatee.
Page 4-4, section 4.1.2.3, paragraph 4, line 2. Replace "2.5 miles" with 3.0 miles.
111-1
-------
PART IV. EPA'S PROPOSED ACTION
EPA's proposed action is the final designation of two preferred sites for the disposal of
virgin construction and maintenance materials to be dredged from the Freeport Harbor
entrance and jetty channels. The preferred sites were determined based on environmental,
feasibility, and cost considerations.
The Freeport Harbor channels provide access for large vessels to Freeport and the
surrounding areas. 5.1 mcy of new construction material appropriate for ocean disposal will
be generated, with shoaling of the enlarged outer channel expected to occur at an annual
rate of approximately 2.1 mcy. The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintaining
the Freeport Harbor entrance and jetty channels and has requested that EPA permanently
designate an ocean dredged material disposal site(s) for the construction and maintenance
material dredged as part of the Freeport Harbor 45-Foot Project
The no-action alternative is not acceptable because failure to designate a disposal site
would result in accumulation of material in the channels and their eventual closure to ship
traffic. Upland sites for disposal of the dredged material are not available. Mid-shelf and
continental-slope ocean disposal sites were determined to be unsuitable because of
significant impacts on the benthic community and increased cost and safety risks. Near-
shore sites were determined to be the most acceptable.
The Zone of Siting Feasibility approach resulted in exclusion of the interim-designated
ODMDS. The preferred sites should have minimal environmental impacts. Both are located
in a bottom-sediment province with compatible grain-size distributions. The sites are not in
the safety fairway and avoid areas of recreational importance or biological sensitivity. They
are located in water deep enough to avoid causing navigational problems, yet reasonably
rtearshore to reduce transportation costs and allow for efficient monitoring and surveillance
activities at the sites.
EPA has determined, after reviewing the alternatives, that the preferred sites are
acceptable for the disposal of dredged materials from the construction and maintenance of
the enlarged Freeport Harbor entrance and jetty channels. The primary environmental impact
associated with disposal is the burial and consequent mortality of the benthic infaunal
community in the discharge portion of the sites.
IV-1
------- |