(iii)
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
xxi
xxii
xxiii
xxiv
xxv
xxvi
xxvii
xxviii
xxix
xxx
xxxi
xxxii
xxxiii
xxxiv
xxxv
xxxvi
xxxvii
xxxviii
xxxix
xl
xli
xlii
xliii
xliv
xlv
xlvi
xlvii
xlviii
xlix
L
Li
Lii
FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

FOR

SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA

VOLUME I

PREPARED BY:

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

GALVESTON DISTRICT

SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION

March 2011

(1)
S-1

Syllabus

INTRODUCTION

This Feasibility Report was prepared as a final response to the study authorization contained in the Senate

Committee on Environment and Public Works Resolution adopted on June 5, 1997. The report presents

the results of studies investigating the need to deepen and widen the Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW)

along the border of Texas and Louisiana. In response to the study authority, the reconnaissance phase of

the study was initiated in September 1998. The reconnaissance investigations resulted in a finding that

there was an interest in continuing the study into the feasibility phase. The Jefferson County Navigation

District, as the non-Federal sponsor (Sponsor), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) initiated

the feasibility phase of the study on March 6, 2000. The feasibility phase study cost was shared equally

between the USACE and the Sponsor. In 2002, the Jefferson County Navigation District was renamed the

Jefferson County Waterway and Navigation District (JCWND), and in 2007 the JCWND was renamed

the Sabine Neches Navigation District (SNND); the latter designation is used throughout the remainder of

this document.

This syllabus is intended to inform the reader of the major factors that were considered in the

investigation and influenced the decisions documented in the Final Feasibility Report (FFR) and Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS

Planning Objectives

The water resources problems to be solved with this study are the navigational and safety issues that have

developed on the SNWW because of the growth in the area. The investigation of the problems and

opportunities in the study area led to the establishment of the following planning objectives:

• Improve the navigational efficiency along the SNWW waterway; and

• Maintain the ecological value of coastal and estuarine resources within the project area.

Alternatives

Over 120 alternatives at nine different depths (43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, and 55 feet) in combination

with several different width scenarios were evaluated in order to address the planning objectives and the

problems and opportunities identified by the Sponsor and the public.

2
Syllabus

S-2

Identification of the National Economic Development Plan

The Federal objective in water resources planning is to contribute to the National Economic Development

(NED) consistent with protecting the nation’s environment, pursuant to national environmental statutes,

applicable executive orders, and other planning requirements. Through thorough investigation and

analysis, deepening the SNWW to 49 feet (with selective widening) is the best plan to meet the NED

objective. However, the Sponsor has indicated that the 48-foot plan is preferred because the cost of the

NED and deeper plans would make the project unaffordable. The 48-foot plan is the Locally Preferred

Plan (LPP) and is the Recommended Plan.

Recommended Plan and Locally Preferred Plan

The alternative plan selected for recommendation is the 48-foot plan that is also the LPP. The

Recommended Plan calls for the following modifications to the existing SNWW:

• Deepening the SNWW from 40 to 48 feet and offshore channel from 42 to 50 feet in depth from

offshore to the Port of Beaumont Turning Basin;

• Extending the 50-foot-deep offshore channel by 13.2 miles, increasing the total length of the

channel from 64 to 77 miles;

• Decreasing the width of the Sabine Bank Channel from 800 to 700 feet;

• Tapering and marking the Sabine Bank Channel from 800 feet wide (Station 23+300) to 700 feet

wide (Station 25+800 through the end of the channel);

• Deepening and widening of Taylor Bayou channels and turning basins;

• Easing selected bends on the Sabine-Neches Canal and Neches River Channel; and

• Constructing new and enlarging/deepening existing turning and anchorage basins on the Neches

River Channel.

Features of the Recommended Plan

The Recommended Plan consists of navigation channel improvements (see following table), marsh

mitigation, and a 50-year Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) with beneficial use (BU) areas,

upland placement areas (PAs), and Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites (ODMDS).

Sixteen existing and two expanded upland PAs are proposed for use with the Recommended Plan.

Offshore placement consists of four existing and four new ODMDSs. As part of the DMMP, dredged

material would be used beneficially to restore degraded marsh areas on the Neches River and nourish the

Gulf shoreline along the Texas and Louisiana coasts. Both BU features are least-cost plans and as such

are considered General Navigation Features (GNF) of the Recommended Plan. The Neches River and

Gulf Shore BU features would offset all direct and indirect marsh impacts in Texas by creating 2,853

acres of emergent marsh vegetation, improving 871 acres of open water habitat, and nourishing 1,234

acres of existing marsh in Texas. Benefits of the Neches River BU Feature more than offset the direct

3
Syllabus

S-3

impact of conversion of 86 acres of fresh marsh to a confined placement area (PA 24A) and the indirect

impact of the increase in salinity over approximately 39,000 wetland acres in Texas. The Gulf Shore BU

Feature offsets minor erosion impacts by periodically nourishing 6 miles of Texas and Louisiana Gulf

shorelines.

Project Dimensions for Recommended Plan

Reach Station to Station

Bottom

Width

(feet)

Project

Depth

(feet)

Extension Channel 165+443 95+734 700 50

Sabine Bank Channel 95+734 25+800 700 50

Sabine Bank Channel 25+800 23+300 700–800* 50

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel 23+300 0+000 800 50

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel –214+88 0+00 800–500 48

Sabine Pass Channel 0+00 296+25 500 48

Port Arthur Canal 0+00 325+84 500 48

Sabine-Neches Canal 0+00 592+94 400 48

Neches River Channel 0+00 980+00 400 48

Taylor Bayou

Entrance Channel 0+00 25+27 406–764 48

East Turning Basin 0+00 17+65 532–354 48

West Turning Basin 25+27 41+30 776 48

Connecting Channel 41+30 71+50 470–250 48

Taylor Bayou Turning Basin 71+50 106+25 1,000 48

*Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel would be 800 feet wide to address maneuverability issues caused by current velocities

around end of jetties

The primary impact of the Recommended Plan is an indirect impact associated with a small increase in

salinity and an associated reduction in biological productivity over approximately 182,000 acres of

intertidal marsh in Louisiana, and the potential loss of 691 acres of marsh in Louisiana as some marsh

converts to open water. The mitigation plan compensates for all impacts by restoring 2,783 acres of

emergent marsh, improving 957 acres of shallow-water habitat, and stabilizing and nourishing 4,355 acres

of existing marsh in the Willow and Black Bayou areas, Louisiana.

Environmental Compliance

All project components were evaluated for environmental impacts, and an FEIS has been prepared in

accordance with Council on Environmental Quality requirements. A mitigation plan was developed to

compensate for all unavoidable environmental impacts. USACE has evaluated the proposed SNWW

Channel Improvement Project (CIP) for consistency with the Texas and Louisiana coastal management

programs, and concluded that the Recommended Plan is fully consistent to the maximum extent

practicable with the enforceable policies of both state programs. The Texas Coastal Coordination Council

has concurred with the USACE consistency determination. The Louisiana Department of Natural

Resources, Office of Coastal Management (LDNR-OCM), found that the SNWW CIP is conditionally

4
Syllabus

S-4

consistent with their state program. Since conditional consistency as proposed by LDNR-OCM is not

acceptable, LDNR-OCM has been notified that USACE will proceed with the project. Additional

information on this matter is presented in FEIS Section 6.0. Clean Water Act §401 State Water Quality

certification has been received from Texas and Louisiana for this action. Short-term increases in turbidity

may be caused by the unconfined flow of dredged material during construction of BU features and

mitigation measures. There would be temporary, minor impacts from ocean placement at the new

ODMDSs. Proposed channel improvements should increase safety, thus decreasing the probability of a

spill. A Clean Water Act §404(b)(1) evaluation of the proposed action, provided in the FEIS (Appendix

E), describes the effects of the proposed discharges. The Recommended Plan is the least environmentally

damaging practicable alternative. Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding potential endangered species impacts has been

concluded. Critical Habitat for wintering piping plovers is present in the Louisiana portion of the Gulf

Shore BU Feature. The USFWS has concurred that the BU feature may affect, but is not likely to

adversely affect, the species or its Critical Habitat because the Gulf Shore BU Feature would protect

existing Critical Habitat. Hopper dredging of the Entrance Channel is likely to adversely affect but not

jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, and green sea turtles. In the Biological

Opinion, the NMFS authorizes the incidental lethal take of four sea turtles and has identified reasonable

and prudent measures to be adopted during construction. Based upon recent chemical analyses of water

and sediment collected from within the channels, the potential for encountering hazardous material during

dredging operations is considered minimal. Shoaled sediments and new work material that would be

dredged from the SNWW during construction has been determined to be of sufficient quality to be used

for beneficial uses. In compliance with requirements of the Clean Air Act and the State of Texas, the

TCEQ has provided written concurrence that emissions from the Recommended Plan are conformant with

the Texas State Implementation Plan for the Beaumont-Port Arthur area, and the USACE has prepared a

Final General Conformity Determination. Potential impacts to historic properties will be addressed in

accordance with the terms of the Historic Properties Programmatic Agreement with the SNND.

Benefits and Costs of the Recommended Plan

Project Benefits

The basic economic benefits from a navigation improvement project are the reduction in transportation

costs for commodities and the increase in the value of output for goods and services. Specific

transportation savings may result from the use of larger vessels, more-efficient use of large vessels, moreefficient use of existing vessels, reductions in transit time, and lower cargo handling and tug assistance

costs. Based on the economic analyses performed during the study, total average annual project benefits

are estimated at $115,074,000. Transportation cost savings are expected to occur for the following:

• Crude Petroleum Imports

• Petroleum and Chemical Products

• Grain Exports

5
Syllabus

S-5

• Steel Slab and Iron Ore

• Limestone and Rock

• Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) traffic (benefits stop at 43 feet)

Project Costs (October 2009 Price Levels)

The First Cost of all project components in current dollars totals $1,071,877,000. Based on Budget Year

2012, the first cost would be $1,100,935,000. The Fully Funded Cost for the project (e.g., First Costs and

escalation in current dollars) totals $1,161,372,000. The LPP investment cost of all components totals

$1,191,259,000 in current dollars, and includes $119,382,000 in interest during construction (IDC). The

total average annual LPP investment cost for the project is $91,341,000. The LPP cost includes average

annual incremental costs for operations and maintenance (O&M) ($32,067,000) and deferred construction

for fish and wildlife mitigation ($215,000).

Benefit-Cost Ratio

Based on the annualized project benefits estimated at $115,074,000 and annualized project costs

estimated at $91,341,000, the benefit-cost ratio for the Recommended Plan is 1.3.

Cost Sharing

General navigation features (GNF) costs for deepening from the existing authorized depth of 40 feet

down to 45 feet are cost shared at 25 percent non-Federal and 75 percent Federal; costs for deepening

below 45 feet (recommended authorized depth of 48 feet) are cost shared at 50 percent non-Federal and

50 percent Federal. Fish and wildlife mitigation to compensate for project impacts is considered a GNF

and is cost shared in the same manner as other GNF costs. The Sponsor also must pay an additional

10 percent of the GNF costs in cash over a period not to exceed 30 years. This additional 10 percent cash

contribution is offset by credit for Lands, Easements, and Rights of Way (LER) and relocations (including

utility relocations) pursuant to Section 101(a)(2) of Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as

amended. Owners of berth and dock facilities that would require modification are responsible for 100

percent of those associated costs. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is responsible for 100 percent of the cost

for new channel markers (aids to navigation).

PUBLIC COORDINATION

The USACE and SNND developed a public involvement plan as part of the study process to ensure

responsiveness to the needs and concerns of stakeholders and to ensure public involvement through an

open, interactive process. Extensive coordination with State and Federal resource agencies was conducted

throughout the study process, primarily through an Interagency Coordination Team (ICT) and workgroup

meetings. Over 30 workgroup meetings and 11 ICT meetings were held during the study process.

6
Syllabus

S-6

NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR SUPPORT

SNND fully supports the project and is willing to sponsor project construction in accordance with the

items of local cooperation set forth in this report. The Sponsor has indicated financial capability to satisfy

its obligations for the construction of the Recommended Plan. A self certification has been prepared by

the Sponsor and provided to the USACE.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES

The USACE has evaluated the proposed SNWW CIP for consistency with the Louisiana coastal

management program, and concluded that the Recommended Plan is fully consistent to the maximum

extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the state’s coastal management program. The Louisiana

Department of Natural Resources, Office of Coastal Management, found that the SNWW CIP is

conditionally consistent with their state program. Since conditional consistency as proposed by LDNROCM is not acceptable, LDNR-OCM has been notified that USACE will proceed with the project. See

FEIS Section 6.0 for further details.

Coordination with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) has not been able to

resolve issues related to the offset of project impacts to Federal lands using benefits from BU features in

Texas, LDWF requirements that the Recommended Plan include additional BU features, and royalty,

license, and further assessment requirements concerning areas in Sabine Lake that would be affected by

the removal of fill material for use in marsh mitigation. The USACE has proposed that an assessment

survey be completed, following the protocol established by the LDWF, during the Preconstruction

Engineering and Design phase of the SNWW CIP.

In order for the four new ODMDSs to be approved for use, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

must publish a final rulemaking in the Federal Register. An FEIS for the proposed ODMDS and a Final

Site Management and Monitoring Plan have been prepared and accepted by EPA for use in this

rulemaking at a later date (FEIS, Appendix B).

Issues related to contaminated materials in PA 17 (a capped landfill and other waste disposal areas within

the PA) must be resolved by the non-Federal sponsor before the PA can be used as part of the

Recommended Plan. Alternative placement areas are available should this not be resolved in time for use.

7
ii

Table of Contents

The Final Feasibility Report (FFR) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the SabineNeches Waterway Channel Improvement Project are contained in four volumes. Volume 1 contains the

FFR and FFR Appendices 1 through 4. Volume II contains the FEIS Main Report. Volume III contains

FEIS Appendices A and B. Volume IV contains FEIS Appendices C through K.

Page

Syllabus ..................................................................................................................................................................... S-1

List of Figures...............................................................................................................................................................ix

List of Plates..................................................................................................................................................................x

List of Tables................................................................................................................................................................xi

Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................xv

I. STUDY INFORMATION........................................................................................................................................I-1

I.A OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................. I-1

I.B STUDY AUTHORITY.................................................................................................................. I-1

I.C PURPOSE AND SCOPE............................................................................................................... I-1

I.D PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ I-1

Physical Description of Study Area ............................................................................................... I-1

Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... I-5

Environmental Setting.................................................................................................................... I-5

Terrain ................................................................................................................................ I-5

Tides ................................................................................................................................. I-10

Salinity.............................................................................................................................. I-11

Geology ............................................................................................................................ I-11

Fish and Wildlife Resources ........................................................................................................ I-12

Aquatic Resources........................................................................................................................ I-12

Freshwater Resources....................................................................................................... I-13

Marine Resources ............................................................................................................. I-13

Coastal Wetland Resources .............................................................................................. I-14

Sensitive Areas ................................................................................................................. I-17

Upland Resources............................................................................................................. I-18

Threatened and Endangered Species............................................................................................ I-18

Plants ................................................................................................................................ I-18

Wildlife............................................................................................................................. I-18

Significant Habitats .......................................................................................................... I-19

Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... I-19

Socioeconomic Considerations .................................................................................................... I-19

Population......................................................................................................................... I-20

Employment and Income.................................................................................................. I-20

Commercial and Recreation Fishing................................................................................. I-20

Outdoor Recreation........................................................................................................... I-21

I.E NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR AND COORDINATION.............................................................. I-21

I.F PRIOR STUDIES, REPORTS, AND EXISTING WATER PROJECTS .................................... I-22

I.G STUDY AND REPORT PROCESS ............................................................................................ I-24

8
Table of Contents

Page

iii

II. PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES................................................................................................................II-1

II.A OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................. II-1

II.B NAVIGATION AND COMMERCE............................................................................................II-1

General.......................................................................................................................................... II-1

Commerce..................................................................................................................................... II-3

Safety ............................................................................................................................................II-9

National Security ........................................................................................................................ II-10

II.C ENVIRONMENTAL.................................................................................................................. II-10

III. FORMULATION OBJECTIVES, CONSTRAINTS, AND CRITERIA.......................................................III-1

III.A OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................III-1

III.B FEDERAL OBJECTIVES ...........................................................................................................III-1

III.C PUBLIC CONCERNS .................................................................................................................III-1

III.D PLANNING OBJECTIVES.........................................................................................................III-2

III.E PLANNING CONSTRAINTS.....................................................................................................III-2

III.F TECHNICAL CRITERIA............................................................................................................III-3

III.G VALUE MANAGEMENT ..........................................................................................................III-3

III.H ECONOMIC CRITERIA.............................................................................................................III-4

III.I ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA................................................................................................III-5

III.J SOCIAL CRITERIA....................................................................................................................III-6

III.K OTHER USACE INITIATIVES..................................................................................................III-6

USACE Campaign Plan ...............................................................................................................III-6

Goal 2: Engineering Sustainable Water Resources ..........................................................III-6

Goal 3: Delivering Effective, Resilient, Sustainable Solutions ........................................III-7

IV. FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES...................................................................IV-1

IV.A OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... IV-1

IV.B PLAN FORMULATION PROCESS.......................................................................................... IV-1

IV.C PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................. IV-2

Future Without-Project Condition (No-Action Alternative) ....................................................... IV-2

Preliminary Screening of Alternatives ........................................................................................ IV-5

Nonstructural Alternatives............................................................................................... IV-5

Structural Alternatives..................................................................................................... IV-5

Plans Eliminated During Preliminary Screening......................................................................... IV-6

IV.D SECOND SCREENING ............................................................................................................. IV-6

Technical Studies........................................................................................................................ IV-6

Nonstructural Alternatives .......................................................................................................... IV-8

Vessel Traffic Service ..................................................................................................... IV-8

Relaxation of Existing Pilot Rules................................................................................... IV-9

Alternative Mode of Commodity Transport .................................................................. IV-10

Louisiana Offshore Oil Port.................................................................................. IV-10

Bulk Oil Offshore Transfer System ...................................................................... IV-12

Structural Alternatives .............................................................................................................. IV-14

Evaluation of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ IV-15

Second Screening Costs................................................................................................. IV-16

Second Screening Economic Analysis .......................................................................... IV-17

Project Benefits..................................................................................................... IV-17

Second Screening Net Excess Benefits................................................................. IV-19

Evaluation of Structural Alternatives ............................................................................ IV-20

9
Table of Contents

Page

iv

Deepening and Widening...................................................................................... IV-20

Turning Basins and Anchorage Basins ................................................................. IV-21

Barge Lanes .......................................................................................................... IV-21

Plans Eliminated During Second Screening.............................................................................. IV-22

IV.E FINAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES........................................................................... IV-23

Final Screened Alternatives ...................................................................................................... IV-23

IV.F IDENTIFICATION OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN ........................................................ IV-26

IV.G PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES EVALUATION ACCOUNTS......................................... IV-26

National Economic Development ............................................................................................. IV-26

Effects on Environmental Quality............................................................................................. IV-27

Regional Economic Development (RED) ................................................................................. IV-29

Other Social Effects .................................................................................................................. IV-29

V. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................V-1

V.A OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................V-1

V.B SCREENING PROCESS..............................................................................................................V-1

Total Tonnage ...............................................................................................................................V-1

Crude Petroleum................................................................................................................V-3

Port Arthur and Beaumont Tonnage Bases ...................................................................................V-6

Expansion of the Deep-Draft Traffic Historical Base .................................................................V-10

Liquefied Natural Gas Traffic .........................................................................................V-10

V.C COMMODITY AND FLEET FORECASTS .............................................................................V-13

Vessel Utilization Trends............................................................................................................V-15

Crude Petroleum Fleet .....................................................................................................V-16

Petroleum Product Carriers..............................................................................................V-19

Chemical Product Carriers...............................................................................................V-22

Grain Carriers ..................................................................................................................V-24

Steel Slab and Iron Ore Carriers......................................................................................V-26

Limestone and Rock Carriers ..........................................................................................V-27

Wood Product Carriers ....................................................................................................V-28

Liquefied Natural Gas Fleet.............................................................................................V-28

V.D CHANNEL DEEPENING BENEFITS.......................................................................................V-28

Vessel Operating Costs ...............................................................................................................V-30

Transportation Savings Benefits for Channel Deepening ...........................................................V-32

Crude Petroleum Imports Transportation Savings Benefits ............................................V-32

Petroleum and Chemical Product Transportation Savings Benefits ................................V-38

Grain Exports Transportation Savings Benefits ..............................................................V-38

Limestone and Rock Transportation Savings Benefits....................................................V-47

Liquefied Natural Gas Transportation Savings Benefits .................................................V-50

Summary of Channel Deepening Benefits ..................................................................................V-51

V.E CHANNEL WIDENING BENEFITS.........................................................................................V-52

Vessel Traffic..............................................................................................................................V-54

Entrance Channel Widening Benefits..............................................................................V-61

Neches River Holding Areas ...........................................................................................V-62

Summary of Widening Benefits..................................................................................................V-69

V.F NED BENEFIT SUMMARY .....................................................................................................V-71

Incremental Analysis...................................................................................................................V-71

Benefit-Cost Ratio at 7 Percent...................................................................................................V-77

10
Table of Contents

Page

v

Sensitivity Analysis for Additional Advanced Maintenance ......................................................V-77

V.G REGIONAL BENEFITS.............................................................................................................V-78

VI. DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN ............................................................................................... VI-1

VI.A OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... VI-1

VI.B DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN ......................................................................... VI-1

General Navigation Features of the Recommended Plan............................................................ VI-2

Sabine Bank Extension Channel...................................................................................... VI-3

Sabine Bank Channel....................................................................................................... VI-3

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel ..................................................................................... VI-11

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel ............................................................................................. VI-12

Sabine Pass Channel...................................................................................................... VI-12

Port Arthur Canal (including Taylor Bayou Channels and Turning Basins) ................. VI-13

Sabine-Neches Canal..................................................................................................... VI-14

Neches River Channel ................................................................................................... VI-15

Management of Dredged Material ............................................................................................ VI-16

Beneficial Use Features of the DMMP.......................................................................... VI-17

Upland Placement Areas ............................................................................................... VI-19

Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites ........................................................................ VI-19

Compensatory Mitigation ......................................................................................................... VI-19

Aids to Navigation – USCG Channel Markers ......................................................................... VI-20

Bridge Reinforcements and Fenders ......................................................................................... VI-20

Lands, Easements and Rights-of-Way ...................................................................................... VI-20

Relocations................................................................................................................................ VI-21

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Needs Summary for the Recommended Plan ........................ VI-22

Critical Assumptions................................................................................................................. VI-22

VI.C RECOMMENDED PLAN AND RECENT USACE INITIATIVES........................................ VI-22

USACE Environmental Operating Principles ........................................................................... VI-22

USACE Actions for Change as Reflected in the Campaign Plan.............................................. VI-29

VII. DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (DMMP).......................................................................VII-1

VII.A OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................. VII-1

VII.B REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ............................. VII-1

VII.C EXISTING SHOALING AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT CONDITIONS............................VII-2

Shoreline Descriptions ............................................................................................................... VII-2

Historical Shoreline Change in the Study Area..........................................................................VII-3

Sabine Pass Sediment Budget ....................................................................................................VII-4

Existing Project Shoaling and Sediment Transport Conditions ................................................. VII-4

Neches River Channel ....................................................................................................VII-4

Sabine-Neches and Port Arthur Canals ..........................................................................VII-5

Sabine Pass Channel.......................................................................................................VII-6

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel .............................................................................................. VII-6

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel ...................................................................................... VII-6

Sabine Bank Channel...................................................................................................... VII-7

Adjacent Gulf Shorelines................................................................................................VII-7

VII.D ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT-RELATED PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES .................. VII-7

Preliminary Screening – Features Eliminated from Consideration ............................................ VII-8

Detailed Evaluation of Disposal Features ................................................................................VII-12

Neches River Beneficial Use Feature ...........................................................................VII-12

11
Table of Contents

Page

vi

Gulf Shore Beneficial Use Feature ...............................................................................VII-15

Upland Placement Features ..........................................................................................VII-19

Existing Active PAs.............................................................................................VII-19

Existing Inactive PAs........................................................................................... VII-19

Areas Considered for PA Expansion....................................................................VII-20

ODMDS Features .........................................................................................................VII-21

VII.E IDENTIFYING THE LEAST-COST PLACEMENT ALTERNATIVE .................................VII-21

Description of Placement Alternatives.....................................................................................VII-21

Cost Comparison of Placement Alternatives............................................................................ VII-23

Selection of the DMMP ...........................................................................................................VII-25

VII.F DESCRIPTION OF THE DMMP FOR THE RECOMMENDED PLAN...............................VII-25

DMMP BU Features ................................................................................................................ VII-25

Upland PA Features .................................................................................................................VII-25

Offshore Placement Features ...................................................................................................VII-27

VII.G INCREMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND BENEFITS OF THE DMMP ...... VII-28

Incremental Environmental Impacts of the DMMP .................................................................VII-28

Incremental Ecological Benefits of the DMMP.......................................................................VII-28

Methods and Objectives ................................................................................................. VII-28

Offsetting Ecological Impacts ...................................................................................... VII-29

VII.H BASE PLAN FOR THE EXISTING 40-FOOT PROJECT........................................................VII-29

VII.I INCREMENTAL O&M COST OF THE PROPOSED 48-FOOT PROJECT.............................VII-34

Description of O&M Activities for the Recommended Plan ...................................................VII-34

Incremental O&M Cost of the Recommended Plan.................................................................VII-34

VIII. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MITIGATION PLAN ...................................................................................... VIII-1

VIII.A OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................VIII-1

VIII.B ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS SUMMARY ...................................................................................VIII-1

VIII.C PROCEDURES FOR THE FORMULATION AND ASSESSMENT OF MITIGATION

MEASURES .............................................................................................................................VIII-2

Compliance with Federal Requirements ...................................................................................VIII-2

Mitigation Planning Objectives.................................................................................................VIII-4

Models Used to Evaluate Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures.............................VIII-6

HS Modeling .................................................................................................................VIII-6

Ecological Modeling......................................................................................................VIII-7

Consideration of Environmental Mitigation Costs During Plan Formulation...........................VIII-8

VIII.D SELECTION OF THE BEST BUY MITIGATION PLAN......................................................VIII-8

VIII.E RECOMMENDED ECOLOGICAL MITIGATION PLAN...................................................VIII-10

Monitoring and Contingency Plans.........................................................................................VIII-13

VIII.F FULFILLMENT OF MITIGATION PLANNING OBJECTIVES.........................................VIII-14

VIII.G CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION ..........................................................................VIII-14

IX. RISK AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................IX-1

IX.A OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... IX-1

IX.B GUIDANCE AND CONCEPTS................................................................................................. IX-1

IX.C UNCERTAINTY IN TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS............................................................... IX-3

Forecasting Tools and Analyses.................................................................................................. IX-3

Engineering Data and Models..................................................................................................... IX-4

Data ................................................................................................................................. IX-4

Hydrologic Data...................................................................................................... IX-4

12
Table of Contents

Page

vii

New Work and Maintenance Material Data............................................................ IX-4

Models ............................................................................................................................. IX-5

Ship Simulation Model ........................................................................................... IX-5

HS Model................................................................................................................ IX-6

Storm Surge Model ................................................................................................. IX-6

Sediment Model ...................................................................................................... IX-7

Vessel Effects Study Model.................................................................................... IX-8

Shoreline Impacts Model ........................................................................................ IX-8

Other Analyses ................................................................................................................ IX-9

Relative Sea Level Rise .......................................................................................... IX-9

Stability Analyses (Bridges and Port Arthur Hurricane Protection Levee)........... IX-13

Cost Risk Analysis................................................................................................ IX-14

Economic Data and Models ...................................................................................................... IX-15

Data ............................................................................................................................... IX-15

Risk and Uncertainty ..................................................................................................... IX-15

Models ........................................................................................................................... IX-16

Environmental Data and Models............................................................................................... IX-16

WVA Model .................................................................................................................. IX-16

Salinity Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................. IX-18

Percent Emergent Marsh Sensitivity Analysis ...................................................... IX-18

Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... IX-19

Real Estate Data........................................................................................................................ IX-19

IX.D COMMUNICATION OF RISK................................................................................................ IX-20

X. RECOMMENDED PLAN......................................................................................................................................X-1

X.A OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................X-1

X.B GENERAL NAVIGATION FEATURES OF RECOMMENDED PLAN ...................................X-1

Sabine Bank Extension Channel ...................................................................................................X-1

Sabine Bank Channel....................................................................................................................X-2

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel.....................................................................................................X-2

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel.............................................................................................................X-4

Sabine Pass Channel .....................................................................................................................X-4

Port Arthur Canal..........................................................................................................................X-4

Taylor Bayou Channels and Turning Basins.................................................................................X-4

Sabine-Neches Canal ....................................................................................................................X-5

Neches River Channel...................................................................................................................X-6

DMMP ..........................................................................................................................................X-6

Ecological Mitigation for the Recommended Plan .......................................................................X-8

Marsh Mitigation ...............................................................................................................X-8

X.C LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.....................................................................X-9

X.D RELOCATIONS...........................................................................................................................X-9

X.E AIDS TO NAVIGATION...........................................................................................................X-10

Channel Markers.........................................................................................................................X-10

X.F BRIDGE REINFORCEMENTS AND FENDERS.....................................................................X-10

XI. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION............................................................................................................................... XI-1

XI.A OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... XI-1

XI.B DIVISION OF PLAN RESPONSIBILITIES AND COST SHARING REQUIREMENTS....... XI-1

XI.C DESIGN PHASE COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVES SCREENING ............................................ XI-1

13
Table of Contents

Page

viii

XI.D PROJECT COSTS ...................................................................................................................... XI-2

Costs for the Recommended Plan ............................................................................................... XI-2

Total First Cost and Annualized O&M Costs.................................................................. XI-2

Deferred Construction Costs................................................................................... XI-2

Federal O&M Costs ................................................................................................ XI-3

Non-Federal O&M Costs ........................................................................................ XI-4

National Economic Development Investment Cost......................................................... XI-4

Fully Funded Cost ........................................................................................................... XI-5

XI.E COST SHARING ALLOCATION ............................................................................................. XI-5

XI.F ADDITIONAL NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR CASH CONTRIBUTION................................ XI-10

XI.G NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR VIEWS ...................................................................................... XI-10

XII. SUMMARY OF COORDINATION..................................................................................................................XII-1

XII.A OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................. XII-1

XII.B COORDINATION..................................................................................................................... XII-1

XII.C PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS ............................................................................................XII-1

Saltwater Intrusion ..................................................................................................................... XII-2

Threatened and Endangered Species..........................................................................................XII-2

Contaminated Sediments............................................................................................................ XII-2

Essential Fish Habitat................................................................................................................. XII-3

Storm Surge and Erosion ........................................................................................................... XII-3

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... XII-3

Socioeconomic and Project Costs ..............................................................................................XII-3

Public Infrastructure................................................................................................................... XII-4

XIII. RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................... XIII-1

XIII.A PROJECT COSTS (OCTOBER 2009 PRICE LEVELS) .........................................................XIII-1

XIII.B REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................................................XIII-1

XIII.C MAINTENANCE OF NEW CHANNEL AND EXISTING CHANNEL ................................XIII-4

XIII.D RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................................XIII-4

XIV. LITERATURE CITED...................................................................................................................................... XIV-1

Appendices

1 Engineering Plates

2 Economic Appendix

3 Baseline Cost Estimate

4 Real Estate Plan

VOLUME II – FEIS MAIN REPORT

VOLUME III – FEIS APPENDICES A AND B

VOLUME IV – FEIS APPENDICES C THROUGH K

14
Table of Contents

ix

List of Figures

Page

I-1 Sabine-Neches Waterway Project Area ................................................................................................ I-3

I-2 Sabine-Neches Waterway Project and Study Area ............................................................................... I-7

I-3 Hydrologic Units and Vegetative Coverages ...................................................................................... I-15

I-4 History of Channel Deepening of Sabine-Neches Waterway.............................................................. I-24

II-1 Port of Beaumont ................................................................................................................................. II-2

II-2 Maritime and Petrochemical Use of Sabine-Neches Waterway near Port Arthur, Texas .................... II-2

II-3 Sabine-Neches Waterway Facility Sites within the Study Area...........................................................II-5

II-4 Increasing Vessel Sizes ........................................................................................................................II-8

II-5 Widening to Address Safety.................................................................................................................II-9

II-6 Rose City Marsh.................................................................................................................................II-11

IV-1 Planning Process ................................................................................................................................ IV-2

V-1 U.S. and Sabine-Neches Crude Oil Imports, 1980–2007.....................................................................V-5

V-2 SNWW Foreign Imports and Exports by Major Group (Excluding Crude Petroleum), 1990–

1992 to 2005–2007 Distribution ........................................................................................................V-10

V-3 U.S. LNG Imports 2006–2030 ...........................................................................................................V-14

V-4 U.S. and Beaumont Bulk Grain Exports, 1990–2007.........................................................................V-25

V-5 Sabine-Neches Waterway, 1965–2007, Average Tonnage per Trip for Ocean-Going Vessels .........V-55

VI-1 Sabine-Neches Waterway – Extension Channel ................................................................................ VI-4

VI-2 Sabine Pass Outer Bar and Sabine Pass Bank Channel...................................................................... VI-5

VI-3 Sabine Pass Jetty Channel.................................................................................................................. VI-6

VI-4 Sabine Pass Channel .......................................................................................................................... VI-7

VI-5 Sabine-Neches Waterway – Port Arthur Canal (including Taylor Bayou) ........................................ VI-8

VI-6 Sabine-Neches Waterway – Sabine-Neches Canal ............................................................................ VI-9

VI-7 Sabine-Neches Waterway – Neches River....................................................................................... VI-10

VII-1 Components of the Neches River BU Feature ................................................................................VII-13

VII-2 Gulf Shore Beneficial Use Feature.................................................................................................. VII-17

VII-3 Map of Existing and New ODMDS ................................................................................................VII-22

VIII-1 Results of the CE/ICA Analysis.......................................................................................................VIII-9

VIII-2 Sabine-Neches Waterway Recommended Mitigation Plan............................................................VIII-11

X-1 Recommended Plan – Project Map ......................................................................................................X-3

15
Table of Contents

x

List of Plates

C-01R Dredging Plan (Neches River Channel), Sta. 980+00 to Sta. 730+00

C-02R Dredging Plan (Neches River Channel), Sta. 730+00 to Sta. 450+00

C-03R Dredging Plan (Neches River Channel), Sta. 450+00 to Sta. 201+00

C-04 Dredging Plan (Neches River Channel), Sta. 201+00 to Sta. 520+00

C-05 Dredging Plan (Sabine-Neches Canal), Sta. 520+00 to 290+00

C-06 Dredging Plan (Sabine-Neches Canal), Sta. 290+00 to Sta. 80+00

C-07R Dredging Plan (Sabine-Neches Canal), Sta. 80+00 to Port Arthur Canal Sta. 230+00

C-08R Dredging Plan (Port Arthur Canal), Sta. 230+00 to Sabine Pass Channel Sta. 280+00

C-09R Dredging Plan (Sabine Pass Channel), Sta. 280+00 to Sta. 60+00

C-10R Dredging Plan (Sabine Pass Channel), Sta. 60+00 to Sabine Pass Jetty Channel Sta. -140+00

C-11R Dredging Plan (Sabine Pass Jetty Channel), Sta. -140+00 to Sabine Bank Channel Sta.

110+000

C-12 Dredging Plan (Sabine Bank Channel Extension), Sta. 110+000 to Sta. 165+000

C-24R Bessie Heights Plan

C-25 Old River Cove Plan

C-27R Shoreline Nourishment Plan

G-02R Location Plan Proposed Waterway

16
Table of Contents

xi

List of Tables

Page

I-1 Existing Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Dimensions..................................................................... I-2

I-2 Summary of Habitat Acreages by State, 2004..................................................................................... I-14

I-3 Sabine-Neches Waterway Interagency Coordination Team Participants............................................ I-22

I-4 Congressional Authorizations for Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvements ....................... I-23

IV-1 Structural Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... IV-14

IV-2 SNWW (including Taylor Bayou Channel and Neches River Channel) Alternative First Cost ...... IV-17

IV-3 Average Annual Benefits, Neches River Channel............................................................................ IV-18

IV-4 Average Annual Benefits, Taylor Bayou Channel and Basin – Accommodates Limited Range

of Aframax Vessels.......................................................................................................................... IV-18

IV-5 Average Annual Benefits, Taylor Bayou Channel and Basin – Accommodates Limited Range

of Aframax and Suezmax Vessels.................................................................................................... IV-18

IV-6 SNWW (Taylor Bayou and Neches River Channels) First Cost and Average Annual Costs and

Benefits ............................................................................................................................................ IV-19

IV-7 Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal Widening Only, Economic Summary Data................ IV-22

IV-8 Alternatives for Final Screening ...................................................................................................... IV-24

IV-9 SNWW Economic Summary Data, Cost and Benefits by Channel Alternative............................... IV-24

IV-10 Comparison of P&G Evaluation Criteria ......................................................................................... IV-25

V-1 SNWW Total Tonnage and Major Commodity Tonnage ....................................................................V-2

V-2 SNWW Shallow-Draft Port and GIWW Through Tonnage, Deep-Draft Total Tonnage, and

Shallow-Draft Percentage of Total Tonnage........................................................................................V-3

V-3 Comparison of SNWW and Regional and National Totals, Crude Petroleum Imports........................V-4

V-4 SNWW Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity.........................................................................V-6

V-5 Port Arthur Total Tonnage and Major Commodity Tonnage, 1999–2007 ...........................................V-7

V-6 Beaumont Total Tonnage and Major Commodity Tonnage, 1999–2007.............................................V-8

V-7 SNWW Economic Analysis, U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Facility Expansions and New

Construction.......................................................................................................................................V-12

V-8 LNG Existing and Under Construction Terminals.............................................................................V-13

V-9 U.S. and SNWW Liquefied Natural Gas Imports, 2005–2030...........................................................V-14

V-10 Port Arthur Tonnage Evaluated for Channel Deepening....................................................................V-16

V-11 Beaumont Tonnage Evaluated for Channel Deepening .....................................................................V-17

V-12 SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports by Loaded Draft, 2002–2007.......................................................V-18

V-13 Port Arthur Crude Petroleum Imports 2002–2007, Percentage of Imports by Vessel DWT and

Design Draft and Year Built...............................................................................................................V-18

V-14 Beaumont Crude Petroleum Imports 2002–2007, Percentage of Imports by Vessel DWT and

Design Draft and Year Built...............................................................................................................V-18

V-15 SNWW Petroleum Product Import Tonnage, by Vessel DWT ..........................................................V-19

V-16 SNWW Petroleum Products 2002–2007 Imports and Exports by Vessel Design Draft ....................V-20

V-17 Percentage of Imports and Exports Shipped in Vessels of 60,000 DWT or Larger, SNWW

Petroleum Product Imports, 1998–2007.............................................................................................V-21

V-18 SNWW Petroleum Product Exports, 1998–2007 ...............................................................................V-21

V-19 SNWW and U.S. Chemical Products, Foreign Imports and Exports .................................................V-23

V-20 Chemical Product Carrier Fleet, World Fleet as of January 2009......................................................V-23

V-21 Beaumont Bulk Grain Export, Distribution of Tonnage by Grain Type and Loaded Vessel

Draft ...................................................................................................................................................V-25

V-22 LoLo Bulk Dry Cargo Carriers ..........................................................................................................V-26

17
Table of Contents

List of Tables, cont’d

Page

xii

V-23 SNWW Building Material Imports ....................................................................................................V-27

V-24 SNWW Aggregate Tonnage Fleet, 2002–2007..................................................................................V-28

V-25 World Liquefied Natural Gas Fleet....................................................................................................V-29

V-26 Adjustments for Estimating Actual Vessel Capacity .........................................................................V-29

V-27 Representative Round Trip Mileage to SNWW.................................................................................V-30

V-28 Tanker Characteristics and Hourly Operating Cost, Double-Hull Tankers, December 2008

IWR Release ......................................................................................................................................V-31

V-29 Dry Bulk Carrier Characteristics and Hourly Operation Costs, Foreign Flag Dry Bulk

Carriers, December 2008 IWR Release .............................................................................................V-31

V-30 Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers Characteristics and Hourly Operating Cost......................................V-32

V-31 Transportation Cost Calculation (South America to SNWW) ...........................................................V-33

V-32 SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports Transportation Cost and Savings, Most Likely

Transportation Mode Trade Route and Channel Depth......................................................................V-34

V-33 SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports, Lightening Cost per Ton by Channel Depth and Trade

Route ..................................................................................................................................................V-35

V-34 SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports, Lightering Cost per Ton by Channel Depth Alternative and

Trade Route........................................................................................................................................V-35

V-35 Beaumont Crude Petroleum Imports, Annual Transportation Savings by Trade Route and

Decade................................................................................................................................................V-36

V-36 Port Arthur Crude Petroleum Imports, Annual Transportation Savings by Trade Route and

Decade................................................................................................................................................V-37

V-37 Beaumont Petroleum and Chemical Product Imports and Exports, Annual Transportation Cost

by Trade Route and Decade ...............................................................................................................V-39

V-38 Port Arthur Petroleum and Chemical Product Imports and Exports, Annual Transportation

Cost by Trade Route and Decade.......................................................................................................V-40

V-39 SNWW Petroleum and Chemical Products Annual Savings by Channel Depth Alternative,

2019–2069..........................................................................................................................................V-41

V-40 SNWW Petroleum Product Coastwise Shipments and Receipts, Vessel Data, Base Tonnage,

and Transportation Savings Benefit Summary...................................................................................V-42

V-41 Beaumont Wheat Exports, Shipments to Europe, Mediterranean, and Far East, Total Cost per

Ton by Channel Depth .......................................................................................................................V-43

V-42 Beaumont Wheat Exports, Shipments to Europe, Mediterranean, and Far East, Total Cost

($1,000s) by Channel Depth...............................................................................................................V-43

V-43 Beaumont Steel Slab and Iron Ore from South America, Mediterranean, and the Far East...............V-44

V-44 Beaumont Steel Slab and Iron Ore from South America, Mediterranean, and the Far East

Tonnage and Annual Transportation Cost by Ton .............................................................................V-45

V-45 Port Arthur Steel Slab and Iron Ore from South America, Mediterranean, and the Far East

Tonnage and Annual Transportation Cost by Ton .............................................................................V-46

V-46 SNWW Crude Material Imports and Exports via Mexico, South America, Mediterranean, and

Far East Cost per Ton.........................................................................................................................V-47

V-47 Beaumont Imports and SNWW Exports of Crude Materials, Mexico, South America,

Mediterranean and the Far East Tonnage and Annual Transportation Cost by Ton ..........................V-48

V-48 Port Arthur Crude Material Imports from, Mexico, South America, Mediterranean, and the

Far East Tonnage and Annual Transportation Cost by Ton ...............................................................V-49

V-49 SNWW Liquefied Natural Gas Trade Route Forecast, Short Tons....................................................V-50

V-50 Liquefied Natural Gas Transportation Cost per Ton by Channel Depth, Vessel DWT, and

Shipment Origin.................................................................................................................................V-50

18
Table of Contents

List of Tables, cont’d

Page

xiii

V-51 SNWW Liquefied Natural Gas Annual Transportation Savings by Trade Route ..............................V-50

V-52 Total Average Annual Deepening Benefits by Project Depth Alternative.........................................V-51

V-53 Total Average Annual Benefits by Channel Reach and Alternative ..................................................V-51

V-54 SNWW Pilot’s Rules..........................................................................................................................V-53

V-55 SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports, Percentage of Imports by Vessel DWT, and Design Draft

and Year Built ....................................................................................................................................V-55

V-56 SNWW Trips by Loaded Draft ..........................................................................................................V-56

V-57 SNWW Total Vessel Trips for Piloted Vessels..................................................................................V-57

V-58 HarborSym Vessel Classes.................................................................................................................V-58

V-59 SNWW 2000–2004 Base Tonnage.....................................................................................................V-59

V-60 SNWW 2030–2040 Tonnage .............................................................................................................V-59

V-61 SNWW 2030–2040 Tonnage .............................................................................................................V-60

V-62 SNWW 2030–2040 Vessel Trips Without Deepening.......................................................................V-60

V-63 SNWW 2030–2040 Vessel Trips With Deepening ............................................................................V-60

V-64 Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal Average Annual Benefits.............................................V-62

V-65 Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal, Widening Only, Economic Summary Data.................V-62

V-66 Neches River Turning Basin and Anchorage Features.......................................................................V-63

V-67 Neches River Anchorage Basins ........................................................................................................V-66

V-68 Average Annual Cost, Transportation Savings Benefits, Net Excess Benefits, and BCRs................V-67

V-69 Average Annual Cost, Transportation Savings Benefits, Net Excess Benefits, and BCRs................V-68

V-70 SNWW Neches River Anchorage Analysis, Basins 1, 4, and 8, Economic Summary Data ..............V-69

V-71 Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal Average Annual Benefits.............................................V-70

V-72 Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal Economic Summary Data ............................................V-70

V-73 Total Average Annual Benefits by Channel Reach and Alternative ..................................................V-72

V-74 SNWW Economic Summary Data, Cost and Benefits by Channel Alternative.................................V-73

V-75 Sabine Pass, Port Arthur Canal, and Sabine-Neches Canal Incremental Analysis Cost and

Benefits by Channel Alternative ........................................................................................................V-73

V-76 Taylor Bayou Incremental Analysis Cost and Benefits by Channel Alternative................................V-74

V-77 Project Improvements through Port Arthur (including Taylor Bayou) Cost and Benefits by

Channel Alternative ...........................................................................................................................V-74

V-78 Neches River Incremental Economic Analysis Cost and Benefits by Channel Alternative...............V-75

V-79 SNWW Improvements (excludes Taylor Bayou) Cost and Benefits by Channel Alternative ...........V-75

V-80 Neches River Project Improvements (excludes Transportation Benefits for All Other Reaches)

Cost and Benefits by Channel Alternative .........................................................................................V-76

V-81 SNWW Improvements (excludes LNG) Cost and Benefits by Channel Alternative .........................V-76

V-82 SNWW Economic Summary Data at 7 Percent Cost and Benefits by Channel Alternative ..............V-77

V-83 SNWW Economic Summary Data Without Additional Advanced O&M Cost and Benefits by

Channel Alternative ...........................................................................................................................V-78

VI-1 New Work and 50-Year Maintenance Quantities for the Recommended Plan .................................. VI-2

VI-2 Project Details of Sabine Bank Extension.......................................................................................... VI-3

VI-3 Project Details for Sabine Bank Channel Reach .............................................................................. VI-11

VI-4 Project Details for Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel Reach............................................................... VI-11

VI-5 Project Details for Sabine Pass Jetty Channel Reach....................................................................... VI-12

VI-6 Project Details for Sabine Pass Channel Reach ............................................................................... VI-13

VI-7 Project Details for Port Arthur Canal Reach (including Taylor Bayou)........................................... VI-14

19
Table of Contents

List of Tables, cont’d

Page

xiv

VI-8 Project Details for Sabine-Neches Canal Reach .............................................................................. VI-15

VI-9 Project Details for the Neches River Channel Reach....................................................................... VI-16

VI-10 Existing and Proposed Maintenance Dredging Quantities ............................................................... VI-17

VI-11 Real Estate Requirements for Placement Areas ............................................................................... VI-21

VI-12 SNWW WVA Impacts Summary-Before DMMP Benefits and Mitigation, Louisiana Impacts ..... VI-23

VI-13 SNWW WVA Impacts Summary-Before DMMP Benefits and Mitigation, Texas Impacts............ VI-24

VI-14 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Need.............................................................................................. VI-26

VI-15 Critical Assumptions........................................................................................................................ VI-27

VII-1 Annual Sediment Budget for Sabine Pass.........................................................................................VII-5

VII-2 Preliminary Screening: Dredged Material Beneficial Use Features Eliminated from

Consideration ..................................................................................................................................VII-10

VII-3 Acreage Restored by Neches River BU Feature ............................................................................. VII-15

VII-4 Average Annual Cost Comparison of Placement Plan Alternatives for the Proposed 48-foot

Project .............................................................................................................................................VII-24

VII-5 DMMP BU Features .......................................................................................................................VII-26

VII-6 Dredged Material Management Plan Upland Placement Areas ......................................................VII-27

VII-7 Existing and New ODMDSs ...........................................................................................................VII-27

VII-8 Texas – FWP Impacts and Benefits by Habitat Type...................................................................... VII-30

VII-9 Louisiana – FWP Impacts and Benefits by Habitat Type ...............................................................VII-31

VII-10 Net FWP Impacts for Project as a Whole........................................................................................VII-32

VII-11 Cost Comparison of Gulf Shore Beneficial Use Feature to Base Plan PA 5...................................VII-33

VII-12 Incremental O&M Cost for the Recommended Plan.......................................................................VII-35

VIII-1 Net Project Impacts and Benefits by Average Annual Habitat Units...............................................VIII-2

VIII-2 FWP Compensatory Mitigation Target for Louisiana......................................................................VIII-5

VIII-3 Best Buy Plans Identified by Incremental Cost Analysis.................................................................VIII-9

VIII-4 Recommended Mitigation Plan......................................................................................................VIII-10

VIII-5 Recommended Mitigation Plan – Acreage Analysis......................................................................VIII-13

IX-1 RSLR Sensitivity of Project Alternatives......................................................................................... IX-11

IX-2 Primary Data Used for SNWW Economic Analysis........................................................................ IX-15

IX-3 Quality of Data Used in Ecological Analyses .................................................................................. IX-17

X-1 Project Dimensions for Recommended Plan........................................................................................X-2

X-2 Upland Placement Areas for the Recommended Plan..........................................................................X-7

X-3 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites for Recommended Plan ........................................................X-7

X-4 GNF Beneficial Use Features in the Recommended Plan....................................................................X-8

X-5 Mitigation for Recommended Plan ......................................................................................................X-9

XI-1 Total First Cost and Annualized O&M for the Recommended Plan.................................................. XI-3

XI-2 Total Investment Cost for the Recommended Plan............................................................................ XI-4

XI-3 Recommended Plan First Costs Allocation by Depth ........................................................................ XI-6

XI-4 Recommended Plan Fully Funded Costs Allocation by Depth .......................................................... XI-7

XI-5 Recommended Plan – First Costs Allocation..................................................................................... XI-8

XI-6 Recommended Plan – Fully Funded Costs Allocation....................................................................... XI-9

XI-7 Total General Navigation Features Costs and Credits...................................................................... XI-10

20
xv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

3-D three-dimensional

AAHU average annualized habitat units

AB anchorage basins

ADV Acoustic Doppler Velocity

AIS Automatic Identification System

ATR Agency Technical Review

Bcf billion cubic feet

Bcf/d billion cubic feet/day

BCR Benefit-to-Cost Ratio

BOOTS Bulk Oil Offshore Transfer System

BU Beneficial Use

CAP Continuing Authorities Project

CAR Coordination Act Report

CE/ICA cost-effectiveness analysis and incremental cost analysis

CEPRA Coastal Erosion Planning and Response Program

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CHL Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory

CIP Channel Improvement Project

CWPPRA Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Plan

DAMP Dewatering Management Practices

DMMP Dredged Material Management Plan

DWT deadweight tons

EC Engineering Circular

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EGM Economic Guidance Memorandum

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EMCM Emergent Marsh Community Model

EOP Environmental Operating Principles

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ER Engineering Regulation

ERDC Engineer, Research and Development Center

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

21
Acronyms and Abbreviations

xvi

FFR Final Feasibility Report

FWOP future without project

FWP future with project

GEC Gulf Engineers and Consultants, Inc.

GICA Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association

GIWW Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

GLO General Land Office

GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council

GNF General Navigation Features

HEP Habitat Evaluation Procedure

HFP Hurricane Flood Protection

HS model hydrodynamic-salinity modeling

ICT Interagency Coordination Team

IDC interest during construction

IH Interstate Highway

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IWR Institute of Water Resources

JCWND Jefferson County Waterway and Navigation District

LACPRA Louisiana Coastal Protections and Restoration Authority

LBG/TEA Louis Berger Group and Toxicological and Environmental Associates

LCWCR/WCRA Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration/Wetlands

Conservation and Restoration Authority

LDNR Louisiana Department of Natural Resources

LDNR-OCM Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Office of Coastal Management

LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

LER Lands, Easements, and Rights of Way

LNG liquefied natural gas

LOOP Louisiana Offshore Oil Port

LPP Locally Preferred Plan

mcy million cubic yards

mcy/yr million cubic yards per year

MLK Martin Luther King

mm millimeters

msl mean sea level

MW Hydrodynamic and Salinity Modeling Workgroup

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Plan

NDC Navigation Data Center

NED National Economic Development

22
Acronyms and Abbreviations

xvii

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service

NRC National Research Council

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

O&M operations and maintenance

ODMDS Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites

P&G Principles and Guidelines

PA placement area

PADD Petroleum Administration Defense District

PED Preconstruction Engineering and Design

PGL Policy Guidance Letters

PIE Pacific International Engineering

ppt parts per thousand

RED Regional Economic Development

RHA River and Harbor Act

RSLR relative sea level rise

RSM Regional Sediment Management

SCM Swamp Community Model

SH State Highway

SI Suitability Indices

SNND Sabine Neches Navigation District

SNWW Sabine-Neches Waterway

SPA Sabine Pilots Association

STWAVE Steady State Spectral Wave Model

TB turning basins

TBA turning basin anchorage

Tcf trillion cubic feet

TDH Texas Department of Health

TPCS Total Project Cost Summary

TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

TWDB Texas Water Development Board

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USDA U.S. the Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VLCC Very Large Crude Carriers

23
Acronyms and Abbreviations

xviii

VTS Vessel Traffic Service

WMA Wildlife Management Area

WRDA Water Resources Development Act

WVA wetland value assessment model

24
I-1

I. STUDY INFORMATION

I.A OVERVIEW

This Feasibility Report was prepared to determine the feasibility of modifying the portion of the existing

Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW) that serves the ports of Beaumont and Port Arthur, Texas. The Port

of Orange was not interested in participating in the study; therefore, modifications to the Channel to

Orange were not considered in this study. To allow for a more effective, safe, and efficient waterway, the

study focused on eliminating the major problems contributing to the inefficiencies on the waterway. The

study reviewed and analyzed alternatives to address the insufficient channel depth and width, as

determined by fleet forecasts. The possibility of conducting two-way traffic in portions of the channel,

and ways of maintaining a safe waterway for all commercial and public users were also investigated.

Economic benefits and costs were identified for proposed channel modifications, and recommendations

were made that would maximize project benefits.

I.B STUDY AUTHORITY

This Feasibility Report was conducted in response to the June 5, 1997, Senate resolution from the

Committee on Environment and Public Works. The resolution states:

The Secretary of the Army shall review previous reports on the Sabine-Neches Waterway

published as Senate Document No. 80, 83rd Congress, Second Session; House Document

No. 553, 87th Congress, Second Session; and other pertinent reports to determine the

feasibility of modifying the channels serving the ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur, and

Orange, Texas, in the interest of commercial navigation.

I.C PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This report presents the findings of a feasibility investigation conducted to determine whether there is a

Federal interest in providing channel improvements to the SNWW. This report analyzes the problems and

opportunities, and expresses desired outcomes as planning objectives. Alternatives were then developed

to address these objectives. These alternatives include a plan of no action and various combinations of

structural and nonstructural measures. The economic and environmental impacts of the alternatives were

then evaluated to identify the Recommended Plan. The report also presents details on U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE) and Sponsor participation needed to implement the plan. The report concludes with a

plan that is recommended for Congressional authorization (the Recommended Plan).

I.D PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

Physical Description of Study Area

The SNWW is an approximately 64-mile federally authorized and maintained waterway located in

Jefferson and Orange counties in southeast Texas and Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The area surrounding

25
I: Study Information

I-2

the waterway is generally referred to as the “Golden Triangle” and is delineated by the three major Texas

seaports of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange. Sabine Pass, Sabine Lake, and the Sabine River together

form part of the boundary between the states of Texas and Louisiana (Figure I-1). Improvements to the

30-foot Sabine River Channel to Orange were not evaluated due to the expectation of continued low

utilization of the existing project depth.

The SNWW is a system of navigation channels that has been superimposed upon the Sabine-Neches

estuary in Texas and Louisiana. The estuary includes Sabine Lake, tidal portions of the Sabine and

Neches rivers, and a number of tidally influenced bayous and shallow coastal lakes. The only connection

with the Gulf of Mexico is a long narrow pass called Sabine Pass through which all tidal interchange

occurs. Sabine Pass is stabilized by jetties that extend 4.1 miles into the Gulf of Mexico. The jetties were

initially constructed for navigational purposes in the late 1880s.

The existing SNWW is made up of seven reaches as shown in Table I-1, beginning with the Sabine Bank

Channel in the Gulf of Mexico and working upstream to the Neches River Channel.

Table I-1

Existing Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Dimensions

Channel Reach

Authorized

Depth

(feet)

Bottom

Width

(feet)

Length

(miles)

Sabine Bank Channel 42 800 14.7

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel 42 800 3.4

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel 40 800–500 4.0

Sabine Pass Channel 40 500–1,133 5.6

Port Arthur Canal (including Taylor Bayou) 40 500–1,788 6.2

Sabine-Neches Canal 40 400–1,060 11.3

Neches River Channel 40 400 18.6

The SNWW enters from deep water in the Gulf through the Entrance Channel, which is divided into the

Sabine Bank Channel and the Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel. It enters into Sabine Pass through the

Sabine Pass Jetty and Sabine Pass channels, and follows the west bank of Sabine Lake to Port Arthur in

the Port Arthur Canal. The project includes Taylor Bayou Channels and Turning Basins (TB) at the

confluence of the Port Arthur Junction Area. On the west side of Sabine Lake, the Sabine-Neches Canal is

separated from the lake by an artificially created band of land called Pleasure Island, that extends to the

near the mouth of the Neches River. From the northwestern to the northeastern corner of Sabine Lake,

another section of the Sabine-Neches Canal connects the mouths of two rivers, the Neches River (to

Beaumont, Texas) and the Sabine River to the east (to Orange, Texas). The Neches River Channel ends at

the Beaumont TB just south of the Interstate Highway (IH) 10 Bridge. The deep-draft portion of the

authorized Federal project generally provides for a channel 42 feet deep and 800 feet wide at the entrance

to the Gulf of Mexico, a channel 40 feet deep and 500 feet wide to Port Arthur, and a channel 40 feet deep

26
384

10

27 82

82

90

27

108

27

27 82

27

384

10

90

108

27

87

73

12

87

62

73

96

365

365

347

69

287

62

105

105

421

105

62

90

10

10

10

10

87

73

365

365

90

105

10

69

96

287

347

10

105

73

62

10

62

421

12

87

Texas Louisiana

CAMERON

CALCASIEU

JEFFERSON

CHAMBERS

LIBERTY

ORANGE

HARDIN

GALVESTON

Port Arthur

Beaumont

Orange

Vidor

Nederland

Bridge City

Devers

West Orange

China

Anahuac

Pine Forest

Grayburg

Bevil Oaks

Pinehurst Rose City Daisetta Sour Lake

Nome

Rose Hill Acres

Texas City

East

GIWW West

Sabine Pass

Jetty Channel

Sabine Bank Channel

GIWW

Port ArthurCanal

Sabine Pass

Channel

Sabine-Neches Canal

Neches River Channel

Cove

Point

Bayou

Bayou

Bayou

Bayou

Bayou

Island

GIWW of

Fish Pass

Pine Island

Perry Ridge

South Stark Canal

Blue

Bayou

Black

Elbow

Adams

Bayou

Black

Willow

Sabine

Johnson

Cut Off

Green's

Star Lake

Blue Buck

Cow Bayou

Old River

Keith Lake

Taylor Bayou

Figure I-1

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Project Area

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 100007609Prepared by: EM/RC/AC

Scale: 1" = 6 miles

Date: 7/10/2009

File: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/Fig_I_1_vr2.mxd

0 3 6 9 12

Miles

Sabine Pass

Outer Bar

Channel

G U L F

O F

M E X I C O Legend

State Boundaries

Channel CenterlinesChannel Reach LimitsCounty Boundaries

Sabine River

Port of

Beaumont

Port ofOrange

Port of

Port Arthur

Pleasure

Island

Project Area, Dredged Channel

G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

Vicinity Map

Texas

Louisiana

I-3

27
I: Study Information

I-4

This page intentionally left blank.

28
I: Study Information

I-5

and 400 feet wide to Beaumont by way of the Neches River. The existing SNWW channel has four openwater dredged material placement areas (PAs) and 24 upland confined PAs.

Shallow- and deep-draft vessels use the same channel where the routes of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

(GIWW) and SNWW overlap. The GIWW coincides with parts of the SNWW, entering from the west

just south of Port Arthur, extending through the confined channel reach at Pleasure Island, crossing the

more exposed northern edge of Sabine Lake, and following the Sabine River Channel north to just south

of the City of Orange, where the GIWW turns eastward and continues into Louisiana.

Study Area

The study area includes the area for which environmental effects of alternatives have been analyzed

(Figure I-2) and encompasses a 2,000-square-mile area, which contains the smaller area referred to as the

“project area.” The project area includes those areas that would be directly affected by construction of the

Channel Improvement Project (CIP) (i.e., dredging footprint, existing and proposed PAs, and mitigation

areas). The study area includes the following water bodies and adjacent coastal wetlands: Sabine Lake

and adjacent marshes in Texas and Louisiana, the Neches River channel up to the new Neches River

Saltwater Barrier, the Sabine River channel to the Sabine Island Wildlife Management Area (WMA), the

GIWW west to Star Bayou, the GIWW east to Gum Cove Ridge, the Gulf shoreline extending to 10 miles

either side of Sabine Pass, and 35 miles offshore into the Gulf of Mexico.

The major rivers within the study area are the Sabine and Neches rivers, and smaller streams such as

Taylor, Adam, Cow, and Little Cypress bayous on the Texas side. Major bayous flowing into Sabine

Lake from Louisiana include Lighthouse, Johnson’s, Madame Johnson’s, Willow, Three, and Black

bayous. Approximately 80 percent of the freshwater drainage bypasses Sabine Lake, traveling down the

SNWW and flowing into the Gulf of Mexico or southwestward into the GIWW (Gosselink et al., 1979).

Environmental Setting

Terrain

The coastline of the study area differs from most of the Texas coast in that there are no barrier islands or

lagoons. The study area is characterized by a diversity of features that are a result of the natural transition

between marine and freshwater environments and anthropogenic impacts. The mainland portion of the

study area can be classified as either coastal-marsh or coastal-prairie. These extensive wetland areas occur

in areas less than 5 feet above mean sea level (msl) and extend inland 4 to 15 miles along the entire Gulf

shoreline. Expansive marsh borders Sabine Lake on the southeast side, PAs on the west and north sides of

the lake, and swamps and bottomland hardwoods extend up the lower reaches of the Neches and Sabine

rivers.

29
I: Study Information

I-6

This page intentionally left blank.

30
10

10

27

82

90

90

108

27

10

90

10

90

87

73

69

62

96

87

12

87

62

73

96

365

365

347

69

287

421

113

105

62

87

90

10

10

10

10

87

73

365

365

90

10

69

96

287

347

10

105

73

62

10

62

421

113

12

87

69

96

62

87

87

G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

CALCASIEU

TEXAS POINT WMA

LOUISIANA POINT

End of Existing Channel

BIG THICKET

NATIONAL PRESERVE

JEFFERSON

ORANGE

HARDIN

JASPER

NEWTON

CAMERON

Port Arthur

Beaumont

Orange Vidor

Nederland

Lumberton

Bridge City

Silsbee

West Orange

Pine Forest

Bevil Oaks

Pinehurst

China

Rose Hill Acres

SABINE NWR

J. D. MURPHREE WMA

SEA RIM

STATE PARK

BLUE ELBOW SWAMP/

TONY HOUSEMAN WMA

LOWER NECHES WMA - OLD RIVER UNIT

J. D. MURPHREE WMA

LOWER NECHES WMA -

ADAMS BAYOU

LOWER NECHES WMA

NELDA STARK

SABINE PASS

BATTLEGROUND SP/SHS

MCFADDIN NWR

GIWW

Canal

Channel

GIWW West

Taylor Bayou

Jetty Channel

SNWW Entrance

Ridge

Bayou

Bayou

Bayou

Bayou

Island

Fish Pass

Blue Buck

Star Bayou

Salt Bayou

Pine Island

Perry Ridge

Nibbet Bluff

East

Port Arthur

Sabine Pass

Sabine Pass

Neches River

Turning Basin

Extension Channel

Sabine-Neches Canal

Sabine Bank Channel

Neches River Channel Cove

Blue

Point

Bayou

Black

Elbow

Bayou

Adams

Black

Bayou

Bessie

Willow

Sabine

Heights

Johnson

Cut Off

Green's

Gum Cove

Cow Bayou

Old River

Keith Lake

Rose City East

State Park Area

South Stark Canal

Figure I-2

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Project and Study Area

Prepared for: USACE

Job No.: 100007609

Prepared by: RF

Scale: 1" = 6 miles

Date: 1 April 2010

N:\Clients\U_Z\USACE\Projects\Sabine_Neches\100007609\Figures\Fig_I-2_vr4.mxd

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

Miles

G U L F O F M E X I C O

Vicinity Map

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel

Legend

Project Area, Dredged Channel

State Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas

Project Area, Dredged Material Placement Areas

Project Area,BU Features/ Mitigation Areas

County Boundaries

Channel Centerlines

Channel Reach Limits

Study Area

State Boundaries

Texas

Louisiana

Texas

Louisiana

I-7

31
I: Study Information

I-8

This page intentionally left blank.

32
I: Study Information

I-9

The gentle sloping coastal prairie lies landward of the coastal marshes and is broken into smaller prairie

segments by belts of pine and hardwood trees and by small meandering coastal streams with their

associated wetlands. Farmers and ranchers are the principal users in the higher marsh areas. Cities and

industries cover most of the higher elevations, and this is largely restricted to the west bank of Sabine

Pass and Sabine Lake, and between the mouth of the Sabine and Neches rivers, northwest of Sabine Lake.

The timberlands in the flood-prone areas were commercially lumbered in the past but have experienced

only small-scale lumbering in the twentieth century. Topography of the study area is essentially

featureless, except for the surface expression of salt domes (Big Hill, Fannett, and Spindletop in Texas

and Hackberry in Louisiana). These salt domes are still producing limited quantities of oil and gas.

Sabine Lake has a water surface area of approximately 100 square miles and a maximum natural depth of

9 feet. Due to the abundance of rainfall in this region, the rivers and bayous of this reach provide

substantial freshwater inflow into Sabine Lake. However, instream flows to this reach have been altered

from their natural hydrograph due to major impoundments in the middle and upper Sabine and Neches

River basins. The combined discharges of the Sabine and Neches rivers into the northern part of Sabine

Lake constitute the greatest freshwater input to any Texas bay. These rivers discharge large quantities of

fine sediments into the lake but do not form deltas at their mouths because most of this material remains

in suspension and is dispersed over the northern portion of the lake. During flood flows, these fine

sediments are dispersed over the entire lake, and some are expelled through the Sabine Pass into the Gulf

of Mexico.

The Gulf in the study area consists of open seas, coastline, and a dredged channel extending from the

jettied Sabine Pass seaward. This area is heavily influenced by the Mississippi River Delta located to the

east. When the Mississippi River occupied one of its western courses, sediment deposits were carried

westward by littoral currents that built the Chenier Plain (Davis, 1996). The Chenier Plain is a unique salt

marsh area on the extreme eastern edge of the Texas Gulf Coast, and is part of a much larger chenier plain

in western Louisiana. A chenier plain is a series of sandy or shelly ridges or “cheniers,” many more than

10 feet high, separated by clayey or silty marsh deposits. The distance from chenier to chenier may be as

much as 1 or 2 miles or more.

Chronic erosion is believed to be associated with the diversion of sand and other sediment resulting from

channelization and regulation of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers to the east, and the Sabine and

Neches rivers in Texas. The Sabine Pass jetties intercept sediment moving westward in the littoral drift,

creating a wide, muddy, tidal flat next to the east jetty (PBS&J, 2006; USACE, 2004). Texas Point is

undergoing severe beach erosion, with shoreline retreat of up to 1,150 feet between 1974 and 2000 (King,

2007; Morang, 2006). This is the highest rate of shoreline loss on the upper Texas coast, and a Texas

Coastal Erosion Planning and Response Program (CEPRA) has identified several parts of the study areas

as “critical erosion areas” (Texas General Land Office [GLO], 2004, 2005). In Louisiana, persistent

erosion along the shoreline between Ocean View and Holly Beach, on the order of –4.3 feet/year between

1985 and 1998, was recorded here prior to Hurricane Rita (USACE, 1971a, 2004). Nearer to Louisiana

33
I: Study Information

I-10

Point, significant accretion over the last 100 years has slowed to +1.2 feet/year, and the behavior of this

shoreline has become erratic, with some areas eroding and some accreting (USACE, 2004).

The study area lies in the easternmost portion of the humid climatological zone of Texas and usually has

mild summers and winters. Winds generally are from the south or southeast except during the winter

when polar fronts (northers) move across the state. Winds from these northers are important in lowering

water levels and help to flush coastal estuaries. Temperatures are moderated by the influence of the winds

from the Gulf, resulting in mild winters and relatively cool summer nights. The mean daily temperature

ranges from the mid-50s (degrees Fahrenheit, °F) in December and January to the mid-80s in the summer

months. The temperature rarely drops below 22°F or rises above 98°F. Relative humidity levels average

approximately 78 percent throughout the year (USACE, 1975). Freezing temperatures occasionally occur

during the winter but rarely last more than a few days. The historical temperature variance has been from

a low of 11°F to a high of 107°F. The growing season, or the average period from the last frost in spring

to the first frost in fall, is about 294 days.

The study area is also subject to dense fog throughout the year, but such conditions are most prevalent

during the fall and winter months. Heavy fog occurring on an average of 29 days per year tends to hamper

navigation by producing limited-visibility conditions along the waterway. Clear days during the year

average about 117; partly cloudy days, 191; and cloudy days, 57.

Another effect of the nearness of the Gulf is abundant rainfall distributed throughout the year. The

average annual rainfall is about 52 inches, with monthly precipitation averaging from 3.2 inches to about

6.6 inches. The area is occasionally subject to periods of intense rainfall, which may occur during any

time of the year, but are usually associated with tropical storms, which typically occur from June through

October.

Tides

The Sabine Lake area is a dynamic estuary only recently subject to the extensive mixing of fresh and

seawater due to tidal currents. The tidal inlet at Sabine Pass differs from the other Texas tidal passes in

that it is very long, 7 miles, and narrow, 0.4 mile, and is solidly entrenched in earlier geologic deposits.

Normal tidal fluctuation in the area is relatively small with a diurnal range of 1 to 2 feet. A tidal range

varying from 1.03 at Sabine Pass to 0.65 foot at Orange can be derived from the tide records. These

ranges are typical of the Gulf coast area. Water levels in the SNWW are also influenced by the prevailing

winds from the south-southeast direction. Water levels generally rise slightly with winds out of the south

and south-southeast and fall, sometimes significantly, with winds from the north or northwest. Water

surface elevations in the SNWW can vary greatly when driven by wind and storm activity. Water levels

as low as –4 feet during strong northwesterly winds and as high as +16 to +18 feet during hurricane

surges have been observed.

34
I: Study Information

I-11

Salinity

The SNWW estuarine system exhibits very complicated circulation and salinity patterns (Brown and

Stokes, 2009). Fresh water enters the system via several tributaries, including the Sabine River, the

Neches River, and other smaller inflows. The Neches River flows directly into Sabine Lake and the

Sabine-Neches Canal. The Sabine River flows into Sabine Lake, the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

(NWR) and into Calcasieu Lake via the GIWW. During times of low flow, the direction of this flow is

reversed and higher salinity Calcasieu waters flow westward into the Sabine basin (Gammill et al., 2002).

The Sabine-Neches Canal connects the Neches River Channel to Sabine Pass, flowing through a narrow,

confined channel between Pleasure Island on the east and the Port Arthur area on the west. This canal acts

as a flow pathway for both fresh water from the inflowing rivers, and saline waters intruding via tidal

propagation through Sabine Pass. This combination results in highly stratified conditions in the SabineNeches Canal. The stratification contributes to saltwater intrusion migrating up the Sabine-Neches Canal

and into the northwest corner of Sabine Lake and the lower reaches of the Neches River. To combat these

conditions, a saltwater barrier (Neches River Saltwater Barrier) has been installed approximately 30

stream-miles upstream of Rainbow Bridge to prevent saltwater intrusion north of the Port of Beaumont.

As a result of the intrusion, the observed salinity in Sabine Lake is highest at both the southern end

(where the lake connects to Sabine Pass) and at the northern end (where the lake connects to the SabineNeches Canal). The lowest salinities are observed in the central and eastern portions of Sabine Lake,

which are farthest from the hydraulic connection to sources of saline water.

The estuary experiences wide swings in salinity levels that are associated with periods of drought and

high freshwater inflows. During periods of drought, the flow in the Neches and Sabine rivers can drop

drastically and a saltwater wedge can proceed farther upstream of both the Sabine and Neches rivers from

the Gulf (Lower Neches Valley Authority, 2002; Sabine River Authority of Texas, 2002). The strength

and intensity of winds and intensity of rainfall influences salinity levels in the SNWW, Sabine Lake, and

Calcasieu Lake. The salinity of the waterway ranges from open Gulf levels of about 34 parts per thousand

(ppt) to 0 ppt in the upper reaches of the Neches and Sabine River channels. Sabine Lake is

predominantly a brackish-water estuary with salinity content ranging from 15 ppt at Sabine Pass to 0 ppt

at times at the northern end of the lake. During periods of normal rainfall, high-salinity water transported

by the SNWW is buffered by inflows from the Sabine and Neches rivers, direct rainfall, and coastal

watershed inflows that have little effect on the salinity levels of Sabine Lake and the surrounding

marshes. On the other hand, during periods of high flows, the SNWW and Sabine Lake can experience

occasional freshwater conditions (very low salinity levels) due to large quantities of fresh water entering

the system from the Sabine and Neches rivers (Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, 2002).

Geology

The soils of Jefferson and Orange counties, Texas, and Cameron Parish, Louisiana, are separated mainly

into Holocene and Pleistocene sediments with modern river sediments in the vicinity of the Neches and

Sabine River channels. The coastal zone in the study area has evolved to its present condition by erosion,

35
I: Study Information

I-12

deposition, compaction, and subsidence, all of which are still active. Gradual faulting continues as

Pleistocene and older Gulf basin muds continue to compact.

The site geology is characterized by modern marine deposits overlaying recent Holocene deposits that in

turn overlay Beaumont and Lissie formations of the Pleistocene Series (Bureau of Economic Geology,

1982). The modern deposits are generally normally consolidated clays, silts, and fine sands that were

deposited through natural overwash and sedimentation processes or through man-made depositional

processes. The recent deposits of the Holocene consist of silts, clays, silty sands, clayey sands, and clayey

silts that exhibit the characteristics of normally to lightly overconsolidated materials. These deposits are

generally encountered to depths of 30 to 40 feet. Beaumont Clay is the predominant Pleistocene formation

whose eroded surface forms the upper limit of stiff to very stiff clay material. Lenses of fine-grained,

poorly graded sand and silt, and a few calcareous nodules are sometimes encountered in this formation.

The clay fraction is composed of montmorillonite, kaolinite, illite, and finely ground quartz, in that order

of prevalence, and it has a high shrink-swell potential.

Sabine Lake was formed from the flooding of an ancient river valley (Kane, 1959) and was later separated

from the Gulf by the advancement of the Gulf shoreline and deposition of the beach ridge/mudflat

complex known as the Chenier Plain (Gould and McFarlan, 1959). Two types of landforms characterize

the Chenier Plain: broad marshes containing organic clays and peat, and long narrow relict beach features

called cheniers that appear as ridges parallel to the coast. The Chenier Plain fronts the entire study area on

the Gulf shoreline in both Texas and Louisiana.

High-volume freshwater inflow into Sabine Lake helped maintain Sabine Pass as a narrow and relatively

shallow link between the Gulf and Sabine Lake (Morton, 1996). Filling of Sabine Lake with sediment

continues from the Sabine and Neches rivers and the Gulf of Mexico. Muddy river deposits slowly fill the

upper parts of the estuarine systems and are responsible for much of the muddy sediment that fills the

upper part of Sabine Lake. Only small amounts of bedload sand have been deposited in the estuarine

system.

Fish and Wildlife Resources

The SNWW study area contains estuarine, wetland, and upland habitats that support a variety of fish and

wildlife resources. Since the study area has tidal and freshwater habitats, wildlife species are diverse. The

area also supports productive sport and commercial fishing. Due to the diversity of bird life, bird

watching is an important recreational activity.

Aquatic Resources

The study area consists of both freshwater and marine ecosystems. The Sabine and Neches rivers and

their tributaries were dominated by fresh water prior to the late 1800s, before Sabine Lake was opened for

navigation. It is likely that Sabine Lake was almost entirely fresh, with the exception of saltwater

intrusions that emanated from tidal surges during storms or during severe droughts. Thus, the biological

communities have changed significantly within the past century due to the encroachment of saltwater.

36
I: Study Information

I-13

The salinity extremes that often occur in Sabine Lake preclude lasting colonization of stenohaline species

(tolerating narrow salinity ranges). Most of the tributaries adjacent to Sabine Lake are also influenced by

salt water to some extent. A general overview of the freshwater and marine resources is described below.

For a more detailed description of the biological resources within the study area, see Section 3.10 of the

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

Freshwater Resources

Freshwater fauna typically occur in the tributaries of Sabine Lake including the Sabine and Neches rivers,

Taylor, Cow, Adams, and Little Cypress bayous in Texas, Black and Johnson’s bayous in Louisiana, as

well as numerous other smaller tributaries. In addition, freshwater fauna can be found in the multitude of

wetlands, oxbows, ponds, canals, and ditches within the study area.

Due to the variety of habitats and the typical diversity of southeastern U.S. streams, the study area has an

exceptionally diverse fish community consisting of approximately 56 freshwater and 25 estuarine species

(Hubbs, 1982; USACE, 1975). The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), Inland

Fisheries Division, monitors fish populations and has identified a variety of freshwater species from this

area including largemouth bass, spotted bass, bowfin, black crappie, spotted sucker, golden shiner,

sunfish, blue catfish, channel catfish, spotted gar, shad, and striped mullet (LDWF, n.d.).

Both benthic macroinvertebrates and plankton support the food chain in the freshwater zones. Food

chains in the larger, slow-moving rivers, bayous, and backwater areas are similar to that found in lakes. In

these systems, the food chain consists primarily of plankton, including microscopic algae (phytoplankton)

and crustaceans (zooplankton) that are suspended in the water column. Diverse communities of plankton

occur throughout the freshwater system, but gradually shift to marine taxa as the water enters the

estuarine areas.

Marine Resources

Sabine Lake, when compared to the other estuarine ecosystems in Texas, covers the smallest surface area

(43,978 acres/68.6 square miles) and volume; however, it has the largest surrounding marshland (over

185,000 acres/288.6 square miles) (Armstrong et al., 1987; Blackburn et al., 2001). Phytoplankton

(microscopic algae) are the major plant life in the open-bay, taking up carbon through photosynthesis and

nutrients for growth. Phytoplankton are fed upon by zooplankton (small crustaceans), fish, and benthic

consumers. Zooplankton are most abundant when the salinities are higher. Sabine Lake supports a diverse

nekton population including fish, shrimp, and crabs such as Atlantic croaker, white and brown shrimp,

Gulf menhaden, bay anchovy, red drum, blue crab, and southern flounder. These species are present all

along the Texas and Louisiana coast and are unaffected by changes in salinity. Sabine Lake sustains an

important blue crab fishery in Texas and Louisiana. Eastern oyster reefs are located in the southern part of

Sabine Lake near Blue Buck Point, in Sabine Pass, and in Keith Lake. Oysters are not commercially

harvested from Sabine Lake. The Texas Department of Health (TDH) has prohibited the harvesting of

molluscan shellfish from this system since the late 1970s (Heideman, 2002; TDH, 2002). Louisiana has

37
I: Study Information

I-14

designated Sabine Lake as a “Public Oyster Area.” However, no harvesting is currently allowed due to

water quality issues.

Coastal Wetland Resources

The SNWW study area contains a high concentration of significant coastal wetlands. Approximately

109,175 acres (171 square miles) in Texas and 197,530 acres (309 square miles) in Louisiana were

identified as coastal marsh, bottomland hardwood, or cypress-tupelo swamp habitats. Coastal marshes

occur in four distinct types within the study area: (1) salt marsh, (2) brackish marsh, (3) intermediate

marsh, and (4) freshwater marsh. A summary of the habitat acreage by state is provided in Table I-2, and

a distribution of these habitats is presented on Figure I-3.

Table I-2

Summary of Habitat Acreages by State, 2004

Fresh

Intermediate Brackish SalineTotal

Marsh

Bottomland

Hardwood Swamp

Total

Wetlands

Texas

Acreage 13,580 30,336 24,047 4,898 72,861 5,458 10,157 88,476

Water 2,117 9,240 8,254 810 20,421 0 0 20,421

Totals 15,697 39,576 32,301 5,708 93,282 5,458 10,157 108,897

Louisiana

Acreage 20,336 101,405 23,112 3,551 148,404 3,206 6,641 158,251

Water 4,772 31,872 2,049 586 39,279 0 0 39,279

Totals 25,108 133,277 25,161 4,137 187,683 3,206 6,641 197,530

Total

Acreage 33,916 131,741 47,159 8,449 221,265 8,664 16,798 246,727

Water 6,889 41,112 10,303 1,396 59,700 0 0 59,700

Totals 40,805 172,853 57,462 9,845 280,965 8,664 16,798 306,427

Salt marsh is located along the Gulf shoreline of Texas and Louisiana, and the shores of Sabine Pass.

Subjected to regular tidal inundation, low saline marsh is dominated with smooth cordgrass/oystergrass,

seashore saltgrass, and marshbay cordgrass/wiregrass. The dominant species in high salt marsh subject to

less frequent tidal inundation is glasswort. Relative to other marsh types, salt marsh typically supports

fewer terrestrial vertebrates although some shorebird species are common.

Brackish marsh in the study area is located inland from salt marsh along the Gulf shoreline and in the

Sabine Pass area, lines the Salt Bayou/Keith Lake watershed south of the GIWW, and fringes the northern

and eastern shores of Sabine Lake in Louisiana. The dominant species in high brackish marshes are

saltmarsh bulrush, seashore saltgrass, and marshbay cordgrass. Brackish marshes are extremely important

as nurseries for fish and shellfish.

Intermediate marshes are subjected to periodic pulses of salt water. In the SNWW study area, these

areas grade inland from brackish marshes in the Salt Bayou/Keith Lake watershed, are the major marsh

type along the lower Neches River, and dominate the interior marshes of Louisiana east of Sabine Lake.

38
Sabine

Lake

Neches River

Sabine River O R A N G E

H A R D I N

J E F F E R S O N

C A M E R O N

C A L C A S I E U

T E X A S

L O U I S I A N A

TX-9

LA-3

LA-2

LA-5

LA-1

LA-9

LA-4

TX-6 LA-8

TX-8

TX-5

LA-7

LA/TX-1

TX-2

TX-1

TX-3

LA-6

TX-23

TX-7

TX-7

LA/TX-2

TX-2

TX-1

TX-24

TX-7

TX-26

TX-4

TX-13

Figure I-3

Hydrologic Units and

Vegetative Coverages

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 044198800Prepared by:EMons/RCoopFile: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/044198000/figures/Fig_I_3_vr2.mxd

Scale: 1" = 5 miles

Date: 5/19/2008

County/Parrish Line

Collapsed Vegetation Codes

Placement Area

Saline Marsh

Shrub/ScrubSwampUpland/Impoundment/OtherWater

L I B E R T Y

Legend

Vicinity Map

GULF OF

MEXICO

Calcasieu

Lake

Black Marsh

Lake

Aquatic Vegetation

Brackish MarshBottomland HardwoodFreshwater MarshIntermediate Marsh

Hyrdologic Unit

μ

0 5 10 2.5

Miles

^_

G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

Unit #s Names Unit #s Names

TX 1 North Neches River LA 1 Perry RidgeTX 2 Neches-Lake Bayou LA 2 Willow BayouTX 3 Rose City LA 3 Black BayouTX 4 West of Rose City LA 4 West Johnsons BayouTX 5 Bessie Heights LA 5 Sabine Lake RidgesTX 6 Old River Cove LA 6 Johnsons Bayou RidgeTX 7 GIWW North LA 7 Southeast SabineTX 8 Texas Point LA 8 Southwest Gum CoveTX 10 Cow Bayou LA 9 East Johnsons BayouTX 11 Adams Bayou LA/TX 1 Sabine IslandTX 12 Blue Elbow South LA/TX 2 Blue ElbowTX 13 GrovesLA/TX 1 Sabine IslandLA/TX 2 Blue Elbow

Texas Louisiana

Texas

Louisiana

I-15

39
I: Study Information

I-16

This page intentionally left blank.

40
I: Study Information

I-17

Freshwater marshes are heterogeneous, with local species composition governed by frequency and

duration of flooding, topography, substrate, hydrology, and salinity. A large expanse of fresh marsh is

located between the GIWW and the Neches River, and in the riparian zone of the Neches and Sabine

rivers. Freshwater marsh is also present in most interior portions of the Louisiana marshes east of Sabine

Lake. Species range from maidencane, giant cutgrass, and bulltongue in lower areas to squarestem

spikerush and marshbay cordgrass in the higher areas.

Sensitive Areas

Sensitive habitat generally refers to the vulnerability of a habitat. Areal extent, uniqueness, endemic

quality, or vulnerability to ongoing pressures or imminent changes may make a habitat environmentally

sensitive (e.g., large historical losses as with the coastal prairie or fresh marsh losses due to saltwater

intrusions). They may be unique to the region and/or historical losses have made them less common or

rare. They may be particularly vulnerable to changes in the landscape. The following areas were

identified as part of the vegetative mapping in the study area and are described in more detail in the

Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) Ecological Modeling Report found in Appendix C of the FEIS.

In Texas, beginning at the coast and working inland, the following protected and sensitive habitat areas

are present within the study area:

• Approximately 10,000 acres of fresh to salt marsh in the chenier plain west of Sabine Pass, the

majority of which consists of the Texas Point NWR.

• 55,700 acres of fresh to salt marsh located west of the Sabine River between Texas Point and the

mouth of the Neches River. Much of this area is protected by the J.D. Murphree WMA.

• 22,100 acres of fresh, intermediate, and brackish marshes and 2,850 acres of cypress-tupelo

swamp and bottomland hardwoods on the Neches River from the mouth of the river where it

empties into Sabine Lake to the City of Beaumont.

• 6,490 acres of Neches River cypress-tupelo swamp and bottomland hardwoods and 1,970 acres of

fresh marsh between the City of Beaumont and the new Neches River Saltwater Barrier near Pine

Island Bayou.

• 4,771 acres of cypress-tupelo swamps, bottomland hardwood, and fresh and intermediate marshes

on Cow and Adams bayous.

• 689 acres of cypress-tupelo swamp west of the Sabine River and south of IH 10.

• 2,737 acres of cypress-tupelo swamp and bottomland hardwoods in the Blue Elbow Swamp.

• 2,277 acres of cypress-tupelo swamp and bottomland hardwoods west of the Sabine River, across

from the Sabine Island WMA in Louisiana.

• 6,000 acres of cypress-tupelo swamp, bottomland hardwood forest, and freshwater marshes,

acquired by the Big Thicket National Preserve in 2009, located upstream of I 10.

In Louisiana, beginning at the coast and working inland, the following protected and sensitive habitat

areas are present within the study area (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration/

41
I: Study Information

I-18

Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority [LCWCR/WCRA], 1999; U.S. Geological Survey

[USGS]-National Wetlands Resource Center, 2004).

• 71,470 acres of saline, brackish, and intermediate marshes in the Louisiana Chenier Plain habitat

at Louisiana Point, Blue Buck Point, and Johnson Bayou areas.

• 44,325 acres of brackish, intermediate, and fresh coastal marsh in the western half of the Sabine

NWR.

• 46,511 acres of brackish, intermediate, and fresh marsh in the area north of Willow Bayou and

south of the GIWW.

• 25,721 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh and bottomland hardwood habitat in the Perry

Ridge mapping unit, north of the GIWW and east of the Sabine River.

• 650 acres of cypress-tupelo swamp and bottomland hardwoods in the Blue Elbow Swamp, east of

the Sabine River and north IH 10.

• 7,039 acres of cypress-tupelo swamp and bottomland hardwoods in the Sabine Island WMA,

north of the Blue Elbow Swamp and east of the Sabine River.

Upland Resources

The study area supports a diverse population of wildlife species. According to Blair (1950), at least 47

species of mammals, 29 species of snakes, 10 lizards, 2 land turtles, 17 anurans, and 18 urodeles occur or

have occurred there. Common mammals include, but are not limited to rabbits, rats, raccoons, coyotes,

mice, bats, armadillos, and bobcats. Virtually all of the original Gulf Coastal Prairies community has been

converted to agricultural, industrial, or other uses although some remnants still exist (Smeins et al., 1991).

Agricultural areas typically have sparse ground cover and provide poor-quality habitat for wildlife.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Plants

There are no Federal or State-listed threatened, endangered, or candidate plant species potentially

occurring in Jefferson and Orange counties of Texas, and Cameron and Calcasieu parishes of Louisiana

(National Diversity Database, 2005; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2005).

Wildlife

There are a total of 32 State and/or federally listed threatened and endangered fish and wildlife species,

and 9 listed by the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as Species of Concern—species that

may potentially occur in Orange and Jefferson counties, Texas, and Cameron and Calcasieu parishes,

Louisiana. Some of the species listed as threatened and endangered include brown pelican, piping plover,

interior least tern, West Indian manatee, black bear, Louisiana black bear, red wolf, hawksbill sea turtle,

green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, and loggerhead sea turtle. The West

Indian manatee, black bear, Louisiana black bear, and red wolf formerly occurred along the Gulf Coast;

however, it is unlikely that they would occur within the study area. Designated Critical Habitat for the

42
I: Study Information

I-19

wintering populations of the piping plover is present in the study area on the Louisiana shoreline

beginning at the east jetty and extending eastward into Louisiana beyond our study area.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is present in the study area for adult and juvenile brown and white shrimp,

red drum, red snapper, lane snapper, greater amberjack, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cobia, Gulf

stone crab, gag grouper, scamp, and adult gray snapper. The EFH is defined as “those waters and

substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” When referring to

estuaries, it is further defined as “all waters and substrates (mud, sand, shell, rock, and associated

biological communities) within these estuarine boundaries, including the sub-tidal vegetation (seagrasses

and algae) and adjacent tidal vegetation (marshes and mangroves)” (Gulf of Mexico Fisheries

Management Council [GMFMC], 2004).

Significant Habitats

The State of Louisiana also includes a ranking of natural areas it deems as imperiled or threatened due to

one or more reasons. Cameron and Calcasieu parishes contain 10 such habitats. These significant habitats

include bottomland hardwood forest, brackish marsh, coastal prairie, coastal dune grassland, coastal live

oak-hackberry forest, freshwater marsh, migratory bird staging/stopover sites, waterbird nesting colony,

western longleaf pine savannah, and western saline longleaf pine savannah. While none of these habitats

are federally designated as threatened or endangered, some of them are significant due to their losses

during the past century and their value as habitat to fish and wildlife.

Cultural Resources

Within the study area, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) for Texas and Louisiana identifies

6 NRHP-listed architectural properties for Orange County, 19 such properties for Jefferson County, and 1

property, the Sabine Pass Lighthouse, for Cameron Parish. Two of the National Register-listed sites are

located adjacent to the proposed CIP: the Rainbow Bridge and the Sabine Pass Lighthouse. The Rainbow

Bridge is the cantilever bridge crossing the Neches River just upstream from Sabine Lake. The Sabine

Pass Lighthouse is located on the Louisiana side of Sabine Pass. The lighthouse was constructed in 1856

and began operation in 1857.

These National Register-listed properties represent civic, commercial, religious, and private residential

properties that span the history of the study area from the mid-nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth

century. In addition to these National Register-listed properties, there are many other eligible, recorded,

and reported resources in the study area. Numerous potentially eligible historic sites and shipwrecks are

present in the project area. These include the Sabine Pass Battleground Park, Fort Griffin, and shipwrecks

associated with important battles during the U.S. Civil War.

Socioeconomic Considerations

The following counties and parishes were used as units of socioeconomic analysis: Hardin, Jefferson, and

Oranges counties in Texas, and Cameron and Calcasieu parishes in Louisiana. The following cities were

43
I: Study Information

I-20

reviewed: Beaumont, Port Arthur, Port Neches, Nederland, Vidor, Orange, and Bridge City in Texas and

Lake Charles in Louisiana. The study area for the socioeconomic review included areas within a 1-milewide corridor of the areas proposed for channel improvement.

Population

From 1980 to 1990, population growth within the study area was negative largely due to high

unemployment rates and economic problems within the region due to the 1980s “oil bust,” when

manufacturing and construction industries within the study area suffered heavy economic losses and

layoffs. From 1990 to 2000, population growth was slow to moderate (at 7.4 percent), with the greatest

population growth in Bridge City and Nederland. Population growth from 2000 to 2050 is expected to be

slow to moderate if the socioeconomic trends continue as they have over the past 30 years. The greatest

population growth rates in the study area during this period are anticipated in Hardin County (average

decade growth rate of 8.1 percent) and in Calcasieu Parish (average decade growth rate of 5.9 percent).

Employment and Income

Total employment in the port, manufacturing, and industrial industries is currently 30,000 with

approximately 13.7 percent of the population in port-related jobs (estimated one member per family

works in industries directly or indirectly linked to waterborne commerce). Since the “oil bust” in the

1980s, the area relies to a greater extent on industries such as service, Federal, State, and local

government, retail and wholesale trade, medical services, education, and Federal and state jails for its

livelihood. It is estimated that 25 percent of the study area population depends on these port-related

industries.

The highest median family income within the study area is found in Hardin County (at $37,612), while

the lowest median family income is found in Cameron Parish (at $34,232). All median family income

figures for the study area counties and parishes are higher than that of Louisiana (at $32,566), and lower

than that of Texas (at $39,927).

Commercial and Recreation Fishing

Commercial fishing within the Sabine Lake system and adjacent offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico is

a relatively small contributor to the study area economy. Commercial harvesting of oysters in Sabine

Lake and Sabine Pass is prohibited due to public health concerns. A small offshore commercial shrimp

fleet operates out of Sabine Pass.

The largest total value for all finfish and shellfish landings was $6.0 million in 1992. Recreational fishing

continues to be a major outdoor recreational activity with a large variety of fresh- and saltwater species in

the area. Sabine Lake, numerous wetlands, and the Gulf of Mexico are sources of recreational fishing

within the study area. Between 1991 and 2001, saltwater fishing increased by 22 percent, and freshwater

fishing decreased by 6 percent (USFWS, 2002a). Recreational fishing in this area is a year-round activity.

Largemouth bass in the inland waters and speckled trout in the Gulf of Mexico and Sabine Lake are

44
I: Study Information

I-21

favorites among anglers in the area. Although most species are commercially exploited, recreational

anglers contributed more than $400 million to the local economy in 2005, with more than half a million

people involved in this leisure-time activity (USFWS, 2003).

Outdoor Recreation

One of the benefits of outdoor recreation is the economic impact it has on a state and its region. In

Louisiana, over $3.0 billion was spent on wildlife-associated activities (hunting and fishing yielded over

$1.4 billion and associated activities yielded over $1.6 billion), and in Texas, almost $9.4 billion was

spent on wildlife-related activities (hunting and fishing yielded over $5.3 billion and wildlife-associated

activities yielded almost $4.1 billion) (USFWS, 2002a).

The economic impact of hunting in Texas resulted in $1.5 billion spent in Texas in 2001. Hunting within

the Louisiana portion of the study area is equally popular, with numerous seasonally occupied camps

located primarily on private land, and leased to club members who often travel from metropolitan areas of

Louisiana and Texas to hunt waterfowl and deer, among other game.

Wildlife-watching, particularly birding, is an extremely popular activity within the study area and in the

nearby vicinity. The Great Coastal Birding Trail is a series of trails that links bird-watching sites and

many communities along the entire Gulf Coast. Several sections are located in or nearby the project study

area, in both Texas and Louisiana. Participation in the Texas portion of the trail has grown over

33 percent overall between 2001 and 2002 (Scroggs, 2002; USFWS, 2002a).

I.E NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR AND COORDINATION

The USACE District Engineer, Galveston District is responsible for the overall management of the study

and the report preparation. The Sabine Neches Navigation District (SNND) is the Sponsor for the study.

The Sponsor was previously known as the Jefferson County Navigation District or the Jefferson County

Waterway and Navigation District. In 2007, the SNND name was adopted. An Interagency Coordination

Team (ICT) comprised of the Federal and State resource agency representatives from Louisiana and

Texas was established to:

1) Involve agencies in scoping and identifying environmental issues and concerns;

2) Evaluate the significance of fish and wildlife resources and select resources to be evaluated;

3) Recommend and review necessary environmental studies;

4) Evaluate anticipated impacts; and

5) Recommend and evaluate potential mitigation measures.

The ICT agencies are listed in Table I-3. Representatives from other local and State agencies or

governments also participated in the ICT in an advisory capacity: Jefferson and Orange counties, Texas;

Cameron and Calcasieu parishes, Louisiana. While the ICT was a true decision-making body for issues

related specifically to the environmental impact review, the USACE did retain final decision-making

45
I: Study Information

I-22

authority on issues related to compliance with USACE policy. The USACE ICT members ensured that

decisions were made within the framework of the USACE planning process and in compliance with

Federal Law and policy, including guidance such as Planning in a Collaborative Environment

(Engineering Circular [EC] 1105-2-409) and the Environmental Principles (Engineering Regulations [ER]

200-1-5). Important decisions related to identifying and studying potential ecological impacts and

identifying alternatives for compensatory mitigation measures were made by consensus within the ICT.

The ICT meetings were open to the public, and public comments were taken either before or after some of

the meetings. Technical work addressing specific environmental concerns or planning objectives was

performed by several smaller workgroups (whose members were taken from the ICT). Each of the

workgroups and their purpose are identified below:

• Restoration and Beneficial Uses Workgroup was created to develop ideas for ecosystem

restoration and the Beneficial Use (BU) of dredged material in the study area.

• Hydrodynamic and Salinity Modeling Workgroup (MW) provided data to assist the

hydrodynamic salinity modeling (HS model) and verification process, and reviewed modeling

results as part of the impacts evaluation.

• Contaminants Workgroup evaluated water and sediment quality associated with the proposed

CIP, including characterization of existing conditions in the project area and the results of

physical and chemical analyses conducted.

• Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites (ODMDSs) Workgroup was created to provide advice

in the preparation of the Site Designation FEIS for the proposed ODMDSs.

• Habitat Evaluation Workgroup reviewed and classified existing habitat, performed field

evaluations to document existing conditions, and developed procedures for the prediction of

without- and with-project conditions.

Table I-3

Sabine-Neches Waterway Interagency Coordination Team Participants

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

Sabine Neches Navigation District Sabine River Authority of Texas

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Texas General Land Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service Texas Water Development Board

National Marine Fisheries Service Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Texas Department of Transportation

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

I.F PRIOR STUDIES, REPORTS, AND EXISTING WATER

PROJECTS

Federal involvement in navigation improvements along the SNWW began with the River and Harbor Act

(RHA) of 1885. This authorization provided for improvements to the mouth of the Sabine River. On

March 3, 1905, the RHA authorized the first major improvement to the waterway, the construction of a

46
I: Study Information

I-23

channel 9 feet deep and 100 feet wide through Sabine Lake from the mouth of the Sabine and Neches

rivers to the mouth of Taylor Bayou. Major channel improvements continued to occur along the SNWW.

Table I-4 shows the congressional authorizations and the authorized channel improvements.

Table I-4

Congressional Authorizations for Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvements

RHA 1885 Improvements to mouth of Sabine River.

RHA 1905 Construction of a channel 9 feet deep and 100 feet wide through Sabine Lake from the mouth of

Sabine and Neches rivers to the mouth of Taylor Bayou.

RHA 1912 Construction of a channel 25 feet deep, repair of jetties, enlarge Port Arthur Canal to a depth of

26 feet and a width of 150 feet, and dredge Port Arthur Turning Basin 26 feet deep, 600 feet wide,

and 1,700 feet long.

RHA 1927 Enlargement of Sabine Pass and jetty channels to 300-foot width, Port Arthur Canal to a width of

200 feet, and the Sabine-Neches Canal up to the mouth of the Neches River to a width of 150 feet,

provide two passing places in the Sabine-Neches Canal.

RHA 1935 Enlargement of the project to depths of 35 feet on the outer bar, 35 to 32 in jetty channel, and 32 feet

up to and including turning basins at Port Arthur and Beaumont. Widen to widths of 450 feet on the

outer bar, 450 feet to 300 feet through the jetties, 250 feet up to Port Arthur, and 200 feet up to the

mouth of the Neches River.

RHA 1946 Deepen Sabine Pass outer bar channel to 37 feet, Sabine Pass jetty channel to 36 feet at the inner

end, deepen to 36 feet Sabine Pass Channel, Port Arthur Canal, Port Arthur East and West Turning

Basins, and widen to 400 feet the Sabine-Neches Canal from Port Arthur Canal to the mouth of the

Neches River, except through Port Arthur Bridge; deepen Neches River channel from mouth to

Beaumont Turning Basin to 36 feet, widening to 350 feet from Smith’s Bluff to Beaumont Turning

Basin, widen Sabine-Neches Canal between Neches and Sabine rivers to 150 feet.

RHA 1962 Deepen Outer Bar Channel to 42 and 40 feet for all inland channels to Port Arthur and Beaumont;

width of 500 feet in Port Arthur Canal and 400 feet in Neches River Channel to Beaumont with three

turning points in Neches River; a channel, 12 by 125 feet, extending in Sabine River to Echo;

Deauthorization of uncompleted portion of channel between Port Arthur West Turning Basin and

Taylor Bayou Turning Basin and enlargement of entrance channel to Port Arthur Turning Basins.

Major deepening efforts on the SNWW were authorized in 1912 resulting in a channel depth of 25 feet.

Under the RHA of 1962, the waterway was authorized to be deepened to its current depth of 40 feet

(Figure I-4).

On December 11, 1969, the Committee on Public Works House of Representatives adopted a resolution

authorizing a review of the SNWW project. The resolution requested review of the report of the Chief of

Engineers on the SNWW, published as House Document No. 553, 87th Congress, 2nd Session, and prior

reports, with a view to determining whether the existing project should be modified in any way at this

time, with particular reference to providing increased depths in the channel and basins.

As a result, a feasibility study was initiated and a Draft Feasibility Report was completed in April 1982.

The report determined that it was feasible and advisable to deepen and widen the SNWW. The

Recommended Plan recommended a channel depth of 52 feet at the Gulf of Mexico entrance channel and

47
I: Study Information

I-24

a channel 50 feet deep for the Sabine Pass Channel, Port Arthur Canal, Sabine-Neches Canal, and the

lower 12 miles of the Neches River Channel.

Figure I-4. History of Channel Deepening of Sabine-Neches Waterway

SNWW Channel Deepening

Year

Authorized

1912 – 25 Feet

1922 – 30 Feet

1935 – 34 Feet

1946 – 36 Feet

1962 – 40 Feet

The plan also included widening of the Sabine-Neches Canal, located adjacent to Port Arthur, from

400 feet wide to 500 feet in width to reduce traffic congestion and delays in this reach of the waterway,

which also serves as part of the GIWW. The Recommended Plan was not implemented because the

Sponsor withdrew their support for the project.

I.G STUDY AND REPORT PROCESS

In September 1998, the USACE completed a Reconnaissance Report for the SNWW. The reconnaissance

concluded that deepening and widening of the SNWW offers sufficient opportunity for navigation

improvements with potential benefits outweighing the anticipated project costs. Without the increase of

channel depths and widths to accommodate the anticipated increase in commodity transportation, more

vessels would need to make lighter-drafting trips, increasing vessel delays and decreasing the efficiency

of movement of bulk commodities along the waterway.

48
I: Study Information

I-25

The USACE planning process involves a six-step, iterative process. This process provided for systematic

preparation and evaluation of alternative plans to address problems and opportunities for the SNWW. The

feasibility study process involved all of the six functional planning steps:

1) Specification of water and related land resources future without-project (FWOP) problems

and opportunities;

2) Inventory, forecast, and analysis of water and related land resources conditions within the

study area;

3) Formulation of alternative plans;

4) Evaluation of the effects of the alternative plans;

5) Comparison of the alternative plans; and

6) Selection of the Recommended Plan.

The Reconnaissance Report emphasized problem identification and formulation of alternatives. The

emphasis of this Feasibility Report is on the evaluation of alternatives, assessment of impacts, and

selection of a Recommended Plan. The goal of a feasibility study is to identify the plan that contributes to

the National Economic Development (NED) consistent with protecting the Nation’s environment.

49
I: Study Information

I-26

This page intentionally left blank.

50
II-1

II. PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

II.A OVERVIEW

This chapter covers the first step of the planning process and identifies the problems with the existing

SNWW and potential opportunities available if the existing SNWW channel is deepened and widened.

The SNWW continues to play a significant role in the growth and economic development of the Golden

Triangle area of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, Texas. As growth and economic development of the

study area continues, the increasing use of the SNWW intensifies the need for more-efficient movement

of commodities, particularly crude petroleum, by vessels traveling the waterway.

The amount of the vessel traffic along the waterway also increases concerns for the safety of the users and

the local communities and businesses all along the waterway. With the current channel dimensions, the

tonnage is not being moved as efficiently due to the size restrictions of the larger tankers utilizing the

channel. These tankers are either limited by the current channel depth of 40 feet or by the physical and

safety limitations of the channel.

The water resources problems to be solved with this project are the navigational and safety issues that

have developed on the SNWW because of the growth in the area. Existing water resource problems and

needs in the study area were identified through coordination with Federal, State, and local agencies; area

residents; waterway users; and the USACE and SNND. Numerous concerns were raised during the public

scoping meetings, letters received in response to those meetings, and a series of workshops with local

public agencies and private organizations. The major issues and concerns identified through this process

are discussed below. Summaries of the scoping meetings and copies of public comment letters are

provided in Appendix A of the FEIS.

II.B NAVIGATION AND COMMERCE

General

The SNWW serves the ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange. Channel improvements are needed to

support the SNWW’s critically important role in the Nation’s economy. In 2007, the SNWW ranked first

in the nation in crude oil imports, importing 56.2 million tons (Institute of Water Resources [IWR],

2007). In 2006, the SNWW (ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur and Orange) was ranked 4th in the nation for

domestic and total tonnage with Beaumont (Figure II-1) ranked 5th and Port of Port Arthur (Figure II-2)

ranked 28th in the nation (IWR, 2007).

The Port of Beaumont’s public docks are located on the Neches River Channel, as well as several crude

petroleum and product terminals. Port Arthur’s general cargo facilities are located on the Sabine-Neches

Canal, and its crude petroleum and product terminals are in the Taylor Bayou Basins. The Taylor Bayou

Basins are located immediately south of Port Arthur at the junction of the Sabine-Neches Canal with the

GIWW. In addition to its deep-draft traffic, the Sabine-Neches Canal serves as a through channel for

51
II: Problems and Opportunities

II-2

Figure II.1. Port of Beaumont

Figure II.2. Maritime and Petrochemical Use of Sabine-Neches Waterway

near Port Arthur, Texas

52
II: Problems and Opportunities

II-3

shallow-draft barge traffic on the GIWW. The locations of the facilities along the SNWW are identified

on Figure II-3.

Commerce

Sixty percent of the SNWW tonnage total is deep-draft movements, and the remaining 40 percent is

shallow-draft GIWW traffic. Crude petroleum imports and petrochemical product imports and exports

comprised approximately 95 percent of Beaumont’s and 85 percent of Port Arthur’s oceangoing tonnage.

Other significant commodities and breakbulk cargoes that are handled by the SNWW ports include

petroleum coke, ammonia, sulphuric acid, metallic salts, liquid sulphur, grain, manufactured iron and

steel products, limestone, sand, and gravel. Twenty percent of 2005–2007 U.S. metallic salts were

exported from Port Arthur.

Domestic refineries on the Gulf Coast, the East Coast, and in the Midwest rely on the SNWW for 12–

16 percent of waterborne crude oil deliveries (Martin Associates, 2006). The SNWW’s four local

refineries represent 6 percent of the U.S. total. SNWW refining capacity levels for 2007 are presently

9.4 percent higher than in 2004, and 29 percent higher than in 1994. In 2007, Motiva announced plans for

a major refinery expansion in Port Arthur that would make it the largest refinery in the U.S. and one of

the largest in the world. The ExxonMobil Beaumont refinery on the Neches River Channel is presently

the third largest refinery in the world. As a result of these additions, SNWW’s combined capacity would

be the largest concentration in the State of Texas. Refined petroleum products are shipped from the

SNWW via three major pipeline systems to 21 states east of the Rockies, including states as far away as

Delaware, New York, and Pennsylvania (Martin Associates, 2006).

The existing SNWW navigation channel system is congested. The existing 40-foot project depth was

designed to efficiently and safely accommodate much smaller vessels than are being used today. The

current channel was completed in the late 1960s, and at that time, crude oil tankers averaging 40,000

deadweight tons (DWT) with loaded drafts of 36 feet were common. Vessels over 90,000 DWT are now

used routinely for crude oil imports to both Beaumont and Port Arthur. In addition to larger vessels, the

amount of vessel traffic on the SNWW has also increased. Both SNWW and U.S. crude oil imports have

steadily risen since the 1970s, and this trend is projected to continue into the foreseeable future. The

2005–2007 crude oil import volume is nearly three times the average 1990–1992 levels. In the short term,

it is expected that SNWW imports would grow at rates comparable to or higher than regional and national

trends, and long-term expectations are for growth equal to regional and national trends. From 2005 to

2007, SNWW volumes of crude petroleum imports exceeded other Texas Gulf Coast ports by nearly 35

percent. Recent increases in SNWW refinery capacity indicate that the region would gain an increasing

share of U.S. totals.

In addition to the large base of existing crude oil and petrochemical product facilities on the SNWW,

three Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals have been proposed at Sabine Pass. LNG is expected to

play an increasingly important role in the natural gas industry and global energy markets in the next

several years and in the long-term future. Construction of the Sabine Pass Terminal is complete, and the

53
II: Problems and Opportunities

II-4

This page intentionally left blank.

54
87

12

62

73

96

365

347

69

287

105

62

10

10

10

87

365

69

96

287

347

10

105

73

62

10

62

12

Texas

Louisiana

MP56

MP40

MP30

MP16

MP14

Port Arthur

Beaumont

Vidor Orange

Groves Nederland

Bridge City

West Orange

Pine Forest

Cove

Point

Bayou

Bayou

Willow

Heights

GIWW of

Johnson

Fish Pass

Star Lake

Blue Buck

Cow Bayou

Old River

Keith Lake

Salt Bayou

Pine Island

GIWW WEST

SABINE PASS

PORT ARTHUR CANAL

SABINE PASS CHANNEL

Bayou

E

Bayou

Adams

Bessie

Rose City East

S

JETTY CHANNEL

SABINE-NECHES CANAL

NECHES RIVER CHANNEL

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Facility Locations

within Study Area

Prepared for: USACE

Job No.: 100007609

Prepared by: RF

Scale: 1" = 3 miles

Date: 1 April 2010

File: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/figures/Figure_II_3_vr3.mxd

Project Area, Dredged Channel

Legend

0 3 6

Miles

State Boundaries

County Boundaries

Channel Centerlines

Figure II-3

Mileage Points MP14

Mile (approx. nautical miles)

14 Sea Buoy (Markers 29/30)

30 Texaco Island

40 Neches River Junction

56 Municipal Docks Beaumont

16 East Jetty Light

Texas Point

Sabine Pass LNG

(Cheniere)

Golden Pass LNG

(Exxon Mobil)

Proposed Port Arthur

LNG (Sempra)

Valero, Total

and Motiva

Great Lake Carbon

Port of

Port Arthur

Total Motiva

Turning and Anchorage Basin No. 1

Turning and Anchorage Basin No.4

Sunoco

Oil Tanking

Anchorage Basin No. 8

Beaumont Bulk

Exxon Mobil

Port of Beaumont

Facility Sites

Crude Oil and Products

Grain

LNG

Petroleum and Chemicals

Aggregate, Steel, Iron Ore

Sabine

Lake

Taylor Bayou Channel and

Turning Basin

II-5

55
II: Problems and Opportunities

II-6

This page intentionally left blank.

56
II: Problems and Opportunities

II-7

first vessels arrived in April 2008. Construction is ongoing at the Golden Pass Terminal; the Port Arthur

Terminal has received regulatory approval. The SNWW LNG facilities are located in the Sabine Pass

Channel and Port Arthur Canal; these reaches are presently 500 feet wide and would remain so under the

without-project future. LNG vessels using the SNWW would be subject to strict U.S. Coast Guard

(USCG) regulations and to local pilot rules, and all LNG vessel movements would be subject to one-way

traffic.

With the current channel depth, there are draft restrictions on large vessels currently utilizing the channel.

The majority of the tonnage carried on the SNWW is in deep-draft vessels, and the vast majority of the

deep-draft traffic is comprised of crude oil and petrochemical products. However, LNG, grain, and

aggregate products, such as iron ore, steel slab, limestone, sand, and gravel, are also carried in draftconstrained deep-draft vessels. For the period 2002–2007, 89 percent and 64 percent of crude petroleum

imports to Beaumont and Port Arthur, respectively, were transported in vessels with design drafts over

40 feet.

Currently at the SNWW, Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCC) transfer tonnage at an offshore location onto

one or more shuttle vessels in a process called lightering. These very large carriers cannot enter the

SNWW because of their size and draft. In addition, other large crude tankers presently offload a partial

load to a shuttle vessel or vessels and then enter the SNWW with the shuttle vessels as they are small

enough to navigate the SNWW with a lighter load. This process is called lightening.

The SNWW experienced strong growth over the past decade, with total tonnage increasing from an

average of 108 million short tons for 1995–1997 to 138 million for 2005–2007. As imports have

increased, the number of lightered and lightened vessels and product carriers has also increased, adding to

shipping delays and congestion. The total number of inbound vessels on the SNWW is projected to

increase in the short-term at rates comparable to or higher than regional and national trends. Recent

increases in SNWW refinery capacity indicate the region would regain an increasing share of U.S. totals.

Ships are not only requiring deeper drafts, but the sizes of the vessels are wider (Figure II-4). The vessel

beams of both Port Arthur’s and Beaumont’s vessels cause them to be regularly impacted by the present

500-foot width of the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel and Port Arthur Canal. The most common crude oil

tankers unloading at the Taylor Bayou Basins have design drafts of 45 feet and beams of approximately

124 feet. Tankers using the Taylor Bayou Basins are smaller than those offloading at terminals on the

Neches River Channel because existing width at the mouth of Taylor Bayou and the configuration of the

docks within Taylor Bayou limit the allowable vessel size. The maximum size vessels unloading at Port

of Beaumont facilities on the Neches River Channel are approximately 900 feet long, with a beam width

of 164 feet.

The Sabine Pilots Association (SPA, or Sabine Pilots) has adopted self-imposed transit rules for safety in

the narrow channel; these rules result in navigation constraints. These rules are presented in Table V-54

later in this report. These constraints include daylight-only and one-way sailing restrictions in specific

reaches. The main restrictions place limitations on the combined beam widths and drafts for vessel

57
II: Problems and Opportunities

II-8

meetings on the waterway. A major restriction is that vessels with combined beam widths in excess of

50 percent of the channel width cannot meet. The effects of these and other navigation restrictions cause

significant delays along the waterway.

Figure II-4. Increasing Vessel Sizes

As a result of these rules, inbound vessels intending to use a specific dock must wait offshore until the

outbound vessel at that dock sets sail, resulting in considerable delays because of the length of the inshore

channel. In addition, vessels are now wider due to new double-hull requirements and to industry changes

to wider but shorter vessels, which makes vessel-meetings more difficult. The probability of accidents and

other safety problems may increase with increases in both inland barge and deep-draft vessel traffic along

the waterway. Channel deepening and/or widening could alleviate some of these congestion and safety

problems by enhancing the maneuverability and control of deep-draft vessels, and permitting two-way

traffic in the widened SNWW reaches and providing additional TB and anchorage basins (AB) on the

Neches River Channel.

The CIP would provide benefits by reducing the number of vessel trips needed for crude oil imports.

Vessel trips would be reduced since the mother vessels could enter the waterway more-heavily loaded and

fewer shuttle vessels would be used for lightening. In addition, shuttle vessels used in lightering the

VLCC could be more-heavily loaded, which would reduce the number of shuttle vessels required. Some

petroleum products and other commodities would also be able to take advantage of increased channel

depths by loading additional tonnage; however, crude oil is expected to be the principal beneficiary of the

deeper channel. Widening of the inshore channels below Taylor Bayou would allow more vessels to meet

under existing rules, and increase efficient utilization of the channel. Additional TB and anchorages on

58
II: Problems and Opportunities

II-9

the Neches River Channel would allow some vessels to wait at nearby docks rather than waiting offshore,

significantly reducing delays associated with one-way traffic restrictions.

Safety

Navigational safety on the SNWW is a concern given the SNWW’s large existing traffic base, the number

of crude oil and dangerous cargo transits, and the 2008 introduction of LNG vessels to the vessel mix.

Vessels are now wider due to new double-hull requirements and to industry changes to wider but shorter

vessels. Wider vessels make meetings more difficult and, therefore, more dangerous (Figure II-5).

Historically, however, casualty incidents on the SNWW channel are very low, due in large part to existing

pilot rules that minimize the probability of incidents involving deep-draft vessels. A list of the transit

rules is provided in Section V.E (see Table V-54.) of this report. The pilot rules would continue to limit

the vessel sizes that can meet in each portion of the channel. Recent installation of the Port Arthur Vessel

Traffic Service (VTS) would allow the USCG to assist vessel operators in managing their transits in

relation to other traffic on the waterway, reducing potential interactions between deep-draft vessels and

tows or barges on the congested Sabine-Neches Canal. LNG vessels using the SNWW would be subject

to strict USCG regulations and to local pilot rules and, therefore, would not have the opportunity to meet

other vessels. Under current pilot rules, the wide beams of LNG tankers would make them subject to oneway traffic restrictions.

Wid ening to Ad d ress Safety

! Neches River Channel and

Sabine-Neches Canal are 400

feet wide at bottom

! Pilots restrict traffic to oneway for wider vessels; limited

to a combined width of 251

feet

500’

400’

Figure II-5. Widening to Address Safety

59
II: Problems and Opportunities

II-10

Channel improvements would allow more deep-draft cargo to be carried with fewer vessel trips.

Associated reductions in deep-draft vessel traffic would thereby serve to reduce the probability of

casualties. However, since casualty occurrences in the SNWW are rare, the proposed improvements

would not have a discernible effect on casualty rates.

National Security

Congestion is increased during times when the SNWW serves an important military function. One of the

busiest ports for military cargo in the world is located on the SNWW. The Port of Beaumont is the

Nation’s busiest Strategic Port of Embarkation, and it is the second largest commercial military out-load

port worldwide. For the war in Iraq, it has handled approximately one-third of all the military cargo

deployed to and from the war, which is more military cargo than any other U.S. port (Military Surface

Deployment and Distribution Command, 2004, 2006). The SNWW must accommodate the military’s

increased use of newer and larger transport ships, which are three times the size of transport ships used in

1990. Improved transportation efficiency on the SNWW is vital in maintaining the Port of Beaumont’s

ability to provide critical support to U.S. military operations. The SNWW contributes to national security

in one other key aspect. Two terminals on the Neches River are connected by pipelines to underground

storage facilities of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve at Big Hill, Texas, and

West Hackberry, Louisiana.

II.C ENVIRONMENTAL

The most significant trend adversely affecting the study area is the high rate of wetland loss that has

occurred over the last century. In Louisiana, a net land loss of 21 percent between 1978 and 2000 has

been reported in the Chenier Plain subregion of coastal Louisiana, which includes the Sabine estuary. In

Texas, the most extensive losses of interior coastal wetlands in the state have occurred in the Neches

River delta, an example of which is shown in Figure II-6. These losses total 12,632 acres between 1930

and 1978. In total, over 90 percent of the emergent marshes in the Lower Neches River delta have been

converted to open water, which is more than half of the total wetland loss in the State of Texas.

While the future rate of relative sea level rise (RSLR) at the Sabine-Neches estuary is very uncertain, it

must be considered in project planning. RSLR consists of two components: global (eustatic) sea level rise

and local subsidence. The uncertainty in the rates of eustatic sea level rise is evident in the variability of

the different modeled rates given for the National Research Council (NRC, 1987) projections and the

2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A similar degree of uncertainty exists with the

rate of local subsidence.

A detailed review of both eustatic and local subsidence rates was performed by the Engineer Research

and Development Center (ERDC) in fulfillment of requirements of Circular No. 1165-2-211, Water

Resources Policies and Authorities Incorporating Sea-level Change Considerations in Civil Works

Programs (USACE, 2009a). This review found the eustatic rate estimates range from 1.8 millimeters per

year (mm/year) to 6.45 mm/year for the next 50 years. This study employs an estimate for eustatic rise of

60
II: Problems and Opportunities

II-11

Figure II-6. Rose City Marsh (Historical Cypress Swamp to Open Water)

4.5 mm/year. This estimate is in the middle of the range projected by NRC (1987) and in the high middle

range of that predicted by IPCC. In coastal Louisiana, estimates of the local subsidence component of

RSLR were found to range from 0.4 to 0.6 mm/year based on basal peat measurements (Törnquist et al.,

2006), to 2 to 5 mm/year as averaged from 48 years of tide gage data (Morton et al., 2005), and 10 to 15

mm/year measured from settling rates of established benchmarks (Shinkle and Dokka, 2004). The

ERDC’s review concluded that the lower rates (0.4 to 0.6 mm/year) were the most technically valid.

These lower rates represent long-term trends in the subsidence rate, and seem to be the closest

approximation of consensus concerning the local subsidence rate that is currently available.

Adding these to the NRC II projections for eustatic sea level rise yields a value for the RSLR in the

SNWW study area over 50 years of 4.9 to 5.1 mm/year. The average of these, 5.0 mm/year, is used for

modeling purposes.

Therefore, the “most likely” value of RSLR to be used for the SNWW deepening study’s 50-year period

of analysis is 0.82 foot. Adjusting this to account for the period of analysis beginning in 2019 and ending

in 2069, the period of analysis for the SNWW reformulation, the “most likely” amount of RSLR by the

year 2069 is 1.1 feet.

Potential for increased Gulf shoreline erosion is also a concern. In recent years, high shoreline erosion has

caused substantial wetland losses on the Gulf of Mexico shoreline from Texas Point westward to the

61
II: Problems and Opportunities

II-12

vicinity of Sea Rim State Park. Inland shoreline erosion due partly from the passage of large vessels

occurs along the waterway, especially in the narrow portions of the channel. Inland shoreline erosion

results in thousands of dollars being spent every year to provide bank stabilization and maintain roads,

some of which are critical for evacuation during hurricanes.

Since the devastating hurricane season in 2005, concerns have increased regarding the potential for

channel-deepening projects such as the SNWW CIP to exacerbate the adverse effects of tropical storms

like hurricanes Rita and Katrina on environment and infrastructure in the study area. These concerns are

also related to recent forecasts of more intense tropical storms in the future due to global climate change.

There is an increasing potential for environmental harm as a result of an increase in the probability of

shipping accidents due to predicted increases in vessel traffic. Environmentally sensitive areas that could

be affected by spills resulting from shipping actions are located along both sides of Sabine Pass, west of

the Port Arthur Canal, and along portions of the Neches River Channel. The need to protect

environmental resources in the study area is related to the high concentration of significant coastal

wetland habitats (see Figure I-3).

As part of the feasibility study process and as required by the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), the public and State and Federal resource agencies were coordinated with to obtain their

comments and concerns regarding the proposed project. These comments are summarized in Section XII

of this report. Detailed comments are located in Appendix A of the FEIS.

62
III-1

III. FORMULATION OBJECTIVES, CONSTRAINTS, AND

CRITERIA

III.A OVERVIEW

This chapter addresses the remainder of step one in the planning process by identifying the Federal

objectives for the study, identifying public concerns, planning objectives and potential constraints, and

developing the criteria to be used for evaluating plan formulation alternatives.

III.B FEDERAL OBJECTIVES

The fundamental objective of Federal participation in water resource development projects is to assure

that an optimum contribution is made to the welfare of all people. The Water Resources Council’s

Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, dated March 1983 and the NEPA of 1969 provide the basis for Federal policy for

planning Federal water resources projects. These authorities have established the procedures for

formulation and evaluation of water resources projects. Additional policies and regulations, derived from

executive and legislative authority, further define the criteria for assessment of plan impacts, risk analysis,

review and coordination procedures, and project implementation.

Current Federal policy dictates that NED is the primary Federal objective in water resources planning.

NED objectives stress increasing the value of the Nation’s output of goods and services, and improving

economic efficiency on a national level. The NED Plan is the plan that reasonably maximizes net NED

benefits. The Federal objective of water and related land resources planning is to contribute to NED in a

manner that is consistent with protecting the Nation’s environment. Consequently, the resource’s

condition should be more desirable with the Recommended Plan than under the without-project condition.

III.C PUBLIC CONCERNS

A number of public concerns have been identified during the course of the study. Input was received

through coordination with the Sponsor, coordination with Federal and State agencies, public review of

draft and interim products, and public meetings. A discussion of public involvement is included in

Section XII of this document. The majority of the concerns/comments from the public that are related to

the establishment of planning objectives and planning constraints are:

• Potential saltwater intrusion impacts on the adjacent marshes in Texas and Louisiana;

• Potential increase in water levels, including tidal movements;

• Potential impacts to the eastern shore of Sabine Lake;

• Natural resources (e.g., ducks, freshwater marsh birds, alligators, etc.) that would likely be

affected by the proposed project;

• Impact of doing nothing that would result in economic reductions, loss of jobs, and reduction of

property values; and

63
III: Formulation Objectives, Constraints, and Criteria

III-2

• Utilize the dredged material beneficially to improve the coastal shoreline by increasing vegetative

dune structure and replenishing eroding beaches.

III.D PLANNING OBJECTIVES

The Federal objectives are general statements and not specific enough for direct use in plan formulation.

The water and related land resource problems and opportunities identified in this study are stated as

specific planning objectives to provide focus for the formulation of alternatives. The primary objective of

Federal navigation activities is to contribute to the Nation’s economy while protecting the Nation’s

environmental resources in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and executive orders.

These planning objectives reflect the problems and opportunities expressed by the Sponsor and the public,

and represent the desired positive changes to the existing project conditions. The following planning

objectives were used in formulation and evaluation of alternative plans:

• Improve the navigational efficiency along the waterway; and

• Maintain the ecological values of coastal and estuarine resources within the project area.

III.E PLANNING CONSTRAINTS

Unlike planning objectives that represent desired positive changes, planning constraints represent

restrictions that should not be violated. Plans must be formulated with regard to addressing the problems

and needs of the area, taking into consideration FWOP conditions. The plans should identify tangible and

intangible benefits and costs from economic, environmental, social, and regional perspectives.

Institutional implementation constraints should also be identified.

The formulation framework requires the systematic preparation and evaluation of alternative solutions to

the recognized water resource–related problems within the study area. The process requires that impacts

of the proposed action be measured and results displayed or accounted for in terms of contributions to

NED, environmental quality, regional economic development, and other social effects.

Interaction with other interests must be maintained throughout the planning process to avoid duplication

of effort, minimize conflicts, obtain consistency, and assure completeness. The following constraints

apply to this feasibility study:

• The study process and plans developed must comply with Federal and State laws and policies;

• Fish and wildlife habitat affected by a project plan should be minimized as much as possible and

preserved, if possible; and

• Alternative plans that resolve problems in one area should not create or amplify problems in other

areas.

64
III: Formulation Objectives, Constraints, and Criteria

III-3

Current guidance specifies that the Federal objective of planning is to contribute to NED consistent with

protecting the Nation’s environment. The following general criteria are applicable to all water resource

studies and have generally guided the formulation of the study. Technical, economic, environmental, and

social criteria have been established to guide the project development process. These criteria are

discussed below.

III.F TECHNICAL CRITERIA

Technical criteria require the preservation of adequate project dimensions to provide safe passage of

commercial navigation traffic through a reach of waterway while minimizing environmental impacts.

These criteria require plans to be compatible with navigation needs and consistent with the requirements

of the navigational equipment using a portion of the waterway and to provide a long-term plan for the

placement of dredged material in order to continue maintenance of the waterway in the future.

The plans must be consistent with specific environmental conditions of the area including soil conditions,

topography, and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Formulation of alternative alignments and dredged

material placement alternatives and their evaluation was accomplished by analysis of historical and

projected shoaling rates, erosion causes and rates, and general structural and nonstructural alternatives

applicable for conditions that are specific to this area.

Technical information (both historical data and specific information prepared for this project) and

analyses used during the study included, but was not limited to:

• Hydrodynamic/salinity study

• Ship simulation study

• Gulf shoreline study

• Vessel effects study

• Sediment and water quality analyses

• Aerial photography

• Historical dredging records

• Previously published scientific reports related to the project area

• Stability analyses

• 50-year Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP)

• Pipeline identification and relocation analysis

• Marine and estuarine resource investigations

• Threatened and endangered species assessment.

III.G VALUE MANAGEMENT

Following the guidance in ER 1110-2-1150 Paragraph 13.14 Value Engineering, “A value engineering

study shall be performed on the earliest document available that satisfies the functional requirements of

the project and includes a MII cost estimate. The Project Delivery Team (PDT) shall determine if the

65
III: Formulation Objectives, Constraints, and Criteria

III-4

initial value engineering study shall occur during the feasibility phase or be delayed until the PreConstruction Engineering and Design (PED) phase.” Galveston District received approval for a delay of

the Value Engineering Study until the PED phase is completed from Southwestern Division.

The inherent nature of a feasibility study process involves considerable value analysis and management

efforts within all aspects of the study. This section summarizes the value management efforts that were

utilized in this phase of the study. Various nonstructural alternatives were investigated throughout the

feasibility phase as a means to solve the navigational problems. Some of these nonstructural measures

included vessel traffic systems to alleviate transportation inefficiency and safety concerns, changes in

pilot rules, and alternative modes of commodity transport. Structural alternatives were evaluated and

included channel deepening and widening.

Standard dredging practice utilizes pipeline and hopper dredges, the only applicable method of

construction for deepening the channel. Because the type of equipment to be used as part of the

construction was limited, the value analysis efforts concentrated on the other construction aspects. These

included construction of new placement areas, rehabilitation of existing placement areas, mitigation

features, and BU sites. Identifying cost-saving alternatives that used resources more efficiently and

decreased project costs, as well as operation and maintenance costs, played a major part in the feasibility

study’s value management.

Beneficial use of the dredged material, new work, and maintenance material, was investigated to find the

most economical and practical placement within the project constraints. The “life-cycle” of the waterway

was considered with emphasis on practical placement of new work within the placement areas for use in

future levee construction. Additionally maintenance material was used beneficially for marsh creation,

which was an economical advantage over standard placement practices.

The public was afforded an opportunity to provide input regarding more-cost-effective alternatives that

could be used to accomplish the project purpose. The plan was presented to the public at industry group

meetings, public workshops, and public meetings.

During the PED phase, the construction contracts will undergo value management and value techniques

following guidance found in the ER 11-1-321- Army Programs Value Engineering.

III.H ECONOMIC CRITERIA

The economic criteria require that tangible benefits attributable to projects exceed project costs. Project

benefits and costs are presented as average annual equivalent values and related in a ratio of benefits to

costs (Benefit-to-Cost Ratio or BCR). This ratio must exceed unity to meet the NED objective.

Recommended plans, whether structural, nonstructural, or a combination of both, should maximize excess

benefits over costs; however, unquantifiable features must be addressed subjectively. These criteria are

used to develop plans that achieve the objective of NED and provide a base condition for consideration of

economically unquantifiable factors, which may impact on project proposals. The USACE planning

guidelines required that the alternative that most reasonably maximizes net economic benefits, consistent

66
III: Formulation Objectives, Constraints, and Criteria

III-5

with protecting the Nation’s environment, be identified as the NED Plan. This NED Plan may be selected

as the Recommended Plan. However, for a navigation project, if a plan with lesser benefits is preferred by

the sponsor due to financial constraints, guidance allows for a categorical exemption to be granted and

this lesser plan to be selected as the Recommended Plan. This process is addressed in more detail later in

this report.

All structural and nonstructural measures for navigation projects should be evaluated using the

appropriate period of analysis and the currently applicable interest rate. Total annual costs should include

amounts for operation, maintenance, and major replacements, as well as amortization and interest on the

investment.

III.I ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA

The general environmental standards for navigation projects are identified in Federal laws, executive

orders, and the USACE planning guidance. It is Federal policy that conservation of fish and wildlife

resources be given equal consideration with other study purposes in the formulation and evaluation of

alternatives. Care must be taken to preserve and protect significant ecological, aesthetic, and cultural

values and to conserve natural resources. These efforts should provide the means to maintain and restore,

as applicable, the desirable quality of the human and natural environments.

Throughout the study process, the USACE Environmental Operating Principles (EOP) should be

considered. The EOP principles ensure conservation, environmental preservation, and restoration are

considered at the same level as economic issues. The seven EOP principles are (1) strive for

environmental sustainability, (2) consider environmental consequences, (3) seek balance and synergy, (4)

accept responsibility, (5) mitigate impacts, (6) understand the environment, and (7) respect other views.

Consistent with laws and policy, alternative plans formulated to improve navigation should avoid

damaging the environment to the extent practicable and contain measures to minimize or mitigate

unavoidable environmental impacts. The following criteria were used to address environmental impacts

during the evaluation of alternatives:

• Protection, preservation, and improvement of the existing fish and wildlife resources along with

the protection and preservation of estuarine and wetland habitats and water quality;

• Consideration in the project design of the least disruptive construction techniques and methods;

• Mitigation for project-related impacts by minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or eliminating

impacts, or compensating for unavoidable impacts by replacing or substituting resources;

• Protection and preservation of endangered and/or threatened species, Critical Habitat, and EFH;

and

• Preservation of significant historical and archeological resources through avoidance, if possible,

or data recovery if destruction of the resource is necessary.

67
III: Formulation Objectives, Constraints, and Criteria

III-6

III.J SOCIAL CRITERIA

Plans proposed for implementation should have an overall favorable impact on the social well-being of

affected interests (e.g., community impacts, health and safety, displacement, energy conservation, and

others) and have an overall public acceptance. Structural and nonstructural alternatives must reflect close

coordination with interested Federal and State agencies and the affected public. The effects of these

measures on the environment must be carefully identified and compared with technical, economic, and

social considerations and evaluated in light of public input.

III.K OTHER USACE INITIATIVES

USACE Campaign Plan

In August 2006, as a result of lessons learned from hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the USACE Chief of

Engineers initiated the “Actions for Change” in an effort to transform the USACE planning, design,

construction, and operation and maintenance principles and decision-making processes. This program has

been further developed into the Campaign Plan. The USACE is moving forward with this Campaign Plan

to transform the way business is done. The USACE Campaign Plan is available on the internet at:

http://www.usace.army.mil/about/campaignplan/Pages/Home.aspx (USACE, 2009b).

The successful achievement of the goals and objectives contained in this Campaign Plan are dependent on

actions implemented by the entire USACE team. The Campaign Plan included four goals for the USACE.

These goals are:

Goal 1: Ready for all Contingencies – Deliver USACE support to combat, stability, and disaster

operations through forward deployed and reachback capabilities.

Goal 2: Engineering Sustainable Water Resources - Deliver enduring and essential water

resource solutions through collaboration with partners and stakeholders.

Goal 3: Delivering Effective, Resilient, Sustainable Solutions - Deliver innovative, resilient,

sustainable solutions to the Armed Forces and the Nation.

Goal 4: Recruit and Retain Strong Teams – Build and cultivate a competent, disciplined, and

resilient team equipped to deliver high quality solutions.

Goals 1 and 4 do not apply directly to the USACE planning process and are not discussed in detail. Goals

2 and 3 pertain to water resources planning and directly to the SNWW study. These goals are described in

more detail below.

Goal 2: Engineering Sustainable Water Resources

With Goal 2 USACE focuses on comprehensive, sustainable, and integrated solutions to the Nation’s

water resources challenges through collaboration with stakeholders. This goal refers to not only

developing and delivering comprehensive and lasting solutions but also ensuring that these solutions are

long lasting, integrated, and holistic to respond to today’s and future challenges.

68
III: Formulation Objectives, Constraints, and Criteria

III-7

Goal 3: Delivering Effective, Resilient, Sustainable Solutions

Goal 3 emphasizes that the USACE will provide innovative, resilient, and sustainable infrastructure

solutions for the Nation today and in the future. The USACE is the Nation’s premier public service

engineering and construction organization and can provide infrastructure support to serve both the

military and national civilian arenas. This effort will improve resilience and lifecycle investment in

critical infrastructure, deliver reliable infrastructure using a risk-informed asset management strategy, and

develop and apply innovative approaches to delivering quality infrastructure.

69
III: Formulation Objectives, Constraints, and Criteria

III-8

This page intentionally left blank.

70
IV-1

IV. FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

IV.A OVERVIEW

Navigational and safety issues that have developed on the SNWW because of the growth in the area are

the water resources problems to be solved with this project. The ultimate objective of a feasibility study is

to arrive at a recommended plan after a full range of alternatives has been analyzed. This involves a

comparison between each alternative and the FWOP condition consequences, considering economic,

environmental, and social impacts.

This chapter provides a summary of the screening processes and evaluations conducted on the project

alternatives. Structural and nonstructural alternatives were identified based on their ability to address the

planning objectives, as well as the project problems, needs, concerns, and opportunities.

IV.B PLAN FORMULATION PROCESS

The planning framework requires a systematic preparation and evaluation of alternative ways of

addressing the project problems, needs, concerns, and opportunities while considering environmental

factors. The criteria and planning objectives previously identified form the basis for subsequent plan

formulation, alternative screening, and ultimately identification of the Recommended Plan. Planning for

Federal water resources projects constructed by the USACE, as well as other agencies, is based on the

Principles and Guidelines (P&G) adopted by the Water Resources Council. Based on the Economic and

Environmental Principles for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, there are four

accounts that have been established to facilitate evaluation and display of the effects of alternative plans

(ER 1105-2-100). The rationale for the Recommended Plan as it relates to these four accounts is

presented later in this chapter.

The planning process for this feasibility study has been driven by the overall objective of developing a

comprehensive plan that would allow for safe and efficient barge and ship traffic along the SNWW while

protecting the Nation’s environmental resources. Secondary objectives have been to address other related

water resources problems within the study area.

The first phase of the study process was to determine the magnitude and extent of the problems along the

SNWW, then to develop and evaluate an array of alternative solutions to meet the existing and long-range

future needs of the Sponsor and the public. During the feasibility phase of the project, lines of communication were opened with Federal, State, and local agencies, private groups, and the affected public.

Through scoping and other coordination meetings, public involvement occurred throughout the planning

process.

The expected FWOP scenario was first developed for comparison with other alternatives. Nonstructural

and structural plans were developed to address the planning objectives identified earlier in this report. For

the structural plans, a variety of channel modifications and dredged material placement alternatives were

developed, evaluated, and screened. The various channel modifications were investigated as to a possible

71
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-2

means to satisfy the objectives of constructing a safer, more-efficient waterway. Through a two-phased

(preliminary and detailed) screening process, a recommended channel modification plan for the SNWW

was selected. Figure IV-1 presents the process used to identify and evaluate project alternatives.

Figure IV-1. Planning Process

IV.C PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

During preliminary screening, the expected “No Action” Alternative was developed for comparison with

other alternatives. Nonstructural and structural alternatives that could address planning objectives were

also developed.

Future Without-Project Condition (No-Action Alternative)

The USACE is required to consider the option of “No Action” as one of the alternatives in order to

comply with ER 1105-2-100 and the requirements of NEPA. With the No-Action Alternative, which is

synonymous with the FWOP condition, it is assumed that no project would be implemented by the

Federal Government or by local interests to achieve the planning objectives of improving the navigational

efficiency and safety of the waterway. The No-Action Alternative forms the basis against which all other

alternative plans are measured.

The No-Action Alternative would retain the existing 40-foot-deep SNWW navigation channel with its

various widths along the waterway. The current dimensions would continue to limit the efficient

72
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-3

movement of commodities by vessels traveling the waterway and the safety limitations that result in oneway and daylight-only sailing restrictions. Under the FWOP condition, safety would continue to be a

concern for the waterway users and the local communities adjacent to the waterway.

The waterway is often congested because of frequent movements of lightered vessels carrying petroleum

products from the Gulf to refineries on the Neches River Channel, and because of barge through-traffic

using the GIWW. Vessels are now wider, placing limitations on the combined beam widths and drafts for

vessel meetings on the waterway. As vessels increase in draft and beam width, the restrictive depth and

width in certain reaches of the waterway would prevent some vessels from entering with full loads or

prevent larger vessels from even utilizing the waterway. The potential for accidents on the waterway and

their effects on users and the local communities adjacent to the waterway would remain the same. The

need to lighter products and/or light load vessels would increase, thereby increasing overall project costs

and decreasing the efficiency of the vessels using the waterway.

Methods of shipping crude oil are direct, lightered, and lightened. Direct shipment, as the name implies, is

the transfer of tonnage by vessel between two coastal ports. Lightering involves the transfer of tonnage at

an offshore location from a larger vessel, called a VLCC, onto one or more shuttle vessels. U.S. Gulf

Coast lightering occurs in the international waters of the Gulf of Mexico and is extremely cost effective

for long-haul bulk freight. With lightering, the VLCC does not enter the coastal receiving port. A frequent

alternative to either direct shipment or lightering is lightening. The term lightening describes the process

where enough cargo is offloaded from a tanker to permit the light-loaded vessel to enter a confined

channel system.

It is expected that imports of crude oil and petroleum products would continue to expand to keep pace

with the predicted national need for these products and the projected continuing declines in U.S.

production. Vessel trips would increase to accommodate the higher imports, and higher costs associated

with the current lightering and vessel movement limitations would continue. In addition to increasing

petroleum imports, continued growth of petroleum and chemical exports is expected. The need for dock

reinforcement and stabilization necessary to realize project-deepening benefits was recognized in the plan

formulation process. The costs associated with berth stabilization necessary due to channel deepening are

included in the project construction cost calculations. Crude petroleum refinery expansion was initiated

by Motiva in 2007 due to current refinery limitations and future throughput needs. Dock improvements

on both the Neches River and Taylor Bayou were recently completed by industry to accommodate larger

crude oil vessels. The results of the plan formulation analyses indicated that berth and terminal capacities

were not a constraint to realizing benefits from using larger and more-fully loaded vessels.

Increased vessel trips associated with higher tonnage and increasing concentration of larger vessels would

exacerbate the existing channel bank erosion caused by vessel wakes in the confined channel reaches of

the SNWW. It is projected that the existing trend in wetland losses would continue due to the combined

effect of sea level rise and subsidence, and altered hydrology and salinity levels caused by the existing

SNWW navigation channels, the GIWW, and canals, levees, and water control structures associated with

oil and gas exploration and production, logging, fishing, and hunting lands.

73
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-4

The No-Action Alternative would continue disposal activities for maintenance material from the 40-foot

project in conformance with most, but not all, existing practices. In this Final Feasibility Report (FFR),

the DMMP for the No-Action Alternative (the FWOP) is referred to as the Base Plan. The Base Plan

forecasts disposal facility needs for all material that would be generated by maintenance dredging of the

existing 40-foot project over a 50-year period of analysis. The 50-year analysis determined that additional

capacity in upland PAs would be required, and it identified a least-cost BU feature that should be adopted

as part of the Base Plan.

No differences from existing offshore placement activities were identified for the Base Plan. The offshore

channels (Sabine Bank Channel, Sabine Pass Outer Bar, and Sabine Pass Jetty Channel) would be

maintained with a hopper dredge, and approximately 162 million cubic yards (mcy) of material would be

placed in the four existing ODMDSs (sites 1–4). Bed sediments in the offshore channels vary from 4.3

percent sand and 95.7 percent silt plus clay in the Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel to 24.3 percent sand and

75.7 percent silt plus clay in the Sabine Bank Channel (Parchure et al., 2005). These ODMDSs have

sufficient capacity for the 50-year period of analysis as they are located in a dispersive environment

where dredged material does not accumulate.

For the inshore Sabine Pass Channel, a cost analysis of placement alternatives (presented in Chapter VII)

resulted in a change from traditional upland placement practices involving PA 5. Rather than placing all

of the maintenance material from this channel into upland PA 5, the BU of material from the channel

section closest to the coast (Sabine Pass Channel, Section 5) was evaluated to determine whether it could

be used to nourish the Gulf shoreline on both sides of Sabine Pass. Material from Sabine Pass Channel

would continue to be placed into PA 5 because the longer pumping distance to the coast makes shore

nourishment cost prohibitive. The cost analysis determined that the Gulf Shore BU Feature is more cost

effective than placing the material in the upland PA 5, and therefore it was adopted as part of the Base

Plan.

Under the Base Plan, all of the inshore channels of the existing project (Sabine Pass Channel, Port Arthur

Canal, Sabine-Neches Canal, and the Neches River Channel) would continue to be maintained by

hydraulic pipeline dredge. Material from non-Federal dredging of private mooring and dock facilities

would also continue to be placed in upland PAs along with the material from the Federal project. Existing

management practices that utilize 16 upland PAs located adjacent to the channel from Sabine Pass to the

Beaumont TB would continue. To contain 231.6 mcy of material over the 50-year period of analysis, the

heights of existing PAs would be raised on a regular, recurring schedule in accordance with existing

SNWW management practices. One new PA in the middle reach of the Neches River Channel (an

expansion cell at PA 24A) would be needed to provide sufficient capacity for the period of analysis. On

average, bed sediments vary in the inland channels from 38.3 percent sand and 61.7 percent silt plus clay

in the Neches River Channel, to 16.2 percent sand and 83.8 percent silt plus clay in the Port Arthur Canal

(Parchure et al., 2005). BU features are not included in the Base Plan for the inland channels because the

lack of suitable material makes construction and maintenance of containment levees more expensive than

placing the material in existing PAs. However, BU of dredged material (Section 204) projects would be

74
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-5

considered on a project-by-project basis if non-Federal sponsors express an interest in paying the

incremental cost for such projects.

Preliminary Screening of Alternatives

Based on the problems and opportunities identified by the Sponsor and the public comments received at

the May 2000 public scoping meeting, a wide variety of management measures (alternatives) were

identified to address one or more of the planning objectives. A preliminary (first) screening of the

alternatives was conducted to eliminate any alternatives that did not meet the study objectives. This

screening focused on whether deepening, and perhaps widening, would be cost effective, and whether any

nonstructural alternatives to deepening and/or widening could be identified.

In order to evaluate the preliminary alternatives, screening criteria that would likely have the most

influence in determining the viability of the alternatives were identified. The following criteria were used

to evaluate and screen the alternatives:

– Dredging Quantities – Environmental Considerations

– Cultural Resource Concerns – Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste

– Real Estate Issues Concerns

– Project Benefits – Construction Costs

– Safety Issues – Sponsor’s Preferences

Each of the following alternatives was assessed and a determination made regarding whether it should be

retained for the second screening of alternative plans. The following is a list of the preliminary

alternatives considered:

Nonstructural Alternatives

• Alternate mode of commodity transport,

• Vessel traffic service, and

• Modification of existing pilot rules on the waterway.

Structural Alternatives

• Deepening only (43-, 45-, 48-, 50-, 53-, 55-foot depths)

• Widening only, along the entire channel (widths varying from 500 to 700 feet) from Sabine Pass

to the Port of Beaumont

• Deepening and widening (combinations of six depths and various widths for entire channel

length)

• Selective widening only (widening only certain reaches of the channel)

• Deepening with selective widening (combination of depths and widening options)

75
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-6

• Expansion of existing and construction of new TB and/or AB

• Construction of barge lanes (for passing)

Plans Eliminated During Preliminary Screening

All of the nonstructural plans were advanced into the second screening because it was determined that

these alternatives could potentially meet one or more of the planning objectives, but a more in-depth

analysis would be necessary for a full assessment. In addition, most of the structural alternatives were also

advanced into the second screening. It was found that deepening and widening the existing 40-foot

channel would allow for existing ships to more fully utilize the channel and potentially reduce traffic

delays, without prohibitive costs.

Two of the preliminary structural alternatives considered were found to be infeasible due to technical,

economic, and environmental constraints, and were therefore not advanced into the second screening:

• Widening the entire existing channel from Sabine Pass to the Port of Beaumont, at widths varying

from 500 to 700 feet, was found to be infeasible based upon a number of criteria. The length of

the widening would generate a tremendous quantity of dredged material, resulting in greatly

increased costs for construction and placement facilities. A number of large commercial docks

and berthing facilities are located along the channel, and these would be disrupted or displaced by

widening activities. The Martin Luther King (MLK) Bridge that crosses the Port Arthur Canal

would need to be relocated as the existing span is not wide enough to accommodate channel

widening. The widening would affect a large amount of emergent land, especially along the

narrow confined Port Arthur Canal and narrower sections of the Neches River. Landfills

containing hazardous materials would be affected by the widening, as well as some wetland areas.

And perhaps most pertinent, widening only would not provide the additional draft needed to

increase navigation efficiency for the largest number of waterway users.

• Selective widening only (widening only certain reaches of the channel) would reduce or eliminate

some of the environmental, real estate, and cost concerns discussed above. However, selective

widening would provide even fewer navigation benefits than the widening for the entire channel

and also would not increase navigation efficiency for the largest number of waterway users.

IV.D SECOND SCREENING

The alternatives remaining from the preliminary screening underwent more-detailed analyses. These

analyses were conducted on three nonstructural plans and over 120 structural combinations of the

alternative depths and widths (including seven TBs and anchorage features). Alternatives were evaluated

for a 50-year period of analysis.

Technical Studies

To evaluate the depth alternatives with selective widening options, TBs, and barge lanes, several technical

studies were conducted by the ERDC and IWR. The additional study efforts included:

76
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-7

• Hydrodynamic/Salinity Modeling Study (ERDC)

• Ship Simulation Study (ERDC)

• Sediment Study and Velocity Analysis (ERDC)

• Vessel Effects Study (ERDC)

• Gulf Shoreline Desktop Study (ERDC)

• Harbor Simulation Model (Widening Analysis) (IWR)

The reports from these studies are available upon request from the USACE. The following is a brief

overview of each of the studies:

Hydrodynamic-Salinity Model. The HS model study was conducted to determine the hydrodynamics

(water levels and current velocities) of the SNWW and the potential salinity impacts due to the proposed

deepening and widening of the existing channel (Brown and Stokes, 2009). The model was originally

developed by Resources Management Associates (King, 1993) and extensively modified by the ERDC

staff. The model has been used extensively over the past decade on such projects including the HoustonGalveston Navigation Channels; New York Harbor; St. Johns River, Florida; and Atchafalaya Bay,

Louisiana. The model was performed for the 48- and 50-foot channel depths. The 45-foot channel depth

was not modeled since the salinity differences between 45-foot and 48-foot depths were expected to be

similarly small (FEIS, Section 2.3.2)

Ship Simulation. The ship simulation was used to determine navigation and safety impacts due to

anticipated changes in vessel sizes as a result of the proposed channel widening (Webb, 2003). The main

objective of the study was to determine whether the “design” ship could safely operate within the width

and depth of the proposed channel dimensions. The simulation was conducted on a channel depth of

50 feet with varying widths and proposed barge lanes, including simulation of Taylor Bayou. Additional

ship simulation was conducted to determine the navigation and safety implications of reducing the

offshore entrance channel from its existing 800-foot width to a 700-foot width.

Sediment Study and Velocity Analysis. To determine anticipated shoaling rates (sediment build-up)

along the waterway and estimate any increases in channel erosion, a sediment study was conducted

(Parchure et al., 2005). Erosion concerns along Pleasure Island and East Sabine Lake were also addressed

by the analysis. An additional study effort was performed along the Pleasure Island reach and SabineNeches Canal to determine whether the channel velocities in these areas would result in increased channel

erosion.

Vessel Effects Study. A vessel effects study was conducted to determine the potential erosional effects to

Pleasure Island from vessel traffic in the Port Arthur and Sabine-Neches canals (Maynord, 2005). Project

vessel traffic was modeled with HIVEL2D, a two-dimensional (2-D) finite element model designed

specifically to simulate flow in typical high-velocity channels. The model has been used since the mid1980s and is maintained by the ERDC-Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL).

77
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-8

Gulf Shoreline Study. This ERDC-CHL study was conducted 10 miles on either side of the SNWW

entrance channel to determine potential erosion impacts to the existing shoreline at the Gulf of Mexico,

on the Texas and Louisiana sides of the channel (Gravens and King, 2003). The spectral nearshore wave

transformation model, Steady State Spectral Wave (STWAVE), was applied to examine wave conditions

within a bathymetry grid extending 20 miles along the shoreline. The STWAVE model has been used on

studies at Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, Washington, and Ponce de Leon, Florida.

Harbor Simulation Model. The HarborSym model was used to evaluate widening of the entrance

channel. HarborSym is a planning-level model developed by the IWR to assist in economic analyses of

channel-widening improvements. The model creates an event-driven simulation based on empirical data

and includes data from user-specified transit rules that the model processes with each vessel call in order

to calculate delays within the system. More-detailed information on the model results can be found in the

Economic Appendix of this report.

Nonstructural Alternatives

The nonstructural alternatives were evaluated during the preliminary screening process to determine their

ability to meet some or all of the planning objectives for the project. The nonstructural alternatives

evaluated the use of a VTS to alleviate transportation inefficiency and safety concerns, the relaxation of

existing pilot rules, and an alternative mode of commodity transport.

Vessel Traffic Service

The existing VTS along the SNWW was evaluated as a nonstructural alternative. Although this service is

managed by the USCG and thus is not within the jurisdiction of the USACE, it was evaluated because it

appeared to be a potential alternative to structural plans. The VTS was authorized by certain sections of

the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972; the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 made participation mandatory

in areas serviced by existing and future VTS (USCG, 2008a). The purpose of VTS is to provide active

monitoring and navigational advice for vessels in particularly confined and busy waterways. VTS is

designed to expedite ship movements, increase transportation system efficiency, improve all-weather

operating capability, and enhance vessel safety and marine environmental protection (USCG, 2007,

2008b).

The VTS Center in Port Arthur monitors every ship, vessel, or boat that attempts to enter or leave the

SNWW and the GIWW in the Port Arthur service area. Infrared cameras, along with radar, radiotelephone reports from vessel operators, and satellite surveillance sensors on towers along the SNWW,

allow VTS controllers to zoom-in on vessel activity at a moment’s notice. The satellite-based Automatic

Identification System (AIS), required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, assists the

VTS by determining exactly what a specific commercial vessel is carrying, along with its speed,

dimensions, and destination. Most commercial vessels using the waterway were required to have AIS

equipment installed by the end of 2004 (USCG, 2004). These include power-driven vessels 66 feet in

length or longer, power-driven vessels of 100 gross tons or more carrying one or more passengers for

hire, towing vessels 26 feet or longer while navigating, all dredges and floating plant likely to restrict or

78
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-9

affect the navigation of other vessels, and all vessels required to participate in the Vessel Movement

Reporting System. However, not all vessels are required to carry AIS; in particular, pleasure crafts,

fishing boats, and warships are exempt.

Currently, the VTS Port Arthur is a voluntary system operated in accordance with existing VTS

regulations. Until rules regarding VTS Port Arthur are published, vessels are exempt from all VTS and

vessel movement reporting system requirements, except the requirement for AIS continuous broadcasts.

When VTS Port Arthur is included in the VTS regulation, participation will become mandatory. At that

time, VTS Port Arthur would be authorized to designate temporary reporting points and procedures,

impose vessel-operating requirements, or establish vessel traffic routing schemes. During conditions of

vessel congestion, restricted visibility, adverse weather, or other hazardous circumstances, VTS may

control or manage traffic by specifying times of entry, movement, or departure to, from, or within a VTS

area.

While the VTS would help congestion and improve safety to some degree, the USCG’s traffic

management role is limited to specific circumstances when the SNWW is congested or experiencing

hazardous conditions. The VTS assists vessel operators in making independent decisions regarding the

safe navigation of their vessels, for which they retain complete responsibility. In this sense, VTS should

be considered primarily a navigational aid, a tool for mariners to use along with numerous other tools to

facilitate safe navigation (USCG, 2008b), and thus would not improve deep-draft navigation

inefficiencies created by the need for lightering and associated vessel delays.

Relaxation of Existing Pilot Rules

The SNWW is currently subject to transit rules that are needed for the pilots to safely guide large tankers

through the existing, narrow channel. Relaxation of these rules as an alternative to channel improvements

was evaluated. These transit rules or restrictions are agreed upon by the shipping industry, supported by

the USCG Captain of the Port Orders under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1978, as amended,

and administered by the Sabine Pilots (2007). The agreement, dated January 12, 1981, will remain in

force until the Sabine shipping industries, SPA, and USCG agree to its revision or modification.

The existing 700-foot-wide reach of the SNWW channel does not have vessel-meeting restrictions;

however, in the narrower channel reaches vessel-meeting restrictions are currently imposed. The specific

rules posted by the Sabine Pilots are displayed in Table VI-54. A general overview of the transit rules are:

• Daylight-only sailing restrictions applied in specific reaches for vessels that exceed certain DWT,

length, and breadth criteria.

• No meeting during nighttime sailing for vessels exceeding a given draft limitation.

• No meeting during either day or night, applied to vessels by DWT, length, breadth, and draft

combinations.

Relaxation of the existing pilot rules for the waterway was considered as a nonstructural alternative.

However, given concerns about vessel handling and associated safety issues and that vessels utilizing the

79
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-10

waterway are wider than those using the channel even 5 to 10 years ago, the Sabine Pilots would not

consider relaxing the rules. The expectation for the with- and without-project future is that pilot rules

would continue to limit the possibility of vessel meetings in the Sabine-Neches Canal reach and that both

vessel and shallow-draft tow movements would be scheduled through both VTS and communication

between vessel pilots. More discussion of the transit rules and coordination with the SPA can be found in

Chapter V, Economic Evaluation of Alternatives.

Alternative Mode of Commodity Transport

Offshore oil terminals were evaluated as an alternative mode of commodity transport to determine

whether it was economically more effective for the primary users of the waterway (crude oil tankers) to

utilize this mode of transportation than it would be to construct a deeper and wider channel. Two offshore

terminal alternatives were considered in the analysis, one existing and one proposed. The decision to use

an offshore terminal instead of lightering or constructing a deeper channel is complicated but largely

depends on the relative cost per ton, relative market volumes, and facility accessibility.

Louisiana Offshore Oil Port

Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) is America's first and only deepwater (offshore) port and has been

operating at capacity since 2005. The LOOP is located offshore of Grande Isle, Louisiana, in 110 feet of

water. Grande Isle is 302 miles east of Port Arthur and Beaumont. The LOOP was organized in 1972 as a

Delaware corporation and converted to a limited liability company in 1996. Marathon Ashland Pipe Line

LLC, Murphy Oil Corporation, and Shell Oil Company are the LOOP’s owners. The LOOP is the only

port in the U.S. capable of offloading deep-draft tankers known as Ultra Large Crude Carriers and VLCC.

Along with offloading crude from VLCC, the LOOP also offloads smaller tankers. The LOOP consists of

three single-point mooring buoys used for the offloading of crude tankers and a marine terminal

consisting of a two-level pumping platform and a three-level control platform.

Access to the LOOP for the SNWW market would require substantial investment as SNWW crude oil

import volume nearly equals LOOP’s capacity. The LOOP’s design capacity of 1.4 to 1.8 million barrels

per day is marginally higher than SNWW 2004–2006 crude petroleum import volume, which ranged from

1.2 to 1.4 million barrels per day (USACE, 2007a). The investment necessary for LOOP to process

SNWW’s entire crude petroleum throughput would require a doubling of capacity

A 48-inch-diameter pipeline connects the LOOP Marine Terminal located 23 miles offshore in the Gulf of

Mexico to the Clovelly, Louisiana, storage facilities. Clovelly is approximately 260 miles east of the

SNWW Port Arthur and Beaumont facilities. Four pipelines connect the onshore storage facility to

refineries in Louisiana and along the Gulf Coast. The Clovelly facility provides interim storage for crude

oil before it is delivered via connecting pipelines to refineries on the Gulf Coast and in the Midwest. The

oil is stored in eight underground caverns leached out of a naturally occurring salt dome. In 1996, one

cavern was dedicated to the production streams coming in from the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.

80
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-11

The domestic offshore crude oil system uses the same distribution system used by the foreign barrels. The

caverns are capable of storing approximately 50 million barrels of crude oil (a barrel of oil is equal to

42 U.S. gallons). In addition, LOOP has an aboveground tank farm consisting of six 600,000-barrel tanks.

LOOP operates the 53-mile, 48-inch LOCAP pipeline that connects the LOOP to CAPLINE (Amoco

Cushing-Chicago Pipeline Company) at St. James, Louisiana. CAPLINE is a 40-inch pipeline that

transports crude oil to several Midwest refineries. St. James is 227 miles east of Port Arthur and

Beaumont. LOOP is connected to over 50 percent of the U.S. refinery capacity and has offloaded over

7 billion barrels of foreign crude oil since its inception.

Present users of LOOP consist of Louisiana-based refineries and U.S. Gulf Coast state domestic offshore

production interests. In addition to new customers brought on due to infrastructure damages associated

with the 2005 hurricanes, recent increase in the LOOP is tied to utilization associated with domestic

production in the U.S. Gulf. It was noted that LOOP’s existing base of customers uses it as one of several

options for delivering crude oil to their Gulf Coast refineries (personal communication with Kathleen

Jackson, Exxon, 2007). While all of SNWW’s crude oil could not currently transfer to LOOP, additional

tonnage could potentially be diverted. SNWW users continue to consider LOOP along with other

alternatives; however, continued practices suggest that LOOP is not a cost-effective alternative to the

existing SNWW practice of its land-based ports. The large fixed cost of expansion, and associated

financing costs, necessitates participation by a consortium of companies. SNWW industries have not

found the option of investing in LOOP, and the necessary associated infrastructure expansions, to be a

cost-effective alternative to existing practices of either direct shipment or offshore lightering. The lack of

incentive has remained since the 1970s. An additional variable pertinent to the current evaluation is that

LOOP would appear to be a less-attractive cost option when compared to lower shipping costs that the

SNWW improvement project is expected to provide.

LOOP is designed to handle 1.4 million barrels per day, but depending on the sizes of ships being

serviced, it can handle 1.8 million barrels per day. The variance relates to the pumping rates of the tankers

using the facility. Larger tankers tend to have faster pumping rates with some capable of pumping 80,000

barrels per hour. Smaller tankers may only be able to pump 35,000 barrels per hour. When fully

operational, LOOP is generally the largest point of entry for crude oil imports into the U.S. About

13 percent of all waterborne foreign imports pass through LOOP each day. Again, LOOP’s design

capacity of 1.4 to 1.8 million barrels per day is only marginally higher than SNWW 2004–2006 crude

petroleum import volume, which ranged from 1.2 to 1.4 million barrels per day. Of SNWW’s

approximately 1.3 million barrels per day import volume, terminals on the SNWW transport

approximately 400,000 barrels per day of waterborne crude oil via pipelines to inland refineries including

refineries in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, Arkansas, and Kentucky (Martin Associates, 2006). In

total, the SNWW delivers approximately 12 to 16 percent of the crude oil supplied to domestic refineries

east of the Rockies. Refineries supplied via the SNWW provide transportation fuels and other products to

consumers along the Gulf Coast, East Coast, and Midwest regions. The SNWW ports presently receive

about 1 percent of their daily input through LOOP. Additional offshore and landside infrastructure would

be necessary for an increase in volume to take place.

81
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-12

Although there are some competing markets, the SNWW and LOOP generally serve parallel markets with

LOOP consistently processing very large volumes and SNWW serving relatively smaller parcels. The

sizes of the VLCC using LOOP typically exceed 300,000 DWT, whereas the maximum sized vessels

using the SNWW are 175,000 DWT. The maximum design draft of these vessels is 55 feet or less. The

minimum sized crude oil tankers using SNWW are in the 70,000 to 80,000 DWT range and have design

drafts between 40 and 48 feet. LOOP’s foreign petroleum imports are from the Middle East, whereas

SNWW’s market consists of direct shipments from Mexico and Venezuela and lightened mother vessels

and shuttles. It has been noted that the cost effectiveness of LOOP lessens for small vessel sizes. The

SNWW has the ability to serve a more general market and range of users. In discussions with local port

and oil industry personnel, it is noted that LOOP and similar proposals serve crude petroleum but do not

serve a full range of petroleum and bulk cargoes that use the SNWW.

The most-immediate obstacle to increased use of LOOP or a new offshore facility is major limitations for

direct connection from LOOP to SNWW. A marginal increase in SNWW use of LOOP from its present

1 percent share would require LOOP pipeline connection modifications involving multiple pipelines and

multiple companies. Such an investment may generate the necessity for higher throughput charges, which

in turn may make access less cost effective than in the past. An industry analyst noted that, to a large

extent, the companies demand that each segment, including pipeline transportation, stand on its own

economically (Rabinow, 2004). The long-term availability of LOOP since the 1970s and low participation

by SNWW companies indicate that LOOP and new offshore terminal proposals have not provided the

market utilization incentives for significant shares of SNWW crude oil to shift towards these alternatives.

The long-term trend is for domestic refining capacity to become more concentrated in regional centers

and for imports of petroleum products to grow. This trend is evident with SNWW with crude oil import

tonnage exceeding that of any other U.S. port and being equal to LOOP. Imports of refined products and

partial refined crude oil have grown significantly as have the use of draft-constrained vessels for

transporting these cargoes.

Bulk Oil Offshore Transfer System

Consideration of a Texas offshore oil terminal was also recognized as an alternative. In 2001,

construction of a new terminal (called the Bulk Oil Offshore Transfer System, or BOOTS) offshore of

Sabine Pass, Texas, was proposed. The relatively long distance from LOOP to SNWW and the need for

additional infrastructure suggest that a facility closer to SNWW would be an attractive alternative to

LOOP for SNWW channel improvements. However, the BOOTS facility has not yet been constructed and

the regulatory permit application is inactive. The USCG has had no update on the proposal and does not

expect a submittal. At the present time, the potential user of the proposed project is the terminal

proponent. They noted that their participation as sole supporter is not feasible financially. It was

specifically noted that their feedstock needs were not sufficient to finance the expansions to LOOP.

The BOOTs project proponent was contacted, and it was found that a new location farther down the

Texas Coast near Freeport is presently being considered. The Freeport, Texas, site is about 100 miles

southwest of the previous BOOTS location. Access by the SNWW refineries to a Freeport site involves

82
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-13

longer distances than the previous BOOTS location but it has advantages over LOOP. There is an existing

pipeline from Freeport to Texas City; however, its connection to Port Arthur would necessitate a new

pipeline from Texas City to SNWW, a distance of approximately 95 miles. Construction of a Freeport

offshore facility could help serve the Freeport, Houston, and Texas City markets. Freeport’s annual crude

oil import volumes for the most recent 3-year period equate to approximately 0.4 million barrels per day;

Houston’s imports equate to about 1.0 million barrels per day; and Texas City’s imports equate to about

0.9 million barrels per day. Industry indications are that the use of an offshore Freeport terminal would

not serve as the exclusive supplier, just as LOOP is not the exclusive supplier for the Louisiana markets.

Foreign imports by vessels into Louisiana and Mississippi are presently about 0.8 million barrels per day.

In a general discussion with industry, a representative noted that offshore oil terminal projects surface

periodically, but the cost of these alternatives keeps them from moving beyond the initial planning stage.

It is noted that the attractiveness of offshore alternatives over existing use of the SNWW is diminished by

its ability to only serve one commodity (i.e., crude petroleum). It was added that the various crude oil

blends and grades of oil introduce a range of additional concerns that add to throughput costs. The

pipelines and associated infrastructure requirements vary between potential users and mingling of

products and grades of crude is complex and difficult to facilitate. The construction of an offshore

terminal that can meet the needs of various users is a challenge with the costs to realize multiparty usage

creating an impasse to these proposals moving beyond the initial planning stage. Recognition of the cost

of multiple pipelines necessary to meet the needs of the large base of customers necessary to finance these

project alternatives has resulted in a stalemate in the decision process.

Expansion of LOOP, construction of a new offshore facility such as BOOTS, or an unloading terminal

along the Sabine Pass or Port Arthur Canal reaches would reduce the vessel traffic on the Neches River.

The reduction in ship traffic resulting from LOOP or BOOTS would reduce the economic viability of the

SNWW deepening and widening project. However, past and present trends in infrastructure and fleet

investments indicate that industry intends to continue using the Neches River Channel. An increase in the

number of specially designed SNWW vessels was recently completed by one company, and another has

invested in Neches River dock modifications for the larger “Aframax” and “Suezmax” vessels. The focus

of immediate private sector petroleum vessel investments is concentrated on SNWW improvements rather

than offshore or on the Sabine Pass Channel or Port Arthur Canal.

SNWW industry evaluation of offshore alternatives remains a reality; however, specific investments and

commitments have not been made during a period when industry has invested in construction of new

crude petroleum docks on the Neches River and in Port Arthur. Ongoing consultation with industry

continues to show that commitments to offshore terminal investment have not materialized. During the

30 years since LOOP has become operational, several Texas Gulf Coast channel improvement projects

have been completed and the benefits have been accrued. Offshore terminals would not accommodate

products other than crude oil, and a significant proportion of benefits for the SNWW project improvement

are from refined petroleum products. The offshore terminal was not found to meet the efficiency objective

for all waterway users as it addressed the needs of only one user and commodity (crude oil). For these

reasons, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.

83
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-14

Structural Alternatives

In order to reach the appropriate depths offshore, all deepening alternatives would involve an increase in

the Entrance Channel ranging from 5 to 25 miles in length. Deepening and widening alternatives that

were evaluated during this second screening analysis are listed in Table IV- 1.

Table IV-1

Structural Alternatives

Alternative

Depths (feet)

Evaluated Section/Reach to be Widened Widths (feet) Evaluated

No Action 40 None Existing – Sabine Bank Channel to Outer

Bar Channel – 800

Jetty Channel to Port Arthur Canal – 500

Sabine-Neches Canal/Neches River

Channel – 400

Deepen only 43, 45, 48, 50,

53, 55

None Existing

Deepen and

Widen

43, 45, 48, 50,

53, 55

Sabine-Neches Canal/Neches River

Channel to Beaumont

Widen to match lower reach – 500

Deepen and

Widen

43, 45, 48, 50,

53, 55

Sabine Pass Channel – Sta. 180+00

to Port Arthur Canal – Sta. 275+00

600 or 700

Deepen and

Widen

43, 45, 48, 50,

53, 55

Sabine Pass Channel – Sta. 265+00

to Port Arthur Canal – Sta. 85+00

600 or 700

Deepen and

Widen

43, 45, 48, 50,

53, 55

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel 600 or 700

Deepen and

Widen

43, 45, 48, 50,

53, 55

Sabine-Neches Canal 500, 600, 700, selective widening, or barge

lanes

Deepen and

Widen

43, 45, 48, 50,

53, 55

Neches River Channel 600, 700 or Turning Basins/Anchorages

Deepen and

Widen

45, 48, 50 Sabine Pass Jetty Channel to Port

Arthur Canal, selective widening

on Taylor Bayou

700

Additional engineering and environmental analyses were conducted to identify the specific channel

modifications and environmental impacts for the various depths. Modifications to these alternatives were

considered in an effort to decrease costs and identify an economically justified project. As part of the

iterative plan formulation process, the following alternatives were added:

• Deepening the SNWW to Beaumont to 48 feet, widening to 700 feet width through the end of the

Port Arthur Canal, and deepening and widening the Taylor Bayou Channel and TBs, but with a

modification (narrowing) of the Outer Bank and Sabine Bank channels to 700 feet width through

the end of the channel.

• Deepening the SNWW to Beaumont to 48 feet, widening to 700 feet width through the end of the

Port Arthur Canal, deepening and widening the Taylor Bayou Channel and TBs, and tapering

Sabine Bank Channel from 800 feet wide (Station 23+300) to 700 feet wide (Station 25+800

through end of the channel).

84
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-15

• Deepening the SNWW to Beaumont to 47 feet, widening to 700 feet width through the end of the

Port Arthur Canal, deepening and widening the Taylor Bayou Channel and TBs, and narrowing of

the Outer Bar and Sabine Bank channels to 700 feet width through the end of the channel. The

47-foot depth alternative was considered later in plan formulation phase in an attempt to reduce

project costs and find an economically justified project. This alternative was later dropped since a

modification to the original 48-foot depth alternative was found to be economically justified.

Evaluation of Alternatives

As a result of the second screening, detailed evaluations were conducted on channel depths of 45, 48, and

50 feet in order to identify the optimal depth. Analysis of additional depths of 46, 47, and 49 feet were

conducted later in the study to further optimize the NED depth. Along with these above-mentioned

studies, various analyses including benefit and cost analyses, were conducted on the three alternative

depths including the selective widening and TB/anchorage area options.

Incremental analyses of separable elements were also performed to determine if each was economically

justified on its own. These separable elements included deepening to Port Arthur, deepening to

Beaumont, and deepening Taylor Bayou with selective widening to ease navigation problems.

Second screening costs for the three depths were revised to include additional estimates developed for

dock modifications, dock dredging, bridge pier replacement, costs for TBs and AB, and operations and

maintenance (O&M) (including extension of the channel into the Gulf of Mexico to reach the proposed

depth alternatives). Mitigation costs were assumed to be the same for each alternative for the reasons

described below. Throughout this detailed analysis, environmental coordination and evaluation efforts

were being conducted with the State and Federal resource agencies to identify mitigation requirements

and BU locations for the estimated new work and maintenance material for the 50-year period of analysis.

Ecological mitigation costs for the six depth alternatives were estimated using the HS model salinity

projection for the 40-, 45-, and 48-foot channel depths. Salinity was chosen as the best factor on which to

base interpolation of mitigation costs because it is the primary driver in the ecological modeling that was

used to determine the compensatory mitigation plan. The cost interpolation assumed that there would be a

linear relationship between predicted salinities for each channel depth at the end of the period of analysis

and the cost of mitigation.

Direct ecological effects associated with the navigation channel improvements under all proposed

alternatives and the placement of dredged material consist of:

• Impacts to benthic organisms and their Gulf, estuarine, and riverine water-bottom habitats would

be similar for all alternatives. Benthic organisms are expected to quickly rebound from the shortterm impacts of channel dredging, the use of offshore PAs, and the Sabine Lake borrow

trench/access channel associated with compensatory mitigation in Louisiana.

• Dredging impacts to bottom-feeding and pelagic organisms such as sea turtles may occur with

hopper dredging of offshore channel reaches for all alternatives; reasonable and prudent measures

to avoid impacts would be instituted with an avoidance plan.

85
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-16

• Impacts to marsh would result from the enlargement of one PA under the No-Action Alternative,

and two PAs under all other alternatives. The new PAs would be small and the incremental cost

associated with one additional PA are too small to affect alternative selection. Most PAs would be

enlarged by raising levee heights, which means that the footprint of the PA impacts would be

similar for all alternatives.

• Impacts to shorebirds and their habitat would result from the regular placement of maintenance

material on the Gulf shoreline under all alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative. Birds

would be temporarily displaced to nearby habitat during each placement episode. These impacts

would be minor and temporary, and the number and footprint of each placement episode would

be the same for each alternative.

Indirect effects provide the primary ecological impacts of all structural alternatives. Although the SNWW

channel is located primarily in Texas, large indirect impacts may occur in both Texas and Louisiana due

to small increases in salinity levels causing an increase in wetland loss rates and a decrease in biological

productivity in aquatic habitats of the study area. HS modeling indicates that none of the depth

alternatives would result in significant impacts to swamp and fresh marsh habitats in the upper reaches of

the Sabine and Neches rivers. Salinity impacts of the six depth alternatives to the vast saline through

intermediate marshes would be similar, with an average difference between the 45- and 50-foot

alternatives of less than 0.5 ppt.

Second Screening Costs

Second screening costs were prepared for the existing channel width (500 feet) at the six alternative

depths. These costs are included in Table IV-2. These estimates included costs for relocations (including

utility relocations), dredging, levee construction, engineering and design, and construction management.

Costs for selective widening to 700-foot widths were determined for two channel reaches for all six

alternative depths and the existing 40-foot depth. Costs for O&M for each of the structural alternatives

were not included in this second screening evaluation of the alternatives, but would be considered later in

the screening process. Costs for real estate lands and damages, mitigation, and BU features were not

calculated for the 120 plus variations during this screening. Project benefits were based on reductions in

transportation costs generated from more-efficient vessel loading and from reduction in vessel delays for

the channels to Port Arthur and Beaumont. With the high number of alternatives to be screened, the

results of the economic analysis, specifically the BCRs and the net excess benefits, were used as the main

screening tool.

Ecological benefits and mitigation costs were not calculated for the nonstructural and 120-plus variations

of structural alternatives for channel improvements during the screening process. However, all

alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative, were informally reviewed for potential effects to the

environment in a nonquantitative manner, and this information was evaluated along with cost data in

determining which plans would advance into detailed evaluation.

86
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-17

Table IV-2

SNWW (including Taylor Bayou and Neches River Channels)

Alternative First Cost

(2002 Calculations)

Channel Depth

(feet)

First Cost

Deepening ($)

43 134,295,000

45 191,843,000

48 297,787,000

50 373,275,000

53 496,691,000

55 575,436,000

Second Screening Economic Analysis

Project Benefits

An economic evaluation of various deepening and widening alternatives was conducted to identify

alternatives that maximized NED benefits. This evaluation is presented in detail in Chapter V of this

report. Benefits were calculated for Port Arthur and Beaumont depth alternatives of 43, 45, 48, 50, 53,

and 55 feet, and for other separable elements of the proposed CIP. Based on the BCRs, the screening

analyses indicated that the improvements through the Neches River Channel to Beaumont were

economically justified. It was found that 65 percent of the project benefits were associated with the

upstream Beaumont area and 35 percent with the Port Arthur area; therefore, continuing improvements up

the Neches River to Beaumont was economically justified. Alternative depths of 45 feet and greater had

higher net excess benefits than depths less than 45 feet. In addition, the non-Federal sponsor did not wish

to pursue depths less than 45 feet; therefore, depth alternatives less than 45 feet were dropped from

further analysis.

Preliminary benefit calculations prepared for the early screenings were limited to crude petroleum and

refined petroleum products. These groups represent over 88 percent of 2000–2006 total deep-draft

tonnage. Tables IV-3 to IV-5 display the transportation savings benefits calculated for the second

screening. The benefits for the Neches River Channel to Beaumont deepening are shown in Table IV-3,

and the benefits for the Taylor Bayou reach are shown in tables IV-4 and IV-5. The benefits presented in

Table IV-4 assume deepening Taylor Bayou, widening at the mouth of the Bayou and the west TB

bottleneck curve, and placement of a structural wall that would protect local railroad tracks. The widening

associated with the Table IV-4 scenario would facilitate the existing fleet and reduce the level of

maneuvering necessary. The second set of Taylor Bayou benefits (Table IV-5) assumes major

reconfiguration of the Taylor Bayou channel so that larger Aframax and Suezmax vessels (i.e., 120,000 to

175,000 DWT) could access the facilities. Facilitating the full range of Aframax and Suezmax vessels

would require moving the railroad tracks rather than just constructing a retaining wall. The maximum

sized tankers presently using the Taylor Bayou channel are in the 80,000 to 115,000 DWT range.

87
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-18

Table IV-3

Average Annual Benefits ($), Neches River Channel

(2002 Calculations at 6.375%, 50-Year Period)

Channel Depth

(feet) Crude Oil Imports

Petroleum Products

Imports Exports Total Benefits

43 11,192,741 2,673,782 1,034,112 14,900,635

45 13,905,184 3,429,983 1,327,696 18,662,863

48 21,048,641 5,396,346 2,090,369 28,535,356

50 23,182,977 6,448,183 2,497,512 32,128,672

53 26,816,688 7,580,793 2,929,141 37,326,622

55 29,047,523 8,067,929 3,114,431 40,229,883

Table IV-4

Average Annual Benefits ($), Taylor Bayou Channel and Basin

Accommodates Limited Range of Aframax Vessels

(2002 Calculations at 6.375%, 50-Year Period)

Channel Depth

(feet) Crude Oil Imports

Petroleum Products

Imports Exports Total Benefits

43 5,415,881 653,569 855,527 6,924,977

45 6,715,426 836,923 1,096,613 8,648,962

48 10,147,206 1,314,065 1,723,108 13,184,379

50 10,918,029 1,567,326 2,035,245 14,520,600

53 11,216,492 1,567,326 2,035,245 14,819,063

55 11,216,492 1,567,326 2,035,245 14,819,063

Table IV-5

Average Annual Benefits ($), Taylor Bayou Channel and Basin

Accommodates Limited Range of Aframax and Suezmax Vessels

(2002 Calculations at 6.375%, 50-Year Period)

Channel Depth

(feet) Crude Oil Imports

Petroleum Products

Imports Exports Total Benefits

43 6,546,410 789,997 1,034,112 8,370,519

45 9,130,533 1,013,283 1,327,696 10,471,512

48 12,309,970 1,594,143 2,090,369 15,994,482

50 13,526,683 1,904,115 2,497,512 17,928,310

53 15,641,626 2,255,707 2,929,141 20,826,474

55 18,999,767 2,398,070 3,114,431 24,512,268

Table IV-6 summarizes the results of the screening depth optimization. The Taylor Bayou construction

cost contained in Table IV-6 assumes deepening of the existing channel framework and limited widening.

The widening associated with the cost shown would facilitate the upper end of the existing fleet and

reduce the level of maneuvering necessary but it would not accommodate the full range of Aframax and

Suezmax tankers.

88
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-19

Table IV-6

SNWW (Taylor Bayou and Neches River Channels)

First Cost and Average Annual Costs and Benefits

(2002 Calculations at 6.375%, 50 Years)

Channel Depth

(feet)

First Cost

Deepening ($)

Average Annual Net Excess

Cost ($) Benefits ($) Benefits ($) BCR

SNWW Total

43 134,295,000 8,969,424 21,825,612 12,856,188 2.4

45 191,843,000 12,812,996 27,311,825 14,498,829 2.1

48 297,787,000 19,888,886 41,719,734 21,830,848 2.1

50 373,275,000 24,930,652 46,599,463 21,668,811 1.9

53 496,691,000 33,173,479 51,797,413 18,623,934 1.6

55 575,436,000 38,432,776 54,700,674 16,267,898 1.4

Deepening to Neches River (No Improvements to Taylor Bayou)

43 128,073,368 8,553,888 14,900,635 6,346,747 1.7

45 184,192,994 12,302,060 18,662,863 6,360,803 1.5

48 287,681,639 19,213,960 28,535,356 9,321,396 1.5

50 360,546,301 24,080,515 32,128,672 8,048,157 1.3

53 480,142,477 32,068,220 37,326,622 5,258,402 1.2

55 556,384,575 37,160,351 40,229,883 3,069,532 1.1

Taylor Bayou Deepening Increment (Limited Aframax, no Suezmax)

43 6,221,632 415,536 6,924,977 6,509,441 16.7

45 7,650,006 510,936 8,648,962 8,138,026 16.9

48 10,105,361 674,927 13,184,378 12,509,451 19.5

50 12,728,699 850,137 14,520,600 13,670,463 17.1

53 16,548,523 1,105,259 14,819,063 13,713,534 13.4

55 19,051,425 1,272,425 14,819,063 13,546,638 11.6

Second Screening Net Excess Benefits

As indicated in Table IV-6, the results of the initial formulation showed that the 48- to 50-foot channel

depth produced the highest net excess benefits. While additional commodities, specifically aggregate,

grain, chemicals, and LNG, were not included in the initial formulation, it was anticipated, based on

analyses conducted for other studies, that inclusion of these additional groups would push the formulation

closer to 48 feet rather than 50 feet. Consideration of LNG came later in the plan formulation process

after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval and construction commencement.

However, its inclusion also had the effect of pushing the depth optimization below 50 feet.

Consideration of relatively flat net excess benefits between the 48- and 50-foot depth, as well as the

anticipated effects on the formulation from additional commodities as discussed above, and the Sponsor’s

interest in minimizing the construction costs suggested that the focus of the detailed formulation should

be on depths between 45 and 50 feet. The NED plan is the plan that reasonably maximizes net NED

benefits. This second screening analyses indicated that the 48-foot depth had the highest net excess

benefits and would be the probable NED depth. More-detailed analysis was conducted to confirm the

identification of the NED depth. Analysis of additional depths, such as 46, 47, and 49 feet, was conducted

89
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-20

later in the study in order to determine potential changes to NED depth optimization based on 1-foot

depth increments.

Evaluation of Structural Alternatives

Deepening and Widening

Interest in the project was driven by two factors: (1) allow the existing fleet to carry additional cargo, and

(2) reduce congestion and associated risk along the waterway. For a given volume of traffic, channel

deepening results in fewer trips and reduces congestion. With this in mind, the optimization initially

focused on depth and then looked for widening options. Determination of channel width alternatives was

driven by pilot input and followed up with the ERDC vessel (ship) simulation modeling. During the

screening, channel widening was evaluated for all of the channel reaches from Sabine Pass Channel,

inland through the Neches River Channel. With the exception of the Entrance Channel reaches, widening

alternatives were limited because of physical structures, including docks on the Neches River and SabineNeches Canal reaches and the Port Arthur Hurricane Protection Levee in the Sabine-Neches Canal reach.

The widening alternatives were subsequently screened based on comparison of associated vessel delay

costs and initial project construction cost estimates.

The ERDC model results, transportation cost outputs, project construction costs, and anticipated

environmental effects helped in identifying the optimal choice of plans. The results of the ERDC ship

simulation showed that a channel width of 700 feet through the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur

Canal would be necessary for the Suezmax and Aframax vessels to meet smaller vessels in these channel

reaches. The project design vessel is 899 feet long and 164 feet wide. These dimensions correspond to a

158,000 DWT Suezmax crude petroleum tanker. A loaded and a ballast design vessel could not

successfully meet in the ERDC test of the 600-foot channel, nor could the design vessel and a smaller

110,000 DWT tanker meet.

As noted, the ERDC ship simulation showed that a width of 700 feet was necessary for the largest

combinations of vessels. While the results of the ERDC ship simulation modeling showed that a

minimum width of 700 feet was necessary for inbound and outbound vessel meeting for many vessels in

the existing and future fleet, economic analysis of alternative widths was also included as part of the

HarborSym economic widening model. Preliminary estimates of the widening benefits were calculated

during the preliminary screening; however, a width optimization analysis was not performed until the

second screening.

Numerous widening scenarios were evaluated in the various alternatives in the second screening.

Narrowing of the entrance channel from the existing 800-foot width to a 700-foot width was investigated

in the phase for cost reduction purposes. The Ship Simulation studies verified that these channels could be

narrowed from 800 to 700 feet, with the exception of the Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel where the 800-

foot width was necessary because of crosscurrents in that area. Based on the analysis, the Sabine Outer

Bar Channel would maintain the existing 800-foot width. For the Sabine Bank Channel and Extension,

the channel would taper down to a 700-foot width after the first 1⁄2 mile. The Sabine Pass Jetty Channel

90
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-21

would transition from 800-foot to 500-foot width going upstream through the jetties. No impacts to the

existing jetties would occur as a result of the modifications. The Sabine Pass Channel and the Port Arthur

Canal would remain 500 feet wide with the Sabine-Neches Canal remaining 400 feet wide. The Neches

River Channel would maintain the 400-foot width with new and existing TBs/AB. Pilots expressed

concern that widening the Neches River Channel would prove too costly and would raise numerous

environmental issues that would prevent completion of the widening project. They preferred the use of

TBs and AB to help traffic efficiency. Ship simulation confirmed that no widening was necessary and

TBs and AB were acceptable navigation modifications to improve navigation efficiency.

Turning Basins and Anchorage Basins

As an additional structural alternative, modifications to existing TBs and AB or creation of new TBs

and/or AB along the waterway were considered, coordinated with the SPA, and modeled by the ERDC.

The proposed Neches River TB anchorages were identified as a less costly alternative to channel

widening. The anchorages would be used to facilitate vessel passing. Preliminary estimates of the TB and

AB benefits were not calculated during the preliminary screening but later in the study process.

Barge Lanes

Another structural alternative evaluated was the construction of a barge shelf in a portion of the SabineNeches Canal. Interest in the barge shelf was prompted by the large volume of tow-barges using the

Sabine-Neches Canal reach, along with a high flow of deep-draft traffic. The mix of deep- and shallowdraft traffic in this reach raised safety concerns and prompted interest in evaluation of a barge shelf

through the canal reach between the east and west junctions with the GIWW. Initial responses to the

barge shelf alternative revealed large variances in expectations about potential effects, with some tow

operators questioning the usefulness and safety of the proposed project feature. For these reasons, in 2005

the Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association (GICA) withdrew their support for the barge shelf. The GICA is

an organization created to ensure that the GIWW is maintained, operated, and improved to provide the

safest, most efficient, economical, and environmentally sound water transportation route in our Nation.

Part of their mission is to identify existing physical hazards and other opportunities to improve the safety

and efficiency of the GIWW (GICA, 2008).

The initial indication from some of the deep-draft and shallow-draft operators was that a barge shelf could

provide an increased degree of safety; however, benefits from casualty reductions were not calculated

because the without-project condition is “avoidance behavior” in the form of pilot rules, radio, VTS

communication, and transit delays. The indication from some vessel operators was that if a barge shelf

was available, vessel operators would only use it in an emergency but that avoidance of tow-vessel and

tow-tow meetings in the Sabine-Neches Canal would continue as the most likely future.

Anticipated and continued success of the VTS, as a nonstructural alternative, contributed to the vessel

operators’ decision to forgo the barge shelf. Overall, improved deep-draft and barge vessel

communication was initiated by the USCG and user safety board that resulted in questions concerning the

need for the barge shelf. Ongoing improvements to the VTS system are expected to result in accelerated

91
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-22

safety and communication improvements. The VTS nonstructural initiative made by the USCG, SPA, and

GICA represent alternatives to the barge shelf proposal.

Plans Eliminated During Second Screening

For evaluation of the nonstructural alternatives, the alternative mode of commodity transport (LOOP and

BOOTS) and the VTS alternatives would help with improving safety along the existing channel (by

reducing vessel traffic or better managing the traffic). However, these alternatives do not address the

navigational efficiency of the waterway and would not allow the vessels utilizing the channel to load

more fully. The potential relaxation of the current transit rules by the pilots was evaluated but screened

out as not implementable because the pilots do not support this course of action. Therefore, all

nonstructural alternatives were eliminated from further consideration.

The widening alternatives included widening of the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal from 500

to 700 feet. Although the widening in combination with the deepening of the channel was economically

justified, the widening alone resulted in a BCR of 0.4. The economic summary of this channel widening

is included in Table IV-7. Therefore, the widening alternative for this reach was not an incrementally

justified feature and was eliminated from further evaluation.

Table IV-7

Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal

Widening Only (700 feet)

Economic Summary Data (2008 Dollars at 4.375%)

Item

Sabine Pass and

Port Arthur Canal ($)

First Cost 78,448,000

Mitigation Cost 48,484,500

Interest During Construction 36,282,311

Total First Cost 163,241,841

Average Annual Construction Cost 8,091,727

Incremental Average Annual O&M Cost 9,587,005

Total Average Annual Cost 17,678,732

Average Annual Benefits 6,379,579

BCR 0.4

As previous shown in Table IV-6, net excess benefits were relatively flat from depths of 48 to 50 feet.

However, construction costs increased significantly between those depths. The results of this screening

analysis indicated that NED depth was between 48 and 50 feet, with the highest net excess benefits being

at the 48-foot depth. Due to cost-sharing requirements for deep-draft channels (depths greater than

45 feet) and the Sponsor’s uncertainty of the preferred depth, the 45-foot depth alternative was also

carried forward for further analysis. Continuous widening of the Sabine-Neches Canal and Neches River

Channel to 500 feet throughout their lengths was eliminated when the ship simulation determined that a

700-foot width was necessary for safe two-way traffic.

92
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-23

In summary, since structural alternatives (e.g., deepening the channel) were the only alternatives that

would fully address the project objective of navigational efficiency, only the No-Action Alternative and

some structural alternatives for improvements to the SNWW navigation system were carried forward for

detailed analysis. Among all of the structural alternatives, only six depths (45, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50 feet)

were carried forward into detailed evaluation.

IV.E FINAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

During detailed evaluation of screened alternatives, the identification of the Recommended Plan was

based upon technical, economic, and environmental factors. Operation and maintenance costs for

extending the entrance channel for the deeper depth alternatives were developed to better estimate project

costs of each proposed depth.

Final Screened Alternatives

Based on additional information from the traffic analysis, the revised BCRs, net excess benefits, and the

Sponsor’s lack of support for depths greater than 50 feet, the deepening alternatives were screened to a 5-

foot range from 45 to 50 feet, focusing on those depths with the highest net excess benefits. Selective

widening and TBs were also carried forward for more-detailed analysis and formulation with the

deepening alternatives.

This selective widening included sections in the Sabine-Neches Canal and the Neches River Channel. The

Sabine-Neches Canal included realignment in the section adjacent to Port of Port Arthur to place the

centerline directly in the center of the channel width. This change shifted the channel over approximately

10 feet while keeping the same bottom width. This allowed for additional berthing space in the area while

avoiding impacts to the Hurricane Protection Levee and Pleasure Island properties. Additionally, bend

easings were included to improve ship maneuverability and eliminate a wiggle in the alignment. The

Neches River Channel was widened at the mouth of the Neches River prior to the State Highway (SH) 87

twin bridges. Additional TB/AB or enlargement of existing TB/AB on the Neches River Channel were

also included in the final screening.

The structural alternatives evaluated during this final screening phase of the study are listed in Table IV8.

Since the deepening alternatives would result in the existing project channel extending in the Gulf of

Mexico (potentially an additional 17 miles), consideration of O&M costs, in addition to other detailed

evaluations and analyses, was deemed necessary in conducting the further screening.

The identification of the Recommended Plan from the various alternatives was based upon economic and

environmental factors. Costs were estimated for all of the alternatives and compared to the project

benefits. Included in the costs were dredging, levee construction, relocations (including utility

relocations), and O&M costs for the 50-year period of analysis. Costs for ecosystem mitigation were

estimated using HS model salinity projections.

93
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-24

Table IV-8

Alternatives for Final Screening

Alternative Depths (feet) Sections Width (feet)

Deepening 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 Extension Channel 700

Sabine Bank Channel 700 (tapers to 800)

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel 800 (existing)

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel 500 (existing)

Sabine Pass Channel 500 (existing)

Port Arthur Canal 500 (existing)

Taylor Bayou selective widening

Sabine-Neches Canal 400 (existing)

Neches River Channel 400 (existing)

Turning Basins/

Anchorage Basins

(various combinations)

48 Neches River Channel

Table IV-9 presents the economic summary of the final screening of alternatives and includes BCRs and

net excess benefits for the 45- to 50-foot plans, including TBs and AB. From these data, the 49-foot depth

produced the most net excess benefits compared to the cost of the proposed project modifications.

Therefore, the 49-foot alternative was identified as the NED Plan. The sponsor has indicated a preference

for the 48-foot project because of cost savings. Therefore, the 48-foot project is the locally preferred plan

(LPP).

Table IV-9

SNWW Economic Summary Data

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction ($) 798,920 889,906 980,891 1,071,877 1,152,079 1,232,280

Total Annual Cost ($) 70,217 77,258 84,299 91,341 96,626 101,911

Average Annual Benefits ($) 83,844 95,856 104,303 115,074 122,875 127,696

Net Excess Benefits ($) 13,627 18,598 20,004 23,733 26,249 25,785

BCR 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3

Finally, the abbreviated array of alternatives was compared against the four primary evaluation criteria

specified in the P&G: acceptability, completeness, efficiency, and effectiveness (Table IV-10). To meet

the first criterion, plans should be acceptable to State and Federal resource agencies and local

governments; they should also be able to show evidence of broad-based public support. To be considered

complete, plans must provide and account for all investments necessary to implement the plan. For the

third criteria, plans must be cost effective. For the final criterion, effectiveness, the plan must make a

significant contribution to addressing the specific planning objectives addressed by the study.

94
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-25

Table IV-10

Comparison of P&G Evaluation Criteria

Item No Action 45 feet NED – 49 feet LPP – 48 feet

Criteria Maintain

existing 40-footdeep x 800-footwide x 22-milelong Sabine

Bank and Outer

Bar channels,

transitioning to

500 feet wide in

the Sabine Pass

Jetty Channel,

and 400-foot x

40-foot-deep

channel to

Beaumont

45-foot-deep x 8.45-

foot-deep x 8.3-milelong x 800-foot-wide

Extension, Sabine

Bank, and Outer Bar

channels, transitioning

to 500-foot-wide

channel to end of Port

Arthur Canal, and

400-foot x 45-footdeep channel to

Beaumont; deepening

and widening of

Taylor Bayou

Channels and Basins

4- foot-deep x 16.5-

mile-long x 800-footwide Extension,

Sabine Bank, and

Outer Bar channels,

transitioning to 500-

foot-wide channel to

end of Port Arthur

Canal, and 400-foot x

49-foot-deep channel

to Beaumont;

deepening and

widening of Taylor

Bayou Channels and

Basins

48-foot-deep x 13.2-

mile-long x 700-footwide Extension and

Sabine Bank channels,

800-foot-wide Outer

Bar Channel, then 500-

foot-wide channel to

end of Port Arthur

Canal, and 400-foot x

48-foot-deep channel to

Beaumont; deepening

and widening of Taylor

Bayou Channels and

Basins

Acceptability

(meets all laws,

regulations and

guidance)

Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Completeness

(provides and

accounts for all

necessary

investments or

other actions to

ensure the

realization of the

planning

objectives)

No Action is an

incomplete

solution to all

planning

objectives

Plan is an incomplete

solution; it provides

some improvement in

navigation efficiency

over No Action but

does not maximize

transportation benefits

Plan is a complete

solution; it maximizes

navigation efficiency

over other plans; no

impacts to bridges and

Hurricane Flood

Protection (HFP) Plan

Plan is more complete

than others, but does

not maximize

transportation benefits,

no impacts to bridges

and HFP Plan

Efficiency

(extent to which

an alternative

plan is the most

cost effective

means of

achieving the

objectives)

No Action does

not address the

planning

objectives

Less costly than

Recommended Plan

but does not address

objectives as

effectively; net excess

benefits are not

maximized

More costly than

Recommended Plan;

achieves all

objectives; net excess

benefits are

maximized

Cost-effective; achieves

all objectives; net

excess benefits are not

maximized; Sponsor

indicated this plan is

LPP

Effectiveness

(extent to which

the alternative

plans contribute

to achieve the

planning

objectives)

Ineffective for

improving

navigational

efficiencies

Not as effective as

Recommended Plan

for improving

navigation efficiency

or maintaining

environmental quality

Most effective plan

for improving

navigation efficiency

and maintaining

environmental

quality; Sponsor has

indicated this plan is

not affordable

Not as effective as

NED Plan for

improving navigation

efficiency; Sponsor has

indicated this plan is

LPP

95
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-26

IV.F IDENTIFICATION OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN

The detailed evaluation of screened alternatives concluded with the identification of a Recommended

Plan. The identification of the Recommended Plan was based upon a comparison of economic,

engineering, environmental, and socioeconomic factors, as well as the Sponsor’s preference. The

alternative described below has been identified as the Recommended Plan:

Deepening of the SNWW to Beaumont to 48 feet with an extension of the Entrance

Channel 13.2 miles in length, deepening and widening of Taylor Bayou Channel and

turning basins, and tapering the Sabine Bank Channel from 800 feet wide (Station

23+300) to 500 feet wide (Station 25+800 through the end of Sabine Bank Channel).

Turning and anchorage basins would be added and/or enlarged along the Neches River

Channel and bend easing performed on the Sabine-Neches Canal and Neches River

Channel.

Detailed evaluations of alternatives for the management of dredged material and the mitigation of

ecological impacts were then performed for the Recommended Plan. This evaluation concluded with the

development of a DMMP and a mitigation plan. The DMMP includes measures in which dredged

material is used to restore wetland habitat, offsetting impacts of the Recommended Plan. The evaluation

of alternatives for the management of dredged material and the recommended placement plan are

described in Chapter VII of this report and in Section 2.5 of the FEIS. The evaluation of mitigation

alternatives that compensate for remaining unavoidable impacts to significant habitats and resources and

the recommended mitigation plan are described in Chapter 5 of the FEIS. Least cost analyses of dredged

material placement and an incremental cost analysis of mitigation alternatives were conducted to select

recommended placement and mitigation measures. These analyses are presented in Chapter VIII of this

report.

IV.G PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES EVALUATION

ACCOUNTS

The four P&G evaluation accounts were used throughout the planning process to evaluate the effects of

the project alternatives. Each of the four accounts is identified below as well as an explanation of how the

Recommended Plan complies with these evaluation accounts.

National Economic Development

The NED account shows the changes in the economic value of the national output of goods and services.

The main economic benefit from a navigation project is the reduction in the value of the resources

required to transport the various commodities associated with the waterway. National benefits can result

from any of the following: increased efficiency of moving commodities resulting in cost reductions in

commodities, savings from using a more-cost-effective mode of transportation (alternate mode of transportation), a shift in origin and destination of commodities thereby reducing the costs of transport, new

96
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-27

movements of commodities, and/or commodities delivered either at less cost or additional commodities

being transported due to lower transportation costs.

The Recommended Plan is the culmination of the various benefit analyses mentioned above. The 49-foot

depth including TBs and AB was found to produce the most net excess benefits compared to the cost of

the proposed project modifications. Therefore, the 49-foot alternative was identified as the NED Plan.

However, the Sponsor has indicated that the 48-foot plan is preferred because the cost of the NED and

deeper plans would make the project unaffordable. The 48-foot plan is the LPP, the plan preferred by the

sponsor.

The USACE guidance requires that the NED plan be recommended unless there are believed to be

overriding reasons favoring the selection of another alternative. Planning guidance (ER 1105-2-100)

states that if the non-Federal sponsor identifies a financial constraint due to limited resources, and if net

benefits are increasing as the constraint is reached, a categorical exemption may be granted and the

constrained plan recommended. Categorical exemptions for plans that are lesser projects than the NED

plan are cost shared on the same basis as the NED and become a federally supportable plan.

In this study’s selection of the Recommended Plan, the sponsor has indicated a preference of the 48-foot

LPP due to cost restraints. This plan is a justified plan that is less costly that the NED plan. This LPP still

meets the policies for the high-priority outputs and has greater benefits than the smaller scale plans (see

Table IV-9). Since the 48-foot plan is the Sponsor’s preference due to financial constraints and fits all of

the criteria regarding categorical exemptions for navigation projects, this plan has been identified as the

Recommended Plan. This LPP is less costly than the NED plan; therefore, cost sharing will be the same

as the NED plan.

Effects on Environmental Quality

The Environmental Quality account identifies the nonmonetary effects on significant natural and cultural

resources (ER 1105-2-100). The primary impact of the Recommended Plan is an indirect impact

associated with an increase in salinity intrusion and an associated reduction in biological productivity

over 182,000 acres of intertidal marsh and swamps within the area of tidal influence in the Sabine-Neches

study area. As quantified by the WVA model, the net decrease in productivity for the project as a whole is

–843 average annualized habitat units, or AAHUs, after application of benefits from the Recommended

Plan. Later in this report, Table VIII-2 summarizes the calculations made resulting in these –843 AAHUs.

Minor impacts to cypress-tupelo swamp or bottomland hardwood productivity are projected. The ICT

considered this to be acceptable since the loss in function is negligible. No adverse impacts to threatened

or endangered species or Critical Habitat would result from the indirect effects of salinity increases or

land losses.

Most of the direct effects of the Recommended Plan on ecological systems and resources are minor and

temporary. These impacts are associated with navigation channel improvements and the placement of

dredged material. They include (1) impacts to benthic organisms and their Gulf, estuarine, and riverine

97
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-28

water-bottom habitats resulting from dredging to construct the navigation improvements, offshore PAs,

borrow areas for mitigation measures, and marsh restoration in shallow, open-water areas; (2) potential

dredging impacts to bottom-feeding and pelagic organisms such as sea turtles; and (3) impacts to

shoreline birds and their habitat from the placement of maintenance material on the Gulf shoreline.

The Recommended Plan would have no long-term adverse environmental effects, after benefits of the

DMMP and compensatory mitigation are taken into account. The Recommended Plan is expected to

produce beneficial effects that would contribute to the long-term sustainability of valuable habitat in the

SNWW area as described below. A detailed discussion of the effects of the Recommended Plan and the

mitigation plan are presented in the FEIS.

BU features of the DMMP (Neches River and Gulf Shore BU Features) would minimize and offset all

direct and indirect marsh impacts in Texas by creating 2,853 acres of emergent marsh vegetation,

improving 871 acres of open water habitat, and nourishing 1,234 acres of existing marsh in Texas.

Benefits of the Neches River BU Feature also more than offset the direct impact of conversion of 86 acres

of fresh marsh to a confined PA (PA 24A) and the indirect impact of the increase in salinity over 39,000

wetland acres in Texas. The Gulf Shore BU Feature offsets minor erosion impacts by periodically

nourishing 6 miles of Texas and Louisiana Gulf shorelines.

Since the DMMP offsets all impacts of the Recommended Plan in Texas, no compensating mitigation

would be required for Recommended Plan effects in this state. It is important to note that the impacts

presented here do not include all impacts of the Preferred Alternative in Texas as future with project

(FWP) impacts in Texas’s Salt Bayou (TX 9) hydro-unit are not included. Jefferson County, Texas, and

USACE, with support from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), GLO, and Texas Water

Development Board (TWDB), have been studying ways to reduce the amount of saltwater intrusion,

decrease high-energy inflows, and minimize impacts to larval fish access in an on-going Section 1135

Continuing Authorities Project (CAP) study for the Salt Bayou hydrologic unit. When the Keith Lake

Section 1135 CAP study was begun in 2003, it seemed likely that the CAP study and construction would

be completed before the SNWW CIP could be authorized and constructed. The Keith Lake Section 1135

study was therefore considered separable from the SNWW CIP, and for planning purposes, it was

assumed that a water control structure at the Fish Pass would be part of the future without-project

condition for the SNWW CIP. Incremental impacts of the SNWW CIP will be calculated for the Salt

Bayou unit of the SNWW study area when WVA modeling is completed for the Keith Lake Section 1135

study. It is possible that the excess DMMP benefits (316 AAHUs) of the SNWW CIP will cover all

incremental project impacts. However, if it is determined that additional mitigation is needed, then

USACE and the non-Federal sponsor of the SNWW CIP will initiate consultation with resource agencies,

identify and incrementally justify additional compensatory mitigation for the Salt Bayou unit, and prepare

a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS).

Unavoidable losses to marshes in Louisiana, which remain after application of all DMMP benefits, are

fully mitigated by marsh creation in the Willow Bayou and Black Bayou watersheds east of Sabine Lake.

98
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-29

Potential adverse effects to threatened and endangered sea turtles from the use of hopper dredges to

construct the Entrance Channel in the Gulf of Mexico would be avoided by the adoption of reasonable

and prudent measures recommended by the USFWS Biological Opinion. No long-term impacts to air

quality or noise levels are expected, and temporary impacts to air quality during construction have been

determined to be in general conformity with the Texas State Implementation Plan. No impacts to historic

properties have been identified at this time. However, should adverse effects to historic properties be

identified in the future, mitigation plans would be developed and implemented in accordance with the

Historic Properties Programmatic Agreement for the Treatment of Historic Properties (FEIS, Appendix

H).

DMMP BU features on the Neches River and compensatory mitigation east of Sabine Lake are expected

to have long-term beneficial effects on water quality and terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Both entail the

restoration of large-scale areas of degraded marsh. Restored marshes would filter runoff from surrounding

uplands, and improved shallow-water habitat would encourage the growth of additional submerged

aquatic vegetation. The restored marshes would increase available habitat for bird and wildlife species,

and the improved shallow-water habitat would provide additional nursery areas and nutrients for aquatic

organisms. Gulf shore nourishment is expected to have a long-term beneficial effect on piping plover

Critical Habitat at Louisiana Point, by replacing shoreline habitat predicted to be lost as a result of plan

implementation.

Regional Economic Development (RED)

The RED account identifies changes in the distribution of regional economic activity. Evaluations of

regional effects are to be carried out using nationally consistent projections of income, employment,

output, and population (ER 1105-2-100). With the value of the current 40-foot SNWW channel to the

region, it is expected that the Recommended Plan of deepening the channel for navigational efficiency

and safety would increase benefits to the region. Even with the implementation of the Recommended

Plan, the study area would continue to have large industrial facilities and would not result in negative

impacts to the local economy. During project construction, the study area may have a slight increase in

construction employment and local purchases of construction materials but would be temporary, if any

change at all. The primary economic bases of the study area include petrochemical processing,

construction, mineral extraction, tourism, commercial fishing, and agriculture. As a result of the

Recommended Plan, the positive economic effects to the study area would be moderate at the least and

substantial at best. A detailed overview of RED is included in the Economic Appendix.

Other Social Effects

The other social effects account identifies the plan effects from perspectives that are relevant to the

planning process, but are not reflected in the other three accounts (ER 1105-2-100). The Recommended

Plan would likely not have an effect on population growth trends within the study area. As a result of the

Recommended Plan, demand for community facilities, services, and housing would not increase in the

study area. The population living within the study area is primarily composed of White persons

(59.6 percent), followed by Black or African American persons (26.7 percent), and Hispanic or Latino

99
IV: Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives

IV-30

persons (9.6 percent). The proposed project would not be located within a minority area. The minority

and low-income populations living within the study area would likely experience no adverse changes to

the demographic, economic, or community cohesion characteristics within their respective neighborhoods

as a result of the Recommended Plan.

The construction of the Recommended Plan would have minimal negative effects on recreation within the

study area, and proposed BU of dredged material from the construction of the Recommended Plan are

expected to have beneficial impacts to recreational activities by providing additional habitats important to

current sportfishing, recreational fishing, wildlife watching, and hunting.

100
V-1

V. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

V.A OVERVIEW

This chapter presents the economic analysis for proposed project modifications to the existing 40-foot

SNWW channel. The project benefits were evaluated for deepening and widening the channels to Port

Arthur and Beaumont and are based on reductions in transportation costs generated from more-efficient

vessel loading and from reductions in vessel delays. Improvements to the 30-foot Sabine River Channel

to Orange were not evaluated at this time due to the expectation of continued low utilization of the

existing project depth.

V.B SCREENING PROCESS

Deepening benefits were calculated for SNWW depth alternatives of 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50 feet.

Determination of the depths evaluated was based on the cost-benefit results of the alternative screening

and input from the Sponsor. Widening benefits for deep-draft traffic were also evaluated. Evaluation of

widening alternatives was based on data obtained from vessel simulation modeling conducted by the

ERDC. The alternatives were subsequently screened based on comparison of associated vessel delay costs

and the initial project construction cost estimates. The ERDC model results, transportation cost outputs,

project construction costs, and anticipated environmental effects identified the optimal choice of plans.

Benefits were calculated for incremental widening and for holding area alternatives and are based on

comparison of transit times between project alternatives. The calculations were made using the

HarborSym economic traffic model.

Total Tonnage

The SNWW experienced strong growth over the past decade, with total tonnage increasing from an

average of 108 million short tons for 1995–1997 to 138 million for 2005–2007. In 2007, the SNWW

ranked 4th in the U.S. in terms of total tonnage. As individual ports, Beaumont ranked 5th with

81.4 million short tons. Port Arthur’s 2007 tonnage totaled 29.3 million short tons with a ranking of 28th.

Channel to Orange tonnage totaled 682,000 in 2007. Table V-1 presents SNWW 1970–2007 total tonnage

and principal deep-draft movements. Approximately 60 percent of the SNWW tonnage total consists of

deep-draft movements. The remaining 40 percent consists of shallow-draft GIWW-related traffic. Table

V-2 displays Sabine-Neches Canal 1970–2007 shallow-draft GIWW tonnage and the relative percentage

of shallow-draft to total tonnage. For 2007, nearly 30 million short tons of the 59.7 million shallow-draft

total (Table V-2) were transported through SNWW facilities. Beaumont’s shallow-draft barge tonnage

totaled 21.2 million short tons with Port Arthur’s 8.3 million, Orange’s 0.7 million, and Sabine Pass

0.9 million. The remaining 30.3 million short tons of 2007 shallow-draft barge traffic consisted of

“through movements” between the Lower Mississippi River and Houston and points westward. In

reviewing trends for commodities presently or anticipated to be constrained, the initial focus was on the

commodity groups displayed in Table V-1.

101
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-2

Table V-1

SNWW Total Tonnage and Major Commodity Tonnage

(1,000s of Short Tons)

Year

Total

Tonnage

Total DeepDraft

Tonnage*

Principal Deep-Draft Commodities

Crude Petroleum Petroleum Products Chemical Products Bulk Grain

Imports Coastwise Imports Exports Imports Exports Exports

1970 79,291 35,696 9 9,217 280 827 72 336 1,786

1975 79,296 41,134 13,820 3,102 177 256 42 310 2,926

1980 108,124 52,560 28,640 3,082 715 2,359 648 634 1,843

1985 70,239 39,169 22,627 1,835 2,516 1,514 267 707 1,642

1990 90,819 36,175 20,348 2,921 2,198 1,635 34 546 2,090

1993 95,418 46,990 32,639 81 2,656 3,260 25 537 3,471

1994 99,675 49,775 37,226 225 1,859 3,092 49 577 2,303

1995 103,254 52,959 38,743 187 1,304 4,258 33 725 1,712

1996 103,262 54,863 40,930 971 1,473 3,930 48 777 1,038

1997 116,012 67,553 51,142 81 2,470 4,595 33 1,101 1,370

1998 115,935 70,351 53,877 38 3,491 4,329 140 966 910

1999 114,393 69,259 53,834 86 3,627 3,307 449 753 936

2000 126,285 83,385 67,187 149 3,051 4,043 619 1,469 894

2001 128,944 80,950 64,226 127 2,734 5,120 754 1,296 858

2002 135,088 87,081 66,383 133 5,028 5,635 683 1,587 835

2003 143,923 92,563 70,158 195 5,187 6,573 434 1,555 1,125

2004 150,297 94,823 69,875 134 6,002 7,152 656 2,104 1,329

2005 134,695 82,925 59,691 165 5,349 6,354 1,084 1,891 1,081

2006 138,065 81,640 57,616 139 3,819 6,823 1,244 2,904 1,214

2007 140,967 81,282 56,088 217 3,744 6,608 955 3,169 1,632

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1970–2007 (USACE, 2007a).

*Includes commodities in addition to what is shown.

102
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-3

Table V-2

SNWW Shallow-Draft Port and GIWW Through Tonnage,

Deep-Draft Total Tonnage, and Shallow-Draft Percentage of Total Tonnage

(1,000s of short tons)*

Year

Shallow-Draft

Port Tonnage

and GIWW

Through Tonnage

DeepDraft

Tonnage

SNWW

Total

Shallow-Draft

Percent of

Total

Tonnage (%)

1970 43,595 35,696 79,291 55

1975 38,162 41,134 79,296 48

1980 55,564 52,560 108,124 51

1985 31,070 39,169 70,239 44

1990 54,644 36,175 90,819 60

1995 50,295 52,959 103,254 49

1996 48,399 54,863 103,262 47

1997 48,459 67,553 116,012 42

1998 45,584 70,351 115,935 39

1999 45,134 69,259 114,393 39

2000 42,900 83,385 126,285 34

2001 47,902 81,998 128,944 37

2002 48,007 87,081 135,088 36

2003 51,360 92,563 143,923 36

2004 55,474 94,823 150,297 37

2005 51,770 82,925 134,695 38

2006 56,646 81,421 138,067 41

2007 59,685 81,282 140,967 42

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1970–2007 (USACE, 2007a).

*Includes intraport movements.

Crude Petroleum

SNWW’s 2002–2006 crude petroleum waterborne imports comprised 12 percent of U.S. and 18 percent

of Petroleum Administration Defense District (PADD III) imports. The SNWW is contained in the U.S.

Gulf Coast (PADD III), which includes the states of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama,

and New Mexico. The U.S. Gulf Coast leads the Nation in refinery capacity, with 41 percent of the

Nation’s crude oil distillation capacity, and one-half of the Gulf Coast refinery capacity is in Texas and

the remainder is in Louisiana. The Gulf Coast is also the Nation’s leading supplier of refined products.

Table V-3 displays SNWW 1985–2007 crude petroleum imports and its share of the national and regional

totals.

103
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-4

Table V-3

Comparison of SNWW and Regional and

National Totals, Crude Petroleum Imports

(1,000s of short tons)

SNWW PADD III U.S. Total SNWW Percentage of

Year Imports Imports Imports PADD III U.S. Total

1985 22,627 90,372 175,095 25.0 12.9

1986 19,576 133,107 228,552 14.7 8.6

1987 13,119 153,901 255,670 8.5 5.1

1988 15,173 172,256 280,112 8.8 5.4

1989 21,224 209,622 319,641 10.1 6.6

1990 20,348 212,613 322,433 9.6 6.3

1991 19,245 203,992 316,310 9.4 6.1

1992 23,613 216,745 333,666 10.9 7.1

1993 32,639 241,614 371,267 13.5 8.8

1994 37,226 251,394 386,381 14.8 9.6

1995 38,743 253,200 395,484 15.3 9.8

1996 40,930 272,769 411,824 15.0 9.9

1997 51,142 292,282 449,961 17.5 11.4

1998 53,877 309,147 476,231 17.4 11.3

1999 53,834 308,707 477,592 17.4 11.3

2000 67,187 312,288 497,547 21.5 13.5

2001 64,226 324,094 510,298 19.8 12.6

2002 66,383 310,218 499,999 21.4 13.3

2003 70,158 323,123 528,703 21.7 13.3

2004 69,875 342,238 553,337 20.4 12.7

2005 59,691 335,075 553,923 17.8 10.8

2006 57,615 327,715 553,489 17.6 10.4

2007 56,078 305,732 548,742 18.3 10.2

Source: USACE (2007a) and Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2008). The U.S., PADD III, and SNWW

percentages were compiled from EIA 2008.

Although SNWW tonnage exhibits more variance than the region and the Nation, short-term expectations

are that SNWW imports would grow at rates comparable to or higher than regional and national trends.

Long-term expectations are that SNWW imports would grow at rates comparable to the regional and

national trends. These expectations are based on analysis of long-term historical trends and the study

area’s established infrastructure of regional and national pipeline distribution links. While SNWW 2005–

2007 import volumes are down, Figure V-1 shows that SNWW imports from 1992 through 2007 grew at

higher rates than the region or the Nation. In comparison to other Texas Gulf Coast ports, SNWW 2000–

2007 crude petroleum imports volumes exceeded other ports by nearly 35 percent. Additionally, recent

increases in SNWW refinery capacity indicate the region would regain an increasing share of U.S. and

PADD III totals.

104
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-5

Figure V-1

U.S. and Sabine-Neches Crude Oil Imports, 1980–2007

SNWW refinery capacity presently represents 6 percent of the U.S. total. Specific capacities are 572,000

barrels per calendar day for Port Arthur and 577,000 for Beaumont (Table V-4). SNWW capacity levels

for 2009 are presently 12 percent higher than in 2004, and 31 percent higher than in 1994. In December

2007, Motiva announced plans for a 325,000-barrel-per-day refinery expansion in Port Arthur. The

expansion would increase the refinery’s crude oil throughput capacity to 600,000 barrels per day, making

it the largest refinery in the U.S. and one of the largest in the world. The ExxonMobil Beaumont refinery

is presently the third largest refinery in the world. As a result of these additions, SNWW’s combined

capacity would represent the largest concentration in the State of Texas

The SNWW terminals transport 400,000 barrels per day of waterborne crude oil via pipelines to inland

refineries including refineries in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, Arkansas, and Kentucky (Martin

Associates, 2006). Colonial Pipeline delivers over two million barrels per day of refined products via

pipeline serving Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina,

Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey. Explorer Pipeline delivers 650,000 barrels per day of

refined products via pipeline serving Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana. Products, such as

gasoline, heating oil, diesel, and jet fuel, are transported from the Gulf Coast to the East Coast and the

Midwest through existing pipeline networks. Product traffic also moves between U.S. ports by coastwise

tankers and inland waterway barges. The SNWW refineries supply 15 percent of the product on

Colonial’s system and 13 percent of the product on Explorer’s system.

105
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-6

Table V-4

SNWW Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity

(1,000s of Barrels per Calendar Day)

Period Beaumont Port Arthur

Percent

of Texas

Percent

of U.S.

U.S.

Total

1994 420.5 454.0 19.6 5.8 15,034

1999 438.5 513.5 22.7 5.9 16,261

2000 450.0 523.0 23.0 5.9 16,512

2001 500.0 521.0 23.8 6.2 16,595

2002 500.0 527.0 22.9 6.1 16,785

2003 510.0 523.6 23.8 6.1 16,757

2004 505.0 523.6 22.9 6.1 16,974

2005 540.0 582.0 24.2 6.5 17,196

2006 545.0 580.5 24.0 6.5 17,383

2007 545.0 590.5 24.0 6.5 17,436

2008 574.0 576.5 24.0 6.5 17,436

2009 572.0 576.5 24.0 6.5 17,436

Source: USACE (2007a) and EIA (2008).

*Variations occur in annual volumes due to temporary shutdowns and routine maintenance

Port Arthur and Beaumont Tonnage Bases

Distributions of Port Arthur’s and Beaumont’s 1999–2007 deep-draft tonnages are displayed in tables V-5

and V-6. Port specific data for years prior to 1999 are not included in these tables due to Navigation Data

Center (NDC) reporting problems which resulted in a portion of Beaumont tonnage being attributed to

Port Arthur. Crude petroleum imports and petroleum and chemical product imports and exports

comprised 80 percent of Port Arthur’s 2007 total oceangoing tonnage. The 1999–2007 average was 83

percent. The remaining percent of tonnage consisted of imports of crude material and manufactured goods

and domestic coastwise shipment of gasoline and chemical shipments.

As shown in Table V-5, Port Arthur’s highest growth rates were for product exports and domestic

coastwise. Analysis of the commodity-specific data showed that 81 percent of Port Arthur’s 2005–2007

petroleum product exports were comprised of petroleum coke. Port Arthur’s petroleum coke exports make

up 11 percent of the U.S. total.1 Plans for a new 45,000 barrels-per-day “delayed coker” in Port Arthur

were announced in February 2008, with construction anticipated to be complete by 2011 (Port Arthur

News, 2008). Delayed cokers are used to convert residual oils into gasoline and diesel oil. Delayed coker

feed originates from the crude oil, and the effect of new construction would be used to produce residual

fuel and other products. Demand for petroleum coke has been noted to be increasing due to growing use

of heavy crude oil.

1 EIA website data shows Port Arthur’s 2007 annual petroleum coke imports exceeding 250,000 short tons.

106
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-7

Table V-5

Port Arthur Total Tonnage and Major Commodity Tonnage, 1999–2007

(1,000s of short tons)

Year Total

Total

DeepDraft Total Coastwise

Crude

Petroleum

Imports

Petroleum Products Chemical Products

Crude Materials

Except Fuels

Primary

Manufactured Goods

Major

Group

% of

DeepImports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Total Draft

1999 18,308 12,073 659 7,977 604 1,136 5 349 566 21 617 107 12,041 1002000 21,387 13,730 817 8,862 1,121 1,502 0 307 206 7 743 107 13,672 1002001 22,802 16,173 1,043 11,064 641 2,327 25 136 131 0 665 101 16,133 1002002 22,676 16,640 1,422 9,013 997 3,143 89 176 919 2 641 194 16,596 1002003 27,170 21,044 2,577 11,987 1,152 3,734 60 210 481 20 557 128 20,906 992004 27,570 20,758 1,804 10,015 2,150 4,255 225 889 531 41 564 106 20,580 992005 26,385 19,856 1,803 9,320 2,205 3,858 194 998 558 14 710 84 19,744 99

2006 28,403 21,209 2,323 10,627 1,144 4,391 111 1,330 566 54 542 46 21,134 1002007 29,067 20,977 3,330 10,334 792 3,978 97 1,525 513 64 122 35 20,790 99

Average Annual Growth Rate (1999–2007)

5.9% 7.1% 22.4% 3.3% 3.4% 17.0% 44.9% 20.2% –1.2% 14.9% –18.3% –13.0% 7.1% –0.1%

Source: USACE (2007a).

107
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-8

Table V-6

Beaumont Total Tonnage and Major Commodity Tonnage, 1999–2007

(1,000s of short tons)

Total DeepCrude Petroleum Petroleum Products Chemical Products Crude Materials, Except Fuels Primary Manufactured Goods Grain Major Group % of Deep

Year Tonnage Draft Coastwise Imports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Exports Total Draft

1999 69,406 57,186 3,330 45,857 3,023 2,170 444 404 115 446 281 8 936 57,014 1002000 76,894 69,655 3,046 58,325 1,930 2,541 619 1,162 413 410 133 1 894 69,474 1002001 79,131 64,777 2,793 53,162 2,093 2,793 729 1,160 622 165 103 6 858 64,484 1002002 85,911 70,441 2,712 57,370 4,031 2,492 594 1,411 394 14 204 14 835 70,071 992003 87,541 71,519 2,732 58,171 4,035 2,839 374 1,345 583 73 115 36 1,125 71,428 1002004 91,968 74,065 3,191 59,860 3,852 2,897 431 1,215 559 104 420 1 1,329 73,859 1002005 78,887 63,069 2,967 50,371 3,144 2,496 890 893 624 106 471 12 1,082 63,056 1002006 79,486 60,431 3,115 46,988 2,676 2,432 1,133 1,574 550 243 364 8 1,214 60,296 1002007 80,062 60,305 3,261 45,776 2,952 2,713 858 1,644 617 421 173 86 1,632 60,133 100

Average Annual Growth Rate (1998–2007)

1.8% 0.7% –0.3% 0.0% –0.3% 2.8% 8.6% 19.2% 23.4% –0.7% –5.9% 34.5% 7.2% 0.7% 0.0%

Source: USACE (2007a).

108
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-9

Analysis of Port Arthur tonnage also shows significant increases in chemical imports and exports. Import

growth is associated with ammonia and sulphuric acid. Increases in exports are associated with metallic

salts and hydrocarbons. Twenty percent of 2005–2007 U.S. metallic salts export tonnage was exported

from Port Arthur. Metallic salts and organic compounds are used in the production of paints and solvents,

paper and wood products, cleaning products, and various chemical products, and more recently in the

production of nylon in Latin America and China. The increase in Port Arthur’s metallic salt exports

experienced since 2004 is associated with the completion of a 266,000-metric-ton-per-year cyclohexane

facility in the Taylor Bayou section of Port Arthur in early 2004. Port Arthur’s steady volume of

coastwise tonnage shown in Table V-5 is associated with continuing shipments of gasoline, distillate fuel

oil, and petroleum coke between Port Arthur and other deep-draft U.S. ports.

Port Arthur’s crude petroleum imports remained relatively flat since 2001 but steady. In 2009, Port

Arthur’s refinery capacity was nearly 13 percent higher than in 2004. Additionally, Motiva announced

plans for a 325,000 barrels-per-day refinery expansion in Port Arthur in December 2007. Port Arthur’s

other commodity movements include imports of crude materials and primary manufactured goods. In

2007, crude material imports consisted of 513,000 short tons of limestone, sand, and gravel. For the most

recent 10-year period, crude material volumes averaged nearly 500,000 short tons annually. In 2007,

imports of primary manufactured goods were down from 1999–2006 annual volumes that exceeded

500,000. Port Arthur’s crude material and primary manufacturing facilities are located on the SabineNeches Canal near mile 32, and its crude petroleum and product terminals are in the Taylor Bayou basin.

Examination of Beaumont’s tonnage showed that crude petroleum imports and imports and exports of

petrochemical products comprised 89 percent of Beaumont’s 2007 total oceangoing tonnage. For 2005–

2007, 4 percent of U.S. nitrogenous, potassic, and fertilizer mixes were exported from Beaumont. For

2005–2007, the Beaumont share of fertilizer exports increased to 12.5 percent. Beaumont’s other

commodity movements include grain exports, gasoline and liquid sulphur coastwise shipments, and

imports and exports of crude material and manufactured goods. Beaumont’s crude material imports,

which include limestone, sand, and gravel, comprised 1 percent of the 2005–2007 U.S. total. Beaumont’s

imports of manufactured goods for 2005–2007 consisted of 336,000 short tons of iron and steel products,

representing 1 percent of the U.S. total. Coastwise shipments for 2005–2007 averaged 2.4 million short

tons and included 1.3 million short tons of gasoline and 720,000 short tons of chemicals. Liquid sulphur

comprised 85 percent of coastwise chemical shipments. For the period 1999–2007, sulphur shipments

ranged from a low of 506,000 short tons in 2004 to a high of 679,000 in 2001. In 2007, Beaumont’s

sulphur shipments totaled 553,000 short tons.

While crude petroleum growth dominates SNWW total tonnage, significant increases in other

commodities are notable. Figure V-2 displays comparison of SNWW 1990–1992 through 2005–2007

volumes by major commodity group.2 Petroleum and chemical product imports and exports, breakbulk

2 Data for the years prior to 1999 are not presented for the individual ports. The Bureau of Census data contained in the

Waterborne Commerce of the United States does not reflect correct allocation of Port Arthur and Beaumont traffic between

the ports. Some of Beaumont’s traffic was recorded under Port Arthur due to a Bureau of Census error. Total tonnage values

were found to be correct for the SNWW, but the individual counts for years prior to 1999 were found to be unreliable.

109
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-10

imports and exports, and bulk grain exports are shown. Tonnage increased for all groups except grain. In

spite of declines, grain exports have increased marginally since the middle 1990s, and Beaumont’s 2005–

2007 wheat exports represent 5 percent of total U.S. wheat exports. The U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) forecast shows a constant export level of 1,075 million bushels for 2014–2015 through 2018–

2019, with the forecast volume down by 17 percent from the 2007/2008 high of 1,264 million bushels.

Figure V-2

SNWW Foreign Imports and Exports by Major Group (Excluding Crude Petroleum),

1990–1992 to 2005–2007 Distribution

Expansion of the Deep-Draft Traffic Historical Base

In addition to its large existing base of crude petroleum, petroleum and chemical products, and dry bulk

deep-draft cargoes, the without-project future condition includes operation of three LNG terminals. LNG

is expected to play an increasingly important role in the natural gas industry and global energy markets in

the next several years and in the long-term future. The combination of higher natural gas prices, lower

LNG costs, rising gas import demand, and the desire of gas producers to monetize their gas reserves is

setting the stage for increased global LNG trade. The Global Liquefied Natural Gas Market: Status &

Outlook, which characterizes the global LNG market, recent trends, and future prospects in the LNG

market, was evaluated in relationship to national trends and anticipated market shares.

Liquefied Natural Gas Traffic

LNG will play an increasingly important role in the natural gas industry and global energy markets in the

next several years. In 2007, the U.S. imported an estimated 771 billion cubic feet (Bcf) or 21.2 million

short tons of LNG. Shipments to existing U.S. facilities in 2006–2008 came from Trinidad (64 percent),

North Africa (22 percent), Western Africa (11 percent), Norway (2 percent), and Middle East (1 percent).

110
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-11

During the early 2000s, LNG permits were approved for the Sabine Pass, Golden Pass, and Port Arthur

terminals. The SNWW LNG facilities are located in the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal

reaches; these reaches are presently 500 feet and would remain so under the without-project future. LNG

vessels using the SNWW would be subject to strict USCG regulations and to local pilot rules and,

therefore, would not have the opportunity to meet other vessels or barges. The USCG regulations require

that a safety zone is in place 2 miles ahead of a loaded LNG vessel and 1 mile astern of the vessel while

transiting. LNG vessels using the SNWW would be subject to this rule. Even in the absence of the safety

concerns inherent to LNG, the beams of LNG tankers would result in vessel meeting restrictions;

however, all LNG vessel movements would be subject to one-way traffic. Operation of the LNG

terminals is part of the without-project future condition.

Phase I of the Sabine Pass terminal, which is operated by Cheniere, is complete and the first vessels

arrived in April 2008. Phase 1 consists of 10.1 Bcf of LNG storage in three tanks, each with an LNG

capacity of 160,000 cubic meters, and a maximum continuous regasification rate of 2.6 billion cubic feet

per day (Bcf/d). Phase 2 will be built in stages. The first stage of Phase 2 includes the addition of a fourth

and fifth storage tank, additional vaporizers that would bring the maximum continuous regasification rate

up to 4.0 Bcf/d with a peak sendout capacity of 4.3 Bcf/d. In the future stages of Phase 2, a sixth storage

tank may be added and related facilities would bring the total LNG storage volume to 20.2 Bcf.

Construction of the Golden Pass LNG terminal is currently in progress and is scheduled for completion

by 2011. The Golden Pass facility, which is being constructed by ExxonMobil and Conoco Phillips, will

consists of a dock and unloading facilities, five LNG storage tanks (≈17 Bcf), and vaporization capacity

of 2.7 Bcf/d. The Port Arthur project consists of two ship berths, three to six storage tanks (160,000 cubic

meters), and vaporization capacity of 1.5–3 Bcf/d. The LNG for the Golden Pass terminal is anticipated to

be supplied primarily from the Ras Laffan 3 and the Qatargas 3 projects in Qatar, which will produce and

process natural gas from Qatar's offshore North Field.

Construction of the Port Arthur terminal has not started but is anticipated after 2012. The Port Arthur

LNG terminal, constructed and operated by Sempra Energy, would be capable of delivering between 1.5

and 3 Bcf/d of natural gas. The terminal will include two unloading docks for ships and three to six full

containment storage tanks and associated equipment in order to transform the LNG back to its gaseous

state. As noted, construction of this third facility is planned for after 2012. At full utilization, Sabine Pass

and Golden Pass could handle 2.05 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) annually. The Port Arthur terminal annual

capacity would increase regional capacity by 2.97 Tcf without pushing peak capacity. Table V-7 shows

SNWW current and future capacity volumes.

111
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-12

Table V-7

SNWW Economic Analysis, U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas

Facility Expansions and New Construction

(Given Current FERC Approval and Existing Facility Status)

Facility

Storage

Capacity (Bcf)

Output Capacity

(Bcf/d)

Completion

Date

Sabine Pass

Phase I 10.1 2.6 2008

Phase II 10.1 1.4 -

Total 20.2 4.0

Golden Pass 17.0 2.7 2010

Port Arthur 20.0 3.0 2012

Total SNWW 57.2 9.7

There are about 40 LNG terminals that are before the FERC being discussed by the LNG industry for

North America. Six terminals are already operating on the East Coast, Puerto Rico, and Alaska. There are

seven onshore LNG terminals in the continental U.S. These are located in Everett, Massachusetts; Lake

Charles, Louisiana; Elba Island, Georgia; Cove Point, Maryland; Cameron, Louisiana; Sabine, Texas; and

Freeport, Texas. The Cameron, Sabine, and Freeport terminals are new. In addition to these three

terminals, the Northeast Gateway port offshore Massachusetts received its first supplies in 2008. With

these four terminals now operational, U.S. capacity to receive LNG imports has increased from

approximately 5.0 Bcf/d at the end of 2007 to 14.5 Bcf/d per day at the end of 2008. The Sabine Pass

facility adds 2.6 Bcf and about 18 percent to U.S. Bcf capacity. Table V-8 displays 2007–2008 U.S. LNG

capacity and shows 2003–2009 imports. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported total

LNG import shipments of 771 Bcf in 2007 to these terminals, with each importing similar volumes – each

between 20 and 30 percent of the total. Imports in 2008 only reached 351 Bcf.

Despite declines in 2008, the EIA expects U.S. LNG imports to increase to about 500 Bcf in 2009, up

from 352 Bcf in 2008, and rise to about 740 Bcf in 2010. The 2008 fall in imported natural gas to the U.S.

reflects the increased need for natural gas in other countries willing to compete for available global

supplies. While U.S. imports increased in 2009 over 2008 levels, U.S. LNG import growth this year has

been constrained because of increased LNG demand in Europe and delays and maintenance to new and

existing LNG liquefaction capacity. With limited natural gas storage availability, recent data suggest that

European inventory levels are now nearing capacity. The expectation is that LNG shipments may be

redirected to U.S. ports in the coming months as prices in the European market become less attractive to

LNG suppliers.

The 2009 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2009) forecast shows U.S. LNG imports reaching 2007 levels

again in 2014 and peaking at 1,380 Bcf in 2020. Between 2020 and 2030, imports are forecasted to turn

down once again. Figure V-3 shows the Department of Energy’s 2006–2030 U.S. LNG import forecast.

Identification of the region’s future share of the LNG market is obviously subject to uncertainty. The

SNWW facilities have the advantage of the FERC approval, relatively high levels of public and political

112
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-13

support, and locational advances in terms of access to the U.S. Gulf. For the analysis, 25 percent of U.S.

waterborne LNG imports market was used for SNWW. The SNWW forecast is included in Table V-9.

Table V-8

LNG Existing and Under Construction Terminals

Total Capacity (Bcf/d) Total Throughput (Imports Bcf)

Location 2007 2008 2012 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Everett 0.7 158.3 173.8 168.5 176.1 183.6 165.3

Cove Point 1.8 66.1 209.3 221.7 116.6 148.2 25.9

Elba Island 0.8 43.9 105.2 132.1 146.8 170.2 135.7

Lake Charles 1.8 238.2 163.7 103.8 143.6 251.5 8.9

NE Gateway 0.4 – – 5.2 0.5 17.3 –

Gulf Gateway 0.4 – – – – – 0.9

Altamira 0.7 – – – – – –

Sabine Pass 2.6 4.0 – – – – – 9.2

Cameron 1.8 – – – – – –

Freeport 1.5 – – – – – –

Golden Pass – 2 – – – – – –

Gulf LNG – 1.5 – – – – – –

Neptune – 0.5 – – – – – –

Canaport 1.0 – – – – – –

Costa Azul 1.0 2.6 – – – – – –

Total 14.5 21.5* 506.5 652.0 631.3 583.5 770.8 345.9

Short Tons (millions) n/a n/a 15.6 22.2 16.6 18.6 21.2 10.7

Source: Compiled from U.S. Department of Energy data.

*Reflects inclusion of 2008 capacity.

V.C COMMODITY AND FLEET FORECASTS

Commodity and fleet forecasts were prepared for SNWW crude petroleum, petroleum and chemical

products, grain, iron and steel products, limestone and building materials, and LNG. The crude petroleum,

petroleum, and chemical products forecasts are presented first, followed by discussion of the new LNG

market and its tonnage forecast. Finally the grain, iron, metal products, and aggregate are presented. The

remaining oceangoing commodity groups, which were found either not to be transported in draft

constrained vessels at the current time or were of limited volumes, were analyzed in the aggregate.

Estimation of total traffic was needed for the widening analysis and also provided critical input for the

shore erosion effects evaluation performed by the ERDC.

113
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-14

Figure V-3

U.S. LNG Imports 2006–2030

Trillion of Cubic Feet

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030

Source: U.S. Department of Energy (2009a).

Table V-9

U.S. and SNWW Liquefied Natural Gas Imports, 2005–2030

Updated June 2009

U.S. Total LNG Imports SNWW

Year Trillion Cubic Feet

Waterborne

Short Tons

LNG Forecast

Short Tons

2005 0.5661 16,566,000 –

2006 0.5840 18,617,000 –

2007 0.7708 21,238,000 –

2015 1.1460 31,575,957 3,157,596

2019 1.4101 38,852,755 5,827,913

2020 1.3808 38,045,447 9,511,362

2025 1.1269 31,049,691 7,008,843

2029 0.8964 24,698,681 6,174,670

2030 0.8097 22,309,819 6,174,670

2039 n/a n/a 6,174,670

2049 n/a n/a 6,174,670

2059 n/a n/a 6,174,670

2069 n/a n/a 6,174,670

Source for U.S. Imports: U.S. Department of Energy (2009b).

114
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-15

National crude petroleum and petrochemical forecast data and general indicators were assessed in

relationship to the study area’s historical commodity-specific tonnage flows for the purpose of evaluating

the relationship between historical U.S. tonnage volumes and study area tonnage. Assessment of the

statistical variables associated with the U.S. and study area tonnage provides the analytical support

needed to determine which forecasts furnish the best long-term estimation of future study area tonnage

flows. The vessel fleet forecasts incorporate recent historical practices, which reflect continued and

increased utilization of draft-constrained vessels, regardless of the proposed channel enlargement

alternatives.

The outputs of the commodity and fleet projections were based on forecasts published in the EIA

AEO2008 and AEO2009; Global Insight, The U.S. Economy, The 30-Year Focus, First Quarter 2008 and

Second Quarter 2009; USDA Agricultural Baseline Projection Tables, USDA Baseline Projections

Report to 2019, February 2009; and from indices developed from historical trend data. The forecasting

methodologies, the distribution of tonnage by vessel class, and the determination of the number of vessel

trips are discussed in the sections that follow.

Tables V-10 and V-11 summarize the forecasts for the major commodity groups evaluated for channel

deepening. The Port Arthur forecast is shown in Table V-10 and Beaumont’s forecast in Table V-11.

Detailed discussions of the commodity forecasts are presented in the Economic Appendix. The following

section presents SNWW vessel fleet data.

Vessel Utilization Trends

The existing 40-foot project depth was designed to efficiently and safely accommodate vessels of

approximately 40,000 DWT with loaded drafts of 36 feet. Since the authorization of the existing project,

the size and draft of vessels using the waterway increased to meet the competitive demand for moreefficient movements. Table V-1 displays SNWW 1970–2007 total tonnage and principal deep-draft

movements by major commodity group. Examination of SNWW historic traffic data showed that if

deeper depths were available, a significant share of the vessels used in the transport of crude petroleum

and petroleum products could be loaded to drafts over 40 feet. In addition, but to a lesser extent,

examination of the 1995–2007 vessel sizes, loaded drafts, design drafts, and parcel sizes revealed that

some of the vessels used to transport grain, chemical products, and breakbulk cargo, such as iron ore,

metal products, and limestone and other aggregate, warranted additional analysis.

Analysis of the vessel fleets and utilization, and existing and future constraints associated with crude

petroleum; petrochemical products, including LNG; grain; and aggregate products, such as iron ore, steel

slab, limestone, and sand and gravel, provided the basis for identifying the commodities expected to be

transported in vessels loaded to channel depths over 40 feet and estimating specific percentage utilization

for channel depths over 40 feet. Additional considerations were foreign port depths and constraints such

as the Panama Canal. Completion of the Panama Canal expansion, from its present width restriction of

106 feet and approximate loaded draft limit of 39.6 feet, in the year 2014 would allow for more fully

loaded vessel movements from deepwater ports in Western Mexico, South America, and the Far East. The

115
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-16

canal expansion would accommodate maximum loaded drafts of 48 feet. Port depth, trade route, and

historical vessel utilization data were used to identify the percentage of tonnage anticipated to benefit

from the proposed SNWW depth increases.

Table V-10

Port Arthur Tonnage Evaluated for Channel Deepening*

(1,000s of short tons)

Year

Crude

Petroleum

Imports

Petrochemicals Breakbulk

Liquefied

Natural

Gas Imports

Petroleum Products Chemical Products Coastwise* Crude

Primary

Manuf.

Imports Exports Imports Exports Products Materials Goods

2001 11,064 641 2,327 25 136 1,043 131 665 0

2002 9,013 997 3,143 89 176 1,422 921 641 0

2003 11,987 1,152 3,734 60 210 2,577 501 557 0

2004 10,015 2,150 4,255 225 889 1,804 572 564 0

2005 9,320 2,205 3,858 194 998 1,803 572 710 0

2006 10,627 1,144 4,391 111 1,330 2,323 620 542 0

2007 10,334 772 3,978 97 1,525 3,330 577 122 0

Port Arthur Tonnage Forecast**

2019 12,248 1,811 6,879 223 1,462 3,002 751 524 5,828

2029 13,663 2,027 9,013 246 1,872 3,754 873 608 6,175

2039 14,509 2,312 10,255 272 2,396 4,506 1,016 705 6,175

2040 14,800 2,589 11,619 301 2,647 4,977 1,181 818 6,175

2059 15,100 2,901 13,124 332 2,924 5,498 1,374 949 6,175

2069 15,469 3,250 14,850 367 3,229 6,073 1,598 1,102 6,175

*Includes coastwise crude petroleum shipments and receipts.

**Deepening benefits were calculated for a percentage of the tonnage presented in this table.

Discussion of the commodity-specific percentages is contained in the Economic Appendix (Appendix 2).

Crude Petroleum Fleet

Crude petroleum growth dominates total tonnage for both Beaumont and Port Arthur. In a comparison of

the relative port statistics, a greater percentage of crude tonnage is loaded to drafts of 38 feet or more for

Port Arthur than for Beaumont. This is due to Port Arthur receiving a higher share of direct shipments

from Mexico than Beaumont does. Generally, vessels would be loaded to deeper drafts for longer distance

direct routes. In comparison, Beaumont receives a higher share of lightered tonnage from both lightened

mother vessels and shuttles. While there are obvious cost incentives to load to the maximum allowable

depth, in looking at average loaded drafts, the lightened mother vessels and shuttles were lighter than

vessels associated with direct shipments. Port Arthur’s petroleum refineries are located inside the Taylor

Bayou complex. The maximum size using the Taylor Bayou facilities are in the 110,000 to 116,000 DWT

range. While Port Arthur vessels are loaded to deeper draft, the Port Arthur fleet is smaller than

Beaumont’s in terms of DWT because the existing width at the mouth of Taylor Bayou and the

configuration of the docks within Taylor Bayou limit the allowable vessel size.

116
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-17

Table V-11

Beaumont Tonnage Evaluated for Channel Deepening

(1,000s of short tons)

Petrochemicals Breakbulk

Crude

Petroleum

Imports

Petroleum Products Chemical Products

Coastwise*

Products

Grain

Exports

Crude

Materials

Primary

Manuf.

Year Imports Exports Imports Exports Goods

2001 53,162 2,093 2,793 729 1,160 2,793 858 787 103

2002 57,370 4,031 2,492 594 1,411 2,712 835 408 204

2003 58,171 4,035 2,839 374 1,345 2,732 1,125 656 115

2004 59,860 3,852 2,897 431 1,215 3,191 1,329 663 420

2005 50,371 3,144 2,496 890 893 2,967 1,082 730 471

2006 46.988 2,676 2,432 1,133 1,574 3,115 1,214 793 364

2007 47,776 2,948 2,713 858 1,644 3,261 1,632 1,038 173

Beaumont Tonnage Forecast**

2019 81,980 3,362 4,586 967 1,787 4,899 2,129 1,106 428

2029 91,463 3,765 6,008 1,068 2,288 6,125 2,351 1,285 498

2039 97,152 4,293 7,458 1,180 2,928 7,351 2,597 1,495 579

2049 99,136 4,809 8,450 1,303 3,235 8,120 2,869 1,738 674

2059 101,149 5,387 10,738 1,439 3,573 8,970 3,169 2,022 784

2069 103,189 6,036 12,150 1,590 3,947 9,908 3,501 2,352 911

*Includes coastwise crude petroleum shipments and receipts.

**Deepening benefits were calculated for a percentage of the tonnage presented in this table.

Discussion of the commodity-specific percentages is contained in the Economic Appendix (Appendix 2).

Widening of the mouth of the entrance to Taylor Bayou would occur under the with-project future

condition and this would allow better vessel maneuverability. Widening of the mouth was recommended

as a result of the ERDC vessel simulation modeling. Port Arthur’s breakbulk docks and new LNG

facilities are located outside of the Taylor Bayou complex and are not subject to similar vessel beam and

length restrictions. The maximum sized vessels using the Channel to Beaumont are in the 150,000 to

175,000 DWT class. The maximum length for that group is approximately 900 feet, with a corresponding

beam width of 164 feet. Five percent of Beaumont’s 2006 crude petroleum imports are associated with

this group. Table V-12 displays Port Arthur’s and Beaumont’s 2002–2006 port-specific distributions by

loaded draft. Distributions of Port Arthur and Beaumont crude oil imports by vessel DWT range are

shown in tables V-13 and V-14.

117
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-18

Table V-12

SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports by Loaded Draft, 2002–2007

Loaded Draft

(feet)

Port Arthur Crude Petroleum Imports (%)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

<35 7.6 2.6 0.3 9.5 5.0 4.6

35–37 10.5 8.6 0.0 47.6 56.7 3.2

>37 81.9 88.8 99.7 42.9 38.3 92.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Beaumont Crude Petroleum Imports (%)

<35 10.5 10.5 12.7 10.3 17.2 7.3

35–37 27.3 27.0 23.5 19.1 19.3 22.6

>37 62.2 62.5 63.8 70.6 63.5 70.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USACE (2007a). The Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay was used to obtain the vessel DWT and associated characteristics.

Table V-13

Port Arthur Crude Petroleum Imports 2002–2007, Percentage of Imports

by Vessel DWT and Design Draft and Year Built

DWT 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

≤50,000 0.1 0.7 0.7 1.5 0.0 0.9

50,000–74,500 55.5 6.2 3.0 3.1 4.5 7.9

75,000–84,900 14.5 75.8 93.7 66.0 93.1 82.2

85,000–89,900 5.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

90,000–119,900 21.9 15.2 2.6 26.0 2.4 4.4

120,000–149,900 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0

150,000–175,000 1.9 1.4 0.0 2.6 0.0 3.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USACE (2007a). The Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay was used to obtain the vessel DWT and associated

characteristics.

Table V-14

Beaumont Crude Petroleum Imports 2002–2007, Percentage of Imports

by Vessel DWT and Design Draft and Year Built

DWT 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

≤50,000 0.6 0.4 0.8 1.6 1.1 0.7

50,000–74,500 2.3 2.5 1.5 1.6 3.2 2.8

75,000–84,900 8.1 6.2 8.2 9.1 9.6 9.7

85,000–89,900 9.8 5.4 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0

90,000–119,900 71.2 76.2 78.8 80.2 77.6 80.2

120,000–149,900 2.9 3.3 3.9 3.5 2.5 1.9

150,000–175,000 5.2 6.1 6.5 4.0 5.7 4.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USACE (2007a). The Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay was used to obtain the vessel DWT and associated characteristics.

118
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-19

Petroleum Product Carriers

Examination of the vessel characteristics and geographic routings associated with SNWW products

indicates that some vessels could be more fully loaded. Table V-15 presents a percentage distribution of

SNWW petroleum product imports and exports by vessel DWT class. This table shows that 32 to

54 percent of 1998–2007 imports and 5 to 27 percent of exports were transported in vessels of 60,000

DWT or more.

Table V-15

SNWW Petroleum Product Import Tonnage by Vessel DWT

SNWW Percentage of Imports by DWT Range

DWT Range 1998 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007

<10,000 4.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 1.3

10,000 to 29,999 12.1 6.2 2.8 4.4 1.1 4.4

30,000 to 49,999 45.8 48.9 41.3 48.7 58.1 45.6

50,000 to 59,999 5.5 3.0 1.4 1.1 2.2 7.1

60,000 to 69,999 3.8 15.1 16.7 9.3 12.8 6.9

70,000 to 79,999 2.7 0.0 15.2 18.4 17.0 21.2

80,000 to 89,999 4.0 8.9 5.4 7.3 0.0 0.0

90,000 to 99,999 15.8 5.4 3.7 3.3 2.1 0.5

100,000 to 116,000 6.0 12.6 13.2 7.5 6.4 13.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

SNWW Percentage of Exports by DWT Range

DWT Range 1998 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007

<10,000 2.9 2.5 3.0 1.0 1.4 1.7

10,000 to 29,999 14.3 11.9 9.5 15.5 7.2 8.6

30,000 to 49,999 67.3 57.0 69.0 72.9 77.6 61.2

50,000 to 59,999 7.2 1.4 10.0 4.2 8.7 14.5

60,000 to 69,999 4.1 12.1 4.4 1.7 2.7 5.5

70,000 to 79,999 1.9 11.4 4.0 4.7 0.6 8.5

80,000 to 89,999 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0

90,000 to 99,999 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

100,000 to 116,000 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USACE (2007a).

The Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay was used to obtain the vessel DWT and associated characteristics.

Table V-16 presents the percentage of Port Arthur and Beaumont tonnage for design drafts greater than

and less than 40 feet and shows that in 2007, an average of 59 percent of Port Arthur and 46 percent of

Beaumont petroleum product imports were transported in vessels with design drafts over 40 feet. For

exports, the 38 percent of Port Arthur and 20 percent of Beaumont tonnage were transported in vessels

with design drafts over 40 feet. Comparison of the 2002–2007 statistics shows that the percentage of Port

119
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-20

Arthur and Beaumont exports transported in vessels with design drafts over 40 feet experienced relatively

large increases; however, the annual rates are subject to variability based on annual changes in trade

routes and commodity mixes.

Tables V-17 and V-18 show product totals by commodity and the corresponding percentage of imports

and exports shipped in vessels of 60,000 DWT or more. As shown, the annual percentages vary greatly

and discernible patterns are not apparent. As also shown in Table V-17, higher percentages of imports are

associated with vessels of 60,000 DWT than are exports.

Table V-16

SNWW Petroleum Products 2002–2007 Imports and Exports by Vessel Design Draft

Design

Draft

(feet) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

2002–2007

Average

Annual

Growth Rate

Port Arthur Percentage of Petroleum Product Imports

≤40 60 62 62 54 40 41 –7.3

>40 40 38 38 46 60 59 8.1

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 n/a

Beaumont Percentage of Petroleum Product Imports

≤40 49 45 48 66 63 54 2.0

>40 51 55 52 34 37 46 –2.0

Port Arthur Percentage of Petroleum Product Exports

≤40 94 70 89 91 92 62 –8.0

>40 6 30 11 9 8 44.7 44.7

Total 100 100 100 100 100 n/a n/a

Beaumont Percentage of Petroleum Product Exports

≤40 89 83 83 85 86 80 –2.1

>40 11 17 17 15 14 20 12.7

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 n/a

Source: USACE (2007a). The Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay was used to obtain the vessel DWT and associated characteristics.

While it is anticipated that this variance would continue to remain high, the use of draft-constrained

vessels for several markets served by the SNWW is also anticipated to continue. While published

forecasts of specific trade routes are not available, the SNWW presently serves markets that can

accommodate more fully loaded product carriers, and it was assumed that some cargo movements would

transition to more fully loaded vessels based on the economics of scale of loading to increased depths and

availability of channel depths in excess of 40 feet at some trading ports. As shown in tables V-16 and V17, larger product carriers are used for high volume commodities such as distillate and residual fuel

imports and petroleum coke exports

120
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-21

Table V-17

Percentage of Imports and Exports Shipped in Vessels of 60,000 DWT or Larger

SNWW Petroleum Product Imports

1998–2007 (select years)

Major Commodity

Group

Total Imports by Commodity Group (1,000s of short tons) Percent of Imports Transported in Vessels ≥60,000 DWT

1998 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 1998 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007

Gasoline – 33 1,613 2,213 1,678 1,096 – 0 6 14 8 15Distillate Fuel 102 572 728 1,286 1,267 1,872 40 75 73 73 78 67Residual Fuel 57 25 810 804 351 355 100 100 59 94 74 16Lube Oil and Greases 2,140 700 619 50 71 2 83 90 80 0 39 39

Naphtha and Solvents 808 1,138 1,977 595 368 719 21 5 81 49 16 16

Asphalt, Tar, and Pitch 11 – – 7 – – – – – – – – Petroleum Coke 250 266 255 365 84 276 10 – 21 48 – 10Other 124 – – 29 – – 6 – – – – – Total Imports 3,492 2,734 6,003 5,349 3,819 3,744 58 42 54 46 39 40

Table V-18

SNWW Petroleum Product Exports

1998–2007 (select years)

Major Commodity

Group

Total Exports by Commodity Group (1,000s of short tons) Percent of Exports Transported in Vessels ≥60,000 DWT

1998 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 1998 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007

Gasoline 1,376 1,258 1,949 1,778 1,777 1,970 1 – 3 – 1 10Distillate Fuel 602 179 449 371 371 345 42 – – 11 9 58Residual Fuel 206 12 0 51 68 – 12 – – – 50 – Lube Oil and Greases 41 63 57 99 117 60 10 – – – 10 10

Naphtha and Solvents 0 146 8 58 94 22 4 – – – 4 – Petroleum Coke 1,622 3,447 4,688 4,362 4,362 4,210 13 35 13 14 6 9

Other 463 17 0 104 33 – – – –– – – Total Imports 4,328 5,122 7,151 6,823 6,822 6,607 8 23 9 9 5 15

Source (Tables 40–41): USACE (2007a).

The Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay was used to obtain the vessel DWT and associated characteristic

121
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-22

Examination of the data in tables V-13 through V-17 shows that there are large annual variances in the

percentage of annual tonnage associated with the draft and parcel criteria, and, therefore, depths at trading

ports and comparable operations at similar ports were also evaluated. Examination of petroleum product

imports and exports through other U.S. Gulf Coast ports with channel depths over 40 feet shows that

34 percent of distillate imports from Russia, North Africa, and Venezuela were shipped in vessels with

loaded drafts of 42 feet or more.

The use of the Panama Canal for all of the Far East and over half of the South America destinations

would limit the sizes of vessels used for that trade until the Panama Canal expansions are complete.

Completion of the Panama Canal deepening and widening is expected to occur before 2014. In addition to

foreign flag product carriers, a steady volume of domestic coastwise product tankers use Port Arthur and

Beaumont. Domestic coastwise movements primarily consist of gasoline and distillate and residual fuel

shipments. These products are refined at the SNWW ports and shipped to the U.S. East Coast, specifically

eastern Florida. In 2006, coastwise shipments totaled 3.6 million short tons. Coastwise receipts totaled

978,000 short tons. Examination of vessel specifics showed that approximately 10 percent of outbound

coastwise shipments were transported in draft-restricted tankers. These product carriers generally are

between 60,000 and 70,000 DWT with design drafts in the 41- to 43-foot range.

Chemical Product Carriers

For the period 2002–2007, chemical imports represented approximately 3 percent of both SNWW and

U.S. total foreign tonnage. Both U.S. and SNWW imports exhibited consistent upward growth from the

mid-1990s through 2007, with SNWW overall rates increasing at nearly five times the U.S. rate but also

exhibiting higher annual variances. As with imports, SNWW chemical exports exhibited significantly

higher overall growth than the national rates, with overall rates increasing at nearly five times the U.S.

rate. Chemical product growth can be attributed to diversification of the SNWW product base and the

development of new markets. Table V-19 shows SNWW and U.S. total tonnage for 1990–2007, with

recent tonnage representing record highs.

Evaluation of 1998–2007 chemical product exports showed that the percentage of tonnage associated with

design drafts between 40 and 44 feet ranged from zero to 14 percent, averaging 4 percent annually. An

average of 16 percent of 1998–2006 export tonnage was transported in loaded drafts between 36 and

40 feet. In 2007, 18 percent of SNWW chemical exports were transported in vessels with loaded drafts

between 36 and 40 feet. Approximately two-thirds of 2002–2007 exports were shipped from Beaumont

and the remainder from Port Arthur. Seventy-nine percent of 2002–2007 imports were shipped into

Beaumont and the remainder to Port Arthur.

Review of the Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay showed that 21.6 percent of the chemical tankers on order in

2009 have design drafts of 43 feet or more and 1.6 percent of chemical tankers on order have design

drafts of 47 feet or more. Table V-20 presents the distribution of the world chemical carrier fleet as of

January 2009.

122
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-23

Table V-19

SNWW and U.S. Chemical Products (1,000s of short tons)

Foreign Imports and Exports

Chemical Product Imports Chemical Product Exports

Year SNWW U.S. SNWW U.S.

1990 34 15,943 547 40,419

1991 35 15,293 455 44,418

1992 46 16,404 489 42,216

1993 25 18,954 537 39,781

1994 49 23,479 577 44,934

1995 33 24,069 724 49,466

1996 48 24,597 777 47,476

1997 33 25,054 1,101 50,538

1998 140 27,443 979 51,343

1999 449 28,141 753 52,199

2000 619 38,477 1,469 57,886

2001 754 43,833 1,296 54,746

2002 683 39,572 1,587 54,961

2003 434 42,010 1,555 53,575

2004 656 43,810 2,104 60,734

2005 1,084 45,517 1,891 56,684

2006 1,133 48,013 2,904 58,699

2007 955 46,881 3,169 60,188

1990–1998 Average 49 21,248 686 45,626

1999–2007 Average 752 41,806 1,859 56,630

Average Annual Growth % Rate 35.4 7.8 11.7 2.4

Source: USACE (2007a).

Table V-20

Chemical Product Carrier Fleet

World Fleet as of January 2009

Design Draft (feet) Median DWT

Percentage of Total DWT

Built 1985–2004 On Order as of January 2009

<36 13,000 36.1 34.1

36–38 38,500 23.6 18.6

39–40 46,000 24.2 17.7

41–42 47,000 6.6 6.2

43–44 50,000 3.5 21.8

45–46 85,000 0.9 –

47–49 95,000 5.1 1.6

50–51 n/a – –

Total 100 100

Source: Lloyd’s’ Register-Fairplay (2009).

123
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-24

Current vessel usage and general indicators, such as depths at trading ports, overall tonnage, and the

design drafts for the current fleet of vessels, suggest that some future chemical movements would benefit

from channel depths up to 48 feet. Of the vessels on order, 1.8 percent of vessels have design drafts of

48 feet. Review of existing cargo loads suggests that the draft-constrained tonnage would likely consist of

metallic salt exports and acyclic hydrocarbon exports. Project benefits were calculated assuming that 5 to

10 percent of future chemical export tonnage would be transported in vessels with loaded drafts between

40 and 49 feet. Eight percent of 2019–2069 chemical export tonnage was assumed to be loaded to drafts

over 40 feet. Deepening benefits were not calculated for chemical imports due to current limited

utilization of larger vessels and loaded drafts over 36 feet and uncertainty about future trends towards the

use of either larger or more fully loaded vessels.

Grain Carriers

Grain is exported from the Beaumont elevator located just below the Port of Beaumont main TB. While

exports have exceeded 1 million short tons since 2003, recent volumes are less than one-half the 1993

peak volume of 3.5 million short tons. In 2007, Beaumont’s wheat exports totaled 1.6 million short tons.

While relatively low in comparison to the Pacific Northwest and the Lower Mississippi, Beaumont has

maintained a 1.4 to 1.7 percent share of the U.S. waterborne bulk grain export market. Table V-21

displays Beaumont’s 2001–2007 grain export tonnage by grain type and loaded draft. Wheat presently

comprises 100 percent of Beaumont’s grain exports for the most recent 5-year period. Beaumont’s 2007

wheat exports composed 5 percent of the U.S. wheat export total. Figure V-4 provides a comparison of

Beaumont and U.S. wheat exports. During earlier years, wheat represented 85 percent, sorghum

10 percent, and corn 5 percent.

The maximum DWT presently used for grain exports is in the 60,000 to 70,000 DWT range. These

vessels have design drafts between 42 and 43 feet. The specific type of bulk carriers used for grain is

“load-on/load off” or “LoLo” vessels. Table V-22 displays the existing fleet of “LoLo” vessels in the

world fleet and LoLo vessels on order. The median year of construction for the range of vessels

transporting grain from Beaumont is 1985, which is older than the median of 1998 associated with the

world fleet. Review of the distribution of vessels on order and the port depths at receiving ports indicates

that some transition in the average DWT range from the existing 60,000 to 70,000 DWT into the 80,000

to 94,000 DWT range is reasonable to expect.

The USDA’s February 2009 forecast shows modest growth in wheat exports between 2006 and

2018/2019. U.S. 2006–2018/2019 exports are forecasted to increase from approximately 990 million

bushels in 2006 to 1,075 million bushels by 2014/2015 and remain constant at that level through the end

of the forecast period in 2018/2019.

124
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-25

Table V-21

Beaumont Bulk Grain Export

Distribution of Tonnage by Grain Type and Loaded Vessel Draft

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Bulk Grain Export Totals by Year (1,000s of Short Tons)

Total Exports 831 835 1,125 1,329 1,080, 1,214 1,632

% by Grain Type

Wheat 79.0 88.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Corn 6.5 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sorghum 14.5 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

% by Loaded Draft (feet)

≤35 56.8 65.8 65.3 67.8 62.8 35.5 50.8

36–37 6.7 5.5 11.6 9.0 15.2 25.7 18.5

38–40 36.5 28.7 23.1 23.2 22.0 38.8 30.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USACE (2007a).

Figure V-4. U.S. and Beaumont Bulk Grain Exports, 1990–2007 (Short Tons)

125
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-26

Table V-22

LoLo Bulk Dry Cargo Carriers (World Fleet)

Vessels in Operation

DWT Range

Total

DWT

Percent

DWT

Median

DWT

Design

Draft (feet)

Year

Built

<25,000 5,825,500 3 20,035 30 1996

25,000 to 44,000 31,009,518 14 32,755 34 1994

45,000 to 64,000 33,235,975 15 49,061 39 2000

65,000 to 79,000 58,832,687 27 73,445 45 1998

80,000 to 94,000 3,716,652 2 88,405 43 2000

95,000 to 106,999 414,221 0 105,712 50 2001

107,000 to 169,999 38,252,170 18 151,257 57 1994

170,000 to 260,000 45,324,613 21 172,964 58 2000

Total 216,611,336 100

Vessels on Order

DWT Range

Total

DWT

Percent

DWT

Median

DWT

Design

Draft (feet)

<25,000 775,191 2 18,500 28

25,000 to 44,000 4,430,571 8 34,525 34

45,000 to 64,000 11,825,398 21 54,500 41

65,000 to 79,000 9,044,747 16 75,750 46

80,000 to 94,000 9,382,833 17 82,788 47

95,000 to 106,999 815,150 2 100,000 44

170,000 to 199,999 18,990,990 34 177,015 59

Total 55,264,880 100

Source: Tables 47 and 48: Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay (2006).

Steel Slab and Iron Ore Carriers

For the period, 2002–2006, an average of 2.5 percent of U.S. iron ore and steel slab imports were

transported through the SNWW ports. For the period 2002–2007, imports ranged from a low of 240,000

short tons in 2007 and a high of 1,136,000 short tons in 2005. In 2006, SNWW imports totaled 859,000

short tons. The 2002–2006 average annual import volume of 783,000 short tons is over 100 percent

higher than 1990–1993 average levels.

Steel slab is transported in LoLo bulkers in the 45,000 to 53,000 DWT range, with a maximum vessel size

of 78,000 DWT. Review of the Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay (2003) showed that 23 percent of bulk carriers

constructed over the past decade are in the 66,000 to 78,000 DWT range. This is same vessel type used

for grain; however, the specific vessels are different with each cargo having dedicated carriers.

Examination of the foreign ports of call for 1998–2007 SNWW tonnage showed that an average of

8 percent of tonnage was transported through world ports with channel depths of 44 to 47 feet. Current

126
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-27

vessel usage and general indicators, such as depths at trading ports and the design drafts for new vessel

orders, suggests that, in the short term, a minimum of 10 percent of present iron ore movements would

utilize channel depths over 40 feet. Expansion of the Panama Canal is expected to increase the percentage

to 50 percent by the year 2014. Project benefits were calculated assuming that 10 percent of 2015–2020

tonnage and 50 percent of 2020–2069 would be transported in vessels with loaded drafts between 40 and

49 feet.

Limestone and Rock Carriers

SNWW aggregate tonnage primarily consists of imports of limestone, rock, and other raw building

materials. For the period 2005–2007, 3 percent of U.S. limestone and rock imports were transported

through the SNWW ports. Table V-23 displays SNWW aggregate tonnage. Presently, the most common

carriers used on the SNWW are in the 46,000 to 77,000 DWT range. Table V-24 displays the fleet used

for SNWW 2002–2007 aggregate imports. Presently, nearly all tonnage is transported in vessels with

design drafts over 40 feet. Current vessel usage and general indicators, such as depths at trading ports and

the design drafts for new vessel orders, suggests that some 50 percent of iron ore movements would

utilize channel depths over 40 feet due to the expansion of the Panama Canal. The shipments of clay and

refractory materials are associated with vessels with loaded drafts over 37 feet and design drafts over

40 feet.

Table V-23

SNWW Building Material Imports

(1,000s of short tons)

Sand, Gravel, and

Limestone Imports

(Total Imports and

Estimated Port Share)

Sulphur and Refractory

Material Exports

(Total Imports and

Estimated Port Share)

Estimated Percentage

of Tonnage Transported in

Vessels with Design Drafts

≅40 feet

Year Total

Port

Arthur

(%)

Beaumont

(%) Total

Port

Arthur

(%)

Beaumont

(%)

Sand

and

Gravel Limestone

Sulphur and

Refractory

Materials

1999 617 90 10 0 0 0 100 0 0

2000 495 36 64 13 0 100 99 60 0

2001 635 18 82 40 0 100 99 37 0

2002 1,117 20 80 16 12 88 99 78 0

2003 658 40 60 46 2 100 99 57 0

2004 642 35 65 104 28 72 99 100 0

2005 815 36 64 91 12 88 100 100 21

2006 816 44 56 261 18 82 99 100 0

2007 829 41 59 463 12 88 99 99 11

Source: USACE (2007a).

127
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-28

Table V-24

SNWW Aggregate Tonnage Fleet, 2002–2007

Vessel

DWT

Loaded

Draft

(feet)

Estimated

% of

2002–2006

Imports

Vessel Characteristics

Length

(feet)

Beam

(feet)

Design

Draft

(feet)

Year

Built

46,606 33 11 615 106 37 1995

62,594 40 4 747 106 44 1982

67,044 35–40 54 753 106 43 1984

77,499 40 26 804 106 46 1991

<40,000 n/a 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Total 100

Source: USACE (2007a).

Wood Product Carriers

For the period 1998–2006, approximately 1 percent of U.S. wood product tonnage was transported

through the SNWW ports. Wood products also represent 1 percent of the SNWW 1998–2006 foreign

total. The largest wood product carriers used on the SNWW are in the 50,000 to 60,000 DWT range. The

design drafts of these ships are right at 40 feet; and it was found that wood chip carriers, like container

vessels, characteristically reach capacity in terms of volume before they reach their design drafts. Review

of 2002–2006 data showed that the load patterns were the same as for 1998–2001. The nature of wood

chip cargo suggests it is unlikely that the current fleet could be loaded to depths greater than 40 feet, and

therefore, deepening benefits were not calculated for wood products. Discussion with industry

representatives confirmed this.

Liquefied Natural Gas Fleet

Discussion with industry representatives and review of the vessels on order revealed that LNG vessels

with design drafts of 40 feet or more are being constructed. Table V-25 displays the world LNG fleet,

including vessels on order.

V.D CHANNEL DEEPENING BENEFITS

The transportation costs and the savings associated with the proposed project depth increase were

calculated using commodity-specific vessel class and trade route distributions. Transportation costs were

calculated based on the channel depth alternatives and variables associated with vessel design drafts,

maximum feet of light-loading, underkeel clearance, mileage traveled, and the number of hours to load

and unload. Maximum vessel cargo capacities for crude oil and petroleum products were estimated based

on review of the range of load factors obtained based on review from IWR Report 91-R-13, National

Economic Development Procedures Manual Deep-draft Navigation (1991) and consultation with SNWW

industry and pilots association. The IWR (1991) cargo capacity factors published in the deep-draft manual

128
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-29

for dry bulk carriers and tankers are shown in Table V-26. Consultation with industry and the pilots

revealed that these estimates are reasonable. Table V-27 presents representative round trip mileage for the

trade routes or junction points used for the transportation savings computations.

Table V-25

World Liquefied Natural Gas Fleet

Year Built

DWT

Total

Percent of

DWT DWT

Length of

Ship

(feet)

Beam

(feet)

Design

Draft

feet)

Constructed Between 1980–2002 (Average Vessel Dimensions)

1980–1990 1,742,877 25.6 69,715 910 142 38

1991–2002 5,064,932 74.4 67,532 889 144 37

Total 6,807,809 100.0

Vessels Constructed After 2002 (Average Vessel Dimensions)

Design Draft

Range (feet) Total DWT

Percent of

DWT DWT

Length of

Ship (feet)

Beam

(feet)

Design Draft

(feet)

36.6 to 39.9 2,868,168 66 74,852 927 147 38

40.0 to 41.1 1,453,796 34 77,750 930 144 41

Total 4,321,964 100.0

Vessels on Order 2007 (Average Vessel Dimensions)

Design Draft

Range (feet)

Total

DWT

Percent of

DWT DWT

Length of

Ship (feet)

Beam

(feet)

Design Draft

(feet)

21 to 30 83,242 0.7 8,200 450 98 24

35 to 41 230,250 1.8 58,900 825 127 38

37 to 41 5,516,514 43.9 74,400 945 145 39

37 to 40 2,102,350 16.7 83,000 928 142 38

39 to 45 3,129,719 24.9 100,000 1,033 164 45

39 to 45 1,499,200 11.9 125,600 1,132 176 39

Total 12,561,275 100.0

Table V-26

Adjustments for Estimating Actual Vessel Capacity

Vessel DWT Dry Bulk Tanker

<20,000 0.90 0.90

20,000–70,000 0.92 0.92

70,000–120,000 0.95 0.95

120,000 0.97 0.97

Source: USACE (1991).

129
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-30

Table V-27

Representative Round Trip Mileage to SNWW

Location Total Miles

Coatzacoalcos, Mexico 1,376

U.S. Gulf Coast Lightering/Lightening Zone 160

Venezuela 3,612

Panama Canal 3,120

Brazil (Maceio/Sao Paulo weighted average) 9,422

Rotterdam, Netherlands 10,040

Sture, Norway 10,528

North Africa, Algiers 10,294

West Africa (Nigeria and Angola) 12,500

Persian Gulf and Indian Subcontinent via Suez Canal 19,704

Persian Gulf and Indian Subcontinent via Cape of Good Hope 25,112

Singapore via Panama Canal 24,248

Singapore via Cape of Good Hope 26,304

Vessel Operating Costs

The vessel operating costs are shown in tables V-28 through V-30. Table V-28 displays the hourly

operating costs for tankers. The hourly operating costs include fuel, labor, and maintenance. The costs

used were obtained from deep-draft vessel operating cost Economic Guidance Memorandum (EGM)

December 2008 update (USACE, 2008a). The tanker costs were used for the crude petroleum, petroleum

product, and chemical product transportation cost calculations. The maximum sized vessels using the

channel to Beaumont on a regular basis are in the 150,000 DWT class. The maximum size using the

Taylor Bayou Port Arthur facilities are in the 110,000 to 116,000 DWT range. As previously noted, the

Port Arthur fleet is smaller, in terms of DWT, because the existing width at the mouth of Taylor Bayou

limits the allowable vessel size. The U.S. flag tanker costs contained in Table V-28 were used for U.S.

coastwise product movements. Table V-29 displays the foreign flag bulk carrier operating costs that were

used for the grain exports and imports of iron ore, metal products, limestone, and rock. Table V-30

displays the LNG vessel operating costs. The LNG costs were estimated in consultation with the IWR.

The LNG design vessel used by the ERDC for the ship simulations consisted of a 140,000 cubic meter

spherical-tank-type vessel 920 feet long, 142 feet wide, and 37.4 feet in draft, and a proposed 250,000-

cubic-meter membrane-type tanker 1,126 feet long, 177 feet wide, and 39.4 feet in draft. The LNG

facilities are in the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur reaches. The project design vessel for crude

petroleum tankers using the Entrance Channel and going to Beaumont is 899 feet long and 164 feet wide.

These dimensions correspond to a 158,000 DWT crude petroleum tanker.

130
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-31

Table V-28

Tanker Characteristics and Hourly Operating Cost

Double-Hull Tankers, December 2008 IWR Release

Design Hourly Cost ($)

Vessel Draft Immersion Foreign-Flag U.S. Flag

DWT (feet) Factor At Sea In Port At Sea In Port

20,000 32.3 78.7 659 403 1,470 1,214

25,000 33.4 90.8 696 430 1,565 1,300

35,000 35.6 112.6 766 481 1,747 1,463

50,000 38.7 141.4 865 554 2,005 1,693

60,000 40.7 158.9 952 622 2,239 1,909

70,000 42.6 175.4 1,001 653 2,354 2,007

80,000 44.6 191.0 1,058 692 2,496 2,130

90,000 46.4 205.9 1,107 724 2,610 2,226

110,000 50.0 234.1 1,192 772 2,793 2,374

150,000 56.4 285.4 1,369 878 3,190 2,700

165,000 58.6 303.4 1,439 922 3,350 2,833

175,000 70.3 410.7 1,485 951 4,400 3,707

265,000 73.2 444.5 1,900 1,207 4,764 4,010

320,000 74.5 463.3 2,061 1,306 4,971 4,182

Source: USACE (2008a).

Table V-29

Dry Bulk Carrier Characteristics and Hourly Operating Cost

Foreign Flag Dry Bulk Carriers, December 2008 IWR Release

Vessel Design Immersion Hourly Cost ($)

DWT Draft (feet) Factor At Sea In Port

60,000 42.1 153.5 807 552

70,000 44.1 168.6 847 578

80,000 46.0 183.7 886 603

90,000 47.7 197.4 940 643

100,000 49.4 211.1 994 683

120,000 52.3 236.5 1,092 754

135,000 54.2 254.2 1,236 857

150,000 56.1 271.8 1,236 857

175,000 58.9 299.2 1,355 942

Source: USACE (2008a).

131
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-32

Table V-30

Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers

Characteristics and Hourly Operating Cost (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Vessel DWT

Design Draft

(feet)

Cubic Meters

Capacity

Immersion

Factor

Hourly Cost ($)

At Sea At Sea

76,500 37 145,000 248.7 1,773 1,506

100,000 39 210,000 315.2 2,073 1,753

125,000 40 250,000 358.1 2,302 1,937

125,000 40 265,000 372.4 2,423 2,039

For the transportation cost calculations, an average of 1 foot of underkeel clearance was used for

petroleum vessels. Based on industry input, a 4- to 6-foot underkeel clearance was used for LNG vessel.

The indication from pilot discussion was that an absolute minimum of 4 feet underkeel clearance would

be required; and the preference was for 6 feet. The effects of varying underkeel clearance are addressed in

detail in the sensitivity section of the Economic Appendix (Appendix 2).

Transportation Savings Benefits for Channel Deepening

Transportation savings benefits from reductions in the vessel operating costs were calculated based on the

relative difference in transportation costs between the without-project and with-project conditions.

Transportation costs and savings were calculated for vessels that minimize transportation costs given

trade route constraints. As previously noted, long-term fleet selection would continue to reflect goals of

minimizing vessel operating costs. The basic procedure used to calculate transportation costs using

110,000- and 150,000-DWT foreign flag tankers as an example is illustrated in Table V-31. Similar

computations were made for appropriate distances and vessel sizes for each of the channel depth

alternatives. The resulting costs-per-ton computations were calculated over the relevant range of vessels

projected for each channel depth improvement, and the associated savings per ton were measured using

the net differences in costs between the existing 40-foot channel and the depth alternative. Unless

otherwise noted, the 2019–2069 tonnage forecasts used for the benefit calculations were summarized in

tables V-10 and V-11.

Crude Petroleum Imports Transportation Savings Benefits

The transportation costs used to calculate the benefits for crude petroleum imports are presented in Table

V-32. The per-ton transportation costs correspond to the least-cost method of shipment associated with

the particular trade route. Review of the depths at trading ports and significant savings per ton indicates

that a large share of crude petroleum tonnage from Mexico, Venezuela, and Trinidad would be loaded to

vessel drafts over 40 feet. Expectations concerning the percentage of Middle East and Africa movements

are subject to greater uncertainty. Nearly all Middle East tonnage is lightered and nearly all West Africa

crude is lightened. The logistics associated with these offshore transfers introduces higher degrees of

uncertainty than with direct shipment and, therefore, generates large cost variances.

132
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-33

Table V-31

Transportation Cost Calculation (South America to SNWW)

Channel Depth (feet) 40 45 50 40 45 50

Vessel Deadweight Tons 110,000 110,000 110,000 150,000 150,000 150,000Design Draft (feet) 50.0 50.0 50.0 56.4 56.4 56.4Cargo Capacity (%)* 95 95 95 97 97 97Cargo Capacity (short tons)* 104,500 104,500 104,500 145,500 145,500 145,500Immersion Factor (tons per inch) 234.1 234.1 234.1 285.4 285.4 285.4Hourly Cost at Sea (from EGM) ($) 1,192 1,192 1,192 1,369 1,369 1,369Underkeel Clearance (feet)** 1 1 1 1 1 1Hourly Cost in Port (from EGM) ($) 772 772 772 878 878 878Round Trip Mileage from South America** 5,627 5,627 5,627 5,627 5,627 5,627Speed (Knots) 15 15 15 15 15 15Total Voyage Cost ($) 447,127 447,127 447,127 513,521 513,521 513,521Other Components (Loading and Unloading and Port Time)Maximum Load at Channel Depth 73,599 87,645 101,691 85,908 103,032 120,156Cost Per Ton for Sea Voyage ($) 6.08 5.10 4.40 5.98 4.98 4.27Loading/Unloading Rate (short tons/hour) 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250Hours in Port 30 30 30 30 30 30Total Loading Cost at Foreign Port ($) 23,160 23,160 23,160 26,340 26,340 26,340Total Unloading Cost SNWW ($) 23,160 23,160 23,160 26,340 26,340 26,340Pilot and Tug Costs ($) 45,501 48,624 51,031 56,923 60,331 62,908Total Loading, Unloading, and Port Costs ($) 91,821 94,944 97,351 109,603 113,011 115,588Total Cost Sum ($) 538,948 542,072 544,478 623,124 626,532 629,109Total Cost Per Ton ($) 7.32 6.18 5.35 7.25 6.08 5.24

*Estimated short tons ≅ (DWT * Maximum % Load) - (Immersion Factor * 12 inches per ton * number of feet light-loaded).**Weighted mileage based on distance from Venezuela and Brazil. The weight factor of 0.7 was used for Venezuela, and a factor of 0.3 was used for Brazil. The weights weredetermined based on the expected percentage of tonnage by origin.

133
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-34

Additionally, and as Table V-32 illustrates, the cost savings for offshore transfer is lower than with direct

shipment; however, distinct cost savings are apparent. The savings for lightering results from increases in

shuttle loads due to greater channel depth in SNWW. For lightering, the effect of increasing channel

depths at SNWW allows for the reduction in the number of shuttles necessary to totally lighter VLCC.

The savings for lightened movements results from decreases in offshore unloading time from the mother

vessel to shuttles. For lightening, the mother vessel is substituting offshore unloading time for dock-side

unloading time. Additionally, the shuttle vessel reduces its overall loading and unloading time.

Table V-32

SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports Transportation Cost and Savings

Most Likely Transportation Mode Trade Route and Channel Depth (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Trade Route/Depth (feet)

and Method of Shipment 40 45 46 47 48 49 50

Mexico Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct

Cost/ton Beaumont 2.76 2.34 2.28 2.21 2.15 2.11 2.07

Cost/ton Port Arthur 2.77 2.37 2.30 2.23 2.18 2.14 2.11

Savings/ton Beaumont 0.41 0.48 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.69

Savings/ton Port Arthur 0.41 0.47 0.54 0.59 0.63 0.67

Venezuela Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct

Cost/ton Beaumont 7.22 6.09 5.91 5.73 5.58 5.45 5.34

Cost/ton Port Arthur 7.28 6.17 5.98 5.81 5.67 5.55 5.47

Savings/ton Beaumont 1.13 1.31 1.49 1.64 1.77 1.88

Savings/ton Port Arthur 1.11 1.30 1.47 1.62 1.73 1.81

Africa/North Sea Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered

Cost/ton Beaumont 8.41 8.18 8.13 8.12 8.05 8.01 8.01

Cost/ton Port Arthur 8.46 8.19 8.13 8.12 8.12 8.11 8.08

Savings/ton Beaumont 0.23 0.28 0.30 0.36 0.40 0.40

Cost/ton Port Arthur 0.27 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.39

Middle East Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered

Cost/ton Beaumont 14.43 14.20 14.15 14.13 14.06 14.03 14.03

Cost/ton Port Arthur 14.48 14.19 14.13 14.11 14.11 14.10 14.06

Savings/ton Beaumont 0.23 0.28 0.30 0.36 0.40 0.40

Savings/ton Port Arthur 0.29 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.42

Lightening generates comparatively lower savings than lightering because the latter produces the

possibility of reducing the number of shuttles needed. Examination of the cost data also revealed that as

channel depth increases the resulting savings may provide incentive to switch from lightening to direct

shipment for movements from Africa and the North Sea. Table V-33 presents the lightening costs and

Table V-34 presents the lightering costs. Historically, lightening was the most common choice for Africa

and the North Sea movements; however, lightering has become more common for this route in recent

years due to structural changes in oil production of the coast off West Africa. Lightering has always been

134
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-35

the method of choice for Middle East movements. The small percentage of North Sea using SNWW tends

to be lightered, and an increasing portion of West Africa crude is lightered. Lightering was assumed to

represent the without- and with-project future choice for West Africa crude due to its relative low cost

and increasing popularity.

Table V-33

SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports

Lightened Cost per Ton by Channel Depth and Trade Route (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Channel Depth and Vessel DWT

40 feet 45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

Mother Vessels (DWT)

Minimum 150,000 150,000 162,500 162,500 162,500 162,500 162,500

Maximum 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000

Shuttle Vessels (DWT)

Minimum 72,000 57,000 57,000 57,000 57,000 57,000 57,000

Maximum 85,000 68,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000

Africa and North Sea Per Ton Transportation Cost ($) to SNWW

Minimum 10.10 10.08 10.08 10.08 10.08 10.08 10.08

Mean 10.56 10.49 10.49 10.49 10.49 10.49 10.49

Maximum 11.02 10.90 10.90 10.90 10.90 10.90 10.90

Middle East Per Ton Transportation Cost ($) to SNWW

Minimum 14.70 14.68 14.68 14.68 14.68 14.68 14.68

Mean 15.17 15.10 15.10 15.10 15.10 15.10 15.10

Maximum 15.63 15.51 15.51 15.51 15.51 15.51 15.51

Table V-34

SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports

Lightering Cost per Ton by Channel Depth Alternative and Trade Route (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Depth 40 feet 45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

Africa and North Sea per Ton Transportation Cost ($)

Minimum 8.31 8.16 8.04 8.02 8.00 7.90 7.89

Mean 8.41 8.18 8.13 8.12 8.05 8.01 8.01

Maximum 8.66 8.53 8.51 8.28 8.26 8.26 8.26

Middle East per Ton Transportation Cost ($)

Minimum 14.33 14.17 14.06 14.04 14.02 13.92 13.91

Mean 14.43 14.20 14.15 14.13 14.06 14.03 14.03

Maximum 14.68 14.55 14.52 14.30 14.27 14.27 14.27

Tables V-35 and V-36 display Beaumont and Port Arthur’s transportation cost savings based on the leastcost shipping methods displayed in Table V-32. For Port Arthur, the maximum vessel DWT used for the

benefit calculations is less than 120,000 DWT. As previously noted, deepening of the channel leading to

the Taylor Bayou terminal would enable the existing fleet to be more fully loaded but it would not result

in transition to larger vessels. The transportation savings calculation costs shown in tables V-35 and V-36

reflect continuation of this limitation. As previously noted, the 2019–2069 tonnage forecasts used in the

135
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-36

benefit calculations are presented in tables V-10 and V-11. The specific tonnage volumes used for the

benefit calculations are presented in the Economic Appendix.

Table V-35

Beaumont Crude Petroleum Imports

Annual Transportation Savings ($1,000s) by Trade Route and Decade (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Channel Depth Alternative/

Trade Route 2002/2004 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

(all costs in dollars)

45-foot Channel

Mexico 6,065 3,227 3,597 3,808 3,870 3,945 4,235

Central/South America 8,348 14,216 15,850 16,779 17,052 17,380 18,660

Europe and Africa 2,021 6,842 7,629 8,076 8,207 8,365 8,981

Middle East 5,879 6,402 7,138 7,556 7,679 7,827 8,403

Total Savings 22,313 30,686 34,214 36,219 36,808 37,516 40,280

46-foot Channel

Mexico 7,089 3,771 4,205 4,451 4,524 4,611 4,950

Central/South America 9,724 16,558 18,461 19,543 19,861 20,243 21,735

Europe and Africa 2,431 8,230 9,176 9,714 9,872 10,062 10,803

Middle East 7,071 7,700 8,585 9,088 9,236 9,414 10,107

Total Savings 26,315 36,259 40,427 42,796 43,493 44,329 47,595

47-foot Channel

Mexico 8,051 4,283 4,775 5,055 5,137 5,236 5,622

Central/South America 11,016 18,758 20,914 22,140 22,500 22,933 24,623

Europe and Africa 2,566 8,687 9,685 10,253 10,420 10,620 11,403

Middle East 7,464 8,128 9,062 9,593 9,749 9,937 10,669

Total Savings 29,097 39,856 44,437 47,041 47,807 48,726 52,316

48-foot Channel

Mexico 8,867 4,717 5,259 5,567 5,658 5,767 6,192

Central/South America 12,147 20,684 23,062 24,413 24,810 25,288 27,151

Europe and Africa 3,162 10,705 11,935 12,635 12,840 13,087 14,052

Middle East 9,198 10,016 11,167 11,821 12,014 12,245 13,147

Total Savings 33,373 46,121 51,423 54,437 55,323 56,387 60,541

49-foot Channel

Mexico 9,549 5,080 5,664 5,996 6,093 6,210 6,668

Central/South America 13,093 22,295 24,858 26,315 26,743 27,258 29,266

Europe and Africa 3,490 11,816 13,175 13,947 14,174 14,447 15,511

Middle East 10,153 11,056 12,327 13,049 13,261 13,516 14,512

Total Savings 36,285 50,247 56,023 59,307 60,272 61,431 65,957

50-foot Channel

Mexico 10,171 5,411 6,033 6,386 6,490 6,615 7,102

Central/South America 13,900 23,669 26,390 27,937 28,391 28,937 31,069

Europe and Africa 3,490 11,816 13,175 13,947 14,174 14,447 15,511

Middle East 10,153 11,056 12,327 13,049 13,261 13,516 14,512

Total Savings 37,714 51,952 57,924 61,319 62,317 63,515 68,195

136
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-37

Table V-36

Port Arthur Crude Petroleum Imports

Annual Transportation Savings ($1,000s) by Trade Route and Decade

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Channel Depth Alternative/

Trade Route 2002/2004 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

(all costs in dollars)

45-foot Channel

Mexico 3,355 484 539 573 584 596 611

Central/South America 399 2,128 2,370 2,514 2,560 2,611 2,745

Europe and Africa 128 1,214 1,353 1,437 1,466 1,496 1,532

Middle East 299 1,194 1,331 1,414 1,442 1,471 1,507

Total Savings 4,180 5,020 5,594 5,937 6,053 6,174 6,395

46-foot Channel

Mexico 3,928 567 631 670 684 698 715

Central/South America 465 2,481 2,764 2,931 2,985 3,044 3,201

Europe and Africa 154 1,467 1,635 1,736 1,771 1,807 1,851

Middle East 365 1,461 1,628 1,729 1,764 1,800 1,844

Total Savings 4,913 5,976 6,659 7,067 7,205 7,349 7,611

47-foot Channel

Mexico 4,468 644 718 763 778 794 813

Central/South America 527 2,813 3,134 3,324 3,385 3,452 3,629

Europe and Africa 160 1,527 1,702 1,807 1,843 1,881 1,927

Middle East 382 1,528 1,703 1,808 1,845 1,882 1,928

Total Savings 5,537 6,512 7,256 7,701 7,851 8,008 8,297

48-foot Channel

Mexico 4,908 708 789 838 855 872 893

Central/South America 580 3,094 3,446 3,655 3,722 3,796 3,991

Europe and Africa 163 1,550 1,728 1,835 1,872 1,910 1,957

Middle East 389 1,554 1,732 1,840 1,877 1,915 1,962

Total Savings 6,039 6,906 7,695 8,167 8,325 8,492 8,802

49-foot Channel

Mexico 5,242 756 843 895 913 931 954

Central/South America 620 3,306 3,683 3,906 3,978 4,057 4,265

Europe and Africa 165 1,567 1,746 1,854 1,891 1,930 1,977

Middle East 393 1,573 1,753 1,861 1,899 1,937 1,985

Total Savings 6,420 7,201 8,024 8,516 8,681 8,855 9,181

50-foot Channel

Mexico 5,501 793 884 939 958 977 1,001

Central/South America 649 3,461 3,856 4,089 4,165 4,247 4,465

Europe and Africa 182 1,730 1,928 2,048 2,089 2,131 2,184

Middle East 439 1,756 1,958 2,079 2,121 2,164 2,217

Total Savings 6,771 7,741 8,626 9,155 9,332 9,519 9,866

137
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-38

Petroleum and Chemical Product Transportation Savings Benefits

Reductions in the vessel operating costs for SNWW foreign petroleum product import and exports and

coastwise shipments were calculated based on the relative difference in transportation costs between the

without-project and with-project conditions. As with crude petroleum, transportation costs and savings

were calculated for vessels that minimize transportation costs given trade route constraints. Again, longterm fleet selection would continue to reflect goals of minimizing vessel-operating costs. Table V-37

displays the annual transportation costs for Beaumont’s petroleum and chemical product imports and

exports. Table V-38 summarizes the annual transportation savings benefits for Port Arthur’s petroleum

and chemical product imports and exports. Table V-39 summarizes the annual transportation savings

benefits for Beaumont’s and Port Arthur’s petroleum and chemical product imports and exports.

Table V-40 summarizes the benefit calculations for coastwise product shipments. As noted, deepening of

the channel leading to the Taylor Bayou terminal would enable the existing fleet to be more fully loaded,

but it would not result in transition to larger vessels. The transportation savings shown in Table V-40

reflect continuation of this limitation. The maximum sized coastwise vessels do not exceed Taylor

Bayou’s limitation.

Grain Exports Transportation Savings Benefits

Beaumont wheat exports comprise 5 percent of the current U.S. total. Forecast of future exports were

estimated based on analysis of USDA’s February 2009 forecast. Per ton transportation costs were

estimated based on exports shipped from Beaumont to Europe and the Mediterranean. The per ton

transportation costs are presented in Table V-41. The transportation costs by channel depth alternative are

presented in Table V-42.

Reductions in the vessel-operating costs for SNWW steel slab and iron ore imports were calculated based

on the relative difference in transportation costs between the without- and with-project conditions. As

with the previous presentations, transportation costs and savings were calculated for vessels that minimize

transportation costs given trade route constraints. Again, long-term fleet selection would continue to

reflect goals of minimizing vessel-operating costs. Port Arthur’s breakbulk terminal is located outside the

Taylor Bayou reach and the bulk carriers are not subject to the beam and length limitations. However, the

maximum beam width for the bulk carrier fleet is 106 feet. The design drafts for these vessels are

generally less than 45 feet. The DWT range of bulk carriers used for the benefit calculations is 60,000 to

99,999. Larger vessels could be used but are not anticipated over the next 20 years. The maximum size

presently being used is 78,000 DWT. The transportation savings calculations were based on average costs

for the anticipated 60,000 to 99,999 DWT range. As previously noted, the tonnage forecast and average

annual growth rate for 2002–2004 to 2069 tonnage growth was displayed in tables V-10 and V-11.

138
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-39

Table V-37

Beaumont Petroleum and Chemical Product Imports and Exports

Annual Transportation Cost ($1,000) by Trade Route and Decade

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

2004/2006 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

40-foot Channel

Imports 12,810 14,840 24,440 27,850 31,205 34,967 39,187

Exports 17,347 28,367 43,489 54,111 61,328 69,310 78,463

Total Cost 30,157 43,207 67,928 81,962 92,533 104,278 117,650

45-foot Channel

Imports 10,795 12,506 20,595 23,469 26,296 29,467 33,023

Exports 14,618 23,905 36,648 45,599 51,681 58,408 66,121

Total Cost 25,413 36,411 57,243 69,069 77,977 87,874 99,143

46-foot Channel

Imports 10,465 12,123 19,965 22,752 25,492 28,565 32,013

Exports 14,171 23,174 35,527 44,205 50,100 56,621 64,098

Total Cost 24,636 35,297 55,492 66,956 75,592 85,186 96,111

47-foot Channel

Imports 10,155 11,764 19,374 22,077 24,737 27,719 31,064

Exports 13,751 22,487 34,474 42,895 48,615 54,943 62,199

Total Cost 23,906 34,251 53,848 64,972 73,352 82,662 93,263

48-foot Channel

Imports 9,885 11,451 18,859 21,491 24,080 26,983 30,239

Exports 13,386 21,890 33,558 41,755 47,324 53,484 60,547

Total Cost 23,271 33,341 52,418 63,246 71,404 80,467 90,786

49-foot Channel

Imports 9,646 11,174 18,403 20,971 23,497 26,330 29,507

Exports 13,062 21,360 32,746 40,745 46,179 52,189 59,081

Total Cost 22,708 32,534 51,149 61,716 69,676 78,519 88,588

50-foot Channel

Imports 9,438 10,933 18,005 20,518 22,989 25,761 28,869

Exports 12,779 20,899 32,039 39,864 45,181 51,062 57,805

Total Cost 22,217 31,831 50,044 60,382 68,170 76,822 86,674

139
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-40

Table V-38

Port Arthur Petroleum and Chemical Product Imports and Exports

Annual Transportation Cost ($1,000) by Trade Route and Decade (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

2004/2006 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

40-foot Channel

Imports 5,956 6,887 11,616 13,244 14,835 16,619 18,620

Exports 17,563 28,722 44,032 54,788 62,094 70,176 79,444

Total Cost 23,519 35,609 55,648 68,032 76,930 86,796 98,064

45-foot Channel

Imports 5,039 5,826 9,826 11,204 12,550 14,059 15,751

Exports 14,858 24,297 37,249 46,347 52,529 59,366 67,205

Total Cost 19,896 30,123 47,075 57,551 65,079 73,425 82,957

46-foot Channel

Imports 4,887 5,651 9,531 10,867 12,173 13,637 15,278

Exports 14,411 23,567 36,130 44,955 50,950 57,582 65,186

Total Cost 19,298 29,218 45,661 55,822 63,123 71,219 80,464

47-foot Channel

Imports 4,745 5,486 9,253 10,551 11,818 13,240 14,833

Exports 13,991 22,881 35,077 43,645 49,466 55,905 63,287

Total Cost 18,736 28,367 44,331 54,196 61,285 69,144 78,121

48-foot Channel

Imports 4,627 5,351 9,025 10,290 11,526 12,912 14,466

Exports 13,646 22,315 34,210 42,567 48,244 54,523 61,723

Total Cost 18,273 27,666 43,235 52,856 59,770 67,435 76,189

49-foot Channel

Imports 4,529 5,237 8,832 10,071 11,281 12,637 14,158

Exports 13,355 21,840 33,481 41,659 47,215 53,361 60,408

Total Cost 17,884 27,076 42,314 51,730 58,496 65,998 74,566

50-foot Channel

Imports 4,453 5,149 8,684 9,901 11,091 12,425 13,920

Exports 13,130 21,472 32,918 40,959 46,422 52,464 59,392

Total Cost 17,583 26,621 41,602 50,861 57,513 64,888 73,312

140
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-41

Table V-39

SNWW Petroleum and Chemical Products Annual Savings by Channel Depth Alternative, 2019–2069

($1,000s)

2004–2006 2019 2030 2040 2050 2060 2069

SNWW Total Petroleum Product Imports

45-foot 2,932.7 3,395.3 5,633.8 6,421.2 7,194.1 8,060.7 9,032.6

46-foot 3,414.3 3,952.9 6,559.0 7,475.7 8,375.5 9,384.5 10,516.0

47-foot 3,866.7 4,476.8 7,428.3 8,466.5 9,485.5 10,628.2 11,909.7

48-foot 4,253.7 4,924.8 8,171.6 9,313.7 10,434.6 11,691.6 13,101.4

49-foot 4,591.6 5,316.0 8,820.4 10,053.1 11,263.1 12,619.9 14,141.5

50-foot 4,876.2 5,645.5 9,366.5 10,675.5 11,960.4 13,401.2 15,017.1

SNWW Total Petroleum Product Exports

45-foot 5,434.3 8,886.9 13,624.2 16,952.0 19,212.9 21,713.5 24,581.0

46-foot 6,327.9 10,348.1 15,864.3 19,739.3 22,371.9 25,283.7 28,622.7

47-foot 7,167.6 11,721.3 17,969.5 22,358.7 25,340.7 28,638.9 32,421.0

48-foot 7,878.6 12,884.2 19,752.2 24,576.9 27,854.6 31,480.1 35,637.3

49-foot 8,493.4 13,889.5 21,293.5 26,494.6 30,028.1 33,936.5 38,418.1

50-foot 9,000.1 14,718.2 22,563.8 28,075.3 31,819.6 35,961.1 40,710.2

141
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-42

Table V-40

SNWW Petroleum Product Coastwise Shipments and Receipts

Vessel Data, Base Tonnage, and Transportation Savings Benefit Summary

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Origin-Destination Data: U.S. East Coast to/from SNWW

Initial % of total outbound shipments: 10

Round trip mileage 3,000

Hourly Cost at Sea: 2,425

Hourly Cost in Port: 2,007

Vessel Speed (Knots) 14

Vessel Input Data and Transportation Cost

Channel

Depth

(feet)

Design

Draft

(feet)

Vessel

DWT

No. of

feet

LightLoaded

Cargo by

Channel

Depth

Round

Trip

Voyage

Cost ($)

Loading,

Unloading

and Port

Cost ($)

Total

Cost ($)

Cost Per

Ton ($)

40 45 75,000 6 58,571 519,643 124,110 643,753 10.99

45 to 50 45 75,000 1 69,173 519,643 124,110 641,908 9.64

Saving/ton 1.36

SNWW Domestic Coastwise Petroleum Product Tonnage

Total Short Tons Used

Year Short Tons for Benefits

2004–2006 Average 5,068,000 506,800

SNWW Domestic Coastwise Petroleum Product Annual Transportation Benefits

Year

Total

Tonnage

Used for

Benefits

Percentage

Used for

Benefits

Annual

Savings ($)

2002–2004 5,067,667 506,767 10 687,121

2019 7,901,200 790,120 10 1,071,317

2029 9,878,897 987,890 10 1,339,472

2039 11,856,594 1,185,659 10 1,607,626

2049 13,834,291 1,383,429 10 1,875,781

2059 15,811,988 1,581,199 10 2,143,935

2069 17,789,685 1,778,968 10 2,412,089

142
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-43

Table V-41

Beaumont Wheat Exports, Shipments to Europe, Mediterranean, and Far East

Total Cost per Ton by Channel Depth (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

(All costs in dollars)

Channel Depth (feet)

DWT 40 45 46 47 48 49 50

70,000 20.07 16.83 16.83 15.80 15.80 15.80 15.80

80,000 19.58 16.39 16.39 15.38 14.92 14.49 14.49

90,000 17.97 15.24 14.78 14.35 13.94 13.56 13.20

100,000 18.01 15.25 14.79 14.36 13.95 13.56 13.20

120,000 17.32 14.73 14.31 13.92 13.49 13.13 12.78

Table V-42

Beaumont Wheat Exports, Shipments to Europe, Mediterranean, and Far East

Total Cost ($1,000s) by Channel Depth (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

DWT

% by Vessel

DWT

Transportation Cost ($1,000s) by Channel Depth (feet)

40 45 46 47 48 49 50

70,000 2.0 7,883 6,610 6,610 6,208 6,208 6,208 6,208

80,000 15.0 7,691 6,437 6,437 6,040 5,860 5,690 5,690

90,000 55.0 7,059 5,984 5,805 5,636 5,477 5,327 5,184

100,000 20.0 7,074 5,991 5,811 5,642 5,479 5,327 5,184

120,000 8.0 6,802 5,786 5,621 5,466 5,298 5,156 5,019

Weighted Cost 7,153 6,050 5,902 5,696 5,535 5,385 5,267

2005/2007 Savings 1,103 1,251 1,457 1,618 1,768 1,886

Annual Transportation Savings

Transportation Savings ($1,000s) by Channel Depth (feet)

Year 45 46 47 48 49 50

2005/2007 1,103 1,251 1,457 1,618 1,768 1,886

2019 1,793 2,033 2,369 2,630 2,874 3,065

2029 1,980 2,246 2,617 2,905 3,174 3,386

2039 2,187 2,480 2,890 3,209 3,506 3,740

2049 2,416 2,740 3,193 3,545 3,873 4,132

2059 2,669 3,027 3,527 3,916 4,278 4,564

2069 2,948 3,343 3,896 4,325 4,726 5,041

143
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-44

Table V-43 presents the cost-per-ton transportation cost for steel slab and iron ore. The costs shown are

for Beaumont tonnage. The costs for Port Arthur would be approximately 1 percent less. Based on

existing port depths and vessel utilization, an estimated 15 percent of tonnage was projected to use

channel depths over 40 feet for the years prior to 2014. By 2014, the expansion of the Panama Canal is

expected to result in the existing base tonnage from the deepwater port of Lazaro Cardenas on the West

Coast of Mexico to load to vessel drafts over 40 feet. At that time, an estimated 50 percent of tonnage is

anticipated to be loaded to vessel drafts over 40 feet. As outlined in the Economic Appendix (Table 48)

99 percent of sand and gravel 1999–2007 imports, 70 percent of limestone 1999–2007 imports, and

15 percent of 2005–2007 dry sulphur exports were shipped in vessels with design drafts of 40 feet or

more. Review of the Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay (2003) showed that 23 percent of bulk carriers constructed

over the past decade are in the 66,000 to 78,000 DWT range. Table V-44 summarizes the annual

transportation savings benefits for Beaumont’s steel slab and iron ore import tonnage. Table V-45

summarizes the annual transportation savings benefits for Port Arthur’s tonnage.

Table V-43

Beaumont Steel Slab and Iron Ore from South America, Mediterranean, and the Far East

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

DWT 40 45 46 47 48 49 50

Transportation Cost ($)/Ton to Port Arthur

60,000 17.63 14.60 14.13 13.66 13.66 13.66 13.66

70,000 15.60 13.08 12.68 12.29 12.29 12.29 12.29

80,000 15.22 12.74 12.35 11.96 11.60 11.26 11.26

90,000 14.12 11.95 11.60 11.25 10.94 10.63 10.35

Transportation Cost ($)/Ton to Beaumont

60,000 18.35 15.22 14.73 14.23 14.23 14.23 14.23

70,000 16.23 13.63 13.22 12.80 12.80 12.80 12.80

80,000 15.84 13.29 12.89 12.49 12.12 11.77 11.77

90,000 14.70 12.47 12.12 11.77 11.44 11.14 10.84

The transportation cost calculations are based on a representative weighted mileage for the applicable

South America, Mediterranean, and Far East routes. The weighted mileage is approximately 14,000 miles

round trip. One of its greatest impacts would be felt in the breakbulk trade where expansion would enable

larger vessels to transit the canal. Expansion of the canal project is expected to be completed in 2014.

Completion of the Panama Canal expansion, from its present width restriction of 106 feet and

approximate loaded draft limit of 39.6 feet, by the year 2014 would allow for more fully loaded vessel

movements from deepwater ports in the Asia and the western coasts of Mexico and South America. The

canal expansion would accommodate maximum loaded drafts of 15 meters or approximately 49 feet.

Completion of the canal will coincides with port expansion projects in India and Chile. Steel is imported

to SNWW from Dhamra. The Dhamra channel expansion will provide a channel depth of 18 meters,

which can accommodate super cape-size vessels up to 180,000 DWT. Dhamra’s master plan provides for

13 berths, capable of handling more than 83 million metric tons per annum of dry bulk, liquid bulk,

breakbulk, and containerized cargo.

144
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-45

Table V-44

Beaumont Steel Slab and Iron Ore from South America, Mediterranean,

and the Far East Tonnage and Annual Transportation Cost by Ton

($1,000) (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Year Total Exports

Used for Benefit

Calculations

2001 103,000

2002 204,000

2003 115,000

2004 420,000

2005 471,000

2006 364,000

2007 173,000

2019 428,221 213,254

2029 498,041 248,025

2039 579,247 288,465

2049 673,692 335,499

2059 783,537 390,201

2069 911,292 453,823

Transportation Cost ($) by Vessel Size and Channel Depth Using 2005–2007 Average Tonnage*

40 45 46 47 48 49 50

60,000 616 511 495 478 478 478 478

70,000 545 458 444 430 430 430 430

80,000 532 446 433 420 407 395 395

90,000 494 419 407 395 385 374 364

Average Cost 547 459 445 431 425 419 417

Average Savings 88 102 116 122 128 130

Transportation Savings ($) by Year*

45 46 47 48 49 50

2005/2007 88 102 116 122 128 130

2019 560 649 737 774 809 825

2029 652 755 857 900 941 960

2039 869 1,006 1,143 1,200 1,254 1,279

2049 1,175 1,360 1,546 1,623 1,697 1,730

2059 1,589 1,840 2,091 2,196 2,295 2,341

2069 2,150 2,489 2,828 2,970 3,105 3,166

*The costs are based on the 2005–2007 average tonnage volume multiplied by the cost per ton shown in Table V-43 for

Beaumont.

Note: Application of data as presented may produce some differences due to rounding.

145
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-46

Table V-45

Port Arthur Steel Slab and Iron Ore from South America, Mediterranean,

and the Far East Tonnage and Annual Transportation Cost by Ton

($1,000) (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Year Total Exports

Used for Benefit

Calculations

2001 665,000

2002 641,000

2003 557,000

2004 564,000

2005 710,000

2006 542,000

2007 122,000

2019 523,626 262,651

2029 607,630 304,787

2039 705,110 353,683

2049 818,228 410,423

2059 949,493 476,266

2069 1,101,817 552,671

Transportation Cost ($) by Vessel Size and Channel Depth Using 2005–2007 Average Tonnage*

40 45 46 47 48 49 50

60,000 616 511 495 478 478 478 478

70,000 545 458 444 430 430 430 430

80,000 532 446 433 420 407 395 395

90,000 494 419 407 395 385 374 364

Average Cost 547 459 445 431 425 419 417

Average Savings 88 102 116 122 128 130

Transportation Savings ($) by Year*

45 46 47 48 49 50

2005–2007 88 102 116 122 128 130

2019 560 649 737 774 809 825

2029 652 755 857 900 941 960

2039 869 1,006 1,143 1,200 1,254 1,279

2049 1,175 1,360 1,546 1,623 1,697 1,730

2059 1,589 1,840 2,091 2,196 2,295 2,341

2069 2,150 2,489 2,828 2,970 3,105 3,166

*The costs are based on the 2005–2007 average tonnage volume multiplied by the cost per ton shown in Table V-43 for Port

Arthur.

Note: Application of data as presented may produce some differences due to rounding.

146
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-47

Limestone and Rock Transportation Savings Benefits

As with steel slab and iron ore, the DWT range of bulk carriers used for the aggregate rock benefit

calculations are in the 60,000 to 90,000 DWT range. Larger vessels could be used but are not anticipated

over the next 20 years. The maximum size presently being used is 78,000 DWT. The transportation

savings calculations were based on average costs for the anticipated 60,000 to 90,000 DWT range. As

with the previous presentations, transportation costs and savings were calculated for vessels that minimize

transportation costs given trade route constraints. The DWT range of bulk carriers used for the benefit

calculations are in the 60,000 to 90,000 range.

The applicable tonnage forecast and average annual growth rate for 2002–2004 to 2069 was contained in

tables V-10 and V-11. Based on existing port depths and vessel utilization, an estimated 50 percent of

tonnage was projected to use channel depths over 40 feet. A representative weighted mileage for the

applicable Mexico, South America, Mediterranean, and Far East routes was used. The weighted mileage

is approximately 14,000 miles round trip. Table V-46 presents the cost-per-ton transportation costs. The

costs shown are for Port Arthur tonnage. The costs for Beaumont would be approximately 1 percent

higher. Table V-47 summarizes the annual transportation savings benefits for Beaumont’s import and

SNWW export tonnage. Table V-48 summarizes the annual transportation savings benefits for Port

Arthur’s import tonnage. Port Arthur’s share of bulk material exports has historically been low in

comparison to Beaumont’s, with Beaumont’s recent historical share representing approximately

90 percent of the SNWW total. Due to the recent historical distribution, the benefit calculations were

estimated using the average mileage for Beaumont and Port Arthur. For presentation purposes, the benefit

calculations for exports are presented in Table V-47.

Table V-46

SNWW Crude Material Imports and Exports via Mexico, South America, Mediterranean,

and Far East Cost per Ton (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

DWT 40 45 46 47 48 49 50

Transportation Cost ($)/Ton to Beaumont

60,000 17.93 14.85 14.37 13.89 13.89 13.89 13.89

70,000 15.86 13.30 12.90 12.49 12.49 12.49 12.49

80,000 15.48 12.96 12.56 12.16 11.80 11.46 11.46

90,000 14.36 12.14 11.80 11.45 11.12 10.82 10.52

Transportation Cost ($)/Ton to Port Arthur

60,000 17.85 14.78 14.31 13.83 13.83 13.83 13.83

70,000 15.79 13.25 12.84 12.44 12.44 12.44 12.44

80,000 15.41 12.90 12.51 12.11 11.75 11.41 11.41

90,000 14.30 12.09 11.75 11.40 11.08 10.77 10.48

147
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-48

Table V-47

Beaumont Imports and SNWW Exports of Crude Materials

Mexico, South America, Mediterranean and the Far East Tonnage and

Annual Transportation Cost by Ton

($1,000) (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Year

Beaumont

Imports

SNWW

Exports

Used for Benefit

Calculations

Total Imports Exports Total

2001 622,000 165,000 787,000

2002 394,000 16,000 410,000

2003 583,000 93,000 676,000

2004 559,000 145,000 704,000

2005 624,000 120,000 744,000

2006 550,000 297,000 847,000

2007 617,000 485,000 1,102,000

2019 760,862 383,193 1,144,055 364,453 57,287 728,906

2029 884,920 444,711 1,329,631 423,877 66,484 847,754

2039 1,029,206 517,220 1,546,426 492,990 77,324 985,980

2049 1,197,017 601,552 1,798,569 573,371 89,932 1,146,742

2059 1,392,189 699,635 2,091,824 666,858 104,595 1,333,716

2069 1,619,184 813,710 2,432,894 775,589 121,650 1,551,178

Transportation Cost ($) by Vessel Size and Channel Depth Using

2005–2007 Average Tonnage*

40 45 46 47 48 49 50

60,000 807 669 647 625 625 625 625

70,000 714 599 581 563 563 563 563

80,000 697 584 566 548 531 516 516

90,000 647 547 531 515 501 487 474

Average Cost 716 600 581 563 555 548 544

Average Savings 117 135 154 161 169 172

Transportation Savings ($) by Year*

45 46 47 48 49 50

2005/2007 117 135 154 161 169 172

2019 669 775 881 925 967 986

2029 777 899 1,022 1,073 1,122 1,144

2039 901 1,044 1,186 1,246 1,302 1,328

2049 1,046 1,211 1,376 1,446 1,511 1,541

2059 1,214 1,405 1,597 1,677 1,754 1,788

2069 1,408 1,631 1,853 1,947 2,035 2,075

*The costs are based on the 2005–2007 average tonnage multiplied by the cost per ton shown in Table V-46.

Note: Application of data as presented may produce some differences due to rounding.

148
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-49

Table V-48

Port Arthur Crude Material Imports from Mexico, South America, Mediterranean,

and the Far East Tonnage and Annual Transportation Cost by Ton

($1,000) (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Year

Total

Imports Used for Benefit Calculations

2001 131,000

2002 919,000

2003 481,000

2004 531,000

2005 558,000

2006 566,000

2007 513,000

2019 712,739 356,370

2029 828,951 414,475

2039 964,110 482,055

2049 1,121,308 560,654

2059 1,304,136 652,068

2069 1,516,661 758,330

Transportation Cost ($) by Vessel Size and Channel Depth Using 2005–2007 Average Tonnage*

40 45 46 47 48 49 50

60,000 1,022 846 819 792 792 792 792

70,000 904 758 735 712 712 712 712

80,000 882 739 716 693 672 653 653

90,000 819 692 672 653 634 617 600

Average Cost 907 759 736 712 703 693 689

Average Savings 148 171 194 204 213 218

Transportation Savings ($) by Year*

45 46 47 48 49 50

2005–2007 148 171 194 204 213 218

2019 999 1,156 1,313 1,393 1,469 1,515

2029 999 1,156 1,313 1,393 1,469 1,515

2039 1,162 1,344 1,527 1,620 1,708 1,762

2049 1,352 1,564 1,776 1,884 1,987 2,049

2059 1,572 1,819 2,065 2,191 2,311 2,383

2069 1,828 2,115 2,402 2,548 2,687 2,772

*The costs are based on the 2005–2007 average tonnage multiplied by the cost per ton shown in Table V-46.

Note: Application of data as presented may produce some differences due to rounding.

149
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-50

Liquefied Natural Gas Transportation Savings Benefits

Table V-49 presents the trade route forecast used for the benefit calculations, Table V-50 presents the perton transportation cost, and Table V-51 presents the annual savings. The maximum loaded draft for LNG

vessels is anticipated to be 40 to 42 feet. The majority of vessels would be loaded to 39 feet. The vessels

will need from 3 to 6 feet of underkeel clearance. While the deepening benefits were believed to stop at

an approximate channel depth of 43 feet, construction of LNG vessels with design drafts of 45 feet has

taken place since 2007. The design drafts associated with 12 of the new vessels are identified to be in the

45-foot draft range (i.e., 13.6 meters).

Table V-49

SNWW Liquefied Natural Gas Trade Route Forecast, Short Tons

Year Middle East Trinidad Algeria Total

2019 1,946,522 1,940,695 1,940,695 5,827,913

2029 2,062,339 2,056,165 2,056,165 6,174,669

2039 2,062,340 2,056,165 2,056,165 6,174,670

2049 2,062,340 2,056,165 2,056,165 6,174,670

2059 2,062,340 2,056,165 2,056,165 6,174,670

2069 2,062,340 2,056,165 2,056,165 6,174,670

Table V-50

Liquefied Natural Gas Transportation Cost ($) per Ton by Channel Depth

Vessel DWT, and Shipment Origin (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Vessel

DWT

Middle East Trinidad Algeria

40 43 40 43 40 43

76,500 26.70 26.70 5.83 5.83 14.12 14.12

100,000 24.14 20.78 5.28 4.61 12.77 11.03

125,000 22.11 19.22 4.82 4.25 11.69 10.20

Savings/Ton for 43 feet for SNWW Fleet

DWT Qatar Trinidad Algeria

100,000 3.36 0.67 1.74

125,000 2.89 0.57 1.49

Average 3.12 0.62 1.62

Table V-51

SNWW Liquefied Natural Gas Annual Transportation Savings ($) by Trade Route*

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Year Middle East Trinidad Algeria Total

2019 6,080,341 1,209,365 3,137,311 10,427,016

2029 6,442,118 1,281,321 3,323,978 11,047,417

2039 6,442,121 1,281,321 3,323,978 11,047,420

2049 6,442,121 1,281,321 3,323,978 11,047,420

2059 6,442,121 1,281,321 3,323,978 11,047,420

2069 6,442,121 1,281,321 3,323,978 11,047,420

*Savings are multiplied by tonnage (Table V-49) and savings (Table V-50). Totals are subject to rounding.

150
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-51

Summary of Channel Deepening Benefits

Table V-52 presents the transportation cost savings by major commodity group for channel deepening.

The majority of benefits are associated with imports of crude petroleum, LNG, and petroleum product and

exports of petroleum products. Crude petroleum and petroleum products represent 84 percent of the

benefits at the 45-foot depth and 89 percent at the 50-foot depth. The LNG composes 7 percent of benefits

at the 45-foot depth and 4 percent at 50 feet. The LNG benefits are for facilities in the Sabine Pass

Channel and Port Arthur Canal reaches. Distributions of the Taylor Bayou, Port Arthur, and Neches River

deepening benefits are presented in Tables V-53.

Table V-52

Total Average Annual Deepening Benefits ($1,000s)

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

by Project Depth Alternative

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 46 47 48 49 50

Crude Petroleum Imports 41,130 48,650 53,411 61,081 66,173 68,759

Petroleum Products Imports 5,923 6,896 7,810 8,591 9,273 9,848

Petroleum Products Exports 15,309 17,826 20,191 22,194 23,926 25,354

Coastwise 1,481 1,481 1,481 1,481 1,481 1,481

Grain Exports 2,172 2,463 2,870 3,187 3,482 3,714

Breakbulk 4,536 5,247 5,247 5,247 5,247 5,247

LNG 11,140 11,140 11,140 11,140 11,140 11,140

Deepening Benefits 81,691 93,703 102,150 112,921 120,722 125,543

Table V-53

Total Average Annual Benefits ($1,000s)

by Channel Reach and Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%) (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Reach and Commodity 45 46 47 48 49 50

Sabine Pass LNG 3,676 3,676 3,676 3,676 3,676 3,676

Port Arthur LNG 7,464 7,464 7,464 7,464 7,464 7,464

Taylor Bayou

Crude Petroleum Imports 5,790 6,892 7,510 7,964 8,305 8,928

Petroleum Product Imports 2,369 2,758 3,124 3,436 3,709 3,939

Petroleum & Chemical Product Exports 7,348 8,556 9,692 10,653 11,485 12,170

Coastwise Petro Products 563 563 563 563 563 563

Taylor Bayou Total 16,070 18,769 20,889 22,616 24,062 25,600

Sabine-Neches Canal

Breakbulk and Aggregate 2,065 2,387 2,387 2,387 2,387 2,387

Neches River Channel to Beaumont

Crude Petroleum Imports 35,340 41,759 45,901 53,117 57,868 59,832

Petroleum Product Imports 3,554 4,138 4,686 5,155 5,564 5,909

Petroleum & Chemical Product Exports 7,961 9,269 10,499 11,541 12,442 13,184

Coastwise Petroleum Products 918 918 918 918 918 918

Grain Exports 2,172 2,463 2,870 3,187 3,482 3,714

Breakbulk and Aggregate 2,471 2,860 2,860 2,860 2,860 2,860

Neches River Total 52,416 61,407 67,734 76,777 83,134 86,417

151
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-52

V.E CHANNEL WIDENING BENEFITS

The SNWW is currently subject to transit rules that are needed for the pilots to safely guide large tankers

through the narrow channel. The waterway’s high volume of inland barge and deep-draft vessel traffic

exacerbates congestion and results in increased delays and accident probabilities. To address these

problems, a range of alternatives was evaluated, including channel widening and sidings. The effect of the

project alternatives would be to reduce delay frequencies and durations. An additional expectation would

be reductions in accident probabilities. Benefits were not quantified for reductions in accidents because,

while accident probabilities are high, rates are low. Traffic increases and associated congestion

recognizably increase the probability of accidents; however, “avoidance behavior,” in the form of delays

characterized by the existing conditions, keeps accident rates low. This behavior provides the basis for the

monetary benefits associated with the proposed project alternatives as the proposed modifications would

reduce the duration and frequency of delays.

Reduction in delay benefits were calculated for channel widening and for holding area alternatives. The

benefit estimates are based on comparison of transit times between project alternatives. Transportation

costs for existing conditions, the without-project condition, and the project alternatives were calculated

using 2004 SNWW traffic base. Vessel characteristics and related details were obtained from the USACE

NDC detailed records.

In terms of channel width, there are three main traffic rules presently affecting vessel traffic. The traffic

rules, which affect movements in the 400- and 500-foot project reaches, are instituted by the SPA for the

purpose of helping to ensure safe navigation. The general categorization of the transit rules are daylightonly sailing restrictions applied in specific reaches for vessels that exceed certain DWT, length, and

breadth criteria. There is no meeting during nighttime sailing for vessels exceeding a given draft

limitation. No meeting during either day or night applied to vessels by DWT, length, breadth, draft

combinations. The specific rules posted by the Sabine Pilots are displayed in Table V-54. The results of

these rules provide for a safe channel and a relatively low accident rate. The rules also affect a significant

portion of traffic in the form of vessel delays.

The HarborSym model was used in evaluation of the entrance channel widening and the Neches River TB

and anchorage features. HarborSym is a planning-level model developed by IWR to assist in economic

analyses of channel widening improvements. HarborSym is an event-driven simulation model and

includes data from user-specified transit rules that the model processes with each vessel call in order to

calculate delays within the system. The model is presently in the model certification process. While not

yet certified, the model is scheduled for review under the USACE certification system. The model is

presently being used by several USACE district offices for channel widening studies, and the outputs of

these studies have undergone Agency Technical Review (ATR) and USACE headquarters review.

HarborSym outputs were crucial for aggregation and understanding of base condition delays. Pilot

interviews were used to identify a wide range of information, including delay times. Vessel class-specific

152
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-53

delay times were obtained from the model output, with these inputs having been defined using pilot logs

and extensive pilot interviews. The key element in modeling the harbor system was replicating transit

rules as listed in Table V-54.

Table V-54

SNWW Pilot’s Rules

General: Vessels 85,000 DWT or over, or greater than 875 feet in length and 125 feet in beam width

will move during daylight hours only above the Texas Island intersection with the GIWW West. In the

event that meeting situations are applicable but circumstances will not permit the utilization of turning

basins, the following criteria will prevail:

1. Vessels with combined beam widths that equal or exceed one-half of the channel width will

not meet day or night.

2. Vessels 48,000 metric DWT or more with a draft of 30 feet or more will not meet above Buoys

29 and 30.

3. Vessels ≥85,000 DWT will not meet vessels of either ≥30,000 DWT or ≥30-foot draft above

Buoys 29 and 30.

4. Vessels ≥85,000 DWT will not meet vessels of either ≥30,000 DWT or ≥25-foot draft above

the Texas Island intersection.

5. Vessels with a combined draft of 70 feet or more will not meet between the Neches River

intersection and Day Beacon #40 (Smith Bluff) at night. Vessels with a combined draft of

65 feet or more will not meet above Day Beacon #40 at night.

Source: SPA (2007).

Benefits from reductions in delays were calculated for widening the 500-foot entrance channel sections to

a project width of 700 feet. A 700-foot project width up to the junction of the Sabine-Neches Canal with

Taylor Bayou would provide a consistent series of reaches for vessels to meet. Specifically, it would

allow two-way traffic for vessels that cannot presently meet in the 500-foot sections of the reaches. The

700-foot reach does not presently cause the pilots to impose vessel-meeting restrictions. The portions of

the channel that are presently 500 feet do result in vessel meeting restrictions. The delays associated with

the 500-foot width are a problem.

Two-way traffic is not allowed for LNG tankers under either the without- or with-project future.

Construction of the Sabine Pass terminal is presently complete and the first vessels arrived in April 2008.

Construction of the Golden Pass LNG terminal is scheduled for completion in September 2010.

Construction of the third permitted facility, Port Arthur, is anticipated after 2012. All LNG tankers would

be subject to one-way traffic rules in spite of channel widening. The LNG facilities are located in the

Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal reaches; these reaches are presently 500 feet. The ERDC

modeling that was performed under the direction of the permit applicants showed that 500 feet is adequate

for one-way transits of LNG vessels. The LNG traffic would be affected by USCG rules limiting the

distance of other vessels traveling before and after the LNG tanker. Delays resulting from LNG traffic

would occur under both the without- and with-project conditions. Channel deepening and widening would

decrease the duration and frequency of delays for LNG and all vessels affected by either pilot or USCG

rules. The beam widths for the smallest LNG (i.e., 76,000 DWT) are in the 142- to 158-foot range.

153
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-54

In addition to widening the entrance channel reaches, widening of the Neches River Channel to Beaumont

was also evaluated and modeled by the ERDC. The results of the ERDC modeling showed increasing the

Neches River channel width from 400 to 500 feet was not sufficient for safe negotiation of vessel

meeting. Furthermore, both the 500-foot width and more optimal widths necessary for two-way traffic

would necessitate extensive dock modifications and land acquisition, and this cost was anticipated to

greatly exceed the reduction in delays that it would afford.

As a less costly and more practical alternative to the Neches River widening, the Sabine Pilots suggested

the use of “sidings” or “channel pull-overs” to help facilitate vessel meeting. At the present time,

suggested sites are commonly referred to and used as TB. The TBs are presently used as “holding” or

“waiting areas”; however, the depth and width of these areas do not accommodate the full range of larger

tankers common on the SNWW. Again, the “holding areas” serve the dual function of TB. In spite of

their depth and width limitations, the TB are presently used to facilitate turning small vessels and are also

used to “tuck small vessels away” while other vessels move along the channel.

Vessel Traffic

Over 70 percent of SNWW’s 1998–2007 crude petroleum tonnage was shipped in vessels of 90,000 DWT

or larger, up by 30 percent since the early 1990s. The largest concentration of SNWW crude petroleum

tonnage is in vessels between 90,000 and 119,999 DWT. Table V-55 displays SNWW’s 1990–2004 crude

oil import by vessel class.

Table V-56 presents 1990–2007 vessel trips by loaded draft for vessels. Analysis of the data showed that

trips increased at an annual rate of 3.7 percent, with the highest rates of growth for 36 feet and greater.

Total trips for drafts over 35 feet greater at an average annual rate of 7.3 percent, while trips for loaded

drafts of 35 feet or less grew at 3.7 percent. For the period 1990–2007, total deep-draft tonnage grew at an

average annual rate of 5.2 percent.

SNWW’s vessel utilization patterns were also reviewed in terms of the average tonnage per trip for 1965–

2007. Figure V-5 shows average tonnage per trip for oceangoing traffic. The graph shows trips increasing

at a slightly decreasing rate and suggests an overall increase in average tonnage per trip. While the

increases in the volume of tonnage per trip are primarily associated with crude petroleum and

petrochemical products, larger vessels are being used for manufactured goods and crude materials. Since

1993, the volume of tonnage per vessel has increase as the variety of commodities using the waterway has

diversified.

154
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-55

Table V-55

SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports,

Percentage of Imports by Vessel DWT,

and Design Draft and Year Built

DWT 1,000s 1993 1998 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

<50 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.6 0.9 0.8

50–74.5 3.8 1.2 8.5 3.1 1.7 1.8 3.4 3.7

75–84.9 18.4 8.1 8.6 18.1 20.4 18.0 25.0 23.0

85–89.9 17.3 10.6 9.9 4.6 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0

90–119.9 56.0 72.1 65.6 65.8 67.8 71.8 63.8 66.3

120–149.9 1.9 2.7 2.8 2.7 3.3 3.0 2.0 1.7

150–175 2.0 5.2 4.5 5.3 5.5 3.8 4.6 4.5

Total 100.0 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USACE, NDC unpublished data were used to compile the percentage distribution of tonnage by vessel size. The

Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay were used to obtain the vessel DWT and associated characteristics.

Figure V-5

Sabine-Neches Waterway

1965–2007

Average Tonnage per Trip for Ocean-Going Vessels

Source: USACE (2007a).

155
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-56

Table V-56

SNWW Trips by Loaded Draft (Includes Loaded and Light Vessels)

SNWW Total Inbound and Outbound Trips by Loaded Draft (feet)

Year/feet ≥43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 ≤35 Total

1990 – – 39 42 123 82 80 52 1,511 1,929

1993 2 – – 115 77 214 209 155 1,261 2,033

1996 1 – – 160 192 277 279 168 1,274 2,351

1999 – 1 – 117 139 276 142 172 1,987 2,834

2000 – – – 107 139 325 156 155 2,096 2,978

2001 1 – – 124 168 324 175 173 2,090 3,055

2002 – 2 – 167 112 441 167 146 2,258 3,293

2003 1 – 1 289 114 347 158 175 2,364 3,449

2004 2 – – 248 232 300 167 147 2,508 3,604

2005 – – – 206 154 312 189 178 2,410 3,449

2006 1 – 1 185 148 545 231 78 2,136 3,425

2007 – – 2 178 271 263 136 143 2,380 3,373

Inbound Trips by Loaded Draft (feet)

Year/feet ≥43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 ≤35 Total

1990 – – 14 38 102 69 55 33 610 921

1993 1 – – 56 37 108 104 78 642 1026

1996 1 – – 80 95 140 139 83 627 1,165

1999 – – – 101 121 250 126 135 657 1,390

2000 – – – 86 110 289 127 113 689 1,414

2001 – – – 101 147 301 147 114 646 1,456

2002 – – – 141 97 382 145 108 714 1,587

2003 – – – 254 102 289 130 121 746 1,642

2004 1 – – 230 207 260 141 96 993 1,721

2005 – – – 181 141 280 164 104 762 1,632

2006 – – 1 164 133 514 192 94 567 1,666

2007 – – 2 148 252 209 107 73 869 1,660

Outbound Trips by Loaded Draft (feet)

Year/feet ≥43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 ≤35 Total

1990 – – 25 4 21 13 25 19 901 1,008

1993 1 – – 59 40 106 105 77 619 1,007

1996 – – – 80 97 137 140 85 647 1,186

1999 – 1 – 16 18 26 16 37 1,330 1,444

2000 – 0 – 21 29 36 29 42 1,407 1,564

2001 1 0 – 23 21 23 28 59 1,444 1,499

2002 – 2 – 26 15 59 22 38 1,544 1,706

2003 1 – 1 35 12 58 28 54 1,618 1,807

2004 1 – – 18 25 40 26 51 1,515 1,883

2005 – – – 25 13 32 25 74 1,648 1,817

2006 – – – 21 15 31 39 84 1,569 1,759

2007 – – – 30 19 54 29 70 1,511 1,713

Source: USACE (2007a).

156
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-57

Examination of world trends showed that vessels are not only requiring deeper drafts but that there is an

increased concentration of wider beams. Table V-57 displays SNWW 2000, 2001, and 2004 distributions

of deep-draft vessels by vessel beam. The table helps illustrate the concentration of wide-beamed vessels.

Vessel widths over 110 feet are generally associated with crude oil tankers. An effect of the growing

concentration in wider-beam vessels using SNWW is more-difficult and subsequently more-dangerous

vessel-meeting situations. The existing 500-foot channel is not wide enough for vessels with beams of

125 feet or more to meet comparable or larger-sized vessels. Project alternatives include channel

widening and the construction of vessel holding areas. Widening to 700 feet would enable meetings

between Panamax vessels, which have beams of 106 feet, and non-LNG tankers with beams of 144 feet or

greater. The availability of several holding area improvements along the Neches River would allow

loaded vessels to await berths and would save time that they originally would have spent in an inbound

transit mode when the berth became clear. With the holding areas, vessels would only have to shift from

the anchorage instead of waiting to sail from offshore.

Table V-57

SNWW Total Vessel Trips for Piloted Vessels

Vessel 2000 2001 2004

Beam (feet) Vessels Percent Vessels Percent Vessels Percent

<95 619 34 659 37 528 23

100 91 5 128 7 230 10

106 273 15 292 16 367 16

115–134 219 12 238 13 253 11

135–144 565 31 475 26 804 35

145–154 36 2 18 1 46 2

>155 18 1 0 0 69 3

Total 1,821 100 1,810 100 2,297 100

Source: SPA (2005).

As input to the HarborSym model vessel trip estimate were prepared for the 2000–2004 period base and

for 2030–2040 average trips. The vessel classes were established based on the HarborSym vessel

structure. The coding sheet corresponding to the vessel class groupings is presented in Table V-58. The

2000–2004 period tonnage and the 2000–2004 fleet data used to define existing traffic patterns are

presented in tables V-59 and V-60.

Tables V-61 through V-63 present the 2030–2040 period tonnage and trip data. Table V-61 presents the

2030–2040 period tonnage. Table V-62 presents 2030–2040 vessel trips based on no deepening. Table V63 presents 2030–2040 vessel trips based on deepening. Comparison of the 2030–2040 tonnage and

vessel transit data presented in tables V-62 and V-63 shows that the number of vessels for the “withoutdeepening scenario” is 12 percent higher than the number for the “with-deepening scenario.” The effect of

modifications to the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal reaches would be a change in the vessel

pilot rules. The pilot expectations are that the effect of deepening and widening would be likely to result

in vessels with loaded drafts of less than 40 feet being able to meet; however, vessels with loaded drafts

157
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-58

Table V-58

HarborSym Vessel Classes

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Total Calls

Bulk

Min Beam 0 76.1 105

Max Beam 76 104.9 107

# calls 46 143 59 248

Min Capacity 0 25,001 34,000

Max Capacity 25,000 53000 78,000

Chemical

Tanker

Min Beam 0 76.1 105 130

Max Beam 76 104.9 107 138

# calls 102 76 131 1 310

Min Capacity 0 25001 33000 85,000

Max Capacity 25,000 44000 49000 105,000

General Cargo

Min Beam 0 76.1 104 120

Max Beam 76 103.9 107 142

# calls 125 58 16 3 202

Min Capacity 0 25,001 42,000 75,000

Max Capacity 25,000 50,000 69,000 95,000

LPG

Min Beam 0 76.1 115 140

Max Beam 76 107 120 150

# calls 15 16 1 1 33

Min Capacity 0 25,001 60,000 157,000

Max Capacity 25,000 56,000 70,000 167,000

MISC.

Min Beam 0 106

Max Beam 76 131

# calls 3 2 5

Min Capacity 0 50,000

Max Capacity 25,000 70,000

Oil Tanker

Min Beam 60 104.1 115 127.1 142

Max Beam 104 107 127 150 160

# calls 153 96 49 657 15 970

Min Capacity 8,000 45,000 67,000 80,000 133,000

Max Capacity 56,000 73,000 97,000 113000 170,000

Tank Barge

Min Beam 0 76.1

Max Beam 76 107

# calls 92 11 103

Min Capacity 0 25,001

Max Capacity 25,000 50,000

Tug

Min Beam 0 76.1

Max Beam 76 100

# calls 55 12 67

Min Capacity 0 25,001

Max Capacity 25,000 50,000

Total

Calls

# calls 591 414 256 662 15 1,938

30.5% 21.4% 13.2% 34.2% 0.8% 100.0%

158
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-59

Table V-59

SNWW 2000–2004 Base Tonnage (1,000s of Short Tons)*

1,000s Tonnage by Vessel Class, 2000/2004 Base

Type/Class Code 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Bulk 544.6 3,964.1 2,596.2 0.0 0.0 7,105.0

Chemical 733.9 1,583.9 2,950.9 96.7 5,365.5

General Cargo 705.3 418.6 190.6 24.1 1,338.7

LPG 147.3 235.0 1.7 2.9 386.9

Misc. 0.0 0.3 0.4

Oil Tanker 9,595.6 4,344.8 2,915.0 52,542.6 1,170.0 70,568.1

Tank Barge 1,306.3 138.6 1,444.9

Tug 17.6 153.1 170.7

LNG 5,777.0 5,770.0

Total 6,370.0 10,838.6 15,335.4 52,666.3 6,947.0 95,150.1

*LNG tonnage and vessels were included in the 2000–2004 HarborSym traffic analysis.

Table V-60

SNWW 2030–2040 Tonnage (1,000s of Short Tons)

1,000s Tonnage by Vessel Class

Type/Class Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

Bulk 835 6,079 3,982 – – – 10,896

Chemical 1,231 2,656 4,949 162 – – 8,998

General Cargo 1,155 685 312 40 – – 2,191

LPG 235 376 3 5 – – 618

Misc. – – – – – – –

Oil Tanker 4,497 6,703 14,804 81,064 1,805 – 108,875

Tank Barge 2,284 270 – – – – 2,553

Tug – 1 – – – – 1

LNG – – – – 5,777 – 5,777

Total 10,237 16,770 24,049 81,271 7,582 – 139,909

159
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-60

Table V-61

SNWW 2030–2040 Tonnage (1,000s of Short Tons)

1,000s Tonnage by Vessel Class

Type/Class Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

Bulk 835.2 6,079.4 3,981.6 0.0 0.0 0 10,896.2

Chemical 1,230.8 2,656.2 4,948.5 162.2 0.0 0 8,997.7

General Cargo 1,154.5 685.3 312.1 39.5 0.0 0 2,191.4

LPG 235.4 375.6 2.8 4.6 0.0 0 618.4

Misc. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0

Oil Tanker 14,804.4 6,703.3 4,497.4 81,064.4 1,805.2 0 108,874.7

Tank Barge 2,283.5 269.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2,553.3

Tug 0.3 0.3 0 0.6

LNG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12,073.3 0 12,073.3

Total 20,544.2 16,769.9 13,742.4 81,270.7 13,878.5 0 146,205.6

Table V-62

SNWW 2030–2040 Vessel Trips Without Deepening

Vessel Trips by Vessel Class

Type/Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

Bulk 71 219 90 0 0 0 380

Chemical 171 127 220 2 0 0 520

General Cargo 205 95 26 5 0 0 331

LPG 24 26 2 2 0 0 53

Misc. 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

Oil Tanker 76 148 236 1,014 23 0 1,497

Tank Barge 145 17 0 0 0 0 163

Tug 87 19 0 0 0 0 105

LNG 0 0 0 0 119 0 119

Total 780 652 574 1,023 142 0 3,170

Table V-63

SNWW 2030–2040 Number of Vessel Trips With Deepening

Vessel Trips by Vessel Class

Type/Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

Bulk 71 138 112 0 0 0 321

Chemical 171 80 210 6 0 0 467

General Cargo 205 60 41 7 0 0 312

LPG 24 14 7 3 0 0 48

Misc. 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

Oil Tanker 236 86 61 579 315 0 1,277

Tank Barge 145 17 0 0 0 0 162

Tug 87 19 0 0 0 0 105

LNG 0 0 0 0 119 0 119

Total 940 415 431 595 434 0 2,815

160
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-61

over 40 feet would be much more restricted. While the vessel pilots indicated that the effect of deepening

would mean a loss of some of the gains in terms of relaxing rules 3–4 (see Table V-54), the combined

effect of deepening and widening would result in a reduction in the number of trips necessary to transport

a given volume of tonnage and provide added savings to remaining traffic.

Entrance Channel Widening Benefits

The HarborSym model was run for existing conditions and each of the project alternatives. The widening

alternatives included widening of the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal from 500 to 700 feet.

Evaluation of widths less than 700 feet was also conducted. Widening of the Sabine Pass Channel and

Port Arthur Canal reaches were evaluated with and without the Neches River TB and anchorage

alternatives and the turning basin anchorage features were evaluated on an incremental basis. The

transportation cost savings associated with widening of the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal

reaches and Neches River TB and anchorage features were evaluated based on a 40-foot channel depth.

Examination of the output data shows that for the existing condition and pre–base year condition, which

reflects the inclusion of LNG carriers, vessels are in the system for 78.2 hours. The output also shows that

expansion of the Entrance Channel would reduce the time in system to 76.7 hours. In reviewing the

changes in delay times, it was found that there are large variances in throughput times. The minimum

time for the without-project condition was on average 11.9 hours and the minimum time for the withproject condition also averaged 11.9 hours. The larger crude oil tankers showed throughput savings for

the with-project condition. For instance, Suezmax vessels took an average of 86.7 hours under the

without-project condition and an average of 83.1 hours with the widened Entrance Channel. The addition

of the LNG vessels would result in longer waiting times for several vessel classes. Without the LNG

vessels, the average number of hours in the system was 66.4. The effect of introducing the LNG vessels

increases total delay times but reduces average times because the LNG vessels represent a large increase

in vessels that travel shorter distances than the existing tanker fleet going to the Neches River and,

therefore would not be subject to delays.

Evaluation of widening of the Entrance Channel to 700 feet through the Sabine Pass Channel and Port

Arthur Canal showed that, using 2000–2004 traffic levels, vessels would save an average of 1.5 hours per

round-trip voyage, with an annual savings of $3,487,322. Evaluation of Port Arthur by itself resulted in

annual savings of approximately $2,579,760.

The model was run using 2004-period traffic and 2035 projected traffic. The effect on the reduction in

total vessel movements resulting from channel deepening is evaluated in the sensitivity section of the

Economic Appendix. Table V-64 summarizes the average annual benefits for 2019–2069 for widening of

the Sabine Pass Channel and the Port Arthur Canal. While the results show that widening the contingent

reaches produces higher benefits than widening one reach without the other, widening the contingent

reaches as a combined feature increases total benefits by less than the sum total. These results indicate

that the added benefits decline when the second reach is added. Table V-65 displays the economic

161
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-62

summary data associated with the widening of Sabine Pass and the Port Arthur Canal. The results of the

benefit-cost analysis indicated that widening was not an incremental justified feature.

Table V-64

Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal

Average Annual Benefits (2008 Dollars at 4.375%)

Year Sabine Pass Channel Port Arthur Canal

Sabine Pass Channel

and Port Arthur Canal

2004 2,269,264 2,579,760 3,487,322

2019 2,922,548 3,431,103 4,335,553

2029 3,738,979 4,431,691 5,486,406

2039 4,691,482 5,599,044 6,829,067

2049 5,262,983 6,299,456 7,634,664

2059 6,215,486 7,466,809 8,977,326

2069 7,548,990 9,101,103 10,857,052

Average Annual

Benefits (4.375%) 6,379,579

Table V-65

Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal

Widening Only

Economic Summary Data (2008 Dollars at 4.375%)

Item Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal

First Cost 78,448,000

Mitigation Cost 48,484,500

Interest During Construction 36,282,311

Total First Cost 163,241,841

Average Annual Construction Cost 8,091,727

Incremental Average Annual O&M Cost 9,587,005

Total Average Annual Cost 17,678,732

Average Annual Benefits 6,379,579

BCR 0.4

Neches River Holding Areas

Evaluation of the Neches River AB was conducted using the HarborSym Model. These proposed features

would be used to facilitate vessel passing. The locations of the TBs are contained in Table V-66. As the

titles indicate, some of the individual features would include a TB and an anchorage (No. 1, 2, and 4) and

some just a TB (No. 3, 5, and 6) or an anchorage (No. 7 and 8). The Sabine Pilots noted that the Turning

Basin Anchorages (TBA), such as 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 would be designed to enable a 48-foot loaded Suezmax

tanker to use the inner portion of the feature as an anchorage and also allow a 48-foot loaded Suezmax

tanker to turn in the TB section. While some of the features described in Table V-66 would be developed

from existing basins (1, 4, and 6) or are new basins (2, 3, 5, 7, and 8), the anchorage components of the

162
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-63

Table V-66

Neches River Turning Basin and Anchorage Features

Title Location Description

Station

Number

Estimated

Miles

from Sea

Buoy

CURRENT USE

Maximum Vessel Size and

Federal Authority (Y/N)

PROPOSED USE

Maximum Vessel Size and

Federal Authority (Y/N)

TURNING

Maximum

Vessel Size

ANCHORAGE

Maximum

Vessel Size

TURNING

Maximum

Vessel Size

ANCHORAGE

Maximum

Vessel Size

FEDERAL (Y/N) FEDERAL (Y/N)

TBA 1 Lower Fina Turning Basin Anchorage 1 210+00 43.4 Suezmax Y None* N Suezmax Y Suezmax YTBA 2 Upper Fina Turning Basin Anchorage 2 275+00 44.6 Suezmax* N None* N Suezmax Y Suezmax YTB 3 Pt Neches Turning Basin 3 370+00 46.4 None N None N Suezmax Y None NTBA 4 Lower Sun Turning Basin Anchorage 4 510+00 49.1 Suezmax Y None* N Suezmax Y Suezmax YTB 5 Upper Sun Turning Basin 5 570+00 50.2 Shallow-Draft

Barges**

N Shallow-Draft

Barges**

N Suezmax Y None N

TB 6 Oil Tanking Turning Basin 6 700+00 52.7 Suezmax Y None N Suezmax Y None NAB 7 PA 25 Anchorage Basin 7 750+00 53.6 None N None N None N Suezmax*** YAB 8 Below

Exxon

Anchorage Basin 8 850+00 56.5 None N None N None N Suezmax*** Y

None Beaumont Beaumont Maneuvering

Area

975+00 58.8 Suezmax Y None N Suezmax Y None N

*Light vessels under emergency conditions.**Under existing conditions, TB 5 is private and used by shallow-draft barges. A new turning basin is proposed immediately north of existing TB 5. This basin would be designed

for loaded Suezmax tankers.***For the “with-project future,” anchorage basins 7 and 8 are designed for anchorage; however, the pilots intend to use anchorage basins 7 and 8 for both the anchorage and

turning of Suezmax vessels.

163
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-64

features are essentially new, and the proposed dimensions represent new dredging. All but TB 6 are

proposed to be dredged over the existing 40-foot project depth. HarborSym was not used to evaluate

deepening of the existing TBs. Benefits would be based on related delays in waiting and traveling to

another TB.

As an example of how the TBs would be used, an inbound convoy would arrive on the Neches River

Channel with the vessels going to docks on the upper end of the Neches leading the convoy. Each vessel

would proceed to their respective dock and head into the berth (for the SNWW vessels turn after finishing

at the dock). The availability of several holding area improvements was emphasized as it allow loaded

vessels to await berths and would save time that they originally would have spent in an inbound transit

mode when the berth became clear. With the holding areas, vessels would only have to shift from the

anchorage instead of awaiting the ship to sail and to start in according to the traffic rules. The pilots noted

that the number of hours saved depends on the dock facility and that the benefits would be primarily for

the crude oil tankers and some product carriers; however, all traffic would realize some savings. The

availability of anchorages is expected to allow the inclusion of additional ships as part of inbound

convoys. Under present conditions, the size of an inbound convoy is limited to berth space. When the

berths are available, the vessels would switch from the holding area to a berth. It was noted that it is

quicker to put a vessel in an anchorage (approximately 20 minutes) than to dock (approximately 1 hour).

Similarly, it is quicker to depart from anchorage than to undock and turn. The net result is that the

convoys would move faster and include additional vessels.

The with-project condition would provide for concurrent use of TBA1, TBA2, and TBA4 for both turning

and anchorage of individual vessels. An additional item revealed at the meetings was that the maximum

vessel size using the TBs was the same for the without- and with-project conditions. Additionally the

model assumptions were based on “no change in Neches River transit rules” for the with-project

condition. At the meeting, the pilots said that they would, in fact, trade vessels out between the Neches

River “holding areas” and “docks” despite night rules and beam and depth restrictions. The vessel arrivals

and departures from the Neches River Channel are planned and/or orchestrated rather than random. Under

present conditions, a new Neches River inbound fleet cannot come in until the outbound Neches River

fleet has traveled down the Neches River Channel and has cleared the Jetty Channel and is in the Outer

Bar Channel. Under the without-project condition, the vessels wait offshore. Under the with-project

condition, they would also wait offshore; however, the sidings would allow a vessel to move to the dock

and start unloading when, under the without-project condition, it would be waiting for an outbound

convoy to clear the Jetty Channel. The convoy behavior would not change between the without- and withproject conditions. It is recognized that it would take extra time to maneuver in and out of the sidings, and

the effect of this behavior is accounted for in the benefit estimates.

Initial input concerning the number of TBs, TBA combinations, and ABs was made based on pilot

interviews. The TBs and TBA combinations are used for both turning and for vessels to wait while others

pass. In regard to incremental justification of review concerns, the pilots expressed considerable

reluctance to agree to anything less than the six TBs; however, they conceded that if priorities had to be

164
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-65

placed on TBA construction, the priorities would be 1, 4, and 7. Next noted grouping was 1, 4, 5, and 7. It

was emphasized that the priority was for all TB improvements.

The benefits of the TB features were evaluated based on pilot input and examination of the HarborSym

output data associated with waiting times and other related variables. The initial focus of the discussions

with the pilots was to understand present use of the TBs and obtain clarification on the DWT, loaded

drafts, beam, length, and number of vessels associated with each of the TBs. Presently, the TBs are used

for vessel turning and holding of light vessels (i.e., loaded drafts less than 29 feet). Some TBs are also

used for holding light Aframax tankers, again with drafts loaded to less than 29 feet. It was noted that

Aframax tankers can be pushed into a TB; however, lack of maintenance dredging makes this practice

less frequent and more difficult but it would occur if a vessel, communication, or other breakdown

situation requires. The vessel arrivals and departures from the Neches River Channel are planned and/or

orchestrated rather than random. Under present conditions, a new Neches River inbound fleet cannot

come in until the outbound Neches River fleet has traveled down the Neches, has cleared the Jetty

Channel, and is in the Outer Bar Channel. Under the without-project condition, the vessels wait offshore.

Under the with-project condition, they would also wait offshore; however, the sidings would allow a

vessel to move to the dock and start unloading when, under the without-project condition, it would be

waiting for an outbound convoy to clear the Jetty Channel. By building the Neches River sidings, an

inbound convoy can save a significant portion of the inbound transit time by being in the sidings and

ready to move to the docks as the outbound convoy leaves. The convoy behavior would not change

between the without- and with-project conditions. Table V-67 presents the HarborSym output associated

with the Neches River anchorages. Discussion with the pilots indicated uncertainty concerning shifting

charges; therefore, the effect of their inclusion was evaluated. The benefits were calculated based on

shifting costs being levied 50 percent of the time. Tables V-68 and V-69 summarize the average annual

savings in comparison to the average construction cost. Table V-68 is similar to Table V-69 and presents

the same combinations but differs in that the annual benefits reflect inclusion of “pilot shifting costs” for

100 percent of the time. The annual benefits presented in tables V-67 and V-68 do not reflect future

growth and are based on 2004-period traffic levels. Analysis of the data presented in the tables shows that

the combination of basins that include alternatives 1, 4, and 8 produce the highest net excess benefits

among the alternatives evaluated.

Table V-70 summarizes the project cost and benefits associated with the combination of 1, 4, and 8. The

annual benefits presented in Table V-70 are average annual numbers and reflect future growth based on

2019–2069 traffic levels.

165
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-66

Table V-67

Neches River Anchorage Basins (2004-Period Savings)

(All costs in dollars)

Feature No Shifting Cost With Shifting Cost Shifting Cost 50% of the Time

Alt 1 1,011,421 212,798 612,110

Alt 2 1,085,993 287,370 686,682

Alt 3 5,045 1,335 3,190

Alt 4 711,087 0 355,544

Alt 5 3,304 0 1,652

Alt 7 367,215 0 183,608

Alt 8 278,304 0 139,152

Alt 1, 2 1,590,026 791,403 1,190,715

Alt 1, 3 1,012,551 213,928 613,240

Alt 1, 4 1,598,751 800,128 1,199,440

Alt 1, 5 1,012,551 213,928 613,240

Alt 1, 7 1,328,837 530,215 929,526

Alt 1, 8 1,263,380 464,758 864,069

Alt 2, 4 1,598,187 799,565 1,198,876

Alt 2, 7 1,413,856 615,233 1,014,545

Alt 2, 8 1,344,211 0 672,106

Alt 4, 7 1,178,793 380,170 779,482

Alt 4, 8 1,103,461 304,838 704,150

Alt 1, 2, 3 1,592,519 793,896 1,193,208

Alt 1, 2, 4 1,897,906 1,099,283 1,498,595

Alt 1, 2, 5 1,208,613 297,153 752,883

Alt 1, 2, 7 1,824,395 1,025,773 1,425,084

Alt 1, 2, 8 1,750,352 951,730 1,351,041

Alt 1, 3, 4 1,601,048 802,425 1,201,737

Alt 1, 3, 5 1,012,551 213,928 613,240

Alt 1, 3, 7 1,334,789 536,166 935,478

Alt 1, 3, 8 1,334,789 536,166 935,478

Alt 1, 4, 5 1,601,048 802,425 1,201,737

Alt 1, 4, 7 1,697,713 898,950 1,298,332

Alt 1, 4, 8 1,761,501 962,878 1,362,190

Alt 2, 4, 7 1,796,902 0 898,451

Alt 2, 4, 8 1,750,548 0 875,274

Alt 2, 7, 8 1,370,980 998,280 1,184,630

Alt 4, 7, 8 1,259,138 460,516 859,827

Alt 1, 2, 3, 4 1,902,467 1,103,845 1,503,156

Alt 1, 2, 4, 7 2,100,114 1,301,491 1,700,803

Alt 1, 2, 4, 8 2,062,240 1,263,618 1,662,929

Alt 1, 2, 7, 8 1,879,960 1,081,337 1,480,649

Alt 1, 4, 7, 8 1,850,392 1,051,629 1,451,011

Alt 2, 3, 4, 5 1,797,233 998,610 1,397,922

Alt 2, 4, 7, 8 1,707,628 909,005 1,308,317

Alt 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 1,982,703 1,184,081 1,583,392

Alt 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1,797,233 998,610 1,397,922

Alt 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 1,838,302 1,039,679 1,438,991

Alt 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 1,261,556 462,934 862,245

166
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-67

Table V-68

Average Annual Cost, Transportation Savings Benefits, Net Excess Benefits (4.375%)

and BCRs (No Shifting Charges)

Feature

Average

Annual

Cost

Benefits Based

on 2004-Period

Traffic

Net Excess

Benefits BCR

(All costs in dollars)

Alt 1 317,880 1,011,421 693,541 3.2

Alt 2 393,568 1,085,993 692,424 2.8

Alt 3 120,157 5,045 –115,112 0.0

Alt 4 192,390 711,087 518,697 3.7

Alt 5 351,101 3,304 –347,797 0.0

Alt 7 144,821 367,215 222,393 2.5

Alt 8 132,768 278,304 145,536 2.1

Alt 1, 2 711,448 1,590,026 878,578 2.2

Alt 1, 3 438,037 1,012,551 574,514 2.3

Alt 1, 4 510,270 1,598,751 1,088,481 3.1

Alt 1, 5 462,701 1,012,551 549,849 2.2

Alt 1, 7 450,648 1,328,837 878,189 2.9

Alt 1, 8 317,880 1,263,380 945,501 4.0

Alt 2, 4 585,958 1,598,187 1,012,229 2.7

Alt 2, 7 538,390 1,413,856 875,466 2.6

Alt 2, 8 526,337 1,344,211 817,874 2.6

Alt 4, 7 337,211 1,178,793 841,582 3.5

Alt 4, 8 325,158 1,103,461 778,303 3.4

Alt 1, 2, 3 831,605 1,592,519 760,914 1.9

Alt 1, 2, 4 903,838 1,897,906 994,068 2.1

Alt 1, 2, 5 1,062,549 1,208,613 146,064 1.1

Alt 1, 2, 7 856,269 1,824,395 968,126 2.1

Alt 1, 2, 8 844,216 1,750,352 906,136 2.1

Alt 1, 3, 4 630,427 1,601,048 970,621 2.5

Alt 1, 3, 5 789,138 1,012,551 223,413 1.3

Alt 1, 3, 7 582,858 1,334,789 751,930 2.3

Alt 1, 3, 8 570,805 1,334,789 763,983 2.3

Alt 1, 4, 5 861,371 1,601,048 739,677 1.9

Alt 1, 4, 7 655,091 1,697,713 1,042,622 2.6

Alt 1, 4, 8 643,038 1,761,501 1,118,463 2.7

Alt 2, 4, 7 730,780 1,796,902 1,066,123 2.5

Alt 2, 4, 8 889,491 1,750,548 861,057 2.0

Alt 2, 7, 8 683,211 1,370,980 687,769 2.0

Alt 4, 7, 8 469,980 1,259,138 789,159 2.7

Alt 1, 2, 3, 4 1,023,995 1,902,467 878,472 1.9

Alt 1, 2, 4, 7 1,048,659 2,100,114 1,051,455 2.0

Alt 1, 2, 4, 8 1,036,606 2,062,240 1,025,634 2.0

Alt 1, 2, 7, 8 989,038 1,879,960 890,922 1.9

Alt 1, 4, 7, 8 787,859 1,850,392 1,062,533 2.3

Alt 2, 3, 4, 5 1,057,216 1,797,233 740,017 1.7

Alt 2, 4, 7, 8 863,548 1,707,628 844,080 2.0

Alt 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 1,181,428 1,982,703 801,276 1.7

Alt 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1,202,038 1,797,233 595,195 1.5

Alt 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 1,189,985 1,838,302 648,317 1.5

Alt 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 941,238 1,261,556 320,318 1.3

167
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-68

Table V-69

Average Annual Cost, Transportation Savings Benefits, Net Excess Benefits (4.375%)

and BCRs (Shifting Charges 100% of the Time)

Feature

Average

Annual Cost

Benefits Based

on 2004-Period

Traffic

Net Excess

Benefits BCR

(All costs in dollars)

Alt 1 317,880 212,798 –105,082 0.7

Alt 2 393,568 287,370 –106,198 0.7

Alt 4 192,390 0 –192,390 0.0

Alt 7 144,821 0 –144,821 0.0

Alt 8 132,768 0 –132,768 0.0

Alt 1, 2 711,448 791,403 79,955 1.1

Alt 1, 3 438,037 213,928 –224,109 0.5

Alt 1, 4 510,270 800,128 289,859 1.6

Alt 1, 5 462,701 213,928 –248,773 0.5

Alt 1, 7 450,648 530,215 79,567 1.2

Alt 1, 8 317,880 464,758 146,878 1.5

Alt 2, 4 585,958 799,565 213,607 1.4

Alt 2, 7 538,390 615,233 76,843 1.1

Alt 2, 8 526,337 0 –526,337 0.0

Alt 4, 7 337,211 380,170 42,959 1.1

Alt 4, 8 325,158 304,838 –20,320 0.9

Alt 1, 2, 3 831,605 793,896 –37,709 1.0

Alt 1, 2, 4 903,838 1,099,283 195,446 1.2

Alt 1, 2, 5 1,062,549 297,153 –765,396 0.3

Alt 1, 2, 7 856,269 1,025,773 169,503 1.2

Alt 1, 2, 8 844,216 951,730 107,513 1.1

Alt 1, 3, 4 630,427 802,425 171,998 1.3

Alt 1, 3, 5 789,138 213,928 –575,210 0.3

Alt 1, 3, 7 582,858 536,166 –46,692 0.9

Alt 1, 3, 8 570,805 536,166 –34,639 0.9

Alt 1, 4, 5 861,371 802,425 –58,946 0.9

Alt 1, 4, 7 655,091 898,950 243,859 1.4

Alt 1, 4, 8 643,038 962,878 319,840 1.5

Alt 2, 4, 7 730,780 0 –730,780 0.0

Alt 2, 4, 8 889,491 0 –889,491 0.0

Alt 2, 7, 8 683,211 998,280 315,068 1.5

Alt 4, 7, 8 469,980 460,516 –9,464 1.0

Alt 1, 2, 3, 4 1,023,995 1,103,845 79,850 1.1

Alt 1, 2, 4, 7 1,048,659 1,301,491 252,832 1.2

Alt 1, 2, 4, 8 1,036,606 1,263,618 227,012 1.2

Alt 1, 2, 7, 8 989,038 1,081,337 92,299 1.1

Alt 1, 4, 7, 8 787,859 1,051,629 263,770 1.3

Alt 2, 3, 4, 5 1,057,216 998,610 –58,606 0.9

Alt 2, 4, 7, 8 863,548 909,005 45,457 1.1

Alt 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 1,181,428 1,184,081 2,653 1.0

Alt 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1,202,038 998,610 –203,427 0.8

Alt 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 1,189,985 1,039,679 –150,306 0.9

Alt 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 941,238 462,934 –478,304 0.5

168
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-69

Table V-70

SNWW Neches River Anchorage Analysis

Basins 1, 4, and 8

Economic Summary Data

October 2008 Dollars

(All costs in dollars)

First Cost of Construction 9,452,214

Interest During Construction 190,786

Total Investment 9,643,000

Average Annual Construction Cost 478,073

Average Annual O&M 190,106

Total Annual Cost 668,179

Average Annual Benefits at 4.375%

Incorporates Traffic Growth (2019–2069)

Based on Pilot Shifting Cost Scenarios

Benefit Component

Based on No Pilot

Shifting Cost

Based on Pilot

Shifting Cost

100% of the

Time

Based on Pilot

Shifting Cost

50% of the Time

Average Annual Benefits 2,784,668 1,522,166 2,153,417

Net Excess Benefits 2,116,489 853,987 1,485,238

BCRs 4.2 2.3 3.2

Summary of Widening Benefits

Table V-71 displays a summary of the widening benefits. The benefits are for widening the Sabine Pass

Channel and Port Arthur Canal to 700 feet and constructing the Neches River anchorage features. Table

V-72 presents the economic summary data associated with the channel widening alternatives. The results

of the widening analysis show that widening of the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal is not an

incrementally justified feature. Widening was not carried forward as a project feature. The ABs are

incrementally justified and were included as part of the recommended plan.

The benefit calculations shown in tables V-71 and V-72 are based on 2004-period historical and 2030–

2040 projected traffic. The 2030–2040 traffic levels do not account for the effect of trip reductions due to

channel deepening. The effect on the reduction in total vessel movements resulting from channel

deepening is evaluated in the sensitivity section of the Economic Appendix. For the sensitivity,

HarborSym widening model was run based on the reduction in vessel trips as a result of channel

deepening. The purpose of the sensitivity was to determine changes in the annual delays in relationship to

the widening alternative in combination with channel deepening. The change in vessel trips due to

channel deepening was estimated based on the decrease in the number of trips necessary to transport

future tonnage. The model results suggest that the reduction in the number of vessel trips, resulting from

channel deepening, has a significant effect on the net difference in the duration of vessel delays between

the without- and with-project conditions. Further analyses based on various ranges of fleet forecasts

169
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-70

indicate that the increase in benefits from scenarios that included either “deepening and widening” or

“deepening and the TB” are primarily attributable to the reduction in trips due to channel deepening.

These savings result from the reduction in trips based on vessels carrying additional cargo from the

redistribution of vessel sizes based on the availability of a deeper channel and do not vary significantly

from the “widening only” benefits shown in Table V-71. The effect of adding these savings to the project

benefits is outlined in the sensitivity section of the Economic Appendix.

Table V-71

Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal

Average Annual Benefits (2008 Dollars at 4.375%)

Year

Sabine Pass

Channel

Port Arthur

Canal

Sabine Pass Channel

and Port Arthur

Canal

Neches River

Anchorage

Basins

2004 2,269,264 2,579,760 3,487,322

2019 2,922,548 3,431,103 4,335,553 1,712,658

2029 3,738,979 4,431,691 5,486,406 1,946,282

2039 4,691,482 5,599,044 6,829,067 2,179,907

2049 5,262,983 6,299,456 7,634,664 2,441,575

2059 6,215,486 7,466,809 8,977,326 2,734,652

2069 7,548,990 9,101,103 10,857,052 3,062,910

Average Annual Benefits (4.375%) 6,379,579 2,153,417

Table V-72

Widening Only

Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal

Economic Summary Data (2008 Dollars at 4.375%)

(All costs in dollars)

Item

Sabine Pass

Channel and

Port Arthur

Canal

Neches River

Anchorage

Basins

First Cost 78,448,000 9,452,214

Mitigation Cost 48,484,500 –

Interest During Construction 36,282,311 190,786

Total First Cost 163,241,841 9,643,000

Average Annual Construction Cost 8,091,727 478,073

Incremental Average Annual O&M Cost 9,587,005 190,106

Total Average Annual Cost 17,678,732 668,179

Average Annual Benefits 6,379,579 2,153,417

Net Excess Benefits –11,299,154 1,485,238

BCRs 0.4 3.2

170
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-71

V.F NED BENEFIT SUMMARY

Table V-73 presents the transportation cost savings by major commodity group and channel reach. The

majority of benefits are associated with imports of crude petroleum, LNG and petroleum products, and

exports of petroleum products. Crude petroleum and petroleum products represent 84 percent of the

benefits at the 45-foot depth and 89 percent at the 50-foot depth. LNG comprises 7 percent of benefits at

the 45-foot depth and 4 percent at 50 feet. The LNG benefits are for facilities in the Sabine Pass Channel

and Port Arthur Canal reaches.

Table V-74 summarizes the benefit cost analysis, including the first cost of construction, net excess

benefits, and the BCR for the project alternatives. The results of the analysis indicate that the 49-foot

channel depth represents the plan that most reasonably maximizes net excess benefits.

Incremental Analysis

The project benefits start in the Sabine Pass Channel reach where the Sabine Pass LNG terminal is

located (see Figure II-3). The Port Arthur Canal reach follows the Sabine Pass Channel reach. The Golden

Pass LNG terminal, which is nearing completion, is located in the Sabine Pass Channel reach. An

additional LNG terminal, Port Arthur, is permitted for construction in the Port Arthur Canal reach;

however, due to uncertainty, the LNG transportation savings benefits (see Table V-52) do not include the

Port Arthur terminal. The Port Arthur Canal reach also provides access to the Taylor Bayou side channel

and basin. The Port of Port Arthur facilities are located along the main portion of the Sabine-Neches

Canal. The incremental analyses for channel improvements through Port Arthur excluding the Taylor

Bayou side channel are shown in Table V-75.

Separable analysis of the Taylor Bayou is shown in Table V-76. The analysis presented in Table V-76

shows that the BCRs for the Taylor Bayou increment are well above unity. Table V-77 presents the

Sabine-Neches and Taylor Bayou increments as a separable unit. Table V-77 indicates that the BCRs for

the segment through the Sabine-Neches Canal and including Taylor Bayou are below unity due to the

inclusion of the entrance channel costs and exclusion of the Neches River benefits. Incremental analysis

of the Neches River reach in Table V-78 shows that the BCRs are well above unity. Table V-79 displays

the Neches River analysis excluding Taylor Bayou. Table V-80 reflects exclusion of benefits from Taylor

Bayou, LNG, and breakbulk. Table V-81 presents calculation of the benefits and costs without inclusion

of LNG.

The results of the analyses presented in Tables V-75 through V-81 show that the downstream benefits are

not needed to justify the upstream costs. The analysis shows that each of the major reaches provides

significant incremental benefits.

171
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-72

Table V-73

Total Average Annual Benefits ($1,000s)

by Channel Reach and Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%) (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

(All costs in dollars)

Reach and Commodity 45 46 47 48 49 50

Sabine Pass LNG 3,676 3,676 3,676 3,676 3,676 3,676

Port Arthur LNG 7,464 7,464 7,464 7,464 7,464 7,464

Taylor Bayou

Crude Petroleum Imports 5,790 6,892 7,510 7,964 8,305 8,928

Petroleum & Chemical

Product Imports 2,369 2,758 3,124 3,436 3,709 3,939

Petroleum & Chemical

Product Exports 7,348 8,556 9,692 10,653 11,485 12,170

Coastwise Petroleum

Products 563 563 563 563 563 563

Taylor Bayou Total 16,070 18,769 20,889 22,616 24,062 25,600

Sabine-Neches Canal

Breakbulk and Aggregate 2,065 2,387 2,387 2,387 2,387 2,387

Neches River Channel to Beaumont

Crude Petroleum Imports 35,340 41,759 45,901 53,117 57,868 59,832

Petroleum & Chemical

Product Imports 3,554 4,138 4,686 5,155 5,564 5,909

Petroleum & Chemical

Product Exports 7,961 9,269 10,499 11,541 12,442 13,184

Coastwise Petroleum

Products 918 918 918 918 918 918

Grain Exports 2,172 2,463 2,870 3,187 3,482 3,714

Breakbulk and Aggregate 2,471 2,860 2,860 2,860 2,860 2,860

Neches River Turning Basins 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153

Neches River Total 54,569 63,560 69,887 78,931 85,287 88,570

Grand Total* 83,844 95,856 104,303 115,074 122,875 127,696

*Some totals may not add due to rounding.

172
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-73

Table V-74

SNWW Economic Summary Data

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

(All costs in dollars)

45 46 47 48 49 50

First Cost of Construction 798,920 889,906 980,891 1,071,877 1,152,079 1,232,280

Interest During

Construction

88,981 99,115 109,248 119,382 128,315 137,247

Total Investment 887,901 989,021 1,090,139 1,191,259 1,280,394 1,369,527

Average Annual Cost 44,020 49,033 54,046 59,059 63,478 67,897

Deferred Construction

(F&W*)

174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 26,023 28,037 30,052 32,067 32,927 33,787

Total Annual Cost 70,217 77,258 84,299 91,341 96,626 101,911

Average Annual Benefits 83,844 95,856 104,303 115,074 122,875 127,696

Net Excess Benefits 13,627 18,598 20,004 23,733 26,249 25,785

BCRs 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3

F&W = Fish and Wildlife

Table V-75

Sabine Pass, Port Arthur Canal, and Sabine-Neches Canal Incremental Analysis

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

(All costs in dollars)

45 46 47 48 49 50

First Cost of Construction 510,640 564,696 618,751 672,807 725,314 777,822

Interest During Construction 48,541 54,539 60,538 66,536 71,713 76,889

Total Investment 559,181 619,235 679,289 739,343 797,027 854,711

Average Annual Cost 27,723 30,700 33,677 36,655 39,514 42,374

Deferred Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 21,870 23,477 25,089 26,705 27,332 27,965

Total Annual Cost 49,767 54,365 58,967 63,575 67,067 70,566

Average Annual Benefits 13,205 13,527 13,527 13,527 13,527 13,527

Net Excess Benefits –36,562 –40,838 –45,440 –50,048 –53,540 –57,039

BCRs 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

173
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-74

Table V-76

Taylor Bayou Incremental Analysis

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

(All costs in dollars)

45 46 47 48 49 50

First Cost of Construction 43,755 51,811 59,865 67,919 76,527 85,136

Interest During Construction 2,106 2,494 2,882 3,270 3,683 4,099

Total Investment 45,861 54,305 62,747 71,189 80,210 89,235

Average Annual Cost 2,274 2,692 3,111 3,529 3,977 4,424

Average Annual O&M 1,267 1,451 1,631 1,807 1,945 2,075

Total Annual Cost 3,541 4,143 4,742 5,336 5,922 6,499

Average Annual Benefits 16,070 18,769 20,889 22,617 24,062 25,599

Net Excess Benefits 12,529 14,626 16,147 17,281 18,140 19,100

BCRs 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.1 3.9

Table V-77

Project Improvements through Port Arthur (including Taylor Bayou)

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

(All costs in dollars)

45 46 47 48 49 50

First Cost of Construction 554,395 616,507 678,616 740,725 801,842 862,958

Interest During Construction 50,647 57,033 63,420 69,806 75,396 80,988

Total Investment 605,042 673,540 742,036 810,531 877,238 943,946

Average Annual Cost 30,171 33,580 36,989 40,399 43,712 47,025

Deferred Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 23,137 24,929 26,720 28,512 29,276 30,041

Total Annual Cost 53,482 58,697 63,910 69,126 73,209 77,293

Average Annual Benefits 29,275 32,296 34,416 36,144 37,589 39,126

Net Excess Benefits –24,207 –26,401 –29,494 –32,982 –35,620 –38,167

BCRs 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

174
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-75

Table V-78

Neches River Incremental Economic Analysis

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

(All costs in dollars)

45 46 47 48 49 50

First Cost of Construction 244,525 273,399 302,275 331,152 350,237 369,322

Interest During Construction 38,334 42,081 45,829 49,576 52,918 56,259

Total Investment 282,859 315,480 348,104 380,728 403,156 425,581

Average Annual Cost 14,023 15,641 17,258 18,875 19,987 21,099

Average Annual O&M 2,885 3,109 3,332 3,555 3,651 3,746

Total Annual Cost 16,908 18,750 20,590 22,430 23,638 24,845

Average Annual Benefits 54,570 63,560 69,888 78,931 85,287 88,570

Net Excess Benefits 37,661 44,811 49,298 56,500 61,649 63,725

BCRs 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6

Table V-79

SNWW Improvements (excludes Taylor Bayou)

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

(All costs in dollars)

45 46 47 48 49 50

First Cost of Construction 755,165 838,095 921,027 1,003,958 1,075,551 1,147,144

Interest During Construction 86,875 96,621 106,366 116,112 124,631 133,148

Total Investment 842,040 934,716 1,027,392 1,120,070 1,200,183 1,280,292

Average Annual Cost 41,746 46,341 50,935 55,530 59,502 63,473

Deferred Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 24,755 26,586 28,422 30,260 30,982 31,712

Total Annual Cost 66,676 73,115 79,558 86,005 90,705 95,411

Average Annual Benefits 54,540 63,418 69,746 78,789 85,145 88,428

Net Excess Benefits –12,135 –9,696 –9,812 –7,217 –5,559 –6,983

BCRs 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

175
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-76

Table V-80

Neches River Project Improvements (excludes Transportation Benefits for All Other Reaches)

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

(All costs in dollars)

45 46 47 48 49 50

First Cost of Construction 755,165 838,095 921,027 1,003,958 1,075,551 1,147,144

Interest During

Construction

86,875 96,621 106,366 116,112 124,631 133,148

Total Investment 842,040 934,716 1,027,392 1,120,070 1,200,183 1,280,292

Average Annual Cost 41,746 46,341 50,935 55,530 59,502 63,473

Deferred Construction

(F&W)

174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 24,755 26,586 28,422 30,260 30,982 31,712

Total Annual Cost 66,676 73,115 79,558 86,005 90,705 95,411

Average Annual Benefits 38,470 44,649 48,857 56,172 61,084 62,829

Net Excess Benefits –28,206 –28,465 –30,701 –29,834 –29,621 –32,582

BCRs 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7

Table V-81

SNWW Improvements (excludes LNG)

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

(All costs in dollars)

45 46 47 48 49 50

First Cost of Construction 755,165 838,095 921,027 1,003,958 1,075,551 1,147,144

Interest During Construction 86,875 96,621 106,366 116,112 124,631 133,148

Total Investment 842,040 934,716 1,027,392 1,120,070 1,200,183 1,280,292

Average Annual Cost 41,746 46,341 50,935 55,530 59,502 63,473

Deferred Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 24,755 26,586 28,422 30,260 30,982 31,712

Total Annual Cost 66,676 73,115 79,558 86,005 90,705 95,411

Average Annual Benefits 72,702 84,716 93,164 103,935 111,736 116,556

Net Excess Benefits 6,026 11,601 13,606 17,930 21,031 21,144

BCRs 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

176
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-77

Benefit-Cost Ratio at 7 Percent

Calculation of benefits and costs at 7 percent interest is required by EC 11-2-194, commonly referred to

as the budget Engineering Circular (paragraph 11). The 7 percent calculations are used for budget ranking

purposes. Table V-82 outlines the economic calculations at 7 percent.

Table V-82

SNWW Economic Summary Data at 7 Percent

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

(All costs in dollars)

45 46 47 48 49 50

First Cost of Construction 798,920 889,906 980,891 1,071,877 1,152,079 1,232,280

Interest During Construction 150,031 167,118 184,204 201,291 216,352 231,413

Total Investment 948,951 1,057,024 1,165,095 1,273,168 1,368,431 1,463,693

Average Annual Cost 68,761 76,592 84,423 92,254 99,156 106,059

Deferred Construction (F&W) 178 192 206 220 226 232

Average Annual O&M 25,942 27,971 29,999 32,027 32,885 33,742

Total Annual Cost 94,881 104,755 114,628 124,501 132,267 140,033

Average Annual Benefits 81,644 93,305 101,498 112,028 119,631 124,300

Net Excess Benefits –13,237 –11,450 –13,130 –12,473 –12,636 –15,733

BCRs 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

Sensitivity Analysis for Additional Advanced Maintenance

During the development of the alternatives, several reaches of the channel were identified as requiring

additional advanced maintenance beyond the standard practices of the Galveston District. These reaches

included the Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel, one section of the Sabine Pass Channel, the Port Arthur

Junction, and portions of the Neches River Channel.

In these fast-shoaling areas, it was assumed that additional advance maintenance would be required to

avoid frequent redredging and to ensure the reliability and least overall cost for operating and maintaining

the project’s authorized dimensions. This increase in advance maintenance (ranging from 1 to 5 feet) was

proposed for some portions of some channel reaches to allow the proposed dredging frequency to remain

the same as the existing O&M dredging frequency.

A sensitivity analysis was performed on the O&M costs to determine the impact to the BCR if the

additional advance maintenance was not performed on these specific channel reaches. Table V-83

presents the summary of the economic data without this additional advanced maintenance in those limited

channel reaches. In a comparison to Table V-74 which summarizes the costs and benefits for the study,

the average annual O&M costs increases over the 50-year period of analysis without the additional

177
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-78

advance maintenance because, although less material would be dredged per dredging cycle, the frequency

of O&M dredging would increase to maintain the project’s authorized depth. This increase in average

annual O&M costs results in a decrease in the net excess benefits and a decrease in the BCRs for each of

the channel depths. The NED plan of 49-foot depth has a decrease in the BCR from 1.3 to 1.2.

Table V-83

SNWW Economic Summary Data Without Additional Advanced O&M Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel

Alternative (50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%) (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

(All costs in dollars)

45 46 47 48 49 50

First Cost of Construction 798,920 889,906 980,891 1,071,877 1,152,079 1,232,280

Interest During Construction 88,981 99,115 109,248 119,382 128,315 137,247

Total Investment 887,901 989,021 1,090,139 1,191,259 1,280,394 1,369,527

Average Annual Cost 44,020 49,033 54,046 59,059 63,478 67,897

Deferred Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 28,901 31,139 33,377 35,615 36,570 37,525

Total Annual Cost 73,095 80,360 87,624 94,889 100,269 105,649

Average Annual Benefits 83,841 95,856 104,303 115,074 122,875 127,696

Net Excess Benefits 10,746 15,496 16,679 20,185 22,606 22,047

BCRs 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

V.G REGIONAL BENEFITS

The SNWW is America’s largest military port and the second largest importer of crude oil based on

tonnage. An estimated 20 to 30 percent of all military jet fuel is produced on the SNWW and an estimated

118 million tons of cargo are moved through the marine terminals. The waterway delivers 12 to

16 percent of the crude oil and refined products supplied east of the Rocky Mountains.

SNWW port activity contributes significantly to the local and regional economy by generating business

revenue to local and national firms providing vessel and cargo-handling services at the marine terminals.

These firms, in turn, provide employment and income to individuals. The SNWW marine terminals and

refinery complexes generate revenue throughout the local, state, and national economies.

Terminals along the SNWW include the public marine terminals owned by the Port of Beaumont and Port

of Port Arthur, as well as the petroleum refineries, chemical plants, and bulk/breakbulk terminals. These

terminals use vessel and barge transportation to move crude oil, petroleum products, liquid and dry

chemicals, steel, and dry bulk cargo.

Revenue generated by the waterway is generated by firms providing services to the commodity and vessel

activity at the terminals, revenue from trucking firms, railroads, pipeline operations, terminal operators

and associated refineries and chemical plants (from loading and discharging vessels), chandlers, agents,

pilots, towing companies, shipyards, and maritime support firms. This revenue is used to purchase

178
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-79

employment (direct jobs) to provide the services, to pay stockholders and for retained earnings, and to

purchase goods and services from local firms, as well as national and international firms (creating indirect

jobs with these firms). Businesses also pay taxes from the business revenue.

For the communities within the study area, the SNWW is responsible for benefits to the local and regional

economy. The Sponsor recently contracted for a study on the Economic Impact of the Sabine-Neches

Waterway (Martin Associates, 2006). Regional benefits of the SNWW to the communities within the

study area include (based on 2004 statistics):

• 83,692 jobs in Texas and Louisiana (private and public marine terminals along SNWW);

• 14,987 jobs directly related to activities along the waterway;

• 13,628 induced jobs from local purchases from SNWW workers;

• 55,077 indirect jobs;

• $877.7 million of direct wages and salaries;

• $2.2 billion in business revenue (excluding the cargo);

• $426.5 million of State and local taxes (generated by activity at the marine terminals); and

• $853 million of Federal taxes (generated by activity at the marine terminals).

The number of jobs that the waterway supports is impressive especially since the Southeast Texas labor

force totaled 176,500 people in June 2006, with personal income and consumption attributable to the

waterway at $4.7 billion (Beaumont Enterprise, 2006).

With the value of the current 40-foot-deep SNWW channel to the region, it is expected that the proposed

deepening and widening of the channel for navigational efficiency and safety would increase the benefits

to the region or at a minimum maintain the existing benefits.

179
V. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives

V-80

This page intentionally left blank.

180
VI-1

VI. DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN

VI.A OVERVIEW

In the previous chapter, the economic analysis identified the process and rationale used to identify the

NED Plan, which is the 49-foot plan. However, the Recommended Plan identified in Chapter IV is the

48-foot deepening, which is also considered the LPP by the Sponsor. The Sponsor agrees that this plan

best addresses the navigational efficiency and safety issues along the existing SNWW channel. This

chapter describes the Recommended Plan in more detail. The Engineering Appendix, which includes

design information, is available upon request.

VI.B DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN

The Recommended Plan involves the following modifications to the existing channel:

• Deepening the SNWW to Beaumont to 48 feet, extending the Entrance Channel 13.2 miles,

• Deepening and selective widening of Taylor Bayou channels and TB,

• Decreasing the width of the Sabine Bank Channel to 700 feet with tapering from 800 feet (Station

23+300) to 700 feet wide (Station 25+800 through the end of Sabine Bank Channel),

• Adding or enlarging turning and AB along the Neches River Channel, and

• Bending easing on the Sabine-Neches Canal and Neches River Channel.

With the Recommended Plan, the existing channel depth would be increased by 8 feet, increasing the

inland portion from 40 feet to 48 feet and increasing the existing offshore portions from 42 to 50 feet

(plus overdepth or advance maintenance as needed). The channel deepening would result in the Entrance

Channel being extended 13.2 miles farther south into the Gulf of Mexico. The Sabine Pass Jetty Channel,

Sabine Pass Channel, Port Arthur and Sabine-Neches canals, and the Neches River Channel would be

deepened from 40 to 48 feet. The existing offshore entrance channels (Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel and

Sabine Bank Channel) would be deepened from 42 to 50 feet, and the Sabine Bank Extension Channel

would be dredged to 50 feet. This would increase the SNWW from 64 miles to approximately 77 miles in

length. No modifications to the existing Sabine Pass jetties would be required as part of the CIP.

The Taylor Bayou TB and channels would also be widened at its entrance and the upstream bottleneck

curve and deepened to 48 feet. Neither the Sabine-Neches Canal nor the Neches River Channel would be

widened, but navigation efficiency would be improved with bend easings in both reaches, and the

addition or enlargement of turning and ABs on the Neches River Channel.

The Recommended Plan would result in an estimated 98 mcy of new work and 650 mcy of maintenance

material over the 50-period of analysis (Table VI-1). The annual maintenance dredging quantities in the

SNWW would increase from an average of 8.1 mcy for the current 40-foot project to 13.0 mcy for the

proposed 48-foot project. Dredged depths would actually be deeper than the authorized depth when

allowances for overdepth and advance maintenance are included. Overdepth dredging and advance

181
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-2

maintenance would be 2 feet each; however, in critical and fast-shoaling areas, additional advance

maintenance is required to avoid frequent redredging and to ensure the reliability and least overall cost for

operating and maintaining the project’s authorized dimensions. An increase in advance maintenance

(ranging from 1 to 5 feet) was proposed for some portions of some channel reaches to allow the proposed

dredging frequency to remain the same as the existing O&M dredging frequency. These channel depths

were included in the mesh for the HS modeling.

Table VI-1

New Work and 50-Year Maintenance Quantities for the Recommended Plan

Channel Reach

New Work

Quantities

50-Year

Maintenance

Quantities

Offshore

Sabine Bank Extension 18,737,000 36,216,000

Sabine Bank Channel 15,358,000 96,371,000

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel 5,923,000 223,650,000

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel 2,978,000 13,527,000

Inshore

Sabine Pass Channel 6,723,200 34,780,800

Port Arthur Canal 11,697,200 82,857,600

Sabine-Neches Canal 11,944,000 73,245,000

Neches River Channel 25,014,000 89,724,800

Total Quantities 98 mcy 650 mcy

The SNWW Recommended Plan is made up of eight channel reaches: three offshore and five inland.

Each channel reach is divided into different sections for dredging contracts. These sections are shown on

the Engineering Plates in Appendix 1 of this FFR. The specifics for each channel reach are discussed later

in this section. Whenever economically and environmentally feasible, new work and maintenance

material are used beneficially either for marsh restoration or shoreline nourishment. Sixteen existing and

two new PAs would be used for upland placement.

General Navigation Features of the Recommended Plan

Proposed structural channel improvements are described individually for each reach below (figures VI-1

through VI-7). General navigation features (GNF) of the Recommended Plan consist of:

1) Deepening of navigation channels and basins;

2) 50-year DMMP for both new work and O&M (ODMDSs, upland PAs, and the Neches River

and Gulf Shore BU features);

3) Marsh mitigation in Louisiana; and

4) Bridge reinforcements.

Non-General Navigation Features project elements (aids to navigation, Land, Easements, and Rights of

Way [LER], and relocations [including utility relocations]) are described at the end of this chapter. The

Sabine Bank Extension is discussed separately below, but it is actually part of the Sabine Bank Channel

reach.

182
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-3

Sabine Bank Extension Channel

This channel lengthens the existing offshore Entrance Channel approximately 13.2 miles at a bottom

width of 700 feet (Figure VI-1). The additional length is required to reach a water depth in the Gulf of

Mexico equal to the proposed channel depth. The proposed offshore depth is 50 feet, but advance

maintenance and allowable overdepth would add a total of 4 more feet, bringing the total dredged depth

of the Extension Channel to 54 feet. It would be constructed by hopper dredge beginning at the end of the

Sabine Bank Channel, and it would extend into the Gulf of Mexico at the same bearing as the Sabine

Bank Channel. An overview of the project details for the Sabine Bank Extension is listed in Table VI-2.

Table VI-2

Project Details of Sabine Bank Extension

Length of Reach 13.2 miles (new)

Project Depth 50 feet

Bottom Width 700 feet

Advance Maintenance 2 feet

Allowable Overdepth 2 feet

New Work Material 18,737,000 cubic yards

Placement Areas ODMDSs A, B, C, and D

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Maintenance Material (50-year quantity) 36,216,000 cubic yards

Increase in Maintenance Material 36,216,000 cubic yards

Placement Areas ODMDSs A, B, C, and D

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Sabine Bank Channel

This 14.7-mile-long channel would be deepened from 42 to 50 feet using a hopper dredge (Figure VI-2).

When advance maintenance and allowable overdepth are added to the proposed 50-foot depth, the Sabine

Bank Channel would be dredged to 54 feet. The bottom width of the Sabine Bank Channel is currently

800 feet; it would remain 800 feet wide for the first mile past the end of the Outer Bar Channel, and then

it would taper from 800 to 700 feet over the next one-half mile. The Sabine Bank Channel would continue

the 700-foot bottom width for approximately 13.2 miles to its connection with the Extension Channel.

Since the existing channel is 800 feet wide, new channel markers would be required to mark the tapered

transition and the remainder of the narrowed Sabine Bank Channel. An overview of the project details for

the Sabine Bank Channel reach is listed in Table VI-3.

183
86 +000

69+000

70+000

71+000

72+000

73+00

74+000

75+000 76+000 77+00

87 +000

79+000 80+000 81+000 82+000 83+000 84+000 85+000 86+000 87+000 88+000 89+000 90+000 91+000 92+000 93+000 94+000 95+000

105+000

115+000

125+000

135+000

145+000

155+000

165+000

175+000

185+000

193+000

B

End of Existing Channel SNWW Extension Channel

95+734

ODMDS-C

ODMDS-D

ODMDS-A

ODMDS-B

ODMDS-02

ODMDS-01

Figure VI-1

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Extension Channel

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 4419800Prepared by: AP

Scale: 1 inch equals 8,000 feet

Date: 08/07/2009

N:\Clients\U_Z\USACE\Projects\Sabine_Neches\100007609\Figures\fig_VI-1_vr5.mxd

8,000 0 8,000 4,000

Feet

Project Area, BU Features Project Area, Proposed Channel

State Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas State Boundaries

Project Area, Dredged Material Placement Areas

Legend

Channel CenterlinesCounty Boundaries

Study Area

G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

Vicinity Map

Project Area, Proposed Dredged Material Placement Area Texas Louisiana

VI-4

184
1+000

2+000

3+000

4+000 5+000

6+000

7+000

8+000

9+000

10+000

11 +000

12+000

13+000

14+000 15+000

16+000

17+000

18+000

19+00 0

20+00 0

21+00 0

22+00 0

23+00 0

24+00 0 25+000

26+00 0

27+00 0

28+00 0

29+00 0

30+00 0

31+00 0

32+00 0

33+00 0

34+00 0 35+000

36+00 0

37+00 0

38+00 0

39+00 0

40+00 0

41+00 0

42+000

43+000

44+000 45+000

46+000

47+000

48+000

49+000

50+000

51+000

52+000

53+000

54+000 55+000

56+000

57+000

58+000

59+000

60+000

61+000

62+000

63+000

64+000 65+000

66+000

67+000

68+000

69+000

70+000

71+000

72+000

73+000

74+000 75+000

76+000

77+000

78+000

79+00 0

80+00 0

81+00 0

82+00 0

83+00 0

84+00 0

85+000

86+00 0

87+00 0

88+00 0

89+00 0

90+00 0

91+00 0

92+00 0

93+00 0

94+00 0

95+000

-210+ 00

B

Sabine Bank Channel

(50' x 700')

End of Existing Channel

95+734

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel

(50' x 800')

Note: Entire reach of Sabine PassOuter Bar Channel will have additionaladvanced maintenance.

Transition to 700'

50' x 800' existing

ODMDS-02

ODMDS-03

ODMDS-04

ODMDS-01

Figure VI-2

Sabine Pass Outer Bar andSabine Pass Bank Channel

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 044198800Prepared by: AP

1 inch equals 8,000 feet

Date: 7/23/2009

File:N:Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/Figure_VI_2_vr4.mxd

8,000 0 8,000 4,000

Feet

Legend

Project Area, Proposed Channel

State Parks, National WildlifeRefuges, and Wildlife Management Areas

Project Area, Dredged Material Placement Areas

State BoundariesChannel Centerlines

Study Area

Channel Reach Limits

Project Area, BU Features

G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

Lo uisi an a

Texas

Vicinity Map

VI-5

185
0+ 0 0

10 + 0 0

20 + 0 0

30 + 0 0

40+00

50 + 0 0

60 + 0 0

0+ 0 0

1+ 0 0 0

2+ 0 0 0

3+ 0 0 0

4+ 0 0 0

5+000

6+ 0 0 0

7+ 0 0 0

8+ 0 0 0

9+ 0 0 0

10 + 0 00

11 + 00 0

12 + 0 00

13 + 0 00

14 + 0 00

15+000

0+ 0 0

10 + 0 0

20 + 0 0

30 + 0 0

50 + 0 0

60 + 0 0

70 + 0 0

80 + 0 0

90 + 0 0

10 0 + 00

11 0+ 0 0

12 0 + 0 0

13 0 + 0 0

15 0 + 0 0

16 0 + 0 0

17 0 + 0 0

18 0 + 0 0

19 0 + 0 0

20 0 + 0 0

21 0 + 0 0

22 0 + 0 0

23 0 + 0 0

25 0 + 0 0

26 0 + 0 0

27 0 + 0 0

28 0 + 0 0

29 0 + 0 0

29 6 + 2 5

-1 0 + 00

-2 0 + 00

-3 0 + 00

-4 0 + 00

-5 0 + 00

-60+00

-7 0 + 00

-8 0 + 00

-9 0 + 00

-1 0 0+ 0 0

-1 10 + 0 0

-1 2 0+ 0 0

-1 3 0+ 0 0

-1 4 0+ 0 0

-1 5 0+ 0 0

-160+00

-1 7 0+ 0 0

-1 8 0+ 0 0

-1 9 0+ 0 0

-2 0 0+ 0 0

-2 1 0+ 0 0

B

B

240+00

140+00

40+00

G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

Texas Point WMA

Sabine Pass

Channel

Sabine Pass

Battleground SHP

Sabine Pass

Outer Bar Channel

LOUSIANA

TEXAS

GULF SHORELINE BU FEATURE

(TEXAS POINT)

GULF SHORELINE BU FEATURE

(LOUISIANA POINT)

Sabine Pass

Jetty Channel

£¤82

East Jetty

West Jetty

ODMDS-04

PA-05

(North)

PA-05B PA-05

(South)

PA-05C

Figure VI-3

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel

Prepared for: USACE

Job No.: 044198800

Prepared by: AP

Scale: 1' = 5000'

Date: 7/23/2009

File: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/figures/Figure_VI_3.mxd

0 5,000 10,000

Feet μ

^_

G U L F O F M E X I C O

Vicinity Map

Legend

Project Area, Proposed Channel

State Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas

Project Area, Dredged Material Placement Areas

Shore Nourishment

State Boundaries

Channel Centerlines

County Boundaries

Study Area

Channel Reach Limits

Project Area, BU Features

Texas Louisiana

VI-6

186
Texas Point WMA

82 Sabine Pass

Channel

Port Arthur

Canal

Sabine Pass

Battleground SHP

Sabine Pass

Jetty Channel

296+24.6

0+00

Gulf Shore

BU Feature (Louisiana)

Pleasure Island

Mesquite Point

5-Foot Add. Adv.

Maintenance 3-Foot Add. Adv.

Maintenance

Sabine Pass

Anchorage Basin

Gulf Shore

BU Feature (Texas) East Jetty West Jetty

-60+00

140+00

140+00

PA-05

(North)

PA-05B PA-05 (South)

PA-05C

Blue Buck

Point

0+00

70+00

10+00

30+00

40+00

50+00

60+00

20+00

80+00

-40+00

-90+00

50+00 - -20+00 -30+00

-80+00

-70+00

-10+00

110+00

130+00

150+00

120+00

190+00

100+00

200+00

170+00

210+00

220+00

160+00

180+00

-130+00

-120+00

-140+00

20+00

0+00

180+00

0+00 6

200+00

30+

00

10+00

05 +00

190+00

70+00

0+0 4 0

210+00

90+00

90+00

-60+00

250+00 260+00

140+00

140+00

160+00

92 0+00

270+00 82 0+00

240+00

230+00

110+00 --100+00

150+00

120+00

80+00

170+00

110+00

130+00

100+00

Figure VI-4

Sabine Pass Channel

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 100007609Prepared by: E.M./ A.C./M.F.

Scale: 1:60,000

Date: 7/09/2009

File: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/figures/Fig_VI_4.mxd

5,000 0 5,000 2,500

Feet

G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

Locator Map

Project Area, Proposed ChannelState Parks, National WildlifeRefuges, and Wildlife Management AreasProject Area, Dredged Material Placement Areas

Legend

Shore Nourishment

State BoundariesChannel CenterlinesChannel Reach Limits

County Boundaries

TEXAS

LOUISIANA

VI-7

187
JD Murphree

Sabine Pass

Channel

Port Arthur Canal

JD Murphree

WMA

325+84.5

296+24.6

Pleasure Island

Mesquite Point

GIWW

Start of Sabine

Neches Canal

Taylor Bayou

Taylor Bayou

Entrance Channel

Taylor Bayou

West Turning Basin

Taylor Bayou

East Turning Basin

Texas Louisiana

Start of Port Arthur Canal

Port Arthur Junction

Port Arthur Canal

Adv. Maint. 2'

(Sta 0+00 To 290+00)

240+00

40+00

140+00

240+00

20+00 PA-08

PA-09

PA-05

(North)

PA-09A

10+00

0+00

90+00

70+00

60+00

80+00

50+00

40+00

30+00

110+00

130+00

150+00

50+00 2

120+00

260+00

190+00

170+00

280+00

220+00

200+00

230+00

310+00

140+00

180+00

210+00

270

0+ 0

240+00

320+00

160+00

160+00

180+00

130+00

260+00

150+00

170+00

200+00

210+00

220+00

250+00

190+00

230+00

270+00

0+00 7

20+00

20+00

110+00

120+00

290+00

290+00

100+00

100+00

280+00

140+00

300+00

10

00 +

240+00

90+00

90+00

40+00

06

00 +

30+00

50+00

0+00

80+00

Project Area, Proposed ChannelState Parks, National WildlifeRefuges, and Wildlife Management AreasProject Area, Dredged Material Placement Areas

Legend

State BoundariesChannel CenterlinesChannel Reach Limits

County Boundaries

Figure VI-5

Sabine-Neches Waterway Port Arthur Canal

(Including Taylor Bayou)

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 100007609Prepared by: 18827

Scale: 1" = 5000'

Date: 07/10/2009

File: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/figures/Figure_VI_5.mxd

5,000 0 5,000 2,500

Feet

G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

Vicinity Map

Adv. Maintenance- Taylor Bayou (Old Sta. 31+10, 106+25 East TB), 1' - Port Arthur Junction, 5'

Texas

Louisiana

VI-8

188
Lower Neches WMA- Old River Unit

Sabine-Neches Canal and GIWW

(48' x 400')

Taylor Bayou Channel

and Turning Basins

347

287

136

87

87

73

73

GIWW

Sabine River Channel and GIWW

Sabine Lake

Port Arthur Junction

Port Arthur Canal

STA 40+00

MLK Bridge

"Eye Basin"

Pleasure Island

End of Sabine-Neches Canal STA 592+91

Neches River Channel

(48' x 400')

Entire reach of Sabine-NechesCanal will

have additonal advance maintenance:

0+00 to 40+00 is 5 feet and

40+00 to 592+91 is 1 foot

Start of Sabine-Neches Canal STA 0+00

430+00

330+00

230+00

130+00

30+00

520+00

420+00

320+00

220+00

120+00

20+00

240+00

PA-08

PA-11

PA-09

PA-17

PA-16

PA-12

PA-18

PA-14 PA-13

PA-21

PA-09A

PA-18A

10+00

0+00

90+00

20+00

60+00

80+00

50+00

70+00

40+00

30+00

110+ 00

420+00

130+00

150+00

340+00

370+00

390+00

230+00

280+00

270+00

480+00

290+00

380+00

330+00

360+00

400+00

410+00

470+00

460+00

190+00

240+00

200+00

260+00

220+00

210+00

500+00

170+00

320+00

310+00

100+00

490+00

180+00

120+00

160+00

590+00

520+00

580+00

510+00

530+00

140+00

430+00

300+00

440+00

450+00

540+00

550+00

560+00

250+00

570+00

310+00

270+00

50+00

170+00

490+00

520+00

250+00

170+00

140+00

290+00

40+00

200+00

510+00

260+00

450+00

140+00

210+00

250+00

180+00

390+00

400+00

500+00

150+00

160+00

430+00

280+00

440+00

470+00

110+ 00

410+00

0+00

190+00

480+00

90+00

150+00

240+00

530+00

230+00

230+00

460+00

220+00

260+00

160+00

210+00

180+00

300+00

10+00

60+00

0+00

370+00

350+00

350+00

380+00

220+00

320+00

120+00

310+00

320+00

70+00

300+00

240+00

80+00

30+00

360+00

340+00

20+00

420+00

200+00

290+00

280+00

270+00

330+00

190+00

100+00

130+00

0 6,000 12,000

Feet

Figure VI-6

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Sabine-Neches Canal

Prepared for: USACE

Job No.: 100007609

Prepared by: RF Date: 1 April 2010

File: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/figures/Figure_VI_6_vr4.mxd

Scale: 1" = 6000'

Legend

County Boundaries

Project Area, Proposed Channel

State Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas

Project Area, Dredged Material Placement Areas

State Boundaries

G U L F O F M E X I C O

Vicinity Map

Project Area, BU Features

Project Area, Proposed Dredged Material Placement Areas

City Limits

Study Area

Channel Reach

Limits

Channel Centerlines

Texas Louisiana

VI-9

189
62

73

96

347

69

287

105

10

10

96

73

62

210+00

0+00 30+00

40+00

05 +00

06 +00

07 +00

80+00

0+00 9

100+00

0+011 0

0+ 12 00

130+00

140+00

50+00 1

160+00

+00 071

80+ 1 00

+00 90 1

00+ 2 00

0+ 21 00

0+ 22 00

230+00

042 0 +0

0+ 52 00

062 +00

0+ 72 00

80+ 2 00

0 29 00 +

300+00

10+00 3

320+0

340+00

330+00

50 3 +00

60+00 3

73 0+00

380+00

390+00

400+00

14 0+00

420+00

430+00

440+00

450+00

460+00

470+00

480+00

490+00

00+0 5 0

10+00 5

520+0

530+00

40 5 +00

550 0 +0

560+00

570+00

58 0+00

90+00 5

600+00

610+00

620+00

00 +046

630+00

650+00

660+00

670+00

680+00

690+00

700+00

710+00

72 0+00

730+00

740+00

750+00

760+00

770+00

780+00

790+0

800+00

18 +00 0

2 0 8 +00

84

830+00

0+00

850+00

860+00

870+0

8 0+0

890+00

900+00

10 9 0 +0

920+00 930+00

40 9 +00

950+00

00 960+

70 9 +00

420+00

430+00

440+00

450+00

460+00

470+00

480+00

490+00

500+00

510+00 520+00

530+0

540+00

0

550+00

560+0

570+00

0

580+00

590+00

980+0

990+00

9 8+ 36

1000+00

1010+00

1020+00

1030+00

1036+70

Lower Neches WMANelda Starks Unit

Lower Neches WMAOld River Unit

Neches River Channel

Rose City

Add. Adv.

Maint. Start

Add. Adv.

Maint. Ends

Start Neches RiverChannel STA 0+00

SabineNeches

Canal

Neches River BU Features

Sab ni e R vi er Channel and G WI W

PA-25

PA-23

PA-24

PA-17

PA-16

PA-12

PA-18

PA-14

PA-23A

PA-26

PA-13

PA-25A

PA-21

PA-27A

PA-24A

PA-27C

PA-18A

PA-27D

Beaumont

Port Arthur

Nederland

Vidor

Port Neches

Groves

Orang

Bridge City

Rose City

Pin

Figure VI-7

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Neches River Channel

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 100007609Prepared by: RF

Scale: 1" = 8000'

Date: 1 April 2010

File: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/Figure_VI_7_vr4.mxd

Bessie

Heights

East

Old River

Cove

Port of

Beaumont

Anchorage

Basin No. 8

U.S. Maritime

Administ. Ship

Storage Basin

Turning and

Anchorage

Basin No. 4

Turning and

Anchorage

Basin No. 1

8,000 0 8,000 4,000

Feet

75+00

500' Width

440+00

978+00

G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

Vicinity Map Legend

State Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas Project Area, Proposed Channel

Project Area, Dredged Material Placement AreasProject Area, BU Features

State BoundariesChannel CenterlinesCounty Boundaries

Project Area, Proposed Dredged Material Placement Areas

Texas

Louisiana

VI-10

190
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-11

Table VI-3

Project Details for Sabine Bank Channel Reach

Length of Reach (Sections 1, 2) 14.7 miles (no change)

Project Depth 50 feet

Bottom Width 800 feet then narrow to 700 feet

Advance Maintenance 2 feet

Allowable Overdepth 2 feet

New Work Material 15,358,000 cubic yards

Placement Areas ODMDS 1 and 2

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Maintenance Material (50-year quantity) 96,371,000 cubic yards

Increase in Maintenance Material 45,549,000 cubic yards

Placement Areas ODMDS 1 and 2

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel

This 3.4-mile-long channel would be deepened from 42 to 50 feet using a hopper dredge (Figure VI-2).

This portion of the channel has higher velocity eddies moving around the end of the east jetty, which

causes sediment to settle out as the currents cross the navigation channel, creating a higher shoaling rate.

Due to the high shoaling rate, advance maintenance amounts are increased to maintain current

maintenance dredging cycles. When advance maintenance and allowable overdepth are added, the Outer

Bar Channel could be dredged to 58 feet. The Outer Bar Channel would remain at its current 800-foot

bottom width due to strong crosscurrents just beyond the end of the jetties. An overview of the project

details for the Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel reach is listed in Table VI-4.

Table VI-4

Project Details for Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel Reach

Length of Reach (Section 3) 3.4 miles (no change)

Project Depth 50 feet

Bottom Width 800 feet

Advance Maintenance 2 feet

Allowable Overdepth 2 feet

Additional Advance Maintenance 4 feet

New Work Material 5,923,000 cubic yards

Placement Areas ODMDS 3

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Maintenance Material (50-year quantity) 223,650,000 cubic yards

Increase in Maintenance Material 123,965,000 cubic yards

Placement Areas ODMDS 3

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

191
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-12

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel

This 4.1-mile-long channel would be deepened to 48 feet using a hopper dredge (Figure VI-3). When

advance maintenance and allowable overdepth are added, the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel could be dredged

to 52 feet. The width of the channel would remain the same with the channel gradually tapering from the

existing 800-foot width at the jetties mouth to 500 feet wide at the jetties head (Station 0+00). No impacts

to the jetties have been identified that are associated with the proposed improvements. An overview of the

project details for the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel reach is listed in Table VI-5.

Table VI-5

Project Details for Sabine Pass Jetty Channel Reach

Length of Reach (Section 4) 4.1 miles (no change)

Project Depth 48 feet

Bottom Width 800 to 500 feet

Advance Maintenance 2 feet

Allowable Overdepth 2 feet

New Work Material 2,978,000 cubic yards

Placement Areas ODMDS 4

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Maintenance Material (50-year quantity) 13,527,000 cubic yards

Increase in Maintenance Material 2,142,000 cubic yards

Placement Areas ODMDS 4

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Sabine Pass Channel

This 5.6-mile-long channel begins just north of the jetties and extends upstream to Mesquite Point on

Pleasure Island (Figure VI-4). It would be deepened to 48 feet and constructed with a hydraulic pipeline

dredge. Advance maintenance varies in different sections of the Sabine Pass Channel to account for

differences in shoaling rates. The maximum dredging depth for two reaches of this channel (Station 0+00

to Station 100+00, and Station 180+00 to Station 230+00) would be 52 feet. Due to additional advance

maintenance required to maintain existing O&M dredging cycles, the reaches from Station 100+00 to

Station 180+00 and Station 230+00 to the end of the Sabine Pass Channel at 295+61 would be dredged to

a depth of 55 feet. The bottom width of the Sabine Pass Channel would remain at 500 feet with a new

centerline closely following the existing centerline. The Sabine Pass Anchorage is located in this reach

and its footprint would be reduced in size because it has never been fully utilized. The width would be

decreased from 1,500 to 855 feet, but the length would remain at 8,200 feet. The angle of approach would

remain the same. An overview of the project details for the Sabine Pass Channel reach is listed in Table

VI-6.

192
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-13

Table VI-6

Project Details for Sabine Pass Channel Reach

Length of Reach (Sections 5, 6) 5.6 miles (no change)

Project Depth 48 feet

Bottom Width 500 feet

Advance Maintenance 2 feet

Allowable Overdepth 2 feet

Additional Advance Maintenance Station 100+00 to Station 180+00 is 3 feet

Station 230+00 to Station 295+61 is 3 feet

New Work Material 6,723,000 cubic yards

Placement Areas PA 5

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Maintenance Material (50-year quantity) 34,781,000 cubic yards

Increase in Maintenance Material 4,191,000 cubic yards

Placement Areas PA 5

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Gulf Shore Beneficial Use Feature

Port Arthur Canal (including Taylor Bayou Channels and Turning Basins)

This 6.2-mile-long canal begins near Mesquite Point and ends at the Port Arthur Junction Area with the

Taylor Bayou channels (Figure VI-5). The Junction Area serves as a TB and has an irregular shape where

the Taylor Bayou channels and the GIWW merge with it. The Port Arthur Canal would be deepened to

the proposed depth of 48 feet with a hydraulic pipeline dredge. Advance maintenance would vary in

different sections of the Port Arthur Canal to account for differences in shoaling rates. The reach from

Station 00+00 to Station 290+00 would be dredged to a maximum depth of 53 feet. The remaining part

(Port Arthur Junction) between Stations 290+00 and 326+37 would be dredged to a maximum depth of 57

feet. The bottom width of the Port Arthur Canal would remain 500 feet. An overview of the project details

for the Port Arthur Canal reach (including Taylor Bayou) is listed in Table VI-7.

Located at the confluence of the Port Arthur Junction Area, the GIWW, and the mouth of the original

Taylor Bayou, the Taylor Bayou Channels and TB consist of several subreaches: Entrance Channel, East

TB, West TB, Connecting Channel, and the Taylor Bayou TB. Several significant changes are proposed

for this area. When advance maintenance and allowable overdepth are added to the proposed 48-foot

depth, all of the Taylor Bayou channels and TB could be dredged to 53 feet. The Taylor Bayou portion of

the Junction Area, between Taylor Bayou stations 0+00 and 31+10, would be dredged to 57 feet. The

Taylor Bayou Entrance Channel and the West TB bottleneck curve would be widened, and a structural

wall would protect local railroad tracks. Changes for each subreach are detailed below.

• Taylor Bayou Entrance Channel. The new bottom width widens on the west side of the channel.

The channel would be widened to 444 feet at new Station 10+00. The new bottom width would

taper back to the existing width by the end of the first curve at Station 28+38.

193
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-14

Table VI-7

Project Details for Port Arthur Canal Reach (including Taylor Bayou)

Length of Reach (Sections 7, 8) 6.2 miles (no change)

Project Depth 48 feet

Bottom Width Varies (widest is 500 feet)

Advance Maintenance 2 feet

Allowable Overdepth 2 feet

Additional Advance Maintenance (PA Canal) Station 0+00 to 290+00 is 1 foot

(PA Canal) Station 290+00 to 326+37 is 5 feet

(Taylor Bayou) Station 0+00 to 31+10 is 5 feet

(Taylor Bayou) Station 31+10 to 106+25 is 1 foot

New Work Material 11,697,000 cubic yards

Placement Areas PAs 8 and 9

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Maintenance Material (50-year quantity) 82,858,000 cubic yards

Decrease in Maintenance Material 5,391,000 cubic yards

Placement Areas PA 8 and 9

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

• East TB. The right side width would decrease 16 feet as the new depth extends down the existing

side slope.

• West TB. The width of the existing bottleneck has been increased up to 120 feet on the west side,

between new stations 33+00 and 55+00. The west bank of the basin would be protected by a

structural wall, preventing impacts to the local railroad tracks present in this area.

• Connecting Channel. The West TB widening tapers back to the existing width in the Connecting

Channel, between stations 55+00 and 67+00.

• Taylor Bayou TB. No changes would be made to the existing dimensions, but the basin would be

deepened to the proposed 48-foot depth. Existing shore protection belonging to a local facility

near Station 90+00 would be affected by penetration by the top-of-cut for the new depth.

Sabine-Neches Canal

The 11.2-mile-long canal begins at the Port Arthur Junction Area and ends just south of the mouth of the

Neches River (Figure VI-6). The GIWW shares this canal with the deep-draft channel. It would be

deepened to the proposed depth of 48 feet with a hydraulic pipeline dredge. When advance maintenance

and allowable overdepth are added for the shoaling rate in the canal, stations 0+00 to 40+00 could be

dredged to 57 feet, and remainder of the canal through Station 592+91 could be dredged to 53 feet.

The bottom width of this canal would be selectively widened in three separate sections. The bottom width

of the most-downstream curve (stations 0+00 to 20+00) would be widened to 500 feet on the east side of

the channel, and then promptly tapered to the existing 400-foot width prior to the MLK Bridge (SH 82).

The canal would be widened to 450 feet adjacent to the Port of Port Arthur, with gradual tapering

194
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-15

upstream and downstream between stations 120+00 and 170+00. The third widening section begins to

taper at Station 565+00, gradually widening to 500 feet and remaining that width to the end at Station

592+91.

Bend easing is planned for three areas in the Sabine-Neches Canal to improve ship maneuverability:

stations 265+00 to 305+00, stations 350+00 to 395+00, and stations 500+00 to 520+00. The bend easing

between Stations 350+00 to 395+00 eliminates a wiggle in the alignment, and shifts the footprint of the

canal 10 feet east of the existing alignment up to Station 520+00.

Changes are also recommended for the canal bottom adjacent to the Port Arthur Dock and the “Eye

Basin.” The canal toes adjacent to the Port of Port Arthur would be moved approximately 10 feet to the

east while keeping the same bottom width of 450 feet. The diameter of the turning point (“Eye Basin”) at

Station 190+00 would be decreased by 16 feet. An overview of the project details for the Sabine-Neches

Canal reach is listed in Table VI-8.

Table VI-8

Project Details for Sabine-Neches Canal Reach

Length of Reach (Sections 9, 10) 11.2 miles (no change)

Project Depth 48 feet

Bottom Width varies 400 to 500 feet

Advance Maintenance 2 feet

Allowable Overdepth 2 feet

Additional Advance Maintenance Station 0+00 to 40+00 is 5 feet

Station 40+00 to 592+91 is 1 foot

New Work Material 11,944,000 cubic yards

Placement Areas PAs 8 and 11

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Maintenance Material (50-year quantity) 73,245,000 cubic yards

Increase in Maintenance Material 13,122,000 cubic yards

Placement Areas PAs 8 and 11

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Neches River Channel

This 18.5-mile-long channel begins just south of the mouth of the Neches River (Figure VI-7). It would

be deepened to the proposed depth of 48 feet to Station 980+00 with a hydraulic pipeline dredge.

Advance maintenance would vary in different sections of the Neches River Channel to account for

differences in shoaling rates. Between stations 0+00 and 440+00, the maximum dredged depth would be

52 feet; between stations 440+00 and 978+00, it would be 54 feet. While the overall bottom width of

400 feet does not change for the majority of the channel length, the first curve at the mouth of the Neches

River (between stations 0+00 and 75+00) would be widened to 500 feet, and then tapered back to 400 feet

prior to the SH 87 twin bridges. An overview of the project details for the Neches River Channel reach is

listed in Table VI-9.

195
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-16

Table VI-9

Project Details for the Neches River Channel Reach

Length of Reach (Sections 11–18) 18.5 miles (no change)

Project Depth 48 feet

Bottom Width 400 feet (majority of channel)

500 feet Station 0+00 to 75+00

Advance Maintenance 2 feet

Allowable Overdepth 2 feet

Additional Advance Maintenance Station 440+00 to 978+00 is 2 feet

New Work Material 25,014,000 cubic yards

Placement Areas PAs 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Neches River BU Feature

Maintenance Material (50-year quantity) 89,725,000 cubic yards

Increase in Maintenance Material 23,277,000 cubic yards

Placement Areas PAs 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Neches River BU Feature (Bessie Heights East, Rose City East)

Turning Basins/Anchorage Areas 1 new; 2 enlarged; 5 no change

Three basins would be added or enlarged on the Neches River Channel. All three would be dredged to the

proposed depth of 48 feet, plus the advance maintenance and allowable overdepth associated with the

specific channel reach in which they are located. One TB, Turning Basin No. 6, is an existing basin and

would continue to be maintained at the existing 40-foot depth and existing advance maintenance and

allowable overdepth.

• Turning and AB No. 1 is located in an old river oxbow at the east end of Texaco Island near

Station 210+00. The TB enlarges the existing basin from 1,000 to 1,350 feet in diameter. A new

AB, 250 by 1,100 feet in size, would be added.

• Turning and AB No. 4 enlarges an existing turning point at Station 510+00 from 1,000 to 1,350

feet in diameter. A new AB in the old river oxbow at Station 500+00 would be 250 by 1,100 feet

in size.

• AB No. 8 is new and would be located at Station 850+00. The 250- by 1,100-foot basin is located

in an old river oxbow.

Management of Dredged Material

Federal dredged material from construction and maintenance of the Recommended Plan would be

managed in accordance with the DMMP as described in Section VIII of this document and Appendix D of

the FEIS. The DMMP GNF includes an extensive BU plan that uses new work and maintenance material

from the proposed 48-foot project to restore large marsh complexes on the Neches River, and nourish the

Gulf shoreline in Texas and Louisiana.

196
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-17

Construction of the Recommended Plan would generate 98 mcy of new work material and 650 mcy of

maintenance material for the 50-year period of analysis. Forty-four percent of the new work material

would be placed in offshore disposal sites. Forty-seven percent of the new work material would be used to

construct and rehabilitate PA containment levees; 8 percent would be used in DMMP marsh restoration;

and 1 percent would be surplus and pumped to upland PAs. The material type expected to be dredged

with construction of the Recommended Plan is predominantly clay (USACE, 1982), and is suitable

material for the construction and rehabilitation of PA containment levees. However, one short stretch of

the Neches River Channel near the upstream end of the project contains sandier sediments (clayey sands,

sandy clays, silty sands, and poorly graded sands). Since specific dredging practices may influence the

degree to which the material would stack, regular monitoring of the dredging activities would be

necessary.

Shoaling is projected to increase with the Recommended Plan for several reasons (Parchure et al., 2005).

The Entrance Channel is being extended an additional 13.2 miles into the Gulf of Mexico, and this would

result in higher offshore maintenance dredging quantities. The larger channel cross section would lower

velocities near the bottom of the navigation channel creating conditions favorable for sediment

deposition; the deeper channel would have a greater surface area, making it function as a larger sediment

trap; and higher salinities would increase flocculation and increase the deposition of suspended sediment.

Maintenance dredging material quantities for the proposed 48-foot project would therefore increase from

407 mcy to 650 mcy. Expressed as average annual equivalents, estimated dredging quantities increase

from 8.1 mcy to 13.0 mcy per year over the 50-year period of analysis (Table VI-10). Fifty-seven percent

of the maintenance quantities would originate from the offshore channels, and 43 percent from the inshore

channels.

Table VI-10

Existing and Proposed Maintenance Dredging Quantities

Channel Reach

Existing 50-Year

Maintenance

Quantities

Proposed 50-Year

Maintenance

Quantities

Neches River Channel 66,447,680 89,724,800

Sabine-Neches Canal 60,122,600 73,245,000

Port Arthur Canal 88,248,750 82,857,600

Sabine Pass Channel 30,590,400 34,780,800

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel 11,385,000 13,527,000

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel 99,685,000 223,650,000

Sabine Bank Channel 50,822,400 96,371,000

Sabine Bank Extension 36,216,000

Total Quantities 407 mcy 650 mcy

Beneficial Use Features of the DMMP

Dredged material will be used beneficially to restore large degraded marsh areas on the Neches River

(Rose City East, Bessie Heights East, and Old River Cove), and nourish the Gulf shoreline at Texas and

197
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-18

Louisiana Points. Shoreline nourishment at Texas Point is located within the boundaries of the Texas

Point NWR. Detailed descriptions of these efforts can be found in Section VIII of this report and in

Appendix C of the FEIS.

The DMMP BU features (Neches River and Gulf Shore BU features) are least-cost, environmentally

acceptable placement alternatives and, as such, are considered GNF of the Recommended Plan. They will

contribute significantly to a sustainable environment while providing placement capacity for the proposed

project. The Neches River BU Feature would take advantage of new work material provided by the

channel-deepening project to build hydraulic containment levees within degraded, former marsh areas at

Rose City East, Bessie Heights East, and Old River Cove. Each of these areas is referred to as a

component of the overall Neches River BU Feature. Marsh would be created in each component using

only new work, or a combination of new work and maintenance material. At the Rose City East

component, new work material would be used to construct containment levees and ridges, then the marsh

would be completed with the placement of maintenance material during the first maintenance cycle

following construction. In the Bessie Heights East component, maintenance material would be placed

incrementally in seven maintenance cycles over 28 years. The Old River Cove component would be filled

during initial construction with new work material, alone. The Gulf Shore BU Feature nourishes

shorelines at Texas and Louisiana Points with the placement of maintenance material every 3 years over

the 50-year period of analysis, with placement episodes alternating between each side of Sabine Pass.

BU features of the DMMP (Neches River and Gulf Shore features) will offset all project impacts in Texas

by restoring 2,853 acres of emergent marsh, improving 871 acres of shallow-water habitat, and nourishing

1,234 acres of existing marsh. Benefits of the Neches River BU Feature also more than offset the direct

impact of conversion of 86 acres of fresh marsh to a confined PA (PA 24A) and the indirect impact of the

increase in salinity over 39,000 wetland acres in Texas. The Gulf Shore BU Feature offsets minor erosion

impacts by periodically nourishing 6 miles of Texas and Louisiana Gulf shorelines. Benefits of the

DMMP offset all impacts of the Recommend Plan in Texas and, therefore, no compensatory mitigation is

proposed for Recommend Plan effects in Texas.

The Keith Lake Section 1135 CAP study was begun in 2003, well before impacts of the SNWW CIP had

been determined or potential mitigation measures defined. Since at that time it seemed likely that the CAP

study and project construction would be completed before the SNWW CIP could be authorized and

constructed, the Keith Lake Section 1135 study was considered separable from the SNWW CIP. It was

assumed that a water control structure at the Fish Pass would be part of the FWOP condition for the

SNWW CIP.

Incremental impacts of the SNWW CIP will be calculated for the Salt Bayou unit of the SNWW study

area when WVA modeling is completed for the Keith Lake Section 1135 study. It is possible that the

excess DMMP benefits (316 AAHUs) of the SNWW CIP will cover all incremental project impacts.

However, if it is determined that additional mitigation is needed, then the USACE and the non-Federal

sponsor of the SNWW CIP will initiate consultation with resource agencies, identify and incrementally

justify additional compensatory mitigation for the Salt Bayou unit, and prepare a supplement EIS.

198
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-19

Upland Placement Areas

Sixteen existing PAs and two expansion cells are proposed for use with the Recommend Plan. A list and

description of proposed upland PAs can be found in Chapter VII of this report. For the inland channel

reaches, existing upland PAs will be used to the greatest extent possible; however, expansion of some

existing PAs will also be required. Forty-seven percent of the new work material will be used to construct

and rehabilitate PA containment levees; 8 percent will be used in DMMP marsh restoration; and the

remainder would be pumped to upland PAs. Upland PAs on the Port Arthur and Sabine-Neches canals

and the Neches River Channel would also provide capacity for non-Federal dredging of private facilities.

A capped landfill has been found in PA 17 that is unrelated to dredged material or dredging activities.

Issues related to possibly hazardous materials in the landfill must be resolved by the Sponsor before the

PA could be used. Alternate PAs are available should this issue not be resolved in time for use.

Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites

For the offshore channel reaches, the Recommended Plan provides for the use of four existing ODMDSs

(1–4) and four proposed ODMDSs (A–D). These sites are in the Sabine Bank Channel and the Sabine

Bank Extension (see figures VI-1 and VI-2). Site selection criteria for the four proposed Extension

Channel ODMDSs are discussed in the FEIS for ODMDS designation (FEIS Appendix B) and in Chapter

VII of this report. This document provides required NEPA review and public coordination to support

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designation, per 40 CFR 228, of new ODMDSs that provide

environmentally acceptable, and economically and physically feasible, areas for the placement of the

construction material and future maintenance material from the Extension Channel. All of the new sites,

as well as the existing sites, are located west of the navigation channel to minimize channel-shoaling

effects of the prevailing east to west littoral drift in this portion of the Gulf of Mexico.

Maintenance dredging volumes for the offshore channel would increase more than the inshore reaches

(increase of 128 percent and 14 percent, respectively). Additional capacity for the offshore reaches would

be obtained by designating new ODMDSs. Material from four of the offshore channel reaches (Extension

Channel, Sabine Bank Channel, Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel, and Sabine Pass Jetty Channel) would be

placed in the ODMDSs as described in Appendix B of the FEIS. The types of material expected to be

dredged with construction of the Recommended Plan were established with soil borings through the

maximum dredging depth along the centerline of the existing channel and proposed channel extension

(USACE, 1982). The cores are composed overwhelmingly of inorganic clays, with the exception of the

channel segment adjacent to proposed ODMDS C where sediments are approximately 70 percent silty or

clayey sands and 30 percent clay.

Compensatory Mitigation

The USACE has developed a compensatory mitigation plan for project impacts that would remain after

application of DMMP BU Feature benefits. Project impacts are fully described in the FEIS; DMMP BU

benefits and compensatory mitigation are summarized in chapters VII and VIII of this document. No

199
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-20

mitigation would be necessary in Texas because benefits of the DMMP offset all impacts in Texas;

therefore, all mitigation areas would be located in Louisiana.

The recommended Mitigation Plan would consist of restoring five degraded marsh areas east of Sabine

Lake in Louisiana. Each of the mitigation measures is described in detail in Section 5.0 of the FEIS. The

Mitigation Plan would compensate for the Recommended Plan’s salinity increase and associated losses in

biological function and productivity by marsh creation activities in the Willow and Black Bayou

watersheds. A hydraulic pipeline dredge would pump a sediment slurry into a total influence area of 8,095

acres. The sediment would restore 2,783 acres of emergent marsh in existing open-water areas within the

influence area; improve 957 acres of shallow-water habitat by creating shallower, smaller ponds and

channels within the restored marsh; and stabilize and nourish 4,355 acres of existing marsh located in the

influence area. The amount of recommended mitigation was determined by the WVA Model and is the

amount of marsh that would need to be restored to compensate for the mitigation target of the 1,159

AAHUs. In total, these measures produce 1,181 AAHUs and provide full compensation for all impacts of

the CIP. This plan is described more fully in Chapter VIII.

Aids to Navigation – USCG Channel Markers

Most of the existing USCG channel markers along the waterway would require removal and replacement.

However, markers along the Neches River Channel upstream from the Beaumont Maneuvering Basin and

in the vicinity of SH 87 would not require changes in the navigation aids. The Port Arthur Junction area

would require relocation of the aids to navigation, and new aids would be required along the Extension

Channel. The USCG would be responsible for replacing the structures when the channel modifications are

constructed.

Bridge Reinforcements and Fenders

Deepening improvements to the SNWW navigation channels would affect existing fender systems of the

Rainbow Bridge and Veteran’s Memorial Bridge over the Neches River Channel on SH 87 and the MLK

Bridge over the Sabine-Neches Canal on SH 82. Bridge fender systems on both sides of the channel

would require removal and replacement. Additional stabilization of the bridge foundation would be

needed at the MLK Bridge. None of the bridges would cause an unreasonable obstruction to navigation,

and thus would not require modification or replacement pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act. Bridge piers

with a hardened structure would be necessary to maintain the proposed 400-foot channel width.

Lands, Easements and Rights-of-Way

The project Sponsor is required to furnish the LER for the proposed cost-shared project. The real estate

requirements must support construction as well as operation and maintenance of the project after

completion. A summary of the real estate requirements for each channel reach is provided in Table VI-11.

Specific details of the real estate requirements can be found in the Real Estate Plan, Appendix 4 of this

document.

200
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-21

Table VI-11

Real Estate Requirements for Placement Areas

Real Estate Requirement

Channel Reach

Sabine Bank Extension Navigational servitude

Sabine Bank Channel Navigational servitude

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel Navigational servitude

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel Navigational servitude

Sabine Pass Channel Acquire in Fee (PA 5)

Port Arthur Canal Navigational servitude (PA 8)

Acquire in Fee (PA 9)

Sabine-Neches Canal Navigational servitude (PAs 8, 11)

Neches River Channel Owned by Sponsor (no action)

(PAs 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 18A, 21, 23, 23A, 24, 24A, 25, 25A)

Acquire in Fee (PAs 17, 26, 27A, 27C, 27D)

Turning Basins – two would require the acquisition

of land in perpetual channel improvement easement.

Louisiana Mitigation Areas

Willow/Black Bayou Areas Navigational Servitude

Relocations

The following assumptions were made to identify pipelines that could be affected by the Recommended

Plan and to develop associated costs. The individual circumstances of each pipeline will be evaluated by

USACE in consultation with the pipeline owner during the PED and Construction phases, and decisions

regarding necessary actions will be made individually for each pipeline at that time. Feasibility

engineering guidelines indicate that pipelines with a minimum of 8 feet of cover for trenched lines or

5 feet of cover for directionally drilled lines would not be adjusted. Pipelines that do not meet the

minimum cover requirement would be required to be adjusted. The adjusted pipelines must be located 20

feet below the authorized 48-foot depth. The 20 feet includes any advance maintenance and allowable

overdepth. The relocation of active pipelines is assumed to be installed with directional drilling, and

bundled where possible.

A total of 104 pipelines have been identified crossing the SNWW navigation channels. Of the 104

pipelines, 46 require adjustment to meet the minimum required vertical and horizontal clearances for the

CIP.

Pursuant to Section 101(a) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, as amended, the

Sponsor is responsible for performing, or assuring performance, of all relocations, including utility

relocations, which are necessary for the CIP. All relocations, including utility relocations, are to be

accomplished at no cost to the Federal Government.

The Galveston District has concluded preliminarily that 41 of the 46 lines located within the channel must

be relocated and are classified as utility relocations for which the Sponsor must perform or assure

performance. In accordance with Section 101(a)(4) of WRDA 86, one-half of the cost of each such

relocation will be borne by the owner of the facility being relocated and one-half of the cost of each such

201
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-22

relocation will be borne by the Sponsor. Such relocation costs will not include any cost for upgrading or

improving such facilities, which is to be borne by the facility owner.

For more specific information regarding the utility relocations, and preliminary conclusions regarding the

remaining five lines that must be removed but not replaced, see the Real Estate Plan, Appendix 4, of this

document.

DMMP marsh restoration at Bessie Heights and mitigation marsh restoration measures east of Sabine

Lake were assumed to require no relocations. However, since oil production is active in some of these

areas, additional pipeline searches and coordination with pipeline owners would be required prior to

construction to avoid impacts.

No relocations would be required for overhead power utilities, highway bridges, the Port Arthur HFP

Levee, or its associated pump stations and closure structures.

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Needs Summary for the Recommended Plan

A summary of impacts before DMMP benefits and compensatory mitigation is provided in tables VI-12

and VI-13 for Louisiana and Texas, respectively. A full summary of the impact analysis and

compensatory mitigation needs for the Recommended Plan is presented in Table VI-14 for each state. The

calculation of impacts and benefits of the DMMP BU features and mitigation measures are described in

Section 2.5 and throughout Section 4.0 of the FEIS.

Critical Assumptions

Critical planning and environmental assumptions were made in the evaluation of the benefits and impacts

of the Recommended Plan. Table VI-15 provides a brief summary of the major assumptions, the scientific

basis or rationale behind each assumption, and an indication of the consequences if the assumptions turns

out not to be valid.

VI.C RECOMMENDED PLAN AND RECENT USACE

INITIATIVES

As stated in Chapter III of this report, the USACE has implemented the EOP and the Actions for Change

over the past few years. These initiatives were developed to ensure the USACE success in the future by

improving the current practices and decision-making processes of the USACE organization. The

application of those principles as they relate to the Recommended Plan for the SNWW CIP is described

below:

USACE Environmental Operating Principles

• Strive for environmental sustainability – Construction of BU, restoration, and mitigation sites

were developed for a 50-year period of analysis. Development and design of these areas were

made to address potential changes over time (e.g., sea-level rise, shoreline erosion, etc.).

202
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-23

Table VI-12

SNWW WVA Impacts Summary-Before DMMP Benefits and Mitigation

Louisiana Impacts (Sorted by AAHUs)

HU #

Hydrologic

Unit Habitat Type

FWOP

Net

Change

Acres

FWP

Net

Change

Total

Acres

FWP

Net

Change

%

Acres

FWOP

Net

Change

AAHUs

FWP

Net

Change

AAHUs

FWOP

Salinity

(ppt)

FWP

Salinity

(ppt)

FWP

Net

Salinity

Change

(ppt)

LA 3 Black Bayou Intermediate

Marsh

–1,713 –130 –0.3 14,734 –509 4.00 5.10 1.1

LA 2 Willow

Bayou

Intermediate

(Brackish

lumped)

–2,116 –102 0.3 11,249 –328 6.30 7.20 0.9

LA 4 West

Johnson’s

Bayou

Intermediate

Marsh

–1,703 –142 –0.8 5,729 –269 6.30 7.50 1.2

LA 5 Sabine Lake

Ridges

Intermediate

Marsh

–1,103 –93 –0.7 4,868 –218 6.30 7.50 1.2

LA 9 East

Johnson’s

Bayou

Intermediate

Marsh

–895 –46 –0.2 13,820 –190 4.20 5.20 1.0

LA 1 Perry Ridge Fresh Marsh –921 –50 –0.2 8,947 –65 0.90 1.24 0.3

LA 1 Perry Ridge Intermediate

Marsh

–191 –12 –0.1 1,873 –53 0.90 1.24 0.3

LA 5 Sabine Lake

Ridges

Saline Marsh –398 –10 –0.5 2,184 –35 17.00 18.40 1.4

LA 8 Southwest

Gum Cove

Fresh Marsh –152 –8 –0.3 2,170 –2 1.20 2.10 0.9

LA 5 Sabine Lake

Ridges

Brackish Marsh –2,567 –43 –0.1 9,113 –14 8.00 8.60 0.6

LA 7 Southeast

Sabine

Fresh Marsh –40 0 0.0 1,231 –11 1.80 2.30 0.5

LA 6 Johnson’s

Bayou Ridge

Brackish Marsh –707 –22 –0.3 1,285 –6 6.00 6.70 0.7

LA 8 Southwest

Gum Cove

Intermediate

(Brackish

lumped)

–233 –15 –0.2 3,253 –4 2.40 3.30 0.9

LA 6 Johnson’s

Bayou Ridge

Saline Marsh –93 –5 –1.0 195 –2 12.00 13.80 1.8

LA 3 Black Bayou Brackish Marsh –803 –4 0.0 1,643 –1 3.00 3.80 0.8

LA 4 West

Johnson’s

Bayou

Brackish Marsh –1,189 –6 –0.2 768 –1 6.00 6.70 0.7

LA 2 Willow

Bayou

Brackish Marsh –695 –2 498 –1 1.4

LA/TX

1

Sabine

Island

Cypress/Tupelo

Swamp

0 0 0.0 4,499 0 0.69 1.10 0.4

LA/TX

2

Blue Elbow Cypress/Tupelo

Swamp (BH

lumped)

0 0 0.0 300 0 1.00 1.60 0.6

LA 7 Southeast

Sabine

Intermediate

(Brackish

lumped)

–96 –1 0.0 3,204 0 1.80 2.00 0.2

LA 1 Perry Ridge Bottomland

Hardwood

0 0 0.0 2,080 0 0.90 1.24 0.3

LA/TX

1

Sabine

Island

Bottomland

Hardwood

0 0 0.0 999 0 0.69 1.10 0.4

Total –15,615 –691 94,642 –1,709

203
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-24

Table VI-13

SNWW WVA Impacts Summary-Before DMMP Benefits and Mitigation

Texas Impacts (Sorted by AAHUs)

HU #

Hydrologic

Unit Habitat Type

FWOP

Net

Change

Acres

FWP

Net

Change

Total

Acres

FWP

Net

Change

%

Acres

FWOP

Net

Change

AAHUs

FWP

Net

Change

AAHUs

FWOP

Salinity

(ppt)

FWP

Salinity

(ppt)

FWP

Net

Salinity

Change

(ppt)

TX 7 GIWW North Fresh

(Intermediate

lumped)

–539 –63 –0.4 2,602 –140 0.70 1.20 1.6

TX 6 Old River

Cove

Brackish Marsh –1,518 –46 –0.3 3,061 –116 10.00 11.00 1.8

TX 3 Rose City

PA24A

Fresh Marsh –3 –86 –63.3 53 –32 0.3

TX 8 Texas Point Intermediate

(Fresh lumped)

–245 –6 –1.3 940 –19 5.50 8.00 0.8

TX 12 Blue Elbow

South

Cypress/Tupelo

Swamp

0 0 0.0 418 –18 1.67 2.60 0.6

TX 10 Cow Bayou Fresh Marsh –75 –6 –0.1 824 –18 2.00 2.20 1.0

TX 11 Adams

Bayou

Fresh Marsh –28 –3 –0.7 305 –15 2.10 4.10 1.5

TX 5 Bessie

Heights

Intermediate

(Brackish

lumped)

31 –1 0.0 1,273 –14 4.20 4.70 0.3

TX 10 Cow Bayou Intermediate

Marsh

–59 –3 0.0 741 –12 2.00 2.20 1.0

TX 7 GIWW North Brackish Marsh –62 –2 –0.1 380 –8 9.00 9.60 1.6

TX 8 Texas Point Brackish Marsh –252 –5 –0.4 1,464 –7 8.50 11.00 0.8

TX 8 Texas Point Saline Marsh –2,446 –17 –0.9 2,480 –5 12.50 15.00 0.8

TX 11 Adams

Bayou

Cypress/Tupelo

Swamp

0 0 0.0 44 –4 2.10 4.10 0.8

TX 13 Groves Intermediate

Marsh

–68 –3 –0.7 220 –3 1.0

TX 3 Rose City Fresh Marsh –93 –3 –0.1 1,365 –1 0.25 0.55 0.3

TX 2 Neches-Lake

Bayou

Cypress/Tupelo

Swamp

0 0 0.0 1,977 0 2.00 2.90 0.0

TX 1 North Neches

River

Cypress/Tupelo

Swamp

0 0 0.0 2,399 0 0.90 1.70 0.0

LA/TX

2

Blue Elbow Cypress/Tupelo

Swamp (BH

lumped)

0 0 0.0 1,261 0 0.3

TX 2 Neches-Lake

Bayou

Fresh Marsh –24 0 –0.1 808 0 2.00 2.90 0.1

LA/TX

1

Sabine Island Cypress/Tupelo

Swamp

0 0 0.0 896 0 0.0

TX 5 Bessie

Heights

Fresh Marsh –40 –2 –0.1 1,313 0 1.00 1.50 0.5

TX 1 North Neches

River

Fresh Marsh –8 0 0.0 249 0 0.90 1.70 0.0

TX 10 Cow Bayou Cypress/Tupelo

Swamp

0 0 0.0 55 0 2.00 2.20 1.0

TX 4 West of Rose

City

Fresh Marsh –24 –1 –0.1 238 0 0.10 0.40 0.4

TX 5 Bessie

Heights

Bottomland

Hardwood

0 0 0.0 225 0 1.00 1.50 0.5

TX 3 Rose City Cypress/Tupelo

Swamp

0 0 0.0 217 0 0.25 0.55 0.3

204
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-25

Table VI-13 (Cont’d)

HU #

Hydrologic

Unit Habitat Type

FWOP

Net

Change

Acres

FWP

Net

Change

Total

Acres

FWP

Net

Change

%

Acres

FWOP

Net

Change

AAHUs

FWP

Net

Change

AAHUs

FWOP

Salinity

(ppt)

FWP

Salinity

(ppt)

FWP

Net

Salinity

Change

(ppt)

TX 1 North Neches

River

Bottomland

Hardwood

0 0 0.0 277 0 0.90 1.70 0.0

LA/TX

1

Sabine Island Bottomland

Hardwood

0 0 0.0 503 0 0.0

TX 3 Rose City Bottomland

Hardwood

0 0 0.0 698 0 0.25 0.55 0.3

TX 6 Old River

Cove

Bottomland

Hardwood

0 0 0.0 149 0 1.00 1.50 0.5

TX 10 Cow Bayou Bottomland

Hardwood

0 0 0.0 286 0 2.00 2.20 1.0

TX 11 Adams

Bayou

Bottomland

Hardwood

0 0 0.0 402 0 2.10 4.10 0.8

TX 2 Neches-Lake

Bayou

Bottomland

Hardwood

0 0 0.0 1,164 0 2.00 2.90 0.0

Totals –5,453 –247 28,124 –412

205
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-26

Table VI-14

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Need

Texas Louisiana Project as Whole

Impact analysis (AAHUs)

Negative Impacts (–) before DMMP BU –412 –1,709 –2,121

Positive Impacts Resulting from DMMP BU 1,068 210 1,278

Net Gain or Loss (–) after DMMP BU 656 –1,499 –843

Offset of Impacts to Louisiana Federal Lands from Excess Texas BU

Benefits

–340 340 NA

Net Gain or Loss (–) after BU Benefits 316 –1,159 –843

Compensatory Mitigation (AAHUs)

Total Compensation 0 1,181 1,181

Net Gain after BU Benefits and Mitigation 316 22 338

Impact Analysis (acres)

Size of Potential Impact 58,649 197,530 256,179

Area with No Impacts 19,421 15,247 34,668

Area of Direct Impacts 86 0 86

Area of Indirect Impacts 39,228 182,283 221,511

Net Acres of Land Loss (–) before DMMP BU –243 –691 –934

Total Miles of Shoreline Influenced by DMMP BU 3 3 6

Total Acres Affected by DMMP BU 4,958 0 4,958

Created Emergent Marsh 2,853 0 2,853

Improved Shallow Water 871 0 871

Nourished Existing Marsh 1,234 0 1,234

Compensatory Mitigation (acres)

Total Acres Affected by Mitigation 0 8,095 8,095

Created Emergent Marsh 0 2,783 2,783

Improved Shallow Water 0 957 957

Nourished Existing Marsh 0 4,355 4,355

Total Acres Affected by DMMP BU and Mitigation 4,958 8,095 13,053

Created Emergent Marsh 2,853 2,783 5,636

Improved Shallow Water 871 957 1,828

Nourished Existing Marsh 1,234 4,355 5,589

206
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-27

Table VI-15

Critical Assumptions

Assumption Rationale for the Assumption

Consequences if Assumption

Becomes Invalid

Future without-project

(FWOP) Condition

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands

Planning, Protection, and

Restoration Act (CWPPRA)

Projects in operation at Willow

Bayou, Black Bayou, and Perry

Ridge for remainder of project

life.

Ecological effects of CWPPRA

projects (reductions in land loss

rates and/or salinity) based upon

changes projected in

environmental assessments.

If ecological benefit of CWPPRA

project is less than expected, then

FWOP salinity and land loss impacts

would be slightly higher than

expected; conversely, if ecological

benefits are higher, FWOP impacts

would be slightly lower than

expected.

Most likely rate of RSLR

estimated to be 1.1 feet in the

study area by year 2069. Full

potential range of RSLR

estimated to be from 0.3 to 2.8

feet over period of analysis.

Eustatic sea-level rise based upon

mid- to high mid-range projected

by NRC and IPCC, respectively.

Local subsidence component

based upon long-term trends

obtained from basal peat analysis.

Full potential range calculated as

required by Circular No. 1165-2-

211.

Little consequence if RSLR is lower

than expected. High rate of RSLR

could result in small increase in

maintenance dredging and PA levee

heights for existing project; increase

in hurricane tidal surge elevation; an

increase in land loss due to

submergence of intertidal marshes

and salinity increase. Functioning of

navigation channel would not be

affected; improvements at some dock

facilities might be needed.

Future freshwater inflows

assumed for HS modeling are

slightly higher on Neches River

than existing inflows; about the

same as existing inflows on the

Sabine River.

Future freshwater inflows were

based upon demand projections

and supply strategies approved by

the 2007 Texas State Water Plan.

Little consequence if inflows are

higher than projected. If inflows are

lower than expected, FWOP

ecological impacts would be higher

than expected and more areas would

be experiencing suboptimal salinities.

Changes in land loss rates are

driven by the interaction of

salinity and submergence,

resulting in a reduction in plant

productivity, leading to a

decrease in plant growth, plant

death, followed by peat collapse

and wetland loss. Assumed linear

relationship between change in

salinity due to RSLR and change

in FWOP land loss rate.

The salinity-vegetation

productivity relationship is based

upon algorithms developed for

dominant wetland vegetation

species in the study area. The

algorithms were developed for

the Louisiana Coastal Areas

Ecosystem Restoration Study,

using data from a large number of

professional studies.

If the relationship between salinity

and land loss is different from that

projected, FWOP land loss would be

higher or lower than current

estimates.

207
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-28

Table VI-15 (Cont’d)

Assumption Rationale for the Assumption

Consequences if Assumption

Becomes Invalid

Future with-project (FWP)

Condition (Recommended

Plan)

RSLR – same as FWOP because

deepening project causes only

negligible increase in water

surface elevation.

FWP water surface elevation

change determined by the ERDC

HS modeling.

Little consequence if RSLR is lower

than expected. No FWP effect on

maintenance dredging, PA levee

heights, or tidal surge penetration. At

high rate, all areas suitable for marsh

mitigation could be susceptible to

submergence. DMMP BUs protected

by containment structures.

Additional land loss would result

primarily from the interaction of

higher FWP salinities with

FWOP RSLR. Assume direct

linear relationship between

salinity and land loss changes.

Associating land loss with

salinity increases is based upon

well-documented biological

responses of inundated vegetation

to salinity change. No data are

currently available that relate

specific salinity changes to

specific land loss rate changes.

If the relationship between salinity

and land loss is different from that

projected, FWP impacts would be

higher or lower than current

estimates.

Cost Estimates

Cost estimate of the

Recommended Plan utilized

appropriate probabilities of risk.

Cost risk analysis was performed

using required forecasting and

analysis tools. Cost contingencies

developed by this analysis have

been included in the total project

cost estimate.

An increase in total project cost,

exclusive of price level changes, of

more than 20 percent of the total

project cost stated in the authorizing

legislation would require

Congressional authorization.

It was assumed that up to 5

pipeline dredges would be

available for use at one time for

inshore channel dredging, and

mitigation and BU marsh

creation. Offshore dredging

assumes use of only one hopper

dredge at a time.

Assume offshore hopper dredge

production averaging 7.9 mcy/yr;

inshore pipeline dredge

production of 7.2 mcy/yr; and no

more than 550 acres/year of

mitigation or BU marsh creation

by any one dredge.

If the assumed production rate is too

high, or if the assumed number of

dredges is not available, then

construction would take longer and

the total cost of construction would

increase.

Funding

Sufficient funding streams would

be available to construct the

Recommended Plan over the

assumed construction periods

and to provide long-term

operation and maintenance.

USACE planning policy states

that plans should be developed

without funding constraints.

Federal funding priorities are

difficult to predict.

Total project cost could be higher

because of longer construction

schedule. Inadequate O&M funding

could cause an increase in navigation

costs or adversely affect monitoring

of mitigation and BU features.

mcy/yr = million cubic yards per year.

208
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-29

• Consider environmental consequences – The direct and indirect effects of the project on the

environment were quantified using ecological modeling. Compensatory mitigation is provided in

the Recommended Plan for all project impacts.

• Seek balance and synergy – Opportunities to beneficially use the large quantities of dredged

material that would be generated by this project were thoroughly explored. The needs of the

project to find environmentally acceptable placement areas were satisfied with the development

of BU features that would contribute to the long-term sustainability of interior wetlands and the

coastal zone.

• Accept responsibility – All environmental impacts of the proposed project have been addressed

and either offset by beneficially using dredged material or mitigating for impacts.

• Mitigate impacts – Project impacts were identified and the type and location of the

compensation to be performed. No mitigation is required in Texas since the long-term

management plan more than offsets the impacts to occur in that state. Mitigation has been

identified to offset project impacts in Louisiana. The recommended mitigation plan results in an

excess of overall environmental benefits vs. impacts.

• Understand the environment – Some of the most knowledgeable and experienced environmental professionals in Texas and Louisiana participated on an ICT. Their expertise ensured that

the broad spectrum of environmental habitats of the study area were adequately understood,

impacts accurately identified, and the appropriate amount and type of mitigation was developed.

• Respect other views – Collaboration among the USACE, Sponsor, and ICT members occurred

throughout the study process. The interactions were professional and respectful, and always

entertaining the opinions and expertise of others.

USACE Actions for Change as Reflected in the Campaign Plan

Engineering Sustainable Water Resource (integrated solutions, collaborative approaches, streamlined

processes)

• SNWW study analyzed potential effects over a 2,000-square-mile area, incorporating the entire

Sabine-Neches watershed.

• Dredged material placement plans were developed to beneficially use the material to the benefit

of the entire system (inshore and offshore) to the greatest extent possible.

• Close collaboration with local sponsor throughout study.

Delivering Effective, Resilient, Sustainable Solutions (sustainable infrastructure, resilience, riskformed strategy, innovative approaches)

• Developed plans over long-term, 50-year period of analysis.

• Utilized latest development in engineering, economic, and environmental modeling.

• Risk analyses conducted throughout the study are summarized in Chapter IX.

• Review and inspection of work will be conducted during design and construction.

209
VI: Description of Recommended Plan

VI-30

• Project risks are communicated at public meetings and during the public review of the study

findings. The public is allowed to comment and/or express concerns throughout the study

process.

• Unlike flood risk management and hurricane protection projects, navigation projects involve

minimal risk to the public.

• Independent review of the project documents and analyses was performed internally to the

USACE and externally by professionals from academia and expert consultants. Comments from

those reviews have been incorporated into the study documents, as appropriate.

• The expertise of State and Federal resource agency professionals familiar with the highly

complex coastal ecosystems of Texas and Louisiana were integrally involved in the evaluation

and development of plans to offset environmental impacts of the project.

210
VII-1

VII. DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (DMMP)

VII.A OVERVIEW

This chapter presents the process and analyses used to evaluate dredged material placement issues and

opportunities for the proposed 48-foot project (the Recommended Plan). It begins with an introduction to

Regional Sediment Management (RSM), an approach that uses understanding of the SNWW sediment

system to provide a context for managing the dredged material that would result from construction and

management of the project. The following section describes the sediment system, summarizes a sediment

budget for the Sabine Pass littoral zone, and characterizes material types and shoaling for the existing

project. The next section describes problems and opportunities related to sediment management that were

identified for the SNWW study area, and presents the results of a preliminary screening that was designed

to identify BU features to be carried forward into the detailed phase of analysis. These BU features are

then combined with upland placement features to form two alternative DMMPs, and the costs of these

plans are then compared to identify the DMMP for the Recommended Plan. The BU Alternative was

identified as the most-cost-effective, environmentally acceptable placement plan for both the new work

and maintenance material, and it becomes the 50-year DMMP for the Recommended Plan. The DMMP is

then summarized, followed by a description of the ecological benefits of the DMMP. The Base Plan for

without-project disposal practices for the existing SNWW 40-foot project is then compared to proposed

O&M placement activities for the Recommended Plan in order to determine the incremental O&M cost of

the Recommended Plan.

VII.B REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

AND SCOPE

The principles of RSM were applied in evaluating alternatives and developing the DMMP for the

placement of dredged material from the proposed SNWW CIP. The RSM is an approach for managing

projects involving sand and other sediments derived from dredging and other activities in riverine,

estuarine, and coastal systems (USACE, 2006a). Its major objective is the retention of these sediments

within natural aquatic systems, thereby supporting a more sustainable process and potentially reducing

project costs (Martin, 2002). The RSM incorporates many of the principles of watershed planning, but

applies them in the context of dredging and other activities that influence sediment resources. It broadens

the problem-solving perspective from a project-specific scale to a larger spatial and longer-term

perspective. This requires the integration of a broad range of disciplines and collaborative partnerships

among stakeholders. The USACE authorities and policies that support implementation of the RSM are

discussed in Technical Note No. 8 for the RSM Demonstration Program (USACE, 2003).

The geographic focus of an RSM analysis is a sediment system on a scale that is relevant to issues (e.g.,

dredged material management or processes like erosion or shoaling) that have been identified by

stakeholders in the region. The RSM study area essentially coincides with the SNWW study area and

contains riverine, estuarine, and coastal environments. It is large enough to facilitate understanding of

sediment processes and behavior, and the inherent interconnectedness of all parts of a sediment system.

211
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-2

The RSM study area includes the existing 65-mile-long SNWW navigation channel that extends from

22 miles offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, through a jettied entrance at Sabine Pass, up artificial canals on

the west side of Sabine Lake, and finally up the Neches River Channel to the City of Beaumont. The

SNWW area of analysis incorporates all of the existing and proposed navigation and placement features,

and significant inflows and structures that affect the system. The littoral portion of the study area extends

from Holly Beach, Louisiana, to Sea Rim State Park in Texas, roughly a distance of 40 miles. It extends

into the Gulf of Mexico along the existing Entrance Channel, proposed channel extension, and ODMDSs

for a distance of roughly 40 miles; and it extends inland from the coastline approximately 40 miles to

incorporate the tidally influenced reaches of the Sabine and Neches rivers watersheds and Sabine Lake.

The Texas Coastwide Erosion Response Plan has identified several parts of the study area as “critical

erosion areas” because of impacts to habitats and traffic safety from ongoing erosion, and has called for

an increase in the BU of dredged material from the SNWW project to help address these issues. The plan

was developed as part of the CEPRA (GLO, 2004, 2005). The program has identified the Gulf shoreline

between Texas Point and Sea Rim State Park as a critical erosion area. It attributes the erosion, in part, to

a lack of sediment coming down the Sabine and Neches rivers, and the interruption of longshore sediment

transport by the SNWW jetties.

The CEPRA Plan recommends that long-term RSM be utilized, along with highway realignment and

beach dune restoration, to protect the important coastal evacuation route of SH 87 in Jefferson County. As

described below, the Gulf Shore BU Feature would provide a long-term, RSM approach to restoring some

sediment to the littoral zone in this area of high erosion. In Orange County, the CEPRA Plan calls for

restoration of 9,400 acres of marsh in the Lower Neches River using dredged material to raise soil

elevations in the former marsh areas that have become open water. These are the same marsh areas (i.e.,

Rose City, Bessie Heights, and Old River Cove) that have been combined into the Neches River BU

Feature. The evaluation of these BU features is described more fully later in this chapter.

VII.C EXISTING SHOALING AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT

CONDITIONS

A detailed description of the existing SNWW sediment system is provided in Section 2.5 of the FEIS. The

reader is referred to that document for descriptions of geomorphology, winds, tides, circulation, and

longshore sediment transport patterns.

Shoreline Descriptions

Jefferson County and Cameron Parish coastlines in the study area are mainland beaches fronting the

Chenier Plain (King, 2007; USACE, 2000a). The upland area adjacent to the coast is a relatively flat,

gently sloping terrain with marsh elevations of 1 to 2 feet msl and ridge elevations of 5 to 6 feet msl.

Saline marsh vegetation covers the upland area behind the eroding shoreface. In the Texas Point NWR, a

fillet of muddy substrate that was created by rapid deposition over approximately the last 100 years lies

seaward of the chenier ridges. For the period between 1883 and 1970, the net accretion was documented

212
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-3

at 2,225 feet (Morton, 1975). The fillet of recent deposits recedes rapidly and disappears approximately

1⁄2 mile from the west jetty, where the Chenier Plain again fronts the Gulf until it ends about 18 miles

from Sabine Pass (Pacific International Engineering [PIE], 2003).

The shoreline in the Texas Point NWR (between Sabine Pass and Sea Rim State Park) is a muddy

shoreface composed of consolidated mud (King, 2007; PIE, 2003). A thin veneer of sand thrown up onto

the marsh edge by storms covers some areas of the mud substrate. Farther west, the Sea Rim State Park

area is a sediment transport convergence zone, and the beach typically has a substantial veneer of sand. In

Louisiana, the coastline for approximately 10 miles east of the jetty contains tidal sand/mudflats, sand

bars, and sandy beaches with tidal flats (PBS&J, 2006). A narrow tidal sand/mudflat, ranging from 30 to

450 feet in width, extends for about 1.5 miles east of the jetty, and then transitions to a sandy beach.

These beaches vary in width from 50 to 300 feet and end at an eroded, low mud bank shoreline.

Historical Shoreline Change in the Study Area

The northwest Gulf coast system is sand starved, and essentially no modern-day sand is being delivered to

these beaches (Lee, 2003; Morton, 1977; Morang, 2006). The only coarse-grained sand reaching the

Texas shores appears to originate from the erosion of underlying Pleistocene barrier-strand plain deposits,

which contain lenses of fine-grained and poorly sorted sands in massive clay and silt deposits (Isphording

et al., 1989). The lack of delivery of coarse-grained sand contributes significantly to shoreline erosion in

the area. The very limited coarse-grained load of the Sabine and Neches rivers is deposited in bay-head

deltas in Sabine Lake rather than on the coast (Mason, 1981; Morang, 2006; USACE, 1971b).

Chronic shoreline erosion is believed to be associated with the diversion of sand and other sediment

resulting from channelization and regulation of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers to the east, and the

Sabine and Neches rivers in Texas. The Calcasieu and Mermentau also do not supply coarse-grained

sediments, and the Cameron jetties deflect the little material that does exist away from the Holly Beach

area, so that it accumulates to the west at Long Beach, Louisiana’s westernmost sandy beach (Louisiana

Department of Natural Resources [LDNR], 1997; USACE, 2000a). The Sabine Pass jetties also intercept

sediment moving westward in the littoral drift, creating a wide, muddy, tidal flat next to the east jetty

(PBS&J, 2006; USACE, 2000a). On the Texas side, a 1⁄2-mile-wide fillet of silt and mud immediately

adjacent to the west jetty intercepts sediments moving from the west during periodic reversals near Sea

Rim State Park in the dominant longshore movement (PIE, 2003).

Shoreline change has been extensive in this region. In the area between Ocean View Beach and the

Sabine jetties, the shoreline prograded seaward at an average rate of +12.9 feet/year between 1883 and

1994. Recently, however, accretion has slowed to +1.2 feet/year, and the behavior of this shoreline has

become erratic, with change rates varying between –13.2 and +14.7 feet/year (USACE, 2000a). On the

Texas side of Sabine Pass, a 1⁄2-mile stretch of shoreline adjacent to the west jetty is aggrading at a rapid

rate, but beyond this narrow zone, to the west, is an active erosion zone extending approximately 15 miles

to the vicinity of Sea Rim State Park (Morang, 2006). This eroding stretch of the Jefferson County

coastline is experiencing the largest erosion rate on the upper Texas coast, up to 40 to 50 feet/year (King,

213
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-4

2007). It has been identified as a “critical erosion area” by the Texas Coastwide Erosion Response Plan

because of threats to traffic safety and wildlife habitat. Shoreline erosion has destroyed a portion of SH

87, an important hurricane evacuation route, and is eroding coastal wetland habitat at Texas Point and

McFaddin NWRs (GLO, 2004, 2005).

Sabine Pass Sediment Budget

New littoral transport rates have recently been calculated for the Sabine Pass littoral zone. The Sabine

Pass sediment budget (Morang, 2006) applied shoreline change statistics that were computed from

changes in sediment volume for littoral cells, using cross-shore profiles that were projected with an

ERDC modeling study (King, 2007). The sediment budget focused on characterizing sediment movement

in the coastal segments of the navigation channel and nearby Texas shoreline. Accurate estimates of the

percentage of total transport that is suspended sediment load from the inshore area were not available. Six

of the 23 cells defined for this study are relevant to this discussion – 3 cells (the Sabine Pass Channel, the

Sabine Jetty Channel, and the Sabine Outer Bar Channel) were used to analyze sediment movement in the

navigation channels through Sabine Pass and past the jetties; 3 other cells (the Sabine Fillet, Texas Point

NWR, and Sea Rim State Beach) were used to calculate sediment movement along the littoral zone

westward of the Sabine Pass. A summary of the sediment budget results is presented in Table VII-1

Existing Project Shoaling and Sediment Transport Conditions

The following summary of shoaling and transport conditions for the existing SNWW includes all

segments of the existing SNWW navigation system. The analysis of channel sections covered by the

Sediment Budget (Table VII-1) is derived primarily from Morang (2006); dredging cycle lengths, velocity

data, average percentages of sediment sizes, and dredging quantities (for channel reaches not covered by

the Sediment Budget) were obtained from the SNWW Sediment Study (Parchure et al., 2005); other

supporting analyses are identified as the data are presented. The discussion begins with the upstream end

of the SNWW (the Neches River Channel), and moves downstream through the confined Sabine-Neches

and Port Arthur canals, the Sabine Pass Channel, and then offshore into the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel,

the Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel, and the Sabine Bank Channel. Finally, the interaction of the channel

and adjacent shoreline sections is described.

Neches River Channel

Dredging cycles on the Neches River Channel vary from 3 to 4 years along the eastern half of the channel

near Sabine Lake to 6 years along the western segment near Beaumont. Approximately 3.1 mcy/cycle are

dredged from eastern channel sections 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 and placed into PAs 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21,

23, and 23A. Approximately 3.3 mcy/cycle are dredged from western channel sections 16, 17, and 18 and

placed in PAs 24, 25, 25A, 26, 27A, 27C, and 27D near Beaumont. Peak ebb and flood velocities are low

(0.8 foot/second and 0.3 foot/second, respectively). Bed sediments average 62 percent silt and clay and 38

percent sand.

214
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-5

Sabine-Neches and Port Arthur Canals

These canals traverse the confined channel segment between the City of Port Arthur and Pleasure Island.

Sabine-Neches Canal sections 9 and 10 are dredged every 4 years. Approximately 3.7 mcy/cycle are

placed in PAs 8 and 11. Bed sediments average 78 percent silt and clay and 22 percent sand. Port Arthur

Canal Section 7 is dredged every 3 years and approximately 1.8 mcy/cycle are placed in PA 8. Section 8

and the Taylor Bayou Channels and Basins are dredged every 2 years; approximately 2.3 mcy/cycle are

placed in PAs 8, 9, and 9A. Peak ebb and flood velocities are 2.6 and 2.2 feet/second, respectively. Bed

sediments average 84 percent silt and clay and 16 percent sand. The junction of the Port Arthur Canal,

Taylor Bayou Channel, and the Sabine Pass Channel is an existing dredging hot spot, often requiring

dredging more frequently than the 2-year cycle. This is due, at least in part, to a rapid decrease in velocity

as the flows move into the much wider junction. In addition, existing erosion along the channel side of

Pleasure Island may be returning sediment to the system (Parchure et al., 2005).

Table VII-1

Annual Sediment Budget for Sabine Pass (adapted from Morang, 2006)

Cell

Sources and Quantity (1,000

cubic yards per year)

Sinks and Quantity

(1,000 cubic yards per year)

PA/ODMDS and Quantity

(1,000 cubic yards per year)

Sabine Pass

Channel

866.7 (approximately 20%

sand) from Port Arthur Canal

and Sabine Lake

274.2 mud and sand into Jetty

Channel

592.5 into PA 5

Sabine Pass

Jetty

Channel

274.2 (mud and minor sand)

from Sabine Pass Channel

Unknown quantity of finegrained material carried in

suspension offshore

289.1 to ODMDS 4

(dispersed by shelf

circulation, storm and tidal

currents)

14.9 (mud) offshore

Sabine

Outer Bar

Channel

Unknown amount from Sabine

Jetty Channel (possible mud

input)

1,722.6 to ODMDS 3

(dispersed by shelf

circulation, storm and tidal

1,722.6 from undetermined currents)

source (littoral sediments

and/or ODMDS)

Sabine

Fillet

25.1 longshore transport from

Texas Point NWR (west)

14.9 longshore transport (mud

and minor sand) to Jetty Channel

10.2 shoreline growth at Sabine

mud fillet

Texas Point

NWR

434.2 from beach erosion

(90+ % mud)

152.0 overwash losses

173.7 mud lost offshore

25.1 longshore transport of mud

to east

83.5 longshore transport to west

(sand and shell)

Sea Rim

State Beach

83.5 longshore transport from

Texas Point NWR (east)

117.7 beach growth at Sea Rim

State Beach

34.3 longshore transport from

McFadden NWR (west)

*Sediment Budget quantities are based on 25 years of data from Galveston District’s Dredging Database. SNWW CIP withoutproject shoaling quantities are based on data from 1967 to 2001. A cross check and conversion verified that the quantities are

similar.

215
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-6

Sabine Pass Channel

Channel sections 5 and 6 are dredged every 3 years and approximately 1.9 mcy/cycle are placed in PA 5.

Bed sediments average 70 percent silt and clay and 30 percent sand. There are no obvious sand sources

because the banks of the channel are low mudflats. Little sand reaches the open coast from the Sabine and

Neches rivers because Sabine Lake is an efficient sediment trap and most of its coarse material is

deposited in the lake or trapped in the lower alluvial reaches of the rivers. Since the dredged material is

removed from the system, some mechanism must be replenishing the sand. It may be delivered to this

channel by unusually high runoff from Sabine Lake or the Port Arthur Canal. Although ebb and flood

velocities are roughly equal through this section, lower velocities are present where Sabine Lake

discharges into the channel; shoaling rates are higher than average around this discharge point. Peak ebb

and flood velocities in the remainder of the channel are 4.0 and 3.2 feet/second, respectively. Negligible

amounts of material come from the littoral system, entering the channel and moving upstream.

Conversely, plumes of fine-grained material can be seen moving through the pass into the Gulf in satellite

images. This material disperses over the continental shelf and does not contribute to the littoral budget.

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel

Section 4 is self-scouring and needs far-less-frequent maintenance dredging than the other coastal

reaches. Ebb velocities are high, peaking at about 3.5 feet/second, and flood velocity reaches 3.0

feet/second. Despite this jetting action, on the average about 1.1 mcy/cycle of dredged material are placed

in ODMDS 4 in a 5-year dredging cycle. Sediment delivered by the Sabine Pass Channel is

predominantly silt and some sand, and about 5 percent of the total transport comes from the littoral

system. A small boat cut in the east jetty may allow material carried by the longshore current moving

west from Louisiana to enter the channel (PBS&J, 2004a). Bed samples average 89 percent clay and silt

and 11 percent sand. Before- and after-dredging bathymetry surveys have demonstrated that the material

placed offshore in the ODMDSs does not accumulate; it disperses quickly after placement in the offshore

environment.

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel

Section 3 is the first 3.4 miles of navigation channel outside of the jetties. Ebb velocities fall rapidly as

the channel discharges over the Outer Bar. Peak ebb velocities fall from about 3.5 feet/second within the

jetties to 2.7 feet/second just beyond the jetties, to 1.3 feet/second near the intersection with the Sabine

Bank Channel. Peak flood velocities of 3.0 feet/second within the jetties fall to 2.4 feet/second just

beyond the jetties, and to 0.4 foot/second at the end of the channel reach. It appears that little material

moves from the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel into the Sabine Outer Bar channel, based upon the balance of

material entering versus what is removed by dredging. Yet, the shoaling rate in this section is very high.

Approximately 1.9 mcy/cycle are removed yearly and placed in ODMDS 4. Bed samples average

96 percent silt and clay and 4 percent sand. The source of the sediment is undetermined. Existing and

proposed ODMDSs are located west of the channel because the mean current flow in this area is

westward most of the year. However, this flow reverses and moves eastward for a month or longer during

the late spring (Rouse et al., 2004). During periods of reversal, sediment may drift back into the channel

216
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-7

from ODMDS 4. However, typical flow patterns move ebb flows to the south/south-southwest just

beyond the jetties, and flood flows generally come from the east (Parchure et al., 2005). Furthermore,

anecdotal accounts from Sabine Pilots report a strong east to west current crossing just outside the jetties

in the vicinity of ODMDS 4 (Webb, 2003).

Sabine Bank Channel

Sections 1 and 2 (totaling 6.6 miles long) extend the navigation channel into the open Gulf. They are

dredged every 4 years and approximately 4.2 mcy/cycle is placed in ODMDSs 1 and 2. Bed sediments

average 76 percent silt and clay and 24 percent sand. Ebb and flood velocities are nearly equal (ranging

between 0.25 and 0.70 foot/second), but the velocity pattern is erratic. Rapid shoaling is not a problem in

this reach, and no other management concerns are known.

Adjacent Gulf Shorelines

At Louisiana Point, the littoral current has supplied sufficient sediment in the recent past to cause

shoreline progradation between Ocean View Beach and the Sabine jetties (USACE, 2004), and create a

wide tidal mudflat against the jetty (PBS&J, 2006). Some fine-grained sediment from this westward

littoral current may be entering the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel through a small boat cut in the east jetty

(PBS&J, 2004a).

All but the easternmost wedge of Texas Point (the Sabine Fillet) is undergoing severe beach erosion, with

shoreline retreat of up to 1,150 feet between 1974 and 2000. Shoreface sediment losses are approximately

434,200 cubic yards/year. Longshore transport to the west carries 20 percent to Sea Rim State Beach

(PIE, 2003), 35 percent is lost to overwash, and 40 percent is carried offshore. Approximately 6 percent

moves eastward, carried by periodic reversals in the dominant longshore current (King, 2007; PIE, 2003).

The west jetty intercepts about 40 percent of the total eastward transport, creating a 1⁄2-mile-wide fillet of

silt and mud against the jetty; the remainder is carried into the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel.

In contrast to Texas Point, Sea Rim State Beach is located in a convergence zone and receives 117,700

cubic yards/year of littoral material from both the east and west. About 70 percent is carried by longshore

transport from the east at Texas Point, and 30 percent comes from McFaddin NWR to the west. The

accreting beach is comprised of sand (0.10 to 0.14 mm in size) and shell fragments, underlain by mud.

VII.D ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT-RELATED PROBLEMS AND

OPPORTUNITIES

The next section describes the RSM problems and opportunities that were identified by the SNWW study

area, and presents the results of a preliminary screening that was designed to identify potential costeffective BU for the dredged material that would be generated with the Recommended Plan.

The principles of the RSM were applied to ensure that the dredged material arising from the SNWW CIP

would be viewed as a valuable resource, integral to economic viability and environmental sustainability

217
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-8

of the region. In developing the DMMP for the project, this study searched for opportunities to achieve

savings by defining sediment-related problems, coordinating projects, and identifying opportunities for

BU (Martin, 2002). The large quantities of dredged material that would be generated by the

Recommended Plan created an ideal opportunity for the exploration of the BU of dredged material. A

series of public workshops and extensive ICT consultation evaluated a wide array of opportunities to use

dredged material beneficially (Gulf Engineers and Consultants, Inc. [GEC], 2002; Turner Collie &

Braden, 2003).

A variety of private stakeholders, State and Federal resource agencies, and the USACE engineering and

scientific experts identified the following existing and FWOP sediment-related problems in the region:

• Lack of sand in the littoral system

• Interruption to the littoral system caused by SNWW jetties

• Extensive shoreline erosion at Texas Point

• Erratic accretion and erosion at Louisiana Point

• Rapid shoaling in the Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel

• Rapid shoaling in the Port Arthur Junction

• Erosion of west side of Pleasure Island

• Erosion of Sabine Lake eastern shore

• Lack of sediment recharge to, and continuing loss of, sediment from emergent marshes

The following future with-project (FWP) impacts that could potentially be addressed with the BU of

dredged material or other project elements were also identified:

• Project impacts associated with the creation of new ODMDSs for the Extension Channel

• Project impacts associated with the creation of new upland PAs to accommodate new work

material, and increased quantities of maintenance material over the period of analysis

• Project impacts associated with a small increase in Gulf coast shore erosion within 3.5 miles of

each jetty

• Project impacts to cypress-tupelo swamps and intertidal marshes from reductions in biological

productivity due to project-induced salinity increases and marsh loss

• Additional advance maintenance due to a higher than average increase in shoaling in the Sabine

Pass Outer Bar Channel, one section of the Sabine Pass Channel, the Port Arthur Junction, and

portions of the Neches River Channel

Preliminary Screening – Features Eliminated from Consideration

Opportunities to use dredged material beneficially to address these sediment-related concerns were

suggested by public workshop participants and the ICT, and/or developed by the USACE technical

studies. These suggestions resulted in the evaluation of a wide array of BU features, which could reduce

218
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-9

or avoid salinity impacts, restore or replace degraded wetlands, create new terrestrial or marine habitat,

and return sediment to the littoral zone. Table VII-2 lists all features that were considered and eliminated

during preliminary screening, and the reason for dropping them from further consideration. The

incremental cost estimates presented in the table were developed during preliminary screening; they are

based upon 2005 cost levels and use $2.05/gallon for marine diesel. Incremental costs are the additional

costs that would be needed to use the material beneficially, over and above the normal costs of dredging

and placement in designated PAs or ODMDSs. It is likely that the actual costs would be much higher than

estimated here.

The feasibility of using new work and/or maintenance material was considered for all features. In the

analysis for the inshore reaches, PA containment levee construction was the first priority for the use of

new work material, followed by BU opportunities. In the offshore reaches, opportunities for BU of new

work material were evaluated and eliminated before material was committed to existing and proposed

ODMDSs. For maintenance material in both inshore and offshore reaches, priority was given to BU if it

could be demonstrated to be the least-cost alternative.

Given the large amount of dredged material that would be generated with the proposed project,

considerable effort was expended to identify areas that could benefit from its BU. All degraded marsh

areas near the SNWW were investigated to determine whether least-cost BU features could be developed.

No interior marsh areas in need of nourishment or restoration were identified adjacent to Sabine Pass in

Louisiana. Areas in Louisiana that could benefit from BU of dredged material are all located in the

marshes east of Sabine Lake. However, these were found to be too distant from the navigation channel to

permit cost-effective use of dredged material from the SNWW navigation channels. Numerous degraded

marshes in Texas with potential for BU were identified adjacent to the navigation channel. They are

located in the Texas Point NWR adjacent to the Sabine Pass Channel, in the J.D. Murphree WMA

adjacent to the Sabine-Neches Canal, and in areas of the Neches River WMA and private lands adjacent

to the Neches River Channel. The Gulf shoreline at Texas and Louisiana Points is close enough to the

navigation channel to allow cost-effective BU of dredged material. The shoreline on the Texas side of

Sabine Pass was also identified as a high priority area for BU because of high ongoing erosion in this

area.

Several hydrologic restoration features that were intended to prevent higher FWP salinities in portions of

the study area were eliminated early in the screening process. They were modeled using the HS model

and found to be either ineffective at reducing salinities or to have significant unintended impacts. For

example, marsh islands constructed with new work material were proposed as a means of isolating the

salinity wedge in the Sabine-Neches Canal from Sabine Lake. Modeling determined that the islands did

block the flow into the lake, but forced a salinity wedge to travel up the Sabine River Channel, potentially

affecting cypress-tupelo swamps in that watershed. Other proposed BU features that were unsuccessful in

reducing salinities are described in Table VII-2.

219
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-10

Table VII-2

Preliminary Screening: Dredged Material Beneficial Use Features Eliminated from Consideration

Feature Description Reason for Elimination

Hydrologic Restoration

Marsh islands isolating Sabine-Neches Canal from Sabine

Lake

Increased salinities in Black Bayou and up the Sabine River

Marshes constricting flow at mouth of Sabine Lake (north

and south of SH 82 swing bridge)

Ineffective at reducing salinities

Increases velocities through mouth of Sabine Lake

Marshes constricting flow along the side of the Port

Arthur Canal

Ineffective at reducing salinities

High cost relative to amount of marsh acres created

Construction of channel islands blocking flow from

bayous emptying Neches River marshes at Rose City and

Bessie Heights

Potential to cause backwater flooding

Obstructed channel access for private landowners

Navigation safety concerns

Filling canal at Texas Bayou using new work material

from Sabine Pass Channel

Ineffective at reducing salinities because access still provided

by Texas Bayou

Emergent Marsh Restoration

Marsh restoration using new work material from Neches

River Channel to restore marsh in Rose City West

Area is being developed as a mitigation bank; no longer

available for restoration

Marsh restoration using new work material from Neches

River Channel to restore marsh in Bessie Heights West

Would be feasible but cost exceeds Traditional Placement

Plan. Preliminary estimate of incremental cost – $581K.

Sponsor has not been identified.

Marsh restoration using new work material along the east

shore of PAs 8 and 11 at Pleasure Island

Unacceptable location – interferes with levee maintenance

Marsh restoration at Old River Cove, east of power plant

inflow channel, using new work material from the Neches

River Channel

Would be feasible but cost exceeds Traditional Placement

Plan. Preliminary estimate of incremental cost – $472K.

Sponsor has not been identified.

Marsh restoration north of Keith Lake using maintenance

material from Port Arthur Canal

Would be feasible but cost exceeds Base Plan. Preliminary

estimate of incremental cost – $300K.

Sponsor has not been identified.

Marsh restoration in Texas Point NWR using new work

material from Sabine Pass Channel to restore marsh

behind subsided jetty section.

Would be feasible but cost exceeds Traditional Placement

Plan. Preliminary estimate of incremental cost – $445K.

Sponsor has not been identified.

Wildlife Habitat Creation

Bird island constructed in Sabine Lake using new work

material from Sabine-Neches Canal

Would be feasible but cost exceeds Traditional Placement

Plan. Preliminary estimate of incremental cost – $1.9 million.

Sponsor has not been identified.

Returning Sediment to Littoral Zone

Texas or Louisiana Point shore nourishment using new

work material from Section 5 of the Sabine Pass Channel

Would be feasible but cost exceeds Traditional Placement

Plan. Preliminary estimate of incremental cost – $6.6 million.

Sponsor has not been identified.

Texas or Louisiana Point shore nourishment using new

work material from sections 5 and 6 of the Sabine Pass

Channel

Would be feasible but cost exceeds Traditional Placement

Plan. Preliminary estimate of incremental cost – $19.5

million. Sponsor has not been identified.

Stockpiling new work material from Extension channel

for future beneficial use

Not feasible because material would disperse rapidly and not

be available for use at a later date.

Transporting sediment from new work dredging of the

Extension Channel to the Texas or Louisiana littoral zone

Would be feasible but cost exceeds Traditional Placement

Plan. Preliminary estimate of incremental cost – $86.3

million. Sponsor has not been identified.

Marine Habitat Restoration

Construction of topographic high in littoral zone with new

work material

Topographic elevation would be temporary.

Incremental costs ($268 million) make it economically

infeasible.

220
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-11

A large number of conceptual designs for emergent marsh restoration throughout the study area were

initially identified as possible compensatory mitigation measures. Because of their proximity to the

navigation channel, several marsh restoration features in Texas were also evaluated to determine whether

they would be less costly than traditional placement. Only the Neches River and Gulf Shore BU features

were determined to be less costly than using upland PAs for new work (Traditional Placement Plan) or

maintenance material (Base Plan). These features and the cost analysis are presented in detail later in this

chapter. Marsh restoration features considered but eliminated included marsh restoration in Texas Point

NWR using new work material from the Port Arthur Canal or the Sabine Pass Channel. Another feature

used new work material for marsh restoration in the part of Old River Cove marsh that lies east of the

intake canal. All were found to be feasible, but more costly that traditional upland placement. The

preliminary incremental costs for these features were relatively low, ranging from $300,000 to $581,000.

No sponsor has been identified to share the incremental cost of these features.

The creation of new wildlife habitat using new work material from the Sabine-Neches Canal was also

explored. This feature would provide needed nesting habitat for colonial waterbird species such as

cormorant, pelican, heron, egret, spoonbill, gull, tern, and skimmer. These birds regularly nest in large

numbers along the Texas and Louisiana coasts, frequently on bay islands, both natural and man-made.

Despite the presence of excellent waterbird habitat in the Sabine NWR, no colonies have been

documented in Louisiana within the study area. The lack of isolated, predator-free islands is believed to

be a primary cause for this lack of nesting habitat. It was proposed that an island be constructed in the

middle of Sabine Lake with new work material from the Sabine-Neches Canal. This feature was

eliminated when the cost was found to be approximately $2 million higher than the use of traditional

upland PAs and no sponsor was identified to share the incremental cost.

Several features were evaluated that would return sediment normally placed in upland PAs or ODMDSs

to the littoral zone. Conceptual plans were developed for shore nourishment at Texas and Louisiana

Points using new work material from Section 5 or sections 5 and 6 of the Sabine Pass Channel. The

features were found to be feasible but cost $6.6 and $19.5 million, respectively, more than upland

placement in PA 5. Stockpiling dredged material in ODMDS 4 for later use was also investigated. Like all

other SNWW ODMDSs, material placed at this site disperses quickly after placement. Although it is

closest to shore, the dispersed material in ODMDS 4 is not likely to migrate into the littoral zone because

it is located beyond the depth of closure. It is expected that any material stockpiled within ODMDS 4

would be unavailable for use within 3 months of placement. Since stockpiling assumes that the beneficial

use needs will not be immediate or short term, it was concluded that this feature is not a viable alternative.

Transporting and discharging coarser-grained sediments from the new work dredging of the Extension

Channel (stations 117+000 to 146+000) into the littoral zone offshore of Texas or Louisiana Point was

also evaluated. A hopper dredge with pump-out capability could be used to dredge the channel, move as

close as possible to shore, and pump the material via a connecting pipeline to a discharge point within the

14-foot depth contour. Discharging the material at or inshore of the depth of closure should guarantee the

reintroduction of sediments within the littoral zone, where natural processes will beneficially distribute

221
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-12

the sediments. It is estimated that the incremental cost of this action would be about $86.3 million. While

feasible, this BU feature is much more costly than placement in the proposed ODMDSs B and C. No

sponsor has been identified to share the incremental cost of the feasible BU features discussed above.

The creation of new marine habitat in the form of a “topographic high” offshore of Louisiana Point was

also investigated. This feature would involve the BU of new work material from the deepened Sabine

Bank and Extension channels to create a new refuge or feeding locale for fish and shrimp. The material

would be dredged as usual with a hopper dredge and then transported far enough upcurrent to prevent

redeposition in the navigation channel. The material would be dropped in mounds forming a series of

rows over a large area, roughly 2.0 x 2.5 miles. The actual ecological benefits of such a feature off the

Texas coast have not been demonstrated. A similar feature was constructed outside of Galveston Bay, but

no monitoring was conducted to determine whether any benefits accrued. In addition, the feature would

be temporary because the dispersive processes acting on the ODMDSs would also be present here. It was

eliminated from further consideration when it was estimated that the incremental cost of the temporary

habitat would be approximately $268 million.

Detailed Evaluation of Disposal Features

After the preliminary screening, BU features that appeared to be least-cost alternatives for the BU of

dredged material in reducing with-project salinities, restoring marsh, or providing shoreline nourishment

were advanced for detailed evaluation. Water and sediment sampling and bioaccumulation studies have

established that dredged material from all SNWW navigation channels is suitable for BU (PBS&J, 1999,

2002, 2004b). The ecological benefits of the following BU features were evaluated and quantified using

the WVA Model, and these benefits were used to offset project impacts as described below. A description

of the WVA Model is provided in Section IX. In addition, numerous existing upland PAs were evaluated

for use with the Recommended Plan. All BU alternatives to ODMDSs were eliminated during the

preliminary screening. Existing and proposed ODMDS sites were therefore evaluated for the placement of

all material from the offshore channel reaches.

Neches River Beneficial Use Feature

Four former marsh areas on the Neches River were combined into one large management feature, called

the Neches River BU Feature, to provide flexibility in the use of new work and maintenance material

from the several construction reaches of the Neches River Channel. The primary objective of this

combination feature would be to beneficially utilize dredged material to restore emergent marsh in an area

that has suffered dramatic, widespread loss of marsh. The BU feature would utilize new work and

maintenance material that would otherwise be removed from the sediment system and stored in upland,

confined PAs. Figure VII-1 shows the components of the Neches River BU Feature.

222
Neches River BU Features

Bessie

Heights

East

Old

River

Cove

Rose City

East

Figure VII-1

Neches River

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 100007609Prepared by: 18827

N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/Figures/Fig_VII_2_vr2.mxd

Scale: 1 inch equals 8,750 feet

Date: 08/05/2009

BU Feature

BEAUMONT

Neches River

. 0 8,750 17,500 Feet Rose City East Bessie Heights East Old River Cove Hydrologic Unit

VII-13

223
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-14

This page intentionally left blank.

224
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-15

The Neches River BU Feature would offset all indirect salinity impacts to Texas wetland habitats on the

Neches and Sabine rivers (hydro-units TX 3 through TX 8, and TX 10 through TX 13) by restoring 2,853

acres of emergent marsh; improving 871 acres of shallow water by creating shallower ponds and

interconnecting channels; and nourishing 1,234 acres of existing fringing marsh by winnowing finegrained material from unconfined flows of dredged material effluent (Table VII-3). The BU feature thus

provides benefits to a total of 4,958 acres of degraded marsh on the lower Neches River, or 53 percent of

the restoration target set by the CEPRA 2004 plan update for the lower Neches River (GLO, 2004). The

BU feature also offsets the direct impact of converting 86 acres of freshwater wetland to a confined

placement area (PA 24A).

Table VII-3

Acreage Restored by Neches River BU Feature

Components of

the Neches River BU

Feature

Restored

Emergent

Marsh

Improved Shallowwater Habitat

Nourished

Existing

Marsh

Total

Influence

Area

Rose City East 345 72 151 568

Bessie Heights East 1,869 660 651 3,180

Old River Cove West 639 139 432 1,210

Total 2,853 871 1,234 4,958

Gulf Shore Beneficial Use Feature

The use of dredged material was also evaluated for Gulf shoreline nourishment at Texas and Louisiana

Points (Figure VII-2). Over the 50-year period of analysis, approximately 24 mcy of maintenance material

would be hydraulically pumped from Section 5 of the adjacent Sabine Pass Channel onto a total of 6

miles of shoreline on both sides of Sabine Pass. Some material is expected to flow over existing marsh

while the remainder will flow into nearshore waters. Material placement during each 3-year Sabine Pass

Channel dredging cycle would alternate between Texas and Louisiana, so that material would be placed

on each state’s shoreline every 6 years. This recurring action would nourish eroding marsh, restore

sediment to the littoral zone, minimize projected FWP shoreline impacts, and, potentially, create new

marsh with the recurring placement of approximately 1.5 mcy every 3 years.

Texas Point is undergoing severe beach erosion, with shoreline retreat of up to 1,150 feet between 1974

and 2000 (King, 2007; Morang, 2006). This is the highest rate of shoreline loss on the upper Texas coast

and a CEPRA “critical erosion area” (GLO, 2005). In Louisiana, persistent erosion along the shoreline

between Ocean View and Holly Beach, on the order of –4.3 feet/year between 1985 and 1998, was

recorded here prior to Hurricane Rita (USACE, 1971a, 2004). Nearer to Louisiana Point, significant

accretion over the last 100 years has slowed to +1.2 feet/year, and the behavior of this shoreline has

become erratic, with some areas eroding and some aggrading (USACE, 2004).

Historic dredging records indicate that the maintenance material from Sabine Pass will average 51 percent

silt, 31 percent clay, and 18 percent fine sand (USACE dredging database). This mix of materials does not

contain typical beach-quality sand, but the material types and composition are similar to what is present

225
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-16

on the shorelines today. Narrow beachfronts of silt or clay lie seaward of eroding overwash marsh

terraces (PBS&J, 2006). Given the unusual characteristics of this sand-starved system, returning the

material to the littoral system is likely to have a net beneficial effect, regardless of material type. The

longshore transport in this system contains primarily fine-grained sediments, but these sediments have

been shown to accumulate in the near shore zone and result in shoreline accretion by as yet poorly

understood processes (King, 2007; Morang, 2006).

The Gulf Shore BU Feature will provide a regular source of predominantly fine-grained sediment that

should contribute to mudflat accretion and periodically move onshore to become shore-attached through a

process described by PIE (2003). On the western Louisiana and east Texas coasts, sediments accumulate

as mudflats and underwater mudshoals (or “fluid mud”) in the nearshore region. Nearshore, fluid mud can

be trapped against the shoreline by prevailing south and southwesterly winds, and storms carry the

trapped muddy ooze onto the chenier shoreline. The northwest Gulf is a microtidal, storm-dominated

environment. In a typical year there are about 20 to 30 frontal passages generating waves, surges, and

wind-driven currents, with most-frequent waves from the southeast about 3 to 4.5 feet in height (PIE,

2003).

Mudflat accretion on the western Louisiana coast appears to correlate with periods of high sediment

influx from the Atchafalaya River and the passage of large storm systems. Up to 1,000 feet of shoreline

accretion along 4.5 miles of shoreline in western Louisiana occurred over a few days during the passage

of Hurricane Audrey (Morgan et al., 1958). Another study reports that accretion in western Louisiana

occurs most frequently during storms and that it can be very rapid (Wells and Kemp, 1986). Huh et al.

(1991) reports that surge deposits of gel-like mud become stranded on the upper shoreface during storms.

These deposits can dry and crack, forming mud cobbles that help to armor the shoreline. Fluid mud and

mudflat accretion at the shoreline has also been observed on the Jefferson County shoreline. At Sea Rim

State Beach in June 2002 (PIE, 2003), shoreline features were observed that resembled the storm surge

deposits of fluid mud and mud cobbles reported above.

The presence of additional fine-grained sediments in the littoral system that will be provided by the BU

feature should reduce the current erosion rate and minimize the small increase in shore erosion predicted

with the project (Gravens and King, 2003). In systems that have an abundant supply of fine-grained

sediments, the nearshore seabed can be blanketed with fluid mud. The presence of additional muddy

sediment in the nearshore environment may attenuate waves and lessen wave-induced erosion (Hsiao and

Shemdin, 1980; Tubman and Suhayda, 1976; Wells and Kemp, 1986). There are also anecdotal reports of

Gulf areas off Louisiana and Texas Points being safe havens for vessels during storms due to the neartotal attenuation of waves (Block, 1984; King, 2007; Wells and Kemp, 1986).

The BU dredged material is expected to be composed largely of unconsolidated muds. The fine-grained

sediments are expected to initially be highly mobile and some portion of the material will be rapidly lost

from the vicinity of the shoreline. As demonstrated by another BU project at Texas Point (USACE,

2000a), a significant percentage will also flow onshore and nourish existing marsh along the eroding

226
. 2 0 2 1 Miles

Figure VII-!

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 044198800Prepared by: A. Christiansen

File: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/044198000/figures/Fig_VII_3_vr2.mxd

Scale: 1:93,500

Date: 04/28/2008

Shoreline NourishmentHydrologic Unit

Gulf Shoreline Nourishment

(Texas Point)

Gulf Shoreline Nourishment

(Louisiana Point)

Port Arthur Canal

Sabine

Lake

Sabine Pass Channel

TX 7

TX 9

TX 8

LA 5

LA 6

Gulf Shore BU Feature

VII-17

227
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-18

beachfront. Because of the prevailing wave climate, the mobile material within the surf zone should

generally migrate to the west at both Texas and Louisiana Points (Wamsley, 2008). Transport processes

identified by the Sabine Pass Sediment Budget (Morang, 2006) indicate that the material would move

toward the eroding shoreline at Texas Point. There, the additional fine-grained sediments could lower

erosion rates through the mudflat accretion and wave attenuation processes described above. A small

quantity of material may migrate to the east and contribute to the Sabine fillet at the west jetty (King,

2007; Morang, 2006).

In Louisiana, the sand bar formed by BU sediments from the Sabine Pass LNG project may shelter the

shoreline from wave energy sufficiently to allow fine-grained sediments to form a mudflat behind the

sandbar (Nairn and Willis, 2002). While a significant percentage of the sediment will be rapidly carried

offshore, some is likely to move downcoast with the littoral current, enlarging the sand and mudflat

already present at the east jetty. Potential impacts of elevated levels of total suspended solids are expected

to be similar to those that resulted from the Sabine Pass LNG BU project (PBS&J, 2004a). A temporary

increase in suspended silt/clay was expected during the first 8–9 months following placement. After the

termination of placement activities, total suspended solids were expected to decrease for about 18 months

when concentrations reached background levels. Modeling conducted for the Sabine Pass project

indicated that it will take 9 years before the silt and clay component of Sabine Pass LNG BU material

become totally suspended and are removed from the littoral zone. Since the Gulf Shore BU Feature

proposes a placement episode every 6 years, all the fine-grained sediments would not have been removed

before new material is added.

This should result in the retention of some portion of the fine-grained sediment, and thus facilitate

mudflat accretion through the processes described above. During and after each placement episode, most

of the resuspended silt and clay are expected to enter the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel through the shallow

boat cut, but deposition in the channel is not expected. It should remain in suspension and be transported

back into the Gulf.

Although the BU sediments will be largely fine grained, approximately 18 percent of maintenance

material is expected to be sand. Sands that are deposited onshore will nourish and stabilize eroding

marshes; sand deposited in the nearshore zone should stay in the nearshore environment, moving back

and forth across the shoreface (Wamsley, 2008). Sand placed at Louisiana Point should remain on the

shoreface where it was deposited; no significant amounts of sand are expected to enter the Jetty Channel.

On erosive mud shorelines like those in the BU area, the sand percentage should increase, and it will form

sandy lenses or a veneer over the mud shoreline substrate. As the sand lenses thicken, the sands help

protect the underlying mud from further erosion (Nairn, 1992). However, in smaller quantities, sand can

also accelerate erosion of a mud beach. If the consolidated mud is not covered by a sand veneer, any sand

that is mobilized by wave action will act as a scouring agent (King, 2007).

It is acknowledged that the behavior of the BU sediments within this complex littoral system cannot be

predicted with certainty over the period of analysis, especially given the potential for strong storms to

affect the coastal environment. However, there is sufficient knowledge of general processes and baseline

228
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-19

conditions to support evaluation of potential impacts and benefits. Furthermore, the engineering

feasibility and potential environmental benefits have been demonstrated by successful recent BU projects

at Texas and Louisiana Points (PBS&J, 2004a; USACE, 2000a). All of this information was used to

establish explicit assumptions about the expected behavior of the BU material in the quantification of

project impacts and benefits using the WVA model, as described in Appendix C of the FEIS. The WVA

analysis assumed that 60 percent of the pumped quantity will remain in the existing marsh and on the

shallow nearshore slope in front of the existing shorefront immediately after material placement. Since

the material is unconsolidated and prone to erosion, only 50 percent of that material was assumed to

remain by the end of each 6-year cycle. It was further assumed that the regular addition of material every

6 years would slow the resuspension of fine sediments, and result in the accumulation of some new marsh

by the end of the period of analysis. No attempt was made to account for the effect of large storm

systems.

No long-term impacts to vegetation or benthic sediments should result from nourishment episodes. The

NWR personnel reported that the marsh vegetation at Texas Point rebounded quickly and with renewed

vigor after being covered with up to 1 foot of material by a previous Texas Point BU project (Walther,

2005). Potential impacts to Critical Habitat for the wintering piping plover are expected to be beneficial in

the long term, with short-term displacement of some birds during disposal activities. Benthic invertebrate

fauna residing in the intertidal and tidal impact zones will be smothered, but studies have shown the

impact to be similar to that resulting from natural events such as storms and hurricanes (Saloman and

Naughton, 1977; Simon and Dauer, 1977). Following the burial, the resident species should recover

quickly because of their short life cycle, high reproductive potential, and the rapid recruitment of larvae

and motile macrofauna from nearby unaffected areas (Nelson and Pullen, 1988).

Upland Placement Features

Existing Active PAs

Existing PAs were evaluated to determine whether they possessed sufficient capacity for new work and

maintenance material over the 50-year period of analysis. All of the upland PAs were reviewed by the

ICT, and no further environmental review was recommended for existing PAs that were in active use.

Existing and proposed upland PAs are shown on figures VI-3 through VI-7.

Existing Inactive PAs

Field visits were made to existing PAs that had been inactive in recent years (PAs 23A, 25A, 26, 27C, and

27D). Inactive PAs were visited to determine whether habitat and connectivity had developed since their

last use such that they were contributing to the function of adjacent wetlands. No field visits or further

review of inactive PA 25A were needed; no impacts are expected because it is known to contain lowquality, upland habitat. PA 25A is included in the DMMP.

The remaining inactive PAs were evaluated for potential impacts. All of these areas have been modified

extensively by past placement activities and associated levee systems, which have artificially altered the

229
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-20

hydrology. Surrounding containment levees hold water and isolate the areas from adjacent water bodies,

preventing them from contributing to the function of the adjacent wetlands and riparian corridor. All

contain degraded habitat with low habitat values, primarily roosting habitat for birds and some wildlife

cover. Renewed use of PAs 23A, 26, 27C, and 27D would not constitute a significant adverse change to

the existing environmental condition, and all are included in the DMMP.

Areas Considered for PA Expansion

The quantities of dredged material projected for the Recommended Plan necessitated additional PA

capacity. Finding areas suitable for the development of new upland PAs along the inshore reaches was

difficult. The majority of land adjacent to the SNWW is either covered by residential and industrial

development, existing PAs, forested uplands, or wetlands. Areas adjacent to existing PAs 14, 16, 18, and

24 were evaluated to determine their suitability as PAs. Potential expansion areas were designated as PA

14A, PA 16A, PA 18A, and PA 24A.

PA 14A (82 acres) is located south of existing PA 14, on the south side of the Neches River near its

mouth. It is a relatively undisturbed intermediate marsh containing numerous small ponds that are

seasonally connected to the riparian corridor. It provides habitat for numerous native wildlife species. It

was determined that use of this area would be a significant adverse change to existing conditions because

of its value to native wildlife species and preserving water quality. Placement needs for the Neches River

Channel were reevaluated and the area was dropped from further consideration for use as a PA.

PA 16A (202 acres) is located west of existing PA 16 on the south side of the Neches River near its

mouth. It is covered by intermediate marsh, has excellent hydrologic connectivity to adjacent wetlands,

and provides important habitat for native fish and wildlife. The EPA includes the 16A area in a

preliminary area of concern for the Star Lake Canal Superfund Site (EPA, 2006); an EPA feasibility study

to determine the nature and extent of contamination is underway. Due to contaminant concerns and the

biological and water quality value of its wetlands, the area has been dropped from further consideration

for use as a PA.

PA 18A (71 acres) is located north of existing PA 18. It is a disturbed upland area containing low-quality

scrub habitat. The Habitat Workgroup reviewed an aerial photograph of the proposed expansion area and

determined that no field visit would be required. PA 18A is included in the DMMP.

PA 24A (187 acres) is located north of the Maritime Administration’s Reserve Fleet area. The area

contains a central upland ridge with surrounding wetland components. Initially, a 331-acre tract was

evaluated for use. To minimize impacts to wetlands, 144 acres of marsh-hay cordgrass in the northern

section were excluded, reducing the proposed PA to 187 acres. The 187-acre area contains 85 acres of

lower quality wetlands comprised primarily of California bulrush and common reed. Impacts associated

with conversion to a confined PA were evaluated with the WVA model, and it was determined that the

impact of –44 AAHUs is fully offset by benefits of the DMMP Neches River BU Feature. PA 24A is

included in the DMMP.

230
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-21

ODMDS Features

Four ODMDSs (Nos. 1–4) are currently in use for the existing SNWW project. Features for the placement

of new work and maintenance material resulting from the construction of a deeper and longer offshore

channel have been evaluated in an ODMDS Site Designation FEIS, which is included as Appendix B of

the FEIS. Appendix B evaluates alternatives for the selection of new ODMDSs, including the use of the

existing ODMDSs for the proposed CIP and BU sites. Existing and proposed ODMDSs are shown on

Figure VII-3.

The existing ODMDSs were evaluated to determine whether they could accommodate all new work and

maintenance material from the Recommended Plan. Although it was determined that they were large

enough to hold all the material, the 13.2-mile length of the channel extension would make the cost of

hauling all new work and maintenance material to existing ODMDSs prohibitively expensive.

Designation of four new ODMDSs will be necessary. The best locations for the new sites were

determined using the “zone of siting feasibility” screening technique, which delineates economically

feasible sites that are sufficiently removed from ecologically sensitive or incompatible use areas to

eliminate or minimize adverse impacts.

The ODMDS FEIS found no significant environmental impacts related to the use of existing and

proposed ODMDS sites for the SNWW Recommended Plan. Analysis of northwestern Gulf of Mexico

circulation patterns confirmed that the existing and proposed ODMDSs were properly located on the west

side of the navigation channel. Before- and after-dredging bathymetry surveys have demonstrated that

material placed offshore in the ODMDSs does not accumulate; it disperses quickly after placement in the

offshore environment.

VII.E IDENTIFYING THE LEAST-COST PLACEMENT

ALTERNATIVE

Description of Placement Alternatives

Placement features that survived the detailed evaluation were grouped into two comprehensive placement

alternatives for further analysis. The Traditional Placement Alternative and the BU Alternative were

compared to determine the least-cost, environmentally acceptable DMMP for both new work and

maintenance material arising from the proposed 48-foot project.

In the Traditional Placement Alternative, it was assumed that management practices for the existing

project would continue, adapting and expanding as needed to provide increased capacity for the proposed

48-foot project. Dredged material would be placed in the 4 existing and 4 proposed ODMDS features, the

16 existing upland PA features, and expansion cells in PAs 18A and 24A. Capacities of the existing

upland PA features would be increased over the 50-year period of analysis by regular raising of

containment levee heights. Without the additional capacity provided by the BU features described below,

a final levee elevation of 36 feet would be required at PA 5 in Sabine Pass. On the Neches River Channel,

final levee elevations at PAs 13–14, 16–18A, 21, and 23–27D would range from 17 to 47 feet. On the

231
STA.56+582

STA.123+000

P

P

STA. 152+500

PELICAN INTERSTATE

GAS SYSTEM

PRODUCT: NATURAL GAS

TOP OF PIPE: ?

COE PERMIT: ?

P

P

30"

STA. 31+000

PRODUCT:?

TOP OF PIPE: -?' MLT

COE PERMIT:

16"

STA. 82+500

PRODUCT:?

TOP OF PIPE: -?' MLT

COE PERMIT:

12" DYNERGY NGL PL CO

PRODUCT: NG

TOP OF PIPE: ?

COE PERMIT: 8002

10" DYNERGY NGL PL CO

PRODUCT: NATURAL GAS

TOP OF PIPE: -60 ' MLT

COE PERMIT: 8682

1

2

3

T E X A S

G U L F O F

M E X I C O

L O U I S I A N A

Sabine Pass

Jetty Channel

Sabine Pass

Outer Bar Channel

Sabine Pass

Bank Channel

Proposed

Entrance

Channel

Extension

T E X A S

W A T E R S

L O U I S I A N A

W A T E R S

F E D E R A L

W A T E R S

D

A

B

C

2

3

4

1

Figure VII-3

Project Area Features

20,000 10,000

:0 20,000

Feet

Proposed ODMDS

Existing ODMDS

Safety Fairway

Anchorage Fairway Proposed Beneficial

Use Site

Existing Channel

Proposed Channel

Line of Federal

Jurisdiction

Existing Pipeline

N:441206/post_HU_projects/Projects/Original_Revised_Figure_Numbers/Figure_2_2_Vr2.mxd (A.P. 3/08/07)

VII-22

232
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-23

Port Arthur and Sabine-Neches Canals (PAs 8, 9, 11, and 12), final elevations would be the same as the

Recommended Plan. It is assumed that regular dewatering management practices (DAMP) would be

required on the Neches River Channel PAs to provide the required 50-year capacity. PAs requiring

DAMP include PAs 12, 13, 14, 16, 25A, 27A, and 27C. The Traditional Placement Alternative includes

hopper and hydraulic dredging costs to place material at ODMDSs and upland PAs, to construct and

maintain higher containment levees over the 50-year period of analysis, and real estate costs to acquire

property needed for proposed PAs 18A and 24A.

The BU Alternative assumed the use of the Neches River and Gulf Shore BU features, in addition to all of

the upland PA and ODMDS features that are also included in the Traditional Placement Alternative. The

final levee elevation at PA 5 at Sabine Pass would be 34 feet; on the Port Arthur and Sabine-Neches

canals (PAs 8, 9, 11, and 12), final levee elevations would range from 23 to 42 feet; and on the Neches

River Channel, final levee elevations at PAs 13–14, 16–18A, 21, and 23–27D would range from 14 to 39

feet. This alternative takes advantage of new work material provided by the channel-deepening project to

build hydraulic containment levees within degraded, former areas at Rose City East and West, Bessie

Heights East, and Old River Cove. Each of these areas is referred to as a component of the overall Neches

River BU Feature. Marsh would be created in each component using only new work, or a combination of

new work and maintenance material. Marsh would be created in Old River Cove using only new work

material. The first phase of Rose City East would be constructed with new work material, and it would be

completed with the first cycle of maintenance material. Bessie Heights East would be completed with

maintenance material over seven cycles. In addition to costs associated with providing upland PA

capacity, costs for this plan include additional pumping distances and pipe movements for the BU features

and their containment structures, training levees and circulation channels; maintenance of containment

structures over the multiyear marsh construction period; marsh plantings; and monitoring costs.

Cost Comparison of Placement Alternatives

The average annual cost of new work and 50-year O&M plans for both alternatives are compared in Table

VII-4. These costs were developed during the detailed design phase, using a different cost ($1.12/gallon

fuel cost) and price level (October 2005). Costs have not been updated for this comparison because it is a

screening phase cost comparison. Costs for both alternatives would change proportionately if they were

updated with October 2009 price levels, and the difference in cost between the two plans would not be

materially different. New work material is used beneficially only along the Neches River Channel. There

are no differences between the new work costs for the first four channel reaches (Offshore Channels,

Sabine Pass Channel, Port Arthur Canal, and Sabine-Neches Canal) because none of the new work

material from these reaches would be used beneficially. New work material provided by the channel

deepening is used at Rose City East, Bessie Heights East, and Old River Cove. Bessie Heights East and

Rose City East would also use maintenance material from the Neches River to complete marsh

restoration. These reaches exhibit differences in the O&M section of Table VII-4 because they are the

only channel sections from which O&M material is proposed to be used beneficially. All of the costs have

been annualized so that the time value of money is considered. Both the new work and O&M costs are

233
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-24

expressed as 50-year annualized costs to make them comparable. The annualizations were calculated on

mid-year costs, using October 2005 price levels, and an interest rate of 4.875 percent.

Table VII-4

Average Annual Cost Comparison of Placement Plan Alternatives

for the Proposed 48-foot Project

(October 2005 Price Levels; $1.12 fuel cost; 4.875%)

(All costs in dollars)

Channels

Offshore

Channels

(Hopper

Dredging)

Sabine

Pass

Channel

Port

Arthur

Canal

SabineNeches

Canal Neches River Channel Totals

New Work

Associated Beneficial Use Sites

Associated

Channel

Sections

Sections

D-A, 1–4

Sections

5 & 6

Sections

7 & 8

Sections

7 & 8

Sections

11, 12, 13

Sections

14, 15, 16

Sections

17 & 18 Total

Neches River Combination Feature

Placement Plan

Alternatives

Old River

Cove

Bessie

Heights

East

Rose City

East

Beneficial Use

Alternative

10,048,000 3,469,000 7,696,000 5,655,000 3,961,000 7,631,000 12,094,000 50,554,000

Traditional

Placement

Alternative

10,048,000 3,469,000 7,696,000 5,655,000 4,522,000 7,837,000 12,447,000 51,674,000

Difference – – – – (561,000) (206,000) (353,000) (1,120,000)

O&M

Associated Beneficial Use Sites

Associated

Channel

Sections

Sections

D-A, 1–4

Sections

5 & 6

Sections

7 & 8

Sections

7 & 8

Sections

11, 12, 13

Sections

14, 15, 16

Sections

17 & 18 Total

Neches River Combination Feature

Placement Plan

Alternatives

Gulf

Shore

Feature

Bessie

Heights

East

Bessie

Heights

East

Rose City

East

Beneficial Use

Alternative

29,470,000 3,225,000 8,928,000 4,177,000 3,055,000 2,932,000 1,523,000 53,310,000

Traditional

Placement

Alternative

29,470,000 3,225,000 8,928,000 4,177,000 3,551,000 3,050,000 1,571,000 53,972,000

Difference – – – – (496,000) (118,000) (48,000) (662,000)

234
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-25

The Gulf Shore BU Feature uses maintenance material to regularly renourish shorelines and Texas and

Louisiana Points every 6 years over the period of analysis. This disposal method was found to be the

least-cost method of disposal for all maintenance material from Section 5 of the Sabine Pass Channel, and

is included in the base disposal plan. Therefore, displayed costs for this feature are equal for both the

Revised BU Alternative and the Traditional Placement Alternative. All of the costs have been annualized

so that the time value of money is considered. Both the new work and O&M costs are expressed as 50-

year annualized costs to make them comparable. The annualizations were calculated on mid-year costs,

using October 2005 price levels, and an interest rate of 4.875 percent.

Selection of the DMMP

The BU Alternative is recommended for adoption in the DMMP for the Recommended Plan because it is

the least-cost, environmentally acceptable placement alternative. In addition to being a least-cost plan, it

provides substantial ecological benefits that offset all project impacts in Texas, and some impacts in

Louisiana.

VII.F DESCRIPTION OF THE DMMP FOR THE RECOMMENDED

PLAN

The DMMP for the Recommended Plan provides for the placement of both new work and maintenance

material for the 50-year period of analysis. The locations of channel reaches, waterway sections, PA and

ODMDS features, and BU features are shown on Engineering Drawings C-01 through C-12 (Appendix

1). A comprehensive DMMP is needed because new work material would be used to construct

containment levees for BU features that would be completed with maintenance material after channel

construction is completed. The DMMP, therefore, differs from the discussion of the incremental O&M

cost of the Recommended Plan in later sections of this chapter, as they focus solely on O&M costs and

the placement plan for maintenance material only.

DMMP BU Features

All BU features proposed as part of the DMMP are described in Table VII-5. Details of plan

implementation for each of the BU features were described above and are discussed further in the FEIS.

The DMMP BU features are not being pursued as separable elements of an ecosystem restoration plan

under Section 204 or 207 authorities. They are not ecosystem restoration measures, and as such, do not

target a specific historical condition for the level of restoration. They are least-cost, environmentally

acceptable placement features and are included as GNF of the DMMP.

Upland PA Features

Sixteen existing PA features, and two new cells (PAs 18A and 24A) that enlarge existing PAs, are

proposed for use in the Recommended Plan (Table VII-6). Existing PAs will be used to the greatest extent

possible; five currently inactive PAs or PA cells (PA 23A, 25A, 26, 27C, and 27D) will be rehabilitated

235
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-26

and restored to active use. Non-Federal dredging is projected to contribute 4.6 percent of material placed

in upland PA features. Non-Federal facilities using these PAs are located along the Port Arthur and

Sabine-Neches canals and the Neches River Channel; this material will be placed in the same PAs used

for material from the adjacent navigation channels.

Table VII-5

DMMP BU Features

Beneficial Use

Features No. Description

Size of

Influence

Area

Rose City East

(component of

Neches River BU

Measure)

TX 3-1

East

Restoring 345 acres of fresh marsh, improving 72 acres of

shallow-water habitat, and nourishing 151 acres of existing

marsh in two construction events. New work material from

Neches River Channel will be used to restore 225-acre marsh,

and construct hydraulic containment levees and higher elevation

features. Maintenance material from the first maintenance cycle

will be used to restore an additional 120 acres of marsh.

Influence

area – 568

acres

Bessie Heights East

(component of

Neches River BU

Measure)

TX 5-2 Restores 679 acres of brackish and 1,190 acres of intermediate

marsh, improves 660 acres of shallow-water habitat, and

nourishes 651 acres of existing marsh. Marsh will be constructed

with maintenance material from Neches River Channel for 28

years. New work material is used to build hydraulic containment

levee.

Influence

area – 3,180

acres

Old River Cove

(component of

Neches River BU

Measure)

TX 6-1 Restores 639 acres of brackish marsh, improves 139 acres of

shallow-water habitat, and nourishes 432 acres of existing marsh

with new work material from Neches River Channel. New work

material used to construct hydraulic containment levee.

Influence

area – 1,210

acres

Gulf Shore BU

Feature (Texas and

Louisiana Points)

TX 8-11

LA 5-

2/6-2

Nourish 3 miles of Gulf shoreline on both sides of Sabine Pass,

from 0.5 to 3.5 miles from east and west jetties, using

maintenance material from Sabine Pass Channel. Unconfined

placement of maintenance material along shoreline every 3 years

for 50-year period of analysis (8 placement episodes). Assume

50:50 split of material between Texas and Louisiana

accomplished by alternating placement in Texas and Louisiana.

Affected

shoreline

6.0 miles

total

236
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-27

Table VII-6

Dredged Material Management Plan Upland Placement Areas

Placement Area Additional Cell(s) Size (acres) Associated Waterway Section**

5 N&S, B and C 957 Sabine Pass Channel (Sec. 5 and 6)

8 3,570 Port Arthur Canal (Sec. 7 and 8)

Sabine-Neches Canal (Sec. 9)

9A B 481 Port Arthur Canal (Sec. 8)

11 2,170 Sabine-Neches Canal (Sec. 10)

12 355 Neches River Channel (Sec. 11)

13 140 Neches River Channel (Sec. 11)

14 255 Neches River Channel (Sec. 12)

16 288 Neches River Channel (Sec. 13)

17 316 Neches River Channel (Sec. 13)

18 A* 432 Neches River Channel (Sec. 14)

21 135 Neches River Channel (Sec. 14)

23 A 773 Neches River Channel (Sec. 15)

24 A* 575 Neches River Channel (Sec. 16)

25 A 820 Neches River Channel (Sec. 17)

26 192 Neches River Channel (Sec. 18)

27 A, C, and D 270 Neches River Channel (Sec. 18)

* New cells (PAs 18A and 24A), which enlarge existing PAs.

** Waterway sections are shown on FFR Engineering Plates C-01 through C-12 (Appendix 1).

Offshore Placement Features

The ODMDSs for the Recommended Plan are four existing (sites 1–4) and four proposed ODMDSs (sites

A–D). All of the new ODMDSs are located on the west side of the channel since the littoral drift

(movement of offshore sediment) is most commonly from east to west. Sizes and associated channel

reach, beginning with the farthest offshore reach, are provided in Table VII-7.

Table VII-7

Existing and New ODMDSs

Placement

Area

Size

(acres) Status

Associated

Waterway Section

D 3,392 New Extension Channel

C 3,392 New Extension Channel

B 3,392 New Extension Channel

A 3,392 New Extension Channel

1 2,048 Active Section 1

2 4,736 Active Section 2

3 3,968 Active Section 3

4 3,456 Active Section 4

The USACE and EPA have cooperated in the preparation of an FEIS for the proposed ODMDSs; this

document is Appendix B of the FEIS. Public comment on the proposed ODMDSs will be requested

237
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-28

concurrently with comments on the FEIS for the SNWW CIP. If the FFR and FEIS are approved by the

USACE and the Recommended Plan is authorized by the U.S. Congress, the EPA will publish a rulemaking in the Federal Register that establishes SNWW ODMDSs A, B, C, and D for use in conjunction

with construction and operation of the 48-foot project.

VII.G INCREMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND

BENEFITS OF THE DMMP

Incremental Environmental Impacts of the DMMP

Incremental DMMP impacts of the proposed 48-foot project are discussed in detail in the FEIS, but are

summarized here. The incremental impact would consist of marsh lost with construction of one new

upland placement cell, and four new ODMDSs. No impacts are anticipated with improvements to existing

upland PAs that are needed to provide additional capacity for the 50-year period of analysis, since

improvements are limited to increasing containment levee heights. The DMMP BU features have net

ecological benefits that are described below.

Incremental Ecological Benefits of the DMMP

Methods and Objectives

The DMMP BU features described above provide ecological benefits that would offset project impacts.

The benefits were used to offset project impacts before remaining, unavoidable impacts were quantified

and compensatory mitigation was developed. The WVA Model was used to quantify impacts to all

affected habitat types in the study area and establish the appropriate amount of offsetting DMMP benefits

by habitat type. An HS model was used to evaluate and quantify salinity impacts and benefits of the BU

plan. The WVA model is summarized in Chapter VIII and described in detail in Appendix C of the FEIS.

The HS model is also summarized in Chapter VIII, but it is described in detail in Brown and Stokes

(2009). Evaluation of BU alternatives was conducted within the ICT and technical workgroups in

meetings conducted from 2001 to 2006. The BU plan was revised by the USACE in 2009 to reflect

changes necessitated by project reformulation and revised HS modeling.

The DMMP benefits contribute to multiagency regional plans (the TPWD regional management plan for

J.D. Murphree WMA, Sea Rim State Park, Texas Point NWR, and McFaddin NWR [see Keith Lake: the

Texas Coastwide Erosion Response Plan [GLO 2004, 2005]; the Louisiana Comprehensive Management

Plan [Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority [LACPRA], 2007; USACE, 2008b]; the LA

Coast 2050 Plan [LCWCR/WCRA, 1998], and the North American Waterfowl Plan (NAWMP

Committee, 2004]), by restoring and preserving scarce and vulnerable wetlands and wildlife habitat,

nourishing eroding Gulf shorelines, restoring sediment to the littoral zone, and using dredged material

beneficially to the greatest extent possible. The DMMP also complies with Coastal Zone Management

Plans (CZMP) for each state by sharing dredged material from the Sabine Pass Channel to accomplish

regular shoreline nourishment. The Gulf Shore BU Feature shares this resource equally between the states

because it is dredged from a channel that straddles the state boundary.

238
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-29

Offsetting Ecological Impacts

BU features included in the DMMP provide benefits that offset all indirect and direct Texas impacts

(−412 AAHUs) of the Recommended Plan (Table VII-8) and partially offset impacts in Louisiana (Table

VII-9). In Texas, construction of the Neches River BU Feature and the Texas portion of the Gulf Shore

BU Feature will produce benefits totaling 1,068 AAHUs. Therefore, there will be a net gain of 656

AAHUs, which more than offsets all negative impacts that occur in Texas. Impacts that are offset include

the direct loss of 32 AAHUs for the conversion of fresh marsh to upland PA 24A. The majority of the

offset Texas impacts are in the Neches River watershed, but approximately 16 percent are losses to

cypress-tupelo swamp (–22 AAHUs) and fresh and intermediate marsh (–45 AAHUs) in the Sabine River

watershed. In Louisiana, the Gulf Shore BU Feature provides benefits totaling 210 AAHUs. Given total

Louisiana impacts of 1,709 AAHUs, there is a net loss of 1,499 AAHUs remaining in Louisiana after

offsetting benefits of the Louisiana portion of the Gulf Shore BU Feature are applied.

It is important to note that the impacts presented here do not include all impacts of the Recommended

Plan in Texas as FWP impacts in Texas’s Salt Bayou (TX 9) hydro-unit are not included. This is the

result of an ICT decision made in response to a USACE policy determination on a related project. During

an in-progress review of the Keith Lake Fish Pass Section 1135 study, it was determined that SNWW CIP

impacts to this area were being evaluated concurrently for the same area. The USACE Headquarters

concluded that impacts could not be evaluated under the CIP study if they were being addressed under the

Section 1135 Keith Lake Fish Pass project. The non-Federal sponsor of the Section 1135 study elected to

continue that study with the understanding that the ICT review of the Recommended Plan impacts to the

Salt Bayou hydro-unit would be necessary if a Section 1135 project is not approved prior to authorization

of the SNWW CIP. Excess in-kind benefits associated with Texas’s DMMP features (316 AAHUs) could

be used to partially offset the predicted Salt Bayou AAHU loss of 658 AAHUs.

With adoption of the DMMP, all FWP impacts in Texas would be offset and no compensatory mitigation

is proposed in conjunction with construction of the Recommended Plan. Impacts in Louisiana are

minimized to the greatest extent possible by the DMMP, but unavoidable impacts of 1,499 AAHUs

remain. When the impacts and DMMP benefits are not subdivided by state but are applied to the project

as a whole, a loss of 843 AAHUs remains (Table VII-10). A mitigation plan, described in Chapter VIII,

has been developed to compensate for unavoidable impacts of the Recommended Plan.

VII.H BASE PLAN FOR THE EXISTING 40-FOOT PROJECT

A Base Plan was developed that describes the without-project practices that would accomplish the

disposal of dredged material from the existing 40-foot project in the least costly, environmentally

acceptable manner. A summary description of existing and proposed PAs and BU features of the Base

Plan are provided below. In the next section, the cost of the Base Plan is compared to the O&M cost of

the Recommended Plan to determine the incremental O&M cost of the Recommended Plan (see Table

VII-12).

239
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-30

Table VII-8

Texas – FWP Impacts and Benefits by Habitat Type

No Effect

Impacts

Offset by

BU Plan

Acres

Impacted

Total

Loss

Offsetting

Benefits of

BU Plan

Net FWP

Benefit

Neches River Watershed

TX 1 North Neches River 412 0 0

TX 2 Neches-Lake Bayou 1,040 0 0

TX 3 Rose City 1,775 0 0

TX 5 Bessie Heights 293 0 0

TX 6 Old River Cove 197 0 0

Subtotal - Neches River 3,717 0 0 0 0 0

Sabine River Watershed

TX 10 Cow Bayou 388 0 0

TX 11 Adams Bayou 640 0 0

LA/TX 1 Sabine Island 524 0 0

Subtotal - Sabine River 1,552 0 0 0 0 0

Total Bottomland Hardwood 5,269 0 0 0 0 0

Neches River Watershed

TX 1 North Neches River 2,760 0 0

TX 2 Neches-Lake Bayou 2,277 0 0

TX 3 Rose City 464 0 0

Subtotal - Neches River 5,501 0 0 0 0 0

Sabine River Watershed

TX 10 Cow Bayou 110 0 0

TX 11 Adams Bayou 115 -4 -4

TX 12 Blue Elbow South 689 -18 -18

LA/TX 1 Sabine Island 1,194 0 0

LA/TX 2 Blue Elbow 2,737 0 0

Subtotal - Sabine River 4,041 0 804 -22 0 -22

Total Cypress/Tupelo Swamp 9,542 0 804 -22 0 -22

Neches River Watershed

TX 1 North Neches River 436 0 0

TX 2 Neches-Lake Bayou 1,535 0 0

TX 3 Rose City PA24A* 86 -32 -32

TX 3 Rose City 3,241 -1 178 177

TX 4 West of Rose City 492 0 0

TX 5 Bessie Heights 2,147 0 0

TX 7 GIWW North 4,806 -140 -140

Subtotal - Neches River 4,610 0 8,133 -173 178 5

Sabine River Watershed

TX 10 Cow Bayou 1,775 -18 -18

TX 11 Adams Bayou 599 -15 -15

Subtotal - Sabine River 0 0 2,374 -33 0 -33

Total Fresh Marsh 4,610 0 10,507 -206 178 -28

Neches River Watershed

TX 5 Bessie Heights 6,933 -14 433 419

TX 8 Texas Point 1,742 -19 -19

TX 13 Groves 437 -3 -3

Subtotal - Neches River 0 0 9,112 -36 433 397

Sabine River Watershed

TX 10 Cow Bayou 1,144 -12 -12

Subtotal - Sabine River 0 0 1,144 -12 0 -12

Total Intermediate Marsh 0 0 10,256 -48 433 385

Neches River Watershed

TX 6 Old River Cove 8,760 -116 235 119

TX 8 Texas Point 2,546 -7 -7

TX 7 GIWW North 647 -8 -8

Subtotal - Neches River 0 0 11,953 -131 235 104

Total Brackish Marsh 0 0 11,953 -131 235 104

Neches River Watershed

TX 8 Texas Point 5,708 -5 222 217

Subtotal - Neches River 0 5,708 0 -5 222 217

Total Saline Marsh 0 5,708 0 -5 222 217

Total Neches River Impacts 13,828 5,708 29,198 -345 1,068 723

Total Sabine River Impacts 5,593 0 4,322 -67 0 -67

Total - All Habitats 19,421 5,708 33,520 -412 1,068 656

* Direct impact associated with conversion of wetland to upland PA24A.

Bottomland Hardwood

Brackish Marsh

Saline Marsh

Intermediate Marsh

Fresh Marsh

Cypress/Tupelo Swamp

Offset Impacts by Acres and Habitat

Type (acres)

HU # Hydrologic Unit (HU) Name

Total Impacts / Benefits by Habitat

Type (AAHUs)

240
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-31

Table VII-9

Louisiana – FWP Impacts and Benefits by Habitat Type

No Impact

Impacts

Offset by

BU Plan

Acres

Impacted Total Loss

Offsetting

Benefits of

BU Plan

Net FWP

Impact

All HUs in Sabine River Watershed

LA 1 Perry Ridge 2,158 0 0 0 0 0

LA/TX 1 Sabine Island 1,041 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 3,199 0 0 0 0 0

LA/TX 1 Sabine Island 5,998 0 0 0 0 0

LA/TX 2 Blue Elbow 650 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 6,648 0 0 0 0 0

LA 1 Perry Ridge 0 0 18,859 -65 0 -65

LA 7 Southeast Sabine 0 0 2,634 -11 0 -11

LA 8 Southwest Gum Cove 0 0 3,615 -2 0 -2

Subtotal 0 0 25,108 -78 0 -78

LA 1 Perry Ridge 0 0 4,704 -53 0 -53

LA 2 Willow Bayou 0 0 35,109 -328 0 -328

LA 3 Black Bayou 0 0 34,941 -509 0 -509

LA 4 West Johnsons Bayou 0 0 11,110 -269 0 -269

LA 5 Sabine Lake Ridges 0 0 9,270 -218 0 -218

LA 7 Southeast Sabine 5,400 0 0 0 0

LA 8 Southwest Gum Cove 0 0 6,605 -4 0 -4

LA 9 East Johnsons Bayou 0 0 26,138 -190 0 -190

Subtotal 5,400 0 127,877 -1,571 0 -1,571

LA 2 Willow Bayou 0 0 1,182 -1 0 -1

LA 3 Black Bayou 0 0 3,195 -1 0 -1

LA 4 West Johnsons Bayou 0 0 2,078 -1 0 -1

LA 5 Sabine Lake Ridges 0 0 15,962 -14 0 -14

LA 6 Johnsons Bayou Ridge 0 0 2,744 -6 0 -6

Subtotal 0 0 25,161 -23 0 -23

LA 5 Sabine Lake Ridges 0 3,767 0 -35

LA 6 Johnsons Bayou Ridge 0 370 0 -2

Subtotal 4,137 0 -37 210 173

Louisiana Impacts Total 15,247 4,137 178,146 -1,709 210 -1,499

210 173

Bottomland Hardwood

Saline Marsh

Cypress/Tupelo Swamp

Fresh Marsh

Intermediate Marsh

Brackish Marsh

HU # Hydrologic Unit (HU) Name

Total Impacts / Benefits by Habitat

Type (AAHUs)

Offset Impacts by Acres and

Habitat Type (acres)

241
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-32

Table VII-10

Net FWP Impacts for Project as a Whole (AAHUs)

Bottomland

Hardwood

CypressTupelo

Swamp

Fresh

Marsh

Intrmd

Marsh

Brackish

Marsh

Saline

Marsh Total

Texas

Neches River watershed 0 0 -173 -36 -131 -5 -345

Sabine River watershed 0 -22 -33 -12 0 0 -67

Subtotal 0 -22 -206 -48 -131 -5 -412

Louisiana

Sabine River watershed 0 0 -78 -1,571 -23 -37 -1,709

Total Impacts 0 -22 -284 -1619 -154 -42 -2121

Texas

Neches River watershed

Neches River BU Feature 0 0 178 305 363 0 846

Gulf Shore BU Feature (TX Point) 0 0 0 0 0 222 222

Subtotal 0 0 178 305 363 222 1068

Louisiana

Sabine River watershed

Gulf Shore BU Feature (LA Point) 0 0 0 0 0 210 210

Total DMMP Benefits 0 0 178 305 363 432 1278

Texas

Neches River watershed 0 0 5 269 232 217 723

Sabine River watershed 0 -22 -33 -12 0 0 -67

Net Texas Benefits (positive) 656

Net Louisiana Impacts (negative) 0 0 -78 -1571 -23 173 -1499

Net FWP Impacts 0 -22 -106 -1314 209 390 -843

Impacts

DMMP Benefits

Net SNWW CIP FWP Impacts

The offshore channels (Sabine Bank Channel, Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel, and Sabine Pass Jetty

Channel) would be maintained with a hopper dredge, and approximately 162 mcy of material would be

placed in four existing ODMDSs. Bed sediments in the offshore channels vary from 4.3 percent sand and

95.7 percent silt plus clay in the Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel to 24.3 percent sand and 75.7 percent silt

plus clay in the Sabine Bank Channel (Parchure et al., 2005). These sites have sufficient capacity for the

50-year period of analysis as they are located in a dispersive environment where dredged material does

not accumulate.

For the inshore Sabine Pass Channel, the analysis of placement alternatives conducted for this study

resulted in a change from traditional upland placement at PA 5. The Gulf Shore Feature was evaluated as

a BU alternative for 13.8 mcy of maintenance material from Section 5 (total of 16 cycles, 3 years each),

the channel section closest to the coast (see Engineering Plates C-09 and C-10, Appendix 1). Material

from channel Section 6 would continue to be placed into PA 5 (16.8 mcy total; 16 cycles of 3 years each),

because the longer pumping distance to the coast makes shore nourishment cost prohibitive. The 50-year

stream of costs for BU and traditional upland placement alternatives was compared for both the Base and

Recommended Plans, as shown in Table VII-11. These costs were developed during the detailed design

phase, using a different cost ($1.12/gallon fuel cost) and price level (October 2005). Costs have not been

242
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-33

updated because it is a screening phase cost comparison. No changes have been made to these alternatives

since they were initially compared. Costs for both alternatives would change proportionately if they were

updated with October 2009 price levels, and the difference in cost between the two plans would not be

materially different. During the detailed evaluation of screened alternatives, the Gulf Shore Feature was

compared to the Base Plan option. The Base Plan option entails placing all Section 5 material in upland

confined PA 5, with regular raisings of the containment levee as required to contain the material. The cost

analysis determined that the Gulf Shore Feature is the least-cost, environmentally acceptable alternative

for the 40-foot Base Plan. It is, therefore, included in the Base Plan for the existing project. Since it is also

the least-cost O&M alternative for the proposed 48-foot project, it is the preferred placement option for

Sabine Pass Channel Section 5 in the Recommended Plan.

Table VII-11

Cost Comparison of Gulf Shore Beneficial Use Feature to Base Plan PA 5

(All costs in dollars)

Placement Alternatives for

Section 5 Maintenance Material Base Plan Selected Plan

Gulf Shore BU Feature 2,006,000 3,225,000

Upland PA 5 2,200,000 4,366,000

Difference (194,000) (1,141,000)

Presented as average annual costs; October 2005 price levels, $1.12 per gallon fuel cost;

4.875 percent interest rate

To contain 229.4 mcy of material from the inshore channels over the 50-year period of analysis for the

project as a whole, the heights of existing PAs would be raised on a regular, recurring schedule in

accordance with existing SNWW management practices. One new PA in the middle reach of the Neches

River Channel (an expansion cell at PA 24A) would be needed to provide sufficient capacity for the 50-

year period. On average, bed sediments vary in the inland channels from 38.3 percent sand and

61.7 percent silt plus clay in the Neches River Channel, to 16.2 percent sand and 83.8 percent silt plus

clay in the Port Arthur Canal (Parchure et al., 2005). BU features are not included in the Base Plan for the

inland channels because the lack of suitable material makes construction and maintenance of containment

levees more expensive than placing the material in existing PAs. However, Section 204 projects will be

considered on a project-by-project basis if non-Federal sponsors express an interest in paying the

incremental cost for such projects.

Material from non-Federal dredging of private mooring and dock facilities would also continue to be

placed in upland PAs along with the material from the Federal project. Non-Federal dredging quantities

vary throughout the length of the waterway. The non-Federal dredging quantity is defined as a percentage

of the channel shoaling by section and can be found within the Shoaling Parameters Table in the DMMP

(FEIS, Appendix D). The quantity is based on the presence of local facilities, the square footage of the

facility, and the shoaling rate of the adjacent channel. The non-Federal material is placed within the same

PAs as the material from the adjacent waterway section.

243
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-34

The average annual cost of the 50-year Base Plan for the 40-foot project is $40,938,000. Base Plan costs

are presented as average annual equivalents of the stream of maintenance costs over the 50-year period of

analysis. Prices used for the comparison were developed in October 2007, with an interest rate of

4.875 percent. Costs include cyclical maintenance dredging using a hopper dredge offshore and a

hydraulic pipeline dredge for the inshore reaches, regular levee raisings to provide additional capacity at

inland PAs, and the purchase and development of a new upland site at PA 24A. The cost to provide

additional capacity for non-Federal dredging is included in the total cost per reach.

VII.I INCREMENTAL O&M COST OF THE PROPOSED 48-FOOT

PROJECT

Description of O&M Activities for the Recommended Plan

The 50-year O&M plan for the placement of dredged material from the Recommended Plan is also

summarized in Table VII-12. The O&M placement plan for the Recommended Plan must provide

significantly more PA capacity than the SNWW 40-foot Base Plan. The Recommended Plan would

generate 650 mcy of maintenance material over the 50-year period of analysis, which is 60 percent higher

than the base plan quantities. Forty-three percent of the maintenance quantities projected for the

Recommended Plan would originate from inshore channels, and 57 percent from offshore channels. It is

projected that approximately 5.2 percent of the dredged material from inshore channels will be associated

with non-Federal dredging. The quantity is based on the presence of local facilities, the square footage of

the facility, and the shoaling rate of the adjacent channel. The non-Federal material is placed within the

same PAs as the material from the adjacent waterway section.

O&M for the Recommended Plan consists of the continued use of 4 existing ODMDSs; the creation of 4

new ODMDSs; 16 existing upland PAs; the addition of 2 new cells at existing upland sites (PAs 18A and

24A), and BU components of the Neches River Feature (Bessie Heights East and Rose City East) and

Gulf Shore Feature. The existing management practice of regular, recurring containment levee lifts would

continue at all upland PAs, but no DAMP would be used.

The hydraulic construction of containment levees with new work material provides a cost-effective

construction method that reduces the cost of providing capacity for the new work and maintenance

material on the Neches River Channel by reducing final levee elevations at upland PAs.

Incremental O&M Cost of the Recommended Plan

The average annual cost of the 50-year O&M plan for the Recommended Plan is $68,632,000. The total

O&M incremental cost for the Recommended Plan is $32,067,000. Of this total, $61,000 is the cost of

providing non-Federal disposal facility capacity. The O&M costs for the Recommended Plan presented in

Table VII-12 do not include new work construction costs. The non-Federal disposal facility costs are

summarized per channel for the Recommended Plan in Table VII-12 to facilitate proper distribution of

Federal and non-Federal project costs. Costs are presented as average annual equivalents of the stream of

244
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-35

Table VII-12

Incremental O&M Cost for the Recommended Plan

Average Annual Costs, October 2009 Price Levels, 4.375% Interest Rate

40-foot Base Plan 48-foot Selected Plan

Channel

Placement

Sites

50-year

Quantity

(mcy)

Average

Annual

Cost ($)

Placement

Sites

50-year

Quantity

(mcy)

Average

Annual Cost

($)

nonFederal

Disposal

Facility

Average

Annual

Cost ($)

Federal

Project

O&M

Average

Annual

Costs ($)

Total

Incremental

O&M

Average

Annual Cost

($)

Sabine

Bank

Extension

ODMDSs

A, B, C, D

n/a n/a ODMDSs

A, B, C, D

36.2 3,913,000 3,913,000 3,913,000

Sabine

Bank

Channel

ODMDSs 1

and 2

50.8 2,291,000 ODMDSs 1

and 2

96.4 8,089,000 8,089,000 5,798,000

Sabine

Pass

Outer Bar

Channel

ODMDS 3 99.7 10,761,000 ODMDS 3 223.7 21,733,000 21,733,000 10,972,000

Sabine

Pass Jetty

Channel

ODMDS 4 11.4 1,472,000 ODMDS 4 13.5 1,973,000 1,973,000 501,000

Sabine

Pass

Channel

PAs 5

(N&S), 5B,

5C, TX8-

11, LA5-6

30.6 2,508,000 PAs 5

(N&S), 5B,

5C, TX8-

11, LA5-6

34.8 4,464,000 4,464,000 1,956,000

Port

Arthur

Canal &

Taylor

Bayou

Basins &

Channels

PAs 8, 9,

9A

88.2 7,851,000 PAs 8, 9A,

9B

82.9 12,482,000 6,000 12,482,000 4,631,000

SabineNeches

Canal

PAs 8, 11 60.1 3,629,000 PAs 8, 11 73.2 6,067,000 9,000 6,067,000 2,438,000

Neches

River

Channel

PAs 12, 13,

14, 16, 17,

18, 21, 23,

23A, 24,

24A, 25,

25A, 26,

27A, 27C,

27D

66.5 8,134,000 PAs 12, 13,

14, 16, 17,

18, 18A,

21, 23,

23A, 24,

24A, 25,

25A, 26,

27A, 27C,

27D, TX5-

2, TX3-1E

89.7 9,992,000 46,000 9,992,000 1,858,000

Totals 407.3 36,646,000 650.4 68,713,000 61,000 68,713,000 32,067,000

Average Annual Costs, October 2009 Price Levels, 4.375% interest

245
VII: Dredged Material Management Plan

VII-36

maintenance costs over the 50-year period of analysis. Prices used for the comparison were developed in

October 2009, with an interest rate of 4.375 percent. O&M costs for the Recommended Plan include

cyclical maintenance dredging using a hopper dredge in the offshore channels and a pipeline dredge for

the inshore channels; offshore placement at four existing and four new ODMDS; real estate costs to

obtain and construct two new upland sites at PA 18A and PA 24A; regular levee lifts and spillway

rehabilitation for upland PAs; the placement of maintenance material at Bessie Heights East (7 cycles)

and Rose City East (1 cycle) components of the Neches River BU Feature and the Gulf Shore Feature (15

cycles); maintenance of containment levees at the BU sites; and monitoring of the BU sites.

246
VIII-1

VIII. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MITIGATION PLAN

VIII.A OVERVIEW

This chapter discusses the evaluation of mitigation measures considered during formulation of the

Recommended Plan, and presents the Ecological Mitigation Plan. The Ecological Mitigation Plan

compensates for unavoidable impacts to nationally significant intertidal marsh habitat. Evaluation of

measures was conducted within the ICT and technical workgroups. ICT and workgroup meetings were

conducted from 2001 to 2006. In 2009, changes in the proposed project and HS modeling necessitated

that the WVA modeling be revised. Due to schedule constraints, the USACE performed the modeling

without the ICT involvement, basing it as closely as possible on methods and assumptions used by the

ICT in the original modeling. The results of this remodeling were coordinated with the ICT. A quality

check was also performed for the revised worksheets. The potential for cultural resource mitigation is

described at the end of this section.

VIII.B ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS SUMMARY

The impacts of the Recommended Plan are related primarily to a decrease in the overall biological

productivity of approximately 182,000 acres of marshes and forested wetlands over the 50-year period of

analysis. Biological productivity of the wetlands in the affected area would decline as increases in salinity

affect the productivity of marsh and cypress-tupelo swamp, and the fish and wildlife that depend upon

this habitat. Indirect adverse effects could lead to the loss of marsh acreage as stressed emergent marsh

converts to open water. The WVA Emergent Marsh Community Model (EMCM) predicts a loss of 691

acres of marsh in Louisiana over the period of analysis. Higher salinity would have a negligible effect on

the productivity of cypress-tupelo swamp on the Sabine River near the GIWW by marginally slowing the

rates of tree growth and reducing some herbaceous understory; no loss of cypress-tupelo swamp acreage

would be expected. No impacts from the Recommended Plan were identified for bottomland hardwoods.

Direct effects of the Recommended Plan would be minor and temporary. These temporary, short-term

impacts are associated with navigation channel improvements and the placement of dredged material.

They include (1) impacts to water quality and benthic organisms and their Gulf, estuarine, and riverine

water-bottom habitats resulting from dredging to construct the navigation improvements, the creation of

new offshore ODMDSs, the borrow area trench for Willow Bayou mitigation areas, and marsh restoration

in shallow, open-water areas; (2) potential dredging impacts to bottom-feeding and pelagic organisms

such as sea turtles; and (3) impacts to shoreline birds and their habitat from the placement of maintenance

material on the Gulf shoreline.

Potential adverse affects to threatened and endangered sea turtles during hopper dredging to construct the

Entrance Channel would be addressed by the adoption of reasonable and prudent measures to avoid

impacts that are established in the Biological Opinion for the CIP. No other adverse effects to threatened

and endangered species have been identified.

247
VIII: Development of the Mitigation Plan

VIII-2

The Recommended Plan’s effects on the SNWW’s marsh and swamp systems were quantified using the

WVA Model. In the table below, net changes in acres and AAHUs are presented for the Recommended

Plan, including benefits of the DMMP BU features (Table VIII-1). The lost ecological value of all

potential project impacts (prior to reduction by benefits of the BU features) is represented by –2,121

AAHUs. These impacts would be offset by adoption of the DMMP BU features that provide benefits of

1,278 AAHUs. When the impacts and DMMP benefits are applied to the project as a whole, unavoidable

impacts of –843 AAHUs would remain.

Table VIII-1

Net Project Impacts and Benefits by Average Annual Habitat Units

Bottomland

Hardwood Swamp

Fresh

Marsh

Intrmd

Marsh

Brackish

Marsh

Saline

Marsh Totals

Recommended Plan Impacts (negative AAHUs)

Texas 0 –22 –206 –48 –131 –5 –412

Louisiana 0 0 –78 –1,571 –23 –37 –1,709

Total Project Impacts 0 –22 –284 –1,619 –154 –42 –2,121

Recommended Plan Benefits (positive AAHUs)

Texas 0 0 178 433 235 222 1,068

Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 210 210

Total Project Benefits 0 0 178 433 235 432 1,278

Net Project Benefits or

Impacts (AAHUs)

0 –22 –106 –1,186 81 390 –843

VIII.C PROCEDURES FOR THE FORMULATION AND

ASSESSMENT OF MITIGATION MEASURES

Compliance with Federal Requirements

Implementation guidance for Section 2036(a) of Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 07

(Mitigation for Fish and Wildlife and Wetlands Losses), issued August 31, 2009, requires that the

Recommended Plan contain a specific plan to mitigate fish and wildlife losses since it has been

determined that the Recommended Plan would have unavoidable impacts after benefits of the DMMP BU

features are applied. Adverse impacts to ecological resources that are caused by a proposed project must

be avoided or minimized to the extent practicable, and remaining unavoidable impacts compensated to the

extent justified. A Mitigation Plan has been developed for the CIP Recommended Plan, which minimizes

impacts as described briefly below, and provides sufficient compensatory mitigation for significant

resources such that only negligible adverse impacts remain.

Central to mitigation planning is the determination of significance, as mitigation is required only for

impacts to significant resources. Significance must be based upon the contribution of the resource to the

Nation’s economy, and technical, institutional, and/or public recognition of the value the resource.

Criteria for determining significance include, but are not limited to, scarcity or uniqueness of the resource

248
VIII: Development of the Mitigation Plan

VIII-3

from a national, regional, state, or local perspective. The USFWS Habitat Stewardship Program has

identified three nationally recognized “scarce and vulnerable” wetland habitats in the study area: estuarine

intertidal emergent, palustrine emergent, and palustrine forested wetlands. These are the same sensitive

wetland habitats (saline, brackish, intermediate and fresh marsh, cypress-tupelo swamps, and bottomland

hardwoods) addressed by the CIP Mitigation Plan.

These same habitats are also considered significant and vulnerable by the Coastal Wetlands Planning,

Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA), Public Law 101-646 (Title III) and the NAWMP (2004). The

Texas Land and Water Resources Conservation Plan (TPWD, 2005) recognizes the Gulf coastal marshes

in Tier One of high priority eco-regions, and considers these habitats to be the most threatened of the

state’s two high diversity eco-regions. Significant marsh habitat on the Lower Neches River and along the

Texas Point shoreline has been declared “critical erosion areas” by the Texas Coastwide Erosion

Response Plan. Furthermore, coastal marshes in the Louisiana portion of the study area are recognized as

threatened and vulnerable by the Louisiana Coast 2050 Plan (LCWCR/WCRA, 1998), the Louisiana

Coastal Areas Ecosystem Restoration Study (USACE, 2004) and the Louisiana Comprehensive

Management Plan (LACPRA, 2007; USACE 2008). High population growth and associated development

along the coast have fragmented wildlife habitat, changed river flows, decreased water quality, and

increased sediment loads and pollutants.

The most significant trend adversely affecting the study area is the high rate of wetland loss that has

occurred in recent decades (Berman, 2005; Morton, 2003; Morton et al., 2005; Shinkle and Dokka, 2004;

Titus and Narayanan, 1995). In Louisiana, a net land loss of 21 percent between 1978 and 2000 has been

reported in the Chenier Plain subregion of coastal Louisiana, which includes the Sabine estuary (USACE,

2004). In Texas, the most extensive losses of interior coastal wetlands in the state (12,632 acres between

1930 and 1978) have occurred in the Neches River delta. In total, over 90 percent of the emergent

marshes in the Lower Neches River delta have been converted to open water (Morton and Paine, 1990;

White et al., 1987), which is more than half of the total wetland loss in the State of Texas (Sutherlin,

1996).

Mitigation may include avoiding and minimizing project impacts to ecological resources, rectifying

impacts by restoring the affected environment, and reducing or eliminating impacts by preservation or

maintenance operations during the period of analysis. The Recommended Plan includes large DMMP BU

features on the Neches River and Gulf shoreline, which replace marsh and minimize shoreline erosion

that would occur as a result of the Recommended Plan. These DMMP features are described and

quantified in Chapter VII. In the Mitigation Plan, replacements of ecological resources are made “inkind” to the greatest extent possible. The WVA Model quantifies impacts to all affected habitat types in

the study area and provides a means to establish the appropriate amount of compensatory mitigation by

habitat type. The WVA Model and its results are described in detail in Appendix C of the FEIS.

Recommended mitigation measures are justified by an incremental analysis that is presented in detail in

the FEIS; results are summarized later in this chapter. This analysis identified the best-buy mitigation

plan, e.g., that plan in which the value of the last increment of losses prevented, reduced, or replaced is at

249
VIII: Development of the Mitigation Plan

VIII-4

least equal to the costs of the last added increment. The incremental analysis of mitigation measures was

performed with the certified version of IWR-PLAN software.

The USACE regulations (USACE, 2000b) recognize wetland resources and bottomland hardwoods for

special consideration in mitigation planning; these are the primary types of ecological resources affected

by the Recommended Plan. Impacts to wetlands must be fully mitigated and projects must meet the goal

of “no net loss” of wetlands. Mitigation for bottomland hardwoods should be made in-kind to the extent

possible. Bottomland hardwood forests should be treated as an ecological system when devising

mitigation, rather than mitigating specific species that use this habitat.

The Mitigation Plan described below fulfills the special requirements for wetlands and bottomland

hardwoods. These plans also contribute to several multiagency regional plans, such as the Louisiana

Comprehensive Management Plan (LACPRA, 2007; USACE, 2008b), Louisiana Coast 2050

(LCWCR/WCRA, 1998), the Texas Land and Water Resources Conservation Plan (TPWD, 2005), and

the NAWMP (NAWMP Plan Committee, 2004), by restoring and preserving scarce and vulnerable

wetlands and wildlife habitat.

Mitigation Planning Objectives

The following objectives were established to evaluate mitigation measures considered for the SNWW

CIP. The objectives were developed by the USACE in consultation with the ICT.

• Minimize salinity impacts to the SNWW affected area;

• Maximize the use of dredged material in mitigation measures;

• Meet the national goal of “no net loss” of wetlands;

• Replace lost habitat quality on a one-to-one basis as measured by AAHUs;

• Replace habitats in-kind to the extent practicable; and

• Mitigate losses in the state where they occur

These objectives reflected the most significant expected impacts of the CIP, widespread interest in

potential BU of dredged material, the national policy objective to prevent wetland loss, and the USACE

requirements to fully compensate for unavoidable project adverse effects. While the FEIS evaluates

impacts on the SNWW coastal and estuarine system without regard to state boundaries, the mitigation

plan should comply, to the greatest extent practicable, with the CZMP for each state. Under the Coastal

Zone Management Act (CZMA), states with approved coastal management programs have jurisdiction

within their coastal boundaries to ensure compliance with their programs. The CZMA and its

implementing regulations require that Federal activities comply to the maximum extent practicable with

these programs. In Louisiana, the Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act

functions as the state coastal management program for CZMA purposes. Compensatory mitigation is used

to offset any net loss of wetland ecological value after efforts have been made to avoid or minimize

impacts. Furthermore, the CWPPRA requires that Federal agencies ensure that maintenance or

250
VIII: Development of the Mitigation Plan

VIII-5

modification of navigation projects be consistent with the purposes of the restoration plan submitted

under CWPPRA. Louisiana has adopted a Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan under this authority with a

goal of no net loss of wetlands in coastal areas of Louisiana as a result of development activities. In

essence, this means that the SNWW mitigation plan for unavoidable project impacts in Louisiana would

propose one-to-one compensation for all AAHU losses. There is, however, a significant exception to this

requirement. Federal lands are excluded from coverage under the CZMA, and this means that

compensatory mitigation for impacts to Federal lands may be developed without regard to state

boundaries.

Since the CZMA does not apply to Federal lands, excess Texas BU benefits could be used to compensate

for impacts to Federal lands in Louisiana. The only lands affected by this exclusion are located in the

Sabine NWR. While the Texas Point and McFaddin NWRs in Texas would also be affected by salinity

increases associated with the project, two DMMP BU features (the Neches River and the Gulf Shore BU

features) provide benefits that offset all project impacts in Texas (including impacts to both NWRs) and

provide excess benefits of 656 AAHUs. The DMMP BU features fulfill Texas’s CZMP requirements to

avoid and minimize impacts to the coastal zone, such that no compensatory mitigation for Texas state

resources is needed.

Total SNWW project impacts to the Sabine NWR are –340 AAHUs. When these are removed from the

total project impacts in Louisiana (–1,499 AAHUs), the mitigation target proposed for compliance with

Louisiana’s CZMP is –1,159 AAHUs. Table VIII-2 illustrates this calculation. Since all mitigation

measures for the SNWW would be located in Louisiana, the new mitigation target would compensate for

total project losses of –843 AAHUs by providing 1,159 AAHUs of compensatory mitigation.

Table VIII-2

FWP Compensatory Mitigation Target for Louisiana

Units (AAHUs) Texas Louisiana Project

Net FWP Benefits/Impacts

Total Impacts (negative) –412 –1,709 –2,121

Total BU Benefits (positive) 1,068 210 1,278

Net FWP Benefits (positive) or Impacts (negative) 656 –1,499 –843

Excess Texas Benefits Applied to Federal Lands

Excess Texas Benefits 656

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Impacts –340

Net Excess Texas Benefits 316

Compensatory Mitigation Target

Net Impacts by State and Project –1,499 –843

Federal Impacts Compensated with Texas Excess Benefits 340

FWP Compensatory Mitigation Target –1,159 –843

251
VIII: Development of the Mitigation Plan

VIII-6

Models Used to Evaluate Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures

Since the primary environmental concerns are the interrelated issues of saltwater intrusion, marsh loss,

and destruction of wildlife habitat and fishery nursery areas, an engineering model was used to evaluate

salinity changes and an ecological model was used to evaluate the ecological effects of the CIP. Both

models played an integral role in the development of FWOP and FWP conditions and were used to

compare the effectiveness of mitigation measures. The HS model used for this study is an established,

three-dimensional (3-D) estuarine model adapted by the ERDC and applied to numerous deep-draft CIPs

around the country over the last decade (Brown and Stokes, 2009). The WVA Model is a suite of

ecological, habitat-based, community models known primarily from its use by a multiagency team of

Federal and State agencies in Louisiana to evaluate proposals for coastal restoration projects (LDNR,

1993; USFWS, 2002b, 2002c, 2002d, 2002e). It has also been used for other USACE projects in

Louisiana and on the upper Texas coast.

HS Modeling

Concerns that a deeper navigation channel would increase salinity in the Sabine Lake estuarine system

were addressed with a 3-D HS model that predicts changes in salinity, circulation, and water elevation

due to proposed channel improvements. The ERDC’s CHL worked closely with the MW to calibrate and

verify the base model for use in this system. Most of the agencies on the ICT were represented in the MW

and several (TPWD, TWDB, and ERDC-CHL) provided individuals with experience and expertise in HS

modeling. The MW reviewed the ERDC’s model calibration and verification process, provided data and

information on hydrologic connectivity, marsh elevation, and bathymetry, and reviewed modeling results

as part of the impacts evaluation. Baseline conditions of the channel geometry included actual depths, not

authorized depths, to ensure that environmental impacts associated with changes in salinity from the

existing condition versus the proposed 48-foot deep channel were captured.

The ERDC-CHL applied an established 3-D estuarine model (the ERDC-modified TABS MultiDimensional Numerical Modeling System) to compute hydrodynamics and salinity transport for the

proposed CIP. The model includes forcing due to tides, freshwater inflows, wind, Coriolis, and density

gradients due to salinity variation, and accounts for precipitation and evaporation. The code uses a finite–

element formulation, which gives it great flexibility in matching complex geometry. Over the last decade,

the code has been extensively used for a variety of the USACE field projects, including the HoustonGalveston Navigation Channels project; New York Harbor; St. Johns River, Florida; and Atchafalaya Bay

in Louisiana. Two of the special features of the code, wetting/drying and “marsh porosity,” enable

successful modeling of wetlands. A description of the model and its output is provided in a draft report by

the ERDC-CHL (Brown and Stokes, 2009). A detailed description of assumptions and methods

underlying use of HS model output in the ecological model is provided in Appendix C of the FEIS.

The estuarine model covers the entire study area from the Salt Bayou watershed on the west to near Gum

Cove Ridge in Louisiana on the east, and inland to north of IH 10. Effects were predicted by comparing

the model’s simulation of existing conditions and FWOP with RSLR conditions to those resulting from a

252
VIII: Development of the Mitigation Plan

VIII-7

48-foot channel. The design flows were based on inflows provided by the TWDB, utilizing future demand

and supply strategies from the 2007 Texas State Water Plan (TWDB, 2006). Modeling indicated that

RSLR would likely increase FWOP salinities up to 2.0 ppt in portions of the project area. FWP salinities

would not increase on the upper Neches and Sabine rivers but an increase of about 1.8 ppt on the Neches

River near Bessie Heights, 1.4 ppt near Keith Lake Fish Pass, and about 1.4 to 1.6 ppt on the eastern

shore of Sabine Lake would be likely.

Ecological Modeling

Habitat-based ecological models were used to determine the impacts and benefits of proposed navigation

channel improvements, BU features, and mitigation measures. The WVA Model employs a community

approach that assumes that optimal conditions for all fish and wildlife within a specific type of coastal

wetland habitat can be characterized by a group of significant variables, and that existing or future

conditions can be compared to that optimum, providing an index of habitat quality similar to those

developed under the well-established Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP). Variables utilized in the WVA

Model were selected from existing, widely accepted HEP models of resident fish and wildlife species

(USFWS, 1980). Appendix C of the FEIS maps and characterizes all significant habitats in the study area,

explains how the WVA Model evaluates project impacts and benefits, describes the methods and

assumptions used in the modeling process, assesses impacts of the Recommended Plan, and evaluates the

effectiveness of DMMP BU and mitigation measures in AAHUs.

The WVA Model was chosen as the most appropriate ecological model for the SNWW project based on a

number of factors. It is a quantitative, habitat-based assessment methodology developed to prioritize

Louisiana coastal restoration projects submitted for funding under the CWPPRA. The WVA model

applies specifically to habitat types present along the Louisiana coast, and these same types of coastal

habitat (Chenier Plain, emergent coastal marsh, bottomland hardwoods, and cypress-tupelo swamp) are

present throughout the Sabine-Neches coastal watershed in both Texas and Louisiana, and in fact are a

continuation of the same system (Daigle et al., 2006; Griffith et al., 2004). In addition, the areas contain

the same fish and wildlife communities and similar soils and topography, and the Sabine-Calcasieu basins

share an interconnected hydrology. Furthermore, the types of variables measured by the WVA Model are

sensitive to the types of changes that have been identified as the highest concerns by resource agencies

and the general public for the SNWW project. Specifically, these are potential changes in salinity, stress

and death of marsh vegetation, and further loss or degradation of already stressed coastal marshes. The

variables measured by the WVA Model are recognized scientifically and technically as important in

characterizing overall habitat quality. The WVA Model has community-specific models (e.g., saline

marsh or cypress-tupelo swamp) each with a unique set of variables. It combines the effects of changes in

habitat productivity (quality) and changes in wetland acreage (quantity) into one AAHU value. Habitat

productivity is measured by changes to both terrestrial and shallow-water habitat that affect its usefulness

to fish and wildlife. Variables included in the models were selected based on their importance as fish and

wildlife habitat and for their sensitivity to the types of changes that have been identified as the highest

concerns for this study (e.g., salinity, stress, and death of marsh vegetation, further loss or degradation of

already stressed coastal marshes).

253
VIII: Development of the Mitigation Plan

VIII-8

The WVA Model has been assessed for use in conjunction with the SNWW project, as required by EC

1105-2-407. The WVA Model is not a USACE corporate model, and therefore certification is not

required, but the model must be approved for use. This approval was provided by the Deep-Draft Center

for Expertise based upon the results of a model assessment (Louis Berger Group and Toxicological and

Environmental Associates [LBG/TEA], 2008). The assessment evaluated the application of all of the

model components used to quantify impacts and benefits of SNWW CIP alternatives, including BU

features and compensatory mitigation. The assessment determined that the model was theoretically

appropriate and correctly applied, and it has been approved for use for the SNWW study by the DeepDraft Navigation Center of Expertise (see FEIS Appendix C, Attachment 1).

Consideration of Environmental Mitigation Costs During Plan Formulation

During the preliminary plan formulation screening for the CIP project as a whole, ecological benefits and

mitigation costs were not calculated for the nonstructural and 120-plus variations of structural plans for

channel improvements. However, all plans, including the No-Action Alternative, were informally

reviewed for potential effects to the environment in a nonquantitative manner, and this information was

evaluated along with cost data in determining which plans would advance into detailed evaluation.

During detailed evaluation of screened CIP alternatives, the identification of the Recommended Plan was

based upon technical, economic, and environmental factors. Costs were estimated for all of the

alternatives and used to determine the benefit to cost ratio in the economic analysis. Included in the costs

were dredging, levee construction, relocations (including utility relocations), and O&M costs for the 50-

year period of analysis. Ecological mitigation costs for the six depth alternatives were estimated using HS

model salinity projections for the 40-, 45- and 48-foot channel depths. Salinity was chosen as the best

factor on which to base interpolations of mitigation costs because it is the primary driver in the ecological

modeling that was used to determine the compensatory mitigation plan. The cost interpolation assumed

that there would be a linear relationship between predicted salinities for each channel depth at the end of

the period of analysis and the cost of mitigation.

VIII.D SELECTION OF THE BEST BUY MITIGATION PLAN

A detailed description of the preliminary and final screening of potential mitigation measures is provided

in the FEIS. A large number of potential mitigation measures was evaluated; measures were generally of

two types: measures to reduce or avoid salinity intrusion and measures to restore or protect habitat. The

purchase of credits from mitigation banks established by others was considered as an option in providing

compensatory mitigation for the Recommended Plan. Only two existing mitigation banks were identified

in the lower Sabine and Neches watersheds. Neither was available for use as the credits from one were

sold out and the other was developed for the exclusive use of a State agency.

The recommended mitigation plan was selected using the tools of cost-effectiveness analysis and

incremental cost analysis (CE/ICA) and the certified version of IWR-PLAN. The result of the incremental

analysis is shown on Figure VIII-1 and Table VIII-3. Ten best buy plans were identified, with incremental

254
VIII: Development of the Mitigation Plan

VIII-9

costs ranging from $2,716 to $19,935 per AAHU. A detailed explanation of this table is provided in the

FEIS, Chapter 5.

Figure VIII-1. Results of the CE/ICA Analysis

Table VIII-3

Best Buy Plans Identified by Incremental Cost Analysis (October 2005 Price Levels)

Average

Cost

1 0.00 0.00

2 A0B0C0D0E0F0G0H0I0J0K1L0M0 307.00 833,787.00

3 A0B0C0D0E0F0G0H1I0J0K1L0M0 505.00 1,587,504.00

4 A0B0C0D0E0F0G0H1I0J0K2L0M0 815.00 2,833,144.00

5 A0B0C0D1E0F0G0H1I0J0K2L0M0 967.00 3,454,021.00

7 A0B0C0D3E0F0G0H1I0J0K2L0M0 1,600.00 6,778,538.00

8 A0B0C1D3E0F0G0H1I0J0K2L0M0 2,045.00 9,573,089.00

9 A0B0C2D3E0F0G0H1I0J0K2L0M0 2,537.00 12,759,111.00

10 A0B0C2D3E0F0G0H1I0J0K2L0M2 2,591.00 13,129,173.00

11 A0B0C2D3E0F0G0H1I0J0K2L0M3 2,627.00 13,846,826.00

Inc. Cost

Per

AAHU

6,853.0000

5,270.9654 717,653.0000 36.0000 19,934.8056

5,067.2223 370,062.0000 54.0000

6,279.8899

6,475.6545

445.0000

5,029.2121 3,186,022.0000 492.0000

A0B0C0D2E0F0G0H1I0J0K2L0M0 1,011,599.0000

4,681.2171 2,794,551.0000

4,236.5863 2,312,918.0000 419.0000 5,520.0907

4,018.1935

3,571.8935 620,877.0000 152.0000 4,084.7171

3,476.2503 1,245,640.0000 310.0000

2,715.9186

3,143.5723 753,717.0000 198.0000 3,806.6515

No Action Plan

2,715.9186 833,787.0000 307.0000

($1.00 / AAHU)

Output

(AAHU)

Cost

($1.00)

Incremental Cost Inc.

Output

($1.00)

6 1,181.00 4,465,620.00 3,781.2193 214.0000 4,727.0981

Counter Plan Alternative

255
VIII: Development of the Mitigation Plan

VIII-10

Best Buy Plan 6 (Solutions D2, H1, and K2 – shown in bold in Table VIII-4) appears to be an efficient

mitigation plan since it reaches the mitigation target of 1,159 AAHUs by providing a total of 1,181

AAHUs. Best Buy Plan 6 consists of emergent marsh restoration in two Willow Bayou areas (totaling 687

acres) and three areas in the Black Bayou area (totaling 2,096 acres). Best Buy Plan 7 was also evaluated

to determine whether its considerable additional benefits were worth the comparatively small incremental

cost. Best Buy Plan 7 provides 420 additional AAHUs (719 more acres restored in Willow Bayou) by

adding Solution D3 for an additional average annual cost per unit of output of $4,237 (total average

annual cost of $2,312,918). Since the estimated total first cost of this increment is $39,275,000

(screening-level cost) and Best Buy Plan 6 meets the mitigation target, Best Buy Plan 7 was deemed not

worth the additional investment.

Table VIII-4

Recommended Mitigation Plan

Recommended Mitigation Plan

Mitigation

AAHUs

Willow Bayou

LA 2-18 B Marsh Restoration (Sabine Lake dredging) 152

LA 2ADD B Marsh Restoration (Sabine Lake dredging) 214

Black Bayou West

LA 3-10R Marsh Restoration (Sabine River Channel maintenance

material) 198

Black Bayou East

LA 3-15 B Marsh Restoration (GIWW dredging) 307

LA 3-18 B Marsh Restoration (GIWW dredging) 310

Total Compensation 1,181

FWP Mitigation Target –1,159

Net Benefits After Compensation 22

VIII.E RECOMMENDED ECOLOGICAL MITIGATION PLAN

The CE/ICA selected Best Buy Plan 6 as the most efficient combination of mitigation measures to

compensate for the indirect impacts of the Recommended Plan. It provides 1,181 AAHUs, which is

22 AAHUs more than the mitigation target. It is important to remember that additional compensatory

mitigation would be provided in Louisiana beyond the total 843 AAHUs impacts of the Recommended

Plan. The mitigation plan would result in a net gain of 338 AAHUs for the project as a whole.

Unavoidable impacts of the SNWW CIP remain only in Louisiana; all CIP impacts in Texas are

minimized and offset by the DMMP BU and no mitigation is required. Therefore, all of the mitigation

measures in Best Buy Plan 6 would be located in Louisiana. The mitigation plan consists of restoring five

degraded marsh areas east of Sabine Lake near Willow and Black bayous, Louisiana (Figure VIII-2,

Table VIII-5). The reader is referred to the FEIS for a detailed description of each mitigation measure.

256
10

82

2

Johnson

Bayou

South Stark Canal

Green's Bayou

Black

Bayou Cut Off

Perry Ridge

Mouth of

Cow Bayou

Old River

Bayou

Sabine

Island

Black

Bayou

Orange

Pinehurst

West

Orange

Sabine National

Wildlife Refuge

Lower Neches

WMA

(Adam's Bayou Unit)

Blue Elbow Swamp/ Tony Houseman WMA

CAMERON

CALCASIEU

!

!

!

!

!

LOUISIANA

LA3-10R

LOUISIANA

LA3-15

LOUISIANA

LA3-18

LOUISIANA

LA2-18B

LOUISIANA

LA2-ADD B

GIWWEast/

Lake Charles Deepwater Channel

Willow

Bayou

Sabine River Channel

Texas

Lousiana

Borrow Trench

Access Channel

Figure VIII-2

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Mitigation Plan

Prepared for: USACE

Job No.: 441206.01

Prepared by: AP Date: 08/05/2009

N:\Clients\U_Z\USACE\Projects\Sabine_Neches\100007609\Figures\Fig_VIII_2_vr4.mxd

10,000

μ0 10,000

Feet

Legend

Channel Centerlines

State Boundaries

State Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas

Project Area, Mitigation Measures

Sabine

Lake

VIII-11

257
VIII: Development of the Mitigation Plan

VIII-12

This page intentionally left blank.

258
VIII: Development of the Mitigation Plan

VIII-13

Table VIII-5

Recommended Mitigation Plan – Acreage Analysis

Mitigation

Measure AAHUs

Total

Influence

Area (acres)

Nourished

Existing

Marsh

(acres)

Restored

Open Water

(acres)

Restored

Emergent

Marsh (acres)

Willow Bayou

LA 2-18B 152 681 367 63 251

LA 2-ADD B 21 1,285 745 104 436

Subtotal 173 1,966 1,112 167 687

Black Bayou West

LA 3-10R 198 2,465 1,317 356 792

Black Bayou East

LA 3-15B 307 1,788 878 227 683

LA 3-18B 310 1,876 1,048 207 621

Subtotal 617 3,664 1,926 434 1,304

Total Mitigation 1,181 8,095 4,355 957 2,783

The recommended Mitigation Plan compensates for the Recommended Plan’s salinity increase and

associated losses in marsh and productivity by marsh creation activities that would influence a total of

8,095 acres of Louisiana marshes in the Willow and Black Bayou watersheds. The plan would restore

2,783 acres of emergent marsh in existing open-water areas within the marsh, improve 957 acres of

shallow-water habitat by creating shallower, smaller ponds and channels within the restored marsh, and

stabilize and nourish 4,355 acres of existing marsh located in and around the marsh restoration zone.

Upon authorization of the CIP, the USACE would use its Navigation Servitude to access the mitigation

areas for the purposes of planning, construction, and postconstruction monitoring. Landowners would be

advised for access to their property. All restored areas would remain jurisdictional wetlands and continue

to be subject to the navigational servitude; therefore, conservation easements would not be required.

Monitoring and Contingency Plans

Monitoring and contingency plans for the mitigation measures and DMMP BU features are presented in

Appendix J of the FEIS. The monitoring and contingency plans for mitigation measures and BU features

have been developed in accordance with recent implementing guidance for Sections 2036 (a) and 2039,

respectively, of WRDA 07. The monitoring plans identify specific ecological success criteria to be used

in determining if the mitigation and DMMP BU features have been successful. Appendix J presents a

description of the key monitoring parameters, periodicity, costs, and responsible parties.

259
VIII: Development of the Mitigation Plan

VIII-14

Periodic monitoring to determine the success of marsh mitigation measures and DMMP BU features

would continue until the Division Commander determines that the ecological success criteria of the

mitigation and DMMP BU features have been met. This determination would be based upon monitoring

results and the ICT consultation reports provided by the District Engineer. The ICT would be consulted

annually to determine progress in the planning, construction, and postconstruction evaluation of the

ecological success of these features.

VIII.F FULFILLMENT OF MITIGATION PLANNING

OBJECTIVES

Adoption of the ecological mitigation plan will fulfill the second planning objective to maintain the

ecological values of estuarine resources within the project area. The mitigation plan (+1,181 AAHUs)

fully compensates for AAHU losses to state resources in Louisiana, and results in a net gain of 338

AAHUs for the project as a whole. Impacts to East Sabine Lake marshes are replaced in-kind by the

marsh mitigation plans in Willow and Black bayous. Minor productivity impacts to cypress-tupelo swamp

on the Sabine River near the GIWW are not matched in-kind. The ICT considered this to be acceptable

since the loss in function is negligible. Projected FWP salinity levels are within the tolerance levels of

these swamps, and the CIP causes no loss of swamp acreage.

Sediment placed in former open-water areas of the marsh would increase marsh elevations and create a

higher, more-stable landform for marsh growth and long-term survival. Restored marshes would filter

runoff from surrounding uplands, and improved shallow-water habitat would encourage the growth of

additional submerged aquatic vegetation. The restored marshes would increase available habitat for bird

and wildlife species, and the improved shallow-water habitat would provide additional nursery areas and

nutrients for aquatic organisms. The Coordination Action Report (CAR) for the SNWW CIP has been

prepared by the USFWS and is included in FEIS Appendix A3. The CAR affirms the USACE impact

assessment and approves the proposed BU and mitigation.

VIII.G CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION

No specific cultural resource impacts requiring mitigation have been identified at this time. However, the

Recommended Plan has the potential to affect significant cultural resources (e.g., historic properties)

since numerous prehistoric and historic sites, structures, and shipwrecks are located adjacent to the project

area. Investigations to identify historic properties that may be affected by the Recommended Plan were

begun during the feasibility study, but will be completed during the PED phase in compliance with a

Programmatic Agreement with the Texas and Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officers. Additional

terrestrial archeological surveys and testing are anticipated for DMMP BU sites and marsh mitigation

areas. Nautical archeological survey and dive assessments also must be completed for some project

components. Funds for potential historic properties data recovery have also been included in the estimate

and allocated in compliance with Section 7 of PL 93-291. Based upon historic properties identified to

date, it is assumed that the highest potential for historic property data recovery is in the Sabine Pass

Channel, the site of a significant Civil War naval battle.

260
IX-1

IX. RISK AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

IX.A OVERVIEW

This chapter outlines the approach being taken for the SNWW CIP for evaluating risks, uncertainties, and

consequences inherent in evaluation of alternatives and identification of the Recommended Plan. This

approach involves a two-step process: (1) application of the USACE Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

procedures assessing and incorporating uncertainty in the technical evaluation process; and (2) the

evaluation and selection of a Recommended Plan that takes into account a wide array of economic,

environmental, technical, and societal risk factors.

IX.B GUIDANCE AND CONCEPTS

Risk and uncertainty is an important part of the USACE planning process and feasibility analyses. The

“Economic and Environmental Principles for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation

Studies,” established pursuant to WRDA 65 (Pub. L. 89-80), as amended (42 USC 1962 a-2 and d-1),

require that areas of risk and uncertainty be identified and clearly described so that public investment

decisions can be informed by the degree of reliability of estimated costs, benefits, and effectiveness of

alternative plans. This approach captures and quantifies the extent of risk and uncertainty in the various

planning and design components of a project. The total effect of risk and uncertainty on the project’s

design and viability can be examined and conscious decisions made reflecting an explicit trade-off

between risks and costs.

Risk-informed decision making and asset management has been emphasized as part of Goal 3 of the

USACE Campaign Plan (USACE, 2009b). This policy, developed from analyses done by the Interagency

Performance Evaluation Task Force in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (Interagency Performance

Evaluation Task Force, 2007), pointed to the need for organizational changes to transform the USACE

priorities, processes, and planning in an effort to improve public safety and the USACE water resources

infrastructure. The USACE has committed to developing and employing risk- and reliability-based

approaches that evaluate the consequences of design, construction, and management decisions, especially

as they affect risks to human health and safety.

Risk and uncertainty arise from measurement errors and the underlying variability of complex natural,

social, and economic situations. Plans may be subject to measurement errors if the data are imperfect or

the analytical tools are crude. Some future demographic, economic, hydrologic, and meteorological

events are essentially unpredictable because they are subject to random influences. However, in some

cases, the randomness can be approximated by developing a probability distribution using a historical

database that is applicable to the future. If there is no such historical database, the probability distribution

of random future events can be described subjectively, based upon the best available insight and judgment

(ER 1105-2-100.E-4.a(3)). The latter case could also be applied to situations in which there is uncertainty

as to whether historical conditions can be reliably applied to the future. Such is likely the case with

environmental parameters affected by global warming, such as sea level rise. None of the historical

261
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-2

databases in use today can reliably be used to predict future conditions in which the rates of change are

clearly diverging from historical precedents (IPCC, 2007).

The degrees of risk and uncertainty also will differ among various aspects of a project, and will vary by

time. Obviously, high levels of risk associated with project elements that could adversely affect human

health and safety are not acceptable; while it might be acceptable to trade lower economic costs for higher

levels of risk for project elements that do not affect human health or safety. In relation to time,

components that may be relatively certain at the beginning of a project may be relatively uncertain at the

end of the period of analysis.

A variety of specific technical terms and concepts that are employed in risk and uncertainty analysis are

described below:

• “Risk” is the probability that a hazardous outcome will occur as a consequence of uncertainty. It

is “conventionally defined as those (situations) in which the potential outcome can be described

in reasonably well known probability distributions” (ER 1105-2-100.E-4.a. (1)). These

distributions are generally based upon well-established, empirical data (historical or

experimental). The best-known examples of this concept are applied in flood damage reduction

projects, i.e., it is known that a river will flood to a specific elevation on the average of once in 20

years. When applied to ecological modeling and impact analysis, risk should be viewed as an

inevitable consequence of the uncertainties inherent in the current state of knowledge of

ecological systems.

• “Uncertainty” is a measure of imprecision of knowledge of parameters and functions used to

describe the hydraulic, hydrologic, geotechnical, ecological, and economic aspects of a project.

“In situations of uncertainty, potential outcomes cannot be described in objectively known

probability distributions. . . . Because there are no known probability distributions to describe

uncertain outcomes, uncertainty is substantially more difficult to analyze than risk” (ER 1105-2-

100.E-4.a. (2)).

• “Risk-based analysis” is defined as “an approach to evaluation and decision-making that

explicitly . . . incorporates consideration of risk and uncertainty to compare plans in terms of

likelihood and variability of physical performance, economic success and residual risk” (ER

1105-2-100.2-4.g). Analytical evaluation is sometimes restricted by a lack of data and

understanding of biological and physical processes, effectively limiting risk considerations to

more-subjective comparisons.

• “Sensitivity analysis” is a technique that varies assumptions of economic, demographic,

environmental, and other factors and examines the effects of varying these assumptions on

outcomes of benefits and costs (ER 1105-2-100.E-4.b.(1)(b)(6)).

• “Residual risk” This concept is best understood in relation to flood damage reduction studies, i.e.,

residual risk is the flood risk that remains after a proposed project is implemented; or, in other

words, the residual damages and potential loss of life due to exceedence of design capacity. For

navigation studies, one type of residual risk might be risk that benefits are foregone in those

situations where LPPs are selected over the NED Plan.

262
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-3

IX.C UNCERTAINTY IN TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS

Forecasting Tools and Analyses

Forecasting future scenarios is an important part of the USACE planning process. In order to evaluate the

risks and benefits of alternatives over the period of analysis, a forecast is created based on historical and

existing information as well as quantitative and qualitative assumptions about what may happen within

the study area in the future. One method is to identify the ‘most likely’ future, or the best guess about

what may happen based on observed variables and assumptions of both natural and human behaviors.

Another method is to conduct scenario planning, where multiple future scenarios are created in order to

evaluate what would happen if observed variables or assumptions do not happen as projected. Scenario

planning attempts to answer the “what if” questions that arise when making forecasting assumptions and

predictions. For the SNWW CIP, the “most likely future” method was chosen due to the size, scope, and

complexity of the overall analysis.

After the identification of the most likely FWOP scenario for the SNWW CIP, the next step was the

evaluation of alternative depths (i.e., the 45-, 48-, and 50-foot channel depths and various widening

scenarios advanced for detailed screening) using hydrodynamic, economic, and ecological models. Other

variations of these alternatives (associated with placement features and mitigation measures) were also

evaluated with selected models.

A suite of engineering models was employed to evaluate future without- and with-project conditions

regarding the effect of proposed channel modifications on deep-draft ship maneuverability and safety

(ship simulation model); estuarine hydrology, circulation, and salinity (HS model); shoaling rates

(sediment model); channel bank erosion (vessel effects model); and coastal shoreline erosion (shoreline

impacts model). All of the engineering models were developed by the USACE-ERDC and applied with

the support of a team of the USACE and Federal and State resource agency representatives.

Planning models that were applied in this study include economic and ecological models. Economic

models consist of desktop spreadsheet models and the HarborSym model. Ecological modeling was

performed using the WVA model. Developed by an interagency working grouping of resource agencies in

Louisiana, the WVA model was applied with the support of the ICT, comprised of representatives from

the USACE, other Federal, and Texas and Louisiana state agency representatives.

While this section paints a broad picture of the application of techniques used to address risk and

uncertainty, the FFR, Economic Appendix, and the FEIS and Appendix C go into greater detail on how

each discipline addressed these issues.

263
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-4

Engineering Data and Models

Data

Hydrologic Data

Hydrologic data needed to calibrate and verify the HS model was collected by the ERDC-CHL in a

9-month field study (Fagerburg, 2003). Long-term and short-term data-collection sites were established to

provide good coverage for determination of tidal velocity magnitudes and directions, ranges of water

level elevations, and changes in salinity values. In coordination with USCG, existing Aids-to-Navigation

structures were used whenever possible as more-permanent platforms for the deployment of the

instruments. The pressure-sensing water level recorder was fully programmable with accuracy of the

sensor of ±0.01 foot. The fully programmable salinity recorders were calibrated properly at the start of

monitoring. In order to assure quality data collection, the recorders were serviced regularly in 3-week

intervals to download data and clean and recalibrate the instruments. Acoustic Doppler Velocity (ADV)

meters had pressure sensors with an accuracy of ±0.003 foot. Two of the water level recorders were

destroyed and were not replaced due to the project economic constraints and lack of vital necessity of

those data. Also, any of the field data that were obviously corrupted by bio-fouling of the salinity sensors

were omitted in the hydrodynamic and other analyses.

It is believed that the selected gage sites provided an adequate coverage of the study area, and the

programmable data recorders had a high degree of accuracy and minimal degree of human error involved.

Further, more-conservative analyses were employed in the HS model and other models to provide morereliable results. Thus, the degree of uncertainty in the collection and use of data is diminished

appreciably. As such, considering project economics, it was deemed impractical to gather additional data

for a logical, risk-based analysis since it would not essentially enhance the accuracy of the results.

New Work and Maintenance Material Data

New work material quantities were calculated using a digital terrain model generated by the InRoads

software program. Each channel or canal had its own existing template and proposed template. A model

was developed and volumes were calculated. The existing template included the current allowable

overdepth and advance maintenance values. The proposed new template also included a standard advance

maintenance depth of 2 feet and constant 2 feet of allowable overdepth per reach. Any potential

uncertainties in these calculations are addressed by incorporation of the maximum amount of allowable

overdepth and advance maintenance, and by the contingencies identified in the cost risk analysis

discussed later in this section.

Maintenance material estimates for the proposed project were predicted by a desktop sediment model that

incorporates information from historical dredging rates, the HS model (Brown and Stokes, 2009), and a

subjective evaluation of contributive shoaling factors (Parchure et al., 2005; Brown and Stokes, 2009). An

extensive amount of field data for the bed and suspended sediment, salinity, and velocities was collected

and analyzed by the ERDC laboratory. An increase in shoaling quantities resulting from channel

264
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-5

deepening and widening is attributed to many different factors including increased bottom width,

decreased flow velocity due to enlarged section, modified salinity regime from greater salt penetration,

and other general factors such as increased erosion from higher vessel traffic, channel bank failure, and

sediment brought down by rivers. The effect of RSLR was investigated by the ERDC, and it was found to

have no significant effect on projected maintenance dredging quantities.

Because of the uncertainty involved in the assumptions and calculations of water levels, velocity data, and

salinity data by the HS model, the calculated shoaling quantities for the project condition is subject to a

certain degree of uncertainty. It is believed that the dredging data record is good reliable data and would

not be essentially improved by more data. Moreover, the prediction of shoaling rates is influenced by

assumed values of shoaling factors, which are subjectively selected as stated above. Hence, the future

shoaling rates as calculated are not amenable to risk-based analysis. Further, a more-accurate shoaling

analysis would require detailed numerical sediment modeling, which would entail a significant amount of

additional data and analysis. Because of inherent assumptions involved in an analytical full-fledged

sediment modeling procedure, albeit a significant amount of extra data, increased accuracy of results

would still be questionable. Thus, no further additional work is recommended.

Models

For lack of extensive measurable data and reliable analytical methodologies, the ‘Plans’ and

‘Conclusions’ as developed by various modeling studies by the ERDC are subject to uncertainties.

Moreover, some future economic, hydrologic, and meteorological factors are essentially unpredictable.

Thus, no logical probability-based analysis can be developed. However, sensitivity or a subjective

analysis can be performed describing the limiting values of various factors considered.

In general, the study analyzed the 50-foot depth alternative in addition to the recommended depth of

48 feet for the enlarged future channel, and there were minimal adverse effects for the with-project

condition in terms of salinity, tidal current velocities, shoreline wave heights, sediment transport,

potential bank-recession/erosion, and navigational safety. Thus, the uncertainty in assumed values or the

reliability of analytical procedures is essentially covered by the conservative assumptions in the study.

Ship Simulation Model

Ship simulation modeling reproduced real-time vessel responses to various interacting forces including

water currents, wind force, bank forces, tug and bow thruster forces, and ship-to-ship interaction (Webb,

2003). The visual database provided a feeling of realism for the site and its development included the ship

being simulated and other vessels, shoreline, and other landmarks. The environmental database involved

channel and bathymetric surveys, currents for the existing and proposed conditions, waves, and wind

velocities. For the simulation validation, experienced pilots were used in real-time runs, and then various

plans for existing and proposed conditions were tested. Final results for the optimized channel were based

on comparison of simulation runs for existing and proposed conditions and analyses of vessel tracks,

navigation parameter plots, and pilot evaluations.

265
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-6

Although there is a degree of uncertainty involved in the accuracy of visual and environmental data, the

real-time simulation by ship pilots essentially validated the optimal channel widths required for safe

navigation. So, the real-time runs are guided by the personal experience and knowledge of the pilots, and

their testing is quite subjective. As such, the risk-based analysis is somewhat inappropriate for ship

simulation.

HS Model

A 3-D numerical modeling study of circulation and salinity impacts resulting from proposed channel

deepening was conducted (Brown and Stokes, 2009). The model was also validated for hydrodynamics

and salinity using field data, evaluation of proposed plan conditions, and comparison and analysis of

results.

The potential for the channel deepening to increase the effects of hurricane storm surges on water

elevations and flooding was simulated using the HS model. The tidal signal was generated using tide gage

records from Sabine Pass during Tropical Storm Frances (September 11, 1998). This storm was selected

for the simulation because it produced very high tides for an extended period of time, and caused very

significant damage to the upper Texas coast in the form of beach erosion and inland flooding. The tides

rose above 4 feet above mean low lower water and reached maximum levels between about 5.5 and 7 feet

for 36 to 48 consecutive hours. Maximum storm surge differences occurred at or near the peak storm

surge, and varied between 0 and +0.4 foot. The modeling indicated that the largest effects would occur in

the upper reaches of the Neches River near Beaumont. This result must be interpreted as exceedingly

conservative. The predicted increase is calculated as if no flows were allowed to leave the channel and is

therefore much higher than would occur under natural conditions when storm surge flows spread over the

wide, flat coastal plain.

This model was previously run for the 50-foot channel depth, which marked the worst-case scenario for

possible adverse impacts. Comparing the results of 48-foot (recommended) plan and the 50-foot plan, the

difference in salinity impacts at various places remained within the range of standard deviation. Thus, the

analysis essentially provided conservative results for the recommended 48-foot depth plan.

Storm Surge Model

A sensitivity analysis using the ADCIRC model was also performed to determine what effect the

proposed SNWW CIP might have on surge levels in the study area (Wamsley et al., 2010). The ADCIRC

model was run to estimate water levels for two worst-case hypothetical storms, both with and without

proposed SNWW CIP project features in place. Project features evaluated by the modeling are the deeper

navigation channel, proposed PAs with maximum levee heights, and 2 expanded PAs. The two simulated

storms exhibited minimum central pressures of 900 millibars, offshore pressure radii between 14.9 and

18.4 nautical miles, and forward speeds of 11 knots. Each produced water levels near or higher than the

estimated 500-year level, and both would be considered extreme events. One storm tracked in the

northwesterly direction, producing maximum surges of 18 feet near the coast at Sabine Pass and surges of

13–14 feet in Sabine Lake near Port Arthur, Texas. The second storm tracked in a north-northeasterly

266
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-7

direction, producing maximum surges of over 20 feet near Sabine Pass and surges of 15 to 17 feet in

Sabine Lake near Port Arthur.

The sensitivity analysis concluded that the greatest changes would occur north of Port Arthur along the

Neches River. These changes are primarily due to the proposed increase in depth of the navigation

channel. All changes are local, and there are no project-induced increases in surges away from the

immediate vicinity of the navigation channel. Water levels in the marshes and open-water areas

immediately north of the river would increase on the order of 4 to 8 inches or less. The modeling indicates

some interior flooding would occur within the City of Port Arthur with both storms, both with and

without the project. Changes in peak surge within the city for these two events, with the project in place,

are caused by a slight increase in surge elevation and/or duration causing additional overtopping of the

surrounding levee or internal topographic features. Peak surges for 100-year events are estimated to be

approximately 9 feet in the Port Arthur area. Although simulations of less-intense events were not made

as part of this study, in light of the 14- to 24-foot levees surrounding Port Arthur, significant interior

flooding is not expected for the Base condition. Any changes in peak surge on the order of inches should

not cause any significant change in interior flooding for the with-project condition.

The Recommended Plan for the SNWW CIP also includes ODMDSs and marsh restoration measures. All

of the existing and proposed ODMDSs are located several miles from the Gulf shoreline in water too deep

to affect wave setup on the shoreline. The influences of marsh restoration on hurricane surge have been

documented by Wamsley et al. (2009a, 2009b). Surges tend to slightly increase over and just seaward of

the marsh as the surge propagation is slowed, which may result in reductions in peak water levels

landward of marsh features. The impact of the proposed SNWW CIP marsh restoration features are

relatively small and expected to modify peak surge levels locally by a minimal amount (Wamsley et al.,

2010). No significant reductions or increases in surge level would be expected from either the marsh

restoration or the ODMDSs.

Sediment Model

The needed data for computed water levels, tidal velocities, and salinity values at various nodes was

provided by the HS model for the Base and Plan conditions (Parchure et al., 2005). This report deals with

two problems—the first is the effect of channel modifications on the future shoaling quantities, and the

second is the impact of the channel modifications on the Pleasure Island shoreline erosion. As a first step,

sediment modeling requires results from a satisfactorily validated hydrodynamic model. Since fine

sediment dynamics is significantly influenced by salinity, a 3-D model including salinity simulation was

used to provide results for this model. For some studies, a full-fledged numerical sediment model can be

used to provide increased accuracy for sediment analysis. However, huge amount of additional data

needed for a project extending over several miles would become very expensive and time consuming.

Hence, a desktop modeling study was used as a good alternative to detailed sediment modeling. Because

estimation of future shoaling involves an unavoidable subjective element and further, the detailed

sediment modeling procedure has some inherent assumptions and limitations, the desktop study was

considered adequate. Moreover, the computed changes in flow velocities, salinities, and erosion rates

267
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-8

between base and plan conditions are quite low in relation to their effects on shoaling and erosion. As

such, no additional effort is needed, and no logical risk-based analysis is warranted.

Vessel Effects Study Model

This study was used to estimate erosion potential resulting from increased ship waves for the plan

condition for the enlarged channel (Maynord, 2005). The analysis employed a numerical model

(HIVEL2D) to simulate the ship-induced velocity at the bank, using information on vessels in the existing

and future fleets and on vessel speeds under both the FWOP and FWP conditions. Overall, the effect of

the Recommended Plan would be to reduce the rate of erosion on inland channels relative to the FWOP

condition because of the larger channel and the fewer vessel trips that are predicted with the

Recommended Plan. There is some uncertainty involved in the forecasting estimate of the future vessel

fleet and the accuracy of predicted erosion rates. However, the modeling used the largest vessel that can

efficiently use the waterway, and assumed that all erosion effects were due to vessel wakes. Therefore,

the model provides a conservatively high estimate of ship effects on erosion, and further risk analysis

would not add practical value.

Shoreline Impacts Model

Potential wave-induced impacts of the proposed deepening of the SNWW on the open coastal shorelines

adjacent to the project area were modeled by the ERDC using the STWAVE and GENESIS models

(Gravens and King, 2003). These models evaluate potential impacts due to changes in wave refraction

patterns, and are well-known, widely used models that represent state of the practice in forecast modeling.

The STWAVE and GENESIS are deterministic models. As presently applied, results were not placed in a

risk-based context and to do so would require a significant effort. However, such additional work is not

warranted, would not add practical value, and would not be expected to change the specific

STWAVE/GENESIS study conclusions. The models calculated insignificant changes in the waves and

longshore sediment transport rates within the study area. It is important to note that the STWAVE/

GENESIS analysis was extremely conservative in nature, and as performed the analysis overestimates any

wave-induced impacts to the shoreline as a result of the channel deepening. The results are conservative

since the wave dissipation due to the presence of mud and the sheltering effect of the jetties was

purposely not included. Thus, the analysis as performed, without inclusion of jetties, maximized wave

refraction and shoaling influence of the proposed channel deepening. Applying a risk-based type of

analysis would only yield order of magnitude variability within these extremely conservative minor

results, which would add no additional practical value and could not be expected to change the specific

STWAVE/GENESIS study conclusions.

268
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-9

Other Analyses

Relative Sea Level Rise

In fulfillment of requirements of Circular No. 1165-2-211, Water Resources Policies and Authorities

Incorporating Sea-level Change Considerations in Civil Works Programs (USACE, 2009a), the sensitivity

of project alternatives to the full range of potential FWOP changes in sea level has been evaluated. There

are a wide range of potential effects related to the full range of RSLR, but the sensitivity of project

alternatives would be more limited. In particular, alternatives were evaluated to determine if the purpose

and function of navigation features could be undermined, if environmental impacts might be exacerbated,

and how economic benefits and costs might be affected by sea level change. Nonstructural alternatives

were evaluated but eliminated in the second screening; they are therefore not addressed in this analysis.

RSLR rates that may be appropriate for the project area are discussed in detail in Section 3.3 of FEIS,

Appendix C to the FEIS. The range of RSLR was determined using both tide gage and basal peat data for

the local subsidence component of RSLR. Tide gage data reflect the effects of recent historical

subsidence. The average rate of RSLR measured at the Sabine Pass tide gage was 0.2 inch/year for the 48-

year period between 1958 and 2006 (U.S. Department of Commerce and National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, 2006, 2009). However, there is significant scientific debate concerning the

validity of tidal records with respect to the projection of future subsidence rates in the northwest Gulf

coastal plain. The relative influence of historic anthropogenic activities in this area (e.g., oil and gas

withdrawal) is difficult to quantify. If these activities contributed significantly to recent observations of

subsidence, then significant reductions in these activities may result in rapid deceleration of subsidence

rates, returning them to long-term average rates best represented by the basal peat data. Deriving RSLR

estimates using both basal peat and tide gage data, possible RSLR rates were estimated for the period

from 2019 to 2069 to range from 0.3 to 2.8 feet. Possible low, intermediate, and high rates are as follows:

• 0.3 foot, Low (1.83 mm/year), based on basal peat subsidence rates

• 0.7 foot, Intermediate (4.27 mm/year), based on basal peat subsidence rates

• 1.1 feet, Intermediate (6.71 mm/year), based on tide gage subsidence rates. (This value was used

in the HS modeling of the estuary for this project.)

• 1.5 feet, Intermediate (9.14 mm/year), based on tide gage subsidence rates

• 2.2 feet, High (13.44 mm/year), based on basal peat subsidence rates

• 2.8 feet, High (17.07 mm/year), based on tide gage subsidence rates

An intermediate rate of RSLR (1.1 feet by year 2069) was used as the “most likely” estimate of RSLR in

the alternative analysis for this project, in accordance with the USACE planning guidance. The following

discussion describes possible ways that high and low RSLR might affect the project alternatives and the

recommended action. There are relatively little data and analyses currently available that would permit a

detailed, quantitative, analysis of the impacts of each of the possible RSLR scenarios on the project

269
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-10

alternatives. Ways in which different RSLR rates might affect project design and impacts are presented in

Table IX-1.

In general, the functioning of the navigation features associated with all alternatives (channel depths of 45

through 50 feet, TB/AB, PAs/ODMDSs, and the BU features) would not be significantly affected by the

full range of potential sea level change. Construction dredging would occur within 10 years and would

not be affected by future rates of RSLR. While shoaling rates toward the end of the period of analysis

could increase due to an enlarged cross section and greater saltwater penetration, this small effect would

probably be offset by increased overall water depths. PAs and BU features have been designed to

accommodate sea level changes through the high RSLR range. PAs are located at sufficiently high

elevations to withstand the potential rise, and appropriate erosion control measures are included. BU

features are located well inland on the Neches River, and they have been designed with erosion control

features that would survive the full range of RSLR. The addition of mineral soils and higher marsh

elevations would provide stable landforms. Biomass accumulation and sediment from adjacent terrace

margins should enable restored marsh vegetation to maintain itself even with the high RSLR rate.

The protection of human health and improvements in safety are not project objectives and therefore

potential effects on calculated risk are not applicable. RSLR does not affect the functioning of the various

depth alternatives or vessel safety. At the intermediate and high rates of RSLR, a significant increase in

tidal surge penetration would be expected, but this would not affect project alternatives because tidal

surge protection is not a project objective. Furthermore, HS modeling has determined that little or no

increase in water surface elevation would be expected due to the deeper navigation channel.

The primary impact of RSLR on this project may be its potential impact on mitigation measures proposed

for the Louisiana marshes along the east side of Sabine Lake. These mitigation measures are planned for

marshes that could experience submergence and erosion at the high RSLR rate. In recent decades,

marshes in the study area have been able to keep up with rates of 5.6 to 6.5 mm/year, suggesting that

these marshes may be able to sustain themselves through rises in the intermediate range of RSLR (4.3 to

9.1 mm/year). The high rate of RSLR (17.1 mm/year) could threaten long-term survivability.

Sustainability thresholds are determined by local physical, chemical, climatologic, and hydrologic

conditions and cannot be extrapolated to other regions. However, as an example, studies in the midAtlantic region indicate that the tipping point for coastal ecosystems could range from a RSLR of as low

as 2.0 mm/year to as high as 10 mm/year (U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2009). There are

relatively little data and analyses currently available that would permit a detailed, quantitative analysis of

the impacts of the full range of potential RSLR on the SNWW ecosystem and project alternatives.

A monitoring and contingency/adaptive management plan has been developed to identify corrective

actions (FEIS Appendix J). Corrective actions proposed in the contingency plan assume that the low to

intermediate rates of RSLR will occur; the high rate is assumed to be unlikely. If monitoring determines

that the extent of vegetation coverage does not meet ecological success criteria specified in the

monitoring plan, manual planting would be employed to restore the requisite acres of emergent marsh.

The ICT would determine if marsh planting is needed and if so, to what extent and in which areas.

270
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

Table IX-1

IX-11

RSLR Sensitivity of Project Alternatives

Sensitivity of Design Sensitivity of Impacts

Navigation Channel

Alternatives

A–G

DMMP

(PAs/ODMDSs)

DMMP

(BU Features) Mitigation Measures Human Health/Safety

Environmental

Impacts

Economic

Costs/Benefits

Low Rate (0.3 foot over 50 years)No significant effect forany depth alternative.Low range of futureRSLR is lower thanrecent historical rate.

No change toexisting shoalingrate andmaintenancedredging expected.All PAs designedfor intermediateRSLR rate.

All BU featureswere designed toaccommodateintermediateRSLR; low ratewould have noeffect.

All mitigationmeasures weredesigned toaccommodateintermediate RSLR;low rate would haveno effect.

RSLR does not affectthe functioning of thevarious depthalternatives or vesselsafety. Small increasein tidal surgepenetration due to lowRSLR rate would beexpected; tidal surgeprotection is not aproject objective. Noincrease in tidal surgeimpacts due to project.

Primary projectimpact is result ofgreater salinityintrusion. Salinitydifference for lowRSLR is within onestandard deviation ofthe salinitydifference betweenFWOP and FWP.

Benefits and costsof the deepenednavigation channelwould be the sameas FWP forecast.

Intermediate Rate (0.7 to 1.5 feet over 50 years)No significant effect forany depth alternative.Rising water depthoffset by increasedshoaling. Potentialimpacts to Sabine Passjetties addressed byseparate O&M majorrehabilitation project.

No significantincrease inmaintenancedredging for depthsgreater than 48feet. Possible riseof water surfaceelevation is withinrange used forengineering designof all PAs. Noeffect to ODMDSs.

Possible RSLRrise is withinrange used forengineeringdesign of all BUfeatures.

Possible RSLR riseis within range usedfor engineeringdesign of allmitigation measures.

RSLR does not affectthe functioning of thevarious depthalternatives or vesselsafety. Intermediateincrease in tidal surgepenetration due toRSLR rate; tidal surgeprotection is not aproject objective. Noincrease in tidal surgeimpacts due to project.

Salinity impactswere based uponRSLR of 1.1 feet.Salinity differencefor range ofintermediate RSLRrates is within onestandard deviation ofthe salinitydifference betweenFWOP and FWP.

Benefits and costsof the deepenednavigation channelfor the fullintermediate rangewould be the sameas FWP forecast.

271
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-12

Table IX-1 (Cont’d)

Sensitivity of Design Sensitivity of Impacts

Navigation Channel

Alternatives

A–G

DMMP

(PAs/ODMDSs)

DMMP

(BU Features) Mitigation Measures Human Health/Safety

Environmental

Impacts

Economic

Costs/Benefits

High Rate (2.8 feet over 50 years)No significant effect forany depth alternative.Possible small increasein maintenancedredging for all depthalternatives resultingfrom enlarged crosssection and greatersaltwater penetration.Potential impacts toSabine Pass jettiesaddressed by separateO&M majorrehabilitation project.

Small increase inlevee heightsand/or armoringmay be needed forsome PAs. Nosignificant effect toODMDSs.

Addition ofmineral soils andhigher marshelevationsprovides morestable landforms.Biomassaccumulationmay enablerestored marshvegetation toremain stablerelative to highRSLR rate.Erosion controlfeatures wouldsurvive the fullrange of RSLR.

Addition of mineralsoils and highermarsh elevationsprovides morestable landforms.High rate of RSLRcould result insubmergence anderosion of restoredmarsh. Monitoringand adaptivemanagement planrecommended toguide decisions onchanges that mightbe needed towardthe end of the periodof analysis.

RSLR does not affectthe functioning of thevarious depthalternatives or vesselsafety. High rate ofRSLR would increasetidal surge penetration;tidal surge protectionis not a projectobjective. No increasein tidal surge impactsdue to project.

Potential salinityincrease with highrange of RSLR isstill within onestandard deviation ofthe salinitydifference betweenFWOP and FWP. Nosignificant increasein salinity impactswould be expected.

Benefits of thedeepenednavigation channelwould be the sameas FWP forecast.No facilities usedby shippingindustry would berendered ineffectiveby the high range ofRSLR. O&M costscould increaseslightly toward theend of the period ofanalysis, but notenough to reduceBCR below parity.

272
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-13

Relocation of the mitigation areas to areas that would be protected from the potential effects of the full

range of RSLR is not feasible. All intertidal marshes in the study area would be similarly affected by the

sea level change because of the extremely low slope of the coastal plain. The option of purchasing credits

in a mitigation bank was investigated; however, no mitigation banks exist for this area and resource type.

For the Coastal Shoreline Impacts Study (Gravens and King, 2003), the primary conclusion was that the

proposed deepening project would have minimal impacts on adjacent shorelines. Actually, the project

would result in a small beneficial reduction in erosion near the jetties. The changes resulting from the

2-foot increase in depth for the wave heights and wave angles would be minimal.

For the Sediment Study (Parchure et al., 2005), comparing the results of 2 feet increased depth, the

overall changes in bottom velocities and bottom salinities would be insignificant. The estimated annual

shoaling quantities would increase about 6 percent, but that is considered to be within uncertainty of

assumptions of this estimate.

For the Vessel Effects study for Bank Recession (Maynord, 2005), based on the historical vessel traffic,

vessel fleet (ship sizes and frequency of passage) was developed for the future years 2030 and 2060 for

the existing and proposed waterway. The conclusion of this study was that for both sites in the SabineNeches Canal and Port Arthur Canal, bank recession for the FWP condition would be less than the FWOP

condition because of fewer vessel trips. Impact on bank recession resulting from increased depth as a

result of sea level rise is estimated to be minimal.

For the Ship Simulation Study (Webb, 2003), simulation by ship pilots essentially validates the optimal

channel widths required for various reaches for safe navigation of vessels for the existing and proposed

channels. So, navigable vessels are predicted to experience insignificant impacts of higher water elevation

resulting from about 1.56-foot rise in sea level.

Stability Analyses (Bridges and Port Arthur Hurricane Protection Levee)

Limited stability evaluations were undertaken to identify potential impacts of the new channel to the HFP

system, MLK Bridge, Rainbow Bridge, and Veterans Memorial Bridge and recommendations were made

to accommodate a deeper channel while preserving the integrity of the above structures.

The evaluation of the HFP system, involved (1) reviewing original design documents and inspection

reports of the adjacent levee system; (2) performing site reconnaissance; (3) reviewing subsurface data

and soil strength parameters; (4) reviewing prior slope stability analyses methods and results; (5)

evaluating cross section surveys at suspect areas; (6) performing additional slope stability analyses (using

the Simplified Bishop and Simplified Janbu methods with the STABL6H computer program) of the slope

configuration for new project; and (7) providing recommendations. This review indicated that the HFP

levee between SNWW stations 165+00 and 240+00 would likely be impacted by the preliminary design

layout of the deepened channel. Therefore, the channel was realigned and shifted away from the HFP

levee. The design 2:1 slope angles for the deepened channel can be maintained if the channel is shifted far

enough away from the HFP system to minimize adverse stability impacts. Acceptable factors of safety

273
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-14

were established for the recommendations from the slope stability analysis, and a suitable offset distance

was determined and incorporated into the proposed alignment.

The evaluation of the MLK Bridge, consisted of (1) reviewing available soils data from Design

Memorandum No. 2 (Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas, 40-foot Project and Channel to Echo, Bridge

Replacement at Port Arthur, dated May 1964), prepared by Modjeski and Masters, Inc.; (2) reviewing

survey cross-section information taken in May 2005; (3) performing slope stability analysis using soil

strength data from nearby HFP levee and empirical correlations (due to limited data provided in the DM

No. 2.); and (4) providing recommendations. The analysis determined that the 48-foot channel slope

would likely impact the embedment of the pile cap and the upper portions of the piles of the bridge’s

tower pier foundations. The degree to which this impact affects the bearing capacity of the piles or the

integrity of the pile cap was beyond the scope of this study. Regardless, for this study, this anticipated

impact is considered significant because the failure arc passes through the bridge foundation. Since it is

necessary to maintain the 400-foot channel width beneath the bridge, the bridge piers must be protected

with a hardened structure to minimize impact to the foundations. Designs and costs for construction of a

bulkhead to protect the bridge foundations were developed by the Texas Department of Transportation,

and the cost of this protection has been included in the project cost estimate.

The evaluation of the Rainbow Bridge involved reviewing a “Channel Stability Cut Analyses” report

prepared by URS Group Inc. in the form of a memorandum with design drawings by the Texas

Department of Transportation. Based on conclusions of the memorandum, no impact to the bridge

foundations as a result of potential slope instability due to channel deepening is anticipated. However,

URS recommended that the dolphins may need to be relocated. These design issues will be further

addressed during the preconstruction engineering and design (PED) phase.

Cost Risk Analysis

In accordance with a July 2007 USACE memorandum (Application of Cost Risk Analysis Methods to

Develop Contingencies for Civil Works Total Project Costs), a formal cost-risk analysis was performed

for the SNWW CIP (FFR, Appendix 3). The cost risk analysis utilizes the MII cost estimate, along with

specific project information, to develop contingencies to be used in the formulating the Total Project Cost

for the project plan being recommended to Congress. The objective of using the cost risk analysis is to

identify areas of high cost uncertainty and the probability that the estimated project cost will or will not be

exceeded (USACE, 2007b).

Crystal BallTM, an accepted commercially available computer-based forecasting and analysis program,

was used to run Monte Carlo simulations for developing the baseline contingency. The contingency

simulation included estimates for all individual activities and risk variables. Since the 48-foot deepening

alternative (including selective widening and TB and AB) has been identified as the Recommended Plan

(and also the LPP), the Crystal Ball analysis was performed on the cost estimate for this alternative. The

results of the cost risk analysis identified the contingency percentages (levels of uncertainty) in the cost

estimates for specific project components (e.g., relocations, navigation ports and harbors, cultural

274
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-15

resources, etc.). The average contingencies determined from the cost risk analysis were 30–31 percent,

which is higher than the original contingencies identified in the original project cost estimate.

The contingencies were used along with the updated estimate to revise the Total Project Cost Summary

(TPCS). ATR of the TPCS for the Recommended Plan has been conducted by the USACE Center of

Expertise for Cost Engineering for Civil Works. The ATR has verified that the Total Project Cost

baseline, the project scope, report, cost estimate, schedule, escalation, and contingencies were developed

in accordance with current cost engineering guidance.

Economic Data and Models

Data

The base data used to establish existing conditions and in preparation of the traffic forecasts were

compiled from the sources listed in Table IX-2.

Table IX-2

Primary Data Used for SNWW Economic Analysis

Component Data Origin

Historical Vessel Traffic USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1965–2007

USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 5, 1985–2007

USDA

USACE, Navigation Data Center, unpublished databases

U.S. Department of Energy, website access

Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay, 2005–2009

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, website

access data

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, website

access data

U.S. Coast Guard’s Port Arthur Marine Safety Office

Forecast Data by Commodity

Petroleum and LNG U.S. Department of Energy, 2009 Annual Energy Review, March 2009

Petroleum and Other Commodities

Global Insight, The U.S. Economy, The 30-Year Focus, First Quarter

2009

Grain Exports USDA, February 2009

Breakbulk and Other Cargo Historical Trendlines; Global Insight, and Institutional Knowledge

Other general references Journal of Commerce and other trade magazines

Government Accountability Office (GAO), Report Number GAO-18–14,

January 2008

Risk and Uncertainty

The IWR is currently developing risk-based analysis procedures for the economic evaluation of deepdraft navigation studies. Unlike the current risk-based flood damage model, the navigation model will

275
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-16

integrate both benefit (related to fleet and commodity forecasts) and cost uncertainties (related to

dredging and disposal costs). Districts are expected to use sensitivity analyses to evaluate risk and

uncertainty until risk-based models for navigation studies are released to the field (ER 1105-2-100.E10.a). The effects of uncertainty are addressed in terms of sensitivity analyses. An expanded sensitivity

section is included in Section 8 of the Economic Appendix.

Models

Deepening Analysis. The USACE-SWG spreadsheet models were used for calculation of transportation

costs and evaluation of deepening benefits associated with the without- and with-project futures.

Widening Analysis. The HarborSym model was used in evaluation of the entrance channel widening and

the Neches River TB and anchorage features. The outputs from HarborSym were aggregated into Excel

spreadsheets and are summarized in this section of the report. HarborSym is a planning-level model

developed by the IWR to assist in economic analyses of channel widening improvements. HarborSym is

an event-driven simulation model and includes data from user-specified transit rules that the model

processes with each vessel call in order to calculate delays within the system. The model is presently in

the model certification process. While not yet certified, the model is scheduled for review under the

USACE’s certification system. The model is presently being used by several USACE district offices for

channel widening studies, and the outputs of these have undergone ATR and USACE headquarters

review.

Environmental Data and Models

Uncertainty in environmental analyses is associated with the quality of data used to evaluate impacts. The

quality of data used for assessments of environmental impacts in this study was assessed based on its

origin as presented in Table IX-3.

WVA Model

An analysis of risk and uncertainty associated with the WVA model application to the SNWW CIP was

performed. A summary of the sensitivity analysis is presented in FEIS Section 4.2, and the complete

analysis is presented in FEIS Appendix C. Uncertainty is inherent in ecosystems, and therefore

unavoidable when evaluating ecological processes and impacts. There is often a lack of extensive data

sets for all parameters under study, and many of the physical and biological processes are not completely

understood. Ecological analyses for the study utilized input from several engineering models referenced

in the table above.

Risks to human health and safety associated with ecological impacts evaluated by the model are small.

The predicted loss of marsh acreage is 691 acres (less than one-half of 1 percent of the affected marsh

acreage) in the interior of the large estuarine marshes east of Sabine Lake. The loss of marsh elevation

would make affected areas of these wetlands more vulnerable to the salinity pulses from large tropical

storms and hurricanes, but it would not affect the overall effectiveness of these coastal wetlands in

276
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-17

buffering inland areas from storm surge effects. The proposed compensatory mitigation plan would

contribute to the long-term sustainability of these areas by adding stabilizing mineral sediments in an

amount well above the predicted loss, increasing marsh elevations, and decreasing the size of open-water

areas within the interior marshes.

Table IX-3

Quality of Data Used in Ecological Analyses

Environmental Parameter Data Origin

Data

Quality

Hydrodynamic data on

circulation, velocity, flows Field sampling (ERDC-CHL; Brown and Stokes, 2009) High

Water quality Historical data and field sampling (ERDC-CHL; Fagerburg, 2003;

PBS&J, 2004a, 2004b) High

Salinity (for HS model

verification) Field sampling studies (ERDC-CHL; Fagerburg, 2003) High

Salinity – FWP projections HS Model (ERDC-CHL; Brown and Stokes, 2009) Moderate

Sediment quality Historical data, field sampling studies, and biological testing

(PBS&J, 1999, 2004a, 2004b) High

Gulf shoreline erosion ERDC-CHL modeling (Gravens and King, 2003) High

Inland channel erosion ERDC-CHL modeling (Maynord, 2005; Parchure et al., 2005) High

Vegetation/habitat type

mapping

(TPWD, 1992, 2002, 2004; USFWS 2001a, 2001b, 2004, 2008;

USFWS and GLO, 1992) and limited survey and field verification

for this study

Moderate

Submerged aquatic

vegetation Limited field survey; best professional judgment Low

Historic land loss rates

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), TPWD and Bureau of Economic

Geology GIS analyses (Britsch and Dunbar, 1992; Dunbar et al.,

1992; Greco and Clark, 2005; TPWD, 2003; USGS-LDNR, 1993;

White et al., 1996)

Moderate

Bottomland hardwoods

growth rates

Professional literature (Brown and Montz, 1986; USDA, 1983,

1990) Moderate

Endangered species habitat

mapping

Field survey (PBS&J, 2006) High

Fish and wildlife species Professional literature (too lengthy to list; see FEIS) Moderate

Oyster reef Survey and field verification for possible channel widening

(PBS&J, 2005) High

Hazardous and toxic waste

Field sampling and biological testing (PBS&J) of specific areas

near Superfund sites; literature and database review for entire area

(PBS&J, 2002)

Moderate

Cultural resources-nautical Marine remote sensing surveys (Hoyt et al., 1994; Hoyt and

Schmidt, 1997; PBS&J, 2005) Moderate

Cultural resources-terrestrial Professional literature and state records searches (too lengthy to

list; see FEIS) Moderate

Marsh elevations in BU and

mitigation areas

Field investigations in BU areas (TCB); best professional

judgment in mitigation areas Low

277
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-18

There are two types of uncertainty that have been identified for the predictive ecological modeling

conducted in this study—uncertainty associated with model quality and performance, and uncertainty

associated with model predictions. The first type of uncertainty was evaluated by an extensive technical

review of the WVA model. Application of the WVA model for the SNWW study was evaluated by an

independent technical review at the Deep Draft Center of Expertise, an External Peer Review (Battelle,

2010), and a formal model assessment in conformance with EC 1105-2-407. The WVA Model

Assessment (LBG/TEA, 2008) determined that the theoretical approaches behind the WVA model’s

application to the SNWW project are valid, and approved its use for this study. The Planning Center of

Expertise for Deep-Draft Navigation approved the model for use in conjunction with this project by

memo dated June 30, 2009 (see FEIS Appendix C, Attachment 1).

For evaluating the second type of uncertainty, the WVA models do not include a direct way to calculate a

probability distribution that provides a statistically significant confidence level for the model projections

(LBG/TEA, 2008). However, a sensitivity analysis of the model results was conducted by substituting

different values in the most important variables. This sensitivity analysis measures the degree of certainty

associated with model predictions, and how different predictable outcomes could affect environmental

impacts, benefits, and costs. In this case, a range of possible outcomes associated with variable V1

(percent of emergent marsh) in the EMCM, and variables V4 and V5 (salinity) in the Swamp Community

Model (SCM) and EMCM, respectively, were evaluated to determine how uncertainties related to

variable assumptions and values could affect impact predictions and compensatory mitigation decisions.

Salinity Sensitivity Analysis

The salinity sensitivity analysis of the WVA model (variables V4 and V5 in the SCM and EMCM)

demonstrated that there is a wide range of potential outcomes in AAHU losses attributable to

uncertainties in salinity predictions. These outcomes range from a loss of –340 AAHUs to a loss of

−3,146 AAHUs within the 95 percent confidence range of salinities used in the analysis. The total

predicted FWP loss of –1,499 AAHUs for Louisiana hydro-units is based upon forecasts of the most

likely salinity levels, and takes into account the potential effects of RSLR and future freshwater inflows.

The recommended compensatory mitigation plan contains sufficient mitigation to ensure that the

Recommended Plan will not have more than negligible impacts on the ecological resources of the study

area. It is based upon scientifically based projections of changes in habitat resulting from the predicted

salinity change, and the professional judgment and knowledge of the area by the large team of natural

resource and engineering professionals who applied the HS and WVA models to the SNWW CIP.

Percent Emergent Marsh Sensitivity Analysis

The sensitivity analysis of the variable V1 (percent of emergent marsh) in the EMCM explores the effects

of an assumption that underlies the valuation of emergent marsh for this variable. In this application of the

WVA model, optimal vegetative coverage is assumed to be 100 percent (Suitability Index [SI] = 1.0) for

all marsh types. This assumption diverges from the general biological understanding that optimal cover

falls in the 60–80 percent range, but it was adopted to reflect the significance of emergent marsh in the

278
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-19

study area. Existing and potentially accelerated marsh loss associated with channel deepening has been

identified as one of the highest concerns by resource agencies and the general public. To evaluate the

effect of this assumption on the SNWW application, the EMCM was rerun using a revised formula for the

variable in which optimal vegetative coverage (SI = 1.0) is assumed for a marsh coverage of 60 to 80

percent (V1-Revised).

Overall, impacts using V1-Revised dropped 3 percent as expressed in AAHUs. However, this reduction

would be more than offset by the increase in mitigation that would result from the use of V1-Revised to

compute compensatory mitigation, because the amount of credit (in AAHUs) would decrease by about

30 percent. Using V1-Revised to compute required compensatory mitigation for the mitigation measures,

as currently designed, would increase mitigation costs by 42 percent. If the same mitigation measures

were redesigned so that marsh fill was a maximum of 80 percent, compensation measured with the V1-

Revised formula would increase by about 10 percent. However, total cost of this revised mitigation plan

would be about 3 percent greater than the recommended mitigation plan. More significantly, the modified

plan would restore about 18 percent fewer acres and do less to ensure the long-term sustainability of the

marsh.

The WVA Model Assessment (LBG/TEA, 2008) confirmed that the original model assumption applied

for variable V1-Original (e.g., optimal vegetative coverage is assumed to be 100 percent) is appropriate

for the SNWW application in computing both impacts and mitigation, as it reflects the importance of

emergent vegetation as habitat for this study area. Given serious existing rates of marsh loss, the predicted

increase in marsh loss in the FWP condition, and uncertainties related to salinity and land loss impacts

due to the project, it is reasonable and appropriate to utilize the assumption that maximizes the value of

emergent marsh to the sustainability of the marsh system. Without the structure provided by the emergent

marsh, the majority of the ecological benefits provided by this system disappear.

Cultural Resources

There is uncertainty related to the potential cost of cultural resource mitigation because all areas that

would be impacted by the CIP have not been assessed for their potential to contain properties eligible for

NRHP listing. While no specific historic property impacts have been identified at this time, there is

moderate potential to affect a significant historic shipwreck. The highest potential for historic property

mitigation is associated with channel deepening through Sabine Pass, the site of a significant Civil War

naval battle. To account for this uncertainty, the estimated cost for historic property data recovery has

been included in the project cost estimate. More details can be found in Section 4.14 of the FEIS.

Real Estate Data

There are 16 PAs, of which 13 are already owned by the local Sponsor and 3 are to be acquired by the

non-Federal sponsor. Contaminant materials have been found in PA 17 that are unrelated to dredged

material or dredging activities. Issues related to these contaminated materials must be resolved by the

non-Federal sponsor before PA 17 can be used. Alternate PAs are available. The other two PAs are

279
IX: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

IX-20

available and would be acquired by the non-Federal sponsor. There are three proposed TBs on the Neches

River. Of those, two would require acquisition of 12.10 available acres. All of the remaining lands are

subject to Navigation Servitude. The risks to increase project costs and lengthen the project schedule are

low.

IX.D COMMUNICATION OF RISK

Extensive scoping effort allowed effective communication of public and agency perception of risks

associated with potential channel deepening. The USACE and the SNND developed a public involvement

plan to ensure that the USACE and SNND were responsive to the needs and concerns of all stakeholders

and to ensure public involvement through an open, interactive process. The plan helped the USACE and

SNND provide information to, and obtain information from, the stakeholders. A proactive outreach

program ensured that the public, resource agencies, industry, local government, and other interested

parties were informed about the project and that any concerns were identified and addressed. More

discussion of the outreach program can be found in Chapter XII of this report and also in Appendix A of

the FEIS.

Uncertainties associated with precision of data and model robustness were communicated to State and

Federal resource agencies as they participated in the ICT review of data collection, model application, and

model results. The risks of the various project alternatives and the Recommended Plan will be

communicated to general public at public meetings held during public review of the FEIS. Public

comments regarding perceptions of risk, uncertainties, and consequences will be included as part of the

final feasibility report and FEIS. Potential risk and uncertainties with the CIP, and those expressed by the

public will be provided to decision makers and during the Civil Works Review Board briefings.

280
X-1

X. RECOMMENDED PLAN

X.A OVERVIEW

Previous chapters described the analyses conducted during the planning study process to identify the NED

Plan, the Recommended Plan, the DMMP, and Mitigation Plan with the ultimate goal of identifying the

Recommended Plan. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the plan that will be recommended for

implementation to the U.S. Congress.

The Recommended Plan described below addresses the problems and opportunities, identified at the

beginning of the study, and satisfies the planning objectives of increasing navigational efficiency along

the SNWW while maintaining the coastal and estuarine resources within the project area. The

Recommended Plan is the LPP Plan, preferred by the Sponsor. Engineering Plates referenced in this

section are in Appendix 1 of this document.

X.B GENERAL NAVIGATION FEATURES OF RECOMMENDED

PLAN

The Recommended Plan calls for a 48-foot-deep channel from Sabine Pass Channel to the Port of

Beaumont on the Neches River Channel with no additional widening, widening and deepening of Taylor

Bayou TBs and channels to 48 feet, and several TBs and ABs on the Neches River Channel (Figure X-1).

The Recommended Plan would increase the existing channel depth by 8 feet, increasing the inland portion

from 40 to 48 feet and increasing the existing offshore portions from 42 to 50 feet (plus overdepth and

advance maintenance as needed). Two feet of overdepth and 2 feet of advance maintenance are included

for the entire channel length. In high shoaling areas, additional advance maintenance is required in order

to maintain current maintenance dredging cycles along the waterway. The total length of the SNWW with

the proposed channel modifications would be approximately 77 miles. No modifications to the existing

Sabine Pass jetties are required by the proposed project.

The following description of the recommended channel improvements to the SNWW begins at the Gulf

of Mexico (offshore) channel reach and moves inland to the Beaumont TB on the Neches River. A plan

view of the Recommended Plan is provided on Engineering Plate G-02, and the project dimensions are

identified in Table X-1.

Sabine Bank Extension Channel

This channel lengthens the existing offshore entrance channel approximately 13.2 miles at a bottom width

of 700 feet (Engineering Plate No. C-12). The additional length is required to reach a water depth in the

Gulf of Mexico equal to the proposed channel depth. The proposed offshore depth is 50 feet, but advance

maintenance and allowable overdepth would add a total of 4 more feet, bringing the total dredged depth

of the Extension Channel to 54 feet. It would be constructed by hopper dredge beginning at the end of the

281
X: Recommended Plan

X-2

Table X-1

Project Dimensions for Recommended Plan

Reach Station to Station

Bottom

Width

(feet)

Project

Depth

(feet)

Side

Slope

Extension Channel 165+443 95+734 700 50 1V/2H

Sabine Bank Channel 95+734 18+000 700–800 50 1V/2H

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel 18+000 0+000 800 50 1V/10H

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel –214+88 0+00 800–500 48 1V/2H

Sabine Pass Channel 0+00 296+25 500 48 1V/2H

Port Arthur Canal 0+00 325+84 500 48 1V/2H

Sabine-Neches Canal 0+00 592+94 400 48 1V/2H

Neches River Channel 0+00 980+00 400 48 1V/2H

Taylor Bayou

Entrance Channel 0+00 25+27 406–764 48 1V/2H

East Turning Basin 0+00 17+65 532–354 48 1V/2H

West Turning Basin 25+27 41+30 776 48 1V/2H

Connecting Channel 41+30 71+50 470–250 48 1V/2H

Taylor Bayou Turning Basin 71+50 106+25 1000 48 1V/2H

Sabine Bank Channel and it would extend into the Gulf of Mexico at the same bearing as the Sabine Bank

Channel.

Sabine Bank Channel

This 14.7-mile-long channel would be deepened from 42 to 50 feet using a hopper dredge (Engineering

Plate No. C-11). When advance maintenance and allowable overdepth are added to the proposed 50-foot

depth, the Sabine Bank Channel would be dredged to 54 feet. The bottom width of the Sabine Bank

Channel is currently 800 feet; it would remain 800 feet wide for the first mile past the end of the Outer

Bar Channel, and then it would taper from 800 to 700 feet over the next 1⁄2 mile. The Sabine Bank

Channel would continue the 700-foot bottom width for approximately 13.2 miles to its connection with

the Extension Channel. Since the existing channel is 800 feet wide, new channel markers would be

required to mark the tapered transition and the remainder of the narrowed Sabine Bank Channel.

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel

This 3.4-mile-long channel would be deepened from 42 to 50 feet using a hopper dredge. Due to high

shoaling rates in this portion of the channel, advance maintenance depths would be increased to maintain

current maintenance dredging cycles. Including allowable overdepth, advance maintenance, and

additional advance maintenance, the Outer Bar Channel would be dredged to 58 feet. The Outer Bar

Channel would remain at its current 800 feet bottom width due to strong crosscurrents just beyond the end

of the SNWW jetties (Engineering Plate No. C-11).

282
X-3

283
X: Recommended Plan

X-4

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel

This 4.1-mile-long channel would be deepened to 48 feet using a hopper dredge. When advance

maintenance and allowable overdepth are added, the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel would be dredged to

52 feet. The width of the channel would remain the same, the channel would gradually taper from the

existing 800-foot width at the mouth of the jetties to 500 feet wide at the head of the jetties (Station

0+00). No impacts to the jetties have been identified that are associated with the proposed improvements.

Sabine Pass Channel

This 5.6-mile-long channel begins just north of the jetties and extends upstream to Mesquite Point on

Pleasure Island (Engineering Plate Nos. C-10, C-11, and C-12). It would be deepened to 48 feet and

constructed with a hydraulic pipeline dredge. Shoaling rates vary in different sections of the Sabine Pass

Channel, and advance maintenance and allowable overdepth vary to meet these conditions. The total

dredging depth for two reaches (Station 0+00 to Station 100+00, and Station 180+00 to Station 230+00)

would be 52 feet. Due to higher shoaling rates, the reach from Station 100+00 to Station 180+00 would

require additional advance maintenance and be dredged to a depth of 55 feet, while the reach from Station

230+00 to the end of the Sabine Pass Channel at Station 295+61 would be dredged to a depth of 57 feet.

The bottom width of the Sabine Pass Channel would remain at 500 feet with a new centerline closely

following the existing centerline. The Sabine Pass Anchorage is located in this reach, and its footprint

would be reduced in size because it has never been fully utilized. The width would be decreased from

1,500 to 855 feet, and the length would remain at 8,200 feet. The angle of approach would remain the

same.

Port Arthur Canal

This 6.2-mile-long canal begins near Mesquite Point and ends at the Port Arthur Junction Area with the

Taylor Bayou channels (Engineering Plate Nos. C-08 and C-09). The Port Arthur Canal would be

deepened to the proposed depth of 48 feet with a hydraulic pipeline dredge. The Port Arthur Junction

Area serves as a TB and has a high shoaling rate due to the confluence of the GIWW and the Taylor

Bayou TB with the SNWW. This confluence of water bodies decreases channel velocities resulting in

increased shoaling. For these reasons, the reach from Station 0+00 to Station 290+00 would be dredged to

a depth of 54 feet. The remaining part (Port Arthur Junction) between stations 290+00 and 326+37 would

be dredged to a depth of 57 feet. Additional advance maintenance is required in these reaches to address

high shoaling areas while keeping the current dredging frequency. The bottom width of the Port Arthur

Canal would remain 500 feet.

Taylor Bayou Channels and Turning Basins

Located at the confluence of the Port Arthur Junction Area, the GIWW, and the mouth of the original

Taylor Bayou, the Taylor Bayou Channels and TB consist of several subreaches: Entrance Channel, East

TB, West TB, Connecting Channel, and the Taylor Bayou TB. Several significant changes are proposed

for this area. When advance maintenance and allowable overdepth are added to the proposed 48-foot

284
X: Recommended Plan

X-5

depth, the Taylor Bayou channels and TB would be dredged to 54 feet. The Taylor Bayou portion of the

Junction Area, between stations 0+00 and 31+10, would be dredged to 57 feet (see additional advance

maintenance explanation provided for Port Arthur Canal). The Entrance Channel and the West TB

bottleneck curve would be widened, and a structural wall would protect local railroad tracks. Changes for

each subreach are detailed below.

• Entrance Channel. The new bottom width widens on the west side of the channel. The channel

would be widened to 444 feet at new Station 10+00. The new bottom width would taper back to

the existing width by the end of the first curve at Station 28+38.

• East Turning Basin. The right side width would decrease 16 feet as the new depth extends down

the existing side slope.

• West Turning Basin. The width of the existing bottleneck has been increased up to 120 feet on

the west side, between new stations 33+00 and 55+00. The west bank of the basin would be

protected by a structural wall, preventing impacts to the local railroad tracks present in this area.

• Connecting Channel. The West TB widening tapers back to the existing width in the Connecting

Channel, between stations 55+00 and 67+00.

• Taylor Bayou Turning Basin. No changes would be made to the existing dimensions, but the

basin would be deepened to the proposed 48-foot depth. Existing shore protection belonging to a

local facility near Station 90+00 would be affected by the top-of-cut for the new depth.

Sabine-Neches Canal

The 11.2-mile-long canal begins at the Port Arthur Junction Area and ends just south of the mouth of the

Neches River (Engineering Plate Nos. C-04, C-05, C-06, and C-07). The GIWW shares this canal with

the deep-draft channel. It would be deepened to the proposed depth of 48 feet with a hydraulic pipeline

dredge. Additional advance maintenance (near the junction of the Port Arthur Canal and the SabineNeches Canal) is required since the area is a high-shoaling area, and additional advance maintenance

dredging would allow current O&M dredging frequencies to be maintained. When allowable overdepth,

advance maintenance, and additional advance maintenance are added, stations 0+00 to 40+00 would be

dredged to 57 feet, and remainder of the canal through Station 592+91 would be dredged to 53 feet.

The bottom width of the canal would be selectively widened in three separate sections. The bottom width

of the most-downstream curve (stations 0+00 to 20+00) would be widened to 500 feet on the east side of

the channel, and then promptly tapered to the existing 400-foot width prior to the MLK Bridge (SH 82).

The canal would be widened to 450 feet adjacent to the Port of Port Arthur, with gradual tapering

upstream and downstream between stations 120+00 and 170+00. The third widening section begins to

taper at Station 565+00, gradually widening to 500 feet and remaining that width to the end at Station

592+91.

Bend easing is planned for three areas in the Sabine-Neches Canal to improve ship maneuverability:

stations 265+00 to 305+00, stations 350+00 to 395+00, and stations 500+00 to 520+00. The bend easing

285
X: Recommended Plan

X-6

between stations 350+00 and 395+00 eliminates a wiggle in the alignment, and shifts the footprint of the

canal 10 feet east of the existing alignment up to Station 520+00.

Changes are also recommended for the canal bottom adjacent to the Port Arthur Dock and the “Eye

Basin.” The canal toes adjacent to the Port of Port Arthur would be moved approximately 10 feet to the

right while keeping the same bottom width of 450 feet. The diameter of the existing turning point (“Eye

Basin”) at Station 190+00 would be decreased by 16 feet.

Neches River Channel

This 18.5-mile-long channel begins just south of the mouth of the Neches River (Engineering Plate Nos.

C-01, C-02, C-03, and C-04). It would be deepened to the proposed depth of 48 feet to Station 980+00

with a hydraulic pipeline dredge. Shoaling rates vary in different sections of the Neches River Channel,

and advance maintenance and allowable overdepth would vary to meet these conditions. Between stations

0+00 and 440+00, the total dredged depth would be 52 feet; between stations 440+00 and 978+00, it

would be 54 feet (due to 2 feet of additional advance maintenance). While the overall bottom width of

400 feet does not change for the majority of the channel length, the first curve at the mouth of Neches

River (between stations 0+00 and 75+00) would be widened to 500 feet, and then tapered back to 400 feet

prior to the SH 87 twin bridges.

Three basins would be added or enlarged on the Neches River Channel. All three would be dredged to the

proposed depth of 48 feet, plus the advance maintenance and allowable overdepth associated with the

specific channel reach in which they are located. One TB, Turning Basin No. 6, is an existing basin and

would continue to be maintained at the existing 40-foot depth and existing advance maintenance and

allowable overdepth.

• TB and AB No. 1 is located in an old river oxbow at the east end of Texaco Island near Station

210+00. The TB enlarges the existing basin from 1,000 to 1,350 feet in diameter. A new AB, 250

by 1,100 feet in size, would be added.

• TB and AB No. 4 enlarges an existing turning point at Station 510+00 from 1,000 to 1,350 feet

in diameter. A new AB in the old river oxbow at Station 500+00 would be 250 by 1,100 feet in

size.

• AB No. 8 is new and would be located at Station 850+00. The 250 by 1,000-foot basin is located

in an old river oxbow.

DMMP

PAs would be able to accommodate material from both construction and maintenance dredging of the

Federal channel over the 50-year period of analysis. They are also designed to accommodate non-Federal

dredging (estimated at 5.2 percent of material to be placed in upland PAs) of private facilities on the Port

Arthur and Sabine-Neches canals, and the Neches River Channel. PAs proposed as part of the

Recommended Plan consist of upland PAs, ODMDS and GNF BU features (Neches River and Gulf Shore

BU features) (tables X-2, X-3, and X-4). Sixteen existing and two expanded upland PAs are proposed for

286
X: Recommended Plan

X-7

use with the Recommended Plan. Offshore placement consists of four existing ODMDSs (1–4) and four

new ODMDSs (A–D). More-detailed descriptions of the 50-year DMMP for the Recommended Plan can

be found in Section VIII of this document and in Appendix D of the FEIS.

Table X-2

Upland Placement Areas for the Recommended Plan

Placement

Area

Additional

Cell(s)

Size

(acres) Associated Waterway Section

5 N&S, B, C 957 Sabine Pass Channel (sections 5 and 6)

8 3,570 Port Arthur Canal (sections 7 and 8)

Sabine-Neches Canal (Section 9)

9A B 481 Port Arthur Canal (Section 8)

11 2,170 Sabine-Neches Canal (Section 10)

12 355 Neches River Channel (Section 11)

13 140 Neches River Channel (Section 11)

14 255 Neches River Channel (Section 12)

16 288 Neches River Channel (Section 13)

17 316 Neches River Channel (Section 13)

18 A 432 Neches River Channel (Section 14)

21 135 Neches River Channel (Section 14)

23 A 773 Neches River Channel (Section 15)

24 A 575 Neches River Channel (Section 16)

25 A 820 Neches River Channel (Section 17)

26 192 Neches River Channel (Section 18)

27 A, C, D 270 Neches River Channel (Section 18)

Table X-3

Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites for Recommended Plan

Placement

Area

Size

(acres) Status

Associated Waterway

Section

A 3,405 New Extension Channel

B 3,405 New Extension Channel

C 3,405 New Extension Channel

D 3,405 New Extension Channel

1 2,020 Active Section 1

2 4,738 Active Section 2

3 3,939 Active Section 3

4 3,444 Active Section 4

287
X: Recommended Plan

X-8

Table X-4

GNF Beneficial Use Features in the Recommended Plan

Neches River BU Feature

• Rose City East Marsh Restoration (Engineering Plate No. C-01)

(TX 3-1 East) – Restoration of 345 acres of fresh marsh; improvement of 72 acres of shallow-water habitat;

nourishment of 151 acres of existing marsh

• Bessie Heights East Marsh Restoration (Engineering Plate No. C-24)

(TX 5-2) – Restoration of 679 acres of brackish marsh and 1,190 acres of intermediate marsh; improvement

of 660 acres of shallow-water habitat; nourishment of 651 acres of existing marsh

• Old River Cove Marsh Restoration (Engineering Plate No. C-25)

(TX 6-1) – Restoration of 639 acres of brackish marsh; improvement of 139 acres of shallow-water habitat;

nourishment of 432 acres of existing marsh

Gulf Shore BU Feature

• Texas Point Shoreline Nourishment (Engineering Plate No. C-27)

(TX 8-11) – Nourishment of 3 miles of Texas shoreline with maintenance material every 6 years

• Louisiana Point Shoreline Nourishment (Engineering Plate No. C-27)

(LA 5-6) – Nourishment of 3 miles of Louisiana shoreline with maintenance material every 6 years

Figure X-1 identifies the location of the major features of the Recommended Plan, specifically the

DMMP BU features and the mitigation measures, existing and new PAs, and the existing and new

ODMDSs.

Ecological Mitigation for the Recommended Plan

Marsh Mitigation

Marsh mitigation for the Recommended Plan consists of restoring five degraded marsh areas east of

Sabine Lake near Willow and Black bayous, Louisiana (Table X-5). The mitigation plan compensates for

the Recommended Plan’s salinity increase and associated losses in biological productivity by restoring

2,783 acres of emergent marsh in existing open-water areas within degraded marsh; improving 957 acres

of shallow-water habitat by creating shallower, smaller ponds and channels within the restored marsh; and

stabilizing and nourishing 4,355 acres of existing marsh located in and around the mitigation areas.

Additional details are provided in the FEIS.

288
X: Recommended Plan

X-9

Table X-5

Mitigation for Recommended Plan

Recommended Mitigation Plan

Mitigation

AAHUs

Willow Bayou

LA 2-18 B Marsh Restoration (Sabine Lake dredging) 152

LA 2ADD B Marsh Restoration (Sabine Lake dredging) 214

Black Bayou

LA 3-10R Marsh Restoration (Channel to Orange maintenance

material) 198

LA 3-15 B Marsh Restoration (GIWW dredging) 307

LA 3-18 B Marsh Restoration (GIWW dredging) 310

Total Compensation 1,181

FWP Mitigation Target –1,159

Net Benefits After Compensation 22

X.C LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY

The project Sponsor is required to furnish the LER for the proposed cost-shared project. The real estate

requirements must support construction as well as operation and maintenance of the project after

completion. A summary of the real estate requirements for each channel reach is provided in Table VII-6.

Specific details of the real estate requirements can be found in the Real Estate Plan, Appendix 4 of this

document.

X.D RELOCATIONS

The following assumptions were made to identify pipelines that could be affected by the Recommended

Plan and to develop associated costs. The individual circumstances of each pipeline will be evaluated by

USACE in consultation with the pipeline owner during the PED and Construction phases, and decisions

regarding necessary actions will be made individually for each pipeline at that time. Feasibility

engineering guidelines indicate that pipelines with a minimum of 8 feet of cover for trenched lines or

5 feet of cover for directionally drilled lines would not be adjusted. Pipelines that do not meet the

minimum cover requirement would be required to be adjusted. The adjusted pipelines must be located

20 feet below the authorized 48-foot depth. The 20 feet includes any advance maintenance and allowable

overdepth. The relocation of active pipelines is assumed to be installed with directional drilling, and

bundled where possible.

A total of 104 pipelines have been identified crossing the SNWW navigation channels. Of the 104

pipelines, 46 require adjustment to meet the minimum required vertical and horizontal clearances for the

CIP.

Pursuant to Section 101(a) of the WRDA 86, as amended, the Sponsor is responsible for performing, or

assuring performance, of all relocations, including utility relocations, which are necessary for the CIP. All

relocations, including utility relocations, are to be accomplished at no cost to the Federal Government.

289
X: Recommended Plan

X-10

The Galveston District has concluded preliminarily that 41 of the 46 lines located within the channel must

be relocated and are classified as utility relocations for which the Sponsor must perform or assure

performance. In accordance with Section 101(a)(4) of WRDA 86, one-half of the cost of each such

relocation will be borne by the owner of the facility being relocated and one-half of the cost of each such

relocation will be borne by the Sponsor. Such relocation costs will not include any cost for upgrading or

improving such facilities, which is to be borne by the facility owner.

For more-specific information regarding the utility relocations, and preliminary conclusions regarding the

remaining five lines that must be removed but not replaced, see the Real Estate Plan, Appendix 4, of this

document.

DMMP marsh restoration at Bessie Heights and mitigation marsh restoration measures east of Sabine

Lake were assumed to require no relocations. However, since oil production is active in some of these

areas, additional pipeline searches and coordination with pipeline owners would be required prior to

construction to avoid impacts.

No relocations would be required for overhead power utilities, highway bridges, the Port Arthur HFP

Levee, or its associated pump stations and closure structures.

X.E AIDS TO NAVIGATION

Channel Markers

Some of the existing channel markers along the waterway would require removal and replacement. No

changes in channel markers are needed upstream of the Beaumont Maneuvering Basin and in the vicinity

of SH 87 on the Neches River Channel. However, channel markers along the remainder of the waterway

may need to be relocated, and new markers would be required along the Extension Channel.

X.F BRIDGE REINFORCEMENTS AND FENDERS

Channel modifications would require the removal and replacement of bridge fender systems that protect

the Rainbow Bridge and the Veterans Memorial Bridge over the Neches River, and the MLK Bridge over

the Sabine-Neches Canal. In addition, the existing support piers of the MLK Bridge would be hardened to

prevent instability that may develop with construction of the proposed 400-foot channel width.

290
XI-1

XI. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

XI.A OVERVIEW

This chapter identifies project cost sharing responsibilities for the Government and the Sponsor for the

construction and O&M of the Recommended Plan.

XI.B DIVISION OF PLAN RESPONSIBILITIES AND COST

SHARING REQUIREMENTS

The Recommended Plan would be accomplished at different cost sharing rates. Project cost sharing for

the project would be as follows:

• GNF down to 45-foot depth – 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal

• GNF deeper than 45-foot depth – 50 percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal

• O&M down to 45-foot depth – 100 percent Federal

• O&M deeper than 45-foot depth – 50 percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal

XI.C DESIGN PHASE COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVES SCREENING

During the detailed design phase, a different cost ($1.12/gallon fuel cost) and price level (October 2005)

were used to identify the least-cost placement alternative (Section VII.E, Table VII-4). Costs have not

been updated for this comparison because it was used to screen two placement plan alternatives (a

Traditional Placement Alternative and the BU Alternative) during the detailed design phase. No changes

have been made to the alternatives that were compared. Costs for both alternatives would change

proportionately if they were updated with the most recent price levels. The difference in cost between the

two plans would not be materially different, and thus the decision to adopt the BU Alternative as a GNF

of the DMMP for the Recommended Plan would not be affected. An explanation of the $1.12 fuel cost

estimate is included below to explain the reasoning behind its use at that time.

Large fluctuations in fuel costs that occurred during the preparation of this report raised concerns that

benefits and costs, based upon different cost assumptions as required by the USACE guidance, would

lead to an unanticipated bias in the BCR. The USACE Headquarters provided interim guidance requiring

a different method of cost determination, which was followed in the preparation of cost screenings for the

SNWW CIP until deep-draft vessel operating costs were updated (EGM #08-04). In the interim guidance,

the USACE Headquarters and the IWR developed a price adjustment applicable to existing estimates of

inland vessel bunkerage costs, which approximated deep-draft or coastal dredge plant costs. The guidance

recommended that an estimated value of $1.12 per standard gallon be used for the economic analysis until

the EGM could be updated. Subsequently, the revised EGM was issued in November 2007, and the

project costs have been updated. The project cost tables presented in the sections below use the October

2009 price level and updated vessel-operating costs per EGM #08-04.

291
XI: Plan Implementation

XI-2

XI.D PROJECT COSTS

Three costs were developed for evaluation of the Recommended Plan. These costs include the Total First

Cost, the Recommended Plan Investment Cost, and the Fully Funded Cost. The Total First Cost is at

current levels, does not include interest during construction (IDC) or expected price escalation. The

Investment Cost includes all first costs and IDC. The Fully Funded Cost includes all first costs and price

escalation, but does not include the IDC. All three costs include associated costs such as LER, relocations

(including utility relocations), berthing area and dock modifications, and aids to navigation. All costs in

the project cost tables presented in the chapter were developed using October 2009 price levels;

annualized costs use an interest rate of 4.375 percent. Deep-draft vessel operating costs for the economic

analysis were developed based upon EGM #08-04.

Costs for the Recommended Plan

Total First Cost and Annualized O&M Costs

The Total First Cost is the cost at current levels and does not include IDC, or expected price escalation.

The Total First Cost for all project components ($1,071,877,000; Table XI-1) includes implementation

costs and associated costs. Implementation costs include postauthorization planning and design costs,

construction costs, LER, relocations, mitigation costs, and O&M. Construction costs include costs for

dredging, PA construction, aids to navigation (e.g., channel markers) and protection for MLK Bridge

supports and bridge fender replacement. The USACE coordinated with the USCG to develop costs for

aids to navigation, and with the Texas Department of Transportation to develop costs for bridge support

protection and fender systems. Costs for compensatory fish and wildlife mitigation (including deferred

construction costs for one mitigation measure) and cultural resource mitigation are also included.

Associated Federal and non-Federal costs are the costs of resources directly required for project construction, but for which no project expenditure is made, such as USCG navigation aids, relocations

(including utility relocations), and non-Federal berthing/dock modifications. A formal cost risk analysis

was performed in accordance with Engineering and Construction Bulletin 2007-17 that developed project

contingencies at the 80 percent confidence level. First costs and incremental O&M costs are expressed as

total average annual costs in the bottom portion of Table XI-1. Construction funding would fund all

project construction components.

Deferred Construction Costs

Deferred construction costs are related to one mitigation measure at West Black Bayou, Louisiana (LA 3-

10R). This mitigation measure would be constructed using material from regular maintenance dredging of

the Sabine River Channel to Orange over a 30-year period. The cost of the mitigation measure is the

incremental cost of pumping the additional distance to Louisiana and marsh restoration activities. The

first cycle of placement is included as a first cost of construction in the Recommended Plan cost estimates

(Contract 14). Intermittent construction over 30 years (six additional 5-year maintenance cycles) is shown

separately as an annualized deferred construction cost in tables XI-1 and XI-2. The Deferred construction

would be cost shared with the non-Federal project sponsor for the SNWW CIP.

292
XI: Plan Implementation

XI-3

Table XI-1

Total First Cost and Annualized O&M for the Recommended Plan

(All costs in dollars)

(October 2009 price level; 4.375% interest rate)

First Cost of Construction 873,610,000

Fish and Wildlife Mitigation 77,491,000

Cultural Resources Mitigation 1,248,000

Lands 4,361,000

Relocations 41,627,000

Bridge Modifications 51,794,000

Navigation Aids 1,492,000

Berthing and Dock Modifications 20,254,000

Total Project Cost 1,071,877,000

Average Annual Costs

First Cost Amortization 59,059,000

Deferred Construction (Fish and Wildlife Mitigation) 215,000

Incremental O&M

Total Incremental 32,006,000

non-Federal Disposal Facility Costs 61,000

Average Annual Costs 91,341,000

Since the Sabine River Channel is a separate project with a different non-Federal sponsor, each Sabine

River Channel maintenance cycle involving deferred construction would utilize three funding sources

(Federal O&M funds from the Sabine River Channel, and Federal construction funds and Sponsor

construction funds from the SNWW CIP). The Federal government and Sponsor must diligently budget

for the deferred construction so that funds are available when needed to avoid any delays in channel

maintenance and mitigation site construction.

Federal O&M Costs

The maintenance of project features would be funded through annual appropriations of the O&M

program. The actual amounts would vary on a year-to-year basis because of variability in the volume of

material removed during each dredging cycle and the variability of the cycles. O&M costs also vary

between channel depths. In accordance with Section 101(b) of WRDA 86 (Policy Guidance Letter [PGL]

47), O&M dredging and placement costs for maintenance of the channel depths between 40 and 45 feet

would be allocated as 100 percent Federal; this would be calculated as 62.5 percent of the total O&M

cost, determined as described for the GNF features in the Fully Funded Cost section, below. Costs for

maintenance of the channel depth below 45 feet (37.5 percent of the total O&M costs) would be allocated

as 50 percent non-Federal and 50 percent Federal. Expected cost sharing for all project components is

compliant with PGL 47, Dredged Material Disposal Facilities, and Dredged Material Disposal Facility

Partnerships.

293
XI: Plan Implementation

XI-4

Table XI-2

Total Investment Cost for the Recommended Plan

(October 2009 price level; 4.375 percent interest rate)

Total First Cost 1,071,877,000

Months to Construct 96

Interest During Construction 119,382,000

NED Investment Costs 1,191,259,000

Average Annual Project Cost 59,059,000

Incremental O&M 32,067,00

Deferred Construction (F&W Mitigation) 215,000

Total Annual Cost 91,341,000

Annual Benefits 115,074,000

Net Excess Benefits 23,733,000

BCR 1.3

Additional PA capacity for the Recommended Plan would be constructed regularly over the 50-year

period of analysis in conjunction with maintenance dredging cycles. Since established dredged material

management practices for the SNWW 40-foot project include regularly recurring levee raisings and the

enlargement or installation of new dewatering structures, the additional investment required to provide the

increased PA capacity for the Recommended Plan and PA costs attributable to the 40-foot project Base

Plan would be cost shared as O&M costs. Costs for disposal facility maintenance would be allocated as

100 percent Federal for maintenance of channel depths between 40 and 45 feet. Costs for disposal facility

maintenance associated with channel deepening below 45 feet would be allocated as 50 percent nonFederal and 50 percent Federal.

Non-Federal O&M Costs

In the SNWW, non-Federal maintenance material has traditionally been placed into the same PAs as

Federal material, at the request of the non-Federal sponsor. Additional capacity needed for the nonFederal maintenance material was therefore considered when determining improvements needed to

provide capacity for the 50-year period of analysis. It is projected that approximately 5.2 percent of the

48-foot project 50-year maintenance dredging quantity to be placed in upland disposal facilities would

originate from non-Federal dredging. Costs of providing the capacity needed to contain the non-Federal

dredged material are a local responsibility and are shown separately from the incremental Federal O&M

costs that would be cost-shared as described above.

National Economic Development Investment Cost

The Investment Cost is expressed in current dollars with IDC added (see Table XI-2). The Investment

Cost includes all of the implementation costs and non-Federal and Federal associated costs included in the

First Cost as described above. First costs, incremental O&M, and deferred construction for fish and

wildlife mitigation are expressed as total average annual costs in the bottom portion of Table XI-2, and

then net excess benefit totals and the BCR are calculated. Total average annual costs are compared to

294
XI: Plan Implementation

XI-5

projected annual benefits to determine net excess benefits and the BCR. The BCR for the Recommended

Plan is 1.3.

Fully Funded Cost

Total First Costs and price escalation, calculated by estimating the midpoint of the proposed construction

contracts, are combined to create the Fully Funded Cost. In order to allocate the share of construction and

O&M costs between the Federal government and the Sponsor, the cost must first be allocated by depth in

accordance with Section 101 of Public Law 99-662 (USACE, 2000b). Costs for the transportation and

placement of material during construction of the 48-foot project are GNF costs. The GNF costs are

assigned to the two depth ranges, in accordance with Section 101(a) of WRDA 86, by applying the

proportion of the channel deepening that would occur within each depth range. The cost allocation by

depth in first cost is shown in Table XI-3. Table XI-4 shows this cost allocation using the fully funded

cost. The amount associated with deepening between 40 and 45 feet (cost shared at 25 percent nonFederal and 75 percent Federal) was calculated by using an estimate for the 45-foot project. This 45-foot

cost estimate was developed to a level comparable to an MII cost estimate. The amount associated with

deepening below 45 feet (cost shared at 50 percent non-Federal and 50 percent Federal) was calculated by

taking the cost difference between the 48-foot alternative and the 45-foot plan. Costs for various

categories such as advance maintenance and allowable overdepth dredging were included in both the 45-

foot estimates and 48-foot estimates and are included in both depths in the same manner as other GNF

costs. None of the existing berthing areas and docks is presently deeper than the 40-foot channel, and

therefore these costs would also be allocated between the depths as are all other GNF costs. The Federal

costs for lands, fish and wildlife mitigation, cultural resources, and aids to navigation are the same in both

the 45-foot and 48-foot plans; therefore, there are no additional costs included in the analysis for

deepening from 45 to 48 feet.

XI.E COST SHARING ALLOCATION

The GNF costs for deepening between 40 and 45 feet are cost shared at 25 percent non-Federal and 75

percent Federal; costs for deepening below 45 feet are cost shared at 50 percent non-Federal and

50 percent Federal. The costs are separated into expected Federal and non-Federal shares and detailed in

tables XI-5 and XI-6. Table XI-5 used the projects first costs while Table XI-6 is in fully funded escalated

costs. Fish and wildlife mitigation is considered a GNF and is cost shared in the same manner as other

GNF costs. Costs for cultural resources data recovery would be handled in accordance with PL 93-291

(Section 7), e.g., data recovery costs would be 100 percent Federal up to 1 percent of the total amount

appropriated for the project. Based upon information available at this time, data recovery costs are not

expected to exceed the 1 percent limitation.

The Sponsor also must pay an additional 10 percent of the GNF costs in cash over a period not to exceed

30 years. This additional 10 percent cash contribution is offset by credit for LER and relocations

(including utility relocations) pursuant to Section 101(a)(2) of WRDA 86, as amended. Owners of berth

and dock facilities that would require modification in conjunction with the Recommended Plan would be

295
XI: Plan Implementation

XI-6

responsible for 100 percent of those associated costs. The USCG is responsible for 100 percent of the cost

for aids to navigation.

Table XI-3

Recommended Plan First Costs Allocation by Depth

(October 2009 Price Level)

(All costs in dollars)

Costs Allocated to

45-foot Depth

Costs Allocated to

Increment below

45-foot Depth Total Costs

General Navigation Features

Construction Dredging and Placement Areas 520,408,000 184,569,000 704,977,000

Bridge Modifications 45,577,000 6,217,000 51,794,000

Engineering and Design 82,895,000 22,817,000 105,712,000

Construction Management 48,425,000 14,496,000 62,921,000

Lands 744,000 0 744,000

Fish and Wildlife Mitigation 55,212,000 22,279,000 77,491,000

Cultural Resources Mitigation 1,248,000 0 1,248,000

Subtotal 754,509,000 250,378,000 1,004,887,000

Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way, and

Relocations

Land 3,617,000 0 3,617,000

Utility Relocations 0 20,813,500 20,813,500

Subtotal 3,617,000 20,813,500 24,430,500

Other Federal Costs

Aids to Navigation - USCG Channel Markers 1,492,000 0 1,492,000

Associated non-Federal Costs (owner cost)

Utility Relocations 20,813,500 20,813,500

Berthing Areas & Dock Modifications 13,187,000 7,067,000 20,254,000

Subtotal 13,187,000 27,880,500 41,067,500

First Costs 772,805,000 299,072,000 1,071,877,000

296
XI: Plan Implementation

XI-7

Table XI-4

Recommended Plan Fully Funded Costs Allocation by Depth

(October 2009 Price Level)

(All costs in dollars)

Costs Allocated to

45-foot Depth

Costs Allocated to

Increment below

45-foot Depth Total Costs

General Navigation Features

Construction Dredging and Placement Areas 564,466,000 200,193,000 764,659,000

Bridge Modifications 49,436,000 6,743,000 56,179,000

Engineering and Design 88,861,000 24,459,000 113,320,000

Construction Management 52,555,000 15,732,000 68,287,000

Lands 802,000 0 802,000

Fish and Wildlife Mitigation 59,928,000 24,181,000 84,109,000

Cultural Resources Mitigation 1,389,000 0 1,389,000

Subtotal 817,437,000 271,308,000 1,088,745,000

Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way, and

Relocations

Land 3,864,000 0 3,864,000

Utility Relocations 0 22,658,500 22,658,500

Subtotal 3,864,000 22,658,500 26,522,500

Other Federal Costs

Aids to Navigation - USCG Channel Markers 1,618,000 0 1,618,000

Associated non-Federal Costs (owner cost)

Utility Relocations 0 22,658,500 22,658,500

Berthing Areas & Dock Modifications 14,212,000 7,616,000 21,828,000

Subtotal 14,212,000 30,274,500 44,486,500

First Costs 837,131,000 324,241,000 1,161,372,000

297
XI: Plan Implementation

XI-8

Table XI-5

Recommended Plan – First Costs Allocation

(October 2009 Price Level)

(All costs in dollars)

Costs Allocated to 45-foot Depth Costs Allocated to Depth Increment below 45 feet

Total

Federal

Share

Total nonFederal

Share

Total First

Cost General Navigation Features

Federal

Share (75%

of 45-ft

Costs)

non-Federal

Share (25% of

45-ft Costs) Total

Federal Share

(50% of Cost -

Depth

Increment

Greater than

45 ft)

non-Federal

Share (50%

of Cost -

Depth

Increment

Greater than

45 ft) Total

Construction Dredging and Placement Areas 390,306,000 130,102,000 520,408,000 92,284,500 92,284,500 184,569,000 482,590,500 222,386,500 704,977,000Bridge Modifications 34,182,750 11,394,250 45,577,000 3,108,500 3,108,500 6,217,000 37,291,250 14,502,750 51,794,000Engineering and Design 62,171,250 20,723,750 82,895,000 11,408,500 11,408,500 22,817,000 73,579,750 32,132,250 105,712,000Construction Management 36,318,750 12,106,250 48,425,000 7,248,000 7,248,000 14,496,000 43,566,750 19,354,250 62,921,000Lands 558,000 186,000 744,000 – – – 558,000 186,000 744,000Fish and Wildlife Mitigation 41,409,000 13,803,000 55,212,000 11,139,500 11,139,500 22,279,000 52,548,500 24,942,500 77,491,000Cultural Resource Mitigation 100% Federal up to 1%

Limitation

100% Federal up to 1%

Limitation

1,248,000 – 1,248,000 – – – 1,248,000 – 1,248,000

Subtotal 566,193,750 188,315,250 754,509,000 125,189,000 125,189,000 250,378,000 691,382,750 313,504,250 1,004,887,000Lands, Easements, ROW, and Relocations (LERRs) 100% non–Federal 100% non–FederalLands – 3,617,000 3,617,000 – – – – 3,617,000 3,617,000Utility Relocations – – – – 20,813,500 20,813,500 – 20,813,500 20,813,500Subtotal – 3,617,000 3,617,000 – 20,813,500 20,813,500 – 24,430,500 24,430,500Other Federal Costs 100% Federal 100% FederalAids to Navigation - USCG Channel Markers 1,492,000 – 1,492,000 – – – 1,492,000 – 1,492,000Associated non-Federal Costs (owner cost) 100% non–Federal 100% non–FederalUtility Relocations – – – – 20,813,500 20,813,500 – 20,813,500 20,813,500Berthing Areas & Dock Modifications – 13,187,000 13,187,000 – 7,067,000 7,067,000 – 20,254,000 20,254,000Subtotal – 13,187,000 13,187,000 – 27,880,500 27,880,500 – 41,067,500 41,067,500Total First Costs 567,685,750 205,119,250 772,805,000 125,189,000 173,883,000 299,072,000 692,874,750 379,002,250 1,071,877,000

298
XI: Plan Implementation

XI-9

Table XI-6

Recommended Plan – Fully Funded Costs Allocation

(October 2009 Price Level)

(All costs in dollars)

Costs Allocated to 45-foot Depth Costs Allocated to Depth Increment below 45 feet

Total

Federal

Share

Total nonFederal

Share

Total Fully

Funded Cost General Navigation Features

Federal Share

(75% of 45-ft

Costs)

non-Federal

Share (25%

of 45-ft

Costs) Total

Federal Share

(50% of Cost -

Depth

Increment

Greater than

45 ft)

non-Federal

Share (50%

of Cost -

Depth

Increment

Greater than

45 ft) Total

Construction Dredging and Placement Areas 423,349,500 141,116,500 564,466,000 100,096,500 100,096,500 200,193,000 523,446,000 241,213,000 764,659,000Bridge Modifications 37,077,000 12,359,000 49,436,000 3,371,500 3,371,500 6,743,000 40,448,500 15,730,500 56,179,000Engineering and Design 66,645,750 22,215,250 88,861,000 12,229,500 12,229,500 24,459,000 78,875,250 34,444,750 113,320,000Construction Management 39,416,250 13,138,750 52,555,000 7,866,000 7,866,000 15,732,000 47,282,250 21,004,750 68,287,000Lands 601,500 200,500 802,000 – – – 601,500 200,500 802,000Fish and Wildlife Mitigation 44,946,000 14,982,000 59,928,000 12,090,500 12,090,500 24,181,000 57,036,500 27,072,500 84,109,000Cultural Resource Mitigation 100% Federal up to 1%

Limitation

100% Federal up to 1%

Limitation

1,389,000 – 1,389,000 – – – 1,389,000 – 1,389,000

Subtotal 613,425,000 204,012,000 817,437,000 135,654,000 135,654,000 271,308,000 749,079,000 339,666,000 1,088,745,000

Lands, Easements, Rights of Way, and Relocations 100% non-Federal 100% non-FederalLands – 3,864,000 3,864,000 – – – 3,864,000 3,864,000Utility Relocations – – – – 22,658,500 22,658,500 – 22,658,500 22,658,500

Subtotal – 3,864,000 3,864,000 – 22,658,500 22,658,500 – 26,522,500 26,522,500

Other Federal Costs 100% Federal 100% FederalAids to Navigation - USCG Channel Markers 1,618,000 – 1,618,000 – – – 1,618,000 – 1,618,000Associated non-Federal Costs (owner cost) 100% non-Federal 100% non-FederalUtility Relocations – – – – 22,658,500 22,658,500 – 22,658,500 22,658,500Berthing Areas & Dock Modifications – 14,212,000 14,212,000 – 7,616,000 7,616,000 – 21,828,000 21,828,000Subtotal – 14,212,000 14,212,000 – 30,274,500 30,274,500 – 44,486,500 44,486,500Fully-Funded (Escalated) Costs 615,043,000 222,088,000 837,131,000 135,654,000 188,587,000 324,241,000 750,697,000 410,675,000 1,161,372,000

299
XI: Plan Implementation

XI-10

XI.F ADDITIONAL NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR CASH

CONTRIBUTION

For all navigation channel depths, the Sponsor must provide an additional cash contribution equal to

10 percent of fully funded GNF costs as shown below in Table XI-7 (USACE, 2000b). These costs may

be paid over a period not exceeding 30 years. The Sponsor’s costs for LER and relocations (including

utility relocations) are credited against the additional cash contribution.

Table XI-7

Total General Navigation Features Costs and Credits

(October 2009 Price Level)

(All costs in dollars)

Cost-Shared GNF 1,088,745,000

10% of GNF 108,874,500

Creditable Land Costs 3,864,000

Relocation Costs 22,658,500

Total non-Federal Sponsor Creditable Costs 26,522,500

Creditable Difference (82,352,000)

XI.G NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR VIEWS

The Sponsor for the existing project, SNND, has actively participated in the entire planning process. Their

primary concern has been to provide the community with a channel design, preferably 48 feet deep, to

increase navigation efficiency and prepare for future needs. The SNND fully supports the Recommended

Plan and has indicated an interest in beginning construction as soon as possible.

300
XII-1

XII. SUMMARY OF COORDINATION

XII.A OVERVIEW

This section identifies the coordination process used during the feasibility study to obtain comments and

concerns from the general public, State and Federal resource agencies, and any other interested parties. A

general summary of the comments is provided below. A more detailed description of the public

involvement process and a complete list of all comments can be found in Appendix A of the FEIS.

XII.B COORDINATION

The USACE and SNND developed a public involvement plan to be used during the feasibility phase for

the SNWW CIP. The goal of the public involvement plan was to ensure that the USACE and SNND were

responsive to the needs and concerns of all stakeholders and to ensure public involvement through an

open, interactive process. Stakeholders include all the various publics that could be affected or might be

interested in the project. The plan helped the USACE and SNND provide information to, and obtain

information from, the stakeholders.

Coordination with resource agencies was conducted primarily through the ICT and technical working

group meetings. Resource agencies and the study team met regularly throughout the study process. Over

30 workgroup meetings and 11 ICT meetings were held.

A proactive outreach program was initiated to ensure that the public, resource agencies, industry, local

government, and other interested parties were informed about the project and that any concerns were

identified and addressed. Each of the activities listed here is described individually in Appendix A of the

FEIS. The outreach program included:

• Scoping meetings;

• Public workshops to obtain ideas for BU of dredged material;

• Media trips by boat down the waterway;

• Presentations at the GMFMC's Texas Habitat Protection Advisory Panel;

• Presentations at regular meetings of Southeast Texas Waterway Advisory Council,

• Meetings with SPA;

• Presentation at the 2007 South East Texas Leaders meeting; and

• Meetings with SNWW industries.

XII.C PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS

The following is an overview of the comments and concerns throughout the study process. These

comments were received from the general public, State and Federal resource agencies, and other

interested parties.

301
XII: Summary of Coordination

XII-2

Saltwater Intrusion

The primary environmental concern is the potential for the proposed CIP to increase saltwater intrusion,

and for higher salinity levels to further degrade marshes and cypress swamps in both Texas and

Louisiana. The combined effects of subsidence and sea level rise are expected to increase marsh

submergence and worsen this trend. The public and resource agencies identified severely stressed marsh

areas at Texas Point and Salt Bayou in the Sabine Pass area, in the Neches River reach between Sabine

Lake and IH 10, and in the extensive marshes east of Sabine Lake.

An associated issue is the deterioration of wildlife habitat and fishery nursery areas and the destruction of

fish and wildlife resources that could occur as a result of increased wetland loss. All or portions of the

following federally and State-protected lands are located in sensitive habitats, which may be affected by

the proposed CIP: the Sabine NWR, the McFaddin NWR, the Texas Point NWR, the J.D. Murphree

WMA, the Lower Neches WMA, the Tony Houseman WMA, and the Sabine Island WMA.

It was suggested that environmental impacts as a consequence of the proposed CIP should be avoided if

possible. A lock at Sabine Pass, a sill or constriction at the mouth of Sabine Lake, and smaller water

control structures in the marshes east of Sabine Lake were suggested as methods to minimize or avoid

impacts. Other comments warned of the potential harmful effects of water control structures, which

inhibit the movement of marine organisms into and out of intertidal marshes.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species are a concern, particularly dredging impacts to

endangered sea turtles. The offshore channel deepening and extension would require the use of hopper

dredges, which create particular hazards for sea turtles. Critical Habitat for the wintering piping plover is

present in the study area.

Contaminated Sediments

The public also expressed concern that dredging for the proposed CIP and the placement of dredged

material would spread contaminated sediments or affect water quality. It is feared that new work dredging

would release contaminants from past industrial discharges into the water column, or that areas selected

for the BU of dredged material could be polluted.

The BU of dredged material to restore degraded marshes was encouraged by the public and resource

agencies. The following sites were specifically identified as areas that could benefit: Rose City marsh,

Bessie Heights marsh, Keith Lake marsh, marshes in the McFaddin NWR, east Sabine Lake marshes, and

the Gulf shoreline at Texas Point and Holly Beach. Construction of a bird island in Sabine Lake was also

suggested. The BU of dredged material would reduce the need for new or expanded PAs and reduce

potential wetland impacts.

302
XII: Summary of Coordination

XII-3

Essential Fish Habitat

The proposed CIP, including the Gulf of Mexico ODMDSs, could impact EFH for red drum; brown,

white, and pink shrimp; Spanish mackerel; and estuarine water column and mud/sand bottoms. Potential

effects to nursery and foraging habitat for economically important marine fishery species such as spotted

sea trout, flounder, Atlantic croaker, black drum, Gulf menhaden, striped mullet, and blue crab also need

to be evaluated for adverse effects associated with proposed water control structures.

Storm Surge and Erosion

Concern has been expressed that the proposed CIP could increase tidal amplitude, and increase damage

during storm surges by allowing the surge to inundate areas that have not been affected by previous

storms. Concerns were also expressed about the potential increased erosion along the shoreline of the

channel due to increased or larger vessel traffic.

Cultural Resources

Concern was expressed that the use of the existing PA 5 would adversely affect public access to the

Sabine Lighthouse, a National Register-listed property. A road around the perimeter of the PA is currently

the only access route to the Lighthouse. Changes or enlargements to this PA could limit or remove access

to the historic property. Furthermore, proposed project improvements could affect the Sabine Pass

Battleground Park, Fort Griffin, and associated shipwrecks along the waterway. These sites and the

shipwrecks are associated with important battles during the U.S. Civil War.

Socioeconomic and Project Costs

Considerable concern was expressed by government agencies in Louisiana that the proposed CIP would

have adverse effects on their State’s environment while providing no economic benefits for Louisiana.

Officials at the West Calcasieu Port, Harbor and Terminal District urged that navigation improvements be

evaluated on a regionwide basis, because channel improvements in Texas could put their facilities and the

Port of Lake Charles at a competitive disadvantage. Cameron Parish officials expressed support for

economic development that would benefit their constituents. Cameron Parish officials were also

concerned that lands suitable for commercial development at Sabine Pass were being considered for use

as PAs. Developable lands are limited on the Louisiana side of the SNWW, and all are needed to promote

economic development.

The high concentration of petrochemical refineries and terminals in the study area means that a large

number of pipelines are also present. Local industries are concerned that these pipelines would be affected

by the proposed channel deepening and that they would be responsible for the cost of relocating these

pipelines below a deeper channel bottom.

303
XII: Summary of Coordination

XII-4

Several members of the general public expressed concern that the cost of this project would be large, that

benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh costs, and that costs would be passed on to taxpayers in the

form of higher taxes.

Public Infrastructure

Jefferson County Drainage District #7 expressed concern that channel widening and deepening could

affect the structural integrity of the Port Arthur Hurricane Protection Levee, pump stations, and closure

structures. The Texas Department of Transportation expressed concern that increased erosion could

adversely affect SH 82 and SH 87. Both are located immediately adjacent to the SNWW and are affected

by present channel bank erosion. Additional erosion of SH 87 could destroy the only road access to the

City of Sabine Pass.

304
XIII-1

XIII. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the analyses and information in this document and the FEIS, it is recommended that the existing

SNWW, Texas, authorized by the RHA of 1962, be modified generally as described in this report as the

Recommended Plan, with such modifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may consider

advisable, and subject to cost-sharing and financing arrangements satisfactory to the President of the

United States and Congress, to provide deep-draft channel and selective widening improvements and

continued maintenance of the SNWW Channel.

A categorical exemption for navigation projects exists to deviate from selection of the NED plan in

accordance with ER 1105-2-100, E-3.b(5) that states:

“Categorical Exemption for Flood Control and Navigation Projects. If the non-Federal

sponsor identifies a constraint to maximum physical project size or a financial constraint

due to limited resources, and if net benefits are increasing as the constraint is reached, the

requirement to formulate larger scale plans in an effort to identify the NED plan is

suspended. The constrained plan may be recommended. . . .”

The proposed project meets the requirements for a categorical exemption due to the sponsor’s financial

constraint and is recommended as the recommended plan. This constrained LPP consists of deepening of

the channel to 48 feet as described in Section X of this report.

XIII.A PROJECT COSTS (October 2009 Price Levels)

For the purpose of calculating the Section 902 limit, the total estimated first cost of the project is

$1,029,318,000, including an estimated Federal share of $691,383,000 and an estimated non-Federal

share of $337,935,000. Total First Cost of all project components in current dollars, without escalation

and IDC, totals $1,071,877,000. The Fully Funded Cost for the project, which includes Total First Costs

and expected escalation, is $1,161,372,000. The Investment Cost of all components totals

$1,191,259,000, and includes $119,382,000 in IDC. Total annual costs for the project are $91,341,000

and total annual benefits are $115,074,000, resulting in a project BCR of 1.3.

XIII.B REQUIREMENTS

These recommendations are made with the provision that, prior to implementation of the recommended

improvements, the Sponsor shall enter into binding agreements with the Federal government to comply

with the following requirements.

The SNND shall:

a. Provide 10 percent of the total cost of construction of the general navigation features (GNFs)

attributable to dredging to a depth not in excess of 20 feet; plus 25 percent of the total cost of

construction of the GNFs attributable to dredging to a depth in excess of 20 feet but not in

305
XIII: Recommendations

XIII-2

excess of 45 feet; plus 50 percent of the total cost of construction of the GNFs attributable to

dredging to a depth in excess of 45 feet as further specified below:

1. Provide 25 percent of design costs allocated by the Government to commercial

navigation in accordance with the terms of a design agreement entered into prior to

commencement of design work for the project;

2. Provide, during the first year of construction, any additional funds necessary to pay the

full non-Federal share of design costs allocated by the Government to commercial

navigation;

3. Provide, during construction, any additional funds necessary to make its total

contribution for commercial navigation equal to 10 percent of the total cost of

construction of the GNFs attributable to dredging to a depth not in excess of 20 feet; plus

25 percent of the total cost of construction of the GNFs attributable to dredging to a depth

in excess of 20 feet but not in excess of 45 feet; plus 50 percent of the total cost of

construction of the GNFs attributable to dredging to a depth in excess of 45 feet;

b. Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way (LER), including those necessary for the

borrowing of material and the disposal of dredged or excavated material, and perform or

ensure the performance of all relocations, including utility relocations, all as determined by

the Federal Government to be necessary for the construction or operation and maintenance, of

the GNFs;

c. Pay with interest, over a period not to exceed 30 years following completion of the period of

construction of the GNFs, an additional amount equal to 10 percent of the total cost of

construction of the GNFs less the amount of credit afforded by the Government for the value

of the LER and relocations, including utility relocations, provided by the Sponsor for the

GNF. If the amount of credit afforded by the Government for the value of the LER and

relocations, including utility relocations, provided by the Sponsor equals or exceeds 10

percent of the total cost of construction of the GNFs, the Sponsor shall not be required to

make any contribution under this paragraph, nor shall it be entitled to any refund for the value

of LER and relocations, including utility relocations, in excess of 10 percent of the total cost

of construction of the GNFs;

d. Provide, operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate, at its own expense, the local

service facilities in a manner compatible with the project’s authorized purposes and in

accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations and any specific directions

prescribed by the Federal Government;

e. Provide 50 percent of the excess cost of operation and maintenance of the project over that

cost that the Federal Government determines would be incurred for operation and

maintenance if the project had a depth of 45 feet;

f. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner,

upon property that the Sponsor owns or controls for access to the project for the purpose of

completing, inspecting, operating, and maintaining the GNFs;

306
XIII: Recommendations

XIII-3

g. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the construction or

operation and maintenance of the project, any betterments, and the local service facilities,

except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors;

h. Keep, and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and

expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum of 3 years after completion of the

accounting for which such books, records, documents, and other evidence is required, to the

extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total cost of construction of the GNFs, and in

accordance with the standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform

Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and local

governments at 32 CFR, Section 33.20;

i. Perform, or ensure performance of, any investigations for hazardous substances as are

determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances

regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA), 42 USC 9601–9675, that may exist in, on, or under LER that the Federal

Government determines to be necessary for the construction or operation and maintenance of

the GNFs. However, for lands that the Government determines to be subject to the navigation

servitude, only the Government shall perform such investigations unless the Federal

Government provides the Sponsor with prior specific written direction, in which case the

Sponsor shall perform such investigations in accordance with such written direction;

j. Assume complete financial responsibility, as between the Federal Government and the

Sponsor, for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any hazardous materials regulated

under CERCLA that are located in, on, or under LER that the Federal Government

determines to be necessary for the construction or operation and maintenance of the project;

k. To the maximum extent practicable, perform its obligations in a manner that will not cause

liability to arise under CERCLA;

l. Comply with Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended

(42 USC 1962d-5b), and Section 101 of the WRDA 86, Public Law 99-662, as amended,

which provide that the Secretary of the Army shall not commence the construction of any

water resources project or separable element thereof, until the Sponsor has entered into a

written agreement to furnish its required cooperation for the project or separable element;

m. Comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended (42 USC 4601–

4655), and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring LER required

for construction or operation and maintenance of the project; and inform all affected persons

of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in connection with said act;

n. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not limited

to, Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 USC § 2000d et seq.),

and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto, as well as Army

Regulation 600-7, entitled “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and

Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of the Army.” The Sponsor is also

required to comply with all applicable Federal labor standards requirements including, but not

307
XIII: Recommendations

XIII-4

limited to, 40 USC 3144–3148 and 40 USC 3701–3708 (revising, codifying, and enacting

without substantive change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (formerly 40 USC 276a et

seq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (formerly 40 USC 327 et seq.), and

the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 USC 276c);

o. Provide the non-Federal share of that portion of the costs of mitigation and data recovery

activities associated with historic preservation, that are in excess of 1 percent of the total

amount authorized to be appropriated for the project; and

p. Not use funds from other Federal programs, including any non-Federal contribution required

as a matching share therefor, to meet any of the Sponsor’s obligations for the project unless

the Federal agency providing the Federal portion of such funds verifies in writing that such

funds are authorized to be used to carry out the project.

Construction of the recommended channel improvements is estimated to take 7 years to complete. During

this period, the Government and the Sponsors shall diligently maintain the projects at their previously

authorized dimensions according to the previous cooperation agreement. Maintenance materials that have

accumulated in the channels at the time that “before dredging” profiles are taken for construction payment

shall be considered as new work material and cost-shared according to the new cooperation agreement.

Any dredging in a construction contract reach after the improvements have been completed and the

construction contract closed would be considered to be maintenance material and cost-shared according to

the new agreement.

XIII.C MAINTENANCE OF NEW CHANNEL AND EXISTING

CHANNEL

The portions of the SNWW channel that are deepened and widened (including any newly created areas)

shall be operated and maintained according to the terms and provision of the new agreements. All other

portions of the existing SNWW channel shall continue to be operated and maintained according to the

existing agreement applicable to that portion of the channel. With the cost of maintenance dredging

continuing to rise every year, it is imperative to fully fund the maintenance portion of this project each

year. Recent fiscal year funding of $12–$15 million is insufficient and does not allow the channel to be

maintained at the current authorized depth of 40 feet. This report forecasts a shoaling rate nearly double

the current rate. This increased rate, combined with more fully loaded ships traversing the waterway,

stresses the importance of maximum and consistent funding of O&M costs for the new project depth.

XIII.D RECOMMENDATION

The recommendations of the Sabine-Neches CIP to deepen the waterway depth to 48 feet with selective

widening, as described in Section X of this document, reflects the information available at this time and

current Departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. They do not reflect program

and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national Civil Works construction program nor

the perspective of higher review levels with the Executive Branch. Consequently, the recommendations

may be modified before they are transmitted to the Congress as proposals for authorizations and

308
309
XIII: Recommendations

XIII-6

This page intentionally left blank.

310
XIV-1

XIV. LITERATURE CITED

Armstrong, N.E., M. Brody, and N. Funicelli. 1987. The ecology of open-bay bottoms of Texas: a

community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.12):104. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Battelle. 2010. Addendum to Final Peer Review Report for the Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW)

Channel Improvement Project (CIP), Feasibility Study, compiled by Battelle, Columbus, Ohio.

Beaumont Enterprise. 2006. Report confirms ship channel’s importance here. Beaumont Enterprise,

Beaumont, Texas. July 24. http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=16955312&BRD=

2287&PAG=461&dept_id=512588&rfi=8.

Berman, A.E. 2005. The debate over subsidence in coastal Louisiana and Texas. Houston Geological

Society Publications Bulletin, November 24, 2005.

Blackburn, J., C. Johnson, and M. Berryhill. 2001. The value of the Texas bays and adjacent wetlands.

CLE International Wetlands Conference February 2001. Austin, Texas.

Blair, W.F. 1950. The biotic provinces of Texas. Texas Journal of Science 2:93–117.

Block, W.T. 1984. Sabine Pass’ Famed “Oil Pond,” It Saved Ships, but Snared Whales. Beaumont

Enterprise, February. (http://www.wtblock.com/wtblockjr/oilpond.htm) (accessed March 23, 2008).

Britsch, L.D., and J.B. Dunbar. 1993. Land loss rates: Louisiana coastal plain. Journal of Coastal

Research 9:324–338.

Brown, C.A., and G.N. Montz. 1986. Baldcypress, the Tree Unique, the Wood Eternal. Claitor’s

Publishing Division, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Brown, G.L., and J. Stokes. 2009. Numerical Model Study of Potential Salinity Impacts Due to Proposed

Navigation Improvements to the Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas (August 2009 draft report). U.S.

Army Engineer Research Development Center – Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (ERDC-CHL),

Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Bureau of Economic Geology. Revised 1982. Geologic Atlas of Texas. Houston Sheet. The University of

Texas at Austin.

Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana. 2002. Coast Wise Publication. www.crcl.org/pubs/wise/

sabine.htm.

Daigle, J.J., G.E. Griffith, J.M. Omernik, P.O. Faulkner, R.P. McCulloh, L.R. Handley, L.M. Smith, and

S.S. Chapman. 2006. Ecoregions of Louisiana (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary

tables and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia (map scale 1:1,000,000).

Davis, D.W. 1996. The Sabine Lake area: a region in transition. Proceedings, Sabine Lake Conference,

September 13–14, Beaumont, Texas (TAMU-SG-97-101):8–12.

311
XIV: Literature Cited

XIV-2

Dunbar, J.B., L.D. Britsch, and E.R. Kemp III. 1992. Land-loss rates (Report 3), Louisiana coastal plain.

Technical Report GL-90-2, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, Louisiana.

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2007. Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030.

Washington, D.C. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/.

———. 2008. Imports by Area of Entry. Washington, D.C. http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_

imp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbbl_a.htm.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Star Lake Canal Superfund Site, Port Neches, Jefferson

County, Texas, EPA ID#TX0001414341, Site ID: 0605043, Updated February 2006 (EPA

publication date March 6, 2006). Region 6 Superfund Program, Information Bulletins/Fact Sheets/

Site Updates. http://epa.gov/region6/6sf/pdffiles/0605043.pdf.

Fagerburg, T. 2003. Field Data Collection Summary Report for the Sabine-Neches Waterway Study. U.S.

Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station (ERDC-WES).

Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Gammill, S., K. Balkum, K. Duffy, E. Meselhe, J. Porthouse, E. Ramsey, and R. Walters. 2002.

Hydrologic Investigation of the Louisiana Chenier Plain. Report prepared for the Louisiana Coastal

Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force by the Louisiana Department of Natural

Resources, Baton Rouge.

General Land Office (GLO). 2004. Texas Coastwide Erosion Response Plan, 2004 Update. Texas GLO,

Austin. http://www.glo.state.tx.us/coastalerosion/CEPRA-LegReport2005/pdf/.

———. 2005. Coastal Erosion Planning and Response Program (CEPPRA) Report to the 79th

Legislature. Texas GLO, Austin. http://www.glo.state.tx.us/coastalerosion/CEPRA-LegReport

2005/index.html.

Gosselink, J.G., C.L. Cordes, and J.W. Parsons. 1979. An ecological characterization study of the Chenier

Plain coastal ecosystem of Louisiana and Texas. 3 vols. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of

Biological Services. FWS/OBS-78/9 through 78/11.

Gould, H.R., and E. McFarlan, Jr. 1959. Geologic history of the Chenier Plain, southwestern Louisiana.

Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions 9:261–270.

Gravens, M., and D. B. King. 2003. Shoreline impacts study for Sabine-Neches Project. U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal Hydraulics Laboratory (ERDCCHL), Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Greco, R., and D. Clark. 2005. GIS analysis of East Sabine Lake shoreline retreat, 1978–2004. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, Lafayette, Louisiana.

Griffith, G.E., S.A. Bryce, J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, A.C. Rogers, B. Harrison, S.L. Hatch, and D.

Bezanson. 2004. Ecoregions of Texas (color poster with map, descriptive text, and photographs):

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia (map scale: 1:2,500,000).

312
XIV: Literature Cited

XIV-3

Gulf Engineers and Consultants, Inc (GEC). 2002. Sabine-Neches Waterway Feasibility Study,

Environmental Restoration /Beneficial Use Workshops. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Galveston District, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association (GICA). 2008. Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association On-Line.

http://www.gicaonline.com/pages/about /mission.html (accessed March 2008).

Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (GMFMC). 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement

for the Generic Amendment to the following fishery management plans of the Gulf of Mexico:

Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Red Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Reef Fish Fishery

of the Gulf of Mexico, Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Coral and Coral Reef Fishery of

the Gulf of Mexico, Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Coastal

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council, Tampa, Florida.

Heideman, G. 2002. Texas Department of Health, Seafood Safety Division. Personal communication to

Lisa Vitale, PBS&J, Austin, Texas. May 16.

Hoyt, S.D. and J.S. Schmidt. 1997. Diving Assessments for Twenty-six Localities, Sabine Pass Channel,

Jefferson County, Texas, Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Document No. 960983. Espey, Huston &

Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas.

Hoyt, S.D., J.S. Schmidt, and Robert Gearhart. 1994. Magnetometer survey of Sabine Pass Channel and

assessment of the Clifton, 41JF65, Jefferson County, Texas, Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Document

No. 940510. Espey, Huston &Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas.

Hsiao, S.V., and O.H. Shemdin. 1980. Bottom dissipation in finite-depth water waves. Proceedings of the

16th Coastal Engineering Conference. Hamburg, Germany.

Hubbs, C. 1982. A checklist of Texas freshwater fishes. Technical Series No. 11. Texas Parks and

Wildlife Department, Austin.

Huh, O.K., H. Roberts, L.J. Rouse, and D.A. Rickman. 1991. Fine grain sediment transport and

deposition in the Atchafalaya and Chenier Plain sedimentary system. Coastal Sediments 1991.

American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. Pp. 817–830.

Institute of Water Resources (IWR). 1991. National Economic Development Procedures Manual, Deep

Draft Navigation. Report 91-R-13. November 1991, p. 77.

Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force. 2007. Performance Evaluation of the New Orleans and

Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Protection System, 9 Volumes. Interim Final. Vicksburg,

Mississippi. https://pet.wes.army.mil/.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.

Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team R.K. Pachauriand and

A. Reisinger [editors]). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 p.

313
XIV: Literature Cited

XIV-4

Isphording, W.C., F.D. Imsand, and G.C. Flowers. 1989. Physical characteristics and aging of gulf coast

estuaries. Transactions – Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, Vol 39.

Kane, H.E. 1959. Lake Quaternary geology of Sabine Lake and vicinity, Texas and Louisiana. Gulf Coast

Association of Geological Societies Transactions 9:225–235.

King, David B, Jr. 2007. Wave and Beach Processes Modeling for Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas,

Shoreline Erosion Feasibility Study. ERDC/CHL TR-07-6. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory,

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Lee, Hoo Il. 2003. Shoreline Assessment of Jefferson County, Texas. Thesis submitted to Texas A&M

University, College Station.

Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay. 2003. Enhanced Register of Ships on CD. http://www.ships-register.com/help.

aspx?Control= license.

Louis Berger Group and Toxicological and Environmental Associates (LBG/TEA). 2008. Wetland Value

Assessment Model: Application in the Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project,

Model Assessment Report. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District.

Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (LACPRA). 2007. Integrated Ecosystem

Restoration and Hurricane Protection: Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable

Coast. LCPRA, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and

Restoration Authority (LCWCR/WCRA). 1998. Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal

Louisiana, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge. http://www.coast2050.

gov/reports/

———. 1999. Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana, The Appendices. Appendix FRegion 4 Supplemental Information. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge.

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR). 1993. Bottomland Hardwoods Model, modified

from Habitat Assessment Models for Fresh Swamp and Bottomland Hardwoods within the

Louisiana Coastal Zone.

———.1997. Holly Beach to Constance Beach Shore Protection Preliminary Feasibility Report. LDNR,

Coastal Restoration Division, Open File Report 97-01. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). n.d. Lower Sabine River fisheries data.

Louisiana Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Inland Fisheries Division, Baton Rouge.

Lower Neches Valley Authority. 2002. 2002 Basin highlights report. Lower Neches Valley Authority,

Beaumont, Texas.

Martin Associates. 2006. Economic Impacts of the Sabine-Neches Waterway and Economic Benefits of

Maintenance Dredging of the Waterway. Martin Associates, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

314
XIV: Literature Cited

XIV-5

Martin, L. 2002. Regional Sediment Management: Background and Overview of Initial Implementation.

IWR Report 02-PS-2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Belvoir,

Virginia.

Mason, C. 1981. Hydraulics and stability of five Texas inlets. Miscellaneous Paper CERC-81-1. U.S.

Army Engineer Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Maynord, S. 2005. Ship effects before and after deepening of Sabine-Neches Waterway, Port Arthur,

Texas. ERDC/CHL TR-03-15. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,

Mississippi.

Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command. 2004. “The History Channel captures

operations at Beaumont, Texas,” TRANSLOG Summer 2004. The Transportation Engineering

Agency, the 597th Transportation Group, Alexandria, Virginia.

———. 2006. Port of Beaumont reaches milestone handling military cargo. TRANSLOG, Summer 2006.

The Transportation Engineering Agency, the 597th Transportation Group, Alexandria, Virginia.

Morang, Andrew. 2006. North Texas Sediment Budget, Sabine Pass to San Luis Pass. Coastal and

Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC/CHL TR06-17. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Morgan, J.P., L.G. Nichols, and M. Wright. 1958. Morphological effect of Hurricane Audrey. Technical

Report No. 10, Coastal Studies Institute, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Morton, R.A. 1975. Shoreline Changes Between Sabine Pass and Bolivar Roads, An Analysis of

Historical Changes of the Texas Gulf Shoreline. Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of

Texas at Austin.

———. 1977. Historical Shoreline Changes and Their Causes, Texas Gulf Coast. Bureau of Economic

Geology, The University of Texas at Austin.

———. 1996. Geological and historical development of Sabine Lake – an overview. Proceedings, Sabine

Lake Conference, September 13–14, Beaumont, Texas (TAMU SG 97-101). http://nsgl.

gso.uri.edu/tamu/tamuw9600.pdf Publication by Texas A&M University, College Station (TAMUSG-97-101).

———. 2003. An Overview of Coastal Land Loss: With Emphasis on the Southeastern United States:

USGS OFR 03-337.

Morton, R.A., J.C. Bernier, J.A. Barras, and N.F. Ferina. 2005. Rapid Subsidence and Historical Wetland

Loss in the Mississippi Delta Plain: Likely Causes and Future Implications: Open-File Report

2005–1216, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

Morton, R.A., and J.G. Paine. 1990. Coastal land loss in Texas – an overview. Transactions – Gulf Coast

Association of Geological Societies: 40:625–634.

315
XIV: Literature Cited

XIV-6

Nairn, R.B. 1992. Designing for cohesive shores. Proceedings Coastal Engineering in Canada. J.W.

Kamphuis, editor, Department of Civil Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada.

Nairn, R.B., and D.H. Willis. 2002. Erosion, transport, and deposition of cohesive sediments. Coastal

Engineering Manual, Part III, Coastal Sediment Processes, Chapter 5, T. Walton, editor, Engineer

Manual 1110-2-1100, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council (NRC). 1987. Responding to changes in sea level: engineering implications.

Commission of Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, National

Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Natural Diversity Database, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2005. Annotated county lists

of rare species, Jefferson County. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Wildlife Diversity

Branch, Austin. Revised April 6.

Nelson, D.A., and E.J. Pullen. 1988. Environmental considerations using beach nourishment for dredged

material placement. In R.L. Lazor and R. Medina (editors). 1990, Beneficial uses of dredged

material: proceedings of the Gulf coast regional workshop. USACE, Washington, D.C. Technical

Report D-90-3.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), Plan Committee. 2004. North American

Waterfowl Management Plan 2004. Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Initiative Plans. Canadian Wildlife

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secreteria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.

Pacific International Engineering (PIE). 2003. Coastal geomorphology of a non-barrier Gulf of Mexico

beach: Analysis for protection of Highway 87 and McFaddin NWR in Jefferson County, Texas.

Austin, Texas.

Parchure, T.M., S. Maynord, and S. Sarruff. 2005. Desktop Study for Sediment-Related Problems at

Sabine-Neches Project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development

Center, Coastal Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

PBS&J. 1999. Sabine-Neches Waterway Entrance Channel, Contaminant Assessment. Document No.

991247. PBS&J, Austin, Texas.

———. 2002. Hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste survey of the Sabine-Neches Waterway.

Document No. 020157. PBS&J, Austin, Texas.

———. 2004a. Sediment Transport Modeling of Dredged Disposal Material. Cheniere Sabine Pass

Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal, Cameron Parish, Louisiana. PBS&J, Houston, Texas.

———. 2004b. Sabine-Neches Waterway Entrance Channel, Contaminant Assessment. Document No.

040274. PBS&J, Austin, Texas.

———. 2005. Historic Properties Identification, Oyster Reef Identification, and Pipeline and Obstruction

Identification for the Sabine/Neches Waterway Widening and Deepening, Jefferson and Orange

Counties, Texas, and Cameron Parish, Louisiana. PBS&J, Austin, Texas.

316
XIV: Literature Cited

XIV-7

———. 2006. Biological Assessment for Impacts to Endangered and Threatened Species Relative to the

Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project, Texas and Louisiana. PBS&J, Austin,

Texas.

Port Arthur News. 2008. “Valero Expansion Expands Community Opportunities,” February 29.

Rabinow, Richard A. 2004. The Liquid Pipeline Industry in the United States, “Where It’s Been, Where

It’s Going, a report for the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, April 2004, p. 14.

Rouse, L.J., Jr., W.J. Wiseman, Jr., L.C. Bender, N.L. Guinasso, Jr., F.J. Kelly, D.A. Brooks, Y-T Lo,

J. She, and A. Valle-Levinson. 2004. Observational and Predictive Study of Inner Shelf Currents

over the Louisiana-Texas Shelf. Coastal Marine Institute, Louisiana State University. Published by

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS

Study, MMS 2004-036.

Sabine Pilots Association (SPA). 2005. Unpublished data. Sabine Pilots. Groves, Texas. http://www.

sabinepilots.com/index.html.

———. 2007. Guidelines: Ship Traffic Control for the Sabine-Neches Waterway. Groves, Texas.

http://www.Sabinepilots.com/guidelines.htm.

Sabine River Authority of Texas (SRA-TX). 2002. Monthly Water Quality Reports. www.sra.dst.tx.us/.

Saloman, C.H., and S.P. Naughton. 1977. Effects of Hurricane Eloise on the benthic fauna of Panama

City Beach, Florida. Marine Biology, Vol 42.

Scroggs, S. 2002. Great Texas Birding Classic Tournament Coordinator. Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department. Telephone conversation with K. Martel Goldsmith, PBS&J, Austin, Texas.

December 5, 2002.

Shinkle, K.D., and R.K. Dokka. 2004. NOAA Technical Report NOS/NGS 50: Rates of vertical

displacement at benchmarks in the lower Mississippi valley and the northern Gulf Coast. U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean

Service.

Simon, J.L., and D.M. Dauer. 1977. Reestablishment of a benthic community following natural

defaunation. In Belle W. Barauch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal Research. Ecology of

Marine Benthos, 1st ed. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Smeins, F.E., D.D. Diamond, and C.W. Hanselka. 1991. Coastal prairie. Pages 269–290 in R.T. Coupland

(editor), Ecosystems of the world: Natural grasslands–introduction and western hemisphere.

Elsevier, New York.

Sutherlin, J. 1996. Historical development of the marsh system on the west side of Sabine Lake. Sabine

Lake Conference: Where Texas and Louisiana Come Together (conference proceedings). Sabine

Lake Conference, Beaumont, Texas. http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/tamu/tamuw96001.pdf. Publication by

Texas A&M University, College Station (TAMU-SG-97-101).

317
XIV: Literature Cited

XIV-8

Texas Department of Health (TDH). 2002. Classification of shellfish harvesting areas of Sabine Lake.

http://www.tdh.texas.gov/bfds/ssd/sab.html.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 1992. Coastal wetlands habitat (CWH) – Lower Neches

River. TPWD Resource Protection, Aquatic Studies Branch.

———. 2002. Habitat and land use classification of Cow Bayou, Orange County, Texas (January 3,

2002). TPWD GIS Laboratory, Austin, Texas.

———. 2003. Salt Bayou Open Water Trend Analysis, 2003 and 2004 Revision. GIS Department,

Austin, Texas.

———. 2004. Wetland Habitat Map of J.D. Murphree WMA. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Port Arthur,

Texas.

———.2005. Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan. TPWD, Austin, Texas.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/ media/pwd_pl_e0100_0867.pdf.

Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). 2006. The 2007 State Water Plan. http://www.twdb.state.

tx.us/publications/reports/State_Water_Plan/2007/2007StateWaterPlan/2007StateWaterPlan.htm,

Chapters 1 (Highlights), 2 (Region I Planning Document), and 3 (Fifty Years of Water Planning in

Texas). Adopted November 14, 2006 (accessed January 2007). Austin, Texas.

Titus, J.G., and V. Narayanan. 1995. The probability of sea level rise. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), EPA-230-R-95-008.

Törnqvist, T.E., S.J. Bick, K. van der Borg, and A.F.M. de Jong. 2006. How stable is the Mississippi

Delta?: Geology 34:697–700, doi: 10.1130/G22624.1.

Tubman, M.W., and J.N. Suhayda. 1976. Wave action and bottom movements in fine sediments.

Proceedings of the 15th Coastal Engineering Conference, Honolulu. ASCE, New York.

Turner Collie & Braden. 2003. Sabine-Neches Waterway Feasibility Site Concept, Beneficial Use

Development, Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by Turner Collie & Braden, Inc.

July 14.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1971a. Survey of Holly Beach and Vicinity, Louisiana, Series

No. 95. USACE, New Orleans District, Louisiana. 19 p.

———. 1971b. Texas coast shores regional inventory report.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston

District. Galveston, Texas.

———. 1975 (reprinted 1984). Final Environmental Impact Statement: Maintenance Dredging Gulf

Intracoastal Waterway Texas Section, Main Channel and Tributary Channels. Volumes 1, 2, and 3.

Galveston, Texas.

———. 1982. Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas: feasibility report and environmental impact statement

for channel improvements for navigation. U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston, Texas.

318
XIV: Literature Cited

XIV-9

———. 1991. Deep-Draft Navigation Manual. Report 91-R-13. November 1991.

———. 1998. Environmental assessment for a change in location of the Neches River and tributaries,

saltwater barrier at Beaumont, Texas. U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston, Texas.

———. 2000a. Environmental Assessment: Alternate Maintenance Dredging Placement Area for SabineNeches Waterway, Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge, Jefferson County, Texas. Galveston

District, Southwestern Division, Texas.

———. 2000b. Planning-Planning Guidance Notebook. Proponent: CECW-P. http://www.usace.army.

mil/publications/eng-regs/er1105-2-100/toc.htm.

———. 2003. Authorities and Policies Supporting Implementation of Regional Sediment Management.

Regional Sediment Management (RMS) Demonstration Program Technical Note. Engineer

Research and Development Center (ERDC). ERDC/RSM-TN-8, June 2003.

———. 2004. Louisiana Coastal Areas Environmental Impact Statement. New Orleans District, Corps of

Engineers. New Orleans, Louisiana.

———. 2005. “Economic Guidance Memorandum (EGM) 05-01, Deep Draft Vessel Operating Costs FY

2005, General Technical Support Document.” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Planning and Policy

Compliance Division, Planner’s Library. http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecw-cp/library/egms/

egm05-01.pdf.

———. 2006a. “12 Points for Change,” USACE Headquarters, Washington D.C., released August 24,

2006.

———. 2006b. 10 Frequently Asked Questions about Regional Sediment Management. USACE.

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/inside/products/proj/docs_proj/ RSMFAQs-3.doc (accessed on

March 25, 2008).

———. 2007a. Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1965–2007. Waterborne Commerce Statistics

Center. New Orleans, Louisiana. http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/wcsc.htm.

———. 2007b. Memorandum from CECW-CE, Subject: Application of Cost Risk Analysis Methods to

Develop Contingencies for Civil Works Total Project Costs, dated July 3, 2007, USACE,

Washington, D.C.

———. 2008a. Application of USACE, unpublished update of Economic Guidance Memorandum #08-

04, Deep-Draft Vessel Operating Cost FY 2008, December 2008.

———. 2008b. Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Draft Technical Report. U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, New Orleans District.

———. 2009a. Circular No. 1165-2-211, Water Resource Policies and Authorities Incorporating Sealevel Change Considerations in Civil Works Programs, Expires July 1, 2011, EC 1165-2-211, 3 pp.

and appendices.

319
XIV: Literature Cited

XIV-10

———. 2009b. USACE Campaign Plan. http://www.usace.army.mil/about/campaignplan/Pages/

Home.aspx.

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2009. Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the MidAtlantic Region. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1. 298 pp.

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 2004. Automatic Identification System Carriage Requirements.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/enav/ais/AIS_carriage_reqmts.htm.

———. 2007. “State of the Waterway” presentation by USCG, Marine Safety Office, Port Arthur, at

Southeast Texas Waterways Advisory Council meeting. January 28, 2007.

———. 2008a. Vessel Traffic Management, Navigation Center, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,

United State Coast Guard. http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/vts/vts_home.htm (accessed March 9,

2008).

———. 2008b. VTS Port Arthur Operating Procedures Guide. http://www.uscg.mil/d8/VTSPortArthur/

Documents/VTS%20Port%20Arthur_Opertating-Guide.pdf (accessed March 9, 2008).

———. 2008c. Actions for Change. Available on the internet at https://maps.crrel.usace.army.mil/ AFC/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1983. Water Tupelo in the Atchafalaya Basin Does Not Benefit

from Thinning. Research Note SO-298, by H. E. Kennedy, Jr.

———. 1990. Silvics of North America. Agriculture Handbook 654, R.M. Burns and B.H. Honkala,

technical coordinators. http:// www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs.

———. 2006. USDA Agricultural Baseline Projection Tables, USDA Baseline Projections Report (OCE2006-1). Released February 2006/silvics_manual/.

U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2006. NOAA

Tides and Currents, Sea Levels Online: Mean Sea Level Trends for Stations in Texas.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml.

———. 2009. NOAA Tides and Currents, Sea Levels Online: Mean Sea Level Trends for Stations in

Texas. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml.

U.S. Department of Energy. 2009a. Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting

Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in the Economic

Outlook, Table 13, SR/OIAF/2009-03.

———. 2009b. Annual Energy Outlook, March.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Department of the Interior. 1980. Habitat Evaluation

Procedure (HEP) Manual (102 ESM). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

———. 2001a. McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge Vegetation/Habitat Units. USFWS – R2 – Division

of Technical Services – GIS, September 6.

320
XIV: Literature Cited

XIV-11

———. 2001b. Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge Vegetation/Habitat Units. USFWS-R2, Division of

Technical Services – GIS, September 6.

———.2002a. The 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation.

http://fa.r9.fws.gov/surveys/ surveys.html. Last revised October 1, 2002.

———. 2002b. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, Wetland Value Assessment

Methodology, Introduction. Prepared by Environmental Work Group, CWPPRA Technical

Committee, USFWS, Lafayette, Louisiana.

———. 2002c. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, Wetland Value Assessment

Methodology, Procedural Manual. Prepared by Environmental Work Group, CWPPRA Technical

Committee, USFWS, Lafayette, Louisiana.

———. 2002d. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, Wetland Value Assessment

Methodology, Emergent Marsh Community Models. Prepared by Environmental Work Group,

CWPPRA Technical Committee. USFWS, Lafayette, Louisiana.

———. 2002e. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, Wetland Value Assessment

Methodology, Swamp Marsh Community Model. Prepared by Environmental Work Group,

CWPPRA Technical Committee. USFWS, Lafayette, Louisiana.

———. 2003. “2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Texas”;

revised March 2003. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/01fhw/fhw01-tx.pdf (accessed

November 18, 2005).

———. 2004. Final Environmental Assessment: East Sabine Lake Hydrologic Restoration, Project

Construction Unit 1 (CS-32), Cameron Parish, Louisiana. 32 p. plus appendices. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Lafayette, Louisiana.

———. 2005. Threatened and endangered species of Louisiana, parish list. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Louisiana Ecological Services Office, Lafayette, Louisiana. July 14.

———. 2008. Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex Final Environmental Impact

Statement/Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Land Protection Plan (May)

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/Plan/LINKS.pdf (accessed July 2009). Southwest Region,

Albuquerque, New Mexico.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Texas General Land Office (GLO). 1992. National Wetland

Inventory (NWI).

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) – Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (USGS-LDNR). 1993.

Geographic information system land loss and habitat change data. USGS/LDNR GIS Laboratory,

Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) – National Wetlands Research Center. 2004. Louisiana Coastal Areas

Mapping Units for the Calcasieu-Sabine Basin. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological

321
XIV: Literature Cited

XIV-12

Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana and Coastal Restoration Field

Station, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Walther, P. 2005. Personal communication to Janelle Stokes from Pat Walther, USFWS, Texas Point

National Wildlife Refuge.

Wamsley, T.V. 2008. Memorandum from CEERD-HR-C to CESWG, Subject: CHL Response to

Galveston District Information Request Related to Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project, Draft Feasibility Report, External Peer Review Comments.

Wamsley, T.V., M.A. Cialone, J.M. Smith, J.H. Atkinson, and J.D. Rosati. 2009a. The potential of

wetlands in reducing storm surge. Ocean Engineering. DOI 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2009.07.018.

Wamsley, T.V., M.A. Cialone, J.M. Smith, and B.A. Ebersole. 2009b. Influence of landscape restoration

and degradation on storm surge and waves in southern Louisiana. Journal of Natural Hazards

51(1):207–224.

Wamsley, T.V., M.A. Cialone and T.O. McAlpin. 2010. Sensitivity Analysis for Sabine-Neches

Waterway Navigation Project. USACE, ERDC-CHL, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Webb, D. 2003. Ship Simulation Study for Sabine-Neches Improvement Project (revised March 2007).

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, ERDC. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Wells, J.T., and G.P. Kemp. 1986. Interaction of surface waves and cohesive sediments: Field

observations and geological significance. Estuarine Cohesive Sediment Dynamics, A.J. Mehta,

editor. Springer-Verlag, New York. Pp 43–65.

White, R.A., R.A. Morton, and T.A. Tremblay. 1996. Recent wetland losses at the GSU marsh restoration

site, Neches River valley. Prepared for TPWD by Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of

Texas at Austin.

White, W.A., T.R. Calnan, R.A. Morton, R.S. Kimble, T.G. Littleton, J.H. McGowen, and H.S. Nance.

1987. Submerged lands of Texas, Beaumont-Port Arthur area: sediments, geochemistry, benthic

macroinvertebrates, and associated wetlands. Geology Special Publication, Bureau of Economic

Geology, The University of Texas at Austin.

322
FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

FOR

SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA

VOLUME I

ENGINEERING PLATES (APPENDIX 1)

ECONOMICS (APPENDIX 2)

BASELINE COST ESTIMATE (APPENDIX 3)

REAL ESTATE PLAN (APPENDIX 4)

PREPARED BY:

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

GALVESTON DISTRICT

SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION

March 2011

323
Appendix 1

Engineering Plates

324
325
326
327
328
329
330
5/14/2008 12:23:09 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\c04 83.dgn

331
5/14/2008 12:23:14 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\c05 83.dgn

332
5/14/2008 12:23:17 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\c06 83.dgn

333
334
335
336
337
338
5/14/2008 12:23:44 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\c12 83.dgn

339
5/14/2008 12:23:47 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\c13 83 bargelane.dgn

340
5/14/2008 12:23:51 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\c14 83 tb plan.dgn

341
5/14/2008 12:23:55 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\c15 83 nrc.dgn

342
5/14/2008 12:23:58 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\c16 83 snc.dgn

343
344
345
346
5/14/2008 12:24:09 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\c20 83 sb ext.dgn

347
348
349
5/14/2008 12:24:25 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\c23 83 bend easz.dgn

350
351
5/14/2008 12:24:36 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\c25 83 bh plan.dgn

352
5/14/2008 12:24:39 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\c26 83 la plan.dgn

353
5/14/2008 12:24:59 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\c27 83 shoreln.dgn

354
5/14/2008 12:25:25 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\f-01.dgn

355
5/14/2008 12:29:55 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\f-02.dgn

356
5/14/2008 12:29:58 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\f-03.dgn

357
5/14/2008 12:30:01 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\f-04.dgn

358
5/14/2008 12:30:15 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\f-05.dgn

359
5/14/2008 12:30:18 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\f-06.dgn

360
5/14/2008 12:30:20 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\s01.dgn

361
5/14/2008 12:30:23 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\s02.dgn

362
5/14/2008 12:30:26 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\s03.dgn

363
5/14/2008 12:30:31 PM w:\cadd\projects\sn\snww feas\plates\ea pl\s04.dgn

364
Appendix 2

Economic Appendix

365
ôËËèÍë1 B

èîÌÍÌ°1î ôËËèÍë1

Åôñ1Íè'Íèî»èÅ 3⁄4ôÃèÇ3⁄4ô

î»ôÍÍè2 1°ËÇÌ¿è°èÍÃ ËÇÌ·èîÃ

ÅÌÁÃ»èôÅÃ ÃèôÅ ôÍë ÅÌÁÃ»3⁄4èÅÃ 2ÌÁ1Å1ôÍô

ËÇèËôÇèë ñÝ

Á'Å' ôÇ° îÌÇËÅ Ìå èÍä1ÍèèÇÅ

äô2¿èÅÃÌÍ ë1ÅÃÇ1îÃ

ÅÌÁÃ»3⁄4èÅÃèÇÍ ë1¿1Å1ÌÍ

·{ B#E#

366
i

Table of Contents

Page

1.0 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 COMMODITY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................8

2.0 DETAILED COMMODITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 19

2.1 CRUDE PETROLEUM........................................................................................................................19

2.2 PETROLEUM PRODUCT IMPORTS.................................................................................................26

2.3 PETROLEUM PRODUCT EXPORTS ................................................................................................30

2.4 CHEMICAL PRODUCT IMPORTS....................................................................................................34

2.5 CHEMICAL PRODUCT EXPORTS ...................................................................................................38

2.6 GRAIN EXPORTS...............................................................................................................................42

2.7 EXPANSION OF THE DEEP-DRAFT TRAFFIC BASE ...................................................................43

3.0 VESSEL FLEET ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................................... 46

3.1 SNWW VESSEL CASUALTIES.........................................................................................................46

3.2 OFFSHORE ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................................................52

3.3 VESSEL UTILIZATION AND OPERATING PRACTICES..............................................................56

3.4 CRUDE PETROLEUM FLEET...........................................................................................................67

3.5 PORT ARTHUR AND BEAUMONT VESSEL FLEETS...................................................................69

3.5.1 Methods of Shipment for Crude Petroleum.........................................................................72

3.6 PETROLEUM PRODUCT CARRIERS ..............................................................................................82

3.7 CHEMICAL PRODUCT CARRIERS .................................................................................................86

3.8 GRAIN EXPORTS...............................................................................................................................88

3.9 STEEL SLAB AND IRON ORE CARRIERS .....................................................................................91

3.10 LIMESTONE AND ROCK CARRIERS..............................................................................................92

3.11 WOOD PRODUCT CARRIERS..........................................................................................................93

3.12 LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG) FLEET....................................................................................94

4.0 COMMODITY AND FLEET FORECASTS ........................................................................................................... 95

4.1 REVIEW OF PETROLEUM FORECASTS ........................................................................................95

4.2 SNWW CRUDE PETROLEUM FORECAST APPLICATION..........................................................98

4.3 PETROLEUM PRODUCT IMPORTS...............................................................................................106

4.4 FUEL OIL IMPORTS ........................................................................................................................107

4.5 GASOLINE IMPORTS ......................................................................................................................116

4.6 PETROLEUM PRODUCT EXPORT FORECAST ...........................................................................118

4.7 PETROLEUM COKE EXPORTS......................................................................................................118

4.8 GASOLINE EXPORTS......................................................................................................................123

4.9 DISTILLATE EXPORTS...................................................................................................................126

4.10 COASTWISE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.......................................................................................128

4.11 REMAINING PETROLEUM PRODUCT EXPORTS ......................................................................130

4.12 CHEMICAL IMPORTS .....................................................................................................................131

367
Table of Contents

Page

ii

4.13 CHEMICAL EXPORTS.....................................................................................................................133

4.14 LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS...........................................................................................................136

4.15 U.S. LNG IMPORT FORECAST.......................................................................................................137

4.16 GRAIN EXPORT FORECAST..........................................................................................................138

4.17 BREAKBULK IMPORT FORECAST...............................................................................................147

5.0 FORECAST OF TOTAL OCEANGOING TONNAGE...................................................................................... 148

6.0 TRANSPORTATION SAVINGS BENEFITS ....................................................................................................... 150

6.1 VESSEL OPERATING COSTS.........................................................................................................150

6.2 UNDERKEEL CLEARANCE ...........................................................................................................151

6.3 CHANNEL WIDENING BENEFITS ................................................................................................152

6.3.1 HarborSym Model .............................................................................................................158

6.3.1.1 Model Input Overview................................................................................159

6.3.1.2 Vessel Traffic Input ....................................................................................160

6.3.1.3 Evaluation of Project Alternatives ..............................................................166

6.3.1.4 Entrance Channel Widening Benefits.........................................................167

6.3.1.5 Neches River Holding Areas ......................................................................183

6.4 CHANNEL DEEPENING BENEFITS ..............................................................................................191

6.4.1 Transportation Savings Benefits for Channel Deepening..................................................192

6.4.1.1 Crude Petroleum Imports............................................................................195

6.4.1.2 Petroleum and Chemical Product Transportation Savings Benefits ...........203

6.4.1.3 Grain Exports Transportation Savings Benefits..........................................209

6.4.1.4 Crude Materials Transportation Savings.....................................................212

6.4.1.5 Crude Materials Transportation Savings Benefits ......................................216

6.4.1.6 Liquefied Natural Gas Transportation Savings...........................................220

7.0 NED BENEFIT SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................... 222

7.1 INCREMENTAL ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................224

7.2 BENEFIT-COST RATIO AT 7 PERCENT .......................................................................................227

8.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................ 229

8.1 UNDERKEEL CLEARANCE SENSITIVITY ..................................................................................229

8.2 OFFSHORE TERMINAL ..................................................................................................................231

8.3 OFFSHORE TRANSFER TIME SENSITIVITY...............................................................................232

8.4 VESSEL TRIP REDUCTION DUE TO CHANNEL DEEPENING .................................................233

8.5 GRAIN EXPORT SENSITIVITY......................................................................................................235

8.6 DEPTH OPTIMIZATION SENSITIVITY REVIEW ........................................................................235

8.7 SUMMARY OF MAJOR SENSITIVITY EFFECTS ........................................................................236

9.0 REGIONAL ECONOMICS ...................................................................................................................................... 238

9.1 OTHER INDICATORS......................................................................................................................241

9.2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................241

368
Table of Contents

iii

List of Figures

Page

1 Project Location .......................................................................................................................................2

2 SNWW Foreign Imports and Exports by Major Commodity Group .....................................................15

3 SNWW Breakbulk Imports and Exports 1989/1991 to 2004/20006 Distribution..................................15

4 SNWW Coastwise Shipments and Receipts...........................................................................................16

5 SNWW Coastwise Shipments and Receipts by Major Commodity Group............................................17

6 Port Arthur and Beaumont Outbound Coastwise Gasoline Shipments ..................................................18

7 Port Arthur and Beaumont Outbound Chemical Shipments...................................................................18

8 U.S. Petroleum Administration Defense District ...................................................................................22

9 U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserves Gulf Coast Sites..............................................................................22

10 Major U.S. Crude Petroleum and Product Pipelines ..............................................................................24

11 U.S. and Sabine-Neches Crude Oil Imports, 1985–2007.......................................................................26

12 SNWW and U.S. Total Petroleum Product Imports 1990–2007............................................................28

13 Comparison of Refinery Yields by Crude Type.....................................................................................29

14 U.S. and SNWW Total Petroleum Product Exports 1990–2007............................................................32

15 U.S. and SNWW Total Petroleum Coke Exports, 1990–2007...............................................................32

16 U.S. and SNWW Metallic Salt Exports .................................................................................................41

17 SNWW Total and Port Arthur Metallic Salt Exports.............................................................................41

18 U.S. and SNWW Bulk Grain Statistics, 1990–2007 ..............................................................................44

19 U.S. LNG Imports 2006–2030 ...............................................................................................................44

20 SNWW Casualty Incidents (2006) by Vessel Type ...............................................................................48

21 SNWW Casualty Incidents (2006) by Casualty Type............................................................................48

22 Sabine-Neches Waterway Average Tonnage Per Trip for Oceangoing Vessels ....................................59

23 2001 Comparison of WCSC and Piloted Inbound Trips ........................................................................65

24 2005 Comparison of WCSC and Piloted Inbound Trips ........................................................................65

25 U.S. Gulf Coast Crude Petroleum Lightering Zones..............................................................................74

26 U.S. Refinery Processing Gains, 1994–2006 Data.................................................................................98

27 SNWW and Other Texas Ports Crude Petroleum Imports ...................................................................100

28 SNWW and U.S. Crude Petroleum Imports, 1990–2004 .....................................................................102

29 SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports Projected and Actual Volumes ......................................................102

30 SNWW and U.S. Crude Petroleum Import Forecast Comparisons ......................................................104

31 U.S. Imports of Distillate Fuel, Waterborne and Land Routes, 1990–2007.........................................109

32 U.S. and SNWW Distillate Fuel Imports, 1990–2007 (Waterborne Routes Only) ..............................109

33 U.S. Imports of Residual Fuel, Waterborne and Land Routes 1990–2007 ..........................................110

34 U.S. and SNWW Residual Fuel Imports 1990–2007 (Waterborne Routes Only)................................110

35 SNWW Distillate Imports 2000–2030 (1,000s of Short Tons) Comparison of AEO 2008 U.S.

Forecast and SNWW Applications.......................................................................................................115

36 U.S. and SNWW Waterborne Gasoline Imports and SNWW Gasoline Imports .................................117

37 U.S. Crude Petroleum Imports by API Gravity Classification.............................................................119

38 SNWW and U.S. Petroleum Coke Exports and % of U.S. Crude Petroleum Imports by API

Gravity Classification...........................................................................................................................120

39 SNWW Petroleum Coke Exports 1990–2007 Point Averages.............................................................121

40 SNWW Petroleum Coke Export Forecast Scenarios............................................................................122

41 SNWW Gasoline Exports.....................................................................................................................123

42 U.S. and PADD III Gasoline Exports, 1982–2007...............................................................................124

369
Table of Contents

iv

43 U.S. and PADD III Gasoline Exports, 1990–2030...............................................................................125

44 U.S. and PADD III Distillate Fuel Exports, 1990–2007 Waterborne and Land Routes.......................126

45 U.S. and SNWW Distillate Fuel Exports, 1990–2006 Waterborne......................................................127

46 SNWW Coastwise Shipments 1995–2007 Waterborne .......................................................................129

47 U.S. Alcohol and Ammonia Waterborne Imports, 1990–2007 ............................................................131

48 SNWW Alcohol and Ammonia Waterborne Imports, 1990–2007.......................................................132

49 SNWW Alcohol and Ammonia Imports 1995–2065 Waterborne........................................................133

50 U.S. Metallic Salts and Organic Compound Exports, Waterborne ......................................................134

51 SNWW Metallic Salts and Organic Compound Exports......................................................................135

52 SNWW Metallic Salts and Organic Compound Exports, 1995–2069 Waterborne..............................135

53 U.S. Wheat Exports by Region ............................................................................................................140

54 Beaumont Wheat Exports.....................................................................................................................140

55 U.S. and Beaumont Wheat Exports and U.S. Wheat Production .........................................................141

56 Wheat Exports by State and Beaumont Exports, 1997–2006...............................................................143

57 SNWW HarborSym Network...............................................................................................................159

58 SNWW Depth Optimization Review ...................................................................................................236

59 Flows of Economic Impacts through the Economy..............................................................................238

370
Table of Contents

v

List of Tables

Page

1 SNWW Port Tonnage ..............................................................................................................................3

2 Existing SNWW Channel Dimensions.....................................................................................................4

3 SNWW Pilot Rules ..................................................................................................................................5

4 SNWW Total Tonnage and Major Commodity Tonnage ........................................................................9

5 SNWW Shallow-Draft Port and GIWW Through Tonnage, Deep-Draft Total Tonnage, and

Shallow-Draft Percentage of Total Tonnage..........................................................................................10

6 Port Arthur Total Tonnage and Major Commodity Tonnage.................................................................11

7 Beaumont Total Tonnage and Major Commodity Tonnage...................................................................12

8 Comparison of SNWW and Regional and National Totals Crude Petroleum Imports...........................20

9 Beaumont and Port Arthur Crude Petroleum Imports............................................................................21

10 SNWW Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity...........................................................................23

11 SNWW and U.S. Petroleum Product Imports by Commodity Classification ........................................27

12 Petroleum Product Imports by Port and Commodity Classification ......................................................29

13 SNWW and U.S. Total Petroleum Product Exports by Commodity Classification ...............................31

14 Petroleum Product Exports by Port and Commodity Classification ......................................................33

15 SNWW and U.S. Chemical Imports by Commodity Classification.......................................................35

16 Chemical Imports by Port and Commodity Classification.....................................................................36

17 SNWW and U.S. Chemical Exports by Commodity Classification.......................................................39

18 Chemical Product Exports by Port and Commodity Classification........................................................40

19 Beaumont Bulk Grain Export Distribution of Tonnage by Grain Type .................................................43

20 SNWW Casualty Incident Rates, 2006 ..................................................................................................47

21 Safety Risk Factors ................................................................................................................................50

22 Port Arthur’s Safety Risk Factors ..........................................................................................................50

23 SNWW Trips by Loaded Draft ..............................................................................................................58

24 Total Imports and Exports by Year and Loaded Draft ...........................................................................60

25 Crude Petroleum Imports by Loaded Draft and Year.............................................................................61

26 Petroleum Product Imports and Exports by Loaded Draft .....................................................................62

27 Chemical Product Imports and Exports by Loaded Draft ......................................................................63

28 Total Tonnage Excluding Petroleum and Chemicals by Loaded Draft..................................................64

29 SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports, Percentage of Imports by Vessel DWT and Design Draft

and Year Built ........................................................................................................................................68

30 1981 and 2003 World Tanker Fleet Comparison of Vessel Beam by DWT and Design Draft..............69

31 Port Arthur Crude Petroleum Imports, Percentage of Imports by Vessel DWT ....................................70

32 Channel to Beaumont Crude Petroleum Imports, Percentage of Imports by Vessel DWT ....................70

33 Crude Petroleum Vessel Characteristics Representative of the Existing Fleet through 2006,

Vessel Length, Beam, and Design Draft and Year Built........................................................................71

34 SNWW Crude Petroleum 2002–2007 Imports by Loaded Draft............................................................71

35 SNWW Percentage of Crude Petroleum Imports by Trade Route .........................................................79

36 PADD III Percentage of Crude Petroleum Imports by Trade Route ......................................................80

37 SNWW Percentage of Crude Petroleum Imports by Trade Route, 2002–2007 .....................................80

38 EIA Production Forecast Conventional Crude Production and Sources of U.S. Crude Oil

Imports and SNWW Application ...........................................................................................................81

39 SNWW Petroleum Product Import Tonnage by Vessel DWT ...............................................................82

371
Table of Contents

vi

40 Imports and Exports Shipped in Vessels of 60,000 DWT or Larger, SNWW Petroleum

Product Imports, 1998–2007 (select years) ............................................................................................84

41 SNWW Petroleum Product Exports, 1998–2007 (select years) .............................................................84

42 World Petroleum Product Fleet..............................................................................................................85

43 U.S. Petroleum Coke Exports by Major Destination..............................................................................86

44 World Chemical Product Fleet, Vessels Built between 1985 and 2004 .................................................87

45 Chemical Product Fleet ..........................................................................................................................88

46 Beaumont Bulk Grain Export, Distribution of Tonnage by Grain Type and Loaded Vessel

Draft .......................................................................................................................................................88

47 LoLo Bulk Dry Cargo Carriers (World Fleet)........................................................................................90

48 Percentage of SNWW Iron and Steel Product Imports by Country of Origin........................................92

49 SNWW Building Material Imports and Exports ....................................................................................93

50 SNWW Aggregate Tonnage Fleet, 2002–2006......................................................................................93

51 World Liquefied Natural Gas Fleet........................................................................................................94

52 U.S. Crude Oil Imports Comparative Projections ..................................................................................96

53 U.S. and SNWW Distribution of Crude Oil and Petroleum Imports Relative Percentage of

Crude Petroleum Imports Versus Refined Products...............................................................................96

54 1990–2007 Regression Equation Data for SNWW Crude Oil Imports..................................................99

55 1990–2004 Regression Equation Data for SNWW Crude Oil Imports................................................101

56 SNWW Trendline Equation Output, SNWW 1980–2007 and 1990–2007 Crude Oil Imports as

a Function of Time ...............................................................................................................................103

57 SNWW Crude Oil Imports, 2002/2004 to 2069...................................................................................105

58 U.S. and SNWW Petroleum Product Imports, 1994/1996 and 2004/2006 Averages...........................106

59 Comparison of AEO2008 and Global Insight Forecasts, U.S. Net Petroleum Product Imports ..........107

61 U.S. Residual Fuel Imports, 2002–2007 ..............................................................................................112

62 U.S. Distillate Fuel Imports, 2002–2007..............................................................................................113

63 SNWW 2004/2006 to 2069 Distillate Fuel Oil Imports.......................................................................114

64 SNWW 2004/2006 to 2069 Residual Fuel Oil Import Forecast...........................................................116

65 Global Insight U.S. Residual and Distillate Fuel Oil Import Demand Forecasts .................................116

66 SNWW Gasoline Import Forecast........................................................................................................118

67 SNWW Petroleum Coke Exports, Forecast Scenarios .........................................................................122

68 SNWW Gasoline Export Forecast Scenarios .......................................................................................125

69 SNWW Distillate Export Forecast Scenarios.......................................................................................128

70 SNWW Coastwise Movement Forecast Scenarios...............................................................................130

71 Distribution of Liquefied Natural Gas Operational Capacity...............................................................136

72 U.S. and SNWW Liquefied Natural Gas Imports, 2005–2030.............................................................138

73 SNWW Liquefied Natural Gas Trade Route Forecast, 2019–2069 .....................................................138

74 Beaumont Bulk Grain Exports and Percentage by Grain Type............................................................139

75 Beaumont Wheat Exports by Destination, 1998–2006 ........................................................................142

76 Beaumont Wheat Export Forecast, 2004–2069....................................................................................144

77 Beaumont Bulk Grain Exports to Ports with Channel Depths over 40 Feet.........................................145

78 Importers of Wheat (USDA Forecast), 2004/2005 to 2015/2016.........................................................146

79 SNWW Bulk Commodities Forecast, 2019–2069, 2001–2007 Historical Data...................................147

80 Port Arthur Tonnage Evaluated for Channel Deepening......................................................................148

81 Beaumont Tonnage for Major Commodity Groups .............................................................................149

82 Tanker Characteristics and Hourly Operating Cost, Double-Hull Tankers, December 2008

IWR Release ........................................................................................................................................150

372
Table of Contents

vii

83 Dry Bulk Carrier Characteristics and Hourly Operating Cost, Foreign Flag Dry Bulk Carriers,

December 2008 IWR Release ..............................................................................................................151

84 Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers Characteristics and Hourly Operating Cost........................................151

85 SNWW Mileage Points ........................................................................................................................154

86 Neches River Turning Basin and Anchorage Features.........................................................................155

87 Neches River Inbound Vessels by Destination, Existing Base.............................................................157

88 SNWW HarborSym Model Vessel Classes..........................................................................................161

89 SNWW HarborSym Model Framework...............................................................................................162

90 HarborSym Vessel Classes...................................................................................................................163

91 SNWW 2000/2004 Tonnage ................................................................................................................164

92 Sabine-Neches Waterway 2000/2004 Trips .........................................................................................164

93 SNWW 2030/2040 Tonnage ................................................................................................................165

94 SNWW 2030/2040 Vessel Trips Without Deepening..........................................................................165

95 SNWW 2030/2040 Vessel Trips With Deepening...............................................................................166

96 SNWW HarborSym Output Annual Savings by Vessel Class, Widening Only ..................................168

97 Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal Widening Only Average Annual Benefits .....................182

98 Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal Widening Only Economic Summary Data.....................182

99 Neches River Proposed Turning Basin Anchorages.............................................................................184

100 Neches River Anchorage Basins ..........................................................................................................187

101 Average Annual Cost, Transportation Savings Benefits, Net Excess Benefits, and Benefit to

Cost Ratios (No Shifting Charges).......................................................................................................188

102 Average Annual Cost, Transportation Savings Benefits, Net Excess Benefits, and Benefit to

Cost Ratios (Shifting Charges 100% of the Time)...............................................................................189

103 SNWW Neches River Anchorage Analysis Basins 1, 4, and 8, Economic Summary Data .................191

104 Adjustments for Estimating Actual Vessel Capacity ...........................................................................192

105 Representative Round-Trip Mileage to SNWW...................................................................................192

106 Transportation Cost Calculation (South America to SNWW) .............................................................193

107 SNWW Facilities Associated with Draft-Constrained Vessels by Channel Reach, Mileage

Point, Facility Name, Major Commodity, and Cross Section Reference .............................................194

108 SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports by Port and Trade Route, 2019–2069............................................195

109 SNWW Foreign Flag Tanker Vessel Application Maximum Cargo by Vessel Size and

Channel Depth......................................................................................................................................197

110 Number of Shuttle Vessels Needed by Channel Depth Alternative .....................................................198

111 SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports Transportation Cost and Savings Most Likely

Transportation Mode Trade Route and Channel Depth........................................................................199

112 SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports, Lightening Cost Per Ton by Channel Depth and Trade

Route ....................................................................................................................................................200

113 SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports Lightered Cost per Ton by Channel Depth and Trade Route ........200

114 Beaumont Crude Petroleum Imports Annual Transportation Savings by Trade Route and

Decade, 2019–2069..............................................................................................................................201

115 Port Arthur Crude Petroleum Imports, Annual Transportation Savings by Trade Route and

Decade, 2019–2069..............................................................................................................................202

116 SNWW Petroleum Product Imports, 2019–2069 .................................................................................203

117 SNWW Petroleum Product Exports, 2019–2069 .................................................................................204

118 SNWW Chemical Product Imports, 2019–2069 ..................................................................................205

119 SNWW Chemical Product Exports, 2019–2069 ..................................................................................205

120 Beaumont Petroleum and Chemical Product Imports and Exports Annual Transportation Cost

by Trade Route and Decade, 2019–2069 .............................................................................................206

373
Table of Contents

viii

121 Port Arthur Petroleum and Chemical Product Imports and Exports Annual Transportation

Cost by Trade Route and Decade, 2019–2069 .....................................................................................207

122 SNWW Petroleum and Chemical Products Annual Savings by Channel Depth Alternative,

2019–2069............................................................................................................................................208

123 SNWW Petroleum Product Coastwise Shipments and Receipts Vessel Data, Base Tonnage,

and Transportation Savings Benefit Summary.....................................................................................209

124 Beaumont Wheat Exports, Shipments to Europe, Mediterranean, and Far East Total Cost Per

Ton by Channel Depth .........................................................................................................................210

125 Beaumont Wheat Exports and Annual Transportation Costs...............................................................211

126 Beaumont Wheat Annual Transportation Savings, 2019–2069 ...........................................................211

127 SNWW Steel Slab and Iron Ore from South America and Far East and the Mediterranean

Cost Per Ton by Channel Depth...........................................................................................................212

128 Port Arthur Steel Slab and Iron Ore from South America, Mediterranean, and the Far East

Historical Tonnage and Annual Transportation Cost by Ton...............................................................213

129 Port Arthur Steel Slab and Iron Ore from South America, Mediterranean, and Far East

Tonnage Forecast and Transportation Savings.....................................................................................214

130 Beaumont Steel Slab and Iron Ore from South America, Mediterranean, and Far East Tonnage

Historical Tonnage and Transportation................................................................................................215

131 Beaumont Steel Slab and Iron Ore from South America and Far East and the Mediterranean

Tonnage Forecast and Annual Transportation Savings........................................................................216

132 Port Arthur and Beaumont Crude Materials Imports and Exports Summary of Recent

Historical and Tonnage Forecast..........................................................................................................217

133 SNWW Crude Material Imports and Exports Via South America and Far East and the

Mediterranean Cost Per Ton ................................................................................................................218

134 Port Arthur Limestone and Rock Imports from South America, Mediterranean, and Far East............219

135 Beaumont Limestone and Rock Imports from South America, Mediterranean, and Far East .............219

136 SNWW Sulphur and Refractory Material Exports to South America, Mediterranean, and Far

East.......................................................................................................................................................220

137 SNWW Liquefied Natural Gas Trade Route Forecast, Short Tons......................................................220

138 Liquefied Natural Gas Transportation Cost per Ton by Channel Depth, Vessel Dead Weight

Tons, and Shipment Origin ..................................................................................................................221

139 Total Average Annual Deepening Benefits by Project Depth Alternative...........................................222

140 Total Average Annual Deepening Benefits by Channel Reach and Alternative ..................................223

141 SNWW Economic Summary Data Cost and Benefits by Channel Alternative....................................223

142 Sabine Pass Channel, Port Arthur Canal, and Sabine-Neches Canal Incremental Analysis Cost

and Benefits by Channel Alternative....................................................................................................224

143 Taylor Bayou Incremental Analysis Cost and Benefits by Channel Alternative..................................225

144 Project Improvements Through Port Arthur (including Taylor Bayou) Cost and Benefits by

Channel Alternative .............................................................................................................................225

145 Neches River Incremental Economic Analysis Cost and Benefits by Channel Alternative.................226

146 SNWW Improvements (Excludes Taylor Bayou) Cost and Benefits by Channel Alternative.............226

147 Neches River Project Improvements (Excludes Transportation Benefits for All Other Reaches

Except the Neches River), Cost and Benefits by Channel Alternative.................................................227

148 SNWW Improvements (Excludes LNG), Cost and Benefits by Channel Alternative .........................227

149 SNWW Economic Summary Data at 7 Percent, Cost and Benefits by Channel Alternative ...............228

150 SNWW Economic Summary Data 3-foot Underkeel Clearance, Cost and Benefits by Channel

Alternative............................................................................................................................................229

151 SNWW Economic Summary Data 1-Foot Underkeel Clearance for Vessels of Less Than

100,000 DWT (Without- and With-Project Future), 3 Feet of Underkeel Clearance for Vessels

374
Table of Contents

ix

Greater than 100,000 DWT (Without- and With-Project Future), Cost and Benefits by

Channel Alternative .............................................................................................................................230

152 SNWW Economic Summary Data 1-Foot Underkeel Clearance for the Without-Project

Condition, 3 Feet of Underkeel Clearance for the With-Project Future, Cost and Benefits.................230

153 SNWW Economic Summary Data Offshore Alternative With 50% of West Africa and Middle

East Using Offshore Alternative, Cost and Benefits by Channel Depth Alternative ...........................231

154 Mother Vessel Offshore Hours Per Shuttle..........................................................................................232

155 SNWW Economic Summary Data Based on Minimal Mother Vessel Offshore Time........................232

156 SNWW Economic Summary Data Based on Less Than Optimal Mother Vessel Offshore

Time .....................................................................................................................................................233

157 Comparison of Annual Savings Due to Vessel Trip Reductions, 2030 Without- and WithProject Future.......................................................................................................................................234

158 Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal Economic Summary Data ..............................................234

159 SNWW Economic Summary Data Offshore Alternative Excluding Grain Exports, Cost and

Benefits by Channel Depth Alternative................................................................................................235

160 Total Average Annual Deepening and Reduction in Delay Benefits by Project Depth

Alternative............................................................................................................................................237

161 Summary of the Local and Regional Economic Impacts Generated by Jefferson County

Waterway and Navigation District.......................................................................................................240

162 Direct Jobs Per 1,000 Tons of Cargo ...................................................................................................240

163 Total Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by NAICS Industry.......................................................242

375
x

List of Acronyms

AEO Annual Energy Outlook

AIS Automatic Identification System

API American Petroleum Institute

Bcf billion cubic feet

Bcf/d billion cubic feet per day

BCR benefit to cost ratio

BOOT Beaumont Offshore Oil Terminal

BOOTS Bulk Oil Offshore Transfer System

BPD barrel-per-day

DWT dead weight tons

EGM Economic Guidance Memorandum

EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration

ERDC Engineering Research and Development Center

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FY fiscal year

GICA Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association

GIWW Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

IWR Institute of Water Resources

LNG Liquefied natural gas

LoLo load-on/load off

LOOP Louisiana Offshore Oil Port

LRS Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay of Ships

m

3 cubic meters

MSA metropolitan statistical area

MSO Marine Safety Office

MTBE methyl tertiary-butyl ether

NDC Navigation Data Center

PADD Petroleum Administration Defense District

SB Sabine Bar or the Sea Buoy

SETWAC Southeast Texas Waterways Advisory Council

SNWW Sabine-Neches Waterway

SPA Sabine Pilots Association

SPR Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Tcf trillion cubic feet

TOPS Texas Offshore Oil Port System

ULCC Ultra Large Crude Carriers

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

376
Acronyms and Abbreviations

xi

USDOE U.S. Department of Energy

VLCCs very large crude carriers

VTM Vessel Traffic Management

VTS vessel traffic service

WCSC Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center

377
1

APPENDIX 2

ECONOMIC APPENDIX

1.0 GENERAL

This appendix presents the economic analysis for proposed modifications to the Sabine-Neches Waterway

(SNWW). The SNWW project area and the general boundaries of its channel reaches are shown on

Figure 1. The existing project is defined by a 40-foot project depth from the Gulf of Mexico offshore

entrance channel to Port Arthur and Beaumont and a 30-foot project depth to the Port of Orange. Project

alternatives were evaluated based on reductions in transportation costs generated from more-efficient

vessel loading and from reductions in vessel delays due to channel deepening and widening. The benefits

were calculated for a 2019–2069 period of analysis using Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Federal Discount rate of

4.375 percent and the deep-draft vessel operating costs contained in the unpublished update to Economic

Guidance Memorandum (EGM 08-04). The deepening benefits were calculated using a Microsoft Excel

spreadsheet model. The widening benefits were calculated using the HarborSym model. The analyses and

computations presented in this appendix are based on data and statistics obtained from personal

interviews with industry officials and from analyses of historical data and published trends.

The appendix contains of nine sections. This first section presents general information on channel use and

the results of the initial screening, and an overview of the historical traffic base. Section 2 presents

evaluation of the major commodity groups. Section 3 presents existing vessel utilization trend data and a

casualty assessment. Section 4 presents the commodity and fleet forecasts. Section 5 summarizes total

tonnage. Section 6 presents the transportation savings benefit analysis. Section 7 presents a summary of

the project benefits and the incremental analysis. Section 8 presents the sensitivity analyses. Section 9

presents an overview of regional economics.

The SNWW terminals include the public marine facilities owned by the ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur,

and Orange, as well as the petroleum refineries, chemical plants, and general cargo terminals. Vessels and

barges are used to transport crude oil, petroleum products, liquid and dry chemicals, and steel and dry

bulk cargo. Deep-draft cargoes are transported from offshore through the Sabine Pass Channel. The Port

of Port Arthur’s general cargo facilities are located on the Sabine-Neches Canal near mile 32, and its

crude petroleum and product terminals are in the Taylor Bayou basin. The Port of Beaumont’s public and

private docks are located on the Neches River Channel. The Channel to Orange intersects with the Gulf

Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) at the east end of the SNWW. Improvements to the Channel to Orange

were not evaluated due to the expectation of low utilization of the existing project depth. In addition to its

large volume of deep-draft traffic, the Sabine-Neches Canal serves as a through channel for the GIWW.

The GIWW extends from Apalachee Bay, Florida, to Brownsville, Texas, and connects with the SNWW

at approximately 3 miles below Orange and then follows the Sabine River and Sabine-Neches Canal to

the head of the Port Arthur Canal where it exits the SNWW and continues westward to Galveston Bay.

Distributions of SNWW’s port-specific deep-draft and shallow-draft tonnage are displayed in Table 1.

378
2

Figure 1: Project Location

379
3

Table 1

SNWW Port Tonnage

(1,000s of Short Tons)

Beaumont Port Arthur Orange SNWW Port Totals a/

Deep- Shallow- Deep- Shallow- Deep- Shallow- Deep- ShallowYear Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft

1999 69,655 12,997 13,730 7,657 0 681 83,385 21,335

2001 64,777 14,354 16,173 6,629 0 798 80,950 21,781

2002 70,441 15,470 16,640 6,036 5 759 87,086 22,265

2003 71,519 16,022 21,044 6,126 10 815 92,573 22,963

2004 74,065 17,632 20,758 6,812 3 606 94,826 25,050

2005 63,069 15,547 19,856 7,714 0 627 82,925 23,888

2006 60,431 18,784 20,990 7,413 3 718 81,424 26,915

2007 60,305 21,079 20,977 8,285 10 815 81,292 30,179

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1999–2007.

a/ Includes intraport movements.

An initial array of project alternatives was identified during the screening analysis. The screening results

were presented at the May 2001 Feasibility Scoping Meeting. For the screening, channel-deepening

benefits were calculated for 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, and 55 feet. The results showed that the 50-foot

channel depth produced the highest net excess benefits. The results also showed that the net excess

benefits for 50 feet were only slightly higher than for 48 feet. Incorporation of later traffic data and

improved cost estimates continued to indicate that the maximum net excess benefits were in the 48- to 50-

foot range. Channel deepening was proposed by industry as a means to allow the existing fleet to be

loaded more fully, reduce per ton transportation costs for vessels using the waterway, and allow for

reductions in the number of annual vessel trips.

Identification of the channel-widening alternatives was driven by physical structures along the Neches

River and Sabine-Neches Canal and the Port Arthur Hurricane Protection Levee in the Sabine-Neches

Canal reach. Delays prompted by transit restrictions are a major concern under existing conditions and

will continue to be a concern under the without-project future. As part of plan formulation, the Neches

River anchorage basins were introduced as an alternative to widening of the Neches River Channel. The

anchorages would be used to facilitate vessel passing. During the initial screening, extensive and

intermittent widening was evaluated for the channel reaches from Sabine Pass Channel inland through the

Neches River Channel. Widening of the Neches River was eliminated from consideration based on

comparison of anticipated reductions in vessel delay costs and initial project construction cost estimates,

and from the outputs of the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) ship simulation

modeling. Widening of the Neches River reach was found not be a cost-effective alternative due to the

costs associated with dock relocations and extensive dredging. Additionally, intermittent widening of the

Neches River Channel did not perform well during ERDC ship simulation modeling. In comparison, the

Neches River anchorages and Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal widening features performed

380
4

favorably. The results of the ERDC modeling showed that a minimum width of 700 feet through the

Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal would be necessary for the Suezmax and Aframax vessels

presently using the waterway to meet smaller vessels in the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal.

Aframax tankers characteristically range from 90,000 to 120,000 dead weight tons (DWT), and Suezmax

tankers characteristically range from 135,000 to 175,000 DWT. The project design vessel is an 899-footlong, 164-foot-wide 158,000 DWT Suezmax crude petroleum tanker. ERDC testing of a 600-foot channel

width alternative showed that neither a loaded or ballast design vessel was successful in meeting a

comparably sized vessel, nor could the design vessel and a smaller 110,000 DWT Aframax tanker meet.

In 2007, there were over 2,000 piloted vessels. The largest sized vessels using the channel to Port Arthur

are Aframax tankers. The largest sized vessels using the Neches River Channel to Beaumont are Suezmax

tankers. Sixty percent of piloted vessels shipped or received cargo from docks on the Neches River. Of

the remaining 40 percent, 39 percent were associated with Port Arthur and the remaining 1 percent with

the Channel to Orange.

Table 2 shows the existing channel dimensions. Channel width inside of the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel

ranges from 400 to 500 feet except for reaches containing turning basins. The without-project future will

continue to be defined by the channel dimensions shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Existing SNWW Channel Dimensions

Channel Reach

Authorized Depth

(feet)

Bottom Width

(feet) Length (miles)

Sabine Bank Channel 42 800 14.7

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel 42 800 3.4

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel 40 800–500 4.0

Sabine Pass Channel 40 500–1,133* 5.6

Port Arthur Canal 40 500–1,788* 6.2

Sabine-Neches Canal 40 400–1,060* 11.3

Neches River Channel 40 400 18.6

Channel to Orange 30 200 14.1

* This reach contains an existing turning basin.

381
5

The SNWW is currently subject to navigation constraints, including one-way and daylight-only sailing

rules. The pilot rules are summarized in Table 3. The transit rules and associated restrictions are agreed

upon by the shipping industry, supported by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Captain of the Port Orders

under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1978, as amended, and administered by the Sabine Pilots

Association (SPA). These voluntary rules were agreed upon by the Sabine shipping industries and the

SPA, and supported by USCG Captain of the Port Orders under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of

1978, as amended. The agreement, dated January 12, 1981, will remain in force until the Sabine shipping

industries, SPA, and USCG agree to its revision or modification. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) vessels are

subject to additional rules. LNG vessels using the SNWW would be subject to strict USCG regulations

and to local pilot rules and, therefore, will not have the opportunity to meet other vessels or barges. The

USCG regulations require that a safety zone is in place 2 miles ahead of a loaded LNG vessel and 1 mile

astern of the vessel while transiting. LNG vessels using the SNWW would be subject to this rule. Even in

the absence of the safety concerns inherent to LNG, the beams of LNG tankers would result in vesselmeeting restrictions; however, all LNG vessel movements will be subject to one-way traffic. Operation of

the LNG terminals is part of the without-project future.

Table 3

SNWW Pilots Rules

General: Vessels 85,000 DWT or over, or greater than 875 feet in length and 125 feet in beam width

will move during daylight hours only above the Texas Island intersection with the GIWW West. In the

event that meeting situations are applicable but circumstances will not permit the utilization of turning

basins, the following criteria will prevail:

1. Vessels with combined beam widths that equal or exceed one-half of the channel width will not meet

day or night.

2. Vessels ≥85,000 DWT will not meet vessels of either ≥30,000 DWT or ≥2-foot draft above the

Texas Island intersection.

3. Vessels ≥85,000 DWT will not meet vessels of either ≥30,000 DWT or ≥30-foot draft above

buoys 29 and 30.

4. Vessels 48,000 metric DWT or more with a draft of 30 feet or more will not meet above buoys

29 and 30.

5. Vessels with a combined draft of 70 feet or more will not meet between the Neches River

intersection and Day Beacon #40 (Smith Bluff) at night. Vessels with a combined draft of

65 feet or more will not meet above Day Beacon #40 at night.

Source: SPA (2008) http://www.sabinepilots.com/guidelines.htm.

382
6

Non-LNG vessels utilizing the waterway are wider than those using the channel even 5–10 years ago.

Due to wider beams and the difficulty associated with handling an increasing number of larger vessels,

the Sabine Pilots would not consider relaxing the transit rules without structural modifications of the

channel. Widening the channel up to the Taylor Bayou junction will result in a relaxation of the pilot rules

as vessels will have an additional 200 feet of channel (i.e., the existing channel width is 500 feet and the

with-project width for the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal, which leads up to Taylor Bayou,

will be 700 feet). The expectation for the with- and without-project future is that pilot rules will continue

to limit the possibility of vessel-to-vessel and vessel-to-tow meetings in the Sabine-Neches Canal reach

and that both vessel and shallow-draft tow movements will be scheduled through both vessel traffic

service (VTS) and communication between vessel pilots.

An anticipated effect of the alternative that includes widening the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur

Canal to 700 feet would be to allow a higher percentage of vessels presently affected by the 50 percent

combined beam rule in the 500-foot reach to meet in the proposed 700-foot reach. The pilots are uncertain

as to the effect that widening will have on the other rules and are reluctant to speculate on how these rules

might be relaxed if the channel was deepened and widened. For a “widening only alternative,” rules 2 and

3 would be relaxed (see Table 3). For purposes of analysis, the only rule that would change if the channel

were deepened and widened is the combined beam rule. The effect of relaxing the remaining two rules is

expected if the channel was widened but not deepened. An increase in channel width to 700 feet would

allow a higher percentage of vessels to meet in the proposed 700-foot reach. The effect of channel

widening on Rule 1 would be that a larger number of wider beam vessels would be able to meet in the

Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal reaches. Rule 2 would not change meeting and passing

restrictions in the Sabine-Neches Canal. The Sabine-Neches Canal is common to the GIWW. Safety

concerns associated with the Sabine-Neches Canal reach provided the impetus for Port Arthur’s selection

as one of 28 ports selected for participation in the 1999 Vessel Traffic Management (VTM) workshops

and the subsequent implementation of the VTM service in the early 2000s.

The screening analysis included assessment of nonstructural alternatives. Nonstructural alternatives

include the existing Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP); reactivation of the Beaumont Offshore Oil

Terminal (BOOT) permit; and participation in the August 2008 Texas Offshore Oil Port System (TOPS)

initiative. The SNWW ports presently receive approximately 1 percent of daily refinery input through

LOOP. Extensive pipeline expansions to LOOP would be necessary to accommodate a higher percentage

of SNWW’s crude petroleum throughput requirements, as SNWW’s capacity is close to LOOP’s

capacity. Expansion is not under consideration by the LOOP stakeholders. While LOOP expansion was

not considered for the SNWW without-project future base, the effect of a without-project future that

includes utilization of offshore terminals was evaluated in the sensitivity section of this appendix (Section

8). The BOOTS project, which would be offshore from Beaumont, was announced in 2002. The BOOTS

regulatory permit application is presently inactive, and the USCG has not received an update to the

proposal since 2002. The TOPS initiative was announced in 2008. TOPS would be located offshore from

Freeport (Texas) and would serve Port Arthur, Texas City, and Houston. Freeport is located on the Texas

Coast southwest of the SNWW. As with BOOTS, TOPS would require construction of a pipeline from

383
7

offshore. The existing Seaway pipeline from Freeport to Texas City would be used as part of TOPS. The

connection to Port Arthur from Texas City would necessitate a new pipeline extending approximately 95

miles. A March 2009 press release revealed that the Port Arthur participant, Motiva, put its participation

on hold based on uncertainty associated with future crude petroleum import volumes and trade routes.

The large fixed cost of offshore terminal construction requires high volumes of very large crude carriers

(VLCCs) utilization in order to achieve a return on the investment. If constructed, industry indications are

that TOPS and BOOTS would not serve as the exclusive supplies, just as LOOP is not the exclusive

supplier for the Louisiana markets. The SNWW without-project future is based on the assumption that

offshore port alternatives are not constructed. Current expectations are that regional crude oil imports will

increase at lower rates in comparison to those experienced through the 1990s and into the early 2000s.

The effect of a without-project future that includes utilization of offshore terminals is evaluated in the

sensitivity section of this appendix.

An additional alternative is construction of a crude oil terminal in Port Arthur below Texas Island on the

Sabine-Neches Canal, northeast of its junction with the GIWW. Port Arthur’s existing petroleum

terminals are located in the Taylor Bayou basin. The Taylor Bayou basin is immediately northwest of

Texas Island. Construction of a new terminal in Port Arthur would divert crude petroleum import tonnage

from the Neches River Channel to Beaumont. A new landside terminal on the Port Arthur Canal and the

offshore alternatives remain uncertain; therefore, the effects of these alternatives on the 2019–2069

tonnage forecast was evaluated in the sensitivity section of this appendix.

The large volume of tow-barges using the Sabine-Neches Canal reach, along with a high flow of deepdraft traffic, compound congestion and prompted interest early in the study process of evaluation of a

barge shelf through the canal reach between the east and west junction with the GIWW. Initial responses

to the barge shelf alternative revealed large variance in expectations about its potential effects, with some

tow operators questioning the usefulness of the proposed project feature. In 2005, the Gulf Intracoastal

Canal Association (GICA) withdrew support for the barge shelf. While mixed concerns about the

functionality of the proposed feature contributed to GICA’s decision, the decision was primarily based on

anticipated and continued success of the VTM as a nonstructural alternative. Additionally, and as part of

the VTM initiatives, improved deep-draft and barge vessel communication initiated by the USCG and

user safety board activities were noted by the USCG to have resulted in improved safety. Ongoing

improvements to the VTM system are expected to result in accelerated safety and communication

improvements. These nonstructural initiatives made by the USCG, Sabine Pilots Association, and GICA

represent nonstructural alternatives to the barge shelf. The expectation for the with- and without-project

future is that pilot rules will continue to limit the possibility of vessel-to-vessel and vessel-to-tow

meetings in the Sabine-Neches Canal reach and that both vessel and shallow-draft tow movements in this

reach will be scheduled through both VTM and communication between vessel pilots.

384
8

1.1 COMMODITY OVERVIEW

The SNWW tonnage experienced strong overall growth from the middle 1990s through 2007, with total

tonnage increasing from an average of 108 million short tons for 1995–1997 to 138 million for 2005–

2007. In 2007, tonnage totaled nearly 141 million short tons, and the waterway ranked 4th in the U.S. in

terms of total tonnage and first in the Nation in crude oil imports. As individual ports, Beaumont ranked

5th in the nation with 81.4 million short tons. Port Arthur’s 2007 tonnage totaled 29.3 million short tons

with a national ranking of 28th. Channel to Orange tonnage totaled 682 thousand short tons in 2007.

Tonnage for the three ports totaled approximately 111 million short tons. The remaining 30 million short

tons of the 141-million-short-ton total consist of shallow-draft barge cargo. Table 4 presents SNWW

1970–2007 total tonnage and principal deep-draft movements. Approximately 60 percent of the SNWW

tonnage consists of deep-draft movements. The remaining 40 percent consists of shallow-draft GIWWrelated traffic. Table 5 displays Sabine-Neches Canal 1970–2007 shallow-draft GIWW tonnage section

and the relative percentage of shallow-draft to total tonnage. In 2007, nearly 30 million short tons of the

59.7 million short tons of shallow-draft barge tonnage using the waterway were transported through

SNWW port facilities. Beaumont’s shallow-draft barge tonnage totaled 21.2 million short tons, Port

Arthur’s 8.3 million short tons, Orange’s 0.7 million short tons, and Sabine Pass 0.9 million short tons.

The remaining 30.3 million short tons of 2007 shallow-draft barge traffic consisted of “through

movements” between ports such as those on the Lower Mississippi River, Houston, and the GIWW west

of Houston. In reviewing trends for commodities presently or anticipated to be constrained, the initial

focus was on the commodity groups displayed in Table 4.

Distributions of Port Arthur and Beaumont’s 1999–2007 tonnages are displayed in tables 6 and 7. Port

specific data for years prior to 1999 are not included in these tables due to U.S.Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) Navigation Data Center (NDC) reporting problems which resulted in a portion of Beaumont’s

tonnage being attributed to Port Arthur. Crude petroleum imports and petroleum and chemical product

imports and exports comprised 80 percent of Port Arthur’s 2007 total oceangoing tonnage. The 1999–

2007 average was 83 percent. Port Arthur crude petroleum imports remained relatively flat since 2001 but

steady. Port Arthur refinery capacity in 2009 is nearly 13 percent higher than in 2004, with additional

expansions scheduled. Motiva announced plans for a 325,000 barrel-per-day (BPD) refinery expansion in

Port Arthur in December 2007. Construction on the refinery expansion is presently taking place.

As shown in Table 6, Port Arthur’s highest and most significant growth rates were for petroleum product

exports and domestic coastwise, with overall tonnage growing at relatively steady rates. Analysis of the

commodity-specific data showed that 81 percent of Port Arthur’s 2005–2007 petroleum product exports

were comprised of petroleum coke. Port Arthur’s petroleum coke exports constitute 11 percent of the U.S.

total, up from 3 percent for the early 1990s. Port Arthur’s 2005–2007 chemical exports also experienced

significant increases. Port Arthur’s chemical export growth is attributable to significant gains in metallic

salts and hydrocarbons exports. Twenty percent of U.S. 2005–2007 metallic salts exports were shipped

from Port Arthur. Metallic salts and organic compounds are used in the production of paints and solvents,

paper and wood products, cleaning products, and various chemical products, and more recently in the

385
9

production of nylon in Latin America and China. Increases in Port Arthur’s metallic salt exports since

2004 are associated with the completion of a 266,000 metric-ton-per-year cyclohexane facility in the

Taylor Bayou section of Port Arthur in early 2004.

Table 4

SNWW Total Tonnage and Major Commodity Tonnage

(1,000s of Short Tons)

Year

Total

Tonnage

Total DeepDraft

Tonnage a/

Principal Deep-Draft Commodities

Crude Petroleum Petroleum Products Chemical Products Bulk Grain

Imports Coastwise Imports Exports Imports Exports Exports

1970 79,291 35,696 9 9,217 280 827 72 336 1,786

1975 79,296 41,134 13,820 3,102 177 256 42 310 2,926

1980 108,124 52,560 28,640 3,082 715 2,359 648 634 1,843

1985 70,239 39,169 22,627 1,835 2,516 1,514 267 707 1,642

1990 90,819 36,175 20,348 2,921 2,198 1,635 34 546 2,090

1993 95,418 46,990 32,639 81 2,656 3,260 25 537 3,471

1994 99,675 49,775 37,226 225 1,859 3,092 49 577 2,303

1995 103,254 52,959 38,743 187 1,304 4,258 33 725 1,712

1996 103,262 54,863 40,930 971 1,473 3,930 48 777 1,038

1997 116,012 67,553 51,142 81 2,470 4,595 33 1,101 1,370

1998 115,935 70,351 53,877 38 3,491 4,329 140 966 910

1999 114,393 69,259 53,834 86 3,627 3,307 449 753 936

2000 126,285 83,385 67,187 149 3,051 4,043 619 1,469 894

2001 128,944 80,950 64,226 127 2,734 5,120 754 1,296 858

2002 135,088 87,081 66,383 133 5,028 5,635 683 1,587 835

2003 143,923 92,563 70,158 195 5,187 6,573 434 1,555 1,125

2004 150,297 94,823 69,875 134 6,002 7,152 656 2,104 1,329

2005 134,695 82,925 59,691 165 5,349 6,354 1,084 1,891 1,081

2006 138,065 81,640 57,616 139 3,819 6,823 1,244 2,904 1,214

2007 140,967 81,282 56,088 217 3,744 6,608 955 3,169 1,632

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1970–2007.

a/ Includes commodities in addition to what is shown.

386
10

Table 5

SNWW Shallow-Draft Port and GIWW Through Tonnage, Deep-Draft Total Tonnage, and Shallow-Draft

Percentage of Total Tonnage (1,000s of Short Tons) a/

Year

Shallow-Draft Port

Tonnage and GIWW

Through Tonnage

Deep-Draft

Tonnage SNWW Total

Shallow-Draft

Percent of Total

Tonnage

1970 43,595 35,696 79,291 55

1975 38,162 41,134 79,296 48

1980 55,564 52,560 108,124 51

1985 31,070 39,169 70,239 44

1990 54,644 36,175 90,819 60

1995 50,295 52,959 103,254 49

1996 48,399 54,863 103,262 47

1997 48,459 67,553 116,012 42

1998 45,584 70,351 115,935 39

1999 45,134 69,259 114,393 39

2000 42,900 83,385 126,285 34

2001 47,902 81,998 128,944 37

2002 48,007 87,081 135,088 36

2003 51,360 92,563 143,923 36

2004 55,474 94,823 150,297 37

2005 51,770 82,925 134,695 38

2006 56,646 81,421 138,067 41

2007 59,685 81,282 140,967 42

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1970–2007.

a/ Includes intra-port movements.

As shown in Table 6, Port Arthur’s commodity movements other than petroleum and chemicals include

crude materials, which consist of 513,000 short tons of limestone, sand, and gravel. For 1999–2007, crude

material volumes averaged nearly 500,000 short tons annually. Port Arthur’s crude material facilities are

located on the Sabine-Neches Canal near mile 32, and its crude petroleum and product terminals are in the

Taylor Bayou basin.

Port Arthur’s steady volume of coastwise tonnage shown in Table 6 is associated with continuing

shipments of gasoline, distillate fuel oil, and petroleum coke between Port Arthur and other deep-draft

U.S. ports. Approximately 39 percent of tonnage is shipped to Florida’s Atlantic Coast, 34 percent to

Florida’s Gulf Coast, 9 percent to Baton Rouge, 6 percent to Houston, 3 percent to Lake Charles, and 2

percent to Corpus Christi. The remaining 7 percent of destinations include Puerto Rico, the U.S. West

Coast, and the Northeast.

387
Table 6

11

Port Arthur Total Tonnage and Major Commodity Tonnage

(1,000s of short tons)

Year

Total

Tonnage

Total

DeepDraft Total Coastwise

Crude

Petroleum

Petroleum

Products Chemical Products

Crude Materials,

Except Fuels

Primary

Manufactured

Goods

Major

Group

% of

DeepImports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Total Draft

1999 18,308 12,073 659 7,977 604 1,136 5 349 566 21 617 107 12,041 1002000 21,387 13,730 817 8,862 1,121 1,502 – 307 206 7 743 107 13,672 1002001 22,802 16,173 1,043 11,064 641 2,327 25 136 131 – 665 101 16,133 1002002 22,676 16,640 1,422 9,013 997 3,143 89 176 919 2 641 194 16,596 1002003 27,170 21,044 2,577 11,987 1,152 3,734 60 210 481 20 557 128 20,906 992004 27,570 20,758 1,804 10,015 2,150 4,255 225 889 531 41 564 106 20,580 992005 26,385 19,856 1,803 9,320 2,205 3,858 194 998 558 14 710 84 19,744 992006 28,403 21,209 2,323 10,627 1,144 4,391 111 1,330 566 54 542 46 21,134 1002007 29,067 20,977 3,330 10,334 792 3,978 97 1,525 513 64 122 35 20,790 99

Average Annual Growth Rate (1999-2007)

5.9% 7.1% 22.4% 3.3% 3.4% 17.0% 44.9% 20.2% –1.2% 14.9% –18.3% –13.0% 7.1% –0.1%

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1999–2007.

388
Table 7

12

Beaumont Total Tonnage and Major Commodity Tonnage

(1,000s of short tons)

Total

Total

Deep- Total

Crude

Petroleum

Petroleum

Products Chemical Products

Crude Materials,

Except Fuels

Primary

Manufactured

Goods Grain

Major

Group

% of

Deep

Year Tonnage Draft Coastwise Imports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Exports Total Draft

1999 69,406 57,186 3,330 45,857 3,023 2,170 444 404 115 446 281 8 936 57,014 1002000 76,894 69,655 3,046 58,325 1,930 2,541 619 1,162 413 410 133 1 894 69,474 1002001 79,131 64,777 2,793 53,162 2,093 2,793 729 1,160 622 165 103 6 858 64,484 1002002 85,911 70,441 2,712 57,370 4,031 2,492 594 1,411 394 14 204 14 835 70,071 992003 87,541 71,519 2,732 58,171 4,035 2,839 374 1,345 583 73 115 36 1,125 71,428 1002004 91,968 74,065 3,191 59,860 3,852 2,897 431 1,215 559 104 420 1 1,329 73,859 1002005 78,887 63,069 2,967 50,371 3,144 2,496 890 893 624 106 471 12 1,082 63,056 1002006 79,486 60,431 3,115 46,988 2,676 2,432 1,133 1,574 550 243 364 8 1,214 60,296 1002007 80,062 60,305 3,261 45,776 2,952 2,713 858 1,644 617 421 173 86 1,632 60,133 100

Average Annual Growth Rate (1999-2007)

1.8% 0.7% –0.3% 0.0% –0.3% 2.8% 8.6%% 19.2% 23.4% –0.7% –5.9% 34.5% 7.2% 0.7% 0.0%

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1999–2007.

389
13

Examination of Beaumont’s tonnage (see Table 7) showed that crude petroleum imports and

petrochemical imports and exports composed 89 percent of Beaumont’s 2007 total oceangoing tonnage.

Four percent of 2005–2007 U.S. fertilizer and fertilizer mixes were exported from Beaumont. For 2005–

2007, the Beaumont share of potassic fertilizer exports increased to 12.5 percent of the U.S. fertilizer

export total, up from 1 percent prior to 2001. Beaumont’s other commodity movements include grain

exports, coastwise shipments of gasoline and liquid sulphur, and imports and exports of crude materials

and manufactured goods. The latter groups comprise approximately 7 percent of Beaumont’s deep-draft

tonnage. Beaumont’s crude material imports, which include limestone, sand, and gravel, comprised

1 percent of the 2005–2007 average U.S. total. Beaumont’s imports of manufactured goods for 2005–

2007 consisted of 336,000 short tons of iron and steel products, representing 1 percent of the U.S. total.

Coastwise shipments for 2005–2007 averaged 2.4 million short tons and included 1.3 million short tons of

gasoline and 720,000 short tons of chemicals. Liquid sulphur composed 85 percent of coastwise chemical

shipments. For the period 1998–2007, sulphur shipments ranged from a low of 506,000 short tons in 2004

to a high of 679,000 in 2001. In 2007, Beaumont’s sulphur shipments totaled 553,000 short tons.

While the initial screening focused on crude petroleum imports, interest in channel deepening alternatives

was found to include aggregate, bulk grain, chemicals, and LNG. During the early 2000s, LNG permits

were approved for the Cheniere Sabine Pass, Golden Pass (Exxon Mobil), and Sempra terminals.

Cheniere opened its terminal in April 2008. Receipt of “commissioning cargo,” which is used to chill the

tanks and keep the natural gas in its liquefied state, occurred in 2008. Since opening, throughput has been

low due to increased demand in other parts of the world. The effect of competing demand drove up LNG

prices on the world market, with other countries willing to pay more than we are for LNG, little is being

shipped to the U.S.1Japan imported much higher than anticipated volumes of LNG to fuel peaking plants

after the summer of 2008 earthquake shut down most of the country's nuclear power generation.

Tentatively there are short-term plans to export LNG from the Sabine Pass LNG import terminal in

Louisiana. In a July 2009 press release, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) noted that

expectations in 2010–2012 are for prices to stabilize and shipments to the U.S. to increase. Cheniere

presently has three storage tanks built and another two under construction. Construction of the Exxon

Golden Pass LNG terminal is scheduled for completion in 2011. Its schedule was delayed due to ongoing

Hurricane Ike cleanup activities along with the unexpected surge in Japanese demand for LNG.

Construction of the third permitted facility, Sempra, is anticipated after 2012. The three LNG sites are

located in the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal reaches; these reaches are presently 500 feet

wide and will remain so under the without-project future

As indicated, the EIA raised its projections for liquefied natural gas imports in July 2009, citing falling

long-term demand elsewhere as new global production comes online. The EIA noted that U.S. LNG

imports are expected to increase from 350 billion cubic feet (Bcf) in 2008 to about 480 Bcf in 2009 and

650 Bcf in 2010.2It was also noted that the U.S. tends to be the LNG market of last resort as producers

send LNG to the higher-paying Asian and European markets first, adding that global LNG demand and

prices have began to decline 2009, potentially leaving more LNG for the U.S. whose extensive storage

1 Beaumont Enterprise, “Sabine LNG Filing Tanks Up,” June 28, 2009.

2 USDOE, Short-Term Energy Outlook, EIA, June 9, 2009.

390
14

and pipeline network means it can absorb LNG even at times of low demand. Added effects expected to

result in increases in U.S. LNG imports are new production projects coming online in Russia and Qatar

late in 2009. Expectations through 2011 are for completion of projects in Yemen and Indonesia. The LNG

projection is subject to considerable uncertainty, while noting that initial production from new

liquefaction capacity has been slowed or delayed for extended periods.

The remainder of this section presents additional detail on breakbulk foreign imports and exports and

coastwise commodities. SNWW’s breakbulk commodities of wood products, iron ore, limestone, and

rock fall within the classification of manufactured goods. Figure 2 displays SNWW’s established base of

import and export tonnage by major commodity group.3 Petroleum and chemical product imports and

exports, breakbulk imports and exports, and bulk grain exports are shown. Tonnage increased for all

groups except grain. In spite of declines, grain exports have increased marginally since the middle 1990s,

and Beaumont’s 2005–2007 wheat exports represent 5 percent of total U.S. wheat exports. The U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows 909 million bushels of wheat exports for the 2006–2007 cropyear, and 1,150 million bushels for 2007–2008. The USDA forecasted a constant export level of 950

million bushels for 2008–2009 through 2017–2018.4

Figure 3 provides a detailed display of SNWW’s major breakbulk tonnage. With the exception of wood

and related product exports, which decreased at an average annual rate 9.5 percent, overall breakbulk

volumes increased from 1990 to 1992 through 2005 to 2007. Iron and steel imports grew at an average

annual rate of 8.8 percent. Limestone and rock imports increased at a rate of 6.3 percent. Wood product

imports increased at an annual rate of 31.7 percent.5 While 2005–2007 breakbulk volumes are up from the

early nineties, 2007 tonnage was down. Approximately 60 percent of 2005–2007 combined imports and

exports of breakbulk are transported through Port Arthur, and the remainder through Beaumont. Imports

of iron and steel products and limestone and rock materials compose the majority of current breakbulk

tonnage.

3 Data for the years prior to 1999 are not presented for the individual ports. The Bureau of Census data contained in the Waterborne

Commerce of the United States does not reflect correct allocation of Port Arthur and Beaumont traffic between the ports. Some of

Beaumont’s traffic was recorded under Port Arthur due to a Bureau of Census error. Total tonnage values were found to be correct for the

SNWW, but the individual counts for years prior to 1999 were found to be unreliable.

4 USDA, USDA Agricultural Projections to 2017, Long-term Projections Report OCE-2008-1, February 2008, p. 40.

5 The average annual growth rates for period such as 1990/1992 to 2005/2007 was calculated based on 15 years. The 1990/1992 to

2005/2007 averages were used as inputs.

391
15

Figure 2

SNWW Foreign Imports and Exports by Major Commodity Group

(Excluding Crude Petroleum)

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1990–2007.

Figure 3

SNWW Breakbulk Imports and Exports

1989/1991 to 2004/2006 Distribution

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1990–2007.

392
16

Iron ore and rock materials increased dramatically from the early 1990s. Approximately 55 percent of

1999–2007 limestone and rock imports were shipped to Beaumont and the remainder to Port Arthur.

SNWW aggregate tonnage primarily consists of imports of limestone, rock, and other raw building

materials. For the period 2002–2007, 3.2 percent of U.S. limestone and rock imports were transported

through the SNWW ports.

Approximately 62 percent of 1999–2007 iron and steel product imports were transported through Port

Arthur and the remainder to Beaumont. While down in 2007, an average of 2.5 percent of 2002–2006

U.S. iron ore and steel slab imports were transported through the SNWW ports. For the period 2002–

2007, imports ranged from a low of 240,000 short tons in 2007 and a high of 1.1 million short tons in

2005. SNWW wood and product imports primarily consist of pulp and waste paper, with the waterway

importing 14 percent of 2005–2007 U.S. pulp and waste paper products.

Coastwise tonnage consists almost exclusively of petroleum and chemical commodities. Figure 4 shows

SNWW’s 1980–2007 coastwise tonnage. The dramatic declines in coastwise product shipments

experienced in the 1980s resulted from the transition from domestic production of crude petroleum to

imports.

Figure 4

SNWW Coastwise Shipments and Receipts

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

1000's of short ton

Coastwise Petroleum Product Shipments (Primarily Gasoline)

Coastwise Petroleum Total Shipments & Receipts

Coastwise Shipment & Receipt Total, All Commodities

Since the mid-1999s coastwise tonnage has been relatively steady, with some modest increases in recent

years. Petroleum product shipments represented 67 percent of 2005–2007 tonnage, petroleum product

receipts 22 percent, and the remaining 11 percent represented chemical shipments. Figure 5 displays

SNWW’s 1990–2007 coastwise petroleum product shipment averages by major commodity classification.

393
17

Figure 5

SNWW Coastwise Shipments and Receipts

by Major Commodity Group

Shipments consist of gasoline, distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, lube oil, and petroleum coke. Gasoline

and products are shipped to the U.S. East Coast, specifically eastern Florida. Figure 6 displays

Beaumont’s and Port Arthur’s petroleum product port shares for 1999–2007. As noted, 11 percent of

SNWW coastwise tonnage consists of chemical shipments. Analysis of total chemical shipments showed

that Beaumont shipped 95 percent of 1999–2007 chemical coastwise tonnage and Port Arthur the

remaining 5 percent. Liquid sulphur constituted 75 percent of outbound shipments and contributed to a 95

percent increase in SNWW chemical shipments since the early 1990s. All of SNWW sulphur is shipped

from Beaumont, with nearly all movements going to Florida. Figure 7 displays Beaumont’s and Port

Arthur’s port shares for 1999–2007 chemical products.

394
18

Figure 6

Port Arthur and Beaumont

Outbound Coastwise Gasoline Shipments

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

1,000's of short tons

Port Arthur Gasoline Shipments Beaumont Gasoline Shipments

Figure 7

Port Arthur and Beaumont

Outbound Chemical Shipments

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

1,000's of short tons

Port Arthur Chemical Shipments

Beaumont Chemical Shipments

Beaumont Sulphur Shipments

395
19

2.0 DETAILED COMMODITY ANALYSIS

This section presents detailed analyses of the major commodity groups currently or anticipated to be

transported in larger vessels. Data obtained from vessel operators and ongoing analyses of SNWW trends

and commodity-specific world and regional fleet data indicated that a portion of these commodities are

limited by the constraints of the existing and the without-project future channel dimensions. The analyses

address crude petroleum, petroleum products, chemical products, grain, aggregate, and LNG, with crude

petroleum representing the most significant group.

2.1 CRUDE PETROLEUM

There are 20 waterfront facilities in Port Arthur and 27 in Beaumont that receive and/or ship crude

petroleum or petroleum products. The SNWW refineries supply crude oil to the U.S. Department of

Energy’s (USDOE) “Big Hill Site” in Texas and the “Hackberry Site” in Louisiana Strategic Petroleum

Reserve (SPR). The SNWW is the primary means of delivery for crude oil to four refineries in Beaumont

and Port Arthur. Beaumont and Port Arthur each have two oil refineries, and the four refineries serve four

terminals on the Neches River. Two of the Neches River terminals are connected by pipelines to the

USDOE Strategic Petroleum Reserve underground storage units. The Motiva and Valero refineries are in

Port Arthur in the Taylor Bayou basin. Motiva has a vessel terminal in the Taylor Bayou basin and

another terminal on the Neches River. The Total Petrochemicals and ExxonMobil refineries are on the

Neches River. Additional crude oil terminals located on the Neches River include BASF-Fina, Sun Oil,

and Chevron-Phillips. The Neches River crude petroleum tankers accommodate Suezmax tankers.

The SNWW is contained in the U.S. Gulf Coast Petroleum Administration Defense District (PADD III).

PADD III includes the states of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and New Mexico.

SNWW’s 2002–2006 crude petroleum waterborne imports composed 12 percent of U.S. and 18 percent of

PADD III imports. Table 8 displays SNWW crude petroleum imports and the waterway’s share of the

national and regional totals for 1990–2007, and Table 9 displays the port-specific shares for 1998–2007.6

Figure 8 shows the U.S. PADD boundaries. SNWW’s crude petroleum imports represent 4 percent of the

U.S. total and 7 percent of the U.S. Gulf Coast PADD III region. Figure 9 shows the regional SPR sites

served by the SNWW terminals.

6 Data for the years prior to 1998 are not presented for the individual ports. The Bureau of Census data contained in the

Waterborne Commerce of the United States does not reflect correct allocation of Port Arthur and Beaumont traffic between

the ports. Some of Beaumont’s traffic was recorded under Port Arthur due to a Bureau of Census error. Total tonnage values

were found to be correct for the SNWW, but the individual counts for years prior to 1999 were found to be unreliable.

396
20

SNWW’s capacity represents six percent of the U.S. total. Specific capacity is 572,000 BPD for Port

Arthur and 577,000 BPD for Beaumont. SNWW capacity levels for 2009 are presently 12 percent higher

than in 2004 and 31 percent higher than in 1994. The Motiva expansion is presently under construction

and will increase the refinery’s crude oil throughput capacity to approximately 600,000 BPD, making it

the largest refinery in the U.S. and one of the largest in the world. The ExxonMobil Beaumont refinery is

presently the third largest refinery in the world. As a result of these additions, SNWW’s combined

capacity will represent the largest concentration in the State of Texas.

Table 8

Comparison of SNWW and Regional and National Totals

Crude Petroleum Imports (1000s of short tons)

SNWW PADD III U.S. Total

Year Imports Imports Imports

1990 20,348 178,052 322,433

1991 19,245 174,852 316,310

1992 23,613 184,871 333,666

1993 32,639 204,356 371,267

1994 37,226 221,020 386,381

1995 38,743 222,164 395,484

1996 40,930 237,708 411,824

1997 51,142 252,270 449,961

1998 53,877 267,175 476,231

1999 53,834 270,491 477,592

2000 67,187 281,170 497,547

2001 64,226 292,859 510,298

2002 66,383 282,226 499,999

2003 70,158 300,325 528,703

2004 69,875 316,402 553,337

2005 59,691 310,493 553,923

2006 57,615 309,399 553,489

2007 56,078 305,732 548,742

1990/1992

Average

21,069 179,258 324,136

2005/2007

Average

57,795 308,541 552,051

1990/1992 to 2005/2007 Compound Annual Growth (AAG) Rates

7.0% 3.7% 3.6%

Source: USACE and EIA, 1990–2007.

397
Table 9

21

Beaumont and Port Arthur Crude Petroleum Imports

(1,000s of Sort Tons)

Year Beaumont

% of SNWW

Total Port Arthur

% of SNWW

Total

SNWW

Total PADD III Total

SNWW %

of PADD

U.S.

Total

SNWW %

of U.S.

1998 44,179 86.0 8,620 14.0 53,877 267,175 20.2 476,231 11.31999 45,857 85.2 7,977 14.8 53,834 270,491 19.9 477,592 11.3

2000 58,325 86.8 8,862 13.2 67,187 281,170 23.9 497,547 13.52001 53,162 82.8 11,064 17.2 64,226 292,859 21.9 510,298 12.62002 57,370 86.4 9,013 13.6 66,383 282,226 23.5 499,999 13.32003 58,171 82.9 11,987 17.1 70,158 300,325 23.4 528,703 13.32004 59,860 85.7 10,015 14.3 69,875 316,402 22.1 553,337 12.62005 50,371 84.4 9,320 15.6 59,691 310,493 19.2 553,923 10.82006 46,989 81.6 10,627 18.4 57,616 309,399 18.6 553,489 10.42007 45,766 81.6 10,312 18.4 56,078 305,732 18.3 548,742 10.2

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1998–2007.

398
22

Figure 8

U.S. Petroleum Administration Defense Districts

Figure 9

U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserves Gulf Coast Sites

399
23

The amount of crude petroleum imported into the SNWW is largely dependent upon the area’s capacity to

refine crude and/or deliver pipeline by to other refining complexes. Table 10 displays regional crude

petroleum refinery capacity data. In addition to supplying oil to two the USDOE SPR sites, the SNWW

system delivers crude to refineries in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, Arkansas, and Kentucky.

Examination of the refinery capacity data presented in Table 10 shows that the SNWW’s 2002–2007

crude petroleum import volumes do not exceed crude petroleum refining capacity. Recent refinery

expansions and anticipated new refinery construction prior to 2020 indicates that added capacity will be

sufficient to meet anticipate crude petroleum import volumes.

Table 10

SNWW Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity

(1,000s of Barrels Per Calendar Day)

Period Beaumont Port Arthur

Percent

of Texas

Percent

of U.S.

U.S.

Total

1994 420.5 454.0 19.6 5.8 15,034

1999 438.5 513.5 22.7 5.9 16,261

2000 450.0 523.0 23.0 5.9 16,512

2001 500.0 521.0 23.8 6.2 16,595

2002 500.0 527.0 22.9 6.1 16,785

2003 510.0 523.6 23.8 6.1 16,757

2004 505.0 523.6 22.9 6.1 16,974

2005 540.0 582.0 24.2 6.5 17,196

2006 545.0 580.5 24.0 6.5 17,383

2007 545.0 590.5 24.0 6.5 17,436

2008 574.0 576.5 24.0 6.5 17,436

2009 572.0 576.5 24.0 6.5 17,436

Source: U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), EIA, 1994–2009.

* Variations occur in annual volumes due to temporary shutdowns and routine maintenance.

The Port Arthur and Beaumont terminals transport 400,000 barrels per day of waterborne crude oil via

pipelines to inland refineries including refineries in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, Arkansas, and

Kentucky.7 Colonial Product Pipeline delivers over 2 million BPD of refined products via pipeline

serving Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia,

Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey. Explorer Product Pipeline delivers 650,000 BPD of refined

products via pipeline serving Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana. Products, such as

gasoline, heating oil, diesel, and jet fuel, are transported from the Gulf Coast to the East Coast and the

Midwest through existing pipeline networks. Product traffic also moves between U.S. ports by coastwise

tankers and inland waterway barges. The SNWW refineries supply 15 percent of the product on

Colonial’s system and 13 percent of the product on Explorer’s system. The pipeline maps shown on

Figure 10 illustrate the distribution that includes the SNWW ports.

7 Martin Associates. 2006. Economic Impacts of the Sabine-Neches Waterway and Economic benefits of Maintenance Dredging of the

Waterway. Martin Associates, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

400
24

Figure 10

Major U.S. Crude Petroleum and Product Pipelines

Source: Allegro Energy Group: How Pipelines Make the Oil Market Work, Their Networks, Operations, and

Regulation, A Memorandum Prepared for the Association of Oil Pipelines and the American Petroleum Institute’s

Committee, December 2001.

401
25

Since the 1970s, overall SNWW and U.S. crude petroleum import volumes rose as U.S. crude production

fell and was replaced by foreign imports of crude. The U.S. Gulf Coast leads the Nation in refinery

capacity, with 41 percent of the Nation’s crude oil distillation capacity, and one-half of the Gulf Coast

refinery capacity is in Texas and the remainder is in Louisiana. The Gulf Coast is also the Nation’s

leading supplier in refined products. Figure 11 displays SNWW’s 1985–2007 crude petroleum imports

and SNWW’s share of the national and regional totals. Although SNWW tonnage exhibits more variance

than the region and the Nation, long-term expectations are that SNWW imports will grow at rates

comparable to or higher than regional and national trends. These expectations are based on analysis of

long-term historical trends and the study area’s established infrastructure of regional and national pipeline

distribution links. Declines in 2005–2007 imports are largely attributable to supply disruptions associated

with Hurricane Rita, which devastated the SNWW region in September 2005.8 The hurricane surge

resulting from Rita resulted in sand bars at the offshore Entrance Channel and silting of the Neches River

Channel to Beaumont. Silting of the Neches River Channel severely limited transit of the upper reaches

for several months and resulted in tonnage diversions to other ports due to loaded-draft limitations. Aside

from pipeline movements and events such as hurricanes, analysis of SNWW’s crude petroleum and

product tonnages and discussions with industry revealed that the effect of planned maintenance

contributes to annual variances. U.S. imports declined marginally in 2006–2007.

While SNWW’s 2005–2007 import volumes are down, Figure 11 shows that SNWW imports from 1992

through 2004 grew at higher rates than the region or the Nation. In comparison to other Texas Gulf Coast

ports, SNWW 2000–2004 crude petroleum imports volumes exceeded other ports by nearly 35 percent.

Additionally, recent increases in SNWW refinery capacity indicate the region will regain an increasing

share of U.S. and PADD III totals. As noted, the Motiva expansion is presently under construction and

will increase the refinery’s crude oil throughput capacity to approximately 600,000 BPD, making it the

largest refinery in the U.S. and one of the largest in the world, and the ExxonMobil Beaumont refinery is

presently the third largest refinery in the world. The effect of Motiva expansion will result in SNWW’s

capacity representing the largest concentration in the State of Texas.

8 Personal communication, ExxonMobil, Beaumont Office.

402
26

Figure 11

U.S. and Sabine-Neches Crude Oil Imports, 1985–2007

2.2 PETROLEUM PRODUCT IMPORTS

Table 11 presents SNWW and the U.S. 1990–2007 petroleum product imports. SNWW imports consist

primarily of gasoline, distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, and naphtha. Figure 12 displays a comparison of

the SNWW and U.S. trendlines. Comparison of the SNWW and U.S. totals indicates a strong level of

correlation between the study area and the Nation; however, product types show significant variability.

Variability in product volumes is noted to be a function of the demand and the supply of the relative types

of crude oil supplied. The SNWW refineries have the capability to refine both high-sulfur and low-sulfur

crude oil. The EIA notes that the average sulfur content of U.S. crude oil imports increased from 0.9

percent in 1985 to 1.4 percent in 2005. Future expectations are for increasing volumes of high-sulfur

crude. Import of a range of crude oil types and spot-market sales result in dynamic market conditions and

annual fluctuation in the product imports. For SNWW, high variability is noted for SNWW naphtha and

distillate fuel oil. Naphtha is produced as an intermediate project from the distillation of crude oil and is

primarily used as feedstock for producing high-octane gasoline. It is also used by the chemical industry

for producing olefins in steam crackers. Distillate fuel oil is also a by-product of the refining process, but

like naphtha, it is also imported. Variability is also reflected in the distribution of the U.S. products types,

which is also characterized by annual fluctuations prompted by conditions where outputs fall short or are

preempted by other market drivers.

403
27

Table 11

SNWW and U.S. Petroleum Product Imports by Commodity Classification

1,000s of Short Tons

SNWW Petroleum Product Imports (1,000s of Short Tons)

Commodity 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Gasoline – – – – – 37 32 62 551 1,613 1,800 1,678 1,096Distillate Fuel Oil 74 12 126 210 102 230 1,047 572 566 1,337 2,008 1,728 1,268 1,872Residual Fuel Oil 1,035 72 137 115 57 49 319 25 541 56 728 804 351 355Lube Oil 8 690 597 1,262 2,140 2,009 52 700 1,039 1,301 619 50 71 2Naphtha 813 155 267 450 808 900 1,326 1,138 2,074 1,650 780 595 367 139Petroleum Coke 12 241 185 245 250 308 270 266 746 290 256 365 84 276Other 254 134 160 188 134 70 – 1 – 2 – 7 – 4SNWW TotalImports 2,196 1,304 1,472 2,470 3,491 3,626 3,051 2,734 5,028 5,187 6,003 5,349 3,819 3,744

% of U.S. Total 2.0 1.7 1.5 2.4 2.9 2.9 2.3 2.0 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.3 2.4 2.3

U.S. Petroleum Product Imports (1,000s of Short Tons)

Commodity 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Gasoline 18,054 10,789 19,561 19,374 17,381 18,404 24,157 27,732 29,282 32,294 50,746 63,022 64,261 58,574Distillate Fuel Oil 13,644 12,915 16,155 16,619 13,592 15,278 21,111 20,589 19,936 29,115 53,876 52,679 53,670 55,627Residual Fuel Oil 41,502 25,914 28,121 29,198 23,291 25,781 40,361 40,891 35,411 31,330 13,955 13,757 9,723 10,771Lube Oil 12,533 9,558 8,869 11,144 35,327 35,229 9,040 10,353 8,606 10,653 10,148 515 666 383Naphtha 13,277 9,916 14,085 13,825 12,736 10,901 17,844 15,718 16,227 17,405 7,994 8,634 7,109 7,146Petroleum Coke 297 1,930 2,651 4,020 4,163 4,244 2,926 3,180 7,354 4,608 5,170 5,262 4,950 3,961Liquid Natural Gas 5,321 3,027 4,292 4,303 5,306 6,312 6,694 8,364 7,671 15,556 22,192 16,566 18,618 21,238

Other 4,842 4,117 670 707 6,870 7,900 7,899 7,480 5,483 4,831 2,169 2,044 2,413 3,460Total 107,470 78,166 98,316 104,167 118,666 124,049 130,032 134,307 129.970 145,792 166,250 162,479 161,410 161,160

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Parts 2 and 5, 1990–2007.

404
28

Figure 12

SNWW and U.S. Total Petroleum Product Imports

1990–2007

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Parts 2 and 5, 1990–2007.

Figure 13 displays the product yield for six typical types of crude oil. The figure shows both light and

heavy crudes as well as sweet and sour crude oils and the associated American Petroleum Institute (API)

gravity. The chart provides a comparison of the different output when each crude type is processed in a

simple distillation refinery. The chart includes five main product groups: gasoline; propane and butane

(C3/C4); Cat feed (a partially processed material that requires further refining to make usable products);

distillate (which includes diesel oil and furnace oil); and residual fuel (the heaviest and lowest-valued part

of the product output, used to make heavy fuel oil and asphalt).

Table 12 displays Port Arthur and Beaumont petroleum products by major commodity group. Distillate

fuel oil represents 50 percent of Port Arthur’s 2005–2007 imports, up by approximately 250 percent from

the early 2000s. Residual fuel presently represents 23 percent of Port Arthur’s product total, with overall

imports increasing but to a smaller degree than distillate. The remainder of 2005–2007 imports consists of

naphtha (4 percent), gasoline (7 percent), and petroleum coke (10 percent). Port Arthur’s product imports

dropped in 2006 and again in 2007. These downturns are partially attributable to hurricane-induced

channel damages and refinery expansion.

405
29

Figure 13

Source: Natural Resources Canada, “Refinery Economics,” January 1, 2009.

Table 12

Petroleum Product Imports by Port and Commodity Classification

Port Arthur Petroleum Product Imports (1,000s of Short Tons)

Commodity 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Gasoline 0 0 0 17 0 28 91 181 101 36

Distillate Fuel Oil 9 1 522 177 127 643 1,096 1,019 658 414

Residual Fuel Oil 57 0 97 25 340 0 659 631 300 24

Lube Oil 56 0 0 49 168 52 0 0 0 2

Naphtha 337 216 232 106 37 140 90 109 0 0

Petroleum Coke 250 308 270 266 325 290 214 265 84 40

Other 18 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Port Arthur Imports 727 603 1,121 640 997 1,153 2,150 2,205 1,144 792

% of U.S. Total 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.3 1.4 0.7 0.5

Beaumont Petroleum Product Imports (1,000s of Short Tons)

Commodity 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Gasoline 0 0 37 15 62 525 1,520 1,619 1,577 1,060

Distillate Fuel Oil 93 229 526 395 439 694 912 709 610 1,458

Residual Fuel Oil 0 49 222 0 201 56 69 173 51 331

Lube Oil 2,084 2,009 52 651 871 1,250 619 50 71 0

Naphtha 470 684 1,094 1,032 2,037 1,510 690 486 367 99

Petroleum Coke 0 0 0 0 421 0 42 100 0 0

Other 118 52 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 4

Beaumont Imports 2,765 3,023 1,931 2,093 4,031 4,035 3,852 3,144 2,676 2,630

% of U.S. Total 2.3 2.4 1.5 1.6 3.1 2.8 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.8

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Parts 2 and 5, 1998–2007.

406
30

Beaumont’s product imports are dominated by gasoline. Gasoline represents 43 percent of Beaumont’s

2005–2007 total product import total. Imports totaled nearly 1.1 million short tons in 2007, up from zero

in the late 1990s. Beaumont’s remaining imports consisted primarily of distillate fuel oil and naphtha.

Beaumont’s other imports consist of lube oil, residual, and naphtha, with annual volumes exhibiting

relatively high degrees of variation.

2.3 PETROLEUM PRODUCT EXPORTS

Table 13 displays SNWW 1990–2007 petroleum product exports. SNWW petroleum product exports

primarily consist of petroleum coke, gasoline, and distillate fuel oil. Overall exports increased since the

1990s at a generally steady rate, with exports exceeding 6 million short tons since 2003. Petroleum coke

exports dominate total exports and represented 63 percent of 2005–2007 and 14.1 percent of U.S. total

petroleum coke exports. Gasoline represented 11 percent of the SNWW total and 16.7 percent of U.S.

gasoline exports. Distillate fuel oil represented 5 percent of SNWW total exports and 1.6 percent of U.S.

distillate exports. The remaining 21 percent of SNWW exports consisted of lube oil, naphtha, residual

fuel oil, and general products. Analysis of the SNWW and national totals indicated a strong level of

correlation between the study area and the Nation, with regional growth generally exhibiting higher

annual growth rates. Figure 14 provides a comparison of the SNWW and U.S. trendlines, and Figure 15

provides a comparison of regional and national petroleum coke exports.

Table 14 presents Port Arthur and Beaumont product exports by major commodity group. Port Arthur’s

product imports averaged 4.1 million short tons in 2005–2007. Petroleum coke represented 81 percent of

Port Arthur’s 2005–2007 exports, with its 2007 share nearly 90 percent. Gasoline represented 11 percent

of Port Arthur’s 2005–2007 product exports, and distillate 7 percent. The remaining 9 percent consisted

of relatively small amounts of lube oil, naphtha, residual fuel oil, and general products. Port Arthur’s

relative shares of gasoline and distillate fuel oil exports increased over the last 8 years. Port Arthur’s

2005–2007 petroleum coke export volumes represented 11 percent of the U.S. petroleum coke total.

Overall demand for petroleum coke has been noted to be increasing due to growing use of heavy crude

oil. It was noted that the cumulative effect of increasing product demand, tightening crude oil supplies,

heavier and coarser crude oil, and constrained refinery capacity has contributed to the need for additional

coking capacity.9

9 Barnes and Clark, “Refining Perspectives,” November 2005.

407
31

Table 13

SNWW and U.S. Total Petroleum Product Exports by Commodity Classification

1,000s of Short Tons

SNWW Petroleum Product Exports (1,000s of Short Tons)

Commodity 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Gasoline 39 518 676 1,412 1,376 826 1,474 1,258 1,344 1,578 1,950 1,755 1,777 1,970Distillate Fuel Oil 192 8 263 604 620 333 9 179 228 401 449 546 371 345Residual Fuel Oil 417 160 228 136 206 125 42 9 17 - - - 68 -Lube Oil 113 46 76 24 41 20 115 55 37 70 39 33 117 99Naphtha 29 23 23 - - 23 0 46 14 14 8 39 94 58

Petroleum Coke 724 3,435 2,578 2,185 1,622 1,473 2,235 3,447 3,777 4,426 4,689 3,903 4,362 4,210Other 121 68 85 234 464 507 168 128 219 84 17 78 34 215SNWW Total Exports 1,635 4,258 3,929 4,258 4,329 3,307 4043 5,122 218 6,573 7,152 6,354 6,823 6,607

SNWW % of U.S. 3.5 7.9 7.3 8.4 8.7 6.9 7.3 9.0 9.6 11.5 11.2 10.1 8.9 8.9

U.S. Petroleum Product Exports (1,000s of Short Tons)

Commodity 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Gasoline 2,405 3,849 4,265 5,786 4,828 4,140 6,434 6,906 6,726 6,630 11,053 9,564 10,661 12,704Kerosene 2,408 1,307 2,338 1,642 893 994 1,497 1,078 1,075 767 55 615 546 434

Distillate Fuel Oil 5,349 6,625 6,227 5,879 4,591 4,148 4,953 4,982 5,861 7,046 16,202 15,642 26,249 27,068Residual Fuel Oil 13,191 10,141 9,062 8,519 9,282 10,030 12,693 14,032 12,129 9,420 1,269 3,501 2,538 5,426Lube Oil 2,555 1,803 2,028 1,662 1,410 1,583 1,595 1,191 1,302 1,240 263 287 829 881

Naphtha 2,079 3,712 3,636 3,473 3,877 4,263 1,896 2,598 2,180 2,146 1,577 2,426 2,285 2,683Asphalt, Tar and Pitch 1,232 3,364 3,565 3,960 3,340 2,693 58 32 81 365 291 279 474 555Petroleum Coke 15,798 20,199 20,581 21,239 19,298 17,926 23,508 23,859 26,520 26,904 30,588 28,676 30,202 30,290Liquid Natural Gas 1,421 2,257 2,172 2,170 2,144 2,197 2,842 2,150 2,757 2,327 2,251 1,889 2,441 2,104Other 515 684 119 115 77 78 157 120 90 106 115 80 113 172U.S. Total Exports 46,953 53,941 53,993 54,445 49,740 48,052 55,633 56,948 58,721 56,951 63,664 62,959 76,338 82,317

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Parts 2 and 5, 1990–2007.

408
32

Figure 14

U.S. and SNWW Total Petroleum Product Exports

1990–2007

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Parts 2 and 5, 1990–2007.

Figure 15

U.S. and SNWW Total Petroleum Coke Exports

1990–2007

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Parts 2 and 5, 1990–2007.

409
33

Table 14

Petroleum Product Exports by Port and Commodity Classification

Port Arthur Petroleum Product Exports (1,000 of Short Tons)

Commodity 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Gasoline 105 2 123 51 0 158 290 558 492 324

Distillate Fuel Oil 82 66 0 96 213 238 389 444 262 117

Residual Fuel Oil 131 – – – – – – – – –

Naphtha – 23 0 46 14 14 8 39 58 –

Petroleum Coke 1,112 1,038 1,274 2,125 2,754 3,319 3,550 2,812 3,545 3,530

Other 55 6 105 11 162 5 18 5 35 6

Port Arthur Exports 1,485 1,135 1,502 2,329 3,143 3,734 4,255 3,858 4,392 3,977

% of U.S. Exports 3.0 2.4 2.7 4.1 5.4 6.6 6.7 6.1 5.8 4.8

Beaumont Petroleum Product Exports (1,000s of Short Tons)

Commodity 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Gasoline 1,271 824 1,351 1,207 1,344 1,420 1,660 1,197 1,286 1,704

Distillate Fuel Oil 538 267 9 83 15 163 60 102 109 169

Residual Fuel Oil 75 125 42 9 17 – – – 51 22

Lube Oil 31 20 115 55 37 70 39 33 99 55

Petroleum Coke 510 435 961 1,322 1,023 1,107 1,139 1,091 817 679

Other 418 498 63 117 55 78 – 73 70 84

Beaumont Exports 2,843 2,169 2,541 2,793 2,491 2,838 2,898 2,496 2,432 2,713

% of U.S. Exports 5.7 4.5 4.6 4.9 4.2 5.0 4.6 4.0 3.2 3.2

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Parts 2 and 5, 1998–2007.

Large volumes of excess petroleum coke, specifically calcined coke, have historically been exported from

Port Arthur existing facilities. Calcined coke is used in production of plastics, as feedstock for continuous

particle thermal desulfurization, and for special low-sulfur carbon raiser in steel production.10 Seven

countries received more than 59 percent of U.S. coke exports in 2002. The major importer is Japan, which

imports nearly 100 percent green coke and a trace of premium coke. The seven top importing countries

use the green fuel-grade coke in their processing industries and as boiler fuel.11 As indicated, world light

sweet crude oil supplies are declining, and the refining of heavy oils is becoming a necessity. The refining

of these heavy oils dramatically increases the amounts of petroleum waste product that are produced

The Port Arthur coker is used to convert heavy oil at the refinery directly to light products, in a process

more typical of the refining process for conventional oils. Chief among methods of conversion is thermal

coking, in which heavy oil from a vacuum distillation unit is fed to a heating unit (coker) that splits off

lighter hydrocarbon chains and routes them to the traditional refinery units. The almost pure carbon

remaining is a coal-like substance known as petroleum coke. The accumulated coke can be removed from

10 Ellis, Paul J. and Christopher A. Paul, “Tutorial: Delayed Coking Fundamentals,” Great Lakes Carbon Corporation, Port Arthur, Texas,

March 8, 1998.

11 Petroleum Coke, Pacific Mountain Energy Center I-1, September 12, 2006.

410
34

the coking vessels during an off cycle and either sold, primarily as a fuel for electricity generation, or

used in gasification units to provide power, steam, and/or hydrogen for the refinery. Plans for a new

45,000 BPD “delayed coker” in Port Arthur were announced in February 2008, with construction

anticipated to be complete by 2011.12 Delayed cokers are used to convert residual oils into gasoline and

diesel oil. Delayed coker feed originates from the crude oil, and the effect of new construction will be

used to produce residual fuel and other products.

Beaumont product exports consist primarily of gasoline and also petroleum coke, with Beaumont gasoline

exports representing 13 percent of U.S. total gasoline exports. Beaumont petroleum coke exports

represented 3 percent of the U.S. total petroleum coke exports. Beaumont product exports remained

relatively steady from 1998 through 2007, with growth exhibited for both gasoline and petroleum coke.

Gasoline represented over 55 percent of 2005–2007 Beaumont product exports and petroleum coke

approximately 34 percent. The remaining 11 percent of product exports consisted of distillate fuel oil,

lube oil, residual fuel oil, and general products.

2.4 CHEMICAL PRODUCT IMPORTS

Table 15 displays 1990–2007 commodity-specific import totals for the SNWW. Distribution of Port

Arthur’s and Beaumont’s 1999–2006 chemical imports by major commodity group is shown in Table 16.

Examination of Port Arthur’s and Beaumont’s 1999–2006 chemical product shares showed that while

Port Arthur’s imports increased, overall tonnage remains relatively low in comparison to Beaumont’s.

Beaumont’s 2005–2007 chemical imports averaged nearly 1 million. Increase in Beaumont’s tonnage is

primarily attributable to alcohols (methanol or methyl alcohol) and ammonia. For 2005–2007, imports of

these two groups averaged 822,000 short tons and represented 83 percent of Beaumont chemical imports.

Beaumont imported 16 percent of U.S. alcohol and 6 percent of U.S. ammonia.

12 Port Arthur News, “Valero Expansion Expands Community Opportunities,” February 29, 2008.

411
35

Table 15

SNWW and U.S. Chemical Imports by Commodity Classification

SNWW Chemical Product Imports (1,000s of Short Tons)

Commodity 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Acyclic and Other Hydrocarbons 1 26 8 2 0 7 27 16 11 8 6 3 – 4Benzene and Toluene 4 – 30 4 2 – 20 52 37 26 58 7 98 84Alcohols (Methyl Alcohol) 22 – – 6 20 199 189 195 169 74 22 477 460 374Sulphuric Acid – – – – 0 6 158 0 100 71 131 124 147 6Ammonia – – – 21 100 234 174 361 221 173 401 469 425 684Inorganic Elements – – – – 0 – – 2 – – – – – –Chemical Products – – – – 0 – 45 – 129 74 17 4 – –Other 7 7 10 – 25 3 6 128 16 8 21 – 3 43SNWW Import Total 34 33 48 33 147 449 619 754 683 434 656 1,084 1,133 955% of U.S. Total 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.0 1.5 2.4 2.6 2.0

U.S. Chemical Product Imports (1,000s of Short Tons)

Commodity 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Acyclic and Other Hydrocarbons 337 434 328 431 440 489 695 571 465 1,112 882 639 927 1,428Benzene and Toluene 278 311 563 292 513 584 1,603 1,260 1,224 1,378 1,883 1,874 2,473 2,443Alcohols (Methyl Alcohol) 1,718 2,745 3,398 3,587 3,806 4,626 5,794 7,091 6,950 6,236 7,218 8,348 10,653 8,882

Sulphuric Acid 800 502 835 799 841 799 1,155 1,220 1,008 601 773 563 474 187Ammonia 2,495 3,803 3,499 3,381 3,517 3,811 4,284 5,974 5,396 6,630 6,809 7,433 7,083 7,569Inorganic Elements 435 869 664 766 838 1,051 2,153 1,305 3,046 2,288 2,981 2,134 2,625 1,404Chemical Products 225 368 323 387 402 444 1,458 1,359 2,012 2,364 1,756 866 1,084 1,451Plastics 1,120 1,332 1,411 1,694 1,776 2,074 2,227 2,034 2,282 2,626 2,954 3,646 3,850 3,224Organic Compounds 351 3,315 3,640 4,049 4,733 4,742 4,882 4,965 4,300 3,053 2,438 1,858 1,087 487Agricultural Chemicals 7,165 9,252 8,682 8,014 8,953 8,490 12,405 17,494 11,826 15,538 14,707 17,469 15,588 18,238

Other 1,017 1,138 1,254 1,654 1,624 1,031 1,821 560 1,063 184 1,409 687 2,169 1,568U.S. Import Total 15,943 24,069 24,597 25,054 27,443 28,141 38,477 43,833 39,572 42,010 43,810 45,517 48,013 46,881

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Parts 2 and 5, 1990–2007.

412
36

Table 16

Chemical Product Imports by Port and Commodity Classification

Port Arthur Chemical Imports (1,000s of Short Tons)

Commodity 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Acrylic and Other Hydrocarbons 2 3 – 3 7 – – – 0 4

Benzene and Toluene – – – 22 4 – – – 27 73

Alcohols 13 – – – – 8 – 37 – –

Sulphuric Acid – – – – 34 31 73 12 – –

Ammonia 6 – – – 38 21 152 146 35 18

Chemical Products – – – 5 – – – – –

Other 23 2 – – 1 – – – 49 2

Port Arthur Imports 44 5 – 25 89 60 225 195 111 97

Beaumont Chemical Imports (1,000s of Short Tons)

Commodity 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Acrylic and Other Hydrocarbons – 4 27 13 4 8 6 3 – 4

Benzene and Toluene – – 20 30 33 26 58 7 98 84

Alcohols 7 199 189 195 169 66 22 440 460 374

Sulphuric Acid – 6 158 – 66 40 58 112 147 6

Ammonia 88 234 174 361 183 152 249 323 425 444

Chemical Products – – 45 0 124 74 17 4 – –

Other 1 1 6 130 15 8 21 – 3 43

Beaumont Imports 96 444 619 729 594 374 431 889 1,133 955

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Parts 2 and 5, 1998–2007.

The USDA noted that the volatile and upward trend in U.S. natural gas prices from 2000 to 2006 has led

to a 17 percent decline in the Nation’s annual aggregate supply of ammonia. During the period, U.S.

ammonia production declined 44 percent, while U.S. ammonia imports increased 115 percent. Also, the

share of U.S.-produced ammonia in the U.S. aggregate supply of ammonia dropped from 80 to 55

percent, while the share from imports increased from 15 percent to 42 percent. Meanwhile, ammonia

prices paid by farmers increased from $227 per ton in 2000 to $521 per ton in 2006, an increase of 130

percent. Natural gas is the main input used to produce ammonia. Additional increases in U.S. natural gas

prices could lead to a further decline in domestic ammonia production and an even greater rise in

ammonia imports.

Increases in SNWW methyl alcohol imports are also attributable to global market shifts. Methyl alcohol is

used in the industrial production of many synthetic organic compounds and is a constituent of many

commercially available solvents; it is noted that, when used as a gasoline additive, it lowers the carbon

monoxide emissions but increases hydrocarbon emissions. Information published by SDI Consulting

notes that a major shift in regional methanol capacity and production has occurred over the last two

413
37

decades.13 Countries with large reserves of natural gas and limited domestic consumption have built

world-scale methanol facilities to monetize their low-cost natural gas. The largest producing region in

2006 was Central and South America, whereas in 2011, China (northeast Asia) and the Middle East will

be the largest producing regions in terms of both capacity and expected production. Overall, world

demand for methanol is projected to grow at an average annual rate of just over 5.6 percent from 2006 to

2011, with lower growth expected in the industrialized areas of the world where the markets are mature.

As expected, the largest consuming region for methanol in 2011 will be northeast Asia (Japan, China,

Republic of Korea, and Taiwan), with 44 percent of world methanol consumption. China will consume 76

percent of northeast Asia’s share. As a reflection of its growth potential, it is interesting to note that in

spite of its projected methanol capacity in 2011, China will still remain a net importer.

Worldwide, formaldehyde production is the largest consumer of methanol, with 34 percent of world

methanol demand in 2007. This demand is driven by the construction industry since formaldehyde is used

primarily to produce adhesives for the manufacture of various construction board products. Historically,

the major end product has been plywood, but in developed countries, demand is also driven by the

expanding use of engineering board products such as OSB (oriented strandboard).

It was noted that the second-largest market for methanol worldwide is methyl tertiary-butyl ether

(MTBE). In the U.S., consumption of MTBE increased substantially when the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 mandated that oxygenated compounds be added to gasoline as one aspect of a

program to alleviate air pollution. In recent years, MTBE use has decreased due to groundwater

contamination issues. SDI noted that California, formerly the leading consumer of MTBE, banned the use

of MTBE at the end of 2003, and several states followed suit. Methanol use in U.S. MTBE production is

cited to have declined since 1999 and according to the EIA will likely decline further to a steady level,

supported only by export-driven demand.

Eighty-nine percent of SNWW methyl alcohol imports come from Trinidad, 8 percent come from Chile,

and the remaining 3 percent from Venezuela. The Trinidad plant represents the world's largest methanol

production plant and is capable of producing 5,000 tons per day. The plant located in Punta Arenas, Chile,

plans to triple its methanol production capacity by the end of 2008. Additionally, new plants are planned

in West Africa and the Middle East, with those locations presently serving markets other than the

SNWW.

Ammonia is the main input source for all nitrogen fertilizers. Increases in ammonia imports are

attributable to rising price of natural gas.14 From 2000 to 2006, the increase in natural gas prices

decreased the producers’ gross return margins (the difference between the cost of natural gas to produce

1 ton of ammonia and the ammonia price [in the Gulf region] received by ammonia producers). The low

average gross return margins in 2000–2003 suggest that, on average, ammonia production in these 3 years

was less profitable than in 1992–1998, a period of high average gross return margins. Low profitability is

13 SDI Consulting, Guillermo A. Saade, Abstract, July 2007.

14 USDA, Impact of Rising Natural Gas Prices on U.S. Ammonia Supply, A Report from the Economic Research Service by Wen-yuan

Huang, WRS-07-02, August 2007.

414
38

cited to have resulted in a significant number of ammonia producers ceasing production or merging with

other producers. The USDA noted that U.S. net imports of ammonia maintained a relatively constant level

from 1991 to 2000. Since 2001, however, with the decline of domestic ammonia production, imported

ammonia has become increasingly important to the U.S. ammonia supply. From 2000 to 2006, annual

U.S. imports of ammonia increased from 3.9 to 8.4 million tons, an increase of 115 percent, while

ammonia exports remained constant. During that period, most SNWW ammonia imports came from

Trinidad and Tobago, Canada, Russia, and Ukraine. In 2006, Trinidad and Tobago accounted for 57

percent of U.S. ammonia imports. North Dakota and Montana were the main entry ports for ammonia

imports from Canada, while the Gulf States were the main entry ports for ammonia shipped from Trinidad

and Tobago, Russia, and Ukraine. SNWW’s points of origin for ammonia are Trinidad and Tobago,

Russia, and Ukraine.

2.5 CHEMICAL PRODUCT EXPORTS

Table 17 shows SNWW and U.S. totals by commodity for 1990–2007. Table 18 presents Port Arthur’s

and Beaumont’s 1998–2007 chemical exports by major commodity group. Port Arthur and Beaumont

exports increased dramatically. Comparison of 1998–2000 with 2005–2007 data shows a 279 percent

increase in Port Arthur’s tonnage and a 107 percent increase in Beaumont’s. Port Arthur’s chemical

exports consist primarily of metallic salts, which composed 73 percent of 2005–2007 tonnage and 91

percent of 2007 tonnage. The remainder of Port Arthur recent tonnage consists of hydrocarbons and

organic compounds. For 2005–2007, 20 percent of U.S. metallic salts were exported from Port Arthur.

Figure 16 shows the 1990–2007 U.S. and SNWW metallic salts trendline, and Figure 17 shows the

distribution of these exports between Port Arthur and Beaumont. Approximately 60 percent of 2005–2007

metallic salt exports are shipped to the countries of Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador.

The remaining 40 percent are shipped to Europe and South Africa. Metallic salts are included in the SIC

classification of cyclohexane. The increase in Port Arthur’s metallic salt exports experienced since 2004

is associated with the completion of a 266,000 metric-ton-per-year cyclohexane facility in Port Arthur.

While most cyclohexane goes into the production of intermediates for nylon, it is also used as a solvent in

chemical and industrial processes and recently has been substituted for benzene in many applications. The

more general category of metallic salts and organic compounds is associated with the production of paints

and solvents, paper and wood products, cleaning products, and various chemical products. It was noted in

the September 2006 Chemical Industry Newsletter that by 2010, global demand for cyclohexane is

anticipated to increase to 6 million metric tons, representing an average annual growth rate of 3 percent

during 2005–2010.15 Two percent of the 2005–2010 growth is attributed to China, with the associated

demand driven mainly by nylon. As previously noted, nearly 60 percent of Port Arthur’s 2005–2007

exports is shipped to South America. Of the six producers noted to account for 50 percent of world

capacity for cyclohexane, five have operations on the SNWW. The six producers include ExxonMobil,

Chevron Phillips, Huntsman, Deutsche BP Aktiengesellschaft, ConocoPhillips, and Idemitsu Kosan.

15 Tefera, Ngan, Chemical Industry Newsletter, Cyclohexane (an abstract contained in Chemical Economics Handbook) p. 2, September

2006.

415
39

Table 17

SNWW and U.S. Chemical Exports by Commodity Classification

SNWW Chemical Exports (1,000s of Short Tons)

Commodity 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Nitrogenous Fertilizer – – – – – – – – – – 8 3 23 23Potassic Fertilizer – – – – – – 18 328 315 293 274 196 483 373

Fertilizers and Mixes – 12 10 69 11 11 11 90 30 69 81 111 119 187

Hydrocarbons 40 148 231 510 340 209 564 300 541 513 617 407 523 343

Alcohols 76 100 70 73 3 32 85 15 9 68 66 52 11 16

Organic Compounds – 22 97 104 207 96 218 207 225 91 127 145 653 706Metallic Salts 386 430 338 294 368 335 376 257 347 379 812 909 1,027 1,412

Plastics 1 – 3 – 7 15 56 30 82 91 47 – – –

Chemical Additives – 1 17 41 43 44 80 44 11 38 71 44 19 26

Other 44 11 10 10 – 11 61 25 27 13 1 24 42 83

SNWW Total Exports 547 724 776 1101 979 753 1,469 1,296 1,587 1,555 2,104 1,891 2,905 3,169

% of U.S. Total 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.2 1.9 1.4 2.5 2.4 2.9 2.9 3.5 3.4 4.9 5.3

U.S. Chemical Exports (1,000s of Short Tons)

Commodity 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Nitrogenous Fertilizer 2,498 1,934 2,397 1,983 1,980 2,099 1,739 1,442 1,907 1,689 1,588 1,330 1,732 1,012Phosphatic Fertilizer 901 776 741 757 689 749 744 750 627 580 397 286 120 5

Potassic Fertilizer 1,062 1,394 1,024 1,256 2,645 2,852 2,535 2,380 2,119 2,190 2,231 2,522 2,413 3,452Fertilizers and Mixes 9,150 12,203 10,167 12,034 12,504 13,256 8,518 9,005 8,593 8,419 9,196 8,845 7,899 6,522

Hydrocarbons 4,046 5,915 5,916 5,735 5,601 6,430 7,533 5,731 6,090 7,197 8,251 6,584 5,947 6,978Alcohols 2,085 2,565 2,337 2,814 2,143 2,090 2,649 2,617 2,604 2,726 2,763 2,261 2,828 2,910Organic Compounds 891 1,192 1,405 1,361 2,019 1,905 2,226 2,233 2,454 2,099 2,342 2,597 4,182 4,546Metallic Salts 3,424 4,643 4,836 4,908 4,468 4,221 5,751 5,389 5,204 5,195 5,926 5,431 5,457 5,842Plastics 4,471 5,626 5,710 6,046 5,774 5,376 6,883 6,568 6,268 5,971 7,868 7,255 7,767 10,124

Sodium Hydroxide 2,505 3,242 3,219 2,950 3,102 3,219 4,384 3,379 3,631 3,422 3,892 3,795 3,776 4,265Inorganic Elements 2,078 1,568 1,148 1,136 1,158 993 3,322 2,959 3,301 2,518 4,369 4,486 5,325 2,587Paint, Varnish, and Related Products 4,918 6,189 6,260 6,727 6,431 6,017 7,456 7,188 6,871 6,532 8,596 7,879 8,636 10,784

Other 2,390 2,219 2,316 2,831 2,829 2,992 4,146 5,105 5,292 5,037 3,315 3,042 2,617 2,617U.S. Total Exports 40,419 49,466 47,476 50,538 51,343 52,199 57,886 54,746 54,961 53,575 60,734 56,313 58,699 60,188

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Parts 2 and 5, 1990–2007.

416
40

Table 18

Chemical Product Exports by Port and Commodity Classification

Port Arthur Chemical Exports (1,000s of Short Tons)

Commodity 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Nitrogenous Fertilizer – – – – – – – – – –

Potassic Fertilizer – – – 4 18 3 – – 5 –

Fertilizer and Mixes 11 11 4 – – – – – 3 –

Hydrocarbons 109 46 116 52 94 20 95 90 208 116

Alcohols 3 – 7 0 – 22 3 6 – 6

Organic Compounds 38 – 14 1 3 1 – – 65 7

Metallic Salts 353 268 87 60 61 160 787 902 1,027 1,385

Plastics 0 0 4 17 – 3 – – 0 –

Chemical Additives and Products 31 22 73 2 – – – – 18 –

Other 1 2 2 – – 1 4 – 5 6

Port Arthur Exports 546 349 307 136 176 210 889 998 1,331 1,521

Beaumont Chemical Exports (1,000s of Short Tons)

Commodity 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Nitrogenous Fertilizer – – – – – – 8 3 23 23

Potassic Fertilizer – – 18 324 297 290 274 196 478 373

Fertilizer and Mixes – – 7 90 30 69 81 111 115 177

Hydrocarbons 221 163 448 248 447 493 585 317 315 239

Alcohols – 32 78 15 9 46 63 46 11 10

Organic Compounds 169 96 204 206 222 90 124 145 588 699

Metallic Salts 11 67 289 197 286 219 25 7 – 27

Plastics 7 15 52 13 82 88 47 6 – –

Chemical Additives and Products 12 22 7 42 11 38 0 – 19 26

Other 0 9 59 25 27 12 8 65 48 –

Beaumont Exports 420 404 1,162 1,160 1,411 1,345 1,215 893 1,574 1,644

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Parts 2 and 5, 1990–2007.

Beaumont’s 2004–2006 chemical exports primarily consist of potassic fertilizers and mixes (33 percent),

organic compounds (32 percent), and hydrocarbons (23 percent). These three groups represented 88

percent of 2004–2006 exports, up from 66 percent for 1999–2001. For 2004–2006, 10 percent of U.S.

nitrogenous, potassic, and fertilizer mixes was exported from Beaumont. In 2006, the Beaumont share

increased to 14.8 percent. Nearly 80 percent of 2004–2006 exports was shipped to Mexico and Central

and South America. The remaining 20 percent was shipped to Japan.

417
41

Figure 16

U.S. and SNWW Metallic Salt Exports

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1990

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

U.S. Metallic Salt Exports (short tons /10,000)

SNWW Metallic Salt Exports (1,000's of short tons)

Figure 17

SNWW Total and Port Arthur Metallic Salt Exports

418
42

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (U.N.) notes that world fertilizer

consumption is expected to increase at an annual rate of about 1.7 percent from 2007/2008 to 2011/2012,

equivalent to an increment of about 15 million tons.16 Approximately 70 percent of growth is anticipated

to take place in Asia and 19 percent in America, primarily Latin America. Total fertilizer consumption in

Latin America is forecast to increase at an annual rate of 2.7 percent from 2007/2008 levels. Increased

demand is expected to be concentrated mainly in Brazil and Argentina where there has been a rapid

response to increased crop prices partly resulting from increased sugar cane plantings for ethanol

production. Future production increases are expected to come from a combination of a larger cultivated

area and higher yields, which will help Latin America further increase its share of global agricultural

markets.

North American consumption of nitrogen, phosphate, and potash fertilizer is forecasted to grow by 0.3

percent, 0.5 percent, and 0.7 percent, respectively. It is noted that significant gains in nitrogen use

efficiency over the past 2 decades, combined with greater recycling of organic nutrient sources, are likely

to mitigate increased fertilizer demand resulting from expanding bioethanol production. Asian demand is

forecasted to increase by 2.1 percent annually from 2007/2008 levels through 2011/2012. The respective

growth rates by fertilizer types are 1.6 percent for nitrogen, 2.4 percent for phosphate, and 3.5 percent for

potash. The U.N. expects that Asia will move from a small deficit to a considerable surplus of nitrogen

and will reduce its dependency on imported phosphate, but will increase the volume of its potash imports.

World demand forecast for potash fertilizers is to increase at an annual average rate of about 2.4 percent,

equivalent to an increment of 3.6 million. About 68 percent of this growth will occur in Asia and 21

percent in Latin America, 5 percent in North America, 6 percent in Eastern and Central Europe, and the

remainder in Western Europe. World demand for nitrogen fertilizers is expect to increase at an annual rate

of 1.4 percent, with about 69 percent of growth taking place in Asia, 10 percent in Latin America, 3

percent in North America, and 7 percent in Africa, and the remainder in Eastern and Central Europe. The

expected annual growth rate in world demand for phosphate fertilizers is about 2.0 percent. According to

the report, about 71 percent of this growth will take place in Asia and 18 percent in America, 3 percent in

North America, and the remaining 7 percent in Eastern and Central Europe.

Review of SNWW 1990–2007 (see Table 17) shows that regional potassic fertilizer exports represent

12.5 percent of U.S. total exports. SNWW fertilizer exports are nearly all associated with Beaumont (see

Table 18). In general, Beaumont’s chemical exports consist of a wide range of products, with fertilizer

exports exhibiting notable overall increases since 2000.

2.6 GRAIN EXPORTS

Grain is exported from the Beaumont elevator located just below the Port of Beaumont main turning

basin. Wheat presently represents 100 percent of Beaumont’s grain exports for the most recent 4-year

16 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Current World Fertilizer Trends and Outlook to 2011/12,” FAO, Rome,

2008.

419
43

period. During earlier years, wheat represented 85 percent, sorghum 10 percent, and corn 5 percent. Table

19 displays Beaumont’s 2001–2007 grain export tonnage by grain type.

Table 19

Beaumont Bulk Grain Export

Distribution of Tonnage by Grain Type

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Bulk Grain Export Totals by Year (Short Tons)

Beaumont Exports 831,000 835,000 1,125,000 1,329,000 1,080,639 1,214,010 1,632,000

% by Grain Type

Wheat 79.0 88.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Corn 6.5 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sorghum 14.5 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Beaumont’s Exports as a % of the U.S. Total

2.5 2.4 2.8 4.3 4.1 4.0 5.1

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce Database, 2001–2007.

In 2007, Beaumont’s wheat exports totaled 1.6 million short tons. While exports have exceeded 1 million

short tons since 2003, recent volumes are less than one-half the 1993 peak volume of 3.5 million short

tons. Beaumont exports are very low in comparison to the Pacific Northwest and the Lower Mississippi,

but the port has maintained a 1.4 to 1.7 percent share of the U.S. waterborne bulk grain export market.

Beaumont’s 2006 wheat exports composed 5 percent of the U.S. wheat export total. Figure 18 displays

comparison of Beaumont exports and U.S. exports and production levels for 1990–2007.

2.7 EXPANSION OF THE DEEP-DRAFT TRAFFIC BASE

In addition to its large existing base of crude petroleum, petroleum and chemical products, and dry bulk

deep-draft cargoes, the without-project future includes operation of up to three LNG terminals. As noted,

the Cheniere terminal is presently operational. Construction on the Golden Pass terminal will be complete

by 2011. The LNG terminals are located below Texas Island in the portion of the waterway below the

western GIWW intersection with the SNWW near Taylor Bayou.

LNG is expected to play an increasingly important role in the natural gas industry and global energy

markets in the next several years and in the long-term future due to the combination of higher natural gas

prices, lower LNG costs, and rising gas import demand. Figure 19 shows the USDOE’s 2006–2030 U.S.

LNG import forecast.

420
44

Figure 18

U.S. and SNWW Bulk Grain Statistics

1990–2007

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce Database, 1990–2007, Parts 2 and 5, and USDA, Economic Research

Service, July 2009.

Figure 19

U.S. LNG Imports 2006–2030

Trillion Cubic Feet

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030

Source: USDOE, Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook, Table 13, SR/OIAF/2009-03.

421
45

The SNWW LNG facilities are located in the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal reaches; these

reaches presently have an authorized channel width of 500 feet. LNG vessels using the SNWW will be

subject to strict USCG regulations and to local pilot rules and, therefore, will not have the opportunity to

meet other vessels or barges. The USCG regulations require that a safety zone is in place 2 miles ahead of

a loaded LNG vessel and 1 mile astern of the vessel while transiting. LNG vessels using the SNWW

would be subject to this rule. Even in absence of the safety concerns inherent to LNG, the beams of LNG

tankers would result in vessel-meeting restrictions; however, all LNG vessel movements will be subject to

one-way traffic. Operation of the LNG terminals is part of the without-project future.

422
46

3.0 VESSEL FLEET ANALYSIS

This section presents vessel fleet data, examines vessel utilization, outlines existing and future constraints

associated with the commodity groups discussed in the previous sections, and also includes discussion of

vessel casualty records and nonstructural project alternatives initiated by the USCG and industry. The

outputs of the commodity and fleet analyses provided the basis for helping to identify the commodities

expected to utilize vessels loaded to channel depths over 40 feet. The commodity-specific discussions

include the existing commodity groups such as petroleum, chemicals, grain, and breakbulk, and the

introduction of LNG. The introduction of LNG and the SNWW’s already large concentration of deepdraft tankers and barge traffic highlights safety concerns. The first part of this section presents discussion

of vessel safety and accident records.

3.1 SNWW VESSEL CASUALTIES

The large volume of deep- and shallow-draft vessels using the SNWW provided the initial basis for

evaluation of waterway improvements. While the implementation of the VTM system significantly

improved safety, an evaluation of safety and casualties was reevaluated in 2008 due to the opening of the

Cheniere LNG Terminal and general interest in an updated assessment of navigation safety since

implementation of the VTM system. As part of this evaluation, SNWW historical casualty records were

updated and the circumstances associated with marine casualties were discussed with the USCG’s Port

Arthur Marine Safety Office (MSO), the SPA, and the GICA in 2008.

Vessel casualties are classified by three general types including vessel grounding, vessel collisions with

stationary objects (called allisions), and collision of two or more moving vessels. The Port Arthur MSO

noted that marine casualties are caused by a variety of reasons including strong winds, fog, pilot error,

bank forecast, traffic mix, and a variety of other circumstances. Distribution of SNWW 2006 casualty

rates by vessel type is shown in Table 20.

The USCG and the SPA were asked for input on the effects of the SNWW project alternatives on casualty

rates. In response to this inquiry, the MSO representatives noted that factors such as reductions in deepdraft vessel traffic and channel widening would serve to reduce the probability of casualties. While

recognizing that widening would reduce the probability of casualties, the MSO emphasized that casualty

occurrences in the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal are rare and that the proposal to widening

those reaches would not have a discernible effect on the net change in casualty rates.

423
47

Table 20

SNWW Casualty Incident Rates, 2006

Transit Type a/ Transits Incidents

Ratio of Incidents

Per Transit

Tanker Transits 3,139 4 0.1%

Freighter Transits 913 4 0.4%

Tow Transits 41,793 42 0.1%

Other 1,460 15 1.0%

Certain Dangerous Cargo Transits 1,570 0 0.0%

Tanker Transits 48,874 65 0.1%

Source: Compiled from USCG, MSO, Port Arthur, 28 January 2007, “State of the Waterway,”

Southeast Texas Waterways Advisory Council (SETWAC) Presentation.

a/ Includes inbound and outbound transits.

As noted, the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal reaches are used by oceangoing deep-draft

vessels either coming in from or going out to the Gulf of Mexico. In discussing casualties with the Sabine

Pilots, the pilots emphasized that the main effect of widening these reaches would be to reduce delays

associated with one-way traffic restrictions.

Figure 20 contains distribution of 2006 SNWW casualties by vessel type, and Figure 21 displays the

distribution of casualty incidents by nature of incident. The data indicate that 60 percent of casualties

involve tows or tugs, 11 percent involve tankers and freighter, and the remaining 30 percent involve other

vessel types as presented.

The MSO noted that nearly all casualties occur in the Sabine-Neches Canal reach, which, in addition to

being used by all deep-draft vessels going to Port Arthur and Beaumont, serves as a through channel for

the GIWW. Potential interaction between the diverse mix of vessels in this reach is presently scheduled,

and scheduling will continue under the without- and with-project future conditions. As previously

discussed, the large volume of tow-barges using the Sabine-Neches Canal, along with a high flow of

deep-draft traffic, has the potential of compounding congestion that would increase casualty rates and

probabilities and, therefore, prompted interest early in the study process for evaluation of a barge shelf

through the canal reach between the east and west junctions with the GIWW. The USACE evaluation of

the barge shelf coincided with the USCG efforts to evaluate the need for and plan future VTM projects,

including installation and upgrades to VTS. The VTS was authorized by certain sections of the Port and

Waterways Safety Act of 1972; the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 made participation mandatory in areas

serviced by existing and future VTS.17 The purpose of VTS is to provide active monitoring and

navigational advice for vessels in particularly confined and busy waterways.

17 USACE. 2008. Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Draft Technical Report. USACE, New Orleans District.

424
48

Figure 20

SNWW Casualty Incidents (2006) by Vessel Type

Source: USCG, MSO, Port Arthur, “State of the Waterway” Presentation, January 28, 2007, USCG

SETWAC Presentation, Slide 13.

Figure 21

SNWW Casualty Incidents (2006) by Casualty Type

Source: USCG, MSO, Port Arthur, “State of the Waterway” Presentation, January 28, 2007, USCG

SETWAC Presentation, Slide 12.

425
49

The Port of Port Arthur and safety concerns associated with the Sabine-Neches Canal reach provided the

impetus for Port Arthur’s selection as one of 28 ports selected for participation in the 1999 VTM

workshops. As part of the VTM study initiative, the USCG conducted a series of in-depth, user-focused

workshops using their Port Risk Model to frame participant discussions and develop computer algorithms

to translate expert opinions into quantified data.

For purposes of the Port Risk Model, risk is defined as a function of the probability of a casualty and its

consequences. As part of the selection process, the input data used for port section included

accident/incident history, the numbers and types of vessels using the port, weather conditions, waterway

characteristics (e.g., configuration and complexity), and cargo types and volume. Each of those data

elements was thought to bear some relationship to one or more of the risk factors included in the Port

Risk Model. The model includes variables associated with both the causes and the effects of vessel

casualties. The USCG classified 20 port safety risk factors that are grouped into one of six categories

(Table 21).

As noted in USCG report documentation, the participants calibrated a risk measurement scale for each

risk factor by assigning numbers to qualify risk levels. It is noted that the most important segment of the

workshop consisted of discussions of port-specific problems relating to each Port Risk Model factor. The

participants used the risk-measuring scales to numerically evaluate the risk levels in their port. The

categories were ranked on a scale between 1 (low risk) and 9 (high risk). Discussion of existing risk

mitigation strategies and appropriate ways to further reduce risk occurred next. The participants were

asked to evaluate the efficacy and appropriateness of selection of VTM measures for addressing

unmitigated risk, i.e., risk that was not well balanced by mitigation strategies already in place. Port

Arthur’s ratings are shown in Table 22.

Currently, VTS Port Arthur is a voluntary system operated in accordance with existing VTS regulations.

VTS is designed to expedite ship movements, increase transportation system efficiency, improve allweather operating capability, and enhance vessel safety and marine environmental protection.18, 19 The

VTS Center in Port Arthur monitors every ship, vessel, or boat that attempts to enter or leave the SNWW

and the GIWW in the Port Arthur service area. Infrared cameras, along with radar, radio-telephone reports

from vessel operators, and satellite surveillance sensors on towers along the SNWW allow VTS

controllers to zoom-in on vessel activity at a moment’s notice. The satellite-based Automatic

Identification System (AIS), required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, assists the

VTS by determining exactly what a specific commercial vessel is carrying, along with its speed,

dimensions, and destination.

18 USACE. 2007. USCG, MSO, Port Arthur, “State of the Waterway” Presentation, January 28, 2007, USCG SETWAC Presentation,

Slide 12.

19 USCG. 2008. VTS Port Arthur Operating Procedures Guide. http://www.uscg.mil/d8/VTSPortArthur/Documents/VTS%20Port%

20Arthur_Opertating-Guide.pdf (accessed March 9, 2008).

426
50

Table 21

Safety Risk Factors

Composition

Traffic

Conditions

Navigational

Conditions

Waterway

Configuration

Immediate

Consequences

Subsequent

Consequences

Percentage of

High Risk

Deep Draft

Volume of

Deep-Draft

Vessels

Wind

Conditions

Visibility

Obstructions

Number of

People on

Waterway

Economic

Impacts

Percentage of

High Risk

Shallow Draft

Volume of

Shallow-Draft

Vessels

Visibility

Conditions

Channel

Width

Volume of

Petroleum

Cargoes

Environmental

Impacts

Volume of

Fishing and

Pleasure Craft

Tide and

River

Currents

Bottom

Type

Volume of

Hazardous

Chemical

Cargoes

Health and

Safety

Impacts

Traffic

Density

Ice

Conditions

Waterway

Complexity

Source: USCG, Ports and Waterways Safety Assessments (PAWSA) Final Report, p. 4, date is 2003-period.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/projects/pawsa/PAWSA_FinalReports.htm.

Table 22

Port Arthur’s Safety Risk Factors

Composition

Traffic

Conditions

Navigational

Conditions

Waterway

Configuration

Immediate

Consequences

Subsequent

Consequences

Percentage of

High Risk

Deep Draft

4.1

Volume of

Deep Draft

Vessels

6.5

Wind

Conditions

2.3

Visibility

Obstructions

4.7

Volume of

Passengers

1.4

Economic

Impacts

4.3

Percentage of

High Risk

Shallow Draft

6.2

Volume of

Shallow Draft

Vessels

7.4

Visibility

Conditions

2.8

Passing

Arrangements

6.7

Volume of

Petroleum

Cargoes

9.0

Environmental

Impacts

5.2

Volume of

Fishing and

Pleasure Craft

2.8

Tide and

River

Currents

3.0

Bottom

Type

3.0

Volume of

Hazardous

Chemical

Cargoes

5.2

Health and

Safety

Impacts

3.4

Traffic

Density

6.7

Ice

Conditions

1.0

Waterway

Complexity

8.4

Source: USCG, Port of Port Arthur, Texas, After Action Report, p. 6, date is 2003-period.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/projects/pawsa/WorkshopReports/Port%20Arthur.pdf.

Most commercial vessels using the waterway were required to have AIS equipment installed by the end of

2004.20 These include power-driven vessels 20 meters in length or longer; power-driven vessels of 100

20 U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 2004. Automatic Identification System Carriage Requirements. Available on the internet at

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/enav/ais/AIS_carriage_reqmts.htm.

427
51

gross tons or more carrying one or more passengers for hire; towing vessels 26 feet or longer while

navigating, all dredges and floating plant likely to restrict or affect the navigation of other vessels; and all

vessels required to participate in the Vessel Movement Reporting System. However, not all vessels are

required to carry AIS; in particular, pleasure crafts, fishing boats, and warships are exempt. Until rules

regarding VTS Port Arthur are published, vessels are exempt from all VTS and Vessel Movement

Reporting System requirements, except the requirement for AIS continuous broadcasts. When VTS Port

Arthur is included in the VTS regulation, participation will become mandatory. At that time, VTS Port

Arthur will be authorized to designate temporary reporting points and procedures, impose vessel

operating requirements or establish vessel traffic-routing schemes. During conditions of vessel

congestion, restricted visibility, adverse weather or other hazardous circumstances, VTS may control or

manage traffic by specifying times of entry, movement, or departure to, from, or within a VTS area. The

existing VTS along the SNWW was evaluated as a nonstructural alternative. Although this service is

managed by the USCG and thus is not within the jurisdiction of the USACE, it was evaluated because it

appeared to be a potential alternative to structural plans and it was found to be a better alternative than the

barge shelf proposal. While the VTS would help congestion and improve safety to some degree, the

USCG’s traffic management role is limited to specific circumstances when the SNWW is congested or

experiencing hazardous conditions. The VTS assists vessel operators in making independent decisions

regarding the safe navigation of their vessels, for which they retain complete responsibility. In this sense,

VTS should be considered primarily a navigational aid, a tool for mariners to use along with numerous

other tools to facilitate safe navigation,21 and thus would not improve deep-draft navigation inefficiencies

created by the need for lightering and associated vessel delays.

The effect of the channel indication from discussions with the industry is that channel widening and the

Neches River anchorage basins will reduce the likelihood of accidents; however, the number of accidents

remains small. The indication from discussion with the industry is increases in channel width, anchorages,

and the VTS will all contribute to an overall reduction in accident probabilities. Most vessel accidents

involve tows, and most of these occur in the Sabine-Neches Canal reach, with the majority being

“intentional groundings.”

There is not a historical record of vessel-tow accidents as the existing condition is avoidance. The USCG

noted that while communication has always been good, improved deep-draft and barge vessel communication brought about through the USCG Southeast Texas Waterways Advisory Council (SETWAC) and

the VTS activities have resulted in improved safety. The pilot rules place limitation on what vessels can

meet where and when. For the without- and with-project future, the pilot rules will continue to limit the

sizes of the vessels that can meet in each portion of the channel. Widening the channel up to the Taylor

Bayou junction will result in a relaxation of the pilot rules as vessels will have an additional 200 feet of

channel (i.e., the existing channel width is 500 feet and the with-project width for the Sabine Pass

Channel and Port Arthur Canal, which leads up to Taylor Bayou, would be 700 feet. The expectation for

the with- and without-project future is that pilot rules would continue to limit the possibility of vessel-to21 USCG. 2008b. VTS Port Arthur Operating Procedures Guide. http://www.uscg.mil/d8/VTSPortArthur/Documents/VTS%20Port%2

0Arthur_Opertating-Guide.pdf (accessed March 9, 2008).

428
52

vessel and vessel-to-tow meetings in the Sabine-Neches Canal reach and that both vessel and shallowdraft tow movements would be scheduled through both VTS and communication between vessel pilots.

The relative impacts to tow-barge traffic are anticipated to generally be the same between the withoutand with-project future. One difference is that for the with-project condition of channel deepening, there

would be fewer oceangoing vessel trips and, therefore, an overall reduction in traffic density. The

decision to forgo the barge shelf was made by the tow industry due to reconsideration of how vessels and

barges would interact. The concern that was raised, and this was not physically modeled, was that the

tow-barges could get pulled under or out into the channel as it either meet a deep-draft vessel or “held-up

or idled” in the barge shelf. The tow operators originally thought that they wanted to shelf in case radio

and/or other communication failed and a tow-barge could not clear the channel as a deep-draft vessel

began its transit through the reach; however, the recent impact of the VTS has improved communication

among vessel operators, and accident probabilities were not calculated for the without-project condition

and benefits for reductions in casualties were not taken. The effect of the without-project condition is

“avoidance behavior” in the form of “pilot rules.”

3.2 OFFSHORE ALTERNATIVES

Offshore oil terminals were assessed as an alternative mode to landside port delivery of crude petroleum.

Two offshore terminal alternatives were considered in the analysis, one existing and one proposed. The

decision to use an offshore terminal instead of lightering or constructing a deeper channel is complicated

but largely depends on the relative cost per ton, relative market volumes, and facility accessibility. While

a detailed quantitative analysis of a LOOP alternative is beyond the scope of USACE’s planning study,

the overall infrastructure requirements were examined to the extent possible. Pipeline capacities and

necessary expansions were identified, and the reasons for current and past choices were evaluated as were

expectations about future interest.

The existing offshore terminal, the LOOP, is America's first and only deepwater port. LOOP is presently

operating at capacity and has been since 2005. In addition to new customers brought on due to

infrastructure damages associated with the 2005 hurricanes, recent increase in the LOOP is tied to

utilization associated with domestic production in the U.S. Gulf. Access to LOOP for the SNWW market

is periodically reviewed; however, actualization would require substantial investment as SNWW crude oil

import volume nearly equals LOOP’s capacity. LOOP’s design capacity of 1.4 to 1.8 million barrels per

day is only marginally higher than SNWW’s 2003–2007 crude petroleum import volume which ranged

from approximately 1.1 to 1.3 million barrels per day.22

While all of SNWW’s crude oil could not currently transfer to LOOP, some tonnage could be diverted.

The volume diverted depends upon various ranges of expansion of LOOP or construction of a new

facility. The large fixed cost of expansion, and associated financing costs, necessitates participation by a

22 The Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, Waterways and Harbors, Gulf Coast, Mississippi River System and Antilles shows crude

petroleum imports of 60 million short tons in 2005 and 70 million in 2003 of crude oil imports for the SNWW. The standard conversion

factor to put short tons per year to barrels per day is 0.0182. The link for the public website for waterborne commerce publications is

shown below. Detailed vessel records are not contained in a public domain but can be provided upon request.

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/wcsc.htm.

429
53

consortium of companies. While LOOP is presently at capacity, the SNWW industries have not found the

option of investing in LOOP, and the necessary associated infrastructure expansions, to be a cost-effective

alternative to existing practices of either direct shipment or offshore lightering. The lack of incentive has

remained since the 1970s. The SNWW users continue to consider LOOP along with other alternatives;

however, continued practices suggest that LOOP is not a cost-effective alternative to the existing SNWW

practice of its land-based ports. An additional variable pertinent to the current evaluation is that LOOP

would appear to be a less attractive cost option when compared to lower shipping costs that the SNWW

improvement project is expected to provide.

LOOP is located offshore of Grande Isle, Louisiana, in 110 feet of water. Grande Isle is 302 miles east of

Port Arthur and Beaumont. LOOP was organized in 1972 as a Delaware corporation and converted to a

limited liability company in 1996. Marathon Ashland Pipe Line LLC, Murphy Oil Corporation, and Shell

Oil Company are LOOP's owners. LOOP is the only port in the U.S. capable of offloading deep-draft

tankers known as Ultra Large Crude Carriers (ULCC) and VLCC. Along with offloading crude from

VLCCs, LOOP also offloads smaller tankers. LOOP consists of three single-point mooring buoys used

for the offloading of crude tankers and a marine terminal consisting of a two-level pumping platform and

a three-level control platform.

A 48-inch-diameter pipeline connects the LOOP Marine Terminal located 23 miles offshore in the Gulf of

Mexico to the Clovelly, Louisiana, storage facilities. Clovelly is approximately 260 miles east of the

SNWW Port Arthur and Beaumont facilities. Four pipelines connect the onshore storage facility to

refineries in Louisiana and along the Gulf Coast. The Clovelly facility provides interim storage for crude

oil before it is delivered via connecting pipelines to refineries on the Gulf Coast and in the Midwest. The

oil is stored in eight underground caverns leached out of a naturally occurring salt dome. In 1996, one

cavern was dedicated to the production streams coming in from the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.

The domestic offshore crude oil system uses the same distribution system used by the foreign barrels. The

caverns are capable of storing approximately 50 million barrels of crude oil (a barrel of oil is equal to 42

U.S. gallons). In addition, LOOP has an aboveground tank farm consisting of six 600,000-barrel tanks.

LOOP operates the 53-mile, 48-inch LOCAP pipeline that connects LOOP to CAPLINE (Amoco

Cushing-Chicago Pipeline Company) at St. James, Louisiana. CAPLINE is a 40-inch pipeline that

transports crude oil to several Midwest refineries. St. James is 227 miles east of Port Arthur and

Beaumont. LOOP is connected to over 50 percent of the U.S. refinery capacity and has offloaded over 7

billion barrels of foreign crude oil since its inception.

LOOP is designed to handle 1.4 million BPD, but depending on the sizes of ships being serviced, it can

handle 1.8 million BPD. The variance relates to the pumping rates of the tankers using the facility. Larger

tankers tend to have faster pumping rates with some capable of pumping 80,000 barrels per hour. Smaller

tankers may only be able to pump 35,000 barrels per hour. When fully operational, LOOP is generally the

largest point of entry for crude oil imports into the U.S. About 13 percent of all waterborne foreign

imports pass through LOOP each day. Again, LOOP’s design capacity of 1.4 to 1.8 million BPD is only

marginally higher than SNWW 2003–2007 crude petroleum import volume. Of SNWW’s over 1 million

BPD import volume, terminals on the SNWW transport approximately 400,000 BPD of waterborne crude

oil via pipelines to inland refineries including refineries in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, Arkansas,

430
54

and Kentucky.23 In total, the SNWW delivers approximately 12–16 percent of the crude oil supplied to

domestic refineries east of the Rockies. Refineries supplied via the Sabine-Neches provide transportation

fuels and other products to consumers along the Gulf Coast, East Coast, and Midwest regions. The

SNWW ports presently receive about 1 percent of their daily input through LOOP. Additional offshore

and landside infrastructure would be necessary for an increase in volume to take place. Expansion of the

infrastructure was discussed with industry and they periodically evaluate new proposals. It was noted two

proposals were due in December 2007 and acceptance of the proposals depended on participation by a

consortium of users. As of June 2010, there has not been any action on these proposals.

Although there are some competing markets, the SNWW and LOOP generally serve parallel markets,

with LOOP consistently processing very large volumes and SNWW serving relatively smaller parcels.

The sizes of the VLCCs using LOOP typically exceed 300,000 DWT, whereas the maximum-sized

vessels using the SNWW are 175,000 DWT. The maximum design draft of these vessels is 55 feet or less.

The minimum-sized crude oil tankers using SNWW are in the 70,000 to 80,000 DWT range and have

design drafts between 40 and 48 feet. LOOP’s foreign petroleum imports are from the Middle East,

whereas SNWW’s market consists of direct shipments from Mexico and Venezuela and lightened mother

vessels and shuttles. It has been noted that the cost effectiveness of LOOP lessens for small vessel sizes.

The SNWW has the ability to serve a more general market and range of users.

The most immediate obstacle to increased use of LOOP or a new offshore facility is lack of or major

limitations for direct connection from LOOP to SNWW. A marginal increase in SNWW use of LOOP

from its present 1 percent share would require LOOP pipeline connection modifications involving

multiple pipelines and multiple companies. Such an investment may generate the necessity for higher

throughput charges, which in turn may make access less cost effective than in the past. An industry

analyst noted that to a large extent the companies demand that each segment, including pipeline

transportation, stand on its own economically.24 In discussions with local port and oil industry personnel,

it is noted that LOOP and similar proposals serve crude petroleum but do not serve a full range of

petroleum and bulk cargoes that use the SNWW. The long-term availability of LOOP since the 1970s and

participation by SNWW companies indicate that LOOP and new offshore terminal proposal have not

provided the market utilization incentives for significant shares of SNWW crude oil to shift towards these

alternatives. The long-term trend is for domestic refining capacity to become more concentrated in

regional centers and for imports of petroleum products to grow. This trend is evident with SNWW with

crude oil import tonnage exceeding that of any other U.S. port and being equal to LOOP. Imports of

refined products and partial refined crude oil have grown significantly as have the use of draft-constrained

vessels for transporting these cargoes.

In 2001, construction of a new terminal (called the Bulk Oil Offshore Transfer System, or BOOTS)

offshore of Sabine Pass, Texas, was proposed. The relatively long distance from LOOP to SNWW and

the need for additional infrastructure suggest that a facility closer to SNWW would be an attractive

alternative to LOOP for SNWW channel improvements. However, the BOOTS facility has not yet been

constructed and the regulatory permit application is inactive. The USCG has had no update on the

23 Martin Associates, Economic Benefits of Maintenance Dredging of the Waterway, July 6, 2006.

24 Rabinow, Richard A., The Liquid Pipeline Industry in the United States, “Where It’s Been, Where It’s Going, a report for the

Association of Oil Pie Lines, April 2004, p.14.

431
55

proposal and does not expect a submittal. At the present time, the potential user of the proposed project is

the terminal proponent. They noted that their participation as sole supporter is not feasible financially. It

was specifically noted that their feedstock needs were not sufficient to finance the expansions to LOOP.

The BOOTs project manager was contacted periodically, and it was found that a new location farther

down the Texas Coast near Freeport is presently being considered. The Freeport, Texas, site is about 100

miles southwest of the BOOTS location. Access by the SNWW refineries to a Freeport site involves

longer distances than the previous BOOTS location but it has advantages over LOOP. The Texas offshore

terminal was reorganized as TOPS and announced plans for construction in August 2008. TOPS is a

proposed offshore terminal project that would provide feedstock to Texas City, Houston, and Port Arthur.

The Port Arthur Motiva refinery, which has terminals at Taylor Bayou and on the Neches River, was a

major participant in TOPS. TOPS would connect from offshore Freeport to an existing landside pipeline

from Freeport operated by Seaway Pipeline Company to Texas City. Connection to Port Arthur would

necessitate a new pipeline from Texas City to Port Arthur, a distance of approximately 95 miles. TOPS

was noted to serve as an addition and complement to existing methods of importing crude petroleum

rather than a substitute for existing modes of shipment. A March 2009 press release revealed that the Port

Arthur participant, Motiva, has put its participation on hold based on uncertainty associated with future

crude petroleum import volumes and trade routes. Due to uncertainty, the use of an offshore alternative

was evaluated as sensitivity (Section 8.2).

While recognizing potential diversion to the existing LOOP or to a new offshore terminal, an increase in

the number of specially designed SNWW vessels was recently completed by one company and another

has invested in Neches River dock modifications for the larger “Aframax” and “Suezmaz” vessels. The

focus of immediate private sector petroleum vessel investments is concentrated on SNWW improvements

rather than offshore or on the Sabine Pass Channel or Port Arthur Canal. Ongoing consultation with

industry continues to show that commitments to offshore terminal investment have not materialized.

During the 30 years since LOOP has become operational, several Texas Gulf Coast channel-improvement

projects have been completed and the benefits have been accrued. Offshore terminals would not

accommodate products other than crude oil, and a significant proportion of benefits for the SNWW

project improvement are from refined petroleum products. The offshore terminal was found not to meet

the efficiency objective for all waterway users as it addressed the needs of only one user and commodity

(crude oil). For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. While crude

petroleum represents a significant share of SNWW tonnage, use of draft-constrained vessels for dry bulk

commodities such as iron ore, building stone, and chemicals prompted interest by the navigation district

and port authorities in the channel deepening and widening alternatives.

In a general discussion with industry, a representative noted that offshore oil terminal projects surface

periodically, but the cost of these alternatives keeps them from moving beyond the initial planning stage.

It is noted that the attractiveness of offshore alternatives over existing use of the SNWW is diminished by

its ability to only serve one commodity (i.e., crude petroleum). It was added that the various crude oil

blends and grades of oil introduce a range of additional concerns that add to throughput costs.

432
56

As noted, a constraining or complicating issue is that the pipelines and associated infrastructure

requirements vary between potential users, and mingling of products and grades of crude is complex and

difficult to facilitate. The construction of an offshore terminal that can meet the needs of various users is a

challenge with the costs to realize multiparty usage creating an impasse to these proposals moving beyond

the initial planning stage. Recognition of the cost of multiple pipelines necessary to meet the needs of the

large base of customers necessary to finance these project alternatives has resulted in a stalemate in the

decision process. As noted, LOOP is an existing offshore alternative. Current use of LOOP by SNWW

users is very limited, and future use would require extensive pipeline investment. The major users of

LOOP consist of a few major companies with high throughput volumes. In addition to serving crude oil

tankers delivering imports, LOOP is used to transport domestic crude produced in the Gulf of Mexico.

When asked about LOOP, potential users on the SNWW noted that LOOP’s availability is sometimes

limited and SNWW imports are within 1 percent of LOOP’s annual throughput. The investment necessary

for LOOP to process SNWW’s entire crude petroleum throughput would require a doubling of capacity.

A new facility such as BOOTS requires substantial investment on the part of several oil companies.

Present use of LOOP consists of Louisiana-based refineries and U.S. Gulf Coast state domestic offshore

production interests. LOOP’s existing base of customers uses it as one of several options for delivering

crude oil to their Gulf Coast refineries.

3.3 VESSEL UTILIZATION AND OPERATING PRACTICES

Analysis of the vessel fleets and utilization, and existing and future constraints associated with crude

petroleum, petrochemical products including LNG, grain, and aggregate products, such as iron ore, steel

slab, limestone, and sand and gravel provided the basis for identifying the commodities expected to be

transported in vessels loaded to channel depths over 40 feet and estimating specific percentage utilization

for channel depths over 40 feet. Additional considerations were foreign port depths and constraints such

as the Panama Canal. Completion of the Panama Canal expansion, from its present width restriction of

106 feet and approximate loaded draft limit of 39.6 feet, in the year 2014 will allow for more fully loaded

vessel movements from deepwater ports in Western Mexico, South America, and the Far East. The canal

expansion will accommodate maximum loaded drafts of 48 feet. Port depth, trade route, and historical

vessel utilization data were used to identify the percentage of tonnage anticipated to benefit from the

proposed SNWW depth increases.

Examination of the vessel sizes associated with the historic traffic base suggested that, if deeper depths

were available, vessels used in the transport of crude petroleum and petroleum products could be loaded

to drafts over 40 feet. In addition, but to a lesser extent, examination of the 1995–2007 vessels sizes,

loaded drafts, design drafts, and parcel sizes indicated that some of the vessels used to transport grain,

chemical products, and breakbulk cargo, such as iron ore, metal products, and limestone and other

aggregate, warranted additional analysis. The existing 40-foot SNWW project depth was designed to

efficiently and safely accommodate vessels of approximately 40,000 DWT with loaded drafts of 36 feet.

Since the authorization of the existing project, the size and draft of vessels using the waterway increased

to meet the competitive demand for more-efficient movements. Evaluation of SNWW’s vessel utilization

433
57

patterns was initially made based on examination of historical trends. The historical trend analysis was

followed-up with user interviews and trade route analyses.

Table 23 presents 1990–2007 vessel trips by loaded draft for deep-draft vessels. Analysis of the data

showed that trips increased at an annual rate of 3.7 percent, with the highest rates of growth for 36 feet

and greater. Total trips for drafts over 35 feet increased at an average annual rate of 7.3 percent, while

trips for loaded drafts of 35 feet or less grew at 3.7 percent. For the period 1990–2007, total deep-draft

tonnage grew at an average annual rate of 5.2 percent. SNWW’s vessel utilization patterns were also

reviewed in terms of the average tonnage per trip for 1965–2007. Figure 22 shows average tonnage per

trip for oceangoing traffic. The graph shows trips increasing at a slightly decreasing rate and suggests an

overall increase in average tonnage per trip. While the increases in the volume of tonnage per trip are

primarily associated with crude petroleum and petrochemical products, larger vessels are being used for

manufactured goods and crude materials. Since 1993, the volume of tonnage per vessel has increased as

the variety of commodities using the waterway has diversified.

The largest vessels presently using the SNWW are crude petroleum tankers. Crude petroleum represents

over 70 percent of 2007 deep-draft tonnage and 2005–2007 average deep-draft total. Trade routes, vessel

sizes, and loaded drafts are of particular importance in calculating transportation costs. For the period

2005–2007, approximately 45 percent of SNWW crude petroleum imports were shipped from Mexico,

Venezuela, Colombia, and Trinidad. Of the remaining 55 percent, 54.3 percent was shipped from the

Middle East and Africa and 0.3 percent was shipped from Canada. In comparison to the Nation, the

SNWW has a relatively higher share of imports from Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America, while

also receiving relatively higher Middle East imports. The U.S. 2005–2007 distribution comprised

34 percent from Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America; 50 percent from the Middle East, Africa, and

the North Sea; and 16 percent from Canada. In its Annual Energy Outlook, the EIA shows a 2030 U.S.

distribution of 33 percent from Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America; 47 percent from the Middle

East, Africa, and the North Sea; and 20 percent from Canada. Canadian imports include both ship and

pipeline movements.

The following tables outline the distribution of tonnage by loaded vessel draft. Table 24 shows total

import and export tonnage by loaded draft for select years. Table 25 shows the 1990–2007 distribution of

SNWW’s crude petroleum imports by loaded draft, respectively. Tables 26 and 27 present petroleum and

chemical product imports and exports by loaded draft. Table 28 shows tonnage by loaded draft for groups

other than petroleum and chemicals. Every effort was made to compile data for as many years as

practical; however, the schedule of data releases results in some gaps. The purpose of the analyses

associated with these presentations was to identify the existence of patterns and provide inputs for

establishing base conditions. Based on this consideration, all relevant years are displayed.

434
58

Table 23

SNWW Trips by Loaded Draft (Includes Loaded and Light Vessels)

Year/feet 1⁄243 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 À35 Total

SNWW Total Inbound and Outbound Trips by Loaded Draft (feet)

1990 – – 39 42 123 82 80 52 1,511 1,929

1993 2 – – 115 77 214 209 155 1,261 2,033

1996 1 – – 160 192 277 279 168 1,274 2,351

1999 – 1 – 117 139 276 142 172 1,987 2,834

2000 – – – 107 139 325 156 155 2,096 2,978

2001 1 – – 124 168 324 175 173 2,090 3,055

2002 – 2 – 167 112 441 167 146 2,258 3,293

2003 1 – 1 289 114 347 158 175 2,364 3,449

2004 2 – – 248 232 300 167 147 2,508 3,604

2005 – – – 206 154 312 189 178 2,410 3,449

2006 1 – 1 185 148 545 231 78 2,136 3,425

2007 – – 2 178 271 263 136 143 2,380 3,373

Inbound Trips by Loaded Draft (feet)

1990 – – 14 38 102 69 55 33 610 921

1993 1 – – 56 37 108 104 78 642 1026

1996 1 – – 80 95 140 139 83 627 1,165

1999 – – – 101 121 250 126 135 657 1,390

2000 – – – 86 110 289 127 113 689 1,414

2001 – – – 101 147 301 147 114 646 1,456

2002 – – – 141 97 382 145 108 714 1,587

2003 – – – 254 102 289 130 121 746 1,642

2004 1 – – 230 207 260 141 96 993 1,721

2005 – – – 181 141 280 164 104 762 1,632

2006 – – 1 164 133 514 192 94 567 1,666

2007 – – 2 148 252 209 107 73 869 1,660

Outbound Trips by Loaded Draft (feet)

1990 – – 25 4 21 13 25 19 901 1,008

1993 1 – – 59 40 106 105 77 619 1,007

1996 – – – 80 97 137 140 85 647 1,186

1999 – 1 – 16 18 26 16 37 1,330 1,444

2000 – 0 – 21 29 36 29 42 1,407 1,564

2001 1 0 – 23 21 23 28 59 1,444 1,499

2002 – 2 – 26 15 59 22 38 1,544 1,706

2003 1 – 1 35 12 58 28 54 1,618 1,807

2004 1 – – 18 25 40 26 51 1,515 1,883

2005 – – – 25 13 32 25 74 1,648 1,817

2006 – – – 21 15 31 39 84 1,569 1,759

2007 – – – 30 19 54 29 70 1,511 1,713

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1990–2007.

435
59

Figure 22

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Average Tonnage Per Trip for Oceangoing Vessels

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1965–2007.

436
60

Table 24

Total Imports and Exports by Year and Loaded Draft

(1,000s of short tons)

Year 1⁄240 feet 39 feet 38 feet 37 feet 36 feet À35 feet Total

Imports by Loaded Draft (feet)

1990 2,586 6,641 4,540 3,155 1,119 4,909 22,950

1993 3,164 2,098 7,562 7,893 5,875 9,705 36,297

2002 10,851 7,185 28,404 10,902 7,149 9,901 74,393

2003 11,175 7,069 27,760 10,629 7,396 13,578 77,607

2004 17,486 15,353 19,282 10,086 5,505 11,201 78,914

2005 13,249 9,834 19,291 10,714 5,335 9,875 68,298

2006 12,321 9,448 14,279 12,638 4,238 11,920 64,845

2007 11,033 18,557 14,009 6,575 3,516 8,617 62,308

Exports by Loaded Draft (feet)

1990 1,205 370 194 204 252 2,943 5,168

1993 46 217 95 25 14 7,719 8,115

2002 1,104 375 1,285 465 764 4,647 8,640

2003 1,471 149 1,327 365 1,331 5,017 9,659

2004 656 885 1,316 404 1,179 6,478 10,918

2005 827 268 754 502 1,673 5,634 9,658

2006 641 434 858 956 2,109 6,359 11,357

2007 1,045 583 1,665 399 1,883 6,808 12,384

% of Import and Export Tonnage by Loaded Draft (feet)

1990 13.5 24.9 16.8 11.9 4.9 27.9 100.0

1993 8.7 5.8 20.8 21.7 16.2 26.7 100.0

2002 14.4 9.1 35.8 13.7 9.5 17.5 100.0

2003 14.5 8.3 33.3 12.6 10.0 21.3 100.0

2004 20.2 18.1 22.9 11.7 7.4 19.7 100.0

2005 18.1 13.0 25.7 14.4 9.0 19.9 100.0

2006 17.0 13.0 19.9 17.8 8.3 24.0 100.0

2007 16.2 25.6 21.0 9.3 7.2 20.7 100.0

Source: USACE, Navigation Data Center (NDC) detailed records, 1990–2007.

437
61

Table 25

Crude Petroleum Imports by Loaded Draft and Year

Year 1⁄240 feet 39 feet 38 feet 37 feet 36 feet À35 feet Total

1,000s of short tons Loaded Draft and Year

1990 2,339 6,244 4,121 2,839 940 3,937 20,419

1993 2,655 1,648 7,317 7,672 5,739 7,609 32,639

1996 5,399 5,688 9,626 9,216 5,511 5,490 40,930

1997 7,691 8,863 13,782 10,142 5,800 4,793 51,070

1998 6,541 14,271 16,710 6,457 6,364 3,535 53,877

1999 8,605 8,496 17,284 7,032 6,676 5,741 53,834

2000 6,654 9,346 25,452 10,116 8,368 7,251 67,187

2001 6,744 10,730 21,743 11,196 7,465 6,349 64,226

2002 9,909 6,856 26,271 10,515 6,146 6,685 66,383

2003 18,703 7,620 20,308 8,771 7,817 6,939 70,158

2004 15,467 14,294 18,330 9,403 4,665 7,715 69,875

2005 11,945 9,207 18,391 9,706 4,346 6,097 59,691

2006 11,203 9,102 13,589 11,821 3,262 8,639 57,616

2007 9,856 18,265 13,477 6,072 2,689 5,729 56,088

% Loaded Draft and Year

1990 11.5 30.6 20.2 13.9 4.6 19.3 100.0

1993 8.1 5.0 22.4 23.5 17.6 23.3 100.0

1996 13.2 13.9 23.5 22.5 13.5 13.4 100.0

1997 15.1 17.4 27.0 19.9 11.4 9.4 100.0

1998 12.1 26.5 31.0 12.0 11.8 6.6 100.0

1999 16.0 15.8 32.1 13.1 12.4 10.7 100.0

2000 9.9 13.9 37.9 15.1 12.5 10.8 100.0

2001 10.5 16.7 33.9 17.4 11.6 9.9 100.0

2002 14.9 10.3 39.6 15.8 9.3 10.1 100.0

2003 26.7 10.9 28.9 12.5 11.1 9.9 100.0

2004 22.1 20.5 26.2 13.5 6.7 11.0 100.0

2005 20.0 15.4 30.8 16.3 7.3 10.2 100.0

2006 19.4 15.8 23.6 20.5 5.7 15.0 100.0

2007 17.6 32.6 24.0 10.8 4.8 10.2 100.0

Source: USACE, NDC detailed records, 1990–2007.

438
62

Table 26

Petroleum Product Imports and Exports by Loaded Draft

Year 40 feet 39 feet 38 feet 37 feet 36 feet À35 feet Total

Petroleum Product Imports (1,000s of Short Tons) by Loaded Draft (feet)

1998 158 255 447 273 426 1,932 3,491

2002 732 500 1,935 715 475 671 5,028

2003 912 121 1,138 418 440 2,159 5,187

2004 1,543 937 529 391 412 2,190 6,002

2005 698 470 788 543 644 2,206 5,349

2006 356 117 508 544 640 1,655 3,820

2007 346 242 368 310 684 1,790 3,740

Petroleum Product Exports (1,000s of Short Tons) by Loaded Draft (feet)

1998 - 168 216 44 295 3,606 4,329

2002 891 181 1,221 448 620 2,273 5,635

2003 1,324 35 1,174 285 1,147 2,608 6,573

2004 521 687 1,231 340 1,081 3,291 7,152

2005 564 235 642 447 1,445 3,020 6,354

2006 541 319 488 659 1,521 3,295 6,823

2007 714 514 1,257 139 1,566 2,501 6,691

Total Petroleum Product Imports and Exports by Loaded Draft (feet)

1998 158 422 663 317 721 5,539 7,820

2002 1,623 681 3,156 1,163 1,095 2,944 10,663

2003 2,236 156 2,312 703 1,587 4,767 11,760

2004 2,064 1,624 1,760 731 1,493 5,482 13,154

2005 1,263 705 1,430 990 2,089 5,226 11,703

2006 897 436 996 1,203 2,161 4,950 10,643

2007 1,060 756 1,625 449 2,250 4,290 10,431

% of Import and Export Tonnage by Loaded Draft (feet)

1998 2.0 5.4 8.5 4.1 9.2 70.8 100.0

2002 15.2 6.4 29.6 10.9 10.3 27.6 100.0

2003 19.0 1.3 19.7 6.0 13.5 40.5 100.0

2004 15.7 12.3 13.4 5.6 11.4 41.7 100.0

2005 10.8 6.0 12.2 8.5 17.8 44.7 100.0

2006 8.4 4.1 9.4 11.3 20.3 46.5 100.0

2007 10.2 7.2 15.6 4.3 21.6 41.1 100.0

Source: USACE, NDC detailed records, 1998–2007.

439
63

Table 27

Chemical Product Imports and Exports by Loaded Draft

Year 40 feet 39 feet 38 feet 37 feet 36 feet À35 feet Total

Chemical Product Imports (1,000s of Short Tons) by Loaded Draft (feet)

1998 – 0 – – 8 132 140

2002 – – 97 42 29 515 683

2003 – 63 8 – – 363 434

2004 – 44 71 58 79 405 656

2005 40 62 – 41 109 831 1,084

2006 14 54 – 121 158 897 1,244

2007 – 1 9 15 163 768 955

Chemical Product Exports (1,000s of Short Tons) by Loaded Draft (feet)

1998 – – 18 51 30 867 966

2002 25 28 62 17 66 1,388 1,587

2003 27 24 97 34 61 1,313 1,555

2004 11 13 36 67 44 1,933 2,104

2005 5 33 54 – 106 1,692 1,891

2006 5 5 68 95 305 2,426 2,904

2007 12 7 44 46 210 2,850 3,169

Total Chemical Product Imports and Exports by Loaded Draft (feet)

1998 – – 18 51 30 867 966

2002 25 28 62 17 75 1,520 1,727

2003 27 24 194 75 90 1,828 2,238

2004 11 77 45 67 44 2,295 2,538

2005 5 77 125 58 185 2,097 2,547

2006 45 67 68 136 414 3,257 3,988

2007 25 61 44 167 369 3,747 4,413

% of Import and Export Tonnage by Loaded Draft (feet)

1998 0.0 0.0 1.9 5.3 3.1 89.7 100.0

2002 1.5 1.6 3.6 1.0 4.3 88.0 100.0

2003 1.2 1.1 8.7 3.4 4.0 81.7 100.0

2004 0.4 3.0 1.8 2.6 1.7 90.4 100.0

2005 0.2 3.0 4.9 2.3 7.3 82.3 100.0

2006 1.1 1.7 1.7 3.4 10.4 81.7 100.0

2007 0.6 1.4 1.0 3.8 8.4 84.9 100.0

Source: USACE, NDC detailed records, 1998–2007.

440
64

Table 28

Total Tonnage Excluding Petroleum and Chemicals by Loaded Draft

Year 40 feet 39 feet 38 feet 37 feet 36 feet À35 feet Total

Imports (1,000s of Short Tons) by Loaded Draft (feet)

1990 0 0 0 0 0 2,532 2,532

1993 179 96 0 17 17 619 928

2002 306 16 951 91 220 636 2,219

2006 749 174 183 150 180 730 2,166

2007 834 46 89 68 47 423 1,506

Exports (1,000s of Short Tons) by Loaded Draft (feet)

1990 1,207 121 113 96 88 1,360 2,986

1993 47 153 1 25 0 4,094 4,319

2002 192 165 6 0 986 986 1,394

2006 97 111 305 204 295 618 1,630

2007 185 66 326 219 138 1,490 2,423

Total Import and Export Tonnage by Loaded Draft (feet)

1990 1,207 121 113 96 88 3,892 5,518

1993 226 249 1 42 17 4,713 5,247

2002 498 181 957 91 1,206 1,622 3,613

2006 846 285 488 354 475 1,348 3,796

2007 1,019 112 415 287 185 1,913 3,929

% of Import and Export Tonnage by Loaded Draft (feet)

1990 21.9 2.2 2.0 1.7 1.6 70.5 100.0

1993 4.3 4.7 0.0 0.8 0.3 89.8 100.0

2002 13.8 5.0 26.5 2.5 33.4 44.9 100.0

2006 21.6 7.3 12.5 9.0 12.1 34.4 100.0

2007 25.9 2.8 10.6 7.3 4.7 48.7 100.0

Source: USACE, NDC detailed records, 1990–2007.

The presentations show that a significant portion of crude petroleum imports and petroleum product

imports and exports were transported in vessels with loaded drafts of 36 feet or more (see tables 25 and

26). The chemical import and export data presented in Table 27 show a more limited utilization of loaded

drafts over 36 feet. Table 28 displays the distributions associated with “all other imports and exports.”

This group is largely comprised of bulk commodities.

The data shown in tables 29–32 were compiled from the USACE foreign freight databases. A subsequent

comparison of the loaded draft records from the USACE NDC databases with those in the pilots’ records

was made to identify differences in loaded drafts between the data sets. Comparisons of the data sets are

displayed on figures 23 and 24.

441
65

Figure 23

2001 Comparison of WCSC and Piloted Inbound Trips

Cumulative Totals by Loaded Draft (ft.)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31

Loaded Draft (ft.)

Number of Trips

WCSC Inbound Pilot Inbound Vessels

WCSC=Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center

Figure 24

2005 Comparison of WCSC and Piloted Inbound Trips

Cumulative Totals by Loaded Draft (ft.)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31

Loaded Draft (ft.)

Number of Trips

WCSC Inbound Pilot Inbound

442
66

The primary use of the pilot data was to obtain specific information on trips by dock. Dock-specific

information for foreign imports and exports is not available from the USACE databases. Dock-specific

routings are available for SNWW domestic coastwise vessels; however, those routings were generally

limited as domestic coastwise represented 5 percent of total trips in 2001 and 3.5 percent of 2005 total

trips.

The trip comparisons displayed on figures 23 and 24 correspond to loaded drafts between 31 and 40 feet.

While examination of the pilot data and the NDC foreign freight traffic data showed that the maximum

loaded draft for inbound vessels was 40 feet, one U.S. outbound domestic coastwise vessel showed a

loaded draft of 43 feet. Additionally, a few U.S. domestic coastwise 1996–2004 records show loaded

drafts up to 43 feet. In comparison to the USACE records, the pilot records for 2001 and 2005 showed no

vessels with sailing drafts over 40 feet. A sample of pilot data for April–May of 2002 did not contain any

loaded drafts over 40 feet. Review of the 2004 and 2006 pilot data also showed no loaded drafts over 40

feet. Pilot data for years later than 2006 were not obtained.

For purposes of analysis, the pilot guidelines and the associated documentation of trips by draft are

believed to be more accurate and consistent, if for no other reason than being collected by one entity

using the same metrics. The expectation that the pilots’ records are more accurate than the Waterborne

Commerce Statistics Center (WCSC) records also relates to the risk associated with misreading a loaded

draft, particularly during low tide or late in the dredging cycle. The pilots stated that they normally will

not move any vessel if the loaded draft exceeds 40 feet fresh water. The restrictions are rigid due to

insurance liability. It was noted that allowance of 40 feet fresh water assumes optimal weather and a wellmaintained channel. One of the subject matter experts recognize that the USACE and pilot data are

collected at different locations and in different metrics. For piloted vessels, a mandatory and consistent

check of loaded drafts is made prior to departure from either the dock or the offshore pilot loading station.

These recordings are in feet. The USACE WCSC records of imports and exports are not based on pilot

logs but census data. The USACE detail contains counts of export trips by loaded draft. The U.S.

Customs’ manifest document is the most common source for inbound vessels but these records do not

include a trip field. The domestic coastwise database includes a trip field. Loaded draft of inbound

domestic vessels may be called in from the last port of call. For imports, the last port of call is generally

outside of the U.S., and therefore draft information may be relayed in meters. It is interesting to note that

comparison of the 1996–2007 inbound with the outbound records shown in Table 28 reveal that there are

more outbound vessels with loaded drafts over 40 feet than inbound vessels. A reason cited for this

difference is that the outbound vessels have the additional weight of bunker fuel. The indication is that

vessels traveling from distant locations will burn bunker fuel in transit. The inclusion of bunker fuel will

add approximately 1 foot of draft.25 The result being that the arrival drafts may be different than the draft

recorded in the manifest or other documentation.

The pilots noted that they are only aware of a few incidents when a draft over 40 feet was allowed and

wondered if they were due to recording errors. It was also noted that a 3-foot minimum underkeel

25 Personal communication with Institute of Water Resources (IWR) navigation analyst.

443
67

clearance requirement was issued by the USCG in the early 2000s. Exceptions to the 3-foot rule may only

be made by a pilot master conference to discuss the specifics.

For the USACE’s NED analysis, loaded draft is critical to the calculation of SNWW channel deepening

benefits. Loaded draft is also a crucial analytical consideration for the widening analysis due to the fact

that there are specific pilot rules restricting loaded drafts above a given threshold from meeting vessels of

comparable loaded drafts, gross tonnage, beam width, or other specifications. The calculation of widening

benefits is based on discrete loaded draft classes.

While the waterborne commerce records show a few vessels sailing at loaded drafts over 39 feet,

discussion with the pilots and Galveston District’s Operation Branch suggest that the dredging practice of

2 feet advance maintenance and 2 feet overdepth provides nearly all vessels at least 3 feet of underkeel

clearance. Analysis of the pilots’ policy application and examination of the number of trips with loaded

drafts over 37 feet implies the availability of advance maintenance and overdepth. Comparison of the

USACE data with the pilot records shows differences between recorded drafts, which are problematic.

Review of the USACE data revealed that the USACE data come from several sources and are, therefore,

more likely to reflect the introduction of recording discrepancies than the pilot data. Additionally,

allowance of less than 3 feet underkeel clearance introduces insurance liability issues. Analysis of the data

and pilot records showing recorded drafts over 37 feet implies the availability of at least 41 feet of still

water. Water displacement due to vessel squat and trim implies the availability of additional depth in the

Entrance Channel, where the existing authorized channel depth is 42 feet mean low tide. It has been noted

in the past that the SNWW, like other Gulf Coast channels, has a relatively soft bottom. It has also been

noted that the SNWW heavy traffic flows may work to help maintain the channel or slow the silting

processes; however, discussions with the SPA and previous project studies also point towards an

increasing concern about safety and a reduction in risk-taking behavior. In general, liability and personal

responsibility concerns associated with potential casualties and actual vessel damages has become

increasingly apparent due to incidents such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska. On a

much smaller scale, general reviews of USCG records for GIWW traffic has shown that casualties and oil

spills occur on a less frequent basis than 10 to 20 years ago. The latter suggests a reduction in risk-taking

behavior.

3.4 CRUDE PETROLEUM FLEET

This section contains discussion of SNWW’s crude petroleum fleet and methods of shipment. Data

through 2007 show an average of 80 percent of import tonnage shipped in vessels with loaded drafts of 30

feet or more, and over 40 percent of import tonnage was shipped in vessels with loaded drafts of 36 feet

or more. The analysis also showed that over 75 percent of SNWW crude petroleum tonnage was shipped

in 90,000 to 119,999 DWT tankers, up from 30 percent in 1990. The largest concentration of SNWW

crude petroleum tonnage is in vessels between 100,000 and 119,999 DWT. Table 29 presents SNWW

distributions of crude petroleum imports by vessel size for 1993, 1998, and 2002–2007. The DWT range

from 90,000 to 119,000 represents the dominant class for all years shown. Comparison of the data for the

444
68

early 1990s with that for 2002–2007 shows a general decrease in the vessels less than 75,000 DWT and

resurgence in the 75,000 to 85,000 DWT range.

Table 29

SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports,

Percentage of Imports by Vessel DWT

and Design Draft and Year Built

DWT 1,000s 1993 1998 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

<50 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.6 0.9 0.8

50–74.5 3.8 1.2 8.5 3.1 1.7 1.8 3.4 3.7

75–84.9 18.4 8.1 8.6 18.1 20.4 18.0 25.0 23.0

85–89.9 17.3 10.6 9.9 4.6 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0

90–119.9 56.0 72.1 65.6 65.8 67.8 71.8 63.7 66.3

120–149.9 1.9 2.7 2.8 2.7 3.3 3.0 2.0 1.7

150–175 2.0 5.2 4.5 5.3 5.5 3.8 4.6 4.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USACE, NDC unpublished data were used to compile the percentage distribution of tonnage

by vessel size. The LRS were used to obtain the vessel DWT and associated characteristics.

Review of the annual vessel statistics and follow-up meetings with the ship pilots and terminal operators

revealed that petroleum tankers beams have increased significantly in recent years, and that the vessel

beam increase is compounding the effect of delays. Double-hulled tanker legislation was initiated under

46 USC§3703a after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The U.S. Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990

requiring double-hull tankers now, but allowing the transportation companies until 2015 to replace

existing tankers. Table 30 provides comparison of the beam widths associated with the 1981 and 2003

world tanker fleets. The table illustrates the transition in tanker sizes to wider beam vessels and also

illustrates an increase in cargo-carrying capacity at less draft.

445
69

Table 30

1981 and 2003 World Tanker Fleet

Comparison of Vessel Beam by DWT and Design Draft

Beam Median Median Design

Range (feet) Beam (feet) DWT Draft (feet)

1981 World Tanker Fleet (sample): Average Vessel Age: 7 years

120–124 122 87,800 44

125–129 127 88,058 46

130–139 135 128,439 54

140–158 145 156,000 58

160–175 169 228,054 66

World Fleet (Vessels Built Between 1991–2003): Average Vessel Age: 4 years

120–124 120 49,999 35

125–129 125 84,999 46

130–139 138 105,000 48

140–158 149 114,980 48

160–175 164 158,982 52

Source: The 1981 fleet distribution was prepared based on a sample taken from

Clarkson Research Studies, Ltd, The Tanker Register, London, 1981.

3.5 PORT ARTHUR AND BEAUMONT VESSEL FLEETS

Port Arthur’s and Beaumont’s specific distributions are shown in tables 31 and 32. Port Arthur’s two

petroleum refineries are located inside the Taylor Bayou complex. The existing width at the mouth of

Taylor Bayou and the configuration of the docks within Taylor Bayou limit the allowable vessel size.

Widening of the mouth of the bayou and the west turning basin bottleneck curve was evaluated as part of

the current study. The result of widening the mouth would facilitate increased use of larger vessels that

are presently restricted from using this portion of the channel. The most common crude oil tankers

unloading at the Taylor Bayou terminals are 85,000 DWT, have design drafts of 45 feet, and beams of

approximately 124 feet. It was found that the design drafts associated with the current fleet of 75,000 to

85,000 DWT vessels are slightly greater than in the earlier period. Several new tankers in this group were

constructed in the early 2000s and are presently using the Port Arthur portion of the channel. The

maximum size using the Taylor Bayou facilities is generally in the 110,000 to 116,000 DWT class.

Widening of the mouth of the entrance to Taylor Bayou will occur under the with-project future and this

will allow better vessel maneuverability. Widening of the mouth was recommended as a result of the

ERDC vessel simulation modeling. The Taylor Bayou current fleet is specially designed for that project

reach, and the vessels are characteristically wider and shorter than other tankers in the 80,000 to 90,000

DWT class. The Taylor Bayou configuration currently makes it difficult to maneuver longer vessels, and

therefore, the design of the Taylor Bayou fleet reflects wider beams. Based on application of the pilot

rules (see Table 3), inbound 124-foot beam Taylor Bayou vessels cannot meet common-beam-range

outbound Neches River tankers of 135 to 145 feet. Present beam restrictions for the 500-foot-wide Sabine

446
70

Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal reaches stipulate that the combined beam width of meeting vessels

cannot exceed 50 percent of the channel width. The proposed increase to a project width of 700 feet

would enable Taylor Bayou tankers to meet the relatively wider Neches River tankers in the channel

reaches up to the Taylor Bayou junction.

Table 31

Port Arthur Crude Petroleum Imports

Percentage of Imports by Vessel DWT

DWT (1,000s) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

À50 0.1 0.7 0.7 1.5 0.0 0.9

50–74.5 55.5 6.2 3.0 3.1 4.5 7.9

75–84.9 14.5 75.8 93.7 66.0 93.1 82.2

85–89.9 5.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

90–119.9 21.9 15.2 2.6 26.0 2.4 4.4

120–149.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0

150–175 1.9 1.4 0.0 2.6 0.0 3.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., 2002–2007. The LRS was used to obtain the

vessel DWT and associated characteristics.

Table 32

Channel to Beaumont Crude Petroleum Imports

Percentage of Imports by Vessel DWT

DWT (1,000s) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

À50 0.6 0.4 0.8 1.6 1.1 0.7

50–74.5 2.3 2.5 1.5 1.6 3.2 2.8

75–84.9 8.1 6.2 8.2 9.1 9.6 9.7

85–89.9 9.8 5.4 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0

90–119.9 71.2 76.2 78.8 80.2 77.6 80.2

120–149.9 2.9 3.3 3.9 3.5 2.5 1.9

150–175 5.2 6.1 6.5 4.0 5.7 4.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., 2002–2007. The LRS was used to obtain the vessel

DWT and associated characteristics.

447
71

The maximum sized vessels using the Channel to Beaumont are in the 150,000 to 170,000 DWT range.

The maximum length for that group is approximately 900 feet, with a corresponding beam width of 164

feet. One percent of Beaumont’s crude petroleum imports are associated with this group. Table 33

presents fleet-specific data corresponding to Beaumont and Port Arthur. Table 34 displays Beaumont’s

and Port Arthur’s distributions by loaded draft. The annual distributions of tonnage by loaded draft

exhibit large variance and also show distinct differences between the two ports.

Table 33

Crude Petroleum Vessel Characteristics

Representative of the Existing Fleet Through 2006

Vessel Length, Beam, and Design Draft (feet) and Year Built

Port Arthur Taylor Bayou Channel to Beaumont

DWT

(1,000s) LOA Beam

Design

Draft

Year

Built LOA Beam

Design

Draft

Year

Built

À50 580 102 36 1999 598 103 38 1998

50–74.5 748 106 45 2003 748 106 45 2002

75–84.9 758 124 45 2002 785 122 40 1988

85–89.9 800 131 43 1985 787 150 42 1992

90–119.9 810 138 45 1998 800 138 48 1998

120–149.9 892 150 56 2002 899 150 53 1996

150–175 899 158 52 2004 899 157 55 2003

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., 2002–2006. The Fairplay/Lloyds Register of Ships

(LRS) was used to obtain the vessel DWT and associated characteristics.

Table 34

SNWW Crude Petroleum 2002–2007 Imports by Loaded Draft

Port Arthur Crude Petroleum Imports

Loaded Draft (feet) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

<35 7.6 2.6 0.3 9.5 5.0 4.6

35–37 10.5 8.6 0.0 47.6 56.7 19.0

>37 81.9 88.8 99.7 42.9 38.3 92.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Beaumont Crude Petroleum Imports

<35 10.5 10.5 12.7 10.3 17.2 7.3

35–37 27.3 27.0 23.5 19.1 19.3 22.6

>37 62.2 62.5 63.8 70.6 63.5 70.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., 2002–2007. The LRS was used to

obtain the vessel DWT and associated characteristics.

448
72

In comparison of Port Arthur and Beaumont relative port statistics, it was noted that for some years a

greater percentage of crude tonnage is loaded to drafts of 38 feet or more for Port Arthur than for

Beaumont. This is due to Port Arthur receiving a higher share of direct shipments from Mexico than

Beaumont does. Generally, vessels will be loaded to deeper drafts for longer-distance direct routes. In

comparison, Beaumont receives a higher share of lightered tonnage from both lightened mother vessels

and shuttles. While there are cost incentives for loading to the maximum allowable depth, it was found

that the average loaded drafts for the lightened mother vessels and shuttles were lighter than vessels

associated with direct shipments. Deepening the Taylor Bayou reach would allow the present fleet of

crude carriers to load to drafts over 40 feet; however, the transition to a larger DWT class is unlikely due

to turning-area constraints. The turning-area constraints are unlikely to change even with channel

deepening; however, industry representatives noted that a deeper channel will facilitate loading additional

cargo on the existing range of vessels. While maximum vessel size ranges from 110,000 to 116,000

DWT, with design drafts of 49 feet, the most common crude oil tankers unloading at the Taylor Bayou

terminals are 85,000 DWT and have design drafts of 43 feet. This common size is related to the entrance

to Taylor Bayou for which widening was evaluated. A large portion of the vessels in the 85,000 and

110,000 to 116,000 DWT classes using Taylor Bayou were constructed in 2002–2003, which suggests

that they will be utilized for another 20 years. The maximum beam width routinely allowed is 124 feet.

Examination of vessel transits shows that the median and average beam for Taylor Bayou crude tankers is

124 feet and the maximum beam is 149 feet, with 92 percent of tonnage being transported in vessels with

beam of 124 feet. The 124-foot beam corresponds to 85,000 DWT tankers, and the 149-foot beam

corresponds to 116,000 DWT tankers. The maximum vessel length for Taylor Bayou vessels is

approximately 758 feet. Vessels longer than 758 feet cannot easily be turned given Taylor Bayou

boundaries and dimensions. For the Channel to Beaumont, 92 percent of tonnage is associated with beam

widths over 130 feet. The vessel beams of both Port Arthur’s and Beaumont’s vessels causes them to be

regularly impacted by the present 500-foot width of the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel and Port Arthur Canal.

3.5.1 Methods of Shipment for Crude Petroleum

The methods of shipping crude include direct, lightered, lightened, and transshipped. Direct shipment, as

the name implies, is the transfer of tonnage by vessel between two coastal ports. Lightering is defined as

the process involving ship-to-ship transfer of oil cargo, and it is extremely cost effective for long hauls.

U.S. Gulf Coast lightering occurs in the international waters of the Gulf of Mexico and involves the

transfer of tonnage from a larger vessel, called a VLCC, onto one or more shuttle vessels.

Figure 25 shows the U.S. Gulf offshore lightering zones. With lightering, the VLCC does not enter the

coastal receiving port. A frequent alternative to either direct shipment or lightering is lightening. The term

lightening describes the process where enough cargo is offloaded from a tanker to permit the light-loaded

vessel to enter a confined channel system. The tanker sizes associated with lightening on the Texas Coast

generally range from 120,000 to 175,000 DWT. Tankers larger than 175,000 DWT are normally

lightered; however, there is a gap in the world tanker fleet between 175,000 and 250,000 DWT. The

reason for the gap is that is not cost effective to use tankers significantly larger than 175,000 DWT for

direct shipment even for channel depths of less than 55 feet. Analyses of the cost per ton transportation

449
73

costs also show that it is not cost effective to use vessels smaller than 250,000 DWT for lightering. An

increase in channel depth to the SNWW would provide opportunity for these shuttles to be more fully

loaded.

Africa, Mediterranean, and Europe movements are either lightened or shipped direct. The tanker sizes

associated with lightening on the Texas Coast generally range from 120,000 to 175,000 DWT.26 Tankers

larger than 175,000 DWT are normally totally lightered offshore onto shuttles. Shipments from Africa,

the Mediterranean, and Europe are usually transported in tankers between 90,000 and 175,000 DWT, with

direct shipments generally using tankers between 90,000 and 120,000 DWT.

Transshipping is the fourth method of shipment. Crude oil is also transshipped through deepwater ports in

the Caribbean. Crude is transported on VLCCs to the transshipped sites and later transferred to 90,000 to

114,000 DWT range shuttle tankers for shipment to the SNWW.

The primary sized vessel used on the Mexico/Eastern South America route for direct shipments into the

SNWW is presently 90,000 to 114,000 DWT. Review of the 2007 Fairplay Tanker Register showed that

the design drafts associated with tankers of 90,000 to 114,000 DWT generally range from 40 to 51 feet,

with the average being 48 feet. An increase in channel depth to Port Arthur and Beaumont would provide

opportunity for these shuttles to be more fully loaded. The size of the largest tankers using the SNWW in

2005–2007 on a regular basis is 169,146 DWT. The length, beam, and design draft for this vessel is

935x148x61 feet. In addition to transportation cost incentives, vessel selection is also related to the way

crude petroleum is currently sold and how crude oil is shipped. Presently, parcels are generally sold in

500,000 to 650,000 barrels. A 500,000- to 650,000-barrel parcel converts to approximately 75,000 to

95,000 short tons. Many vessels arrive in the international waters of the Gulf of Mexico with double

parcels. Cost analyses show that the most economical sized vessel for single parcels is between 75,000

and 100,000 DWT given the existing channel depth of 45 feet. For double parcels, the most efficient size

is between 150,000 and 175,000 DWT.

26 USACE, unpublished data.

450
74

Figure 25

U.S. Gulf Coast Crude Petroleum Lightering Zones

Source: Ellis, John, "Commonality of GoM [Gulf of Mexico] Lightering, Experience with GoM Shuttling", Floating Production, Storage and Offloading Global

Workshop, September 25, 2002, http://lovie.org/pdf/John- Ellis.pdf.

451
75

Gulf Coast industry personnel indicated that parcel size and associated ship size are primarily a function

of the existing channel dimensions. The indication suggests that an increase in channel dimensions would

likely result in a shift to larger parcel sizes and larger vessels. Comparison of the parcel sizes associated

from the early 1990s with 2007 crude oil imports revealed that the distribution of tonnage by parcel size

increased for Texas ports where the channel operating depths increased from 40 to 45 feet. Comparison of

crude oil import records from the early 1990s with 2007 records illustrates that larger parcels are being

shipped today and suggests that the channel deepening from 40 to 45 feet facilitated this transition.

Lightening is a common alternative to either direct shipment or lightering for some routings, and it

describes the process where enough cargo is offloaded from a tanker to permit the light-loaded mother

vessel to enter a confined channel system. Africa, Mediterranean, and Europe movements are either

lightened or shipped direct. The tanker sizes associated with lightening on the Texas Coast generally

range from 120,000 to 175,000 DWT. Tankers larger than 175,000 DWT normally are totally lightered

offshore onto shuttles. Shipments from Africa, the Mediterranean, and Europe are usually transported in

tankers between 90,000 and 175,000 DWT, with direct shipments generally using tankers between 90,000

and 120,000 DWT.

Shipments from the Europe/North Sea/Africa trade route are usually transported in tankers between

90,000 and 175,000 DWT, with direct shipments generally using tankers between 90,000 and 120,000

DWT. Tankers larger than 175,000 DWT are normally lightered. The primary sized vessel used on the

Mexico/Eastern South America route for shipments into the SNWW and other U.S. Gulf Coast ports is

90,000 to 114,000 DWT; however, vessels up to 120,000 DWT are not uncommon.27 Review of the 2007

Fairplay Tanker Register showed that the design drafts associated with tankers of 90,000 to 114,000

DWT generally range from 40 to 51 feet, with the average being 48 feet. The limited volumes of direct

shipments from the Middle East are usually shipped in vessels between 90,000 and 120,000 DWT;

however, direct shipment of crude originating in the Middle East is not a cost-effective choice.

The logistics associated with offshore transfers introduce higher degrees of uncertainty than direct

shipment and, therefore, generate large cost variances. Industry indicated that lower cost differences

between direct versus offshore transfer costs may increase the likelihood of direct shipment. Industry

personnel indicated that the number of days to completely lighter a VLCC normally ranges from 4 to 10

and that the average number of days to completely lighter 200,000 to 300,000 DWT vessels is 5.5;

however, it was noted that 2 weeks is not uncommon. Five and one-half days equate to 1.5 times the inport unloading rate. Utilization of the upper limit of 2 weeks appears to relate to a less than optimal

number of shuttles and shuttle turnaround rate.

Identification of the number of days used for the SNWW analysis was based on inputs from industry

including data outlined in the Skaugen PetroTrans’ publication “Introduction to Lightering.”28 The mother

vessels used for Gulf Coast lightering are generally in the 300,000 to 350,000 DWT range. The SNWW

27 USACE, unpublished data.

28 Skaugen Petro Trans Inc., Introduction to Lightering, October 25, 2006. http://www.teekay.com/PDFs/Lightering101.pdf.

452
76

cost calculations were based on a VLCC of 320,000 DWT, which is the largest tanker presented in the

USACE’s EGM. The Skaugen publication includes a graphic with three shuttle vessels taking 3 days to

totally offload a VLCC. While not noted in that publication, the use of three shuttles implies a channel

depth of 45 feet or more, as each shuttle would need to accommodate 100,000 tons of cargo in order to

offload a 300,000 DWT mother vessel. The maximum cargo load that can be transported on tankers

between 100,000 and 150,000 DWT, given a 40-foot channel depth, ranges from approximately 70,000 to

86,000 short tons (see Table 109). Given a channel depth of 40 feet, four shuttles are needed to totally

offload a 300,000 DWT vessel. Identification of the number of shuttle vessels needed by channel depth is

outlined later in this document (see Table 110).

Discussion with industry personnel, including Skaugen, revealed that unloading rates for crude oil would

generally range from 4,038 to 5,250 short tons per hour. It was also noted that the rate of 4,038 would be

representative for offshore operations; therefore, this rate was used for the SNWW offshore vessel

calculations. Given an unloading rate of 4,038 short tons per hour, a 300,000 DWT vessel carrying a full

load of 291,000 short tons would take 3 days, or 72 hours, to completely unload based on optimal

logistics. Using the same unloading rate, a 350,000 DWT vessel carrying a full load of 339,500 short tons

would take 84 hours, or 3.5 days, to completely unload. The SNWW lightering cost calculations are based

on the mother vessel being offshore for 24 hours for each shuttle vessel used. Based on 24 hours, the

mother vessel would be offshore for a total of 96 hours given four shuttles and 72 hours given three

shuttles.

An increase in channel depth would reduce the number of shuttles. For instance, a three-shuttle operation

would take 72 hours, down from 84 hours for a four-shuttle operation. The affect of using greater and

lesser offshore times on channel depth optimization is evaluated in the sensitivity section (Section 8.6).

The mother vessels associated with lightening are generally in the 150,000 to 175,000 DWT range. Given

an unloading rate of 4,038 short tons per hour, a 175,000 DWT vessel carrying a full load of 160,050

short tons would take 19.8 hours, or 0.8 day, to discharge one-half of its cargo. The lightening cost

calculations are based on one day or 24 hours. The 24 hours includes a combination of unloading at sea

and waiting at sea. Travel time to port was calculated as a separate line item as was unloading time in

port. The effect of using greater and lesser times on channel depth optimization is evaluated in the

sensitivity section (Section 8.3).

Comparison of direct shipment costs with those for lightering or lightening for the Africa, Mediterranean,

and Europe route revealed that while the average cost for lightering or lightening is less than the average

cost for shipping direct, the percentage difference between direct shipment costs and the offshore

alternatives is considerably less than for either Mexico/South America or Middle East and Far East

origins. The relative closeness in the costs between shipping methods for Africa, Mediterranean, and

Europe tonnage and, in particular, the variance associated with the number of days necessary to complete

the offshore transfer process contributes to a higher percentage of direct shipment for this route than

optimal or than least-cost computations would suggest. A risk of delays, in association with the closeness

in costs between shipping methods, contributes to a proportion of direct shipments that is higher than

453
77

what might occur if the variance associated with the cost of lightering did not overlap with the cost of

shipping direct. Examination of the cost data suggests that an increase in channel dimensions would

probably result in an increase in direct shipment movements for Africa, Mediterranean, and Europe

shipments.

Comparison of the method of shipment costs for Eastern South America and the Persian Gulf did not

show that channel depth increases over 50 feet provided cost incentives to switch from one method of

shipment to another, given channel depth constraints between 43 and 48 feet. In general, lightening is not

cost effective for tonnage on the Persian Gulf trade route because the economies of scale associated with

existing practices result in a lower cost for lightering than what would be attained through lightening. The

reason lightering is cheaper than lightening for Persian Gulf/Indian Subcontinent shipments is because the

magnitude of the mileage component of the per ton cost is large enough to offset the relatively large fixed

cost attributable to having the mother vessel remain offshore for 5.5 days. For similar reasons, the

relatively short distance and high fixed costs associated with either lightening or lightering eliminates any

incentive for Mexico/Eastern South America shipments to shift to lightening. Despite the clear lack of

economic rationale for lightering Mexico/Eastern South America tonnage or shipping Persian Gulf/Indian

Subcontinent tonnage direct, relatively inefficient shipping methods are used for some shipments on these

trade routes. The decision to lighter Mexico/Eastern South America tonnage or ship Persian Gulf/Indian

Subcontinent tonnage direct results from less than perfect world market conditions. For purposes of

analysis, the least-cost practical alternative was assumed given existing technology and anticipated future

innovations. Specifically, the cost calculations were made using direct shipment for the Americas;

lightering for the Middle East and Far East; and lightening for Africa, Europe, and the Mediterranean for

the 40-foot channel with a transition to direct shipment for increased channel depth alternatives based on

transportation cost efficiencies.

Regardless of trade route, the vessel size utilized is sometimes related to the way crude petroleum is sold.

Currently, crude petroleum is traditionally sold in parcels of 500,000 barrels. A 500,000-barrel parcel

converts to approximately 75,000 short tons. The most economical size vessel for a 75,000-ton parcel is

between 75,000 and 100,000 DWT. For 150,000-ton parcels, the most efficient size is between 150,000

and 175,000 DWT. Ninety-four percent of the 100,000 to 140,000 DWT vessels in the world fleet have

design drafts in excess of 45 feet, and 32 percent of the vessels between 75,000 and 100,000 DWT have

design drafts over 45 feet. The SNWW channel deepening alternatives were formulated assuming that the

maximum ship size for both direct shipments and lightered vessels would be 175,000 DWT. Vessels over

100,000 DWT would continue to be light-loaded under the with-project condition; however, there would

be a reduction in the number of feet light-loaded. U.S. Gulf Coast industry personnel indicated that parcel

size and associated ship size is primarily a function of the existing channel dimensions and that an

increase in channel dimensions would likely result in a shift to larger parcel sizes and larger vessels.

Evaluation of the percentage of SNWW tonnage transported in vessels anticipated to utilize depths over

40 feet was primarily based on the relative change in per ton transportation cost between the existing 40-

foot channel depth and increased channel depths. Cost analysis suggested that nearly all vessels used to

transport crude petroleum from Mexico, Venezuela, and Central and South America would be loaded to

454
78

depths over 45 feet. Expectations concerning the percentage of Middle East and Africa movements are

subject to greater uncertainty. Nearly all Middle East tonnage is presently lightered. Lightering is also the

least-cost alternative for Far East tonnage.

Table 35 presents Port Arthur and Beaumont crude petroleum imports by trade route. The format of the

USACE’s WCSC’s shipping records obtained by the USACE through the Bureau of Census do not

provide sufficient information to distinguish lightened tonnage from direct or lightered tonnage. Industry

discussions revealed that lightened tonnage is primarily limited to shipments from Western Africa, and

transportation cost analysis conducted by the USACE for SNWW confirmed this. While the port loading

facilities in Western Africa do presently accommodate the VLCCs associated with lightering, this

situation could change over the 50-year period of analysis, and the affect of changing this variable is

evaluated in the sensitivity analysis.

The data presented in Table 35 include a “trade route classification” titled “lightered.” The tonnage

included under this classification includes shuttle vessels associated with lightering and lightening;

however, it does not completely reflect the total volume of tonnage associated with the lightering or

“offshore transfer” process. In particular, a large part of the tonnage included under West Africa, North

Europe, and the Mediterranean, and, to some degree, the Middle East and Far East is partially offloaded

onto shuttle vessels. The port classification noted in the Census data for these lightening mother vessels is

the country of origin. The port of origin shown for all shuttle vessels is the “international waters of the

Gulf of Mexico.” Using the data provided, it is not possible to reconstruct the specific routing. For this

reason, the costs associated with lightering and lightening need to be reconstructed to determine what the

most efficient method of shipment is. While it is cost effective to lighten crude shipped from West Africa

and it is cost effective to lighter VLCCs from the Middle East, some tonnage from these routes is

presently shipped direct. Additionally, some tonnage from Mexico is lightered. While the method of

shipment for all cargo may not represent the most cost effective means, the transportation cost

calculations were prepared assuming that the most cost effective method of shipment would be chosen

under the without- and with-project future.

455
79

Table 35

SNWW Percentage of Crude Petroleum Imports by Trade Route

Port Arthur Imports by Trade Route

Trade Route 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Mexico 67.6 79.6 94.0 72.0 94.9 88.8

Central and South America and Caribbean 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 1.1 0.4

Venezuela and Colombia 3.6 4.2 1.7 9.2 0.0 1.1

Western South America 0.0 1.9 0.6 1.9 0.0 0.0

Northern Europe and Mediterranean 12.3 1.2 0.8 4.0 1.5 2.5

Western Africa 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.5

Middle East 11.1 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.5 0.7

Lightered 5.3 12.4 2.0 7.0 2.0 5.0

Port Arthur Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Beaumont Imports by Trade Route

Canada 4.2 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.7

Mexico 32.6 23.0 21.8 24.4 22.6 22.4

Central and South America and Caribbean 0.5 1.4 1.8 2.7 2.3 2.5

Venezuela 6.1 10.7 7.8 8.7 7.1 8.4

Colombia 3.7 3.2 2.8 2.2 1.6 1.4

Brazil and Argentina 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Western South America 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

Northern Europe and Mediterranean 8.7 5.4 12.3 12.3 16.1 6.7

Western Africa 4.7 2.2 8.9 7.1 9.1 3.3

Middle East 24.5 0.4 25.4 21.2 34.5 19.5

Far East 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0

Lightered 14.2 51.8 18.6 20.7 6.1 34.9

Beaumont Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., 2002–2007.

The LRS was used to obtain the vessel DWT and associated characteristics.

Table 36 presents comparative trade route data for PADD III. Table 37 presents SNWW’s trade route

distribution. The SNWW data were compiled were from USACE NDC, and the PADD III data were

compiled from the EIA data records.29 The first part of the top shows PADD III imports. Comparison of

PADD III data with SNWW indicates the SNWW receives a higher percentage of its crude oil imports

from Mexico and a lower percentage from Venezuela than PADD III. Additionally, based on the

combined total of Middle East and “lightered tonnage,” the SNWW receives a much higher percentage of

Middle Eastern crude than PADD III; however, SNWW’s “lightered tonnage” also includes shuttle

vessels associated with lightening of tankers from West Africa.

29 USDOE, EIA, Imports by Country of Origin (includes vessel and pipeline movements).

456
80

Table 36

PADD III Percentage of Crude Petroleum Imports by Trade Route

Trade Route 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Canada 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.4 1.1 1.7 2.0

Mexico 27.0 26.8 26.2 26.0 27.4 24.6 22.1

Central and South America and Caribbean 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.5

Venezuela 20.4 19.5 20.1 18.3 17.3 17.6 16.4

Colombia 2.7 1.9 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 2.0

Brazil and Argentina 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.0 1.2 1.8

Western South America 0.1 0.5 1.2 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.9

Northern Europe and Mediterranean 8.4 8.8 7.4 9.7 10.0 9.4 8.0

Western Africa 7.9 10.3 13.5 14.6 16.6 18.1 18.2

Middle East 29.1 29.1 27.0 24.6 23.8 24.1 28.1

Other (not identified) 1.0 0.7 1.3 1.5 – – –

Lightered (not available) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

PADD III Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USDOE, compiled from the EIA website, 2009.

Table 37

SNWW Percentage of Crude Petroleum Imports by Trade Route, 2002–2007

Trade Route 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Canada 3.6 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.7

Mexico 37.4 32.7 32.1 32.0 35.9 11.1

Central and South America and Caribbean 0.4 1.1 1.6 2.1 1.9 2.8

Venezuela 5.7 9.3 6.9 8.5 5.8 9.5

Colombia 3.2 2.9 2.4 2.1 1.3 1.4

Brazil and Argentina 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Western South America 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3

Northern Europe and Mediterranean 9.2 4.7 11.9 14.3 13.6 9.1

Western Africa 4.0 2.0 8.9 7.3 8.0 4.8

Middle East 22.7 0.3 25.1 26.7 29.8 20.1

Other (Far East) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0

Gulf of Mexico Lightering 13.0 45.0 10.6 6.2 2.9 40.0

Beaumont Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., 2002–2007.

Under the current and future without- and with-project conditions, the “mother vessels” offload partial

cargoes to shuttle vessels and both vessels come into port. The lightened mother vessels were modeled in

the ERDC ship simulation. These “lightened mother vessels” are the “design vessels.” The analysis for

the offshore transfer process was based exclusively on operating costs. The duration of the transfer,

number of shuttle tankers, supply boats, and equipment was estimated in terms of a “range of time,” and

457
81

the costs for vessels and equipment were determined. The shuttle vessel costs and additional pilot and tug

charges were identified.

For a with-project condition that includes deepening, the mother vessels would discharge less cargo

offshore. Based on the mother vessel discharging less cargo offshore, the with-project condition would

affect the number and sizes of the shuttle vessels. For direct shipments, a with-project condition where the

channel is deepened would allow for fewer vessel trips as the existing range of vessels would be able to

carry more cargo. The specific differences in the without- and with-project conditions are outlined in the

transportation cost analysis section (Section 6).

The trade route forecast for SNWW’s crude petroleum imports was prepared based on analysis of U.S.

import and world production forecasts and application of recent historical SNWW and U.S. Gulf Coast

routings. The U.S. and Gulf Coast 2006 period base distribution and the EIA 2010–2030 trade route

forecast are presented in Table 38. The EIA is forecasting significant decrease in imports from Mexico.

The SNWW ports have historically received over 30 percent of its crude petroleum imports from Mexico;

however, in 2007 imports from Mexico only represented 11 percent. The EIA forecasts indicate that the

majority of U.S. crude oil imports will come from the Middle East, Europe, and Africa. The principal

sources for Middle East and European shipments are included under the following origins: Persian Gulf,

Russia,, Asia, Eurasia, and China.

Table 38

EIA Production Forecast Conventional Crude Production and

Sources of U.S. Crude Oil Imports and SNWW Application

U.S. Imports by Trade Route (%)

Trade Region 2006 2010 2019 2029

Mexico 5.1 3.3 2.9 2.9

South and Central America 8.5 8.5 9.1 0.106

Europe and West Africa 42.4 44.5 43.8 43.0

Middle East and Asia 44.0 43.7 44.1 43.6

Total 100.0 100 100 100

PADD III Imports (%) SNWW Imports (%)

Trade Region 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2019/2029

Mexico 27.4 24.6 22.1 35.9 11.0 10.0

South and Central America 21.1 23.8 21.6 9.1 14.0 17.0

Europe and West Africa 27.7 27.5 28.2 30.3 41.3 37.7

Middle East and Asia 23.8 24.1 28.1 24.8 33.8 35.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Application of AEO2009 forecasts and EIA and USACE base data.

The trade route forecast presented in Table 38 was then applied to the crude petroleum tonnage

projections. Mileages were weighted based on existing and anticipated percentage of tonnage by trade

region. Trade regions were grouped based on general regions and similar vessel utilization patterns and

port constraints.

458
82

3.6 PETROLEUM PRODUCT CARRIERS

Examination of the vessel characteristics and geographic routings associated with SNWW petroleum

products suggests that some product carriers could be more fully loaded. Distribution of SNWW

petroleum product imports and exports by vessel DWT class is displayed in Table 39. Analysis of product

imports showed that from 32 to 54 percent of 1998–2007 imports and 5 to 27 percent of exports were

transported in vessels of 60,000 DWT or more. In 2007, 42 percent of product imports and 14 percent of

exports were transported in vessels of 60,000 DWT or more. As noted in Section 2.2, product import

variability is also reflected in the distribution of the U.S. products types. This distribution is characterized

by annual fluctuations prompted by conditions where outputs fall short or are preempted by other market

drivers.

Table 39

SNWW Petroleum Product Import Tonnage by Vessel DWT

SNWW Percentage of Imports by DWT Range

DWT Range 1998 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007

<10,000 4.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 1.3

10,000 to 29,999 12.1 6.2 2.8 4.4 1.1 4.4

30,000 to 49,999 45.8 48.9 41.3 48.7 58.1 45.6

50,000 to 59,999 5.5 3.0 1.4 1.1 2.2 7.1

60,000 to 69,999 3.8 15.1 16.7 9.3 12.8 6.9

70,000 to 79,999 2.7 0.0 15.2 18.4 17.0 21.2

80,000 to 89,999 4.0 8.9 5.4 7.3 0.0 0.0

90,000 to 99,999 15.8 5.4 3.7 3.3 2.1 0.5

100,000 to 116,000 6.0 12.6 13.2 7.5 6.4 13.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

SNWW Percentage of Exports by DWT Range

<10,000 2.9 2.5 3.0 1.0 1.4 1.7

10,000 to 29,999 14.3 11.9 9.5 15.5 7.2 8.6

30,000 to 49,999 67.3 57.0 69.0 72.9 77.6 61.2

50,000 to 59,999 7.2 1.4 10.0 4.2 8.7 14.5

60,000 to 69,999 4.1 12.1 4.4 1.7 2.7 5.5

70,000 to 79,999 1.9 11.4 4.0 4.7 0.6 8.5

80,000 to 89,999 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0

90,000 to 99,999 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

100,000 to 116,000 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., 1998–2007.

The Fairplay/Lloyds Register of Ships (LRS) was used to obtain the vessel DWT and associated

characteristics. Vessel DWT, design drafts over 40 feet, and parcel size were among the variables

examined to help evaluate the potential transition to deeper vessel loads. Tables 40 and 41 present product

imports and exports by major commodity type and shows the annual percent of each grouping transported

in vessels of 60,000 DWT or more.

459
83

Examination of the data in tables 40 and 41 shows that there are large annual variances in the percentage

of annual tonnage associated with the draft and parcel size. Based on this variance and planning guidance,

depths at trading ports and comparable operations at similar ports were also evaluated. Discussions with

local shippers also indicated that product carriers for some trade routes and customers would be loaded to

depths over 40 feet if the channel was deepened. Examination of petroleum product import and exports

transported through other U.S. Gulf Coast ports with channel depths over 40 feet showed that 34 percent

of distillate imports were loaded to drafts of 42 feet or greater and 24 percent of petroleum coke exports

were loaded to drafts of 42 feet or more. Many of these shipments were associated with ports in Russia,

North Africa, Venezuela, and Brazil. Other routings include the Far East. The use of the Panama Canal

for all of the Far East and over half of the South America destinations will limit the sizes of vessels used

for that trade until the Panama Canal expansions are completed after 2014.

Table 42 shows the world petroleum product fleet data as compiled from the LRS. The table includes the

percentage of vessels on order as of January 2009. Table 42 shows that 45 percent of the petroleum

product tankers on order in 2009 have design drafts of 47 to 49 feet or more and 12 percent have design

drafts of 50 feet or more.

460
84

Table 40

Imports and Exports Shipped in Vessels of 60,000 DWT or Larger

SNWW Petroleum Product Imports

1998–2007 (select years)

Major Commodity Total Imports by Commodity Group (1,000s of short tons) Percent of Imports Transported in Vessels ≥60,000 DWT

Group 1998 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 1998 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007

Gasoline – 33 1,613 2,213 1,678 1,096 – 0 6 14 8 15Distillate Fuel 102 572 728 1,286 1,267 1,872 40 75 73 7 78 67Residual Fuel 57 25 810 804 351 355 100 100 59 94 74 16Lube Oil and Greases 2,140 700 619 50 71 2 83 90 80 0 39 39

Naphtha and Solvents 808 1,138 1,977 595 368 719 21 5 81 49 16 16

Asphalt, Tar and Pitch 11 – – 7 – – – – – – – –Petroleum Coke 250 266 255 365 84 276 10 – 21 48 – 10Other 124 – – 29 – – 6 – – – – –Total Imports 3,492 2,734 6,003 5,349 3,819 3,744 58 42 54 46 39 40

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., 1998–2007.The LRS was used to obtain the vessel DWT and associated characteristics.

Table 41

SNWW Petroleum Product Exports

1998–2007 (select years)

Major Commodity Total Exports by Commodity Group (1,000s of short tons) Percent of Exports Transported in Vessels ≥60,000 DWT

Group 1998 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 1998 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007

Gasoline 1,376 1,258 19,49 1,778 1,777 1,970 1 – 3 – 1 10Distillate Fuel 602 179 449 371 371 345 42 – – 11 9 58Residual Fuel 206 12 0 51 68 – 12 – – – 50 –Lube Oil and Greases 41 63 57 99 117 60 10 – – – 10 10

Naphtha and Solvents 0 146 8 58 94 22 4 – – – 4 –

Petroleum Coke 1,622 3,447 4,688 4,362 4,362 4,210 13 35 13 14 6 9Other 463 17 0 104 33 – – – – – – –Total Imports 4,328 5,122 7,151 6,823 6,822 6,607 8 23 9 9 5 15

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., 1998–2007.

The LRS was used to obtain the vessel DWT and associated characteristics.

461
85

Table 42

World Petroleum Product Fleet

Design Draft

(feet) Median DWT

Percentage of Total DWT

Built 1985–2004 On Order as of January 2009

<36 13,000 13 4

36–38 38,500 14 2

39–40 46,000 23 13

41–42 47,000 26 12

43–44 68,000 5 12

45–46 85,000 7 0

47–49 99,900 9 45

50–51 110,000 2 12

Total 100 100

Source: LRS, 2009.

* Excludes crude oil and chemical tankers.

While it is anticipated that annual variance will continue, the use of draft-constrained vessels for several

markets served by the SNWW is also anticipated to continue and likely increase due to increases in

maximum beam width and loaded draft for Panama Canal transits that will open trade opportunities to

additional markets. SNWW petroleum coke exports are expected to remain steady due to the construction

of an additional coker and increased refinement of high-sulfur crude oil. Table 43 displays the major

destinations for U.S. petroleum coke exports. Of the destinations shown in Table 43, the U.S. Gulf Coast

primarily serves the North and South American and European markets; however, expansion of the U.S.

Gulf Coast share to include Pacific markets may increase after 2014 as a result of the Panama Canal

expansion. While published forecasts of specific trade routes are not available, the SNWW presently

serves markets that can accommodate more fully loaded product carriers, and it was assumed that some

cargo movements would transition to more fully loaded vessels based on the economics of scale of

loading to increased depths and availability of channel depths in excess of 40 feet at some trading ports.

As shown in tables 40 and 41, relatively large carriers are used for high-volume commodities such as

distillate and residual fuel imports and petroleum coke exports.

462
86

Table 43

U.S. Petroleum Coke Exports by Major Destination

(Percentage)

Western Hemisphere Europe and Mediterranean Pacific Major All

Year Canada Mexico Brazil Italy Netherlands Spain China India Japan Importers Other

2002 4.5 7.4 6.5 8.0 3.6 12.5 2.7 0.3 14.5 42.4 57.6

2003 6.1 9.4 7.2 10.2 3.0 10.8 5.0 0.8 11.9 46.8 53.2

2004 6.3 7.7 7.1 7.7 3.7 10.6 0.9 1.7 13.1 43.1 56.9

2005 6.9 8.9 8.9 7.5 4.0 8.9 1.7 2.0 13.5 45.2 54.8

2006 6.6 11.2 9.3 8.5 3.3 8.7 1.4 1.9 12.6 47.5 52.5

2007 6.3 12.8 11.2 7.7 1.9 11.2 1.6 3.0 11.7 51.1 48.9

2008 7.7 13.3 9.3 7.7 2.7 8.8 1.3 2.4 12.5 49.3 50.7

Source: USDOE, compiled from the EIA website, 2009.

For petroleum product imports and exports, a steady volume of domestic coastwise product tankers use

Port Arthur and Beaumont. Domestic coastwise movements primarily consist of gasoline, distillate, and

residual fuel shipments. These products are refined at the SNWW ports and then shipped to the U.S. East

Coast, specifically eastern Florida. In 2006, coastwise shipments totaled 3.6 million short tons. Coastwise

receipts were 978,000 short tons. Examination of vessel specifics showed that approximately 10 percent

of outbound coastwise shipments were transported in draft-restricted tankers. These product carriers

generally are between 60,000 and 70,000 DWT with design drafts in the 41- to 43-foot range. The vessels

used are all U.S. flag vessels, Jones’ Act vessels. The median age of the current fleet exceeds 10 years,

with most vessels built in the 1980s. The combination of U.S. tanker availability, depths at trading ports,

parcel size demand, the cost effectiveness of loading to greater drafts, and industry discussion suggest that

the percentage of tonnage that would utilize channel depths over 40 feet would be closer to 10 percent in

the short term increasing to 20 percent over the period of analysis

3.7 CHEMICAL PRODUCT CARRIERS

For the period 2002–2007, chemical imports and exports represented approximately 3 percent of both

SNWW and U.S. total foreign tonnage. Evaluation of 1998–2007 chemical exports showed that the

percentage of tonnage associated with design drafts between 40 and 44 feet ranged from zero to 14

percent, averaging 4 percent annually. An average of 16 percent of 1998–2006 export tonnage was

transported in loaded drafts between 36 and 40 feet. In 2007, 18 percent of SNWW chemical products

were transported in vessels with loaded drafts between 36 and 40 feet. Export tonnage represented 75

percent of SNWW 2002–2006 import-export total. Approximately two-thirds of 2002–2007 exports were

shipped from Beaumont and the remainder from Port Arthur. Seventy-nine percent of 2002–2007 imports

were shipped into Beaumont and the remainder to Port Arthur.

Review of the chemical carrier fleet showed the youngest fleet sector includes a large number of vessels

between 30,000 and 49,999 DWT. This portion of the fleet represents over 50 percent of the total fleet.

Tables 44 and 45 present data associated with the existing chemical fleet and with vessels on order. Table

44 shows the chemical fleet through 2004, and Table 45 provides comparison of the percentage of total

deadweight tonnage for representative classes for 1985–2004 and 2009. Table 45 shows that 21.8 percent

463
87

of the chemical tankers on order in 2009 have design drafts of 43 feet or more, and 1.6 percent of

chemical tankers on order have design drafts of 47 feet or more.

Consideration of “vessel-on-order” records, world port development trends, and the Panama Canal

expansion represent indicators used for projecting future vessel use. Integral to estimating changes in

vessel selections is the operational goal of minimizing vessel transportation cost. Minimization of

transportation cost, given trade route constraints and commodity parcel needs, recognizably drives longterm vessel choices. Of the vessels on order, 1.6 percent of vessels have design drafts of 48 feet. Review

of existing cargo loads suggests that the draft-constrained tonnage will likely consist of metallic salt

exports, ammonia imports and acyclic hydrocarbon exports. Project benefits were calculated assuming

that approximately 10 percent of future chemical imports and 15 percent of future chemical export

tonnage would be transported in vessels with loaded drafts between 40 and 49 feet.

Table 44

World Chemical Product Fleet, Vessels Built between 1985 and 2004

Total % of Median Vessel Characteristics Year

DWT Range DWT DWT DWT LOA Beam Design Draft Built

<10,000 2,793,389 9.9 5,780 338 54 21 1997

10,000 to 20,000 3,479,986 12.4 14,364 454 71 29 1999

20,000 to 30,000 1,593,037 5.7 25,415 557 84 34 1998

30,000 to 39,999 6,544,848 23.3 37,068 599 91 36 2001

40,000 to 49,999 11,246,740 4.0 45,632 599 106 40 2000

50,000 to 59,999 568,838 2.0 50,600 600 106 44 1987

60,000 to 69,999 129,976 0.5 64,988 750 106 43 2000

70,000 to 79,999 146,521 0.5 73,261 749 106 47 1996

80,000 to 102,000 1,620,338 5.8 83,987 750 106 53 1988

Total 28,123,673 100.0

Source: LSR, 2006.

464
88

Table 45

Chemical Product Fleet

Design

Draft (feet)

Median

DWT

Percentage of Total DWT

Built 1985–2004 On Order as of Jan 2009

<36 13,000 36.1 34.1

36–38 38,500 23.6 18.6

39–40 46,000 24.2 17.7

41–42 47,000 6.6 6.2

43–44 50,000 3.5 21.8

45–46 85,000 0.9 –

47–49 95,000 5.1 1.6

50–51 n/a – –

Total 100.0 100.0

Source: LRS, 2009.

3.8 GRAIN EXPORTS

Grain is exported from the Beaumont elevator located just below the Port of Beaumont main turning

basin. Wheat presently composes 100 percent of Beaumont’s grain exports for the most recent 5-year

period and represented 5 percent of U.S. 2007 wheat exports. During earlier years, wheat represented 85

percent, sorghum 10 percent and corn 5 percent. Table 46 displays Beaumont’s 2001–2007 grain export

tonnage by grain type and loaded draft.

Table 46

Beaumont Bulk Grain Export

Distribution of Tonnage by Grain Type

and Loaded Vessel Draft

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Bulk Grain Export Totals by Year (Short Tons)

Total Exports 831,000 835,000 1,125,000 1,329,000 1,080,639 1,214,010 1,632,000

% by Grain Type

Wheat 79.0 88.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Corn 6.5 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sorghum 14.5 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

% by Loaded Draft (feet)

À35 56.8 65.8 65.3 67.8 62.8 35.5 50.8

36–37 6.7 5.5 11.6 9.0 15.2 25.7 18.5

38–40 36.5 28.7 23.1 23.2 22.0 38.8 30.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce Database, 2001–2007.

465
89

Thirty percent of 2002–2007 grain export tonnage was shipped in vessels with design drafts over 40 feet.

The maximum DWT presently used for grain exports is in the 60,000 to 75,000 DWT range, with 68

percent of 2006 exports. These vessels have design drafts between 42 and 43 feet. The large increase in

the concentration of larger vessels since 2006 was due to exports to Iraq. For 2003–2007, the destination

for the larger vessels primarily consisted of Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. Until the early 1990s, grain

carriers in excess of 100,000 DWT used the SNWW. These larger vessels were associated with Eastern

Europe grain shipments. The deeper-loaded vessels are nearly all associated with wheat shipments.

Review of grain exports for other U.S. Gulf Coast ports with channel depths of 45 feet showed that bulk

carriers transporting wheat exports are loaded to 45 feet.30 The specific type of bulk carriers used for grain

is “load-on/load off” or “LoLo” vessels. LoLo vessels are also used for SNWW steel slab, limestone, and

wood product tonnage. The median year of construction for the range of vessels transporting grain from

Beaumont is 1985, which is older than the median of 1998 associated with the world fleet. Review of the

distribution of vessels on order and the port depths at receiving ports indicates that some transition in the

average DWT range from the existing 60,000 to 75,000 DWT into the 80,000 to 94,000 DWT range is

reasonable to expect. Table 47 displays the existing fleet of LoLo vessels in the world fleet; the table also

displays LoLo vessels on order.

30 USACE, unpublished data.

466
90

Table 47

LoLo Bulk Dry Cargo Carriers (World Fleet)

Vessels in Operation

DWT Range

Total

DWT

Percent

DWT

Median

DWT

Design

Draft (feet)

Year

Built

<25,000 5,825,500 3 20,035 30 1996

25,000 to 44,000 31,009,518 14 32,755 34 1994

45,000 to 64,000 33,235,975 15 49,061 39 2000

65,000 to 79,000 58,832,687 27 73,445 45 1998

80,000 to 94,000 3,716,652 2 88,405 43 2000

95,000 to 106,999 414,221 0 105,712 50 2001

107,000 to 169,999 38,252,170 18 151,257 57 1994

170,000 to 260,000 45,324,613 21 172,964 58 2000

Total 216,611,336 100

Vessels on Order

DWT Range

Total

DWT

Percent

DWT

Median

DWT

Design

Draft (feet)

<25,000 775,191 1 18,500 28

25,000 to 44,000 4,430,571 8 34,525 34

45,000 to 64,000 11,825,398 21 54,500 41

65,000 to 79,000 9,044,747 16 75,750 46

80,000 to 94,000 9,382,833 17 82,788 47

95,000 to 106,999 815,150 1 100,000 44

170,000 to 199,999 18,990,990 34 177,015 59

Total 55,264,880 100

Source: LRS, 2006.

467
91

3.9 STEEL SLAB AND IRON ORE CARRIERS

For the period, 2002–2006, an average of 2.5 percent of U.S. iron ore and steel slab imports were

transported through the SNWW ports. For the period 2002–2007, imports ranged from a low of 240

thousand short tons in 2007 and a high of 1,136 thousand short tons in 2005. The 2002–2006 average

annual import volume of 783 thousand short tons is over 100 percent higher than 1990–1993 average

levels. The decline in 2007 appears to be reflective of the U.S. market. It is noted that imports were

unusually high in 2006 partially due to increased demand and higher prices paid in the U.S. market in

comparison to foreign markets.31 As a result, U.S. inventories increased in 2006. In 2007, import orders

were slowed by the excessive inventory and foreign demand. It was emphasized in the U.S. and

International Market Outlook for 2007 that the origin of U.S. steel imports is evolving. It is noted that the

shift in the origin of U.S. steel imports applies not only to simpler items like bars and rods but also to

more-sophisticated products like oil country goods, cold-rolled coils, and hot-dip galvanized coils. Thus,

in oil country goods the leader in 2006 was China; in cold-rolled coils the leaders were Brazil and China;

in hot-dip coils India and China. The price of steel scrap dropped in 2007. Long-term expectations are

that the market will rebound. Table 48 displays the 2005–2007 countries of origin for SNWW iron and

steel imports. India is the seventh largest producer of steel in the world and supplied 26 percent of

SNWW steel slab imports in 2007. Steel products are shipped from the Indian port of Dhamra on the

eastern coast where channel deepening commenced in 2007. Dhamra will be the deepest port of India

with a draught of 18 meters, which can accommodate super cape-size vessels up to 180,000 DWT. The

master plan provides for 13 berths, capable of handling more than 83 million tons per annum of dry bulk,

liquid bulk, breakbulk, and containerized cargo. The project is expected to be completed by March

2010.32

Presently, the most common carriers used on the SNWW for the transport of steel slab and iron ore are

LoLo bulkers in the 45,000 to 53,000 DWT range, with a maximum vessel size of 78,000 DWT. Review

of the Lloyd’s/Fairplay Vessel Register (2003) showed that 23 percent of bulk carriers constructed over

the past decade are in the 66,000 to 78,000 DWT range. As noted, this is the same vessel type that is used

for grain; however, the specific vessels are different with each cargo having dedicated carriers.

Examination of the foreign ports of call for 1998–2001 SNWW tonnage showed that an average of 8

percent of tonnage was transported through world ports with channel depths of 44 to 47 feet. Examination

of 2005–2007 routings shows a similar distribution of foreign ports as in 1998–2001. Vessel usage and

general indicators, such as depths at trading ports and the design drafts for new vessel orders, suggests

that, in the short-term, a minimum of 10 percent of present iron ore movements would utilize channel

depths over 40 feet. Expansion of the Panama Canal is expected to increase the percentage to 50 percent

by the year 2014. Project benefits were calculated assuming that 10 percent of 2015–2020 tonnage and 50

percent of 2020–2069 would be transported in vessels with loaded drafts between 40 and 49 feet.

31 Phelps, David, President, American Institute for International Steel, U.S. and International Market Outlook for 2007 and Trade Policy

Update, presentation at the 5th International Steel Market and Trade Conference 2007 in Guangzhou, China, March 2007.

32 http://www.dhamraport.com/default.asp.

468
92

Table 48

Percentage of SNWW Iron and Steel Product Imports by Country of Origin

Country 2005 2006 2007

Argentina 0.2 – –

Brazil 11.3 16.0 0.2

Colombia 0.0 0.0 –

Mexico 52.2 43.8 17.0

Venezuela 3.0 2.8 25.1

Denmark – – 1.0

Federal Republic Germany – – 3.2

Italy 0.1 – –

Netherlands 0.3 – 1.0

Portugal – – –

Poland – 0.1 –

Russia 7.5 7.1 17.7

United Kingdom 0.4 0.0 1.0

China (Mainland) 1.9 3.7 1.8

Hong Kong – – 1.0

India – – 26.0

New Zealand – 0.5 –

Thailand – – 5.0

Other (via crude oil tankers) 23.1 26.2 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total Imports (short tons) 1,138,000 826,000 240,000

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., 2005–2007, detailed

files; LRS, 2006.

3.10 LIMESTONE AND ROCK CARRIERS

SNWW aggregate tonnage primarily consists of imports of limestone, rock, and other raw building

materials. For the period 2005–2007, 3 percent of U.S. limestone and rock imports were transported

through the SNWW ports. Table 49 displays SNWW aggregate tonnage. Presently, the most common

carriers used on the SNWW are in the 46,000 to 77,000 DWT range. Table 50 displays the fleet used for

SNWW 2002–2007 aggregate imports. Presently nearly all tonnage is transported in vessels with design

drafts over 40 feet. Current vessel usage and general indicators, such as depths at trading ports and the

design drafts for new vessel orders, suggests that some 50 percent of iron ore movements would utilize

channel depths over 40 feet due to the expansion of the Panama Canal. The shipments of clay and

refractory materials are associated with vessels with loaded drafts over 37 feet and design drafts over 40

feet.

469
93

Table 49

SNWW Building Material Imports and Exports (1,000s of short tons)

Sand, Gravel, and

Limestone Imports (Total

Imports and Estimated Port

Share)

Sulphur and Refractory

Material Exports

(Total Exports and

Estimated Port Share )

Estimated % of Combined

Tonnage Transported in Vessels

with Design Drafts ≥40 feet

Year Total

Port

Arthur Beaumont Total

Port

Arthur Beaumont

Sand

and

Gravel Limestone

Sulphur

and

Refractory

Materials

1999 617 90 10 0 0 0 100 0 0

2000 495 36 64 13 0 100 99 60 0

2001 635 18 82 40 0 100 99 37 0

2002 1,117 20 80 16 12 88 99 78 0

2003 658 40 60 46 2 100 99 57 0

2004 642 35 65 104 28 72 99 100 0

2005 815 36 64 91 12 88 100 100 21

2006 816 44 56 261 18 82 99 100 0

2007 829 41 59 463 12 88 99 99 11

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., 1999–2007.

Table 50

SNWW Aggregate Tonnage Fleet, 2002–2007

Vessel DWT

Loaded

Draft

(feet)

Estimated % of

2002–2006

Imports

Vessel Characteristics

Length

(feet)

Beam

(feet)

Design Draft

(feet) Year Built

46,606 33 11 615 106 37 1995

62,594 40 4 747 106 44 1982

67,044 35–40 54 753 106 43 1984

77,499 40 26 804 106 46 1991

<40,000 n/a 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Total 100

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., 2002–2007, detailed files.

3.11 WOOD PRODUCT CARRIERS

For 1998–2006, approximately 1 percent of U.S. wood product tonnage was transported through the

SNWW ports. Wood products also represent 1 percent of the SNWW 1998–2006 foreign total. The

largest wood product carriers used on the SNWW are in the 50,000 to 60,000 DWT range. The design

drafts of these ships are right at 40 feet; and it was found that wood chip carriers, like container vessels,

characteristically reach capacity in terms of volume before they reach their design drafts. Review of

2002–2006 data showed that the load patterns were the same as for 1998–2001. The nature of wood chip

cargo suggests it is unlikely that the current fleet could be loaded to depths greater than 40 feet and,

therefore, deepening benefits were not calculated for wood products. Discussion with industry

representatives confirmed this. Additionally, review of the LRS showed that the maximum design draft

470
94

for wood chip carriers built between 1995 and the present is 39.4 feet. Analysis of the parcel sizes and

1995 to present construction and ships on order suggests that wood products are unlikely to realize

benefits from channel depths over 40 feet in the near future. Analysis of 2002–2007 wood product

movements and consultation with industry representatives confirmed these initial findings.

3.12 LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG) FLEET

Discussion with industry representatives and review of the vessels on order revealed that LNG vessels

with design drafts of 40 feet or more are being constructed. The existing vessel sizes and underkeel

clearance requirements suggest that channel depths of 43 to 44 feet would be necessary. Table 51 displays

the world LNG fleet, including vessels on order.

Table 51

World Liquefied Natural Gas Fleet

Year Built

DWT

Total

Percent of

DWT DWT

Length

of Ship

(feet)

Beam

(feet)

Design

Draft

(feet)

Constructed Between 1980–2002 (Average Vessel Dimensions)

1980–1990 1,742,877 25.6 69,715 910 142 38

1991–2002 5,064,932 74.4 67,532 889 144 37

Total 6,807,809 100.0

Vessels Constructed After 2002 (Average Vessel Dimensions)

Design Draft

Range (feet)

Total

DWT

Percent of

DWT DWT

Length

of Ship

(feet)

Beam

(feet)

Design

Draft

(feet)

36.6 to 39.9 2,868,168 66.0 74,852 927 147 38

40.0 to 41.1 1,453,796 34.0 77,750 930 144 41

Total 4,321,964 100.0

Vessels on Order 2007 (Average Vessel Dimensions)

21 to 30 83,242 0.7 8,200 450 98 24

35 to 41 230,250 1.8 58,900 825 127 38

37 to 41 5,516,514 43.9 74,400 945 145 39

37 to 40 2,102,350 16.7 83,000 928 142 38

39 to 45 3,129,719 24.9 100,000 1,033 164 45

39 to 45 1,499,200 11.9 125,600 1,132 176 39

Total 12,561,275 100.0

471
95

4.0 COMMODITY AND FLEET FORECASTS

Commodity and fleet forecasts were prepared for crude petroleum and petroleum and chemical products,

grain, iron and steel products, limestone and building materials, and LNG. The remaining oceangoing

commodity groups, which were found either not to be transported in draft-constrained vessels at the

current time or were of limited volumes, were analyzed in the aggregate. Estimation of total traffic was

needed for the widening analysis and also provided critical input for the shore erosion effects evaluation

performed by ERDC.

National forecast data and general indicators were assessed in relationship to the study area’s historical

commodity-specific tonnage flows for the purpose of evaluating the relationship between historical U.S.

tonnage volumes and study area tonnage. The vessel fleet forecasts incorporate recent historical practices,

which reflect continued and increased utilization of draft-constrained vessels under the without- and withproject futures.

The outputs of the commodity and fleet projections were based on forecasts published by Global Insight,

USDOE’s EIA Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2008) and (AEO2009); Global Insight, The U.S. Economy,

The 30-Year Focus, First Quarter 2008 and Second Quarter 2009; USDA Agricultural Baseline

Projection Tables, USDA Baseline Projections Report to 2018, February 2008 and February 2009; and

from indices developed from historical trend data. The EIA forecasts extend through 2030. The Global

Insight forecasts extend through 2035. The USDA forecasts extend through 2018.

The commodity forecasts presented in this document were initially prepared in 2008. The effect of 2009

EIA, Global Insight, and USDA 2009 forecast releases were evaluated and some changes were made to

the SNWW projections based on the 2009 forecast releases. The effects of recent forecasts not

incorporated into the base analysis are addressed in the sensitivity analysis.

4.1 REVIEW OF PETROLEUM FORECASTS

Table 52 presents the current range of U.S. crude petroleum import forecasts outlined in the AEO2008,

AEO2009 and AEO2010. The forecasts presented include the AEO 2008 (January 2008), AEO2009

(March 2009), AEO2010 (May 2010) Global Insight, and Purvin and Gertz’s. The AEO2010 data was

received late in the report preparation process; therefore, discussion of it is not included in the text. The

AEO2009 forecast shows U.S. crude oil imports declining at an annual rate of approximately –2.0 percent

between 2007 and 2030. The AEO2009 forecast reflects the effect of the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009 in February 2009 and shows U.S. demand for liquid fuels growing by only

1 million BPD between 2007 and 2030 and shows no growth in oil consumption over the forecast period.

Oil use is curbed due to the combined effects of a rebounding oil price, more-stringent corporate average

fuel economy standards, and requirements for the increased use of renewable fuels. A key difference

between the AEO and Global Insight forecasts is that the relative percentage crude oil and petroleum

imports reflects higher volumes of products than the Global Insight forecast. Comparison of the relative

distributions of U.S. and SNWW imports between crude oil and refined products shows that SNWW’s

472
96

distribution reflects a significantly higher relative percentage of crude oil than products. Table 53 displays

distributions of SNWW and U.S. relative percentages of crude petroleum versus refined products.

Comparison of the SNWW and U.S. distributions shows that SNWW receives a significantly higher share

of crude petroleum than the Nation as a whole. As a major refinery center, the SNWW distribution shown

in Table 53 is expected to continue without- and with-project future conditions.

Table 52

U.S. Crude Oil Imports Comparative Projections

(Millions of Barrels Per Day)

Year

AEO Reference

AEO

2010

Low

Price

Purvin & Gertz Global Insight

2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010

2007 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 n/a 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

2015 10.2 8.1 8.9 10.1 n/a n/a 11.8 12.0 11.1 9.7

2025 11.0 6.7 8.7 11.7 n/a 12.4 12.3 13.7 12.1 10.6

2030 11.9 7.0 8.7 12.7 n/a 12.7 n/a 14.5 12.5 11.7

2035 n/a n/a 8.7 13.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.9 n/a

Source: USDOE, AEO2008, 2008, and 2010. Global Insight 2035 forecast value was obtained from nonpublished back-up data obtained from Global Insight.

Table 53

U.S. and SNWW Distribution of Crude Oil and Petroleum Imports

Relative Percentage of Crude Petroleum Imports Versus Refined Products

U.S. Import Distribution SNWW Import Distribution

Year Crude Oil Petroleum Products Crude Oil Petroleum Products

1990 74 26 90 10

1995 82 18 95 5

2000 79 21 93 7

2001 79 21 93 7

2002 79 21 92 8

2003 79 21 92 8

2004 76 24 94 6

2005 74 26 94 6

2006 74 26 94 6

2007 75 25 94 6

Source: Global Insight and USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., 1990–2007.

Another major difference between AEO and Global Insight is that the EIA reference forecast reflects

higher domestic crude oil production throughout the projection period. Additionally, the EIA shows

domestic production increasing rapidly instead of gradually. As noted on the EIA website, their forecast

not only shows higher domestic production, it also shows rapid increase in domestic production.

473
97

In spite of differences in the relative distribution of crude oil versus products, analysis of the national and

regional crude petroleum import volumes showed a high degree of correlation between study area and

U.S. tonnage levels. The high correlation rates suggested that application of U.S. forecast trends to the

study area is generally appropriate (Section 2); evaluations also showed that SNWW’s overall rate of

growth is higher than for the U.S. and Gulf Coast (see Table 8). Continuation of historical trends suggests

that SNWW crude petroleum imports would grow at higher rates than the region (PADD III) and the

Nation. Refineries in PADD III provide significant product supply to both the East Coast and Midwest.

For example, about 60 percent of all gasoline produced in PADD III refineries is moved to other regions

for consumption. In 2008, nearly half of the gasoline consumed in the East Coast region (PADD I)–about

1.6 million BPD–was supplied from PADD III. PADD III refineries supplied about 18 percent or

approximately 0.5 million BPD of gasoline consumed in the Midwest (PADD II). PADD III also supplies

a small amount of gasoline to the West Coast region (PADD V), mainly Arizona. Most of the gasoline

volume moved from PADD III to those regions travels by pipeline (80 percent by pipeline into PADD I,

90 percent into PADD II, and virtually all into PADD V).

The historical trendline and anticipated 2012 completion of the 325,000 barrel per day crude petroleum

refinery capacity in Port Arthur suggests that downward growth rate reflected in the AEO2009 forecast

does not characterize SNWW’s future. The Port Arthur and Beaumont terminals transport 400,000 BPD

of waterborne crude oil via pipelines to inland refineries including refineries in Texas, Louisiana,

Oklahoma, Ohio, Arkansas, and Kentucky.33 The SNWW refineries supply 15 percent of the product on

Colonial’s system and 13 percent of the product on Explorer’s system (see Figure 10). SNWW’s capacity

represents 6 percent of the U.S. total. Specific capacity is 572,000 BPD for Port Arthur and 577,000 BPD

for Beaumont. SNWW capacity levels for 2009 are presently 12 percent higher than in 2004, and 31

percent higher than in 1994. The Motiva expansion of 600,000 BPD will result in a 52 percent increase in

SNWW refinery capacity from the current volume of 1,149,000 BPD to 1,749,000 BPD. The Motiva

expansion will make it the largest refinery in the U.S. and one of the largest in the world.

SNWW’s crude oil imports were prepared using the Global Insight forecast shown in Table 52. The

Global Insight’s forecast reflects continuous increases in refinery processing gains through 2035.

Refinery gains, which are measured by the differences in volumetric gains and are reflected by total

outputs greater than input due to the processing of crude into products, were significant over the last

12 years (Figure 26). Review of the data presented on Figure 26 shows a maximum processing gain of

1.05 million BPD in 2004. Global Insight forecast of refinery gains exceed historical levels by

approximately 5 percent in 2019 and 15 percent by 2030.

Other considerations in forecasting include the geographical source of imports or the use of oceangoing

vessels versus pipeline, and, as noted, the share of conventional versus nonconventional liquids. Both the

AEO and Global Insight project increases in nonconventional energy production and trade. SNWW

33Martin Associates. 2006. Economic Impacts of the Sabine-Neches Waterway and Economic Benefits of Maintenance Dredging of the

Waterway. Martin Associates, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

474
98

presently receives some conventional Canadian crude by vessel and through existing pipelines; however,

annual volumes are low due to pipeline limitations and market logistics that favor other locations.

Figure 26

U.S. Refinery Processing Gains

1994–2006 Data

0.750

0.800

0.850

0.900

0.950

1.000

1.050

1.100

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Refinery Processing Gains (Million Barrels Per Day)

Source: Global Insight, 1994–2007.

Canadian crude oil has historically been consumed in five market areas that include Ontario, British

Columbia, Washington State, U.S. Rocky Mountains, and U.S. Midwest. 34 The TransCanada Corporation

is in the process obtaining permits for expansion to the Keystone Pipeline System. While the system that

stretches from Alberta, Canada, to Cushing, Oklahoma, is completed, an additional extension from

Cushing to the U.S. Gulf Coast is under evaluation. Financial commitments for the extensions to the

Texas Gulf Coast are not expected before 2011.35

4.2 SNWW CRUDE PETROLEUM FORECAST APPLICATION

Identification of the specific range of import volumes was estimated by incorporating the forecast

volumes into a regression equation using SNWW imports as a function of U.S. imports. Table 54 displays

SNWW’s regression equation application using the Global Insight forecast results shown in Table 52. The

equation is based on 1990–2007 data. An R Square of 0.903 was produced from the equation. The t-value

and F statistic for the equation are significant at statistical confidence levels exceeding 99.999 percent.

The resulting application shown in Table 54 includes the application of one standard deviation from the

mean. The mean values range from 86,639 thousand short tons in 2019 to 101,016 thousand short tons in

2035. The band associated with the standard deviation produces import estimates of plus and minus

34 Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, “Crude Oil Pipeline Forecast, Markets, and Pipeline Expansions, June 2007 Expansion

Project Summary Report,” February 2005, reference to the Muse, Stancil and Company Report.

35 March 2008 RebObit News Article.

475
99

approximately 41 percent, which produces a 2035 minimum of 60,218 thousand and a maximum of

141,813 thousand sort tons, with 101,016 thousand representing the mean.

Table 54

1990–2007 Regression Equation Data for

SNWW Crude Oil Imports

Component Description of Data and Outputs

Dependent Variable SNWW Crude Imports (1990–2007)

Independent Variable U.S. Crude Imports

Adjusted R Square 0.903

No. of Observations 17

Degrees of Freedom 1

F Statistic 150.02

Significance of F statistic and t values 0.9999

Regression Equation Data

Base Application of Standard Deviation

Output Minus 1 Plus 1

Constant –41677.6 –57644.2 –25711

Standard Error of Y Estimate 5456.66 5456.66 5456.66

X Coefficient: U. S. Crude Oil Imports 0.2009 0.1660 0.2360

SNWW (1,000s of Short Tons) 2003–2007

Historical U.S. Base Application of Standard Deviation

Year Imports Actual Estimate Minus 1 Plus 1

2003 528,703 70,158 70,158 30,128 99,045

2004 553,337 69,875 69,875 34,218 104,858

2005 553,923 59,691 59,691 34,315 104,996

2006 553,489 57,615 57,615 34,243 104,894

2007 547,958 56,088 58,110 33,324 103,588

SNWW Regression Based Forecast a/

Forecast

Year

U.S.

Imports

Base

Estimate

Application of Standard Deviation

Minus 1 Plus 1

2015 614,522 81,835 44,375 119,295

2019 638,425 86,639 48,343 124,936

2030 689,959 96,997 56,899 137,096

2035 709,951 101,016 60,218 141,813

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. 2003–2007 and USDA, EIA, Presentation of Global Insight Forecast,

USDOE/EIA-0383(2009), Table 20, Comparison of Liquids Projections.

a/ SNWW 2019 Imports = –41677.6 + (0.5456.66 * 638,425) with 638,425 short tons being U.S. imports in 2019.

The SNWW regression equation results presented in Table 54 reflect the inclusion of several variables

that reduce future estimated volumes. One variable is the effect of Hurricane Rita. Declines in 2005–2007

imports are largely attributable to supply disruptions associated with Hurricane Rita, which devastated the

SNWW region in September 2005. The hurricane surge resulting from Rita resulted in sand bars at the

offshore Entrance Channel and silting of the Neches River Channel to Beaumont. Silting of the Neches

River Channel severely limited transit of the upper reaches for several months and resulted in tonnage

diversions to other ports due to loaded-draft limitations. The effect of shoals in the Entrance Channel and

476
100

silt deposits in the Neches River due to the hurricane surge had a particularly strong effect on crude

petroleum traffic due to the use of large heavily loaded vessels. Comparison of SNWW crude petroleum

tonnage with comparable ports is shown on Figure 27. The figure helps to illustrate the effect on shortterm trends and resulting changes in the distribution of imports.

Figure 27

SNWW and Other Texas Ports

Crude Petroleum Imports (1,000s of short tons)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Other Texas SNWW

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., 2005–2007, unpublished data.

Based on concerns from SNWW industry interests, the effect of excluding 2005–2007 data was

examined. The results of excluding 2005–2007 produces a higher volume of long-term imports and

reduces the standard error associated with the Y estimate (Table 55). The mean values range from 94,229

thousand short tons in 2019 to 110,765 thousand short tons in 2035. The band associated with the

standard deviation produces import estimates of plus and minus approximately 21 percent.

Figure 28 displays the regression estimate associated with equations using SNWW imports as a function

of U.S. imports. Figure 29 displays 1990–2004 actual imports and the statistical estimated, including the

95 percentile confidence interval. Excluding 2005–2007 from the regression based forecast helps to

account for the short-term effects of Hurricane Rita; however, there are other variables that are likely to

result in higher future import volumes than the 1990–2004 based regression equation would suggest. The

key variable that cannot be measured accounted for in regression is refinery capacity expansions.

Construction on the 325,000 BPD crude petroleum refinery capacity in Port Arthur is expected to be

completed in the first quarter of 2012. This addition will result in a 28 percent increase in SNWW

refinery capacity from the current volume of 1,149,000 BPD to 1,473,000 BPD.

477
101

Table 55

1990–2004 Regression Equation Data for

SNWW Crude Oil Imports

Component Description of Data and Outputs

Dependent Variable SNWW Crude Imports (1990–2004)

Independent Variable U.S. Crude Imports

Adjusted R Square 0.9784

No. of Observations 15

Degrees of Freedom 1

F Statistic 633.52

Significance of F statistic and t values 0.9999

Regression Equation Data

Base Application of Standard Deviation

Output Minus 1 Plus 1

Constant –53,360.3 –62,129.2 –44,591.4

Standard Error of Y Estimate 2,691.57 2,691.57 2,691.57

X Coefficient: U. S. Crude Oil Imports 0.2312 0.2114 0.2510

SNWW (1,000s of Short Tons) 2003–2007

Historical U.S. Base Application of Standard Deviation

Year Imports Actual Estimate Minus 1 Plus 1

2003 528,703 70,158 68,864 49,605 88,124

2004 553,337 69,875 74,559 54,811 94,307

2005 553,923 59,691 74,694 54,934 94,454

2006 553,489 57,616 74,594 54,843 94,346

2007 547,958 56,088 73,315 53,674 92,957

SNWW Regression Based Forecast a/

Forecast

Year U.S. Imports Base Estimate

Application of Standard Deviation

Minus 1 Plus 1

2015 614,522 88,704 67,741 109,666

2019 638,425 94,229 72,793 115,666

2030 689,959 106,143 83,684 128,602

2035 709,951 110,765 87,909 133,621

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. 2003–2007 and USDOE, EIA, Presentation of Global Insight Forecast,

USDOE/EIA-0383(2009), Table 20, Comparison of Liquids Projections.

a/ SNWW 2019 Imports = –53360.3 + (0.2312 * 638,425) with 638,425 short tons being U.S. imports in 2019.

478
102

Figure 28

SNWW and U.S. Crude Petroleum Imports, 1990–2004

1,000s of Short Tons

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000

X Variable = U.S. Imports

Y =SNWW Imports

Y

Predicted Y

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1990–2006 and EIA (2008).

Figure 29

SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports Projected and Actual Volumes (1,000s of Short Tons)

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Projected Volume Lower 95 Percentile Upper 95 Percentile SNWW Actual Imports

479
103

Other forecasting methods considered include trendline estimates. Table 56 presents the outputs of

trendline estimates using 1980–2004 and 1990–2007 input data. As shown in Table 56, the mean values

associated with the base are reasonable but the range of the 95 percentile confidence interval does not

produce meaningful results.

Table 56

SNWW Trendline Equation Output

SNWW 1980–2007 and 1990–2007 Crude Oil Imports as a Function of Time

Base Period 1980–2007 1990–2007

Adjusted R Square 0.7903 0.7673

No. Observations 28 18

Constant –4,253,310 –5,623,692

X Coefficient Value 2,153 2,839

F Statistic 102.81 57.061

t-value –10.14 –7.484

Standard Error of Y 9,075.98 8,271.30

95 Percentile Confidence Level Associated with Constant and X Coefficient

Lower 95% Constant –5,123,406 –7,215,714

Lower 95% X Coefficient Value 1,717 2,041

Upper 95% Constant –3,383,213 –4,031,670

Upper 95% X Coefficient Value 2,589 3,635

1980–2007 Trendline

SNWW Imports (1,000s of Short Ton)

1990–2007 Trendline

SNWW Imports (1,000s of Short Ton)

Base Standard Deviation Application Base Standard Deviation Application

Year Estimate Minus 1 Plus 1 Estimate Minus 1 Plus 1

2003 59,220 –1,685,113 1,803,553 61,931 –3,125,692 3,249,555

2004 61,373 –1,683,397 1,806,142 64,770 –3,123,650 3,253,190

2005 63,526 –1,681,680 1,808,732 67,609 –3,121,608 3,256,825

2006 65,679 –1,679,963 1,811,321 70,447 –3,119,566 3,260,461

2007 67,832 –1,678,247 1,813,911 73,286 –3,117,524 3,264,096

2015 85,056 –1,664,514 1,834,627 95,994 –3,101,189 3,293,177

2019 93,668 –1,657,648 1,844,985 107,348 –3,093,021 3,307,718

2030 117,352 –1,638,766 1,873,469 138,572 –3,070,560 3,347,704

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1980–2007.

Figure 30 displays comparison of the AEO2008, AEO2009, Global Insight, Purvin and Gertz, and 1980-

and 1990–2007 trendline SNWW projection estimates. Comparison of the slopes associated with the

SNWW’s 1980–2000 base data illustrates higher historical rate of growth for most years. The

presentation shows that application of the AEO2009 forecast produces declining imports for 2010–2030.

The other forecasts presented on Figure 25 show a range of increasing import volumes. SNWW high

growth between 1990 and 2004 strongly affects SNWW’s future trendline. The Global Insight import

estimates shown on Figure 30 correspond to the regression outputs shown in Table 55; these volumes

were used for the base case. Sensitivity analyses were performed based on the AEO2009 forecast.

480
104

Figure 30

SNWW Crude Petroleum Import Forecast Comparisons

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

SNWW AEO2008 SNWW AEO2009 Global Insight

Purvin & Gertz 1990-2007 Trendline 1980-2007 Trendline

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, 1980–2006, Global Insight (2008), and EIA (2008).

Additional equations were calculated based on the inclusion of year in combination with the AEO2008,

AEO2009, Global Insight, and Purvin and Gertz import forecasts. Those equations produced adjusted R

squared values in the 85 to 90 percent range; however, they exhibited higher ranges of variances than the

trendline output shown in Table 55. Other variables evaluated included world petroleum production.

These variables performed poorly individually and in combination with U.S. imports and refinery

capacity variables. It was concluded that U.S. crude oil imports by itself performed better statistically than

any other single variable or combination of variables. Table 57 presents the SNWW crude petroleum

import forecast.

481
105

Table 57

SNWW Crude Oil Imports, 2002/2004 to 2069

(1,000s of Short Tons)

Trade Route

2002–2004

Average 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

Beaumont

Canada 1,110 1,764 2,257 2,436 2,485 2,536 2,587

Mexico 15,034 8,057 8,961 9,514 9,708 9,905 10,105

Central and South America 7,556 12,963 14,416 15,307 15,619 15,937 16,258

Western South America 123 683 762 808 822 839 878

Europe and Africa 8,862 30,253 33,741 35,779 36,436 37,156 38,887

Middle East 25,782 28,305 31,569 33,476 34,090 34,764 36,383

Total 58,467 81,980 91,463 97,152 99,136 101,149 103,189

Port Arthur

Canada 2 136 158 168 172 175 179

Mexico 8,348 1,217 1,357 1,441 1,471 1,501 1,531

Central and South America 362 1,955 2,179 2,311 2,353 2,400 2,513

Western South America 95 103 115 122 125 127 130

Europe and Africa 474 4,565 5,091 5,407 5,518 5,630 5,743

Middle East 1,057 4,271 4,763 5,059 5,163 5,267 5,374

Total 10,338 12,248 13,663 14,509 14,800 15,100 15,469

SNWW Total Crude Petroleum Imports

Canada 1,112 1,838 2,086 2,377 2,623 2,728 179

Mexico 23,382 9,281 10,351 10,978 11,183 11,404 11,896

Central and South America 7,918 15,715 17,525 18,584 18,925 19,299 20,196

Western South America 218 785 874 928 947 966 986

Europe and Africa 9,336 34,818 38,832 41,187 41,954 42,786 44,630

Middle East 26,839 32,576 36,332 38,535 39,253 40,031 41,757

Total 68,587 94,229 105,126 111,661 113,937 116,248 118,659

Total Tonnage Used for the Benefit

Calculations

89,052 99,282 105,139 106,899 108,967 116,347

482
106

4.3 PETROLEUM PRODUCT IMPORTS

Forecast of SNWW petroleum product imports and exports is based on analysis of regional data and

national trends. Large increases for U.S. imports of gasoline and distillate occurred over the last 16 years,

with the SNWW generally experiencing comparable or greater increases. For instance, SNWW 2004–

2006 average distillate import volume of 1,668,000 short tons is 1800 higher than 1990–1992 levels.

SNWW distillate imports presently make up 3.1 percent of the U.S. distillate import total. SNWW

gasoline imports averaged 11,000 short tons for 1990–1992, with the 2004–2006 average increased to

1,696,000 short tons. Table 58 displays U.S. and SNWW 1994/1996 and 2004/2006 average import

volumes by major commodity group. Inclusion of 2007 data reduces SNWW’s most recent 3-year

average to 4,202 thousand short tons from the 2004–2006 average of 5,057 thousand short tons shown in

Table 58. In spite of downturns in 2007, SNWW experienced significant overall increases in gasoline and

distillate imports (see Table 13). Inclusion of 2007 data reduces the 2004–2006 U.S. average by

approximately 1 percent.

Table 58

U.S. and SNWW Petroleum Product Imports

1994/1996 and 2004/2006 Averages

1,000s of Short Tons

U.S. Petroleum Product Imports SNWW Petroleum Product Imports

Product 1994–1996 2004–2006

Average

Annual

Growth (%) 1994–1996 2004–2006

Average

Annual

Growth (%)

Gasoline 15,459 59,343 14.4 72 1,696 37.2

Kerosene 4,120 1,657 –8.7 0 0 –

Naphtha 12,445 7,912 –4.4 203 581 11.1

Distillate Fuel Oil 14,188 53,408 14.2 127 1,668 29.4

Residual Fuel Oil 30,025 12,478 –8.4 70 628 24.5

Lube Oil 9,453 3,776 –8.8 764 247 –10.7

Petroleum Coke 1,935 5,127 10.2 179 235 2.8

LNG 4,212 19,125 16.3 126 3 –31.2

Other – – – 4 0 –

Total 91,836 162,828 5.9 1,544 5,057 12.6

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Parts 2 and 5, 1990–2006.

While SNWW 2002–2007 product imports are at historical highs, overall U.S. product imports are

projected to decline from 2010–2030. Table 59 shows comparison of the AEO2008 projections with

Global Insight’s forecast. The Global Insight forecast shows product imports increasing after 2030.

483
107

Table 59

Comparison of AEO2008 and Global Insight Forecasts

U.S. Net Petroleum Product Imports

(1,000s of Barrels Per Day)

Year U.S. Net Petroleum Product Imports 2003–2007

2003 2,599

2004 3,137

2005 3,588

2006 3,589

2007 3,422

U.S. Net Petroleum Product Imports 2010–2035

Global Insight AEO2009

2010 2,682.1 3,106.2

2015 2,356.5 2,585.6

2019 2,114.4 2,367.5

2020 1,869.6 2,103.2

2025 2,201.2 1,946.9

2029 2,321.8 2,213.4

2030 2,321.8 2,213.4

2034 3,074.6 n/a

2035 3,300.0 n/a

Average Annual Growth Rates

2003/2007 to 2030 –1.3% –1.5%

2003/2007 to 2035 0.03% n/a

Source: EIA/Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2009), March 2009 and Global Insight,

October 2007.

4.4 FUEL OIL IMPORTS

Comparison of the national and regional fuel oil volumes shows some correlation between study area and

U.S. product imports. While total product volumes are correlated with the U.S. levels, the specific

correlations with SNWW’s distillate and residual fuel oils are weaker. Regional growth for distillate and

residual fuel is considerably higher than the U.S. rates. While the EIA notes in earlier publications that

structural shifts occurred over the last few decades in the mix of products and that residual fuel oil

imports are projected to decline and be replaced by unfinished gasoline and gasoline blending

components, analyses conducted for the current SNWW waterway study show that PADD III residual

fuel imports have continued to increase. Table 60 presents SNWW 1990–2006 residual and distillate fuel

imports and the region’s respective shares. Current indications suggest that PADD III and SNWW

waterborne imports of distillate, which is a light product, will increase some in the future.

484
108

Table 60

Comparison of SNWW and Regional and National Totals

Petroleum Product Imports

(1,000s of short tons)

Year

SNWW

Distillate

Imports

U.S.

Distillate

Imports

SNWW

Distillate %

of U.S.

SNWW

Residual

Imports

U.S. Residual

Imports

SNWW

Residual %

of U.S.

1990 74 13,644 0.5 1,035 41,502 2.5

1995 12 12,915 0.1 72 25,914 0.3

1998 102 23,291 0.4 57 35,327 0.2

1999 230 25,781 0.9 49 35,229 0.1

2000 1,047 21,111 5.0 319 40,361 0.8

2001 572 20,589 2.8 25 40,891 0.1

2002 566 19,936 2.8 541 35,411 1.5

2003 1,337 29,115 4.6 56 31,330 0.2

2004 2,008 53,876 3.7 728 13,955 5.2

2005 1,728 52,679 3.3 804 13,757 5.8

2006 1,268 53,670 2.4 351 9,723 3.6

2007 1,872 55,627 3.4 355 10,771 3.3

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Parts 2 and 5, 1990–2007.

Figure 31 shows total U.S. distillate imports for 1990–2007, and Figure 32 presents a comparison of U.S.

waterborne distillate imports with SNWW volumes. Comparisons of U.S. and SNWW residual fuel oil

imports are shown on figures 33 and 34. Figure 31 includes waterborne and land route imports. As noted,

Table 60 is limited to waterborne movements, and does not include Canadian products transported by

pipeline, rail, or truck.36 Overall, analyses of the EIA databases showed that approximately 16 percent of

2004–2006 U.S. product imports are from Canada.

36 Unless otherwise noted, tables and figures only include waterborne traffic.

485
109

Figure 31

U.S. Imports of Distillate Fuel

Waterborne and Land Routes, 1990–2007

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

U.S. Distillate Imports (1,000's of Barrels)

Figure 32

U.S. and SNWW Distillate Fuel Imports, 1990–2007 (Waterborne Routes Only)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

U.S. Distillate Imports (Short Tons/10,000)

SNWW Distillate Imports (Short Tons*100)

486
110

Figure 33

U.S. Imports of Residual Fuel,

Waterborne and Land Routes 1990–2007

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

U.S. Residual Imports (1,000's of Barrels)

Figure 34

U.S. and SNWW Residual Fuel Imports 1990–2007 (Waterborne Routes Only)

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

U.S. Residual Imports (Short Tons/10,000)

SNWW Residual Imports (1,000's of Short Tons)

487
111

The percentage of U.S. petroleum products imported from Canada increased by 74 percent from

1994/1996 to 2004/2006. The EIA shows Canadian production of conventional fuel declining relative to

its oil sand production. Historically, imports of products from Canada to the SNWW ports are low due to

the relatively longer distances compared to other markets in the Midwest and the East Coast. Expectations

about expansion of Canadian crude and products to the Gulf Coast are uncertain, but recognizably could

significantly affect SNWW’s tonnage forecast. PADD III imports of Canadian petroleum products

decreased by 8 percent over the same period.

The AEO2008 is forecasting that 2006–2030 imports of “blending components” decrease by –1.1 percent.

Blending components include oxygenates, but consist mainly of products that could be classified as

finished gasoline in other jurisdictions or products that require little additional blending to be classified as

finished gasoline. For purposes of the waterborne commerce classification, blending components are

classified as gasoline. Distillate is contained in the EIA classification of “unfinished oils.” Unfinished or

light oils are produced by partial refining of crude oil and include naphtha and lighter oils, kerosene and

light gas oils, heavy gas oils, and residuum. Based on direct application of AEO and Global Insight

anticipated trends, residual SNWW imports could decline; however, due to its use as an input in the

refining process and for the production of specialized products, anticipated regional declines, if any, will

be less than for the Nation. At the same time it is recognized that petroleum products contribute to a

significantly smaller percentage of total petroleum imports (see Table 53) Comparison of 2002–2007 U.S.

and PADD III residual fuel imports shown in Table 61 illustrates that while both U.S. and regional

imports grew in 2007, regional growth was considerably higher. The presentation shows that PADD III

residual fuel imports increased at significantly higher rates than the U.S. and East Coast rates. The East

Coast is contained in PADD II and is presented here to illustrate its large market share and its weighted

effect on national averages.

Light products and unfinished oils, including gasoline, naphtha, distillate, and, liquefied natural gas, are

projected to increase at higher rates than heavy products. The EIA definition of unfinished oils includes

light products. While imports of heavy products such as residual fuel oil are projected to decline and be

replaced by unfinished gasoline and gasoline blending components, the market for residual may remain

relatively high for SNWW and other Texas refinery centers that process heavy, or high-sulfur, crude

petroleum. Texas Gulf Coast oil company transportation analysts verified that an increase in refined

product imports would be necessary to meet processing needs and associated demand with growing

imports for both light and heavy products. The Gulf Coast imports a significant amount of feedstock to

support its role as the main U.S. refining and petrochemical center. The AEO forecast shows low growth

for unfinished product imports, with an average annual growth rate of 0.1 percent from 2006 to 2030.

Again, expectations are for slightly higher regional growth of unfinished products imports. An additional

item worth noting is that the current U.S. volume of 0.69 million BPD represents an estimated 41 percent

increase of the 2004 volume and, therefore, provides a significantly higher base level for the forecast

application.

488
112

Table 61

U.S. Residual Fuel Imports, 2002–2007

1,000s of Barrels

Year

Total U.S. Imports of

Residual Fuel Oil

Imports

U.S. Imports of

Residual Fuel Oil

with Less than

0.31% Sulfur

U.S. Imports of

Residual Fuel Oil

with 0.31 to

1.00% Sulfur

U.S. Imports of

Residual Fuel Oil

with Greater than

1.00% Sulfur

2002 90,896 15,617 19,135 56,144

2003 119,496 18,174 36,429 64,893

2004 156,024 32,563 51,347 72,114

2005 193,294 33,824 63,872 95,598

2006 127,761 11,541 28,740 87,480

2007 135,545 16,700 32,642 86,203

AAG a/ 8.3% 1.4% 11.3% 9.0%

PADD II (U.S. East Coast)

2002 70,422 12,646 17,514 40,262

2003 95,382 14,658 30,682 50,042

2004 122,133 24,605 42,943 54,585

2005 147,101 28,365 48,879 69,857

2006 88,161 6,275 21,403 60,483

2007 77,974 11,986 14,645 51,343

AAG a/ 2.1% -1.1% -3.5% 5.0%

PADD III Imports (U.S. Gulf Coast)

2002 6,717 1,664 901 4,152

2003 9,673 1,775 3,702 4,196

2004 19,526 5,414 6,352 7,760

2005 28,489 2,870 12,627 12,992

2006 20,452 2,183 5,002 13,267

2007 42,486 4,227 15,038 23,221

AAG a/ 44.6% 20.5% 75.6% 41.1%

Source: Compiled from the EIA web data. 2008.

a/ Average annual growth rate (AAG).

Comparison of 2002–2007 U.S. distillate imports with PADD volumes show that while both U.S. and

regional imports grew in 2007, growth for the U.S. Gulf Coast, as represented by PADD III, was

considerably higher. Again, the variance in regional growth rates can be seen based on the data presented

in Table 62. The presentation shows that distillate imports for PADD III increased relative to U.S. and

East Coast rates.

SNWW fuel oil import forecasts are based on the assumption that the region will maintain its recent

historical share of the U.S. market with imports increasing. Forecasts were prepared for distillate, residual

489
113

and gasoline imports. As shown in Table 62, the U.S. 2002–2007 average annual growth rate of 2.4

percent compares to the PADD III recent historical rate of 71.6 percent.

Table 62

U.S. Distillate Fuel Imports, 2002–2007

1,000s of Barrels

Year

Total U.S. Imports

Distillate Fuel Oil

Imports

U.S. Imports of Distillate Fuel

Oil with Less Than 500 ppm

Sulfur a/

U.S. Imports of Distillate Fuel

Oil with Greater Than 500 ppm

Sulfur a/

2002 97,603 38,945 58,658

2003 121,672 49,400 72,272

2004 119,118 54,266 64,852

2005 120,009 56,793 63,216

2006 133,126 68,847 64,279

2007 109,875 67,313 42,562

AAG 2.4% 11.6% -6.2%

PADD II (U.S. East Coast)

2002 90,092 32,387 57,705

2003 112,903 42,115 70,788

2004 102,512 41,464 61,048

2005 106,151 45,981 60,759

2006 109,232 50,320 58,912

2007 84,539 47,933 35,606

AAG –1.3% 8.2% –9.2%

PADD III Imports (U.S. Gulf Coast)

2002 594 490 104

2003 924 332 592

2004 4,043 2,045 1,998

2005 4,130 3,484 646

2006 6,672 4,549 2,023

2007 8,848 2,866 5,982

AAG 71.6% 42.4% 124.9%

Source: compiled from the EIA web data. 2008.

a/ Parts per million (ppm).

Table 63 displays SNWW distillate fuel oil import forecast. Comparison of SNWW 1994–1996 and

2004–2006 rates with those for the Nation showed that the region historically experienced higher growth

rates than the Nation. A 1 percent growth rate was used for 2019–2069. While recognizably subject to

uncertainty, the SNWW increases represent a new market, and short-term higher growth is anticipated.

The effects of this uncertainty were evaluated in the sensitivity section of the Final Feasibility Report and

are discussed in the risk section of this report. Figure 35 shows the SNWW forecast applications.

490
114

SNWW’s low growth scenario assumes that regional distillate import growth will be comparable to the

U.S. import rate. The scenario used for the benefit calculations was prepared using the expectation that

the average annual growth rate for SNWW distillate imports would increase at approximately 1 percent

annually through 2069. This forecast is included in the third column in Table 63.

Table 63

SNWW 2004/2006 to 2069 Distillate Fuel Oil Imports

(1,000s of Short Tons)

Year Base Line Trendline 1% Growth Rate Low Growth Sensitivity

2004–2006 1,668 1,668 1,668

2006 1,268 1,268 1,268

2007 1,872 1,872 1,872

2010 1,878 1,668 1,227

2015 2,486 1,753 1,235

2019 3,022 1,896 1,188

2020 3,095 1,918 1,178

2025 3,484 2,036 1,140

2029 3,831 2,136 1,254

2030 3,923 2,240 1,289

2039 4,973 2,524 1,289

2049 6,304 2,844 1,289

2059 6,963 3,204 1,289

2069 7,692 3,610 1,289

2004/2006–2019 4.3% 0.9% –2.4%

2004/20006–2069 2.4% 1.2% –0.4%

491
115

Figure 35

SNWW Distillate Imports 2000–2030

(1,000s of Short Tons)

Comparison of AEO2008 U.S. Forecast and SNWW Applications

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

U.S. Distillate Imports (Short Tons/10,000)

SNWW Distillate Imports Trendline Forecast (1,000's of Short Tons)

SNWW Distillate Imports 1% Forecast (1,000's of Short Tons)

SNWW Distillate Imports Low Growth

Table 64 displays SNWW residual fuel oil import forecast. Due to uncertainty associated with residual

imports, SNWW residual fuel import forecasts were assumed to grow at 1 percent annually between

2004/06 and 2069. While specific residual fuel import forecasts are not published by the EIA or Global

Insight, Global Insight publishes a residual and distillate demand forecast. The growth rates associated

with Global Insight’s demand forecasts were considered, along with SNWW distillate and residual import

tonnage, in estimating future imports. Table 65 summarizes Global Insight’s residual and distillate fuel

demand forecasts.

492
116

Table 64

SNWW 2004/2006 to 2069 Residual Fuel Oil Import Forecast

(1,000s of Short Tons)

Year Base Line No Growth Sensitivity

2004–2006 628 628

2010 660 628

2015 693 628

2019 664 628

2020 672 628

2025 714 628

2029 750 628

2030 760 628

2038 838 628

2039 848 628

2049 958 628

2059 1,083 628

2069 1,223 628

2004/2006–2019 0.4% 0.0%

2004/2006–2069 1.0% 0.0%

Table 65

Global Insight U.S. Residual and Distillate Fuel Oil Import Demand Forecasts

(1,000s barrels per day)

Residual Fuel Oil Distillate Fuel Oil

Year Industrial Commercial Power Generation Industrial Commercial Power Generation

2000 13.29 0.00 8.28 245.27 40.61 36.81

2004 21.93 0.39 32.75 224.62 20.77 1.9

2005 40.93 0.34 16.2 235.31 25.98 5.6

2006 39.91 0.33 2.81 237.54 24.71 3.91

2010 40.84 0.34 9.48 242.1 25.58 13.09

2015 41.44 0.34 8.82 247.41 25.37 12.19

2020 42.17 0.33 8.19 251.95 25.14 11.31

2025 42.36 0.33 8.03 253.1 25.14 11.09

2030 43.30 0.33 7.25 258.92 25.21 10.02

2004/2006 to 2030 Average Annual Growth Rates

0.9% –0.3% –3.4% 0.4% 0.2% 4.0%

Source: Global Insight, The U.S. Economy, The 30-Year Focus, First Quarter 2008.

4.5 GASOLINE IMPORTS

SNWW gasoline imports increased significantly since the early 1990s, with current volumes exceeding

1.6 million short tons. SNWW gasoline imports presently compose approximately 3 percent of the U.S.

493
117

total waterborne gasoline imports. For the most recent 10-year period, approximately 90 percent of

SNWW gasoline imports were shipped to Beaumont, with the remaining 10 percent to Port Arthur. Figure

36 presents a comparison of U.S. 2000–2006 gasoline imports with combined Beaumont and Port Arthur

imports.

While U.S. gasoline imports have also increased dramatically, the EIA shows reductions in U.S. imports

of gasoline blending components from 2006 to 2030. Increases in U.S. refinery capacity may be

contributing to expected decline in the need for U.S. gasoline imports by allowing for increased domestic

production. Over 98 percent of SNWW gasoline imports arrive by ship. In comparison, over 75 percent

Midwest gasoline imports are transported by land from Canada. Canadian imports to the U.S. increased

from 7 percent for 1994–1996 to 13 percent for 2004–2006.

Figure 36

U.S. and SNWW Waterborne Gasoline Imports and SNWW Gasoline Imports

(1,000s of Short Tons)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

U.S. Gasoline Imports (Short Tons/100,000)

SNWW Gasoline Imports (1,000's of Short Tons)

SNWW gasoline imports are expected to increase at slower rates than those recently experienced and,

while future expectations are subject to a high level of uncertainty, regional imports forecasted to increase

for the SNWW base scenario. The base scenario assumes that SNWW gasoline imports will grow at 1

percent annually from 2006 to 2069. Table 66 presents SNWW 2004–2069 gasoline import forecast.

SNWW gasoline import forecast was assumed to grow at approximately 1 percent annually between

2004/06 and 2069. In its December 2007 report to Congress, the GAO37 notes petroleum is a key impetus

for growth in global trade in petroleum products and that there has been a structural surplus in production

37 United States Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO report number GAO-08-14 entitled

'Energy Markets: Increasing Globalization of Petroleum Products Markets, Tightening Refining Demand and Supply Balance, and Other

Trends Have Implications for U.S. Energy Supply, Prices, and Price Volatility' released January 18, 2008.

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d0814.html.

494
118

of gasoline and a deficit in production of diesel in Europe. They note that the surplus of gasoline is largely

the result of a “systematic switch” in European countries toward automobiles with diesel-powered

engines, which are more efficient than gasoline-powered engines. European regulators promoted diesel

fuel use in Europe by taxing diesel at a lower rate, and European demand for diesel fuel-powered vehicles

rose. The European refining and marketing sector responded to this change in demand by importing

increasing amounts of diesel and exporting a growing surplus of gasoline to the U.S. A conclusion was

that the effect of this structural imbalance within the European Union will continue for the foreseeable

future, and perhaps widen, resulting in more exports of European gasoline and blending components to

the U.S.

Table 66

SNWW Gasoline Import Forecast

(1,000s of short tons)

Year Baseline Sensitivity

2004 1,611 1,611

2005 1,800 1,800

2006 1,678 1,678

2007 1,096 1,096

2019 1,835 1,096

2029 2,027 1,096

2039 2,239 1,096

2049 2,474 1,096

2059 2,732 1,096

2069 3,018 1,096

2004/2006–2019 0.6% 0.0%

2004/2006–2069 0.9% 0.0%

4.6 PETROLEUM PRODUCT EXPORT FORECAST

U.S. petroleum product exports primarily consist of petroleum coke (47 percent), distillate fuel (16

percent), gasoline (16 percent), and residual fuel oil (13 percent). SNWW exports primarily consist of

petroleum coke (67 percent) and gasoline (25 percent). Analysis of SNWW’s specific export groups,

particularly petroleum coke and gasoline exports, show fair to good degrees of correlation between the

study region and the U.S. For instance, the R square using 1990–2007 period data is 0.79 for petroleum

coke and is 0.78 for gasoline.

4.7 PETROLEUM COKE EXPORTS

Published forecasts of U.S. coke exports are not available; however, indicators suggest an increased

demand for coke. Ongoing construction of cokers in regions other than SNWW is indicative of increased

demand. Increasing volumes of high-sulphur crude oil also suggest increasing volumes of residual coke.

495
119

Figure 37 illustrates the change in API index of U.S. crude petroleum imports.38 Subsequently, analysis of

the relationship between U.S. and SNWW petroleum coke exports and API indices associated with heavy

crude oil demonstrated that coke exports are well correlated increasing U.S. imports of high-sulfur crudes

(Figure 38).

Figure 37

U.S. Crude Petroleum Imports by API Gravity Classification (%)

38 The API (American Petroleum Institute) gravity measures the relative density of oils. It serves as a rough measure of the quality

of crude oils. The higher the API gravity number, the higher the API gravity, the lighter the compound. Light crude oils generally

exceed 38 degrees API.

496
120

Figure 38

SNWW and U.S. Petroleum Coke Exports and

% of U.S. Crude Petroleum Imports by API Gravity Classification (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

SNWW Petroleum Coke Exports (short tons/100)

U.S. Petroleum Coke Exports (1000's of short tons)

% of Crude Petroleum Imports by API Gravity Percentage <=25%

Analysis of the 1990–2007 relationship between U.S. petroleum coke exports and the percentage of crude

petroleum imports with an API of 25 percent or less produced an adjusted R square of 0.94. The t value

and F statistics associated with the equation is significant at the greater than 99.9 percent confidence

levels. The relationship between SNWW petroleum coke exports and the API percentage produced an

adjusted R square of 0.71, with a value of F statistic significant at the 99.99 confidence level.

Examination of 1990–2007 data showed that SNWW petroleum coke exports represents 14 percent of the

U.S. waterborne exports, up from 4.6 percent in 1990. The U.S. is the world’s largest supplier of

petroleum coke. U.S. petroleum coke exports increased in 2008 by 3 percent over 2007 levels. The EIA

shows refinery consumption and other domestic use of petroleum coke declining through 2030. At the

same time, domestic production will increase based on the production of additional capacity and

increased refinement of high-sulfur crude oil. Based on general indicators, including SNWW coker

expansion, SNWW petroleum coke exports were assumed to follow SNWW and U.S. historical export

trendlines. The refinement of high-sulfur crude oil, the processing of petroleum coke as a by-product, and

the expansion of SNWW’s coke-processing facilities supports this expectation. High-sulphur crudes are

associated with both foreign imports of crude and Gulf of Mexico production.

Given the expectation of increased growth, a trendline using 1990–2005 SNWW exports as a function of

time was used to represent the base forecast. Data for 2006–2007 were not originally available when the

forecasts were prepared. Alternative forecasts using average annual growth rates were evaluated;

however, the average annual growth exhibited variations. SNWW’s 1990–1995 average annual growth

rate is 36.5 percent, the 1995–2005 average annual growth rate is 1.3 percent, and the 2000–2005 average

497
121

annual rate is 11.8 percent. Growth rates based on 2-year point averages from 1990–2007 exports range

from 3 and 10 percent. Figure 39 displays the 1990–2007 point averages.

Figure 39

SNWW Petroleum Coke Exports (1,000s of short tons)

1990–2007 Point Averages

Table 67 summarizes projections prepared using the 1990–2005 trendline, the 1995–2005 average annual

growth rate of 1.3 percent, the 2000–2005 average annual growth rate of 11.8 percent, the 1990–2005

point averages of 3 and 10 percent, and the “no growth” forecast. SNWW transportations savings benefits

were calculated using the forecast labeled “1990–2005 adjusted trendline.” A 2039–2069 average annual

growth rate of 1 percent was used for all of the forecasts except the “1990–2005 trendline” and the “no

growth forecast.” Figure 40 displays a comparison forecast trendlines shown in Table 66.

498
122

Table 67

SNWW Petroleum Coke Export Forecast Scenarios

(1,000s of Short Tons)

1990–2005

Trendline

1990–2005

Adjusted

Trendline

1995–2005

Growth Rate

Application

2000–2005

Growth Rate

Application

1990–2007

2–Year Point

Average

No Growth After

2005–2007

Year Average

1990 724 724 724 724 724 724

1995 2,558 2,558 2,558 2,558 2,558 2,558

2000 3,435 3,435 3,435 3,435 3,435 3,435

2005 3,903 3,903 3,903 3,903 3,903 3,903

2006 4,362 4,362 4,362 4,362 4,362 4,362

2007 4,210 4,210 4,210 4,210 4,210 4,210

2019 6,802 6,802 5,044 18,603 12,016 4,158

2029 8,768 8,768 5,740 38,073 22,555 4,158

2039 10,735 10,735 6,531 46,562 28,070 4,158

2049 12,701 11,955 7,432 47,968 28,694 4,158

2059 14,667 13,206 8,457 50,435 30,170 4,158

2069 16,633 14,588 9,509 54,336 32,503 4,158

Average Annual Growth Rates

2005–2019 4.0% 4.0% 1.8% 11.8% 8.4% 0.5%

2005–2069 2.3% 2.1% 1.4% 4.2% 3.4% 0.1%

Figure 40

SNWW Petroleum Coke Export Forecast Scenarios

(1,000s of Short Tons)

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

2060

2065

SNWW 1990-2005 Trendline SNWW 1990-2005 Adjusted Trendline

SNWW 1995-2005 Average Annual Growth Rate SNWW 2000-2005 Growth Rate

SNWW 1990-2005 2-Yr Point Average

499
123

4.8 GASOLINE EXPORTS

SNWW gasoline exports steadily increased since the early 1990s. For the most recent 3-year period,

exports averaged 1.8 million short tons. Figure 41 shows SNWW’s 1990–2007 trendline of gasoline

exports. SNWW gasoline exports compose approximately 18 percent of the U.S. total waterborne

gasoline exports. As shown on Figure 41, regional gasoline exports growth is strong, with the regional

growth continuing to increase through 2007 when U.S. and PADD III exports volumes dropped slightly.

Figure 42 displays 1982–2007 U.S. and PADD III export volumes.

For the most recent 3-year period, approximately 75 percent of SNWW gasoline imports were shipped to

Beaumont and the remaining 15 percent to Port Arthur. Port Arthur’s share increased from zero in 1990 to

28 percent in 2006. Most of SNWW gasoline exports are shipped to Mexico. The study region’s share is

more constant than the U.S. share, which declined some over the most recent 10-year period. Over 2005–

2007, nearly 75 percent of U.S. gasoline exports were also transported to Mexico. For 2002–2004,

83 percent of U.S. gasoline exports were transported to Mexico. Over 95 percent of SNWW gasoline

exports for the most recent 5-year period were shipped to Mexico.

Figure 41

SNWW Gasoline Exports

1,000s of short tons

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

500
124

Figure 42

U.S. and PADD III Gasoline Exports, 1982–2007

1,000s of Barrels

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

U.S. Exports of Gasoline and Associated Products (1,000's of Barrels)

PADD III Exports of Gasoline and Associated Products (1,000's of Barrels)

Comparison of U.S. and SNWW waterborne commerce records for gasoline exports showed a relatively

strong level of correlation between the Nation and the region. The R square between 1990–2007 SNWW

petroleum and U.S. gasoline exports is 0.71. PADD III gasoline exports produced an R square of 0.79.

Published forecasts of gasoline exports are not available from the EIA or Global Insight. SNWW gasoline

exports grew at an average annual rate of 27 percent from 1990 to 2007 and approximately 2.7 percent

from 2004 to 2007. U.S. and PADD III 1990–2007 gasoline exports grew at an average annual rate of

approximately 17 percent, with 2004–2007 U.S. and PADD III exports growing at rates comparable to the

1990–2007 rates. Trendline analysis of 1990–2007 SNWW gasoline exports as a function of time

produced an adjusted R square of 0.92. Forecast of SNWW gasoline exports was evaluated based on

comparison of the trendline and growth rate applications. Table 68 summarizes the gasoline export

forecast applications evaluated for the SNWW study. SNWW’s future gasoline exports were forecasted

based on the 2004–2007 growth rate application (column 3, Table 68). Figure 43 displays a comparison

of the forecasts evaluated.

501
125

Table 68

SNWW Gasoline Export Forecast Scenarios

(1,000s of Short Tons)

1990–2005

Trendline

2004–2007

Growth Rate Application

No Growth After

Year 2005–2007 Average

1990 39

39

9

39

9

1995 518 518 518

2000 1,474 1,474 1,474

2005 1,755 1,755 1,755

2006 1,778 1,778 1,778

2007 1,970 1,970 1,970

2010 2,575 2,096 1,834

2015 3,247 2,394 1,834

2019 3,785 2,664 1,834

2025 4,592 3,043 1,834

2030 5,264 3,480 1,834

2039 6,473 4,431 1,834

2049 7,818 5,641 1,834

2059 9,162 7,183 1,834

2069 10,506 9,145 1,834

Average Annual Growth Rates

2005–2019 5.6% 3.0% 0.4%

2005–2069 2.8% 2.6% 0.1%

Figure 43

U.S. and PADD III Gasoline Exports

1,000s of Short Tons 1990–2030

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2019

2025

2030

SNWW No Growth

SNWW 1990-2005 Trendline

SNWW 2004-07 Growth Rate Application

502
126

4.9 DISTILLATE EXPORTS

U.S. distillate exports increased at an annual rate of 14 percent between 1990 and 1994 and declined from

1994 through 2002 before increasing to 1991 levels. PADD III exports also followed a similar pattern. In

2006 and 2007, SNWW exports were comparable to 1990–1991 levels. Figure 44 shows U.S. and PADD

III 1990–2007 distillate exports. Distillate fuel oil represents approximately 7 percent of SNWW’s 2004–

2006 product exports. Approximately 80 percent of SNWW’s distillate exports were shipped from Port

Arthur, with the remaining 20 percent shipped from Beaumont. Figure 45 shows comparison of U.S. and

SNWW waterborne distillate exports

As shown on Figure 45, U.S. distillate exports increased dramatically between 2004 and 2006. SNWW

distillate exports remained relatively flat from 1990 through 1995 before increasing to over 600,000 short

tons in 1997 and 1998. Exports then dropped to near zero in 2000 before steadily increasing through

2005, with volumes down in 2006 and 2007, and 2007 exports totaling 345,000 short tons. While

distillate is exported to countries all around the world, the largest share of SNWW distillate exports is

shipped to Mexico. Review of 2004–2006 vessel records showed that the largest vessels are associated

with shipments to Mexico. Review of International Energy Administration world trade data for 2006–

2008 show an increase in U.S. trade with Mexico between 2006 and 2008. Comparison of the EIA’s first

quarter 2008 product exports show an 18 percent increase over first quarter 2007. In its AEO2009

(SR/OIA/2009-03), the EIA shows U.S. petroleum product exports increasing at an average annual

growth rate of 1 percent from 2006 through 2030. For forecasting purposes, SNWW’s 2004–2006 average

tonnage was used a base for the forecast application. In its December 2007 report to Congress, the GAO

noted that petroleum product trade will continue to grow as global trends move towards increasing

demand of lower sulfur fuel.

Figure 44

U.S. and PADD III Distillate Fuel Exports

1990–2007 Waterborne and Land Routes

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

U.S. Distillate Exports (1,000's of Barrels)

PADD III Distillate Exports (1,000's of Barrels)

503
127

Figure 45

U.S. and SNWW Distillate Fuel Exports

1990–2006 Waterborne

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

U.S. Distillate Exports (Short Tons/10,000) SNWW Distillate Exports (1,000's of Short Tons)

The indication is that lower sulfur fuel will necessitate increased processing as it becomes increasingly

scarce. The GAO noted that strong demand for certain petroleum products, particularly distillates, will

increase competition for and facilitate global trade of petroleum products in particular distillates. Based

on its position as a major refinery center, expectations are that SNWW product exports will increase at a

greater rate than the Nation. All indications are that refining and export of petroleum products will

increase. Based on these indicators, an average annual growth rate of 2.5 percent was used for SNWW

2006–2069 exports. Table 69 summarizes the gasoline export forecast applications evaluated for the

SNWW study. The first column presents U.S. distillate exports and application of the AEO2009

(SR/OIA/2009-03) petroleum product export forecast. The next column summarizes application of the

AEO growth rates to SNWW’s 2004–2006 base. The AEO applications result in an average annual

growth rate of 1 percent over 2004–2006 to 2029. The 2039–2069 volumes are based on continuation of a

1 percent growth rate. The third column summarizes application of a growth rate of 2.5 percent to the

SNWW 2004–2006 base through 2039. The forecast in the last column is based on no growth beyond the

2004–2006 average. The forecast shown in column three was used for the benefit calculations. The 2039–

2069 volumes for all growth forecasts are based on continuation of a 1 percent growth rate.

504
128

Table 69

SNWW Distillate Export Forecast Scenarios

(1,000s of Short Tons)

U.S. Distillate

Exports AEO2009

Application

SNWW Distillate

Exports Using

AEO2009

SNWW Distillate

Exports Using a 2.5%

Growth Rate

No Growth After

2004–2006

Year Average

1990 5,349 192 192 192

1995 6,625 8 8 8

2004 16,202 449 449 449

2005 15,642 546 546 546

2006 26,249 371 371 371

2007 27,068 345 345 345

2010 20,037 471 515 455

2015 20,635 485 582 455

2019 21,832 513 643 455

2029 24,598 578 823 455

2039 26,984 634 1,053 455

2049 29,807 700 1,349 455

2059 32,926 774 1,726 455

2069 36,371 855 2,210 455

Average Annual Growth Rates

2004/2006–2019 0.9% 0.9% 1.2% 0.4%

2004/2006–2069 1.0% 1.0% 2.5% 0.1%

Source: USDOE, EIA, 2009 Annual Energy Outlook, SR/OIA/2009-03, March 2009.

4.10 COASTWISE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

SNWW domestic coastwise movements primarily consist of gasoline. Examination of vessel

characteristics and geographic routings suggested that 10 to 20 percent of outbound coastwise shipment

tonnage would benefit from channel depths over 40 feet. The draft-restricted product carriers are

generally between 60,000 and 70,000 DWT with design drafts in the 41- to 43-foot range. As shown on

Figure 46, SNWW coastwise movements increased steadily since the mid-nineties. Movements prior to

1995 primarily consisted of crude petroleum. Current movements consist almost exclusively of gasoline

shipments. The majority of shipments are to Florida and the U.S. Northeast. As with product exports,

based on SNWW’s position as a major refinery center, expectations are that coastwise shipments are

expected to increase at an increasingly steady rate based on the region’s position as a major refinery

center. Table 70 summarizes the SNWW coastwise forecasts evaluated for the SNWW study.

505
129

Figure 46

SNWW Coastwise Shipments

1995–2007 Waterborne

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

SNWW Coastwise Shipments

506
130

Table 70

SNWW Coastwise Movement Forecast Scenarios

(1,000s of Short Tons)

Year

SNWW Coastwise Movements

1998–2007 Trendline

SNWW Coastwise

Movements 1% Growth

SNWW No Growth Beyond

2005–2007 Average

1990 8,906 8,906 8,906

1995 3,909 3,909 3,909

1996 5,386 5,386 5,386

1997 4,197 4,197 4,197

1998 4,284 4,284 4,284

1999 3,989 3,989 3,989

2000 3,863 3,863 3,863

2005 4,770 4,770 4,770

2006 5,438 5,438 5,438

2007 5,762 5,762 5,762

2010 6,121 5,595 5,323

2015 7,110 5,880 5,323

2019 7,901 6,119 5,323

2029 9,879 6,759 5,323

2039 11,857 7,466 5,323

2049 13,834 8,248 5,323

2059 15,812 9,110 5,323

2069 17,790 10,064 5,323

Average Annual Growth Rates

2005–2019 2.9% 1.0% 0.0%

2005–2069 1.8% 1.0% 0.0%

While review of the historical vessel movements showed that nearly half of petroleum product shipments

was shipped in vessels with design drafts over 40 feet, the combination of U.S. tanker availability, depths

at trading ports, parcel size demand, and industry discussion suggests that the tonnage that would utilize

channel depths over 40 feet would not exceed 10 percent. Channel deepening benefits were calculated

based on 10 percent of 2019–2069 tonnage.

4.11 REMAINING PETROLEUM PRODUCT EXPORTS

SNWW’s remaining product exports include lube oil and naphtha, with each representing approximately

1.5 percent of total petroleum product exports and totaling less than 100,000 short tons from 1995

through 2006. The 2004–2006 export volumes for lube oil and naphtha were assumed to grow at 1 percent

annually in future years.

507
131

4.12 CHEMICAL IMPORTS

The largest volumes, and the highest growth rates, for SNWW imports are for alcohols and ammonia,

with present imports of these inorganic chemicals up by over 4,000 percent from the previous 10-year

period. In comparison, U.S. chemical imports are currently over 200 percent higher than in the early

1990s. Currently, U.S. alcohol imports are over 500 percent higher than in the early 1990s, and ammonia

imports are up by over 200 percent. Figure 47 displays U.S. alcohol and ammonic imports for 1990–2007.

For 2004–2007, Beaumont ammonia imports represented approximately 6 percent of the U.S. total,

having increased from less than 5,000 short tons in the early 1990s to 460,000 short tons in 2006. The

largest rates of growth for U.S. imports were for agricultural fertilizers. Fertilizers compose 33 percent of

total chemical imports. While agricultural fertilizers are exported from SNWW, none are imported.

Figure 47

U.S. Alcohol and Ammonia Waterborne Imports 1990–2007

(1,000s of short tons)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1990

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

U.S. Alcohol Imports U.S. Ammonia Imports

Figure 48 displays SNWW 1990–2007 alcohols and ammonia imports. Eighty-nine percent of SNWW

methyl alcohol imports comes from Trinidad, 8 percent comes from Chile, and the remaining 3 percent

from Venezuela. The Trinidad plant represents the world’s largest methanol production plant and is

capable of producing 5,000 tons per day. The plant located in Punta Arenas, Chile, plans to triple its

methanol production capacity by the end of 2008. Additionally, the Economic Research Service of the

USDA notes that new plants are planned in West Africa and the Middle East, with those locations

presently serving markets other than the SNWW.

508
132

U.N. studies suggest that worldwide demand will grow at 5 percent but indicate that the higher growths

are expected to be associated with emerging markets. Analysis of the SNWW and national total indicated

a reasonable level of correlation between the study area and the Nation; however, SNWW tonnage was

equally correlated with year. Analysis of the 1990–2007 relationship between U.S. and SNWW chemical

imports showed strong statistical correlation, with a corresponding adjusted R square of 0.82. An adjusted

R square of 0.78 was produced when “year” was used instead of “U.S. imports.” The t value and F

statistics associated with both of the equations are significant at the greater than 0.99 percent confidence

levels. An average annual growth rate of 1 percent was used for SNWW 2006–2049 alcohol and ammonia

imports. For forecasting purposes, SNWW’s 2004–2006 average tonnage was used as a base for the

forecast application. SNWW’s alcohol and ammonia import forecast is displayed on Figure 49.

Figure 48

SNWW Alcohol and Ammonia Waterborne Imports 1990–2007

(1,000s of short tons)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1990

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

SNWW Alcohol Imports SNWW Ammonia Imports

509
133

Figure 49

SNWW Alcohol and Ammonia Imports 1995–2065

Waterborne (1,000s of Short Tons)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Alcohol 0 320 380 423 476 537 605 681

Ammonia 0 432 543 628 707 797 898 1,011

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065

Future transition to larger and more fully loaded vessels for SNWW alcohol and ammonia imports was

evaluated based on examination of vessel sizes and loaded drafts associated with other regional ports.

These analyses showed that the loaded drafts associated with these commodities are generally less than 36

feet. The analyses also indicated that the use of vessel sizes constrained by the existing 40-foot channel

depth is presently limited, with future transition being uncertain. While expectations concerning future

chemical imports to SNWW are uncertain, larger and more deeply loaded carriers are presently being

used.

4.13 CHEMICAL EXPORTS

Like imports, SNWW chemical exports grew at very fast rates. In 2006, SNWW exported 2.9 million

short tons of chemicals, representing a record high. Review of 1990–2007 records show 1995–2007

exports had minimum exports of 724 thousand short tons in 1995. With few exceptions, SNWW exports

steadily increased. In comparing SNWW’s growth rates to U.S. rates, U.S. growth was slower but

increased, with 2006 exports totaling 59 million short tons, up from 40 million in 1990.

SNWW’s largest percentage increase was for fertilizer mixes, and the largest share of tonnage is

associated with the organic compound and metallic salt commodity classifications (Table 17). U.S.

exports of these commodities also increased. Figures 50 and 51 shows U.S. and SNWW metallic salts and

organic compound exports for 1990–2006. For 2004–2006, SNWW exported 18 percent of the U.S.

metallic salt waterborne total and 11 percent of the organic compound total. Based on these indicators, an

510
134

average annual growth rate of 2.5 percent was used for SNWW 2006–2039 metallic salts and organic

compounds. A growth rate of 1 percent was used for 2039–2069. For forecasting purposes, SNWW’s

2004–2006 average tonnage was used as a base for the forecast application. Ten percent of future tonnage

was forecasted to use channel depths over 40 feet. The transition to larger and more fully loaded vessels

for 10 percent of future tonnage was based on general indicators associated with chemical vessel fleet

trends summarized in the fleet forecast section (see Table 44). SNWW’s metallic salts and organic

compound export forecast is displayed on Figure 52.

Figure 50

U.S. Metallic Salts and Organic Compound Exports

Waterborne (1,000s of Short Tons)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1990

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

U.S. Organic Compound Exports (1,000's of Short Tons)

U.S. Metallic Salts Exports (1,000's of Short Tons)

`

511
135

Figure 51

SNWW Metallic Salts and Organic Compound Exports

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1990

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

SNWW Organic Compound Exports SNWW Metallic Salt Exports

Figure 52

SNWW Metallic Salts and Organic Compound Exports 1995–2069

Waterborne

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1995

2004-06

2015202520352045205520652069

Metallic Salt Exports (1,000's of short tons)

Organic Compound Exports (1,000's of short tons

512
136

4.14 LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS

LNG will play an increasingly important role in the natural gas industry and global energy markets in the

next several years. Table 71 shows SNWW current and future capacity volumes for the SNWW facilities.

Phase I of the Cheniere terminal is presently complete, and the first vessels arrived in April 2008. Phase 1

consists of 10.1 Bcf of LNG storage in three tanks, each with an LNG capacity of 160,000 cubic meters

(m3), and a maximum continuous regasification rate of 2.6 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d). Phase 2 will

be built in stages. The first stage of Phase 2 will include the addition of fourth and fifth storage tanks,

additional vaporizers that will bring the maximum continuous regasification rate up to 4.0 Bcf/d with a

peak sendout capacity of 4.3 Bcf/d. In the future stages of Phase 2, a sixth storage tank may be added and

related facilities will bring the total LNG storage volume to 20.2 Bcf.

Table 71

Distribution of Liquefied Natural Gas

Operational Capacity

Facility Full Operational

Output (Bcf/d)

Annual Output

(Bcf)

Sabine Pass 3.360 1,226.40

Golden Pass 2.268 827.82

Port Arthur 2.520 919.80

Total SNWW 8.148 2,974.02

Construction of the Exxon Golden Pass LNG terminal is scheduled for completion by 2011. The Golden

Pass facility, which is being constructed by ExxonMobil and Conoco Phillips, will consists of a dock and

unloading facilities, 5 LNG storage tanks (Í17 Bcf), and vaporization capacity of 2.7 Bcf/d. The Port

Arthur project consists of two ship berths, three to six storage tanks (160,000 m3), and vaporization

capacity of 1.5–3 Bcf/d. The LNG for the Golden Pass terminal is anticipated to be supplied primarily

from the Ras Laffan 3 and the Qatargas 3 projects in Qatar, which will produce and process natural gas

from Qatar's offshore North Field.

Construction of the Sempra terminal is anticipated after 2012. The Sempra LNG terminal will be capable

of delivering between 1.5 and 3 Bcf per day of natural gas. The terminal will include two unloading docks

for ships and three to six full containment storage tanks and associated equipment in order to transform

the LNG back to its gaseous state. As noted, construction of this third facility is planned for after 2012. At

full utilization, Sabine Pass and Golden Pass could handle 2.05 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) annually. The

Sempra annual capacity increases regional capacity by 2.97 Tcf without pushing peak capacity.

There are about 40 LNG terminals that are either before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC) or are being discussed by the LNG industry for North America. Six terminals are already

operating on the East Coast, Puerto Rico, and Alaska. There are six onshore LNG terminals in the

continental U.S., these are located in Everett, Massachusetts; Lake Charles, Louisiana; Elba Island,

Georgia; Cove Point, Maryland; Cameron, Louisiana; Sabine, Texas; and Freeport, Texas. The Cameron,

513
137

Sabine, and Freeport terminals are new. In addition to these three terminals, the Northeast Gateway port

offshore Massachusetts received its first supplies in 2008. With these four terminals now operational,

U.S. capacity to receive LNG imports has increased from approximately 5.0 Bcf/d at the end of 2007 to

about 9.1 Bcf/d as of the end of the year. The Sabine Pass facility adds 2.6 Bcf, or 29 percent to U.S. Bcf

capacity.

In 2007, the U.S. imported an estimated 771 Bcf, or 21.2 million short tons, of LNG. Shipments to

existing U.S. facilities in 2006–2008 came from Trinidad (64 percent), North Africa (22 percent),

Western Africa (11 percent), Norway (2 percent), and the Middle East (1 percent). The EIA reported total

LNG import shipments of 771 Bcf in 2007 to these terminals, with each importing similar volumes—each

between 20 and 30 percent of the total. Imports in 2008 only reached 352 Bcf. Despite declines in 2008,

the EIA expects U.S. LNG imports to increase to about 500 Bcf in 2009, up from 352 Bcf in 2008, and

rise to about 740 Bcf in 2010. The 2008 fall in imported natural gas to the U.S. reflects the increased need

for natural gas in other countries willing to compete for available global supplies. While U.S. imports

increased in 2009 over 2008 levels, U.S. LNG import growth this year has been constrained because of

increased LNG demand in Europe and delays and maintenance to new and existing LNG liquefaction

capacity. With limited natural gas storage availability, recent data suggest that European inventory levels

are now nearing capacity. The expectation is that LNG shipments may be redirected to U.S. ports in the

coming months as prices in the European market become less attractive to LNG suppliers. A similar

scenario may also occur in Canada, with natural gas pipeline imports increasing in the months ahead as

Canadian storage facilities are topped off. The EIA notes that an increase in U.S. natural gas imports

would likely be balanced by larger-than-expected declines in domestic natural gas production.

4.15 U.S. LNG IMPORT FORECAST

The EIA notes that annual U.S. LNG imports are projected to exceed 1 Tcf by 2015 but are expected to

drop to 800 million cubic feet by 2030. Table 72 presents the LNG import forecasts outlined in the

AEO2009. Short-term forecast revisions note that LNG imports are expected to increase to about 506 Bcf

in 2009 from 352 Bcf in 2008, because of a combination of weak demand and growing supply in the

global LNG market. Lower demand for LNG in Japan and South Korea has increased the amount of

available LNG in the global market, leading to larger LNG purchases in China and Europe. However,

with limited natural gas storage capacity in Asia and Europe, lower global demand is expected to increase

available LNG cargoes for import by the United States.

The likelihood of a region’s ability to capture a share of the LNG market is obviously subject to

uncertainty; however, some sites, such as those on the SNWW, may have more-obvious advantages

because of FERC approval, lack of public opposition, or locational advances (close access to international

waters). The SNWW facilities have the advantage of FERC approval, relatively high levels of public and

political support, and locational advances in terms of access to the U.S. Gulf. For the analysis, 20 percent

of the U.S. waterborne LNG imports market was used for SNWW. Table 73 displays the expected

distribution of imported by country of origin. The distribution was prepared based on industry input and

514
138

reflects a higher proportion of imports from Trinidad than the EIA forecast. The EIA is currently

forecasting higher volumes from the Middle East than the distribution shown in Table 73.

Table 72

U.S. and SNWW Liquefied Natural Gas Imports, 2005–2030

Updated June 2009

U.S. Total LNG Imports SNWW

Year Trillion Cubic Feet Waterborne Short Tons LNG Forecast Short Tons

2005 0.5661 16,566,000 -

2006 0.5840 18,617,000 -

2007 0.7708 21,238,000 -

2015 1.1460 31,575,957 3,157,596

2019 1.4101 38,852,755 5,827,913

2020 1.3808 38,045,447 9,511,362

2025 1.1269 31,049,691 7,008,843

2029 0.8964 24,698,681 6,174,670

2030 0.8097 22,309,819 6,174,670

2039 n/a n/a 6,174,670

2049 n/a n/a 6,174,670

2059 n/a n/a 6,174,670

2069 n/a n/a 6,174,670

Source for U.S. Imports: USDOE, 2009 Annual Energy Outlook, March 2009.

Table 73

SNWW Liquefied Natural Gas Trade Route Forecast, 2019–2069

Short Tons

Year Middle East Trinidad Algeria Total

2019 1,946,522 1,940,695 1,940,695 5,827,913

2029 2,062,339 2,056,165 2,056,165 6,174,669

2039 2,062,340 2,056,165 2,056,165 6,174,670

2049 2,062,340 2,056,165 2,056,165 6,174,670

2059 2,062,340 2,056,165 2,056,165 6,174,670

2069 2,062,340 2,056,165 2,056,165 6,174,670

Note: SNWW 2015–2030 volumes are based on application of the EIA 2010–30 growth rates.

4.16 GRAIN EXPORT FORECAST

Grain is exported from the Beaumont elevator located just below the Port of Beaumont main turning

basin. While exports have exceeded 1 million short tons since 2003, recent volumes remain less than half

the 1993 peak volume of 3.5 million. While relatively low in comparison to the Pacific Northwest and the

Lower Mississippi, Beaumont has maintained a 1.4 to 1.7 percent share of the U.S. waterborne bulk grain

export market. Table 74 displays Beaumont’s 1990–2007 bulk grain exports by major product. Wheat

515
139

presently comprises 100 percent of Beaumont’s grain exports for the most recent 4-year period.

Beaumont’s 2007 wheat exports represented 4.4 percent of the U.S. wheat export total.

Table 74

Beaumont Bulk Grain Exports and Percentage by Grain Type

Wheat Corn Sorghum Grain

Year

1,000s of

Short Tons %

1,000s of

Short Tons %

1,000s of

Short Tons % Total Exports

1990 1,957 94 – – 132 6 2,089

1991 1,863 96 – – 73 4 1,936

1992 2,796 87 – – 431 13 3,227

1993 3,038 88 – – 433 12 3,471

1994 2,143 93 – – 160 7 2,303

1995 1,486 87 – – 227 13 1,713

1996 796 77 3 – 238 23 1,037

1997 999 73 51 4 320 23 1,370

1998 648 72 – – 251 28 899

1999 629 67 – – 308 33 937

2000 753 84 56 6 85 10 894

2001 679 82 55 7 97 12 831

2002 742 89 70 8 23 3 835

2003 1,125 100 – – – – 1,125

2004 1,329 100 – – – – 1,329

2005 1,081 100 – – – – 1,081

2006 1,214 100 – – – – 1,214

2007 1,632 100 – – – – 1,632

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce Database, 1990–2007.

Figure 53 shows wheat exports by U.S. geographic region for 2002–2007. Figure 54 shows Beaumont’s

share of the Texas Gulf Coast wheat exports for 2002–2007. Comparison of Beaumont wheat export

volumes with other major U.S. grain export locations showed that Beaumont has maintained a consistent

market share since 1996. Figure 55 displays 1990–2006 U.S. total wheat exports, U.S. production, and

Beaumont wheat exports. While corn exports have historically been low, sorghum grain constituted

14 percent of Beaumont’s bulk grain exports prior to 2003.

516
140

Figure 53

U.S. Wheat Exports by Region

(1,000s of Short Tons)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Texas Gulf Wheat Exports Lower Mississippi RiverWheat Exports

Colombia River Wheat Exports

Figure 54

Beaumont Wheat Exports

(1,000s of Short Tons)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Beaumont Wheat Exports All Other Texas Gulf Wheat Exports

517
141

Figure 55

U.S. and Beaumont Wheat Exports and U.S. Wheat Production (short tons)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

U.S. Wheat Exports (short tons/10,000)

Beaumont Wheat Exports (1,000's of short tons)

U.S. Wheat Production

According to the U.S. Grains Council, the U.S. is currently positioned as the number two producer and

number one exporter of sorghum on the world market. The U.S. share of the world sorghum trade has not

dropped below 70 percent in more than a decade. World trade in sorghum is dominated by U.S. exports to

Mexico. In the last 5 years, transportation of the commodities considered in this study (corn, sorghum,

wheat, and soybeans) has shifted from maritime to overland.39 Rail is the major overland transportation

mode for all grains but sorghum. Sorghum is shipped by truck because of the proximity of the production

areas in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley to the border. Other importing countries and regions include Japan,

Israel, South Africa, Spain, Morocco, and Eritrea.

Mexico is the world’s third largest sorghum producer after Nigeria and the United States and the second

largest world consumer after Nigeria. The United States is the only sorghum supplier to Mexico. Over the

last 5 years, half of U.S. sorghum exports to Mexico were shipped by ocean through the U.S. Gulf, mostly

from North Texas, South Texas, and the Mississippi River. The port of Veracruz is the major ocean point

of entry. On average, trucks moved 30 percent and rail hauled 19 percent of sorghum shipped to Mexico.

The top rail destinations for U.S. sorghum exports to Mexico in 2005 were Nuevo Leon, Veracruz, Estado

de Mexico, Jalisco, and Guanajuato.40 Texas (Laredo and El Paso) and Arizona (Santa Cruz) are the main

rail entry points. The ports of Veracruz and Progreso are the major entry points by vessel. Half of the

year’s sorghum exports to Mexico occur between January and May, reaching a peak in April. The

percentage of grain transported by oceangoing vessel declined from 60 percent in 2002 to 45 percent in

2006.

39 USDA, U.S. Grain and Soybean Exports to Mexico – A Modal Share by Dalmy L. Salin, April 2008.

40 Adcock, F. J, C. Parr Rosson III, and Alejandro Varela. 2007. Tracking U.S. Grain and Soybean Exports in Mexico. Center for North

American Studies, Texas A&M University. http://cnas.tamu.edu/AMS%20Final%20Export%20Report.pdf

518
142

Analysis of Beaumont’s grain exports does indicate reduction in shipments to Mexico and also shows that

sorghum exports ceased after 2002. The specific reasons for Beaumont’s drop in sorghum exports were

not investigated; however, sorghum had composed a relative small share of Beaumont’s grain. Analysis

of Beaumont’s 2004–2006 wheat exports by destination showed that the primary markets served are West

Africa and the Middle East. Table 75 displays Beaumont’s 1998–2006 wheat exports by destination.

Table 75

Beaumont Wheat Exports by Destination, 1998–2006

Short Tons

Destination 1998 2002 2004 2005 2006 %

Brazil – 52,087 – – – 1

Caribbean 4,617 22,532 63,008 59,507 85,240 5

Colombia 17,218 170,807 58,426 65,438 43,799 7

East Africa – – – 23,864 – 0

Mexico 25,266 71,888 84,881 – – 4

Middle East 82,287 – 17,416 272,894 873,854 24

Mediterranean and North Africa 278,892 210,088 512,318 63,643 – 21

South Africa 17,505 94,114 – 26,467 – 3

W South America 67,461 89,375 89,739 – – 5

West Africa 107,511 124,239 502,829 568,825 211,118 30

Far East 62,422 – – – – 1

Total 663,179 835,130 1,328,617 1,080,639 1,214,010 100

Source: USACE, Navigation Data Center, detailed unpublished vessel records, 2004–2006.

Review of research conducted by Texas A&M University shows that the Gulf of Mexico ports are a major

export outlet for U.S. wheat, in particular hard red winter wheat. Hard red winter wheat is railed from

Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Colorado for Texas export. Figure 56 displays the 1997–2006 relationship

between wheat exports destination by state of origin and Beaumont’s exports. The states of Kansas,

Oklahoma, Texas, and Colorado originate virtually all of the 5 to 8 million tons of hard red winter wheat

annually shipped to Texas Gulf ports. Transport of nearly all Texas Gulf grain exports is by unit train.

The Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Missouri Pacific, Southern Pacific and Union Pacific railroads are

used to transport wheat to export facilities in Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Galveston, and Houston.

The relative locations of the grain production areas to either rail lines or to the Mississippi River is the

major determinant in the distribution of grain exports between the Texas Gulf Coast ports and the Lower

Mississippi River.41 The U.S. Grains Council notes that while infrequent corn will move from Nebraska

and Iowa to Texas ports during periods of Mississippi River low flow or of excess demand, red winter

wheat from Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and other states in the Illinois

and Ohio River basins tends to move via barge and rail through the Mississippi River ports.42 The Pacific

Northwest is noted to have a freight advantage over the other U.S. Gulf for Asian destinations. The

41 Besslerand, David and Stephen W. Fuller, Transportation Research: Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Volume 36, Number

1: “Railroad Wheat Transportation Markets in the Central Plains: Modeling with Error Correction and Directed graphs”, Department of

Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University.

42 U.S. Grains Council – Importer Manual, August 2004, Chapter 5, p. 64.

519
143

shorter distance from the Pacific Northwest to Asian destinations is mentioned as contributing to the

willingness to pay a substantially higher price for feed grains delivered from that coast. While having an

ocean freight advantage, the Pacific Northwest is noted as being relatively far from feed grains production

areas.

Figure 56

Wheat Exports by State and Beaumont Exports, 1997–2006

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Value of Wheat Exports from Kansas, Okalahoma, Texas, and Colorado (1990-1992 Dollars) *

Beaumont Wheat Exports

*Constant 1990–1992 dollars. ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/Economics/priceindexes/Data/PPPI_CPI_CCI.xls.

Beaumont’s tonnage forecast is based on application of the USDA’s Baseline Projections Report

February 2009 forecast. The forecast shown in Table 76 is based on Beaumont capturing between 4.4

percent and 7.8 percent of U.S. wheat exports, with 7.8 percent representing the 1990–2006 maximum

and 4.4 percent representing the 2004–2006 average. The baseline forecast used for the transportation cost

calculations is based on Beaumont capturing a 6.6 percent share of the U.S. export market. The

transportation savings benefits are based on 30 percent of tonnage would load to drafts over 40 feet.

520
144

Table 76

Beaumont Wheat Export Forecast (2004–2069)

Year

U.S. Wheat Exports Beaumont Wheat Exports

Bushels Short Tons Total Exports

Volume Used for Benefit

Calculations

2004 1,066,000 31,980,000 1,208,333 –

2005 1,002,000 30,060,000 1,081,000 –

2006 909,000 27,270,000 1,214,000 –

2007 1,264,000 34,400,000 1,632,000 –

2019 1,075,000 29,300,000 2,128,500 638,550

2029 – – 2,351,188 705,356

2039 – – 2,597,175 779,152

2049 – – 2,868,896 860,669

2059 – – 3,169,046 950,714

2069 – – 3,500,599 1,050,180

The USDA is presently showing modest growth in wheat exports between 2006 and 2018/2019.43 U.S.

2006–2018/2019 exports are forecasted to increase from approximately 990 million bushels in 2006 to

1,075 million bushels by 2014/2015 and remain constant at that level through the end of the forecast

period in 2018/2019. Egypt maintains its position as the world's biggest importer of wheat, as imports

climb slowly to nearly 9 million tons. Imports by developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, North

Africa, and the Middle East rise to nearly 12 million tons and account for 45 percent of the total increase

in world wheat trade. While the shares of the world wheat market held by Canada and the U.S. are noted

to decline slightly and be offset by increases in the European Union, Ukraine, Russia, Australia, and

Argentina, total U.S. wheat exports increase slightly. The USDA also notes that changing consumption

patterns will boost wheat imports by some major importing countries. In Indonesia, strong economic

growth and diversification of diets are projected to increase per capita wheat consumption. The USDA

notes that for most developing countries there is little change in per capita wheat consumption but imports

expand modestly because of population growth. Table 77 displays major destination ports for SNWW

grain exports that can accommodate large bulk carriers.

An average of nearly 30 percent of Beaumont’s 2000–2007 grain export tonnage was shipped in vessels

with design drafts over 40 feet (Table 78). The maximum DWT presently used for grain exports is in the

60,000 to 70,000 DWT range. The vessels have design drafts between 42 and 43 feet. Until the early

1990s, grain carriers in excess of 100,000 DWT were used for the Texas bulk grain exports. The larger

vessels were associated with the former Soviet Union and Northern Europe grain shipments. Currently,

the maximum parcel sizes are in the 50,000 to 60,000 short tons range.

43 USDA, Economic Research Service, USDA Wheat Baseline to 2018/2019, Wheat Trade Projections (Table 35), February 2009.

521
Table 77

145

Beaumont Bulk Grain Exports

to Ports with Channel Depths Over 40 Feet

Trade Partners for Draft-Restricted Tonnage

Destination 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Damietta, Egypt 65,571 66,612 184,374 57,417 64,403 63,643 53,998Aqaba, Jordon 110,802 57,292 0 43,070 111,903 0 0Durban, South Africa 0 55,186 0 0 0 0 0Haifa, Israel 0 35,834 0 0 0 0 0Constanta, Romania 0 0 0 59,061 59,341 0 0

Khor al Zubair, Iraq 0 0 0 0 0 104,905 724,461

Djibouti, Djibouti 0 0 0 0 0 191,853 43,276

Exports to Ports with Depths Over 40 feet 176,373 214,923 184,374 159,548 235,647 360,401 821,735

Total Bulk Grain Exports 894,000 858,000 835,000 1,125,000 1,329,000 1,082,000 1,214,000% of Total Grain Exports 19.7 25.0 22.1 14.2 17.7 33.3 67.7

Source: Compiled from the USACE, NDC detailed records.

522
Table 78

146

Importers of Wheat (USDA Forecast), 2004/2005 to 2015/2016 a/

% Distribution 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2015/2016

Brazil 4.9 5.1 5.4 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.8Europe and Mediterranean 32.0 32.5 32.4 32.7 32.8 32.9 32.8 44.2Africa (non- Mediterranean) 11.2 11.5 11.3 11.1 11.1 11.0 11.0 0.0Far East 29.2 26.5 26.1 25.8 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0Former Soviet Union 4.2 3.6 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4India/Bangladesh 3.1 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4Mexico, South and Central America 11.7 12.2 12.2 12.1 12.1 12.2 12.1 11.9Mideast 2.9 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.5Other 0.7 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.8Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, February 2006.a/ February 2006, an updated trade route distribution was released but not presented (February 2009). Beaumont’s wheat exports were assumed to continue

Europe and the Mediterranean and expand to other markets as demand arises.Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

523
147

4.17 BREAKBULK IMPORT FORECAST

Analysis of the vessel fleets and utilization, and existing and future constraints associated with imports of

aggregate products, such as iron ore, steel slab, limestone, and sand and gravel, and discussion with

industry personnel suggested that 50 percent of limestone and sand and gravel, iron ore, and steel slab

would be transported in vessels with loaded drafts over 40 feet (sections 3.9 and 3.10). Limestone and

rock are classified as crude materials by WCSC. Iron ore and steel slab are classified as manufactured

goods by WCSC. In addition to these classifications, crude materials are exported. SNWW’s crude

materials, primarily dry sulfur, clay, and refractory materials, are exported from SNWW. Table 79

displays SNWW’s breakbulk tonnage forecast.

Table 79

SNWW Bulk Commodities Forecast, 2019–2069

2001–2007 Historical Data, Short Tons

Crude Materials

Imports Historical

Crude Materials

Exports Historical

Manufactured Goods

Imports Historical

Year Beaumont Port Arthur Beaumont Port Arthur Beaumont Port Arthur

2001 622,000 131,000 165,000 0 103,000 665,000

2002 394,000 919,000 14,000 2,000 204,000 641,000

2003 583,000 481,000 73,000 20,000 115,000 557,000

2004 559,000 531,000 104,000 41,000 420,000 564,000

2005 624,000 558,000 106,000 14,000 471,000 710,000

2006 550,000 566,000 243,000 54,000 364,000 542,000

2007 617,000 513,000 421,000 64,000 173,000 122,000

Crude Materials

Import Forecast

Crude Materials

Export Forecast

Manufactured Goods

Import Forecast

Year Beaumont Port Arthur Beaumont Port Arthur Beaumont Port Arthur

2019 760,862 712,739 344,873 38,319 428,221 523,626

2029 884,920 828,951 400,240 44,471 498,041 607,630

2039 1,029,206 964,110 465,498 51,722 579,247 705,110

2049 1,197,017 1,121,308 541,397 60,155 673,692 818,228

2059 1,392,189 1,304,136 629,672 69,964 783,537 949,493

2069 1,619,184 1,516,661 732,339 81,371 911,292 1,101,817

524
148

5.0 FORECAST OF TOTAL OCEANGOING TONNAGE

Tables 80 and 81 summarize the forecasts for the major commodity groups evaluated for channel

deepening. The Port Arthur forecast is shown in Table 80 and Beaumont’s forecast in Table 81.

Discussions of each of the tonnage forecasts major groups are provided in the sections that follow.

Table 80

Port Arthur Tonnage Evaluated for Channel Deepening*

(1,000s of short tons)

Crude

Petroleum

Petrochemicals Breakbulk Liquefied

Natural

Petroleum Products Chemical Products Coastwise a/ Crude Gas

Primary

Manuf.

Year Imports Imports Exports Imports Exports Products Materials Goods Imports

2001 11,064 641 2,327 25 136 1,043 131 665 0

2002 9,013 997 3,143 89 176 1,422 921 641 0

2003 11,987 1,152 3,734 60 210 2,577 501 557 0

2004 10,015 2,150 4,255 225 889 1,804 572 564 0

2005 9,320 2,205 3,858 194 998 1,803 572 710 0

2006 10,627 1,144 4,391 111 1,330 2,323 620 542 0

2007 10,334 772 3,978 97 1,525 3,330 577 122 0

Port Arthur Tonnage Forecast*

2019 12,248 1,811 6,879 223 1,462 3,002 751 524 5,828

2029 13,663 2,027 9,013 246 1,872 3,754 873 608 6,175

2039 14,509 2,312 10,255 272 2,396 4,506 1,016 705 6,175

2040 14,800 2,589 11,619 301 2,647 4,977 1,181 818 6,175

2059 15,100 2,901 13,124 332 2,924 5,498 1,374 949 6,175

2069 15,469 3,250 14,850 367 3,229 6,073 1,598 1,102 6,175

a/ Includes coastwise crude petroleum shipments and receipts.

*Deepening Benefits were calculated for a percentage of the tonnage presented in this table. Discussion of the commodityspecific percentages is contained in the previous and following sections.

525
149

Table 81

Beaumont Tonnage for Major Commodity Groups *

1,000s of short tons

Petrochemicals Breakbulk

Crude

Petroleum Petroleum Products Chemical Products Coastwise a/ Grain Crude

Primary

Manuf.

Year Imports Imports Exports Imports Exports Products Exports Materials Goods

2001 53,162 2,093 2,793 729 1,160 2,793 858 787 103

2002 57,370 4,031 2,492 594 1,411 2,712 835 408 204

2003 58,171 4,035 2,839 374 1,345 2,732 1,125 656 115

2004 59,860 3,852 2,897 431 1,215 3,191 1,329 663 420

2005 50,371 3,144 2,496 890 893 2,967 1,082 703 471

2006 46.988 2,676 2,432 1,133 1,574 3,115 1,214 793 364

2007 47,776 2,948 2,713 858 1,644 3,261 1,632 1,632 173

Beaumont Tonnage Forecast *

2019 81,980 3,362 4,586 967 1,787 4,899 2,129 1,106 428

2029 91,463 3,765 6,008 1,068 2,288 6,125 2,351 1,285 498

2039 97,152 4,293 7,458 1,180 2,928 7,351 2,597 1,495 579

2049 99,136 4,809 8,450 1,303 3,235 8,120 2,869 1,738 674

2059 101,149 5,387 10,738 1,439 3,573 8,970 3,169 2,022 784

2069 103,189 6,036 12,150 1,590 3,947 9,908 3,501 2,352 911

a/ Includes coastwise crude petroleum shipments and receipts.

* Deepening Benefits were calculated for a percentage of the tonnage presented in this table.

Discussion of the commodity-specific percentages is contained in the previous and following sections.

526
150

6.0 TRANSPORTATION SAVINGS BENEFITS

This section presents the transportation savings benefits. Transportation savings benefits were calculated

for channel widening and deepening.

6.1 VESSEL OPERATING COSTS

The vessel operating costs are shown in tables 82 to 84. Table 82 displays the hourly operating costs for

tankers. The hourly operating costs include fuel, labor, and maintenance. The costs used were obtained

from deep-draft vessel operating cost EGM December 2008 update. The tanker costs were used for the

crude petroleum, petroleum product, and chemical product transportation cost calculations. The

maximum-sized vessels using the channel to Beaumont on a regular basis are in the 150,000 DWT class.

The maximum size using the Taylor Bayou Port Arthur facilities are in the 110,000 to 116,000 DWT

range. As previously noted, the Port Arthur fleet is smaller, in terms of DWT, because the existing width

at the mouth of Taylor Bayou limits the allowable vessel size. The U.S. flag tanker costs contained in

Table 82 were used for calculating the transportation costs for U.S. coastwise product movements. Table

83 displays the foreign flag bulk carrier operating costs which were used for the grain exports and imports

of iron ore, metal products, limestone and rock. Table 84 displays the LNG vessel operating costs. The

LNG costs were estimated in consultation with the Institute of Water Resources (IWR).

Table 82

Tanker Characteristics and Hourly Operating Cost

Double-Hull Tankers, December 2008 IWR Release

Design Hourly Cost ($)

Vessel Draft Immersion Foreign-Flag U.S. Flag

DWT (feet) Factor At Sea In Port At Sea In Port

20,000 32.3 78.7 659 403 1,470 1,214

25,000 33.4 90.8 696 430 1,565 1,300

35,000 35.6 112.6 766 481 1,747 1,463

50,000 38.7 141.4 865 554 2,005 1,693

60,000 40.7 158.9 952 622 2,239 1,909

70,000 42.6 175.4 1,001 653 2,354 2,007

80,000 44.6 191.0 1,058 692 2,496 2,130

90,000 46.4 205.9 1,107 724 2,610 2,226

110,000 50.0 234.1 1,192 772 2,793 2,374

150,000 56.4 285.4 1,369 878 3,190 2,700

165,000 58.6 303.4 1,439 922 3,350 2,833

175,000 70.3 410.7 1,485 951 4,400 3,707

265,000 73.2 444.5 1,900 1,207 4,764 4,010

320,000 74.5 463.3 2,061 1,306 4,971 4,182

Source: Application of USACE, December 2008 Foreign Flag Tanker Costs presented in Economic Guidance Memorandum

#08-04, Deep-Draft Vessel Operating Cost FY 2008, December 2007.

527
151

Table 83

Dry Bulk Carrier Characteristics and Hourly Operating Cost

Foreign Flag Dry Bulk Carriers, December 2008 IWR Release

Vessel Design Immersion Hourly Cost ($)

DWT Draft (feet) Factor At Sea In Port

60,000 41.6 153.5 807 552

70,000 43.6 168.6 847 578

80,000 45.6 183.7 886 603

90,000 47.5 197.4 940 643

100,000 49.4 211.1 994 683

120,000 52.0 236.5 1,092 754

135,000 55.9 271.8 1,236 857

150,000 55.9 271.8 1,236 857

175,000 58.7 299.2 1,355 942

Source: USACE, December 2008 unpublished update of Economic Guidance Memorandum

#08-04, Deep-Draft Vessel Operating Cost FY 2008, December 2008.

Table 84

Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers

Characteristics and Hourly Operating Cost (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Vessel DWT

Design Draft

(feet)

Cubic Meters

Capacity

Immersion

Factor

Hourly Cost ($)

At Sea At Sea

76,500 37 145,000 248.7 1,773 1,506

100,000 39 210,000 315.2 2,073 1,753

125,000 40 250,000 358.1 2,302 1,937

125,000 40 265,000 372.4 2,423 2,039

Source: Application of USACE, December 2008 Foreign Flag Tanker Costs presented in Economic

Guidance Memorandum #08-04, Deep-Draft Vessel Operating Cost FY 2008, December 2008.

The LNG design vessel used by ERDC for the ship simulations consisted of a 140,000-m3spherical-tanktype vessel 920 feet long, 142 feet wide, and 37.4 feet in draft, and a proposed 250,000-m3 membranetype tanker 1,126 feet long, 177 feet wide, and 39.4 feet in draft. The LNG facilities are in the Sabine

Pass Channel and Port Arthur reaches. The project design vessel for crude petroleum tankers using the

entrance channel and going to Beaumont is 899 feet long and 164 feet wide. These dimensions

correspond to a 158,000 DWT crude petroleum tanker.

6.2 UNDERKEEL CLEARANCE

Underkeel clearance is defined as the minimum clearance available between the deepest point on the

vessel and the channel bottom, in still water. The SNWW project depth allows vessels to transit with a

maximum draft of 40 foot fresh water subject to the most recent USACE’s hydrographic report,

prevailing weather, and tidal conditions.44 Galveston District’s dredging practice also provides 2 feet of

44 http://www.sabinepilots.com/index.html.

528
152

advance maintenance and 2 feet of overdepth to the existing project depth of 40 feet mean low tide. The

availability of advance maintenance and overdepth can provide an extra 4 feet of underkeel clearance. As

the dredging cycle transpires, the stated project depth of 40 feet mean low tide and the range of underkeel

clearance available on a period basis obviously varies and generally diminishes. Given these

circumstances, it is also recognized that the dredging cycle is established with the goal of maintaining a

minimum available project depth of 40 feet mean low tide. As indicated, the subsequent effect of the

dredging cycle interval may result in a greater concentration of vessels loaded to 39 to 40 feet for the

period closer to the completion of maintenance dredging. While the current analysis contained in this

portion of the report does not include an investigation of the dredging history in relationship to vessel

trips by loaded draft, the annual distributions of trips by draft from the pilots and USACE NDC were

evaluated. Specifically, the pilots’ policy was evaluated in relationship to the USACE and the pilot

records of trips by loaded draft as a means of understanding existing underkeel clearance practices.

Data associated with the number of vessel trips by loaded draft was presented in Table 23 as part of the

vessel utilization presentation (Section 3.3). Interpretation of the pilots’ policy suggests that loaded drafts

in excess of 40 feet should be rare, Table 23 shows this to be true, with few loaded drafts over 40 feet.

Based on analysis of the Corps data and the pilots’ records, vessels are loaded to a maximum draft of 40

feet.

While the pilots emphasize 3 feet of underkeel clearance, review of the waterborne commerce data shows

some sailing drafts exceed 40 feet. The pilot emphasis of 3 feet of underkeel for liquid cargoes and review

of the WCSC-WCUS data, which show a high number of vessels with loaded drafts over 37 feet, revealed

discrepancies that showed uncertainty. Based on these findings, the transportation cost calculations were

made based on 1 foot of underkeel clearance used for all vessels except LNG. Based on industry input a

4- to 6-foot underkeel clearance was used for LNG vessels. The indication from pilot discussion was that

an absolute minimum of 4 feet underkeel clearance would be required and the preference was for 6 feet.

The effects of varying underkeel clearance are addressed in detail in the Sensitivity section of this

appendix (Section 8).

6.3 CHANNEL WIDENING BENEFITS

Reduction in delay benefits were calculated for channel widening and for holding area alternatives. The

benefit estimates are based on comparison of transit times between project alternatives. Transportation

costs for existing conditions, the without-project condition, and the project alternatives were calculated

using 2004 SNWW traffic base. Pilot records for 2001 and 2004–2005 were obtained from the SPA.

Vessel characteristics and related details were obtained from the USACE NDC detailed records.

In terms of channel width, there are three main traffic rules presently affecting vessel traffic. The traffic

rules, which affect movements in the 400- and 500-foot project reaches, are instituted by the SPA for the

purpose of helping to ensure safe navigation (Section 1, Table 3). The results of these rules provide for a

safe channel and a relatively low accident rate; however, the rules affect a significant portion of traffic in

the form of vessel delays. The traffic first rule is that vessels with combined beam widths equaling or

529
153

exceeding 50 percent of the channel width cannot meet each other. The second main rule is that vessels of

85,000 DWT or more will not meet vessels of 30,000 or more or with loaded drafts of 30 feet or more

above buoys 29 and 30. The third rule is that vessels of 48,000 DWT or more with a loaded draft of 30

feet or more will not meet above buoys 29 and 30. Vessels going to existing port facilities in Port Arthur,

Beaumont, and terminals in between are all affected by these traffic rules. The effect of the pilot rules in

the existing 400- and 500-foot reaches is that inbound crude petroleum tankers that characteristically are

in the 90,000 to 150,000 DWT range with beam widths between 135 and 145 feet and inbound loaded

over drafts of 35 feet cannot meet an outbound tanker of a comparable size at a lesser or a blast draft nor

can it meet a 106-foot-beam outbound chemical or product tanker.

The HarborSym model was used in evaluation of the Entrance Channel widening and the Neches River

turning basin and anchorage features. The outputs from HarborSym were aggregated into Excel

spreadsheets and are summarized in this section of the report. HarborSym is a planning-level model

developed by the IWR to assist in economic analyses of channel widening improvements. HarborSym is

an event-driven simulation model and includes data from user-specified transit rules that the model

processes with each vessel call in order to calculate delays within the system. While not yet certified, the

model is scheduled for review under the USACE certification system. The model is presently in the

model certification process. The model is presently being used by several USACE district offices for

channel-widening studies, and these outputs have undergone Agency Technical Review and USACE

headquarters review.

As noted, channel widening was considered for the channel reaches from the Sabine Pass Channel inland

through the Neches River Channel during the initial screening. The channel-widening alternatives

evaluated include widening of the existing 500-foot Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal and the

400-foot Sabine-Neches Canal and Neches River Channel. Table 85 presents the mileage from the

offshore Entrance Channel to the jetty where the Sabine Pass Channel starts. The pilots board at either the

Sabine Bar (SB) Buoy or the Sea Buoy. As shown from the mileage points in Table 85, the SB Buoy is

farther seaward than buoys 29 and 30. Under present conditions, the pilots steer vessels from the SB Buoy

or from buoys 29 and 30. Under present conditions, vessels with loaded drafts of 28 feet or more are

piloted to and from SB Buoy, and vessels with lighter drafts are piloted from buoys 29 and 30. The effect

of widening the Sabine Pass Channel to 500 feet will provide a continuous series of reaches for the

inbound and outbound convoys to meet.

530
154

Table 85

SNWW Mileage Points

Location

Approximate Mileage

Point

Sabine Bar (SB) Buoy 0.0

Sea Buoy (Markers #29 and 30) 14.0

East Jetty Light 16.3

LNG Facilities Sabine Pass 21.6

LNG Facility Port Arthur Canal 24.5

Texas Island (Junction to Taylor Bayou) 30.2

Taylor Bayou Crude Oil and Product Facilities 31.5

Martin Luther King Bridge 32.2

Port of Port Arthur Bulk Materials 32.6

Mouth of Neches River Channel to Beaumont 40.0

Rainbow Bridge 41.5

Crude Petroleum and Product Facilities, Lower Neches 41.7

Port Neches Crude Petroleum and Product Facilities 44.8

Crude Petroleum Terminal 46.1

Crude Petroleum Terminal 47.6

Crude Petroleum Terminal 50.9

Petroleum Coke Terminal 54.8

Crude Petroleum Terminal 55.2

Municipal Docks Bulk Materials 56.1

Trinity Industries 57.2

In addition to channel widening, the proposed Neches River turning basin anchorages were identified

based on user input as a less costly alternative to channel widening. These proposed features would be

used to facilitate vessel passing. The turning basin and anchorages would all be located above mile 40

shown in Table 86. Current and future use of the existing turning basins and new holding and turning sites

is outlined in Table 86. The table shows the cross-section stations and approximate mile, from the Sabine

Bank to the turning basin anchorages.

Under existing and without-project future conditions, there are four federally maintained turning basins

on the Neches River. These are TBA 1, TBA 4, TB 6, and the Beaumont Maneuvering Area. TBA 1,

TBA 4, and TB 6 are used to turn Suezmax vessels. The maximum-sized vessels using the Beaumont

Maneuvering Area are light Aframax vessels. The Beaumont Maneuvering Area is not currently designed

for Suezmax vessels nor will it be under the with-project future. Under existing conditions, Suezmax

vessels partially use the maneuvering area but also rely on the open channel in order to turn. This

condition will continue under the with-project condition. In addition to the four federally maintained

turning basins, light Aframax vessels presently use TBA 2, a privately maintained basin, for turning and

anchorage.

531
155

Table 86

Neches River Turning Basin and Anchorage Features

Title Location Description

StationNumber

Estimated

Miles from

Sea Buoy

CURRENT USE

Maximum Vessel Size and

Federal Authority (Y/N)

PROPOSED USE

Maximum Vessel Size and

Federal Authority (Y/N)

TURNING

Maximum

Vessel Size

ANCHORAGE

Maximum

Vessel Size

TURNING

Maximum

Vessel Size

ANCHORAGE

Maximum

Vessel Size

FEDERAL (Y/N) FEDERAL (Y/N)

TBA 1 Lower Fina Turning Basin Anchorage 1 210+00 43.4 Suezmax Y None a/ N Suezmax Y Suezmax YTBA 2 Upper Fina Turning Basin Anchorage 2 275+00 44.6 Suezmax a/ N None a/ N Suezmax Y Suezmax YTB 3 Port Neches Turning Basin 3 370+00 46.4 None N None N Suezmax Y None NTBA 4 Lower Sun Turning Basin Anchorage 4 510+00 49.1 Suezmax Y None a/ N Suezmax Y Suezmax YTB 5 Upper Sun Turning Basin 5 570+00 50.2 Shallow-Draft Barges b/ N Shallow-Draft Barges b/ N Suezmax Y None NTB 6 Oil Tanking Turning Basin 6 700+00 52.7 Suezmax Y None N Suezmax Y None NAB 7 PA 25 Anchorage Basin 7 750+00 53.6 None N None N None N Suezmax c/ YAB 8 Below Exxon Anchorage Basin 8 850+00 56.5 None N None N None N Suezmax c/ YNone Beaumont Beaumont

Maneuvering Area

975+00 58.8 Suezmax Y None N Suezmax Y None N

a/ Light vessels under emergency conditions.b/ Under existing conditions, TB 5 is private and used by shallow-draft barges. A new turning basin is proposed immediately north of existing TB 5. This basinwould be designed for loaded Suezmax tankers.c/ For the “with-project future,” anchorage basins 7 and 8 are designed for anchorage; however, the pilots intend to use anchorage basins 7 and 8 for both the

anchorage and turning of Suezmax vessels.

532
156

While official publications note that there are no Federal anchorage areas on the Neches River Channel

and that only emergency anchorage is permitted45, analysis of the pilots’ records showed that several sites

are routinely used for temporary anchorage of light vessels. Table 87 displays the 2005 distribution of

inbound vessels by docks and anchorage basins and suggests that the anchorages are used on more than

emergency basis by light vessels. The pilots verified that the anchorages are used by light vessels (TBA 1,

TBA 2, and TBA 4). The data shown in Table 87 indicate that 11 percent of vessels presently use

unofficial anchorages. Of the total of 1,404 shown in Table 87, 161 vessels used the unofficial anchorages

under existing conditions.

Seven federally maintained turning basins, including the Beaumont Maneuvering Area, and five

anchorages are proposed under the with-project condition. TB 2, TB 3, and TB 5 would become Federal

turning basins under the with-project condition. TB 1, TB 4, TB 6, and the Beaumont Maneuvering Area

are existing Federal features, and they would be enlarged under the with-project condition. All of the

anchorage basin components represent new Federal features (TBA 1, TBA 2, TBA 4, AB 7, and AB 8).

Three of the basins (TBA 1, TBA 2, and TBA 4) are used for anchorage under existing conditions to a

limited extent, but the limited anchorage component is not presently part of the Federal project. The pilots

noted that under present conditions, the vessels are wedged in at those locations. Depth availability is

limited to light-loaded or ballasted vessels. Additionally, while TBA 1, TBA 2, and TBA 4 currently

provide anchorage function; they cannot serve as turning basins while vessels are anchored in them. The

with-project condition would provide for concurrent use of TBA 1, TBA 2, and TBA 4 for both turning

and anchorage of individual vessels.

As the titles indicate, some of the individual features will include a turning basin and an anchorage (TBAs

1, 2, and 4), and some just a turning basin (TB 3, TB 5, and TB 6) or an anchorage (AB 7 and AB 8). The

SPA noted that the turning basin and anchorages, such as TBA 1, TBA 2, TBA 4, TBA 7, and AB 8 will

be designed to enable a 48-foot loaded Suezmax tanker to use the inner portion of the feature as an

anchorage and also allow a 48-foot loaded Suezmax tanker to turn in the turning basin section. While

some of the features listed in Table 87 would be developed from existing basins (TBA 1, TBA 4, and

TB 6) or are new basins (TBA 2, TB 3, TB 5, AB 7, and AB 8); the anchorage components of the features

are essentially new and the proposed dimensions represent new dredging.

45 NDC, Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, Texas, NDC-01-P-5, Port Series, No. 22, Revised 2001.

533
157

Table 87

Neches River Inbound Vessels by Destination

Existing Base

Annual Maximum Maximum Closest Existing

CY 2005 Vessel Channel Vessel or Future

Inbound Beam (feet) in Depth Length Anchorage

Destination Vessels a/ CY2005 a/ (feet) b/ (feet) b/ Basin

Fina Anchorage (Lower) 112 158 - - TBA 1-2

Fina Anchorage (Upper) 49 144 - - TBA 1-2

Sun Anchorage Lower 20 158 - - TBA 4

Suezmax and Aframax Size Docks

Total Petrochemicals #2 130 158 40 900 TBA 1

Motiva, Port Neches #1 127 139 40 950 TBA 2

Unocal #5 64 138 40 1,170 TBA 4

Unocal #2 100 151 40 1,020 TBA 4

Sun Terminal #1 48 138 38 875 TBA 4

Sun Terminal #2 67 164 40 1,000 TBA 4

Sun Terminal #3 86 164 40 1,000 TBA 4

Sun Terminal #4 99 158 40 1,000 TBA 4

Sun Terminal #5 63 146 40 1,000 TBA 4

Oil tanking (North) 141 158 40 900 TBA 4

Exxon Mobil #5 212 139 40 850 AB 7–8

Subtotal 1,137

% of Total 81

Panamax Size Docks

Total Petrochemicals #1 1 106 À40 À800 TBA 1

Huntsman East 13 106 À40 À800 TBA 2

Huntsman West 1 68 À40 À800 TBA 2

Transit Mix 4 106 À40 À800 TBA 2

Unocal #1 Main Dock 28 106 À40 À800 TBA 4

Martin Gas/Sulphur Basin 11 106 À40 À800 TBA 4

Oil tanking (South) 40 106 À40 À800 TBA 4

Exxon Mobil #2 25 106 À40 À800 AB 7–8

Exxon Mobil #4 42 106 À40 À800 AB 7–8

Neches River Terminal 15 106 À40 À800 AB 8

Port of Beaumont 26 106 À40 À800 AB 8

Grain Elevator 24 106 À40 À800 AB 8

Carrol St., Beaumont Bulk 36 106 À40 À800 AB 8

Bean’s West Fleet 1 60 À40 À800 AB 8

Subtotal 267

% of Total 19

Total Number of Inbound Vessels 1,404

a/ Sabine Pilots Association, 2007.

b/ USACE, NDC, Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, Texas, NDC-01-P-5, Port Series, No. 22, Revised

2001.

534
158

The HarborSym model was used to evaluate widening of the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal

and the turning basin and anchorage features. The HarborSym model results are for the baseline benefit

calculations. Sensitivity analysis of the turning basin and anchorages was made using pilot interview data.

Pilot interview data, including vessel log information and estimate of transit times, were crucial parts of

building the SNWW HarborSym application. Model calibration is additionally crucial, and concerns

about the ability of HarborSym to capture and model the pilots’ anticipated behavior as it relates to the

Neches River turning basin anchorage features were not resolved. There is a greater level of uncertainty

associated with the Neches River anchorages than with the widening of the Sabine Pass Channel and Port

Arthur Canal reaches. In reviewing the model outputs with the pilots, they found that the effects on transit

times and vessel throughput associated with Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal outputs were

within their expectations. The time savings associated with the HarborSym Neches River turning basin

and anchorage features runs are much lower than anticipated.

6.3.1 HarborSym Model

The HarborSym model is designed to create an event-driven simulation based on data stored in a

database, instead of customization within a simulation environment. Included in these data are the userspecified transit rules that the model processes with each vessel call in order to calculate delays within the

system. Users can define alternative sets of channel dimensions or rules reflecting harbor improvements

to determine potential transportation cost savings resulting from reduced delays.

HarborSym outputs were crucial for aggregation and understanding of base condition delays. Pilot

interviews were used to identify a wide range of information, including delay times. Vessel-class-specific

delay times were obtained from the model output, with these inputs having been defined using pilot logs

and extensive pilot interviews. A basic schematic of the SNWW from within the jetty starting at the

Sabine Pass Channel is displayed on Figure 57. The key element in modeling the harbor system was

replicating transit rules as listed in Table 3 of Section 1.

Inland waterway barge traffic was not included in HarborSym. Barge traffic moves through the SabineNeches Canal section of the SNWW. The Sabine-Neches Canal reach presently has a deep-draft project

width of 400 feet, and deep-draft vessels do not meet other deep-draft vessels or tows in that reach. The

project reach proposed for widening is the Sabine Pass Channel and the Port Arthur Canal, which is

approximately 15 miles long and south of the Sabine-Neches Canal. Vessel-to-barge communication and

the recently active VTM will help ensure that tow-barge and vessel transits do not overlap. Presently,

every effort is made to avoid overlap of tow-barge and vessel transits.

Vessel-to-tow communication has greatly improved since the beginning of the study process.

Additionally, the VTM is operational and very effective in planning vessel transits. Discussions with the

tow industry, the VTM, and the deep-draft vessel pilots indicated that the relative impacts to tow-barge

traffic are anticipated to be similar between the without- and with-project future due to vessel

management. The with-project condition of channel deepening will provide the advantage of fewer

oceangoing vessel trips for a given volume of traffic and, therefore, result in a net reduction in overall

535
159

congestion between the without- and with-project future conditions. The decision to forgo the barge shelf

was made by the tow industry due to reconsideration of how vessels and barges would interact. The

concern that was raised, but not physically modeled, was that the tow-barges could get pulled under or out

into the channel as it either meets a deep-draft vessel or “held-up or idled” in the barge shelf. The tow

operators originally thought that they wanted the shelf in case radio and/or other communication failed

and a tow-barge could not clear the channel as a deep-draft vessel began its transit through the reach. An

additional variable in deciding against the barge shelf was the activation of the VTM.

Figure 57

SNWW HarborSym Network

ß GIWW Sabine ßSabine

Neches

Canal

GIWW->

^

N

6.3.1.1 Model Input Overview

HarborSym requires inputs associated with vessel traffic, channel dimensions, docks, reach length,

entrance and exits, and topographic nodes. The point of entrance is the Gulf of Mexico. From the

“entrance point,” the channel moves inward through a series of topographic nodes along the Sabine Pass

Jetty Channel to the Sabine Pass Channel and then to the Port Arthur Canal and onward. Most

topographic nodes are situated at the end of one channel reach and the start of another, such as the nodes

on either end of the Sabine Pass Channel and the Port Arthur Canal. Some are at the junction of the

Sabine-Neches Canal at the Neches River Channel and the junction of the Port Arthur Canal and Taylor

Bayou. The Port Arthur Canal and Taylor Bayou junction is just north of the Port Arthur Canal junction

with the GIWW. The topographic nodes generally reflect traffic rule changes.

For modeling purposes, docks are generally aggregated as a group. Moving in from the offshore entrance

channel, the first dock destination on the Sabine Pass Channel is for Cheniere LNG and Offshore Marine.

Moving into the next reach, the Golden Pass LNG, which is presently under construction, and the

proposed Sempra terminal are contained in the next dock cluster located on the Port Arthur Canal. Within

Taylor Bayou there are two major dock points with other docks within Taylor Bayou being grouped under

536
160

one of the two majors. At the lower end of the Neches River, several petroleum terminals are tied to a

central dock destination. The Neches River Channel includes six center dock destinations.

Ten vessel types were defined and two or more classes per vessel type were defined. The vessel types are

general cargo/RoRo, oil tanker, chemical tanker, LPG tanker, LNG tanker, bulk carrier, oceangoing

tank/barge, tugboat, miscellaneous/other, and tug/barge. The vessel classes are based on vessel

dimensions. Table 88 lists most of the major vessel classes and their associated DWT, beam width, and

vessel operating costs. Additional variables, such as vessel length and load draft, were necessary inputs

but are not shown in the table. Vessel loaded draft was tied to the “vessel call list,” which is another major

level. The model structure contained several first level components and vessel characteristics and

associated operating costs are included under the “vessel type heading.” Port traffic is a level one heading

and it includes the vessel call list. Table 89 displays the general framework used for SNWW and shows

most of the major line items. For nearly all of the items listed, additional levels of definitions and details

are inputted. For example, under the reach heading, 48 reaches are defined. The general framework

shown in Table 90 would be similar for other port studies.

6.3.1.2 Vessel Traffic Input

Vessel trip estimates were prepared for the 2000–2004-period base and for 2030–2040 average trips. The

vessel classes were established based on the HarborSym vessel structure. The coding sheet corresponding

to the vessel classes is presented in Table 14. The 2000–2004 period tonnage and the 2000–2004 fleet are

presented in tables 91 and 92.

537
161

Table 88

SNWW HarborSym Model Vessel Classes

Vessel DWT Range Beam Range (feet) Hourly Operating Cost ($) Port Shifting

Type a/ Min Max Min Max at Sea In Port Cost ($)

OIL5 133,000 170,000 142 160 1,585 953 737

OIL1 8,000 56,000 60 104 825 475 358

OIL2 45,000 73,000 104 107 1,011 607 385

OIL3 67,000 97,000 115 127 1,174 712 449

OIL4 80,000 113,000 127 150 1,399 846 509

TNKB1 – 25,000 0 76 654 530 358

TNKB2 25,000 50,000 0 76 654 530 358

TUG1 – 25,000 0 76 463 350 358

TUG2 25,000 50,000 76 100 976 719 358

MISC1 – 50,000 0 76 463 350 358

MISC2 50,000 70,000 106 131 976 719 379

BLKC1 – 25,000 0 76 634 311 358

BLKC2 25,000 53,000 76 106 799 424 358

BLKC3 34,000 78,000 105 107 957 523 396

CHEM1 – 25,000 0 76 759 420 358

CHEM2 25,001 44,000 76 104.9 887 522 358

CHEM3 33,000 49,000 105 107 1,015 610 358

CHEM4 85,000 105,000 130 138 1,337 810 503

LPG1 – 25,000 0 76 654 520 358

LPG2 25,000 56,000 76 107 729 574 358

LPG3 60,000 70,000 115 120 857 669 379

LPG4 157,000 167,000 140 150 995 774 780

GCRR1 – 25,000 0 76 657 352 358

GCRR2 25,000 50,000 76 104 1,081 632 358

GCRR3 42,000 69,000 104 107 1,469 930 377

GCRR4 75,000 95,000 120 160 2,337 1,661 462

a/ This column contains the abbreviations for each of vessel classes. The abbreviations are shown for

presentation purposes of how the inputs were defined.

538
162

Table 89

SNWW HarborSym Model Framework

Description of Inputs Model Layer

Existing Condition Level 1

Vessel Info Level 2

Vessel Types Level 3

General Cargo/RoRo Level 4

Oil Tanker Level 4

Chemical Tanker Level 4

Bulk Carrier Level 4

LNG Tanker Level 4

Commodity Info Level 2

Crude Level 3

Petroleum Products Level 3

Grain Level 3

Chemicals Level 3

Wood Level 3

Stone Level 3

etc. Level 3

Port Structures Level 2

Reaches Level 3

Anchorage Level 3

Entry/Exit Level 2

Turning Basins Level 2

Anchorage Level 2

Docks Level 2

Reaches Level 2

Outer Bar Level 3

Jetty Channel Level 3

etc. Level 3

Port Traffic Level 3

New Project Alternative Level 1

Vessel Info Level 2

Commodity Info Level 2

Port Structures Level 2

Entry/Exit Level 2

Turning Basins Level 2

Anchorage Level 2

Docks Level 2

Reaches Level 2

Port Traffic Level 2

Run Model

539
163

Table 90

HarborSym Vessel Classes

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6

Total

Calls

Bulk

Min Beam 0 76.1 105

Max Beam 76 104.9 107

# calls 46 143 59 248

Min Capacity 0 25,001 34,000

Max Capacity 25000 53000 78,000

Chemical

Tanker

Min Beam 0 76.1 105 130

Max Beam 76 104.9 107 138

# calls 102 76 131 1 310

Min Capacity 0 25001 33000 85,000

Max Capacity 25000 44000 49000 105,000

General Cargo

Min Beam 0 76.1 104 120

Max Beam 76 103.9 107 142

# calls 125 58 16 3 202

Min Capacity 0 25,001 42,000 75,000

Max Capacity 25,000 50,000 69,000 95,000

LPG

Min Beam 0 76.1 115 140

Max Beam 76 107 120 150

# calls 15 16 1 1 33

Min Capacity 0 25,001 60,000 157,000

Max Capacity 25,000 56,000 70,000 167,000

MISC

Min Beam 0 106

Max Beam 76 131

# calls 3 2 5

Min Capacity 0 50,000

Max Capacity 25,000 70,000

Oil Tanker

Min Beam 60 104.1 115 127.1 142

Max Beam 104 107 127 150 160

# calls 49 96 153 657 15 970

Min Capacity 8,000 45,000 67,000 80,000 133,000

Max Capacity 56,000 73,000 97,000 113000 170,000

Tank Barge

Min Beam 0 76.1

Max Beam 76 107

# calls 92 11 103

Min Capacity 0 25,001

Max Capacity 25,000 50,000

Tug

Min Beam 0 76.1

Max Beam 76 100

# calls 55 12 67

Min Capacity 0 25,001

Max Capacity 25,000 50,000

Total

Calls

# calls 487 414 360 662 15 1,938

25.1% 21.4% 18.6% 34.2% 0.8% 100.0%

540
164

Table 91

SNWW 2000/2004 Tonnage (1,000s of Short Tons) a/

1,000s Tonnage by Vessel Class, 2000/2004 Base

Type/Class

Code 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Bulk 544.6 3,964.1 2,596.2 0.0 0.0 7,105.0

Chem 733.9 1,583.9 2,950.9 96.7 5,365.5

GenCargo 705.3 418.6 190.6 24.1 1,338.7

LPG 147.3 235.0 1.7 2.9 386.9

Misc 0.0 0.3 0.4

Oil Tanker 2,915.0 4,344.8 9,595.6 52,542.6 1,170.0 70,568.1

Tank Barge 1,306.3 138.6 1,444.9

Tug 17.6 153.1 170.7

LNG 5,777.0 5,770.0

Total 6,370.0 10,838.6 15,335.4 52,666.3 6,947.0 95,150.1

a/ LNG tonnage and vessels were included in the 2000/2004 HarborSym traffic analysis.

Table 92

Sabine-Neches Waterway 2000/2004 Trips a/

Estimated Number of Vessel Calls

by Vessel Class at Existing Depth

Type /Class

Code 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Bulk 46 143 59 0 0 248

Chem 102 76 131 1 0 310

GenCargo 125 58 16 3 0 202

LPG 15 16 1 1 0 33

Misc 3 2 0 0 0 5

Oil Tanker 49 96 153 657 15 970

Tank Barge 92 11 0 0 0 103

Tug 55 12 0 0 0 67

LNG 0 0 0 0 119 119

Total 487 414 360 662 134 2,057

a/ LNG tonnage and vessels were included in the 2000/2004 HarborSym traffic analysis.

541
165

Tables 93 through 95 present the 2030–2040 period tonnage and trip data. A “widening and deepening

alternative” would generate greater savings than widening. In regard to the pilot rules (see Table 3), rule 1

would change if the channel was widened and deepened. Rule 1 says that vessels with combined beam

widths that equal or exceed one-half of the channel width are not permitted to meet day or night. If the

channel was just widened, rules 3 and 4 would be relaxed as well. The effect of deepening and widening

will likely be to result in vessels with loaded drafts of less than 40 feet being able to meet; however,

vessels with loaded drafts over 40 feet would be much more restricted. While the vessel pilots indicated

that the effect of deepening would mean a loss of some of the gains in terms of relaxing rules 3 and 4, a

widening-only alternative would produce a lower number of vessels and could result in higher savings.

The effects of deepening and widening on total transportation costs are discussed in the sensitivity section

(Section 8).

Table 93

SNWW 2030/2040 Tonnage (1,000s of Short Tons)

1000s Tonnage by Vessel Class

Type /Class Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

Bulk 835 6,079 3,982 – – – 10,896

Chem 1,231 2,656 4,949 162 – – 8,998

GenCargo 1,155 685 312 40 – – 2,191

LPG 235 376 3 5 – – 618

Misc – – – – – – –

Oil Tanker 4,497 6,703 14,804 81,064 1,805 – 108,875

Tank Barge 2,284 270 – – – – 2,553

Tug 0 0 – – – – 1

LNG – – – – 5,777 – 5,777

Total 10,237 16,770 24,049 81,271 7,582 – 139,909

Table 94

SNWW 2030/2040 Vessel Trips Without Deepening

Estimated Number of Vessel Trips by Vessel Class

Type/Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

Bulk 71 219 90 0 0 0 380

Chem 171 127 220 2 0 0 520

GenCargo 205 95 26 5 0 0 331

LPG 24 26 2 2 0 0 53

Misc 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

Oil Tanker 76 148 236 1,014 23 0 1,497

Tank Barge 145 17 0 0 0 0 163

Tug 87 19 0 0 0 0 105

LNG 0 0 0 0 119 0 119

Total 780 652 574 1,023 142 0 3,170

542
166

Table 95

SNWW 2030/2040 Vessel Trips With Deepening

Vessel Trips by Vessel Class

Type/Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

Bulk 71 138 112 – – – 321

Chem 171 80 210 6 – – 467

GenCargo 205 60 41 7 – – 312

LPG 24 14 7 3 – – 48

Misc 1 1 – – – – 2

Oil Tanker 236 86 61 579 315 – 1,277

Tank Barge 145 17 – – – – 162

Tug 87 19 – – – – 105

LNG – – – – 119 – 119

Total 940 415 431 595 434 0 2,815

6.3.1.3 Evaluation of Project Alternatives

The HarborSym model was run for existing conditions and each of the project alternatives. The widening

alternatives included widening of the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal channel from 500 to

700 feet. Evaluation of widths less than 700 feet was also conducted. Widening of the Sabine Pass

Channel and Port Arthur Canal reaches were evaluated with and without the Neches River turning basin

and anchorage alternatives, and the turning basin anchorage features were evaluated on an incremental

basis. The transportation cost savings associated with widening of the Sabine Pass Channel and Port

Arthur Canal reaches and Neches River turning basin and anchorage features were evaluated based on a

40-foot channel depth.

An anticipated effect of widening the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal to 700 feet would be to

allow a higher percentage of vessels in the proposed 700-foot reach. The effect of widening on rule 1

would be that a larger number of vessels with wider beam would be able to meet. Rule 2 would not

change with widening as it applies to the Sabine-Neches Canal, which is shared by GIWW barge traffic.

Widening of the Sabine-Neches Canal reach was evaluated during the early formulation stages; however,

cargo docks are located on the west side of canal in the lower end of the reach, and the Port Arthur

Hurricane Protection Levee, also on the west side, is located in the following section of this reach.

Anticipated costs associated with channel widening due to the Hurricane Protection Levee in the SabineNeches Canal and docks along the Sabine-Neches Canal and Neches River Channel reaches limited the

extent of structural alternatives that were carried into detailed analysis. As part of plan formulation, the

Neches River anchorage basins were introduced as a less costly alternative to widening of the Neches

River Channel to Beaumont. The anchorages would be used to facilitate vessel passing. During the initial

screening, extensive but intermittent widening was evaluated for the channel reaches from Sabine Pass

Channel, inland through the Neches River Channel. This and the other alternatives were screened based

on comparison of anticipated reductions in vessel delay costs and initial project construction cost

estimates and the outputs of the ERDC ship simulation modeling. Widening of the Neches River reach

543
167

was found not be a cost effective alternative due to costly dock relocations and extensive dredging.

Additionally, intermittent widening of the Neches River Channel did not perform well during ERDC ship

simulation modeling. In comparison, the Neches River anchorages and Sabine Pass Channel and Port

Arthur Canal widening features performed favorably. The results of the ERDC modeling showed that a

minimum width of 700 feet through the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal would be necessary

for the Suezmax and Aframax vessels to meet smaller vessels in the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur

Canal. The project design vessel is 899 feet long and 164 feet wide. These dimensions correspond to a

158,000 DWT Suezmax crude petroleum tanker. A loaded and a ballast design vessel could not

successfully meet in the ERDC test of the 600-foot channel nor could the design vessel and a smaller

110,000 DWT Aframax tanker meet. Aframax tankers characteristically range from 90,000 to 120,000

DWT, and the Suezmax tankers characteristically range from 120,000 to 175,000 DWT.

6.3.1.4 Entrance Channel Widening Benefits

Evaluation of widening of the entrance channel to 700 feet through the Sabine Pass Channel and Port

Arthur Canal showed that, using 2000–2004 traffic levels, vessels would save an average of 1.5 hours per

round trip voyage, with an annual savings of $3,487,322. Summary output from the HarborSym model

associated with widening the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal to 700 feet is displayed in Table

96. The benefits of widening only through the Sabine Pass Channel totaled approximately $2,269,264.

Evaluation of Port Arthur by itself resulted in annual savings of approximately $2,579,760. The widening

benefits shown in Table 96 are for the existing 40-foot channel depth and 2000–2004 period traffic. The

effect of reductions in total vessel movements resulting from channel deepening is evaluated in the

sensitivity section of this appendix.

Examination of the output data shows that for the without-project condition, which reflects the inclusion

of LNG carriers, vessels are in the system for 78.2 hours. The output also shows that expansion of the

Entrance Channel will reduce the time in system to 76.7 hours. In reviewing the changes in delay times, it

was found that there are large variances in throughput times. The minimum time for the without-project

condition was on average 11.9 hours, and the minimum time for the with-project condition also averaged

11.9 hours. The larger crude oil tankers showed throughput savings for the with-project condition. For

instance, Suezmax vessels took an average of 86.7 hours under the without-project condition and an

average of 83.1 hours with the widened entrance channel. The addition of the LNG vessels will result in

longer waiting times for several vessel classes. Without the LNG vessels, the average number of hours in

the system was 66.4. The effect of introducing the LNG vessels increases total delay times but reduces

average times because the LNG vessels represent a large increase in vessels that travel shorter distances

than the existing tanker fleet going to the Neches River and, therefore, will not be subject to delays.

544
Table 96

168

SNWW HarborSym Output Annual Savings by Vessel Class (2004-Period Traffic), Widening Only

Vessel Type Average Time

Existing

Condition (hrs)

SPC/PAC

Widening (hrs) Difference

Hourly

Operating Cost

($)

Change

Cost/Vessel

($)

# of

vessels Savings ($)

OIL5 System 45.971 44.472 1.499133,000 to Waiting 11.835 10.332 1.503170,000 DWT Reaches 12.531 12.527 0.004 1,585 6 54 342

Loading 19.194 19.2 –0.006 953 –6 54 –309

TB 0.311 0.311 0 1,585 0 54 0

Docking 1.5 1.5 0 1,585 0 54 0

Undocking 0.6 0.601 –0.001 1,585 –2 54 –86

Wait Entry 7.53 5.026 2.504 1,585 3,969 54 214,317Wait Dock 4.305 5.306 –1.001 953 –954 54 –51,513

Waiting TB 0 0 0 953 0 54 0Waiting FN 0 0 0 953 0 54 0

Subtotal 162,752

Oceangoing System 61.703 61.67 0.033

Tank Barge Waiting 1.424 1.391 0.033

Up to 25,000 Reaches 8.078 8.078 0 654 0 76 0

DWT Loading 49.518 49.518 0 520 0 76 0

TB 0.306 0.306 0 654 0 76 0

Docking 1.699 1.698 0.001 654 1 76 50Undocking 0.679 0.679 0 654 0 76 0Wait Entry 0.423 0.331 0.092 654 60 76 4,573Wait Dock 0.95 1.025 –0.075 520 –39 76 –2,964Waiting TB 0 0 0 520 0 76 0Waiting FN 0.051 0.034 0.017 520 9 76 672

Subtotal 2,330

Continued next page

545
169

Table 96 (Cont’d)

Vessel Type Average Time

Existing

Condition (hrs)

SPC/PAC

Widening (hrs) Difference

Hourly

Operating Cost

($)

Change

Cost/Vessel

($)

# of

vessels Savings ($)

Oceangoing System 49.192 48.8 0.392Tank Barge Waiting 1.824 1.43 0.394

25,000 to 50,000 Reaches 9.2 9.2 0 995 0 11 0

DWT Loading 35.344 35.344 0 774 0 11 0

TB 0.338 0.338 0 995 0 11 0

Docking 1.779 1.78 –0.001 995 –1 11 –11Undocking 0.707 0.708 –0.001 995 –1 11 –11Wait Entry 0.918 0.375 0.543 995 540 11 5,943Wait Dock 0.838 1.026 –0.188 774 –146 11 –1,601Waiting TB 0 0 0 774 0 11 0Waiting FN 0.068 0.029 0.039 774 30 11 332

Subtotal 4,653

MISC1 System 10.448 9.759 0.689

<50,000 DWT Waiting 1.563 0.874 0.689

Reaches 6.395 6.395 0 463 0 1 0

Loading 0.062 0.062 0 350 0 1 0

TB 0.316 0.316 0 463 0 1 0

Docking 1.508 1.508 0 463 0 1 0Undocking 0.604 0.604 0 463 0 1 0Wait Entry 0.333 0.181 0.152 463 70 1 70Wait Dock 1.23 0.693 0.537 350 188 1 188Waiting TB 0 0 0 350 0 1 0Waiting FN 0 0 0 350 0 1 0

Subtotal 258

Continued next page

546
170

Table 96 (Cont’d)

Vessel Type Average Time

Existing

Condition (hrs)

SPC/PAC

Widening (hrs) Difference

Hourly

Operating Cost

($)

Change

Cost/Vessel

($)

# of

vessels Savings ($)

MISC2 System 12.132 10.405 1.727>50,000 DWT Waiting 2.859 1.139 1.72

Reaches 6.648 6.648 0 976 0 2 0

Loading 0.216 0.216 0 719 0 2 0

TB 0.306 0.306 0 976 0 2 0

Docking 1.499 1.497 0.002 976 2 2 4Undocking 0.605 0.6 0.005 976 5 2 10Wait Entry 1.465 0.276 1.189 976 1,160 2 2,321Wait Dock 1.394 0.863 0.531 719 382 2 764Waiting TB 0 0 0 719 0 2 0Waiting FN 0 0 0 719 0 2 0

Subtotal 3,098

Oceangoing System 17.61 17.395 0.215

Tug Type1 Waiting 0.222 0.007 0.215

Reaches 4.517 4.517 0 463 0 1 0

Loading 10.452 10.452 0 350 0 1 0

TB 0.309 0.309 0 463 0 1 0

Docking 1.494 1.494 0 463 0 1 0Undocking 0.616 0.616 0 463 0 1 0Wait Entry 0.215 0 0.215 463 100 1 100Wait Dock 0 0 0 350 0 1 0Waiting TB 0 0 0 350 0 1 0Waiting FN 0.007 0.007 0 350 0 1 0System 17.61 17.395 0.215 Subtotal 100

Continued next page

547
171

Table 96 (Cont’d)

Vessel Type Average Time

Existing

Condition (hrs)

SPC/PACWidening (hrs) Difference

Hourly

Operating Cost

($)

Change

Cost/Vessel

($)

# of

vessels Savings ($)

Oceangoing System 27.813 27.568 0.245Tug Type2 Waiting 0.765 0.518 0.247

Reaches 5.119 5.119 0 976 0 6 0

Loading 19.51 19.51 0 719 0 6 0

TB 0.314 0.314 0 976 0 6 0

Docking 1.501 1.503 –0.002 976 –2 6 –12Undocking 0.602 0.603 –0.001 976 –1 6 –6Wait Entry 0.361 0.255 0.106 976 103 6 621Wait Dock 0.304 0.238 0.066 719 47 6 285Waiting TB 0 0 0 719 0 6 0Waiting FN 0.101 0.025 0.076 719 55 6 328

Subtotal 1,216

LNG System 100.565 100.565 0

Small Waiting 0.041 0.041 0

Reaches 1.832 1.832 0 1,773 0 107 0

Loading 96.606 96.606 0 1,506 0 107 0

TB 0 0 0 1,773 0 107 0

Docking 1.501 1.501 0 1,773 0 107 0Undocking 0.601 0.601 0 1,773 0 107 0Wait Entry 0.026 0.026 0 1,773 0 107 0Wait Dock 0.015 0.015 0 1,506 0 107 0Waiting TB 0 0 0 1,506 0 107 0Waiting FN 0 0 0 1,506 0 107 0

Subtotal 0

Continued next page

548
172

Table 96 (Cont’d)

Vessel Type Average Time

Existing

Condition (hrs)

SPC/PAC

Widening (hrs) Difference

Hourly

Operating Cost

($)

Change

Cost/Vessel

($)

# of

vessels Savings ($)

LNG System 118.402 118.402 0Large Waiting 0.028 0.028 0

Reaches 4.421 4.421 0 2,423 0 200 0

Loading 111.715 111.715 0 2,039 0 200 0

TB 0.152 0.152 0 2,423 0 200 0

Docking 1.5 1.5 0 2,423 0 200 0Undocking 0.601 0.601 0 2,423 0 200 0Wait Entry 0.013 0.013 0 2,423 0 200 0Wait Dock 0.015 0.015 0 2,039 0 200 0Waiting TB 0 0 0 2,039 0 200 0Waiting FN 0 0 0 2,039 0 200 0

Subtotal 0

Bulk Carrier1 System 38.117 37.972 0.145

Waiting 1.204 1.061 0.143

Reaches 6.754 6.754 0 634 0 53 0

Loading 27.749 27.749 0 311 0 53 0

TB 0.31 0.31 0 634 0 53 0

Docking 1.5 1.499 0.001 634 1 53 34Undocking 0.6 0.599 0.001 634 1 53 34Wait Entry 0.392 0.325 0.067 634 42 53 2,251Wait Dock 0.711 0.692 0.019 311 6 53 313Waiting TB 0 0 0 311 0 53 0Waiting FN 0.101 0.044 0.057 311 18 53 940

Subtotal 3,571

Continued next page

549
173

Table 96 (Cont’d)

Vessel Type Average Time

Existing

Condition (hrs)

SPC/PAC

Widening (hrs) Difference

Hourly

Operating Cost

($)

Change

Cost/Vessel

($)

# of

vessels Savings ($)

Bulk Carrier2 System 55.117 54.713 0.404

Waiting 1.259 0.856 0.403

Reaches 6.11 6.11 0 799 0 134 0

Loading 45.337 45.337 0 424 0 134 0

TB 0.31 0.31 0 799 0 134 0

Docking 1.501 1.5 0.001 799 1 134 107Undocking 0.6 0.6 0 799 0 134 0Wait Entry 0.544 0.264 0.28 799 224 134 29,978Wait Dock 0.623 0.559 0.064 424 27 134 3,636Waiting TB 0 0 0 424 0 134 0Waiting FN 0.093 0.033 0.06 424 25 134 3,409

Subtotal 37,131

Bulk Carrier3 System 76.241 75.503 0.738

Waiting 1.851 1.113 0.738

Reaches 7.559 7.559 0 957 0 61 0

Loading 64.42 64.42 0 523 0 61 0TB 0.311 0.311 0 957 0 61 0

Docking 1.501 1.501 0 957 0 61 0Undocking 0.599 0.6 –0.001 957 –1 61 –58Wait Entry 0.898 0.238 0.66 957 632 61 38,529Wait Dock 0.808 0.836 –0.028 523 –15 61 –893Waiting TB 0 0 0 523 0 61 0Waiting FN 0.146 0.039 0.107 523 56 61 3,414

Subtotal 40,991

Continued next page

550
174

Table 96 (Cont’d)

Vessel Type Average Time

Existing

Condition (hrs)

SPC/PAC

Widening (hrs) Difference

Hourly

Operating Cost

($)

Change

Cost/Vessel

($)

# of

vessels Savings ($)

Chem1 System 36.364 36.088 0.276

Waiting 1.329 1.05 0.279

Reaches 6.491 6.491 0 759 0 120 0

Loading 26.099 26.099 0 420 0 120 0

TB 0.311 0.311 0 759 0 120 0

Docking 1.525 1.526 –0.001 759 –1 120 –91Undocking 0.609 0.61 –0.001 759 –1 120 –91Wait Entry 0.526 0.301 0.225 759 171 120 20,493Wait Dock 0.724 0.724 0 420 0 120 0Waiting TB 0 0 0 420 0 120 0Waiting FN 0.079 0.025 0.054 420 23 120 2,722

Subtotal 23,032

Chem2 System 52.078 51.696 0.382

Waiting 1.58 1.196 0.384

Reaches 7.109 7.109 0 887 0 75 0

Loading 40.388 40.388 0 522 0 75 0

TB 0.369 0.369 0 887 0 75 0

Docking 1.881 1.88 0.001 887 1 75 67Undocking 0.752 0.754 –0.002 887 –2 75 –133Wait Entry 0.745 0.372 0.373 887 331 75 24,814Wait Dock 0.696 0.739 –0.043 522 –22 75 –1,683Waiting TB 0 0 0 522 0 75 0Waiting FN 0.139 0.085 0.054 522 28 75 2,114

Subtotal 25,178

Continued next page

551
175

Table 96 (Cont’d)

Vessel Type Average Time

Existing

Condition (hrs)

SPC/PAC

Widening (hrs) Difference

Hourly

Operating Cost

($)

Change

Cost/Vessel

($)

# of

vessels Savings ($)

Chem3 System 54.421 53.758 0.663

Waiting 2.12 1.457 0.663

Reaches 8.132 8.132 0 1,015 0 104 0

Loading 41.672 41.672 0 610 0 104 0

TB 0.314 0.314 0 1,015 0 104 0

Docking 1.558 1.559 –0.001 1,015 –1 104 –106Undocking 0.624 0.624 0 1,015 0 104 0Wait Entry 1 0.37 0.63 1,015 639 104 66,503Wait Dock 1.1 1.082 0.018 610 11 104 1,142Waiting TB 0 0 0 610 0 104 0Waiting FN 0.02 0.005 0.015 610 9 104 952

Subtotal 68,491

Chem4 System 152.792 150.139 2.653

Waiting 19.552 16.904 2.648

Reaches 7.865 7.865 0 1,337 0 1 0

Loading 120.861 120.861 0 810 0 1 0

TB 0.309 0.309 0 1,337 0 1 0

Docking 3.003 2.991 0.012 1,337 16 1 16Undocking 1.202 1.209 –0.007 1,337 –9 1 –9Wait Entry 4.789 2.919 1.87 1,337 2,500 1 2,500Wait Dock 14.763 13.985 0.778 810 630 1 630Waiting TB 0 0 0 810 0 1 0Waiting FN 0 0 0 810 0 1 0

Subtotal 3,137

Continued next page

552
176

Table 96 (Cont’d)

Vessel Type Average Time

Existing

Condition (hrs)

SPC/PAC

Widening (hrs) Difference

Hourly

Operating Cost

($)

Change

Cost/Vessel

($)

# of

vessels Savings ($)

LPGT1 System 31.893 31.816 0.077

Waiting 1.172 1.095 0.077

Reaches 7.02 7.02 0 654 0 13 0

Loading 21.294 21.294 0 520 0 13 0

TB 0.309 0.309 0 654 0 13 0

Docking 1.5 1.501 –0.001 654 –1 13 –9Undocking 0.599 0.597 0.002 654 1 13 17Wait Entry 0.41 0.336 0.074 654 48 13 629Wait Dock 0.762 0.759 0.003 520 2 13 20Waiting TB 0 0 0 520 0 13 0Waiting FN 0 0 0 520 0 13 0

Subtotal 658

LPGT2 System 65.482 65.154 0.328

Waiting 1.49 1.163 0.327

Reaches 7.055 7.055 0 729 0 18 0

Loading 54.523 54.523 0 574 0 18 0

TB 0.312 0.312 0 729 0 18 0

Docking 1.502 1.502 0 729 0 18 0Undocking 0.6 0.599 0.001 729 1 18 13Wait Entry 0.608 0.351 0.257 729 187 18 3,372Wait Dock 0.882 0.812 0.07 574 40 18 723Waiting TB 0 0 0 574 0 18 0Waiting FN 0 0 0 574 0 18 0

Subtotal 4,109

Continued next page

553
177

Table 96 (Cont’d)

Vessel Type Average Time

Existing

Condition (hrs)

SPC/PAC

Widening (hrs) Difference

Hourly

Operating Cost

($)

Change

Cost/Vessel

($)

# of

vessels Savings ($)

LPGT3 System 15.49 14.966 0.524

Waiting 1.315 0.811 0.504

Reaches 5.878 5.878 0 857 0 1 0

Loading 5.886 5.886 0 669 0 1 0

TB 0.313 0.313 0 857 0 1 0

Docking 1.502 1.489 0.013 857 11 1 11Undocking 0.595 0.588 0.007 857 6 1 6Wait Entry 0.526 0.104 0.422 857 362 1 362Wait Dock 0.789 0.707 0.082 669 55 1 55Waiting TB 0 0 0 669 0 1 0Waiting FN 0 0 0 669 0 1 0

Subtotal 434

LPGT4 System 40.871 36.812 4.059

Waiting 22.644 18.585 4.059

Reaches 6.873 6.873 0 995 0 1 0

Loading 8.927 8.927 0 774 0 1 0

TB 0.319 0.319 0 995 0 1 0

Docking 1.516 1.516 0 995 0 1 0Undocking 0.593 0.593 0 995 0 1 0Wait Entry 9.485 7.019 2.466 995 2,454 1 2,454Wait Dock 13.159 11.567 1.592 774 1,232 1 1,232Waiting TB 0 0 0 774 0 1 0Waiting FN 0 0 0 774 0 1 0

Subtotal 3,686

Continued next page

554
178

Table 96 (Cont’d)

Vessel Type Average Time

Existing

Condition (hrs)

SPC/PAC

Widening (hrs) Difference

Hourly

Operating Cost

($)

Change

Cost/Vessel

($)

# of

vessels Savings ($)

GCRR1 System 29.632 29.489 0.143

Waiting 0.879 0.736 0.143

Reaches 5.556 5.556 0 657 0 133 0

Loading 20.771 20.771 0 352 0 133 0

TB 0.311 0.311 0 657 0 133 0

Docking 1.512 1.511 0.001 657 1 133 87Undocking 0.605 0.605 0 657 0 133 0Wait Entry 0.263 0.191 0.072 657 47 133 6,291Wait Dock 0.572 0.524 0.048 352 17 133 2,247Waiting TB 0 0 0 352 0 133 0Waiting FN 0.044 0.021 0.023 352 8 133 1,077

Subtotal 9,703

GCRR2 System 47.611 47.221 0.39

Waiting 1.422 1.032 0.39

Reaches 7.085 7.085 0 1,081 0 57 0

Loading 36.693 36.693 0 632 0 57 0

TB 0.311 0.311 0 1,081 0 57 0

Docking 1.499 1.499 0 1,081 0 57 0Undocking 0.601 0.6 0.001 1,081 1 57 62Wait Entry 0.625 0.303 0.322 1,081 348 57 19,841Wait Dock 0.786 0.722 0.064 632 40 57 2,306Waiting TB 0 0 0 632 0 57 0Waiting FN 0.011 0.007 0.004 632 3 57 144

Subtotal 22,352

Continued next page

555
179

Table 96 (Cont’d)

Vessel Type Average Time

Existing

Condition (hrs)

SPC/PAC

Widening (hrs) Difference

Hourly

Operating Cost

($)

Change

Cost/Vessel

($)

# of

vessels Savings ($)

GCRR3 System 124.117 123.908 0.209

Waiting 0.977 0.769 0.208

Reaches 5.581 5.581 0 1,469 0 10 0

Loading 115.176 115.176 0 930 0 10 0

TB 0.281 0.281 0 1,469 0 10 0

Docking 1.503 1.502 0.001 1,469 1 10 15Undocking 0.599 0.6 –0.001 1,469 –1 10 –15Wait Entry 0.401 0.19 0.211 1,469 310 10 3,100Wait Dock 0.557 0.571 –0.014 930 –13 10 –130Waiting TB 0 0 0 930 0 10 0Waiting FN 0.019 0.007 0.012 930 11 10 112

Subtotal 3,081

OIL1 System 43.474 42.898 0.576

Waiting 1.453 0.878 0.575

Reaches 8.037 8.037 0 825 0 33 0

Loading 31.512 31.512 0 475 0 33 0

TB 0.31 0.31 0 825 0 33 0

Docking 1.543 1.544 –0.001 825 –1 33 –27Undocking 0.618 0.617 0.001 825 1 33 27Wait Entry 0.733 0.259 0.474 825 391 33 12,905Wait Dock 0.581 0.569 0.012 475 6 33 188Waiting TB 0 0 0 475 0 33 0Waiting FN 0.139 0.051 0.088 475 42 33 1,379

Subtotal 14,472

Continued next page

556
180

Table 96 (Cont’d)

Vessel Type Average Time

Existing

Condition (hrs)

SPC/PAC

Widening (hrs) Difference

Hourly

Operating Cost

($)

Change

Cost/Vessel

($)

# of

vessels Savings ($)

OIL2 System 47.631 46.767 0.864

Waiting 1.592 0.729 0.863

Reaches 5.664 5.664 0 1,011 0 85 0

Loading 37.974 37.974 0 607 0 85 0

TB 0.3 0.3 0 1,011 0 85 0

Docking 1.5 1.499 0.001 1,011 1 85 86Undocking 0.601 0.601 0 1,011 0 85 0Wait Entry 0.918 0.189 0.729 1,011 737 85 62,647Wait Dock 0.459 0.454 0.005 607 3 85 258Waiting TB 0 0 0 607 0 85 0Waiting FN 0.215 0.086 0.129 607 78 85 6,656

Subtotal 69,646

OIL3 System 42.648 40.676 1.972

Waiting 6.343 4.364 1.979

Reaches 6.939 6.936 0.003 1,174 4 100 352

Loading 26.962 26.97 –0.008 712 –6 100 –570

TB 0.305 0.305 0 1,174 0 100 0

Docking 1.499 1.5 –0.001 1,174 –1 100 –117Undocking 0.6 0.6 0 1,174 0 100 0Wait Entry 4.034 2.088 1.946 1,174 2,285 100 228,460Wait Dock 2.145 2.23 –0.085 712 –61 100 –6,052Waiting TB 0 0 0 712 0 100 0Waiting FN 0.164 0.047 0.117 712 83 100 8,330

Subtotal 230,404

Continued next page

557
181

Table 96 (Cont’d)

Vessel Type Average Time

Existing

Condition (hrs)

SPC/PAC

Widening (hrs) Difference

Hourly

Operating Cost

($)

Change

Cost/Vessel

($)

# of

vessels Savings ($)

OIL4 System 47.201 44.533 2.668

Waiting 13.789 11.118 2.671

Reaches 10.653 10.649 0.004 1,399 6 695 $3,889

Loading 20.377 20.385 –0.008 846 –7 695 –$4,704

TB 0.278 0.278 0 1,399 0 695 $0

Docking 1.502 1.502 0 1,399 0 695 $0Undocking 0.601 0.601 0 1,399 0 695 $0Wait Entry 8.514 5.437 3.077 1,399 4,305 695 $2,991,782Wait Dock 5.254 5.675 –0.421 846 –356 695 –$247,535Waiting TB 0 0 0 846 0 695 $0Waiting FN 0.022 0.006 0.016 846 14 695 $9,408

Subtotal $2,752,840

Total Savings (all vessels) 3,487,322

558
182

The benefits shown in Table 96 are based on widening only and are based on 2004-period traffic levels.

Table 97 summarizes the average annual benefits for 2019–2069 for widening of the Sabine Pass Channel

and the Port Arthur Canal. Table 98 displays the incremental economic summary data associated with the

widening of the Sabine Pass Channel and the Port Arthur Canal. The results of the benefit-cost analysis

indicated that widening was not an incremental justified feature.

Table 97

Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal Widening Only

Average Annual Benefits (2008 Dollars at 4.375%)

Year

Sabine Pass

Channel

Port Arthur

Canal

Sabine Pass Channel

and Port Arthur Canal

2004 2,269,264 2,579,760 3,487,322

2019 2,922,548 3,431,103 4,335,553

2029 3,738,979 4,431,691 5,486,406

2039 4,691,482 5,599,044 6,829,067

2049 5,262,983 6,299,456 7,634,664

2059 6,215,486 7,466,809 8,977,326

2069 7,548,990 9,101,103 10,857,052

Average Annual

Benefits (4.375%) 6,379,579

Table 98

Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal Widening Only

Economic Summary Data (2008 Dollars at 4.375%)

Item

Sabine Pass Channel

and

Port Arthur Canal

First Cost 78,448,000

Mitigation Cost 48,484,500

Interest During Construction 36,282,311

Total First Cost 163,214,811

Average Annual Construction Cost 8,091,727

Incremental Average Annual Operations and

Maintenance (O&M) Cost 9,587,005

Total Average Annual Cost 17,678,733

Average Annual Benefits 6,338,991

Benefit to Cost Ratio 0.4

The benefit calculations are based on 2004-period historical and 2030-2040 projected traffic. The future

traffic levels do not account for channel deepening. The effect on the reduction in total vessel movements

resulting from channel deepening is evaluated in the sensitivity section of this appendix. For the

sensitivity, HarborSym widening model was run based on the reduction in vessel trips as a result of

channel deepening The purpose of the sensitivity was to determine changes in the annual delays in

relationship to widening and deepening of the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal. The change in

vessel trips due to channel deepening was estimated based on the decrease in the number of trips

559
183

necessary to transport future tonnage. The model results show that the reduction in the number of vessel

trips resulting from channel deepening has a significant effect on the net difference in the duration of

vessel delays between the without- and with-project conditions. Further analyses based on various ranges

of fleet forecasts indicate that the increase in benefits from scenarios that included either “deepening and

widening” or “deepening and the turning basins” were primarily attributable to the reduction in trips due

to channel deepening. These savings result from the reduction in trips based on vessels carrying additional

cargo or the redistribution of vessel sizes based on the availability of a deeper channel and do vary

significantly from the “widening only” benefits shown in Table 98. The effect of adding these savings to

the project benefits is outlined in the sensitivity section (Section 8).

6.3.1.5 Neches River Holding Areas

Determination of the number of turning basins, turning basin anchorage combinations, and anchorages

was initially made based on pilot interviews. The turning basins and turning basin anchorage

combinations are used for both turning and for vessels to wait while others pass. The TBAs allow loaded

vessels to await berths at the dock and will save the time that they originally would have spent

“inbounding” when the berth became clear. With the TBAs, instead vessels only have to shift from one of

these sites to a dock rather than awaiting an outbound ship to sail and to start in accordance with the

traffic rules. The pilots said that they would trade vessels out between the Neches River “holding areas”

and “docks,” thus violating established rules. According to ER 1105-2-100 and the Policy Digest, features

such as turning basins can be in the Federal interest if they facilitate safe and efficient vessel navigation;

this is clearly the case for the Neches River turning basins. In regards to incremental justification review

concerns, there was considerably reluctance to allow anything less than the six turning basins; however,

the pilots indicated that if priorities had to be placed on TBA construction, the priorities would be 1, 4,

and 7. Next noted grouping was 1, 4, 5, and 7. It was emphasized that the priority was for all turning

basin improvements. Current and without-project future use of the existing turning basins and new

holding and turning sites is summarized in Table 99.

The pilots noted that the number of hours saved depends on the dock facility and that the benefits will be

primarily for the crude oil tankers and some product carriers; however, all traffic would realize some

savings. Pilot expectation is that the crude oil carriers would save about 7 hours. It also noted that the

Panamax-size product carriers that load at ExxonMobil will save about 7 hours. The pilots noted that they

did not expect a difference between the Aframax and Suezmax savings. The number of hours saved for

vessels in the lower end of the Neches River Channel would be less.

560
184

Table 99

Neches River Proposed Turning Basin Anchorages

Approximate

Miles from

Sabine Bank

Description Station SB Buoy Current Use

TBA 1 Turning Basin Anchorage 1 210+00 43.4 Limited with no anchorage

TBA 2 Turning Basin Anchorage 2 275+00 44.6 None

TB 3 Turning Basin 3 370+00 46.4 None

TBA 4 Turning Basin Anchorage 4 510+00 49.1 Limited with no anchorage

TB 5 Turning Basin 5 570+00 50.2 None

TB 6 Turning Basin 6 700+00 52.7 Turning Basin

TBA 7 Anchorage Basin 7 750+00 53.6 None

TBA 8 Anchorage Basin 8 850+00 56.5 None

Beaumont Maneuvering Area 975+00 58.8 Maneuvering Area

Pilot meetings conducted during the initial screening and during the HarborSym model building

continued to show that the model was accurately calibrating existing conditions for the Entrance Channel

reaches. In addition, the transit times were accurate for vessel throughput times. Discussion with the pilots

after the runs were completed and review of the transit costs helped reconfirm that the model outputs for

the Entrance Channel behavior were reasonably accurate for existing conditions as were expectations for

the with-project condition; however, it was found that the model did not validate current or future use of

the Neches River turning basins. The model results indicated a transfer in vessel delays from the present

offshore location to the proposed siding locations. Detailed discussions with the vessel pilots initially

revealed that the model was not set-up to account for pilots anticipated behavior of switching vessels

between docks and holding areas. For this reason, HarborSym was not initially used for the Neches River

turning basin analysis. In 2007–2008, modifications were made to the model in order to better capture the

pilots anticipated behavior. The results of these modifications resulted in an increase in savings; however,

the increase in savings is still significantly less than the pilots anticipated.

The model input is based on the assumption that the major difference in the Neches River without- and

with-project conditions would be that, “as holding areas,” the “with project condition” would enable two

vessels to be stored in TBA 1, TBA 2, TB 5, TBA 7, and TBA 8, instead of one small vessel in each. An

additional item revealed at the meetings was that the maximum vessel size using the turning basins was

the same for the without- and with-project conditions. Additionally, the model assumptions were based on

“no change in Neches River transit rules” for the with-project condition. At the meeting, the pilots said

that they would, in fact, trade vessels out between the Neches River “holding areas” and “docks” despite

night rules and beam and depth restrictions. The indication was that “trading places” would be

orchestrated to minimize the dangerous effects of violating established rules.

561
185

As an example of how the turning basins would be used, an inbound convoy would arrive on the Neches

River Channel with the vessels going to docks on the upper end of the Neches leading the convoy. Each

vessel would proceed to their respective dock and head into the berth (for the SNWW vessels turn after

finishing at the dock). It takes about 1.5 hours to tie up at the docks, and loading or unloading takes about

18 hours, depending largely on cargo load. While the goal is for the vessel to get in and away from the

dock within 24 hours, it is difficult to meet that goal, and vessel dock time frequently exceeds 30 hours.

The goal of working to minimize unloading time or synchronizing it based on the other vessels in the

convoy is an important consideration as the goal of completing dock time can be particularly crucial if

another offshore convoy is set-up to come in. Under present conditions, the dockside convoy will leave its

respective docks and head down the Neches River Channel. A vessel normally takes 2 hours to get from

Exxon near the Beaumont Turning Basin at Neches River Station 990 to the lower end of the Neches

River Channel (Station 240+00), a distance of about 14 miles. It was noted that outbound convoys often

include one to two additional vessels. Under present condition, the vessels move down the Neches River

Channel out to Buoy 29 and 30 in the Entrance Channel and into the 800-foot channel reach before they

can meet single vessels with comparable dimensions or likewise an inbound convoy. Vessel meetings

between inbound vessels and the outbound convoy are very restricted due to the combined beam and

loaded-draft restrictions.

The pilots emphasized that the seven holding area improvements would allow loaded vessels to await

berths and would save time that they originally would have spent in an inbound transit mode while the

berth became clear. With the holding areas, vessels would only have to shift from the anchorage instead

of awaiting the ship to sail and to start in accordance with the traffic rules. The pilots noted that the

number of hours saved depends on the dock facility and that the benefits will be primarily for the crude

oil tankers and some product carriers; however, all traffic would realize some savings. Pilot expectation is

that the crude oil carriers would save about 7 hours. It also noted that the Panamax-sized product carriers

that load at ExxonMobil will save about 7 hours. The pilots noted that they did not expect a difference

between the Aframax and Suezmax savings. The number of hours saved for vessels in the lower end of

the Neches River Channel would be lower.

The pilots noted that with the anchorages, future inbound convoys will include additional ships to await

berths. Under present conditions, the size of an inbound convoy is limited due to berth space. When the

berths are available, the vessels will switch from the holding area to a berth. They noted that it is quicker

to put a vessel in an anchorage (approximately 20 minutes) than to dock (approximately 1 hour).

Similarly, it is quicker to depart from anchorage than to undock and turn. The net result is that the

convoys will move faster and include additional vessels.

The benefits of the turning basin features were evaluated based on pilot input and examination of the

HarborSym output data associated with waiting times and other related variables. The initial focus of the

discussions with the pilots was to understand present use of the turning basins and obtain clarification on

the DWT, loaded drafts, beam, length, and number of vessels associated with each of the turning basins.

Presently, the turning basins are used for vessel turning and holding of light vessels (i.e., loaded drafts

less than 29 feet). Some turning basins are also used for holding light Aframax tankers, again with drafts

562
186

loaded to less than 29 feet. It was noted that Aframax tankers can be pushed into a turning basin;

however, lack of maintenance dredging makes this practice less frequent and more difficult, but it will

occur if a vessel, communication, or other breakdown situation requires.

The vessel arrivals and departures from the Neches River Channel are planned and/or orchestrated rather

than random. Under present conditions, a new Neches River inbound fleet cannot come in until the

outbound Neches River fleet has traveled down the Neches and has cleared the Jetty Channel and is in the

Outer Bar Channel. Under the without-project condition, the vessels wait offshore. Under the with-project

condition, they will also wait offshore; however, the sidings will allow a vessel to move to the dock and

start unloading when, under the without-project condition, it would be waiting for an outbound convoy to

clear the jetty channel. By widening the Entrance Channel through the Sabine Pass Channel, the inbound

and outbound convoys have a longer reach in which to meet. By building the Neches River sidings, an

inbound convoy can save a significant portion of the inbound transit time by being in the sidings and

ready to move to the docks as the outbound convoy leaves. The convoy behavior will not change between

the without- and with-project conditions. Table 100 presents the HarborSym output associated with the

Neches River anchorages. Discussion with the pilots indicated uncertainty concerning shifting charges;

therefore, the effect of their inclusion was evaluated. The benefits were calculation based on shifting costs

being levied 50 percent of the time. Tables 101 and 102 summarize the average annual savings in

comparison to the average construction cost. Table 101 is similar to Table 102 and presents the same

combinations but differs in that the annual benefits reflect inclusion of “pilot shifting costs” for 100

percent of the time. The annual benefits presented in tables 101 and 102 do not reflect future growth and

are based on 2004-period traffic levels. Analysis of the data presented in tables 101 and 102 shows that

the combination of basins that include alternatives 1, 4, and 8 produce the highest net excess benefits

among the alternatives evaluated.

563
187

Table 100

Neches River Anchorage Basins (2004-Period Savings)

Feature

No Shifting Cost

($)

With Shifting Cost

($)

Shifting Cost 50% of

the Time ($)

Alt 1 1,011,421 212,798 612,110

Alt 2 1,085,993 287,370 686,682

Alt 3 5,045 1,335 3,190

Alt 4 711,087 0 355,544

Alt 5 3,304 0 1,652

Alt 7 367,215 0 183,608

Alt 8 278,304 0 139,152

Alt 1, 2 1,590,026 791,403 1,190,715

Alt 1, 3 1,012,551 213,928 613,240

Alt 1, 4 1,598,751 800,128 1,199,440

Alt 1, 5 1,012,551 213,928 613,240

Alt 1, 7 1,328,837 530,215 929,526

Alt 1, 8 1,263,380 464,758 864,069

Alt 2, 4 1,598,187 799,565 1,198,876

Alt 2, 7 1,413,856 615,233 1,014,545

Alt 2, 8 1,344,211 0 672,106

Alt 4, 7 1,178,793 380,170 779,482

Alt 4, 8 1,103,461 304,838 704,150

Alt 1, 2, 3 1,592,519 793,896 1,193,208

Alt 1, 2, 4 1,897,906 1,099,283 1,498,595

Alt 1, 2, 5 1,208,613 297,153 752,883

Alt 1, 2, 7 1,824,395 1,025,773 1,425,084

Alt 1, 2, 8 1,750,352 951,730 1,351,041

Alt 1, 3, 4 1,601,048 802,425 1,201,737

Alt 1, 3, 5 1,012,551 213,928 613,240

Alt 1, 3, 7 1,334,789 536,166 935,478

Alt 1, 3, 8 1,334,789 536,166 935,478

Alt 1, 4, 5 1,601,048 802,425 1,201,737

Alt 1, 4, 7 1,697,713 898,950 1,298,332

Alt 1, 4, 8 1,761,501 962,878 1,362,190

Alt 2, 4, 7 1,796,902 0 898,451

Alt 2, 4, 8 1,750,548 0 875,274

Alt 2, 7, 8 1,370,980 998,280 1,184,630

Alt 4, 7, 8 1,259,138 460,516 859,827

Alt 1, 2, 3, 4 1,902,467 1,103,845 1,503,156

Alt 1, 2, 4, 7 2,100,114 1,301,491 1,700,803

Alt 1, 2, 4, 8 2,062,240 1,263,618 1,662,929

Alt 1, 2, 7, 8 1,879,960 1,081,337 1,480,649

Alt 1, 4, 7, 8 1,850,392 1,051,629 1,451,011

Alt 2, 3, 4, 5 1,797,233 998,610 1,397,922

Alt 2, 4, 7, 8 1,707,628 909,005 1,308,317

Alt 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 1,982,703 1,184,081 1,583,392

Alt 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1,797,233 998,610 1,397,922

Alt 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 1,838,302 1,039,679 1,438,991

Alt 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 1,261,556 462,934 862,245

564
188

Table 101

Average Annual Cost, Transportation Savings Benefits, Net Excess Benefits (4.375%),

and Benefit to Cost Ratios (No Shifting Charges)

Average Benefits Based Net Benefit to

Annual on 2004-Period Excess Cost

Feature Cost ($) Traffic ($) Benefits ($) Ratio

Alt 1 317,880 1,011,421 693,541 3.2

Alt 2 393,568 1,085,993 692,424 2.8

Alt 3 120,157 5,045 –115,112 0.0

Alt 4 192,390 711,087 518,697 3.7

Alt 5 351,101 3,304 –347,797 0.0

Alt 7 144,821 367,215 222,393 2.5

Alt 8 132,768 278,304 145,536 2.1

Alt 1, 2 711,448 1,590,026 878,578 2.2

Alt 1, 3 438,037 1,012,551 574,514 2.3

Alt 1, 4 510,270 1,598,751 1,088,481 3.1

Alt 1, 5 462,701 1,012,551 549,849 2.2

Alt 1, 7 450,648 1,328,837 878,189 2.9

Alt 1, 8 317,880 1,263,380 945,501 4.0

Alt 2, 4 585,958 1,598,187 1,012,229 2.7

Alt 2, 7 538,390 1,413,856 875,466 2.6

Alt 2, 8 526,337 1,344,211 817,874 2.6

Alt 4, 7 337,211 1,178,793 841,582 3.5

Alt 4, 8 325,158 1,103,461 778,303 3.4

Alt 1, 2, 3 831,605 1,592,519 760,914 1.9

Alt 1, 2, 4 903,838 1,897,906 994,068 2.1

Alt 1, 2, 5 1,062,549 1,208,613 146,064 1.1

Alt 1, 2, 7 856,269 1,824,395 968,126 2.1

Alt 1, 2, 8 844,216 1,750,352 906,136 2.1

Alt 1, 3, 4 630,427 1,601,048 970,621 2.5

Alt 1, 3, 5 789,138 1,012,551 223,413 1.3

Alt 1, 3, 7 582,858 1,334,789 751,930 2.3

Alt 1, 3, 8 570,805 1,334,789 763,983 2.3

Alt 1, 4, 5 861,371 1,601,048 739,677 1.9

Alt 1, 4, 7 655,091 1,697,713 1,042,622 2.6

Alt 1, 4, 8 643,038 1,761,501 1,118,463 2.7

Continued next page

565
189

Table 101 (Cont’d)

Average Benefits Based Net Benefit to

Annual on 2004-Period Excess Cost

Feature Cost ($) Traffic ($) Benefits ($) Ratio

Alt 2, 4, 7 730,780 1,796,902 1,066,123 2.5

Alt 2, 4, 8 889,491 1,750,548 861,057 2.0

Alt 2, 7, 8 683,211 1,370,980 687,769 2.0

Alt 4, 7, 8 469,980 1,259,138 789,159 2.7

Alt 1, 2, 3, 4 1,023,995 1,902,467 878,472 1.9

Alt 1, 2, 4, 7 1,048,659 2,100,114 1,051,455 2.0

Alt 1, 2, 4, 8 1,036,606 2,062,240 1,025,634 2.0

Alt 1, 2, 7, 8 989,038 1,879,960 890,922 1.9

Alt 1, 4, 7, 8 787,859 1,850,392 1,062,533 2.3

Alt 2, 3, 4, 5 1,057,216 1,797,233 740,017 1.7

Alt 2, 4, 7, 8 863,548 1,707,628 844,080 2.0

Alt 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 1,181,428 1,982,703 801,276 1.7

Alt 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1,202,038 1,797,233 595,195 1.5

Alt 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 1,189,985 1,838,302 648,317 1.5

Alt 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 941,238 1,261,556 320,318 1.3

Table 102

Average Annual Cost, Transportation Savings Benefits, Net Excess Benefits (4.375%),

and Benefit to Cost Ratios (Shifting Charges 100% of the Time)

Average Benefits Based Net Benefit to

Annual on 2004-Period Excess Cost

Feature Cost ($) Traffic ($) Benefits ($) Ratio

Alt 1 317,880 212,798 –105,082 0.7

Alt 2 393,568 287,370 –106,198 0.7

Alt 4 192,390 0 –192,390 0.0

Alt 7 144,821 0 –144,821 0.0

Alt 8 132,768 0 –132,768 0.0

Alt 1, 2 711,448 791,403 79,955 1.1

Alt 1, 3 438,037 213,928 –224,109 0.5

Alt 1, 4 510,270 800,128 289,859 1.6

Alt 1, 5 462,701 213,928 –248,773 0.5

Alt 1, 7 450,648 530,215 79,567 1.2

Alt 1, 8 317,880 464,758 146,878 1.5

Alt 2, 4 585,958 799,565 213,607 1.4

Alt 2, 7 538,390 615,233 76,843 1.1

Continued next page

566
190

Table 102 (Cont’d)

Average Benefits Based Net Benefit to

Annual on 2004-Period Excess Cost

Feature Cost ($) Traffic ($) Benefits ($) Ratio

Alt 2, 8 526,337 0 –526,337 0.0

Alt 4, 7 337,211 380,170 42,959 1.1

Alt 4, 8 325,158 304,838 –20,320 0.9

Alt 1, 2, 3 831,605 793,896 –37,709 1.0

Alt 1, 2, 4 903,838 1,099,283 195,446 1.2

Alt 1, 2, 5 1,062,549 297,153 –765,396 0.3

Alt 1, 2, 7 856,269 1,025,773 169,503 1.2

Alt 1, 2, 8 844,216 951,730 107,513 1.1

Alt 1, 3, 4 630,427 802,425 171,998 1.3

Alt 1, 3, 5 789,138 213,928 –575,210 0.3

Alt 1, 3, 7 582,858 536,166 –46,692 0.9

Alt 1, 3, 8 570,805 536,166 –34,639 0.9

Alt 1, 4, 5 861,371 802,425 –58,946 0.9

Alt 1, 4, 7 655,091 898,950 243,859 1.4

Alt 1, 4, 8 643,038 962,878 319,840 1.5

Alt 2, 4, 7 730,780 0 –730,780 0.0

Alt 2, 4, 8 889,491 0 –889,491 0.0

Alt 2, 7, 8 683,211 998,280 315,068 1.5

Alt 4, 7, 8 469,980 460,516 –9,464 1.0

Alt 1, 2, 3, 4 1,023,995 1,103,845 79,850 1.1

Alt 1, 2, 4, 7 1,048,659 1,301,491 252,832 1.2

Alt 1, 2, 4, 8 1,036,606 1,263,618 227,012 1.2

Alt 1, 2, 7, 8 989,038 1,081,337 92,299 1.1

Alt 1, 4, 7, 8 787,859 1,051,629 263,770 1.3

Alt 2, 3, 4, 5 1,057,216 998,610 –58,606 0.9

Alt 2, 4, 7, 8 863,548 909,005 45,457 1.1

Alt 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 1,181,428 1,184,081 2,653 1.0

Alt 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1,202,038 998,610 –203,427 0.8

Alt 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 1,189,985 1,039,679 –150,306 0.9

Alt 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 941,238 462,934 –478,304 0.5

Table 103 summarizes the project cost and benefits associated with the combination of 1, 4, and 8. The

annual benefits presented in Table 104 are average annual numbers and reflect future growth based on

2019–2069 traffic levels. The benefit calculations are based on a project condition without deepening.

The project construction cost is based on a project depth of 48 feet.

567
191

Table 103

SNWW Neches River Anchorage Analysis

Basins 1, 4, and 8

Economic Summary Data

October 2008 Dollars

First Cost of Construction 9,452,214

Interest During Construction 190,786

Total Investment 9,643,000

Average Annual Construction Cost 478,073

Average Annual O&M 190,106

Total Annual Cost 668,179

Average Annual Benefits at 4.375%

Incorporates Traffic Growth (2019–2069)

Based on Pilot Shifting Cost Scenarios

Benefit Component

Based on No Pilot

Shifting Cost

Based on Pilot

Shifting Cost

100% of the

Time

Based on Pilot

Shifting Cost

50% of the Time

Average Annual Benefits 2,784,668 1,522,166 2,153,417

Net Excess Benefits 2,116,489 853,987 1,485,238

Benefit to Cost Ratios 4.2 2.3 3.2

6.4 CHANNEL DEEPENING BENEFITS

The transportation costs and the savings associated with the proposed project depth increase were

calculated using commodity-specific vessel class and trade route distributions. Transportation costs were

calculated based on the channel depth alternatives and variables associated with vessel design drafts,

maximum feet of light-loading, underkeel clearance, mileage traveled, and the number of hours to load

and unload. Maximum vessel cargo capacities for crude oil and petroleum products were estimated based

on review of the range of load factors obtained based on review from IWR Report 91-R-13, National

Economic Development Procedures Manual Deep Draft Navigation (1991) and consultation with SNWW

industry and the SPA. The IWR (1991) cargo capacity factors published in the deep-draft manual for dry

bulk carriers and tankers are shown in Table 104. Consultation with industry and the pilots revealed that

these estimates are reasonable. Table 105 presents representative round-trip mileage for the trade routes

or junction points used for the transportation savings computations.

568
192

Table 104

Adjustments for Estimating Actual Vessel Capacity

Vessel DWT Dry Bulk Tanker

<20,000 0.90 0.90

20,000–70,000 0.92 0.92

70,000–120,000 0.95 0.95

>120,000 0.97 0.97

Table 105

Representative Round-Trip Mileage to SNWW

Location Total Miles

Coatzacoalcos, Mexico 1,376

U.S. Gulf Coast Lightering/Lightening Zone 160

Venezuela 3,612

Panama Canal 3,120

Brazil (Maceio/Sao Paulo weighted average) 9,422

Rotterdam, Netherlands 10,040

Sture, Norway 10,528

North Africa, Algiers 10,294

West Africa (Nigeria and Angola) 12,500

Persian Gulf and Indian Subcontinent via Suez Canal 19,704

Persian Gulf and Indian Subcontinent via Cape of Good Hope 25,112

Singapore via Panama Canal 24,248

Singapore via Cape of Good Hope 26,304

6.4.1 Transportation Savings Benefits for Channel Deepening

Transportation savings benefits from reductions in the vessel operating costs were calculated based on the

relative difference in transportation costs between the without-project and with-project conditions.

Transportation costs and savings were calculated for vessels that minimize transportation costs given

trade route constraints. As previously noted, long-term fleet selection will continue to reflect goals of

minimizing vessel operating costs. The basic procedure used to calculate transportation costs using

110,000 and 150,000 DWT foreign flag tankers as an example is illustrated in Table 106. Similar

computations were made for appropriate distances and vessel sizes for each of the channel depth

alternatives. The resulting costs-per-ton computations were calculated over the relevant range of vessels

projected for each channel depth improvement, and the associated savings per ton were measured using

the net differences in costs between the existing 40-foot channel and the depth alternative. Unless

otherwise noted, the 2019–2069 tonnage forecasts used for the benefit calculations are shown in tables 81

and 82 summarizing the transportation savings benefits. Table 107 lists the terminal locations by channel

and mileage point for the commodities included in the deepening analysis.

569
193

Table 106

Transportation Cost Calculation (South America to SNWW)

Channel Depth 40 feet 45 feet 50 feet 40 feet 45 feet 50 feet

Vessel Deadweight Tons 110,000 110,000 110,000 150,000 150,000 150,000Design Draft (feet) 50.0 50.0 50.0 56.4 56.4 56.4Cargo Capacity (%) a/ 95 95 95 97 97 97Cargo Capacity (short tons) a/ 104,500 104,500 104,500 145,500 145,500 145,500Immersion Factor (tons per inch) 234.1 234.1 234.1 285.4 285.4 285.4Hourly Cost at Sea (from EGM) 1,192 1,192 1,192 1,369 1,369 1,369Underkeel Clearance (feet) b/ 1 1 1 1 1 1Hourly Cost in Port (from EGM) $772 $772 $772 $878 $878 $878Round Trip Mileage from South America b/ 5,627 5,627 5,627 5,627 5,627 5,627Speed (Knots) 15 15 15 15 15 15Total Voyage Cost 447,127 447,127 447,127 513,521 513,521 513,521Other Components (Loading and Unloading and Port Time)Maximum Load at Channel Dept 73,599 87,645 101,691 85,908 103,032 120,156Cost per Ton for Sea Voyage 6.08 5.10 4.40 5.98 4.98 4.27Loading/Unloading Rate (short tons/hour) 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250Hours in Port 24 24 24 24 24 24Total Loading Cost at Foreign Port 18,528 18,528 18,528 21,072 21,072 21,072Total Unloading Cost SNWW 18,528 18,528 18,528 21,072 21,072 21,072Pilot and Tug Costs 45,501 48,624 51,031 56,923 60,331 62,908Total Loading, Unloading, and Port Costs 82,557 85,680 88,087 99,067 102,475 105,052Total Cost Sum 529,684 532,808 535,214 612,588 615,996 618,573Total Cost Per Ton 7.20 6.08 5.26 7.13 5.98 5.15a/ Estimated short tons =~ ((DWT * Maximum % Load) - (Immersion Factor * 12 inches per ton * number of feet light-loaded).b/ Weighted mileage based on distance from Venezuela and Brazil. The weight factor of 0.7 was used for Venezuela, and a factor of 0.3 wasused for Brazil. The weights were determined based on the expected percentage of tonnage by origin.

570
194

Table 107

SNWW Facilities Associated with Draft-Constrained Vessels by Channel Reach,

Mileage Point, Facility Name, Major Commodity, and Cross Section Reference

Estimated USACE

Miles Cross Section

from Existing Facility Reference

Channel Reach Sea Buoy (Company Name) Major Commodity Estimate

Sabine Bank Channel 0 n/a n/a n/a

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel 14 n/a n/a n/a

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel 16 n/a n/a n/a

Sabine Pass Channel 22 Cheniere; Golden Pass LNG SPC090+00Port Arthur Canal 25 Sempra a/ LNG PAC170+00Taylor Bayou 32 Motiva; Premcor Crude Oil, Petroleum and Chemicals PAC310+00Sabine-Neches Canal 33 Port of Port Arthur Bulk Materials SNC300+00Neches River Channel 40 n/a

42 Fina Crude Oil, Petroleum and Chemicals NRC020+0045 Motiva; Huntsman Crude Oil, Petroleum and Chemicals NRC300+0046 Transit Mix Bulk Materials NRC340+0048 Sun Oil; Union Oil Crude Oil, Petroleum and Chemicals NRC520+0051 Oil Tanking Crude Oil and Petroleum Products NRC700+0055 ExxonMobil Crude Oil, Petroleum and Chemicals NRC950+0056 Port of Beaumont Grain; Bulk Materials NRC975+00

a/ Anticipated to be constructed in 2012.

571
195

6.4.1.1 Crude Petroleum Imports

The costs per ton computations were calculated over the relevant range of vessels projected for each

channel depth improvement. The associated savings per ton were measured using the net differences in

costs between the existing 40-foot channel and the depth alternative. The transportation costs were

calculated using foreign flag tankers (see Table 82). The distribution of tonnage between the ports of

Beaumont and Port Arthur was assumed to reflect the relative historical tonnage shares. The sensitivity

section of this appendix addresses the effects of Port Arthur’s future share increasing relative to

Beaumont’s present share. Table 108 presents Port Arthur and Beaumont crude oil import forecasts.

Table 108

SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports by Port and Trade Route, 2019–2069

1,000s of Short Tons

Beaumont 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

Canada – – – – – –

Mexico 7,817 8,716 9,234 9,392 9,575 10,277

Central/South America 12,576 14,023 14,857 15,111 15,405 16,534

Western South America – – – – – –

Europe and Africa 29,327 32,701 34,644 35,237 35,922 38,556

Middle East 27,439 30,596 32,414 32,968 33,610 36,074

Beaumont Total 77,159 86,037 91,150 92,708 94,512 101,441

Port Arthur 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

Canada – – – – – –

Mexico 1,193 1,329 1,412 1,440 1,469 1,505

Central/South America 1,915 2,133 2,262 2,304 2,350 2,470

Western South America – – – – – –

Europe and Africa 4,475 4,987 5,296 5,403 5,512 5,647

Middle East 4,187 4,666 4,955 5,055 5,157 5,283

Port Arthur Total 11,769 13,116 13,925 14,202 14,488 14,906

SNWW Used for the

Benefits Calculations 88,928 99,153 105,075 106,909 109,000 116,347

SNWW Total 94,229 105,129 111,669 113,950 116,263 118,608

% Used for Benefits 95 95 95 95 95 95

572
196

An increase in the channel depth to Port Arthur from 40 to 45 feet would allow the existing range of

90,000 to 120,000 DWT vessels to carry approximately 20 percent more cargo. A depth increase from 40

to 50 feet or more would allow the same range of vessels to carry 35 percent more cargo. Table 109

displays the maximum cargo tons by vessel size and channel depth alternatives for representative vessels

used in the analysis. Table 110 shows the number of shuttle vessels by channel depth alternatives

necessary to offload a VLCC. The maximum loads shown in Table 109 and the number of shuttles shown

in Table 110 are based on application of 1 foot of underkeel clearance. The effects of greater underkeel

clearance are evaluated in the sensitivity analysis (Section 8). Shuttle vessels between 70,000 and 165,000

DWT were used for Beaumont’s lightering cost calculations. Shuttle vessels between 70,000 and 120,000

DWT were used for Port Arthur’s lightering cost calculations.

Table 111 summarizes the transportation cost by trade route used for the with- and without-project future

condition calculations. The transportation costs for existing conditions and the without-project future are

defined by the same range of vessel sizes. The existing range of vessels is concentrated between 75,000

and 120,000 DWT. The maximum vessel sizes presently used are in the 150,000 to 175,000 DWT range.

Current distribution of crude oil imports by vessel size can be found in Section 3 (see tables 29, 31, and

32). There is a gap in the world tanker fleet between 175,000 and 250,000 DWT. The reason for the gap is

that it is not cost effective to use tankers significantly larger than 175,000 DWT for channel depths of less

than 55 feet (Section 3.5.1). An increase in channel depth of the SNWW would provide opportunity for

the current range of vessels used for direct shipment and as shuttle vessels associated with offshore

lightering to be more fully loaded.

The per ton transportation costs correspond to the least-cost method of shipment associated with the

particular trade route. Review of the depths at trading ports and significant savings per ton indicate that a

large share of crude petroleum tonnage from Mexico, Venezuela, and Trinidad would be loaded to vessel

drafts over 40 feet.

Expectations concerning the percentage of Middle East and Africa movements are subject to greater

uncertainty. Nearly all Middle East tonnage is lightered, and nearly all West Africa crude is lightened.

The logistics associated with these offshore transfers introduces higher degrees of uncertainty than with

direct shipment and, therefore, generates large cost variances.

Additionally, and as Table 111 illustrates, the cost savings for offshore transfer are lower than with direct

shipment; however, distinct cost savings are apparent. The savings for lightering results from increases in

shuttle loads due to greater channel depth in SNWW. For lightering, the effect of increasing channel

depths at SNWW allows for the reduction in the number of shuttles necessary to totally lighter VLCCs.

The savings for lightened movements results from decreases in offshore unloading time from the mother

vessel to shuttles. For lightening, the mother vessel is substituting offshore unloading time for dock-side

unloading time. Additionally, the shuttle vessel reduces its overall loading and unloading time.

573
197

Table 109

SNWW Foreign Flag Tanker Vessel Application

Maximum Cargo by Vessel Size and Channel Depth (feet)

Channel Depth (feet) = 40 43 44 45 46 47 48 50

Ratio of Maximum Loaded Draft = 39 42 43 44 45 46 47 49

DWT

Cargo

to DWT (%)

Immersion

Factor

Design

Draft

Full

Load Cargo Capacity by Channel Depth Alternative

9,000 90 - - 8,100 8,100 8,100 8,100 8,100 8,100 8,100 8,100 8,100

12,000 90 - - 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,80014,000 90 - - 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,60018,000 90 - - 16,200 16,200 16,200 16,200 16,200 16,200 16,200 16,200 16,20020,000 92 79 32 18,400 18,400 18,400 18,400 18,400 18,400 18,400 18,400 18,40025,000 92 91 33 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,00035,000 92 113 36 32,200 32,200 32,200 32,200 32,200 32,200 32,200 32,200 32,20050,000 92 141 39 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,00060,000 92 159 41 55,200 51,958 55,200 55,200 55,200 55,200 55,200 55,200 55,20070,000 95 160 46 66,500 53,060 58,820 60,740 62,660 64,580 66,500 66,500 66,50075,000 95 180 47 71,250 53,970 60,450 62,610 64,770 66,930 69,090 71,250 71,25080,000 95 191 45 76,000 62,248 69,124 71,416 73,708 76,000 76,000 76,000 76,00085,000 95 198 46 80,750 64,795 71,939 74,320 76,702 79,083 80,750 80,750 80,75090,000 95 206 46 85,500 67,216 74,628 77,099 79,570 82,041 84,512 85,500 85,500

105,000 95 227 49 99,750 72,232 80,405 83,130 85,855 88,579 91,304 94,028 96,753125,000 96 253 52 119,875 78,951 88,071 91,111 94,151 97,191 100,231 103,271 106,311130,000 96 260 53 125,000 80,539 89,890 93,007 96,124 99,241 102,358 105,475 108,592135,000 96 266 54 130,125 82,028 91,610 94,804 97,998 101,192 104,386 107,580 110,774150,000 97 285 56 145,500 85,908 96,183 99,608 103,032 106,457 109,882 113,307 116,732165,000 97 303 59 160,050 88,690 99,613 103,254 106,894 110,535 114,176 117,817 121,458175,000 97 314 60 169,750 91,456 102,765 106,534 110,304 114,074 117,843 121,613 125,382190,000 97 330 62 184,300 95,040 106,928 110,891 114,854 118,816 122,779 126,742 130,704

574
198

Table 110

Number of Shuttle Vessels Needed by Channel Depth Alternative

Channel Shuttle Vessel Trips by Channel Depth Alternative and Vessel DWT

Depth

(feet)

Alternative 42,500 50,000 70,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 110,000 115,000 120,000 125,000 130,000 135,000 150,000 165,000

40 9.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.043 9.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.044 9.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.045 9.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.046 9.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.047 9.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.048 9.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.049 9.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.050 9.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.052 9.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

575
199

Table 111

SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports Transportation Cost and Savings

Most Likely Transportation Mode Trade Route and Channel Depth (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Trade Route/Depth (feet)

And Method of Shipment 40 45 46 47 48 49 50

Mexico Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct

Cost/ton Beaumont 2.76 2.34 2.28 2.21 2.15 2.11 2.07

Cost/ton Port Arthur 2.77 2.37 2.30 2.23 2.18 2.14 2.11

Savings/ton Beaumont 0.41 0.48 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.69

Savings/ton Port Arthur 0.41 0.47 0.54 0.59 0.63 0.67

Venezuela Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct

Cost/ton Beaumont 7.22 6.09 5.91 5.73 5.58 5.45 5.34

Cost/ton Port Arthur 7.28 6.17 5.98 5.81 5.67 5.55 5.47

Savings/ton Beaumont 1.13 1.31 1.49 1.64 1.77 1.88

Savings/ton Port Arthur 1.11 1.30 1.47 1.62 1.73 1.81

Africa/North Sea Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered

Cost/ton Beaumont 8.41 8.18 8.13 8.12 8.05 8.01 8.01

Cost/ton Port Arthur 8.46 8.19 8.13 8.12 8.12 8.11 8.08

Savings/ton Beaumont 0.23 0.28 0.30 0.36 0.40 0.40

Cost/ton Port Arthur 0.27 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.39

Middle East Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered

Cost/ton Beaumont 14.43 14.20 14.15 14.13 14.06 14.03 14.03

Cost/ton Port Arthur 14.48 14.19 14.13 14.11 14.11 14.10 14.06

Savings/ton Beaumont 0.23 0.28 0.30 0.36 0.40 0.40

Savings/ton Port Arthur 0.29 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.42

Lightening generates comparatively lower savings than lightering because the latter produces the

possibility of reducing the number of shuttles needed. Examination of the cost data also revealed that as

channel depth increases, the resulting savings may introduce incentive to switch from lightening to direct

shipment for movements from Africa and the North Sea. Table 112 presents the lightening and Table 113

presents the lightering costs. Historically, lightening was the most common choice for Africa and the

North Sea movements; however, lightering has become more common for this route in recent years due to

structural changes in oil production off the coast of West Africa. Lightering has always been the method

of choice for Middle East movements. The small percentage of North Sea using SNWW tends to be

lightered, and an increasing portion of West Africa crude is lightered. Lightering was assumed to

represent the without- and with-project future choice for West Africa crude due to its relative low cost

and increasing popularity. Comparison of the cost data in tables 112, 113, and 114 for the Africa and

North Sea route demonstrates why lightening will continue for this route; however, method of shipment

choices for West African crude will remain subject to a higher level of uncertainty than for other routes.

The relative closeness in costs between the shipping methods, and the uncertainty associated “turnaround

times” for completing offshore transfers means that direct shipment and lightening will continue as viable

576
200

options. At the same time, the effect of an SNWW deeper channel depth will reduce the cost differential

and make direct shipment more cost competitive for Africa and North Sea routings and, therefore, may

result in a greater frequency of direct shipment, with the uncertainty associated with offshore transfers

being a key variable affecting shippers’ decision.

Table 112

SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports

Lightened Cost Per Ton by Channel Depth and Trade Route (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Depth 40 feet 45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

Mother Vessels (DWT)

Minimum 150,000 150,000 162,500 162,500 162,500 162,500 162,500

Maximum 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000

Shuttle Vessels (DWT)

Minimum 72,000 57,000 57,000 57,000 57,000 57,000 57,000

Maximum 85,000 68,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000

Africa and North Sea Per Ton Transportation Cost to SNWW ($)

Minimum 10.10 10.08 10.08 10.08 10.08 10.08 10.08

Mean 10.56 10.49 10.49 10.49 10.49 10.49 10.49

Maximum 11.02 10.90 10.90 10.90 10.90 10.90 10.90

Middle East Per Ton Transportation Cost to SNWW ($)

Minimum 14.70 14.68 14.68 14.68 14.68 14.68 14.68

Mean 15.17 15.10 15.10 15.10 15.10 15.10 15.10

Maximum 15.63 15.51 15.51 15.51 15.51 15.51 15.51

Table 113

SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports

Lightered Cost Per Ton by Channel Depth and Trade Route (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Depth 40 feet 45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

Africa and North Sea Per Ton Transportation Cost ($)

Minimum 8.31 8.16 8.04 8.02 8.00 7.90 7.89

Mean 8.41 8.18 8.13 8.12 8.05 8.01 8.01

Maximum 8.66 8.53 8.51 8.28 8.26 8.26 8.26

Middle East Per Ton Transportation Cost ($)

Minimum 14.33 14.17 14.06 14.04 14.02 13.92 13.91

Mean 14.43 14.20 14.15 14.13 14.06 14.03 14.03

Maximum 14.68 14.55 14.52 14.30 14.27 14.27 14.27

Tables 114 and 115 display Beaumont and Port Arthur’s transportation cost savings based on the leastcost shipping methods displayed in Table 111. For Port Arthur, the maximum vessel DWT used for the

benefit calculations is less than 121,000 DWT. As previously noted, deepening of the channel leading to

the Taylor Bayou terminal will enable the existing fleet to be more fully loaded, but it will not result in

transition to larger vessels. The transportation costs shown in Table 111 and the savings shown in Table

115 reflect continuation of this limitation.

577
201

Table 114

Beaumont Crude Petroleum Imports

Annual Transportation Savings ($1,000s) by Trade Route and Decade (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

2019–2069

Channel Depth Alternative/

Trade Route 2002/2004 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

45-foot Channel

Mexico 6,065 3,227 3,597 3,808 3,870 3,945 4,235

Central/South America 8,348 14,216 15,850 16,779 17,052 17,380 18,660

Europe and Africa 2,021 6,842 7,629 8,076 8,207 8,365 8,981

Middle East 5,879 6,402 7,138 7,556 7,679 7,827 8,403

Total Savings 22,313 30,686 34,214 36,219 36,808 37,516 40,280

46-foot Channel

Mexico 7,089 3,771 4,205 4,451 4,524 4,611 4,950

Central/South America 9,724 16,558 18,461 19,543 19,861 20,243 21,735

Europe and Africa 2,431 8,230 9,176 9,714 9,872 10,062 10,803

Middle East 7,071 7,700 8,585 9,088 9,236 9,414 10,107

Total Savings 26,315 36,259 40,427 42,796 43,493 44,329 47,595

47-foot Channel

Mexico 8,051 4,283 4,775 5,055 5,137 5,236 5,622

Central/South America 11,016 18,758 20,914 22,140 22,500 22,933 24,623

Europe and Africa 2,566 8,687 9,685 10,253 10,420 10,620 11,403

Middle East 7,464 8,128 9,062 9,593 9,749 9,937 10,669

Total Savings 29,097 39,856 44,437 47,041 47,807 48,726 52,316

48-foot Channel

Mexico 8,867 4,717 5,259 5,567 5,658 5,767 6,192

Central/South America 12,147 20,684 23,062 24,413 24,810 25,288 27,151

Europe and Africa 3,162 10,705 11,935 12,635 12,840 13,087 14,052

Middle East 9,198 10,016 11,167 11,821 12,014 12,245 13,147

Total Savings 33,373 46,121 51,423 54,437 55,323 56,387 60,541

49-foot Channel

Mexico 9,549 5,080 5,664 5,996 6,093 6,210 6,668

Central/South America 13,093 22,295 24,858 26,315 26,743 27,258 29,266

Europe and Africa 3,490 11,816 13,175 13,947 14,174 14,447 15,511

Middle East 10,153 11,056 12,327 13,049 13,261 13,516 14,512

Total Savings 36,285 50,247 56,023 59,307 60,272 61,431 65,957

50-foot Channel

Mexico 10,171 5,411 6,033 6,386 6,490 6,615 7,102

Central/South America 13,900 23,669 26,390 27,937 28,391 28,937 31,069

Europe and Africa 3,490 11,816 13,175 13,947 14,174 14,447 15,511

Middle East 10,153 11,056 12,327 13,049 13,261 13,516 14,512

Total Savings 37,714 51,952 57,924 61,319 62,317 63,515 68,195

578
202

Table 115

Port Arthur Crude Petroleum Imports

Annual Transportation Savings ($1,000s) by Trade Route and Decade (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

2019–2069

Channel Depth Alternative/

Trade Route 2002/2004 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

45-foot Channel

Mexico 3,355 484 539 573 584 596 611

Central/South America 399 2,128 2,370 2,514 2,560 2,611 2,745

Europe and Africa 128 1,214 1,353 1,437 1,466 1,496 1,532

Middle East 299 1,194 1,331 1,414 1,442 1,471 1,507

Total Savings 4,180 5,020 5,594 5,937 6,053 6,174 6,395

46-foot Channel

Mexico 3,928 567 631 670 684 698 715

Central/South America 465 2,481 2,764 2,931 2,985 3,044 3,201

Europe and Africa 154 1,467 1,635 1,736 1,771 1,807 1,851

Middle East 365 1,461 1,628 1,729 1,764 1,800 1,844

Total Savings 4,913 5,976 6,659 7,067 7,205 7,349 7,611

47-foot Channel

Mexico 4,468 644 718 763 778 794 813

Central/South America 527 2,813 3,134 3,324 3,385 3,452 3,629

Europe and Africa 160 1,527 1,702 1,807 1,843 1,881 1,927

Middle East 382 1,528 1,703 1,808 1,845 1,882 1,928

Total Savings 5,537 6,512 7,256 7,701 7,851 8,008 8,297

48-foot Channel

Mexico 4,908 708 789 838 855 872 893

Central/South America 580 3,094 3,446 3,655 3,722 3,796 3,991

Europe and Africa 163 1,550 1,728 1,835 1,872 1,910 1,957

Middle East 389 1,554 1,732 1,840 1,877 1,915 1,962

Total Savings 6,039 6,906 7,695 8,167 8,325 8,492 8,802

49-foot Channel

Mexico 5,242 756 843 895 913 931 954

Central/South America 620 3,306 3,683 3,906 3,978 4,057 4,265

Europe and Africa 165 1,567 1,746 1,854 1,891 1,930 1,977

Middle East 393 1,573 1,753 1,861 1,899 1,937 1,985

Total Savings 6,420 7,201 8,024 8,516 8,681 8,855 9,181

50-foot Channel

Mexico 5,501 793 884 939 958 977 1,001

Central/South America 649 3,461 3,856 4,089 4,165 4,247 4,465

Europe and Africa 182 1,730 1,928 2,048 2,089 2,131 2,184

Middle East 439 1,756 1,958 2,079 2,121 2,164 2,217

Total Savings 6,771 7,741 8,626 9,155 9,332 9,519 9,866

579
203

6.4.1.2 Petroleum and Chemical Product Transportation Savings Benefits

Reductions in the vessel operating costs for SNWW foreign petroleum product imports and exports and

coastwise shipments were calculated based on the relative difference in transportation costs between the

without-project and with-project conditions. For foreign imports and exports, transportation savings were

calculated for petroleum product imports and exports and for chemical exports. Chemical imports were

not found to be draft limited. As with crude petroleum, transportation costs and savings were calculated

for vessels that minimize transportation costs given trade route constraints. Table 116 displays SNWW’s

petroleum product import forecast and the tonnage used for the benefit calculations. Table 117 displays

the petroleum export forecast.

Table 116

SNWW Petroleum Product Imports (short tons), 2019–2069

Commodity

2004–2006

Representative

Tonnage 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

Total Petroleum Product Imports (Major Groups)

Gasoline 1,546,750 1,835,204 2,027,207 2,239,298 2,473,578 2,732,369 3,018,235

Distillate 1,719,000 1,895,684 2,135,852 2,524,052 2,843,829 3,204,118 3,610,054

Residual 559,500 663,941 750,277 847,840 958,090 1,082,677 1,223,464

Naphtha 470,250 558,031 630,595 712,595 805,258 909,971 1,028,300

Lube Oil 185,500 220,127 248,751 281,098 317,651 358,957 405,635

Total Petroleum

Product Imports 4,481,000 5,172,987 5,792,682 6,604,883 7,398,406 8,288,092 9,285,688

Petroleum Product Imports Used for Benefit Calculations

Gasoline 494,960 587,265 1,013,603 1,119,649 1,236,789 1,366,184 1,509,117

Distillate 536,328 591,453 1,067,926 1,262,026 1,421,914 1,602,059 1,805,027

Residual 279,750 331,970 375,139 423,920 479,045 541,338 611,732

Naphtha 81,353 96,539 315,297 356,298 402,629 454,986 514,150

Lube Oil 92,750 110,063 124,376 140,549 158,826 179,479 202,817

Total Used for

Benefit Calculations 1,485,141 1,717,292 2,896,341 3,302,442 3,699,203 4,144,046 4,642,844

% of Total 33 33 50 50 50 50 50

580
204

Table 117

SNWW Petroleum Product Exports (short tons)

2019–2069

Commodity 2004–2006 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

Total Petroleum Product Exports (Major Groups)

Gasoline 1,834,000 3,785,043 5,129,249 6,473,454 7,329,704 8,299,210 9,396,953

Distillate Fuel 420,667 642,903 822,970 1,053,472 1,348,533 1,726,236 2,209,728

Residual Fuel Oil 22,667 26,898 34,431 44,075 56,420 72,222 92,451

Naphtha 63,667 89,959 115,156 147,409 188,696 241,547 309,200

Lube Oil 83,300 117,701 150,667 192,866 246,885 316,034 404,550

Petroleum Coke 4,318,000 6,802,246 8,768,425 10,734,605 11,955,318 13,206,108 14,587,759

Total Petroleum Product

Exports 6,742,300 11,464,749 15,020,898 18,645,881 21,125,555 23,861,357 27,000,641

Petroleum Product Exports Used for Benefit Calculations

Gasoline 550,200 1,135,513 2,564,624 3,236,727 3,664,852 4,149,605 4,698,476

Distillate Fuel 126,200 192,871 411,485 526,736 674,266 863,118 1,104,864

Residual Fuel 11,333 13,449 17,216 22,038 28,210 36,111 46,225

Naphtha 12,733 17,992 57,578 73,704 94,348 120,773 154,600

Lube Oil 41,650 58,850 75,333 96,433 123,443 158,017 202,275

Petroleum Coke 2,159,000 3,401,123 4,384,213 5,367,303 5,977,659 6,603,054 7,293,880

Total Used for

Benefit Calculations 2,901,117 4,819,798 7,510,449 9,322,941 10,562,777 11,930,678 13,500,321

% of Total Tonnage 43 42 50 50 50 50 50

Tables 118 and 119 displays the chemical product import and export forecasts. The presentations show

total imports and exports, the commodity groups evaluated for deepening benefits, and the volumes and

percentage of total tonnage used for the transportation cost calculations.

581
205

Table 118

SNWW Chemical Product Imports (short tons)

2019–2069

2004–2006 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

Total Chemical

Product Imports 957,000 1,135,641 1,279,518 1,441,622 1,624,264 1,830,045 2,061,897

Chemical Product Imports Evaluated for Benefit Calculations

Alcohol Imports 333,250 395,457 445,558 502,007 565,607 637,265 718,001

Ammonia Imports 494,750 587,104 661,485 745,290 839,712 946,097 1,065,960

Chemical Product Import Tonnage Used for Benefit Calculations

Draft Restricted

Tonnage 82,800 98,256 110,704 124,730 140,532 158,336 178,396

% of Total Imports 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Table 119

SNWW Chemical Product Exports (short tons)

2019–2069

2004–2006 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

Total Chemical

Product Exports 2,299,667 3,249,369 4,159,467 5,324,469 5,881,526 6,496,864 7,176,580

Chemical Product Exports Groups Evaluated for Benefit Calculations

Organic Compounds 501,333 708,371 906,775 1,160,748 1,320,786 1,502,889 1,710,099

Metallic Salts 1,116,000 1,576,879 2,018,538 2,583,900 2,940,154 3,345,527 3,806,791

Chemical Product Export Tonnage Used for Benefit Calculations

Draft Restricted

Tonnage 339,640 479,902 614,316 786,376 894,797 1,018,167 1,158,547

% of Total Exports 15 15 15 15 15 16 16

Table 120 summarizes the annual transportation cost for Beaumont’s petroleum product imports and

exports. Table 121 summarizes the annual transportation cost for Port Arthur’s petroleum product imports

and exports. Table 122 presents the annual savings for Beaumont’s and Port Arthur’s petroleum product

imports and exports.

582
206

Table 120

Beaumont Petroleum and Chemical Product Imports and Exports

Annual Transportation Cost ($1,000) by Trade Route and Decade (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

2019–2069

2004/2006 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

40-foot Channel

Imports 12,810 14,840 24,440 27,850 31,205 34,967 39,187

Exports 17,347 28,367 43,489 54,111 61,328 69,310 78,463

Total Cost 30,157 43,207 67,928 81,962 92,533 104,278 117,650

45-foot Channel

Imports 10,795 12,506 20,595 23,469 26,296 29,467 33,023

Exports 14,618 23,905 36,648 45,599 51,681 58,408 66,121

Total Cost 25,413 36,411 57,243 69,069 77,977 87,874 99,143

46-foot Channel

Imports 10,465 12,123 19,965 22,752 25,492 28,565 32,013

Exports 14,171 23,174 35,527 44,205 50,100 56,621 64,098

Total Cost 24,636 35,297 55,492 66,956 75,592 85,186 96,111

47-foot Channel

Imports 10,155 11,764 19,374 22,077 24,737 27,719 31,064

Exports 13,751 22,487 34,474 42,895 48,615 54,943 62,199

Total Cost 23,906 34,251 53,848 64,972 73,352 82,662 93,263

48-foot Channel

Imports 9,885 11,451 18,859 21,491 24,080 26,983 30,239

Exports 13,386 21,890 33,558 41,755 47,324 53,484 60,547

Total Cost 23,271 33,341 52,418 63,246 71,404 80,467 90,786

49-foot Channel

Imports 9,646 11,174 18,403 20,971 23,497 26,330 29,507

Exports 13,062 21,360 32,746 40,745 46,179 52,189 59,081

Total Cost 22,708 32,534 51,149 61,716 69,676 78,519 88,588

50-foot Channel

Imports 9,438 10,933 18,005 20,518 22,989 25,761 28,869

Exports 12,779 20,899 32,039 39,864 45,181 51,062 57,805

Total Cost 22,217 31,831 50,044 60,382 68,170 76,822 86,674

583
207

Table 121

Port Arthur Petroleum and Chemical Product Imports and Exports

Annual Transportation Cost ($1,000) by Trade Route and Decade (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

2019–2069

2004/2006 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

40-foot Channel

Imports 5,956 6,887 11,616 13,244 14,835 16,619 18,620

Exports 17,563 28,722 44,032 54,788 62,094 70,176 79,444

Total Cost 23,519 35,609 55,648 68,032 76,930 86,796 98,064

45-foot Channel

Imports 5,039 5,826 9,826 11,204 12,550 14,059 15,751

Exports 14,858 24,297 37,249 46,347 52,529 59,366 67,205

Total Cost 19,896 30,123 47,075 57,551 65,079 73,425 82,957

46-foot Channel

Imports 4,887 5,651 9,531 10,867 12,173 13,637 15,278

Exports 14,411 23,567 36,130 44,955 50,950 57,582 65,186

Total Cost 19,298 29,218 45,661 55,822 63,123 71,219 80,464

47-foot Channel

Imports 4,745 5,486 9,253 10,551 11,818 13,240 14,833

Exports 13,991 22,881 35,077 43,645 49,466 55,905 63,287

Total Cost 18,736 28,367 44,331 54,196 61,285 69,144 78,121

48-foot Channel

Imports 4,627 5,351 9,025 10,290 11,526 12,912 14,466

Exports 13,646 22,315 34,210 42,567 48,244 54,523 61,723

Total Cost 18,273 27,666 43,235 52,856 59,770 67,435 76,189

49-foot Channel

Imports 4,529 5,237 8,832 10,071 11,281 12,637 14,158

Exports 13,355 21,840 33,481 41,659 47,215 53,361 60,408

Total Cost 17,884 27,076 42,314 51,730 58,496 65,998 74,566

50-foot Channel

Imports 4,453 5,149 8,684 9,901 11,091 12,425 13,920

Exports 13,130 21,472 32,918 40,959 46,422 52,464 59,392

Total Cost 17,583 26,621 41,602 50,861 57,513 64,888 73,312

584
208

Table 122

SNWW Petroleum and Chemical Products Annual Savings by Channel Depth Alternative, 2019–2069

$1,000

2004/2006 2019 2030 2040 2050 2060 2069

SNWW Total Petroleum Product Imports

45-foot 2,932.7 3,395.3 5,633.8 6,421.2 7,194.1 8,060.7 9,032.6

46-foot 3,414.3 3,952.9 6,559.0 7,475.7 8,375.5 9,384.5 10,516.0

47-foot 3,866.7 4,476.8 7,428.3 8,466.5 9,485.5 10,628.2 11,909.7

48-foot 4,253.7 4,924.8 8,171.6 9,313.7 10,434.6 11,691.6 13,101.4

49-foot 4,591.6 5,316.0 8,820.4 10,053.1 11,263.1 12,619.9 14,141.5

50-foot 4,876.2 5,645.5 9,366.5 10,675.5 11,960.4 13,401.2 15,017.1

SNWW Total Petroleum Product Exports

45-foot 5,434.3 8,886.9 13,624.2 16,952.0 19,212.9 21,713.5 24,581.0

46-foot 6,327.9 10,348.1 15,864.3 19,739.3 22,371.9 25,283.7 28,622.7

47-foot 7,167.6 11,721.3 17,969.5 22,358.7 25,340.7 28,638.9 32,421.0

48-foot 7,878.6 12,884.2 19,752.2 24,576.9 27,854.6 31,480.1 35,637.3

49-foot 8,493.4 13,889.5 21,293.5 26,494.6 30,028.1 33,936.5 38,418.1

50-foot 9,000.1 14,718.2 22,563.8 28,075.3 31,819.6 35,961.1 40,710.2

Table 123 summarizes the benefit calculations for coastwise product shipments and receipts. As noted,

deepening of the channel leading to the Taylor Bayou terminal will enable the existing fleet to be more

fully loaded but it will not result in transition to larger vessels. The transportation savings shown in Table

123 reflect continuation of this limitation. The maximum-sized coastwise vessels do not exceed Taylor

Bayou’s limitation. Transportation costs were estimated for 1-foot channel depth increments; however,

the table presentations only include 40-, 45-, 47-, 48-, and 50-foot costs.

585
209

Table 123

SNWW Petroleum Product Coastwise Shipments and Receipts

Vessel Data, Base Tonnage, and Transportation Savings Benefit Summary (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Origin-Destination Data: U.S. East Coast to/from SNWW

Initial % of total outbound shipments: 10

Round-trip mileage 3,000

Hourly Cost at Sea: 2,425

Hourly Cost in Port: 2,007

Vessel Speed (Knots) 14

Vessel Input Data and Transportation Cost

Channel

Depth

(feet)

Design

Draft

(feet)

Vessel

DWT

No. of

feet

LightLoaded

Cargo by

Channel

Depth

Round

Trip

Voyage

Cost ($)

Loading,

Unloading

and Port

Cost ($)

Total

Cost ($) Cost Per Ton ($)

40 45 75,000 6 58,571 519,643 124,110 643,753 10,99

45 to 50 45 75,000 1 69,173 519,643 124,110 641,908 9.64

Savings/ton 1.36

SNWW Domestic Coastwise Petroleum Product Tonnage

Total Short Tons Used

Year Short Tons For Benefits

2004–2006 Average 5,068,000 506,800

SNWW Domestic Coastwise Petroleum Product Annual Transportation Benefits

Year

Total

Tonnage

Used for

Benefits

Percentage

Used for

Benefits

Annual

Savings ($)

2002–2004 5,067,667 506,767 10 687,121

2019 7,901,200 790,120 10 1,071,317

2029 9,878,897 987,890 10 1,339,472

2039 11,856,594 1,185,659 10 1,607,626

2049 13,834,291 1,383,429 10 1,875,781

2059 15,811,988 1,581,199 10 2,143,935

2069 17,789,685 1,778,968 10 2,412,089

6.4.1.3 Grain Exports Transportation Savings Benefits

Beaumont wheat exports compose 5 percent of the current U.S. total. Forecasts of future exports were

estimated based on analysis conducted by the USDA. Beaumont’s recent grain exports consist almost

exclusively of wheat. Twenty-five percent of 2002–2006 grain export tonnage was shipped in vessels

with design drafts over 40 feet. The maximum DWT presently used for grain exports is in the 60,000 to

70,000 DWT range. These vessels have design drafts between 42 and 43 feet. As previously noted, the

median year of construction for the range of vessels presently used is 1985. Bulk carrier construction

trends (see Table 47) suggest transition in the average DWT range up to the 80,000 to 94,000 DWT

range. In the 1980s, grain vessels in the 135,000 to 150,000 DWT range were used for grain exports from

586
210

Beaumont and other Texas ports. These larger carriers transported grain to the former Soviet Union and to

Northern Europe. Demand for large parcels and channel depth availability at the destination port could

result in a return to 135,000 to 150,000 DWT vessels. Currently, the largest parcels from Texas ports are

in the range of 40,000 to 60,000 short tons, and parcels of 10,000 to 20,000 short tons are typical. For

grain shipped from the Canadian West Coast, it was noted that 40,000 DWT vessels are used for 10,000

parcels even though it is not cost effective. Reasons for small parcels could relate to specific demands not

to commingle; however, that was not noted. Containerships are the most common vessel type used for

Australian grain exported to Asian countries. Table 124 summarizes the per ton transportation cost

associated with the range of bulk carriers expected to use the channel. Table 125 summarizes the grain

exports for 2004–2007 and the annual transportation cost. Table 126 displays the annual tonnage forecast

and the transportation savings. The transportation costs are based on the cost per ton (Table 124)

multiplied by the annual tonnage (Table 125). The transportation savings benefits are based on 30 percent

of tonnage would load to drafts over 40 feet (see Table 77). Port depth, trade route, historical vessel

utilization data, and completion of the Panama Canal expansion were considerations used to identify the

percentage of grain exports tonnage anticipated to benefit from the proposed SNWW depth increases.

Table 124

Beaumont Wheat Exports, Shipments to Europe, Mediterranean, and Far East

Total Cost Per Ton by Channel Depth (December 2008 Vessel Costs, in dollars) a/

Channel Depth (feet)

DWT 40 45 46 47 48 49 50

70,000 20.07 16.83 16.83 15.80 15.80 15.80 15.80

80,000 19.58 16.39 16.39 15.38 14.92 14.49 14.49

90,000 17.97 15.24 14.78 14.35 13.94 13.56 13.20

100,000 18.01 15.25 14.79 14.36 13.95 13.56 13.20

120,000 17.32 14.73 14.31 13.92 13.49 13.13 12.78

a/ Calculated based on a round-trip mileage of 18,000 and the foreign flag bulk carrier operating costs

shown in Table 83.

The possibility of using containerships for grain transport is only being considered at a corporate level;

however, the traditional use of bulk carriers provides a less expensive mode. Containerships for wheat

and bulk grain transport have the noted advantage of increased versatility in the range of cargoes. The

potential effect of using containerships through Beaumont or the transfer of bulk grain to another location

is an uncertainty associated with grain export tonnage. The effect of this sensitivity is addressed in the

sensitivity section (Section 8).

587
211

Table 125

Beaumont Wheat Exports and Annual Transportation Cost

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Year

Total

Exports

Used for Benefit

Calculations

2005 1,082.0 324.6

2006 1,214.0 364.2

2007 1,632.0 489.6

2005/2007 1,309.3 392.8

DWT

% by Vessel

DWT

Transportation Cost ($1,000s) by Channel Depth (feet)

40 45 46 47 48 49 50

70,000 2.0 7,883 6,610 6,610 6,208 6,208 6,208 $6,208

80,000 15.0 7,691 6,437 6,437 6,040 5,860 5,690 $5,690

90,000 55.0 7,059 5,984 5,805 5,636 5,477 5,327 $5,184

100,000 20.0 7,074 5,991 5,811 5,642 5,479 5,327 $5,184

120,000 8.0 6,802 5,786 5,621 5,466 5,298 5,156 $5,019

Weighted Cost 7,153 6,050 5,902 5,696 5,535 5,385 5,267

2005/2007 Savings 1,103 1,251 1,457 1,618 1,768 1,886

Table 126

Beaumont Wheat Annual Transportation Savings, 2019–2069

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Year

Total

Exports

Used for Benefit

Calculations

2005/2007 1,309.3 392.8

2019 2,128.5 638.6

2029 2,351.2 705.4

2039 2,597.2 779.2

2049 2,868.9 860.7

2059 3,169.0 950.7

2069 3,500.6 1,050.2

Annual Transportation Savings ($1,000) by Channel Depth (feet)

Year 45 46 47 48 49 50

2005/2007 1,103 1,251 1,457 1,618 1,768 1,886

2019 1,793 2,033 2,369 2,630 2,874 3,065

2029 1,980 2,246 2,617 2,905 3,174 3,386

2039 2,187 2,480 2,890 3,209 3,506 3,740

2049 2,416 2,740 3,193 3,545 3,873 4,132

2059 2,669 3,027 3,527 3,916 4,278 4,564

2069 2,948 3,343 3,896 4,325 4,726 5,041

588
212

6.4.1.4 Crude Materials Transportation Savings

SNWW primary manufactured goods consist nearly exclusively of primary iron and steel products.

Reductions in the vessel operating costs for SNWW steel slab and iron ore imports were calculated based

on the relative difference in transportation costs between the without- and with-project conditions. As

with the previous presentations, transportation costs and savings were calculated for vessels that minimize

transportation costs given trade route constraints. Again, long-term fleet selection will continue to reflect

goals of minimizing vessel operating costs. Port Arthur’s breakbulk terminal is located outside the Taylor

Bayou reach, and the bulk carriers are not subject to the beam and length limitations. However, the

maximum beam width for the bulk carrier fleet is 106 feet. The design drafts for these vessels are

generally less than 45 feet. The DWT range of bulk carriers used for the benefit calculations is 60,000 to

90,000. Larger vessels could be used but are not anticipated over the next 20 years. The maximum size

presently being used is 78,000 DWT. The transportation savings calculations were based on average costs

for the anticipated 60,000 to 90,000 DWT range.

Table 127 present the cost per ton transportation cost for the representative bulk carriers used to transport

steel slab and iron ore. The costs shown are for Port Arthur and Beaumont. Based on existing port depths

and vessel utilization, an estimated 10 percent of tonnage was projected to use channel depths over 40 feet

for the years prior to 2014. By 2014, the expansion of the Panama Canal is expected to result in the

existing base tonnage from the deepwater port of Lazaro Cardenas on the West Coast of Mexico to load to

vessel drafts over 40 feet. At that time, an estimated 50 percent of tonnage is anticipated to be loaded to

vessel drafts over 40 feet.

Table 127

SNWW Steel Slab and Iron Ore from South America and Far East and the

Mediterranean Cost Per Ton by Channel Depth (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Channel Depth (feet)

DWT 40 45 46 47 48 49 50

Transportation Cost/Ton to Port Arthur

60,000 17.63 14.60 14.13 13.66 13.66 13.66 13.66

70,000 15.60 13.08 12.68 12.29 12.29 12.29 12.29

80,000 15.22 12.74 12.35 11.96 11.60 11.26 11.26

90,000 14.12 11.95 11.60 11.25 10.94 10.63 10.35

Transportation Cost/Ton to Beaumont

60,000 18.35 15.22 14.73 14.23 14.23 14.23 14.23

70,000 16.23 13.63 13.22 12.80 12.80 12.80 12.80

80,000 15.84 13.29 12.89 12.49 12.12 11.77 11.77

90,000 14.70 12.47 12.12 11.77 11.44 11.14 10.84

589
213

A representative weighted mileage for the applicable South America, Mediterranean, and Far East routes

was used. The weighted mileage is approximately 14,000 miles round-trip. The mileage estimated was

based on 2005–2007 routings (see Table 48). As previously noted, the tonnage forecast and average

annual growth rate for 2002–2004 to 2069 tonnage was displayed in tables 80 and 81. Tables 128 and 129

summarize historical tonnage base and the annual transportation savings benefits for Port Arthur’s steel

slab and iron ore import tonnage.

Table 128

Port Arthur Steel Slab and Iron Ore from South America, Mediterranean,

and the Far East Historical Tonnage and Annual Transportation Cost by Ton

($1,000) (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Year

Total

Exports

Used for Benefit

Calculations

2001 665,000 66,500

2002 641,000 64,100

2003 557,000 55,700

2004 564,000 56,400

2005 710,000 71,000

2006 542,000 54,200

2007 122,000 12,200

2005–2007 Average 458,000 45,800

Transportation Cost by Vessel Size and Channel Depth

Using 2005–2007 Average Tonnage a/

DWT 40 feet 45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

60,000 807 669 647 625 625 625 625

70,000 714 599 581 563 563 563 563

80,000 697 584 566 548 531 516 516

90,000 647 547 531 515 501 487 474

Average Cost 716 600 581 563 555 548 544

Average Savings 117 135 154 161 169 172

a/ The costs are based on the historical tonnage volume of 45.8 thousand short tons multiplied

by the cost per ton shown in Table 124 for Beaumont. The transportation cost of $716,000 is

the product of 45.8 thousand short tons times the transportation cost per ton at 40 feet (Table

127).

Note: Application of data as presented may produce some differences due to rounding.

590
214

Table 129

Port Arthur Steel Slab and Iron Ore from South America, Mediterranean, and

Far East Tonnage Forecast and Transportation Savings

($1,000) (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Year

Total

Exports

Tonnage Used for

Benefit Calculations

2003/2005 458,000 45,800

2019 523,626 262,651

2029 607,630 304,787

2039 705,110 353,683

2049 818,228 410,423

2059 949,493 476,266

2069 1,101,817 552,671

Transportation Savings by Year a/

Year 45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

2005/2007 117 135 154 161 169 172

2019 669 775 881 925 967 986

2029 777 899 1,022 1,073 1,122 1,144

2039 901 1,044 1,186 1,246 1,302 1,328

2049 1,046 1,211 1,376 1,446 1,511 1,541

2059 1,214 1,405 1,597 1,677 1,754 1,788

2069 1,408 1,631 1,853 1,947 2,035 2,075

Tables 130 and 131 summarize historical tonnage base and the annual transportation savings benefits for

Port Arthur’s steel slab and iron ore import tonnage.

591
215

Table 130

Beaumont Steel Slab and Iron Ore from South America Mediterranean, and

Far East Tonnage Historical Tonnage and Transportation Cost by Ton

($1,000) (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Year

Total

Exports

Used for Benefit

Calculations

2001 103,000 15,450

2002 204,000 30,600

2003 115,000 17,250

2004 420,000 63,000

2005 471,000 70,650

2006 364,000 54,600

2007 173,000 25,950

2005–2007 Average 336,000 50,400

Transportation Cost by Vessel Size and Channel Depth

Using 2002/2004 Average Tonnage a/

DWT 40 feet 45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

60,000 616 511 495 478 478 478 478

70,000 545 458 444 430 430 430 430

80,000 532 446 433 420 407 395 395

90,000 494 419 407 395 385 374 364

Average Cost 547 459 445 431 425 419 417

Average Savings 88 102 116 122 128 130

a/ The costs are based on the historical tonnage volume of 50.4 thousand short tons

multiplied by the cost per ton shown in Table 127. The transportation cost of $547,000 is the

product of 50.4 thousand short tons times the difference in transportation costs for the

channel depth alternatives.

Note: Application of data as presented may produce some differences due to rounding.

592
216

Table 131

Beaumont Steel Slab and Iron Ore from South America and Far East

and the Mediterranean Tonnage Forecast and Annual Transportation Savings

($1,000) (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Year

Tonnage Used for

Benefit Calculations

2002/2004 33,600

2019 213,254

2029 248,025

2039 288,465

2049 335,499

2059 390,201

2069 453,823

Annual Transportation Savings by Year a/

Year 45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

2002/2004 88 102 116 122 128 130

2019 560 649 737 774 809 825

2029 652 755 857 900 941 960

2039 869 1,006 1,143 1,200 1,254 1,279

2049 1,175 1,360 1,546 1,623 1,697 1,730

2059 1,589 1,840 2,091 2,196 2,295 2,341

2069 2,150 2,489 2,828 2,970 3,105 3,166

a/ The savings for 2005/2007 are based on the difference in transportation costs from the previous table

multiplied by the 2005/2007 tonnage. The savings for 2019–2069 are based on application of the tonnage

growth to the 2005/2007 historical base.

Note: Application of data as presented may produce some differences due to rounding.

6.4.1.5 Crude Materials Transportation Savings Benefits

As with steel slab and iron ore, the DWT range of bulk carriers used for the aggregate rock and other

crude materials benefit calculations are in the 60,000 to 90,000 DWT range. Larger vessels could be used

but are not anticipated over the next 20 years. The maximum size presently being used is 78,000 DWT.

The transportation savings calculations were based on average costs for the anticipated 60,000 to 90,000

DWT range. As with the previous presentations, transportation costs and savings were calculated for

vessels that minimize transportation costs given trade route constraints. The DWT range of bulk carriers

used for the benefit calculations are in the 60,000 to 90,000 DWT range.

The applicable tonnage forecast and average annual growth rate for 2002–2004 to 2069 was displayed in

tables 80 and 81. The forecast includes imports and exports. Table 132 displays Port Arthur and

Beaumont crude material imports and exports. Imports consist nearly exclusively of limestone, rock, and

other building materials. Exports consist primarily of dry sulphur, clay, and refractory materials.

593
217

Table 132

Port Arthur and Beaumont Crude Materials Imports and Exports

Summary of Recent Historical and Tonnage Forecast (1,000s of short tons)

Port Arthur Beaumont

Year Imports Exports Total Imports Exports Total

2001 131 – 131 622 165 787

2002 919 2 921 394 14 408

2003 481 20 501 583 73 656

2004 531 41 572 559 104 663

2005 558 14 572 624 106 730

2006 566 54 620 550 243 793

2007 513 64 577 617 421 1,038

Year

Port Arthur Crude Materials

Import and Export Forecast

Beaumont Crude Materials

Import and Export Forecast

2019 713 38 751 761 345 1,106

2029 829 44 873 885 400 1,285

2039 964 52 1,016 1,029 465 1,495

2049 1,121 60 1,181 1,197 541 1,738

2059 1,304 70 1,374 1,392 630 2,022

2069 1,517 81 1,598 1,619 732 2,352

Year Tonnage Used for Benefit Calculations

2019 353 0 353 358 57 415

2029 410 0 410 416 66 482

2039 477 0 477 484 77 561

2049 555 0 555 563 90 653

2059 645 0 645 654 105 759

2069 751 0 751 761 122 883

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Parts, 2001–2007.

Based on existing port depths and vessel utilization, an estimated 50 percent of crude material imports

and 10 percent of crude material exports was projected to use channel depths over 40 feet. A

representative weighted mileage for the applicable South America and Far East was used. The weighted

mileage is approximately 14,000 miles round trip. Table 133 present the cost per ton transportation cost

for representative bulk carriers used to transport crude materials based on the trade routes shown.

594
218

Table 133

SNWW Crude Material Imports and Exports Via South America and Far East

and the Mediterranean Cost Per Ton (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Channel Depth (feet)

DWT 40 45 46 47 48 49 50

Transportation Cost/Ton to Port Arthur

60,000 17.85 14.78 14.31 13.83 13.83 13.83 13.83

70,000 15.79 13.25 12.84 12.44 12.44 12.44 12.44

80,000 15.41 12.90 12.51 12.11 11.75 11.41 11.41

90,000 14.30 12.09 11.75 11.40 11.08 10.77 10.48

Transportation Cost/Ton to Beaumont

60,000 17.93 14.85 14.37 13.89 13.89 13.89 13.89

70,000 15.86 13.30 12.90 12.49 12.49 12.49 12.49

80,000 15.48 12.96 12.56 12.16 11.80 11.46 11.46

90,000 14.36 12.14 11.80 11.45 11.12 10.82 10.52

Table 134 summarizes the annual transportation savings benefits for Port Arthur’s import tonnage. Table

135 summarizes the annual transportation savings benefits for Beaumont’s import tonnage. Table 136

summarizes the annual transportation savings benefits for SNWW’s exports of crude materials.

Transportation savings were calculated for 15 percent of future exports.

595
219

Table 134

Port Arthur Limestone and Rock Imports from South America, Mediterranean,

and Far East ($1,000) (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Transportation Cost by Vessel Size and Channel Depth (feet)

DWT 40 45 46 47 48 49 50

60,000 1,062 879 851 822 822 822 822

70,000 939 788 764 740 740 740 740

80,000 917 767 744 720 699 678 678

90,000 851 719 698 678 659 640 623

Average Cost 942 788 764 740 730 720 716

Average 154 178 202 212 222 226

Transportation Savings 45 46 47 48 49 50

2005/207 154 178 202 212 222 226

2019 1,042 1,205 1,368 1,452 1,531 1,579

2029 1,042 1,205 1,368 1,452 1,531 1,579

2039 1,211 1,402 1,592 1,689 1,781 1,837

2049 1,409 1,630 1,851 1,964 2,071 2,136

2059 1,639 1,896 2,153 2,284 2,409 2,484

2069 1,906 2,205 2,504 2,656 2,801 2,889

Table 135

Beaumont Limestone and Rock Imports from South America, Mediterranean,

and Far East ($1,000) (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Transportation Cost by Vessel Size and Channel Depth (feet)

DWT 40 45 46 47 48 49 50

60,000 1,070 886 858 829 829 829 829

70,000 947 794 770 746 746 746 746

80,000 924 774 750 726 704 684 684

90,000 858 725 704 683 664 646 628

Average Cost 950 795 770 746 736 726 722

Average Savings 155 179 204 214 224 228

Transportation Savings 45 46 47 48 49 50

2005/2007 155 180 204 214 224 228

2019 946 1,094 1,243 1,306 1,365 1,391

2029 1,279 1,480 1,682 1,766 1,846 1,882

2039 1,488 1,722 1,956 2,054 2,147 2,189

2049 1,730 2,002 2,275 2,389 2,497 2,546

2059 2,012 2,329 2,645 2,778 2,904 2,961

2069 2,340 2,709 3,077 3,231 3,378 3,444

596
220

Table 136

SNWW Sulphur and Refractory Material Exports to South America, Mediterranean,

and Far East ($1,000) (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Transportation Cost by Vessel Size and Channel Depth (feet)

DWT 40 45 46 47 48 49 50

60,000 535 443 429 415 415 415 415

70,000 473 397 385 373 373 373 373

80,000 462 387 375 363 352 342 342

90,000 429 362 352 342 332 323 314

Average Cost 475 397 385 373 368 363 361

Average 78 90 102 107 112 114

Transportation Savings 45 46 47 48 49 50

2005/2007 78 90 102 107 112 114

2019 148 171 194 204 213 217

2029 199 230 262 275 287 293

2039 232 268 304 320 334 341

2049 269 312 354 372 389 396

2059 313 363 412 433 452 461

2069 364 422 479 503 526 536

6.4.1.6 Liquefied Natural Gas Transportation Savings

Table 137 presents the trade route forecast used for the benefit calculations, Table 138 presents the per

ton transportation cost. The bottom half of Table 138 presents the annual savings. The maximum loaded

draft for LNG vessels is anticipated to be 40 to 42 feet. The majority of vessels will be loaded to 39 feet.

The vessels will need from 3 to 6 feet underkeel clearance. The deepening benefits were therefore,

believed to stop at a channel depth of approximately 43 feet. The benefits were calculated using 4 feet of

underkeel clearance. Recalculation of the benefit estimates using 3 feet would reduce the average annual

benefits by approximately 39 percent. Recalculation using 6 feet would increase the average annual

savings by approximately 64 percent. Use of less than 4 feet of underkeel clearance is not expected for

LNG vessels.

Table 137

SNWW Liquefied Natural Gas Trade Route Forecast, Short Tons

Year Middle East Trinidad Algeria Total

2015 1,946,522 1,940,695 1,940,695 5,827,913

2020 2,062,339 2,056,165 2,056,165 6,174,670

2030 2,062,340 2,056,165 2,056,165 6,174,671

2049 2,062,340 2,056,165 2,056,165 6,174,671

2059 2,062,340 2,056,165 2,056,165 6,174,671

2069 2,062,340 2,056,165 2,056,165 6,174,671

597
221

Table 138

Liquefied Natural Gas Transportation Cost per Ton by Channel Depth,

Vessel Dead Weight Tons, and Shipment Origin (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Vessel

DWT

Middle East Trinidad Algeria

40 43 40 43 40 43

76,500 26.70 25.65 5.83 5.62 14.12 13.58

100,000 24.14 20.78 5.28 4.61 12.77 11.03

125,000 22.11 19.22 4.82 4.25 11.69 10.20

Savings/Ton for 43 Feet For SNWW Fleet

DWT Qatar Trinidad Algeria

100,000 0.00 0.00 0.00

125,000 3.36 0.67 1.74

Average 2.89 0.58 1.49

SNWW Liquefied Natural Gas Annual Transportation Savings by Trade Route

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Year Qatar Trinidad Algeria Total

2019 6,080,341 1,209,365 3,137,311 10,427,016

2029 6,442,118 1,281,321 3,323,978 11,047,417

2039 6,442,121 1,281,321 3,323,978 11,047,420

2049 6,442,121 1,281,321 3,323,978 11,047,420

2059 6,442,121 1,281,321 3,323,978 11,047,420

2069 6,442,121 1,281,321 3,323,978 11,047,420

598
222

7.0 NED BENEFIT SUMMARY

Table 139 summarizes the transportation cost savings by major group. The majority of benefits are

associated with imports of crude petroleum, LNG, and petroleum product and exports of petroleum

products. Crude petroleum and petroleum products represent 84 percent of the benefits at the 45-foot

depth and 89 percent at the 50-foot depth. LNG comprises 7 percent of benefits at the 45-foot depth and 4

percent at 50 feet. The LNG benefits are for facilities in the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal

reaches. Distributions of the Taylor Bayou, Port Arthur, and Neches River deepening benefits are

presented in Table 140.

Table 139

Total Average Annual Deepening Benefits ($1,000s)

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

by Project Depth Alternative

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

Crude Petroleum Imports 41,130 48,650 53,411 61,081 66,173 68,759

Petroleum Products Imports 5,923 6,896 7,810 8,591 9,273 9,848

Petroleum Products Exports 15,309 17,826 20,191 22,194 23,926 25,354

Coastwise 1,481 1,481 1,481 1,481 1,481 1,481

Grain Exports 2,172 2,463 2,870 3,187 3,482 3,714

Breakbulk 4,536 5,247 5,247 5,247 5,247 5,247

LNG 11,140 11,140 11,140 11,140 11,140 11,140

Deepening Benefits 81,691 93,703 102,150 112,921 120,722 125,543

Neches River Anchorages 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153

Total Annual Benefits 83,844 95,856 104,303 115,074 122,875 127,696

Table 141 summarizes the benefit cost analysis, including the first cost of construction, net excess

benefits, and the benefit to cost ratio (BCR) for the project alternatives. The results of the analysis

indicate that the 49-foot channel depth represents the plan that most reasonably maximizes net excess

benefits.

599
223

Table 140

Total Average Annual Benefits ($1,000s)

by Channel Reach and Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%) (December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Reach and Commodity 45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

Sabine Pass LNG 3,676 3,676 3,676 3,676 3,676 3,676

Port Arthur LNG 7,464 7,464 7,464 7,464 7,464 7,464

Taylor Bayou

Crude Petroleum Imports 5,790 6,892 7,510 7,964 8,305 8,928

Petro Product Imports 2,369 2,758 3,124 3,436 3,709 3,939

Petro-Chem Product

Exports 7,348 8,556 9,692 10,653 11,485 12,170

Coastwise Petro Products 563 563 563 563 563 563

Taylor Bayou Total 16,070 18,769 20,889 22,616 24,062 25,600

Sabine-Neches Canal

Breakbulk and Aggregate 2,366 2,735 2,735 2,735 2,735 2,735

Neches River Channel to Beaumont

Crude Petroleum Imports 35,340 41,759 45,901 53,117 57,868 59,832

Petro Product Imports 3,554 4,138 4,686 5,155 5,564 5,909

Petro-Chem Product Exports 7,961 9,269 10,499 11,541 12,442 13,184

Coastwise Petro Products 918 918 918 918 918 918

Grain Exports 2,172 2,463 2,870 3,187 3,482 3,714

Breakbulk and Aggregate 2,471 2,860 2,860 2,860 2,860 2,860

Neches River Turning Basins 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153

Neches River Total 54,569 63,560 69,887 78,931 85,287 88,570

Total Annual Benefits a/ 83,844 95,856 104,303 115,074 122,875 127,696

a/ Some totals may not add due to rounding.

Table 141

SNWW Economic Summary Data

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction 798,920 889,906 980,891 1,071,877 1,152,079 1,232,280

Interest During Construction 88,981 99,115 109,248 119,382 128,315 137,247

Total Investment 887,901 989,021 1,090,139 1,191,259 1,280,394 1,369,527

Average Annual Cost 44,020 49,033 54,046 59,059 63,478 67,897

Deferred Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 26,023 28,037 30,052 32,067 32,927 33,787

Total Annual Cost 70,217 77,258 84,299 91,341 96,626 101,911

Average Annual Benefits 83,844 95,856 104,303 115,074 122,875 127,696

Net Excess Benefits 13,627 18,598 20,004 23,733 26,249 25,785

Benefit to Cost Ratios 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3

600
224

7.1 INCREMENTAL ANALYSIS

The project benefits start in the Sabine Pass Channel reach where the Cheniere LNG terminal is

located.46. The Port Arthur Canal reach follows the Sabine Pass Channel reach. The Golden Pass LNG

terminal which is nearing completion, is located in the Sabine Pass Channel reach. An additional LNG

terminal, Sempra, is permitted for construction in the Port Arthur Canal reach; however, due to

uncertainty, the LNG transportation savings benefits (see Table 139) do not include Sempra. The Port

Arthur Canal reach also provides access to the Taylor Bayou side channel and basin. The Port of Port

Arthur facilities are located along the main portion of the Sabine-Neches Canal. The incremental analyses

for channel improvements through Port Arthur excluding the Taylor Bayou side channel are shown in

Table 142.

Table 142

Sabine Pass Channel, Port Arthur Canal, and Sabine-Neches Canal Incremental Analysis

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction 510,640 564,696 618,751 672,807 725,314 777,822

Interest During Construction 48,541 54,539 60,538 66,536 71,713 76,889

Total Investment 559,181 619,235 679,289 739,343 797,027 854,711

Average Annual Cost 27,723 30,700 33,677 36,655 39,514 42,374

Deferred Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 21,870 23,477 25,089 26,705 27,332 27,965

Total Annual Cost 49,767 54,365 58,967 63,575 67,067 70,566

Average Annual Benefits 13,205 13,527 13,527 13,527 13,527 13,527

Net Excess Benefits –36,562 –40,838 –45,440 –50,048 –53,540 –57,039

Benefit to Cost Ratios 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Separable analysis of Taylor Bayou is shown in Table 143. The analysis presented in Table 143 shows

that the BCRs for the Taylor Bayou increment are well above unity. Table 144 presents the SabineNeches and Taylor Bayou increments as a separable unit. Table 144 indicates that the BCRs for the

segment through the Sabine-Neches Canal and including Taylor Bayou are below unity due to the

inclusion of the Entrance Channel costs and exclusion of the Neches River benefits. Incremental analysis

of the Neches River reach is shown in Table 145, and the BCRs are well above unity. Table 146 displays

Neches River analysis excluding Taylor Bayou. Table 147 reflects exclusion of benefits from Taylor

Bayou, LNG, and breakbulk. Table 148 presents calculation of the benefits and costs without inclusion of

LNG.

46 Reference to the facility locations can be found on Figure 1.

601
225

The results of the analysis presented in tables 142 through 148 show that the downstream benefits are not

needed to justify the upstream costs. The analysis shows that each of the major reaches provides

significant incremental benefits.

Table 143

Taylor Bayou Incremental Analysis

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction 43,755 51,811 59,865 67,919 76,527 85,136

Interest During Construction 2,106 2,494 2,882 3,270 3,683 4,099

Total Investment 45,861 54,305 62,747 71,189 80,210 89,235

Average Annual Cost 2,274 2,692 3,111 3,529 3,977 4,424

Average Annual O&M 1,267 1,451 1,631 1,807 1,945 2,075

Total Annual Cost 3,541 4,143 4,742 5,336 5,922 6,499

Average Annual Benefits 16,070 18,769 20,889 22,617 24,062 25,599

Net Excess Benefits 12,529 14,626 16,147 17,281 18,140 19,100

Benefit to Cost Ratios 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.1 3.9

Table 144

Project Improvements Through Port Arthur (including Taylor Bayou)

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction 554,395 616,507 678,616 740,725 801,842 862,958

Interest During Construction 50,647 57,033 63,420 69,806 75,396 80,988

Total Investment 605,042 673,540 742,036 810,531 877,238 943,946

Average Annual Cost 30,171 33,580 36,989 40,399 43,712 47,025

Deferred Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 23,137 24,929 26,720 28,512 29,276 30,041

Total Annual Cost 53,482 58,697 63,910 69,126 73,209 77,293

Average Annual Benefits 29,275 32,296 34,416 36,144 37,589 39,126

Net Excess Benefits –24,207 –26,401 –29,494 –32,982 –35,620 –38,167

Benefit to Cost Ratios 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

602
226

Table 145

Neches River Incremental Economic Analysis

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction 244,525 273,399 302,275 331,152 350,237 369,322

Interest During Construction 38,334 42,081 45,829 49,576 52,918 56,259

Total Investment 282,859 315,480 348,104 380,728 403,156 425,581

Average Annual Cost 14,023 15,641 17,258 18,875 19,987 21,099

Average Annual O&M 2,885 3,109 3,332 3,555 3,651 3,746

Total Annual Cost 16,908 18,750 20,590 22,430 23,638 24,845

Average Annual Benefits 54,570 63,560 69,888 78,931 85,287 88,570

Net Excess Benefits 37,661 44,811 49,298 56,500 61,649 63,725

Benefit to Cost Ratios 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6

Table 146

SNWW Improvements (Excludes Taylor Bayou)

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction 755,165 838,095 921,027 1,003,958 1,075,551 1,147,144

Interest During Construction 86,875 96,621 106,366 116,112 124,631 133,148

Total Investment 842,040 934,716 1,027,392 1,120,070 1,200,183 1,280,292

Average Annual Cost 41,746 46,341 50,935 55,530 59,502 63,473

Deferred Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 24,755 26,586 28,422 30,260 30,982 31,712

Total Annual Cost 66,676 73,115 79,558 86,005 90,705 95,411

Average Annual Benefits 54,540 63,418 69,746 78,789 85,145 88,428

Net Excess Benefits –12,135 –9,696 –9,812 –7,217 –5,559 –6,983

Benefit to Cost Ratios 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

603
227

Table 147

Neches River Project Improvements (Excludes Transportation Benefits for

All Other Reaches Except the Neches River)

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction 755,165 838,095 921,027 1,003,958 1,075,551 1,147,144

Interest During Construction 86,875 96,621 106,366 116,112 124,631 133,148

Total Investment 842,040 934,716 1,027,392 1,120,070 1,200,183 1,280,292

Average Annual Cost 41,746 46,341 50,935 55,530 59,502 63,473

Deferred Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 24,755 26,586 28,422 30,260 30,982 31,712

Total Annual Cost 66,676 73,115 79,558 86,005 90,705 95,411

Average Annual Benefits 38,470 44,649 48,857 56,172 61,084 62,829

Net Excess Benefits –28,206 –28,465 –30,701 –29,834 –29,621 –32,582

Benefit to Cost Ratios 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7

Table 148

SNWW Improvements (Excludes LNG)

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction 755,165 838,095 921,027 1,003,958 1,075,551 1,147,144

Interest During Construction 86,875 96,621 106,366 116,112 124,631 133,148

Total Investment 842,040 934,716 1,027,392 1,120,070 1,200,183 1,280,292

Average Annual Cost 41,746 46,341 50,935 55,530 59,502 63,473

Deferred Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 24,755 26,586 28,422 30,260 30,982 31,712

Total Annual Cost 66,676 73,115 79,558 86,005 90,705 95,411

Average Annual Benefits 72,702 84,716 93,164 103,935 111,736 116,556

Net Excess Benefits 6,026 11,601 13,606 17,930 21,031 21,144

Benefit to Cost Ratios 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

7.2 BENEFIT-COST RATIO AT 7 PERCENT

Calculation of benefits and costs at 7 percent interest is required by EC 11-2-194, commonly referred to

as the budget Engineering Circular (paragraph 11). The 7 percent calculations are used for budget ranking

purposes. Table 149 outlines the economic calculations at 7 percent.

604
228

Table 149

SNWW Economic Summary Data at 7 Percent

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction 798,920 889,906 980,891 1,071,877 1,152,079 1,232,280

Interest During Construction 150,031 167,118 184,204 201,291 216,352 231,413

Total Investment 948,951 1,057,024 1,165,095 1,273,168 1,368,431 1,463,693

Average Annual Cost 68,761 76,592 84,423 92,254 99,156 106,059

Deferred Construction (F&W) 178 192 206 220 226 232

Average Annual O&M 25,942 27,971 29,999 32,027 32,885 33,742

Total Annual Cost 94,881 104,755 114,628 124,501 132,267 140,033

Average Annual Benefits 81,644 93,305 101,498 112,028 119,631 124,300

Net Excess Benefits –13,237 –11,450 –13,130 –12,473 –12,636 –15,733

Benefit to Cost Ratios 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

605
229

8.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Sensitivities were evaluated based on trade route variations, vessel underkeel clearance variance, the use

of offshore or other pipeline alternatives, and the effect on vessel delays from reductions in vessel trips as

a result of channel deepening. The effects of the sensitivities were evaluated in relationship to the BCRs,

net excess benefits, and NED plan presented in Table 141. The effects of the combined sensitivities are

also discussed.

8.1 UNDERKEEL CLEARANCE SENSITIVITY

Table 150 presents the results of a scenario using 3 feet of underkeel clearance instead of 1 foot for crude

petroleum and petrochemical products. Table 151 presents the results of a scenario using 1 foot of

underkeel clearance for vessels less than 100,000 DWT and 3 feet of underkeel clearance for vessels over

100,000 DWT. The underkeel clearance assumptions remain the same for the without- and with-project

conditions. The basis for the second scenario is that as channel depth increases, vessel operators are likely

to be more adverse to the risk associated with 1-foot underkeel clearance when operating larger vessels.

Table 152 presents the results of using 1 foot of underkeel clearance for the without-project condition and

3 feet for the with-project condition.

Table 150

SNWW Economic Summary Data 3-foot Underkeel Clearance

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction 798,920 889,906 980,891 1,071,877 1,152,079 1,232,280

Interest During Construction 88,981 99,115 109,248 119,382 128,315 137,247

Total Investment 887,901 989,021 1,090,139 1,191,259 1,280,394 1,369,527

Average Annual Cost 44,020 49,033 54,046 59,059 63,478 67,897

Deferred Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 26,023 28,037 30,052 32,067 32,927 33,787

Total Annual Cost 70,217 77,258 84,299 91,341 96,626 101,911

Average Annual Benefits 96,703 107,753 121,476 132,476 140,562 146,961

Net Excess Benefits 26,486 30,495 37,177 41,135 43,936 45,050

Benefit to Cost Ratios 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4

606
230

Table 151

SNWW Economic Summary Data 1-Foot Underkeel Clearance for Vessels of Less Than 100,000 DWT

(Without- and With-Project Future)

3 Feet of Underkeel Clearance for Vessels Greater than 100,000 DWT (Without- and With-Project Future)

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction 798,920 889,906 980,891 1,071,877 1,152,079 1,232,280

Interest During Construction 88,981 99,115 109,248 119,382 128,315 137,247

Total Investment 887,901 989,021 1,090,139 1,191,259 1,280,394 1,369,527

Average Annual Cost 44,020 49,033 54,046 59,059 63,478 67,897

Deferred Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 26,023 28,037 30,052 32,067 32,927 33,787

Total Annual Cost 70,217 77,258 84,299 91,341 96,626 101,911

Average Annual Benefits 94,548 105,743 117,164 126,893 133,533 140,071

Net Excess Benefits 24,331 28,485 32,865 35,552 36,907 38,160

Benefit to Cost Ratios 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Table 152

SNWW Economic Summary Data 1-Foot Underkeel Clearance for the Without-Project Condition

3 Feet of Underkeel Clearance for the With-Project Future

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s)

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction 798,920 889,906 980,891 1,071,877 1,152,079 1,232,280

Interest During Construction 88,981 99,115 109,248 119,382 128,315 137,247

Total Investment 887,901 989,021 1,090,139 1,191,259 1,280,394 1,369,527

Average Annual Cost 44,020 49,033 54,046 59,059 63,478 67,897

Deferred Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 26,023 28,037 30,052 32,067 32,927 33,787

Total Annual Cost 70,217 77,258 84,299 91,341 96,626 101,911

Average Annual Benefits 65,368 76,564 87,985 97,713 104,355 110,892

Net Excess Benefits –4,849 –694 3,686 6,372 7,729 8,981

Benefit to Cost Ratios 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1

607
231

The sensitivity presented in Table 152 is based on the assumption that vessel operators use the availability

of a deeper channel depth to reduce the risk of operating with minimum underkeel clearance by insisting

on greater underkeel clearance at vessels over 100,000 DWT under the with-project alternative. The

transportation costs and savings for the scenario were run with the assumption that all crude and product

carriers use 1 foot of underkeel clearance under the without-project condition and all carriers use 3 feet

under the with-project scenarios. Table 139 presents the result on plan optimization.

8.2 OFFSHORE TERMINAL

This scenario evaluates a with- and without-project future represented by increased use of an offshore

alternative or other pipeline alternative such as receipt of large volumes of Canadian crude by landside

pipeline. These alternatives were evaluated as sensitivities, as plans for these projects are uncertain. Some

industry representatives noted that for security reasons, access to more than one alternative is preferable.

The logistics, including the use of other waterways and pipelines, necessary to receive feedstock during

emergency situations is a part of emergency planning; however, the delivery costs associated with such

alternatives exceed the costs associated with those of existing practices. The results of a scenario where

50 percent of future crude petroleum imports from West Africa and the Middle East use an offshore

alternative are presented in Table 153. The results of the sensitivity indicate that the 48- and 49-foot

deepening alternative project remain justified; however, the benefits are greatly reduced.

Table 153

SNWW Economic Summary Data Offshore Alternative

With 50% of West Africa and Middle East Using Offshore Alternative

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Depth Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction 800,356 890,863 981,370 1,071,877 1,151,657 1,231,437

Interest During Construction 138,691 132,255 125,818 119,382 127,239 135,095

Total Investment 939,047 1,023,118 1,107,188 1,191,259 1,278,896 1,366,532

Average Annual Cost 46,555 50,723 54,891 59,059 63,404 67,749

Deferred Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 26,023 28,037 30,052 32,067 32,927 33,787

Total Annual Cost 72,752 78,948 85,144 91,341 96,552 101,763

Average Annual Benefits 74,829 84,994 92,858 101,352 107,894 112,515

Net Excess Benefits 4,612 7,736 8,559 10,011 11,268 10,604

Benefit to Cost Ratios 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

608
232

8.3 OFFSHORE TRANSFER TIME SENSITIVITY

This section evaluates the effects of using both increasingly optimal and less than optimal turnaround

times for offshore lightering and lightening. Identification of the number of days used for the SNWW

analysis was based on inputs from industry including data outlined in the Skaugen PetroTrans publication

“Introduction to Lightering.”47 Detailed discussion of the variables associated with crude petroleum

methods of shipment was presented in Section 3.5.1. As noted in that section, SNWW crude petroleum

transportation costs were calculated based on the mother vessel being offshore for 24 hours for each

shuttle vessel used. The 24-hour period includes offloading from the mother vessel and associated

logistics, including routine delays. Table 154 includes the minimum and maximum hours per shuttle

evaluated for the sensitivity.

Table 154

Mother Vessel Offshore Hours Per Shuttle (Hrs)

Hours

Minimum 18

Most Likely 24

Maximum 36

The most likely times are based on the assumption of optimal turnaround times with the arrival of the

shuttle vessels being coordinated to avoid any delays. The minimum times are based on increasingly

optimal turnaround time. Table 155 presents the results of the minimum offshore hours. The maximum

times are based on quotes obtained from the lightering companies and industry. Table 156 presents the

results of the less than optimal offshore hours.

Table 155

SNWW Economic Summary Data Based on Minimal Mother Vessel Offshore Time

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction 798,920 889,906 980,891 1,071,877 1,152,079 1,232,280

Interest During Construction 88,981 99,115 109,248 119,382 128,315 137,247

Total Investment 887,901 989,021 1,090,139 1,191,259 1,280,394 1,369,527

Average Annual Cost 44,020 49,033 54,046 59,059 63,478 67,897

Differed Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 26,023 28,037 30,052 32,067 32,927 33,787

Total Annual Cost 70,217 77,258 84,299 91,341 96,626 101,911

Average Annual Benefits 76,428 87,466 95,413 105,653 113,451 118,245

Net Excess Benefits 6,211 10,208 11,114 14,312 16,825 16,334

B/C Ratios 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2

47 Skaugen Petro Trans Inc., Introduction to Lightering, October 25, 2006. http://www.teekay.com/PDFs/Lightering101.pdf.

609
233

Table 156

SNWW Economic Summary Data Based on Less Than

Optimal Mother Vessel Offshore Time

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction 798,920 889,906 980,891 1,071,877 1,152,079 1,232,280

Interest During Construction 88,981 99,115 109,248 119,382 128,315 137,247

Total Investment 887,901 989,021 1,090,139 1,191,259 1,280,394 1,369,527

Average Annual Cost 44,020 49,033 54,046 59,059 63,478 67,897

Differed Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 26,023 28,037 30,052 32,067 32,927 33,787

Total Annual Cost 70,217 77,258 84,299 91,341 96,626 101,911

Average Annual Benefits 90,732 103,802 115,167 124,827 135,600 143,581

Net Excess Benefits 20,515 26,544 30,868 33,486 38,974 41,670

B/C Ratios 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

8.4 VESSEL TRIP REDUCTION DUE TO CHANNEL DEEPENING

For this sensitivity, the HarborSym widening model was run based on the reduction in vessel trips as a

result of channel deepening The purpose of the sensitivity was to determine changes in the annual delays

in relationship to widening of the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal. The change in vessel trips

due to channel deepening was estimated based on the decrease in the number of trips necessary to

transport future tonnage. These vessel trip calculations were used in the ERDC shoreline effect study.

Vessel trip estimates were prepared using 2000–2004 trips and for 2030–2040 average trips (see tables 94

and 95). The results of the HarborSym model show that the reduction in the number of vessel trips

resulting from channel deepening will have a significant effect on the net difference in the duration of

vessel delays between the without- and with-project conditions. The transportation costs and savings

associated with the sensitivity are outlined in Table 157.

Table 158 presents a comparison of the economic summary data for “widening with deepening” and

widening as a separate feature. The economic summary data for widening as a separate feature was

previously presented in Table 98. Additional analyses based on a range of fleet forecasts indicate that the

increase in benefits from scenarios that included either “deepening and widening” or “deepening and the

turning basins” were primarily attributable to the reduction in trips due to channel deepening. These

savings result from the reduction in trips based on vessels carrying additional cargo or the redistribution

of vessel sizes based on the availability of a deeper channel.

610
234

Table 157

Comparison of Annual Savings ($1,000s)

Due to Vessel Trip Reductions, 2030

Without- and With-Project Future

Without-Project Widening Widening and

Component Future No Deepening Deepening

# in Call List a/ 3,448 3,448 2,815

Number of Vessels Exiting 3,439 3,439 2,794

Average Vessel Time in System (hours) 58.6 57.7 59.2

Total Cost ($1,000s) 258,469.3 255,821.3 236,000.0

Total Cost SD ($1,000s) 934.0 885.3 607.8

Total Cost Max ($1,000s) 260,294.9 254,640.1 238,200.7

Total Cost Min ($1,000s) 256,367.1 251,205.5 235,265.8

Average Cost ($1,000s) 74.73 74.22 76.87

Average Time in Reaches (hours) 8.32 8.30 8.02

Average Time Waiting at Entry (hours) 4.01 2.56 2.24

Average Time Waiting (hours) 8.83 7.85 6.39

Savings in Total Cost ($1,000s) 3,487.3 b/ 29,591.3

a/ The table reflects 297 LNG vessels. The effect of the lower LNG forecast was not prepared for this

sensitivity.

b/ The savings of $3,487.3 thousands is shown on the last page of Table 96.

Table 158

Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal

Economic Summary Data (2008 Thousands of Dollars at 4.375%)

Item

Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal

Widening to 700 feet

First Cost 78,448.0

Mitigation Cost 48,484.5

Interest During Construction 36,282.3

Total First Cost 163,214.8

Average Annual Construction Cost 8,091.7

Incremental Average Annual O&M Cost 9,587.1

Total Average Annual Cost 17,678.7

Widening

No Deepening

(Table 97)

Deepening

and

Widening

Residual

Benefits at

48 Feet

Average Annual Benefits 6,379.6 29,951.3 23,571.7

Net Excess Benefits –11,299.1 12,272.6 5,893.0

Benefit to Cost Ratio 0.4 1.7 1.3

611
235

8.5 GRAIN EXPORT SENSITIVITY

The potential effect of using containerships through Beaumont or the transfer of bulk grain to another

location is an uncertainty associated with grain export tonnage. For purposes of analysis, the effect of

excluding transportation savings for grain exports was evaluated. The result of this sensitivity is

summarized in Table 159.

Table 159

SNWW Economic Summary Data Offshore Alternative

Excluding Grain Exports

Cost and Benefits ($1,000s) by Channel Depth Alternative

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375%)

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

First Cost of Construction 800,356 890,863 981,370 1,071,877 1,151,657 1,231,437

Interest During Construction 138,691 132,255 125,818 119,382 127,239 135,095

Total Investment 939,047 1,023,118 1,107,188 1,191,259 1,278,896 1,366,532

Average Annual Cost 46,555 50,723 54,891 59,059 63,404 67,749

Deferred Construction (F&W) 174 188 201 215 221 227

Average Annual O&M 26,023 28,037 30,052 32,067 32,927 33,787

Total Annual Cost 72,752 78,948 85,144 91,341 96,552 101,763

Average Annual Benefits 81,973 93,741 101,781 112,235 119,741 124,330

Net Excess Benefits 11,756 16,483 17,482 20,894 23,115 22,419

Benefit to Cost Ratios 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

8.6 DEPTH OPTIMIZATION SENSITIVITY REVIEW

This section provides a review of depth optimization. Current benefits calculations were reviewed in

relationship to project construction costs. Benefit calculations for the range of channel depths between 43

and 50 feet continued to be maintained during the study process. While, detailed costs were not made for

every channel depth increment after the initial optimization of benefits and costs were prepared, costs

calculations for the 45-foot alternative were maintained as they were needed for cost allocation purposes.

Comparison of recent project construction costs for the 45- and 50-foot channel depth increments and cost

data for earlier study phases were used to estimate the project construction cost for 46, 47, and 49 feet.

Detailed calculations were made for 45, 48, and 50 feet.

Comparison of the detailed cost values for 45, 48, and 50 feet with the inclusion of the interpolated values

for 46, 47, and 49 feet with calculated transportation cost savings for 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, and 52

feet is displayed on Figure 58. The presentation shows that the average annual benefits by channel depth

increase at a greater rate than costs. The results of this comparison suggest that channel depth alternatives

less than 45 feet would not produce higher net excess benefits than the proposed 48-foot channel depth.

612
236

Figure 58

SNWW Depth Optimization Review

8.7 SUMMARY OF MAJOR SENSITIVITY EFFECTS

This sensitivity presents the results of using 1foot of underkeel clearance for the without-project condition

and 3 feet for the with-project condition and including the incidental benefits from reductions in vessel

trips. Table 160 displays the project benefits for this scenario. The total benefits include the channel

deepening and anchorage basin benefits outlined in Table 141 and the incidental reduction in delay

benefits shown in Table 157. The annual savings for the without-project future without deepening is

$6,339,400. The annual savings for the without-project future that includes deepening to 48 feet is

$29,591,300. The results of the analysis indicate that the residual savings from the combined effect of

widening and deepening is represented by the net difference of $23,571,700. The savings for the 45-, 46-,

and 47-foot depths was interpolated given a savings of zero at 40 feet and $23,571,700 at 48 feet. The

savings at 49 and 50 feet were assumed to be the same as at 48 feet.

613
237

Table 160

Total Average Annual Deepening and Reduction in Delay Benefits ($1,000s)

(50-Year Period of Analysis at 4.375 percent)

by Project Depth Alternative

(December 2008 Vessel Costs)

Item 45 feet 46 feet 47 feet 48 feet 49 feet 50 feet

Crude Petroleum Imports 49,003 55,296 62,659 68,948 72,572 75,760Petroleum Products Imports 6,728 7,817 8,836 9,714 10,483 11,352

Petroleum Products Exports 17,335 20,146 22,778 25,023 26,975 29,224

Coastwise 1,481 1,481 1,481 1,481 1,481 1,481

Grain Exports 2,172 2,463 2,870 3,187 3,482 3,714

Breakbulk 4,837 5,595 5,595 5,595 5,595 5,595

LNG 11,140 11,140 11,140 11,140 11,140 11,140Deep-Draft Benefits 81,992 94,051 102,498 113,269 121,070 125,891

Neches River Anchorages 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153Sabine Pass and Port Arthur Canal Widening 1,595 3,190 4,785 6,380 6,380 6,380

Reduction in Vessel Trips and Delays Due toChannel Deepening 5,893 11,786 17,679 23,572 23,572 23,572Anchorage Basins and Widening Benefits 9,641 17,129 24,617 32,105 32,105 32,105

Total Benefits 91,633 111,180 127,115 145,374 153,175 157,996Total Average Annual Construction Cost a/Deepening and Anchorage Basins 70,217 77,258 84,299 91,341 96,626 101,911Widening of Sabine Pass Channel and PortArthur Canal 17,679 17,679 17,679 17,679 17,679 17,679Total Average Annual Construction Cost 91,633 111,180 127,115 145,374 153,175 157,996Net Excess Benefits 3,737 16,243 25,137 36,354 38,870 38,406Benefit to Cost Ratios 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3

a/ The construction costs shown include the average annual construction costs presented in tables 141 and 155.

614
238

9.0 REGIONAL ECONOMICS

This section provides a summary of regional benefits of port-related activity. Martin Associates’

“Jefferson County Waterway and Navigation District – Study for Economic Impact Maintenance

Dredging and Economic Impact of Deepening and Widening of the Sabine-Neches Waterway”48 is the

principal source used in preparation of this section. The Martin report includes evaluation of the economic

impacts generated by marine activity in 2004. Economic impacts were estimated in terms of jobs,

personal earnings, business revenue, and state, local, and federal taxes. Figure 59 outlines how the

waterway activity impacts the local, regional, and Federal economies.

Figure 59

Flows of Economic Impacts through the Economy

Source: Martin Associates, “Jefferson County Waterway and Navigation District - Study for Economic Impact Maintenance

Dredging and Economic Impact of Deepening and Widening of the Sabine-Neches Waterway” July 2006, Exhibit E-2, page 3.

As the figure indicates, the marine cargo and vessel activity generates revenue to firms providing marine

services. This revenue results in a series of impacts including payroll, retained earnings, stockholder

earnings, dividends and reinvestment, purchase of goods and services from local firms, as well as national

and international firms (creating indirect jobs with these firms). Businesses also pay taxes from the

business revenue.

Descriptions of the general job effects associated with port activity are defined as follows:

48 Martin Associates, “Jefferson County Waterway and Navigation District - Study For Economic Impact Maintenance Dredging and

Economic Impact of Deepening and Widening of the Sabine-Neches Waterway,” August 2006.

615
239

Direct jobs are described as jobs with local firms providing support services to

the waterway. These jobs are dependent upon this activity and would suffer

immediate dislocation if the waterway activity were to cease. Direct jobs include

employment with railroads and trucking companies, steamship agents, ship

chandlers, warehouse operators, shipyards, and marine construction firms.

Induced jobs are described as jobs created locally and throughout the regional

economy due to purchases of goods and services by those directly employed.

These jobs are with grocery stores, the local construction industry, retail stores,

health care providers, local transportation services, etc., and would also be

discontinued if waterway activity were to cease.

Indirect jobs are described as jobs generated in the local economy as the result of

local purchases by the firms directly dependent upon waterway activity. These

jobs include jobs in local office supply firms, equipment and parts suppliers,

maintenance and repair services, insurance brokers, business service contractors,

and local utilities.

Cargo moving through marine terminals within the Jefferson County Waterway and Navigation District

are noted to generate 83,692 jobs in Texas and Louisiana (Table 161). Of these, 14,987 are direct jobs

generated by marine cargo and vessel activity. Wages and salaries associated with direct jobs were

estimated to be $877.7 million annually. Local and regional purchases made by the 14,987 direct job

holders were estimated to result in an additional 13,628 induced jobs. An additional 55,077 indirect jobs

are noted to be supported by $3.7 billion in local purchases by businesses supplying services to marine

terminals and marine-related businesses located along the SNWW. As the result of respending this

income, an additional $1.5 billion of income and consumption expenditures were created. The 55,077

indirect job holders in Texas and Louisiana received $2.4 billion of indirect wages and salaries. In total,

$4.7 billion of direct, induced, and indirect personal wages and salaries and consumption expenditures

were generated by maritime activity at marine terminals located within the Jefferson County Waterway

and Navigation District.

The report also includes an assessment of the job impacts on a “per 1,000 ton basis,” which is noted to

provide a tool for port planners to use in evaluating the relative importance of different commodities as

economic generators. Table 162 presents the job impacts per 1,000 tons for each commodity moving

through the public and private marine terminals. Tables 161 and 162 and Figure 59 are all displayed as

presented in the Martin Associates report with minor formatting changes.

616
240

Table 161

Summary of the Local and Regional Economic Impacts Generated by

Jefferson County Waterway and Navigation District

Regional and Local Jobs

Direct 14,987

Induced 13,628

Indirect 55,077

Total 83,692

Regional and Local Personal Income and Expenditures ($ millions)

Direct 877.7

Respending/Consumption 1,510.1

Indirect 2,351.3

Total Income 4,739.1

Revenue and Taxes

Business Revenue 2,242.2

State/Local Taxes 426.5

Federal Income Taxes 853.0

Source: Martin Associates, “Jefferson County Waterway and Navigation District - Study for Economic Impact Maintenance

Dredging and Economic Impact of Deepening and Widening of the Sabine-Neches Waterway” July 2006, Exhibit E-2, page 3.

Table 162

Direct Jobs Per 1,000 Tons of Cargo

Commodity

Number of

Direct Jobs

Jobs/1,000s

of Tons

Containers 46 1.24

Steel 383 0.50

General Cargo 408 1.12

Forest Products 207 0.33

Grain 231 0.17

Other Dry Bulk 437 0.48

Crude Petroleum 4,376 0.06

Petroleum Products 1,855 0.06

Chemical Products 6,097 0.49

Not Allocated 946 n/a

Total 14,987 n/a

Source: Martin Associates, “Jefferson County Waterway and Navigation District - Study for Economic Impact Maintenance

Dredging and Economic Impact of Deepening and Widening of the Sabine-Neches Waterway” July 2006, Exhibit II-2, page 18.

617
241

Examination of the data presented in Table 162 shows that containers and general cargo create the largest

number of direct jobs per 1,000 tons, followed by steel, chemical products, and other dry bulk. The

presentation also shows that the relatively large impact per 1,000 tons for containers and general cargo

corresponds to a relatively small tonnage handled. In comparison, the number of jobs per 1,000 tons for

crude petroleum and petroleum products is small despite the fact that crude petroleum generated the

second largest direct job impact. The number of jobs and the jobs per 1,000s of tons for chemical products

both rate relatively high. On a per 1,000 ton basis, chemical products generates nearly 0.5 jobs per 1,000

tons. In comparison, crude petroleum and petroleum products results in 0.06 jobs per 1,000 tons. Dry bulk

and chemicals represent approximately 10 percent of total tonnage. The remaining 90 percent of tonnage

consists of petroleum. The finding that some cargoes generate relatively small direct jobs per 1,000 tons

of throughput reflects the fact that the handling of these cargoes is much less labor intensive than

handling other commodities. For instance, the supporting infrastructure of agents, freight forwarders and

customs house brokers, and warehousing and terminal operators is greater for some cargo.

9.1 OTHER INDICATORS

In addition to the Martin Associates report, Beaumont-Port Arthur Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)

employment data was reviewed in order to assess the distribution of employment and short-term trends.

Table 163 displays 2001–2007 MSA employment statistics. Manufacturing, retail trade, and construction

are the largest private industry employers. Waterway-related employment is largely associated with

private companies, and likely includes, in order of magnitude, transportation and warehousing,

manufacturing, and wholesale trade. Additionally, mining employment, particularly offshore-related

exploration, results in direct, indirect, and induced employment and income impacts. Analysis of the data

presented in Table 163 shows positive job growth in all sectors directly related to waterway activity. The

most notable growth rates are for mining (11 percent), wholesale trade (3.4 percent), and transportation

and warehousing (3.3 percent). It is recognized that not all jobs associated with these sectors are directly

related to the waterway.

9.2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

While the incremental effects of the Federal action on employment and regional income are not addressed

in the Martin Associates report, it is expected that construction of the Federal project will facilitate

regional growth. The greatest effect on employment and income are expected to continue to be

concentrated among dry bulk and chemical cargoes. Significant growth occurred over the last 10–15 years

in these labor-intensive commodity groups. Additionally, overall total tonnage growth will allow for

continued increases in regional employment and income.

618
242

Table 163

Total Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by NAICS Industry a/

Employment by Place of Work 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Avg. Annual

Growth (%)

Total employment 193,540 193,465 195,025 193,571 197,097 205,065 211,062 1.5Wage and salary employment 164,515 162,340 162,137 160,073 161,132 167,076 170,725 0.6Proprietors employment 29,025 31,125 32,888 33,498 35,965 37,989 40,337 5.6Farm proprietors employment 1,501 1,528 1,493 1,486 1,510 1,505 1,494 –0.1Nonfarm proprietors employment 27,524 29,597 31,395 32,012 34,455 36,484 38,843 5.9Farm employment 1,823 1,800 1,751 1,718 1,761 1,716 1,729 –0.9Nonfarm employment 191,717 191,665 193,274 191,853 195,336 203,349 209,333 1.5Private employment 164,115 164,089 165,699 164,553 168,247 176,562 182,983 1.8

Forestry, fishing, and related activities 1,464 1,531 1,269 1,178 1,154 1,084 1,038 –5.6Mining 1,046 1,024 1,128 1,122 1,611 1,887 1,979 11.2Utilities 962 1,003 1,047 1,033 1,033 1,013 1,014 0.9Construction 20,129 18,609 18,965 17,013 18,052 19,889 21,214 0.9Manufacturing 22,361 20,963 19,971 19,598 19,818 21,770 23,599 0.9Wholesale trade 4,787 4,701 4,866 4,851 5,045 5,308 5,867 3.4Retail trade 24,791 25,136 25,230 25,276 25,138 26,045 25,952 0.8Transportation and warehousing 5,906 5,892 6,681 7,084 7,282 7,236 7,166 3.3Information 3,122 3,024 3,051 3,036 3,110 2,938 2,601 –3.0Finance and insurance 6,405 6,394 6,412 5,998 6,339 6,435 6,695 0.7Real estate and rental and leasing 4,185 4,449 4,742 4,907 5,385 5,885 6,685 8.1Other b/ 68,957 71,363 72,337 73,457 74,280 77,072 79,173 2.3

Government 27,602 27,576 27,575 27,300 27,089 26,787 26,350 –0.8

a/ NAICS (North American Industry Classification System).b/ Primarily consists of health care and social services; hotel and food services; and other nonclassified.Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, Table CA25N, April 2009.

619
èîÌÍÌ°1î ôËËèÍë1 ôëëèÍëÁ°

Åôñ1Íè'Íèî»èÅ 3⁄4ôÃèÇ3⁄4ô

î»ôÍÍè2 1°ËÇÌ¿è°èÍÃ ËÇÌ·èîÃ

ÅÌÁÃ»èôÅÃ ÃèôÅ ôÍë ÅÌÁÃ»3⁄4èÅÃ 2ÌÁ1Å1ôÍô

ËÇèËôÇèë ñÝ

Á'Å' ôÇ° îÌÇËÅ Ìå èÍä1ÍèèÇÅ

äô2¿èÅÃÌÍ ë1ÅÃÇ1îÃ

ÅÌÁÃ»3⁄4èÅÃèÇÍ ë1¿1Å1ÌÍ

:< aoS ̄ 8<:<

620
1

APPENDIX 2

ECONOMIC ADDENDUM

1.0 GENERAL

This addendum presents analysis of issues raised during the Independent External Peer Review (IEPR)

(Battelle, 2010).

2.0 ANALYSIS OF LOOP AS A NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE (IEPR COMMENT

1)

An offshore terminal has the potential of capturing 100 percent of all crude oil imports shipped from the

routings represented by Middle East, Africa, North Sea, Mediterranean, and Brazil. Table 2A presents the

tonnage that could potentially utilize an offshore terminal.

TABLE 2A

SNWW Offshore Terminal Tonnage and Transportation Cost Savings

Representative

Trade Route

1,000’s of Short Tons by Trade Routing

2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

Brazil 4,347 4,847 5,136 5,224 5,326 5,701

Europe & Africa 33,801 37,688 39,940 40,639 41,434 44,203

Middle East 31,625 35,262 37,369 38,023 38,767 41,357

Total Tonnage 38,149 42,535 45,076 45,864 46,761 49,904

Transportation Cost and Savings Per Ton

To the

40-ft Offshore Savings/

Representative Route SNWW Terminal Ton

Brazil $6.73 $6.28 $0.45

Europe/Africa $8.41 $7.84 $0.57

Middle East $14.43 $12.66 $1.77

Annual Transportation Savings

Representative Route 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069

Brazil $2,466 $2,750 $2,913 $2,964 $3,022 $3,234

Europe & Africa $19,175 $21,380 $22,658 $23,054 $23,505 $25,076

Middle East $55,894 $62,321 $66,045 $67,201 $68,515 $73,093

Total $75,069 $83,701 $88,703 $90,255 $92,021 $98,169

Table 2B provides a comparison of the transportation savings benefits between the channel deepening

alternatives and an offshore oil terminal alternative. The cost for the offshore oil terminal and pipeline

structure is estimated to be a first cost of $1.8 billion based on the 2001 BOOTs construction cost

estimate published by its sponsor and potential partners. The total annual cost estimates for the

offshore alternatives are conservatively low. They do not include escalation of the original 2001

BOOTS estimate to 2010 costs, and they do not include estimated costs for operation and

621
2

maintenance (O&M), as we have no means of determining O&M costs for an offshore terminal.

The table presents three offshore terminal funding scenarios. The first is based on SNWW users

funding 100 percent of the terminal construction; the other scenarios are based on 50 and 25

percent funding. The project benefits are based exclusively on crude petroleum imports.

TABLE 2B

SNWW Channel Deepening and Offshore Terminal Economic Summary Data

SNWW Channel Deepening Alternatives (As Shown in Table 141,

Economic Appendix) Offshore Terminal

45 46 47 48 49 50

Funding

100% by

SNWW

Funding

50% by

SNWW

Funding

25% by

SNWW

First Cost of Construction $798.9 $889.9 $980.9 $1,071.9 $1,152.1 $1,232.3 $1,800.0 $900.0 $450.0

Interest During

Construction $89.0 $99.1 $109.2 $119.4 $128.3 $137.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

Total Investment $887.9 $989.0 $1,090.1 $1,191.3 $1,280.4 $1,369.5 $2,000.5 $1,000.2 $500.1

Average Annual Cost $44.0 $49.0 $54.0 $59.1 $63.5 $67.9 $99.2 $49.6 $24.8

F&W Mitigation Differed

Const. $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

Average Annual O&M $26.0 $28.0 $30.1 $32.1 $32.9 $33.8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

Total Annual Cost $70.2 $77.3 $84.3 $91.3 $96.6 $101.9 $99.2 $49.6 $24.8

Average Annual Benefits $83.8 $95.9 $104.3 $115.1 $122.9 $127.7 $86.6 $86.6 $86.6

Net Excess Benefits $13.6 $18.6 $20.0 $23.7 $26.2 $25.8 -$12.6 $37.0 $61.8

BCR 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.9 1.7 3.5

3. ANALYSIS OF CRUDE PETROLEUM IMPORTS BY VESSEL DRAFT (IEPR

COMMENT 3)

The top section of Table 3A shows the relationship between crude oil design and loaded drafts. The

second and third sections of Table 3A show the relative volume and percentage of tonnage transported in

vessels with loaded drafts over 37 feet. Figure 3A illustrates the percentage increase in tonnage

experienced on the SNWW between 1990 and 2008. While not exhibiting dramatic increases, the table

and figure clearly shows a high concentration of loaded drafts over 37 feet for all years, with the

percentage of tonnage loaded to drafts over 37 feet increasing from 60 percent in 1999 to 71 percent in

2008. Table 3B includes additional distribution summary data. Trends are more apparent from the

second table which shows an average of 7 percent of 2006-2008 tonnage associated with design drafts

under 40 feet, compared to an average of 15 percent for 1999-2001. For the 1999-2008 period, the use of

vessels with design drafts less or equal to 40 feet ranged from 27 percent in 1990 to 2 percent in 2008,

with a mean of 12 percent and median of less than 10 percent. The data show more efficient utilization

patterns within the constraints of the existing channel depth, given uncertainties associated with spot

market sales, variability in refinery input needs, congestion, and dock and pilot availability.

622
3

TABLE 3A

SNWW Total Crude Oil Imports (1,000’s of Short Tons) 1990-2008*

and Imports Transported at Loaded Drafts Over 37 feet (Short Tons and Percentage Distribution)

Design 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

Draft (ft) Total Crude Oil Imports by Vessel Design Draft and Year

<=40 ft 14,597 6,329 5,334 9,415 2,727 14,414 4,763 6,256 770

41-44 18,863 15,422 25,821 13,019 17,673 5,816 9,497 13,171 13,858

45-49 18,889 43,994 31,450 39,073 43,263 43,934 39,445 34,200 32,554

>50 1,485 1,442 1,621 4,876 6,495 5,711 3,910 2,452 2,690

Total 53,834 67,187 64,226 66,383 70,158 69,875 57,615 56,078 49,872

Design

Draft (ft) Total Tonnage for Loaded Drafts Over 37 feet by Design Draft Class and Year

<=40 ft 9,744 2,473 2,294 7,814 1,176 12,684 3,334 5,277 364

41-44 10,460 7,706 14,976 7,291 8,499 3,955 5,318 11,502 11,276

45-49 11,832 26,378 20,757 24,225 22,958 27,678 24,062 23,418 22,487

>50 793 432 859 3,364 3,446 3,598 1,369 1,192 1,049

Total 33,170 36,622 38,536 42,485 36,067 47,515 33,993 41,181 35,176

Design

Draft (ft) Total Tonnage for Loaded Drafts Over 37 feet by Design Draft Class and Year

<=40 ft 65% 43% 43% 83% 52% 88% 70% 85% 47%

41-44 54% 55% 58% 56% 58% 68% 56% 88% 81%

45-49 61% 66% 66% 62% 64% 63% 61% 69% 69%

>50 52% 33% 53% 69% 64% 63% 35% 49% 39%

Total 60% 60% 60% 64% 62% 68% 59% 74% 71%

Source: USACE, Navigation Data Center Detailed Files (unpublished)

*CY2005 data is not presented due to reporting problems with the loaded draft field

i'73⁄4nZF i+îN PÚZ3⁄4o'3⁄4Z î'Z3⁄4nZ '` ÚçZ CiCN Ê3⁄4Ú N UPÁ»Pîiî»»»

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

        }    

FIGURE 3A

Percentage of Tonnage Shipped In Vessels with Loaded Drafts Over 37 ft

623
4

TABLE 3B

SNWW Total Crude Oil Imports 1990-2008*

Percentage of Imports by Vessel Design Draft

Design 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

Draft (ft) % of Total Crude Oil Imports by Vessel Design Draft and Year

<=40 ft 27% 9% 8% 14% 4% 21% 8% 11% 2%

41-44 35% 23% 40% 20% 25% 8% 17% 24% 28%

45-49 35% 66% 49% 59% 62% 63% 68% 61% 65%

>50 3% 2% 3% 7% 9% 8% 7% 4% 5%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Design

Draft (ft) Loaded Drafts Over 37 ft (Percentage of Imports by Vessel Design Draft ) by Year

<=40 ft 29% 7% 6% 18% 3% 27% 10% 13% 1%

41-44 32% 21% 39% 17% 24% 8% 16% 28% 32%

45-49 36% 72% 54% 57% 64% 58% 71% 57% 64%

>50 2% 1% 2% 8% 10% 8% 4% 3% 3%

Source: USACE, Navigation Data Center Detailed Files (unpublished).

*CY2005 data is not presented due to reporting problems with the loaded draft field

Estimation of how the Table 3A and 3B distributions might change given an increase in channel depth is

difficult to discern based on the eight years of data; therefore, comparison to 1970-72 data was made in

order to provide overall perspective. While the earlier data is unfortunately more general it provides a

useful basis for evaluating overall changes (Table 3C). The change from 1970/72 to 2006/08 is dramatic

and emphasizes how tanker load patterns evolved within a period of 35 years with no change in channel

depth. As discussed in the Economic Appendix vessel trips have increased at a lower rate than tonnage

because more cargo is transported per vessel, through a greater concentration of larger vessels. As

outlined in the Appendix, expectations are that the number of vessels will increase as SNWW’s cargo

base diversifies due to LNG and increases in manufactured goods and dry bulk.

624
5

TABLE 3C

SNWW Inbound Tanker Trips 1970/1972 and 2006/2008

(includes All Crude Petroleum and Petroleum and Chemical Products)

Loaded

Draft (ft) 1970 1971 1972 2006 2007 2008

<=24 1,015 973 991 185 168 184

25-29 144 113 199 187 151 184

30-37 228 238 198 481 363 337

38-40 1 2 14 492 588 558

Total 1,389 1,325 1,402 1,345 1,270 1,263

Loaded

Draft (ft) Distribution by Loaded Draft

<=24 73% 73% 71% 14% 13% 15%

25-29 10% 8% 14% 14% 12% 15%

30-37 16% 18% 14% 36% 29% 27%

38-40 0% 0% 1% 37% 46% 44%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, IWR-WCSC-1970-2008-2

Table 3D provides a separate breakout of crude oil tanker trips included in Table 3C. SNWW 2006-2008

tonnage is down due to the effects of hurricanes and planned outages for refinery expansion; however,

regional imports increased at significantly higher rates than the nation until 2004 (Figure 3B). The effect

of the major hurricanes is illustrated in Figure 3C.

TABLE 3D

SNWW Inbound Crude Oil Tanker Trip Data (Trips and Tonnage)

Loaded

Draft (ft)

1990 1993 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

SNWW Inbound Crude Oil Tanker Trips

<=24 4% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

25-29 5% 4% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 1% 3%

30-37 32% 58% 38% 38% 34% 38% 33% 42% 26% 29%

38-40 59% 36% 60% 60% 64% 61% 66% 55% 72% 66%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Crude Oil Imports (Millions of Short Tons)

20.3 32.6 53.8 64.2 66.4 70.2 69.9 69.7 57.6 49.9

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, IWR-WCSC-1990-2008-2 and Navigation Data Center

Detailed Files (unpublished). CY2005 data is not presented due to reporting problems with the loaded draft field

625
6

Source: Aggregated from U.S. Department of Energy Monthly Import Statistics, 2004-2010

As noted on page 99 of the Appendix, Hurricane Rita’s surge resulted in sand bars at the offshore

entrance channel and silting of the Neches River Channel to Beaumont, which severely limited transit of

the upper reaches for several months and tonnage diversions to other ports well into 2006. The effect of

shoals in the entrance channel and silt deposits on the Neches River had a particularly strong effect on

crude petroleum traffic due to the use of large heavily loaded vessels.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

FIGURE 3B:

SNWW and U.S. Crude Oil Imports

SNWW (1,000's of Short Tons) U.S. Imports (Short Tons/10000)







}



}

}

FIGURE 3C:

SNWW Crude Oil Imports by Month 2006-2010 (1,000's of Barrels)

 

 

 ç3⁄4'7Õç 93⁄4nç 

Hurricane Gustov

4 Sept 2008

Hurricane Ike

 







Hurricane Rita

24 Sep 2005



}

626
7

Specific estimation of future expectations concerning the relationship between loaded and design drafts

and future utilization were made based on strong long-term historical utilization of the existing channel,

industry interest in channel deepening, the lack of constraints at the points of origin, increasing

concentration of larger vessels (Table 3E), and reductions in transportation costs (Table 3F). These trends

are indicative that load patterns will continue to become more efficient. A major advantage of the 45- to

50-foot channel depth alternatives is that they reduce the number of shuttles needed to lighter a VLCC

(Economic Appendix, Table 110) by allowing the increasingly large concentration of 90,000 to 119,999

DWT vessels to be loaded more fully. Vessels in this group have design drafts between 45 and 49 feet

(Economic Appendix, Table 33). Table 3F illustrates the large concentration of 90,000 to 119,999 DWT

vessels and the dramatic increase in their use since 1980. As shown in the Appendix, the design drafts for

all vessels groups except those less than 50,000 DWT exceed 40 feet. Examination of the 2008 SNWW

50,000 to 74,500 DWT group showed a design draft range of 39 to 48 feet, with a median of 45 feet. For

the <50,000 DWT range, the maximum design draft was 43 feet and the median 37 feet.

TABLE 3F

SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports by Vessel Size

Percentage of Imports by Vessel DWT

Vessel DWT

(1000)

Median Design

Draft 1980 1990 1993 1998 1999 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

<50 37 * 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2%

50–74.5 45 * 4% 1% 9% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4%

75–84.9 43 * 18% 8% 24% 9% 18% 20% 18% 25% 23% 18%

85–89.9 42 * 17% 11% 10% 10% 5% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

90–119.9 48 <1% 56% 72% 54% 66% 66% 68% 72% 64% 66% 70%

120–149.9 54 0% 2% 3% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2%

150–175 53 0% 2% 5% 1% 5% 5% 6% 4% 5% 5% 3%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: USACE, Navigation Data Center Detailed Files (unpublished), 1990-2008. CY2005 data is not

presented due to reporting problems with the loaded draft field.

*Data from SNWW 1981-period report shows that the largest vessel size in 1980 was 99,600. Indications are that

the most common were 60,000 to 78,000 DWT.

Table 3G displays the project average annual cost and benefits based on various assumptions associated

with the percentage of crude petroleum imports that will be loaded to vessel drafts over 40 feet. The first

column shows the benefits presented in Economic Appendix. The calculations in the remaining columns

are based on alternative percentages. The results of this analysis, based on study region vessel utilization

trends data from 1970-2008, industry expectations, and transportation cost savings indicate that it is

reasonable to expect that a significant portion of future crude oil imports will be loaded to drafts over 40

feet given an increase in channel depth for the 50-year planning period starting in CY2019.

627
8

TABLE 3G

SNWW Project Average Annual Costs and Benefits

Sensitivity Scenarios for the Percentage of Crude Oil Loaded to Drafts Over 40 ft

Channel

Depth (ft)

Average Annual Cost

($1,000) at 4.375%

45 $70,217

46 $77,258

47 $84,299

48 $91,341

49 $96,626

50 $101,911

Average Annual Benefits Calculations ($1,000’s) at 4.375%

Based on Variation in the Percentage of Future Tonnage Using Channel Depth Increase

2019-2069

Depth

(ft) 94% 50% 60% 70% 80% 100%

45 $83,841 $65,538 $69,651 $73,764 $77,877 $86,103

46 $95,856 $74,207 $79,072 $83,937 $88,802 $98,532

47 $104,303 $80,535 $85,876 $91,217 $96,558 $107,240

48 $115,074 $87,893 $94,001 $100,109 $106,217 $118,434

49 $122,875 $93,428 $100,045 $106,663 $113,280 $126,515

50 $127,696 $97,099 $103,974 $110,850 $117,726 $131,478

Net Excess Benefits ($1,000) Based on Utilization Scenarios

45 $13,624 -$4,679 -$566 $3,547 $7,660 $15,886

46 $18,598 -$3,051 $1,814 $6,679 $11,544 $21,274

47 $20,004 -$3,764 $1,577 $6,918 $12,259 $22,941

48 $23,733 -$3,448 $2,660 $8,768 $14,876 $27,093

49 $26,249 -$3,198 $3,419 $10,037 $16,654 $29,889

50 $25,785 -$4,812 $2,063 $8,939 $15,815 $29,567

BCRs Based on Utilization Scenarios

45 1.2 .0.9 .0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2

46 1.2 .0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.3

47 1.2 .0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.3

48 1.3 .0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

49 1.3 .0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

50 1.3 .0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

4.0 LNG MARKET SHARE (IEPR COMMENT 3)

The first part of this section addresses the basis for the market share. Table 4A displays the EIA U.S.

LNG import forecast and the SNWW LNG forecasts that appear in the in the Economic Appendix (Table

72). As noted in the Appendix LNG permits were approved for the Cheniere Sabine Pass, Exxon-Mobil

Golden Pass, and the Sempra Port Arthur Terminals. Cheniere opened in 2008 and Golden Pass is

scheduled to open by 2011. Construction of the Sempra Terminal is planned after 2012.

628
9

TABLE 4A

U.S. and SNWW LNG Waterborne LNG Forecast

Short Tons

Year

U.S. Waterborne LNG

Imports

SNWW Waterborne

LNG Imports

2005 16,565,000

2006 18,617,000

2007 21,238,000 4,000

2008 12,072,000 39,000

2009 15,514,400 not available

2019 38,852,755 5,827,913

2020 38,045,447 9,511,362

2025 31,049,691 7,762,423

2029 24,698,681 6,174,670

2030 22,309,819 6,174,670

2069 22,309,819 6,174,670

Source: USACE, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., Part 2, IWR-WCSC-2005-08,

Parts 2 and 5 Navigation Data Center and the U.S. Department of Energy, 2009 Annual

Energy Outlook, March 2009.

As noted in the Appendix, the SNWW LNG forecast is based on a market share of 20 percent.

Determination of the expected SNWW market forecast was based on evaluation of industry input, and a

report prepared by Michael Gorecki of Alexander Aaron, Inc. in May 2007 for the Galveston District.

The Alexander Aaron, Inc. report predicted that the distribution amongst the facilities would range from

28.6 to 41.5 percent. These percentages were based on SNWW LNG plant capacities in relationship to

the U.S. total. The 28.6 percent share was based on SNWW having two LNG terminals and the 41.5

percent was based on SNWW having three LNG terminals. Table 4B displays the anticipated U.S.

market share presented in the Alexander Aaron, Inc. report. These market shares were expected to be

reasonable given construction progress and industry investments. As noted, construction is complete for

the Cheniere Terminal and nearly complete for Golden Pass. The market analysis indicated that given

two SNWW terminals, the region was likely to capture 28.6 percent of the U.S. LNG import market. The

Galveston District used a lower percentage in order to account for uncertainty. The percentage used in

the Appendix is 15 percent in 2019 and 25 percent for 2029-2069, with import tonnage remaining

constant after 2030.

The remainder of this section addresses the effects of varying the market share used in the report. Table

4C displays the EIA U.S. LNG import forecast and a range of SNWW LNG forecasts.

629
10

TABLE 4B

Anticipated U.S. LNG Market Share

Name

Operational

Bcf/d

Operational

Rate

Annual

Import

Bcf

Operational

Bcf/d

Operational

Rate

Annual

Import

Bcf

Everett, MA 0.869 0.627 199.0 0.869 0.719 C

Cove Point, MD 1.512 0.627 346.2 1.512 0.719 C

Elba Island, GA 1.777 0.627 406.7 1.777 0.719 }C

Lake Charles, LA 1.764 0.627 403.8 1.764 0.719 }C

Sempra Hackberry, LA * 2.226 0.627 509.6 2.226 0.719 }C

Freeport, TX * 3.360 0.627 769.2 3.360 0.719 C}

SNWW LNG Terminals

Cheniere * 3.360 0.627 769.2 3.360 0.719 C}

Golden Pass * 2.268 0.627 519.2 2.268 0.719 C

Sempra 2.520 0.627 576.9

Total 19.656 4500.0

Special Report prepared for the Galveston District by Michael Gorecki of Alexander Aaron, Inc.,

Sabine-Neches Waterway Project Liquefied Natural Gas Market Share, May 2007

*New or under construction in 2010.

Bcf/d: Billion cubic feet per day

TABLE 4C

SNWW Market Share Sensitivity Analysis

Year

SNWW LNG Forecast Range

Economic

Appendix

Half of the

Economic Appendix

Volume

28.6%

of the

U.S. Market

41.5%

of the

U.S. Market

2019 5,827,913 2,913,957 6,993,496 9,713,189

2030 6,174,670 3,087,335 7,582,495 13,164,397

2069 6,174,670 3,087,335 7,582,495 13,164,397

Average Annual Benefits Calculations ($1,000’s) at 4.375%

Based on Range of SNWW LNG Market Shares, 2019-2069

45 $83,841 $78,271 $86,312 $92,753

46 $95,856 $90,286 $98,327 $104,768

47 $104,303 $98,733 $106,774 $113,215

48 $115,074 $109,504 $117,545 $123,986

49 $122,875 $117,305 $125,346 $131,787

50 $127,696 $122,126 $130,167 $136,608

BCRs Based Range of SNWW LNG. Market Shares

(The Average Annual Costs Used for the BCR Calculations are Shown at the top of Table 3G)

45 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3

46 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4

47 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3

48 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4

49 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4

50 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3

630
11

The following tables summarize evaluation of the crude petroleum vessel utilization and LNG market

share presented in Tables 4A and 4C.

In conclusion, the sensitivities presented in Tables 4A-4D indicate that project justification is much more

sensitive to crude oil tanker vessel utilization than to LNG market share. The results of the analyses

presented in Table 4D shows that if less than 60 percent of 2019-2069 crude oil imports are regularly

loaded to drafts less than 40 feet, the BCR will fall below unity. While not shown in the table, the BCR

remains at unity given a reduction in the LNG market share to one-half of the percentages of 15 percent in

2019 and 25 percent for 2029-2069 in combination with 65 percent of 2019-2069 crude oil imports being

loaded to drafts over 40 feet. In conclusion, the tanker utilization data presented in Table 3A (1990-2008)

and Table 3C (1970/72 and 2006/08) provide sufficient justification to reasonably conclude that the crude

oil tanker fleet will continue to realize increased efficiencies under both the without and with project

future.

In terms of the SNWW tonnage forecast and the use of the AEO forecasts, the EIA notes that the reasons

for variations between the AEO and other forecasters are due to differences among the assumptions that

underlie the different projections. For example, the AEO 2010 reference case generally assumes that

current laws and regulations will continue through the projection period as enacted, whereas some of the

other projections assume the enactment of new public policy over the next 25 years. For the SNWW

analysis, the AEO forecast was utilized. The sensitivities analysis addresses the effects of lower forecasts

which could occur for a variety of reasons, some of which may include policy changes not explicitly discussed

in the Appendix.

5.0 CRUDE PETROLEUM TRADE ROUTE AND LIGHTERING ANALYSIS (IEPR

COMMENT 4)

This response provides data and discussion concerning lightering volumes and trade route choices. These

calculations were based on the assumption that 100 percent of crude oil imports from Middle East and

Africa would be lightered. The transportation cost calculations were made on a cost-per-ton basis using

the available specific vessel volumes lightered and given knowledge of the range of vessel sizes used.

The specific distribution of shuttle vessels used for lightering and lightening is not known because the

Corps’ National Data Center data records do not provide that level of detail. However, the Economic

Guidance Memorandum (EGM) deep-draft vessel operating costs were used to calculate and verify the

most efficient range of vessels. Shuttle vessels used for lightering are 80,000 to 120,000 DWT vessels.

The number of shuttle trips necessary to offload a 325,000 DWT class VLCC is shown in Table 110 of

the Appendix. The volume unloaded at the lightering zone is constrained by channel depth and refinery

input needs. Vessel size data were obtained from the detailed waterborne commerce statistics. The vessel

sizes used for existing condition lightering are identified in the Appendix (Table 111). The vessel sizes

631
12

TABLE 4D

SNWW Combined Analysis of LNG Market Sensitivity and Crude Oil Vessel Utilization Share

Scenario Description

Economic

Appendix

Half of the

LNG Market

And 50% of

Crude

Petroleum

Loaded to

Drafts Over

40 ft

Half of the

LNG Market

And 70% of

Crude

Petroleum

Loaded to

Drafts Over

40 ft

28.6% the

LNG Market

And 80% of

Crude

Petroleum

Loaded to

Drafts Over

40 ft

41.5% the

LNG Market

And 80% of

Crude

Petroleum

Loaded to

Drafts Over

40 ft

41.5% the

LNG Market

And 100% of

Crude

Petroleum

Loaded to

Drafts Over

40 ft

Channel

Depth (ft)

Average Annual Benefits Calculations ($1,000’s) at 4.375%

Based on Range of SNWW LNG Market Shares, 2019-2069

45 $83,841 $59,968 $68,194 $80,348 $86,789 $95,015

46 $95,856 $68,637 $78,367 $91,273 $97,714 $107,444

47 $104,303 $74,965 $85,647 $99,029 $105,470 $116,152

48 $115,074 $82,323 $94,539 $108,688 $115,129 $127,346

49 $122,875 $87,858 $101,093 $115,751 $122,192 $135,427

50 $127,696 $91,529 $105,280 $120,197 $126,638 $140,390

Net Excess Benefits ($1000’s)

(The average annual costs used for the BCR calculations are shown at the top of Table 3G)

45 $13,624 -$10,249 -$2,023 $16,572 $10,131 $24,798

46 $18,598 -$8,621 $1,109 $20,456 $14,015 $30,186

47 $20,004 -$9,334 $1,348 $21,171 $14,730 $31,853

48 $23,733 -$9,018 $3,198 $23,788 $17,347 $36,005

49 $26,249 -$8,768 $4,467 $25,566 $19,125 $38,801

50 $25,785 -$10,382 $3,369 $24,727 $18,286 $38,479

BCRs Based Range of SNWW LNG. Market Shares Range

and Variation in Crude Petroleum Loaded Draft Utilization

(The average annual costs used for the BCR calculations are shown at the top of Table 3G)

45 1.2 0.9 .9 1.1 1.2 1.4

46 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4

47 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4

48 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4

49 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4

50 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.4

for existing condition lightening are identified in the Appendix (Table 112). Determination of the least

costly method of shipment was based on comparison of direct shipment, lightering, and lightening costs

using the Corps’ EGM deep-draft vessel operating cost and optimal lightering turnaround data published

in the Skaugen PetroTrans “Introduction to Lightering” along with periodic inquiries to the Skaugen

PetroTrans company and other oil company personnel. Table 5A displays lightering cost components by

major trade route for the segment from the foreign port of origin to the Gulf of Mexico lightering zone

used in the Corps analysis.

632
13

TABLE 5A

Lightering Cost for Traditional 325,000 DWT Vessel

325,000 Mother Vessel DWT

0.97 Max load Ratio

315,250 Fully-loaded cargo capacity

15 Speed (knots)

$2,114 Hourly Cost at Sea (Economic Guidance Memorandum)

$1,377 Hourly Cost in Port Economic Guidance Memorandum)

24,917 Mideast Round Trip Mileage Via Cape to Lightering Zone

19,509 Mideast Round Trip Mileage Via Suez to Lightering Zone

11,488 Africa/North Sea Round Trip Mileage to Lightering zone

3,805 Venezuela Round Trip Mileage to Lightering Zone

1,220 Mexico Round Trip Mileage to Lightering Zone

$82,710 Loading Cost at Origin Port (based on loading rate of 5,250 tons per hour)

$3,593,602 Total Transportation Cost (Middle East via Cape)

$2,831,596 Total Transportation Cost (Middle East via Suez)

$1,701,409 Total Transportation Cost (Africa/North Sea)

$618,847 Total Transportation Cost (Venezuela/Eastern South America)

$254,612 Total Transportation Cost (Mexico)

$11.40 Middle East Cost Per Ton via Cape

$8.98 Middle East Cost Per Ton via Suez

$5.40 Africa/North Sea Cost/ton

$1.96 Venezuela/Eastern South America Cost/ton

$0.81 Mexico Cost/ton

Table 5B displays the number of shuttles needed to fully load a 325,000 DWT vessel and Table 5C lists

the number of hours needed to offload the 325,000 DWT vessel based on a range of shuttle vessels from

90,000 to 135,000 DWT. Based on per-ton transportation costs, this range represents the maximum

efficiencies. Use of smaller shuttles is not cost effective when lightering (see Tables 5C-5H). In order to

illustrate this point, a 42,500 DWT tanker is included in the Tables 5B-5G. Tables 5B-5E provide input

data and Tables 5F and 5G display the cost per ton lightering cost for the Middle East and

Africa/Mediterranean/ North Sea routing, respectively. The cost for direct shipment is presented in

Tables 5H and 5I. Table 5H presents the direct shipment cost for Africa/North Sea/Mediterranean and

Middle East routings. Table 5I presents the direct shipment cost for Mexico and Venezuela/Eastern South

America.

633
14

TABLE 5B

Number of Shuttles Needed to Unload a 325,000 DWT Tanker

Channel

Depth ft.

Shuttle Vessel DWT

42,500 90,000 110,000 115,000 120,000 125,000 130,000 135,000

40 9.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

43 9.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

44 9.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

45 9.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

46 9.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

47 9.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

48 9.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0

49 9.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

50 9.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

TABLE 5C

Number of Hours to Offload 325,000 DWT Tanker Based on Channel Depth Alternative and Shuttle DWT

Channel

Depth ft.

Shuttle Vessel DWT

42,500 90,000 110,000 115,000 120,000 125,000 130,000 135,000

40 67.0 64.0 70.1 71.9 73.6 60.2 61.4 62.5

43 67.0 71.1 62.5 64.1 65.6 67.1 68.5 69.8

44 67.0 73.4 64.6 66.3 67.9 69.4 70.9 72.2

45 67.0 60.6 66.8 68.5 70.2 71.7 73.2 74.7

46 67.0 62.5 68.9 70.7 72.4 74.1 75.6 77.1

47 67.0 64.4 71.1 72.9 74.7 76.4 78.0 79.5

48 67.0 65.1 73.2 75.1 76.9 78.7 60.3 61.5

49 67.0 65.1 75.3 77.3 79.2 60.7 62.1 63.3

50 67.0 65.1 77.5 79.5 61.1 62.5 63.8 65.1

TABLE 5D

Cost to Offload 325,000 DWT Tanker Based on Channel Depth Alternative and Shuttle DWT

Channel

Depth ft.

Shuttle Vessel DWT

42,500 90,000 110,000 115,000 120,000 125,000 130,000 135,000

40 $141,668 $135,300 $148,148 $151,936 $155,527 $127,137 $129,693 $132,092

43 $141,668 $150,220 $132,089 $135,492 $138,736 $141,823 $144,752 $147,522

44 $141,668 $155,194 $136,613 $140,139 $143,508 $146,718 $149,771 $152,665

45 $141,668 $128,134 $141,137 $144,787 $148,280 $151,614 $154,790 $157,809

46 $141,668 $132,113 $145,660 $149,435 $153,051 $156,509 $159,810 $162,952

47 $141,668 $136,091 $150,184 $154,082 $157,823 $161,405 $164,829 $168,095

48 $141,668 $137,683 $154,708 $158,730 $162,594 $166,300 $127,386 $129,929

49 $141,668 $137,683 $159,232 $163,378 $167,366 $128,397 $131,151 $133,786

50 $141,668 $137,683 $168,279 $176,532 $138,589 $144,778 $150,968 $157,158

634
15

TABLE 5E

Cost for Shuttle Travel Time Set-Up/Associated Logistics,

Based on Channel Depth Alternative and Shuttle DWT (Middle East Routings)

Channel

Depth ft.

Shuttle Vessel DWT

42,500 90,000 110,000 115,000 120,000 125,000 130,000 135,000

40 $266,308 $147,949 $147,949 $147,949 $147,949 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359

43 $266,308 $147,949 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359

44 $266,308 $147,949 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359

45 $266,308 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359

46 $266,308 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359

47 $266,308 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359

48 $266,308 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $88,769 $88,769

49 $266,308 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $88,769 $88,769 $88,769

50 $266,308 $118,359 $118,359 $118,359 $88,769 $88,769 $88,769 $88,769

TABLE 5F

Total Cost Per Ton for Mother and Shuttle Vessels based on Vessel Range

and Channel Depth Alternative (Middle East Routings)

Channel

Depth ft.

Shuttle Vessel DWT

42,500 90,000 110,000 115,000 120,000 125,000 130,000 135,000

40 $15.21 $14.34 $14.40 $14.45 $14.45 $14.25 $14.24 $14.25

43 $15.22 $14.24 $14.10 $14.15 $14.15 $14.14 $14.14 $14.15

44 $15.22 $14.21 $14.07 $14.12 $14.13 $14.12 $14.11 $14.12

45 $15.22 $13.99 $14.05 $14.10 $14.10 $14.10 $14.09 $14.10

46 $15.22 $13.96 $14.02 $14.07 $14.08 $14.07 $14.07 $14.08

47 $15.22 $13.94 $14.00 $14.05 $14.05 $14.05 $14.04 $14.06

48 $15.22 $13.93 $13.98 $14.03 $14.04 $14.03 $13.80 $13.81

49 $15.22 $13.93 $13.97 $14.02 $14.02 $13.79 $13.78 $13.79

50 $15.22 $13.93 $13.96 $14.02 $13.80 $13.80 $13.81 $13.83

TABLE 5G

Total Cost Per Ton for Mother and Shuttle Vessels based on Vessel Range

and Channel Depth Alternative (Africa, North Sea, and Mediterranean Routings)

Channel

Depth ft.

Shuttle Vessel DWT

42,500 90,000 110,000 115,000 120,000 125,000 130,000 135,000

40 $9.21 $8.34 $8.40 $8.45 $8.45 $8.25 $8.24 $8.25

43 $9.21 $8.24 $8.10 $8.15 $8.15 $8.14 $8.13 $8.14

44 $9.21 $8.21 $8.07 $8.12 $8.12 $8.12 $8.11 $8.12

45 $9.21 $7.99 $8.05 $8.10 $8.10 $8.09 $8.09 $8.10

46 $9.21 $7.96 $8.02 $8.07 $8.07 $8.07 $8.06 $8.07

47 $9.21 $7.94 $8.00 $8.05 $8.05 $8.05 $8.04 $8.05

48 $9.21 $7.93 $7.98 $8.03 $8.03 $8.03 $7.80 $7.81

49 $9.21 $7.93 $7.97 $8.02 $8.02 $7.78 $7.78 $7.79

50 $9.21 $7.93 $7.96 $8.02 $7.80 $7.80 $7.81 $7.83

635
16

TABLE 5H

Africa/North Sea/Mediterranean and Middle East Direct Shipment Transportation Cost

Africa/North Sea/Mediterranean

40 45 46 47 48 49 50

70000 $16.04 $13.59 $13.19 $12.81 $12.81 $12.81 $12.81

75000 $15.40 $12.40 $11.95 $11.52 $11.13 $10.78 $10.44

80000 $14.29 $12.11 $11.75 $11.75 $11.75 $11.75 $11.75

85000 $14.21 $12.03 $11.66 $11.42 $11.42 $11.42 $11.42

90000 $14.00 $11.86 $11.50 $11.17 $11.04 $11.04 $11.04

100000 $13.57 $11.51 $11.18 $10.86 $10.55 $10.27 $10.21

105000 $13.84 $11.68 $11.32 $10.99 $10.67 $10.38 $10.09

110000 $13.70 $11.56 $11.21 $10.88 $10.58 $10.29 $10.01

120000 $13.60 $11.47 $11.12 $10.79 $10.49 $10.20 $9.92

135000 $13.48 $11.35 $11.00 $10.67 $10.37 $10.08 $9.80

150000 $13.55 $11.36 $11.00 $10.67 $10.36 $10.07 $9.79

165000 $13.55 $11.36 $11.00 $10.67 $10.36 $10.07 $9.79

Middle East

40 45 46 47 48 49 50

80000 $23.58 $19.93 $19.33 $19.33 $19.33 $19.33 $19.33

90000 $22.52 $19.10 $18.53 $18.00 $17.80 $17.80 $17.80

100000 $22.61 $19.09 $18.51 $17.96 $17.45 $16.96 $16.87

110000 $22.52 $18.95 $18.36 $17.81 $17.30 $16.82 $16.36

120000 $22.31 $18.75 $18.17 $17.63 $17.12 $16.64 $16.18

135000 $22.12 $18.55 $17.97 $17.42 $16.91 $16.43 $15.97

150000 $22.21 $18.55 $17.96 $17.40 $16.88 $16.40 $15.93

165000 $22.21 $18.55 $17.96 $17.40 $16.88 $16.40 $15.93

175000 $20.86 $17.33 $16.76 $16.23 $15.73 $15.26 $14.82

325000 $24.93 $20.04 $19.29 $18.59 $17.95 $17.36 $16.81

636
17

TABLE 5I

Mexico and Venezuela/Eastern South America Direct Shipment Transportation Cost

Mexico

40 45 46 47 48 49 50

70000 $3.17 $2.69 $2.61 $2.54 $2.54 $2.54 $2.54

75000 $3.20 $2.68 $2.59 $2.51 $2.44 $2.44 $2.44

80000 $2.86 $2.43 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36

85000 $2.81 $2.40 $2.33 $2.28 $2.28 $2.28 $2.28

90000 $2.77 $2.37 $2.30 $2.23 $2.21 $2.21 $2.21

100000 $2.79 $2.38 $2.31 $2.25 $2.19 $2.13 $2.11

105000 $2.78 $2.37 $2.30 $2.24 $2.18 $2.12 $2.06

110000 $2.78 $2.37 $2.30 $2.23 $2.17 $2.12 $2.06

120000 $2.80 $2.38 $2.31 $2.25 $2.19 $2.13 $2.08

135000 $2.76 $2.34 $2.27 $2.21 $2.15 $2.10 $2.04

150000 $2.78 $2.35 $2.28 $2.21 $2.15 $2.10 $2.04

165000 $2.78 $2.35 $2.28 $2.21 $2.15 $2.10 $2.04

Venezuela and Eastern South America

40 45 46 47 48 49 50

70000 $8.46 $7.18 $6.97 $6.76 $6.76 $6.76 $6.76

75000 $8.56 $7.14 $6.91 $6.70 $6.49 $6.49 $6.49

80000 $7.63 $6.46 $6.26 $6.26 $6.26 $6.26 $6.26

85000 $7.50 $6.36 $6.17 $6.04 $6.04 $6.04 $6.04

90000 $7.07 $6.04 $5.87 $5.71 $5.65 $5.65 $5.65

100000 $7.35 $7.18 $6.97 $6.76 $6.76 $6.76 $6.76

105000 $7.33 $6.20 $6.01 $5.84 $5.67 $5.52 $5.37

110000 $7.32 $6.18 $6.00 $5.82 $5.66 $5.51 $5.35

120000 $7.29 $6.15 $5.97 $5.79 $5.63 $5.47 $5.32

135000 $7.22 $6.07 $5.89 $5.71 $5.55 $5.40 $5.25

150000 $7.25 $6.08 $5.89 $5.71 $5.55 $5.39 $5.24

165000 $7.25 $6.08 $5.89 $5.71 $5.55 $5.39 $5.24

Table 5J presents the lightening cost for the Africa/North Sea/Mediterranean route. Lightening represents

a less costly shipping method than direct shipment for Africa/North Sea/Mediterranean routing; however,

it is less competitive than lightering. As noted in the Appendix, lightening was historically the most

common choice for Africa and the North Sea movements; however, it has become more common for the

Africa/North Sea/ Mediterranean routes in recent years due to structural changes in oil production off the

coast of West Africa. For this reason, the Africa/North Sea/Mediterranean cost calculations reflect

lightering (Appendix, Table 111). Use of an average between lightering and lightening cost for this route

may have been a more appropriate choice.

637
18

TABLE 5J

SNWW Crude Petroleum Lightening Cost

DWT: 165,000 Hourly Cost at Sea: $1,439 (Appendix, p. 148) Transportation Cost

Fully loaded cargo: Per Ton: $7.02 (Table 5A)

160,050 short tons Hourly Cost in Port: $922 (Appendix p. 148)

Channel Depth 40 ft 45ft 46ft 47ft 48ft 49ft 50ft

Maximum Cargo

( h t t )

88,690 106,894 110,535 110,535 114,176 121,458 117,817

Cargo Offloaded

( h )

71,360 53,156 49,515 49,515 45,874 38,592 42,233

Shuttle DWT

Needed 77,500 60,000 56,667 58,000 50,000 42,500 47,500

Hourly at Sea Cost $1,044 $952 $923 $923 $865 $816 $849

Hourly in Port Cost $682 $622 $599 $599 $554 $518 $542

Mother Vessel (MV) Unloading Cost Based on Standard Unloading Rate of 5,250 short tons/hr multiplied by the MV At Sea Cost, Offshore

Lightened Cargo

$19,559 $14,570 $13,572 $13,572 $12,574 $10,578 $11,576

Mother Vessel (MV) Waiting Time and Associated Logistics

4hrs Minimum $34,536 $34,536 $34,536 $34,536 $34,536 $34,536 $34,536

8 hrs Most Likely $17,268 $17,268 $17,268 $17,268 $17,268 $17,268 $17,268

12 hrs Maximum $51,804 $51,804 $51,804 $51,804 $51,804 $51,804 $51,804

MV Travel Cost from Offshore Lightering Zone to Dockside (Estimated Travel Time is 12 hours)

$34,536 $34,536 $34,536 $34,536 $34,536 $34,536 $34,536

Pilot Cost $46,194 $50,282 $50,754 $51,225 $52,200 $53,174 $53,174

Tug Cost $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000

MV Unloading Cost for Remaining Cargo In Port (Based on Unloading Rate of 5,250, Hourly Port Cost, and 2 Hours for Customs)

$17,420 $20,617 $21,256 $21,256 $21,895 $23,174 $22,535

Total Cost for Mother Vessel (Sum of the Above Cost Divided by the Offshore Lightened Cargo)

Minimum $8.66 $8.40 $8.36 $8.36 $8.32 $8.25 $8.29

Most Likely $8.72 $8.45 $8.41 $8.41 $8.37 $8.29 $8.34

Maximum $9.11 $8.78 $8.72 $8.72 $8.68 $8.58 $8.63

Shuttle Vessel Transportation Cost to the Lightering Zone

$25,050 $22,848 $22,152 $22,152 $20,760 $19,572 $20,364

Shuttle Cost While Lightering

$14,187 $9,639 $8,705 $8,705 $7,558 $5,995 $6,826

Unloaded Cost in Port and Associated Logistics for Shuttle Vessel

$16,374 $14,928 $14,384 $14,384 $13,296 $12,420 $13,004

Pilot Cost $27,795 $24,996 $24,594 $24,594 $23,508 $21,781 $22,337

Tug Cost $8,000 $8,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000

Supply Vessel Transportation Cost to Lightering Zone

$11,864 $11,864 $11,864 $11,864 $11,864 $11,864 $11,864

Supply Vessel While Lightering

$13,659 $10,621 $10,014 $10,014 $9,406 $8,191 $8,799

Total Cost/Ton for Lightening Operation (Includes Mother Vessel, Shuttle, and Supply Vessel) a/ b/

Minimum $10.30 $10.34 $10.29 $10.29 $10.29 $10.42 $10.35

Most Likely $10.36 $10.39 $10.34 $10.34 $10.34 $10.47 $10.40

Maximum $10.75 $10.71 $10.65 $10.66 $10.65 $10.75 $10.69

a/ Maximum cost reductions occur at the 46-foot channel depth.

b/ There are some differences between the costs per ton shown here and what is presented in the Economic Appendix (Table

112), with these costs being slightly less that those presented in the table; however, lightening was still found to be higher

relative to lightering.

638
19

The remainder of this comment response addresses uncertainty pertaining to the trade route shipments of

Venezuelan and other new routes such as Brazil. Application of the FY2008 EGM costs and the

lightering company operational expectations of optimal turnaround times indicated that the resulting costs

per ton suggested uncertainties. This uncertainty increased based on the release of the FY2008 vessel

operating cost release, which showed a 17 percent drop in hourly costs for foreign flag tankers shown in

the Appendix. Uncertainties associated with the transportation cost application are particularly high for

routings that include Venezuela and Brazil because they have relatively short travel distance compared to

the Middle East routes. For the Middle East, the relatively low FY2008 EGM costs showed that

lightering is less costly than direct shipment. Additionally, the cost analyses for Africa crude showed that

lightering is less costly than direct shipment, although by a comparatively smaller margin. However, the

application for the Venezuelan routing revealed cost incentives to lighter which were not found using the

higher vessel operating costs for the established optimal lightering turnaround time assumptions. As

indicated, the cost of direct shipment is close to that for lightering and specifically relates to the

operational assumptions based on optimal turnaround times and seamless logistics from the lightering

company. The lightering company and industry indicate that it is not cost effective to lighter Venezuelan

products.

Given the uncertainty associated with lightering logistics and associated transfer times, a sensitivity

analysis was prepared evaluating the effect of minimum and maximum turnaround times. Table 5K

displays columns showing both the mother vessel offshore unloading times and waiting times used for the

analysis presented in the Economic Appendix, as well as the times for this sensitivity analysis. The times

used in the Appendix suggest that multiple shuttles would be loaded simultaneously using innovations to

be developed over the 2010-2069 future. However, these innovations were found not to be realistic for

existing or future conditions. In the sensitivity analysis the offshore times are considered reasonable,

given standard unloading time. For instance using a standard unloading rate of 5,250 tons per hour, it

would take 60 hours to unload (lighter) a 325,000 DWT tanker ((325,000 * 0.97 capacity)/(5,250 short

tons per hour). This sensitivity is included because of concerns that assumptions based on optimal

offshore turnaround time, optimal scheduling of shuttle arrivals, and perhaps lower than realistic vessel

operating cost, such as the Corps’ FY08 tanker vessel operating costs being 17 percent lower than the

FY07 release, result in criteria that is unrealistically conservative. The sensitivity was found to be

representative of actual conditions while by comparison the times used for the base are not realistic.

An additional component modified for this sensitivity was to separate Venezuela products from those

from Brazil. While shipments of crude oil from Brazil to SNWW are presently less than 1 percent, future

expectations are that this will change. The Appendix analysis included Venezuela and Brazil as one

639
20

TABLE 5K

Mother Vessel Combined Time Offloading and Waiting Between Shuttles

Mother Vessel Offshore Hours (Appendix) Mother Vessel Offshore Hours (Sensitivity)

Component Lightering Lightening Lightering Lightening

Minimum (hrs) 8 8 60 24

Most Likely (hrs) * 12 12 60 * 31 *

Maximum (hrs) 36 36 168 120

Hours Used for

Calculation 12 12 96 * 30 *

*The most likely time for the mother vessel for lightering is based on a 325,000 DWT tanker, a cargo to short ton

ratio of 0.97, and an unloading rate of 5,250 short tons per hour. The most likely time for the mother vessel for

lightening is based on a 165,000 DWT tanker, a cargo to short ton ratio of 0.97, and an unloading rate of 5,250 short

tons per hour. The hours used for calculation are based on a @risk triangular distribution using the minimum, most

likely, and maximum values shown. The maximum values used as input into the @risk distribution are noted quotes

from the lightering company.

S i f Sk 2000 2006

region. Table 5L displays the transportation cost with Brazil separated out from Venezuela. Table 5M

displays the results of using the routing shown in Table 5L and the mother vessel sensitivity-based times

from Table 5J (i.e. 96 hours offshore for the lightering mother vessel and 30 hours offshore for the

lightening mother vessels).

TABLE 5L

SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports Transportation Cost ($1,000) by Channel Depth Alternative

(same as Table 111, Economic Appendix)

Trade Route and Cost/Ton 40 45 46 47 48 49 50

Mexico Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct

Cost/Ton Beaumont $2.76 $2.34 $2.28 $2.21 $2.15 $2.11 $2.07

Cost/Ton Port Arthur $2.77 $2.37 $2.30 $2.23 $2.18 $2.14 $2.11

Venezuela & E South America Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct

Cost/Ton Beaumont $7.22 $6.09 $5.91 $5.73 $5.58 $5.45 $5.34

Cost/Ton Port Arthur $7.28 $6.17 $5.98 $5.81 $5.67 $5.55 $5.47

Africa/North Sea Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered

Cost/Ton Beaumont $8.41 $8.18 $8.13 $8.12 $8.05 $8.01 $8.01

Cost/Ton Port Arthur $8.46 $8.19 $8.13 $8.12 $8.12 $8.11 $8.08

Middle East Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered

Cost/Ton Beaumont $14.43 $14.20 $14.15 $14.13 $14.06 $14.03 $14.03

Cost/Ton Port Arthur $14.48 $14.19 $14.13 $14.11 $14.11 $14.10 $14.06

TABLE 5L-1

SNWW Economic Summary Data

Average Annual Costs and Benefits, Net Excess Benefits and BCRs by Channel Depth Alternative

(As Included in Table 141, Economic Appendix)

Cost Component 45 46 47 48 49 50

Total Annual Cost ($1,000) $70,217 $77,258 $84,299 $91,341 $96,626 $101,911

Average Annual Benefits ($1,000) $83,841 $95,856 $104,30 $115,074 $122,875 $127,696

Net Excess Benefits ($1,000) $13,624 $18,598 $20,004 $23,733 $26,249 $25,785

B/C Ratios 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3

640
21

TABLE 5M

SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports Transportation Cost ($1,000) by Channel Depth Alternative

Separate Breakout of Venezuela and Brazil, with 100% of Brail Imports Lightered and

Sensitivity of Realistic Offshore Transfer Times

Trade Route and Cost/Ton 40 45 46 47 48 49 50

Mexico Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct

Cost/Ton Beaumont $2.76 $2.34 $2.28 $2.21 $2.15 $2.11 $2.07

Cost/Ton Port Arthur $2.77 $2.37 $2.30 $2.23 $2.18 $2.14 $2.11

Venezuela Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct

Cost/Ton Beaumont $4.87 $4.58 $4.44 $4.31 $4.20 $4.10 $4.02

Cost/Ton Port Arthur $4.89 $4.60 $4.46 $4.33 $4.23 $4.14 $4.08

Brazil Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lighter

Cost/Ton Beaumont $6.68 $6.50 $6.47 $6.46 $6.40 $6.37 $6.37

Cost/Ton Port Arthur $6.72 $6.51 $6.47 $6.46 $6.45 $6.45 $6.42

Africa/North Sea Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lighter

Cost/Ton Beaumont $8.41 $8.18 $8.13 $8.12 $8.05 $8.01 $8.01

Cost/Ton Port Arthur $8.46 $8.19 $8.13 $8.12 $8.12 $8.11 $8.08

Middle East Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lightered Lighter

Cost/Ton Beaumont $14.43 $14.20 $14.15 $14.13 $14.06 $14.03 $14.0

Cost/Ton Port Arthur $14.48 $14.19 $14.13 $14.11 $14.11 $14.10 $14.0

TABLE 5M-1

SNWW Economic Summary Data

Average Annual Costs and Benefits, Net Excess Benefits and BCRs by Channel Depth Alternative

Based on Inclusion of a Separate Breakout of Venezuela and Brazil, with 100% of Brail Imports Lightered

Cost Component 45 46 47 48 49 50

Total Annual Cost ($1,000) $70,217 $77,258 $84,299 $91,341 $96,626 $101,911

Average Annual Benefits ($1,000) $91,523 $105,287 $112,44 $126,830 $135,987 $142,323

Net Excess Benefits ($1,000) $21,306 $28,029 $28,150 $35,489 $39,361 $40,412

B/C Ratios 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4

Table 5N summarizes the data aggregated and incorporates the critical sensitivities evaluated under

Comment 3. It was found in preparation of the response to Comment 4 that the duration of the VLCC

offshore times used in the Appendix analysis was unrealistically low. For this aspect of the analysis, the

sensitivity was found to be representative of actual conditions.

In conclusion, the results of the data and the additional sensitivities presented provide sufficient

justification to reasonably conclude that the recommended plan for the 48-foot depth is economically

justified.

641
22

TABLE 5N

SNWW Combined Analysis of LNG Market Sensitivity and Crude Oil Vessel Utilization Share

Scenario Description

Economic

Appendix

(Table 141)

Half of the LNG

Market And

50% of Crude

Petroleum

Loaded to Drafts

Over

40 ft

Half of the

LNG Market

And 70% of

Crude

Petroleum

Loaded to

Drafts Over

40 ft

Half the LNG

Market And 70%

of Crude

Petroleum

Loaded to Drafts

Over 40 ft

Economic

Appendix LNG

Market And 80%

of Crude

Petroleum

Loaded to Drafts

Over 40 ft

Economic

Appendix LNG

Market And 80%

of Crude

Petroleum

Loaded to Drafts

Over 40 ft (Same

as Table 4D)

Separate

Breakout of

Venezuela and

Brazil, with

100% of Brail

Imports

Lightered

Separate

Breakout of

Venezuela

and Brazil,

with 100%

of Brail

Imports

Lightered

Separate

Breakout of

Venezuela and

Brazil, with

100% of Brail

Imports Lightered

and Inclusion of

Sensitivity

Realistic

Offshore Transfer

Time Sensitivity

Separate

Breakout of

Venezuela and

Brazil, with

100% of Brail

Imports Lightered

and Inclusion of

Sensitivity

Realistic

Offshore Transfer

Time Sensitivity

Separate

Breakout of

Venezuela and

Brazil, with

100% of Brail

Imports Lightered

and Inclusion of

Sensitivity

Realistic

Offshore Transfer

Time Sensitivity

Channel

Depth (ft) Average Annual Benefits Calculations ($1,000’s) at 4.375%

Based on Range of SNWW LNG Market Shares, 2019-2069

45 $83,841 $64,936 $67,644 $80,944 $88,558 $91,523

46 $95,856 $74,458 $77,669 $93,737 $101,748 $105,287

47 $104,303 $81,033 $84,508 $100,576 $108,719 $112,449

48 $115,074 $89,251 $93,249 $113,762 $122,392 $126,830

49 $122,875 $95,196 $99,514 $122,248 $131,152 $135,987

50 $127,696 $98,699 $103,129 $128,154 $137,234 $142,323

Net Excess Benefits ($1000’s)

(The Average Annual Costs Used for the BCR Calculations are Shown at the top of Table 4A)

45 $13,624 -$5,281 -$2,573 $10,727 $18,341 $21,306

46 $18,598 -$2,800 $411 $16,479 $24,490 $28,029

47 $20,004 -$3,266 $209 $16,277 $24,420 $28,150

48 $23,733 -$2,090 $1,908 $22,421 $31,051 $35,489

49 $26,249 -$1,430 $2,888 $25,622 $34,526 $39,361

50 $25,785 -$3,212 $1,218 $26,243 $35,323 $40,412

BCRs Based Range of SNWW LNG. Market Shares Range

and Variation in Crude Petroleum Loaded Draft Utilization

(The Average Annual Costs Used for the BCR Calculations are Shown at the top of Table 4A)

45 1.2 0.9 .9 1.2 1.3 1.3

46 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4

47 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3

48 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4

49 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.4

50 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.4

642
23

6.0 CRUDE PETROLEUM MARKET SHARE AND TONNAGE FORECAST (IEPR

COMMENT 6)

In overall terms and in spite of a recent decline in the SNWW share of the U.S. total, comparison of

overall regional imports using 4-year averages from 1990-2009 shows that SNWW imports grew by 117

percent in comparison to a U.S. increase of 58 percent. During the period from 2004 to 2009, SNWW’s

refinery capacity increased from 6 percent to 6.5 percent (Economic Appendix, Table 10). Port Arthur

refinery capacity in 2009 is nearly 13 percent higher than in 2004, with additional expansions scheduled.

Motiva announced plans for a 325,000 barrel-per-day (BPD) refinery expansion in Port Arthur in

December 2007. Additionally, expansion of the Motiva-Port Arthur refinery is currently underway and

expected to be complete by 2012. Motiva’s current capacity of 285,000 BBD will increase to 610,000

BBD until completion.

Source: Aggregated from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the U.S and

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration data.

Regarding expectations concerning the region’s percentage share of the U.S. market, SNWW’s relative

share has been affected by a combination of factors, both regional and national. Regionally, the share has

been affected by hurricanes. Additionally, its relative share of the U.S. total has also been affected by the

large influx of Canadian crude to the U.S. Midwest. Presently less than 1 percent of Canadian crude is

transported to SNWW, with the majority of that being transported by vessel. Expansion of the Keystone

TransCanada Pipeline to the U.S. Gulf Coast ports that include Port Arthur and Houston remains

uncertain. SNWW refinery representatives do not foresee increases in their receipt of Canadian crude.

While industry is noncommittal, interest in current pipeline delivery and the TransCanada Pipeline

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

1990-93 1994-97 1998-01 2002-05 2006-09

FIGURE 6A

SNWW and U.S. Crude Oil Imports

4-Year Averages 1990-2009

SNWW (1,000's of Short Tons) U.S. (Short Tons/10000)

643
24

Expansion was noted to be limited to the companies that buy excess oil for resale and transmittal to

various SNWW, Texas City, and Houston refineries. This market is characteristically uncertain and small

and the Gulf Coast represents a relatively high transmittal cost in comparison to markets in the U.S.

Midwest. Texas imports of Canadian crude for 2005-2009 by pipeline and vessel averaged 1.1 percent,

with a low of 0.6 percent in 2008 and a high of 1.5 percent in 2008. This issue’s conclusion is that longterm expectations concerning the specific volume of Canadian crude that could be pipelined into the study

region will remain uncertain in the short-term. Realization would depend upon high oil prices, among

other factors. But with falling demand, falling crude oil prices, and carbon emission concerns, forecasts

of future Canadian oil sands production have declined, as have expectations of likely volumes reaching

the Gulf Coast in the near future.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Annual Energy Outlook 2007 (AEO 2007) forecast was used for the

March 2007 Economic Appendix provided for IEPR. During the review period, the Galveston District

continued to review new forecasts as they were released. The SNWW crude oil imports forecasts in the

2008 and 2009 draft reports reflect forecast modifications that are more conservative than the AEO 2007.

The AEO 2008 showed a significant change from the AEO 2007 and from Global Insight’s 2008 forecast

release. The AEO 2008 release occurred at the same time that Motiva Port Arthur refinery expansion was

announced. The Motiva expansion and SNWW’s existing role as the largest waterway port of entry for

petroleum suggested that Global Insight’s slightly higher forecast was likely to be more reflective of longterm regional trends. Global Insight’s 2008 forecast was subsequently used in the 2008 draft report and

their 2009 forecast was used in current report.

In regard to differences between the AEO and Global Insight, the major difference between the two is that

AEO forecasts much higher domestic crude oil production throughout the projection period than other

noted forecasters. As noted in the AEO website, their forecast not only shows higher domestic

production, it also shows a rapid increase in domestic production. Other differences pertain to the forecast

price of crude oil. The figure below provides a comparison of the AEO 2010 Reference and low oil price

based forecast with Global Insight’s May 2010 price forecast release.

Table 6A displays the U.S. oil import data evaluated during 2008-09 preparation of the Appendix and

since its submittal. Table 6B presents regression equation outputs using the AEO 2010 Reference and

Low Price case scenarios. The regression equations were prepared using 1990-2007 and 1990-2008 base

data.

644
25

Source: Global Insight, May 2010 and U.S. Department of Energy, 2010 Annual Energy Outlook.

TABLE 6A

SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports Forecast Projections

Year

AEO Reference AEO

2010

Purvin & Gertz Global Insight

2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010

2007 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 n/a 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

2015 10.2 8.1 8.9 10.1 n/a n/a 11.8 12.0 11.1 9.7

2025 11.0 6.7 11.7 n/a 12.4 12.3 13.7 12.1 10.6

2030 11.9 7.0 8.7 12.7 n/a 12.7 14.5 12.5 11.7

2035 n/a n/a 8.7 13.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.9 n/a

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, AEO2008, 2008, and 2010. Global Insight 2035 forecast value was obtained from nonpublished back-up data obtained from Global Insight

$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

Figure 6B

U.S. Crude Oil Price Forecast

Refiners' Acquisition Price - Composite (Dollars/Barrel)

Global Insight May 2010 Forecast

AEO2010 Low Oil Price

AEO2010 Reference Case

645
26

TABLE 6B

SNWW Crude Petroleum Imports Forecast Projections

Millions of Barrels/Day

Year

1990-2008 SNWW as a Function of U.S. Imports

Adjusted R Square: .28

F Statistic: 8.17

Standard Error of Y Estimate: 14046.6

1990-2007 SNWW as a Function of U.S. Imports

Adjusted R Square: .88

F Statistic: 129.99

Standard Error of Y Estimate: 6020.9

AEO

2010

AEO

2010

AEO

2010

AEO

2010

2015 53,150 57,849 55,338 74,582

2019 52,680 60,355 54,080 82,689

2025 51,975 64,115 52,192 94,850

2029 52,132 65,681 52,612 99,917

2030 52,366 68,031 53,241 107,518

2035 52,366 71,555 53,241 118,919

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, AEO2008, 2008, and 2010. Global Insight 2035 forecast value was obtained from nonpublished back-up data obtained from Global Insight

A comparison table of the BCRs based on the alternative forecasts was not prepared. It is recognized that

SNWW import forecast is higher than all of the AEO 2009 and AEO 2010 projections, with the exception

of the AEO 2010 Low Price scenario; however, the forecast for SNWW falls within the range of forecasts

published by other recognized forecasters. As previously indicated, the Motiva expansion and SNWW’s

existing role as the largest waterway port of entry for petroleum suggested that the higher forecast would

most reasonably reflect long-term trends for the study area.

646
Appendix 3

Baseline Cost Estimate

647
SABINE-NECHES NAVIGATION

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENGINEERING APPENDIX

CHAPTER 13.0

COST ESTIMATES

ATTACHMENT 13.1 – NARRATIVE

ATTACHMENT 13.2 – MII ESTIMATE

ATTACHMENT 13.3 – CSRA

ATTACHMENT 13.4 – TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY

ATTACHMENT 13.5 – ATR CERTIFICATION OF COST ESTIMATE (TO BE

PROVIDED)

ATTACHMENT 13.6 – 50 YEAR O&M (TO BE PROVIDED)

Revised

June 2010

648
ATTACHMENT 13.1 - Narrative

649
SABINE-NECHES NAVIGATION CHANNEL

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

This MII estimate was prepared for the Feasibility Study of deepening the Sabine Neches Waterway

to a depth of 48 feet. The work consists of deepening the navigation channel from the existing

inland reaches to the Port of Beaumont from 40 to 48 ft; and extending the existing entrance channel

by 13.2 miles into the Gulf of Mexico to a depth of 50 ft. The plan also consists of: 1) bend easing

in the Sabine-Neches Canal and Neches River channel; 2) widening up to an additional 183 feet the

Taylors Bayou Entrance channel and turning basins; and 3) Constructing new and

enlarging/deepening existing turning and anchorage basins on the Neches River Channel. The entire

plan involves dredging about 406,464 feet of channel. Quantities and design features were

developed by the Galveston District (SWG) Engineering Branch.

This estimate was revised July 2009 using the latest price levels and the labor rates. During the

update the marine fuel price was locked in at $2.60/gal, (see attachment 13.2). This updated Mii

estimate reflects changes in the scope. The major changes in scope are the removal of the widening

of the entrance, removal of five turning basins, removal of two Beneficial Use (BU) sites, reduction

of one BU, and the removal of the oyster reef. The estimate was escalated to October 2009 price

levels in the Total Project Cost Summary Sheet (TPCS), (see attachment 13.4). The estimate was

divided into 15 contracts, with each contract being subdivided into Non-Federal and Federal Costs.

The costs were further organized in accordance with the work breakdown structure. The midpoint

date of each account code for each of the construction contracts was provided by the project

manager for developing the fully funded costs. The estimate was prepared in accordance with ER

1110-2-1302, dated 15 September 2008. The costs were escalated in accordance with the above

Engineering Regulation and EM 1110-2-1304 dated 31 March 2009. All this data was input into the

TPCS. The baseline estimate provides for all pertinent elements for a complete project ready for

operations.

The original Independent Technical Review (ITR) of the cost estimate, construction schedules, and

contingencies was performed in June 2006 by Mobile District, some minor revision were performed

to the estimate in response to the comments. In July 2007 new requirements were published for the

development of contingencies in Civil Works. A formal cost risk analysis for development of

project contingences was done with the results presented in the Total Project Cost Summary Sheet

(TPCS). Crystal Ball software was used to conduct the Cost Risk Analysis.

650
A formal Cost Risk Analyses was performed with the cooperation of the PDT and Cost Engineering

Directory of Expertise (DX) of the Walla Walla District in August 2009. The risks were quantified

and a cost risk model developed to determine a contingency at 80% confidence level (CL), (see

attachment 13.3). For Hopper dredge work a 33% contingency was used for the 80% CL and for

Pipeline dredge work a 30% contingency was used for the 80%. The estimate was escalated to

October 2009 price level. The contingencies were used along with the updated estimate to revise the

TPCS. An ITR Certification of Cost Estimate was provided by Cost Engineering DX for Civil

Works, (see attachment 13.5). The Operation and Maintenance estimate was prepared in July 2009,

with an effective pricing date of October 2009, (see attachment 13.6).

ACCOUNT CODE 01 – LANDS AND DAMAGES: Costs for this Account Code were provided

by SWG, Real Estate Division.

ACCOUNT CODE 02 -- RELOCATIONS: A total of 42 pipelines would require relocation and 6

would require removal. The relocated lines were assumed to be directionally drilled, and bundled

when possible. It is assumed that the lines which are currently abandoned in place will be removed

from the limits of the new channel and disposed off-site. Relocation work is assumed to take place

prior to dredging the new channel.

ACCOUNT CODE 12 -- NAVIGATION PORTS AND HARBORS: Dredge quantities were

developed by the design engineer. It was assumed that the first 5 contracts would be done using one

large hopper dredge per contract. The material from the hopper dredge would be placed in open

water disposal. The remainder of the channel was assumed to be dredged using a 30" pipeline, with

the material going into existing placement areas (PA’s) or new PA’s located along the waterway.

The dredging cost was developed using CEDEP. The dredge production rates were reduced to

account for the stiffer “new work” material to be encountered. The cost for mobilization and

demobilization was developed using CEDEP, and assuming the pipeline dredge was based in New

Orleans. The Dredging estimates were based on standard operating practices for the Galveston

District which assumed conventional contracting practices of large business IFB’s.

Included under the hopper dredge cost is the cost for Sea Turtle Protection. Included in this item

are: 1) cost for two trawlers per hopper, 2) a sea turtle protection device fitted to the hopper, and 3)

24 hour monitoring survey.

The cost for creating a PA was included under this code of account. Part of the cost for creating a

PA included clearing, grubbing, and stripping the area; as well as turfing the outside of the new

levee. Labor rates and overhead costs were adjusted to reflect Region 6. Soil characteristics were

provided by SWG, Engineering Division, Geotechnical and Structures Section.

651
Also, included under this account code were bridge dolphin fender systems. They are required

for the MLK Hwy 82 Bridge located at Station 105+00 on the Sabine Neches Canal; as well as

Hwy 87, (twin bridges), located at Station 93+00 on the Neches River. The cost for this work

was provided by TXDOT. The cost for the Taylors Bayou sheet Pile Wall was also included

under this account code.

Navigational aids are placed in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard Standards and all the quantities

and cost data were provided by the Coast Guard.

ACCOUNT CODE 18 – CULTURAL RESOUCRCE PRESERVATION: Cost for this account

code was developed by the archeologist in SWG, Environmental Section, Planning and

Environmental Branch.

ACCOUNT CODE 30 -- ENGINEERING AND DESIGN: The cost for this account was

developed using the guidelines provided in the TPCS, with the agreement of the cost engineer and

the project manager. In addition, the costs for survey and soil borings were provided by SWG,

General Engineering Section and Geotechnical & Structures Sections in Engineering & Construction

Division.

ACCOUNT CODE 31 -- CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT: The cost for this account was

developed using the guidelines provided in the TPCS, with the agreement of the cost engineer and

the project manager.

652
ATTACHMENT 13.2 - MII Estimate

653
Print Date Fri 28 August 2009 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Time 10:15:38

Eff. Date 10/1/2008 Project : July 2009 - SNWW - LPP

COE Standard Report Selections Title Page

Labor ID: LB06NatFD EQ ID: EP06R08 Currency in US dollars TRACES MII Version 3.01

This report is not copyrighted, but the information contained herein is For Official Use Only.

Estimated Construction Time Days

Effective Date of Pricing 10/1/2008

Preparation Date 7/10/2009

Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District

Estimated by J. Lockhart

Designed by CESWG-EC-PS

July 2009 - SNWW - LPP

Feasibility Study

654
Print Date Fri 28 August 2009 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Time 10:15:38

Eff. Date 10/1/2008 Project : July 2009 - SNWW - LPP

COE Standard Report Selections Project Cost Summary Report Page 1

Description UOM Quantity DirectCost ContractCost ProjectCost

Project Cost Summary Report 693,752,318 700,812,057 700,812,057

Expenditures for Study LS 1.00 13,249,000 13,249,000 13,249,000

Reconnaissance Phase LS 1.00 125,000 125,000 125,000

Feasibility Phase LS 1.00 13,124,000 13,124,000 13,124,000

01 Contract 1 - Sabine Bank Sta 165+000 to 132+000 LS 1.00 52,355,825 52,724,883 52,724,883

0101 Non-Federal Costs LS 1.00 1,299,615 1,668,673 1,668,673

010102 Relocations LS 1.00 1,299,615 1,668,673 1,668,673

0102 Federal Costs LS 1.00 51,056,210 51,056,210 51,056,210

010212 Navigation Ports and Harbors LS 1.00 51,056,210 51,056,210 51,056,210

02 Contract 2 - Sabine Bank Sta 132+000 to 95+734 LS 1.00 24,449,335 24,449,335 24,449,335

0202 Federal Costs LS 1.00 24,449,335 24,449,335 24,449,335

020212 Navigation Ports and Harbors LS 1.00 24,449,335 24,449,335 24,449,335

03 Contract 3 - Sabine Bank Ch Sta 95+734 to 53+000 LS 1.00 27,962,068 28,182,119 28,182,119

0301 Non-Federal Costs LS 1.00 774,897 994,948 994,948

030102 Relocations LS 1.00 774,897 994,948 994,948

0302 Federal Costs LS 1.00 27,187,171 27,187,171 27,187,171

030212 Navigation Ports and Harbors LS 1.00 27,187,171 27,187,171 27,187,171

04 Contract 4 - Sab Pass Outer Bar Sta 53+000 to 0+000 LS 1.00 47,013,937 47,380,443 47,380,443

0401 Non-Federal Costs LS 1.00 1,290,627 1,657,133 1,657,133

040102 Relocations LS 1.00 1,290,627 1,657,133 1,657,133

0402 Federal Costs LS 1.00 45,723,310 45,723,310 45,723,310

040212 Navigation Ports and Harbors LS 1.00 45,723,310 45,723,310 45,723,310

05 Contract 5 - Sabine Pass Jetty Ch Sta -214+88 to 0+00 LS 1.00 15,498,540 15,498,540 15,498,540

0502 Federal Costs LS 1.00 15,498,540 15,498,540 15,498,540

050212 Navigation Ports and Harbors LS 1.00 15,498,540 15,498,540 15,498,540

06 Contract 6 - Sab Pass Ch Sta 0+00 to 296+25 LS 1.00 40,131,460 40,780,690 40,780,690

Labor ID: LB06NatFD EQ ID: EP06R08 Currency in US dollars TRACES MII Version 3.01

655
Print Date Fri 28 August 2009 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Time 10:15:38

Eff. Date 10/1/2008 Project : July 2009 - SNWW - LPP

COE Standard Report Selections Project Cost Summary Report Page 2

Description UOM Quantity DirectCost ContractCost ProjectCost

0601 Non-Federal Costs LS 1.00 2,286,220 2,935,449 2,935,449

060102 Relocations LS 1.00 2,286,220 2,935,449 2,935,449

0602 Federal Costs LS 1.00 37,845,240 37,845,240 37,845,240

060212 Navigation Ports and Harbors LS 1.00 36,885,240 36,885,240 36,885,240060218 Cultural Resources LS 1.00 960,000 960,000 960,000

07 Contract 7 - Pt Arthur Canal Sta 0+00 to 325+84, Taylor Bayou 0+00 to 106+24 LS 1.00 76,938,758 76,938,758 76,938,758

0701 Non-Federal Costs LS 1.00 879,710 879,710 879,710

070112 NavigationPorts & Harbor EA 1.00 879,710 879,710 879,710

0702 Federal Costs LS 1.00 76,059,048 76,059,048 76,059,048

070212 Navigation Ports and Harbors LS 1.00 76,059,048 76,059,048 76,059,048

08 Contract 8 - Sabine-Neches Canal Sta 0+00 to 170+00 LS 1.00 34,136,504 34,289,928 34,289,928

0801 Non-Federal Costs LS 1.00 540,272 693,696 693,696

080102 Relocations LS 1.00 540,272 693,696 693,696

0802 Federal Costs LS 1.00 33,596,232 33,596,232 33,596,232

080212 Navigation Ports and Harbors LS 1.00 33,596,232 33,596,232 33,596,232

09 Contract 9 - Sabine-Neches Canal Sta 170+00 to 592+93 LS 1.00 51,839,330 51,963,375 51,963,375

0901 Non-Federal Costs LS 1.00 436,817 560,862 560,862

090102 Relocations LS 1.00 436,817 560,862 560,862

0902 Federal Costs LS 1.00 51,402,513 51,402,513 51,402,513

09212 Navigation Ports and Harbors LS 1.00 51,402,513 51,402,513 51,402,513

10 Contract 10 - Neches River Ch Sta 0+00 to 292+00 LS 1.00 71,281,746 72,991,198 72,991,198

1001 Non-Federal Costs LS 1.00 7,417,357 9,126,809 9,126,809

100102 Relocations LS 1.00 6,019,727 7,729,179 7,729,179100112 NavigationPorts & Harbor EA 1.00 1,397,630 1,397,630 1,397,630

1002 Federal Costs LS 1.00 63,864,389 63,864,389 63,864,389

100212 Navigation Ports and Harbors LS 1.00 63,864,389 63,864,389 63,864,389

Labor ID: LB06NatFD EQ ID: EP06R08 Currency in US dollars TRACES MII Version 3.01

656
Print Date Fri 28 August 2009 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Time 10:15:38

Eff. Date 10/1/2008 Project : July 2009 - SNWW - LPP

COE Standard Report Selections Project Cost Summary Report Page 3

Description UOM Quantity DirectCost ContractCost ProjectCost

11 Contract 11 - Neches River Ch Sta 292+00 to 716+00 LS 1.00 94,177,162 97,645,135 97,645,135

1101 Non-Federal Costs LS 1.00 17,449,580 20,917,554 20,917,554

110102 Relocations LS 1.00 12,212,250 15,680,224 15,680,224110112 NavigationPorts & Harbor EA 1.00 5,237,330 5,237,330 5,237,330

1102 Federal Costs LS 1.00 76,727,582 76,727,582 76,727,582

110212 Navigation Ports and Harbors LS 1.00 76,727,582 76,727,582 76,727,582

12 Contract 12 - Neches River Ch Sta 716+00 to 980+00 LS 1.00 85,111,124 85,111,124 85,111,124

1201 Non-Federal Costs LS 1.00 8,064,890 8,064,890 8,064,890

120112 NavigationPorts & Harbor EA 1.00 8,064,890 8,064,890 8,064,890

1202 Federal Costs LS 1.00 77,046,234 77,046,234 77,046,234

120212 Navigation Ports and Harbors LS 1.00 77,046,234 77,046,234 77,046,234

13 Contract 13 - Dredging Sabine Lake LS 1.00 21,495,876 21,495,876 21,495,876

1302 Federal Costs LS 1.00 21,495,876 21,495,876 21,495,876

13060212 Fish and Wildlife Facilities EA 1.00 21,495,876 21,495,876 21,495,876

14 Contract 14 - Channel to Orange LS 1.00 906,758 906,758 906,758

1402 Federal Costs LS 1.00 906,758 906,758 906,758

140206 Fish and Wildlife Facilities LS 1.00 906,758 906,758 906,758

15 Contract 15 - GIWW East of Orange LS 1.00 37,204,894 37,204,894 37,204,894

1502 Federal Costs LS 1.00 37,204,894 37,204,894 37,204,894

150206 Fish and Wildlife Facilities LS 1.00 37,204,894 37,204,894 37,204,894

Labor ID: LB06NatFD EQ ID: EP06R08 Currency in US dollars TRACES MII Version 3.01

657
Print Date Fri 28 August 2009 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Time 10:15:38

Eff. Date 10/1/2008 Project : July 2009 - SNWW - LPP

COE Standard Report Selections Table of Contents

Description Page

Project Cost Summary Report 1

Expenditures for Study 1

Reconnaissance Phase 1Feasibility Phase 1

01 Contract 1 - Sabine Bank Sta 165+000 to 132+000 1

0101 Non-Federal Costs 1

010102 Relocations 1

0102 Federal Costs 1

010212 Navigation Ports and Harbors 1

02 Contract 2 - Sabine Bank Sta 132+000 to 95+734 1

0202 Federal Costs 1

020212 Navigation Ports and Harbors 1

03 Contract 3 - Sabine Bank Ch Sta 95+734 to 53+000 1

0301 Non-Federal Costs 1

030102 Relocations 1

0302 Federal Costs 1

030212 Navigation Ports and Harbors 1

04 Contract 4 - Sab Pass Outer Bar Sta 53+000 to 0+000 1

0401 Non-Federal Costs 1

040102 Relocations 1

0402 Federal Costs 1

040212 Navigation Ports and Harbors 1

05 Contract 5 - Sabine Pass Jetty Ch Sta -214+88 to 0+00 1

0502 Federal Costs 1

050212 Navigation Ports and Harbors 1

06 Contract 6 - Sab Pass Ch Sta 0+00 to 296+25 1

0601 Non-Federal Costs 10601 Non-Federal Costs 2

060102 Relocations 2

0602 Federal Costs 2

060212 Navigation Ports and Harbors 2060218 Cultural Resources 2

07 Contract 7 - Pt Arthur Canal Sta 0+00 to 325+84, Taylor Bayou 0+00 to 106+24 2

0701 Non-Federal Costs 2

070112 NavigationPorts & Harbor 2

0702 Federal Costs 2

070212 Navigation Ports and Harbors 2

08 Contract 8 - Sabine-Neches Canal Sta 0+00 to 170+00 2

0801 Non-Federal Costs 2

080102 Relocations 2

0802 Federal Costs 2

080212 Navigation Ports and Harbors 2

Labor ID: LB06NatFD EQ ID: EP06R08 Currency in US dollars TRACES MII Version 3.01

658
Print Date Fri 28 August 2009 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Time 10:15:38

Eff. Date 10/1/2008 Project : July 2009 - SNWW - LPP

COE Standard Report Selections Table of Contents

Description Page

09 Contract 9 - Sabine-Neches Canal Sta 170+00 to 592+93 2

0901 Non-Federal Costs 2

090102 Relocations 2

0902 Federal Costs 2

09212 Navigation Ports and Harbors 2

10 Contract 10 - Neches River Ch Sta 0+00 to 292+00 2

1001 Non-Federal Costs 2

100102 Relocations 2100112 NavigationPorts & Harbor 2

1002 Federal Costs 2

100212 Navigation Ports and Harbors 2

11 Contract 11 - Neches River Ch Sta 292+00 to 716+00 211 Contract 11 - Neches River Ch Sta 292+00 to 716+00 3

1101 Non-Federal Costs 3

110102 Relocations 3110112 NavigationPorts & Harbor 3

1102 Federal Costs 3

110212 Navigation Ports and Harbors 3

12 Contract 12 - Neches River Ch Sta 716+00 to 980+00 3

1201 Non-Federal Costs 3

120112 NavigationPorts & Harbor 3

1202 Federal Costs 3

120212 Navigation Ports and Harbors 3

13 Contract 13 - Dredging Sabine Lake 3

1302 Federal Costs 3

13060212 Fish and Wildlife Facilities 3

14 Contract 14 - Channel to Orange 3

1402 Federal Costs 3

140206 Fish and Wildlife Facilities 3

15 Contract 15 - GIWW East of Orange 3

1502 Federal Costs 3

150206 Fish and Wildlife Facilities 3

Labor ID: LB06NatFD EQ ID: EP06R08 Currency in US dollars TRACES MII Version 3.01

659
ATTACHMENT 13.3 – CSRA

660
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

FEASIBILITY RISK ANALYSIS

FOR

GALVESTON DISTRICT, TEXAS

Prepared for:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District

Prepared by:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District

Engineering and Construction Division, Cost Engineering Branch

August 14, 2009

661
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1

1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................................. 1

2. BACKGROUND......................................................................................................... 1

3. SCOPE ...................................................................................................................... 1

4. METHODOLOGY/PROCESS.................................................................................... 2

3

3

6

6

7

7

7

8

3

5

7

8

4.1 Identify and Assess Risk Factors.......................................................................

4.2 Risk Register .....................................................................................................

4.3 Quantify Risk Factor Impacts.............................................................................

4.4 Analyze Cost Estimate and Schedule Contingency ...........................................

5. RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS .....................................................................................

5.1 Contingency Results at 80 Percent Confidence.................................................

5.2 CSRA Contingency Tables ................................................................................

5.3 Model Sensitivity Analysis and Output...............................................................

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1. Contract Contingency Results - 80 Percent Confidence ............................

Table 2. Dredging Risk Register ....................................................................................

Table 3. Contract Contingency Results - 80 Percent Confidence ..................................

Table 4. CSRA Contingency Tables...............................................................................

i

662
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to document the results of the cost and schedule risk

analysis (CSRA) performed for the Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW) Channel

Improvement Project (CIP), located along the border between Texas and Louisiana.

The CSRA reflects a feasibility level study under development by the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers (USACE), Galveston District.

BACKGROUND

The single alternative plan selected for recommendation is also the national economic

development (NED) plan and the locally preferred plan (LPP). The recommended plan

calls for the following modifications to the existing SNWW:

• Deepening of the SNWW to Beaumont to 48 feet.

• Widening the SNWW by 700 feet from offshore in the Gulf of Mexico to the

Port Arthur Canal.

• Deepening and widening of Taylors Bayou channels and turning basins.

• Construction of several turning and anchorage basins on the Neches

River Channel.

• Tapering Sabine Bank Channel from 800 feet wide (Station 23+300) to

700 feet wide.

SCOPE

The scope of the risk analysis report is to reflect the feasibility study and to calculate

and present the cost contingencies at the 80 percent (P80) confidence level using the

risk analysis processes as mandated by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Engineer Regulation (ER) 1110-2-1150, Engineering and Design for Civil Works, ER

1110-2-1302, Civil Works Cost Engineering, and Engineer Technical Letter 1110-2-573,

Construction Cost Estimating Guide for Civil Works. The report presents the

contingency results for both cost and schedule risks for all construction features at

feasibility level development.

The major project construction scope is comprised of dredging, utilizing both hopper

and pipeline dredges depending upon location in relationship to the Gulf and inland

waterway. The project scope also includes some efforts contributing to sea turtle

protection, navigational aids, and mitigation such as plantings and relocations by the

sponsor(s). Within the feasibility study and in consideration of contract acquisition in

accomplishing the project construction, the plan was separated into 15 distinct contract

estimates. In each contract, dredging is the major effort, consequently, carrying the

greatest risks. Separating the project into separate contracts results in the ability to

more efficiently fund, procure, manage, and construct the separate contracts, thereby,

reducing risks. The contracts studied within the CSRA are:

ES-1

663
• Contract 1: Sabine Bank – Sta 165+00 to 132+00.

• Contract 2: Sabine Bank – Sta 132+00 to 95+734.

• Contract 3: Sabine Bank Channel – Sta 95+734 to 53+000.

• Contract 4: Sabine Pass Outer Bar Jetty – Sta 53+000 to 0+000.

• Contract 5: Sabine Pass Outer Bar Jetty Channel Sta 214-88 to 0+00.

• Contract 6: Sabine Pass Channel Sta 0+00 to 295+60.

• Contract 7: Port Arthur Canal & Taylor Bayou.

• Contract 8: Sabine Neches Canal Sta 0+00 to 170+00.

• Contract 9: Sabine Neches Canal Sta 170+00 to 592+93.

• Contract 10: Neches River Channel Sta 0+00 to 292+00.

• Contract 11: Neches River Channel Sta 292+00 to 716+00.

• Contract 12: Neches River Channel Sta 716+00 to 980+00.

• Contract 13: Dredging Sabine Lake.

• Contract 14: Channel to Orange.

• Contract 15: GIWW East of Orange.

RISK ANALYSIS PROCESS

As required by USACE, the CSRA was developed using the Crystal Ball software. The

Crystal Ball software relies on Excel-based spreadsheets for its model development. All

15 contracts within the study consist of dredging work and were estimated using the

USACE Cost Engineering Dredge Estimating Program (CEDEP), which is Excel based.

Those same Excel-based estimates were used as the model basis for the Crystal Ball

risk analysis, incorporating both cost and schedule.

Specifically related to this project, it became apparent that the contracts related to

dredging carried similar risks with a separate distinction made regarding the use of

hopper dredges and pipeline dredges in certain contracts. For this reason, the risk

analysis utilized the same risk events identified within the risk register to support the risk

models and resulting contingencies. The study did recognize that the limited availability

of hopper dredges and their use further into the Gulf present a higher degree of some

risks as compared to the pipeline dredging work. This resulted in slightly higher

contingencies for the hopper dredges.

CONTINGENCY RESULTS

The USACE Cost Engineering Directory of Expertise (DX) for Civil Works recommends

risk analyses output reflect the P80 confidence level in successfully completing

the project. The following table reflects those results for the fifteen specific contracts.

These contingencies are reflected within the Total Project Cost Summary.

ES-2

664
ES-3

Table ES-1. Contract Contingency Results - 80 Percent Confidence

Contract

No. Contract Description/Title

Type of

Dredging

Work Contingency

Contract 1 Sabine Bank – Sta 165+00 to 132+00 Hopper 33%

Contract 2 Sabine Bank – Sta 132+00 to 95+734 Hopper 33%

Contract 3 Sabine Bank Channel – Sta 95+734 to 53+000 Hopper 33%

Contract 4 Sabine Pass Outer Bar Jetty – Sta 53+000 to 0+000 Hopper 33%

Contract 5 Sabine Pass Outer Bar Jetty Channel Sta 214-88 to 0+00 Hopper 33%

Contract 6 Sabine Pass Channel Sta 0+00 to 295+60 Pipeline 30%

Contract 7 Port Arthur Canal & Taylor Bayou Pipeline 30%

Contract 8 Sabine Neches Canal Sta 0+00 to 170+00 Pipeline 30%

Contract 9 Sabine Neches Canal Sta 170+00 to 592+93 Pipeline 30%

Contract 10 Neches River Channel Sta 0+00 to 292+00 Pipeline 30%

Contract 11 Neches River Channel Sta 292+00 to 716+00 Pipeline 30%

Contract 12 Neches River Channel Sta 716+00 to 980+00 Pipeline 30%

Contract 13 Dredging Sabine Lake Pipeline 30%

Contract 14 Channel to Orange Pipeline 30%

Contract 15 GIWW East of Orange Pipeline 30%

Note: Contingency % reflects an 80% confidence level.

Dredging Risks: The four most common risk concerns, related to dredging, carrying the

greater risks were:

• Limited bid competition due to a shortage of dredge plants.

• Fuel price fluctuations, which greatly impact dredging costs.

• Limited geotechnical data of underwater materials.

• Scoping changes resulting in dredge quantity changes.

665
1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to document the results of the cost and schedule risk

analysis (CSRA) performed for the Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW) Channel

Improvement Project (CIP), located along the border between Texas and Louisiana.

The CSRA reflects a feasibility level study under development by the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, Galveston District.

2. BACKGROUND

The single alternative plan selected for recommendation is also the national economic

development (NED) plan and the locally preferred plan (LPP). The recommended plan

calls for the following modifications to the existing SNWW:

• Deepening of the SNWW to Beaumont to 48 feet.

• Widening the SNWW by 700 feet from offshore in the Gulf of Mexico to the

Port Arthur Canal.

• Deepening and widening of Taylors Bayou channels and turning basins.

• Construction of several turning and anchorage basins on the Neches

River Channel.

• Tapering Sabine Bank Channel from 800 feet wide (Station 23+300) to

700 feet wide.

More in-depth project background information can be found within the Galveston District

Feasibility Report.

3. SCOPE

The scope of the risk analysis report is to calculate and present the cost contingencies

at the 80 percent confidence level using the risk analysis processes as mandated by

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Engineer Regulation (ER) 1110-2-1150,

Engineering and Design for Civil Works, ER 1110-2-1302, Civil Works Cost

Engineering, and Engineer Technical Letter 1110-2-573, Construction Cost Estimating

Guide for Civil Works. The report presents the contingency results for both cost and

schedule risks for all construction features.

The major project construction scope is comprised of dredging, utilizing both hopper

and pipeline dredges depending upon location in relationship to the Gulf and inland

waterway. The project scope also includes some efforts contributing to sea turtle

protection, navigational aids, and mitigation such as plantings and relocations by the

sponsor(s). Within the feasibility study and in consideration of contract acquisition in

accomplishing the project construction, the plan was separated into 15 distinct contract

estimates. In each contract, dredging is the major effort, consequently, carrying the

greatest risks. The advantage of separating the project into separate contracts results

in the ability to more efficiently fund, procure, manage, and construct the separate

contracts, thereby, reducing risks. The contracts studied within the CSRA are:

1

666
• Contract 1: Sabine Bank – Sta 165+00 to 132+00.

• Contract 2: Sabine Bank – Sta 132+00 to 95+734.

• Contract 3: Sabine Bank Channel – Sta 95+734 to 53+000.

• Contract 4: Sabine Pass Outer Bar Jetty – Sta 53+000 to 0+000.

• Contract 5: Sabine Pass Outer Bar Jetty Channel Sta 214-88 to 0+00.

• Contract 6: Sabine Pass Channel Sta 0+00 to 295+60.

• Contract 7: Port Arthur Canal & Taylor Bayou.

• Contract 8: Sabine Neches Canal Sta 0+00 to 170+00.

• Contract 9: Sabine Neches Canal Sta 170+00 to 592+93.

• Contract 10: Neches River Channel Sta 0+00 to 292+00.

• Contract 11: Neches River Channel Sta 292+00 to 716+00.

• Contract 12: Neches River Channel Sta 716+00 to 980+00.

• Contract 13: Dredging Sabine Lake.

• Contract 14: Channel to Orange.

• Contract 15: GIWW East of Orange.

4. METHODOLOGY/PROCESS

The risk analysis process for this study is intended to determine the probability of

various cost outcomes and quantify the required contingency needed in the cost

estimate to achieve any desired level of cost confidence. In simple terms, contingency

is an amount added to an estimate (cost or schedule) to allow for items, conditions or

events for which the occurrence or impact is uncertain and that experience suggests will

likely result in additional costs being incurred or additional time being required. The

amount of contingency included in project control plans depends, at least in part, on the

project leadership’s willingness to accept risk of project overruns. The less risk that

project leadership is willing to accept the more contingency should be applied in the

project control plans. The risk of overrun is expressed, in a probabilistic context, using

confidence levels.

The USACE Cost Engineering Directory of Expertise (DX) for Civil Works guidance for

cost and schedule risk analysis generally focuses on the 80-percent level of confidence

(P80) for cost contingency calculation. It should be noted that use of P80 as a decision

criteria is a risk adverse approach (whereas the use of P50 would be a risk neutral

approach, and use of levels less than 50 percent would be risk seeking). Thus, a P80

confidence level results in greater contingency as compared to a P50 confidence level.

The risk analysis process uses Monte Carlo techniques to determine probabilities and

contingency. The Monte Carlo techniques are facilitated computationally by a

commercially available risk analysis software package (Crystal Ball) that is an add-in to

Microsoft Excel. Cost estimates are packaged into an Excel format and used directly for

cost risk analysis purposes.

In addition to broadly defined risk analysis standards and recommended practices, the

risk analysis is performed to meet the requirements and recommendations of the

following documents and sources:

2

667
• Engineering Regulation ER 1110-2-1150 dated August 31, 1999.

• Engineering Regulation ER 1110-2-1302 dated September 15, 2008.

• Engineering Technical Letter 1110-2-573 dated September 30, 2008.

• Memorandum from Major General Don T. Riley (US Army Director of Civil

Works), dated July 3, 2007.

• Engineering and Construction Bulletin issued by James C. Dalton, P.E.

(Chief, Engineering and Construction, Directorate of Civil Works), dated

September 10, 2007.

• Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis Process guidance prepared by the

USACE Cost Engineering DX.

Since the 15 contracts are dredging related, with the estimates developed within the

USACE Cost Engineering Dredge Estimating Program (CEDEP), which is Excel based,

the risk analysis used the CEDEP as the risk model basis, incorporating both cost and

schedule. Noting that the hopper dredges carry somewhat different risks than the

pipeline dredges, the two methods were modeled separately. The risk analysis results

are provided in section 5.

4.1 Identify and Assess Risk Factors

Identifying the risk factors via the Project Development Team (PDT) is considered a

qualitative process that results in establishing a risk register document. That risk

register document then serves to support the quantitative study using the Crystal Ball

risk software. Risk factors are events and conditions that may influence or drive

uncertainty in project performance. They may be inherent characteristics or conditions

of the project or external influences, events, or conditions such as weather or economic

conditions. Risk factors may have either favorable or unfavorable impacts on project

cost and schedule.

The qualitative risks are captured and placed within the risk register format. That format

is the basis used for establishing the quantitative risks and developing the Crystal Ball

risk model. Specifically related to this project, it became apparent that the contracts

carry quite similar risks because the major efforts within each contract require dredging.

For this reason, the risk analysis utilized the same risk events identified within the risk

register to support the risk models and resulting contingencies. The study did recognize

that the limited availability of hopper dredges and their use further into the Gulf present

a higher degree of some risks as compared to the pipeline dredging work. This resulted

in slightly higher contingencies for the hopper dredging.

4.2 Risk Register

A risk register is a tool commonly used in project planning and risk analysis. The risk

register reflects the results of risk factor identification and assessment, risk factor

quantification, and contingency analysis. It is important to note that a risk register can

be an effective tool for managing identified risks throughout the project life cycle. As

such, it is generally recommended that risk registers be updated as the designs, cost

3

668
4

estimates, and schedule are further refined, especially on large projects with extended

schedules. Recommended uses of the risk register going forward include:

• Documenting risk mitigation strategies being pursued in response to the

identified risks and their assessment in terms of probability and impact.

• Providing project sponsors, stakeholders, and leadership/management

with a documented framework from which risk status can be reported in

the context of project controls.

• Communicating risk management issues.

• Providing a mechanism for eliciting risk analysis feedback and project

control input.

• Identifying risk transfer, elimination, or mitigation actions required for

implementation of risk management plans.

The summary risk register in table 2 presents the risks related to the 15 contracts,

considering internal and external risks. In the cases studied, the schedule analysis was

incorporated into the cost analysis as another risk event related to productivity within the

CEDEP estimates.

669
Table 2. Dredging Risk Register

Risk

No. Risk/Opportunity Event Discussion and Concerns Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level*

Measurement /

Adjustments Risk Applied to

1 Bid Competition

Corps studies have determined an expected dredgeshortage due to the many anticipated projects scheduled inthe Gulf region. But a distinction must be made betweenhopper dredges and pipeline dredges. Pipeline dredgesare more prevalent; therefore, hopper dredges carry agreater risk in bidding competition. The Acquisitionplanning of 15 contracts with shorter construction durationshelps alleviate some of this concern. VERY LIKELY SIGNIFICANT HIGH

Limited Bid Competition

impacting Mobilization

distance and contractor

markups. Profit & Plant Acquisition

2 Type of Dredged Material

Limited Geotechnical data of the dredged material mayresult in encountering unanticipated materials that could bemore difficult to dredge that would impact productivity. LIKELY MARGINAL MODERATE Productivity - Duration Production

3 Dredged Quantity (prism)

Dredging commonly results in changed quantities resultingfrom inadequate underwater surveys and underwater

changes over time. There is potential that the dredgingmaterial prism could change. LIKELY MARGINAL MODERATE Volume - CY Quantities

4 Scope Changes

As the designs are further developed, there is potential thatthe scope could change. LIKELY MARGINAL MODERATE Volume - CY Quantities

5 Weather

Severe weather in the Gulf region can cause delays andpossible remobilizations. To impact dredging, weatherwould have to be very severe. The severity would impactthe gulf work for the hopper dredges more than the inlandpipeline dredges. UNLIKELY SIGNIFICANT MODERATE Productivity - Duration Production - Hopper

6 Schedule Constraints

Contract and environmental schedule constraints cancause delays, force acceleration, require larger dredgesthat may be unavailable due to competing needs. Thegreater schedule concern would be funding availabilitywhich studied under a different risk. UNLIKELY MARGINAL LOW Duration N/A

7 Labor Availability/Pricing

Gulf region labor rates are fairly low when compared to

national rates. Slower economy should keep the ratesreasonable with little impact. UNLIKELY MARGINAL LOW Hourly Wage Rates N/A

8 Dredge Acquisition

Corps studies have resulted in an expected dredgeshortage as compared to the many anticipated projects inthe Gulf region. Less competition is likely, resulting inhigher bids. LIKELY SIGNIFICANT HIGH Equipment Rates

Plant Acquisition &

Ownership

9 Current Fuel Prices

Fuel price fluctuations continue, but have stabilized on asteady upward trend. Dredge operations are significantlyimpacted by fuel usage and cost. Current estimate usescurrent fuel pricing. VERY LIKELY SIGNIFICANT HIGH Fuel $/Gal Fuel

10 VE Opportunities

There seems to be little potential for efficiency gains withthe dredging projects. "It is what it is."

VERY

UNLIKELY NEGLIGIBLE LOW Volume - CY N/A

11 Inflation Increases

Inflationary costs could impact project costs in the longterm. Volatile fuel pricing on a dredge project couldexceed standard OMB inflation rates. Current estimatefuel pricing is considered conservative. LIKELY MARGINAL MODERATE Escalation comparisons Fuel

5

670
4.3 Quantify Risk Factor Impacts

The quantitative impacts of risk factors on project plans are analyzed using a

combination of professional judgment, empirical data, and analytical techniques. Risk

factor impacts are quantified using probability distributions (density functions), because

risk factors are entered into the Crystal Ball software in the form of probability density

functions.

Similar to the identification and assessment process, risk factor quantification involves

multiple project team disciplines and functions. However, the quantification process

relies more extensively on collaboration between cost engineering, designers, and risk

analysis team members with lesser inputs from other functions and disciplines.

The following is an example of the PDT quantifying risk factor impacts by using an

iterative, consensus-building approach to estimate the elements of each risk factor:

• Maximum possible value for the risk factor.

• Minimum possible value for the risk factor.

• Most likely value (the statistical mode), if applicable.

• Nature of the probability density function used to approximate risk factor

uncertainty.

• Mathematical correlations between risk factors.

• Affected cost estimate and schedule elements.

In this study, the risk discussions focused on the similar moderate and high risks

common to the 15 contracts.since the PDT was more interested in the contingency

management per contract The resulting product from the PDT discussions is captured

within a single risk register as presented in the section above. Note that the risk register

records the PDT’s risk concerns, discussions related to those concerns, and potential

impacts to the current cost and schedule estimates. The concerns and discussions are

meant to support the team’s decisions related to event likelihood, impact, and the

resulting risk levels for each risk event.

4.4 Analyze Cost Estimate and Schedule Contingency

Contingency is analyzed using the Crystal Ball software, an add-in to the Microsoft

Excel format of the cost estimate and schedule. Monte Carlo simulations are performed

by applying the risk factors (quantified as probability density functions) to the

appropriate estimated cost and schedule elements identified by the PDT.

Contingencies are calculated by applying only the moderate and high level risks

identified for each option (i.e., low-level risks are typically not considered but remain

within the risk register to serve historical purposes as well as support follow-on risk

studies as the project and risks evolve).

For the cost estimate, the contingency is calculated as the difference between the P80

cost forecast and the base cost estimate. Each option-specific contingency is then

6

671
allocated on a civil works feature level based on the dollar-weighted relative risk of each

feature as quantified by Monte Carlo simulation. Standard deviation is used as the

feature-specific measure of risk for contingency allocation purposes. This approach

results in a relatively larger portion of all the project feature cost contingency being

allocated to features with relatively higher estimated cost uncertainty.

5. RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS

5.1 Contingency Results at 80 Percent Confidence

The Cost Engineering DX recommends risk analyses output reflect the P80 confidence

level in successfully completing the project. The following table reflects those results for

the fifteen specific contracts. These contingencies are reflected within the Total Project

Cost Summary.

Table 3. Contract Contingency Results - 80 Percent Confidence

Contract

No. Contract Description/Title

Type of

Dredging

Work Contingency

Contract 1 Sabine Bank – Sta 165+00 to 132+00 Hopper 33%

Contract 2 Sabine Bank – Sta 132+00 to 95+734 Hopper 33%

Contract 3 Sabine Bank Channel – Sta 95+734 to 53+000 Hopper 33%

Contract 4 Sabine Pass Outer Bar Jetty – Sta 53+000 to 0+000 Hopper 33%

Contract 5 Sabine Pass Outer Bar Jetty Channel Sta 214-88 to 0+00 Hopper 33%

Contract 6 Sabine Pass Channel Sta 0+00 to 295+60 Pipeline 30%

Contract 7 Port Arthur Canal & Taylor Bayou Pipeline 30%

Contract 8 Sabine Neches Canal Sta 0+00 to 170+00 Pipeline 30%

Contract 9 Sabine Neches Canal Sta 170+00 to 592+93 Pipeline 30%

Contract 10 Neches River Channel Sta 0+00 to 292+00 Pipeline 30%

Contract 11 Neches River Channel Sta 292+00 to 716+00 Pipeline 30%

Contract 12 Neches River Channel Sta 716+00 to 980+00 Pipeline 30%

Contract 13 Dredging Sabine Lake Pipeline 30%

Contract 14 Channel to Orange Pipeline 30%

Contract 15 GIWW East of Orange Pipeline 30%

Note: Contingency % reflects an 80% confidence level.

5.2 CSRA Contingency Tables

Depicted below in table 4 are the CSRA contingency results, making separate

distinction between the hopper and the pipeline dredges. The tables present the

contingency values and percents at a 5 percent confidence level interval. The 80

percent confidence results were applied against the dredging activities within the Total

Project Cost Summary. Since the 30 and 31 Feature Accounts (Planning, Engineering

and Design and the Construction Management) are based upon a percentage of the

construction costs, the same contingency was applied. The 01 Feature Account of

Lands and Damages received a 25 percent contingency based upon the Galveston

District’s Real Estate Office.

7

672
Table 4. CSRA Contingency Tables

HOPPER DREDGE CONTINGENCY TABLE PIPELINE DREDGE CONTINGENCY TABLE

Confidence Level Contingency Confidence Level Contingency

0% -35% 0% -11%

5% -10% 5% 3%

10% -5% 10% 6%

15% -2% 15% 8%

20% 1% 20% 10%

25% 4% 25% 11%

30% 6% 30% 13%

35% 9% 35% 14%

40% 11% 40% 16%

45% 13% 45% 17%

50% 16% 50% 18%

55% 18% 55% 20%

60% 21% 60% 22%

65% 23% 65% 23%

70% 26% 70% 25%

75% 29% 75% 27%

80% 33% 80% 30%

85% 37% 85% 33%

90% 42% 90% 37%

95% 50% 95% 44%

100% 104% 100% 101%

5.3 Model Sensitivity Analysis and Output

The sensitivity analysis output indicates the risk events carrying the greatest potential

variance in cost and schedule that also result in the greatest risks. For this report, the

sensitivity results are presented, making separate distinction between the hopper

dredges and the pipeline dredges.

Hopper Dredges: The greatest sensitivity related to risk concerns for the hopper

dredging were concern for:

• Limited bid competition due to a shortage of hopper dredge plants

reflected in greater contractor profit.

• Fuel price fluctuations, which greatly impact dredging costs.

• Limited geotechnical data of underwater materials

• Scoping changes resulting in dredge quantity changes.

8

673
9

Pipeline Dredges: The greatest sensitivity related to risk concerns for the pipeline

dredging were concern for:

• Fuel price fluctuations that carry a greater risk for dredging activities.

• Limited bid competition resulting in greater contractor profits.

• Scoping changes resulting in dredge quantity changes.

674
ATTACHMENT 13.4 – Total Project Cost Summary

675
**** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY   Printed:10/7/2009

Page 1 of 16

PROJECT: LPP SNWW Feasibility Report DISTRICT: Galveston District PREPARED: 7-Oct-09

LOCATION: Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas & LA POC: Jackie Lockhart, Cost Engineer

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in feasibility report; Project Feasibility Report Cost ($1,000)

Estimate Prepared: 31-Jul-09 Program Year (Budget EC): 2012

Effective Price Level: 1-Oct-09 Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 11 FULLY FUNDED PROJECT ESTIMATE

Spent Thru:

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL 1 OCT 11 COST CNTG FULL

NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) ($K) ($K) ($K) ($K)

02 RELOCATIONS 31,921 9,706 30% 41,627 2.8% 32,830 9,983 42,813 - 34,753 10,564 45,317

06 FISH & WILDLIFE FACILITIES 59,608 17,883 30% 77,491 2.7% 61,220 18,366 79,586 - 64,699 19,410 84,10912 NAVIGATION PORTS & HARBORS

Non-Federal Cost 15,580 4,674 30% 20,254 2.7% 16,002 4,799 20,801 - 16,791 5,037 21,828

Federal Cost 579,495 178,767 31% 758,262 2.7% 595,162 183,601 778,763 - 628,569 193,887 822,456

18 CULTURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION 960 288 30% 1,248 2.7% 986 296 1,282 - 1,068 321 1,389 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ _________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: 687,564 211,318 898,882 706,200 217,045 923,245 745,880 229,219 975,099

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES

Non-Federal Cost 2,892 725 25% 3,617 3.1% 2,982 747 3,729 - 3,090 774 3,864

Federal Cost 595 149 25% 744 3.0% 613 153 766 - 643 159 802 - - - 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN 80,879 24,833 31% 105,712 2.7% 83,071 25,501 108,572 13,249 86,707 26,613 126,569

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 48,129 14,792 31% 62,921 2.7% 49,433 15,190 64,623 - 52,237 16,050 68,287 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ _________ ___________ __________ _______________ PROJECT COST TOTALS: 820,060 251,817 31% 1,071,877 842,299 258,636 1,100,935 13,249 888,557 272,815 1,174,621

CHIEF, Professional Services, Carl Anderson

ESTIMATED FEDERAL COST: 1,103,612

Project Management, Byron D. Williams ESTIMATED NON-FEDERAL COST: 71,009

CHIEF, REAL ESTATE, Orlando Rosa ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST: 1,174,621CHIEF, PLANNING, Dolan DunnCHIEF, ENGINEERING, Peter PerezCHIEF, OPERATIONS, Johnny RozypalCHIEF, CONSTRUCTION, John CurtisCHIEF, CONTRACTING, Thomas BeneroCHIEF, PM-J, William A. WiseCHIEF, DPM, Arthur Janecka

Filename: August 2009 TPCS.xlsTPCS

676
** ** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY   Printed:10/7/2009

Page 2 of 16

** ** CONTRACT COST SUMMARY  

PROJECT: LPP SNWW Feasibility Report DISTRICT: Galveston District PREPARED: 7-Oct-09

LOCATION: Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas & LA POC: Jackie Lockhart, Cost Engineer

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in feasibility report; Project Feasibility Report

Estimate Prepared: 2009(Jul - Sep) Program Year (Budget EC): 2012

Effective Price Level: 2011(Oct - Dec) Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 11 FULLY FUNDED PROJECT ESTIMATE

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid-Point ESC COST CNTG FULL

NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) Date (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)

Contract #1 - Sabine Bank Sta 165+000 to 132+000

02 RELOCATIONS 1,669 551 33% 2,220 2.8% 1,717 567 2,284 1,717 567 2,284

12 NAVIGATION PORTS & HARBORS 51,056 16,848 33% 67,904 2.7% 52,436 17,304 69,740 0.9% 52,885 17,452 70,337 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: 52,725 17,399 33% 70,124 54,153 17,871 72,024 54,602 18,019 72,621

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES - - - - 22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES - 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

1.0% Project Management 527 174 33% 701 2.7% 542 179 721 2012Q1 542 179 721

1.0% Planning & Environmental Compliance 527 174 33% 701 2.7% 542 179 721 2012Q1 542 179 721

5.0% Engineering & Design 2,636 870 33% 3,506 2.7% 2,708 894 3,602 2012Q1 2,708 894 3,6021.0% Engineering Tech Review ITR & VE 527 174 33% 701 2.7% 542 179 721 2012Q1 542 179 721

1.0% Contracting & Reprographics 527 174 33% 701 2.7% 542 179 721 2012Q1 542 179 721

2.0% Engineering During Construction 1,055 348 33% 1,403 2.7% 1,083 357 1,440 2012Q3 0.9% 1,092 360 1,452

0.1% Surveys - Hydro 28 9 33% 37 2.7% 29 9 38 2012Q3 0.9% 29 9 38

0.1% Soil Boring & Testing 40 13 33% 53 2.7% 41 13 54 2012Q1 41 13 54

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

6.0% Construction Management 3,164 1,044 33% 4,208 2.7% 3,249 1,072 4,321 2012Q3 0.9% 3,277 1,081 4,358

Project Operation:

1.0% Project Management 527 174 33% 701 2.7% 542 179 721 2012Q3 0.9% 547 181 728 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONTRACT COST TOTALS: 62,284 20,553 82,837 63,973 21,111 85,084 64,464 21,273 85,737

Filename: August 2009 TPCS.xlsTPCS

677
** ** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY   Printed:10/7/2009

Page 3 of 16

** ** CONTRACT COST SUMMARY  

PROJECT: LPP SNWW Feasibility Report DISTRICT: Galveston District PREPARED: 7-Oct-09

LOCATION: Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas & LA POC: Jackie Lockhart, Cost Engineer

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in feasibility report; Project Feasibility Report

Estimate Prepared: 2009(Jul - Sep) Program Year (Budget EC): 2012

Effective Price Level: 2011(Oct - Dec) Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 11 FULLY FUNDED PROJECT ESTIMATE

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid-Point ESC COST CNTG FULL

NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) Date (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)

Contract #2 - Sabine Bank Sta 132+00 to 95+734

12 NAVIGATION PORTS & HARBORS 24,449 8,068 33% 32,517 2.7% 25,110 8,286 33,396 2014Q1 3.6% 26,012 8,584 34,596 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: 24,449 8,068 33% 32,517 25,110 8,286 33,396 26,012 8,584 34,596

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES - - - - - - - 22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES - 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

1.0% Project Management 244 81 33% 325 2.7% 251 83 334 2013Q3 2.7% 258 85 3431.0% Planning & Environmental Compliance 244 81 33% 325 2.7% 251 83 334 2013Q3 2.7% 258 85 3435.0% Engineering & Design 1,222 403 33% 1,625 2.7% 1,256 414 1,670 2013Q3 2.7% 1,290 425 1,715

1.0% Engineering Tech Review & VE 244 81 33% 325 2.7% 251 83 334 2013Q3 2.7% 258 85 3431.0% Contracting & Reprographics 244 81 33% 325 2.7% 251 83 334 2013Q3 2.7% 258 85 3432.0% Engineering During Construction 489 161 33% 650 2.7% 502 165 667 2014Q1 3.6% 520 171 6910.1% Surveys - Hydro 30 10 33% 40 2.7% 31 10 41 2014Q1 3.6% 32 10 420.2% Soil Boring & Testing 40 13 33% 53 2.7% 41 13 54 2013Q3 2.7% 42 13 55

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

6.0% Construction Management 1,467 484 33% 1,951 2.7% 1,507 497 2,004 2014Q1 3.6% 1,561 515 2,076

Project Operation: - 1.0% Project Management 244 81 33% 325 2.7% 251 83 334 2014Q1 3.6% 260 86 346 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONTRACT COST TOTALS: 28,920 9,544 38,464 29,702 9,800 39,502 30,749 10,144 40,893

Filename: August 2009 TPCS.xlsTPCS

678
** ** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY   Printed:10/7/2009

Page 4 of 16

** ** CONTRACT COST SUMMARY  

PROJECT: LPP SNWW Feasibility Report DISTRICT: Galveston District PREPARED: 7-Oct-09

LOCATION: Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas & LA POC: Jackie Lockhart, Cost Engineer

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in feasibility report; Project Feasibility Report

Estimate Prepared: 2009(Jul - Sep) Program Year (Budget EC): 2012

Effective Price Level: 2011(Oct - Dec) Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 11 FULLY FUNDED PROJECT ESTIMATE

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid-Point ESC COST CNTG FULL

NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) Date (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)

Contract #3 -Sabine Bank Sta 95+734 to 53+000

02 RELOCATIONS 995 328 33% 1,323 2.8% 1,023 337 1,360 2014Q3 4.5% 1,069 352 1,42112 NAVIGATION PORTS & HARBORS 27,187 8,972 33% 36,159 2.7% 27,922 9,215 37,137 2015Q2 5.9% 29,579 9,762 39,341 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: 28,182 9,300 33% 37,482 28,945 9,552 38,497 30,648 10,114 40,762

30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

1.0% Project Management 282 93 33% 375 2.7% 289 96 385 2014Q3 4.5% 302 100 402

1.0% Planning & Environmental Compliance 282 93 33% 375 2.7% 289 96 385 2014Q3 4.5% 302 100 4025.0% Engineering & Design 1,409 465 33% 1,874 2.7% 1,447 478 1,925 2014Q3 4.5% 1,513 500 2,013

1.0% Engineering Tech Review & VE 282 93 33% 375 2.7% 289 96 385 2014Q3 4.5% 302 100 4021.0% Contracting & Reprographics 282 93 33% 375 2.7% 289 96 385 2014Q3 4.5% 302 100 4022.0% Engineering During Construction 564 186 33% 750 2.7% 579 191 770 2015Q2 5.9% 613 202 8150.1% Surveys - Hydro 25 8 33% 33 2.7% 26 8 34 2015Q2 5.9% 28 8 36

0.1% Soil Boring & Testing 23 8 33% 31 2.7% 24 8 32 2014Q3 4.5% 25 8 33

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

6.0% Construction Management 1,691 558 33% 2,249 2.7% 1,737 573 2,310 2015Q2 5.9% 1,840 607 2,447

Project Operation: - 1.0% Project Management 282 93 33% 375 2.7% 289 96 385 2015Q2 5.9% 306 102 408 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONTRACT COST TOTALS: 33,303 10,990 44,293 34,203 11,290 45,493 36,181 11,941 48,122

Filename: August 2009 TPCS.xlsTPCS

679
** ** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY   Printed:10/7/2009

Page 5 of 16

** ** CONTRACT COST SUMMARY  

PROJECT: LPP SNWW Feasibility Report DISTRICT: Galveston District PREPARED: 7-Oct-09

LOCATION: Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas & LA POC: Jackie Lockhart, Cost Engineer

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in feasibility report; Project Feasibility Report

Estimate Prepared: 2009(Jul - Sep) Program Year (Budget EC): 2012

Effective Price Level: 2011(Oct - Dec) Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 11 FULLY FUNDED PROJECT ESTIMATE

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid-Point ESC COST CNTG FULL

NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) Date (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)

Contract #4 - Sabine Pass Outer Bar Jetty Ch Sta 53+000 to 0+000

02 RELOCATIONS 1,657 547 33% 2,204 2.8% 1,704 563 2,267 2015Q3 6.4% 1,813 599 2,41212 NAVIGATION PORTS & HARBORS 45,723 15,089 33% 60,812 2.7% 46,959 15,497 62,456 2016Q4 8.8% 51,099 16,863 67,962 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: 47,380 15,636 33% 63,016 48,663 16,060 64,723 52,912 17,462 70,374

30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

1.0% Project Management 474 156 33% 630 2.7% 487 160 647 2015Q3 6.4% 518 170 688

1.0% Planning & Environmental Compliance 474 156 33% 630 2.7% 487 160 647 2015Q3 6.4% 518 170 6885.0% Engineering & Design 2,369 782 33% 3,151 2.7% 2,433 803 3,236 2015Q3 6.4% 2,589 855 3,444

1.0% Engineering Tech Review & VE 474 156 33% 630 2.7% 487 160 647 2015Q3 6.4% 518 170 6881.0% Contracting & Reprographics 474 156 33% 630 2.7% 487 160 647 2015Q3 6.4% 518 170 6882.0% Engineering During Construction 948 313 33% 1,261 2.7% 973 321 1,294 2016Q4 8.8% 1,059 349 1,4080.1% Surveys - Hydro 38 13 33% 51 2.7% 39 13 52 2016Q4 8.8% 42 14 560.1% Soil Boring & Testing 35 12 33% 47 2.7% 36 12 48 2015Q3 6.4% 38 13 51

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

6.0% Construction Management 2,843 938 33% 3,781 2.7% 2,920 963 3,883 2016Q4 8.8% 3,177 1,048 4,225

Project Operation: - 1.0% Project Management 474 156 33% 630 2.7% 487 160 647 2016Q4 8.8% 530 174 704 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONTRACT COST TOTALS: 55,981 18,474 74,455 57,499 18,972 76,471 62,419 20,595 83,014

Filename: August 2009 TPCS.xlsTPCS

680
** ** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY   Printed:10/7/2009

Page 6 of 16

** ** CONTRACT COST SUMMARY  

PROJECT: LPP SNWW Feasibility Report DISTRICT: Galveston District PREPARED: 7-Oct-09

LOCATION: Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas & LA POC: Jackie Lockhart, Cost Engineer

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in feasibility report; Project Feasibility Report

Estimate Prepared: 2009(Jul - Sep) Program Year (Budget EC): 2012

Effective Price Level: 2011(Oct - Dec) Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 11 FULLY FUNDED PROJECT ESTIMATE

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid-Point ESC COST CNTG FULL

NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) Date (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)

Contract #5 - Sabine Pass Outer Bar Jetty Ch Sta -214+88 to 0+00

12 NAVIGATION PORTS & HARBORS 15,499 5,115 33% 20,614 2.7% 15,918 5,253 21,171 2017Q3 10.3% 17,554 5,793 23,347 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: 15,499 5,115 33% 20,614 15,918 5,253 21,171 17,554 5,793 23,347

22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES - 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

1.0% Project Management 155 51 33% 206 2.7% 159 52 211 2017Q1 9.3% 174 57 2311.0% Planning & Environmental Compliance 155 51 33% 206 2.7% 159 52 211 2017Q1 9.3% 174 57 2315.0% Engineering & Design 775 256 33% 1,031 2.7% 796 263 1,059 2017Q1 9.3% 870 287 1,1571.0% Engineering Tech Review ITR & VE 155 51 33% 206 2.7% 159 52 211 2017Q1 9.3% 174 57 2311.0% Contracting & Reprographics 155 51 33% 206 2.7% 159 52 211 2017Q1 9.3% 174 57 2312.0% Engineering During Construction 310 102 33% 412 2.7% 318 105 423 2017Q3 10.3% 351 116 4670.3% Surveys - Hydro 50 17 33% 67 2.7% 51 17 68 2017Q3 10.3% 56 19 750.3% Soil Boring & Testing 46 15 33% 61 2.7% 47 15 62 2017Q1 9.3% 51 16 67

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

6.0% Construction Management 930 307 33% 1,237 2.7% 955 315 1,270 2017Q3 10.3% 1,053 347 1,400

Project Operation:

1.0% Project Management 155 51 33% 206 2.7% 159 52 211 2017Q3 10.3% 175 57 232 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONTRACT COST TOTALS: 18,385 6,067 24,452 18,880 6,228 25,108 20,806 6,863 27,669

Filename: August 2009 TPCS.xlsTPCS

681
** ** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY   Printed:10/7/2009

Page 7 of 16

** ** CONTRACT COST SUMMARY  

PROJECT: LPP SNWW Feasibility Report DISTRICT: Galveston District PREPARED: 7-Oct-09

LOCATION: Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas & LA POC: Jackie Lockhart, Cost Engineer

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in feasibility report; Project Feasibility Report

Estimate Prepared: 2009(Jul - Sep) Program Year (Budget EC): 2012

Effective Price Level: 2011(Oct - Dec) Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 11 FULLY FUNDED PROJECT ESTIMATE

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid-Point ESC COST CNTG FULL

NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) Date (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)

Contract #6 - Sabine Pass Ch Sta 0+00 to 295+60

02 RELOCATIONS 2,936 881 30% 3,817 2.8% 3,020 906 3,926 2016Q3 8.3% 3,272 981 4,25312 NAVIGATION PORTS & HARBORS 36,885 11,066 30% 47,951 2.7% 37,882 11,365 49,247 2017Q1 9.3% 41,401 12,421 53,82218 CULTURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION 960 288 30% 1,248 2.7% 986 296 1,282 2016Q3 8.3% 1,068 321 1,389 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: 40,781 12,235 30% 53,016 41,888 12,567 54,455 45,741 13,723 59,464

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES - - - - - - - Non-Fed Cost 827 207 25% 1,034 4.2% 862 216 1,078 2016Q1 7.4% 925 232 1,157

Federal cost 102 26 25% 128 4.2% 106 27 133 2016Q1 7.4% 114 29 143

30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

1.0% Project Management 408 122 30% 530 2.7% 419 125 544 2016Q3 6.7% 447 133 5801.0% Planning & Environmental Compliance 408 122 30% 530 2.7% 419 125 544 2016Q3 6.7% 447 133 5805.0% Engineering & Design 2,039 612 30% 2,651 2.7% 2,094 629 2,723 2016Q3 6.7% 2,235 671 2,906

1.0% Engineering Tech Review & VE 408 122 30% 530 2.7% 419 125 544 2016Q3 6.7% 447 133 5801.0% Contracting & Reprographics 408 122 30% 530 2.7% 419 125 544 2016Q3 6.7% 447 133 5802.0% Engineering During Construction 816 245 30% 1,061 2.7% 838 252 1,090 2017Q1 9.3% 916 275 1,1911.0% Surveys - Hydro 405 122 30% 527 2.7% 416 125 541 2017Q1 9.3% 455 137 5921.0% Surveys - Land 405 122 30% 527 2.7% 416 125 541 2017Q1 9.3% 455 137 5920.2% Soil Boring & Testing 90 27 30% 117 2.7% 92 28 120 2016Q3 6.7% 98 30 128

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

6.0% Construction Management 2,447 734 30% 3,181 2.7% 2,513 754 3,267 2017Q1 9.3% 2,746 824 3,570

Project Operation: - 1.0% Project Management 408 122 30% 530 2.7% 419 125 544 2017Q1 9.3% 458 137 595 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONTRACT COST TOTALS: 49,951 14,940 64,891 51,320 15,348 66,668 55,931 16,727 72,658

Filename: August 2009 TPCS.xlsTPCS

682
** ** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY   Printed:10/7/2009

Page 8 of 16

** ** CONTRACT COST SUMMARY  

PROJECT: LPP SNWW Feasibility Report DISTRICT: Galveston District PREPARED: 7-Oct-09

LOCATION: Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas & LA POC: Jackie Lockhart, Cost Engineer

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in feasibility report; Project Feasibility Report

Estimate Prepared: 2009(Jul - Sep) Program Year (Budget EC): 2012

Effective Price Level: 2011(Oct - Dec) Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 11 FULLY FUNDED PROJECT ESTIMATE

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid-Point ESC COST CNTG FULL

NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) Date (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)

Contract #7 -Pt Arthur Canal & Taylor Bayou

12 NAVIGATION PORTS & HARBORS - Non-Fed Cost 880 264 30% 1,144 2.7% 904 271 1,175 2013Q4 3.1% 932 280 1,212

Federal cost 76,059 22,818 30% 98,877 2.7% 78,115 23,435 101,550 2013Q4 3.1% 80,571 24,172 104,743 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: 76,939 23,082 30% 100,021 79,019 23,706 102,725 81,503 24,452 105,955

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES - - - - - - - Non-Fed Cost 639 160 25% 799 2.7% 656 164 820 2012Q4 1.3% 664 166 830

Federal cost 64 16 25% 80 2.7% 66 16 82 2012Q4 1.3% 67 16 83

22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES - 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

1.0% Project Management 769 231 30% 1,000 2.7% 790 237 1,027 2012Q1 790 237 1,027

1.0% Planning & Environmental Compliance 769 231 30% 1,000 2.7% 790 237 1,027 2012Q1 790 237 1,027

5.0% Engineering & Design 3,847 1,154 30% 5,001 2.7% 3,951 1,185 5,136 2012Q1 3,951 1,185 5,136

1.0% Engineering Tech Review & VE 769 231 30% 1,000 2.7% 790 237 1,027 2012Q1 790 237 1,027

1.0% Contracting & Reprographics 769 231 30% 1,000 2.7% 790 237 1,027 2012Q1 790 237 1,027

2.0% Engineering During Construction 1,539 462 30% 2,001 2.7% 1,580 474 2,054 2013Q4 3.1% 1,630 489 2,119

Planning During Construction 30% - 0.9% Surveys - Hydro 353 106 30% 459 2.7% 363 109 472 2013Q4 3.1% 374 112 486

0.9% Surveys - Land 353 106 30% 459 2.7% 363 109 472 2013Q4 3.1% 374 112 486

0.2% Soil Boring & Testing 96 29 30% 125 2.7% 99 30 129 2012Q1 99 30 129

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

6.0% Construction Management 4,616 1,385 30% 6,001 2.7% 4,741 1,422 6,163 2013Q4 3.1% 4,890 1,467 6,357

Project Operation: - 1.0% Project Management 769 231 30% 1,000 2.7% 790 237 1,027 2013Q4 3.1% 815 244 1,059 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONTRACT COST TOTALS: 92,293 27,655 119,948 94,788 28,400 123,188 97,527 29,221 126,748

Filename: August 2009 TPCS.xlsTPCS

683
** ** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY   Printed:10/7/2009

Page 9 of 16

** ** CONTRACT COST SUMMARY  

PROJECT: LPP SNWW Feasibility Report DISTRICT: Galveston District PREPARED: 7-Oct-09

LOCATION: Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas & LA POC: Jackie Lockhart, Cost Engineer

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in feasibility report; Project Feasibility Report

Estimate Prepared: 2009(Jul - Sep) Program Year (Budget EC): 2012

Effective Price Level: 2011(Oct - Dec) Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 11 FULLY FUNDED PROJECT ESTIMATE

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid-Point ESC COST CNTG FULL

NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) Date (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)

Contract #8 - Sabine Neches Canal Sta 0+00 tp 170+00

02 RELOCATIONS 694 208 30% 902 2.8% 714 214 928 2017Q1 9.3% 780 234 1,01412 NAVIGATION PORTS & HARBORS 33,596 10,079 30% 43,675 2.7% 34,504 10,352 44,856 2018Q2 11.8% 38,562 11,569 50,131 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: 34,290 10,287 30% 44,577 35,218 10,566 45,784 39,342 11,803 51,145

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES - - - - - - - Non-Fed Cost 70 18 25% 88 2.7% 72 18 90 2017Q2 9.8% 79 20 99

Federal cost 60 15 25% 75 2.7% 62 15 77 2017Q2 9.8% 68 16 84

22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES - 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

1.0% Project Management 343 103 30% 446 2.7% 352 106 458 2017Q2 9.8% 386 116 5021.0% Planning & Environmental Compliance 343 103 30% 446 2.7% 352 106 458 2017Q2 9.8% 386 116 5025.0% Engineering & Design 1,715 514 30% 2,229 2.7% 1,761 528 2,289 2017Q2 9.8% 1,933 580 2,513

1.0% Engineering Tech Review & VE 343 103 30% 446 2.7% 352 106 458 2017Q2 9.8% 386 116 5021.0% Contracting & Reprographics 343 103 30% 446 2.7% 352 106 458 2017Q2 9.8% 386 116 5022.0% Engineering During Construction 686 206 30% 892 2.7% 704 212 916 2018Q2 11.8% 787 237 1,0240.1% Surveys - Hydro 13 4 30% 17 2.7% 13 4 17 2017Q2 11.8% 15 4 19

0.3% Soil Boring & Testing 52 16 30% 68 2.7% 53 16 69 2018Q2 9.8% 58 18 76

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

6.0% Construction Management 2,057 617 30% 2,674 2.7% 2,113 634 2,747 2018Q2 11.8% 2,361 709 3,070

Project Operation: - 1.0% Project Management 343 103 30% 446 2.7% 352 106 458 2018Q2 11.8% 393 118 511 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONTRACT COST TOTALS: 40,657 12,192 52,849 41,756 12,523 54,279 46,580 13,969 60,549

Filename: August 2009 TPCS.xlsTPCS

684
** ** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY   Printed:10/7/2009

Page 10 of 16

** ** CONTRACT COST SUMMARY  

PROJECT: LPP SNWW Feasibility Report DISTRICT: Galveston District PREPARED: 7-Oct-09

LOCATION: Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas & LA POC: Jackie Lockhart, Cost Engineer

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in feasibility report; Project Feasibility Report

Estimate Prepared: 2009(Jul - Sep) Program Year (Budget EC): 2012

Effective Price Level: 2011(Oct - Dec) Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 11 FULLY FUNDED PROJECT ESTIMATE

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid-Point ESC COST CNTG FULL

NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) Date (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)

Contract #9 - Sabine Neches Canal Sta 170+00 to 592+93

02 RELOCATIONS 561 168 30% 729 2.8% 577 173 750 2014Q1 6.8% 616 185 80112 NAVIGATION PORTS & HARBORS 51,403 15,421 30% 66,824 2.7% 52,793 15,838 68,631 2015Q3 6.4% 56,179 16,854 73,033 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: 51,964 15,589 30% 67,553 53,370 16,011 69,381 56,795 17,039 73,834

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES - - - - - - - Non-Fed Cost 70 18 25% 88 2.7% 72 18 90 2014Q3 4.5% 75 19 94

Federal cost 60 15 25% 75 2.7% 62 15 77 2014Q3 4.5% 65 16 81

22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES - 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

1.0% Project Management 520 156 30% 676 2.7% 534 160 694 2014Q1 3.6% 553 166 7191.0% Planning & Environmental Compliance 520 156 30% 676 2.7% 534 160 694 2014Q1 3.6% 553 166 7195.0% Engineering & Design 2,598 779 30% 3,377 2.7% 2,668 800 3,468 2014Q1 3.6% 2,764 829 3,593

1.0% Engineering Tech Review & VE 520 156 30% 676 2.7% 534 160 694 2014Q1 3.6% 553 166 7191.0% Contracting & Reprographics 520 156 30% 676 2.7% 534 160 694 2014Q1 3.6% 553 166 7192.0% Engineering During Construction 1,039 312 30% 1,351 2.7% 1,067 320 1,387 2015Q3 6.4% 1,135 341 1,476

0.2% Surveys - Hydro 80 24 30% 104 2.7% 82 25 107 2015Q3 6.4% 87 27 114

0.2% Surveys - Land 80 24 30% 104 2.7% 82 25 107 2015Q3 6.4% 87 27 114

0.1% Soil Boring & Testing 70 21 30% 91 2.7% 72 22 94 2014Q1 3.6% 75 23 98

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

6.0% Construction Management 3,118 935 30% 4,053 2.7% 3,202 960 4,162 2015Q3 6.4% 3,407 1,022 4,429

Project Operation: - 1.0% Project Management 520 156 30% 676 2.7% 534 160 694 2015Q3 6.4% 568 170 738 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONTRACT COST TOTALS: 61,678 18,497 80,175 63,347 18,996 82,343 67,270 20,177 87,447

Filename: August 2009 TPCS.xlsTPCS

685
** ** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY   Printed:10/7/2009

Page 11 of 16

** ** CONTRACT COST SUMMARY  

PROJECT: LPP SNWW Feasibility Report DISTRICT: Galveston District PREPARED: 7-Oct-09

LOCATION: Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas & LA POC: Jackie Lockhart, Cost Engineer

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in feasibility report; Project Feasibility Report

Estimate Prepared: 2009(Jul - Sep) Program Year (Budget EC): 2012

Effective Price Level: 2011(Oct - Dec) Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 11 FULLY FUNDED PROJECT ESTIMATE

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid-Point ESC COST CNTG FULL

NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) Date (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)

Contract #10 - Neches River Channel Sta 0+00 to 292+00

02 RELOCATIONS 7,729 2,319 30% 10,048 2.8% 7,949 2,385 10,334 2012Q3 0.9% 8,017 2,405 10,42212 NAVIGATION PORTS & HARBORS

Non-Fed Cost 1,398 419 30% 1,817 2.7% 1,436 430 1,866 2013Q3 2.7% 1,475 442 1,917Federal cost 63,864 19,159 30% 83,023 2.7% 65,591 19,677 85,268 2013Q3 2.7% 67,351 20,205 87,556 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: 72,991 21,897 30% 94,888 74,976 22,492 97,468 76,843 23,052 99,895

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES - - - - - - - Non-Fed Cost 110 28 25% 138 2.7% 113 29 142 2012Q3 0.9% 114 29 143

Federal cost 85 21 25% 106 2.7% 87 22 109 2012Q3 0.9% 88 22 110

22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES - 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

1.0% Project Management 730 219 30% 949 2.7% 750 225 975 2012Q3 0.9% 756 227 9831.0% Planning & Environmental Compliance 730 219 30% 949 2.7% 750 225 975 2012Q3 0.9% 756 227 9835.0% Engineering & Design 3,650 1,095 30% 4,745 2.7% 3,748 1,125 4,873 2012Q3 0.9% 3,780 1,135 4,915

1.0% Engineering Tech Review & VE 730 219 30% 949 2.7% 750 225 975 2012Q3 0.9% 756 227 9831.0% Contracting & Reprographics 730 219 30% 949 2.7% 750 225 975 2012Q3 0.9% 756 227 9832.0% Engineering During Construction 1,460 438 30% 1,898 2.7% 1,499 450 1,949 2013Q3 2.7% 1,539 462 2,001

0.3% Surveys - Hydro 213 64 30% 277 2.7% 219 66 285 2013Q3 2.7% 225 68 2930.3% Surveys - Land 213 64 30% 277 2.7% 219 66 285 2013Q3 2.7% 225 68 293

0.2% Soil Boring & Testing 179 54 30% 233 2.7% 184 55 239 2012Q3 0.9% 186 55 241

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

6.0% Construction Management 4,379 1,314 30% 5,693 2.7% 4,498 1,350 5,848 2013Q3 2.7% 4,619 1,386 6,005

Project Operation: - 1.0% Project Management 730 219 30% 949 2.7% 750 225 975 2013Q3 2.7% 770 231 1,001 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONTRACT COST TOTALS: 86,929 26,070 112,999 89,293 26,780 116,073 91,413 27,416 118,829

Filename: August 2009 TPCS.xlsTPCS

686
** ** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY   Printed:10/7/2009

Page 12 of 16

** ** CONTRACT COST SUMMARY  

PROJECT: LPP SNWW Feasibility Report DISTRICT: Galveston District PREPARED: 7-Oct-09

LOCATION: Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas & LA POC: Jackie Lockhart, Cost Engineer

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in feasibility report; Project Feasibility Report

Estimate Prepared: 2009(Jul - Sep) Program Year (Budget EC): 2012

Effective Price Level: 2011(Oct - Dec) Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 11 FULLY FUNDED PROJECT ESTIMATE

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid-Point ESC COST CNTG FULL

NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) Date (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)

Contract #11 - Neches River Channel Sta 292+00 to 716+00

02 RELOCATIONS 15,680 4,704 30% 20,384 2.8% 16,126 4,838 20,964 2016Q3 8.3% 17,469 5,241 22,71012 NAVIGATION PORTS & HARBORS

Non-Fed Cost 5,237 1,571 30% 6,808 2.7% 5,379 1,613 6,992 2017Q1 9.3% 5,879 1,763 7,642Federal cost 76,728 23,018 30% 99,746 2.7% 78,803 23,640 102,443 2017Q1 9.3% 86,123 25,836 111,959 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: 97,645 29,293 30% 126,938 100,308 30,091 130,399 109,471 32,840 142,311

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES - - - - - - - Non-Fed Cost 233 58 25% 291 2.7% 239 60 299 2016Q1 7.4% 257 64 321

Federal cost 127 32 25% 159 2.7% 130 33 163 2016Q1 7.4% 140 35 175

22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES - 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

1.0% Project Management 976 293 30% 1,269 2.7% 1,003 301 1,304 2016Q3 8.3% 1,087 326 1,413

1.0% Planning & Environmental Compliance 976 293 30% 1,269 2.7% 1,003 301 1,304 2016Q3 8.3% 1,087 326 1,413

5.0% Engineering & Design 4,882 1,465 30% 6,347 2.7% 5,014 1,505 6,519 2016Q3 8.3% 5,432 1,630 7,062

1.0% Engineering Tech Review & VE 976 293 30% 1,269 2.7% 1,003 301 1,304 2016Q3 8.3% 1,087 326 1,413

1.0% Contracting & Reprographics 976 293 30% 1,269 2.7% 1,003 301 1,304 2016Q3 8.3% 1,087 326 1,413

2.0% Engineering During Construction 1,953 586 30% 2,539 2.7% 2,006 602 2,608 2017Q1 9.3% 2,192 658 2,850

0.3% Surveys - Hydro 278 83 30% 361 2.7% 286 85 371 2017Q1 9.3% 313 93 4060.3% Surveys - Land 278 83 30% 361 2.7% 286 85 371 2017Q1 9.3% 313 93 406

0.3% Soil Boring & Testing 327 98 30% 425 2.7% 336 101 437 2016Q3 8.3% 364 109 473

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

6.0% Construction Management 5,859 1,758 30% 7,617 2.7% 6,017 1,806 7,823 2017Q1 9.3% 6,576 1,974 8,550

Project Operation: - 1.0% Project Management 976 293 30% 1,269 2.7% 1,003 301 1,304 2017Q1 9.3% 1,096 329 1,425 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONTRACT COST TOTALS: 116,464 34,921 151,385 119,637 35,873 155,510 130,502 39,129 169,631

Filename: August 2009 TPCS.xlsTPCS

687
** ** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY   Printed:10/7/2009

Page 13 of 16

** ** CONTRACT COST SUMMARY  

PROJECT: LPP SNWW Feasibility Report DISTRICT: Galveston District PREPARED: 7-Oct-09

LOCATION: Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas & LA POC: Jackie Lockhart, Cost Engineer

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in feasibility report; Project Feasibility Report

Estimate Prepared: 2009(Jul - Sep) Program Year (Budget EC): 2012

Effective Price Level: 2011(Oct - Dec) Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 11 FULLY FUNDED PROJECT ESTIMATE

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid-Point ESC COST CNTG FULL

NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) Date (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)

Contract #12 - Neches River Channel Sta 292+00 to 716+00

12 NAVIGATION PORTS & HARBORS

Non-Fed Cost 8,065 2,420 30% 10,485 2.7% 8,283 2,485 10,768 2013Q3 2.7% 8,505 2,552 11,057Federal cost 77,046 23,114 30% 100,160 2.7% 79,129 23,739 102,868 2013Q3 2.7% 81,253 24,376 105,629 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: 85,111 25,534 30% 110,645 87,412 26,224 113,636 89,758 26,928 116,686

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES - - - - - - - Non-Fed Cost 943 236 25% 1,179 2.7% 968 242 1,210 2012Q3 0.9% 976 244 1,220

Federal cost 97 24 25% 121 2.7% 100 25 125 2012Q3 0.9% 101 25 126

30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

1.0% Project Management 851 255 30% 1,106 2.7% 874 262 1,136 2013Q1 1.8% 889 267 1,156

1.0% Planning & Environmental Compliance 851 255 30% 1,106 2.7% 874 262 1,136 2013Q1 1.8% 889 267 1,1565.0% Engineering & Design 4,256 1,277 30% 5,533 2.7% 4,371 1,312 5,683 2013Q1 1.8% 4,448 1,335 5,7831.0% Engineering Tech Review & VE 851 255 30% 1,106 2.7% 874 262 1,136 2013Q1 1.8% 889 267 1,1561.0% Contracting & Reprographics 851 255 30% 1,106 2.7% 874 262 1,136 2013Q1 1.8% 889 267 1,1562.0% Engineering During Construction 1,702 511 30% 2,213 2.7% 1,748 525 2,273 2013Q3 2.7% 1,795 539 2,334

0.2% Surveys - Hydro 153 46 30% 199 2.7% 157 47 204 2013Q3 2.7% 161 48 2090.2% Surveys - Land 153 46 30% 199 2.7% 157 47 204 2013Q3 2.7% 161 48 2090.2% Soil Boring & Testing 153 46 30% 199 2.7% 157 47 204 2013Q1 1.8% 160 48 208

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

6.0% Construction Management 5,107 1,532 30% 6,639 2.7% 5,245 1,573 6,818 2013Q3 2.7% 5,386 1,615 7,001

Project Operation: - 1.0% Project Management 851 255 30% 1,106 2.7% 874 262 1,136 2013Q3 2.7% 897 269 1,166 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONTRACT COST TOTALS: 101,930 30,527 132,457 104,685 31,352 136,037 107,399 32,167 139,566

Filename: August 2009 TPCS.xlsTPCS

688
** ** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY   Printed:10/7/2009

Page 14 of 16

** ** CONTRACT COST SUMMARY  

PROJECT: LPP SNWW Feasibility Report DISTRICT: Galveston District PREPARED: 7-Oct-09

LOCATION: Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas & LA POC: Jackie Lockhart, Cost Engineer

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in feasibility report; Project Feasibility Report

Estimate Prepared: 2009(Jul - Sep) Program Year (Budget EC): 2012

Effective Price Level: 2011(Oct - Dec) Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 11 FULLY FUNDED PROJECT ESTIMATE

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid-Point ESC COST CNTG FULL

NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) Date (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)

Contract #13 - Dredging Sabine Lake

06 FISH & WILDLIFE FACILITIES 21,496 6,449 30% 27,945 2.7% 22,077 6,623 28,700 2016Q2 7.8% 23,808 7,142 30,950 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: 21,496 6,449 30% 27,945 22,077 6,623 28,700 23,808 7,142 30,950

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES - - - - - - - 22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES - 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

1.0% Project Management 215 64 30% 279 2.7% 221 66 287 2015Q4 6.9% 236 71 307

1.0% Planning & Environmental Compliance 215 64 30% 279 2.7% 221 66 287 2015Q4 6.9% 236 71 3075.0% Engineering & Design 1,075 322 30% 1,397 2.7% 1,104 331 1,435 2015Q4 6.9% 1,180 354 1,534

1.0% Engineering Tech Review & VE 215 64 30% 279 2.7% 221 66 287 2015Q4 6.9% 236 71 3071.0% Contracting & Reprographics 215 64 30% 279 2.7% 221 66 287 2015Q4 6.9% 236 71 3072.0% Engineering During Construction 430 129 30% 559 2.7% 442 132 574 2016Q2 7.8% 477 142 6190.6% Surveys - Hydro 130 39 30% 169 2.7% 134 40 174 2016Q2 7.8% 145 43 1880.6% Surveys - Land 130 39 30% 169 2.7% 134 40 174 2016Q2 7.8% 145 43 1880.4% Soil Boring & Testing 76 23 30% 99 2.7% 78 24 102 2015Q4 6.9% 83 26 109

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

6.0% Construction Management 1,290 387 30% 1,677 2.7% 1,325 397 1,722 2016Q2 7.8% 1,429 428 1,857

Project Operation: - 1.0% Project Management 215 64 30% 279 2.7% 221 66 287 2016Q2 7.8% 238 71 309 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONTRACT COST TOTALS: 25,701 7,708 33,409 26,399 7,917 34,316 28,449 8,533 36,982

Filename: August 2009 TPCS.xlsTPCS

689
** ** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY   Printed:10/7/2009

Page 15 of 16

** ** CONTRACT COST SUMMARY  

PROJECT: LPP SNWW Feasibility Report DISTRICT: Galveston District PREPARED: 7-Oct-09

LOCATION: Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas & LA POC: Jackie Lockhart, Cost Engineer

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in feasibility report; Project Feasibility Report

Estimate Prepared: 2009(Jul - Sep) Program Year (Budget EC): 2012

Effective Price Level: 2011(Oct - Dec) Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 11 FULLY FUNDED PROJECT ESTIMATE

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid-Point ESC COST CNTG FULL

NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) Date (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)

Contract #14 - Channel to Orange

06 FISH & WILDLIFE FACILITIES 907 272 30% 1,179 2.7% 932 279 1,211 2013Q1 1.8% 948 284 1,232 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: 907 272 30% 1,179 932 279 1,211 948 284 1,232

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES - - - - - - - 22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES - 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

1.0% Project Management 9 3 30% 12 2.7% 9 3 12 2012Q3 0.9% 9 3 12

1.0% Planning & Environmental Compliance 9 3 30% 12 2.7% 9 3 12 2012Q3 0.9% 9 3 125.0% Engineering & Design 45 14 30% 59 2.7% 47 14 61 2012Q3 0.9% 47 14 611.0% Engineering Tech Review & VE 9 3 30% 12 2.7% 9 3 12 2012Q3 0.9% 9 3 121.0% Contracting & Reprographics 9 3 30% 12 2.7% 9 3 12 2012Q3 0.9% 9 3 122.0% Engineering During Construction 18 5 30% 23 2.7% 19 5 24 2013Q1 1.8% 19 5 24

0.2% Surveys - Land 40 12 30% 52 2.7% 41 12 53 2013Q1 1.8% 42 12 540.7% Soil Boring & Testing 153 46 30% 199 2.7% 157 47 204 2012Q3 0.9% 158 47 205

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

6.0% Construction Management 54 16 30% 70 2.7% 56 16 72 2013Q1 1.8% 57 16 73

Project Operation: - 1.0% Project Management 9 3 30% 12 2.7% 9 3 12 2013Q1 1.8% 9 3 12 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONTRACT COST TOTALS: 1,263 380 1,643 1,297 388 1,685 1,316 393 1,709

Filename: August 2009 TPCS.xlsTPCS

690
** ** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY   Printed:10/7/2009

Page 16 of 16

** ** CONTRACT COST SUMMARY ****

PROJECT: LPP SNWW Feasibility Report DISTRICT: Galveston District PREPARED: 7-Oct-09

LOCATION: Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas & LA POC: Jackie Lockhart, Cost Engineer

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in feasibility report; Project Feasibility Report

Estimate Prepared: 2009(Jul - Sep) Program Year (Budget EC): 2012

Effective Price Level: 2011(Oct - Dec) Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 11 FULLY FUNDED PROJECT ESTIMATE

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid-Point ESC COST CNTG FULL

NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) Date (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)

Contract #15 - GIWW East of Orange

06 FISH & WILDLIFE FACILITIES 37,205 11,162 30% 48,367 2.7% 38,211 11,464 49,675 2014Q3 4.5% 39,943 11,984 51,927 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: 37,205 11,162 30% 48,367 38,211 11,464 49,675 39,943 11,984 51,927

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES - - - - - - - 22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES - 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

1.0% Project Management 372 112 30% 484 2.7% 382 115 497 2014Q1 3.6% 396 119 515

1.0% Planning & Environmental Compliance 372 112 30% 484 2.7% 382 115 497 2014Q1 3.6% 396 119 5155.0% Engineering & Design 1,860 558 30% 2,418 2.7% 1,911 573 2,484 2014Q1 3.6% 1,980 594 2,574

1.0% Engineering Tech Review & VE 372 112 30% 484 2.7% 382 115 497 2014Q1 3.6% 396 119 5151.0% Contracting & Reprographics 372 112 30% 484 2.7% 382 115 497 2014Q1 3.6% 396 119 5152.0% Engineering During Construction 744 223 30% 967 2.7% 764 229 993 2014Q3 4.5% 799 239 1,0380.6% Surveys - Hydro 133 40 30% 173 2.7% 137 41 178 2014Q3 4.5% 143 43 1860.6% Surveys - Land 133 40 30% 173 2.7% 137 41 178 2014Q3 4.5% 143 43 1860.7% Soil Boring & Testing 153 46 30% 199 2.7% 157 47 204 2014Q1 3.6% 163 49 212

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

6.0% Construction Management 2,232 670 30% 2,902 2.7% 2,293 688 2,981 2014Q3 4.5% 2,397 719 3,116

Project Operation: - 1.0% Project Management 372 112 30% 484 2.7% 382 115 497 2014Q3 4.5% 399 120 519 __________ __________ _____________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ __________ _______________ CONTRACT COST TOTALS: 44,321 13,299 57,620 45,520 13,658 59,178 47,551 14,267 61,818

Filename: August 2009 TPCS.xlsTPCS

691
ATTACHMENT 13.5 – ITR Certification of Cost Estimate

692
693
ATTACHMENT 13.6 – 50 year O&M

694
12/15/2009

1:25 PM SABINE NECHES WATERWAY

50 Year O&M Cost Estimates

FEASIBILITY REPORT

October 2009 Price Levels 16-Jul-09

Cont 1, Sect D Cont 1, Sect C Cont 2, Sect B Cont 2, Sect C Cont 3, Sect 1 Cont 4, Sect 2 Cont 4, Sect 3 Cont 5, Sect 4

O&M Costs

Year 1 23,146,350Year 2 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 3 23,146,350Year 4 3,951,450 4,729,563 4,642,063 4,706,563 7,168,800 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 5 23,146,350 11,491,050Year 6 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 7 23,146,350Year 8 3,951,450 4,729,563 4,642,063 4,706,563 7,168,800 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 9 23,146,350Year 10 14,195,088 23,146,350 11,491,050Year 11 23,146,350Year 12 3,951,450 4,729,563 4,642,063 4,706,563 7,168,800 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 13 23,146,350Year 14 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 15 23,146,350 11,491,050Year 16 3,951,450 4,729,563 4,642,063 4,706,563 7,168,800 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 17 23,146,350Year 18 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 19 23,146,350Year 20 3,951,450 4,729,563 4,642,063 4,706,563 7,168,800 14,195,088 23,146,350 11,491,050Year 21 23,146,350Year 22 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 23 23,146,350Year 24 3,951,450 4,729,563 4,642,063 4,706,563 7,168,800 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 25 23,146,350 11,491,050Year 26 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 27 23,146,350Year 28 3,951,450 4,729,563 4,642,063 4,706,563 7,168,800 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 29 23,146,350Year 30 14,195,088 23,146,350 11,491,050Year 31 23,146,350Year 32 3,951,450 4,729,563 4,642,063 4,706,563 7,168,800 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 33 23,146,350Year 34 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 35 23,146,350 11,491,050Year 36 3,951,450 4,729,563 4,642,063 4,706,563 7,168,800 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 37 23,146,350

695
12/15/2009

1:25 PM SABINE NECHES WATERWAY

50 Year O&M Cost Estimates

FEASIBILITY REPORT

October 2009 Price Levels 16-Jul-09

Year 38 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 39 23,146,350Year 40 3,951,450 4,729,563 4,642,063 4,706,563 7,168,800 14,195,088 23,146,350 11,491,050Year 41 23,146,350Year 42 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 43 23,146,350Year 44 3,951,450 4,729,563 4,642,063 4,706,563 7,168,800 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 45 23,146,350 11,491,050Year 46 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 47 23,146,350Year 48 3,951,450 4,729,563 4,642,063 4,706,563 7,168,800 14,195,088 23,146,350Year 49 23,146,350Year 50 14,195,088 23,146,350 11,491,050

TOTAL O&M: 47,417,400 $ 56,754,756 $ 55,704,756 $ 56,478,756 $ 86,025,600 $ 354,877,200 $ 1,157,317,500 $ 114,910,500 $

696
12/15/2009

1:25 PM

16-Jul-09

O&M Costs Cont 6, Sect 5 Cont 6, Sect 6 Cont 7, Sect 7 & 8 Cont 8, Sect 9 Cont 9, Sect 10

Year 1Year 2 11,674,475 13,483,950Year 3 5,998,834 3,795,355 11,781,573Year 4 11,674,475 13,483,950 15,633,038Year 5Year 6 5,998,834 3,795,355 25,865,236 13,483,950Year 7Year 8 11,674,475 13,483,950 13,555,575Year 9 5,998,834 3,795,355 11,781,573Year 10 11,674,475 13,483,950Year 11Year 12 5,998,834 4,640,280 25,265,523 13,483,950 13,555,575Year 13Year 14 12,810,570 13,483,950Year 15 5,998,834 4,601,556 11,781,573Year 16 11,674,475 13,483,950 13,555,575Year 17Year 18 5,998,834 5,271,667 25,265,523 13,483,950Year 19Year 20 11,674,475 13,483,950 15,633,038Year 21 5,998,834 3,795,355 11,781,573Year 22 12,924,638 13,483,950Year 23Year 24 5,998,834 3,795,355 25,265,523 13,483,950 13,555,575Year 25Year 26 11,674,475 13,483,950Year 27 5,998,834 3,795,355 11,781,573Year 28 12,810,570 13,483,950 13,555,575Year 29Year 30 5,998,834 3,795,355 25,865,236 13,483,950Year 31Year 32 11,674,475 13,483,950 13,555,575Year 33 5,998,834 4,640,280 11,781,573Year 34 11,674,475 13,483,950Year 35Year 36 5,998,834 5,271,667 25,265,523 13,483,950 13,555,575Year 37Year 38 11,674,475 13,483,950Year 39 5,998,834 3,795,355 11,781,573

SABINE NECHES WATERWAY

50 Year O&M Cost Estimates

FEASIBILITY REPORT

October 2009 Price Levels

697
12/15/2009

1:25 PM

16-Jul-09

SABINE NECHES WATERWAY

50 Year O&M Cost Estimates

FEASIBILITY REPORT

October 2009 Price Levels

Year 40 12,810,570 13,483,950 15,633,038Year 41Year 42 5,998,834 3,795,355 25,265,523 15,946,526Year 43Year 44 11,674,475 13,483,950 13,555,575Year 45 5,998,834 3,795,355 11,781,573Year 46 11,674,475 13,483,950Year 47Year 48 5,998,834 3,795,355 25,865,236 13,483,950 13,555,575Year 49Year 50 11,674,475 13,483,950

TOTAL O&M: 95,981,344 $ 66,174,355 $ 501,300,430 $ 339,561,326 $ 168,899,289 $

698
12/15/2009

1:25 PM SABINE NECHES WATERWAY

50 Year O&M Cost Estimates

FEASIBILITY REPORT

October 2009 Price Levels 16-Jul-09

O&M Costs

,

Sect 11

,

Sect 12

,

13

,

14

,

15

,

16

,

17

,

Sect 18

,

Ch to

Year 1Year 2Year 3 3,468,888 2,548,425 6,984,125Year 4 6,781,075Year 5 1,300,948Year 6 3,468,888 3,404,112 6,957,700 6,471,263 11,980,713 2,570,550 14,148,036Year 7Year 8 6,781,075Year 9 3,468,888 2,548,425 6,957,700Year 10 1,300,948Year 11Year 12 4,291,626 2,548,425 6,957,700 6,781,075 6,471,263 11,980,713 2,570,550 9,102,051Year 13Year 14Year 15 3,468,888 2,548,425 6,957,700 1,300,948Year 16 6,781,075Year 17Year 18 3,468,888 3,404,112 6,957,700 6,471,263 11,980,713 2,570,550 10,265,926Year 19Year 20 6,781,075 1,300,948Year 21 3,468,888 2,548,425 6,957,700Year 22Year 23Year 24 3,468,888 2,548,425 6,957,700 6,781,075 6,471,263 11,980,713 3,939,400 8,068,850Year 25 1,300,948Year 26Year 27 4,350,638 2,548,425 6,957,700Year 28 6,781,075Year 29Year 30 3,468,888 3,404,112 6,957,700 6,884,838 11,980,713 2,570,550 11,159,575 1,300,948Year 31Year 32 7,484,001Year 33 3,468,888 2,548,425 9,005,826Year 34 1,300,948Year 35Year 36 4,526,938 2,548,425 6,957,700 7,484,001 6,471,263 11,980,713 2,570,550 8,068,850Year 37Year 38Year 39 3,468,888 2,548,425 6,957,700

699
12/15/2009

1:25 PM SABINE NECHES WATERWAY

50 Year O&M Cost Estimates

FEASIBILITY REPORT

October 2009 Price Levels 16-Jul-09

Year 40 7,484,001Year 41Year 42 3,468,888 3,404,112 6,957,700 6,471,263 11,980,713 2,570,550 11,252,425Year 43Year 44 7,484,001Year 45 3,468,888 2,548,425 6,957,700Year 46Year 47Year 48 3,468,888 2,548,425 9,005,826 7,484,001 6,884,838 11,980,713 2,570,550 8,068,850Year 49Year 50

TOTAL O&M: 58,264,746 $ 44,197,548 $ 115,445,877 $ 84,887,530 $ 52,597,254 $ 95,845,704 $ 21,933,250 $ 80,134,563 $ 9,106,636 $

700
Appendix 4

Real Estate Plan

701
GALVESTON DISTRICT

REAL ESTATE PLAN

SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY TEXAS & LOUISIANA

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS & CAMERON PARISH, LOUISIANA

March 2011

702
This page has been intentionally left blank

703
CESWG-RE

CESWG-PE-PL

Project Manager: Byron D. Williams

CESWG-RE-A

Prepared by: Salvatore Arcidiacono/Randy Richardson/Carlos Hidalgo

CESWG-RE

Submitted by: Orlando Rosas

REAL ESTATE PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1. GENERAL BACKGROUND 1

2. PROJECT TYPE & APPLICABILITY 1

3. PROJECT LOCATION 1

4. SCOPE AND CONTENT 1

5. PURPOSE 2

6. REAL ESTATE REQUIREMENTS 2-5

7. BORROW MATERIAL 6

8. ACCESS/STAGING AREA 6

9. RECREATION FEATURES 6

10. INDUCED FLOODING 6

11. MITIGATION 6

12. FEDERALLY OWNED LAND & EXISTING FEDERAL 6

PROJECTION NAVIGATION SERVITUDE

13. NAVIGATIONAL SERVITUDE 6

14. PUBLIC LAW 91-646 RELOCATIONS 6

15. ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT SPONSOR LAND 6

ACQUISITION CAPABILITIES

16. BASELINE COST ESTIMATE FOR REAL ESTATE 6-11

704
17. ACQUISITION SCHEDULE 12

18. MINERAL ACTIVITY 12

19. FACILITIES/UTILITIES RELOCATIONS 12

20. HTRW OR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS 13-14

21. ATTITUDES OF THE LANDOWNER 14

22. SPONSOR NOTIFICATION OF RISKS 14

LIST OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT “A” ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT SPONSOR LAND 15-16

ACQUISITION CAPABILITIES

EXHIBIT “B” SPONSOR NOTIFICATION OF RISKS 17-18

EXHIBIT “C” MAP SHEETS DEPICTING VICINITY OF PROJECT, 19-35

PLACEMENT AREAS AND MITIGATION SITES

REQUIRED FOR REAL ESTATE INTEREST.

EXHIBIT “D” SNWW PIPELINE TABLES 36-38

705
1

REAL ESTATE PLAN

SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

1. General Background. This Real Estate Plan (REP) is the real estate work product of

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District, Real Estate Division (the

“District”) that supports project plan formulation for the Sabine-Neches Waterway

Channel Improvement Project (“CIP”). It identifies and describes the lands, easements,

and rights-of-way (LER) required for the construction, operation and maintenance of the

proposed project, including those required for relocations, borrow material, and dredged or

excavated material disposal. The REP also identifies and describes the facility/utility

relocations that are necessary to implement the CIP. Further, the REP describes the

estimated LER value, together with the estimated administrative and incidental costs

attributable to providing project LER, and the acquisition process.

2. Project Type & Applicability. The feasibility study was conducted in response to

the 5 June 1997 congressional resolution from the Committee on Environmental and

Public Works, House of Representatives. The resolution states:

“The Secretary of the Army shall review previous reports on the Sabine-Neches

Waterway published as Senate Document No. 80, 83rd Congress, Second Session: House

Document No. 553, 87th Congress, Second Session; and other pertinent reports to

determine the feasibility of modifying the channels serving the ports of Beaumont, Port

Arthur, and Orange, Texas in the interest of commercial navigation.”

3. Project Location. The Sabine-Neches Waterway is an approximate 64 existing mile

federally authorized and maintained waterway located in Jefferson/Orange Counties in

southeast Texas and Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The area surrounding the waterway is

generally referred to as the “Golden Triangle” and is delineated by three major Texas

seaports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange. The Sabine-Neches Waterway provides

deep-water navigation to these seaports, as well as for some shallow-draft tributary

channels. The Sabine Pass, Sabine Lake, and Sabine River together form part of the

boundary between the states of Texas and Louisiana. (See Exhibit “C” Map Sheet PA

Index)

4. Scope and Content. The Sabine-Neches Waterway is a system of artificially

widened and/or deepened channels that have been dredged from offshore through portions

of the Sabine River and Lake, and the Neches River in Texas. The waterway is made up of

7 existing project reaches. From the Gulf of Mexico working upstream the reaches are: 1)

Sabine Bank Channel, 2) Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel, 3) Sabine Pass Jetty Channel, 4)

Sabine Pass Channel, 5) Port Arthur Canal, 6) Sabine Neches Canal and 7) Neches River

Channel. (See Exhibit “C” Map Sheet PA Index). The only connection with the Gulf of

Mexico is a long narrow pass called Sabine Pass through which all tidal interchange

occurs. Sabine Pass has been stabilized by jetties that extend more than 4 miles into the

Gulf of Mexico. These jetties were constructed for navigational purposes. Proposed

channel will have 8 reaches.

706
2

The feasibility report focused on alternatives from 45 feet to 50 feet for deepening of

the Sabine-Neches Waterway from offshore to the Port of Beaumont. The alternatives were

to deepen either 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 feet from the Gulf to Port of Beaumont, with up

to 8 turning basins and selective widening. The Recommended Plan consists of a 49-foot

deep navigation channel from the Gulf to the Port of Beaumont, with selective widening

and 4 turning/anchorage basins.

5. Purpose The purpose of the REP is to identify the real estate requirements for the

CIP and to estimate the costs of acquisition. The plan will also identify the estate to be

acquired in the various tracts. In 2002, the local sponsor, the Jefferson County Navigation

District, was renamed the Jefferson County Waterway and Navigation District (JCWND)

and in 2007 the JCWND was renamed to the Sabine Neches Navigation District (SNND);

the designation which is used throughout this report. The SNND already owns a majority

of the lands needed for the CIP. The Sponsor will receive credit for the fair market value

of any additional lands required, at the time they are made available to the Government for

construction. The Sponsor will also receive credit for the administrative costs of

acquisition for all lands acquired within 5 (five) years preceding the signing of the Project

Cooperation Agreement (PCA).

6. Real Estate Requirements. The CIP Sponsor is required to furnish the lands,

easements, and rights of way (LER) for the proposed cost-shared project. The real estate

requirements must support construction as well as operation and maintenance of the

project after completion. Of the eight reaches for the CIP starting with reaches one and

two, Sabine Bank Channel and Sabine Bank Extension, all of the dredged material from

this reach Sta53+000 to Sta165+000 will be deposited in offshore placement areas “A”,

“B”,”C”,”D”, and offshore Site No. 1, (See Exhibit ”C” Map Sheet PA Index). Reach

three, Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel, Sta53+000 to Sta0+000; all of the dredged

material from this reach will be deposited in offshore Sites No. 2 and 3. (See Exhibit “C”

Map Sheet PA Index) Reach four, Sabine Pass Jetty Channel, Sta0+000 to Sta215+29;

the dredged material from this reach will all be deposited in offshore Site No. 4. (See

Exhibit “C” Map Sheet PA Index) All of the placement areas which will be used for these

three reaches are in navigable water and will be used by virtue of Navigation Servitude;

therefore no real estate interests will be required. Reach five, Sabine Pass Channel,

Sta0+000 to Sta295+00; the dredged material from this reach will be deposited in

Placement Area Nos. 5 North, 5 South, 5C and 5B, an upland site containing 1,025.00

acres. This placement area will be acquired in fee. (See Exhibit “C” Map Sheet PA 9).

Reach six, Port Arthur Canal, Sta0+00 to Sta326+24; the dredged material from this

reach will be deposited in Placement areas 8 and 9, two upland sites. Placement area No. 8

contains 3,571.00 acres and is available by virtue Navigation Servitude, therefore no real

estate interests is required. Placement area No. 9 contains 381.00 acres and is at the

intersection of the Port Arthur Canal and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Placement area

9a contains 166 acres will be acquired in fee. (See Exhibit “C” Map Sheet PA 10). Reach

seven, Sabine-Neches Canal, Sta0+00 to Sta592+91; the dredged material from this reach

will be deposited in Placement areas 8 and 11. These placement areas are along the

Sabine- Neches Canal and were in navigable waters at one time. These Placement areas

are now upland sites and are available by virtue of Navigation Servitude. Placement area

8 contains 3,571.00 acres and Placement area 11 contains 2,173.00 acres (See Exhibit “C”

Map Sheet PA 10 & 11).

707
3

Neches River Channel is broken down into three reaches. Sta0+00 to Sta292+00, the

material dredged from this reach will be deposited into placement areas 12, 13, 14, and 16

which total 1,051.00 acres and 17 which has 324 acres of upland placement areas.

All of these placement areas with the exception of area 17 are owned by the local sponsor

and therefore no real estate interests will be required. Placement area 17 will be acquired in

fee. The second reach, Sta292+00 to Sta716+00, the material dredged from this reach will

be deposited in placement areas 18, 18A, 21, 23, 23A and 24 which total 1,744.00 acres of

upland placement areas. All of these areas are owned by the sponsor and therefore no real

estate interests will be required. The third reach, Sta716+00 to Sta980+00, the material

dredged from this reach will be deposited in placement areas 24A-187 acres, 25-643 acres,

25A-172 acres, 26-201 acres, 27A-129 acres, 27C-87 acres and 27D-55 acres. All these

areas with the exception of placement area 26 and 27A, C and D are all owned by the local

sponsor and therefore no real estate interests will be required. Placement areas 26 and

27A, C and D will be acquired in fee. (See Exhibit “C” Map Sheet PA 14). Within these

three reaches, there are 4 turning basins of which only two will require the acquisition of

land totaling 12.10 acres that will be acquired in perpetual channel improvement easement.

(See Exhibit “C” Map Sheet PA 14). All of the placement areas currently owned by the

local sponsor were acquired for the original SNWW project under a local cooperation

agreement which required the sponsor to provide all LERRDs necessary for the project.

All DMMP beneficial use (BU) features proposed for inclusion in the DMMP of the

Preferred Alternative are described in Table 2.4-13. Three former marsh areas on the

Neches River (Rose City East, Bessie Heights East, and Old River Cove) would be

combined into one large management feature called the Neches River BU Feature (see

Figure 2.5-2). In the Gulf Shore BU Feature, maintenance material would be used to

nourish Gulf shorelines at Texas and Louisiana Points (see Figure 2.5-3). The DMMP BU

features are not being pursued as separable elements of an ecosystem restoration plan

under Section 204 or 207 authorities. They are not ecosystem restoration measures, and as

such, do not target a specific historical condition for the level of restoration. They are leastcost, environmentally acceptable placement features and are included as GNF of the

DMMP.

The Neches River BU Feature would take advantage of new work material provided by the

channel deepening project to build hydraulic containment levees within degraded, former

marsh areas at Rose City East, Bessie Heights East, and Old River Cove. Each of these

areas is referred to as a component of the overall Neches River BU Feature. Marsh would

be created in each component using only new work, or a combination of new work and

maintenance material. The Old River Cove component would be filled during initial

construction with new work material, alone. In the Bessie Heights East component,

maintenance material would be placed incrementally in 7 maintenance cycles over 28

years. At the Rose City East component, new work material would be used to construct

containment levees and ridges, and then the marsh would be completed with the placement

of maintenance material during the first maintenance cycle following construction. For the

Neches River BU Feature as a whole, 2,853 acres of emergent marsh would be restored in

areas that are now open water; 871 acres of improved shallow water habitat would be

created by the formation of shallower ponds and interconnecting channels within the

restored marshes; and 1,234 acres of existing fringing marsh would be nourished

708
4

Table 2.4-13

DMMP BU Features, SNWW Preferred Alternative

Beneficial Use

Features No. Description

Size of

Influence

Area

Rose City East

(component of

Neches River BU

Measure)

TX 3-1

East

Restoring 345 acres fresh marsh, 72 acres of shallow water, and

nourishing 151 acres of existing marsh in two construction

events. New work material from Neches River Channel will be

used to restore 225-acre marsh, construct hydraulic containment

levees and higher elevation features. Maintenance material from

the first maintenance cycle will be used to restore an additional

120 acres of marsh.

Influence

area – 568

acres

Bessie Heights East

(component of

Neches River BU

Measure)

TX 5-2 Restores 679 acres of brackish and 1,190 acres of intermediate

marsh, 660 acres of shallow water habitat and nourishes 651

acres of existing marsh. Marsh will be constructed with

maintenance material from Neches River Channel for 28 years.

New work material is used to build hydraulic containment levee.

Influence

area – 3,180

acres

Old River Cove

(component of

Neches River BU

Measure)

TX 6-1 Restores 639 acres of brackish marsh, 139 acres of shallow water

habitat, and nourishes 432 acres of existing marsh with new

work material from Neches River Channel. New work material

used to construct hydraulic containment levee.

Influence

area – 1,210

acres

Gulf Shore BU

Feature (Texas and

Louisiana Points)

TX 8-11

LA 5-

2/6-2

Nourish 3 miles of Gulf shoreline on both sides of Sabine Pass,

from 0.5 to 3.5 miles from East and West Jetties, using

maintenance material from Sabine Pass Channel. Unconfined

placement of maintenance material along shoreline every 3 years

for 50-year period of analysis (8 placement episodes). Assume

50:50 split of material between Texas and Louisiana

accomplished by alternating placement in Texas and Louisiana.

Affected

shoreline

6.0 miles

total

by winnowing fine-grained material from unconfined flows of dredged material effluent.

The size of the Neches River BU Feature components and the magnitude of their

ecological benefits are made possible by the large amounts of dredged material which

would be generated by the proposed project, and extensive opportunities for beneficial use

in the project area. The Gulf Shore Nourishment Feature would use material from regular

maintenance dredging of the eastern section of the Sabine Pass Channel to nourish eroding

marsh, and possibly create new saline marsh, along a total of 6 miles of shoreline on both

sides of Sabine Pass at Louisiana and Texas Points. Material would be hydraulically

pumped along a 3-mile reach of shoreline, from 0.5 to 3.5 miles from each jetty. The

unconfined placement of material during each 3-year dredging cycle would alternate

between Texas and Louisiana, so that materials would be placed on each state’s shoreline

every 6 years, for a total of 16 placement events over the 50-year period of analysis.

Historic dredging records indicate that the material from Sabine Pass would average 51

percent silt, 31 percent clay, and 18 percent sand. The material would be hydraulically

pumped into the near shore zone and some material would be expected to flow over

existing marsh while the remainder flows into the nearshore waters. This mix of materials

does not contain typical beach quality sand; however, resource agencies, which are listed

in Table 1.6-1 of the FEIS, have ageed that returning the material to the littoral system

would have a net beneficial effect, regardless of the material type.

709
5

The estates for the above mentioned tracts to be acquired are listed as below:

Fee Estate- Estate No. 1 Fee for Placement Areas

The fee simple title to (the land described in Schedule A) (Tract Nos. 5, 9, 17, 26, 27A, C

and D), subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public

utilities, railroads and pipelines; excepting and excluding from the taking all interests in

coal, oil and gas or other minerals which are outstanding in parties other than surface

owners and all appurtenant rights for the exploration, development and removal of said

coal, oil and gas so excluded.

Channel Improvement Easement- Estate No. 8 for Turning Basins

A perpetual assignable right and easement to construct, operate, and maintain channel

improvement works on, over, and across (the land described in Schedule A) (Tracts 1

through 8) for turning basins and for the purposes as authorized by the Act of Congress

approved Water Resources Development Act 1999 (P.L. 106-53 SEC. 556), including the

right to clear, cut fell, remove and dispose of any and all timber, trees, underbrush,

buildings, improvements and /or other obstructions there from; to excavate; dredge, cut

away, and remove any or all of said land and to place thereon dredged or excavated

material; and for such other purposes as may be required in connection with said work of

improvement; reserving, however, to the owners, their heirs and assigns, all such rights

and privileges as may be used without interfering with or abridging the rights and

easement hereby acquired; subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and

highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines.

710
6

7. Borrow Material. The proposed CIP does not require any borrow material.

8. Access/Staging Area. The proposed CIP does not require any access/staging areas.

All of the proposed work will be performed within the existing right-of-way of the SabineNeches Waterway and existing roads and highways within the project area. No credit will

be allowed for access/staging areas since these areas have already been provided for the

previous project.

9. Recreation Features. The proposed project does not have any recreation features.

10. Induced Flooding. There is no induced flooding anticipated due to the construction

of the project. The proposed CIP will be constructed within the existing right-of-way of

the Sabine-Neches Waterway.

11. Mitigation and DMMP BU sites. The proposed CIP contains several mitigation and

DMMP BU sites located within the project area. These sites consist of marsh creation,

marsh nourishment and shore nourishment. Exhibit C shows the labeled sites on the Texas

side and on the Louisiana side. (See Exhibit “C” Map Sheet M 1).

12. Federally Owned Land & Existing Federal Project. Some of the DMMP BU and

mitigation sites are located on federally-owned land. The Gulf Shore BU Feature will

nourish shoreline owned by the Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge. Two of the

mitigation sites (LA 2-18B and LA 2Add B) are located in the Sabine National Wildlife

Refuge.

13. Navigation Servitude. Navigation Servitude emanated from the Commerce Clause of

the Constitution of the United States, Article I; Section 8, Clause 3. The servitude gives

the Federal Government the right to use the “Navigable Waters” of the United States

without compensation for navigation projects. These are non-transferable rights, and are

not considered interest in real property. The CIP has 3,003 acres of mitigation and 3,294

acres of marsh restoration sites. These sites are marsh areas and are under the mean high

water mark. Therefore, there is no real estate requirements associated with the mitigation

effort, marsh restoration sites, or nourishment areas since the Government will exercise

Navigation Servitude on the required submerged lands. A separate contract will be let for

the construction of these sites.

14. Public Law 91-646 Relocations. There are no residential houses, businesses, or

farms that would be required for relocation associated with PL 91-646.

15. Assessment of Project Sponsor Land Acquisition Capabilities. The sponsor has

the authority and capability to furnish lands, easements and rights of way in accordance

with the Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement. The sponsor is highly capable of performing

the real estate acquisition required by this project. A copy of the capability assessment is

attached as Exhibit ”A”.

16. Baseline Cost Estimate for Real Estate. The cost estimate below reflects estimated

Federal and Non-Federal real estate costs for the proposed 8 reaches which consists of a

total of 14 contracts (see cost estimate) for the proposed navigation project. These costs

711
7

include land payments, acquisition administrative costs, surveying, mapping and

administrative costs. The real estate costs for the CIP are estimated below:

REAL ESTATE

01/02 LANDS AND DAMAGES/RELOCATIONS

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #1 -NON-FEDERAL COSTS

Sabine Bank Sta. 165+000 to 132+000

Amount

Utility Relocations (50% of total Utility Relocations) $834,500

Contingency (33%) $275,500

Total Costs $1,110,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #3 -NON-FEDERAL COSTS

Sabine Bank Sta. 95+734 to 53+000

Amount

Utility Relocations (50% of total Utility Relocations) $497,500

Contingency (33%) $164,000

Total Costs $661,500

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #4 -NON-FEDERAL COSTS

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Jetty Channel Sta. 53+000 to 0+000

Amount

Utility Relocations (50% of total Utility Relocations) $828,500

Contingency (33%) $273,500

Total Costs $1,102,000

712
8

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #6 -NON-FEDERAL COSTS

Sabine Pass Channel Sta. 0+00 to 295+60

Amount

Land Payments (MCACES line 11501) $700,000

Incidental Land Acquisition Expenses (total of MCACES

lines 102, 103,105,112,113, 117)

$127,000

Utility Relocations (50% of total Utility Relocations) $1,468,000

Contingency (25%-30%) $647,500

Total Costs $2,942,500

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #6 -FEDERAL COSTS

Sabine Pass Channel Sta. 0+00 to 295+60

Amount

Administrative Expenses for Assistance, Review and

Approval of NFS Land Acquisition

(total of MCACES lines 102, 103,105,112, 113, 117) $102,000

Contingency (25%) $26,000

Total Costs $128,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #7 -NON-FEDERAL COSTS

Port Arthur Channel Sta. 0+00 to 326+24

Amount

Land Payments (MCACES line 11501) $560,000

Incidental Land Acquisition Expenses (total of MCACES

lines 102, 105,112,113,117)

$79,000

Contingency (25%) $159,750

Total Costs $799,000

713
9

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #7 -FEDERAL COSTS

Port Arthur Channel Sta. 0+00 to 326+24

Amount

Administrative Expenses for Assistance, Review and

Approval of NFS Land Acquisition

(total of MCACES lines 102, 105,108,112, 113, 117) $64,000

Contingency (25%) $16,000

Total Costs $80,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #8 & 9 -NON-FEDERAL COSTS

Sabine-Neches Canal Sta. 0+00 to 592+91

Amount

Incidental Land Acquisition Expenses (total of MCACES

lines 112,113,117)

$140,000

Utility Relocations (50% of total Utility Relocations) $627,500

Contingency (25%-30%) $224,000

Total Costs $991,500

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #8 & 9 -FEDERAL COSTS

Sabine-Neches Canal Sta. 0+00 to 592+91

Amount

Administrative Expenses for Assistance, Review and

Approval of NFS Land Acquisition

(total of MCACES lines 108, 112, 113, 117) $120,000

Contingency (25%) $30,000

Total Costs $150,000

714
10

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #10 -NON-FEDERAL COSTS

Neches River Channel Sta. 0+00 to 292+00

Amount

Land Payments (MCACES line 11501) $20,000

Incidental Land Acquisition Expenses (total of MCACES

lines 112,113,117)

$90,000

Utility Relocations (50% of total Utility Relocations) $3,864,500

Contingency (25% - 30%) $1,187,500

Total Costs $5,162,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #10 -FEDERAL COSTS

Neches River Channel Sta. 0+00 to 292+00

Amount

Administrative Expenses for Assistance, Review and

Approval of NFS Land Acquisition

(total of MCACES lines 108, 112, 113, 117) $85,000

Contingency (25%) $21,000

Total Costs $106,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #11 -NON-FEDERAL COSTS

Neches River Channel Sta. 292+00 to 716+00

Amount

Land Payments (MCACES line 11501) $135,000

Incidental Land Acquisition Expenses (total of MCACES

lines 102,105,112,113,117)

$98,000

Utility Relocations (50% of total Utility Relocations) $7,840,000

Contingency (25% - 30%) $2,410,000

Total Costs $10,483,000

715
11

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #11 -FEDERAL COSTS

Neches River Channel Sta. 292+00 to 716+00

Amount

Administrative Expenses for Assistance, Review and

Approval of NFS Land Acquisition

(total of MCACES lines 102,105,108, 112, 113, 117) $127,000

Contingency (25%) $32,000

Total Costs $159,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #12 -NON-FEDERAL COSTS

Neches River Channel Sta. 716+00 to 980+00

Amount

Land Payments (MCACES line 11501) $775,000

Incidental Land Acquisition Expenses (total of MCACES

lines 102,105,112,113,117)

$168,000

Contingency (25% - 30%) $236,000

Total Costs $1,179,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #12 -FEDERAL COSTS

Neches River Channel Sta. 716+00 to 980+00

Amount

Administrative Expenses for Assistance, Review and

Approval of NFS Land Acquisition

(total of MCACES lines 102,105, 112, 113, 117) $97,000

Contingency (25%) $24,000

Total Costs $121,000

Note: There are some administrative costs, both Federal and non-Federal costs, for utility

relocations that are not presented separately in the tables. For those tables, the

administrative costs for utility relocations are included as part of the contingency for that

contract.

TOTAL--NON-FEDERAL LER plus UTILITY

RELOCATION COSTS $24,430,500

LER Costs $3,617,000

Utility Relocation Costs $20,813,500

TOTAL -- FEDERAL COSTS $744,000

716
12

17. Acquisition Schedule. The acquisition of the LER necessary for the CIP is the

responsibility of the sponsor, however, for the current project, the Sponsor owns all the

lands required with the exception of six tracts which they are in the process of acquiring.

Therefore, there is no need for an acquisition schedule. Significant time delays may be

encountered if condemnation proceedings are required for land acquisitions.

18. Mineral Activity. Sabine Lake and the surrounding area along with the mitigation

and the marsh restoration sites have considerable mineral activity. Mineral rights have not

been transferred with property in the project area. Mineral rights need not be acquired with

any lands required for the project. The State of Texas owns the mineral rights in most of

the submerged lands in the project area. The Government’s surface rights in the

submerged lands required for the project emanates from the navigation servitude. The

Navigation Servitude is the dominant estate and takes precedence over the mineral estate in

the required submerged lands.

19. Relocation of Facilities/Utilities. A total of 104 pipelines have been identified

crossing the SNWW navigation channels. Of the 104 pipelines, 46 require adjustment to

meet the minimum required vertical and horizontal clearances for the Channel

Improvement Project (CIP). (See Exhibit “D”).

Pursuant to Section 101(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 86), as

amended, the Sponsor is responsible for performing, or assuring the performance, of all

relocations, including utility relocations, which are necessary for the CIP. All relocations,

including utility relocations, are to be accomplished at no cost to the Federal Government.

Because the recommended plan consists of a 48-foot deep navigation channel, the CIP is a

deep draft project. Therefore, in accordance with Section 101(a)(4) of WRDA 86, for all

relocations of pipelines that are classified as “utility relocations,” one-half of the cost of each

such relocation shall be borne by the owner of the facility being relocated and one-half of the

cost of each such relocation shall be borne by the Sponsor.

Consistent with the legislative history for Section 101 of WRDA 86, any pipeline, cable, or

related facility located within the channel that must be relocated for the CIP is considered a

utility relocation for the purpose of applying the cost sharing rule in Section 101(a)(4) of

WRDA 86, as amended.

The Galveston District has concluded preliminarily that 41 of the 46 lines located within the

channel must be relocated. Applying the definition of “utility” discussed above, such 41

relocations are classified as utility relocations for which the Sponsor must perform or assure

performance with relocation costs to be shared equally between the Sponsor and the pipeline

owners pursuant to Section 101(a)(4) of WRDA 86. Such relocation costs will not include any

cost for upgrading or improving such facilities, which is to be borne by the facility owner.

If, following authorization of the CIP, the Sponsor is unable to reach an agreement with a

pipeline owner as to the relocation of a particular pipeline, the Sponsor may request that the

Corps exercise the navigation servitude, and revoke any existing Section 10 permit, to compel

the owner to remove its line. The Corps will exercise the navigation servitude if the Sponsor

has made a good-faith effort to negotiate with the pipeline owner for relocation of the line and

717
13

the Sponsor has made a showing that it has no authority to compel the relocation of the facility

by the pipeline owner.

The exercise by the Corps of the navigation servitude, however, would not affect the costsharing formula for utility relocations established by the Congress in Section 101(a)(4) of

WRDA 86. The Corps will not exercise the navigation servitude unless the Sponsor agrees in

writing that such action will be at no cost to the Federal Government and will not affect the

Sponsor’s responsibility for payment of relocation costs under Section101(a)(4) . In addition,

the Sponsor will be responsible for payment of the Corps’ administrative costs associated with

exercise of the navigation servitude.

For relocations that are not classified as “utility relocations,” whether the Sponsor owes

compensation to the facility owner turns on principles of just compensation under State law

and whether any permits, licenses, or rights-of-way instruments have special provisions that as

a matter of law may offset what compensation may otherwise be due. For such relocations, the

Sponsor will negotiate with the pipeline or facility owners as to the amount of compensation

that is required. As in the case of utility relocations, these relocations will be accomplished at

no cost to the Federal Government.

The Galveston District also has concluded preliminarily that it will not be necessary to relocate

5 of the 46 lines because they are no longer necessary. Although such lines will need to be

removed to construct the CIP, no replacement lines will be necessary. If an owner of such a

line can be located, the Sponsor will contact the owner to reach a determination as to whether

the owner has an interest in the existing line for which compensation is owed by the Sponsor.

If the owner has a compensable interest, the Sponsor, as part of its requirement to provide

lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for the CIP, will be responsible for acquiring this

interest, at no cost to the Federal Government. The Sponsor will receive credit toward its

additional 10 percent cash payment required by Section 101(a)(2) of WRDA 86 for the value

of the interest acquired, and the Corps will revoke any existing Section 10 permit and remove

the line as part of construction of the CIP, with the costs of the removal shared by the Corps

and Sponsor as part of the costs of the general navigation features. If no compensation is owed

to the owner of the line, or if the owner cannot be located, then the Corps will revoke any

existing Section 10 permit and remove the line as part of construction of the CIP, with the

costs of the removal shared by the Corps and Sponsor as part of the costs of the general

navigation features.

The Sponsor will receive credit toward its additional 10 percent cash payment required by

Section 101(a)(2) for the value of relocations provided under Section 101(a)(3) and for the

costs of utility relocations borne by the Sponsor under Section 101(a)(4). Such credit will

include any payment made by the Sponsor to the Corps associated with the Corps’ exercise of

the navigation servitude.

20. HTRW or Other Environmental Contaminants. HTRW is suspected in the

vicinity of placement area 17 (Neches River Channel). Sponsor shall perform, or ensure

performance of, any investigations for hazardous substances that the Government or the

sponsor determines to be necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous

substances regulated under CERCLA (42 U.S.C. Sections 9601-9675), that may exist in,

on, or under lands, easements and rights-of-way that the Government determines to be

necessary for the construction or operation and maintenance of the general navigation

718
14

features. All cost for such investigations shall be included in total cost of construction of

the general navigation features and cost shared in the Project Cooperation Agreement

(PCA).

21. Attitudes of the Landowner. The sponsor is the owner of the majority of the CIP

lands. As owners they are supportive and in favor of the project. No resistance to the

project by the landowner is expected.

22. Sponsor Notification of Risks. A letter was transmitted to the Sabine Neches

Navigation District (formerly Jefferson County Waterway and Navigation District) on the

24 of February 2003, advising them if for any reason, the Project Cooperation Agreement

(PCA) never gets signed or if Congress fails to authorize or fund the CIP, any land they

acquired or money they spent in their effort to acquire land will be at their sole risk. (See

Exhibit “B”)

719
15

720
16

721
17

EXHIBIT “B”

722
18

723
19

EXHIBIT “C”

724
20

725
21

726
22

727
23

728
24

729
25

730
26

731
27

732
28

733
29

734
30

735
31

736
32

737
33

738
34

739
35

740
36

EXHIBIT “D”

SNWW PIPELINES

STATION OWNER DESCRIPTION/ STATUS SIZE

(inches)

DEPTH

(feet)

184+65 Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. L.P. NITROGEN 8 50

184+65 Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. L.P. OXYGEN 8 50

184+65 Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. L.P. SPARE 8 50

294+61 Air Products & Chemical, Inc. HYDROGEN GAS 10 51

185+65 Ameripol Synpol Corporation BUTADIENE 4 52

180+00 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company,

LLC ETHYLENE GAS 8 ?

185+65 Chevron Pipe Line Co. ETHYLENE GAS 8 52

293+52 Chevron Pipe Line Co. GAS 18 53

294+24 Chevron Pipe Line Co. ETHYLENE 16 50

183+40 City of Port Arthur WATER/ INACTIVE 10 ?

546+32 Colonial Pipeline Company REFINED PRODUCTS 36 48

544+68 Colonial Pipeline Company REFINED PRODUCTS 40 52

291+26 DCP Midstream, LLC NATURAL GAS 8 58

294+56 DCP Midstream, LLC PETROLEUM 8 50

671+65 DCP Midstream, LLC NATURAL GAS/

DUPLICATE 30 52

152+000 Dynegy Midstream Services, L.P. STATUS UNKNOWN ? ?

741
SNWW PIPELINES (cont’d)

37

STATION OWNER DESCRIPTION/ STATUS SIZE

(inches)

DEPTH

(feet)

659+50 E.I. DuPont de Nemours PROPYLENE 4 50

291+26 E.I. DuPont de Nemours ETHANES 8 58

659+50 E.I. DuPont de Nemours ETHYLENE GAS 8 50

591+70 El Paso Corporation INACTIVE 6 50

788+55 Entergy Texas, Inc. WATER/ INACTIVE 18 50

667+35 Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. SPARE 30 55

667+70 Enterprise TE Products Pipeline

Company LLC REFINED PRODUCTS 20 52

667+70 Enterprise TE Products Pipeline

Company LLC REFINED PRODUCTS 20 52

667+35 Enterprise TE Products Pipeline

Company LLC SPARE 8 55

659+50 Enterprise TE Products Pipeline

Company LLC REFINED PRODUCTS 8 50

287+37 Explorer Pipeline Company REFINED PRODUCTS 12 55

291+26 Flint Hills Resources Port Arthur LLC ETHYLENE 8 58

4+000 Gulf South Pipeline Company, L.P. NATURAL GAS 16 61

659+50 Investa, B.V. HYDROGEN GAS 8 50

659+50 Investa, B.V. AMMONIA 4 50

291+26 Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline, L.L.C. NATURAL GAS 24 50

242+33 Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline, LLC NATURAL GAS 30 55

742
SNWW PIPELINES (cont’d)

38

STATION OWNER DESCRIPTION/ STATUS SIZE

(inches)

DEPTH

(feet)

99+30 Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline, LLC NATURAL GAS/ INACTIVE 16 45

291+26 Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline, LLC NATURAL GAS 26 50

288+46 Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline, L.P. NATURAL GAS 20 50

288+46 Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline, L.P. NATURAL GAS 16 50

666+50 Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline, L.P. INACTIVE 8 ?

664+32 Maritime Administration Power ? 51

294+02 Shell Pipeline Company, L.P. CRUDE OIL 22 50

294+76 Shell Pipeline Company, L.P. PETROLEUM/ IDLE 6 50

667+35 Texas Oil & Chemical Co., Inc. SPARE 12 55

56+582 Targa NGL Pipeline Company, LLC NATURAL GAS 10 61

82+500 Targa NGL Pipeline Company, LLC NATURAL GAS Liquids 12 61

25+000 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company NATURAL GAS 30 61

185+65 TPC Group, Inc. BUTADIENE 4 52

743
å1Íô2 èÍ¿1ÇÌÍ°èÍÃô2 1°ËôîÃ ÅÃôÃè°èÍÃ

åÌÇ

Åôñ1Íè'Íèî»èÅ 3⁄4ôÃèÇ3⁄4ô

î»ôÍÍè2 1°ËÇÌ¿è°èÍÃ ËÇÌ·èîÃ

ÅÌÁÃ»èôÅÃ ÃèôÅ ôÍë ÅÌÁÃ»3⁄4èÅÃ 2ÌÁ1Å1ôÍô

¿Ì2Á°è 11

îÌÌËèÇôÃ1Íä ôäèÍî1èÅÝ

Á'Å' èÍ¿1ÇÌÍ°èÍÃô2 ËÇÌÃèîÃ1ÌÍ ôäèÍî

Á'Å' ëèËôÇÃ°èÍÃ Ìå Ã»è 1ÍÃèÇ1ÌÇ 2 å1Å» ôÍë 3⁄412ë21åè ÅèÇ¿1îè

Á'Å' ëèËôÇÃ°èÍÃ Ìå îÌ°°èÇîè 2 ÍôÃ1ÌÍô2 °ôÇ1Íè å1Å»èÇ1èÅ ÅèÇ¿1îè

ÃèôÅ äèÍèÇô2 2ôÍë Ìåå1îè

2ÌÁ1Å1ôÍô ëèËôÇÃ°èÍÃ Ìå 3⁄412ë21åè ôÍë å1Å»èÇ1èÅ

ËÇèËôÇèë ñÝ

Á'Å' ôÇ° îÌÇËÅ Ìå èÍä1ÍèèÇÅ

äô2¿èÅÃÌÍ ë1ÅÃÇ1îÃ

ÅÌÁÃ»3⁄4èÅÃèÇÍ ë1¿1Å1ÌÍ

°£w B#EE

744
ABSTRACT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PROPOSED SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA

The responsible agency for this action is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District (USACE).

The non-Federal sponsor is the Sabine Neches Navigation District (SNND). The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, U.S. Department of the Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of

Commerce – National Marine Fisheries Service, Texas General Land Office, and the Louisiana

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries are cooperating agencies.

Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was prepared as required by the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to present an evaluation of potential impacts of the proposed SabineNeches Waterway Channel Improvement Project (SNWW CIP). The proposed SNWW CIP is intended to

improve the efficiency of the deep-draft navigation system while protecting the area’s environmental

resources. The FEIS addresses the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed

project on the human environment, as identified during the public interest review, including placement of

dredged material. All factors that may be relevant to the proposed project were considered, including

plans for construction and operations, dredged material management and opportunities for beneficial uses,

hydrology, salinity, and storm surges, terrestrial and aquatic habitats, endangered species, essential fish

habitat, hazardous materials, air quality, shoreline erosion, cultural resources, socioeconomic

considerations, safety, and economic effects. The alternatives analysis evaluated the No-Action,

3 nonstructural, and 120 structural alternatives. A recommended plan was selected that would deepen the

SNWW to Beaumont to 48 feet and extend the Sabine Bank Channel an additional 13.2 miles, taper the

Sabine Bank Channel from 800 feet wide (Station 23+300) to 700 feet wide (Station 25+800) through the

end of the Sabine Bank Channel extension, deepen and widen Taylor Bayou channels and turning basins,

and construct 3 new anchorage/turning basins on the Neches River. Beneficial use features and mitigation

measures have been developed that effectively avoid or mitigate all environmental impacts. The public

response to the findings of the Draft EIS have been addressed in the FEIS.

Comments on this FEIS must be postmarked by April 4, 2011.

For further information, contact:

Janelle Stokes

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District

P.O. Box 1229

Galveston, Texas 77553-1229

Phone: 409.766.3039

e-mail: janelle.s.stokes@usace.army.mil

745
ES-1

Executive Summary

ES.1 INTRODUCTION AND AUTHORITY

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has joined in an agreement with the Sabine Neches

Navigation District (SNND) to prepare a Final Feasibility Report (FFR) and a Final Environmental

Impact Statement (FEIS) for proposed improvements to the Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW). The

proposed SNWW Channel Improvement Project (CIP) is intended to improve the efficiency of the deepdraft navigation system while protecting the area’s coastal and estuarine resources. As authorized by the

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Resolution, dated June 5, 1997, USACE has

reviewed previous USACE reports on the SNWW and other pertinent reports to determine the feasibility

of modifying the channels serving the Port of Beaumont and the Port of Port Arthur, Texas. The lead

agency for the FEIS is USACE, with several cooperating agencies. This FEIS was prepared as required by

the National Environmental Policy Act to present an evaluation of potential impacts associated with the

proposed CIP.

ES.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the proposed CIP is to improve the transportation efficiency of the SNWW’s deep-draft

navigation system, while protecting the quality of the area’s coastal and estuarine resources. Proposed

channel improvements will support industry at ports within the SNWW navigation channel system, which

are critical in the Nation’s economy and military defense. Depth restrictions of the existing SNWW

channel configuration and congestion in the channel prevent it from efficiently accommodating predicted

future increases in crude oil imports. In addition to existing crude oil and petrochemical product facilities

on the SNWW, one liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility began operations in 2008, and construction of a

second facility is nearing completion; a third has received regulatory approval. In 2007, the Port of

Beaumont handled about half of the military cargo deployed to and from the war in Iraq. The existing,

congested SNWW cannot handle this level of increased use without compromising efficiency. Deep-draft

vessels and barge traffic are restricted by narrow channel widths leading to constraints such as daylightonly and one-way sailing restrictions in specific reaches. Given the trend towards shorter, wider vessels

and the congestion in the channel, deepening the channel could alleviate some of the congestion by

allowing vessels to be more fully loaded and reducing the number of lightened and lightering vessels. The

need to improve the SNWW must be weighed against the potential to affect significant environmental

resources. The study area contains approximately 480 square miles of sensitive coastal habitats that are

plagued by a high rate of wetland loss and extensive losses of interior coastal wetlands. These high rates

of land loss provide opportunities to use dredged material beneficially for wetland restoration.

ES.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND

ALTERNATIVES

Analysis of alternatives that could potentially meet the purpose and need for the proposed action included

a systematic evaluation and consideration of environmental factors. Based on a three-phase screening

746
Executive Summary

ES-2

process (preliminary screening, second screening, and final screening of alternatives), nonstructural and

structural alternatives were identified and evaluated relative to a No-Action Alternative. The No-Action

Alternative carried forward for evaluation provides a basis against which all other alternative plans are

measured. Thus, under the No-Action Alternative, the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor

would not implement the proposed CIP. The 40-foot SNWW navigation channel would not be improved,

and the objectives of improving the navigational efficiency of the waterway would not be met.

Additionally, under the No-Action Alternative, benefits associated with proposed beneficial uses of

dredged material for the proposed CIP would be substantially reduced. Nonstructural alternatives

evaluated were (1) an alternative mode of commodity transport (i.e., an offshore oil terminal), (2) a vessel

traffic system, and (3) modification of pilot rules. None of these alternatives increased the efficiency

objective for all waterway users and were eliminated from further consideration.

Through the three-phase screening process, over 120 different combinations of various channel depths

and widths were considered, with six depths (45, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50 feet) evaluated in detail. The

detailed evaluation included an economic evaluation to identify alternatives that maximized National

Economic Development (NED) benefits, consistent with protecting the environment. Project benefits

were based on reductions in transportation costs generated from more-efficient vessel loading and from

reductions in vessel delays. The width of the channel was evaluated with a vessel simulation model

conducted by the USACE Engineer Research and Design Center (ERDC) with input from the Sabine

Pilots Association. Following the selection of a preferred channel alternative, a detailed evaluation of

alternatives for the management of dredged material and the mitigation of ecological impacts was

conducted. Least-cost analysis of dredged material placement and an incremental cost analysis of

mitigation alternatives were conducted to select recommended placement and mitigation measures. The

analysis of alternative dredged material placement7 components was performed in conjunction with

planning for the avoidance and mitigation of impacts from channel improvements so that dredged

material could be given a priority for potential use in mitigation efforts. Dredged material placement

alternatives considered in the detailed evaluation included:

• Neches River Beneficial Use (BU) Feature

• Gulf Shore BU Feature

• Existing Active and Inactive Upland Placement Features (PAs)

• New upland PAs

• Existing Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites (ODMDSs)

• New ODMDSs

The Preferred Alternative proposes to increase the authorized depth of the channel from 40 to 48 feet

along the entire 64-mile-long existing channel and add a 13.2-mile extension to the offshore channels into

the Gulf of Mexico. The offshore navigation channels, known collectively as the Entrance Channel, are

divided into the Extension Channel, the Sabine Bank Channel, the Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel, and

the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel. They would be deepened from 42 to 50 feet. The inshore channels (the

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel, Sabine Pass Channel, Port Arthur and Sabine-Neches canals, and the Neches

747
Executive Summary

ES-3

River Channel) would be deepened from 40 feet to 48 feet. No modifications to the existing Sabine Pass

Jetties are contemplated in conjunction with this project. Potential rehabilitation of the jetties is currently

being studied, with the goal of preparing a long-range plan of modification needed to ensure that the

jetties continue to function appropriately to support the Federal navigation channel.

Except for the one channel reach just beyond the jetties, the bottom width of the offshore Entrance

Channel would be 700 feet wide. Since the existing Sabine Bank Channel is 800 feet wide, the bottom

width of the deepened channel would be reduced to 700 feet wide. However, high currents passing around

the mouth of the jetties require that the bottom width of the Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel remain

800 feet wide, and therefore the deepened channel would be tapered to connect to the 700-foot Entrance

Channel. With the exception of the Taylor Bayou basins and channels, the inshore channels would retain

their existing 500 to 400 foot widths. The Taylor Bayou basins and channels would be widened to

improve maneuverability for vessels using that facility. Neither the Sabine-Neches Canal nor the Neches

River Chanel would be systematically widened, but navigation efficiency would be improved with bend

easings in both reaches and the addition or enlargement of turning and anchorage basins on the Neches

River Channel. Project dimensions for the Preferred Alternative are provided in Table ES-1.

Table ES-1

Project Dimensions for Preferred Alternative

Reach Station to Station

Bottom

Width

(feet)

Project

Depth

(feet)

Extension Channel 165+443 95+734 700 50

Sabine Bank Channel 95+734 25+800 700 50

Sabine Bank Channel 25+800 23+300 700–800 50

Sabine Bank Channel 23+300 18+000 800 50

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel 18+000 0+000 800 50

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel –214+88 0+00 800–500 48

Sabine Pass Channel 0+00 296+25 1355–500 48

Port Arthur Canal 0+00 325+84 1660–500 48

Sabine-Neches Canal 0+00 592+94 1050–400 48

Neches River Channel 0+00 980+00 400–1413 48

Taylor Bayou

Entrance Channel 0+00 25+27 406–764 48

East Turning Basin 0+00 17+65 532–354 48

West Turning Basin 25+27 41+30 776 48

Connecting Channel 41+30 71+50 470–250 48

Taylor Bayou Turning Basin 71+50 106+25 1000 48

A total of 104 pipelines have been identified crossing the SNWW navigation channels. Of the 104

pipelines, 46 require adjustment to meet the minimum required vertical and horizontal clearances for the

SNWW CIP. Bridge supports for the Martin Luther King Bridge over the Sabine-Neches Canal would be

hardened because of the proximity of the new channel cut; supports for the Rainbow and Veterans

Memorial bridges would not be affected. Bridge fender systems for all three bridges would be removed

748
Executive Summary

ES-4

and replaced to accommodate the new channel dimensions. The Port Arthur Hurricane Flood Protection

Levee and utility power lines would not be affected.

Dredged material produced by construction of the Preferred Alternative and during maintenance dredging

over the 50-year period of analysis would be managed in accordance with the Dredged Material

Management Plan (DMMP). PAs proposed in the DMMP consist of upland PAs, ODMDSs, and BU

features. Construction of the Preferred Alternative is expected to yield approximately 98 million cubic

yards (mcy) of new-work dredged material. Maintenance dredging over the 50-year period of analysis is

expected to yield approximately 650 mcy of dredged material. Dredged material will be placed in 16

existing upland PA features and 2 new expansion cells at existing upland PAs (18A and 24A). For the

Entrance Channel, material will be placed in four existing and four proposed ODMDS features. Beneficial

uses of dredged material in the DMMP consist of the Neches River BU Feature (Rose City East, Bessie

Heights East, and Old River Cove) and the Gulf Shore BU Feature at Texas and Louisiana Points. Figures

2.4-1a–g in the FEIS show all the DMMP placement features proposed as part of the Preferred

Alternative.

The Neches River and Gulf Shore BU features use dredged material beneficially to avoid and minimize

all environmental impacts in Texas and some impacts in Louisiana. Compensatory mitigation in the form

of marsh restoration is proposed for all unavoidable environmental impacts in Louisiana.

ES.4 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The FEIS addresses the potential impacts of the proposed project on human and environmental issues

identified during the public interest review, including placement of dredged material. All factors that may

be relevant to the proposed project were considered. Among those factors are salinity effects, effects to

marshes and wetland forests, effects on threatened and endangered species, shoreline erosion, water and

sediment quality, hazardous materials, air quality, cultural resources, socioeconomic effects, energy

needs, safety, and in general, the welfare of the people of the United States. The following provides a

brief description of potential impacts that were identified.

Physiography and Geology

Impacts on local geology during dredging and dredged material placement associated with the Preferred

Alternative would include redistribution of existing sediment, potential increase of local scouring and

shoaling rates, reduced erosion of inshore channel shorelines, and reduced erosion rates at Gulf shoreline

nourishment areas compared to the No-Action Alternative. While local changes would occur to

bathymetry and topography during construction and operation of the proposed project, these alterations

would be expected to have negligible impacts on the regional physiography of the submerged and

subaerial portions of the study area. No impacts associated with geologic hazards are expected, and

impacts on local geology are expected to be minimal.

749
Executive Summary

ES-5

Water Quality

USACE has received Section 401 State Water Quality Certification from Texas and Louisiana for this

action. Both states have determined that the requirements for water quality certification have been met

and have concluded that the placement of fill material will not violate water quality standards of either

state. The Preferred Alternative is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. It would

result in little, if any, difference in long-term inland turbidity or dissolved oxygen levels when compared

to the No-Action Alternative. Short-term increases in turbidity may be caused by the unconfined flow of

dredged material during construction of BU features and mitigation measures. There would be temporary,

minor impacts from ocean placement at the new ODMDSs. Proposed channel improvements should

increase safety, thus decreasing the probability of a spill.

Sediment Quality

Surficial sediments to be dredged during construction of the offshore Extension Channel have been

determined to be suitable for ocean placement. Additionally, shoaled sediments and the construction

material that would be dredged from the SNWW during construction of the Preferred Alternative was

determined to be of sufficient quality to be used for beneficial uses.

Although the quantity of maintenance material dredged from the inland reaches of the SNWW is expected

to increase significantly compared to the No-Action Alternative, the source of the maintenance material

would not change, and the method of placement would not change, except that more of the maintenance

material would be used beneficially. Past testing of maintenance material has indicated no cause for

concern.

Hydrology

Under the Preferred Alternative, there would be a deeper channel that would allow a greater amount of

tidal circulation and exchange with the Gulf and cause only a minimal increase of water surface elevation.

Salinity would increase in much of the system by a maximum of about 2 parts per thousand, and the

salinity wedge in the SNWW navigation channel would extend farther upstream in the Neches River. It is

not expected to have an effect on freshwater inflows to the Sabine-Neches system. However, because the

amount of tidal exchange would be slightly increased, the inflows would be conveyed to the Gulf

marginally faster than would be the case in the No-Action Alternative. In regards to sediment transport,

the Preferred Alternative would slightly reduce the net westward littoral transport on the Texas side and

the net eastern littoral transport on the Louisiana side. The changes in sediment transport, while very

small, can be expected to have some effect on the rates of Gulf shoreline erosion. Under the Preferred

Alternative, there is a slight increase in the Gulf shoreline erosion rate between 0.5 mile and 3.5 miles

from each jetty, but shoreline nourishment in the DMMP would replace shoreline that would be lost. The

Preferred Alternative should also reduce the rate of erosion on inland channels relative to the No-Action

Alternative by reducing the number of predicted vessel trips.

750
Executive Summary

ES-6

Because clay barrier layers are anticipated to prevent contact between water or elutriate from construction

and maintenance dredged material and groundwater, no adverse effects are anticipated to the lower unit of

the Chicot, any portion of the Evangeline, or the massive portions of the upper Chicot aquifers. Therefore,

no adverse effects are anticipated to occur to groundwater wells documented in the project area counties.

The potential for proposed project features to increase storm surge impacts in the study area was analyzed

with a storm surge sensitivity analysis. The greatest changes would occur north of Port Arthur along the

Neches River due primarily to the proposed increase in depth of the navigation channel. All changes are

local, and there are no project-induced increases in surges away from the immediate vicinity of the

navigation channel. Changes in peak surge on the order of inches could occur with the project but should

not cause any significant change in interior flooding.

Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW)

Findings of the HTRW survey indicate that there may be potential for encountering contaminated material

during construction of the project, especially near industrial facilities that have not yet completed

remediation efforts. Encountering contaminated material could increase project cost and/or lost time.

However, based upon recent chemical analyses of water and sediment collected from within the channels,

the potential for encountering contaminated material during dredging operations is considered minimal.

The potential for oil and gas wells and petroleum pipelines to impact the project area is also minimal. A

capped landfill has been found in PA 17 that is unrelated to dredged material or dredging activities. Issues

related to possibly hazardous materials in the landfill must be resolved by the non-Federal sponsor before

the PA can be used. Alternate PAs are available should this issue not be resolved in time for use.

Air Quality

Construction activities associated with the proposed CIP would result in emissions from combustion

products from project dredging, support, and reuse/disposal equipment. Pollutant emissions from

construction and dredging activities may result in short-term impacts on air quality in the immediate

vicinity of the project site. Emissions of volatile organic compounds for the activities subject to USACE

responsibility are exempt from a General Conformity Determination because they are below the 100-tonper-year (tpy) threshold. Estimated nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions for activities subject to USACE

responsibility would exceed the conformity threshold of 100 tpy for all years of construction. Therefore,

USACE prepared a General Conformity Determination for NOx emissions, which was submitted to the

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

and other air pollution control agencies, as appropriate, to ensure conformity of this project with the State

Implementation Plan (SIP). The TCEQ has provided written concurrence that emissions from the

Preferred Alternative are conformant with the Texas SIP for the Beaumont-Port Arthur region (Appendix

A1). Based on the TCEQ’s comments, the USACE has prepared a Final General Conformity

Determination for the proposed SNWW CIP (Appendix F).

751
Executive Summary

ES-7

Noise

The Preferred Alternative is not expected to result in long-term noise impacts because no permanent noise

sources would be installed as part of this project and elevated noise levels would be short term, occurring

during construction and maintenance dredging activities. Short-term impacts could be considered

potentially significant at noise-sensitive land uses within 600 feet of dredging activities. Elevated noise

levels are expected to be no different from those currently experienced during maintenance dredging

activities. Therefore, no increase in noise impacts over levels associated with the No-Action Alternative is

expected.

Vegetation

The Preferred Alternative would either directly or indirectly impact more than 220,000 acres of aquatic

habitats in Texas and Louisiana. In Texas, negative impacts to productivity would occur over

approximately 39,000 acres with a resulting loss of 412 Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs). The

majority (380 AAHUs) are indirect productivity impacts that would occur to approximately 33,500 acres

of intertidal marsh and swamp due to small increases in salinity from the proposed channel deepening.

Direct impacts (32 AAHUs) are associated with the conversion of 86 acres of fresh marsh to upland PA

24A.

In Louisiana, negative indirect impacts to productivity would occur to approximately 182,000 acres of

intertidal marsh due to small increases in salinities from the proposed channel deepening. The resulting

total loss would be 1,709 AAHUs. No productivity or land loss impacts to Louisiana swamps are

expected to occur.

The DMMP BU features (Neches River BU Feature in Texas and the Gulf Shore BU Feature in both

Texas and Louisiana) would provide benefits that offset all impacts (–412 AAHUs) of the proposed plan

in Texas and partially offset impacts in Louisiana. In Texas, construction of the Neches River BU Feature

and the Texas portion of the Gulf Shore BU Feature would produce benefits totaling 1,068 AAHUs.

Therefore, there would be a net gain of 656 AAHUs, which more than offsets all negative impacts that

would occur in Texas. In Louisiana, the Gulf Shore BU Feature would provide benefits totaling

210 AAHUs. Given total Louisiana impacts of 1,709 AAHUs, there would be a net loss of 1,499

remaining in Louisiana after offsetting benefits of the Louisiana portion of the Gulf Shore BU Feature are

applied.

After benefits of the BU features are applied to the project as a whole, the Preferred Alternative would

result in the loss of 843 AAHUs over the future with-project condition. However, because the ecological

benefits of the DMMP BU features would be primarily in Texas, additional compensatory mitigation

beyond the total project loss of 843 AAHUs is proposed so that impacts in Louisiana would be

compensated in Louisiana. The additional mitigation in Louisiana would result in a net gain of

338 AAHUs for the project as a whole and compensate for all losses in Louisiana with the exception of

losses that would occur to Federal lands in the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge (SNWR). Exclusion of

752
Executive Summary

ES-8

the SNWR is based upon the definition of “coastal zone” in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,

as amended. “Excluded from the coastal zone are lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the

discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government, its officers or agents (16 USC § 1453).”

Impacts to the SNWR would be fully offset by the Texas BU feature benefits.

A 1,159 AAHU loss would occur on non-Federal lands in Louisiana after taking into consideration the

benefits of the DMMP. To offset this loss, a mitigation plan has been developed that will provide an

ecological gain of 1,181 AAHUs in Louisiana. The mitigation plan would restore 2,783 acres of emergent

marsh, improve 957 acres of shallow-water habitat, and nourish 4,355 acres of existing marsh.

Aquatic Ecology

The Preferred Alternative includes beneficial uses of dredged material that would restore the marsh

elevations in the Neches River BU Feature. This is a large-scale feature that consists of marsh restoration

in these major components: Rose City East, Bessie Heights East, and Old River Cove. These BU features

are likely to have short- and long-term effects on the existing open-water communities. Shallow water or

emergent marsh habitat would replace a significant portion of the open-water currently within each

marsh. The marsh degradation process, which would proceed unchecked in the No-Action Alternative,

would eventually adversely affect fishery productivity, while the restored marshes would improve nursery

habitat and nutrient availability.

The total quantity of maintenance material from the inshore channels is expected to increase by

14 percent over the existing project, resulting in a similar increase in the duration of each maintenance

dredging cycle; no change in the frequency of dredging cycles is anticipated. The total maintenance

dredging quantity from the offshore channels is expected to increase by 120 percent, due to the 13.2-mile

offshore channel extension and a predicted increase in the shoaling rate in existing channels. The increase

in channel length and dredged material quantity will require the creation of four new ODMDSs. The types

of impacts to marine communities from the Preferred Alternative would be similar to maintenance

dredging impacts expected for the No-Action Alternative, including short-term, localized increases in

turbidity, which may reduce primary productivity. Proposed beneficial uses of dredged material that result

in benefits to marshes in the study area would also benefit finfish and shellfish. Small increases in salinity

expected to occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative are not expected to directly adversely affect

fauna. Impacts to benthic organisms from dredging and placement of dredged material are not expected to

be significant because recolonization is rapid, although the community composition in new PAs may be

slightly different from pre-project conditions. The Preferred Alternative would temporarily and locally

impact Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) species because of increased turbidity, although impacts are expected

to be minimal. Concurrence was provided by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on March 8,

2010 (Appendix A3). In addition, the Preferred Alternative would result in net benefits to EFH through

marsh creation and benefits to submerged aquatic vegetation. No Habitat Areas of Particular Concern are

located in the study area. No adverse impacts to recreationally or commercially important aquatic species

are expected, and no additional impacts with respect to ballast water are anticipated.

753
Executive Summary

ES-9

Construction of the Willow Bayou marsh mitigation areas would use material dredged from a 1.8-milelong borrow trench parallel to the eastern shore of Sabine Lake. An access channel (approximately

8 miles long) would also be required for the dredge to travel from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway near the

mouth of the Sabine River to the borrow trench location. The exact locations of the borrow trench and

access route would be determined in consultation with the Interagency Coordination Team after

preconstruction, engineering, and design bottom surveys of potential locations. One-time impacts of the

borrow trench and access channel dredging include a temporary increase in turbidity and the short-term

loss of benthic fauna. No impacts to oyster reef are anticipated but a preconstruction survey of the borrow

trench area would be performed to check this assumption. The probability that oyster reef will be found is

very low. Salinities are too low in this area of Sabine Lake to support survival of oyster spat. In the small

chance that reef is found, it would be small and localized and easily avoided by changing the access route

at borrow area configuration. The common Sabine Lake circulation pattern is expected to prevent the

development of hypoxic conditions in the borrow trench and transport Sabine River sediment to

eventually fill the trench. Construction of the Black Bayou mitigation areas would use material from

regular maintenance dredging of the Sabine River Channel and approximately 18 feet of material that has

accumulated since construction of the 30-foot Lake Charles Deepwater Channel. The latter coincides with

the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway between the Sabine River and Lake Charles, Louisiana. One-time impacts

of both dredging operations would include a temporary increase in turbidity and short-term loss of benthic

fauna. These mitigation areas would fully compensate impacts of the Preferred Alternative to the

biological productivity of marshes in the affected area. The dredging activities needed to construct the

mitigation areas are expected to have a net beneficial effect and cause no long-term impacts to biological

resources and estuarine aquatic habitats. Long-term benefits of a higher, more-stable marsh in the

mitigation areas would more than offset short-term impacts to turbidity and benthic organisms.

Wildlife

Direct impacts to wildlife from implementation of the Preferred Alternative include dredging impacts to

bottom-feeding and pelagic organisms such as sea turtles, loss of habitat from one new placement area,

and temporary impacts to shorebirds and their habitat from the regular placement of maintenance material

on the Gulf shoreline. Indirect impacts to wildlife related to dredging and placement activities include a

reduction of shorebird food supply from short-term increases in turbidity, risk of oil, chemical, or other

hazardous material spill during construction, and temporary noise disturbances. However, beneficial uses

of dredged material resulting in additional marsh habitat and beach nourishment would provide additional

habitat for wildlife in the area.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Hopper dredging of the Entrance Channel is likely to adversely affect but not jeopardize the continued

existence of loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, and green sea turtles. In the Biological Opinion (BO),

the NMFS authorized the incidental lethal take of four sea turtles and identified reasonable and prudent

measures to be adopted during construction. Potential impacts to sea turtles from maintenance dredging

are covered by the Gulf Regional BO for USACE’s dredging activities. Critical Habitat for wintering

754
Executive Summary

ES-10

piping plovers is present in the Louisiana portion of the Gulf Shore BU Feature. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) has concurred that the BU feature may affect, but is not likely to adversely

affect, the species or its Critical Habitat because the Gulf Shore BU Feature would protect existing

Critical Habitat. No other adverse effects to threatened and endangered plant or animal species have been

identified.

Cultural Resources

While no specific impacts to historic properties have been identified at this time, the Preferred Alternative

has the potential to adversely affect significant historic properties because numerous prehistoric and

historic sites, structures, and shipwrecks are present in the project vicinity. A Historic Properties

Programmatic Agreement has been negotiated and executed with the Texas and Louisiana State Historic

Preservation Officers to ensure that significant historic properties are identified and mitigation, if

necessary, is completed prior to project construction.

Socioeconomic Resources

Potential impacts to socioeconomic resources from the Preferred Alternative are not expected to be

significant. Small changes in population growth are expected to occur as a result of the proposed CIP, and

no disproportionately high or adverse impacts are expected to occur to minority or low-income persons.

Development is likely to continue at the current rate resulting in no impacts to community values or

housing in the study area, although land use patterns along the SNWW may change slightly in response to

channel improvements. No negative impacts to the local economy are anticipated as a result of the

Preferred Alternative, and the types of employment opportunities available in the area are not expected to

change from current trends. No negative impacts are expected to occur to recreational resources or

aesthetics within the study area.

Cumulative Impacts

Several past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the study area were identified for

inclusion in the cumulative impacts analysis. Resources considered in the analysis included biological,

ecological, physical, chemical, cultural, and socioeconomic resources for projects within the SNWW

study area. Cumulative impacts from past, existing, and reasonably foreseeable projects, along with the

Preferred Alternative, are not expected to have significant adverse effects within the study area. Impacts

associated with the Preferred Alternative have been avoided or minimized by DMMP BU features or fully

compensated by mitigation.

ES.5 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES

USACE has evaluated the proposed SNWW CIP for consistency with the Louisiana coastal management

program, and concluded that the Recommended Plan is fully consistent to the maximum extent

practicable with the enforceable policies of the state’s coastal management program. The Louisiana

Department of Natural Resources (LDNR), Office of Coastal Management (OCM), found that the

755
Executive Summary

ES-11

SNWW CIP is conditionally consistent with their state program. Since conditional consistency as

proposed by LDNR-OCM is not acceptable, LDNR-OCM has been notified that USACE will proceed

with the project. This issue is discussed in detail in Section 6.0.

USACE coordination with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) has not been able

to resolve issues related to the offset of project impacts to Federal lands with benefits from BU features in

Texas, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) requirements that the Recommended

Plan include additional BU features, and royalty, license, and further assessment requirements concerning

areas in Sabine Lake that would be affected by the removal of fill material for use in marsh mitigation.

USACE has proposed that an assessment survey be completed, following the protocol established by

LDWF, during the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase of the SNWW CIP.

In order for the four new ODMDSs to be approved for use, the EPA must publish a final rulemaking in

the Federal Register. An FEIS for the proposed ODMDS and a Final Site Management and Monitoring

Plan have been prepared and accepted by EPA for use in this rulemaking at a later date (Appendix B of

the FEIS).

Coordination is ongoing with the Texas Point and Sabine National Wildlife refuges regarding

construction activities related to the Gulf Shore BU Feature and proposed compensatory mitigation

measures. The USFWS must determine whether these activities are compatible with the purposes of the

refuges.

Issues related to hazardous materials in PA 17 (a capped landfill and other waste disposal areas within the

PA) must be resolved by the non-Federal sponsor before the PA can be used as part of the Preferred

Alternative. Alternative placement areas are available should PA 17 not be available for use.

ES.6 RELATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

The Preferred Alternative is in full compliance with the environmental requirements applicable to this

stage of the planning process. A discussion of the applicable laws can be found in Chapter 7 of the FEIS.

756
ii

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................ES-1

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................................xiv

List of Tables...............................................................................................................................................................xv

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................xviii

1.0 NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTION...................................................................................................1-1

1.1 STUDY AUTHORITY AND LOCATION.........................................................................................1-1

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED.......................................................................................................................1-2

1.3 EXISTING PROJECT .........................................................................................................................1-9

1.4 PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND PUBLIC CONCERNS........................................................................1-10

1.4.1 Navigation/Commerce......................................................................................................1-11

1.4.2 Environmental ..................................................................................................................1-12

1.4.3 Socioeconomic .................................................................................................................1-14

1.4.4 Historic Properties ............................................................................................................1-14

1.5 PLANNING OBJECTIVES ..............................................................................................................1-15

1.6 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION TEAM ...................................................................................1-15

1.7 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES .........................................................................1-17

2.0 ALTERNATIVES.....................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 HISTORY AND PROCESS FOR FORMULATING ALTERNATIVES...........................................2-1

2.2 PRELIMINARY AND SECOND SCREENING ................................................................................2-2

2.2.1 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................................................2-2

2.2.2 Nonstructural Alternatives..................................................................................................2-6

2.2.2.1 Vessel Traffic Service..................................................................................2-6

2.2.2.2 Relaxation of Existing Pilot Rules...............................................................2-7

2.2.2.3 Alternative Mode of Commodity Transport ................................................2-8

2.2.3 Structural Alternatives......................................................................................................2-12

2.3 EVALUATION OF FINAL ALTERNATIVES................................................................................2-14

2.3.1 Alternatives Advanced for Final Screening......................................................................2-14

2.3.2 Comparison of Alternatives and Selection of the Preferred Alternative...........................2-14

2.3.3 Sensitivity of Project Alternatives to Relative Sea Level Rise.........................................2-24

2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................................2-27

2.4.1 Navigation Channel Improvements ..................................................................................2-28

2.4.1.1 Sabine Bank Extension Channel................................................................2-37

2.4.1.2 Sabine Bank Channel.................................................................................2-37

2.4.1.3 Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel .................................................................2-38

2.4.1.4 Sabine Pass Jetty Channel..........................................................................2-39

2.4.1.5 Sabine Pass Channel..................................................................................2-39

2.4.1.6 Port Arthur Canal (including Taylor Bayou Channels and Turning

Basins) .......................................................................................................2-39

2.4.1.7 Sabine-Neches Canal.................................................................................2-41

2.4.1.8 Neches River Channel ...............................................................................2-42

757
Table of Contents

Page

iii

2.4.1.9 Bridge Reinforcements and Fenders..........................................................2-43

2.4.1.10 Aids to Navigation.....................................................................................2-44

2.4.1.11 Lands, Easements and Rights-of-Way.......................................................2-44

2.4.1.12 Relocations ................................................................................................2-44

2.4.2 Dredged Material Placement Areas ..................................................................................2-45

2.4.2.1 Quantities and Types of Dredged Material................................................2-46

2.4.2.2 DMMP Beneficial Use Features ................................................................2-47

2.4.2.3 Upland Placement Areas............................................................................2-48

2.4.3 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Needs Summary for the Preferred Alternative ..............2-48

2.4.4 Critical Assumptions ........................................................................................................2-49

2.5 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DREDGED

MATERIAL.......................................................................................................................................2-52

2.5.1 Regional Sediment Management Objectives and Scope...................................................2-52

2.5.2 Description of the SNWW Sediment System ...................................................................2-53

2.5.2.1 Geomorphology .........................................................................................2-53

2.5.2.2 Wind, Tides, and Circulation.....................................................................2-55

2.5.2.3 Coastal Shoreline Erosion Impacts ............................................................2-56

2.5.2.4 Inland Shoreline Erosion Impacts..............................................................2-57

2.5.2.5 Longshore Transport..................................................................................2-57

2.5.2.6 Shoreline Descriptions...............................................................................2-58

2.5.2.7 Historical Shoreline Change in the Study Area .........................................2-59

2.5.2.8 Sabine Pass Sediment Budget....................................................................2-60

2.5.2.9 Existing Project Shoaling and Sediment Transport Conditions.................2-60

2.5.2.9.1 Neches River Channel .......................................................2-62

2.5.2.9.2 Sabine-Neches and Port Arthur Canals .............................2-62

2.5.2.9.3 The Sabine Pass Channel...................................................2-62

2.5.2.9.4 The Sabine Pass Jetty Channel ..........................................2-63

2.5.2.9.5 The Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel..................................2-63

2.5.2.9.6 The Sabine Bank Channel .................................................2-63

2.5.2.9.7 Adjacent Gulf Shorelines ..................................................2-63

2.5.3 Analysis of Sediment-related Problems and Opportunities ..............................................2-64

2.5.3.1 Preliminary Screening – Features Eliminated From Consideration...........2-65

2.5.3.2 Detailed Evaluation of Disposal Features..................................................2-69

2.5.3.2.1 Neches River BU Feature..................................................2-69

2.5.3.2.2 Gulf Shore BU Feature......................................................2-71

2.5.3.3 Upland Placement Features .......................................................................2-75

2.5.3.3.1 Existing Active PAs ..........................................................2-75

2.5.3.3.2 Existing Inactive PAs ........................................................2-75

2.5.3.3.3 Areas Considered for PA Expansion .................................2-76

2.5.3.4 ODMDS Features ......................................................................................2-77

2.5.4 Incremental Environmental Impacts and Benefits of the DMMP.....................................2-78

2.5.4.1 Methods and Objectives.............................................................................2-78

2.5.4.2 Offsetting and Minimizing Ecological Impacts .........................................2-79

758
Table of Contents

Page

iv

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT..............................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 MODELING EXISTING CONDITIONS ...........................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Hydrodynamic Salinity.......................................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Other Engineering Models..................................................................................................3-2

3.1.3 Wetland Value Assessment Model.....................................................................................3-2

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .........................................................................................................3-5

3.2.1 Study Area..........................................................................................................................3-5

3.2.2 Physiography ......................................................................................................................3-5

3.2.3 Geology ..............................................................................................................................3-7

3.2.4 Climate ...............................................................................................................................3-8

3.3 WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................................3-8

3.3.1 Water and Elutriate Chemistry ...........................................................................................3-8

3.3.1.1 Entrance Channel.......................................................................................3-10

3.3.1.2 Sabine Pass Channel..................................................................................3-12

3.3.1.3 Sabine-Neches Canal.................................................................................3-12

3.3.1.4 Port Arthur Turning Basins........................................................................3-13

3.3.1.5 Taylor Bayou Turning Basin .....................................................................3-14

3.3.1.6 Port Arthur Canal.......................................................................................3-14

3.3.1.7 Neches River Channel ...............................................................................3-15

3.3.1.8 Sabine River Channel ................................................................................3-15

3.3.1.9 GIWW – Port Arthur to High Island..........................................................3-16

3.4 SEDIMENT QUALITY ....................................................................................................................3-16

3.4.1 Sabine-Neches Waterway.................................................................................................3-17

3.4.1.1 Entrance Channel.......................................................................................3-17

3.4.1.2 Sabine Pass Channel..................................................................................3-18

3.4.1.3 Sabine-Neches Canal.................................................................................3-19

3.4.1.4 Port Arthur Turning Basins........................................................................3-19

3.4.1.5 Taylor Bayou Turning Basin .....................................................................3-20

3.4.1.6 Port Arthur Canal.......................................................................................3-20

3.4.1.7 Neches River Channel ...............................................................................3-20

3.4.1.8 Sabine River Channel ................................................................................3-21

3.4.1.9 GIWW – Port Arthur to High Island..........................................................3-21

3.4.2 Summary...........................................................................................................................3-22

3.5 HYDROLOGY..................................................................................................................................3-23

3.5.1 Freshwater Flows..............................................................................................................3-25

3.5.2 Water Exchange Patterns between Calcasieu and Sabine Lakes ......................................3-26

3.5.3 Flow Diversion, Demands and Discharges.......................................................................3-28

3.5.3.1 Flow Diversions.........................................................................................3-28

3.5.3.2 Freshwater Demands and Discharges ........................................................3-31

3.5.4 Tides .................................................................................................................................3-32

3.5.5 SNWW and Salinity .........................................................................................................3-32

3.5.6 Groundwater Hydrology...................................................................................................3-33

3.5.7 Erosion..............................................................................................................................3-36

3.6 HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE ...............................................................3-36

759
Table of Contents

Page

v

3.7 AIR QUALITY..................................................................................................................................3-40

3.7.1 Regulatory Context...........................................................................................................3-40

3.7.2 Conformity of Federal Actions.........................................................................................3-43

3.7.3 Air Quality Baseline Condition ........................................................................................3-44

3.8 NOISE ...............................................................................................................................................3-44

3.8.1 Fundamentals and Terminology .......................................................................................3-44

3.8.2 Affected Environment ......................................................................................................3-47

3.9 VEGETATION..................................................................................................................................3-48

3.9.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................3-48

3.9.2 Protected and Sensitive Habitats in the Study Area..........................................................3-51

3.9.2.1 Texas Portion of the Study Area................................................................3-51

3.9.2.2 Louisiana Portion of the Study Area..........................................................3-52

3.9.3 Historical Changes............................................................................................................3-53

3.9.4 Wetland and Aquatic Vegetation Communities ...............................................................3-55

3.9.5 Preparation of Baseline Data Set to Support the WVA Model.........................................3-63

3.10 AQUATIC ECOLOGY .....................................................................................................................3-64

3.10.1 Freshwater ........................................................................................................................3-64

3.10.1.1 Fisheries.....................................................................................................3-64

3.10.1.2 Macroinvertebrates ....................................................................................3-65

3.10.2 Marine ..............................................................................................................................3-70

3.10.2.1 Estuarine Habitats and Fauna ....................................................................3-70

3.10.2.1.1 Open-Bay ..........................................................................3-70

3.10.2.1.2 Open-Bay Bottom..............................................................3-74

3.10.2.1.3 Oyster Reef........................................................................3-74

3.10.2.1.4 Salt Marsh .........................................................................3-76

3.10.2.2 Offshore Habitats and Fauna .....................................................................3-76

3.10.2.2.1 Offshore Sands ..................................................................3-77

3.10.2.2.2 Artificial Reefs ..................................................................3-77

3.10.2.3 Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................................3-78

3.10.2.4 Ballast Water .............................................................................................3-84

3.11 WILDLIFE ........................................................................................................................................3-86

3.11.1 Amphibians.......................................................................................................................3-86

3.11.2 Birds .................................................................................................................................3-86

3.11.3 Mammals ..........................................................................................................................3-87

3.11.4 Reptiles.............................................................................................................................3-90

3.11.5 Insects...............................................................................................................................3-91

3.12 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES...........................................................................3-91

3.12.1 Insects...............................................................................................................................3-93

3.12.2 Flora..................................................................................................................................3-93

3.12.3 Fauna ................................................................................................................................3-93

3.12.3.1 Birds ..........................................................................................................3-94

3.12.3.2 Terrestrial Mammals..................................................................................3-96

3.12.3.3 Aquatic Mammals......................................................................................3-97

3.12.3.4 Reptiles ......................................................................................................3-97

760
Table of Contents

Page

vi

3.12.3.5 Fish and Amphibians ...............................................................................3-100

3.12.3.6 Invertebrates ............................................................................................3-101

3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................3-102

3.13.1 Prehistoric Chronology and Historic Context.................................................................3-102

3.13.1.1 Prehistoric Chronology............................................................................3-102

3.13.1.2 Historic Context.......................................................................................3-103

3.13.2 Previous Investigations...................................................................................................3-105

3.13.2.1 Terrestrial Investigations and Recorded Sites..........................................3-105

3.13.2.2 Marine Investigations and Reported Shipwrecks.....................................3-107

3.13.2.3 National Register Properties ....................................................................3-109

3.14 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES ................................................................................................3-110

3.14.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................3-110

3.14.1.1 Study Area ...............................................................................................3-110

3.14.1.2 Detailed Study Area.................................................................................3-110

3.14.2 Population and Community Cohesion ............................................................................3-113

3.14.2.1 Historic and Projected Population ...........................................................3-113

3.14.2.2 Demographics and Community Cohesion Factors...................................3-116

3.14.2.3 Demographics and Community Cohesion Factors Summary ..................3-125

3.14.2.4 Environmental Justice..............................................................................3-127

3.14.2.4.1 EJ Index Methodology ....................................................3-127

3.14.2.4.2 Minority Status Degree of Vulnerability .........................3-128

3.14.2.4.3 Economic Status Degree of Vulnerability .......................3-128

3.14.2.4.4 Potential Environmental Justice Index ............................3-135

3.14.2.4.5 Environmental Justice Index Analysis.............................3-135

3.14.2.4.6 Census Tract Analysis .....................................................3-135

3.14.2.4.7 Results .............................................................................3-137

3.14.2.5 Port-Related Population...........................................................................3-137

3.14.3 Economics ......................................................................................................................3-138

3.14.3.1 Historical Perspective ..............................................................................3-138

3.14.3.2 Employment.............................................................................................3-139

3.14.3.3 Port-Related Employment and Operations ..............................................3-143

3.14.3.4 Commercial Fishing.................................................................................3-146

3.14.3.5 Recreation................................................................................................3-147

3.14.3.5.1 Recreational Fishing........................................................3-147

3.14.3.5.2 Wildlife-Associated Recreation.......................................3-148

3.14.3.5.3 Hunting............................................................................3-149

3.14.3.5.4 Wildlife Watching ...........................................................3-149

3.14.3.6 Tax Base ..................................................................................................3-150

3.14.4 Land Use.........................................................................................................................3-151

3.14.4.1 Transportation..........................................................................................3-160

3.14.4.1.1 Roadways ........................................................................3-160

3.14.4.1.2 Airports............................................................................3-161

3.14.4.1.3 Railways ..........................................................................3-166

3.14.4.2 Community Services................................................................................3-166

3.14.4.2.1 Fire, Police, and Emergency Medical Service.................3-166

761
Table of Contents

Page

vii

3.14.4.2.2 Public Services and Utilities............................................3-167

3.14.4.2.3 Regional Water Planning.................................................3-167

3.14.4.3 Aesthetics.................................................................................................3-169

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................................4-1

4.1 MODELING FUTURE WITHOUT AND WITH-PROJECT CONDITIONS....................................4-1

4.1.1 Freshwater Inflows .............................................................................................................4-2

4.1.2 Relative Sea Level Rise......................................................................................................4-4

4.1.3 Application of HS Model to Predict Project Effects...........................................................4-5

4.1.3.1 Water Surface Elevations – 48 Foot Channel ..............................................4-5

4.1.3.2 Salinity Changes – 48-Foot Channel ...........................................................4-5

4.1.3.3 Salinity Changes – Other Channel Depths...................................................4-6

4.1.3.4 Salinity Changes – Salinity Mitigation Measures........................................4-8

4.1.4 Application of the WVA Model .........................................................................................4-8

4.1.4.1 Comparison of the FWOP and FWP Conditions .........................................4-8

4.1.4.2 Emergent Marsh Community Models..........................................................4-9

4.1.4.3 Swamp Community Model........................................................................4-12

4.1.4.4 Bottomland Hardwood Model ...................................................................4-13

4.1.5 Storm Surge Sensitivity Modeling....................................................................................4-13

4.2 UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH ECOLOGICAL MODELING FOR THE SNWW

CIP.....................................................................................................................................................4-14

4.2.1 Salinity Sensitivity............................................................................................................4-16

4.2.2 Percent Emergent Marsh Sensitivity Analysis..................................................................4-17

4.2.3 Recommendations Resulting from WVA Model Sensitivity Analysis.............................4-18

4.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY...............................................................................................4-18

4.3.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................................4-18

4.3.2 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................................4-18

4.4 WATER QUALITY ..........................................................................................................................4-20

4.4.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................................4-20

4.4.2 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................................4-20

4.5 SEDIMENT QUALITY ....................................................................................................................4-21

4.5.1 Surficial Sediments...........................................................................................................4-21

4.5.1.1 No-Action Alternative ...............................................................................4-21

4.5.1.2 Preferred Alternative .................................................................................4-21

4.5.2 Maintenance Material .......................................................................................................4-22

4.5.2.1 No-Action Alternative ...............................................................................4-22

4.5.2.2 Preferred Alternative .................................................................................4-22

4.5.3 Summary...........................................................................................................................4-22

4.6 HYDROLOGY..................................................................................................................................4-22

4.6.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................................4-22

4.6.2 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................................4-23

4.6.2.1 Circulation, Exchange, Inflows, Velocities ...............................................4-23

4.6.2.2 Sediment Transport....................................................................................4-24

4.6.2.3 Coastal Shoreline Erosion Impacts ............................................................4-25

4.6.2.4 Inland Shoreline Erosion Impacts..............................................................4-26

762
Table of Contents

Page

viii

4.6.3 Salinity..............................................................................................................................4-26

4.6.3.1 No-Action Alternative ...............................................................................4-26

4.6.3.2 Preferred Alternative .................................................................................4-30

4.6.3.2.1 FWP Salinity Impacts........................................................4-30

4.6.3.2.2 WVA Model Evaluation of Salinity Impacts.....................4-32

4.6.3.2.3 Salinity Impacts by Vegetation Community......................4-34

4.6.3.2.4 Sensitivity to Potential Salinity Changes during

FWP Drought Condition....................................................4-43

4.6.4 Groundwater Hydrology Impacts .....................................................................................4-44

4.6.4.1 No-Action ..................................................................................................4-44

4.6.4.2 Preferred Alternative .................................................................................4-45

4.7 HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE ...............................................................4-46

4.7.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................................4-46

4.7.2 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................................4-46

4.8 AIR QUALITY..................................................................................................................................4-51

4.8.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................................4-52

4.8.2 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................................4-52

4.8.2.1 Air Quality Analysis Results .....................................................................4-53

4.8.2.2 General Conformity Applicability .............................................................4-53

4.9 NOISE IMPACTS .............................................................................................................................4-57

4.9.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................................4-57

4.9.2 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................................4-58

4.10 VEGETATION..................................................................................................................................4-59

4.10.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................................4-59

4.10.1.1 FWOP Shoreline Recession.......................................................................4-60

4.10.1.2 FWOP Interior Marsh Loss........................................................................4-62

4.10.1.2.1 Interior Marsh Loss ...........................................................4-62

4.10.1.2.2 Productivity-Based Land Loss Projection .........................4-65

4.10.1.2.3 Assumptions and Uncertainties of the ProductivityBased Land Loss Projection ..............................................4-65

4.10.1.3 FWOP SAV ...............................................................................................4-66

4.10.1.4 FWOP Effects of Hydrologic Management Structures..............................4-66

4.10.1.5 FWOP Adjustments for CWPPRA Marsh Restoration Projects................4-67

4.10.2 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................................4-67

4.10.2.1 FWP Effects on Cypress-Tupelo Swamps and Bottomland

Hardwood ..................................................................................................4-67

4.10.2.2 FWP Land Loss .........................................................................................4-67

4.10.2.2.1 FWP Shoreline Recession .................................................4-67

4.10.2.2.2 FWP Interior Marsh Loss ..................................................4-68

4.10.2.2.3 FWP SAV..........................................................................4-68

4.10.2.2.4 Adjustments for Land Gains from BU Features and

Mitigation Measures..........................................................4-69

4.11 AQUATIC ECOLOGY .....................................................................................................................4-69

4.11.1 Freshwater ........................................................................................................................4-69

4.11.1.1 No-Action Alternative ...............................................................................4-70

763
Table of Contents

Page

ix

4.11.1.2 Preferred Alternative .................................................................................4-71

4.11.2 Marine ..............................................................................................................................4-72

4.11.2.1 Estuarine Habitats and Fauna ....................................................................4-72

4.11.2.1.1 No-Action Alternative.......................................................4-72

4.11.2.1.2 Preferred Alternative .........................................................4-72

4.11.2.2 Offshore Habitats and Fauna .....................................................................4-74

4.11.2.2.1 No-Action Alternative.......................................................4-74

4.11.2.2.2 Preferred Alternative .........................................................4-74

4.11.2.3 Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................................4-75

4.11.2.3.1 No-Action Alternative.......................................................4-75

4.11.2.3.2 Preferred Alternative .........................................................4-75

4.11.2.4 Ballast Water .............................................................................................4-76

4.11.2.4.1 No-Action Alternative.......................................................4-76

4.11.2.4.2 Preferred Alternative .........................................................4-76

4.11.2.5 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries ....................................................4-76

4.11.2.5.1 No-Action Alternative.......................................................4-76

4.11.2.5.2 Preferred Alternative .........................................................4-77

4.12 WILDLIFE ........................................................................................................................................4-77

4.12.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................................4-77

4.12.2 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................................4-78

4.12.2.1 Dredging/Construction Activities ..............................................................4-78

4.12.2.2 Operational Activities................................................................................4-79

4.13 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES...........................................................................4-79

4.13.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................................4-80

4.13.2 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................................4-80

4.13.2.1 Dredging/Construction Activities ..............................................................4-80

4.13.2.2 Operational Activities................................................................................4-82

4.13.2.3 USFWS Coordination and NMFS Biological Opinion..............................4-82

4.13.2.3.1 Piping Plover, Brown Pelican, and Bald Eagle .................4-82

4.13.2.3.2 Sea Turtles.........................................................................4-83

4.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES..............................................................................................................4-84

4.14.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................................4-84

4.14.2 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................................4-84

4.15 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES ..................................................................................................4-86

4.15.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................................4-86

4.15.2 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................................4-86

4.15.2.1 Population and Social Characteristics (Demographics).............................4-86

4.15.2.2 Environmental Justice................................................................................4-87

4.15.2.3 Community Values ....................................................................................4-87

4.15.2.4 Housing......................................................................................................4-88

4.15.2.5 Economic Characteristics of Area Population ...........................................4-88

4.15.2.6 Leading Economic Sectors ........................................................................4-88

4.15.2.7 Labor Force and Employment ...................................................................4-88

4.15.2.8 Personal Income.........................................................................................4-89

764
Table of Contents

Page

x

4.15.2.9 Oil and Gas Production..............................................................................4-89

4.15.2.10 Public Finance ...........................................................................................4-89

4.15.2.11 Land Use....................................................................................................4-89

4.15.2.12 Recreation/Tourism ...................................................................................4-90

4.15.2.13 Aesthetics...................................................................................................4-91

4.16 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...............................................................................................................4-91

4.16.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................4-91

4.16.2 Method and Evaluation Criteria........................................................................................4-91

4.16.3 Past or Present Actions.....................................................................................................4-97

4.16.3.1 Sabine-Neches Waterway 40-foot Channel (past and current

condition)...................................................................................................4-97

4.16.3.2 GIWW – Texas Section, Main Channel and Tributaries ...........................4-98

4.16.3.3 Neches River Saltwater Barrier Operating Plan.........................................4-98

4.16.3.4 Salt Bayou – McFaddin Ranch Wetlands Salt Water Control Project.......4-99

4.16.3.5 Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material for Marsh Preservation,

GIWW – Port Arthur to High Island, Texas ............................................4-100

4.16.3.6 Sabine-Neches Waterway: Marine Organism Access between

Placement Area No. 11 and Sabine Lake.................................................4-101

4.16.3.7 TxDOT Emergency Action Permit for Fill Along the Sabine River........4-101

4.16.3.8 Habitat Protection and Restoration Projects ............................................4-101

4.16.3.8.1 East Sabine Lake Hydrologic Restoration Project...........4-101

4.16.3.8.2 Black Bayou Hydrologic Restoration Project..................4-102

4.16.3.8.3 Perry Ridge Shoreline Protection Project........................4-103

4.16.3.8.4 GIWW – Perry Ridge West Bank Stabilization...............4-103

4.16.3.9 Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project ....................................................4-104

4.16.3.10 Golden Pass LNG and Pipeline ...............................................................4-106

4.16.3.11 Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline..........................................................4-108

4.16.3.12 Jefferson County Drainage District No. 6 Taylor Bayou Flood

Reduction Project.....................................................................................4-109

4.16.4 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions.........................................................................4-110

4.16.4.1 Port Arthur LNG and Pipeline .................................................................4-110

4.16.4.2 East Texas Regional Water Plan..............................................................4-111

4.16.4.3 Port of Beaumont Intermodal Improvement Projects ..............................4-112

4.16.4.4 Keith Lake Fish Pass Ecosystem Restoration Section 1135 CAP ...........4-113

4.16.4.5 Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay Shoreline Erosion Project........................4-114

4.16.4.6 Toledo Bend Reservoir Relicensing ........................................................4-114

4.16.4.7 Cameron Parish Dredge Project...............................................................4-115

4.16.4.8 Taylor Bayou Canal Seven Gate Saltwater Barrier..................................4-115

4.16.4.9 Study Area Habitat Protection and Restoration Actions..........................4-115

4.16.4.10 Sabine Lake Oil and Gas Projects............................................................4-116

4.16.5 Cumulative Impacts Results ...........................................................................................4-117

4.16.5.1 Ecological and Biological Resources.......................................................4-117

4.16.5.1.1 Wetlands..........................................................................4-117

4.16.5.1.2 Bottomland Forest ...........................................................4-117

4.16.5.1.3 Terrestrial Vegetation......................................................4-117

765
Table of Contents

Page

xi

4.16.5.1.4 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation.......................................4-118

4.16.5.1.5 Plankton and Benthos......................................................4-118

4.16.5.1.6 Essential Fish Habitat......................................................4-119

4.16.5.1.7 Threatened and Endangered Species ...............................4-119

4.16.5.2 Physical and Chemical Resources ...........................................................4-119

4.16.5.2.1 Air Quality.......................................................................4-119

4.16.5.2.2 Noise................................................................................4-119

4.16.5.2.3 Topography, Bathymetry, Soils, Sediment Quality.........4-120

4.16.5.2.4 Water Quality ..................................................................4-120

4.16.5.2.5 Sediment Quality.............................................................4-120

4.16.5.2.6 Shoreline/Bank Erosion...................................................4-120

4.16.5.3 Cultural and Socioeconomic Resources...................................................4-121

4.16.5.3.1 Economy..........................................................................4-121

4.16.5.3.2 Recreational Facilities/Areas...........................................4-121

4.16.5.3.3 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries ..........................4-121

4.16.5.3.4 Ship Accidents/Spills.......................................................4-121

4.16.5.3.5 Public Health and Safety .................................................4-121

4.16.5.3.6 Cultural Resources ..........................................................4-122

4.16.6 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................4-122

5.0 MITIGATION PLAN ..............................................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS...............................................................................................5-1

5.2 MITIGATION PLANNING................................................................................................................5-2

5.2.1 Compliance with Federal Requirements.............................................................................5-2

5.2.2 Compensatory Mitigation Objectives and Target ...............................................................5-4

5.3 RESOURCE AGENCY COORDINATION OF THE RECOMMENDED MITIGATION

PLAN...................................................................................................................................................5-5

5.4 EVALUATION OF ECOLOGICAL MITIGATION MEASURES....................................................5-6

5.4.1 Preliminary Screening of Alternatives................................................................................5-6

5.4.1.1 Measures to Reduce Salinity Intrusion ........................................................5-7

5.4.1.2 Measures to Restore or Protect Habitat .....................................................5-11

5.4.2 Final Screening of Ecological Mitigation Measures.........................................................5-12

5.4.3 Selection of the Best Buy Mitigation Plan........................................................................5-18

5.5 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION PLAN........................................................................................5-21

5.5.1 Willow Bayou Mitigation.................................................................................................5-22

5.5.2 Black Bayou Mitigation....................................................................................................5-25

5.5.3 Comparison of Recommended Mitigation Plan to Mitigation Planning Objectives.........5-26

5.5.4 Performance Criteria for DMMP Restoration/Nourishment and Mitigation Areas..........5-26

5.5.4.1 Design and Construction............................................................................5-26

5.5.4.2 Implementation..........................................................................................5-28

6.0 CONSISTENCY WITH TEXAS AND LOUISIANA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS...........6-1

7.0 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL PLANS AND REGULATIONS .....................7-1

7.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.............................................................................7-1

7.2 RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1899 ..............................................................................................7-1

766
Table of Contents

Page

xii

7.3 CLEAN WATER ACT........................................................................................................................7-1

7.4 CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1970 ................................................................................................................7-2

7.5 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966...............................................................7-2

7.6 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.........................................................................................................7-3

7.7 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT AND MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACT ...........7-4

7.8 FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT OF 1958................................................................7-5

7.9 NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997..............................7-5

7.10 MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972 ........................................................................7-5

7.11 FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1996..............................................7-5

7.12 FEDERAL WATER PROJECT RECREATION ACT .......................................................................7-6

7.13 MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT OF 1972 ..............................7-6

7.14 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT.........................................................................................7-6

7.15 COASTAL BARRIER IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1990...................................................................7-7

7.16 FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT OF 1981 AND THE CEQ MEMORANDUM

PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLANDS..............................................................................................7-7

7.17 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT.....................................................7-8

7.18 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990, PROTECTION OF WETLANDS......................................................7-8

7.19 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13112, INVASIVE SPECIES ........................................................................7-8

7.20 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.........................................................7-9

7.21 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND

LIABILITY ACT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT ........................7-9

7.22 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION – HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE

ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS .................................................................................7-10

7.23 TEXAS CHENIER PLAIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN...............................................................................7-10

7.24 SABINE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX COMPREHENSIVE

CONSERVATION PLAN.................................................................................................................7-11

7.25 TEXAS COASTWIDE EROSION RESPONSE PLAN....................................................................7-12

7.26 LOUISIANA COAST 2050...............................................................................................................7-12

7.27 LOUISIANA COASTAL AREAS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY AND PLAN............7-13

7.28 LOUISIANA’S COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN ...................................................................7-14

7.29 LOUISIANA COASTAL PROTECTION AND RESTORATION ..................................................7-14

7.30 NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN....................................................7-16

767
Table of Contents

Page

xiii

8.0 ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD

THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE BE IMPLEMENTED............................................................................8-1

9.0 ANY IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

INVOLVED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN.......................................9-1

10.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN’S ENVIRONMENT

AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ................10-1

11.0 ENERGY AND NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS AND

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION

MEASURES ............................................................................................................................................................11-1

12.0 LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE FINAL

STATEMENT ARE SENT....................................................................................................................................12-1

12.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM ..........................................................................................12-1

12.2 REQUIRED COORDINATION........................................................................................................12-1

12.2.1 PUBLIC VIEWS AND RESPONSES..............................................................................12-2

12.3 STATEMENT RECIPIENTS............................................................................................................12-2

13.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .........................................................................................................................................13-1

14.0 LITERATURE CITED..........................................................................................................................................14-1

15.0 INDEX......................................................................................................................................................................15-1

Appendices

A Coordination

A1 Agency Coordination

A2 Endangered Species Act Correspondence

A3 Fish and Wildlife Coordination and Essential Fish Habitat

A4 Cultural Resources Coordination

A5 Public Comments

A6 Tribal Coordination

B Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites Final Environmental Impact Statement

C Wetlands Value Assessment Ecological Modeling Report

D Dredged Material Management Plan

E Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation

F Final General Conformity Determination

G Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion

G1 Biological Assessment

G2 Biological Opinion

H Historic Properties Programmatic Agreement

I Compliance with the Texas and Louisiana Coastal Management Programs

I1 Compliance with Texas Coastal Management Program

I2 Compliance with Louisiana Coastal Management Program

J SNWW CIP Mitigation/Beneficial Use Monitoring Plan

K Public Meeting Transcripts

768
Table of Contents

xiv

List of Figures

Page

1.1-1 Sabine-Neches Waterway .....................................................................................................................1-3

1.1-2 Sabine-Neches Waterway, Project and Study Areas.............................................................................1-5

2.1-1 Sabine-Neches Waterway, Neches River Channel................................................................................2-3

2.4-1a Sabine-Neches Waterway, Extension Channel ...................................................................................2-29

2.4-1b Sabine-Neches Waterway, Sabine Bank and Outer Bar Channels ......................................................2-30

2.4-1c Port Arthur, Sabine Pass, Sabine Pass Jetty Channel..........................................................................2-31

2.4-1d Sabine-Neches Waterway, Sabine Pass Channel ................................................................................2-32

2.4-1e Sabine-Neches Waterway, Port Arthur Canal (including Taylor Bayou) ...........................................2-33

2.4-1f Sabine-Neches Waterway, Sabine-Neches Canal ...............................................................................2-34

2.4-1g Sabine-Neches Waterway, Neches River Channel..............................................................................2-35

2.5-1 Neches River BU Feature....................................................................................................................2-70

2.5-2 Gulf Shore BU Feature........................................................................................................................2-72

3.5-1 Map of Hydrologic Connections Between Sabine Lake and Calcasieu Lake .....................................3-27

3.5-2 Geologic and Hydrologic Units within the Project Area.....................................................................3-34

3.9-1 SNWW Hydrographic Unit Index Map...............................................................................................3-49

3.14-1 2000 Census Tracts, Sabine-Neches Waterway ................................................................................3-111

3.14-2a Detailed Study Area Minority Status – 2000 ....................................................................................3-129

3.14-2b Detailed Study Area Economic Status – 2000 ..................................................................................3-131

3.14-2c Detailed Study Area Environmental Justice Index............................................................................3-133

3.14-3a Land Use, Sabine-Neches Waterway, Beaumont, Vidor, and Vicinity.............................................3-153

3.14-3b Land Use, Sabine-Neches Waterway, Nederland, Groves, Port Neches, Port Arthur, and

Vicinity..............................................................................................................................................3-155

3.14-3c Land Use, Sabine-Neches Waterway, Sabine Pass and Vicinity.......................................................3-157

3.14-4a Sabine-Neches Waterway, Airport Locations FAA AOA.................................................................3-162

3.14-4b Sabine-Neches Waterway, Orange County Airport FAA AOA........................................................3-163

3.14-4c Sabine-Neches Waterway, Southeast Texas Regional Airport FAA AOA.......................................3-164

3.14-4d Sabine-Neches Waterway, Beaumont Municipal Airport FAA AOA...............................................3-165

4.1-1 SNWW Low and Median Inflow Hydrographs.....................................................................................4-3

4.1-2 Mean Salinity Values, Low-Flow Conditions.......................................................................................4-5

4.1-3 Time Series of Tide at Neches River Salt Water Barrier – Low-Flow Case .........................................4-6

4.7-1 Priority HTRW Sites Within the SNWW............................................................................................4-49

5.4-1 Conceptual Design of Lock-Dam Structure ..........................................................................................5-8

5.4-2 Results of CE/ICA Analysis................................................................................................................5-19

5.5-1 Sabine-Neches Waterway Mitigation Plan..........................................................................................5-23

769
Table of Contents

xv

List of Tables

Page

ES-1 Project Dimensions for Preferred Alternative ....................................................................................ES-3

1.3-1 Existing SNWW Channel Dimensions................................................................................................1-10

1.6-1 SNWW ICT and Workgroup Participants...........................................................................................1-16

2.3-1 Analysis Matrix – Potential Impacts to Evaluation Criteria................................................................2-15

2.3-2 Relative Sea Level Rise Sensitivity of Project Alternatives................................................................2-26

2.4-1 Project Dimensions for Preferred Alternative .....................................................................................2-28

2.4-2 New Work and 50-Year Maintenance Quantities for Preferred Alternative .......................................2-36

2.4-3 Project Details of Sabine Bank Extension...........................................................................................2-37

2.4-4 Project Details for Sabine Bank Channel Reach .................................................................................2-38

2.4-5 Project Details for Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel Reach..................................................................2-38

2.4-6 Project Details for Sabine Pass Jetty Channel Reach..........................................................................2-39

2.4-7 Project Details for Sabine Pass Channel Reach ..................................................................................2-40

2.4-8 Project Details for Port Arthur Canal Reach (including Taylor Bayou)..............................................2-40

2.4-9 Project Details for Sabine-Neches Canal Reach .................................................................................2-42

2.4-10 Project Details for the Neches River Channel Reach..........................................................................2-43

2.4-11 Real Estate Requirements for Placement Areas ..................................................................................2-44

2.4-12 Existing and Proposed Maintenance Dredging Quantities..................................................................2-46

2.4-13 DMMP BU Features, SNWW Preferred Alternative ..........................................................................2-48

2.4-14 Upland Placement Areas, SNWW Preferred Alternative....................................................................2-49

2.4-15 Preferred Alternative ODMDSs ..........................................................................................................2-49

2.4-16 Summary of the Impact Analysis and Compensatory Mitigation Needs for the Preferred

Alternative...........................................................................................................................................2-50

2.4-17 Critical Assumptions...........................................................................................................................2-51

2.5-1 Sediment Budget for Sabine Pass........................................................................................................2-61

2.5-2 Dredged Material Beneficial Use Features Eliminated from Consideration .......................................2-66

2.5-3 Acreage Restored by Each Component of Neches River BU Feature.................................................2-71

2.5-4 Texas – FWP Impacts and Benefits by Habitat Type..........................................................................2-80

2.5-5 Louisiana – FWP Impacts and Benefits by Habitat Type ...................................................................2-82

2.5-6 Net FWP Impacts (AAHUs) for Project as a Whole...........................................................................2-83

3.2-1 Classified Waterbody Segments and Water Quality Standards.............................................................3-9

3.2-2 Sabine-Neches Waterway and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway USACE Tested Parameters ...................3-11

3.3-1 Summary of Priority HTRW Sites within Sabine-Neches Waterway .................................................3-22

3.7-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................................................3-41

3.7-2 Summary of Air Emissions for the Beaumont-Port Arthur Area and Cameron/Calcasieu

Parishes, 2002 .....................................................................................................................................3-45

3.7-3 Monitored Values Compared with NAAQS, Beaumont-Port Arthur and Cameron/Calcasieu

Parishes, 2004–2008 ...........................................................................................................................3-46

3.10-1 Species Collected by TPWD from Bessie Heights (Gill Nets) and Neches River (Bag Seines),

January 1986–June 2001 .....................................................................................................................3-66

3.10-2 Texas Commercial Landings for Sabine Lake Annual Summaries, 1992–2001.................................3-72

3.10-3 Louisiana Commercial Landings for Sabine Lake Annual Summaries, 1999–2005...........................3-73

3.10-4 Texas Commercial Offshore Landings Annual Summaries, 1992–2001 ............................................3-75

3.10-5 Essential Fish Habitat – Adult and Juvenile Presence in the Sabine-Neches Study Area...................3-80

3.10-6 Current and Potential Aquatic Species that Pose a Threat to Texas and Louisiana ............................3-85

770
Table of Contents

List of Tables, cont’d

Page

xvi

3.11-1 Number of Nests of Colonial Waterbirds at Selected Rookeries in the Study Area............................3-88

3.12-1 Threatened and Endangered Species of Potential Occurrence Within the Study Area .......................3-92

3.14-1 Study Area Population Trends, 1980–2000.......................................................................................3-114

3.14-2 Study Area Population Projections, 2000–2050................................................................................3-115

3.14-3 Detailed Study Area Population, 2000 ..............................................................................................3-117

3.14-4 Detailed Study Area Educational Attainment, 2000 .........................................................................3-118

3.14-5 Detailed Study Area Median Family Income, 1999..........................................................................3-120

3.14-6 Detailed Study Area Travel Time to Work, 2000 .............................................................................3-121

3.14-7 Detailed Study Area Length of Household Residency, 2000...........................................................3-123

3.14-8 Detailed Study Area Household Tenure, 2000..................................................................................3-124

3.14-9 Detailed Study Area Age Characteristics, 2000 ...............................................................................3-126

3.14-10 Detailed Study Area Ethnic Distribution and Poverty Status, 2000..................................................3-136

3.14-11 Study Area Major Employment Sectors............................................................................................3-140

3.14-12 Study Area Unemployment, 1998 to 2008........................................................................................3-143

3.14-13 Top 20 Employers, Study Area, 2008 ...............................................................................................3-144

3.14-14 Top 20 Industrial, Manufacturing and Port-Related Employers – Study Area..................................3-145

3.14-15 Top 10 Waterborne Export and Import Commodities – Ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur,

Orange, and Sabine Pass, 2003 .........................................................................................................3-146

3.14-16 Trends in Commercial Fishery Landings – Sabine Lake System Compared with All Texas

Bay Systems, 1999............................................................................................................................3-147

3.14-17 Sales and Use Taxes by Study Area Jurisdictions, 2004...................................................................3-150

3.14-18 Property Tax Role for Study Area Jurisdictions................................................................................3-152

3.14-19 Public Service and Utility Providers within the Study Area .............................................................3-168

4.1-1 Statistical Analysis of Salinity Differences – Low Flow ......................................................................4-7

4.1-2 Statistical Analysis of Salinity Differences – Median Flow..................................................................4-7

4.1-3 SNWW WVA Impacts Summary – Before DMMP Benefits and Mitigation (Louisiana

Impacts Sorted by AAHUs) ................................................................................................................4-10

4.1-4 SNWW WVA Impacts Summary – Before DMMP Benefits and Mitigation (Texas Impacts

Sorted by AAHUs)..............................................................................................................................4-11

4.6-1 FWOP and FWP Mean Salinities and 95 Percent Confidence Range.................................................4-28

4.6-2 FWOP and FWP Mean High Salinities and 95 Percent Confidence Range........................................4-29

4.6-3 Mean Salinity Predicted by the Hydrodynamic-Salinity Model..........................................................4-30

4.6-4 Salinity Changes in Texas Hydro-units...............................................................................................4-35

4.6-5 Salinity Changes in Louisiana Hydro-units.........................................................................................4-36

4.6-6 FWOP Optimal Salinity Range – Acreage Analysis by Habitat Type ................................................4-37

4.6-7 FWP Optimal Salinity Range – Acreage Analysis by Habitat Type ...................................................4-38

4.7-1 Summary of Priority HTRW Sites within Sabine-Neches Waterway .................................................4-47

4.8-1 Estimated Annual Project Construction Emissions – SNWW CIP Preferred Alternative...................4-54

4.8-2 Total Annual Project Emissions Compared with BPA/Cameron/Calcasieu 2002 Emissions

Inventory .............................................................................................................................................4-55

4.8-3 Summary of VOC Construction Emissions Subject to General Conformity.......................................4-56

4.8-4 Summary of NOx Construction Emissions Subject to General Conformity........................................4-56

4.9-1 Typical Noise Levels...........................................................................................................................4-57

4.9-2 Calculated Noise Levels of Maintenance Dredging............................................................................4-58

4.10-1 Acres Lost to FWOP Shoreline Recession..........................................................................................4-62

771
Table of Contents

List of Tables, cont’d

Page

xvii

4.10-2 Productivity-Based Land Loss Projection...........................................................................................4-66

4.14-1 Terrestrial and Marine Historic Properties Potentially Adversely Affected by the SNWW CIP ........4-85

4.16-1 Impact Summary for Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects with Publicly

Available Information .........................................................................................................................4-94

5.1-1 Net Project Impacts and Benefits by Average Annual Habitat Units....................................................5-1

5.1-2 FWP Compensatory Mitigation Target for Louisiana...........................................................................5-5

5.4-1 Mitigation Alternatives Evaluated in Final Screening ........................................................................5-14

5.4-2 Solutions and Scales for Cost Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analysis ............................................5-17

5.4-3 Incremental Cost of Best Buy Plan Combinations (Ordered by Output) ............................................5-19

5.4-4 Recommended Mitigation Plan...........................................................................................................5-20

5.5-1 Recommended Mitigation Plan – Acreage Analysis...........................................................................5-21

772
xviii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

μg/L micrograms per liter

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

°F degrees Fahrenheit

AAHU Average Annual Habitat Unit

AIRData Aerometric Information Retrieval Database

AIS Automatic Identification System

AOA air operations area

AOU American Ornithologists’ Union

AQCR Air Quality Control Region

B.C.E. Before the Common Era

B.P. before present

BA Biological Assessment

BEG Bureau of Economic Geology

BHM Bottomland Hardwood Model

BO Biological Opinion

BOOTS Bulk Oil Offshore Transfer System

BPA Beaumont-Port Arthur

BU Beneficial Use

C.E. Common Era

CAA Clean Air Act

CAP Continuing Authorities Program

CAR Coordination Act Report

CBD central business district

CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan

CE/ICA cost effective/incremental cost analysis

CEPRA Texas Coastal Erosion Planning and Response Program

CEQ President’s Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information

System

CFR U.S. Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

CHL Engineering Research and Development Center’s Coastal and Hydraulic Laboratory

CIP Channel Improvement Project

CMP Coastal Management Program

CNRA coastal natural resource area

CO carbon monoxide

CORRACT Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Actions List

CW Contaminants Workgroup

CWA Clean Water Act

CWPPRA Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act

773
Acronyms and Abbreviations

xix

cy cubic yards

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Plan

dB decibel

dBA A-weighted sound level

dbh diameter at breast height

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DMMP Dredged Material Management Plan

DMPA Dredged Material Placement Area

DO dissolved oxygen

DWT dead weight tons

EC Engineer Circular

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EH&A Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJ Environmental Justice

EMCM Emergent Marsh Community Model

EnvWG Environmental Workgroup

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ER Engineer Regulation

ERDC Engineering Research and Development Center

ERL Effects Range Low

ERNS Emergency Response Notification System

ESA Endangered Species Act

ETJ extraterritorial jurisdiction

ETRW East Texas Regional Water

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FFR Final Feasibility Report

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FINDS Facility Index System

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FR Federal Register

FWOP future without-project

FWP future with-project

GEC Gulf Engineers and Consultants, Inc.

GIS Geographic Information System

GIWW Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

GLO General Land Office

GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

GNF general navigation features

GSMFC Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission

GTCBT Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail

Gulf Gulf of Mexico

774
Acronyms and Abbreviations

xx

HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern

HEP Habitat Evaluation Procedure

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HPPA Historic Properties Programmatic Agreement

HS hydrodynamic salinity

HSI Habitat Suitability Index

HTRW Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste

HU Hydrologic Unit, Hydro-Unit

HW Habitat Evaluation Workgroup

ICT Interagency Coordination Team

IH interstate highway

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISO Insurance Services Office

ITM Inland Testing Manual

IWR-WCUS Institute of Water Resources-Waterborne Commerce of the U.S.

JCDD6 Jefferson County Drainage District No. 6

JCND Jefferson County Navigation District

JCWND Jefferson County Waterway and Navigation District

LBG and TEA Louis Berger Group and Toxicological & Environmental Associates

LC50 the concentration of a substance that is lethal to 50 percent of test organisms after a

continuous exposure of 96 hours

LCA Louisiana Coastal Areas

LCMP Louisiana Coastal Management Program

LCPRA Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority

LCWCR/WCRA Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the

Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority

LDA Louisiana Division of Archaeology

LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

Ldn Day-night Sound Level

LDNR Louisiana Department of Natural Resources

LDOL Louisiana Department of Labor

LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

Leq equivalent sound level

LERR lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocation

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

LNVA Lower Neches Valley Authority

LOOP Louisiana Offshore Oil Port

LUST leaking underground storage tank

LWQS Louisiana Surface Water Quality Standards

mcy million cubic yards

mg/kg milligrams per kilogram

mg/L milligrams per liter

MGD million gallons per day

MLK Martin Luther King

MLLW mean lower low water

775
Acronyms and Abbreviations

xxi

MLT mean low tide

mm millimeters

MMS Minerals Management Service

MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area

MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

MW Modeling Workgroup

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan

NBIC National Ballast Information Clearinghouse

NDD Natural Diversity Database

NED National Economic Development

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFWL National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory

NGA Natural Gas Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NO nitric oxide

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOx nitrogen oxides

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NPL National Priority List

NPS National Park Service

NRC National Research Council

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

NWRC National Wetlands Research Center

O&M Operation and Maintenance

O3 ozone

OCM Office of Coastal Management

ODMDS Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site

OW ODMDS Workgroup

PA Placement Area

PADD Petroleum Administration Defense District

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Pb lead

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls

PCP pentachlorophenol

PED preconstruction, engineering, and design

PM particulate matter

PM10 inhalable particulate matter <10 microns in diameter

776
Acronyms and Abbreviations

xxii

PM2.5 fine particulate matter ≤2.5 microns in diameter

ppm parts per million

ppt parts per thousand

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RIA Regional Implementation Agreement

RRC Texas Railroad Commission

RSLR relative sea level rise

RSM Regional Sediment Management

RW Restoration and Beneficial Uses Workgroup

SAL State Archeological Landmark

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation

SCM Swamp Community Model

SETWAC Southeast Texas Waterways Advisory Council

SH State Highway

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SI Suitability indices

SIP State Implementation Plan

SMMP Site Monitoring and Management Plan

SNND Sabine Neches Navigation District

SNWW Sabine-Neches Waterway

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOC Species of Concern

SP State percentage

SRA-LA Sabine River Authority of Louisiana

SRA-TX Sabine River Authority of Texas

SWL solid waste landfill

SWQM Standard Water Quality Monitoring

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (formerly TNRCC)

TCMP Texas Coastal Management Program

TCOON Texas Coast Ocean Observation Network

TDS total dissolved solids

TDSHS Texas Department of State Health Services

TLO Texas Legislature Online

TNHP Texas Natural Heritage Program

TNRCC Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

TOC total organic carbon

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon

TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

tpy tons per year

TRIS Toxic Release Inventory System

TSS total suspended solids

TVS total volatile solids

TWC Texas Workforce Commission

TWDB Texas Water Development Board

777
Acronyms and Abbreviations

xxiii

TWQS Texas Surface Water Quality Standards

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation

ULCC Ultra Large Crude Carriers

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USCCSP U.S. Climate Change Science Program

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USDC U.S. Department of Commerce

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VFD volunteer fire department

VLCC Very Large Crude Carriers

VOC volatile organic compound

VTS Vessel Traffic Service

WAM Water Availability Models

WMA Wildlife Management Area

WQC water quality criteria

WQS water quality standards

WRDA Water Resources Development Act

WVA Wetland Value Assessment

778
1-1

1.0 NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTION

This chapter is divided into seven sections. Section 1.1 provides information on study authorities, project

sponsors, cooperating agencies, and the location of the proposed project. Section 1.2 explains the purpose

for, and need of, the proposed project, and Section 1.3 describes the existing project. Section 1.4

summarizes problems, needs, and concerns expressed by the public, resource agencies, and local

governments at scoping meetings early in the study. Section 1.5 identifies planning objectives for the

feasibility study, and Section 1.6 describes the resource agency coordination process and team. The

chapter concludes in Section 1.7 with a description of resource management opportunities for dredged

material.

1.1 STUDY AUTHORITY AND LOCATION

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Resolution, dated June 5, 1997, authorized the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to review previous USACE reports on the Sabine-Neches

Waterway and other pertinent reports to determine the feasibility of modifying the channels serving the

Ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange, Texas, in the interests of commercial navigation. These

channels are collectively named the Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW). The Jefferson County

Navigation District (JCND), non-Federal sponsor of the existing channels to Beaumont and Port Arthur,

requested that the USACE initiate a reconnaissance study of potential channel improvements in

September 1998. The reconnaissance investigation resulted in a finding that there was a Federal interest in

the project and recommended that the study be continued into the feasibility phase. The JCND expressed

its intent to act as the non-Federal sponsor for this phase of the study. The Final Feasibility Report (FFR)

for the Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project (SNWW CIP) will determine whether

improvements to the existing Federal navigation project are justified, and provide documentation needed

to request Congressional authorization and funding for construction of the project. The Sabine River

Channel to Orange, Texas, was not included in this FFR due to expectations of continued low utilization

of the existing 30-foot channel. In 2002, the JCND was renamed the Jefferson County Waterway and

Navigation District (JCWND), and in 2007, the JCWND was renamed the Sabine Neches Navigation

District (SNND); the latter designation is used throughout the remainder of this document.

In March 2000, USACE and JCND signed an agreement to prepare an FFR and a Final Environmental

Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed CIP. The lead agency for the FEIS is the USACE, with several

cooperating agencies (Appendix A1). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has agreed to be

a cooperating agency for purposes relating to its authority to designate Ocean Dredged Material Disposal

Sites (ODMDSs). The ODMDS FEIS, attached as Appendix B, provides the environmental analysis and

public review required for subsequent EPA site designation. The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Texas General Land Office (GLO), and Louisiana

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) have agreed to be cooperating agencies with participation

limited to meetings, teleconferences, and report review. The cost of the FFR and FEIS is shared by the

USACE and the JCND.

779
1: Need For and Objectives of Action

1-2

The SNWW is located on the upper Texas Gulf Coast at the Texas-Louisiana state boundary (Figure 1.1-

1). Sabine Pass, Sabine Lake, and the Sabine River together form the southern section of the boundary

between the two states. The area surrounding the waterway is generally referred to as the “Golden

Triangle,” which refers to the metropolitan area’s three major cities and their ports—Beaumont, Port

Arthur, and Orange, Texas. The “Golden” refers to the wealth that came from the Spindletop oil strike in

Beaumont in 1901. Several smaller cities also are located in the Golden Triangle, including Nederland,

Port Neches, Groves, Bridge City, Vidor, and the City of Sabine Pass.

The project area is defined as those areas that will be directly affected by construction of the CIP, i.e., the

proposed dredging footprint, existing and proposed placement areas (PAs) identified in the Dredged

Material Management Plan (DMMP), and mitigation areas. The CIP refers to proposed plans for

navigation improvements. Details of the Preferred Alternative for these improvements are provided in

Section 2.4.

The study area includes a larger area for which environmental effects of alternatives have been analyzed

(Figure 1.1-2). The study area encompasses a 2,000-square-mile area that contains the smaller project

area and includes the following waterbodies and adjacent coastal wetlands: Sabine Lake and adjacent

marshes in Texas and Louisiana, the Neches River Channel up to the Neches River Saltwater Barrier, the

Sabine River Channel to the Sabine Island Wildlife Management Area (WMA), the Gulf Intracoastal

Waterway (GIWW) west to Star Bayou, the GIWW east to Gum Cove Ridge, the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf)

shoreline extending to 10 miles either side of Sabine Pass, and 35 miles offshore into the Gulf.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the proposed CIP is to improve the transportation efficiency of the SNWW’s deep-draft

navigation system, while protecting the quality of the area’s coastal and estuarine resources. Channel

improvements are needed to support the SNWW’s critically important role in the Nation’s economy. In

2007, the SNWW ranked 4th in the Nation in total tonnage, importing 141 million short tons (Institute of

Water Resources-Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. [IWR-WCUS], 2007). Individually, the Port of

Beaumont ranked 5th nationally for domestic and total tonnage, and the Port of Port Arthur ranked 28th

in the Nation (IWR-WCUS, 2007).

The Port of Beaumont’s public docks are located on the Neches River Channel, as well as several crude

petroleum and product terminals. Port Arthur’s general cargo facilities are located on the Sabine-Neches

Canal, and its crude petroleum and product terminals are located in the Taylor Bayou Basins. The Taylor

Bayou Basins are located immediately south of Port Arthur at the junction of the Sabine-Neches Canal

with the GIWW. In addition to its deep-draft traffic, the Sabine-Neches Canal serves as a through channel

for shallow-draft barge traffic on the GIWW.

Sixty percent of the SNWW tonnage total comprises deep-draft movements, and the remaining 40 percent

is shallow-draft GIWW traffic. There are 20 waterfront facilities in Port Arthur and 27 in Beaumont that

receive and/or ship crude petroleum or petroleum/chemical products, making up the vast majority of

780
10

10

82

90

90

108 10

10

90

87

73

62

96

87

12

87

62

73

96

365

347

69

287

421

113

105

62

87

90

10

10

10

10

87

73

365

90

10

69

96

287

347

10

105

73

62

10

62

421

113

12

87

96

62

87

87

Texas

Louisiana

Hardin

Calcasieu

Cameron

Orange

Jefferson

Jasper

Newton

Beaumont

Orange

Pinehurst Vidor

Mauriceville

Deweyville

Silsbee

West Orange

Bevil Oaks

Port

Arthur

Rose City

Bridge City

Pine Forest Vinton

Sabine NWR

Sabine Pass Battleground SHP

McFaddin NWR

JD Murphree WMA

Sea Rim

State Park

Lower Neches WMA- Nelda Starks Unit

Lower Neches WMA- Old River Unit

Lower Neches WMA- Adams Bayou Unit

Texas Point WMA

Sabine Island WMA

Blue Elbow Swamp/ Tony Houseman WMA

JD Murphree WMA

Cove

Blue

Ridge

Point

Bayou

Bayou

Bayou

Bayou

Bayou

Bayou

Bayou

Sabine

Fish Pass

Cow Bayou

Star Bayou

Nibbet Bluff

East

Canal

GIWW West

Sabine Pass

Jetty Channel

Sabine-Neches Canal

Sabine Bank Channel

Sabine Lake East Shore

Black

Elbow

Adams

Black

Willow

Island

Johnson

Cut Off

Green's

Gum Cove

Blue Buck

Old River

Keith Lake Salt Bayou

Pine Island

Perry Ridge

State Park Area

South Stark Canal

GIWW

Channel

Port Arthur

Sabine Pass

Neches River Channel

Neches River Saltwater Barrier

Figure 1.1-1

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Prepared for: USACE

Job No.: 100007609

Prepared by: RF

Scale: 1:350,381

Date: 1 April 2010

N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Sabine_Neches/100007609/geo/figs/Fig1.1-1_vr3.mxd

0 3 6 9 12

Miles

T E X A S

G U L F O F M E X I C O

Vicinity Map

Legend

State Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas

State Boundaries

County Boundaries

Channel Centerlines

Louisiana Point

End of Exisiting Channel

Big Thicket National Preserve

1-3

781
1: Need For and Objectives of Action

1-4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

782
10

10

27

82

90

90

108

27

10

90

10

90

87

73

69

62

96

87

12

87

62

73

96

365

365

347

69

287

421

113

105

62

87

90

10

10

10

10

87

73

365

365

90

10

69

96

287

347

10

105

73

62

10

62

421

113

12

87

69

96

62

87

87

G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

CALCASIEU

TEXAS POINT WMA

LOUISIANA POINT

End of Existing Channel

BIG THICKET

NATIONAL PRESERVE

JEFFERSON

ORANGE

HARDIN

JASPER

NEWTON

CAMERON

Port Arthur

Beaumont

Orange Vidor

Nederland

Lumberton

Bridge City

Silsbee

West Orange

Pine Forest

Bevil Oaks

Pinehurst

China

Rose Hill Acres

SABINE NWR

J. D. MURPHREE WMA

SEA RIM

STATE PARK

BLUE ELBOW SWAMP/

TONY HOUSEMAN WMA

LOWER NECHES WMA - OLD RIVER UNIT

J. D. MURPHREE WMA

LOWER NECHES WMA -

ADAMS BAYOU

LOWER NECHES WMA

NELDA STARK

SABINE PASS

BATTLEGROUND SP/SHS

MCFADDIN NWR

GIWW

Canal

Channel

GIWW West

Taylor Bayou

Jetty Channel

SNWW Entrance

Ridge

Bayou

Bayou

Bayou

Bayou

Island

Fish Pass

Blue Buck

Star Bayou

Salt Bayou

Pine Island

Perry Ridge

Nibbet Bluff

East

Port Arthur

Sabine Pass

Sabine Pass

Neches River

Turning Basin

Extension Channel

Sabine-Neches Canal

Sabine Bank Channel

Neches River Channel Cove

Blue

Point

Bayou

Black

Elbow

Bayou

Adams

Black

Bayou

Bessie

Willow

Sabine

Heights

Johnson

Cut Off

Green's

Gum Cove

Cow Bayou

Old River

Keith Lake

Rose City East

State Park Area

South Stark Canal

Figure 1.1-2

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Project and Study Area

Prepared for: USACE

Job No.: 100007609

Prepared by: RF

Scale: 1" = 6 miles

Date: 1 April 2010

N:\Clients\U_Z\USACE\Projects\Sabine_Neches\100007609\Figures\Fig_1_1_2_vr4.mxd

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

Miles

G U L F O F M E X I C O

Vicinity Map

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel

Legend

Project Area, Dredged Channel

State Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas

Project Area, Proposed Dredged Material Placement Areas

Project Area,BU Features/ Mitigation Areas

County Boundaries

Channel Centerlines

Study Area

State Boundaries

Texas

Louisiana

Project Area, Dredged Material Placement Areas

Channel Reach

Limits

Texas Louisiana

1-5

783
1: Need For and Objectives of Action

1-6

(This page left blank intentionally.)

784
1: Need For and Objectives of Action

1-7

deep-draft movements on the waterway. The SNWW refineries also supply crude oil to the U.S.

Department of Energy’s “Big Hill Site” in Texas and the “Hackberry Site” in the Louisiana Strategic

Petroleum Reserve. The waterway is the primary means of delivery for crude oil to four major refineries

in Beaumont and Port Arthur. Domestic refineries on the Gulf Coast, the East Coast, and in the Midwest

rely on the SNWW for 12 to 16 percent of waterborne crude oil deliveries (Martin Associates, 2006).

Refined petroleum products are shipped from the SNWW via three major pipeline systems to 21 states

east of the Rockies, including states as far away as Delaware, New Jersey, and Indiana. Other significant

commodities and break bulk cargoes that are handled by the SNWW ports include petroleum coke,

ammonia, sulphuric acid, metallic salts, liquid sulphur, bulk grain, manufactured iron and steel products,

limestone, sand and gravel, and liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The SNWW’s crude petroleum imports represent 4 percent of the U.S. total and 7 percent of the U.S.

Western Gulf Coast region. From 1992 through 2005, crude petroleum imports on the SNWW grew at a

7.0 percent compound annual rate, compared to a 3.6 percent growth rate for the U.S. as a whole. Overall,

commodity and breakbulk tonnage for the SNWW ports has also increased over this period. Grain exports

have increased marginally since the middle 1990s, and Beaumont’s 2005 to 2007 wheat exports represent

5 percent of the U.S. total. The waterway imported 14 percent of 2005 to 2007 U.S. pulp and waste paper

products. Approximately 10 percent of 2005 to 2007 U.S. fertilizer and fertilizer mixes were exported

from Beaumont.

During the early 2000s, permits were approved for Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass, Exxon-Mobil’s

Golden Pass, and Sempra’s Port Arthur LNG terminals. Construction of the Sabine Pass terminal was

completed in April 2008 and operations began in April 2008. The Golden Pass LNG terminal was

scheduled for completion in mid-2010 but has been delayed due to Hurricane Ike cleanup activities.

Construction of the permitted Port Arthur facility is dependent upon the finalization of commercial

arrangements. The SNWW LNG facilities are located in the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal;

these reaches are presently 500 feet wide and would remain so in the without-project future. LNG vessels

using the SNWW would be subject to strict U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) regulations and to local pilot rules,

and all LNG vessel movements would be subject to one-way traffic. Since the Sabine Pass terminal

opened, throughput has been low due to increased demand in other parts of the world. Long-term

expectations are for prices to stabilize and shipments to the U.S. to increase, as LNG is expected to play

an increasingly important role in the natural gas industry and global energy markets in the near and longterm future. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has raised its projections for LNG imports in

2009, citing falling demand elsewhere as new global production comes online.

The existing SNWW navigation channel system is congested. The existing 40-foot project depth was

designed to efficiently and safely accommodate much smaller vessels than are being used today. The

current 40-foot channel was completed in the late 1960s, and at that time, crude oil tankers averaging

40,000 dead weight tons (DWT) with loaded drafts of 36 feet were common. Vessels over 90,000 DWT

are now used routinely for crude oil imports to both Beaumont and Port Arthur. In addition to larger

vessels, the amount of vessel traffic on the SNWW has also increased. Both the SNWW and U.S. crude

oil imports have risen steadily since the 1970s. The SNWW’s 2002 to 2006 crude petroleum waterborne

785
1: Need For and Objectives of Action

1-8

imports comprised 12 percent of U.S. and 18 percent of Western Gulf Coast imports. The SNWW

capacity presently represents 6 percent of the U.S. total. The SNWW capacity levels for 2009 were

12 percent higher than in 2004, and 31 percent higher than in 1994. Recent increases in the SNWW

refinery capacity indicate that the region will gain an increasing share of U.S. totals.

With the current channel depth, there are draft restrictions on large vessels currently utilizing the channel.

A majority of the tonnage carried on the SNWW is in deep-draft vessels, and the vast majority of the

deep-draft traffic is composed of crude oil and petrochemical products. However, LNG, grain, and

aggregate products, such as iron ore, steel slab, limestone, sand, and gravel, are also carried in draftconstrained deep-draft vessels. Currently at the SNWW, very large crude carriers transfer tonnage at an

offshore location onto one or more shuttle vessels in a process called lightering. These very large carriers

cannot enter the SNWW because of their size and draft. In addition, other large crude tankers presently

offload a partial load offshore to a shuttle vessel or vessels, a process called lightening. These vessels then

enter the SNWW with the shuttle vessels as they are small enough to navigate the SNWW with a lighter

load.

The SNWW experienced strong growth over the past decade, with total tonnage increasing from an

average of 102 million short tons for 1994 to 1996 to 141 million for 2004 to 2006. As imports have

increased, the number of lightering and lightened vessels and product carriers has also increased, adding

to shipping delays and congestion. The total number of inbound vessels on the SNWW is projected to

increase in the short term at rates comparable to or higher than regional and national trends. Recent

increases in the SNWW refinery capacity indicate the region will regain an increasing share of U.S. totals.

Ships are not only requiring deeper drafts, but the sizes of the vessels are wider. The vessel beams of both

Port Arthur’s and Beaumont’s vessels cause them to be regularly impacted by the present 500-foot width

of the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel and Port Arthur Canal. The most common crude oil tankers unloading at

the Taylor Bayou Basins have design drafts of 45 feet and beams of approximately 124 feet. Tankers

using the Taylor Bayou Basins are smaller than those offloading at terminals on the Neches River

Channel because existing width at the mouth of Taylor Bayou, and the configuration of the docks within

Taylor Bayou, limits the allowable vessel size. The maximum size vessels unloading at Port of Beaumont

facilities on the Neches River Channel are approximately 900 feet long, with a beam width of 164 feet.

The Sabine Pilots Association has adopted transit rules to deal with the narrow channel, and these rules

result in navigation constraints. These constraints include daylight-only and one-way sailing restrictions

in specific reaches. The main restrictions place limitations on the combined beam widths and drafts for

vessel meetings on the waterway. A major restriction is that vessels with combined beam widths in excess

of 50 percent of the channel width cannot meet. The effects of these and other navigation restrictions

cause significant delays along the waterway.

As a result of these rules, inbound vessels intending to use a specific dock must wait offshore until the

outbound vessel at that dock sets sail, resulting in considerable delays because of the length of the inshore

channel. In addition, vessels are now wider due to new double-hull requirements and to industry changes

786
1: Need For and Objectives of Action

1-9

to wider but shorter vessels, which makes vessel-meetings more difficult. The probability of accidents and

other safety problems may increase with increases in both inland barge and deep-draft vessel traffic along

the waterway. Channel deepening and additional turning and anchorage basins on the Neches River

Channel could alleviate some of these congestion problems by permitting existing vessels to carry more

cargo into port and reduce offshore vessel waiting times.

Congestion is increased during times when the SNWW serves an important military function. One of the

busiest ports for military cargo in the world is located on the SNWW. The Port of Beaumont is the

Nation’s busiest Strategic Port of Embarkation, and it is the second largest commercial military out-load

port worldwide. For the war in Iraq, it has handled approximately one-third of all the military cargo

deployed to and from the war, which is more military cargo than any other U.S. port (Military Surface

Deployment and Distribution Command, 2004, 2006). The SNWW must accommodate the military’s

increased use of newer and larger transport ships, which are three times the size of transport ships used in

1990. The SNWW contributes to national security in one other key aspect. Two terminals on the Neches

River are connected by pipelines to underground storage facilities of the U.S. Department of Energy’s

Strategic Petroleum Reserves at Big Hill, Texas, and West Hackberry, Louisiana.

The need for improvements to the SNWW must be weighed against possible effects to significant

environmental resources. The study area contains approximately 480 square miles of sensitive coastal

habitats, which have experienced a high rate of wetland loss in recent decades. In Louisiana, a net land

loss of 18 percent between 1978 and 2000 has been reported in the western Chenier Plain. In Texas, the

most extensive losses of interior coastal wetlands in the state have occurred in the Neches River delta.

Ninety percent of the emergent marshes in the Lower Neches River delta have been converted to open

water, which is more than half of the total wetland loss in the State of Texas. These high land-loss rates

provide opportunities for wetland restoration with the beneficial use of dredged material.

1.3 EXISTING PROJECT

The existing 40-foot SNWW project is a federally authorized and maintained waterway located in

Jefferson and Orange counties, Texas, and Cameron and Calcasieu parishes, Louisiana (see Figure 1.1-1).

However, the Sabine River Channel segment of the SNWW, which provides deep-draft access to the Port

of Orange, is not included in the FFR. All subsequent references to the SNWW in this report focus on the

64-mile-long channel flowing through Jefferson and Orange counties, Texas, and Cameron Parish,

Louisiana. The SNWW begins offshore, follows the west side of Sabine Lake and terminates just

upstream of the Beaumont Turning Basin on the Neches River.

The SNWW is a system of widened and/or deepened channels (Table 1.3-1). Working inland from the

Gulf, the reaches are (1) Sabine Bank Channel, (2) Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel, (3) Sabine Pass Jetty

Channel, (4) Sabine Pass Channel, (5) Port Arthur Canal, (6) Sabine-Neches Canal, and (7) Neches River

Channel. The Sabine Bank through the Sabine Pass Jetty channels is sometimes referred to collectively as

the Entrance Channel. The only connection with the Gulf is Sabine Pass, a long narrow pass, through

which all tidal interchange occurs. The East and West Jetties extend approximately 4.1 miles into the

787
1: Need For and Objectives of Action

1-10

Gulf. They stabilize the Pass and provide protection for ships entering the landlocked channel.

Maintenance material is placed in 16 upland confined PAs and 4 ODMDSs in the Gulf. The FFR and

DMMP (Appendix D) provide more-detailed descriptions and maps of the existing navigation channels

and PAs.

Table 1.3-1

Existing SNWW Channel Dimensions

Channel Reach Authorized Depth

(feet)

Bottom Width

(feet)

Length

(miles)

Sabine Bank Channel 42 800 14.7

Sabine Pass Outer Bar 42 800 3.4

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel 40 800–500 4.0

Sabine Pass Channel 40 500–1133 5.6

Port Arthur Canal 40 500–1788 6.2

Sabine-Neches Canal 40 400–1060 11.3

Neches River Channel 40 400 18.6

In addition to deep-draft traffic, the SNWW serves as a through-channel for the shallow-draft GIWW. As

it leaves Louisiana, the GIWW connects with the SNWW, approximately 3 miles below Orange, Texas,

and follows the Sabine River Channel to Sabine Lake. The GIWW and Sabine River Channel cross the

north end of Sabine Lake where they merge with the Sabine-Neches Canal at the mouth of the Neches

River. The GIWW and Sabine-Neches Canal coincide through the confined channel reach between

Pleasure Island and Port Arthur, where the GIWW connects with the Port Arthur Canal and exits the

SNWW, continuing westward to Galveston Bay.

1.4 PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND PUBLIC CONCERNS

To be responsive to the needs and concerns of all stakeholders and to ensure public involvement through

an open, interactive process, the USACE and SNND developed a public involvement plan to be used

during the feasibility phase of the SNWW CIP. The public outreach program was initiated in 2000 and

included the following efforts:

• scoping meetings;

• public environmental restoration and beneficial use workshops;

• media trips;

• presentations at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) Texas Habitat

Protection Advisory Board;

• presentations at Southeast Texas Waterways Advisory Council (SETWAC) regular meetings;

• meetings with Sabine Pilots Association;

• presentation at the SETWAC 2007 meeting;

• meetings with SNWW industries; and

788
1: Need For and Objectives of Action

1-11

• public hearings.

A Notice of Intent to prepare a “Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Improvements to the SabineNeches Ship Channel Near Beaumont and Port Arthur, Texas” was published in the Federal Register

(FR) on May 21, 2002 (67 FR 98:35801). Additionally, coordination with resource agencies was

conducted through 11 meetings of the Interagency Coordination Team (ICT) and 30 technical working

group meetings. More information about the ICT membership and activities is in Section 1.6. Detail about

public outreach, meeting comments, and the ICT meetings and workshops can be found in Appendix A.

Existing water resource problems and needs in the study area were identified through coordination with

Federal, State, and local agencies; area residents; waterway users; and the USACE and SNND. It should

be noted that numerous concerns were raised during the public scoping meetings, letters received in

response to those meetings, and a series of workshops with local public agencies and private

organizations. The major issues and concerns identified through this process are discussed below.

Summaries of the scoping meetings and copies of public comment letters are provided in Appendix A5.

Some issues do not apply to the proposed CIP or are general concerns raised by the citizens of the area;

these cannot be addressed in a project-specific FEIS. However, all of the concerns that are associated with

the proposed CIP are addressed in this FEIS.

1.4.1 Navigation/Commerce

Waterway users are concerned that future increases in the Nation’s dependence on imported oil and the

SNWW’s growing share of the import market will compound existing problems with transportation

efficiency. The current 40-foot channel was completed in the late 1960s and, at that time, crude oil

tankers averaging 40,000 DWT with loaded drafts of 36 feet were common. Vessels over 90,000 DWT

are now used routinely for crude oil imports to both Beaumont and Port Arthur. Mother vessels in the

120,000 to 150,000 DWT range presently offload a partial load at the offshore lightering zone and then

enter the SNWW along with the shuttle vessel. As imports have increased, the number of lightering

vessels and product carriers has also increased, adding to shipping delays and congestion.

The existing narrow channel width creates congestion and transportation inefficiencies, resulting in

potential problems with safety. Vessels are now wider due to new double-hull requirements and to

industry changes to wider but shorter vessels. Wider vessels make meetings more difficult and, therefore,

more dangerous. The SNWW is currently subject to transit rules, which are needed for the Sabine Pilots

Association to safely guide large deep-draft tankers through the narrow channel. Increases in both inland

barge and deep-draft vessel traffic along the waterway are expected to increase overall congestion and

result in an increase in the likelihood of accidents. Historically, accidents on the SNWW are very low,

due in large part to the existing pilot rules that minimize the probabilities of incidents involving deepdraft vessels. In 2006, two-thirds of the incidents involved shallow-draft tow transits. Overall, the ratio of

incidents per transit was 1 percent or less for all transit types. Recently, installation of the Port Arthur

vessel traffic service (VTS) is expected to reduce potential interactions between deep- and shallow-draft

vessels.

789
1: Need For and Objectives of Action

1-12

It is believed that ship traffic through interior channel reaches contributes to existing shoreline erosion,

and it is feared that a deeper channel will increase that erosion. Existing erosion is most severe along the

Port Arthur and Sabine-Neches canals where the SNWW passes through a narrow, confined channel

between Pleasure Island and Port Arthur. There is concern that a deeper channel would allow larger or

more heavily laden vessels to use the waterway and cause additional erosion of channel shorelines.

The evaluation of alternatives other than a deeper navigation channel was urged in several comments.

Suggestions included construction of a new port and pipeline terminal at the City of Sabine Pass. Others

suggested that an offshore terminal similar to the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) be constructed.

Both of these alternatives would avoid environmental impacts associated with channel improvements to

the inland Port of Beaumont. It was also suggested that safety issues could be addressed by a vessel

tracking and management system, rather than channel improvements.

1.4.2 Environmental

The primary environmental concern is the potential for the proposed CIP to increase saltwater intrusion

and for higher salinity levels to further degrade marshes and cypress swamps in both Texas and

Louisiana. The combined effects of subsidence and sea level rise (called relative sea level rise, or RSLR)

are expected to increase the stress on existing marshes and worsen this trend. The public and resource

agencies have identified severely stressed marsh areas at Texas Point and Salt Bayou in the Sabine Pass

area, in the Neches River reach between Sabine Lake and Interstate Highway (IH) 10, and in the

extensive marshes east of Sabine Lake. Marshes have been dying, due in large part to the combined

effects of altered sediment delivery, saltwater intrusion, subsidence, and global sea level rise. Wetland

loss results when sub-optimal salinities decrease biological productivity of marsh vegetation, leading to a

decrease in organic matter accumulation, which, in turn, results in greater submergence because the rate

of increase in marsh elevation cannot keep up with the rate of submergence due to RSLR (Day and

Templet, 1989; Day et al., 1995; DeLaune et al., 1994; Nyman et al., 1993; Spalding and Hester, 2007).

The death of wetland vegetation often results, followed by peat collapse, erosion, and wetland loss

(DeLaune et al., 1994; Gough and Grace, 1999; Salinas et al., 1986; Visser et al., 1999; Webb and

Mendelssohn, 1996). Cumulative effects of hydrologic alterations are also a concern, given that the

existing project is believed to have contributed significantly to current wetland losses. Potential effects of

increased salinities on cypress-tupelo swamps and bottomland hardwoods on the Neches and Sabine

rivers at the upper margins of the study area have also been identified as significant potential impacts.

An associated issue is the deterioration of wildlife habitat and fishery nursery areas and the destruction of

fish and wildlife resources that could occur as a result of increased wetland loss. Persistent emergent

vegetation provides foraging, resting, and breeding habitat for a variety of coastal fish and wildlife

species. Detritus from coastal marshes also provides a source of mineral and organic nourishment for

organisms at the base of the food chain. The potential for proposed CIP impacts to oyster reef at Blue

Buck Point at the mouth of Sabine Lake was also identified.

790
1: Need For and Objectives of Action

1-13

All or portions of the following federally and State-protected lands contain sensitive habitats that may be

affected by the proposed CIP: the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), the McFaddin NWR, the

Texas Point NWR, the J.D. Murphree WMA, the Lower Neches WMA, the Tony Houseman WMA, and

the Sabine Island WMA.

Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species are a concern, particularly dredging impacts to

endangered sea turtles. The offshore channel deepening and extension will require the use of hopper

dredges, which create particular hazards for sea turtles. Critical Habitat for the wintering piping plover is

present in the study area.

Concern has been expressed that the proposed CIP could increase tidal amplitude and increase damage

during storm surges by allowing the surge to inundate areas that have not been affected by previous

storms. Potential for increased Gulf shoreline erosion is also a concern. In recent years, high shoreline

erosion has caused substantial wetland losses on the Gulf shoreline from Texas Point westward to the

vicinity of Sea Rim State Park.

The public has also expressed concern that dredging for the proposed CIP and the placement of dredged

material will spread contaminated sediments or affect water quality. It is feared that new work dredging

will release contaminants from past industrial discharges into the water column, or that areas selected for

the beneficial use of dredged material could be polluted.

The beneficial use of dredged material to restore degraded marshes was encouraged by the public and

resource agencies. The following sites were specifically identified as areas that could benefit: Rose City

marsh, Bessie Heights marsh, Keith Lake marsh, marshes in the McFaddin NWR, east Sabine Lake

marshes, and the Gulf shoreline at Texas Point and Holly Beach. Construction of a bird island in Sabine

Lake was also suggested. The beneficial use of dredged material would reduce the need for new or

expanded PAs and reduce potential wetland impacts.

The proposed CIP, including the Gulf ODMDSs, could impact Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for red drum;

brown, white, and pink shrimp; Spanish mackerel; and estuarine water column and mud/sand bottoms.

Potential effects to nursery and foraging habitat for economically important marine fishery species such

as spotted sea trout, flounder, Atlantic croaker, black drum, Gulf menhaden, striped mullet, and blue crab

also need to be evaluated for adverse effects associated with proposed water control structures.

It was suggested that environmental impacts as a consequence of the proposed CIP should be avoided if

possible. A lock at Sabine Pass, a sill or constriction at the mouth of Sabine Lake, and smaller water

control structures in the marshes east of Sabine Lake were suggested as methods to minimize or avoid

impacts. Conversely, other comments warned of the potential harmful effects of water control structures

that inhibit the movement of marine organisms into and out of intertidal marshes.

791
1: Need For and Objectives of Action

1-14

1.4.3 Socioeconomic

The Ports of Port Arthur and Beaumont expressed concern over the socioeconomic effects of not

improving the SNWW. Both are concerned that the SNWW is close to reaching its capacity for vessel

traffic movement. It was urged that direct and indirect economic and social benefits of the SNWW be

fully evaluated.

Considerable concern was expressed by government agencies in Louisiana that the proposed CIP would

have adverse effects on their state’s environment while providing no economic benefits for Louisiana.

Officials at the West Calcasieu Port, Harbor, and Terminal District urged that navigation improvements

be evaluated on a regionwide basis, because channel improvements in Texas could put their facilities and

the Port of Lake Charles at a competitive disadvantage. Cameron Parish officials expressed support for

economic development that would benefit their constituents. Cameron Parish officials were also

concerned that lands suitable for commercial development at Sabine Pass were being considered for use

as PAs. Developable lands are limited on the Louisiana side of the SNWW, and all are needed to promote

economic development.

Jefferson County Drainage District #7 expressed concern that channel widening and deepening could

affect the structural integrity of the Port Arthur Hurricane Protection Levee, pump stations, and closure

structures. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) expressed concern that increased erosion

could adversely affect State Highways (SH) 82 and 87. Both are located immediately adjacent to the

SNWW and are affected by present channel bank erosion. Additional erosion of SH 87 could destroy the

only road access to the City of Sabine Pass.

The high concentration of petrochemical refineries and terminals in the study area means that a large

number of pipelines are also present. Local industries are concerned that these pipelines will be affected

by the proposed channel deepening and that they will be responsible for the cost of moving these

pipelines to accommodate the deeper channel.

Socioeconomic impacts on commercial fisheries are also a concern. A small, commercial shrimp fleet

operating out of Sabine Pass could be adversely affected if the proposed CIP adversely affects EFH.

There is also a concern that environmental impacts could adversely affect sport fishing, which is a

popular activity throughout the study area.

Several members of the general public expressed concern that the cost of this project will be large, that

benefits will not be sufficient to outweigh costs, and that costs will be passed on to taxpayers in the form

of higher taxes.

1.4.4 Historic Properties

There is concern that use of PA 5 will adversely affect public access to the Sabine Lighthouse, a National

Register property. A road around the perimeter of the PA is currently the only access route to the

Lighthouse. Changes or enlargements to this PA could limit or remove access to this historic property.

792
1: Need For and Objectives of Action

1-15

Concern has also been expressed about the potential for proposed CIP improvements to affect the Sabine

Pass Battleground Park, Fort Griffin, and associated shipwrecks. These sites and shipwrecks are

associated with important battles during the U.S. Civil War.

1.5 PLANNING OBJECTIVES

The planning objectives of the proposed CIP include improvement in the efficiency of the deep-draft

navigation system and maintaining the ecological values of the area’s coastal and estuarine resources.

Economic efficiency would result from the passage of more fully loaded ships, a reduction in the need for

lightering and lightening, and a decrease in vessel delays. Protection of the area’s coastal and estuarine

resources would result from the beneficial use of dredged material and full compensation for unavoidable

environmental effects.

1.6 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION TEAM

An ICT comprising the Federal and State resource agency representatives from Louisiana and Texas was

established at the beginning of the study to advise the USACE on matters related specifically to the

environmental impact review. ICT agencies and representatives are listed in Table 1.6-1. Agencies were

asked to designate one official member who was authorized to speak for the agency and make decisions

in the group format. Representatives from other local and State agencies or governments also participated

in the ICT in an advisory capacity: Jefferson and Orange counties, Texas; Cameron and Calcasieu

parishes, Louisiana. The USACE ICT members ensured that decisions were made within the framework

of the USACE planning process and in compliance with Federal law and policy, including guidance such

as Planning in a Collaborative Environment (Engineer Circular [EC] 1105-2-409) and the Environmental

Principles (Engineer Regulation [ER] 200-1-5). Insofar as was possible, given the USACE planning,

policy, and schedule constraints, important decisions related to identifying and studying potential

ecological impacts, and identifying alternatives for compensatory mitigation were made by consensus

within the ICT. Toward the end of the planning study, remodeling and reanalysis were conducted by the

USACE to incorporate the effects of a revised plan of navigation improvements, the projected future rate

of RSLR, and future freshwater inflows. Because of schedule constraints, this modeling was performed

without ICT consultation. However, the results of this reanalysis were coordinated with the ICT, and no

changes in the recommended ecological mitigation plan resulted from the remodeling and reanalysis.

Technical work addressing specific environmental concerns or planning objectives was done by several

smaller workgroups whose members were taken from the ICT. Each of these workgroups and its purpose

is discussed separately below.

• The Restoration and Beneficial Uses Workgroup (RW) was created to develop ideas for

ecosystem restoration and the beneficial use of dredged material in the study area. Although

ecosystem restoration is not a study purpose, ideas for potential restoration projects were explored

by this workgroup. The RW also reviewed suggestions provided during the public workshops for

this purpose (Gulf Engineers and Consultants, Inc. [GEC], 2002).

793
1: Need For and Objectives of Action

1-16

Table 1.6-1

SNWW ICT and Workgroup Participants

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Texas General Land Office

Carolyn Murphy Dennis Rocha

Janelle Stokes Tammy Brooks

Paula Wise Juan Moya

Robert Hauch

Gloria Appell Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

John Baker Woody Woodrow

John Otis Jamie Schubert

Nancy Young Jim Sutherlin

John Damm Mike Rezsutek

Jackie Lockhart Terry Stelly

Ed Reindl Jerry Mambretti

Baldev Mann Jim Tolan

Seth Jones Nathan Kuhn

Kristy Morten

Frank Garcia Texas Water Development Board

Richard Tomlinson Barney Austin

Lizette Richardson Junji Matsumoto

Volker Schmidt

Gary Brown, ERDC Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Steve Maynord, ERDC Robert Hansen

Nana Parchure, ERDC

Mark Gravens, ERDC Texas Department of Transportation

Rao Vemulakonda, ERDC Raul Cantu

Robert McAdory, ERDC

Sabine River Authority of Texas

Sabine Neches Navigation District Jack Tatum

Tom Jackson Gerard Sala

Randall Reese John Payne

Clayton Henderson

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gerry Duszynski

Mike Jansky Kirk Rhinehart

Barbara Keeler Kyle Balkum

Jim Herrington Dan Llewellyn

Renee Ballew Steven Gammill

Kenneth Teague

Phillip Crocker Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

David Daigle

794
1: Need For and Objectives of Action

1-17

Table 1.6-1, cont’d

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

Phil Glass Fred Dunham

Darryl Clark Kyle Balkum

Andy Loranger Michael Harbison

Dean Bossert

Pat Walther PBS&J

Chris Pease Martin Arhelger

Steve Reagan Dave Buzan

Roy Walter Kathy Calnan

Brian Cain Andy Labay

Donna Anderson Eric Monshaugen

Tony Risko

U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service Lisa Vitale

Eddie Seidensticker

Turner Collie & Braden

National Marine Fisheries Service Georganna Collins

Rusty Swafford Carrie Eick

Richard Hartman

• The Hydrodynamic and Salinity Modeling Workgroup (MW) provided data to assist the

hydrodynamic salinity (HS) modeling and verification process and reviewed modeling results as

part of the impacts evaluation. The modeling was conducted by the USACE’s Engineer Research

and Development Center (ERDC), reported in Brown and Stokes (2009).

• The Contaminants Workgroup (CW) evaluated water and sediment quality associated with the

proposed CIP, including characterization of existing conditions in the project area and the results

of physical and chemical analyses conducted. This evaluation is reported in PBS&J (2004a,

2004b).

• The ODMDS Workgroup (OW) was created to advise in the preparation of the Site Designation

FEIS for the proposed ODMDSs. The OW reviewed existing data, recommended additional

studies, reviewed the results of physical, chemical, and biological analyses, and reviewed the

ODMDS FEIS, which is attached to this FEIS as Appendix B.

• The Habitat Evaluation Workgroup (HW) reviewed and classified existing habitat, performed

field evaluations to document existing conditions, and developed and applied procedures for the

prediction of without and with-project conditions using the Wetlands Value Assessment (WVA)

ecological model. The HW also reviewed results of the ecological modeling and report, which is

provided as Appendix C to the FEIS.

1.7 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Dredged material is now viewed as a regionally significant resource that can be put to positive use, rather

than a waste by-product of channel improvements. The principles of Regional Sediment Management

795
1: Need For and Objectives of Action

1-18

(RSM) were applied to ensure that the dredged material arising from the SNWW CIP would be viewed as

valuable resource, integral to economic viability and environmental sustainability of the region (Martin,

2002). In developing the DMMP for the project, this study searched for opportunities to achieve savings

by coordinating projects, identified opportunities for beneficial use, and sought ways to contribute to

coastal watershed goals related to sediment management. The large quantities of dredged material that

would be generated by the proposed CIP created an ideal opportunity for the exploration of the beneficial

use of dredged material. A series of public workshops and extensive ICT consultation evaluated a wide

array of opportunities to use dredged material beneficially (GEC, 2002; Turner Collie & Braden, 2003).

Potential uses of dredged material that were evaluated for this study included estuarine hydrologic and

habitat restoration and ways to keep sediment in the system such as Gulf shoreline nourishment and

offshore feeder berms. A complete description of alternatives for regional sediment management of the

SNWW CIP dredged material is provided in Chapter 2.

796
2-1

2.0 ALTERNATIVES

This chapter is divided into five sections. The first discusses the history and process used in formulating

alternatives that address planning objectives. Section 2.2 presents the preliminary screening of

nonstructural and structural alternatives; the comparison of detailed structural alternatives follows in

Section 2.3. Section 2.4 summarizes the results of the detailed screening and provides a full description of

the Preferred Alternative. Section 2.5 describes and evaluates alternatives for the management of dredged

material arising from construction and maintenance of the Preferred Alternative, and the incremental

impacts and benefits of the DMMP. Placement features include beneficial use features, upland placement

areas, and ODMDSs.

2.1 HISTORY AND PROCESS FOR FORMULATING

ALTERNATIVES

The FFR, to which this FEIS is attached, provides a detailed description of the analysis of alternatives;

however, a summary of this process is provided below. In this analysis, different ways of addressing

identified problems, needs, and concerns were systematically evaluated while considering environmental

factors. A three-phased screening process was used to identify the Preferred Alternative: 1) preliminary

alternatives screening; 2) second screening; and 3) detailed evaluation of final alternatives. During

preliminary screening, the expected “No-Action” Alternative was developed for comparison with other

alternatives. This alternative was carried through the subsequent planning phases for comparison to other

alternatives. Nonstructural and structural alternatives that could address planning objectives were also

developed. The nonstructural alternatives evaluated the use of a VTS to alleviate transportation efficiency

and safety concerns, the relaxation of existing pilot rules, and an alternative mode of commodity

transport. For the structural alternatives, a wide array of structural channel improvements was evaluated.

Over 120 different combinations of various depths and widths were analyzed during the preliminary

screening. In the second phase, a more detailed evaluation of screened alternatives was performed. The

final channel widths were determined during the second screening. With the exception of selective

widening or bend easing in a few areas, no changes were made to the existing width of inshore navigation

channels; the width of most of the offshore navigation channels and proposed extension were reduced

from the existing width of 800 to 700 feet. Six channel depths (45, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50 feet) with the set

channel widths and from three to eight potential turning/anchorage basins on the Neches River Channel

(Figure 2.1-1) were selected for the final detailed analysis. In accordance with the USACE Actions for

Change initiative (USACE, 2006a), potential risks and uncertainties related to engineering, economic, and

environmental analysis were evaluated throughout the alternatives analysis. Descriptions of these risks are

discussed in the FEIS topic areas to which they relate, and they are also summarized in the FFR.

An economic evaluation of various deepening and widening alternatives was conducted to identify

alternatives that maximized National Economic Development (NED) benefits. This evaluation is

presented in detail in the FFR; only a brief summary is provided here. Project benefits were based on

reductions in transportation costs generated from more-efficient vessel loading and from reductions in

797
2: Alternatives

2-2

vessel delays. Benefits and costs were calculated for Port Arthur and Beaumont depth alternatives of 43,

45, 47, 48, 50, 52, and 55 feet, and for other separable elements of the proposed CIP. The initial selection

of the widening alternatives to be evaluated was based upon the results of a vessel simulation model

conducted by the ERDC with input from the Sabine Pilots Association. The alternatives were

subsequently screened based upon comparison of associated vessel delay costs and the initial construction

cost estimates. Channel widening and turning anchorage basin benefits for deep-draft traffic were also

evaluated by estimating benefits from delay reductions using an economic traffic model developed by the

ERDC. Ecological mitigation costs for the six depth alternatives were interpolated based upon changes in

salinity. The detailed evaluation of final alternatives concluded with the selection of a Preferred

Alternative. Detailed evaluations of alternatives for the management of dredged material and the

mitigation of ecological impacts were then performed for the Preferred Alternative. This evaluation

concluded with the development of a DMMP and an ecological mitigation plan. The DMMP includes

measures in which dredged material is used to restore wetland habitat, avoiding and offsetting impacts of

the Preferred Alternative. The evaluation of alternatives for the management of dredged material and the

recommended placement plan are described later in this chapter. The evaluation of mitigation alternatives

that compensate for remaining unavoidable impacts to significant habitats and resources, and the

recommended mitigation plan are described in Chapter 5 of this FEIS. Least-cost analyses of dredged

material placement and an incremental cost analysis of mitigation alternatives were conducted to select

recommended placement and mitigation measures; these analyses are presented in the FFR.

2.2 PRELIMINARY AND SECOND SCREENING

2.2.1 No-Action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative forms the basis against which all other alternative plans are measured. Under

the No-Action Alternative, the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor would not implement

the proposed CIP and the objectives of improving the navigational efficiency of the waterway would not

be met.

It is expected that imports of crude oil and petroleum products would continue to expand to keep pace

with the predicted national need for these products and the projected continuing declines in U.S.

production. Vessel trips would increase to accommodate the higher imports, and higher costs associated

with the current lightering and vessel movement limitations would continue. Increased vessel trips would

exacerbate the existing channel bank erosion caused by vessel wakes in the confined channel reaches of

the SNWW. It is projected that the existing trend in wetland losses would accelerate due to RSLR and

altered hydrology and salinity levels caused by the existing SNWW navigation channels, the GIWW, and

canals, levees, and water control structures associated with oil and gas exploration and production,

logging, fishing, and hunting lands.

The No-Action Alternative would retain the 40-foot SNWW navigation channel with no improvements.

The current channel dimensions do not allow the existing fleet to use the channel efficiently. Ships are

limited by the current channel depth and width and safety limitations that result in one-way and daylight798
62

73

96

347

69

287

105

10

10

96

73

62

10+0020+00 30+00

40+00

0+0 5 0

0+ 6 00

0+00 7

80+00

0+00 9

100+00

00 +0 11

120+ 00

130+00

140+00

50+00 1

160+00

170+ 00

180+00

+0 19 00

+ 200 00

+ 10 2 00

220+ 00

230+00

40 2 00 +

250+00

0+0 62 0

0+ 27 00

0+0 82 0

0 29 00 +

00+00 3

310+00

320+00

0 340+0

330+00

350+00

360+0

73 0+0

380+00

390+00

400+00

410+00

420+00

430+00

40+ 4 00

450+00

460+00

470+00

480+00

490+00

005 0 +0

0+ 51 00

520+00

530+00

540+00

550+00

56 0+00

570+00

0+00 58

90 5 0+

0 0+00 6

10 6 +00

026 0 +0

0 0+ 64

630+00

650+00

660+00

670+00

680+00

690+00

700+00

710

720

+00

+00

730+00

740+00

750+00

760+00

770+00

780+00

790+00

800+00

18 0+00

20+00 8

840+00

830+00

50+0 8 0

860+00

70+0 8 0

8 0+00

890+0

900 0+

0+ 19 00

92 0+00 930+00

940+00

0 95 0 +0

960+00

970+00

420+00

430+00

440+00

450+00

460+00

470+00

480+00

490+00

500+00

510+00 520+00

530+00

540+00

550+00

560+00

570+00

580+00

590+00

980+00

9 0+00

998+63

1000+0 0

101 +00 0

1020+00

1030+00

1036+70

Lower Neches WMANelda Starks Unit

Lower Neches WMAOld River Unit

Neches River Channel

Rose City

Add. Adv.

Maint. Start

Add. Adv.

Maint. Ends

Start Neches RiverChannel STA 0+00

SabineNeches

Canal

Neches River BU Features

Sab ni e R vi er Channel and G WI W

PA-25

PA-23

PA-24

PA-17

PA-16

PA-12

PA-18

PA-14

PA-23A

PA-26

PA-13

PA-25A

PA-21

PA-27A

PA-24A

PA-27C

PA-18A

PA-27D

Beaumont

Port Arthur

Nederland

Vidor

Port Neches

Groves

Orang

Bridge City

Rose City

Pin

Figure 2.1-1

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Neches River Channel

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 100007609Prepared by: RF

Scale: 1" = 8000'

Date: 1 April 2010

N:\Clients\U_Z\USACE\Projects\Sabine_Neches\100007609\Figures\Figure_2_1_1_vr3.mxd

Bessie

Heights

East

Old River

Cove

Port of

Beaumont

Anchorage

Basin No. 8

Anchorage

Basin No. 7

Turning

Basin No. 6 U.S. Maritime

Administ. Ship

Storage Basin

Turning

Basin No. 5

Turning and

Anchorage

Basin No. 4 Turning

Basin No. 3

Turning and

Anchorage

Basin No. 2 Turning and

Anchorage

Basin No. 1

8,000 0 8,000 4,000

Feet

75+00

500' Width

440+00

978+00

G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

Vicinity Map Legend

Project Area, Proposed ChannelProject Area, BU Features

State Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas

Placement Area, Proposed Dredged Material Placement Areas State Boundaries

Channel CenterlinesCounty Boundaries

Project Area, Dredged Material Placement Areas Texas

Louisiana

2-3

799
62

73

96

347

69

287

105

10

10

96

73

62

10+0020+00 30+00

40+00

0+0 5 0

0+ 6 00

0+00 7

80+00

0+00 9

100+00

00 +0 11

120+ 00

130+00

140+00

50+00 1

160+00

170+ 00

180+00

+0 19 00

+ 200 00

+ 10 2 00

220+ 00

230+00

40 2 00 +

250+00

0+0 62 0

0+ 27 00

0+0 82 0

0 29 00 +

00+00 3

310+00

320+00

0 340+0

330+00

350+00

360+0

73 0+0

380+00

390+00

400+00

410+00

420+00

430+00

40+ 4 00

450+00

460+00

470+00

480+00

490+00

005 0 +0

0+ 51 00

520+00

530+00

540+00

550+00

56 0+00

570+00

0+00 58

90 5 0+

0 0+00 6

10 6 +00

026 0 +0

0 0+ 64

630+00

650+00

660+00

670+00

680+00

690+00

700+00

710

720

+00

+00

730+00

740+00

750+00

760+00

770+00

780+00

790+00

800+00

18 0+00

20+00 8

840+00

830+00

50+0 8 0

860+00

70+0 8 0

8 0+00

890+0

900 0+

0+ 19 00

92 0+00 930+00

940+00

0 95 0 +0

960+00

970+00

420+00

430+00

440+00

450+00

460+00

470+00

480+00

490+00

500+00

510+00 520+00

530+00

540+00

550+00

560+00

570+00

580+00

590+00

980+00

9 0+00

998+63

1000+0 0

101 +00 0

1020+00

1030+00

1036+70

Lower Neches WMANelda Starks Unit

Lower Neches WMAOld River Unit

Neches River Channel

Rose City

Add. Adv.

Maint. Start

Add. Adv.

Maint. Ends

Start Neches RiverChannel STA 0+00

SabineNeches

Canal

Neches River BU Features

Sab ni e R vi er Channel and G WI W

PA-25

PA-23

PA-24

PA-17

PA-16

PA-12

PA-18

PA-14

PA-23A

PA-26

PA-13

PA-25A

PA-21

PA-27A

PA-24A

PA-27C

PA-18A

PA-27D

Beaumont

Port Arthur

Nederland

Vidor

Port Neches

Groves

Orang

Bridge City

Rose City

Pin

Figure 2.1-1

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Neches River Channel

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 100007609Prepared by: RF

Scale: 1" = 8000'

Date: 1 April 2010

N:\Clients\U_Z\USACE\Projects\Sabine_Neches\100007609\Figures\Figure_2_1_1_vr3.mxd

Bessie

Heights

East

Old River

Cove

Port of

Beaumont

Anchorage

Basin No. 8

Anchorage

Basin No. 7

Turning

Basin No. 6 U.S. Maritime

Administ. Ship

Storage Basin

Turning

Basin No. 5

Turning and

Anchorage

Basin No. 4 Turning

Basin No. 3

Turning and

Anchorage

Basin No. 2 Turning and

Anchorage

Basin No. 1

8,000 0 8,000 4,000

Feet

75+00

500' Width

440+00

978+00

G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

Vicinity Map Legend

Project Area, Proposed ChannelProject Area, BU Features

State Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas

Placement Area, Proposed Dredged Material Placement Areas State Boundaries

Channel CenterlinesCounty Boundaries

Project Area, Dredged Material Placement Areas Texas

Louisiana

2-3

800
2: Alternatives

2-4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

801
2: Alternatives

2-5

only sailing restrictions. The need to lighter products and/or light load vessels increases overall vessel

trips and shipping costs, and decreases the efficiency of the vessels using the waterway. The waterway is

often congested because of frequent movements of lightered vessels carrying petroleum products from the

Gulf to refineries on the Neches River Channel, and because of barge through-traffic using the GIWW.

Vessels are now wider, placing limitations on the combined beam widths and drafts for vessel meetings

on the waterway. Historically, casualty incidents on the SNWW channel are very low, due in large part to

existing pilot rules that minimize the probability of incidents involving deep-draft vessels. Existing and

proposed LNG facilities on the Sabine Pass Channel and Port Arthur Canal are subject to strict USCG

regulations and to local pilot rules that prevent LNG vessels from meeting other vessel traffic. Increases

in both inland barge and deep-draft vessel traffic along the waterway are expected to increase overall

congestion and the likelihood of accidents. However, since the overall rate of casualty incidents is very

low, the number of additional accidents in the future would also be low.

The No-Action Alternative would continue disposal activities for maintenance material from the 40-foot

project in conformance with most, but not all, existing practices. In the FFR, the DMMP for the NoAction Alternative (the future without-project [FWOP] condition) is referred to as the Base Plan. The

Base Plan forecasts disposal facility needs for all material that would be generated by maintenance

dredging of the existing 40-foot project over a 50-year period of analysis. The 50-year analysis

determined that additional capacity in upland PAs would be required, and it identified a least-cost

beneficial use (BU) feature (the Gulf Shore BU Feature) that should be adopted as part of the Base Plan.

The Gulf Shore BU Feature has also been included in the DMMP for the Preferred Alternative; it will be

treated as a general navigation operation and maintenance (O&M) component.

No differences from existing offshore placement activities were identified for the Base Plan. The offshore

channels (Sabine Bank Channel, Sabine Pass Outer Bar, and Sabine Pass Jetty Channel) would be

maintained with a hopper dredge, and approximately 162 million cubic yards (mcy) of material would be

placed in the four existing ODMDSs (sites 1–4). Bed sediments in the offshore channels vary from

4.3 percent sand and 95.7 percent silt plus clay in the Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel to 24.3 percent sand

and 75.7 percent silt plus clay in the Sabine Bank Channel (Parchure et al., 2005). These sites have

sufficient capacity for the 50-year period of analysis as they are located in a dispersive environment

where dredged material does not accumulate.

For the inshore Sabine Pass Channel, a cost analysis of placement alternatives in the FFR resulted in a

change from traditional upland placement practices involving PA 5. Rather than placing all of the

maintenance material from this channel into upland PA 5, the potential beneficial use of material from the

channel section closest to the coast (Section 5) was evaluated to determine whether it could be used to

nourish the Gulf shoreline on both sides of Sabine Pass (Gulf Shore BU Feature). Material from Section 6

of the Sabine Pass Channel would continue to be placed into PA 5 because the longer pumping distance

to the coast makes shore nourishment cost prohibitive. The cost analysis determined that the Gulf Shore

BU Feature is more cost effective than placing the material in the upland PA 5, and therefore it was

adopted as part of the Base Plan.

802
2: Alternatives

2-6

Under the Base Plan, all of the inshore channels of the existing project (Sabine Pass Channel, Port Arthur

Canal, Sabine-Neches Canal, and the Neches River Channel) would continue to be maintained by

hydraulic pipeline dredge. Material from non-Federal dredging of private mooring and dock facilities

would also continue to be placed in upland PAs along with the material from the Federal project. Existing

management practices that utilize 16 upland PAs located adjacent to the channel from Sabine Pass to the

Beaumont Turning Basin would continue. To contain 229.4 mcy of material over the 50-year period of

analysis, the heights of existing PAs would be raised on a regular, recurring schedule in accordance with

existing SNWW management practices. One new PA in the middle reach of the Neches River Channel

(an expansion cell at PA 24A) would be needed to provide sufficient capacity for the period of analysis.

On average, bed sediments vary in the inland channels from 38.3 percent sand and 61.7 percent silt plus

clay in the Neches River Channel to 16.2 percent sand and 83.8 percent silt plus clay in the Port Arthur

Canal (Parchure et al., 2005). Beneficial use features are not included in the Base Plan for the inland

channels because the lack of suitable material makes construction and maintenance of containment levees

more expensive than placing the material in existing PAs. However, Section 204 projects would be

considered on a project-by-project basis if non-Federal sponsors express an interest in paying the

incremental cost for such projects.

2.2.2 Nonstructural Alternatives

2.2.2.1 Vessel Traffic Service

The existing VTS along the SNWW was evaluated as a nonstructural alternative. Although this service is

managed by the USCG and thus is not within the jurisdiction of the USACE, it was evaluated because it

appeared to be a potential alternative to structural plans. VTS was authorized by certain sections of the

Port and Waterways Safety Act of 1972; the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 made participation mandatory in

areas serviced by existing and future VTS (USCG, 2008a). The purpose of VTS is to provide active

monitoring and navigational advice for vessels in particularly confined and busy waterways. VTS is

designed to expedite ship movements, increase transportation system efficiency, improve all-weather

operating capability, and enhance vessel safety and marine environmental protection (SETWAC, 2007;

USCG, 2008b).

The Vessel Traffic Center in Port Arthur became operational in 2005 and monitors every ship, vessel, or

boat that attempts to enter or leave the SNWW and the GIWW in the Port Arthur service area. Infrared

cameras, along with radar, radio-telephone reports from vessel operators, and satellite surveillance

sensors on towers along the SNWW allow VTS controllers to zoom-in on vessel activity at a moment’s

notice. The satellite-based Automatic Identification System (AIS), required by the Maritime

Transportation Security Act of 2002, assists the VTS by determining exactly what a specific commercial

vessel is carrying, along with its speed, dimensions, and destination. Most commercial vessels using the

waterway were required to have AIS equipment installed by the end of 2004 (Jackson, 2004). These

include power-driven vessels 66 feet in length or longer; power-driven vessels of 100 gross tons or more

carrying one or more passengers for hire; towing vessels 26 feet or longer while navigating all dredges

and floating plant likely to restrict or affect the navigation of other vessels; and all vessels required to

803
2: Alternatives

2-7

participate in the Vessel Movement Reporting System. However, not all vessels are required to carry AIS;

in particular, pleasure crafts, fishing boats, and warships are exempt.

Currently, VTS Port Arthur is a voluntary system operated in accordance with existing VTS regulations.

Until rules regarding VTS Port Arthur are published, vessels are exempt from all VTS and Vessel

Movement Reporting System requirements, except the requirement for AIS continuous broadcasts. When

VTS Port Arthur is included in the VTS regulation, participation will become mandatory. At that time,

VTS Port Arthur will be authorized to designate temporary reporting points and procedures, impose

vessel-operating requirements, or establish vessel traffic routing schemes. During conditions of vessel

congestion, restricted visibility, adverse weather, or other hazardous circumstances, VTS may control or

manage traffic by specifying times of entry, movement, or departure to, from, or within a VTS area.

While the VTS will help congestion and improve safety to some degree, the USCG’s traffic management

role is limited to specific circumstances when the SNWW is congested or experiencing hazardous

conditions. The VTS assists vessel operators in making independent decisions regarding the safe

navigation of their vessels, for which they retain complete responsibility. In this sense, VTS should be

considered primarily a navigational aid, a tool for mariners to use along with numerous other tools to

facilitate safe navigation (USCG, 2008b).

2.2.2.2 Relaxation of Existing Pilot Rules

The SNWW is currently subject to transit rules that are needed for the pilots to safely guide large tankers

through the narrow channel. These transit rules or restrictions are agreed upon by the shipping industry,

supported by the USCG Captain of the Port Orders under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1978, as

amended, and administered by the Sabine Pilots Association (2007). An agreement enforcing these rules,

dated January 12, 1981, will remain in force until the Sabine shipping industries, Sabine Pilots

Association, and USCG agree to its revision or modification.

The existing 700-foot-wide offshore reach of the SNWW channel does not have vessel-meeting

restrictions; however, in the narrower channel reaches, vessel-meeting restrictions are currently imposed.

A general overview of the transit rules are:

• Daylight only sailing restrictions applied in specific reaches for vessels that exceed certain DWT,

length, and breadth criteria.

• No meeting during nighttime sailing for vessels exceeding a given draft limitation.

• No meeting during either day or night, applied to vessels by DWT, length, breadth, and draft

combinations.

Relaxation of the existing pilot rules for the waterway was considered as a nonstructural alternative early

in the planning process. However, due to concerns about vessel handling and associated safety and that

vessels utilizing the waterway are wider than those using the channel even 5 to 10 years ago, the Sabine

Pilots Association would not consider relaxing the rules. The expectation for the with- and withoutproject future is that pilot rules will continue to limit the possibility of vessel meetings in the Sabine804
2: Alternatives

2-8

Neches Canal reach and that both vessel and shallow-draft tow movements will be scheduled through

both VTS and communication between vessel pilots.

While vessel traffic is expected to increase under both the No-Action and future with-project (FWP)

conditions, increases with a deeper channel are projected to be slightly lower because channel

improvements will allow more deep-draft cargo to be carried with fewer vessel trips. Associated

reductions in deep-draft vessel traffic would thereby serve to reduce the probability of casualties.

However, since casualty occurrences in the SNWW are rare, the proposed improvements would not have

a discernible effect on casualty rates. For LNG vessels, USCG safety rules will be the same with or

without a deepened channel.

2.2.2.3 Alternative Mode of Commodity Transport

Offshore oil terminals were evaluated as an alternative mode to landside port delivery of crude petroleum.

Three offshore terminal alternatives were considered in the analysis, one existing and two proposed. The

decision to use an offshore terminal instead of lightering or constructing a deeper channel is complicated

but largely depends on the relative cost per ton, relative market volumes, and facility accessibility. While

a quantitative analysis of a LOOP alternative is beyond the scope of USACE planning study, the overall

infrastructure requirements were examined to the extent possible. Pipeline capacities and necessary

expansions were identified, and the reasons for current and past choices were evaluated as were

expectations about future interest.

The existing offshore terminal, the LOOP, is America’s first and only deepwater port. LOOP is presently

operating at capacity and has been since 2005. In addition to new customers brought on due to

infrastructure damages associated with the 2005 hurricanes, recent increase in the LOOP is tied to

utilization associated with domestic production in the U.S. Gulf. Present use of LOOP consists of

Louisiana-based refineries and U.S. Gulf Coast state domestic offshore production interests. LOOP’s

existing base of customers use it as one of several options for delivering crude oil to their Gulf Coast

refineries. Access to LOOP for the SNWW market would require substantial investment as SNWW crude

oil import volume nearly equals LOOP’s capacity. LOOP’s design capacity of 1.4 to 1.8 million barrels

per day is only marginally higher than SNWW 2003 to 2005 crude petroleum import volume, which

ranged from 1.1 to 1.3 million barrels per day (USACE, 2007a). The investment necessary for LOOP to

process SNWW’s entire crude petroleum throughput would require a doubling of capacity.

While all of SNWW’s crude oil could not currently transfer to LOOP, some tonnage could be diverted.

The SNWW users continue to consider LOOP along with other alternatives; however, continued practices

suggest that LOOP is not a cost-effective alternative to the existing SNWW practice of its land-based

ports. The volume of potential diversions depends upon various ranges of LOOP expansion or

construction of a new facility. The large fixed cost of expansion, and associated financing costs,

necessitate participation by a consortium of companies. The SNWW industries have not found the option

of investing in LOOP, and the necessary associated infrastructure expansions, to be a cost-effective

alternative to existing practices of either direct shipment or offshore lightering. The lack of incentive has

805
2: Alternatives

2-9

remained since the 1970s. An additional variable pertinent to the current evaluation is that LOOP would

appear to be a less attractive cost option when compared to lower shipping costs that the SNWW

improvement project is expected to provide.

LOOP is located offshore of Grande Isle, Louisiana, in 110 feet of water. Grande Isle is 302 miles east of

Port Arthur and Beaumont. LOOP was organized in 1972 as a Delaware corporation and converted to a

limited liability company in 1996. Marathon Ashland Pipe Line LLC, Murphy Oil Corporation, and Shell

Oil Company are LOOP’s owners. LOOP is the only port in the U.S. capable of offloading deep-draft

tankers known as Ultra Large Crude Carriers (ULCC) and Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCC). Along

with offloading crude from VLCCs, LOOP also offloads smaller tankers. LOOP consists of three singlepoint mooring buoys used for the offloading of crude tankers and a marine terminal consisting of a twolevel pumping platform and a three-level control platform.

A 48-inch-diameter pipeline connects the LOOP Marine Terminal located 23 miles offshore in the Gulf to

the Clovelly, Louisiana, storage facilities. Clovelly is approximately 260 miles east of the SNWW Port

Arthur and Beaumont facilities. Four pipelines connect the onshore storage facility to refineries in

Louisiana and along the Gulf Coast. The Clovelly facility provides interim storage for crude oil before it

is delivered via connecting pipelines to refineries on the Gulf Coast and in the Midwest. The oil is stored

in eight underground caverns leached out of a naturally occurring salt dome. In 1996, one cavern was

dedicated to the production streams coming in from the deepwater Gulf.

The domestic offshore crude oil system uses the same distribution system used by the foreign barrels. The

caverns are capable of storing approximately 50 million barrels of crude oil (a barrel of oil is equal to 42

U.S. gallons). In addition, LOOP has an aboveground tank farm consisting of six 600,000-barrel tanks.

LOOP operates the 53-mile, 48-inch LOCAP pipeline that connects LOOP to CAPLINE (Amoco

Cushing-Chicago Pipeline Company) at St. James, Louisiana. CAPLINE is a 40-inch pipeline that

transports crude oil to several Midwest refineries. St. James is 227 miles east of Port Arthur and

Beaumont. LOOP is connected to over 50 percent of the U.S. refinery capacity and has offloaded over

7 billion barrels of foreign crude oil since its inception.

LOOP is designed to handle 1.4 million barrels per day, but depending on the sizes of ships being

serviced, it can handle 1.8 million barrels per day. The variance relates to the pumping rates of the tankers

using the facility. Larger tankers tend to have faster pumping rates, with some capable of pumping

80,000 barrels per hour. Smaller tankers may only be able to pump 35,000 barrels per hour. When fully

operational, LOOP is generally the largest point of entry for crude oil imports into the U.S. About

13 percent of all waterborne foreign imports pass through LOOP each day. Again, LOOP’s design

capacity of 1.4 to 1.8 million barrels per day is only marginally higher than the SNWW 2003 to 2005

crude petroleum import volume, which ranged from 1.2 to 1.4 million barrels per day. Of the SNWW’s

approximate 1.3 million barrels per day import volume, terminals on the SNWW transport approximately

400,000 barrels per day of waterborne crude oil via pipelines to inland refineries including refineries in

Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, Arkansas, and Kentucky (Martin Associates, 2006). In total, the

SNWW delivers approximately 12 to 16 percent of the crude oil supplied to domestic refineries east of

806
2: Alternatives

2-10

the Rockies. Refineries supplied via the SNWW provide transportation fuels and other products to

consumers along the Gulf Coast, East Coast, and in the Midwest regions. The SNWW ports presently

receive about 1 percent of their daily input through LOOP. Additional offshore and landside infrastructure

would be necessary for an increase in volume to take place.

Although there are some competing markets, the SNWW and LOOP generally serve parallel markets,

with LOOP consistently processing very large volumes and SNWW serving relatively smaller parcels.

The sizes of the VLCCs using LOOP typically exceed 300,000 DWT, whereas the maximum-sized

vessels using the SNWW are 175,000 DWT. The maximum design draft of these vessels is 55 feet or less.

The minimum-sized crude oil tankers using the SNWW are in the 70,000 to 80,000 DWT range and have

design drafts between 40 and 48 feet. LOOP’s foreign petroleum imports are from the Middle East,

whereas the SNWW’s market consists of direct shipments from Mexico and Venezuela and lightened

mother vessels and shuttles. It has been noted that the cost effectiveness of LOOP lessens for small vessel

sizes. The SNWW has the ability to serve a more general market and range of users. In discussions with

local port and oil industry personnel, it is noted that LOOP and similar proposals serve crude petroleum

but do not serve a full range of petroleum and bulk cargoes that use the SNWW.

The most-immediate obstacle to increased use of LOOP or a new offshore facility is lack of major

limitations for direct connection from LOOP to SNWW. A marginal increase in the SNWW’s use of

LOOP from its present 1 percent share would require LOOP pipeline connection modifications involving

multiple pipelines and multiple companies. Such an investment may generate the necessity for higher

throughput charges, which, in turn, may make access less cost effective than in the past. An industry

analyst noted that, to a large extent, the companies demand that each segment, including pipeline

transportation, stand on its own economically (Rabinow, 2004). The long-term availability of LOOP since

the 1970s and low participation by the SNWW companies indicate that LOOP and new offshore terminal

proposals have not provided the market utilization incentives for significant shares of the SNWW crude

oil to shift towards these alternatives. The long-term trend is for domestic refining capacity to become

more concentrated in regional centers and for imports of petroleum products to grow. This trend is

evident with the SNWW with crude oil import tonnage exceeding that of any other U.S. port and being

equal to LOOP. Imports of refined products and partially refined crude oil have grown significantly as

have the use of draft-constrained vessels for transporting these cargoes.

In 2001, construction of a new terminal (called the Bulk Oil Offshore Transfer System, or BOOTS)

offshore of Sabine Pass, Texas, was proposed. The relatively long distance from LOOP to the SNWW

and the need for additional infrastructure suggest that a facility closer to the SNWW would be an

attractive alternative to LOOP for SNWW channel improvements. However, the BOOTS facility has not

yet been constructed, and the regulatory permit application is inactive. The USCG has had no update on

the proposal and does not expect a submittal. At the present time, the potential user of the proposed

project is the terminal proponent. They noted that their participation as sole supporter is not feasible

financially. It was specifically noted that their feedstock needs were not sufficient to finance the

expansions to LOOP.

807
2: Alternatives

2-11

The BOOTs project proponent was contacted, and it was found that a new location farther down the

Texas coast near Freeport is presently being considered. Access by the SNWW refineries to the proposed

Texas Offshore Ports System (TOPS) would have advantages over LOOP. There is an existing pipeline

from Freeport to Texas City; however, its connection to Port Arthur would necessitate a new pipeline

from Texas City to SNWW, a distance of approximately 75 miles. Industry indications are that the use of

an offshore Freeport terminal would not serve as the exclusive supplier, just as LOOP is not the exclusive

supplier for the Louisiana markets. TOPS would reduce the vessel traffic on the Neches River by

reducing the number of shuttle vessels coming into the SNWW from the offshore lightering zone.

However, a disagreement among the partners recently led to the withdrawal of two of the three companies

from the partnership.

In a general discussion with industry, a representative noted that offshore oil terminal projects surface

periodically, but the cost of these alternatives keeps them from moving beyond the initial planning stage.

It is noted that the attractiveness of offshore alternatives over existing use of the SNWW is diminished by

its ability to only serve one commodity (i.e., crude petroleum). It was added that the various crude oil

blends and grades of oil introduce a range of additional concerns that add to throughput costs. The

pipelines and associated infrastructure requirements vary between potential users, and mingling of

products and grades of crude is complex and difficult to facilitate. The construction of an offshore

terminal that can meet the needs of various users is a challenge with the costs to realize multiparty usage

creating an impasse to these proposals moving beyond the initial planning stage. Recognition of the cost

of multiple pipelines necessary to meet the needs of the large base of customers necessary to finance these

project alternatives has resulted in a stalemate in the decision process.

Expansion of LOOP, construction of a new offshore facility such as BOOTS or TOPS, or an unloading

terminal along the Sabine Pass or Port Arthur Canal reaches would reduce the vessel traffic on the Neches

River. The reduction in ship traffic resulting from LOOP, BOOTs, or TOPS would reduce the economic

viability of the SNWW deepening and widening project. However, past and present trends in

infrastructure and fleet investments indicate that industry intends to continue using the Neches River

Channel. An increase in the number of specially designed SNWW vessels was recently completed by one

company, and another has invested in Neches River dock modifications for the larger “Aframax” and

“Suezmaz” vessels. The focus of immediate private-sector petroleum vessel investments is concentrated

on SNWW improvements rather than offshore or on the Sabine Pass Channel or Port Arthur Canal.

Ongoing consultation with industry continues to show that commitments to offshore terminal investment

have not materialized. During the 30 years since LOOP has become operational, several Texas Gulf Coast

channel improvement projects have been completed and the benefits have been accrued. Offshore

terminals would not accommodate products other than crude oil, and a significant proportion of benefits

for the Neches River Channel project improvement are from refined petroleum products. The offshore

terminal was found not to meet the efficiency objective for all waterway users as it addressed the needs of

only one user and commodity (crude oil). For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from further

consideration.

808
2: Alternatives

2-12

2.2.3 Structural Alternatives

Six different channel depths (43, 45, 48, 50, 53, and 55 feet) were evaluated in combination with several

different widening scenarios during preliminary and second alternatives screening. Widening the upper

reaches of the SNWW to 500 feet through the Port of Beaumont was evaluated, as were selective

widening alternatives of different widths for specific reaches. This analysis resulted in over 120 variations

of alternative depths and widths. Costs were estimated for all of these variations and compared to benefits

during this initial screening process. An incremental analysis of benefits for separable elements of the

project was also conducted. Preliminary analysis indicated that approximately 65 percent of the project

benefits were associated with the upstream Beaumont area and 35 percent with the Port Arthur area;

therefore, continuing improvements up the Neches River to Beaumont was economically justified. The

initial screening determined that depths of 45 feet and greater had higher net excess benefits than depths

less than 45 feet. The initial analysis also showed slightly higher net excess benefits for the 52-foot and

55-foot depths than for depths between 45 and 50 feet. However, because the rate of change in net excess

benefits for depths over 50 feet was relatively small, and due to the non-Federal sponsor’s budget

constraints, only depths between 45 and 50 feet were advanced for final screening. Ecological benefits

and mitigation costs were not calculated for the 120 plus variations during the preliminary and second

screening. However, the array of structural improvements was assessed for potential effects to the

environment in a nonquantitative manner.

Deepening and widening combinations that were evaluated during preliminary screening are listed below.

• Maintain existing 40-foot depth with 500-foot width, and 3 existing turning basins, to Port of

Beaumont;

• Deepen the entire waterway from the Gulf to the Port of Beaumont at depths of 43, 45, 48, 50, 53,

and 55 feet with an extension of the Entrance Channel ranging from 5 to 25 miles in length and

no widening;

• Deepen the entire waterway, considering the various depths (43, 45, 48, 50, 53, and 55) with an

extension of the Entrance Channel ranging from 5 to 25 miles in length, and widen the SabineNeches Canal to Beaumont to match the 500-foot-wide channels in the lower reach;

• Deepening but not widening of the Taylor Bayou Channels and Basins at the various depths (43,

45, 48, 50, 53, and 55).

Two of the preliminary structural alternatives were found to be infeasible due to technical, economic, and

environmental constraints, and were therefore not advanced into the second screening:

• Widening the entire existing channel from Sabine Pass to the Port of Beaumont, at widths varying

from 500 to 700 feet, was found to be infeasible because a widening-only alternative would not

provide the additional draft needed to increase navigation efficiency for the largest number of

waterway users. In addition, this alternative would have had significant ancillary effects such as

the destruction of large amounts of emergent land and wetlands, the disruption or displacement of

809
2: Alternatives

2-13

a large number of existing docks and berthing facilities, the relocation of bridge supports for

existing highway bridges, and the creation of many new PAs.

• Selective widening only (widening only certain reaches of the channel) was eliminated because it

would provide even fewer navigation benefits than the widening-only alternative discussed above

During the second alternatives evaluation, several widening combinations were evaluated. Each of the

following was evaluated for deepening options of 43, 45, 48, 50, 53, and 55 feet with an extension of the

Entrance Channel from 8 to 16.5 miles.

• Maintain existing 500- to 400-foot width of the inshore channels to Port of Beaumont at depths of

45, 48, and 50 feet;

• Reducing the deepened Sabine Bank Channel from 800 feet wide to 700 feet wide through the

end of the extension channel;

• Selective widening (600- and 700-foot widths) from Sabine Pass Channel station 180+00 to Port

Arthur Canal station 275+00 (long reach);

• Selective widening (600- and 700-foot widths) from Sabine Pass Channel Station 265+00 to Port

Arthur Canal Station 85+00 (short reach);

• Selective widening (500-, 600-, and 700-foot widths) in the Sabine-Neches Canal;

• Selective widening (600- and 700-foot widths) in the Neches River Channel. Deepening and

widening of the Taylor Bayou Channels and Basins;

• Constructing a 12-foot-deep by 150-foot-wide barge shelf from the Port Arthur Junction Area to

the mouth of the Neches River; and

• Adding various combinations of up to eight turning basins and/or anchorage basins on the Neches

River Channel.

Several of these alternatives were eliminated at the conclusion of the second screening. The alternative

mode of commodity transport (LOOP and BOOTS) and the VTS alternatives would help with improving

safety along the existing channel (by reducing vessel traffic or better managing the traffic). However,

these alternatives do not address the navigational efficiency of the waterway and would not allow the

vessels utilizing the channel to load more fully. The potential relaxation of the current transit rules by the

pilots was evaluated but screened out as not implementable because the pilots do not support this course

of action. Therefore, all of the nonstructural plans were eliminated from further consideration. The

widening alternatives included widening of the Sabine Pass and Port Arthur Canal channel from 500 to

700 feet. Although the widening in combination with the deepening of the channel was economically

justified, the widening alone did not provide a benefit to cost ratio equal to or greater than 1.0. Therefore,

the widening alternative for this reach was not an incrementally justified feature and was eliminated from

further evaluation. Depths less than 45 feet and greater than 50 feet were also eliminated from further

810
2: Alternatives

2-14

screening, because the economic analysis indicated that the NED depth was likely between 48 and

50 feet.

In summary, since structural alternatives (e.g., deepening the channel) were the only alternatives that

would fully address the project objective of navigational efficiency, only the No-Action Alternative and

some structural alternatives for improvements to the SNWW navigation system were carried forward for

detailed analysis. Among all of the structural alternatives, only six depths (45, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50 feet)

were carried forward into detailed evaluation.

2.3 EVALUATION OF FINAL ALTERNATIVES

2.3.1 Alternatives Advanced for Final Screening

At the conclusion of the second screening, only the No-Action Alternative and six structural alternatives

for improvements to the SNWW deep-draft navigation system were advanced into detailed screening. The

barge shelf alternative was dropped from further consideration when implementation of the VTS

improved communication between deep-draft vessels and barges, thereby providing a nonstructural

solution for the barge shelf. The three nonstructural alternatives for deepening the deep-draft channel had

been eliminated from further consideration, as described above. Structural alternatives evaluated during

this final screening phase are listed below. Comparative channel dimensions and dredging quantities are

provided in Table 2.3-1.

• Deepening the SNWW to Beaumont to 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 feet (Alternatives A through F,

respectively, in Table 2.3-1) with an extension of the Entrance Channel ranging from 8 to

16.5 miles in length, a 700-foot-wide Sabine Bank and Extension Channel, and deepening and

widening the Taylor Bayou Channels and Basins.

Adding various combinations of up to eight turning basins and/or anchorage basins to the 45-, 46-, 47-,

48-, 49-, and 50-foot Neches River Channel deepening alternatives (Alternative G).

2.3.2 Comparison of Alternatives and Selection of the Preferred

Alternative

The selection of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D) from the alternatives listed above was based

upon a comparison of economic, engineering, environmental, and socioeconomic factors presented in

Table 2.3-1. The economic analysis presented in Chapter V of the FFR identified the alternative described

below as the plan that maximizes net excess benefits for deepening the SNWW. The Preferred Alternative

is called the Selected Plan, and ultimately, the Recommended Plan, in the FFR. The Preferred Alternative,

presented as the last alternative in subsection 2.3.1, is described in detail below:

811
Table 2.3-1

SNWW Alternatives Comparison Table

Screened Alternatives Analysis Matrix - Potential Impacts to Evaluation Criteria

Note

Column Letter is for reference

in this table ONLY No-Action Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative D (Preferred

Alternative) Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

ALTERNATIVES

Maintain existing 40-foot-deep by 800-footwide by 22-mile-long Sabine Bank and OuterBar Channels, transitioning to 500 feet wide inthe Sabine Pass Jetty Channel, and 400-x-40-foot-deep channel to Beaumont

45-Foot Channel to Beaumont with an 8-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins.

46-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 9.7-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

47-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 11.4-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

48-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 13.2-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

49-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 14.8-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

50-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 16.5-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

Up to eight Neches River Turning andAnchorage Basins

PLAN COMPARISONInshore SNWW NavigationChannels and Basins None 35.1 mcy 41.9 mcy 48.8 mcy 54.4 mcy 61.3 mcy 67.2 mcy 8.2 mcy

Offshore SNWW NavigationChannel None 29.2 mcy 33.8 mcy 38.4 mcy 43 mcy 48.6 mcy 54.1 mcy NA

Total NA 64.3 mcy 75.7 mcy 87 mcy 98 mcy 109.9 mcy 121.3 mcy 8.2 mcy

Inshore SNWW NavigationChannels and Basins 245 mcy 249 mcy 258.4 mcy 267.6 mcy 280.6 mcy 289.9 mcy 295 mcy 8.4 mcy

Offshore SNWW NavigationChannel 161 mcy 332.8 mcy 345.1 mcy 357.2 mcy 369.8 mcy 382 mcy 394.2 mcy 0.0 mcy

Total 407 mcy 581.8 mcy 603.5 mcy 624.8 mcy 650.4 mcy 671.9 mcy 689.2 mcy 8.4 mcy

Upland PAs 16 existing PAs with periodic raising of containment levees. Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative 16 existing PAs with higher containment levees; new cells at existing PAs (18A and 24A). Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative; marginal additional quantities already provided for in upland PAs.

Neches River Beneficial Use (BU)Feature

None. No suitable new work material availableto construct containment levees.

New work and maintenance material quantitiesexpected to be lower than PreferredAlternative, marginally reducing size ofNeches River BU Feature.

New work and maintenance material quantitiesexpected to be lower than PreferredAlternative, marginally reducing the size of theNeches River BU Feature.

New work and maintenance material quantitiesexpected to be lower than PreferredAlternative, marginally reducing the size of theNeches River BU Feature.

New work material is used beneficially toconstruct this BU feature at Rose City, BessieHeights, and Old River Cove.No material from the offshore channels wouldbe used beneficially.

New work and construction material quantitiesexpected to be higher than the PreferredAlternative.Increasing size of BU feature is unlikely sincethere are limited areas remaining near thechannel that would be least-cost placementalternatives.

New work and construction material quantitiesexpected to be higher than the PreferredAlternative.Increasing size of BU feature is unlikely sincethere are limited areas remaining near thechannel that would be least-cost placementalternatives.

Material quantities from the turning/anchoragebasins would be used beneficially, butquantities are so small that they would notsignificantly affect size of the size of theNeches River BU Feature.

Gulf Shore BU Feature

Nourishment of 3 miles of Texas andLouisiana Point shorelines, alternating every 3years. Material from offshore channels is notbeing used beneficially.

Quantity of maintenance material will be lessthan that available with Preferred Alternative,but nourishment would still occur over 3 milesof shoreline at both Texas and LouisianaPoints, alternating every 3 years for 50 years.

Quantity of maintenance material will be lessthan that available with Preferred Alternative,but nourishment would still occur over 3 milesof shoreline at both Texas and Louisianapoints, alternating every 3 years for 50 years.

Quantity of maintenance material will be lessthan that available with Preferred Alternative,but nourishment would still occur over 3 milesof shoreline at both Texas and Louisianapoints, alternating every 3 years for 50 years.

Same as No-Action Alternative

Quantity of maintenance material would bemore than that available with the PreferredAlternative, but nourishment would still occurover 3 miles of shoreline at both Texas andLouisiana points, alternating every 3 years for50 years.

Quantity of maintenance material would bemore than that available with the PreferredAlternative, but nourishment would still occurover 3 miles of shoreline at both Texas andLouisiana Points, alternating every 3 years for50 years.

Not applicable

ODMDS 4 existing ODMDSs. No size increase is projected; sites are dispersive. Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative 4 existing ODMDSs and designation of 4 new ODMDSs Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Not applicable

EVALUATION CRITERIAWater QualityWater Column Effects

Turbidity during periodic maintenancedredging of existing Federal and non-Federalchannels, basins, and berthing areas; bestmanagement practices employed duringplacement activities to ensure minimal effectson turbidity.

About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative

Turbidity during construction up to 1 miledowncurrent from cutter or drag head. Little, ifany, difference in turbidity during periodicmaintenance dredging of the navigationchannels, basins, and berthing areas. Bestmanagement practices employed duringplacement activities ensure minimal turbidityand no release of contaminated materials.Neches River BU Feature would result in netbenefit to water quality in study area,

About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative

Turbidity during construction up to 1 miledowncurrent from cutter or drag head. Little, ifany, difference in turbidity during periodicmaintenance dredging of navigation channels,basins, and berthing areas. Best managementpractices employed during placement activitiesensure minimal turbidity and no release ofcontaminated materials.

Sediment QualitySurficial Sediments Alternative is not expected to change the quality of surficial sediments. About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative

Data from physical, chemical, andbioaccumulation studies indicate thatconstruction material from this Alternative issuitable for ocean placement and use in BUfeatures.

About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative

Construction Dredging Note: All totals in this section are approximate

Maintenance Dredging (50-year plan) Note: All totals in this section are approximateDredged Material Placement (50-year plan)

2-15

812
Table 2.3-1

SNWW Alternatives Comparison Table

Screened Alternatives Analysis Matrix - Potential Impacts to Evaluation Criteria

Note

Column Letter is for reference

in this table ONLY No-Action Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative D (Preferred

Alternative) Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

ALTERNATIVES

Maintain existing 40-foot-deep by 800-footwide by 22-mile-long Sabine Bank and OuterBar Channels, transitioning to 500 feet wide inthe Sabine Pass Jetty Channel, and 400-x-40-foot-deep channel to Beaumont

45-Foot Channel to Beaumont with an 8-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins.

46-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 9.7-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

47-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 11.4-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

48-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 13.2-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

49-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 14.8-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

50-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 16.5-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

Up to eight Neches River Turning andAnchorage Basins

Sediment Quality, cont'dMaintenance Material

Most material from inshore channel reaches iscurrently placed in upland confined PAs. Datafrom physical, chemical, and bioaccumulationstudies indicate no cause for concern fromeffluent. Material from Section 5 would beused in the Gulf Shore BU Feature. Basedupon past experience with SNWW testing,material is expected to be environmentallyacceptable under all applicable regulations.

The quantity of maintenance material frominshore and offshore channel reaches would beless than the Preferred Alternative. The sourceof the material is the same as the No-ActionAlternative. Material would be usedbeneficially at the Neches River and GulfShore BU features. Based upon pastexperience with the testing on the SNWWmaterial, material is expected to beenvironmentally acceptable under allapplicable regulations.

About the same as Alternative A About the same as Preferred Alternative

The quantity of maintenance material frominshore channel reaches would increase 15%over the No-Action Alternative; in offshorereach the quantity would increase 130%. Thesource of the material is the same as the NoAction Alternative. Material would be usedbeneficially at the Neches River and GulfShore BU features. Based upon pastexperience with the testing on the SNWWmaterial, material is expected to beenvironmentally acceptable under allapplicable regulations.

About the same as Preferred Alternative

The quantity of maintenance material frominshore and offshore channel reaches would behigher than the Preferred Alternative.

Turning and anchorage basins in thisalternative are located immediately adjacent tothe navigation channel, in relict Neches Riveroxbows. The relict oxbow channels maintaincirculation with the larger river and navigationchannel. Slower relative velocities in theoxbows may result in higher shoaling rates.However, the turning/anchorage basins wouldnot be expected to add significant maintenancedredging quantities due to their small sizerelative to the navigation channel.

HydrologyCirculation, Exchange, Velocities

Increases in tidal exchange, velocities andwater surface elevations would be expectedwith "most likely" RSLR of 1.1 feet.

Deeper navigation channel would allow greatertidal circulation and exchange with Gulf thanNo-Action Alternative. Average waterelevations would be negligibly higher in mostplaces, though lower than the PreferredAlternative. Velocity magnitudes would beslightly higher, but absolute magnitudes aresmall.

Same as Alternative A Same as Preferred Alternative

Deeper navigation channel would allow greatertidal circulation and exchange with Gulf thanNo-Action Alternative. Average waterelevations are negligibly higher, averaging lessthan 0.8 inch. Velocity magnitudes would beslightly higher, but absolute magnitudes aresmall.

Deeper navigation channel would allow greatertidal circulation and exchange with Gulf thanNo-Action Alternative. Average waterelevations would be slightly higher in mostplaces, and slightly higher than the PreferredAlternative. Velocity magnitudes would beslightly higher, but absolute magnitudes aresmall.

About the same as Alternative E The turning/anchorage basin Alternative would have no effect on tidal circulation or exchange.

Freshwater Flows

Future freshwater inflows determined byprecipitation, demand and supply strategies,and the Neches River and Sabine River WaterAuthorities in accordance with State andFederal operating permits.

About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative

Alternative will have no effect on freshwaterinflows; however, by slight tidal exchangeincreases anticipated, conveying outflows tothe Gulf marginally faster than under the NoAction Alternative.

About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative

Sediment Transport - InshoreChannels

The amount of sediment-laden run-off is likelyto increase under the No-Action Alternativedue to climate change. Low bottom velocitiesin some areas result in higher than averageshoaling rates. These channel segments areportions of the Sabine Pass Channel near themouth of Sabine Lake, the Port Arthur andTaylor Bayou Junction in the Sabine-NechesCanal, and a downstream section of the SabineNeches Canal.

This Alternative will have a larger volumebelow the existing river bed than the NoAction Alternative, resulting in higher shoalingrate than the No-Action Alternative. Thechannel prism would be smaller thanalternatives B through F.

This Alternative will have a larger volumebelow the existing river bed than the NoAction Alternative, resulting in higher shoalingrate than the No-Action Alternative. Thechannel prism would be smaller thanAlternatives C through F.

This Alternative will have a larger volumebelow the existing river bed than the NoAction Alternative, resulting in higher shoalingrate than the No-Action Alternative. Thechannel prism would be smaller thanalternatives D through F.

This Alternative will have a larger volumebelow the existing river bed than the NoAction Alternative, resulting in higher sheetingrate than the No-Action Alternative andAlternatives A through C.

This Alternative will have a larger volumebelow the existing river bed than the NoAction Alternative, resulting in higher sheetingrate than the No-Action Alternative andAlternatives A through D.

This Alternative will have a larger volumebelow the existing river bed than the NoAction Alternative, resulting in higher sheetingrate than the No-Action Alternative andalternatives A through E.

Turning and anchorage basins in thisAlternative are located immediately adjacent tothe navigation channel, in relict Neches Riveroxbows. The relict oxbow channels maintaincirculation with the larger river and navigationchannel. Slower relative velocities in theoxbows may result in higher shoaling rates.

Coastal Shoreline Erosion

Coastal shoreline erosion would continue andaccelerate on the Texas Gulf shoreline, beyond0.5 mile from the West Jetty. The LouisianaGulf shoreline is not eroding in the study area.The shoreline within 0.5 mile of each jetty isaccreting.

There would be a slight reduction in theaccretion rate near both jetties, but between 0.5and 3.5 miles from both jetties, erosion wouldincrease by 2–4 inches/year.

There would be a slight reduction in theaccretion rate near both jetties, but between 0.5and 3.5 miles from both jetties, erosion wouldincrease by 2–4 inches/year.

There would be a slight reduction in theaccretion rate near both jetties, but between 0.5and 3.5 miles from both jetties, erosion wouldincrease by 3–5 inches/year.

There would be a slight reduction in theaccretion rate near both jetties, but between 0.5and 3.5 miles from both jetties, erosion wouldincrease by 3–5 inches/year.

There would be a slight reduction in theaccretion rate near both jetties, but between 0.5and 3.5 miles from both jetties, erosion wouldincrease by 4–6 inches/year.

There would be a slight reduction in theaccretion rate near both jetties, but between 0.5and 3.5 miles from both jetties, erosion wouldincrease by 4–6 inches/year.

Not applicable - inshore turning and anchoragebasins would have no effect on offshoreconditions.

Inland Shoreline Erosion

Continuation of significant channel shorelineerosion along the Sabine-Neches Canal andportions of the Port Arthur Canal. Accelerationof shoreline recession of east Sabine Lake.

About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative

Confined inland channel erosion rates reducedrelative to the No-Action Alternative becauseof the larger channel and the fewer vessel tripspredicted under this Alternative. East SabineLake shoreline recession same as the NoAction Alternative.

About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative

Salinity

Salinity intrusion from existing SNWW ShipChannel, GIWW and Calcasieu Ship Channelwould continue to affect majority of study area.Salinity would increase between 0 and 2 partsper thousand (ppt) due to RSLR under medianflows.

Salinity would increase from 0 to 1.3 ppt overNo-Action Alternative under median flows.

Salinity would increase from 0 to 1.5 ppt overthe No-Action Alternative under median flows.

Salinity would increase from 0 to 1.6 ppt overthe No-Action Alternative under median flows.

Saltwater wedge penetration expected fartherup the SNWW navigation channels than underthe No-Action Alternative. Salinities wouldincrease from 0 to 1.8 ppt over the No-ActionAlternative under median flows.

Salinity would increase from 0 to 2.0 ppt overthe No-Action Alternative under median flows.

Salinity would increase from 0 to 2.2 ppt overthe No-Action Alternative under median flows.

The addition of turning and anchorage basinson the Neches River Channel would have nomeasurable effect on salinity because of theirsmall size relative to the existing tidal prism.

2-16

813
Table 2.3-1

SNWW Alternatives Comparison Table

Screened Alternatives Analysis Matrix - Potential Impacts to Evaluation Criteria

Note

Column Letter is for reference

in this table ONLY No-Action Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative D (Preferred

Alternative) Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

ALTERNATIVES

Maintain existing 40-foot-deep by 800-footwide by 22-mile-long Sabine Bank and OuterBar Channels, transitioning to 500 feet wide inthe Sabine Pass Jetty Channel, and 400-x-40-foot-deep channel to Beaumont

45-Foot Channel to Beaumont with an 8-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins.

46-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 9.7-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

47-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 11.4-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

48-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 13.2-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

49-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 14.8-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

50-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 16.5-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

Up to eight Neches River Turning andAnchorage Basins

Hydrology, cont'dGroundwater

Groundwater in the upper Chicot aquifer in thestudy area ranges from slightly to moderatelysaline, and increases in salinity as it nears thecoast. Current activities that may affectgroundwater (i.e., well extraction and existingdredging activities) are expected to continue.RSLR would adversely affect freshwateraquifers.

Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

Navigation channel deepening under thisAlternative would not be expected to increasesalinities in the aquifer beyond those alreadypresent under the No-Action Alternative. Noimpacts would be expected with the additionalplacement of dredged material into upland PAsunder this alternative.

Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

Hazardous Materials

Evaluation and clean-up of nine priority sitesof concern would continue under the NoAction Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

Four of the nine priority hazardous materialssites are located adjacent to the SNWW. Thesesites present minimal potential for risk to thisalternative. PA 17 contains hazardousmaterials from landfill and dumping activities.The type and extent of these hazardousmaterials must be determined before the PAcan be used.

Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

Land-side Mobile Emissions

Land-side emissions in support of wastematerial placement will be maintainedconsistent with the level of existingmaintenance dredging activities.

Air contaminant emissions from thecombustion of fuel in equipment used forplacement activities are estimated to be about6% less than for the Preferred Alternative witha corresponding reduction in impact comparedto the Preferred Alternative.

Air contaminant emissions from thecombustion of fuel in equipment used forplacement activities are estimated to be about4% less than for the Preferred Alternative witha corresponding reduction in impact comparedto the Preferred Alternative.

About the same as the Preferred Alternative

Air contaminant emissions from thecombustion of fuel in equipment used forplacement activities would result in minorshort-term impacts on air quality in theimmediate vicinity of the project area.

About the same as the Preferred Alternative

Air contaminant emissions from thecombustion of fuel in equipment used forplacement activities are estimated to be about4% more than for the Preferred Alternativewith a corresponding increase in impactcompared to the Preferred Alternative.

Air contaminant emissions from thecombustion of fuel in equipment used forplacement activities are estimated to be smalland would result in correspondingly minorshort-term impacts on air quality in theimmediate vicinity of the project area.

Ocean-Going Transit Emissions Maintenance dredging activities will result in air emissions impact to project area.

Air contaminant emissions from thecombustion of fuel in equipment used forplacement activities are estimated to be about59% less than for the Preferred Alternativewith a corresponding reduction in impactcompared to the Preferred Alternative.

Air contaminant emissions from thecombustion of fuel in equipment used forplacement activities are estimated to be about43% less than for the Preferred Alternativewith a corresponding reduction in impactcompared to the Preferred Alternative.

About the same as the Preferred Alternative

Air contaminant emissions from thecombustion of fuel in equipment used fordredging and placement activities would alsoresult in short-term impacts on air quality inthe immediate vicinity of the project area.

About the same as the Preferred Alternative

Air contaminant emissions from thecombustion of fuel in equipment used forplacement activities are estimated to be about52% more than for the Preferred Alternativewith a corresponding increase in impactcompared to the Preferred Alternative.

Air contaminant emissions from thecombustion of fuel in equipment used fordredging and placement activities are estimatedto be small and would also result incorrespondingly minor short-term impacts onair quality in the immediate vicinity of theproject area.

Construction Emissions Not applicable.

Air contaminant emissions from constructionand dredging activities are expected to beabout 18% less than for the PreferredAlternative with a corresponding reduction inshort-term impacts on air quality in theimmediate vicinity of the project areacompared to the Preferred Alternative.

Air contaminant emissions from constructionand dredging activities are expected to beabout 12% less than for the PreferredAlternative with a corresponding reduction inshort-term impacts on air quality in theimmediate vicinity of the project areacompared to the Preferred Alternative.

About the same as the Preferred Alternative

Pollutant emissions from construction anddredging activities will result in short-termimpacts on air quality in the immediate vicinityof the project site. Construction of theproposed project would result in a 1 to 2%increase in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X)

above those resulting from existing emissionssources in the Beaumont-Port Arthur area.

About the same as the Preferred Alternative

Air contaminant emissions from constructionand dredging activities are expected to beabout 14% more than for the PreferredAlternative with a corresponding reduction inshort-term impacts on air quality in theimmediate vicinity of the project areacompared to the Preferred Alternative.

Air contaminant emissions from constructionand dredging activities are estimated to bemuch less than for the Preferred Alternativeand will result in minor short-term impacts onair quality in the immediate vicinity of theproject site.

General Conformity Not required for No-Action Alternative.

A General Conformity Determination for NOX

emissions would likely be required forevaluation of emissions from constructionactivities.

A General Conformity Determination for NOX

emissions would likely be required forevaluation of emissions from constructionactivities.

A General Conformity Determination for NOX

emissions would likely be required forevaluation of emissions from constructionactivities.

A General Conformity Determination for NOX

emissions was submitted to TCEQ. TCEQprovided written concurrence that emissionsare conformant with the Texas SIP for theBeaumont-Port Arthur region.

A General Conformity Determination for NOX

emissions would likely be required forevaluation of emissions from constructionactivities.

A General Conformity Determination for NOX

emissions would likely be required forevaluation of emissions from constructionactivities.

A General Conformity Determination wouldnot be required for this construction.

Air Quality

2-17

814
Table 2.3-1

SNWW Alternatives Comparison Table

Screened Alternatives Analysis Matrix - Potential Impacts to Evaluation Criteria

Note

Column Letter is for reference

in this table ONLY No-Action Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative D (Preferred

Alternative) Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

ALTERNATIVES

Maintain existing 40-foot-deep by 800-footwide by 22-mile-long Sabine Bank and OuterBar Channels, transitioning to 500 feet wide inthe Sabine Pass Jetty Channel, and 400-x-40-foot-deep channel to Beaumont

45-Foot Channel to Beaumont with an 8-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins.

46-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 9.7-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

47-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 11.4-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

48-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 13.2-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

49-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 14.8-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

50-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 16.5-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

Up to eight Neches River Turning andAnchorage Basins

Habitat Effects

Note: All CIP habitat impacts in Texas wouldbe minimized and offset by the DMMP and nomitigation is required. All mitigation measuresare located in Louisiana, compensating forsalinity increase and loss to biologicalproductivity.

Terrestrial and EmergentVegetation (uplands andbottomland hardwoods)

No change to existing conditions for mostuplands and bottomland hardwood areas. Mostof the area is an upland ridge covered byprimarily tallow woods; 86 acres are freshmarsh. Productivity impacts of this conversionare fully offset by productivity benefits of theNeches River BU Feature.

All other alternatives would use the sameupland PAs as the Preferred Alternative.

All other alternatives would use the sameupland PAs as the Preferred Alternative.

All other alternatives would use the sameupland PAs as the Preferred Alternative.

No change to existing conditions for mostuplands and bottomland hardwood areas. Twoupland areas are being converted to new PAcells. In addition to PA 24A (see No-Action),another 71 acres of disturbed, low-qualityscrub habitat would be converted to new PA18A. Five currently inactive PAs (23A, 25A,26, 27C, and 27D) would be returned to activeuse. All have been modified extensively by pastplacement activities and levees that isolatethem and prevent contributions to the adjacentwetlands and riparian corridor. All containdegraded habitat with low habitat values,primarily roosting habitat for birds and somewildlife cover.

All other alternatives would use the sameupland PAs as the Preferred Alternative.

All other alternatives would use the sameupland PAs as the Preferred Alternative.

No incremental impacts to terrestrial andemergent vegetation from turning/anchoragebasins.

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation(SAV)

Existing rate of emergent marsh loss wouldincrease size of open-water areas at theexpense of intertidal habitat, reduce marshedge, and protected shallow-water habitat forSAV. Salinity-tolerant SAV species wouldexpand coverage due to RSLR.

About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative

Construction dredging would not affect SAV.The Neches River BU Feature would result innet increase in shallow-water ponds andsinuous channels, which provide still,protected waters beneficial to SAV. SAVcoverage would be expected to increase overthe No-Action Alternative in BU andmitigation areas.

About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative

Turning and anchorage basins in thisalternative are located immediately adjacent tothe navigation channel, in relict Neches Riveroxbows. The relict oxbows maintaincirculation with the larger river and navigationchannel. Protected shallow-water areas atoxbow edge that may provide SAV habitatwould be temporarily affected duringconstruction.

Freshwater Aquatic Habitat(freshwater streams, fresh marshand swamp)

Existing high rate of marsh loss wouldcontinue under No-Action Alternative due tocombined effect of RSLR, and alteredhydrology and salinity levels. Swamps subjectto pulses of higher salinity during low-flowconditions.

Generally the same as the Preferred Alternativebecause there would be no change to uplandPAs and no significant differences in salinityimpacts. New work and maintenance materialquantities are expected to be lower than thePreferred Alternative, marginally reducing thesize of Neches River BU Feature.

About the same as Alternative A About the same as the Preferred Alternative

Impacts would consist of the conversion of 86acres of wetlands to an upland confinedplacement area and small reductions inbiological productivity due to small increase insalinity over 35,600 acres of fresh marsh and804 acres of swamps in Texas and Louisiana.The Nueces River BU Feature would offset allproductivity from small reductions inbiological productivity due to a small increasein salinity. Compensatory mitigation wouldreplace the lost biological productivity to freshmarsh and swamp in Louisiana.

Generally the same as the Preferred Alternativebecause there would be no change to uplandPAs, and no significant differences in salinityimpacts. New work and maintenance materialquantities are expected to be higher than thePreferred Alternative but no change in the sizeof the Neches River BU Feature would beexpected,

About the same as Alternative E

No freshwater habitat would be affected byturning/anchorage basin dredging or placementactivities.

Estuarine Habitats (Sabine Pass,Sabine Lake, Neches and Sabinerivers and tributaries;Intermediate, Brackish, and SalineMarsh)

Existing high rate of marsh loss wouldcontinue under No-Action Alternative due tocombined effect of RSLR, and alteredhydrology and salinity levels. Water columnturbidity and nutrient release associated with

periodic, ongoing maintenance dredging wouldcontinue, although significant impacts are notanticipated.

Generally the same as the Preferred Alternativebecause there would be no significantdifference in salinity impacts. New work andmaintenance material quantities are expectedto be lower than the Preferred Alternative,marginally reducing the size of Neches RiverBU Feature.

About the same as Alternative A About the same as the Preferred Alternative

Small reductions in biological productivity dueto small increase in salinity over large areas ofestuarine marsh habitat (over 22,200 acres inTexas and 153,000 acres in Louisiana). Shortterm impacts to benthic organisms areexpected with channel dredging and theborrow trench and access channel forcompensatory mitigation in the Willow Bayoumarshes. Productivity impacts in Texas wouldbe fully offset by benefits of Neches River andGulf Shore BU features. Compensatorymitigation in Louisiana would fullycompensate productivity losses to marshes andbenthic resources.

Generally the same as the Preferred Alternativebecause there would be no significantdifference in salinity impacts. New work andmaintenance material quantities are expectedto be higher than the Preferred Alternative butno change in the size of the Neches River BUFeature would be expected.

About the same as Alternative E

Small, one-time impact to benthic habitat withconstruction of new or expanded turning andanchorage basins.

2-18

815
Table 2.3-1

SNWW Alternatives Comparison Table

Screened Alternatives Analysis Matrix - Potential Impacts to Evaluation Criteria

Note

Column Letter is for reference

in this table ONLY No-Action Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative D (Preferred

Alternative) Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

ALTERNATIVES

Maintain existing 40-foot-deep by 800-footwide by 22-mile-long Sabine Bank and OuterBar Channels, transitioning to 500 feet wide inthe Sabine Pass Jetty Channel, and 400-x-40-foot-deep channel to Beaumont

45-Foot Channel to Beaumont with an 8-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins.

46-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 9.7-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

47-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 11.4-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

48-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 13.2-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

49-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 14.8-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

50-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 16.5-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

Up to eight Neches River Turning andAnchorage Basins

Habitat Effects, cont'd

Marine Aquatic Habitat

Water column turbidity and nutrient releaseassociated with periodic, ongoing maintenancedredging and placement would continue,although significant impacts would not beanticipated.

Shorter Entrance Channel Extension wouldresult in fewer short-term impacts to benthicorganisms than the Preferred Alternative.Reasonable and prudent measures to avoidimpacts to sea turtles would be the same for allalternatives.

About the same as Alternative A About the same as Preferred Alternative

Short-term impacts to benthic organisms areexpected with creation of 4 new ODMDSs.Dredging impacts to bottom-feeding andpelagic organisms such as sea turtles mayoccur with hopper dredging, but reasonableand prudent measures to avoid impacts wouldbe instituted with an avoidance plan.

Longer Entrance Channel Extension wouldresult in greater short-term impacts to benthicorganisms than the Preferred Alternative.Reasonable and prudent measures to avoidimpacts to sea turtles would be the same for allalternatives.

About the same as Alternative E Not Applicable

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat

Ongoing maintenance dredging, includingplacement, would not result in additionalimpacts to terrestrial wildlife habitats (uplandgrasslands and coastal prairies, and upland,nonwetland riparian woodlands and forests).

All other alternatives would use the sameupland PAs as the Preferred Alternative

All other alternatives would use the sameupland PAs as the Preferred Alternative.

All other alternatives would use the sameupland PAs as the Preferred Alternative.

No impact to Louisiana swamp and smallproductivity impact to 804 acres of Texasswamp. DMMP Neches River restorationwould offset all impacts in Texas and results inexcess of 843 Average Annual Habitat Units(AAHUs). Two upland areas are beingconverted to new PA cells. One 187-acreupland area would be converted to new PA cell24A. Most of the area is an upland ridgecovered primarily by tallow woods; however,86 acres are fresh marsh. Another 71 acres ofdisturbed, low-quality scrub habitat would beconverted to new PA cell 18A. Productivityimpacts of this conversion are fully offset byproductivity benefits of the Neches River BUFeature.

All other alternatives would use the sameupland PAs as the Preferred Alternative.

All other alternatives would use the sameupland PAs as the Preferred Alternative.

No incremental impacts to terrestrial wildlifehabitat from turning/anchorage basins.

Ongoing maintenance dredging, includingplacement, would not result in additionalpermanent impacts to EFH; temporary impactsdue to sedimentation, turbidity, and nutrientrelease are temporary and episodic.

About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative

Turbidity would be temporary; localizedimpact during dredging and ODMDS materialplacement; benthos would be affected untilnatural recovery occurs.The DMMP and mitigation measures propose13,053 acres EFH emergent marsh(approximately 75%) and open shallow water(approximately 25%).

About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative None

E&T Vertebrates

Ongoing maintenance dredging, includingplacement, may result in sedimentation andalter hydrology; potential impacts to sea turtlesare covered by the Gulf Regional BiologicalOpinion for USACE's maintenance dredgingactivities.

Same as the preferred alternative for pipingplover and its critical habitat. Small reductionsin potential impacts to sea turtles due toreduced dredging time as compared to thePreferred Alternative.

About the same as Alternative A About the same as Alternative A

Proposed beach nourishment at LouisianaPoint would occur along 3 miles of pipingplover critical habitat; however, positiveeffects for the plover are anticipated (mayaffect, but not likely to adversely affect). ABiological Opinion from USFWS hasconcurred with this assessment. New workdredging (construction) is likely to adverselyaffect but not likely to jeopardize the continuedexistence of loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, andgreen sea turtles. In a draft Biological Opinion,NMFS anticipates an incidental take of 4 seaturtles and has identified reasonable andprudent measures to be taken to minimizeeffects during construction. Potential impactsto sea turtles from maintenance dredging arecovered by the Gulf Regional BiologicalOpinion for USACE's dredging activities.

About the same as Alternative A About the same as Alternative A None

E&T Invertebrates None None None None None None None None

E&T Plants None None None None None None None None

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)Endangered and Threatened (E&T) Species

2-19

816
Table 2.3-1

SNWW Alternatives Comparison Table

Screened Alternatives Analysis Matrix - Potential Impacts to Evaluation Criteria

Note

Column Letter is for reference

in this table ONLY No-Action Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative D (Preferred

Alternative) Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

ALTERNATIVES

Maintain existing 40-foot-deep by 800-footwide by 22-mile-long Sabine Bank and OuterBar Channels, transitioning to 500 feet wide inthe Sabine Pass Jetty Channel, and 400-x-40-foot-deep channel to Beaumont

45-Foot Channel to Beaumont with an 8-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins.

46-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 9.7-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

47-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 11.4-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

48-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 13.2-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

49-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 14.8-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

50-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 16.5-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

Up to eight Neches River Turning andAnchorage Basins

Cultural ResourcesTerrestrial Archeological Sites

Under the No-Action Alternative,archeological sites located in eroding marshareas would increasingly be exposed to theerosive effects of wind and tidal action.Archeological sites along the SNWWnavigation channel would continue to beexposed to the erosive forces of boat wakes;this would increase in the future as vessel tripsrise to support projected imports under thecurrent lightering requirements.

About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative

Archeological site impacts in and aroundmargins of DMMP BU features and MitigationMeasures would be avoided to the greatestextent possible. No unavoidable impacts havebeen identified. The restoration of erodingmarsh areas will stabilize landforms, createstable marsh buffers, and prevent furthererosion of sites. Future vessel trips and erosiveboat wakes are expected to be reduced relativeto the No-Action Alternative.

About the same as Preferred Alternative About the same as Preferred Alternative None

Historic Structures No impacts to historic structures are expected to occur with the No-Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative The alternative will not affect the Sabine Pass Lighthouse, Rainbow Bridge, or any known historic structures. Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

Shipwrecks

Maintenance dredging would continue with thepotential to affect unidentified shipwrecksalong the margins of the SNWW.

Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

The Alternative would not affect the USSClifton wreck site. Additional investigationswould be conducted to determine if unknownshipwrecks eligible for the National Register ofHistoric Places would be adversely affected. Ifadverse effects to eligible shipwrecks areidentified, they will be addressed inaccordance with requirements of the HistoricProperties Programmatic Agreement.

Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

SocioeconomicsLand Use; Population;Community Values, Housing,Infrastructure and Services

Residential and industrial development wouldcontinue on its slow to moderate path.Community facilities, services, and housingwould not increase due to low populationtrends. Land use plans and development wouldcontinue to follow neighboring cities' patterns.

Some industrial sites along the ship channel are

expanding, and some new facilities are beingconstructed.

Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would likely promotethe development of some industrial sites alongthe ship channel, but population growth is notexpected to change much from present. ThePreferred Alternative would not divide, isolate,or separate residents from communityfacilities.

Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

Recreation; Aesthetics

Recreational fishing and wildlife watchingwould remain as the major activity forrecreation in the SNWW. Under the No-ActionAlternative, 2,853 acres of marsh land, 871acres of shallow-water habitat, and 6 miles ofshoreline would not be restored. The marshdegradation process would proceed unchecked,eventually adversely affecting recreationalfishing. The No-Action Alterative would notaffect scenic and aesthetic values.

Similar to Preferred Alternative Similar to Preferred Alternative Similar to Preferred Alternative

Under the Preferred Alternative, 2,853 acres ofmarsh land, 871 acres of shallow water habitat,and 6 miles of shoreline would be restored,which would provide more fishing and wildlifewatching for this area, thus enhancing the lifefor recreational use and improving somenatural aesthetic values.

Similar to Preferred Alternative Similar to Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

Environmental Justice (EJ) The No-Action Alternative action would not impact minority or low-income persons. Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

Populations includes 59.6% white persons,26.7% black or African Americans, and 9.6%Hispanic or Latino persons. Therefore, thePreferred Alternative would not be locatedwithin a minority area. The median householdincome for the study area population is$28,884, which is above the Department ofHealth and Human Services 2006 povertyguideline of $20,000 for family of four;therefore, the Preferred Alternative would notbe located in low-income area. No adverse ordisproportionately high impacts on minority orlow-income persons is anticipated from thePreferred Alternative.

Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

2-20

817
Table 2.3-1

SNWW Alternatives Comparison Table

Screened Alternatives Analysis Matrix - Potential Impacts to Evaluation Criteria

Note

Column Letter is for reference

in this table ONLY No-Action Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative D (Preferred

Alternative) Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

ALTERNATIVES

Maintain existing 40-foot-deep by 800-footwide by 22-mile-long Sabine Bank and OuterBar Channels, transitioning to 500 feet wide inthe Sabine Pass Jetty Channel, and 400-x-40-foot-deep channel to Beaumont

45-Foot Channel to Beaumont with an 8-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins.

46-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 9.7-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

47-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 11.4-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

48-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 13.2-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

49-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 14.8-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

50-Foot Channel to Beaumont with a 16.5-mileby 700-foot-wide extension of the EntranceChannel, and deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou Channels and Basins

Up to eight Neches River Turning andAnchorage Basins

Direct wages and salaries;Employment

In 2004, the ports created $877.7 million indirect wages and salaries; 83,692 jobs in Texasand Louisiana at private and public marineterminals along SNWW; 14,987 jobs directlyrelated to activities along the SNWW; 13,628induced jobs from local purchases fromSNWW workers; 55,077 indirect jobs.

Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would likely promotethe development of industrial sites along theship channel and a steady historical trendtowards increased reliance on these industries;the positive economic effects to the study areaeconomy would be moderate at the least andsubstantial at best.

Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

Local and Federal Tax Revenues

Local tax revenues: $426.5 million in 2004generated by activity at marine terminals.Federal revenues: $853 million in 2004generated by activity at marine terminals.

Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

The increase in the tax base as a result of thePreferred Alternative would be fairly slow andconsistent with historical growth trends.

Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

Safety

The probability of accidents would increaseunder the No-Action Alternative as vessel tripsrise to support projected imports under thecurrent lightering requirements and as newLNG plants become operational.

Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

Vessel traffic is expected to increase; however,these increases would be lower because of thedeeper channel allowing more deep-draft cargoto be carried with fewer vessel trips. As aresult, the probability of accidents woulddecrease relative to the No-Action Alternative.

Same as Preferred Alternative Same as Preferred Alternative

The addition of turning/anchorage basins onthe Neches River Channel under thisAlternative provides areas adjacent to thenavigation channel where deep-draft vesselscan safely wait their turn to dock. More shipscan safely use the waterway as compared to theNo-Action Alternative.

Commercial Navigation

Vessel trips would increase, adding to shippingdelays, congestion, and cost. LNG vesselsbegan using the lower waterway in 2008,adding to channel congestion and delays.Average annual benefits of the No-ActionAlternative are $5,471.

Some deep-draft vessels would be able to enterthe SNWW more fully loaded, reducing theoverall number of vessel trips. Average annualbenefits of this alternative are $84,917, and thebenefit to cost ratio is 1.1.

Some deep-draft vessels would be able to enterthe SNWW more fully loaded, reducing theoverall number of vessel trips. Average annualbenefits of this alternative are $97,117, and thebenefit to cost ratio is 1.2.

Some deep-draft vessels would be able to enterthe SNWW more fully loaded, reducing theoverall number of vessel trips. Average annualbenefits of this alternative are $105,540, andthe benefit to cost ratio is 1.2.

Some deep-draft vessels would be able to enterthe SNWW more fully loaded, reducing theoverall number of vessel trips. Average annualbenefits of this alternative are $116,334, andthe benefit to cost ratio is 1.2 .

Some deep-draft vessels would be able to enterthe SNWW more fully loaded, reducing theoverall number of vessel trips. Average annualbenefits of this alternative are $124,164, andthe benefit to cost ratio is 1.2.

Some deep-draft vessels would be able to enterthe SNWW more fully loaded, reducing theoverall number of vessel trips. Average annualbenefits of this alternative are $128,736, andthe benefit to cost ratio is 1.2.

The addition of turning/anchorage basins onthe Neches River Channel allows more ships toreduce vessel delays as compared to the NoAction Alternative. Average annual benefitsare $1,312.

Socioeconomics, cont'd

2-21

818
2: Alternatives

2-22

(This page left blank intentionally.)

819
2: Alternatives

2-23

Deepening of the SNWW to Beaumont to 48 feet with a 13.2-mile-long by 700-foot-wide

Sabine Bank and Extension Channel, existing 500- to 400-foot-wide jetty and inshore

channels with the exception of deepening and widening of Taylor Bayou Channels and

Basins, and the addition of Neches River Turning/Anchorage Basins 1, 4, and 8 (see

figures 2.4-1a–g).

While the economic analysis determined that the 49-foot alternative is the NED plan, the 48-foot

alternative is preferred by the non-Federal sponsor and will be recommended as the Locally Preferred

Plan. Structural modifications of the Preferred Alternative meet the planning objective for increased

navigational efficiency, and DMMP BU features and compensatory mitigation measures effectively avoid

or mitigate all unavoidable environmental impacts.

Costs were estimated for all of the alternatives and used to determine the benefit-to-cost ratio in the

economic analysis. Included in the costs were dredging, levee construction, relocations (including utility

relocations), and O&M costs for the 50-year period of analysis. Ecological mitigation costs for the six

depth alternatives were estimated using HS model salinity projections for the 40-, 45-, and 48-foot

channel depths. Salinity was chosen as the best factor on which to base interpolations of mitigation costs

because it is the primary driver in the ecological modeling that was used to determine the compensatory

mitigation plan. The cost interpolation assumed that there would be a linear relationship between

predicted salinities for each channel depth at the end of the period of analysis and the cost of mitigation.

Direct ecological effects associated with navigation channel improvements under all proposed alternatives

and the placement of dredged material consist of:

• Impacts to benthic organisms and their Gulf, estuarine, and riverine water-bottom habitats would

be similar for all alternatives. Benthic organisms are expected to quickly rebound from the shortterm impacts of channel dredging, the use of offshore PAs, and the Sabine Lake borrow

trench/access channel associated with compensatory mitigation in Louisiana.

• Dredging impacts to bottom-feeding and pelagic organisms such as sea turtles may occur with

hopper dredging of offshore channel reaches for all alternatives, but reasonable and prudent

measures to avoid impacts would be instituted with an avoidance plan.

• Impacts to marsh would result from the enlargement of one PA under the No-Action Alternative

and two PAs under all other alternatives. The new PAs would be small, and the incremental cost

associated with one additional PA is too small to affect alternative selection. Most PAs would be

enlarged by raising levee heights, which means that the footprint of PA impacts would be similar

for all alternatives.

• Impacts to shorebirds and their habitat would result from the regular placement of maintenance

material on the Gulf shoreline under all alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative. Birds

would be temporarily displaced to nearby habitat during each placement episode. These impacts

would be minor and temporary, and the number and footprint of each placement episode would

be the same for each alternative.

Indirect effects provide the primary ecological impact of all structural alternatives. Although the SNWW

channel is located primarily in Texas, large indirect impacts may occur in both Texas and Louisiana due

820
2: Alternatives

2-24

to small increases in salinity levels causing an increase in wetland loss rates and a decrease in biological

productivity in aquatic habitats of the study area. HS modeling indicates that none of the depth

alternatives would result in significant impacts to swamp and fresh marsh habitats in the upper reaches of

the Sabine and Neches rivers. Salinity impacts of the six depth alternatives to the vast saline through

intermediate marshes would be similar, with an average difference between the 45- and 50-foot

alternatives of less than 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt).

2.3.3 Sensitivity of Project Alternatives to Relative Sea Level Rise

“Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region” (U.S. Climate Change

Science Program [USCCSP], 2009) synthesizes the state of knowledge regarding possible effects of

RSLR on coastal ecosystems and communities. Areas of the Nation’s coast are experiencing submergence

of low-lying lands, erosion of shores, and conversion of wetlands to open water as a result of RSLR.

Studies suggest the rate of RSLR has increased recently and is likely to continue to increase in vulnerable

areas. Forecasting impacts of RSLR on specific coastal areas is difficult because of the complexity of

coastal ecosystems and ecological processes and uncertainty about regional variation in RSLR. According

to USCCSP (2009:1), “Existing studies of sea-level rise vulnerability based on currently available

elevation data do not provide the degree of confidence that is optimal for local decision making.”

Circular No. 1165-2-211, Water Resources Policies and Authorities Incorporating Sea-level Change

Considerations in Civil Works Programs (USACE, 2009a), requires the USACE to incorporate “the direct

and indirect physical effects of projected future sea-level change in managing, planning, engineering,

designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining USACE projects. . . .” In fulfillment of this

requirement, the sensitivity of project alternatives to the full range of potential FWOP changes in sea

level has been evaluated. There are a wide range of potential effects related to the full range of RSLR, but

the sensitivity of project alternatives would be more limited. In particular, alternatives were evaluated to

determine whether the purpose and function of navigation features could be undermined, whether

environmental impacts might be exacerbated, and how economic benefits and costs might be affected by

sea level change. Nonstructural alternatives were evaluated but eliminated in the second screening; they

are therefore not addressed in this analysis.

In order to meet the requirements of Circular No. 1165-2-211, this section evaluates effects of the full

range of possible RSLR rates, which were developed in accordance with a specific methodology

prescribed in the guidance. RSLR rates that may be appropriate for the project area are discussed in detail

in Section 3.3 of Appendix C to this FEIS. The range of RSLR was determined using both tide gage and

basal peat data for the local subsidence component of RSLR. Tide gage data reflect the effects of recent

historical subsidence. The average rate of RSLR measured at the Sabine Pass tide gage was 0.2 inch/year

for the 48-year period between 1958 and 2006 (U.S. Department of Commerce [USDC]-National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2006, 2009). However, there is significant scientific debate

concerning the validity of tidal records with respect to the projection of future subsidence rates in the

northwest Gulf coastal plain. The relative influence of historic anthropogenic activities in this area (e.g.,

oil and gas withdrawal) is difficult to quantify. If these activities contributed significantly to recent

821
2: Alternatives

2-25

observations of subsidence, then significant reductions in these activities may result in rapid deceleration

of subsidence rates, returning them to long-term average rates best represented by the basal peat data.

Deriving RSLR estimates using both basal peat and tide gage data, possible RSLR rates were estimated

for the period from 2019 to 2069 to range from 0.3 to 2.8 feet. Possible low, intermediate, and high rates

are as follows:

• 0.3 foot, Low (1.83 millimeters [mm]/year), based on basal peat subsidence rates

• 0.7 foot, Intermediate (4.27 mm/year), based on basal peat subsidence rates

• 1.1 feet, Intermediate (6.71 mm/year), based on tide gage subsidence rates (This value was used

in the hydrodynamic-salinity modeling of the estuary for this project.)

• 1.5 feet, Intermediate (9.14 mm/year), based on tide gage subsidence rates

• 2.2 feet, High (13.44 mm/year), based on basal peat subsidence rates

• 2.8 feet, High (17.07 mm/year), based on tide gage subsidence rates

An intermediate rate of RSLR (1.1 feet by year 2069) was used as the “most likely” estimate of RSLR in

the alternative analysis for this project, in accordance with the USACE planning guidance. The following

discussion describes possible ways that high and low RSLR might affect the project alternatives and the

recommended action. There are relatively little data and analysis currently available that would permit a

detailed, quantitative analysis of the impacts of each of the possible RSLR scenarios on the project

alternatives. Ways in which different RSLR rates might affect project design and impacts are presented in

Table 2.3-2.

In general, the functioning of the navigation features associated with all alternatives (channel depths of 45

through 50 feet, turning/anchorage basins, PAs/ODMDSs, and the BU features) would not be

significantly affected by the full range of potential sea level change. Construction dredging would occur

within 10 years and would not be affected by future rates of RSLR. While shoaling rates toward the end

of the period of analysis could increase due to an enlarged cross section and greater saltwater penetration,

this small effect would probably be offset by increased overall water depths. PAs and BU features have

been designed to accommodate sea level changes through the high RSLR range. PAs are located at

sufficiently high elevations to withstand the potential rise, and appropriate erosion control measures are

included. BU features are located well inland on the Neches River, and they have been designed with

erosion control features that would survive the full range of RSLR. The addition of mineral soils and

higher marsh elevations would provide stable landforms. Biomass accumulation and sediment from

adjacent terrace margins should enable restored marsh vegetation to maintain itself even with the high

RSLR rate.

The protection of human health and improvements in safety are not project objectives and therefore

potential effects on calculated risk are not applicable. RSLR does not affect the functioning of the various

depth alternatives or vessel safety. At the intermediate and high rates of RSLR, a significant increase in

822
Table 2.3-2

Relative Sea Level Rise Sensitivity of Project Alternatives

Navigation Channel

Alternatives A-G DMMP (PAs/ODMDSs) DMMP (BU Features) Mitigation Measures Human Health/Safety Environmental Impacts Economic Costs/Benefits

Low Rate (0.3 feet over 50 years)No significant effect for anydepth alternative. Low rangeof future RSLR is lowerthan recent historical rate.

DMMP: no change toexisting shoaling rate andmaintenance dredgingexpected. All PAs designedfor intermediate RSLR rate.

All BU features weredesigned to accommodateintermediate RSLR; low ratewould have no effect.

All mitigation measureswere designed toaccommodate intermediateRSLR; low rate would haveno effect.

RSLR does not affect thefunctioning of the variousdepth alternatives or vesselsafety. Small increase intidal surge penetration due tolow RSLR rate would beexpected; tidal surgeprotection is not a projectobjective. No increase intidal surge impacts due toproject.

Primary project impact isresult of greater salinityintrusion. Salinity differencefor low RSLR is within onestandard deviation of thesalinity difference betweenFWOP and FWP.

Benefits and costs of thedeepened navigation channelwould be the same as FWPforecast.

Intermediate Rate (0.7 to 1.5 feet over 50 years)

2-26

No significant effect for anydepth alternative. Risingwater depth offset byincreased shoaling. Potentialimpacts to Sabine PassJetties addressed by separateO&M major rehabilitationproject.

DMMP: no significantincrease in maintenancedredging for depths greaterthan 48 ft. Possible rise ofwater surface elevation iswithin range used forengineering design of allPAs. No effect to ODMDSs.

Possible RSLR rise is withinrange used for engineeringdesign of all BU features.

Possible RSLR rise is withinrange used for engineeringdesign of all mitigationmeasures.

RSLR does not affect thefunctioning of the variousdepth alternatives or vesselsafety. Intermediate increasein tidal surge penetration dueto RSLR rate; tidal surgeprotection is not a projectobjective. No increase intidal surge impacts due toproject.

Salinity impacts were basedupon RSLR of 1.1 feet.Salinity difference for rangeof intermediate RSLR ratesis within one standarddeviation of the salinitydifference between FWOPand FWP.

Benefits and costs of thedeepened navigation channelfor the full intermediaterange would be the same asFWP forecast.

High Rate (2.8 feet over 50 years)No significant effect for anydepth alternative. Possiblesmall increase inmaintenance dredging for alldepth alternatives resultingfrom enlarged cross sectionand greater saltwaterpenetration. Potentialimpacts to Sabine PassJetties addressed by separateO&M major rehabilitationproject.

DMMP: small increase inlevee heights and/orarmoring may be needed forsome PAs. No significanteffect to ODMDSs.

Addition of mineral soilsand higher marsh elevationsprovides more-stablelandforms. Biomassaccumulation may enablerestored marsh vegetation toremain stable relative to highRSLR rate. Erosion controlfeatures would survive thefull range of RSLR.

Addition of mineral soilsand higher marsh elevationsprovides more-stablelandforms. High rate ofRSLR could result insubmergence and erosion ofrestored marsh. Monitoringand adaptive managementplan have been developed toidentify corrective actionsthat might be needed towardthe end of the period ofanalysis.

RSLR does not affect thefunctioning of the variousdepth alternatives or vesselsafety. High rate of RSLRwould increase tidal surgepenetration; tidal surgeprotection is not a projectobjective. No increase intidal surge impacts due toproject.

Potential salinity increasewith high range of RSLR isstill within one standarddeviation of the salinitydifference between FWOPand FWP. No significantincrease in salinity impactswould be expected.

Benefits of the deepenednavigation channel would bethe same as FWP forecast.No facilities used byshipping industry would berendered ineffective by thehigh range of RSLR. O&Mcosts could increase slightlytoward the end of the periodof analysis, but not enoughto reduce benefit to costratio below parity.

Sensitivity of Impacts Sensitivity of Design

100007609/060033

823
2: Alternatives

2-27

tidal surge penetration would be expected, but this would not affect project alternatives because tidal

surge protection is not a project objective. Furthermore, HS modeling has determined that little or no

increase in water surface elevation would be expected due to the deeper navigation channel.

The primary impact of RSLR on this project may be its potential impact on mitigation measures proposed

for the Louisiana marshes along the east side of Sabine Lake. These mitigation measures are planned for

marshes that could experience submergence and erosion at the high RSLR rate. In recent decades,

marshes in the study area have been able to keep up with rates of 5.6 to 6.5 mm/year, suggesting that

these marshes may be able to sustain themselves through rises in the intermediate range of RSLR (4.3 to

9.1 mm/year). The high rate of RSLR (17.1 mm/year) could threaten long-term survivability.

Sustainability thresholds are determined by local physical, chemical, climatologic, and hydrologic

conditions and cannot be extrapolated to other regions. However, as an example, studies in the midAtlantic region indicate that the tipping point for coastal ecosystems could range from an RSLR of as low

as 2.0 mm/year to as high as 10 mm/year (USCCSP, 2009). There are relatively little data and analysis

currently available that would permit a detailed, quantitative analysis of the impacts of the full range of

potential RSLR on the SNWW ecosystem and project alternatives.

A monitoring and contingency/adaptive management plan has been developed to identify corrective

actions that could be necessary decades after initial marsh construction (Appendix J). Corrective actions

proposed in the contingency plan assume that the low to intermediate rates of RSLR will occur; the high

rate is assumed to be unlikely. If monitoring determines that the extent of vegetation coverage does not

meet ecological success criteria specified in the monitoring plan, manual planting would be employed to

restore the requisite acres of emergent marsh. The ICT would determine whether marsh planting is needed

and if so, to what extent and in which areas. Relocation of the mitigation areas to areas that would be

protected from the potential effects of the full range of RSLR is not feasible. All intertidal marshes in the

study area would be similarly affected by the sea level change because of the extremely low slope of the

coastal plain. The option of purchasing credits in a mitigation bank was investigated; however, no

mitigation banks exist for this area and resource type.

2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The description of the Preferred Alternative in this section is divided into two primary components,

navigation channels improvements and associated elements, and dredged material placement features.

Requirements for compensatory mitigation are covered in Chapter 5. General navigation features of the

Preferred Alternative consist of navigation channels and basins, and bridge reinforcements. Other project

elements required to complete project construction are Aids to Navigation; lands, easements, rights-ofway, and relocations (LERRs); and deep-draft utility relocations. The 50-year DMMP for both new work

and O&M consists of ODMDSs, upland PAs, and the Neches River and Gulf Shore BU features. Detailed

descriptions for project components are provided later in this chapter.

824
2: Alternatives

2-28

2.4.1 Navigation Channel Improvements

The description of proposed improvements begins at the farthest point offshore and moves inshore to the

Beaumont Turning Basin. Project dimensions for the Preferred Alternative are provided in Table 2.4-1

and all channel sections and stationing are shown on figures 2.4-1a–g.

Table 2.4-1

Project Dimensions for Preferred Alternative

Reach Station to Station

Bottom

Width (feet)

Project Depth

(feet) Side Slope*

Extension Channel 165+443 95+734 700 50 1V/2H

Sabine Bank Channel 95+734 25+800 700 50 1V/2H

Sabine Bank Channel 25+800 23+300 800–700 50 1V/2H

Sabine Bank Channel 23+300 18+000 800 50 1V/2H

Sabine Pass Outer Bar 18+000 0+000 800 50 1V/10H

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel –214+88 0+00 800–500 48 1V/2H

Sabine Pass Channel 0+00 296+25 1,355–500 48 1V/2H

Port Arthur Canal 0+00 325+84 1,660–500 48 1V/2H

Sabine-Neches Canal 0+00 592+94 1,050–400 48 1V/2H

Neches River Channel 0+00 980+00 400–1,413 48 1V/2H

Taylor Bayou

Entrance Channel 0+00 25+27 406–764 48 1V/2H

East Turning Basin 0+00 17+65 532–354 48 1V/2H

West Turning Basin 25+27 41+30 776 48 1V/2H

Connecting Channel 41+30 71+50 470–250 48 1V/2H

Taylor Bayou Turning Basin 71+50 106+25 1,000 48 1V/2H

*Vertical to horizontal distance.

The authorized depth of the channel in the Preferred Alternative would increase from 40 to 48 feet along

the entire existing channel, and the offshore entrance channel would extend 13.2 miles farther into the

Gulf. The Sabine Pass Jetty Channel, Sabine Pass Channel, Port Arthur and Sabine-Neches canals, and

the Neches River Channel would be deepened from 40 to 48 feet. The authorized depth of the existing

offshore Entrance Channel (Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel and Sabine Bank Channel) is currently

42 feet; the additional depth is needed to accommodate fluctuations in offshore surface water elevation.

These channels and the proposed Sabine Bank Extension Channel would be deepened from 42 to 50 feet.

This would increase the SNWW from 64 miles to approximately 77 miles in length. No modifications to

the existing Sabine Pass Jetties would be required as part of the CIP.

The Sabine Pass Jetty Channel and the majority of the inshore channels (Sabine Pass Channel, Port

Arthur Canal, Sabine-Neches Canal, and Neches River Channel) would remain at their existing widths.

With the exception of wider sections at anchorages or channel intersections, these channels transition

from 500 feet wide between the jetties to 400 feet wide upstream of the Martin Luther King (MLK)

Bridge on the Sabine-Neches Canal and Neches River Channel. The Taylor Bayou Channels and Basins

would also be widened and deepened to 48 feet. Although the Sabine-Neches Canal and Neches River

825
86 +000

69+000

70+000

71+000

72+000

73+000

74+000

75+000 76+000 77+000

78+000

79+000 80+000 81+000 82+000 83+000 84+000

85+000

86+000 87+000 88+000 89+000 90+000 91+000 92+000 93+000 94+000

95+000

05+000

1

115+000

125+000

135+000

145+000

155+000

165+000

175+000

185+000

93+000

1

B

End of Existing Channel SNWW Extension Channel

95+734

ODMDS-C

ODMDS-D

ODMDS-A

ODMDS-B

ODMDS-02

ODMDS-01

Figure 2.4-1a

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Extension Channel

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 4419800Prepared by: AP

Scale: 1 inch equals 8,000 feet

Date: 08/07/2009

N:\Clients\U_Z\USACE\Projects\Sabine_Neches\100007609\Figures\fig_2_4_1a_vr3.mxd

8,000 0 8,000 4,000

Feet

Project Area, BU Features Project Area, Proposed Channel

State Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas State Boundaries

Project Area, Dredged Material Placement Areas

Legend

County Boundaries

Channel Centerlines

Study Area

GULF

O F

M EXICO

Vicinity Map

Project Area, Proposed Dredged Material Placement Area Texas Louisiana

2-29

826
1+ 00 0

2+ 00 0

3+ 00 0

4+ 00 0 5+000

6+ 00 0

7+ 00 0

8+ 00 0

9+ 00 0

10 +0 0 0

11+ 0 00

12 +0 0 0

13 +000

14 +0 0 0 15+000

16 +0 0 0

17 +0 0 0

18 +000

19 +000

20 +0 0 0

21 +0 0 0

22 +000

23 +000

24 +000 25+000

26 +0 0 0

27 +0 0 0

28 +0 0 0

29 +0 0 0

30 +000

31 +000

32 +000

33 +000

34 +0 0 0 35+000

36 +000

37 +0 0 0

38 +000

39 +0 0 0

40 +0 0 0

41 +000

42 +000

43 +000

44 +000 45+000

46 +000

47 +0 0 0

48 +0 0 0

49 +0 0 0

50 +0 0 0

51 +0 0 0

52 +0 0 0

53 +0 0 0

54 +000 55+000

56 +0 0 0

57 +000

58 +0 0 0

59 +0 0 0

60 +0 0 0

61 +0 0 0

62 +000

63 +0 0 0

64 +000 65+000

66 +0 0 0

67 +0 0 0

68 +0 0 0

69 +0 0 0

70 +0 0 0

71 +0 0 0

72 +0 0 0

73 +000

74 +0 0 0 75+000

76 +0 0 0

77 +0 0 0

78 +0 0 0

79 +0 0 0

80 +0 0 0

81 +0 0 0

82 +000

83 +000

84 +0 0 0

85+000

86 +0 0 0

87 +0 0 0

88 +0 0 0

89 +0 0 0

90 +0 0 0

91 +0 0 0

92 +000

93 +000

94 +0 0 0

95+000

-2 10 + 00

B

Sabine Bank Channel

(50' x 700')

End of Existing Channel

95+734

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel

(50' x 800')

Note: Entire reach of Sabine Pass

Outer Bar Channel will have additionaladvanced maintenance.

Transition to 700'

50' x 800' existing

ODMDS-02

ODMDS-03

ODMDS-04

ODMDS-01

Figure 2.4-1b

Sabine Pass Outer Bar andSabine Pass Bank Channel

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 044198800Prepared by: AP

1 inch equals 8,000 feet

Date: 08/07/2009

N:\Clients\U_Z\USACE\Projects\Sabine_Neches\100007609\Figures\Figure_2_4_1b_vr3.mxd

μ

8,000 0 8,000 4,000

Feet

Legend

Project Area, Dredged

St

Material Placement Areas

ate Parks, National Wildlife

P

Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas

roject Area, Proposed Channel

Study Area

Channel CenterlinesState Boundaries

Channel Reach Limits

^_

GULF

O F

M EXICO

Vicinity Map

Project Area, BU Features

Texas

Louisiana

2-30

827
0+00

10+00

20+00

30+00

40+00

50+00

60+00

0+00

1+000

2+000

3+000

4+000

5+000

6+000

7+000

8+000

9+000

10+00 0

11+ 000

12+00 0

13+00 0

14+00 0

15+000

0+00

10+00

20+00

30+00

50+00

60+00

70+00

80+00

90+00

100+0 0

110+ 00

120+0 0

130+0 0

150+0 0

160+0 0

170+0 0

180+0 0

190+0 0

200+0 0

210+0 0

220+0 0

230+0 0

250+0 0

260+0 0

270+0 0

280+0 0

290+0 0

296+2 5

-10+ 00

-20+ 00

-30+ 00

-40+00

-50+00

-60+00

-70+ 00

-80+00

-90+00

-100+00

-110+00

-120+ 00

-130+ 00

-140+ 00

-150+00

-160+00

-170+ 00

-180+ 00

-190+ 00

-200+00

-210+ 00

B

B

240+00

140+00

40+00

GULF

O F

MEXICO

Texas Point WMA

Sabine Pass

Channel

Sabine Pass

Battleground SHP

Sabine Pass

Outer Bar Channel

LOUSIANA

TEXAS

GULF SHORELINE

BU FEATURE

(TEXAS POINT)

GULF SHORELINE

BU FEATURE

(LOUISIANA POINT)

Sabine Pass

Jetty Channel

£¤82

East Jetty

West Jetty

ODMDS-04

PA-05

(North)

PA-05B PA-05

(South)

PA-05C

Figure 2.4-1c

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel

Prepared for: USACE

Job No.: 100007609

Prepared by: AP/ A.C.

Scale: 1' = 5000'

Date: 09/10/2009

N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/geo/figs/Figure_2_4_1c_vr3.mxd

0 5,000 10,000

Feet

μ

^_

GULF

O F M EXICO

Vicinity Map

Legend

Project Area, Proposed

Channel

State Parks, National Wildlife

Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas

Project Area, Dredged

Material Placement Areas

State Boundaries

Study Area

Channel Reach Limits

Project Area,

BU Features

County Boundaries

Channel Centerlines

BU Shore Nourishment

Texas

Louisiana

2-31

828
0+00

10+00

20+00

30+00

40+00

50+00

60+00

70+00

80+00

09 +00

100+0 0

110+ 00

120+0 0

130+0 0

140+00

150+0 0

160+0 0

170+0 0

180+0 0

190+0 0

200+0 0

210+0 0

0+00 0+00

10+00

20+00

30+00

50+00

60+00

70+00

80+00

90+00

100+0 0

110+ 00

120+0 0

130+0 0

150+0 0

160+0 0

170+0 0

180+0 0

190+0 0

200+0 0

210+0 0

220+0 0

230+0 0

250+0 0

260+0 0

270+0 0

280+0 0

290+0 0

296+2 5

10 - + 00

20 - + 00

3- 0+ 00

40+ 00 -

50+ - 00

-60+00

-70+ 00

-80+00

-90+ 00

1- 00+ 00

-110+00

-120+ 00

-130+00

140 - + 00

B

240+00

140+00

40+00

Texas Point WMA

£¤82 Sabine Pass

Channel

(48' x 700')

Port Arthur

Canal

Sabine Pass

Battleground SHP

Sabine Pass

Jetty Channel

96+24.3 2

0+00

Gulf Shore

BU Feature (Louisiana)

Pleasure Island

Mesquite Point

5-Foot Add. Adv.

Maintenance 3-Foot Add. Adv.

Maintenance

Sabine Pass

Anchorage Basin

Gulf Shore

BU Feature (Texas) East Jetty West Jetty

PA-05

(North)

PA-05B PA-05 (South)

PA-05C

Blue Buck

Point

Figure 2.4-1d

Sabine Pass Channel

Prepared for: USACE

Job No.: 100007609Prepared by: E.M./ A.C./M.F.

Scale: 1:60,000

Date: 09/10/2009

N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/geo/figs/Figure_2_4_1d_vr2.mxd

μ

5,000 0 5,000 2,500

Feet

GULF

O F

MEXICO

Locator Map

Project Area, Proposed ChannelState Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wildlife Management AreasProject Area, Dredged Material Placement Areas

Legend

County BoundariesStaChannel Centerlines

te Boundaries

Channel Reach Limits

BU Shore Nourishment

TEXAS

LOUISIANA

2-32

829
+00 0

0+ 1 00

20+00

30+00

40+00

50+00

60+00

70+00

80+00

90+00

00+0 0 1

110+ 00

120+0 0

130+0 0

140+00

150+0 0

160+0 0

170+0 0

180+0 0

190+0 0

200+0 0

210+0 0

220+0 0

230+0 0

240+00

250+0 0

260+0 0

270+0 0

280+0 0

290+0 0

300+0 0

310+0 0

320+0 0

327+0 9

0+00

10+00

20+00

3

40

0+00

+00

50+00

60+00

70+00

80+00

90+00

100+0 0

110+ 00

120+00

130+0 0

140+0 0

150+0 0

160+0 0

170+0 0

180+0 0

190+0 0

200+0 0

210+0 0

220+0 0

230+0 0

250+0 0

260+0 0

270+0 0

280+0 0

290+0 0

296+2 5

240+00

JD Murphree

Sabine Pass

Channel

(48' x 700')

Port Arthur Canal

(48' x 700')

JD Murphree

WMA

326+24.4

296+24.3

Pleasure Island

Mesquite Point

GIWW

Start of Sabine

Neches Canal

Taylor Bayou

Taylor Bayou

Entrance Channel

Taylor Bayou

West Turning Basin

Taylor Bayou

East Turning Basin

Texas

Louisiana

Start of Port Arthur Canal

Port Arthur Junction

Port Arthur Canal

Adv. Maint. 2'

(Sta 0+00 To 290+00)

PA-08

PA-09

PA-05

(North)

PA-09A

Project Area, Proposed ChannelState Parks, National Wildlife

Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas

Project Area, Dredged Material Placement Areas

Legend

County Boundaries

StChannel Centerlines

ate Boundaries

Channel Reach Limits

Figure 2.4-1e

Sabine-Neches Waterway Port Arthur Canal

(Including Taylor Bayou)

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 044198800Prepared by: E.M./ A.C./M.F.

Scale: 1" = 5000'

Date: 04/28/2008

File: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/044198000/figures/Figure_2_4_1e.mxd

μ

5,000 0 5,000 2,500

Feet

^_

GULF

O F M EXICO

Vicinity Map

Adv. Maintenance

- Taylor Bayou (Old Sta. 31+10, 106+25 East TB), 1' - Port Arthur Junction, 5'

Texas

Louisiana

2-33

830
Lower Neches WMAOld River Unit

Sabine-Neches Canal and GIWW

(48' x 400')

Taylor Bayou Channel

and Turning Basins

347

287

136

87

87

73

73

GIWW

Sabine River Channel and GIWW

Sabine Lake

Port Arthur Junction

Port Arthur Canal

STA 40+00

MLK Bridge

"Eye Basin"

Pleasure Island

End of Sabine-Neches

Canal STA 592+91

Neches River Channel

(48' x 400')

Entire reach of Sabine-NechesCanal will

have additonal advance maintenance:

0+00 to 40+00 is 5 feet and

40+00 to 592+91 is 1 foot

Start of Sabine-Neches

Canal STA 0+00

430+00

330+00

230+00

130+00

30+00

520+00

420+00

320+00

220+00

120+00

20+00

240+00

PA-08

PA-11

PA-09

PA-17

PA-16

PA-12

PA-18

PA-14 PA-13

PA-21

PA-09A

PA-18A

10+00

0+00

90+00

20+00

60+00

80+00

50+00

70+00

40+00

30+00

110+ 00

420+00

130+00

150+00

340+00

370+00

390+00

230+00

280+00

270+00

480+00

290+00

380+00

330+00

360+00

400+00

410+00

470+00

460+00

190+00

240+00

200+00

260+00

220+00

210+00

500+00

170+00

320+00

310+00

100+00

490+00

180+00

120+00

160+00

590+00

520+00

580+00

510+00

530+00

140+00

430+00

300+00

440+00

450+00

540+00

550+00

560+00

250+00

570+00

310+00

270+00

50+00

170+00

490+00

520+00

250+00

170+00

140+00

290+00

40+00

200+00

510+00

260+00

450+00

140+00

210+00

250+00

180+00

390+00

400+00

500+00

150+00

160+00

430+00

280+00

440+00

470+00

110+ 00

410+00

0+00

190+00

480+00

90+00

150+00

240+00

530+00

230+00

230+00

460+00

220+00

260+00

160+00

210+00

180+00

300+00

10+00

60+00

0+00

370+00

350+00

350+00

380+00

220+00

320+00

120+00

310+

320+00

00

70+00

300+00

240+00

80+00

30+00

360+00

340+00

20+00

420+00

200+00

290+00

280+00

270+00

330+00

190+00

100+00

130+00

0 6,000 12,000

Feet

Figure 2.4-1f

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Sabine-Neches Canal

Prepared for: USACE

Job No.: 100007609

Prepared by: RF Date: 1 April 2010

File: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/figures/Figure_2_4_1f_vr4.mxd

Scale: 1" = 6000'

Legend

County Boundaries

Project Area, Proposed

Channel

State Parks, National Wildlife

Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas

Project Area, Dredged

Material Placement Areas

State Boundaries

GULF O F M EXICO

Vicinity Map

Project Area,

BU Features

Project Area, Proposed Dredged

Material Placement Areas

City Limits

Study Area

Channel Reach

Limits

Channel

Centerlines

Texas

Louisiana

2-34

831
62

73

96

347

69

287

105

10

10

96

73

62

10+0020+00 30+00

40+00

05 +00

0+ 6 00

0+ 7 00

0+ 8 00

+00 09

00+ 1 00

0 0+ 11 0

+ 12 0 00

+00 130

40+00 1

50+00 1

160+00

70+0 1 0

80+ 1 00

+00 90 1

00+0 2 0

0+ 21 00

20+0 2 0

30+00 2

042 +00

052 00+

062 +00

0+ 72 00

80+ 2 00

0 29 00 +

00+ 3 00

10+ 3 00

320+00

330+00

40 3 +00

50 3 +00

63 0+00

370+00

380+00

390+00

40 0+00

410+00

420+00

30+00 4

440+00

50 4 +00

460+00

70+00 4

480+00

490+00

00+ 5 00

10+ 5 0

20+ 5 0

30+ 5 00

40 5 00 +

550 0 +0

60+0 5 0

0 57 +00

58 0+00

90+ 5 00

00+ 6 00

610+00

620+00

00+046

30+00 6

650+00

660+00

670+00

680+00

690+00

700+

710+00

00

72 0+00

730+00

740+00

75 0+00

760+00

770+00

780+00

790+00

800+00

81 0 00 +

82 +0 00

84

30+00 8

0+00

50+ 8 00

60+ 8 00

870+ 00

80+ 8 00

890+00

900+00

10 9 0 +0

920+00 30+00 9

40 9 00 +

950+00

00 960+

70+ 9 00

420+00

430+00

440+00

450+00

460+00

470+00

480+00

490+00

500+00

510+00

520+00

530+0

540+

0

0

550

0

+0

560+00

0

570+00

580+0

590+

0

00

980+00

90+ 9 0

98+ 9 36 1000+00

1010+00

1020+00

1030+00

1036+70

Lower Neches WMANelda Starks Unit

Lower Neches WMAOld River Unit

Neches River Channel

Rose City

Add. Adv.

Maint. Start

Add. Adv.

Maint. Ends

Start Neches River

Channel STA 0+00

SabineNeches

Canal

Neches River BU Features

Sabine R vi er Channel and G WI W

PA-25

PA-23

PA-24

PA-17

PA-16

PA-12

PA-18

PA-14

PA-23A

PA-26

PA-13

PA-25A

PA-21

PA-27A

PA-24A

PA-27C

PA-18A

PA-27D

Beaumont

Port Arthur

Nederland

Vidor

Port Neches

Groves

Orang

Bridge City

Rose City

Pin

Figure 2.4-1g

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Neches River Channel

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 100007609Prepared by: RF

Scale: 1" = 8000'

Date: 1 April 2010

File: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/Figure_2_4_1g_vr3.mxd

Bessie

Heights

East

Old R ver i

Cove

Port of

Beaumont

Anchorage

Basin No. 8

U.S. Maritime

Administ. Ship

Storage Basin

Turning and

Anchorage

Basin No. 4

Turning and

Anchorage

Basin No. 1

8,000 0 8,000 4,000

Feet

75+00

500' Width

440+00

978+00

GULF

O F M EXICO

Vicinity Map Legend

Sta e P t arks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas

Project Area, Dredged Material Placement AreasProject Area, BU Features

Project Area, Proposed Channel

State BoundariesChannel CenterlinesCounty Boundaries

Project Area, Proposed Dredged Material Placement Areas

Texas

Louisiana

2-35

832
2: Alternatives

2-36

Channel would not be widened, navigation efficiency would be improved with short stretches of selective

widening and bend easings in both reaches, and the addition or enlargement of one anchorage and two

turning/anchorage basins on the Neches River Channel.

The Preferred Alternative would generate an estimated 98 mcy of new work and 650 mcy of maintenance

material over the 50-year period of analysis (Table 2.4-2). The annual maintenance dredging quantities in

the SNWW will increase from an average of 8.1 mcy for the current 40-foot project to 13.0 mcy for the

proposed 48-foot project.

Table 2.4-2

New Work and 50-Year Maintenance Quantities for Preferred Alternative

Channel Reach

New Work

Quantities (cy)

50-Year

Maintenance

Quantities (cy)

Offshore

Sabine Bank Extension 18,737,000 36,216,000

Sabine Bank Channel 15,358,000 96,371,000

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel 5,923,000 223,650,000

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel 2,978,000 13,527,000

Inshore

Sabine Pass Channel 6,723,000 34,781,000

Port Arthur Canal* 11,697,000 82,858,000

Sabine-Neches Canal 11,944,000 73,245,000

Neches River Channel 25,014,000 89,725,000

Total Quantities 98 mcy 650 mcy

*Includes Taylor Bayou channels and basins.

cy = cubic yards

Dredging depths will actually be deeper than the authorized depth when allowances for overdepth and

advanced maintenance are included. Allowable overdepth is an additional depth outside the required

dredging template that is permitted to allow for inaccuracies in the dredging process. Allowable

overdepth for the existing channel varies between 1 and 2 feet. The Preferred Alternative would maintain

a constant 2 feet of allowable overdepth for all channel reaches. Advance maintenance is the practice of

dredging deeper than the authorized channel dimensions to provide for the accumulation and storage of

sediment. In critical and fast-shoaling areas, it is required to avoid frequent redredging and to ensure the

reliability and least overall cost for operating and maintaining the project authorized dimensions. The

existing SNWW project has a constant 2-foot advance maintenance depth, and the Preferred Alternative

assumes a minimum 2-foot depth for all channel reaches. During the Final Alternatives evaluation phase,

an analysis was performed to identify potential with-project changes in dredging frequencies, and to

determine whether an increase in advance maintenance would be required. As a result, an increase in

advance maintenance (ranging from 1 to 5 feet) was proposed for some portions of some channel reaches

to allow the proposed dredging frequency to remain the same as the existing O&M dredging frequency.

The full potential dredging depth is provided in the description for each reach below. The full potential

depths of each channel reach (including allowable overdepth, advance maintenance, and additional

833
2: Alternatives

2-37

advance maintenance) were included in the HS modeling. Each channel reach is divided into different

sections for dredging contracts. These sections are shown on the Engineering Plates in the FFR.

2.4.1.1 Sabine Bank Extension Channel

This channel would lengthen the existing offshore entrance channel approximately 13.2 miles at a bottom

width of 700 feet (Figure 2.4-1a). The additional length is required to reach a water depth in the Gulf

equal to the proposed channel depth. The proposed offshore depth is 50 feet, but advance maintenance

and allowable overdepth would add a total of 4 more feet, bringing the total dredged depth of the

Extension Channel to 54 feet. It would be constructed by hopper dredge beginning at the end of the

Sabine Bank Channel, and it would extend into the Gulf at the same bearing as the Sabine Bank Channel.

An overview of the project details for the Sabine Bank Extension is listed in Table 2.4-3.

Table 2.4-3

Project Details of Sabine Bank Extension

Length of Reach 13.2 miles (new)

Project Depth 50 feet

Bottom Width 700 feet

Advance Maintenance 2 feet

Allowable Overdepth 2 feet

New Work Material 18,737,000 cy

Placement Areas ODMDSs A, B, C, and D

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Maintenance Material (50-year quantity) 36,216,000 cy

Increase in Maintenance Material 36,216,000 cy

Placement Areas ODMDSs A, B, C, and D

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

2.4.1.2 Sabine Bank Channel

This 14.7-mile-long channel would be deepened from 42 to 50 feet using a hopper dredge (Figure 2.4-1b).

When advance maintenance and allowable overdepth are added to the proposed 50-foot depth, the Sabine

Bank Channel would be dredged to 54 feet. The bottom width of the Sabine Bank Channel is currently

800 feet; it would remain 800 feet wide for the first mile past the end of the Outer Bar Channel, and then

it would taper from 800 feet to 700 feet over the next 0.5 mile. The Sabine Bank Channel would continue

the 700-foot bottom width for approximately 13.2 miles to its connection with the Extension Channel.

Since the existing channel is 800 feet wide, new channel markers would be required to mark the tapered

transition and the remainder of the narrowed Sabine Bank Channel. An overview of the project details for

the Sabine Bank Channel reach is listed in Table 2.4-4.

834
2: Alternatives

2-38

Table 2.4-4

Project Details for Sabine Bank Channel Reach

Length of Reach (sections 1, 2) 14.7 miles (no change)

Project Depth 50 feet

Bottom Width 800 feet then narrow to 700 feet

Advance Maintenance 2 feet

Allowable Overdepth 2 feet

New Work Material 15,358,000 cy

Placement Areas ODMDSs 1 and 2

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Maintenance Material (50-year quantity) 96,371,000 cy

Increase in Maintenance Material 45,549,000 cy

Placement Areas ODMDSs 1 and 2

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

2.4.1.3 Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel

This 3.4-mile-long channel would be deepened from 42 to 50 feet using a hopper dredge (see Figure 2.4-

1b). This portion of the channel has higher-velocity eddies moving around the end of the east jetty, which

causes sediment to settle out as the currents cross the navigation channel, creating a higher shoaling rate.

Due to the high shoaling rate, advance maintenance amounts would be increased to maintain current

maintenance dredging cycles. When advance maintenance and allowable overdepth are added, the Outer

Bar Channel could be dredged to 58 feet. The Outer Bar Channel would remain at its current 800-foot

bottom width due to strong crosscurrents just beyond the end of the jetties. An overview of the project

details for the Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel reach is listed in Table 2.4-5.

Table 2.4-5

Project Details for Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel Reach

Length of Reach (Section 3) 3.4 miles (no change)

Project Depth 50 feet

Bottom Width 800 feet

Advance Maintenance 2 feet

Allowable Overdepth 2 feet

Additional Advance Maintenance 4 feet

New Work Material 5,923,000 cy

Placement Areas ODMDS 3

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Maintenance Material (50-year quantity) 223,650,000 cy

Increase in Maintenance Material 123,965,000 cy

Placement Areas ODMDS 3

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

835
2: Alternatives

2-39

2.4.1.4 Sabine Pass Jetty Channel

This 4.1-mile-long channel would be deepened to 48 feet using a hopper dredge (Figure 2.4-1c). When

advance maintenance and allowable overdepth are added, the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel could be dredged

to 52 feet. The channel would gradually taper from the existing 800-foot width at the jetties’ mouth to the

existing 500-foot width. No impacts to the jetties would be associated with the proposed improvements.

An overview of the project details for the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel reach is listed in Table 2.4-6.

Table 2.4-6

Project Details for Sabine Pass Jetty Channel Reach

Length of Reach (Section 4) 4.1 miles (no change)

Project Depth 48 feet

Bottom Width 800 to 500 feet

Advance Maintenance 2 feet

Allowable Overdepth 2 feet

New Work Material 2,978,000 cy

Placement Areas ODMDS 4

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Maintenance Material (50-year quantity) 13,527,000 cy

Increase in Maintenance Material 2,142,000 cy

Placement Areas ODMDS 4

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

2.4.1.5 Sabine Pass Channel

This 5.6-mile-long channel begins just north of the jetties and extends upstream to Mesquite Point on

Pleasure Island (Figure 2.4-1d). It would be deepened to 48 feet and constructed with a hydraulic pipeline

dredge. Advance maintenance would vary in different sections of the Sabine Pass Channel to account for

differences in shoaling rates. The maximum dredging depth for two reaches of this channel (Station 0+00

to Station 100+00, and Station 180+00 to Station 230+00) would be 52 feet. Due to additional advance

maintenance required to maintain existing O&M dredging cycles, the reaches from Station 100+00 to

Station 180+00 and Station 230+00 to the end of the Sabine Pass Channel at 296+25 would be dredged to

a depth of 55 feet. The bottom width of the Sabine Pass Channel would remain 500 feet. The Sabine Pass

Anchorage is located in this reach and its footprint would be reduced in size because it has never been

fully utilized. The width would be decreased from 1,500 feet to 855 feet, and the length remains

8,200 feet. The angle of approach would remain the same. An overview of the project details for the

Sabine Pass Channel reach is listed in Table 2.4-7.

2.4.1.6 Port Arthur Canal (including Taylor Bayou Channels and Turning Basins)

This 6.2-mile-long canal begins near Mesquite Point and ends at the Port Arthur Junction Area with the

Taylor Bayou channels (Figure 2.4-1e). The Junction Area serves as a turning basin and has an irregular

shape where the Taylor Bayou channels and the GIWW merge with it. The Port Arthur Canal would be

deepened to the proposed depth of 48 feet with a hydraulic pipeline dredge. Advance maintenance would

836
2: Alternatives

2-40

vary in different sections of the Port Arthur Canal to account for differences in shoaling rates. The reach

from Station 00+00 to Station 290+00 would be dredged to a maximum depth of 53 feet. The remaining

part (Port Arthur Junction) between Stations 290+00 and 325+84 would be dredged to a maximum depth

of 57 feet. The bottom width of the Port Arthur Canal would remain 500 feet up to the Junction Area. An

overview of the project details for the Port Arthur Canal reach (including Taylor Bayou) is listed in Table

2.4-8.

Table 2.4-7

Project Details for Sabine Pass Channel Reach

Length of Reach (sections 5 and 6) 5.6 miles (no change)

Project Depth 48 feet

Bottom Width 500 feet

Advance Maintenance 2 feet

Allowable Overdepth 2 feet

Additional Advance Maintenance Station 100+00 to Station 180+00 is 3 feet

Station 230+00 to Station 295+61 is 3 feet

New Work Material 6,723,000 cy

Placement Areas PA 5

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Maintenance Material (50-year quantity) 34,781,000 cy

Increase in Maintenance Material 4,191,000 cy

Placement Areas none

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Gulf Shore Beneficial Use Feature

Table 2.4-8

Project Details for Port Arthur Canal Reach (including Taylor Bayou)

Length of Reach (sections 7 and 8) 6.2 miles (no change)

Project Depth 48 feet

Bottom Width Varies (widest is 500 feet)

Advance Maintenance 2 feet

Allowable Overdepth 2 feet

Additional Advance Maintenance (PA Canal) Station 0+00 to 290+00 is 1 foot

(PA Canal) Station 290+00 to 326+37 is 5 feet

(Taylor Bayou) Station 0+00 to 31+00 is 5 feet

(Taylor Bayou) Station 31+00 to 106+25 is 1 foot

New Work Material 11,697,000 cy

Placement Areas PAs 8 and 9

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Maintenance Material (50-year quantity) 82,858,000 cy

Increase in Maintenance Material 5,391,000 cy

Placement Areas PA 8 and 9

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

837
2: Alternatives

2-41

Located at the confluence of the Port Arthur Junction Area, the GIWW, and the mouth of the original

Taylor Bayou, the Taylor Bayou Channels and Turning Basins consist of several sub-reaches: Entrance

Channel, East Turning Basin, West Turning Basin, Connecting Channel, and the Taylor Bayou Turning

Basin. Several significant changes are proposed for this area. When advance maintenance and allowable

overdepth are added to the proposed 48-foot depth, all of the Taylor Bayou Channels and Basins could be

dredged to 53 feet. The Taylor Bayou portion of the Junction Area, between Taylor Bayou Stations 0+00

and 41+20, would be dredged to 57 feet. The Taylor Bayou Entrance Channel and the West Turning

Basin bottleneck curve would be widened, and a structural wall would protect local railroad tracks.

Changes for each sub-reach are detailed below.

• Taylor Bayou Entrance Channel. The new bottom width widens on the west side of the

channel. The channel would be widened to 444 feet at new Station 10+00. The new bottom width

would taper back to the existing width by the end of the first curve at Station 28+38.

• East Turning Basin. The right side width would decrease 16 feet as the new depth extends down

the existing side slope.

• West Turning Basin. The width of the existing bottleneck has been increased up to 120 feet on

the west side, between new stations 33+00 and 55+00. The west bank of the basin would be

protected by a structural wall, preventing impacts to the local railroad tracks present in this area.

• Connecting Channel. The West Turning Basin widening would taper back to the existing width

in the Connecting Channel, between stations 55+00 and 67+00.

• Taylor Bayou Turning Basin. No changes would be made to the existing dimensions, but the

basin would be deepened to the proposed 48-foot depth. Existing shore protection belonging to a

local facility near Station 90+00 would be affected by penetration by the top-of-cut for the new

depth.

2.4.1.7 Sabine-Neches Canal

The 11.2-mile-long canal begins at the Port Arthur Junction Area and ends just south of the mouth of the

Neches River (Figure 2.4-1f). The GIWW shares this canal with the deep-draft channel. It would be

deepened to the proposed depth of 48 feet with a hydraulic pipeline dredge. When advance maintenance

and allowable overdepth are added, stations 0+00 to 40+00 could be dredged to 57 feet, and the remainder

of the canal through Station 592+91 could be dredged to 53 feet.

The bottom width of this canal would be selectively widened in three separate sections. The bottom width

of the most-downstream curve (stations 0+00 to 20+00) would be widened to 500 feet on the east side of

the channel, and then promptly tapered to the existing 400-foot width prior to the MLK Bridge (SH 82).

The canal would be widened to 450 feet adjacent to the Port of Port Arthur, with gradual tapering

upstream and downstream between stations 120+00 and 170+00. The third widening section would begin

to taper at Station 565+00, gradually widening to 500 feet and remaining that width to the end at Station

592+91.

838
2: Alternatives

2-42

Bend easing is proposed for three areas in the Sabine-Neches Canal to improve ship maneuverability:

stations 265+00 to 305+00, stations 350+00 to 395+00, and stations 500+00 to 520+00. The bend easing

between stations 350+00 to 395+00 would eliminate a wiggle in the alignment and shift the footprint of

the canal 10 feet east of the existing alignment up to Station 520+00.

Changes are also recommended for the canal bottom adjacent to the Port Arthur Dock and the “Eye

Basin.” The canal toes adjacent to the Port of Port Arthur would be moved approximately 10 feet to the

east while keeping the same bottom width of 450 feet. The diameter of the turning point (“Eye Basin”) at

Station 190+00 would be decreased by 16 feet. An overview of the project details for the Sabine-Neches

Canal reach is listed in Table 2.4-9.

Table 2.4-9

Project Details for Sabine-Neches Canal Reach

Length of Reach (sections 9 and 10) 11.2 miles (no change)

Project Depth 48 feet

Bottom Width varies 400 to 500 feet

Advance Maintenance 2 feet

Allowable Overdepth 2 feet

Additional Advance Maintenance Station 0+00 to 40+00 is 5 feet

Station 40+00 to 592+91 is 1 foot

New Work Material 11,944,000 cy

Placement Areas PA 11

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

Maintenance Material (50-year quantity) 73,245,000 cy

Increase in Maintenance Material 13,122,000 cy

Placement Areas PAs 8 and 11

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material None

2.4.1.8 Neches River Channel

This 18.5-mile-long channel begins just south of the mouth of the Neches River (Figure 2.4-1g). It would

be deepened to the proposed depth of 48 feet to Station 980+00 with a hydraulic pipeline dredge.

Advance maintenance would vary in different sections of the Neches River Channel to account for

differences in shoaling rates. Between stations 0+00 and 440+00, the maximum dredged depth would be

52 feet; between stations 440+00 and 978+00, it would be 54 feet. While the overall bottom width of

400 feet does not change for the majority of the channel length, the first curve at the mouth of Neches

River (between stations 0+00 and 75+00) would be widened to 500 feet, and then tapered back to 400 feet

prior to the SH 87 twin bridges. The channel also will be widened to 500 feet between turning basins No.

1 and No. 2. An overview of the project details for the Neches River Channel reach is listed in Table

2.4-10.

Three basins will be added or enlarged on the Neches River Channel. All would be dredged to the

proposed depth of 48 feet, plus the advance maintenance and allowable overdepth associated with the

specific channel reach in which they are located.

839
2: Alternatives

2-43

Table 2.4-10

Project Details for the Neches River Channel Reach

Length of Reach (sections 11–18) 18.5 miles (no change)

Project Depth 48 feet

Bottom Width 400 feet (majority of channel)

500 feet Station 0+00 to 75+00

Advance Maintenance 2 feet

Allowable Overdepth 2 feet

Additional Advance Maintenance Station 440+00 to 978+00 is 2 feet

New Work Material 25,014,000 cy

Placement Areas PAs 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Neches River BU Feature

Maintenance Material (50-year quantity) 89,725,000 cy

Increase in Maintenance Material 23,277,000 cy

Placement Areas PAs 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Neches River BU Feature (Rose City East and

Bessie Heights East only)

Turning Basins/Anchorage Areas 1 New; 2 Enlarged; 5 No change

• Turning and Anchorage Basin No. 1 would be located in an old river oxbow at the east end of

Texaco Island near Station 210+00. The Turning Basin would enlarge the existing basin from

1,000 to 1,350 feet in diameter. A new Anchorage Basin, 250 by 1,100 feet in size, would be

added.

• Turning and Anchorage Basin No. 4 would enlarge an existing turning point at Station 510+00

from 1,000 to 1,350 feet in diameter. A new Anchorage Basin in the old river oxbow at Station

500+00 would be 250 by 1,100 feet in size.

• Turning Basin No. 6 is an existing basin at Station 700+00. It would retain the same dimensions

and would not be deepened to the proposed depth of 48 feet. Maintenance dredging would

continue at the existing depth.

• The new Anchorage Basin No. 8 would be located at Station 850+00. The 250-x-1,000-foot basin

is located in an old river oxbow.

• The Beaumont Maneuvering Basin’s overall dimensions would remain the same as the existing

project. Located near Station 975+00, it would be deepened to the proposed 48-foot depth.

2.4.1.9 Bridge Reinforcements and Fenders

Deepening and selective widening improvements to the SNWW navigation channels would affect existing

fender systems of the Rainbow Bridge and Veterans Memorial Bridge over the Neches River Channel on

SH 87 and the MLK Bridge over the Sabine-Neches Canal on SH 82. Bridge fender systems on both sides

of the channel would require removal and replacement. None of the bridges would cause an unreasonable

obstruction to navigation, and thus would not require modification or replacement pursuant to the

Truman-Hobbs Act. However, existing MLK Bridge piers would be armored to protect them from erosion

and maintain the proposed 400-foot channel width.

840
2: Alternatives

2-44

2.4.1.10 Aids to Navigation

Many of the existing aids to navigation within the waterway would require removal and replacement. The

upstream reach from the Beaumont Maneuvering Basin and the vicinity of SH 87 on the Neches River

Channel would not require changes in the navigation aids. Ranges and buoys would not need to be

replaced along the Port Arthur Canal, Sabine Pass Channel, and Sabine Pass Jetty Channel. However, aids

along the remainder of the waterway would need to be relocated, and new aids will be required along the

Extension Channel.

2.4.1.11 Lands, Easements and Rights-of-Way

The non-Federal Sponsor is required to furnish the LERR for the proposed cost-shared project. The real

estate requirements must support construction as well as operation and maintenance of the project after

completion. A summary of the real estate requirements for each channel reach is provided in Table

2.4-11. Specific details of the real estate requirements can be found in the Real Estate Plan, Appendix 3 of

the FFR.

Table 2.4-11

Real Estate Requirements for Placement Areas

Real Estate Requirement

Channel Reach

Sabine Bank Extension Navigational servitude

Sabine Bank Channel Navigational servitude

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel Navigational servitude

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel Navigational servitude

Sabine Pass Channel Acquire in Fee (PA 5)

Port Arthur Canal Navigational servitude (PA 8)

Acquire in Fee (PA 9)

Sabine-Neches Canal Navigational servitude (PAs 8, 11)

Neches River Channel Owned by Sponsor (No-Action)

(PAs 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 18A, 21, 23, 23A, 24, 24A, 25, 25A)

Acquire in Fee (PAs 17, 26, 27A, 27C, 27D)

Turning Basins – two will require the acquisition of land in

perpetual channel improvement easement

Louisiana Mitigation Areas

Willow and Black Bayou Areas Navigational servitude

2.4.1.12 Relocations

The following assumptions were made to identify pipelines that could be affected by the recommended

plan and to develop associated costs. The individual circumstances of each pipeline will be evaluated by

USACE in consultation with non-Federal sponsor and the pipeline owner during the preconstruction,

engineering, and design (PED) and Construction phases, and decisions regarding necessary actions will

be made individually for each pipeline at that time. Feasibility engineering guidelines indicate that

pipelines with a minimum of 8 feet of cover for trenched lines or 5 feet of cover for directionally drilled

841
2: Alternatives

2-45

lines would not be adjusted. Pipelines that do not meet the minimum cover requirement would be required

to be adjusted.

The adjusted pipelines must be located 20 feet below the authorized 48-foot depth. The 20 feet includes

any advance maintenance and allowable overdepth. The relocation of active pipelines is assumed to be

installed with directional drilling, and bundled where possible.

A total of 104 pipelines have been identified crossing the SNWW navigation channels. Of the 104

pipelines, 46 require adjustment to meet the minimum required vertical and horizontal clearances for the

SNWW CIP.

Pursuant to Section 101(a) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, as amended, the

Sponsor is responsible for performing, or assuring performance, of all relocations, including utility

relocations, which are necessary for the CIP. All relocations, including utility relocations, are to be

accomplished at no cost to the Federal Government.

The USACE, Galveston District has concluded preliminarily that 41 of the 46 lines located within the

channel must be relocated and are classified as utility relocations for which the Sponsor must perform or

assure performance. In accordance with Section 101(a)(4) of WRDA 86, one-half of the cost of each such

relocation will be borne by the owner of the facility being relocated and one-half of the cost of each such

relocation will be borne by the Sponsor. Such relocation costs will not include any cost for upgrading or

improving such facilities, which is to be borne by the facility owner.

For more specific information regarding the utility relocations, and preliminary conclusions regarding the

remaining 5 lines that must be removed but not replaced, see the FFR, Real Estate Plan, Appendix 4.

DMMP marsh restoration at Bessie Heights and mitigation marsh restoration measures east of Sabine

Lake were assumed to require no relocations. However, since oil production is active in some of these

areas, additional pipeline searches and coordination with pipeline owners would be required prior to

construction to avoid impacts.

No relocations would be required for overhead power utilities, highway bridges, the Port Arthur

Hurricane Flood Protection Levee, or its associated pump stations and closure structures.

2.4.2 Dredged Material Placement Areas

Dredged material produced by construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative over the 50-year

period of analysis would be managed in accordance with the DMMP. More details can be found in the

DMMP presented in Appendix D of this FEIS. The total new work construction quantity was presented in

Table 2.4-2. Information on proposed maintenance quantities is important in evaluating potential project

impacts. Table 2.4-12 provides a reach-by-reach comparison of maintenance quantities for the existing

project (No-Action Alternative) and the Preferred Alternative. Disposal features proposed for the

842
2: Alternatives

2-46

Preferred Alternative consist of beneficial use features, upland PA features, and ODMDSs. The location

of all disposal features is shown on Figures 2.4-1a–g.

Table 2.4-12

Existing and Proposed Maintenance Dredging Quantities

Channel Reach

Existing

50-Year Maintenance

Quantities (cy)

Proposed

50-Year Maintenance

Quantities (cy)

Sabine Bank Extension 0 36,216,000

Sabine Bank Channel 50,822,000 96,371,000

Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel 99,685,000 223,650,000

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel 11,385,000 13,527,000

Sabine Pass Channel 30,590,000 34,781,000

Port Arthur Canal 88,249,000 82,858,000

Sabine-Neches Canal 60,123,000 73,245,000

Neches River Channel 66,448,000 89,725,000

Total Quantities 407 mcy 650 mcy

2.4.2.1 Quantities and Types of Dredged Material

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would require the development of significantly more PA

capacity than currently exists for the SNWW project. The existing project uses 16 upland PAs and 4

ODMDSs. Construction of the Preferred Alternative would generate 98 mcy of new work material.

Shoaling is projected to increase with the Preferred Alternative for several reasons (Parchure et al., 2005).

The Entrance Channel would extend an additional 13.2 miles into the Gulf, and this would result in higher

offshore dredging quantities. The deeper channel would have a greater cross-sectional area, making it

function as a larger sediment trap; and higher salinities would increase flocculation and the deposition of

suspended sediment.

Maintenance dredging is therefore projected to increase for the entire channel, from 407 to 650 mcy over

the 50-year period of analysis. Expressed as average annual quantities, quantities will increase from 8.1 to

13.0 mcy per year (an increase of approximately 60 percent). Fifty-seven percent of the maintenance

quantities for the Preferred Alternative would originate from the offshore channels, and 43 percent from

the inshore channels. As would be expected with the offshore channel extension, maintenance dredging

volumes for the offshore channel would increase more than the inshore reaches, with an increase from

162 to 370 mcy and 251 to 281 mcy, respectively. Additional capacity for the offshore reaches could be

obtained by designating new ODMDSs, and the designation of four new ODMDSs is being sought (see

Appendix B).

Finding areas suitable for the development of new upland PAs along the inshore reaches was difficult.

The majority of land adjacent to the SNWW is either covered by residential and industrial development

and existing PAs, or is coastal wetland. For this reason, considerable effort was directed toward

evaluating alternatives for the placement of dredged material. Maintenance material would be used to the

843
2: Alternatives

2-47

greatest extent possible in the resulting DMMP. A discussion of the process used to evaluate these

alternatives, and a description of alternatives considered, is provided in Section 2.5.

2.4.2.2 DMMP Beneficial Use Features

All DMMP BU features proposed for inclusion in the DMMP of the Preferred Alternative are described in

Table 2.4-13. Three former marsh areas on the Neches River (Rose City East, Bessie Heights East, and

Old River Cove) would be combined into one large management feature called the Neches River BU

Feature (see Figure 2.5-1). In the Gulf Shore BU Feature, maintenance material would be used to nourish

Gulf shorelines at Texas and Louisiana Points (see Figure 2.5-2). The DMMP BU features are not being

pursued as separable elements of an ecosystem restoration plan under Section 204 or 207 authorities.

They are not ecosystem restoration measures, and as such, do not target a specific historical condition for

the level of restoration. They are least-cost, environmentally acceptable placement features and are

included as general navigation features (GNF) of the DMMP.

The Neches River BU Feature would take advantage of new work material provided by the channeldeepening project to build hydraulic containment levees within degraded, former marsh areas at Rose

City East, Bessie Heights East, and Old River Cove. Each of these areas is referred to as a component of

the overall Neches River BU Feature. Marsh would be created in each component using only new work,

or a combination of new work and maintenance material. The Old River Cove component would be filled

during initial construction with new work material alone. In the Bessie Heights East component,

maintenance material would be placed incrementally in seven maintenance cycles over 28 years. At the

Rose City East component, new work material would be used to construct containment levees and ridges,

then the marsh would be completed with the placement of maintenance material during the first

maintenance cycle following construction. For the Neches River BU Feature as a whole, 2,853 acres of

emergent marsh would be restored in areas that are now open water; 871 acres of improved shallow-water

habitat would be created by the formation of shallower ponds and interconnecting channels within the

restored marshes; and 1,234 acres of existing fringing marsh would be nourished by winnowing finegrained material from unconfined flows of dredged material effluent. The size of the Neches River BU

Feature components and the magnitude of their ecological benefits are made possible by the large

amounts of dredged material that would be generated by the proposed project, and extensive opportunities

for beneficial use in the project area.

The Gulf Shore Nourishment Feature would use material from regular maintenance dredging of the

eastern section of the Sabine Pass Channel to nourish eroding marsh, and possibly create new saline

marsh, along a total of 6 miles of shoreline on both sides of Sabine Pass at Louisiana and Texas Points.

Material would be hydraulically pumped along a 3-mile reach of shoreline, from 0.5 to 3.5 miles from

each jetty. The unconfined placement of material during each 3-year dredging cycle would alternate

between Texas and Louisiana, so that materials would be placed on each state’s shoreline every 6 years,

for a total of 16 placement events over the 50-year period of analysis. Historic dredging records indicate

that the material from Sabine Pass would average 51 percent silt, 31 percent clay, and 18 percent sand.

The material would be hydraulically pumped into the nearshore zone and some material would be

844
2: Alternatives

2-48

expected to flow over existing marsh while the remainder flows into the nearshore waters. This mix of

materials does not contain typical beach-quality sand; however, resource agencies have ageed that

returning the material to the littoral system would have a net beneficial effect, regardless of the material

type.

Table 2.4-13

DMMP BU Features, SNWW Preferred Alternative

Beneficial Use

Features No. Description

Size of

Influence

Area

Rose City East

(component of

Neches River BU

Measure)

TX 3-1

East

Restoring 345 acres fresh marsh, 72 acres of shallow water, and

nourishing 151 acres of existing marsh in two construction

events. New work material from Neches River Channel will be

used to restore 225-acre marsh, construct hydraulic containment

levees and higher elevation features. Maintenance material from

the first maintenance cycle will be used to restore an additional

120 acres of marsh.

Influence

area – 568

acres

Bessie Heights East

(component of

Neches River BU

Measure)

TX 5-2 Restores 679 acres of brackish and 1,190 acres of intermediate

marsh, 660 acres of shallow-water habitat, and nourishes 651

acres of existing marsh. Marsh will be constructed with

maintenance material from Neches River Channel for 28 years.

New work material is used to build hydraulic containment levee.

Influence

area – 3,180

acres

Old River Cove

(component of

Neches River BU

Measure)

TX 6-1 Restores 639 acres of brackish marsh, 139 acres of shallow-water

habitat, and nourishes 432 acres of existing marsh with new

work material from Neches River Channel. New work material

used to construct hydraulic containment levee.

Influence

area – 1,210

acres

Gulf Shore BU

Feature (Texas and

Louisiana Points)

TX 8-11

LA 5-2/

6-2

Nourish 3 miles of Gulf shoreline on both sides of Sabine Pass,

from 0.5 to 3.5 miles from East and West Jetties, using

maintenance material from Sabine Pass Channel. Unconfined

placement of maintenance material along shoreline every 3 years

for 50-year period of analysis (8 placement episodes). Assume

50:50 split of material between Texas and Louisiana

accomplished by alternating placement in Texas and Louisiana.

Affected

shoreline

6.0 miles

total

2.4.2.3 Upland Placement Areas

Sixteen existing and two expanded upland PAs proposed for use with the Preferred Alternative are listed

in Table 2.4-14. Existing upland PAs would be used to the greatest extent possible; however, the

expansion of some existing PAs would also be required. The locations of each PA are shown on

figures 2.4-1d–g, and the evaluation of PA impacts is presented in subsection 2.5.3.3.

2.4.3 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Needs Summary for the

Preferred Alternative

A full summary of the impact analysis and compensatory mitigation needs for the Preferred Alternative is

presented in Table 2.4-16 for each state. The calculation of impacts and benefits of the DMMP BU

features and mitigation measures are described in Section 2.5 and throughout Section 4 of this FEIS.

845
2: Alternatives

2-49

Table 2.4-14

Upland Placement Areas, SNWW Preferred Alternative

Placement Area Additional Cell(s) Size (acres) Associated Waterway Section**

5 N&S, B and C 957 Sabine Pass Channel (sections 5 and 6)

8 3,570 Port Arthur Canal (sections 7 and 8)

Sabine-Neches Canal (Section 9)

9A B 481 Port Arthur Canal (Section 8)

11 2,170 Sabine-Neches Canal (Section 10)

12 355 Neches River Channel (Section 11)

13 140 Neches River Channel (Section 11)

14 255 Neches River Channel (Section 12)

16 288 Neches River Channel (Section 12)

17 316 Not used for new work material

18 A* 432 Neches River Channel (Section 14)

21 135 Neches River Channel (Section 15)

23 A 773 Neches River Channel (sections 15 and 16)

24 A* 575 Neches River Channel (Section 16)

25 A 820 Neches River Channel (sections 17 and 18)

26 192 Neches River Channel (Section 18)

27 A, C, and D 270 Neches River Channel (Section 18)

*New cells (PAs 18A and 24A), which enlarge existing PAs.

**Waterway sections are shown on FFR Engineering Plates C-01 through C-12.

Table 2.4-15

Preferred Alternative ODMDSs

Placement

Area

Size

(acres) Status

Associated

Waterway Section

A 3,405 New Extension Channel

B 3,405 New Extension Channel

C 3,405 New Extension Channel

D 3,405 New Extension Channel

1 2,020 Active Section 1

2 4,738 Active Section 2

3 3,939 Active Section 3

4 3,444 Active Section 4

2.4.4 Critical Assumptions

Critical planning and environmental assumptions were made in the evaluation of the benefits and impacts

of the Recommended Plan. Table 2.4-17 provides a brief summary of the major assumptions, the

scientific basis or rationale behind each assumption, and an indication of the consequences if the

assumptions turn out not to be valid.

846
2: Alternatives

2-50

Table 2.4-16

Summary of the Impact Analysis and Compensatory Mitigation Needs for the Preferred Alternative

Texas Louisiana

Project as

Whole

Impact Analysis (AAHUs*)

Negative Impacts (–) Before DMMP BU –412 –1,709 –2,121

Positive Impacts Resulting from DMMP BU 1,068 210 1,278

Net Gain or Loss (–) After DMMP BU 656 –1,499 –843

Offset of Impacts to Louisiana Federal Lands from

Excess Texas BU Benefits

–340 340 NA

Net Gain or Loss (–) After BU Benefits 316 –1,159 –843

Compensatory Mitigation (AAHUs)

Total Compensation 0 1,181 1,181

Net Gain After BU Benefits & Mitigation 316 22 338

Impact Analysis (Acres)

Size of Potential Impact Area 58,649 197,530 256,179

Area with No Impacts 19,421 15,247 34,668

Area of Direct Impacts 86 0 86

Area of Indirect Impacts 39,228 182,283 221,511

Net Acres of Land Loss (–) before DMMP BU –247 –691 –938

Total Shoreline Influenced by DMMP BU 3 miles 3 miles 6 miles

Total Acres Affected by DMMP BU 4,958 0 4,958

Created Emergent Marsh 2,853 0 2,853

Improved Shallow Water 871 0 871

Nourished Existing Marsh 1,234 0 1,234

Compensatory Mitigation (Acres)

Total Acres Affected by Mitigation 0 8,095 8,095

Created Emergent Marsh 0 2,783 2,783

Improved Shallow Water 0 957 957

Nourished Existing Marsh 0 4,355 4,355

Total Acres Affected by DMMP BU and Mitigation 4,958 8,095 13,053

Created Emergent Marsh 2,853 2,783 5,636

Improved Shallow Water 871 957 1,828

Nourished Existing Marsh 1,234 4,355 5,589

*AAHU = Average annual Habitat Units

847
2: Alternatives

2-51

Table 2.4-17

Critical Assumptions

Assumption Rationale for the Assumption Consequences if Assumption Becomes Invalid

FWOP Condition

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands

Planning, Protection, and

Restoration Act (CWPPRA) Projects

in operation at Willow Bayou, Black

Bayou, and Perry Ridge for

remainder of project life.

Ecological effects of CWPPRA

projects (reductions in land loss rates

and/or salinity) based upon changes

projected in environmental

assessments.

If ecological benefit of CWPPRA project is less

than expected, then FWOP salinity and land

loss impacts would be slightly higher than

expected; conversely, if ecological benefits are

higher, FWOP impacts would be slightly lower

than expected.

Most likely rate of RSLR estimated

to be 1.1 feet in the study area by

year 2069. Full potential range of

RSLR estimated to be from 0.3 to

2.8 feet over period of analysis.

Eustatic sea-level rise based upon

mid- to high mid-range projected by

National Research Council (NRC)

and Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC),

respectively. Local subsidence

component based upon long-term

trends obtained from basal peat

analysis. Full potential range

calculated as required by Circular

No. 1165-2-211.

Little consequence if RSLR is lower than

expected. High rate of RSLR could result in

small increase in maintenance dredging and PA

levee heights for existing project; increase in

hurricane tidal surge elevation; an increase in

land loss due to submergence of intertidal

marshes; and salinity increase. Functioning of

navigation channel would not be affected;

improvements at some dock facilities might be

needed.

Future freshwater inflows assumed

for HS modeling are slightly higher

on Neches River than existing

inflows; about the same as existing

inflows on the Sabine River.

Future freshwater inflows were based

upon demand projections and supply

strategies approved by the 2007

Texas State Water Plan.

Little consequence if inflows are higher than

projected. If inflows are lower than expected,

FWOP ecological impacts would be higher than

expected and more areas would be experiencing

suboptimal salinities.

Changes in land loss rates are driven

by the interaction of salinity and

submergence, resulting in a

reduction in plant productivity,

leading to a decrease in plant

growth, plant death, followed by

peat collapse and wetland loss.

Assumed linear relationship between

change in salinity due to RSLR and

change in FWOP land loss rate.

The salinity-vegetation productivity

relationship is based upon algorithms

developed for dominant wetland

vegetation species in the study area.

The algorithms were developed for

the Louisiana Coastal Areas

Ecosystem Restoration Study using

data from a large number of

professional studies.

If the relationship between salinity and land loss

is different from that projected, FWOP land loss

would be higher or lower than current estimates.

FWP Condition (Preferred

Alternative)

RSLR – same as FWOP because

deepening project causes only

negligible increase in water surface

elevation.

FWP water surface elevation change

determined by ERDC HS modeling.

Little consequence if RSLR is lower than

expected. No FWP effect on maintenance

dredging, PA levee heights, or tidal surge

penetration. At high rate, all areas suitable for

marsh mitigation could be susceptible to

submergence. DMMP BUs protected by

containment structures.

Additional land loss would result

primarily from the interaction of

higher FWP salinities with FWOP

RSLR. Assume direct linear

relationship between salinity and

land loss changes.

Associating land loss with salinity

increases is based upon welldocumented biological responses of

inundated vegetation to salinity

change. No data are currently

available that relate specific salinity

changes to specific land loss rate

changes.

If the relationship between salinity and land loss

is different from that projected, FWP impacts

would be higher or lower than current estimates.

848
2: Alternatives

2-52

Table 2.4-17, cont’d

Assumption Rationale for the Assumption Consequences if Assumption Becomes Invalid

Cost Estimates

Cost estimate of the Preferred

Alternative utilized appropriate

probabilities of risk.

Cost risk analysis was performed

using required forecasting and

analysis tools. Cost contingencies

developed by this analysis have been

included in the total project cost

estimate.

An increase in total project cost, exclusive of

price level changes, of more than 20 percent of

the total project cost stated in the authorizing

legislation would require Congressional

authorization.

It was assumed that up to 5 pipeline

dredges would be available for use at

one time for inshore channel

dredging, and mitigation and BU

marsh creation. Offshore dredging

assumes use of only one hopper

dredge at a time.

Assume offshore hopper dredge

production averaging 7.9 mcy/yr;

inshore pipeline dredge production of

7.2 mcy/year; and no more than 550

acres/year of mitigation or BU marsh

creation by any one dredge.

If the assumed production rate is too high, or if

the assumed number of dredges is not available,

then construction would take longer and the

total cost of construction would increase.

Funding

Sufficient funding streams would be

available to construct the Preferred

Alternative over the assumed

construction periods and to provide

long-term operation and

maintenance.

USACE planning policy states that

plans should be developed without

funding constraints. Federal funding

priorities are difficult to predict.

Total project cost could be higher because of

longer construction schedule. Inadequate O&M

funding could cause an increase in navigation

costs or adversely affect monitoring of

mitigation and BU features.

2.5 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR THE

MANAGEMENT OF DREDGED MATERIAL

2.5.1 Regional Sediment Management Objectives and Scope

The principles of RSM were applied in evaluating alternatives for the placement of dredged material from

the proposed SNWW CIP. RSM is an approach for managing projects involving sand and other sediments

derived from dredging and other activities in riverine, estuarine, and coastal systems (USACE, 2006b). Its

major objective is the retention of sand or other sediments in natural aquatic systems, thereby supporting

a more sustainable process and potentially reducing project costs (Martin, 2002). RSM incorporates many

of the principles of watershed planning, but applies them in the context of dredging and other activities

that influence sediment resources. It broadens the problem-solving perspective from a project-specific

scale to a larger spatial and longer-term perspective. This requires the integration of a broad range of

disciplines and collaborative partnerships among stakeholders. The USACE authorities and policies that

support implementation of RSM are discussed in Technical Note No. 8 for the RSM Demonstration

Program (USACE, 2003a).

The geographic focus of an RSM analysis is a sediment system, on a scale that is relevant to issues (e.g.,

dredged material management or processes like erosion or shoaling) that have been identified by

stakeholders in the region. The RSM study area essentially coincides with the SNWW study area and

contains riverine, estuarine, and coastal environments. It is large enough to facilitate understanding of

sediment processes and behavior and the inherent interconnectedness of all parts of a sediment system.

The RSM study area includes the existing 65-mile-long SNWW navigation channel that extends from

849
2: Alternatives

2-53

22 miles offshore in the Gulf, through a jettied entrance at Sabine Pass, up artificial canals on the west

side of Sabine Lake, and finally up the Neches River Channel to the City of Beaumont. The SNWW area

of analysis incorporates all of the existing and proposed navigation and placement features, and

significant inflows and structures that affect the system. The littoral portion of the study area extends

from Holly Beach, Louisiana, to Sea Rim State Park in Texas, roughly a distance of 40 miles. It extends

into the Gulf along the existing Entrance Channel, proposed channel extension, and ODMDSs for a

distance of roughly 40 miles; and it extends inland from the coastline approximately 40 miles to

incorporate the tidally influenced reaches of the Sabine and Neches rivers watersheds and Sabine Lake.

The Texas Coastwide Erosion Response Plan has identified several parts of the study area as “critical

erosion areas” because of impacts to habitats and traffic safety from ongoing erosion, and has called for

an increase in the beneficial use of dredged material from the SNWW project to help address these issues.

The plan was developed as part of the Texas Coastal Erosion Planning and Response Program (CEPRA)

(GLO, 2004, 2005). The program has identified the Gulf shoreline between Texas Point and Sea Rim

State Park as a critical erosion area. It attributes the erosion, in part, to a lack of sediment coming down

the Sabine and Neches rivers, and the interruption of longshore sediment transport by the SNWW jetties.

The CEPRA Plan recommends that long-term regional sediment management be utilized, along with

highway realignment and beach dune restoration, to protect the important coastal evacuation route of

SH 87 in Jefferson County. As described below, the Gulf Shore BU Feature will provide a long-term,

RSM approach to restoring some sediment to the littoral zone in this area of high erosion. In Orange

County, the CEPRA Plan calls for restoration of 9,400 acres of marsh in the Lower Neches River using

dredged material to raise soil elevations in the former marsh areas that have become open water. These

are the same marsh areas (i.e., Rose City, Bessie Heights, and Old River Cove) that have been combined

into the Neches River BU Feature. The evaluation of these beneficial use features is described more fully

later in this chapter.

2.5.2 Description of the SNWW Sediment System

2.5.2.1 Geomorphology

The modern coast of the northwest Gulf is the product of dramatic processes that occurred at the end of

the Holocene sea level rise. The lowstand occurred approximately 20,000 to 18,000 years before present

(B.P.) when the sea level was about 350 feet lower than today. Rapid sea level rise occurred until 7,000 to

6,000 years B.P., and then slowed to reach the modern stillstand about 3,000 years B.P. (Blum et al., 2002;

Frazier, 1974; Nelson and Bray, 1970). The offshore shoal area of Sabine Bank is a relict shoreline that

formed during this period. As the sea level rose, the Sabine and Neches rivers backfilled incised valleys

that had developed during the lowstand. The Chenier Plain on both sides of Sabine Pass was created with

sediment transported by the westernmost of the Mississippi River’s major distributaries (Byrnes and

McBride, 1995). The Mississippi River never flowed directly through this region, and thus much less

erosion of the Pleistocene surface occurred (Penland and Ramsey, 1990). Rather than the hundreds of feet

of silty sediment that overlays the Pleistocene surface in the Louisiana coastal plain to the east, the

Pleistocene surface lies beneath about 49 feet of sediment in the Chenier Plain region. It is composed of a

850
2: Alternatives

2-54

series of parallel beach ridges that evolved as a series of prograding mudflats intermittently reworked into

sandy or shelly ridges. Sabine Lake formed in the elongated drowned river valley of the Sabine River.

The Sabine River and the Neches River empty into the northeast and northwest corners, respectively, of

Sabine Lake.

The modern Gulf shoreline from Holly Beach to Sea Rim State Park is composed of mudflats, mud

washover flats, clay marsh platforms, sandy washover flats, and some sandy beaches (Louisiana

Department of Natural Resources [LDNR], 1997; PBS&J, 2006; USACE, 1971a). The low marshy areas

on the east and west sides of Sabine Pass are known as Louisiana and Texas Points, respectively. Both

shorelines within 10 miles of Sabine Pass are entirely undeveloped, and public access is limited. In Texas,

a section of SH 87 has been abandoned since 1989 due to shoreline erosion. Most of the shoreline in the

Texas portion of the study area is located within the Texas Point NWR. In Louisiana, SH 82 crosses

Sabine Lake where the lake begins its constriction into Sabine Pass, and does not approach the coastline

until it nears the small community of Johnson’s Bayou. The property south of SH 82 is privately held,

with the exception of the SNWW PA 5 on Sabine Pass. Recreation and wildlife preservation have been

the major uses of the area; however, recently the new Sabine Pass LNG facility has been constructed on

the waterway northwest of PA 5.

The only major inlet in the sediment system is Sabine Pass, the jettied entrance for the SNWW. These

navigation structures extend seaward, blocking longshore sediment transport and carrying sediment out of

the littoral zone. The Sabine Pass Jetties were built between 1883 and 1885 with east and west completion

lengths of 25,000 feet (4.7 miles) and 22,000 feet (4.2 miles), respectively (Alperin, 1977). Longshore

transport of sediments from the east is also affected by navigation jetties at Calcasieu Pass (USACE,

2004a). Construction on the east jetty at Calcasieu Pass began in 1893 and the west jetty in 1986

(USACE, 1961). Over the next 45 years, east and west Calcasieu jetties reached 10,500 feet (2 miles) and

8,200 feet (1.6 miles), respectively.

Offshore of Sabine Pass, the bottom slope averages 6 feet per mile until roughly 1 mile offshore, after

which it steadily decreases to an average 1 foot per mile through roughly 10 miles offshore (White et al.,

1987). Thus, for most of its extent the shelf is gently sloping and (with the exception of Sabine Bank) is

relatively featureless. The Sabine Bank is the principal topographic feature with approximately 25 feet of

relief. Sandy muds and clay muds predominate the surface inner shelf region; however, the surface of

virtually the entire area is covered by a sheet of sand approximately 2 feet thick (Anderson and Wellner,

2002; PBS&J, 2004b). An extensive outcrop of Beaumont clay is located nearshore and within 2 feet of

the sediment surface, beginning near Sea Rim State Park and extending westward (Nelson and Bray,

1970). The Beaumont clay is derived from coastal and deltaic plain silts and clays that were deposited on

the continental shelf during the previous lowstand. The clay outcrops from a complex, eroding scarp face

with relief of approximately 2 feet (Pacific International Engineering [PIE], 2003).

Sabine Bank is the only area that contains significant quantities of beach-quality sand (Morton et al.,

1995). It is an elongated feature, located approximately 17 miles south of the mouth of Sabine Pass and

oriented roughly parallel to the coast (Blum et al., 2002). The main body of the bank (Sabine West Bank)

851
2: Alternatives

2-55

is 20.5 miles long, and water depths over the bank range average 39 feet below mean low water. The

existing SNWW Entrance Channel passes approximately 0.75 mile to the east of its eastern edge. A

smaller body of Sabine Bank (Sabine Bank East), approximately 10.5 miles long, is located east-northeast

of the SNWW channel. Existing ODMDSs 1 and 2 are located north and south of the eastern end of the

Sabine West Bank, sufficiently distant that materials placed there do not flow onto them. All of the four

existing and four proposed ODMDSs are evenly spaced on the west side of the existing and proposed

extension channel. They were located on the west side of the channel so they will be downstream of the

most prevalent circulation currents in the northwest Gulf.

2.5.2.2 Wind, Tides, and Circulation

The hydrodynamic regime in the northwestern Gulf results from a complex interaction of tides,

meteorological driving forces, freshwater inflows, and Coriolis acceleration. Both local conditions and the

overall Gulf circulation pattern affect the area. In addition, major storms profoundly influence waves,

tides, currents, and sediment movement.

The combination of a broad continental shelf and low waves in the Gulf allows local winds to play a more

dominant role in shoreline dynamics in this area than on most other beaches around the U.S. (King,

2007). Local winds can directly modify longshore currents within the surf zone and in the nearshore

environment. The average wind direction from a buoy off Sea Rim State Park is from the south-southeast

(PIE, 2003). However, wind direction is more southerly in summer months and more southeasterly at

other times of the year. Average speeds are fairly constant at 9 to 13 miles per hour throughout the year,

reaching maximum in April and May.

Astronomical tides are generally small in the Gulf. They vary from diurnal to semidiurnal as a function of

the moon’s declination, with an average amplitude of approximately 1 foot (King, 2007). During average

conditions, waves in the nearshore are depth-limited and controlled by water levels, the mild nearshore

slope, and the possible presence of a soft mud bottom (PIE, 2003). The coast of the Chenier Plain

between Sabine Pass and Calcasieu Pass is also microtidal, with tides ranging from 2.0 to 2.4 feet. Waves

come from the south about 16 percent of the time and from the south-southeast 28 percent of the time

(Byrnes and McBride, 1995).

A major feature that dominates circulation in the eastern Gulf is the Loop Current, a continuation of the

Yucatan Current which enters the Gulf through the Yucatan straits. There are two important

semipermanent currents that diverge from the Loop Current; the one in the northwestern Gulf circulates

counterclockwise (Rouse et al., 2004). Inner-shelf currents in the Gulf off the Louisiana and upper Texas

coast flow westward and move downcoast during the late fall, winter, and early spring. This flow is

highly responsive to wind forcing and may briefly reverse direction and flow upcoast. This reversal

typically occurs during late spring, so that for a month or more the mean current in this area may be

eastward. During the summer, when winds are weaker, the coastal waters are highly stratified, and surface

flows may not flow in the same direction as near-bottom currents.

852
2: Alternatives

2-56

Bottom currents have a strong effect on sediment movement on the shelf. A study of water velocities

needed to cause rapid erosion on sediments similar to those in the study area found a critical erosion

velocity of 0.47 knot, with little variation among sand, silt, or clay (Moherek, 1978). The bottom ocean

currents near Sabine Pass should have sustained bottom velocities of at least twice the critical erosion

velocity for several days each year. Within approximately 40 miles of the Gulf Coast in this area, bottom

current will reach a maximum velocity of about 3.9 knots every 3 years and sustain velocities of 1 knot or

greater for several days once a year (EPA, 1982). Pre- and postdredging surveys of the existing ODMDSs

off Sabine Pass provide corroborating evidence of this sediment movement. Maintenance material from

recurrent dredging placement episodes disperses after each placement and does not accumulate.

2.5.2.3 Coastal Shoreline Erosion Impacts

The changes in sediment transport, while very small, can be expected to have some effect on the rates of

shoreline erosion. Under the Preferred Alternative, there is a slight reduction in the erosion rate near the

jetties. Near the jetties, the average rate of shoreline accretion was calculated to be as much as

60 feet/year. However, between 0.5 mile and 3 to 4 miles on either side of the jetties, the erosion would

be increased by less than 0.5 foot/year for a 50-foot project and farther from the jetties than that, the

shoreline change would decrease to zero. The effect of the 48-foot channel on the Gulf shoreline between

0.5 mile and 3.5 miles from each jetty was estimated to be 0.42 foot/year based upon the 45- and 50-foot

project effects.

The Gulf Shore BU Feature should have a positive effect on reducing shoreline erosion. The presence of

additional fine-grained sediments in the littoral system, which would be provided by the BU feature,

should reduce the current erosion rate and minimize the small increase in shore erosion predicted with the

project. In systems that have an abundant supply of fine-grained sediments, the presence of additional

muddy sediment in the nearshore environment may attenuate waves and lessen wave-induced erosion

(Hsiao and Shemdin, 1980; Tubman and Suhayda, 1976; Wells and Kemp, 1986). Furthermore, the

predominantly fine-grained sediment provided by this BU feature should contribute to mudflat accretion

by periodically moving onshore and becoming shore-attached. On the western Louisiana and eastern

Texas coasts, sediments accumulate as mudflats and underwater mudshoals (or “fluid mud”) in the

nearshore region. Nearshore, fluid mud can be trapped against the shoreline by prevailing south and

southwesterly winds, and storms carry the trapped muddy ooze onto the chenier shoreline (Morgan et al.,

1958; Wells and Kemp, 1982, 1986). Accretion of the shoreline can then occur by poorly understood

processes (Huh et al., 1991; King, 2007; PIE, 2003).

Although the BU sediments would be largely fine grained, approximately 18 percent of maintenance

material is expected to be sand. Sands that are deposited onshore would nourish and stabilize eroding

marshes and sand deposited in the nearshore zone should stay in the nearshore environment, moving back

and forth across the shoreface (Wamsley, 2008). Sand placed at Louisiana Point should remain on the

shoreface where it was deposited; no significant amounts of sand are expected to enter the Jetty Channel.

On erosive mud shorelines like those in the BU area, the sand percentage should increase, and it would

form sandy lenses or a veneer over the mud shoreline substrate. As the sand lenses thicken, the sands help

853
2: Alternatives

2-57

protect the underlying mud from further erosion (Nairn, 1992). However, in smaller quantities, sand can

also accelerate erosion of a mud beach. If the consolidated mud is not covered by a sand veneer, any sand

that is mobilized by wave action would act as a scouring agent (King, 2007).

2.5.2.4 Inland Shoreline Erosion Impacts

The primary area of concern for inland shoreline impacts is Pleasure Island along the confined channels

of the Port Arthur and Sabine-Neches canals (Parchure et al., 2005). No increase in the existing erosion

rate is predicted with the project for the eastern shore of Sabine Lake. The primary mechanism for

shoreline erosion associated with the project is from passage of large vessels. Maynord (2005)

investigated the mechanisms of ship-induced bank recession (shoreline erosion). The analysis employed a

numerical model (HIVEL2D) to simulate the ship-induced velocity at the bank and employed information

on the vessels in the existing and future fleets and information on the speeds that would be needed in both

the No-Action and Preferred alternatives. The analysis focused on two sites on Pleasure Island; the north

site is in the Sabine-Neches Canal, and the south site is in the Port Arthur Canal. The north site has no

existing erosion protection, while the south site has riprap protection. Neither site will have a change in

channel width. The analysis was calibrated to the existing rates of bank recession, and it used the model to

account for differing numbers of vessel trips projected for the years 2030 and 2060 for both the NoAction and 50-foot alternatives. The Preferred Alternative is expected to have a lesser effect than the

50-foot alternative.

Maynord (2005) found that the rates of erosion are lower for the 50-foot alternative than for the NoAction Alternative at both the north and south sites for both 2030 and 2060 traffic levels. Overall, the

effect of the Preferred Alternative should be to reduce the rate of erosion on inland channels relative to

the No-Action Alternative because of fewer vessel trips that are predicted with the Preferred Alternative

than in the No-Action Alternative.

2.5.2.5 Longshore Transport

In general, the longshore movement of littoral sediments in the study area is from the east to the west

(King, 2007; Morang, 2006; USACE, 2004a). In the recent past, the estimated net longshore sediment

transport to the west ranged from 47,000 to 97,000 cy/year east of Sabine Pass (USACE, 1971a). West of

Sabine Pass, the typical yearly net longshore sediment transport is to the southwest (Carothers and Innis,

1960; Mathewson, 1987; USACE, 1971b), with an occasional reversal of direction at Sea Rim State

Beach (King, 2007; Mason, 1981). At Sea Rim State Park, the typical net transport to the southwest was

about 70,600 cy/year; for the atypical reversal to the northeast, the net transport rate was 35,000 cy/year

(Mason, 1981). Another study of coastal geomorphology and shoreline erosion in Jefferson County was

conducted by PIE (2003) in conjunction with ongoing studies of erosion impacts to SH 87. PIE calculated

longshore sediment transport using both Galveston Buoy and Wave Information Study data. In general,

the gross sediment transport rate was found to be higher toward Galveston Island. Transport divergence

was indicated near Sea Rim State Park, in the vicinity of two areas of high erosion along Texas Point.

854
2: Alternatives

2-58

Longshore transport and wave modeling have been performed, and a sediment budget has been prepared

for the study area in conjunction with a shoreline erosion study of the Texas coast from Sabine Pass

through Galveston Island (King, 2007; Morang, 2006). These studies have confirmed that the littoral

system in the study area is dominated by fine-grained sediments. The shorelines along Texas and

Louisiana Points are primarily composed of consolidated mud (King, 2007; USACE, 2004a). Farther to

the west, the consolidated mud substrate is overlain by sand veneers and is only occasionally exposed.

Aside from the prevalence of fine-grained sediments along Texas Point, there was no real trend in median

grain sizes in the study area. In Louisiana, the shoreline is similar to those found in Texas for about

2 miles east of the jetty and then it transitions to a sandy beach that reaches toward Ocean View Beach.

Sediment transport and deposition are distinctly different on mud shorelines than on sandy beaches (King,

2007). Once eroded, cohesive sediments (clays and silts) are generally carried in suspension until

deposited in a less-energetic environment (e.g., deeper water outside the surf zone or in wave-sheltered

areas such as quiet bays and estuaries), and so are lost to the littoral system.

On sand beaches, the mobilized sand generally stays within the active profile. This is the primary reason

that most of the world’s beaches are composed of sediments having diameters greater than 0.10 mm. The

depth of closure, or the sedimentologically active zone, has recently been determined to be approximately

19.7 feet deep off the upper Texas coast (King, 2007). Sand deposited any deeper than this point is unable

to move any closer to shore. On the Texas side of Sabine Pass, this is roughly 3 to 4 miles from shore; off

Louisiana Point, this point is roughly 2 to 3 miles from shore.

In regions like the study area that have large supplies of fine-grained sediments, the nearshore seabed can

be blanketed with thick, unconsolidated, gel-like, mud oozes called “fluid mud.” There are numerous

anecdotal reports of the presence of floating rafts of “fluid mud” on the Gulf’s surface west of the

Atchafalaya River mouth in Louisiana, and off Texas Point and Sea Rim State Park (Block, 1984; PIE,

2003). Nearshore, the fluid mud can be trapped against the shoreline by prevailing south and

southwesterly winds, and storms carry the trapped muddy ooze onto the chenier shoreline (Morgan et al.,

1958; Wells and Kemp, 1982, 1986). Accretion of the shoreline can then occur by poorly understood

processes (Huh et al., 1991; King, 2007).

2.5.2.6 Shoreline Descriptions

Jefferson County and Cameron Parish coastlines in the study area are mainland beaches fronting a chenier

plain that formed from a Pleistocene promontory overlain by Holocene marginal deltaic sediments (King,

2007; USACE, 2004a). The upland area adjacent to the coast is a relatively flat, gently sloping terrain

with marsh elevations of 1 to 2 feet mean sea level and ridge elevations of 5 to 6 feet mean sea level.

Saline marsh vegetation covers the upland area behind the eroding shoreface. In the Texas Point NWR, a

fillet of muddy substrate that was created by rapid deposition over approximately the last 100 years lies

seaward of the chenier ridges. For the period between 1883 and 1970, the net accretion was documented

at 2,225 feet (Morton, 1975). The fillet of recent deposits recedes rapidly and disappears approximately

0.5 mile from the West Jetty, where the Chenier Plain again fronts the Gulf until it ends about 18 miles

from Sabine Pass (PIE, 2003).

855
2: Alternatives

2-59

The shoreline in the Texas Point NWR (between Sabine Pass and Sea Rim State Park) is a muddy

shoreface composed of consolidated mud (King, 2007; PIE, 2003). A thin veneer of sand thrown up onto

the marsh edge by storms covers some areas of the mud substrate. Farther west, the Sea Rim State Park

area is a sediment transport convergence zone, and the beach typically has a substantial veneer of sand. In

Louisiana, the coastline for approximately 10 miles east of the jetty contains tidal sand/mudflats, sand

bars and sandy beaches with tidal flats (PBS&J, 2006). A narrow tidal sand/mud flat, ranging from 30 to

450 feet in width, extends for about 1.5 miles east of the jetty, and then transitions to a sandy beach.

These beaches vary in width from 50 to 300 feet and end at an eroded, low mud bank shoreline. A sand

bar is present in the nearshore zone that is the result of the beneficial placement of dredged material by

Cheniere Energy in conjunction with construction of the Sabine Pass LNG facility. The 10-to-150-footwide bar begins about 0.5 mile from the jetty and extends for about 1 mile to the east. It lies roughly

parallel to the shore, between 4,000 and 1,200 feet offshore.

2.5.2.7 Historical Shoreline Change in the Study Area

The northwest Gulf Coast system is sand starved, and essentially no modern-day sand is being delivered

to these beaches (Lee, 2003; Morang, 2006; Morton, 1977). The only coarse-grained sand reaching the

Texas shores appears to originate from the erosion of underlying Pleistocene barrier-strand plain deposits,

which contain lenses of fine-grained and poorly sorted sands in massive clay and silt deposits (Isphording

et al., 1989). The lack of delivery of coarse-grained sand during the modern stillstand has contributed

significantly to shoreline erosion in the area. The very limited coarse-grained load of the Sabine and

Neches rivers is deposited in bay-head deltas in Sabine Lake rather than on the coast (Mason, 1981;

Morang, 2006; USACE, 1971b). Therefore, the limited sand in the northwest Gulf coastal system either

migrated up the shoreface with the Holocene sea rise or was eroded from relict Pleistocene deposits.

Chronic erosion is believed to be associated with the diversion of sand and other sediment resulting from

channelization and regulation of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers to the east, and the Sabine and

Neches rivers in Texas. The Calcasieu and Mermentau rivers also do not supply coarse-grained

sediments, and the Cameron jetties deflect the little material that does exist away from the Holly Beach

area, so that it accumulates to the west at Long Beach, Louisiana’s westernmost sandy beach (LDNR,

1997; USACE, 2004a). The Sabine Pass jetties also intercept sediment moving westward in the littoral

drift, creating a wide, muddy, tidal flat next to the east jetty (PBS&J, 2006; USACE, 2004a). On the

Texas side, a 0.5-mile-wide fillet of silt and mud, located immediately adjacent to the west jetty,

intercepts sediments moving from the west during periodic reversals near Sea Rim State Park in the

dominant longshore movement (PIE, 2003).

Shoreline change has been extensive in this region and continues to be an ongoing problem. In the area

between Ocean View Beach and the Sabine jetties, the shoreline prograded seaward at an average rate of

+12.9 feet/year between 1883 and 1994. Recently, however, accretion has slowed to +1.2 feet/year, and

the behavior of this shoreline has become erratic, with change rates varying between –13.2 and

+14.7 feet/year (USACE, 2004a). East of Ocean View Beach, the 10-mile-long coastline to Holly Beach

fronts a series of chenier and beach ridges that provided a foundation for roadways and commercial

856
2: Alternatives

2-60

development before it was essentially destroyed by Hurricane Rita in 2001. Persistent erosion in this area,

on the order of –4.3 feet/year between 1985 and 1998, was recorded here prior to the hurricane (USACE,

2004a). Hurricane Rita’s storm surge at Louisiana Point was 10.6 feet as recorded by U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) sensors (Farris et al., 2007). The surge deposited 3.3 feet of new sediment on the

Hackberry Beach chenier ridge and inundated thousands of acres of coastal marsh. Bar welding to the

lower shoreface was also evident (Guidroz et al., 2006). Immediately after the storm, hundreds of acres of

marshay cordgrass marsh in Cameron Parish appeared to have been severely impacted by extensive

flooding of high-salinity waters. When the water finally subsided, the vegetation in many areas appeared

dead, and the marsh had areas that were 30 to 50 percent devegetated. Over time, porewater salinity levels

should decline as rainwater flushes salinity from the system (Farris et al., 2007). On the Texas side of

Sabine Pass, a 0.5-mile stretch of shoreline adjacent to the west jetty is aggrading at a rapid rate, but

beyond this narrow zone to the west, is an active erosion zone extending approximately 15 miles to the

vicinity of Sea Rim State Park (Morang, 2006). This eroding stretch of the Jefferson County coastline is

experiencing the largest erosion rate on the upper Texas coast, up to 40 to 50 feet/year (King, 2007). It

has been identified as a “critical erosion area” by the Texas Coastwide Erosion Response Plan because of

threats to traffic safety and wildlife habitat. Shoreline erosion has destroyed a portion of SH 87, an

important hurricane evacuation route, and is eroding coastal wetland habitat at Texas Point and McFaddin

NWRs (GLO, 2004, 2005).

2.5.2.8 Sabine Pass Sediment Budget

New littoral transport rates have recently been calculated for the Sabine Pass littoral zone. The Sabine

Pass sediment budget (Morang, 2006) applied shoreline change statistics that were computed from

changes in sediment volume for littoral cells, using cross-shore profiles that were projected with an

ERDC modeling study (King, 2007). The sediment budget focused on characterizing sediment movement

in the coastal segments of the navigation channel and nearby Texas shoreline. Accurate estimates of the

percentage of total transport that is suspended sediment load from the inshore area were not available. Six

of the 23 cells defined for this study are relevant to this discussion—three cells (the Sabine Pass Channel,

the Sabine Jetty Channel, the Sabine Outer Bar Channel) were used to analyze sediment movement in the

navigation channels through Sabine Pass and past the jetties; three other cells (the Sabine Fillet, Texas

Point NWR, and Sea Rim State Beach) were used to calculate sediment movement along the littoral zone

westward of Sabine Pass. A summary of the sediment budget results is presented in Table 2.5-1.

2.5.2.9 Existing Project Shoaling and Sediment Transport Conditions

The following summary of shoaling and sediment transport conditions for the existing SNWW includes

all segments of the existing SNWW navigation system. The analysis of channel sections covered by the

sediment budget (see Table 2.5-1) is derived primarily from Morang (2006); dredging cycle lengths,

velocity data, average percentages of sediment sizes, and dredging quantities for channel reaches not

covered by the sediment budget were obtained from the SNWW Sediment Study (Parchure et al., 2005);

other supporting analyses are identified as the data are presented. The discussion begins with the upstream

end of the SNWW (the Neches River Channel) and moves downstream through the confined Sabine857
2: Alternatives

2-61

Neches and Port Arthur canals, the Sabine Pass Channel, and then offshore into the Sabine Pass Jetty

Channel, the Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel, and the Sabine Bank Channel. Finally, the interaction of the

channel and adjacent shoreline sections is described.

Table 2.5-1

Sediment Budget for Sabine Pass (adapted from Morang, 2006)*

Cell

Sources and Quantity (1,000

cy per year)

Sinks and Quantity

(1,000 cy per year)

PA/ODMDS and Quantity

(1,000 cy per year)

Sabine Pass Channel

866.7 (approximately 20%

sand) from Port Arthur

Canal and Sabine Lake

274.2 mud and sand into

Jetty Channel 592.5 into PA 5

Sabine Pass Jetty

Channel

274.2 (mud and minor sand)

from Sabine Pass Channel Unknown quantity of finegrained material carried in

suspension offshore

289.1 to ODMDS 4

(dispersed by shelf

circulation, storm and tidal

currents) 14.9 (mud) offshore

Sabine Outer Bar

Channel

Unknown amount from

Sabine Jetty Channel

(possible mud input)

1722.6 to ODMDS 3

(dispersed by shelf

circulation, storm and tidal

currents)

1,722.6 from undetermined

source (littoral sediments

and/or ODMDS)

Sabine Fillet

25.1 longshore transport

from Texas Point NWR

(west)

14.9 longshore transport

(mud & minor sand) to Jetty

Channel

10.2 shoreline growth at

Sabine mud fillet

Texas Point NWR 434.2 from beach erosion

(+90% mud)

152.0 overwash losses

173.7 mud lost offshore

25.1 longshore transport of

mud to east

83.5 longshore transport to

west (sand & shell)

Sea Rim State Beach

83.5 longshore transport

from Texas Point NWR

(east) 117.7 beach growth at Sea

Rim State Beach 34.3 longshore transport

from McFadden NWR

(west)

*Sediment Budget quantities are based on 25 years of data from Galveston District’s Dredging Database. SNWW CIP

without-project shoaling quantities are based on data from 1967 to 2001. A cross check and conversion verified that the

quantities are similar.

858
2: Alternatives

2-62

2.5.2.9.1 Neches River Channel

Dredging cycles on the Neches River Channel vary from 3 to 4 years along the eastern half of the channel

near Sabine Lake to 6 years along the western segment near Beaumont. Approximately 3.1 mcy/cycle are

dredged from eastern channel sections 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 and placed into PAs 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21,

23, and 23A. Approximately 3.3 mcy/cycle are dredged from western channel sections 16, 17, and 18 and

placed in PAs 24, 25, 25A, 26, 27A, 27C, and 27D near Beaumont. Peak ebb and flood velocities are low

(0.8 foot/second and 0.3 foot/second, respectively). Bed sediments average 62 percent silt and clay and

38 percent sand.

2.5.2.9.2 Sabine-Neches and Port Arthur Canals

These canals traverse the confined channel segment between the City of Port Arthur and Pleasure Island.

Sabine-Neches Canal sections 9 and 10 are dredged every 4 years. Approximately 3.7 mcy/cycle are

placed in PAs 8 and 11. Bed sediments average 78 percent silt and clay and 22 percent sand. Port Arthur

Canal Section 7 is dredged every 3 years and approximately 1.8 mcy/cycle are placed in PA 8. Section 8

and the Taylor Bayou Channels and Basins are dredged every 2 years; approximately 2.3 mcy/cycle are

placed in PAs 8, 9, and 9A. Peak ebb and flood velocities are 2.6 and 2.2 feet/second, respectively. Bed

sediments average 84 percent silt and clay and 16 percent sand. The junction of the Port Arthur Canal,

Taylor Bayou Channel, and the Sabine Pass Channel is an existing dredging hot spot, often requiring

dredging more frequently than the 2-year cycle. This is due, at least in part, to a rapid decrease in velocity

as the flows move into the much wider junction. In addition, existing erosion along the channel side of

Pleasure Island may be returning sediment to the system (Parchure et al., 2005).

2.5.2.9.3 The Sabine Pass Channel

Channel sections 5 and 6 are dredged every 3 years and approximately 1.9 mcy/cycle are placed in PA 5.

Bed sediments average 70 percent silt and clay and 30 percent sand. There are no obvious sand sources

because the banks of the channel are low mudflats. Little sand reaches the open coast from the Sabine and

Neches rivers because Sabine Lake is an efficient sediment trap and most of its coarse material is

deposited in the lake or trapped in the lower alluvial reaches of the rivers. Since the dredged material is

removed from the system, some mechanism must be replenishing the sand. It may be delivered to this

channel by unusually high runoff from Sabine Lake or the Port Arthur Canal. Although ebb and flood

velocities are roughly equal through this section, lower velocities are present where Sabine Lake

discharges into the channel; shoaling rates are higher than average around this discharge point. Peak ebb

and flood velocities in the remainder of the channel are 4.0 and 3.2 feet/second, respectively. Negligible

amounts of material come from the littoral system, entering the channel and moving upstream.

Conversely, plumes of fine-grained material can be seen moving through the pass into the Gulf in satellite

images. This material disperses over the continental shelf and does not contribute to the littoral budget.

859
2: Alternatives

2-63

2.5.2.9.4 The Sabine Pass Jetty Channel

Section 4 is self-scouring and needs far less frequent maintenance dredging than the other coastal reaches.

Ebb velocities are high, peaking at about 3.5 feet/second, and flood velocity reaches 3.0 feet/second.

Despite this jetting action, on the average about 1.1 mcy/cycle of dredged material are placed in ODMDS

4 in a 5-year dredging cycle. Sediment delivered by the Sabine Pass Channel is predominantly silt and

some sand, and about 5 percent of the total transport comes from the littoral system. A small boat cut in

the east jetty may allow material carried by the longshore current moving west from Louisiana to enter

the channel (PBS&J, 2004b). Bed samples average 89 percent clay and silt and 11 percent sand. Beforeand after-dredging bathymetry surveys have demonstrated that the material placed offshore in the

ODMDS does not accumulate; it disperses quickly after placement in the offshore environment.

2.5.2.9.5 The Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel

Section 3 is the first 3.4 miles of navigation channel outside of the jetties. Ebb velocities fall rapidly as

the channel discharges over the Outer Bar. Peak ebb velocities fall from about 3.5 feet/second within the

jetties to 2.7 feet/second just beyond the jetties, to 1.3 feet/second near the intersection with the Sabine

Bank Channel. Peak flood velocities of 3.0 feet/second within the jetties fall to 2.4 feet/second just

beyond the jetties, and to 0.4 foot/second at the end of the channel reach. It appears that little material

moves from the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel into the Sabine Outer Bar channel, based upon the balance of

material entering versus what is removed by dredging. Yet, the shoaling rate in this section is very high.

Approximately 1.9 mcy/cycle are removed yearly and placed in ODMDS 4. Bed samples average

96 percent silt and clay and 4 percent sand. The source of the sediment is undetermined. Existing and

proposed ODMDSs are located west of the channel because the mean current flow in this area is

westward most of the year. However, this flow reverses and moves eastward for a month or longer during

the late spring (Rouse et al., 2004). During periods of reversal, sediment may drift back into the channel

from ODMDS 4. However, typical flow patterns move ebb flows to the south/south-southwest just

beyond the jetties, and flood flows generally come from the east (Parchure et al., 2005). Furthermore,

anecdotal accounts from the Sabine Pilots Association report a strong east to west current crossing just

outside the jetties in the vicinity of ODMDS 4 (Webb, 2003).

2.5.2.9.6 The Sabine Bank Channel

Sections 1 and 2 (totaling 6.6 miles long) extend the navigation channel into the open Gulf. They are

dredged every 4 years, and approximately 4.2 mcy/cycle are placed in ODMDSs 1 and 2. Bed sediments

average 76 percent silt and clay and 24 percent sand. Ebb and flood velocities are nearly equal (ranging

between 0.25 and 0.70 foot/second), but the velocity pattern is erratic. Rapid shoaling is not a problem in

this reach, and no other management concerns are known.

2.5.2.9.7 Adjacent Gulf Shorelines

At Louisiana Point, the littoral current has supplied sufficient sediment in the recent past to cause

shoreline progradation between Ocean View Beach and the Sabine jetties (USACE, 2004a), and create a

860
2: Alternatives

2-64

wide tidal mudflat against the jetty (PBS&J, 2006). Some fine-grained sediment from this westward

littoral current may be entering the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel through a small boat cut in the east jetty

(PBS&J, 2004b).

All but the easternmost wedge of Texas Point (the Sabine Fillet) is undergoing severe beach erosion, with

shoreline retreat of up to 1,150 feet between 1974 and 2000. Shoreface sediment losses are approximately

434,200 cy/year (see Table 2.5-1). Longshore transport to the west carries 20 percent to Sea Rim State

Beach (PIE, 2003), 35 percent is lost to overwash, and 40 percent is carried offshore. Approximately 6

percent moves eastward, carried by periodic reversals in the dominant longshore current (King, 2007;

PIE, 2003). The west jetty intercepts about 40 percent of the total eastward transport, creating a 1⁄2-milewide fillet of silt and mud against the jetty; the remainder is carried into the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel.

In contrast to Texas Point, Sea Rim State Beach is located in a convergence zone and receives

117,700 cy/year (see Table 2.5-1) of littoral material from both the east and west. About 70 percent is

carried by longshore transport from the east at Texas Point, and 30 percent comes from McFaddin NWR

to the west. The accreting beach is composed of sand (0.10 to 0.14 mm in size) and shell fragments,

underlain by mud.

2.5.3 Analysis of Sediment-related Problems and Opportunities

This section describes RSM problems and opportunities that were identified by the SNWW study and

presents the results of a preliminary screening that was designed to identify potential beneficial uses for

the dredged material that would be generated with the Preferred Alternative.

The principles of RSM were applied to ensure that the dredged material arising from the SNWW CIP

would be viewed as a valuable resource, integral to economic viability and environmental sustainability

of the region. In developing the DMMP for the project, this study searched for opportunities to achieve

savings by defining sediment-related problems, coordinating projects, and identifying opportunities for

beneficial use (Martin, 2002). The large quantities of dredged material that would be generated by the

Preferred Alternative created an ideal opportunity for the exploration of the beneficial use of dredged

material. A series of public workshops and extensive ICT consultation evaluated a wide array of

opportunities to use dredged material beneficially (GEC, 2002; Turner Collie & Braden, 2003).

A variety of private stakeholders, State and Federal resource agencies, and USACE engineering and

scientific experts identified the following existing and FWOP sediment-related problems in the region:

• Lack of sand in the littoral system

• Interruption to the littoral system caused by SNWW jetties

• Extensive shoreline erosion at Texas Point

• Erratic accretion and erosion at Louisiana Point

• Rapid shoaling in the Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel

• Rapid shoaling in the Port Arthur Junction

861
2: Alternatives

2-65

• Erosion of west side of Pleasure Island

• Erosion of Sabine Lake eastern shore

• Lack of sediment recharge to, and continuing loss of, sediment from emergent marshes

The following FWP impacts that could potentially be addressed with the beneficial use of dredged

material or other project elements were also identified:

• Project impacts associated with the creation of new ODMDSs for the Extension Channel

• Project impacts associated with the creation of new upland PAs to accommodate new work

material and increased quantities of maintenance material over the period of analysis

• Project impacts associated with a small increase in Gulf Coast shore erosion within 3.5 miles of

each jetty

• Project impacts to cypress-tupelo swamps and intertidal marshes from reductions in biological

productivity due to project-induced salinity increases and marsh loss

• Additional advance maintenance due to a higher than average increase in shoaling in the Sabine

Pass Outer Bar Channel, one section of the Sabine Pass Channel, the Port Arthur Junction, and

portions of the Neches River Channel

2.5.3.1 Preliminary Screening – Features Eliminated From Consideration

Opportunities to use dredged material beneficially to address these sediment-related concerns were

suggested by public workshop participants and the ICT and/or developed by the USACE technical

studies. These suggestions resulted in the evaluation of a wide array of BU features, which could reduce

or avoid salinity impacts, restore or replace degraded wetlands, create new terrestrial or marine habitat,

and return sediment to the littoral zone. Table 2.5-2 lists all features that were considered and eliminated

during preliminary screening and the reason for dropping them from further consideration. The

incremental cost estimates presented in the table were developed during preliminary screening; they are

based upon 2005 cost levels and use $2.05/gallon for marine diesel. Incremental costs are the additional

costs that would be needed to use the material beneficially, over and above the normal costs of dredging

and placement in designated PAs or ODMDSs. It is likely that the actual costs would be much higher than

estimated here.

The feasibility of using new work and/or maintenance material was considered for all features. In the

analysis for the inshore reaches, PA containment levee construction was the first priority for the use of

new work material, followed by beneficial use opportunities. In the offshore reaches, opportunities for

beneficial use of new work material were evaluated and eliminated before material was committed to

existing and proposed ODMDSs. For maintenance material in both inshore and offshore reaches, priority

was given to beneficial use if it could be demonstrated to be the least-cost alternative.

862
2: Alternatives

2-66

Table 2.5-2

Dredged Material Beneficial Use Features Eliminated from Consideration

Feature Description Reason for Elimination

Hydrologic Restoration

Marsh islands isolating Sabine-Neches Canal from

Sabine Lake

Increased salinities in Black Bayou and up the Sabine River

Marshes constricting flow at mouth of Sabine Lake

(north and south of SH 82 swing bridge)

Ineffective at reducing salinities

Increases velocities through mouth of Sabine Lake

Marshes constricting flow along the side of the Port

Arthur Canal

Ineffective at reducing salinities

High cost relative to amount of marsh acres created

Construction of channel islands blocking flow from

bayous emptying Neches River marshes at Rose City

and Bessie Heights

Potential to cause backwater flooding

Obstructed channel access for private landowners

Navigation safety concerns

Filling canal at Texas Bayou using new work

material from Sabine Pass Channel

Ineffective at reducing salinities because access still provided by

Texas Bayou

Emergent Marsh Restoration

Marsh restoration using new work material from

Neches River Channel to restore marsh in Rose City

West

Area is being developed as a mitigation bank; no longer

available for restoration

Marsh restoration using new work material from

Neches River Channel to restore marsh in Bessie

Heights West

Would be feasible but cost exceeds Traditional Placement Plan

Preliminary estimate of incremental cost – $581K

Sponsor has not been identified

Marsh restoration using new work material along the

east shore of PAs 8 and 11 at Pleasure Island

Unacceptable location; interferes with levee maintenance

Marsh restoration at Old River Cove, east of power

plant inflow channel, using new work material from

the Neches River Channel

Would be feasible but cost exceeds Traditional Placement Plan

Preliminary estimate of incremental cost – $472K

Sponsor has not been identified

Marsh restoration north of Keith Lake using

maintenance material from Port Arthur Canal

Would be feasible but cost exceeds Base Plan

Preliminary estimate of incremental cost – $300K

Sponsor has not been identified

Marsh restoration in Texas Point NWR using new

work material from Sabine Pass Channel to restore

marsh behind subsided jetty section.

Would be feasible but cost exceeds Traditional Placement Plan

Preliminary estimate of incremental cost – $445K

Sponsor has not been identified

Wildlife Habitat Creation

Bird island constructed in Sabine Lake using new

work material from Sabine-Neches Canal

Would be feasible but cost exceeds Traditional Placement Plan

Preliminary estimate of incremental cost – $1.9 million

Sponsor has not been identified

Returning Sediment to Littoral Zone

Texas or Louisiana Point shore nourishment using

new work material from Section 5 of the Sabine Pass

Channel

Would be feasible but cost exceeds Traditional Placement Plan

Preliminary estimate of incremental cost – $6.6 million

Sponsor has not been identified

Texas or Louisiana Point shore nourishment using

new work material from sections 5 and 6 of the

Sabine Pass Channel

Would be feasible but cost exceeds Traditional Placement Plan

Preliminary estimate of incremental cost – $19.5 million

Sponsor has not been identified

Stockpiling new work material from Extension

channel for future beneficial use

Not feasible because material would disperse rapidly and not be

available for use at a later date

Transporting sediment from new work dredging of

the Extension Channel to the Texas or Louisiana

littoral zone

Would be feasible but cost exceeds Traditional Placement Plan

Preliminary estimate of incremental cost – $86.3 million

Sponsor has not been identified

Marine Habitat Restoration

Construction of topographic high in littoral zone

with new work material

Topographic elevation would be temporary

Incremental costs ($268 million) make it economically infeasible

863
2: Alternatives

2-67

Given the large amount of dredged material that would be generated with the proposed project,

considerable effort was expended to identify areas that could benefit from its beneficial use. All degraded

marsh areas near the SNWW were investigated to determine whether least-cost beneficial use features

could be developed. No interior marsh areas in need of nourishment or restoration were identified

adjacent to Sabine Pass in Louisiana. Areas in Louisiana that could benefit from beneficial use of dredged

material are all located in the marshes east of Sabine Lake. However, these were found to be too distant

from the navigation channel to permit cost-effective use of dredged material from the SNWW navigation

channels. Numerous degraded marshes in Texas with potential for beneficial use were identified adjacent

to the navigation channel. They are located in the Texas Point NWR adjacent to the Sabine Pass Channel,

in the J.D. Murphree WMA adjacent to the Sabine-Neches Canal, and in areas of the Neches River WMA

and private lands adjacent to the Neches River Channel. The Gulf shoreline at Texas and Louisiana Points

is close enough to the navigation channel to allow cost-effective beneficial use of dredged material. The

shoreline on the Texas side of Sabine Pass was also identified as a high priority area for beneficial use

because of high ongoing erosion in this area.

Several hydrologic restoration features that were intended to prevent higher FWP salinities in portions of

the study area were eliminated early in the screening process. They were modeled using the HS model

and found to be either ineffective at reducing salinities or to have significant unintended impacts. For

example, marsh islands constructed with new work material were proposed as a means of isolating the

salinity wedge in the Sabine-Neches Canal from Sabine Lake. Modeling determined that the islands did

block the flow into the lake, but forced a salinity wedge to travel up the Sabine River Channel, potentially

affecting cypress-tupelo swamps in that watershed. Other proposed BU features that were unsuccessful in

reducing salinities are described in Table 2.5-2.

A large number of conceptual designs for emergent marsh restoration throughout the study area were

initially identified as possible compensatory mitigation measures. Because of their proximity to the

navigation channel, several marsh restoration features in Texas were also evaluated to determine whether

they would be less costly than traditional placement. Only the Neches River and Gulf Shore BU features

were determined to be less costly than using upland PAs for new work (Traditional Placement Plan) or

maintenance material (Base Plan). These features and the cost analysis are presented in detail later in this

chapter. Marsh restoration features considered but eliminated included marsh restoration in Texas Point

NWR using new work material from the Port Arthur Canal or the Sabine Pass Channel, and at Bessie

Heights West using new work material from the Neches River Channel. Another feature used new work

material for marsh restoration in the part of Old River Cove marsh that lies east of the intake canal. All

were found to be feasible but more costly that traditional upland placement. The preliminary incremental

costs for these features were relatively low, ranging from $300,000 to $581,000, but no sponsor has been

identified to share the incremental cost.

The creation of new wildlife habitat using new work material from the Sabine-Neches Canal was also

explored. This feature would provide needed nesting habitat for colonial waterbird species such as

cormorant, pelican, heron, egret, spoonbill, gull, tern, and skimmer. These birds regularly nest in large

numbers along the Texas and Louisiana coasts, frequently on bay islands, both natural and manmade.

864
2: Alternatives

2-68

Despite the presence of excellent waterbird habitat in the Sabine NWR, no colonies have been

documented in Louisiana within the study area. The lack of isolated, predator-free islands is believed to

be a primary cause for this lack of nesting habitat. It was proposed that an island be constructed in the

middle of Sabine Lake with new work material from the Sabine-Neches Canal. This feature was

eliminated when the cost was found to be approximately $2 million higher than the use of traditional

upland PAs, and no sponsor was identified to share the incremental cost.

Several features were evaluated that would return sediment normally placed in upland PAs or ODMDSs

to the littoral zone. Conceptual plans were developed for shore nourishment at Texas and Louisiana

Points using new work material from Section 5 or sections 5 and 6 of the Sabine Pass Channel. The

features were found to be feasible but cost $6.6 and $19.5 million, respectively, more than upland

placement in PA 5. Stockpiling dredged material in ODMDS 4 for later use was also investigated. Like all

other SNWW ODMDSs, material placed at this site disperses quickly after placement. Although it is

closest to shore, the dispersed material in ODMDS 4 is not likely to migrate into the littoral zone because

it is located beyond the depth of closure. It is expected that any material stockpiled within ODMDS 4

would be unavailable for use within 3 months of placement. Since stockpiling assumes that the beneficial

use need will not be immediate or short term, it was concluded that this feature is not a viable alternative.

Transporting and discharging coarser-grained sediments from the new work dredging of the Extension

Channel (stations 117+000 to 146+000) into the littoral zone offshore of Texas or Louisiana Point was

also evaluated. A hopper dredge with pump-out capability could be used to dredge the channel, move as

close as possible to shore, and pump the material via a connecting pipeline to a discharge point within the

14-foot-depth contour. Discharging the material at or inshore of the depth of closure should guarantee the

reintroduction of sediments within the littoral zone, where natural processes will beneficially distribute

the sediments. It is estimated that the incremental cost of this action would be about $86.3 million. While

feasible, this BU feature is much more costly than placement in the proposed ODMDSs B and C. No

sponsor has been identified to share the incremental cost of the feasible BU features discussed above.

The creation of new marine habitat in the form of a “topographic high” offshore of Louisiana Point was

also investigated. This feature would involve the beneficial use of new work material from the deepened

Sabine Bank and Extension channels to create a new refuge or feeding locale for fish and shrimp. The

material would be dredged as usual with a hopper dredge and then transported far enough upcurrent to

prevent redeposition in the navigation channel. The material would be dropped in mounds forming a

series of rows over a large area, roughly 2.0 by 2.5 miles. The actual ecological benefits of such a feature

off the Texas coast have not been demonstrated. A similar feature was constructed outside of Galveston

Bay, but no monitoring was conducted to determine whether any benefits accrued. In addition, the feature

would be temporary because the dispersive processes acting on the ODMDSs would also be present here.

It was eliminated from further consideration when it was estimated that the incremental cost of the

temporary habitat would be approximately $268 million.

865
2: Alternatives

2-69

2.5.3.2 Detailed Evaluation of Disposal Features

After the preliminary screening, BU features that appeared to be least-cost alternatives for the beneficial

use of dredged material in reducing with-project salinities, restoring marsh, or providing shoreline

nourishment were advanced for detailed evaluation. Water and sediment sampling and bioaccumulation

studies have established that dredged material from all SNWW navigation channels is suitable for

beneficial use (PBS&J, 1999, 2002, 2004a). The ecological benefits of the following beneficial use

features were evaluated and quantified using the WVA model, and these benefits were used to minimize

project impacts as described below. A description of the WVA model is provided in Chapter 4. In

addition, numerous existing upland PAs were evaluated for use with the Preferred Alternative. All BU

alternatives to ODMDSs were eliminated during the preliminary screening. Existing and proposed

ODMDS sites were therefore evaluated for the placement of all material from the offshore channel

reaches.

2.5.3.2.1 Neches River BU Feature

Three former marsh areas on the Neches River have been combined into one large management feature,

called the Neches River BU Feature (Figure 2.5-1), to provide flexibility in the use of new work and

maintenance material from the several construction reaches of the Neches River Channel. The primary

objective of this combination feature would be to beneficially utilize dredged material to restore emergent

marsh in an area that has suffered dramatic, widespread loss of marsh. The BU feature would utilize new

work and maintenance material that would otherwise be removed from the sediment system and stored in

upland, confined placement areas.

The Neches River BU Feature would offset all indirect salinity impacts to Texas wetland habitats on the

Neches and Sabine rivers (Hydrologic Units [HUs] TX 3 through TX 8, and TX 10 through TX 13) by

restoring 2,853 acres of emergent marsh, improving 871 acres of shallow water by creating shallower

ponds and interconnecting channels, and nourishing 1,234 acres of existing fringing marsh by winnowing

fine-grained material from unconfined flows of dredged material effluent (Table 2.5-3). The BU feature

thus provides benefits to a total of 4,958 acres of degraded marsh on the lower Neches River, or

53 percent of the restoration target set by the CEPRA 2004 plan update for the lower Neches River (GLO,

2004). The BU feature also offsets the direct impact of converting 86 acres of freshwater wetlands to a

confined placement area (PA 24A). The size of the Neches River BU Feature components and the

magnitude of their ecological benefits are made possible by the large amounts of dredged material that

will be generated by the proposed project and extensive opportunities for beneficial use in the project

area.

866
Neches River BU Features

Bessie

Heights

East

Old

River

Cove

Rose City

East

Figure 2.5-1

Neches River

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 100007609Prepared by: 18827

N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/Figures/Fig_2_5_1.mxd

Scale: 1 inch equals 8,750 feet

Date: 08/10/2009

BU Feature

BEAUMONT

Neches River

. 0 8,750 17,500 Feet Rose City East Bessie Heights East Old River Cove Hydrologic Unit

2-70

867
2: Alternatives

2-71

Table 2.5-3

Acreage Restored by Each Component of Neches River BU Feature

Components of

the Neches River BU Feature

Restored

Emergent Marsh

Improved ShallowWater HabitatNourished

Existing Marsh

Total Influence

Area

Rose City East 345 72 151 568

Bessie Heights East 1,869 660 651 3,180

Old River Cove West 639 139 432 1,210

Total 2,853 871 1,234 4,958

2.5.3.2.2 Gulf Shore BU Feature

The use of dredged material was also evaluated for Gulf shoreline nourishment at Texas and Louisiana

Points (Figure 2.5-2). Over the 50-year period of analysis, maintenance material would be hydraulically

pumped from Section 5 of the adjacent Sabine Pass Channel onto a total of 6 miles of shoreline on both

sides of Sabine Pass. Some material is expected to flow over existing marsh while the remainder will flow

into nearshore waters. Material placement during each 3-year Sabine Pass Channel dredging cycle would

alternate between Texas and Louisiana, so that material would be placed on each state’s shoreline every

6 years. This recurring action would nourish eroding marsh, minimize projected FWP shoreline impacts,

and potentially create new marsh. As this BU feature is located within the Texas Point NWR, USACE has

requested that the USFWS prepare a compatibility determination for the proposed activity. See

correspondence dated January 23, 2007, in Appendix A1 of the FEIS.

Texas Point is undergoing severe beach erosion, with shoreline retreat of up to 1,150 feet between 1974

and 2000 (King, 2007; Morang, 2006). This is the highest rate of shoreline loss on the upper Texas coast

and a CEPRA “critical erosion area” (GLO, 2005). In Louisiana, persistent erosion along the shoreline

between Ocean View and Holly Beach, on the order of –4.3 feet/year between 1985 and 1998, was

recorded here prior to Hurricane Rita (USACE, 1971a, 2004a). Nearer to Louisiana Point, significant

accretion over the last 100 years has slowed to +1.2 feet/year, and the behavior of this shoreline has

become erratic, with some areas eroding and some aggrading (USACE, 2004a).

Historic dredging records indicate that the maintenance material from Sabine Pass will average 51 percent

silt, 31 percent clay, and 18 percent fine sand (USACE dredging data base). This mix of materials does

not contain typical beach-quality sand, but the material types and composition are similar to what is

present on the shorelines today. Narrow beach fronts of silt or clay lie seaward of eroding overwash

marsh terraces (PBS&J, 2006). Given the unusual characteristics of this sand-starved system, returning

the material to the littoral system is likely to have a net beneficial effect, regardless of material type. The

longshore transport in this system contains primarily fine-grained sediments, but these sediments have

been shown to accumulate in the near shore zone and result in shoreline accretion by, as yet, poorly

understood processes (King, 2007; Morang, 2006).

868
. 2 0 2 1 Miles

Figure 2.5-!

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 044198800Prepared by: A. Christiansen

File: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/044198000/figures/Fig2_5_3_vr2.mxd

Scale: 1:93,500

Date: 04/28/2008

Shoreline NourishmentHydrologic Unit

Gulf Shoreline Nourishment

(Texas Point)

Gulf Shoreline Nourishment

(Louisiana Point)

Port Arthur Canal

Sabine

Lake

Sabine Pass Channel

TX 7

TX 9

TX 8

LA 5

LA 6

Gulf Shore BU Feature

2-72

869
2: Alternatives

2-73

The Gulf Shore BU Feature will provide a regular source of predominantly fine-grained sediment that

should contribute to mudflat accretion and periodically move onshore to become shore-attached through a

process described by PIE (2003). On the western Louisiana and east Texas coasts, sediments accumulate

as mudflats and underwater mudshoals (or “fluid mud”) in the nearshore region. Nearshore, fluid mud can

be trapped against the shoreline by prevailing south and southwesterly winds, and storms carry the

trapped muddy ooze onto the chenier shoreline. The northwest Gulf is a microtidal, storm-dominated

environment. In a typical year there are about 20 to 30 frontal passages generating waves, surges, and

wind-driven currents, with most frequent waves from the southeast about 3 to 4.5 feet in height (PIE,

2003).

Mudflat accretion on the western Louisiana coast appears to correlate with periods of high sediment

influx from the Atchafalaya River and the passage of large storm systems. Up to 1,000 feet of accretion

along a 4.5-mile segment of shoreline in western Louisiana occurred over a few days during the passage

of Hurricane Aubrey (Morgan et al., 1958). Another study reports that accretion in western Louisiana

occurs most frequently during storms and that it can be very rapid (Wells and Kemp, 1986). Huh et al.

(1991) report that surge deposits of gel-like mud become stranded on the upper shoreface during storms.

These deposits can dry and crack, forming mud cobbles that help to armor the shoreline. Fluid mud and

mudflat accretion at the shoreline has also been observed on the Jefferson County shoreline. At Sea Rim

State Beach in June 2002 (PIE, 2003), shoreline features were observed that resembled the storm surge

deposits of fluid mud and mud cobbles reported above.

The presence of additional fine-grained sediments in the littoral system that will be provided by the BU

feature should reduce the current erosion rate and minimize the small increase in shore erosion predicted

with the project (Gravens and King, 2003). In systems that have an abundant supply of fine-grained

sediments, the nearshore seabed can be blanketed with fluid mud. The presence of additional muddy

sediment in the nearshore environment may attenuate waves and lessen wave-induced erosion (Hsiao and

Shemdin, 1980; Tubman and Suhayda, 1976; Wells and Kemp, 1986). There are also anecdotal reports of

Gulf areas off Louisiana and Texas Points being safe havens for vessels during storms due to the neartotal attenuation of waves (Block, 1984; King, 2007; Wells and Kemp, 1986).

The BU dredged material is expected to be composed largely of unconsolidated muds. These fine-grained

sediments are expected to initially be highly mobile and some portion of the material will be rapidly lost

from the vicinity of the shoreline. As demonstrated by another BU project at Texas Point (USACE, 2000),

a significant percentage will also flow onshore and nourish existing marsh along the eroding beachfront.

Because of the prevailing wave climate, the mobile material within the surf zone should generally migrate

to the west at both Texas and Louisiana Points (Wamsley, 2008). Transport processes identified by the

Sabine Pass sediment budget (Morang, 2006) indicate that the material would move toward the eroding

shoreline at Texas Point. There, the additional fine-grained sediments could lower erosion rates through

the mudflat accretion and wave attenuation processes described above. A small quantity of material may

migrate to the east and contribute to the Sabine fillet at the west jetty (King, 2007; Morang, 2006).

870
2: Alternatives

2-74

In Louisiana, the sand bar formed by BU sediments from the Cheniere LNG project may shelter the

shoreline from wave energy sufficiently to allow fine-grained sediments to form a mudflat behind the

sandbar (Nairn and Willis, 2002). While a significant percentage will be rapidly carried offshore, some is

likely to move downcoast with the littoral current, enlarging the sand and mudflat already present at the

east jetty. Potential impacts of elevated levels of total suspended solids (TSS) are expected to be similar to

those that resulted from the Cheniere LNG BU project (PBS&J, 2004b). A temporary increase in

suspended silt/clay was expected during the first 8 to 9 months following placement. After the termination

of placement activities, TSS was expected to decrease for about 18 months when concentrations reached

background levels. Modeling conducted for the Cheniere project indicated that it will take 9 years before

the silt and clay component of Cheniere BU material become totally suspended and are removed from the

littoral zone. Since the Gulf Shore BU Feature proposes a placement episode every 6 years, all the finegrained sediments would not have been removed before new material is added. This should result in the

retention of some portion of the fine-grained sediment, and thus facilitate mudflat accretion through the

processes described above. During and after each placement episode, most of the resuspended silt and

clay are expected to enter the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel through the shallow boat cut, but deposition in

the channel is not expected. It should remain in suspension and be transported back into the Gulf.

Although the BU sediments will be largely fine grained, approximately 18 percent of maintenance

material is expected to be sand. Sands that are deposited on shore will nourish and stabilize eroding

marshes; sand deposited in the nearshore zone should stay in the nearshore environment, moving back

and forth across the shoreface (Wamsley, 2008). Sand placed at Louisiana Point should remain on the

shoreface where it was deposited; no significant amounts of sand are expected to enter the Jetty Channel.

On erosive mud shorelines like those in the BU area, the sand percentage should increase and it will form

sandy lenses or a veneer over the mud shoreline substrate. As the sand lenses thicken, the sands help

protect the underlying mud from further erosion (Nairn, 1992). However, in smaller quantities, sand can

also accelerate erosion of a mud beach. If the consolidated mud is not covered by a sand veneer, any sand

that is mobilized by wave action will act as a scouring agent (King, 2007).

It is acknowledged that the behavior of the BU sediments within this complex littoral system cannot be

predicted with certainty over the period of analysis, especially given the potential for strong storms to

affect the coastal environment. However, there is sufficient knowledge of general processes and baseline

conditions to support evaluation of potential impacts and benefits. Furthermore, the engineering

feasibility and potential environmental benefits have been demonstrated by successful recent BU projects

at Texas and Louisiana Points (PBS&J, 2004b; USACE, 2000). All of this information was used to

establish explicit assumptions about the expected behavior of the BU material in the quantification of

project impacts and benefits using the WVA model, as described in Appendix C of the FEIS. The WVA

model analysis assumed that 60 percent of the pumped quantity will remain in the existing marsh and on

the shallow nearshore slope in front of the existing shorefront immediately after material placement.

Since the material is unconsolidated and prone to erosion, only 50 percent of that material was assumed to

remain by the end of each 6-year cycle. It was further assumed that the regular addition of material every

6 years would slow the resuspension of fine sediments and result in the accumulation of some new marsh

871
2: Alternatives

2-75

by the end of the period of analysis. No attempt was made to account for the effect of large storm

systems. No long-term impacts to vegetation or benthic sediments were assumed to result from

nourishment episodes. NWR personnel reported that the marsh vegetation at Texas Point rebounded

quickly and with renewed vigour after being covered with up to 1 foot of material by the Texas Point BU

project (Walther, 2005). Potential impacts to Critical Habitat for the wintering piping plover are expected

to be beneficial in the long term, with short-term displacement during disposal activities. Benthic

invertebrate fauna residing in the intertidal and tidal impact zones will be smothered, but studies have

shown the impact to be similar to that resulting from natural events such as storms and hurricanes

(Saloman and Naughton, 1977; Simon and Dauer, 1977). Following the burial, the resident species should

recover quickly because of their short life cycle, high reproductive potential and the rapid recruitment of

larvae and motile macrofauna from nearby unaffected areas (Nelson and Pullen, 1988).

2.5.3.3 Upland Placement Features

2.5.3.3.1 Existing Active PAs

Existing PAs were evaluated to determine whether they possessed sufficient capacity for new work and

maintenance material over the 50-year period of analysis. All of the upland PAs were reviewed by the

ICT for potential impacts to environmental resources, and no further environmental review was

recommended for existing PAs that were in active use. Existing and proposed upland PAs are shown on

figures 2.4-1d–g.

2.5.3.3.2 Existing Inactive PAs

Field visits were made to existing PAs that had been inactive in recent years (PAs 23A, 26, 27C, and

27D). Inactive PAs were visited to determine whether habitat and connectivity had developed since their

last use such that they were contributing to the function of adjacent wetlands. No field visits or further

review of new PA 18A and inactive PA 25A were recommended by the HW as they were known to

contain low-quality, upland habitat. Observations made during the field visits are summarized below.

Existing PA 23A (269 acres) is a leveed upland area east of PA 23, covered by a secondary growth of

tallow and black willow forest. Existing PA 26 (192 acres) is a leveed oxbow of the Neches River south

of Rose City; it is covered primarily with cattail, phragmites, and palmetto in low spots and yaupon (Ilex

vomitoria), privet, pine, and tallow on slightly higher elevations. Existing PA 27C (87 acres) is located on

the upland west of Rose City, southwest of 27A and south of 27D. It is covered by a secondary upland

forest of mixed loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), water oak (Quercus nigra), and sweetgum (Liquidamber

styraciflua); most of the larger trees have been wind-thrown by recent storm events. Existing PA 27D

(35 acres) is a leveed upland area adjacent to 27A. Its water table is kept artificially high by runoff from

an adjacent industrial facility. This artificial water table supports dense California bulrush, fringed on the

eastern side by a narrow corridor of second-growth cypress, sweetgum, and tallow. Both 27C and 27D are

situated on the north side of the Neches River opposite the Beaumont Turning Basin. All of these areas

have been modified extensively by past placement activities and associated levee systems that have

artificially altered the hydrology. Surrounding levees hold water and isolate the areas from adjacent

872
2: Alternatives

2-76

waterbodies, preventing them from contributing to the function of the adjacent wetlands and riparian

corridor. All contain degraded habitat with low habitat values, primarily roosting habitat for birds and

some wildlife cover. Renewed use of these areas would not constitute a significant adverse change to the

existing environmental condition.

2.5.3.3.3 Areas Considered for PA Expansion

The quantities of dredged material projected for the Preferred Alternative necessitated additional PA

capacity. Areas adjacent to existing PAs 14, 16, and 24 were evaluated to determine their suitability as

PAs. The proposed expansion areas were designated as PAs 14A, 16A, 18A, and 24A. The HW evaluated

these areas with aerial photographs and field inspections; descriptions and evaluations provided below

were based upon those observations.

PA 14A (82 acres) is located south of existing PA 14, on the south side of the Neches River near its

mouth. It is a relatively undisturbed wet meadow of marshhay cordgrass (Spartina patens) containing

numerous small ponds. The area floods during seasonally high tides and heavy storms, providing

intermittent hydrologic connectivity to the riparian corridor. It provides habitat for numerous native

wildlife species and is covered by a valuable intermediate wetland. It was determined that use of this area

would be a significant adverse change to existing conditions. The USACE reevaluated needs along the

lower Neches River and dropped it from further consideration for use as a PA.

PA 16A (202 acres) is located west of existing PA 16 on the south side of the Neches River near its

mouth. It is covered by intermediate marsh and crisscrossed by shallow streams and small ponds. It has

never been leveed and receives tidal circulation through a natural bayou connecting to the Neches River

and the Star Lake Canal, which forms its western boundary. Dominant wetland plants are marshhay

cordgrass, several varieties of bulrush, cattail, and widgeon-grass (Ruppia maritima). The vegetation

community and hydrologic connectivity to adjacent wetlands in the riparian corridor make this a highquality native marsh providing important habitat for native fish and wildlife. The USACE determined that

use of this area would be a significant adverse change to existing conditions. The EPA includes the 16A

area in a preliminary area of concern for the Star Lake Canal Superfund Site (EPA, 2006). An EPA

feasibility study to determine the nature and extent of contamination is under way. The area has been

dropped from further consideration for use as a PA.

PA 18A (71 acres) is located north of existing PA 18. It is a disturbed upland area containing low-quality

scrub habitat. Based upon HW review of an aerial photograph of the proposed expansion area and

knowledge of the area, the area was determined to be suitable for use as a PA.

PA 24A (187 acres) is located north of the Maritime Administration’s Reserve Fleet area. The area

contains a central upland ridge with surrounding wetland components. The northern portion of the area is

hydrologically connected to the Neches River, but hydrologic connections to the southern half of the site

are restricted by prior levee and road construction. Wetlands in the area contain small open-water pockets

but are primarily densely vegetated with California bulrush (Scirpus californicus), common reed

(Phragmites australis), and marshhay cordgrass. Observed aquatic vegetation in shallow-water ditches

873
2: Alternatives

2-77

includes common salvinia (Salvinia minima), water smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides), and white

pond lily (Nyphaea odorata). Ninety-five percent of the overstory on the upland ridge is a secondary

growth of invasive Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum) with occasional bald cypress (Taxodium

distichum), red maple (Acer rubra), sweetgum, and American holly (I. opaca) composing about 5 percent

of the overstory. The upland ridge is not hydrologically connected to adjacent riparian habitat and has

very little mast forage. Wildlife value is limited to roosting habitat for birds and some wildlife cover.

Wetlands in the northern portion and in swales surrounding the upland ridge are a higher quality fresh

marsh habitat; the majority of the marshhay cordgrass wetland is located in the northern section. In order

to minimize impacts to wetlands, the USACE redrew the proposed boundary of the PA to exclude

144 acres of the marshhay cordgrass in the northern section, reducing the proposed PA from 331 acres to

187 acres.

The proposed project’s need for PA capacity in this reach of the SNWW requires that 86 acres of the

lower quality wetlands in the southern portion of the area be converted to an upland PA. Impacts to the

upland ridge would not constitute a significant adverse change to the existing environmental condition

because of the low quality of that habitat. The conversion of 86 acres of freshwater wetlands to a confined

PA is included in the predicted impacts of the Preferred Alternative. The WVA model quantified the loss

of marsh function and acres due to this conversion as a loss of 32 AAHUs. The impact is fully offset by

benefits of the DMMP Neches River BU Feature.

2.5.3.4 ODMDS Features

Four ODMDSs (Nos. 1–4, see Figure 2.4-1b) are currently in use for the existing SNWW project.

Alternatives for the placement of new work material and the increase in maintenance material resulting

from the construction of a deeper and longer offshore channel have been evaluated in an ODMDS Site

Designation FEIS, which is included as Appendix B to this FEIS. Appendix B evaluates alternatives for

the selection of new ODMDSs, including the use of the existing ODMDSs for the proposed CIP and

beneficial use sites.

The existing ODMDSs were evaluated to determine whether they could accommodate all new work and

maintenance material from the Preferred Alternative. Although it was determined that they were large

enough to hold all the material, the 13.2-mile length of the channel extension would make the cost of

hauling all new work and maintenance material to existing ODMDSs prohibitively expensive.

Designation of four new ODMDSs (Nos. A–D, see Figure 2.4-1a) will be necessary. The best locations

for the new sites were determined using the “zone of siting feasibility” screening technique, which

delineates economically feasible sites that are sufficiently removed from ecologically sensitive or

incompatible use areas to eliminate or minimize adverse impacts.

The ODMDSs FEIS found no significant environmental impacts related to the use of existing and

proposed ODMDS sites for the SNWW Preferred Alternative. Analysis of northwestern Gulf circulation

patterns confirmed that the existing and proposed ODMDSs were properly located on the west side of the

navigation channel. Before- and after-dredging bathymetry surveys have demonstrated that the material

874
2: Alternatives

2-78

placed offshore in the ODMDS does not accumulate; it disperses quickly after placement in the offshore

environment.

The USACE and EPA have cooperated in the preparation of an FEIS for the proposed ODMDSs; this

document is Appendix B of the FEIS. Public comment on the proposed ODMDSs was requested

concurrently with comments on the SNWW CIP. If the FFR and FEIS are approved by the USACE and

the Recommended Plan is authorized by the U.S. Congress, the EPA will publish a rule-making in the

Federal Register that establishes SNWW ODMDSs A, B, C, and D for use in conjunction with

construction and operation of the 48-foot project.

2.5.4 Incremental Environmental Impacts and Benefits of the

DMMP

Incremental DMMP impacts of the proposed 48-foot project are discussed in detail in Section 4 of the

FEIS, but are summarized here. The incremental impact consists of marsh lost with construction of one

new upland placement cell (PA 24A), low-quality scrub habitat lost with the construction of another

upland placement area (PA 18), and four new ODMDSs (A–D). No impacts are anticipated with

improvements to existing upland PAs that are needed to provide additional capacity for the 50-year period

of analysis, since improvements are limited to increasing containment levee heights. The DMMP BU

features have net ecological benefits that are described below.

2.5.4.1 Methods and Objectives

The DMMP BU features described above provide ecological benefits, which offset project impacts. The

benefits were used to reduce or minimize project impacts before remaining, unavoidable impacts were

quantified, and compensating mitigation was developed. The WVA model was used to quantify impacts

to all affected habitat types in the study area and establish the appropriate amount of offsetting DMMP

benefits by habitat type. An HS model was used to evaluate and quantify salinity impacts and benefits of

the BU plan. The WVA model is summarized in Section 5 and described in detail in Appendix C of the

FEIS. The HS model is also summarized in Section 5, but it is described in detail in Brown and Stokes

(2009). Evaluation of beneficial use alternatives was conducted within the ICT and technical workgroups

in meetings conducted from 2001 to 2006. The BU plan was revised by the USACE in 2009 to reflect

changes necessitated by project reformulation and revised HS modeling.

The DMMP benefits contribute to multiagency regional plans (the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

[TPWD] regional management plan for J.D. Murphree, Sea Rim State Park, Texas Point NWR, and

McFaddin NWR, see Keith Lake: the Texas Coastwide Erosion Response Plan [GLO, 2004, 2005]; the

Louisiana Comprehensive Management Plan [Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority

(LCPRA), 2007; USACE, 2008a]; the Louisiana Coast 2050 Plan [Louisiana Coastal Wetlands

Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority

(LCWCR/WCRA), 1998], and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan [NAWMP Plan

Committee, 2004]), by restoring and preserving scarce and vulnerable wetlands and wildlife habitat,

nourishing eroding Gulf shorelines, restoring sediment to the littoral zone, and using dredged material

875
2: Alternatives

2-79

beneficially to the greatest extent possible. The DMMP also complies with the Coastal Zone Management

Plans (CZMP) for each state by sharing dredged material from the Sabine Pass Channel to accomplish

regular shoreline nourishment. The Gulf Shore BU Feature shares this resource equally between the states

because it is dredged from a channel that straddles the state boundary.

2.5.4.2 Offsetting and Minimizing Ecological Impacts

BU features included in the DMMP provide benefits that offset and minimize all indirect and direct

impacts (–412 AAHUs) of the Preferred Alternative in Texas (Table 2.5-4) and partially offset impacts in

Louisiana (Table 2.5-5). In Texas, construction of the Neches River BU Feature and the Texas portion of

the Gulf Shore BU Feature will produce benefits totaling 1,068 AAHUs. Therefore, there will be a net

gain of 656 AAHUs, which more than offsets all negative impacts that occur in Texas. Impacts that are

offset include the direct loss of 32 AAHUs for the conversion of fresh marsh to upland PA 24A. The

majority of the offset Texas impacts are in the Neches River watershed, but approximately 16 percent are

losses to cypress-tupelo swamp (–22 AAHUs) and fresh and intermediate marsh (–45 AAHUs) in the

Sabine River watershed. In Louisiana, the Gulf Shore BU Feature provides benefits totaling 210 AAHUs.

Given total Louisiana impacts of 1,709 AAHUs, there is a net loss of 1,499 AAHUs remaining in

Louisiana after offsetting benefits of the Louisiana portion of the Gulf Shore BU Feature are applied.

It is important to note that the impacts presented here do not include all impacts of the Preferred

Alternative in Texas as FWP impacts in Texas’s Salt Bayou (TX 9) hydro-unit are not included. Jefferson

County, Texas, and USACE, with support from the TPWD, GLO, and Texas Water Development Board

(TWDB) have been studying ways to reduce the amount of saltwater intrusion, decrease high-energy

inflows, and minimize impacts to larval fish access in an ongoing Section 1135 Continuing Authorities

Program (CAP) study for the Salt Bayou hydrologic unit. When the Keith Lake Section 1135 CAP study

was begun in 2003, it seemed likely that the CAP study and construction would be completed before the

SNWW CIP could be authorized and constructed. The Keith Lake Section 1135 study was therefore

considered separable from the SNWW CIP, and for planning purposes, it was assumed that a water

control structure at Fish Pass would be part of the future without-project condition for the SNWW CIP.

Incremental impacts of the SNWW CIP will be calculated for the Salt Bayou unit of the SNWW study

area when WVA modeling is completed for the Keith Lake Section 1135 study. It is possible that the

excess DMMP benefits (316 AAHUs) of the SNWW CIP will cover all incremental project impacts.

However, if it is determined that additional mitigation is needed, then USACE and the non-Federal

sponsor of the SNWW CIP will initiate consultation with resource agencies, identify and incrementally

justify additional compensatory mitigation for the Salt Bayou unit, and prepare a supplemental

environmental impact statement.

876
2: Alternatives

2-80

Table 2.5-4

Texas – FWP Impacts and Benefits by Habitat Type

HU # Hydrologic Unit (HU) Name

Offset Impacts by Acres

and Habitat Type (acres)

Total Impacts/Benefits by

Habitat Type (AAHUs)

No Effect

Impacts

Offset by

BU Plan

Acres

Impacted

Total

Loss

Offsetting

Benefits of

BU Plan

Net FWP

Benefit

Bottomland Hardwood

Neches River Watershed

TX 1 North Neches River 412

TX 2 Neches-Lake Bayou 1,040

TX 3 Rose City 1,775

TX 5 Bessie Heights 293

TX 6 Old River Cove 197

Subtotal - Neches River 3,717 0 0 0 0 0

Sabine River Watershed

TX 10 Cow Bayou 388

TX 11 Adams Bayou 640

LA/TX 1 Sabine Island 524

Subtotal - Sabine River 1,552 0 0 0 0 0

Total Bottomland

Hardwood

5,269 0 0 0 0 0

Cypress/Tupelo Swamp

Neches River Watershed

TX 1 North Neches River 2,760

TX 2 Neches-Lake Bayou 2,277

TX 3 Rose City 464

Subtotal - Neches River 5,501 0 0 0

Sabine River Watershed

TX 10 Cow Bayou 110

TX 11 Adams Bayou 115 –4 –4

TX 12 Blue Elbow South 689 –18 –18

LA/TX 1 Sabine Island 1,194

LA/TX 2 Blue Elbow 2,737

Subtotal - Sabine River 4,041 0 804 –22 0 –22

Total Cypress/Tupelo

Swamp

9,542 0 804 –22 0 –22

Fresh Marsh

Neches River Watershed

TX 1 North Neches River 436

TX 2 Neches-Lake Bayou 1,535

TX 3 Rose City PA 24A* 86 –32 –32

TX 3 Rose City 3,241 –1 178 177

TX 4 West of Rose City 492

TX 5 Bessie Heights 2,147

TX 7 GIWW North 4,806 –140 –140

Subtotal - Neches River 4,610 0 8,133 –173 178 5

Sabine River Watershed

TX 10 Cow Bayou 1,775 –18 –18

TX 11 Adams Bayou 599 –15 –15

Subtotal - Sabine River 0 0 2,374 –33 0 –33

Total Fresh Marsh 4,610 0 10,507 –206 178 –28

877
2: Alternatives

2-81

Table 2.5-4, cont’d

HU # Hydrologic Unit (HU) Name

Offset Impacts by Acres

and Habitat Type (acres)

Total Impacts/Benefits by

Habitat Type (AAHUs)

No Effect

Impacts

Offset by

BU Plan

Acres

Impacted

Total

Loss

Offsetting

Benefits of

BU Plan

Net FWP

Benefit

Intermediate Marsh

Neches River Watershed

TX 5 Bessie Heights 6,933 –14 433 419

TX 8 Texas Point 1,742 –19 -19

TX 13 Groves 437 –3 -3

Subtotal – Neches River 0 0 9,112 –36 433 397

Sabine River Watershed

TX 10 Cow Bayou 1,144 –12 -12

Subtotal – Sabine River 0 0 1,144 –12 0 -12

Total Intermediate Marsh 0 0 10,256 –48 433 385

Brackish Marsh

Neches River Watershed

TX 6 Old River Cove 8,760 –116 235 119

TX 8 Texas Point 2,546 –7 -7

TX 7 GIWW North 647 –8 -8

Subtotal – Neches River 0 0 11,953 –131 235 104

Total Brackish Marsh 0 0 11,953 –131 235 104

Saline Marsh

Neches River Watershed

TX 8 Texas Point 5,708 –5 222 217

Subtotal – Neches River 5,708 –5 222 217

Total Saline Marsh 0 5,708 0 –5 222 217

Total Neches River Impacts 13,828 5,708 29,198 –345 1,068 723

Total Sabine River Impacts 5,593 0 4,322 –67 0 –67

Total - All Habitats 19,421 5,708 33,520 –412 1,068 656

*Direct impact associated with conversion of wetland to upland PA 24A.

878
2: Alternatives

2-82

Table 2.5-5

Louisiana – FWP Impacts by and Benefits Habitat Type

HU #

Hydrologic Unit (HU)

Name

Offset Impacts by Acres and

Habitat Type (acres)

Total Impacts/Benefits by Habitat

Type (AAHUs)

No

Impact

Impacts

Offset by

BU Plan

Acres

Impacted

Total

Loss

Offsetting

Benefits of

BU Plan

Net FWP

Impact

All HUs in Sabine River Watershed

Bottomland Hardwood

LA 1 Perry Ridge 2,158

LA/TX 1 Sabine Island 1,041

Subtotal 3,199 0 0

Cypress/Tupelo Swamp

LA/TX 1 Sabine Island 5,998

LA/TX 2 Blue Elbow 650

Subtotal 6,648 0 0

Fresh Marsh

LA 1 Perry Ridge 18,859 –65 –65

LA 7 Southeast Sabine 2,634 –11 –11

LA 8 Southwest Gum Cove 3,615 –2 –2

Subtotal 25,108 –78 –78

Intermediate Marsh

LA 1 Perry Ridge 4,704 –53 –53

LA 2 Willow Bayou 35,109 –328 –328

LA 3 Black Bayou 34,941 –509 –509

LA 4 West Johnson’s Bayou 11,110 –269 –269

LA 5 Sabine Lake Ridges 9,270 –218 –218

LA 7 Southeast Sabine 5,400

LA 8 Southwest Gum Cove 6,605 –4 –4

LA 9 East Johnson’s Bayou 26,138 –190 –190

Subtotal 5,400 127,877 –1,571 –1,571

Brackish Marsh

LA 2 Willow Bayou 1,182 –1 –1

LA 3 Black Bayou 3,195 –1 –1

LA 4 West Johnson’s Bayou 2,078 –1 –1

LA 5 Sabine Lake Ridges 15,962 –14 –14

LA 6 Johnson’s Bayou Ridge 2,744 –6 –6

Subtotal 25,161 –23 –23

Saline Marsh

LA 5 Sabine Lake Ridges 3,767 –35 210 173

LA 6 Johnson’s Bayou Ridge 370 –2

Subtotal 4,137 –37 210 173

Louisiana Impacts Total 15,247 4,137 178,146 –1,709 210 –1,499

879
2: Alternatives

2-83

With adoption of the DMMP, all FWP impacts in Texas will be offset, and no compensating mitigation is

proposed in conjunction with construction of the Preferred Alternative. Impacts in Louisiana are

minimized to the greatest extent possible by the DMMP, but unavoidable impacts of –1,499 AAHUs

remain. When the impacts and DMMP benefits are not subdivided by state but are applied to the project

as a whole, a loss of 843 AAHUs remains (Table 2.5-6). A mitigation plan, described in Section 5, has

been developed to compensate for unavoidable impacts of the Preferred Alternative.

Table 2.5-6

Net FWP Impacts (AAHUs) for Project as a Whole

Bottomland

Hardwood

CypressTupelo

Swamp

Fresh

Marsh

Intermediate

Marsh

Brackish

Marsh

Saline

Marsh Total

Impacts

Texas

Neches River watershed –173 –36 –131 –5 –345

Sabine River watershed –22 –33 –12 –67

Subtotal 0 –22 –206 –48 –131 –5 –412

Louisiana

Sabine River watershed –90 –1,571 –23 –37 –1,709

Total Impacts 0 –22 –296 –1,619 –154 –42 –2,121

DMMP Benefits

Texas

Neches River watershed

Neches River BU Feature 178 305 363 846

Gulf Shore BU Feature (Texas Point) 222 222

Subtotal 0 0 178 305 363 222 1,068

Louisiana

Sabine River watershed

Gulf Shore BU Feature (Louisiana

Point)

210 210

Total DMMP Benefits 0 0 178 305 363 432 1,278

Net SNWW CIP FWP Impacts

Texas

Neches River watershed 5 269 232 217 723

Sabine River watershed –22 –33 –12 –67

Net Texas Benefits (positive) 656

Net Louisiana Impacts (negative) 0 0 –90 –1,571 –23 173 –1,499

Net FWP Impacts 0 –22 –118 –1,314 209 390 –843

880
2: Alternatives

2-84

(This page left blank intentionally.)

881
3-1

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This chapter is divided into 14 sections. Section 3.1 describes the models that were used to characterize

existing conditions, and evaluate impacts as presented in Section 4. A description of the environmental

setting follows in Section 3.2, followed by separate sections on the physical, natural, cultural, and

socioeconomic resources in the SNWW study area that could be affected by the proposed project.

3.1 MODELING EXISTING CONDITIONS

Since the primary environmental concerns identified during the scoping process are the interrelated issues

of saltwater intrusion, marsh loss, and destruction of wildlife habitat and fishery nursery areas,

engineering and ecological models were used to characterize existing conditions related to these concerns,

thereby establishing a baseline against which changes associated with project alternatives could be

measured. Several engineering models were used to evaluate physical systems and processes in the study

area, and an ecological model was used to evaluate the biological effects of project alternatives on habitat.

3.1.1 Hydrodynamic Salinity

Concerns that a deeper navigation channel would increase salinity in the Sabine Lake estuarine system

were addressed with a 3-dimensional HS model that predicts changes in salinity, circulation, and water

elevation due to proposed channel improvements. The ERDC’s Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL)

worked closely with the ICT to calibrate and verify the base model for use in this system. The ICT

reviewed the ERDC’s model calibration and verification process, provided data and information on

hydrologic connectivity, marsh elevation, and bathymetry, and reviewed modeling results as part of the

impacts evaluation. For the baseline conditions, modeling was performed using actual depths rather than

authorized project depths.

The ERDC’s CHL applied an established 3-dimensional estuarine model (ERDC-modified TABS MultiDimensional Numerical Modeling System) to compute hydrodynamics and salinity transport for the

proposed CIP. The HS model covers the entire study area from the Salt Bayou watershed on the west to

near Gum Cove Ridge in Louisiana on the east, and inland to north of IH 10. The model includes forcing

due to tides, freshwater inflows, wind, Coriolis, and density gradients due to salinity variation, and

accounts for precipitation and evaporation. The code uses a finite-element formulation, which gives it

flexibility in matching complex geometry. Over the last decade, the code has been extensively used for a

variety of the USACE field projects, including the Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels project, New

York Harbor, St. Johns River, Florida, and Atchafalaya Bay in Louisiana. Two of the special features of

the code, wetting/drying and “marsh porosity,” enable successful modeling of wetlands. A description of

the model and its output is provided in a report by the ERDC-CHL (Brown and Stokes, 2009).

HS model salinities were verified against salinity data from June to December 2001. The modeling report

provided standard deviations for each of the original modeling stations; these provide a measure of the

uncertainty inherent in the model predictions. For the baseline condition, model outputs were provided for

all original sampling locations.

882
3. Affected Environment

3-2

3.1.2 Other Engineering Models

Several other engineering models were conducted to characterize other existing physical processes in the

study area, and to provide baseline information for the assessment of impacts. The most significant of

these are:

Ship Simulation. The ship simulation was used to determine navigation and safety impacts due to

anticipated changes in vessel sizes as a result of the proposed channel widening (Webb, 2003). The main

objective of the study was to determine whether the “design” ship could safely operate within the width

and depth of the proposed channel dimensions. The simulation was conducted on a channel depth of

50 feet with varying widths. Additional ship simulation was conducted to determine the navigation and

safety implications of reducing the offshore entrance channel to a 700-foot width.

Sediment Study. A desktop engineering model was applied to determine anticipated shoaling rates along

the waterway and estimate any increases in channel erosion (Brown and Stokes, 2009; Parchure et al.,

2005). Results from the study were used to estimate the quantity of maintenance material arising from

structural alternatives. Erosion concerns along Pleasure Island and East Sabine Lake were also addressed

by the analysis. An additional study effort was performed along the Pleasure Island reach and SabineNeches Canal to determine whether the channel velocities in these areas would result in increased channel

erosion.

Vessel Effects Study. A vessel effects study was conducted to determine the potential erosional effects to

Pleasure Island from vessel traffic in the Port Arthur and Sabine-Neches canals (Maynord, 2005). Project

vessel traffic was modeled with HIVEL2D, a two-dimensional finite element model designed specifically

to simulate flow in typical high-velocity channels. The model has been used since the mid-1980s and is

maintained by the ERDC-CHL.

Gulf Shoreline Effects Study. This ERDC-CHL study was conducted to determine potential erosion

impacts to the Gulf shoreline that could be associated with deepening and extending the Entrance

Channel. The study area extended 10 miles from the jetties into Texas and Louisiana (Gravens and King,

2003). The STWAVE and GENESIS models were applied to examine wave conditions within a

bathymetry grid extending 20 miles along the shoreline and evaluate changes to the shoreline.

3.1.3 Wetland Value Assessment Model

The WVA model suite uses a quantitative habitat-based assessment methodology developed to prioritize

Louisiana coastal restoration projects submitted for funding under Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection

and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) (Louis Berger Group and Toxicological & Environmental Associates

[LBG and TEA], 2008). The WVA model is a modification of the widely used Habitat Evaluation

Procedure (HEP) models developed by the USFWS (1980). It was developed by the Environmental

Workgroup (EnvWG) of the Planning and Evaluation Subcommittee of Louisiana’s CWPPRA Technical

Committee (USFWS, 2002a). The WVA methodology employs a community approach that assumes that

optimal conditions for all fish and wildlife within a specific type of coastal wetland habitat can be

883
3. Affected Environment

3-3

characterized by a group of significant variables, and that existing or future conditions can be compared

to that optimum, providing an index of habitat quality similar to those developed under the wellestablished HEP. Using this methodology, several habitat-specific community models have been

developed by the EnvWG, and three were selected for use in this study: the Emergent Marsh Community

Model (EMCM), the Swamp Community Model (SCM), and the Bottomland Hardwood Model (BHM).

The EMCM can be applied to four coastal marsh communities—fresh, intermediate, brackish, and saline

marsh. Hereafter in this report, the term “WVA model” applies to the three components of the WVA

model suite (EMCM, SCM, and BHM) that are used in this study. The results of the WVA model,

measured in AAHUs, can be combined with cost data to provide a measure of the effectiveness of the

proposed project in terms of annualized cost per AAHUs gained.

A WVA Procedural Manual was prepared by the EnvWG to provide guidance in the use of the WVA

model (USFWS, 2002b). In addition, a separate procedural manual was prepared for the EMCM

(USFWS, 2002c). The BHM and the SCM (LDNR, 1993) were developed outside of the CWPPRA arena

and are periodically used by the EnvWG for CWPPRA project evaluation. The original BHM (LDNR,

1993) was utilized for this study. The SCM was subsequently updated by the EnvWG and the updated

version was used here (USFWS, 2002d). The SNWW Habitat Workgroup chose to apply the WVA model

as formulated by the EnvWG and LDNR because the habitats and environmental stressors in the SNWW

study area are the same as those for which they were developed. Appendix C of the FEIS maps and

characterizes all significant habitats in the study area, explains how the WVA model evaluates project

impacts and benefits, and describes the methods and assumptions used in the modeling process.

The WVA model provides a comprehensive, quantitative measure of FWP changes in the quality and

quantity of emergent wetlands and associated aquatic habitat in the SNWW study. However, it was not

developed for use in conjunction with aquatic habitats in large waterbodies. Baseline conditions for

aquatic habitats in the SNWW study area that are not associated with emergent wetlands were not

characterized with the WVA model or any other ecological model. It was determined that use of an

ecological model to characterize and evaluate impacts for these resources would not be necessary, due to

the nature of the impacts and conditions specific to the study area; more information relative to this

decision is presented in Section 4. However, aquatic habitats in the Sabine and Neches rivers, Sabine

Lake, the SNWW and GIWW navigation channels, and offshore in the Gulf are described in this section

to the extent necessary to compare to FWP alternatives.

The WVA model was chosen as the most appropriate ecological model for the SNWW project based on a

number of factors. Although the WVA model was developed specifically to apply to habitat types present

in the Chenier Plain region of the Louisiana coastal zone, the same types of coastal habitat (emergent

coastal marsh, bottomland hardwoods, and cypress-tupelo swamp) are present throughout the SabineNeches coastal watershed in both Texas and Louisiana, and in fact are a continuation of the same system

(Daigle et al., 2006; Griffith et al., 2004). In addition, the areas contain the same fish and wildlife

communities, similar soils, and topography, and the Sabine-Calcasieu basins share an interconnected

hydrology. Furthermore, the types of variables measured by the WVA model are sensitive to the types of

changes that have been identified as the highest concerns by resource agencies and the general public for

884
3. Affected Environment

3-4

the SNWW project. Specifically, these are potential changes in salinity, stress and death of marsh

vegetation, and further loss or degradation of already stressed coastal marshes. The variables measured by

the WVA model are also recognized scientifically and technically as important in characterizing overall

habitat quality. Variables utilized in the WVA model outputs could be combined across the different

habitat types. A final factor is that variables were established such that data were easily estimated or

collected from existing data sources. This was especially important because the study area is

exceptionally large (over 2,000 square miles), and therefore extensive field data collection efforts were

not practical. The size and habitat diversity of the study area made application of other ecological models

very difficult. Other ecological models, such as the Hydrogeomorphic Approach and HEP models, were

considered and rejected because extensive field data collection required by these models was not feasible

given time and budget constraints.

An ICT was established that (1) identified environmental issues and concerns; (2) evaluated the

significance of fish and wildlife and other ecosystem features; (3) recommended and reviewed

environmental studies; (4) evaluated potential impacts; and (5) recommended and evaluated potential

mitigation measures. The ICT defined the study area as all areas possibly affected by the proposed

project. Potential environmental effects in adjacent coastal wetlands were analyzed for an extensive area

including Sabine Lake and adjacent marshes in Texas and Louisiana, the Neches River Channel up to the

new Neches River Saltwater Barrier, the Sabine River Channel to the Sabine Island WMA, the GIWW

west to Star Bayou, the GIWW east to Gum Cove Ridge, the Gulf shoreline extending 10 miles either

side of Sabine Pass, and offshore in the Gulf, 15 miles beyond the end of the current channel.

A subcommittee of the ICT, the HW, developed input data and applied the WVA model. The

subcommittee analysis provided data on baseline and FWOP conditions and, as explained later in this

document, project impacts and mitigation for specific areas. The use of the WVA model and other

information provided by the ICT produced a great amount of detailed data regarding the existing and

potential future conditions of the study area. This information is included in this chapter’s description of

the affected environment.

The WVA model created vegetation categories and mapping units in order to describe baseline or existing

conditions and predict future conditions with and without the proposed project under various scenarios

including various possible mitigation projects. All habitats hydrologically connected to waterways

influenced by the proposed channel improvements were divided into “Hydrologic Units” (hydro-units).

Hydro-unit boundaries were based upon small watershed divides, or on the basis of other topographic

features that serve as hydrologic separators. Vegetation categories were mapped within each of these

hydro-units. The WVA methodology for determining the vegetation baseline is briefly described below.

Section 4.1 describes the modeling methodology for determining impacts and mitigation plans. See

Appendix C for the detailed methodology.

FWOP projections of land loss were developed as a baseline against which project-induced changes could

be measured. Base land loss rates were determined by measuring changes of emergent marsh and openwater areas using Geographic Information System (GIS) software between images from 2 or more years.

885
3. Affected Environment

3-5

The time between images generally spanned the most recent 15- to 20-year time period for which reliable

data were available. This time period generally fell between the years 1978 and 2001.

After changes in acreages were calculated, the amount of emergent marsh that converted to open water

was expressed as a percentage loss per year. Adjustments to FWOP land loss rates were made to account

for constructed or funded CWPPRA projects in the east Sabine Lake marshes (Clark et al., 2000; USFWS

and Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS], 2003), at Black Bayou (LDNR, 1993), and at Perry

Ridge (USGS-National Wetlands Research Center [NWRC], 2002a, 2002b), the effects of RSLR on

shoreline recession, and RSLR, as described in Appendix C of this FEIS. A spreadsheet that calculates

land loss annually was used for all projections.

The WVA model has been assessed for use in conjunction with the SNWW project, as required by EC

1105-2-407. The WVA model is not a USACE corporate model, and therefore certification is not

required, but the model must be approved for use. This approval was provided by the Deep-Draft Center

for Expertise based upon the results of a model assessment (LBG and TEA, 2008). The assessment

evaluated the application of the three WVA model components (EMCM, SCM, and BHM) that were used

to quantify impacts and benefits of SNWW CIP alternatives, including BU features and compensatory

mitigation. The assessment determined that the model was theoretically appropriate and correctly applied,

and it has been approved for use for the SNWW study.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.2.1 Study Area

The SNWW is located in Jefferson and Orange counties in southeast Texas, and Cameron and Calcasieu

parishes in southwest Louisiana. The project area includes the SNWW from the Gulf through the jettied

channel at Sabine Pass, through the Port Arthur Canal, Sabine-Neches Canal, and Neches River Channel

to the Port of Beaumont. Included is the area covered by the possible addition of 13.2 miles of new

channel extending beyond the end of the existing channel into the Gulf. The Sabine River Channel, which

extends from the mouth of the Neches River to the Port of Orange, is not currently being considered for

channel modification and is not addressed in this FEIS.

The study area includes the SNWW and a much broader geographical range covering approximately

2,000 square miles inland. Due to potential additional saltwater intrusion into the Sabine Lake estuary

resulting from the CIP, hydrologic features associated with the SNWW and Sabine Lake are an important

consideration. In addition, beneficial use of dredged material may include efforts outside of existing PAs

and may include areas well outside of the SNWW.

3.2.2 Physiography

The study area is located in the Austroriparian Biotic Province (Blair, 1950), which extends from east

Texas along the Gulf Coast plain to the Atlantic coast, and the Outer Coastal Plain Mixed Forest

Physiographic Province (McNab and Avers, 1994). The study area is characterized by a diversity of

886
3. Affected Environment

3-6

features that are a result of the natural transition between marine and freshwater environments and

anthropogenic impacts. The Sabine and Neches rivers consist of flat to gently rolling surface topography

with poorly drained floodplains that include dense bottomland forests with extensive complexes of

interconnecting coastal prairie, wetlands, and bayous. Farmers and ranchers are the principal users of

these prairie and upper marsh areas. Developable uplands are mostly restricted to the west side of the

estuary. All of the cities and towns in the study area are located in Texas on the west side of Sabine Pass,

Sabine Lake, and upland areas north of Sabine Lake. The timberlands in the flood-prone areas are used

primarily as wildlife habitat with some areas commercially lumbered on a small scale. The topography of

the study area is essentially featureless, except for the surface expression of four salt domes: Big Hill,

Fannett, and Spindletop, Texas, and Hackberry, Louisiana. This area once supported major petroleum

reserves, but now only produces limited quantities of oil and gas (USACE, 1982).

Aten (1983:15–20) provides the following description of the northwestern Gulf coast that gives a good

description of the study area as well:

. . .[this area] strikes many visitors as a monotonous repetition of prairies and marshes

interspersed with an occasional swamp, barrier beach, or forest. . . . it is a highly dynamic

environment that has taken on much of its present form concurrent with human

occupation. . . . The basic genesis of the coastal zone land surfaces is that of a series of

major river deltas coalesced into an extensive and continuous deltaic plain during the

Late Pleistocene. Superimposed on this massive accumulation of deltaic material . . . are

the effects of more recent events, such as Late Pleistocene-Holocene sea level fall and

rise, and the formation of the modern river deltas, estuaries, . . .

. . . Inland . . . are sandier and slightly rolling terrains . . . [that] support pine and

hardwood forests. . . .

. . . The major natural hazard in the area is flooding, which results either from overflow in

rivers or from storm tides . . . the tidally influenced waters of the estuaries and streams

supported [prehistorically] enormous populations of shellfish, fish, birds, reptiles, and

mammals . . . over 125 animal taxa have been recovered archaeologically as food

remains. . . .

Due to the abundance of rainfall in this region, the rivers and bayous of this reach provide substantial

freshwater inflow into Sabine Lake. However, instream flows to this reach have been altered from their

natural hydrograph due to major impoundments in the middle and upper Sabine and Neches River basins.

Similar to Aten’s (1983) description of the region, most of the Sabine and Neches rivers reach is tidally

influenced (Mantz and Dong, 1996). Despite abundant rainfall, navigational dredging has allowed

saltwater intrusion into these rivers and bayous (USACE, 1998a) resulting in saltwater wedges typically

overlaid with influent fresh water.

The Sabine Lake area is a dynamic estuary only recently subject to extensive flood and ebbs of tidal

currents and extensive mixing of fresh and sea water. Sabine Lake was formed from the flooding of an

ancient river valley (Kane, 1959) and was later separated from the Gulf by the advancement of the Gulf

887
3. Affected Environment

3-7

shoreline and deposition of the beach ridge/mudflat complex known as the Chenier Plain (Gould and

McFarlan, 1959). High-volume freshwater inflow into Sabine Lake helped maintain Sabine Pass as a

narrow and relatively shallow link between the Gulf and Sabine Lake (Morton, 1996).

The Gulf in the study area consists of open seas, coastline, and a dredged channel extending from the

jettied Sabine Pass seaward. This area is dominated by the Mississippi River Delta. When the Mississippi

River occupied one of its western courses, sediment deposits were carried westward by littoral currents

that built the Chenier Plain (Davis, 1996). Since the Mississippi River has been emptying through its

eastern delta lobe, little new sediment has been reaching the Chenier Plain (USACE, 1975a).

3.2.3 Geology

The regional surface geology of the Gulf Coast region consists of sedimentary beds ranging in age from

late Eocene to recent, which lie as bands nearly parallel with the coast. Recent deposits form the coastline

and successive beds crop out toward the interior. Due to the age of exposure of the rocks, the outcrop

areas are successively more eroded and dissected toward the interior. The Pleistocene and Recent

formations still retain much of their depositional surface (Texas Water Commission, 1963).

The thick sequence of sedimentary rocks and unconsolidated sediments beneath the present-day Gulf

Coastal Plain reflect cyclic marine and continental deposition in the region through the Jurassic,

Cretaceous, and Tertiary periods, culminating with predominantly fluvial deposits at the end of the

Tertiary period. This pattern continued through the Pleistocene Epoch (i.e., early Quaternary period, about

2 million years before present), during which sedimentation was largely controlled by sea level

fluctuations associated with repeated glacial and interglacial episodes (Van Siclen, 1975). During the

Holocene, the fluvial Sabine Valley became an estuarine system, eventually becoming completely

inundated by the rising sea level. During this interval, an estuarine-lagoonal system became dominant

(Pearson et al., 1986).

The primary physiographic environments of the study area consist of two major Pleistocene depositional

systems and five major Holocene depositional systems. The major Pleistocene systems include the

fluvial-deltaic systems and barrier-strandplain systems. These two systems form the Coastal Zone within

the study area, generally at elevations greater than 10 feet above sea level (Brown et al., 1973). The five

major Holocene depositional systems include the fluvial systems, strandplain-chenier systems, offshore

systems, marsh-swamp systems, and bay-estuary-lagoon systems. The Coastal Zone is underlain by

sedimentary deposits that originated in ancient but similar physiographic environments. These ancient

sediments were deposited by the same natural processes that are currently active in shaping the present

coastline. These processes include longshore drift, beach wash, wind deflation and deposition, tidal

currents, wind-generated waves and currents, and levee, point-bar, and flood basin deposition (Brown et

al., 1973).

The Quaternary-aged Beaumont Formation covers the entire inland study area and is overlain by the

younger Deweyville Formation and Alluvium within the Neches and Sabine River valleys. Quaternary

888
3. Affected Environment

3-8

Alluvium and isolated barrier island deposits outcrop along the coastline. The environments responsible

for the deposition of the Beaumont Formation primarily include stream channel, point bar, natural levee,

backswamp, and coastal marsh and mudflat deposits. The Beaumont Formation is composed of clay with

interbedded silt and sand. Similarly, the environments responsible for the deposition of the Quaternaryaged Deweyville Formation include point bar, natural levee, stream channel, and backswamp deposits.

The Deweyville Formation is composed of sand, silt, and clay, with some gravel. The Quaternary

Alluvium, which is found immediately adjacent to existing river courses and along the Gulf Coast shore,

was deposited primarily in point bar, natural levee, stream channel, backswamp, coastal marsh, mudflat,

and narrow beach deposits and is composed of clay, silt, and locally abundant organic matter (Bureau of

Economic Geology [BEG], 1982).

3.2.4 Climate

The climate of the study area is both tropical and temperate (Soil Conservation Service, 1965). Prevailing

winds are generally from the south and southeast with an average speed of about 10 to 11 miles per hour.

In the winter months, cold air masses bring in polar air and prevailing northerly winds. Temperatures are

moderated by the influence of the winds from the Gulf, resulting in mild winters and relatively cool

summer nights. The mean daily temperature ranges from the mid-50s (degrees Fahrenheit [°F]) in

December and January to the mid-80s in the summer months. The temperature rarely drops below 22°F or

rises above 98°F. Relative humidity levels average approximately 78 percent throughout the year

(USACE, 1975a). Another effect of the nearness of the Gulf is abundant rainfall distributed throughout

the year. The average annual rainfall is about 52 inches, with monthly precipitation averaging from

3.2 inches to about 6.6 inches. Snow and sleet seldom occur. Heavy fog occurs on an average of 29 days

per year. Clear days during the year average about 117; partly cloudy days, 191; and cloudy days, 57. The

growing season, or the average period from the last frost in spring to the first frost in fall, is about

294 days.

3.3 WATER QUALITY

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), formerly the Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission (TNRCC), and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ)

have designated certain larger streams or bayous, or segments thereof, as “classified” segments for the

purpose of developing water quality criteria (WQC) specific to each segment. Within the study area, there

are 25 classified assessment units (subsegments of the primary stream segments), 6 in Louisiana and 19 in

Texas. Table 3.2-1 lists segment-specific water quality standards (WQS) for all stream segments in the

study area.

3.3.1 Water and Elutriate Chemistry

As with all industrialized areas, there is potential for chemical contamination within the Sabine-Neches

Estuary. Numerous petroleum-related industries are found along the SNWW, including refineries and

transshipment docks near Port Arthur and Beaumont. Petroleum products and crude oil are shipped and

889
3-9

Table 3.2-1

Classified Waterbody Segments and Water Quality Standards

Uses Criteria

Segment

No. Segment Name Recreation

Aquatic

Life

Domestic

Water

Supply

Cl

(mg/L)

SO4-2

(mg/K)

TDS

(mg/L)

DO

(mg/L)

pH Range

(SU)

Fecal

Coliform

#100/ml Temp.

Texas

0501 Sabine River Tidal CR H N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.0 6.0−8.5 200 95°F0508 Adams Bayou Tidal CR H N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.0 6.0−8.5 200 95°F0511 Cow Bayou Tidal CR H N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.0 6.0−8.5 200 95°F0601 Neches River Tidal CR I N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.0 6.0−8.5 200 95°F0602 Neches River Below B.A. Steinhagen Lake CR H PS 50 30 150 5.0 6.0−8.5 200 91°F0701 Taylor Bayou Above Tidal CR I N/A 400 100 1,100 4.0 6.5−9.0 200 95°F0702 Intracoastal Waterway Tidal CR H N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.0 6.5−9.0 200 95°F0703 Sabine-Neches Canal Tidal CR H N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.0 6.5−9.0 200 95°F0704 Hillebrandt Bayou CR I N/A 250 100 600 4.0 6.5−9.0 200 95°F2411 Sabine Pass CR E/O N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.0 6.5–9.0 14 95°F2412 Sabine Lake CR H/O N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.0 6.5–9.0 14 95°F

Louisiana

110301 Sabine River A, B C N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.0 6.0−8.5 200 95°F110302 Black Bayou A, B C N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.0 6.0−8.5 200 92°F110303 Sabine Lake A, B C, E N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.0 6.0−8.5 14 95°F110304 Sabine Pass A, B C, E N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.0 6.0−8.5 14 95°F

A Primary contact recreation Cl = ChlorideB Secondary contact recreation SO4-2 = sulfatesC Propagation of fish and wildlife DO = dissolved oxygenCR Contact recreation mg/L = milligrams per liter

E Oyster propagation ml = millilitersH High aquatic life useI Intermediate aquatic life usePS Public water supplyO Oyster waters

890
3. Affected Environment

3-10

piped on- and offshore in this area (Long, 1999). However, based on available data, there is no indication

of current water or elutriate contaminant problems along the SNWW. Discussions on hazardous, toxic,

and radioactive substances in the study area can be found in Section 3.6.

Stream segments 601, 703, and 2411 constitute the SNWW, and none of these segments are classified as

nonsupporting on the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. While several

impaired stream segments (0501, 0508, 0511, 0701, and 0704) are located within the study area

boundaries, they would not be affected by the direct or indirect effects of channel deepening or

construction of any project features and therefore are not evaluated further.

The USACE has collected and archived a significant amount of water and sediment chemistry data. These

data are grouped by channel stations (see figures 2.4-1a–g). Also included is a discussion of elutriate,

which provides information on those constituents that are dissolved into the water column during

dredging and placement. Since the elutriate represents the dissolved concentrations that would be

expected in the water column, they are compared to the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (TWQS),

provided by the TCEQ for the protection of aquatic life, Louisiana Surface Water Quality Standards

(LWQS), and EPA WQC. Since the values are from grab samples from a marine environment, the acute

marine TWQS are used for comparison. Parameters analyzed are listed in Table 3.2-2.

3.3.1.1 Entrance Channel

Historical water and elutriate data for detected compounds from 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, and 2004 are

presented in PBS&J (2004a, 2004b) and Appendix B. Chromium was the only metal found above

detection limits in 1993 elutriate samples in channel station, PA stations, and reference stations. However,

all concentrations were well below the LWQS and TWQS for chromium. No parameters were detected in

1993 water samples. Barium was not detected in 1993, but was detected in water samples at all stations in

1995, 1996, and 1998 and in elutriate samples at most stations in 1995, 1996, and all stations in 1998.

Chromium was detected at one station and copper at two stations for water in 1995. The copper value in

the water sample from station S-SB-95-DA4 (26.5 micrograms per liter [μg/L]) was above the LWQS

(3.63 μg/L), the TWQS (13.5 μg/L), and the Gold Book WQC (2.9 μg/L). However, S-SB-95-DA4 is a

PA site located over 2 miles offshore from the end of the jetties. No copper was detected in the elutriate

sample. Other metals found above detection limits in 1996 included copper in elutriate samples and zinc

in both water and elutriate samples. In 1998, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, and zinc

concentrations were found above detection limits in water and elutriate samples, and selenium was

detected in water samples only. The water copper concentration at the reference station S-SB-98-REF3+4

(3.9 μg/L) was above the LWQS and the WQC, but the copper concentration in the elutriate was below

the detection limit. Barium concentrations were higher in elutriate samples than in water samples,

indicating a potential release of barium into the water column during dredging and placement. Zinc

concentrations for water and elutriates were higher in 1996 than in 1998, although all samples were below

the LWQS and TWQS. In the 2004 sampling of the Entrance Channel, while copper, nickel, and zinc

appeared to increase slightly upon elutriate preparations and selenium decreased slightly, no LWQS,

TWQS, or WQC were exceeded for any channel stations. The proposed Entrance Channel Extension was

891
3. Affected Environment

3-11

also sampled in 2004 (Attachment B of Appendix B), and no WQC were exceeded for any channel station

water or elutriate sample (stations were all in Federal waters and WQS were not pertinent for

comparison).

Table 3.2-2

Sabine-Neches Waterway and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

USACE Tested Parameters

Parameter Water Elutriate Sediment

Ammonia X X

Total sulfides X

Total volatile solids X

Metals

Arsenic X X X

Barium X X X

Cadmium X X X

Chromium X X X

Copper X X X

Lead X X X

Mercury X X X

Nickel X X X

Selenium X

Silver X X

Zinc X X X

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Acenaphthene X

Benzo(a)anthracene X

Benzo(e)pyrene X

Chrysene X

Fluoranthene X

Naphthalene X

Oil and grease X X X

Phenanthrene X

Pyrene X

Total organic carbon X X X

Total PAH X

Total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) X

Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) X X

For organics in 1998, total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) was found above detection limits in two

elutriate samples, and ammonia, which was not measured until 1996, was found in high concentrations for

both water and elutriate samples. Total organic carbon (TOC) was not measured until 1990, but was

found above detection limits for water and elutriate samples at most stations for all years sampled.

892
3. Affected Environment

3-12

Bioassays have been conducted on samples collected from the Entrance Channel (Espey, Huston &

Associates, Inc. [EH&A], 1979, 1983a, 1983b; PBS&J, 1999, 2004b; and Appendix B). Survival of

organisms exposed to the liquid phase (water) and suspended particulate phase (elutriate) of sediments

from the SNWW Entrance Channel was greater than 50 percent in all of these reports. Therefore, no

96-hour LC50 (the concentration of a substance that is lethal to 50 percent of test organisms after a

continuous exposure of 96 hours) could be calculated. In such cases, the, LC50 is assumed to be equal to

100 percent and the dredged material would not be predicted to be acutely toxic to water column

organisms since the Limiting Permissible Concentration for water column toxicity/suspended particulate

phase has been met (EPA/USACE, 2003). As noted in Appendix B, this also applies to the Entrance

Channel Extension.

3.3.1.2 Sabine Pass Channel

Historical water and elutriate data for detected compounds from 1987, 1990, 1992, and 1998 are

presented in PBS&J (2004a). Lead and zinc were the only metals found above detection limits in 1987 at

all stations in water and elutriate samples. One water sample from station S-SP-87-06 contained

98.0 μg/L of zinc that slightly exceeds the WQC (85.0 μg/L), the LWQS (90 μg/L), and the TWQS

(92.7 μg/L). However, the elutriate value was low indicating no release of zinc to the water column

during dredging or placement. Metals were not detected in 1990, and in 1992 the only metal found above

detection limits was cadmium (in water) at station S-SP-92-06. In 1998, barium and zinc concentrations

were found above detection limits for water and elutriate and were consistently higher in the elutriate

samples. This contrasts to the 1987 samples, in which elutriate values were normally lower than water

concentrations. Arsenic was detected at most stations in water and two stations for elutriate; cadmium and

nickel were found in water only. All values, except the zinc value noted above, were below the WQC,

LWQS, and TWQS.

Oil and grease were detected in 1987 in water and elutriate samples. Ammonia, which was not measured

until 1996, was found above detection limits in all elutriate samples for 1998. For the organics, in 1987

fluoranthene was above detection limits at one station. TOC was detected in all water and elutriate

samples during 1992, and elutriate concentrations were consistently higher than water concentrations.

3.3.1.3 Sabine-Neches Canal

Historical water and elutriate data for detected compounds from 1984, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1995,

1996, 1997, and 1998 are presented in PBS&J (2004a). Copper was the only metal found above detection

limits in 1984; zinc was detected in 1987 water and elutriate samples; and metals were not detected in

1989 water and elutriate. In 1990, chromium was detected in water at one station, and zinc at two water

and four elutriate stations. Barium and zinc were detected in water and elutriate samples in 1994. In 1995,

barium was detected in all water and elutriate samples. One elutriate at station S-SN-95-15 contained high

barium (1,096.0 μg/L). There are no WQC, LWQS, or TWQS for barium, but the Gold Book Criterion for

barium in domestic water supplies (EPA, 1986) is 1,000 μg/L. Copper in elutriate samples at two stations

was detected at levels greater than the WQC (2.9 μg/L) and the WQS (3.63 μg/L) but not the TWQS

893
3. Affected Environment

3-13

(13.5 μg/L) (6.6 μg/L, S-SN-95-13 and 5.0 μg/L, S-SN-95-17). Barium and zinc were also found above

detection limits in 1996 in water and elutriate samples. In 1997, barium, cadmium, copper, and nickel

were found at most or all stations in water and elutriate; chromium was found in water only; selenium at

one station in water; and zinc at all stations for water and one station for elutriate. In 1998, barium and

zinc were found in all water and elutriate, and cadmium at one station for water. Except for the 1995

samples noted above, all values were below the WQC, LWQS, and TWQS. Recent sampling and testing

within the Sabine-Neches Canal detected nickel in water sample S-SN-08-04A, and arsenic, copper,

nickel, and zinc in sample S-SN-08-4A. However, all concentrations of detected metals were below the

WQC, TWQS, and LWQS values. In addition, bis(2-ethylhexl)phthalate was detected at 2.31 milligrams

per liter (mg/L) in the elutriate sample.

Oil and grease were detected in 1984 and 1987 in water and elutriate samples. Ammonia was above

detection limits for all but one water sample in 1996 and all water and elutriate samples in 1998. For the

organics, in 1997 TPH was above detection limits at one station (S-SN-97-02). TOC was detected in all or

most water and elutriate samples in 1990, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997. Detected concentrations in the

historic data for TOC were similar in value for all water and elutriate samples. Both ammonia and TOC

were detected in the March 2008 water and elutriate samples. However, ammonia concentrations were

below the WQC values for both water and elutriate.

3.3.1.4 Port Arthur Turning Basins

Historical water and elutriate data for detected compounds from 1984, 1987, 1989, 1992, 1994, 1996, and

1998 are presented in PBS&J (2004a). Arsenic was found above detection limits for 1984 and 1998 for

elutriate samples only. Barium, for which analyses were not conducted before 1993, was detected for both

water and elutriate in 1994, 1996, and 1998 (highest concentrations in 1998); cadmium was found in

water samples in 1998; lead in one elutriate sample in 1992; and nickel in 1992 (elutriate only) and 1998

(water only). Copper was detected in both water and elutriates in 1984 and elutriates only in 1992 and

1998. Copper in both elutriate samples for 1984 (5.0 μg/L at stations S-PATB-84-08 and S-PATB-84-09)

and one from 1992 (9.4 μg/L at station S-PATB-92-10) exceeded the WQC (2.9 μg/L) and LWQS

(3.63 μg/L). One copper value from station S-PTBA-92-08 in 1992 (27.9 μg/L) exceeded the WQC,

TWQS (13.5 μg/L), and LWQS. Copper was detected only once in either medium, in 1996 and 1998,

below the WQC, LWQS, and TWQS. Zinc was detected in 1987 for water and elutriate, in 1992 at one

station for elutriate, in 1994 and 1998 for both media. No zinc values exceeded the WQC, LWQS, or

TWQS. Metals were not above detection limits for water or elutriate in 1989. Recent sampling and testing

in March 2008 within the Port Arthur Turning Basin detected arsenic, nickel, and zinc in water samples,

and arsenic, copper, nickel, and zinc in elutriate samples. However, all concentrations of detected metals

were below the WQC, TWQS, and LWQS values.

TOC was above detection limits in water and elutriate samples for all stations in 1992, 1994, and 1996

(PBS&J, 2004a). Detected concentrations in 1996 were lower than the 1992 and 1994 samples, which

were similar in value for both water and elutriates. Oil and grease were detected in 1984 and 1987 for

water and elutriate samples. All oil and grease values were similar except for an increased concentration

894
3. Affected Environment

3-14

at station S-PATB-87-08 of 40.0 mg/L. No organics were detected for any year for water or elutriate

samples. Ammonia was detected in all elutriate samples in 1998. Both ammonia and TOC were detected

in the March 2008 water and elutriate samples. However, ammonia concentrations were below the WQC

values for both water and elutriate.

3.3.1.5 Taylor Bayou Turning Basin

Historical water and elutriate data for detected compounds from 1989, 1994, 1996, and 1998 are

presented in PBS&J (2004a). Of the metals, arsenic was found in both water and elutriate at two stations

in 1998. Barium was above detection limits in both media in 1994, 1996, and 1998 (highest

concentrations in 1998). Cadmium was found in all water samples and nickel in two water stations in

1998. Zinc was detected in 1994 and 1996 in both water and elutriates at all stations and in 1998 for all

elutriate samples only (1998 concentrations were the highest). No WQC, LWQS, or TWQS were

exceeded. Metals were not above detection limits for water or elutriate in 1989.

TOC was above detection limits for water and elutriates for all stations in 1994 and 1996, and in 1998 for

water only (PBS&J, 2004a). No other organics were detected for any year in water and elutriate samples.

Ammonia was detected in all elutriate samples in 1998, as has been seen with all reaches sampled of the

SNWW.

3.3.1.6 Port Arthur Canal

Historical water and elutriate data for detected compounds from 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, and

1998 are presented in PBS&J (2004a). For the metals, lead and zinc were found above detection limits in

both water and elutriate samples in 1987. Zinc was the only metal detected in 1990, and the elutriate value

at station S-PA-90-05 (550.0 μg/L) was well above the WQS (85.0 μg/L), LWQS (90.0 μg/L), and

TWQS (92.7 μg/L). Since zinc was not detected in water at that station or in the water or elutriate samples

500 feet up and down stream, and the sediment zinc concentration was not high relative to nearby

stations, this value appears to be an error. In 1992, lead was the only metal found above detection limits in

the elutriate sample. Barium and zinc were detected in both water and elutriates in 1994, and in 1996

barium was found in both media and zinc in elutriate only. For 1998, arsenic was detected in water

samples only at 4 of 14 stations; barium in all water and all but one elutriate sample; cadmium in most

water and one elutriate sample; copper in most water samples; and nickel at 4 stations. Zinc was also

detected in all water and elutriates, at the highest concentrations when compared to historic values. None

of the WQC, LWQS, or TWQS was exceeded. Recent sampling and testing in March 2008 within the

Port Arthur Canal detected nickel in water samples, and arsenic, copper, nickel, and zinc in elutriate

samples. However, the concentrations of metals in both the water and elutriate samples were below the

WQC, TWQS, and LWQS values.

Oil and grease were only detected in water and elutriate samples in 1987. TOC was above detection limits

in water and elutriate samples for all stations in 1992, 1994, and 1996. No other organics were detected in

any year for water and elutriate samples. Ammonia was detected in one elutriate sample (S-PA-98-01) in

895
3. Affected Environment

3-15

1998. Both ammonia and TOC were detected in the March 2008 water and elutriate samples. However,

ammonia concentrations were below the WQC values for both water and elutriate.

3.3.1.7 Neches River Channel

Historical water and elutriate data for detected compounds from 1988, 1990, 1994, 1995, and 1997 are

presented in PBS&J (2004a). The 1995 stations were sampled in March and September of that year. Of

the metals, zinc was detected in water samples from all or most stations in 1990, 1994, and 1997, and

elutriate samples in 1994 and 1995 at most stations. However, all concentrations were well below the

WQC, LWQS, and TWQS for zinc. Barium was detected in 1994, 1995, and 1997 at all water and

elutriate stations. Cadmium was detected in water and elutriate samples from 1997; nickel was detected in

three elutriate samples in 1995 and water in 1997; and lead in one elutriate sample (S-NR-95-21,

September) in 1995. In 1995 (September), chromium was detected in two water samples and most

elutriate samples. Copper was found in all 1995 (September) elutriate samples; all were well above the

TWQS (13.5 μg/L), WQC (2.9 μg/L), and LWQS (3.63 μg/L) ranging from 23.8 μg/L to 55.6 μg/L.

However, copper concentrations were below detection limits during the March sampling. No metals were

detected in water and elutriate in 1988. Except for the copper concentrations noted above, all values were

below WQC, LWQS, and TWQS. Recent water and elutriate sampling and testing in the Neches River

Channel occurred in April 2009. Results of the tests show all metal concentrations below WQC, LWQS,

and TWQS values.

TOC was above detection limits for water and elutriate samples for all stations in 1990, 1994, 1995, and

1997 (PBS&J, 2004a). No other organics were detected in any year for water and elutriate samples. Both

ammonia and TOC were above detection limits for water and elutriate in the April 2009 samples.

Chrysene (1.16 μg/L), benzo(a)anthracene (0.45 μg/L), benzo(k)fluranthene (0.53 μg/L), and

benzo(a)pyrene (0.51 μg/L) were also found in an elutriate duplicate sample from April 2009. There are

no WQSs for these PAHs. However, ammonia concentrations were below the WQC for both water and

elutriate.

3.3.1.8 Sabine River Channel

Historical water and elutriate data for detected compounds from 1990 and 1995 are presented in PBS&J

(2004a). Of the metals, zinc was detected in two of seven water samples and three of seven elutriate

samples, but all concentrations were below TWQS, LWQS, and WQC. No other metals were detected in

1990 water and elutriate samples. In 1995, barium was above detection limits in all water and elutriate

samples. Copper was detected in all elutriate samples, which were all above the WQC (2.9 μg/L) and

LWQS (3.63 μg/L), ranging from 5.0 μg/L to 7.5 μg/L. Lead was also found in elutriates at one station

(S-SR-95-04) but at concentrations well below the LWQS, TWQS, and WQC.

TOC was not detected in 1990, but was found above detection limits in all water and elutriate samples in

1995. No other organics were detected in 1990 or 1995.

896
3. Affected Environment

3-16

3.3.1.9 GIWW – Port Arthur to High Island

Historical water and elutriate data for detected compounds for 1983 and 1993 are presented in PBS&J

(2004a). Arsenic was the only metal detected in 1983, and it was found in all water and elutriate samples;

however, it was not detected in 1993. In 1993, barium and zinc were found above detection limits in all

water and elutriate samples, and in most cases elutriate concentrations were higher than water concentrations. All concentrations were less than the LWQS, TWQS, and WQC.

Oil and grease were detected in water and elutriate samples in 1983. TOC was above detection limits for

water and elutriates for all stations in 1993 (PBS&J, 2004a). Ammonia was detected in most elutriate

samples from 1983, but in none from the GIWW from 1993.

3.4 SEDIMENT QUALITY

Data collected by the USACE since 1983 were analyzed to determine the sediment quality of the SNWW.

These samples of maintenance material are collected periodically before a maintenance-dredging event,

following noncontaminating procedures approved by the USACE and EPA. Reference station material,

for comparison with the maintenance material, is collected from areas in the vicinity of and similar to the

maintenance material stations, but which have not been impacted by dredging and dredged material

placement. For example, the reference station for the Upper Neches River Channel bioassays and

chemistry was located in an oxbow off the channel and surrounded by nonindustrial land; the Lower

Neches River Channel reference station was located in the Bessie Heights area where the channel material

would be used beneficially; the Sabine-Neches Canal reference station was located in east Sabine Lake,

near the Sabine NWR; and offshore reference stations were located in designated reference areas, upcurrent of the channel (PBS&J, 2004a; Appendix B).

There are no sediment quality criteria with which to compare concentrations in the sediment; however,

there are several different guidelines that are used to look for a cause for concern in sediment samples.

One guideline is the Effects Range Low, or ERL. ERL were developed by a technique that demonstrates

no cause and effect from the chemicals in the data set. When ERL derived from sets of data from different

areas are compared, the results are inconsistent (USACE, 1998b). Since the ERL are not based on cause

and effect data, they are used only to determine a possible “cause of concern.” The ERL presented here

are those given in the NOAA 1999 Screening Quick Reference Tables (Buchman, 1999). Where

applicable, reference stations were examined, and in most cases, concentrations were within a factor of

five relative to these stations, which is normal, as an examination of years of data collected from

maintenance material along the waterway of Texas will show (USACE database). Also, while “higher

than” is used in the following discussion, this only means that one concentration is numerically higher

than another. However, there was no replication for these samples, and statistical significance, if any,

could not be determined.

The need for determining a “cause for concern” is based on the guidance documents developed by the

EPA and USACE. Specifically, the Inland Testing Manual (ITM) (EPA/USACE, 1998) and the Regional

Implementation Agreement (RIA) (EPA/USACE, 2003), which are guidance manuals in EPA Region 6

897
3. Affected Environment

3-17

for inland (including bays) and ocean placement of dredged material, respectively, use a structured

hierarchical procedure for determining data needs relative to decision-making. This involves a series of

tiers or levels of intensity of investigation—the tiered approach. Typically, tiered testing involves

decreased uncertainty and increased available information with increasing tiers. This approach is intended

to ensure the maintenance and protection of environmental quality, as well as the optimal use of

resources. Specifically, least effort is required in situations where clear determinations can be made

whether unacceptable adverse impacts are likely or not likely to occur based on available information.

Most effort is required where clear determinations cannot be made with available information. The tiered

approach to testing in this ITM and RIA must be initiated at Tier I. The tiered approach is designed to aid

in generating physical, chemical, toxicity, and bioaccumulation information, but not provide more

information than is necessary to make factual determinations. Tiered testing results in environmental

protection by producing a more efficient compilation of necessary evaluations at reduced costs, especially

to low-risk operations. Disposal operations that obviously have low environmental impact generally

should not require intensive investigation to make factual determinations.

It is necessary to proceed through the tiers only until information sufficient to make factual

determinations has been obtained. For example, if the available information is sufficient to make factual

determinations, no further testing is required. The initial tier (Tier I) uses readily available, existing

information (including all previous testing). More-extensive evaluation (tiers II, III, and IV) may be

needed for materials that have a clear potential for impact or for which Tier I information is inadequate to

determine the lack of potential for impacts. Tier II is concerned solely with sediment and water chemistry,

including comparison of elutriates to WQSs and WQC. Tier III is concerned with well-defined, nationally

accepted toxicity and bioaccumulation testing procedures. Tier IV allows for case-specific laboratory and

field testing, and is intended for use in unusual circumstances. The approach is to enter Tier I and proceed

as far as necessary to make factual determinations, i.e., there must be enough information available to

make determinations on water column impact, benthic toxicity, and benthic bioaccumulation. The tests in

the ITM and RIA reflect the present state-of-the-art procedures for dredged material evaluation.

The need to determine a “cause for concern” is driven by the tiered approach. If a “cause for concern”

arises, sufficient information must be gathered to determine whether the dredged material is acceptable

for in-bay or ocean placement. Therefore, the ERL is used as a tool to determine whether there might be a

concern with the dredged material, as WQS were used for elutriates. The WQS are standards that must be

met whereas the ERLs have no statutory authority.

3.4.1 Sabine-Neches Waterway

3.4.1.1 Entrance Channel

Historical sediment data for detected compounds from 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, and 2004 are presented in

PBS&J (2004a, 2004b) and Appendix B. Of the metals, chromium, copper, lead, and nickel were detected

at all stations for all years. At PA station S-SB-93-DA3, in 1993, copper was detected at a concentration

of 70.0 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), much greater than the concentrations found at the reference

898
3. Affected Environment

3-18

stations, channel stations, and other PA stations and the DA3 station in 1995. Therefore, it appears to be

an aberrant value. Cadmium was detected at all stations in 1993 and 1998; barium and zinc in 1995, 1996,

and 1998 at all stations; and arsenic was detected in 1998 at all stations. The zinc concentrations in 1995

were slightly higher than the reference stations. In 2004, the most-inshore station (adjacent to ODMDS 4)

tended to have the highest sediment concentration, and the ERL for arsenic was exceeded at this station.

However, the elutriate concentration was well below WQS and WQC, and bioassays indicated no

toxicity. There were no trends in the data, and no ERL were exceeded by samples from the Entrance

Channel Extension in the 2004 samples. The sediments at the channel stations were mostly silt and clay,

whereas sediments from the reference and PA stations generally contained a higher sand content. Since

trace metal concentrations tend to be positively correlated to silt/clay concentrations, slightly higher

metals concentration would be expected in the channel sediments.

Of the organics, TOC was detected only in 1998 but at high concentrations when compared to the

reference station. The TOC values were so much higher that there was likely a change in methodology in

1998 because an error in units would not account for the difference. Total volatile solids (TVS) and

ammonia (both not measured until 1993) were detected in 1996 and 1998. The reference stations were

below detection limits for TVS and in 1998 for ammonia only. However, concentrations of TVS were at

least five times the detection limits and ammonia concentrations were also above detection limits in 1996

(S-J-96-DA4) and in 1998 (S-J-98-02, S-J-98-03, and S-SB-98-02). Total sulfides, which was not

measured until 1993, were detected in 1998 at most stations at concentrations higher than the reference

stations (S-SB-98-REF3&4) that had concentrations below detection limits.

Solid phase bioassays were conducted on Entrance Channel sediments in 1999 (PBS&J, 1999) and in

2004 (PBS&J, 2004b) and on Entrance Channel Extension sediments in 2004 (Appendix B). In all cases,

there were no tests in which survival in the Reference Control was greater than survival in the treatments

and the difference exceeded 10 percent (20 percent for the amphipods), requiring statistical analysis.

Therefore, the survival data from the solid phase bioassay indicate no potential for environmentally

unacceptable toxic impacts to benthic organisms from the placement of dredged material from the

Entrance Channel or Entrance Channel Extension. Bioaccumulation data in 2004 likewise indicated no

expectation of adverse impacts to benthic organisms from the placement of Entrance Channel or Entrance

Channel Extension dredged material.

3.4.1.2 Sabine Pass Channel

Historical sediment data for detected compounds from 1987, 1990, 1992, and 1998 are presented in

PBS&J (2004a). Arsenic was above detection limits at one station in 1987 and at all stations in 1998.

Chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc were detected at all stations in 1987, 1990, 1992, and 1998. Lead was

found in 1987, 1992, and 1998 at all stations. Oil and grease were detected only in 1987 but at all stations;

TOC was detected at all stations in 1998 (see subsection 3.3.1.2); total PCBs were detected at two stations

in 1987; and TVS was detected in 1998 at all stations. Ammonia was detected at all stations in 1998 with

the concentration at station S-SP-98-04 (21.4 mg/kg) much higher than at the other stations.

899
3. Affected Environment

3-19

3.4.1.3 Sabine-Neches Canal

Historical sediment data for detected compounds from 1984, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,

and 1998 are presented in PBS&J (2004a). Arsenic was detected in 1984, 1987, and 1997 at all stations;

barium at all stations from 1994 to 1998; chromium in 1987 through 1997 at all stations; copper at every

station for all years except 1998; lead in 1987 and 1994 to 1998 at all stations; mercury in 1997 at most

stations; nickel in 1989, 1990, 1997, and 1998 at all stations; and zinc in all years at every station. These

values were roughly in the same range in all years. However, one station in 1990 (S-SN-90-09) had a

copper concentration of 40.0 mg/kg, much higher than the other stations for which values ranged from

3.3 mg/kg to 8.1 mg/kg. This anomalous value of copper does not indicate a cause for concern, since

values were lower in subsequent years. Recent sediment samples collected in March 2008 within the

Sabine-Neches Canal showed an arsenic concentration slightly greater (9.7 mg/kg) than the ERL value

(8.2 mg/kg). All other detected metal concentrations were below the ERL values.

For the organics, TOC was detected in 1994, 1995, 1997, and 1998 with the concentrations in 1998 higher

than in previous years (see subsection 3.3.1.3). Oil and grease were detected in 1984 (highest

concentration) and 1987; total PAHs only in 1987; and the PAHs, fluoranthene and benzo(a)pyrene in

1987 and 1989 (highest concentration). In 1997, the PAHs, phenanthrene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene,

and chrysene, plus TPH were detected at most stations. TVS and ammonia were detected at most stations

in 1996 through 1998. Total sulfides were only detected in 1996 at three out of seven stations. All values

were roughly in the same ranges in all years. Both ammonia and TOC were detected in the March 2008

sediment sample (S-SN-08-04A).

3.4.1.4 Port Arthur Turning Basins

Historical sediment data for detected compounds from 1984, 1987, 1989, 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998 are

presented in PBS&J (2004a). Arsenic was above detection limits in 1984, 1987, and 1998 at all stations,

except for one in 1984. Barium was also found in 1994, 1996, and 1998 at all stations. Chromium,

copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were detected in 1987, 1989, 1992, 1997, 1996, and 1998 at all stations,

with the exception of lead, which was not detected in 1989. These values were roughly in the same ranges

in all years. Recent sediment samples collected and tested in March 2008 detected arsenic concentrations

in all samples slightly greater than the ERL value of 8.2 mg/kg. The arsenic concentrations in the samples

ranged from 8.7 to 11.9 mg/kg. In addition, one sediment sample (S-PATB-08-08) had a copper

concentration (49.6 mg/kg) that slightly exceeded the ERL value of 34.0 mg/kg. Chrysene (at

65.3 micrograms per kilogram [μg/kg] vs. ERL = 384 μg/kg), butylbenzylphthalate (66.9 μg/kg vs. no

ERL), and pyrene (at 68.5 μg/kg vs. ERL = 665 μg/kg) were found in sample S-PATB-08-08 in March

2008.

TOC was found in 1994 and 1998 at all stations, the 1998 concentrations being much higher than in 1994

(see subsection 3.3.1.4). Total PAH, fluoranthene, and benzo(a)pyrene were detected in 1987 at all

stations. Fluoranthene was found at a higher concentration (24.1 mg/kg) at station S-PATB-87-09 than at

the other stations. Benzo(a)pyrene was also found at two of three stations in 1989; benzo(e)pyrene in

900
3. Affected Environment

3-20

1996, at one of three stations; and ammonia in 1998, at all stations. Also, oil and grease, in 1984 and

1987, and TVS in 1998, were detected at all stations. Both ammonia and TOC were detected for all

sample stations in March 2008.

3.4.1.5 Taylor Bayou Turning Basin

Historical sediment data for detected compounds from 1989, 1994, 1996, and 1998 are presented in

PBS&J (2004a). For the metals, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc were found in all years at all stations.

Zinc concentrations were higher in 1994 and 1998, when compared to the 1989 data; however, there are

not enough data to indicate a trend. The concentration of copper at station S-PATB-89-12 was

70.0 mg/kg, much higher compared to the data from other years, including later years and, interestingly,

at the same anomalous concentration found at S-SB-93-DA3 (see subsection 3.3.1.1). Therefore, there is

no trend of increasing copper concentrations with time. Barium was detected in 1994, 1996, and 1998 at

all stations, and arsenic in 1998 at all stations. The barium values were roughly the same ranges in all

years.

TOC was detected in all 1994 and 1998 samples, the greatest concentrations occurring in 1998 (see

subsection 3.3.1.5). Naphthalene was found at one station in 1996; benzo(a)pyrene at one station each in

1989 (14.1 mg/kg) and 1996 (41.5 mg/kg); and benzo(e)pyrene in 1996. Ammonia and TVS were

detected in 1998 at all stations.

3.4.1.6 Port Arthur Canal

Historical sediment data for detected compounds from 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998 are

presented in PBS&J (2004a). Nickel and zinc were found in all years at all stations; chromium and copper

in all years at most stations; and lead was found in all years (except 1990) at all stations. Arsenic was

detected in 1987 at one station and in 1998 at all stations; and barium was detected in 1994, 1996, and

1998 at all stations. All values were in the same range in all years, with the exception of barium in 1994

and 1996, which had more-elevated concentrations than in 1998 values. Recent sediment samples

collected and tested in March 2008 detected arsenic concentrations slightly in excess of ERL values for

stations S-PA-08-02 (8.95 mg/kg) and S-PA-08-07 (dup) (9.82 mg/kg). All other metals detected had

concentrations below ERL values.

Oil and grease were detected in 1987 at all stations. TOC was found in 1994, 1996, and 1998 at all

stations, with the 1998 values being the highest (see subsection 3.3.1.6). In 1987, total PAH and

fluoranthene were detected at one station, and benzo(e)pyrene was detected in 1996. Ammonia and TVS

were detected at station S-PA-98-01 in 1998. Both ammonia and TOC were detected in all samples tested

in March 2008.

3.4.1.7 Neches River Channel

Historical sediment data for detected compounds from 1988, 1990, 1994, 1995, and 1997 are presented in

PBS&J (2004a). Chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc were found at most or all stations for each year.

901
3. Affected Environment

3-21

Lead was also detected in all years, except 1990, and at most stations, consistent with what was found at

the other reaches for this same year. Arsenic was detected in 1988 and 1997 at most stations; barium was

detected in 1994, 1995, and 1997 at all stations; and cadmium was detected at most stations in 1988 and

1997. Two stations (S-NR-88-21 and S-NR-88-18) exhibited greater copper concentrations (30.0 mg/kg)

when compared to the other stations. Barium concentrations were higher in 1994 than in subsequent

years. All other concentrations fell within similar ranges for all years.

Recent sediment sampling and testing occurred in the Neches River on April 1, 2009. Results of the tests

showed arsenic at four sample stations (S-NR-09-05, -06, -10, and -11) slightly exceeding ERLs. The

exceeded values ranged from 8.37 to 9.41 mg/kg, as compared to the arsenic ERL of 8.2 mg/kg. All other

detected concentrations for the remaining metals were below ERL values. Both ammonia and TOC were

found above the detection limits in April 2009.

TOC was above detection limits for 1994, 1995, and 1997 at most stations, with concentrations in 1994

the highest (95.0 to 622.0 mg/kg). Naphthalene, fluoranthene, and benzo(a)pyrene were detected in 1994

and 1995 at a few stations. The concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene in 1994 ranged from 36.0 to

533.0 mg/kg, at higher concentrations than in other years. The greatest concentration of fluoranthene

occurred in 1995 at station S-NR-95-19 at 266.8 mg/kg. Total PAH, acenapthene, and benzo(e)pyrene

were above detection limits in 1995. Concentrations of acenapthene at some stations are high (ranging

from 81.4 to 321.9 mg/kg) relative to other stations. Also, TPH, TVS, and ammonia were found above

detection limits at in 1997.

3.4.1.8 Sabine River Channel

Historical sediment data for detected compounds from 1990 and 1995 are presented in PBS&J (2004a). In

1990, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc were above detection limits at all stations. One copper

concentration at station S-SR-90-05 was higher (40.0 mg/kg) than at the other stations, but all other

concentrations were within the same ranges. In 1995, barium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc

were above detection limits at all stations. Mercury was found at stations S-SR-95-02 (0.26 mg/kg) and

S-SR-95-06 (0.36 mg/kg). Benzo(a)pyrene was found in 1990 at one station at a concentration of

10.0 mg/kg.

3.4.1.9 GIWW – Port Arthur to High Island

Historical sediment data for detected compounds for 1983 and 1993 in the Port Arthur to High Island

segment of the GIWW are presented in PBS&J (2004a). Chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were

above detection limits in both years at most stations. Arsenic was also detected in 1983 at all stations; and

barium and cadmium were detected at all stations in 1993. All values were roughly the same for both

years. TOC was found in 1993 at all stations, with higher concentrations at stations GIP-PAHI-93-17

(528.0 mg/kg) and GIP-PAHI-93-33 (204.0 mg/kg). Ammonia was also above detection limits in 1983 at

all stations.

902
3. Affected Environment

3-22

3.4.2 Summary

In summary, an examination of the sediment data presented in PBS&J (2004a), and sediment data

recently collected in March 2008 and April 2009, indicates no cause for concern, with the possible

exception of elevated PAHs in one reach of the Neches River. There are nine sites listed in Table 3.3-1

that are considered to be priority Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) sites, and there is a

reach of the Neches River (stations 750 + 000 to 950 + 000, see Figure 2.4-1g) that has higher sediment

PAH concentrations than other reaches of the SNWW, but the location of the sites in Table 3.3-1 do not

correlate to the higher-PAH reach of the Neches River. Additionally, none of those PAHs are found in the

elutriate samples from the higher-PAH reach of the Neches River (Section 3.3), so there is no indication

that those PAHs would be released during dredging and/or placement. Taking all of this information into

account, there appear to be no reaches of the SNWW that exhibit a cause for concern.

Table 3.3-1

Summary of Priority HTRW Sites within Sabine-Neches Waterway

Site Name Site ID Constituents of Concern Media Impacted Status

Bailey Waste

Disposal Site

512 Arsenic compounds, benzene,

phenols, pyridenes, naphthalenes, and

chlorinated hydrocarbons

Surface water,

groundwater, soils

Cleanup complete in 1998; Operation

and Maintenance underway since

1999

State Marine 203 PAHs, metals Surface water Evaluation and cleanup are

underway, but the nature and extent

of contamination and the risks posed

to human health and the environment

are unknown

Palmer Barge

Lines

548 Aluminum, barium, chromium,

cobalt, iron, lead, magnesium, nickel,

zinc, pesticides, volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), PAHs,

pentachlorophenol (PCP), and

benzene

Surface water Evaluation and cleanup underway

since 2000; the EPA is considering

various remedial alternatives

Star Lake Canal 471 Chromium, copper, PAHs, and PCBs Surface water,

sediment

Evaluation and cleanup underway

since 2001, but the nature and extent

of contamination and the risks posed

to human health and the environment

are unknown

International

Creosoting

30 Arsenic, chromium, lead, creosote

compounds, semivolatile organic

compounds (SVOC), and VOCs

Groundwater,

sediment, soil,

surface water

Clean up underway

Maintech

International

410 PAHs Groundwater, soils Cleanup completed in 2000;

undergoing Operation and

Maintenance

Excell 28 TPH, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,

and xylene

Groundwater Investigation underway

Port of Beaumont,

Beaumont Elevator

113 VOCs, herbicides, and pesticides Groundwater, soils Investigation underway

Woodcrest Site 584 VOCs Soil Investigation underway

Source: Banks Information Solutions (2002).

903
3. Affected Environment

3-23

3.5 HYDROLOGY

The study area is located within the Neches-Trinity Coastal Basin, the lower Neches River Basin, the

lower Sabine River Basin, and the Calcasieu/Sabine River Basin. The Sabine River Basin is long and

narrow with a length of approximately 300 miles. The basin has a watershed area of about 9,756 square

miles, including 7,396 square miles in Texas. The Sabine River flows southeasterly from its source in

Hunt County, Texas, for about 165 miles to the Texas-Louisiana border in the vicinity of Logansport,

Louisiana. From there, the river flows in a southerly direction to Sabine Lake and the Gulf. Land surface

elevations in the Sabine River watershed vary from a few feet above sea level near the coast to

approximately 700 feet above mean sea level at the headwaters. The Sabine River Tidal section is

24 miles long starting from the confluence with Sabine Lake in Orange County to West Bluff in Orange

County. Three large tributaries drain into the Sabine River Tidal section within the study area. These

tributaries are Little Cypress, Cow, and Adams bayous.

The Neches River originates in southwest Van Zandt County and flows southeasterly through the Piney

Woods of east Texas to the confluence with the Angelina River. The upper Neches River has a watershed

of about 7,451 square miles and is approximately 150 miles in length. The Neches River Tidal section is

27 miles long starting from the confluence with Sabine Lake in Orange County to a point 7 miles

upstream of IH 10 in Orange County. The hydrology of the Neches River Tidal segment is influenced by

tidal and freshwater exchange with Sabine Lake and the Sabine-Neches Canal at the lower end of the

stream segment, and by freshwater inflows from Pine Island Bayou and the Neches River at the upper end

of the stream segment.

Sabine Lake is formed by the confluence of the Neches and Sabine rivers. The lake is 68.7 square miles in

size and is fairly shallow, averaging about 4 to 6 feet in depth. The lake is located at the east side of the

SNWW from Port Arthur and Pleasure Island. Sabine Lake has a drainage area of approximately

50,000 square miles in Texas and Louisiana that results in freshwater inflow of about 13 million acre-feet

per year (McFarlane, 1996). Between Sabine Lake and the Gulf lies Sabine Pass. It is 2.1 square miles in

size and is located from the end of the jetties at the Gulf to SH 82.

In addition to the Neches and Sabine rivers, Sabine Lake and the SNWW are fed by a number of smaller

watercourses from both the Texas and Louisiana sides of the lake. From Louisiana, several smaller

watercourses including Greens Bayou, Johnson’s Bayou, Willow Bayou, Three Bayou, Lighthouse

Bayou, Starks Canal, Hog Island Gully, West Cove Canal, and Black Bayou drain the Sabine NWR area

and provide water exchange between the Sabine Lake and Calcasieu Lake systems. From Texas, the

smaller waterbodies contributing to Sabine Lake and the SNWW include Old River Bayou draining to

Old River Cove at the north end of Sabine Lake; Bessie Heights Canal draining the Bessie Heights Marsh

area; Taylor Bayou draining the Big Hill Reservoir area and the J.D. Murphree WMA; the Keith Lake

Channel draining surrounding lakes and marshland to the SNWW; Salt Bayou draining the McFaddin

NWR and Sea Rim State Park; and Star Lake draining the southern areas of the McFaddin NWR and

surrounding area. Of these smaller waterbodies, the following areas are of particular concern to this study:

904
3. Affected Environment

3-24

• Bessie Heights Canal, located on the Neches River approximately 10 miles upstream of Rainbow

Bridge, drains the Bessie Heights Marsh area and the Bessie Heights Oil and Gas Field. There are

numerous small canals associated with the development of the oil field feeding into Bessie

Heights Canal. These smaller canals have caused increased saltwater intrusion into the

marshlands of the Bessie Heights area.

• Salt Bayou, located in southern Jefferson County, feeds Salt Lake and drains the McFaddin NWR

to the eastern portion of the GIWW. A water control structure, known as the Salt Bayou

Structure, located at the outlet of Salt Bayou into the GIWW prevents saltwater intrusion via the

GIWW into the surrounding marshlands that were affected by the deepening of the GIWW and

SNWW. The Salt Bayou Structure works in conjunction with the Salt Lake Structure at Perkins

Levee to control salinity levels in the McFaddin NWR, Sea Rim State Park, and the J.D.

Murphree WMA. The Salt Bayou system is affected by the SNWW through the opening at the

Keith Lake Fish Pass.

• Black Bayou estuary and eastern shoreline of Sabine Lake located in Cameron and Calcasieu

parishes. This area has suffered significant erosion and loss of marsh area. According to the

Louisiana Coast 2050 report (LCWCR/WCRA, 1998), the Black Bayou mapping unit had lost

4,900 acres of marshland between 1978 and 1990 because of altered hydrology and wave/wake

erosion.

• Willow Bayou estuary, located in Cameron Parish primarily in the Sabine NWR. This area has

suffered significant Sabine Lake shoreline erosion and loss of interior marsh. From 1974 to 1990,

1,140 acres were lost (LCWCR/WCRA, 1999).

Eleven water quality segments, as designated by TCEQ, are included in the Sabine River, Neches River,

Sabine Lake, and Sabine Pass. While these segments do not necessarily pertain to hydrology, they are

useful for delineating waterbodies for discussion purposes. These include:

Segment Identification

0501 Sabine River Tidal

0501B Little Cypress Bayou

0502 Sabine River Above Tidal

0508 Adams Bayou Tidal

0508A Adams Bayou Above Tidal

0511 Cow Bayou Tidal

0511A Cow Bayou Above Tidal

0601 Neches River Tidal

0601A Star Lake Canal

2411 Sabine Pass

2412 Sabine Lake

Upstream of Sabine Pass (excluding the Sabine and Neches river segments) is the Neches-Trinity Coastal

Basin and the Sabine River Basin, which include the following major waterbodies or segments as

designated by TCEQ. However, some of these waterbodies do not drain into the SNWW.

905
3. Affected Environment

3-25

Segment Identification

0701 Taylor Bayou Above Tidal

0701D Shallow Prong Lake

0702 Intracoastal Waterway Tidal

0702A Alligator Bayou

0703 Sabine-Neches Canal Tidal

0704 Hillebrandt Bayou

0704A Willow Marsh Bayou

0704B Kidd Gully

110301 Sabine River confluence with Old River below Sabine Island WMA to Sabine Lake

110302 Black Bayou from boundary between segments 1103 and 1106 to Sabine Lake

110303 Sabine River

110303 Sabine Pass

110602 Black Bayou – Intracoastal Waterway to boundary between segments 1103 and 1106

110701 Sabine River Basin Coastal Bays and Gulf Waters to the State 3-mile limit

The coastal watersheds along SNWW are generally flat and consist of coastal forested wetlands and

marshes, and prairies. The extensive marshlands occur in areas less than 5 feet above mean sea level and

extend inland 4 to 15 miles along the entire Gulf shoreline. Marshes and associated swamps extend up the

reaches of the Sabine and Neches rivers.

Although the geomorphology of the system indicates that the Sabine Lake estuary was historically a

freshwater environment, a survey of the Sabine River by the USACE in 1879 suggests Sabine Lake may

have had at least periods of natural saltwater intrusion. Description of plant communities near the mouth

of the Sabine River at Sabine Lake indicated the absence of riparian vegetation typical of freshwater

rivers in this region and the presence of salt-tolerant plants (USACE, 1980). It is likely that saltwater

intrusion may have occurred with tidal surges from Gulf storms resulting in an estuarine environment.

3.5.1 Freshwater Flows

The SNWW contains perennial freshwater flow from both the Neches and Sabine rivers and their

tributaries as well as tidal flow from the Gulf. The USGS maintains a set of gauge stations in the study

area (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/tx/nwis/rt), including:

USGS 08041000 Neches River at Evadale, Texas

USGS 08041500 Village Creek near Kountze, Texas

USGS 08041700 Pine Island Bayou near Sour Lake, Texas

USGS 08030500 Sabine River near Ruliff, Texas

USGS 08042522 Taylor-Alligator Bayou Pump Station near Port Arthur, Texas

Of these, the USGS gauge near Evadale on the Neches River (08041000), with peak flow records from

1884 to present, and the gauge near Ruliff on the Sabine River (08030500), with peak flow records from

1924 to present, contain the flow data that can best describe the freshwater inflow into the study area. The

Evadale gauge has a drainage area of 7,951 square miles, and the Ruliff gauge has a drainage area of

906
3. Affected Environment

3-26

9,329 square miles. Both gauges are upstream of Sabine Lake. Peak flow records for the Evadale and

Ruliff gauges range from 5,890 cubic feet per second (cfs) on October 30, 1970, to 125,000 cfs in 1884

and 11,100 cfs on June 11, 1981, to 121,000 cfs on May 22, 1953, respectively. Typical dry weather

flows on both the Sabine and Neches rivers each average about 1,200 cfs. Information developed by the

Waterway Experiment Station of the USACE (Vicksburg District) indicated that 10 percentile flows

range from 57,100 to 418,500 acre-feet/month; mean flows range from 342,400 to 1,540,000 acrefeet/month; and 90 percentile flows range from 612,500 to 3,302,000 acre-feet/month.

3.5.2 Water Exchange Patterns between Calcasieu and Sabine Lakes

Water exchange between Calcasieu and Sabine lakes occurs through the marsh of the Sabine NWR,

located between Calcasieu and Sabine lakes and midway between the GIWW to the north and the Gulf to

the south. The GIWW, North Line Canal, Central Canal, and South Line Canal provide hydrologic

connections between the two lakes, as shown on Figure 3.5-1. With the exception of a few freshwater

marsh impoundments, the area south of the GIWW is tidally influenced, and water level and flow

direction can vary daily with tide, wind, stormwater runoff, river stage, barometric pressure, and controlstructure operations. Studies of the area have shown that wind is the primary force affecting the flow

patterns between the two lakes, resulting in flow patterns that overpower the effects of lunar tides (Paille,

1996).

During prolonged periods of strong southeast and south winds (typically occurring prior to frontal

passage), a large volume of Gulf water is forced into Calcasieu and Sabine lakes, raising water levels in

the area. The rise in water levels in the lakes causes strong incoming flows to occur in the surrounding

marshes. The large area of marsh and shallow open water extending northward from Backridge Canal to

Hackberry can also experience a push of water northward. This northward push of water causes water

levels in the southern end of the open-water area to lower, facilitating flow into the area from Calcasieu

Lake via Hog Island Gully and Kayo Bayou. In addition, the Roadside Canal flows strongly toward the

southern end of the open water, importing water from Calcasieu Lake via the Headquarters Canal and

West Cove Canal water control structures. During these wind conditions, Backridge Canal flows

northward toward the southern end of the open area. At the northern end of the open-water area, these

high-tide conditions result in discharge of water through Rycade Canal toward Black Lake. The discharge

through Rycade Canal is often very strong as a result of substantial head differential that can be created

by the wind-induced lowering of water levels in the southern portion of Black Lake. North Line Canal

conveys large volumes of water from wind-induced high-tide areas within the Sabine NWR toward

Sabine Lake by way of Black Bayou (Paille, 1996).

During prolonged periods of strong northerly winds (typically occurring after frontal passage), water

levels in the nearshore Gulf and within Calcasieu and Sabine lakes lower, often resulting in a continuous

outflow from Calcasieu and Sabine lakes. The large area of marsh and shallow open water extending

northward from Backridge Canal to Hackberry can also experience a push of water southward and, thus,

raising water levels in the southern end of the open water and lowering water levels in the northern end.

This southward push of water in the open water often results in a strong flow toward Calcasieu Lake due

907
FIGURE 3.5-1

MAP OF HYDROLOGIC CONNECTIONS BETWEEN

SABINE LAKE AND CALCASIEU LAKE

Source: Paille, 1996

3-27

908
3. Affected Environment

3-28

to the lowering water levels in the lake caused by the outgoing flows. The Backridge and Roadside canals

can convey large volumes of water from the high-water-level areas toward Calcasieu Lake via

Headquarters Canal and West Cove Canal water structures. Flow patterns in Rycade Canal can vary,

however, with the North Line Canal west of Beach Canal typically draining west toward Sabine Lake

(Paille, 1996).

During summer months, when winds are typically light and variable, lunar tides generally dominate the

flows between Calcasieu and Sabine lakes. Normal flow patterns for ebb tides are similar to frontal

passage and for flood tides are similar to conditions prior to frontal passage, but in smaller magnitudes.

During ebb tide, GIWW, North Line Canal, Central Canal, and South Line Canal drain the Sabine NWR

marsh area simultaneously toward both Calcasieu and Sabine lakes, with no-flow sections in each canal

that vary with wind, water levels, river stages, and control-structure operation (Paille, 1996).

3.5.3 Flow Diversion, Demands and Discharges

3.5.3.1 Flow Diversions

Flow patterns and salinity in Sabine Lake, surrounding marshes, and tributaries have changed as a result

of navigational dredging. In 1876, a sandbar was removed from Sabine Pass to aid in navigation, which

consequently facilitated saltwater intrusion into Sabine Lake (USACE, 1975a, 1998a). Since then,

channel deepening and widening has exacerbated saltwater intrusion into Sabine Lake and surrounding

marshes and tributaries. In addition, Sabine Lake, Calcasieu Lake in Louisiana, and surrounding

waterbodies have been connected through man-made canals and the GIWW. Tidal currents emanating

from the Gulf transport seawater through Sabine Pass into Sabine Lake and adjacent waterbodies.

Although the lake and associated waterbodies are low-energy environments, wind-generated currents

strongly influence water movement within the system (Paille, 1996). As a result, a complex hydraulic

relationship has developed within this area.

Several saltwater barriers in the study area restrict saltwater intrusion into upstream areas. In Texas, along

Taylor Bayou, two saltwater barriers and sets of navigation locks are located approximately 2 miles

upstream of the mouth of Taylor Bayou. Originally installed for irrigation purposes, the saltwater barriers

along Taylor Bayou now primarily serve as a preventative measure for stopping saltwater intrusion into

freshwater marshes and maintaining water level for recreation purposes (JCND, 2002). Additionally, the

TPWD also maintains several small saltwater barriers in various locations along the GIWW for the

purpose of protecting freshwater marshes and habitat within the J.D. Murphree WMA (JCND, 2002).

Saltwater intrusion from the GIWW is controlled by water control structures at Perkins Levee and the

opening of Salt Bayou to the GIWW (USACE, 1992), but the marshes remain open to the salinity

influence of the SNWW through the Keith Lake Fish Pass. The GIWW structures are manually controlled

by the TPWD and can be opened to help drain the area when the marshes have been flooded with highersalinity waters during hurricanes. In the Texas Point NWR, low rock weirs have been constructed on

several small channels in the intermediate and brackish marshes; however, unrestricted flow still is

provided through the largest stream in the hydro-unit, Texas Bayou.

909
3. Affected Environment

3-29

The area within the Calcasieu/Sabine River Basin has experienced accelerated marsh deterioration and

conversion to shallow open water as a result of the construction of the Calcasieu Ship Channel, the

SNWW, and the GIWW. Efforts to combat the increased flow of salt water into the area include both

structural and vegetative methods. A 1990 inventory of water control structures along the perimeter and

interior of the Calcasieu/Sabine River Basin located 174 structures. Examples of these water-control

structures include (Marcantel, 1996):

Location Description

Louisiana SH 82 at Calcasieu Ship Channel Three-barrel structure allows only one-way flow into Calcasieu Ship

Channel

Louisiana SH 27 at Holly Beach, Louisiana Two-barrel structure allows only one-way flow into the roadside ditch

along Louisiana SH 82

Structure at First Bayou Bulkhead structure with two bays managed so that two-way flow is possible

until salinity levels reach or exceed 7 ppt in the road ditch along west

Louisiana SH 27

Hog Island Gully Fixed crest weir with tainter arm gate that remains open until salinity levels

reach 12 ppt in Brown Lake (on the north end of the Sabine NWR)

West Cove Canal Fixed crest weir with tainter arm gate that remains open until salinity levels

reach 12 ppt in Back Ridge Canal of the West Cove Canal structure

Headquarters Canal Single-barrel structure where gates remain open until salinity levels reach

or exceed 12 ppt in Brown Lake

Rycade Canal Bulkhead structure with seven bays managed so that flap gates are allowed

to operate when water levels in interior marshes are above marsh level

and/or salinity at the structure reaches or exceeds 5 ppt

Gray’s Ditch Levee/Cattle Walkway Levee has two openings (one at unnamed bayou and one at Willow Bayou)

and forms a barrier along the east bank of Sabine Lake

Deep Bayou Two-barrel structure allows one-way flow out of Deep Bayou into

Johnson’s Bayou

South Starks Canal Three-barrel structure allows one-way flow to the east

More recently, two CWPPRA hydrologic restoration projects have been completed in the Black Bayou

and Willow Bayou marshes east of Sabine Lake:

• The East Sabine Lake Hydrologic Restoration Project (CWPPRA Project No. CS-32), approved

in 2001, has nearly been completed (USGS-NWRC, 2004). Project goals include the reduction of

salinities within interior marshes, encouragement of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)

development, hydrologic restoration of historic flows, reduction of turbidity in open-water areas,

and the restoration and protection of marsh through earthen vegetative terraces. Construction Unit

1, completed in 2006, includes a rock weir at Pines Ridge Bayou, two flapgate culverts at Bridge

Bayou, a rock plug at Double Island Gully, a 3,000-foot-long foreshore rock dike along the

Sabine Lake shore north of Willow Bayou, and approximately 32 miles of vegetated earthen

terraces in large shallow open-water areas south of Greens Lake and south of Willow Bayou

Canal. Hydrodynamic modeling of proposed Construction Unit II water control structures (fixed

crest weirs with boat bays) at Right Prong, Greens, Three, and Willow bayous was completed in

2004 (USFWS-LDNR, 2008a). The modeling predicted that the proposed structures would have

very little effect on reducing project area salinities, and therefore Construction Unit 2 components

were deleted from the restoration plan in 2006. The Pines Bayou weir was rehabilitated in 2007

910
3. Affected Environment

3-30

due to heavy damage from Hurricane Rita. Four 50-foot-wide gaps were also installed in 2007 in

the breakwater near Willow Bayou. Additional in situ earthen terraces are also planned.

• The Black Bayou Hydrologic Restoration Project (CWPPRA Project No. CS-27) was constructed

in 2001 for the purpose of restoring coastal marsh habitat and slowing the conversion of wetlands

to shallow open water. The project limits the amount of saltwater intrusion into the surrounding

marsh and canals from Black Bayou and the GIWW and reduces erosion caused by wave action

from nearby boats and tides (USGS-NWRC, 2002c). These elements are (1) approximately

4.3 miles of rock foreshore dike along the south shore of the GIWW; (2) the Black Bayou Cut-off

Canal rock weir with boat bay; (3) the Burton Canal weir with boat bay; (4) the Block’s Creek

rock weir with boat bay; and (5) a self-regulating tide gate for the NO-13 unit wetlands. The

objective of the tide gate is to divert fresh water from the GIWW and create a hydrologic head

that maximizes freshwater retention time and reduces saltwater intrusion and tidal action.

Terracing and vegetative plantings are also planned as part of the CWPPRA project.

Flows into Sabine Lake have been greatly altered from their natural hydrograph due to major

impoundments in the middle and upper Sabine and Neches river basins. The flow regime of the lower

Sabine River is affected by Toledo Bend Reservoir, which provides electric power, flood control, and

irrigation water. Playing a lesser role, but nevertheless affecting water availability in the Sabine River, are

a number of smaller reservoirs upstream of Toledo Bend Reservoir in Texas. The larger of these

impoundments include lakes Tawakoni, Fork, Cherokee, Martin Creek, and Murval. Additionally, the

flow regime of the lower Sabine River is affected by two diversion canals near Sulphur, Louisiana, which

were constructed to provide municipal, industrial, and irrigation water to Calcasieu Parish in Louisiana

and Orange County in Texas. The diversion pumps currently operate at 20 percent of their capacity that

results in an average daily flow of 336 cfs to Calcasieu Parish and 560 cfs to Orange County.

The flow regime of the Neches River is strongly influenced by Sam Rayburn Reservoir and to a lesser

extent by B.A. Steinhagen Reservoir. Other reservoirs that affect water availability within the Neches

River are upstream of Sam Rayburn Reservoir and include lakes Palestine, Tyler, Jacksonville, Striker,

and Nacogdoches.

Saltwater intrusion in the Neches River became a problem with the construction of the first deepwater

navigation channel to Beaumont in 1915 (USACE, 1998a). Since that time, salt water has threatened

freshwater intakes on the Neches River. In the past, temporary saltwater barriers and freshwater

discharges (up to 2,500 cfs) from Sam Rayburn Reservoir were used to prevent encroachment of salt

water (Lower Neches Valley Authority [LNVA], 2002; USACE, 1998a). A saltwater barrier was

constructed on the Neches River immediately downstream of the confluence of the Neches River and Pine

Island Bayou (USACE, 2004b). Operation of the new saltwater barrier will preclude the need for large

freshwater releases from Sam Rayburn Reservoir during periods of drought, resulting in a net reduction of

freshwater inflow into Sabine Lake (LNVA, 2002; Mosier, 2002). However, provisions for maintaining

environmental flows to protect high-quality wetlands downstream of the saltwater barrier during periods

of drought are currently being developed (Mosier, 2002). Under this plan, special gate operations for

wildlife and environmental management will be coordinated with the USACE. This will include

providing enough freshwater inflow to maintain a specific conductance of 2,800 microsiemens or less

911
3. Affected Environment

3-31

(within 10 feet of the surface) at the IH 10 bridge near Beaumont. While freshwater habitats in the Neches

River will be maintained by the operation of the new saltwater barrier, it is likely that freshwater inflows

into Sabine Lake will be less under drought conditions than historical inflows.

In May 2007, the Texas House of Representatives and Senate passed HB3 and SB3, respectively, which

was signed by the Governor on June 15, 2007 (Texas Legislature Online [TLO], 2007). The

“Environmental Flows” Act took effect on September 1, 2007 (TLO, 2007). The Act creates an

administrative process to determine environmental flow needs for the rivers, bays, and estuaries of Texas.

After the needs are established, TCEQ is required to develop and adopt rules to (1) provide environmental

flow standards necessary to support the ecology of every river and bay system in Texas; (2) establish an

amount of unappropriated water that would be set aside for satisfying the environmental flow standards;

and (3) create a process for reducing the amount of water that would be available under a water rights

permit, issued after the bill’s effective date, to protect the environmental flow standards. TCEQ identified

the lower Sabine River as one of the first tier of instream flow studies to be initiated. TCEQ has

contracted with the Sabine River Authority of Texas (SRA-TX) for assistance in the Lower Sabine

Priority Instream Flow Study. Based on the results of this study, TCEQ will establish environmental flow

standards for the Sabine River/Neches River/Sabine Lake system by September 1, 2010.

3.5.3.2 Freshwater Demands and Discharges

Water demands and supplies have been analyzed for the East Texas Region (Region I), consisting of 20

counties as far north as Smith County that includes the City of Tyler (TWDB, 2007). The projected

regional water demand for the year 2010 is 896,455 acre-feet. Manufacturing represents 45 percent of the

amount and irrigation is 25 percent. Municipal and county demand represents 21 percent of that amount.

This demand is projected to increase by 41 percent by the year 2060. Water supply projected for 2010 is

1,158,261 acre-feet, with 80 percent of the supply from surface water. The remainder of the supply is

from groundwater. While demand is projected to slightly exceed the existing supply by the year 2060, the

recommended water management strategy for the region would result in an additional 324,756 acre-feet

of supply (TWDB, 2007). The plan anticipates expanded exports of water to Region C (Dallas-Fort Worth

area).

During dry conditions, stream flow is influenced by the discharge from permitted wastewater treatment

plants or point sources along tributaries. For the Neches-Trinity Coastal Basin, which includes Taylor

Bayou, there are 89 permitted point sources that have a combined permitted flow of 214 million gallons

per day (MGD), or 330 cfs. The Neches River Basin has 225 point sources for a combined permitted flow

of 1,341 MGD, or 2,070 cfs; and the Sabine River Basin has 166 point sources for a combined permitted

flow of 1,647 MGD, or 2,550 cfs. While actual discharges are usually much smaller than the permitted

flows, and not all of these point sources are located within the study area, some of the discharges would

affect salinity levels in the study area during drought periods.

912
3. Affected Environment

3-32

3.5.4 Tides

Tides in the SNWW and Sabine Lake are dominated by the tides emanating from the Gulf, but lag by

about 1 hour from offshore to Sabine Pass and by 4 to 5 hours from offshore to the upper reaches of the

SNWW. Normal tidal fluctuation in the study area is small with a diurnal range of 1 to 2 feet (Mantz and

Dong, 1996).

The Texas Coast Ocean Observation Network (TCOON) maintains tide gauge stations at Sabine Pass,

Mesquite Point, Port Arthur, Rainbow Bridge, and Orange. These gauges vary in length of record from 5

to 10 years. The statistics of tidal records at these TCOON gauges can be found on the TCOON website

(http://lighthouse.tamucc.edu/TCOON/HomePage). A tidal range varying from 1.03 feet at Sabine Pass to

0.65 foot at Orange can be derived from the tide records. These ranges are typical of the Gulf coast area.

Water levels in the SNWW are also influenced by the prevailing winds from the south-southeast. Water

levels generally rise slightly with winds out of the south and south-southeast and fall, sometimes

significantly, with winds from the north or northwest. Water surface elevations in the SNWW can vary

greatly when driven by wind and storm activity. Water levels as low as –4 feet during strong

northwesterly winds and as high as +16 to +18 feet during hurricane surges have been observed.

3.5.5 SNWW and Salinity

Tidal flow originating from the Gulf influences the tidal regime of the SNWW, including Sabine Lake

and Calcasieu Lake. During periods of drought, the flow in the Neches and Sabine rivers can drop

drastically and a saltwater wedge can proceed farther upstream of both the Sabine and Neches rivers from

the Gulf (LNVA, 2002; SRA-TX, 2002). While saltwater intrusion has been detected in salinity samples

in the Sabine River Tidal reach, a definite saltwater wedge has not been identified because of the

fluctuation of freshwater inflows from upstream. A definite saltwater wedge is evident in the Neches

River, and a new saltwater barrier located approximately 30 stream-miles upstream of Rainbow Bridge

has been installed to prevent saltwater intrusion north of the Port of Beaumont (see subsection 3.5.3.1 for

additional discussion).

The strength and intensity of winds and intensity of rainfall influences salinity levels in the SNWW,

Sabine Lake, and Calcasieu Lake. The salinity of the water ranges from approximately 34 ppt in the open

Gulf to 0 ppt in the upper reaches of the Neches and Sabine rivers. Sabine Lake is predominantly brackish

with salinity ranging from 15 ppt at Sabine Pass to 0 ppt at the northern end of the lake near Rainbow

Bridge. Calcasieu Lake is also brackish, but generally experiences salinity levels higher than those found

in Sabine Lake. Given that both lakes are tidally influenced and water exchange patterns between the two

lakes vary with tides and wind, the fluctuating salinity levels can often be extreme. The Sabine NWR and

the waterways connecting the two lakes also experience fluctuating salinity levels, however, generally,

not in the extremes observed within the two lakes. Sabine Lake relies on freshwater inflow from the

Neches and Sabine rivers, while Calcasieu Lake relies primarily on the Calcasieu River for freshwater

913
3. Affected Environment

3-33

inflow. The Sabine NWR relies primarily on rainfall for fresh water, and its salinity increases during

periods of drought as the salinity in the two lakes rises (Paille, 1996).

During drought periods, salt water can travel more easily through the deeper SNWW than shallower

Sabine Lake, thus the northern reach of the lake and associated marshlands can have the unique condition

of having greater salinity levels than those areas to the south. This is because salt water traveling in the

SNWW can enter northern marshes that typically have salinity levels buffered by freshwater inflows from

the Sabine and Neches rivers. Saltwater entering the northern marshes can result in build-up of salinity

concentrations. During periods of normal rainfall, high-salinity water transported by the SNWW is

buffered by discharges from upstream reservoirs that have little effect on the salinity levels of Sabine

Lake and the surrounding marshes. On the other hand, during periods of high flows, the SNWW and

Sabine Lake can experience occasional freshwater conditions (very low salinity levels) due to large

quantities of fresh water entering the system from the Sabine and Neches rivers (Coalition to Restore

Coastal Louisiana, 2002).

Fifty-six stations provide salinity data measured from the monitoring stations within the study area. Data

from the stations can be obtained from TCEQ’s Standard Water Quality Monitoring (SWQM) database,

which is used to support the Texas Clean Rivers Program and the preparation of Texas Water Quality

Inventory (TCEQ, 2002). The locations of these stations range from the USCG station in Sabine Pass

upstream to all the tributaries (e.g., Black Bayou, Cow Bayou, Adams Bayou) to the upper reaches of the

Neches and Sabine rivers in the study area, and in the GIWW east of the Sabine River and west of Port

Arthur. Salinity, as a function of depth from several stations along the SNWW, is of particular interest

because the heavier salt water tends to move upstream along the bottom of the deep, stratified channel

while freshwater flowing on top of the saltwater current moves downstream. The data from the project

area show a clear trend of reduced bottom salinity when moving upstream along the SNWW, from about

25 ppt at Sabine Pass to about 15 ppt at IH 10 on Neches River near Beaumont and 10 ppt at the upper

portion of Sabine Lake near the confluence with the Sabine River. The stations at the GIWW (about

7 miles upstream of Sabine Pass) and at Topco Dock (about 6 miles upstream of the GIWW) have bottom

salinities of about 23 ppt and 20 ppt, respectively. These values clearly show the level and extent of

salinity intrusion along SNWW.

3.5.6 Groundwater Hydrology

Groundwater in the project area is withdrawn from the Gulf coast aquifer system. The Gulf coast aquifer

consists of complexly interbedded clays, silts, sands, and gravels of Cenozoic age, which are

hydrologically connected to form a large, leaky artesian aquifer system that extends from the Rio Grande

northeastward across the Gulf Coastal Plain past the Louisiana-Texas border. In the project area, the Gulf

coast aquifer is subdivided into several parts, of which the Chicot aquifer is the uppermost (Figure 3.5-2).

The Chicot aquifer consists of the Willis, Lissie (Montgomery and Bently), and Beaumont formations,

and overlying alluvial deposits. The Chicot aquifer includes all deposits from the land surface to the top

of the underlying Evangeline aquifer. The physical basis for separation of the Evangeline and Chicot

aquifers is the difference in lithology and permeability (Wesselman, 1971). In some area, clay beds

914
Figure 3.5-2. Geologic and Hydrologic Units within the Project Area

Stratigraphic Unit

Texas Louisiana

Holocene

Quaternary Alluvium Quaternary Alluvium

Beaumont Clay Prairie Formation

Bently Formation Bently Formation

Willis Sand Willianna Formation

Pliocene

Goliad Sand Foley Formation

Upper Unit Lower Unit

Tertiary

Evangeline Aquifer

Miocene

Fleming Formation Fleming Formation

Burkeville Aquiclude

System Series Hydrologic Unit Pleistocene Quaternary Chicot Aquifer

Gulf Coast Aquifer

Lissie Formation

Montgomery Formation Montgomery Formation

3-34

915
3. Affected Environment

3-35

separate the aquifers, but these beds are not continuous. The higher permeabilities are usually associated

with the Chicot aquifer.

The Chicot aquifer has been divided into an upper unit and lower unit. These units are separate by a clay

bed; however, in some parts of the study area, the upper and lower units merge to form one large mass of

interbedded and interconnected sand and clay. The upper unit of the Chicot typically consists of a basal

sand overlain by clay. Most of the sand is part of the Montgomery Formation, and the clay is part of the

overlying Beaumont Formation. The lower unit generally consists of two or more massive sands

separated by clay. Northwestward, the sands thin and the clay content of the lower unit increases.

The Evangeline aquifer underlies the Chicot aquifer and is the lowermost unit containing fresh to slightly

saline groundwater within the project area (see Figure 3.5-2). The Evangeline aquifer consists of the

Goliad Sand and upper portions of the Fleming Formation. The aquifer is underlain by the Burkeville

aquitard, which forms the lower confining unit for the Evangeline aquifer.

Water well records kept by the TWDB for Orange and Jefferson counties indicate that the majority of

water wells in the project area are completed in the upper and lower units of the Chicot aquifer. Of the

wells installed in the Chicot, most are completed in the lower unit typically at depths between 400 and

800 feet. Wells completed in the upper unit of the Chicot aquifer were typically completed at depths

ranging from 15 feet or less to 300 feet. Groundwater is reportedly used for domestic, public supply,

stock, and industrial purposes.

Groundwater recharge to the aquifers occurs by precipitation onto outcrop areas and vertical leakage from

overlying aquifers. However, most precipitation runs off and becomes stream flow or evaporates

immediately and only a small fraction of the total rainfall recharges the surficial aquifer. Regional

groundwater flow in the aquifers is generally southeastward from outcrop areas towards areas of natural

discharge (Gabrysch and McAdoo, 1972; Wesselman, 1971). However, superimposed upon this natural

discharge regime is artificial discharge caused by groundwater pumping. Because of groundwater

development, water levels have declined and cones of depression around areas of groundwater pumping

have developed altering the natural flow pattern, and groundwater now flows towards these centers of

pumping.

Groundwater quality in the Chicot aquifer varies widely across the study area. In general, the water in the

aquifer increases in salinity in the southern part of the study area near the coastline. Groundwater quality

data from the TWDB database indicate that groundwater from water wells completed in the Chicot

aquifer within the project vicinity generally has total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations less than

200 mg/L (fresh) to more than 3,000 mg/L (slightly to moderately saline). Most of the groundwater from

the Chicot aquifer has an average TDS concentration of less than 1,500 mg/L. Chloride concentrations

typically ranged from less than 50 mg/L to over 600 mg/L and averaged around 450 mg/L.

916
3. Affected Environment

3-36

3.5.7 Erosion

Several locations in the study area are experiencing significant erosion: the side of Pleasure Island

bordering the Port Arthur and Sabine-Neches canals, the eastern shore of Sabine Lake, and the Gulf

shoreline in Texas and Louisiana. Each of these areas is discussed below.

The rate of erosion of the Pleasure Island shoreline varied between 4.2 and 16.5 feet per year during the

20-year period 1974 through 1993 (Parchure et al., 2005). Erosion appears to be caused predominantly by

surges, stern waves, and rapid drawdown resulting from vessel traffic within the constricted SabineNeches waterway (Maynord, 2005). The fetch is limited for the constricted waterway; wind waves are,

therefore, relatively small in magnitude and not likely to contribute significantly to existing erosion rates.

In addition, the highly erodible and weakly compacted soil on Pleasure Island makes it vulnerable to

erosion from any source.

Marsh loss caused by wind-induced wave action is also occurring along the east Sabine Lake shoreline

north of Willow Bayou at an average rate of 4.7 feet/year (Greco and Clark, 2005). Visual observations

and GIS analyses confirm that the shoreline near the Willow Bayou mouth has shifted towards Willow

Bayou leaving a narrow strip of land, which may be on the order of only 30 to 50 feet wide, separating

Willow Bayou and Sabine Lake. Tall natural grass grown on this strip of land has not been able to arrest

the erosion because the grass roots are not able to hold the soil firmly attached to them. Sabine Lake has a

large water surface area, which provides sufficient fetch for significant wave generation and, in the

shallow-water depths, the waves breaking on the shore have sufficient energy to cause serious erosion.

Texas Point is undergoing severe beach erosion, with shoreline retreat of up to 1,150 feet between 1974

and 2000 (King, 2007; Morang, 2006). This is the highest rate of shoreline loss on the upper Texas coast

and a CEPRA “critical erosion area” (GLO, 2005). In Louisiana, persistent erosion along the shoreline

between Ocean View and Holly Beach, on the order of –4.3 feet/year between 1985 and 1998, was

recorded here prior to Hurricane Rita (USACE, 1971a, 2004a). Nearer to Louisiana Point, significant

accretion over the last 100 years has slowed to +1.2 feet/year, and the behavior of this shoreline has

become erratic, with some areas eroding and some aggrading (USACE, 2004a). Hurricane Rita deposited

3.3 feet of new sediment on the Hackberry Beach chenier ridge, and reworked sediment was observed bar

welded to the lower shoreface (Farris et al., 2007; Guidroz et al., 2006). Hurricane Ike eroded the beach

ridge at the McFadden NWR (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008). Impacts to this ridge

increase the probability that interior marshes will be exposed to saltwater intrusion in the near future.

3.6 HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE

The purpose of the HTRW assessment is to identify indicators of potential hazardous materials or waste

issues relating to the study area. A review was conducted of databases maintained by Federal, State, and

local regulatory agencies, an aerial photographic review, and interviews with officials from the TCEQ and

the USACE to determine the location and status of HTRW sites regulated by the State of Texas and the

EPA. A review was also conducted of oil and gas wells and pipelines located within the study area. These

917
3. Affected Environment

3-37

data were obtained from the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC) and the LDNR. Support data for the

assessment can be found in PBS&J (2002).

The scope of the regulatory information search included the following Federal and State databases: the

National Priority List (NPL); the State Equivalent Priority Sites (State Sites or SPL); Comprehensive

Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Database;

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Generators and Violators List (RCRA-G); RCRA

Corrective Actions List (CORRACT); RCRA Treatment, Storage, or Disposal List (RCRA-TSD); TCEQ

and LDEQ Underground and Aboveground Storage Tank Database; Leaking Underground Storage Tank

Listings (LUST); City/County and Parish Solid Waste Landfill listings (SWL); Emergency Response

Notification System (ERNS) database; TCEQ and LDEQ Spills Incident Information System database;

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) database; Toxic Release Inventory System

(TRIS) database; and Facility Index System (FINDS) database. A total of 1,789 records were identified

within the study area during the various regulatory agency database searches. Several of the records are

associated with the same facility or property (e.g., a facility/property containing multiple petroleum

storage tanks is also the site of several reported spills or emergency response actions). The 1,789 database

records are associated with a total of 598 facilities or properties within the study area. On the basis of

results of the regulatory agency database searches, the following sites are located within the study area:

• 4 NPL sites;

• 33 CERCLIS sites, 30 sites with No Further Remedial Action Planned designation;

• 9 CORRACT sites;

• 151 RCRA-G sites;

• 11 RCRA-TSD sites;

• 776 petroleum storage tanks at 289 facilities;

• 74 LUST sites;

• 4 State Voluntary Cleanup sites;

• 515 reported ERNS actions at 93 facilities/properties;

• 414 reported spills at 22 facilities/properties;

• 45 TRIS listings associated with 30 facilities;

• 221 FINDS database listings associated with 207 facilities/properties; and

• 2 unpermitted (inactive) municipal SWL.

Aerial photographs of the study area were used to examine the historical use of the SNWW and the

surrounding watershed. The photographs depict portions of the study area as it appeared in 1930, 1938,

1955, and 1956. The aerial photographs were obtained from Tobin International, Ltd. Examination of

aerial photography indicated that development within the study area was, as it is today, predominantly

located west of the Sabine and Neches rivers. Development occurs in the urban centers of Texas that

918
3. Affected Environment

3-38

include Beaumont, Port Arthur, Port Neches, Nederland, Orange, West Orange, Bridge City, and Rose

City. The remainder of the Texas portion of the study area is vacant, undeveloped land. With the

exception of Vinton, the Louisiana portion of the study area is vacant, undeveloped land. The study area

includes a variety of land uses, which include highly developed residential-urban, industrial, recreational,

and vacant, undeveloped range-pasture or WMAs.

Urban development within the study area is located adjacent to major highways. An industrial corridor

composed of petroleum refineries, petrochemical plants, ship docks, shipyards, ship builders, grain

elevators, PAs, warehouses, wastewater treatment plants, and a power plant parallels the SNWW.

Utilization of vacant, undeveloped land is for agriculture and oil and gas production. For additional

discussion on land use, see subsection 3.14.4.

According to information derived from regulatory agency records and TCEQ regional officials, regional

industrial activity has caused measurable impacts to the surface water, sediment, soil, and groundwater in

the study area. However, chemical analyses of sediment, elutriate, and surface water samples collected

from the waterway indicate that these impacts have apparently been minimal (sections 3.3 and 3.4). The

nature and potential for any HTRW site to impact the surrounding environment varies considerably. The

majority of the regulated facilities and incident locations (i.e., spills and releases) identified in the

regulatory agency database review do not pose a significant environmental concern for the project.

However, several facilities within the study area do have a greater potential to impact the environment.

These facilities are considered a potential threat based on the nature and extent of contaminants at the site,

the location relative to the waterway, and the number of pathways in which the contaminants could reach

the waterway. The facilities that are considered priority HTRW sites of concern are summarized in Table

3.3-1.

A baseline evaluation of facilities that pose a potential threat to the project must also consider whether the

release of contaminants is ongoing or has been effectively eliminated through remedial efforts. Based on

these criteria, State Marine, Palmer Barge Lines, Star Lake Canal, and Beaumont Elevator continue to

present an ongoing threat to impact the environment of the study area. The remaining priority sites

present a lesser threat due in part to either effective corrective action or distance to the waterway. Detailed

site information of each of these facilities is provided in PBS&J (2002).

State Marine (Site ID No. 203) and Palmer Barge Lines (Site ID No. 548) are located on Pleasure Islet

south of channel station 250+00 and north of PA 11. These sites are reported to have impacted surface

water and are currently undergoing cleanup and evaluation. Star Lake Canal (Site ID No. 471) is located

adjacent to the boundary of the cities of Port Arthur and Port Neches, Texas, and midway between PAs 16

and 17. The canal conveys stormwater and industrial wastewater from adjoining industrial facilities and

discharges the water to the Neches River near the midpoint of channel stations 130+00 and 230+00. The

canal is reported to have impacted surface water and is currently undergoing cleanup and evaluation. The

Beaumont Elevator (Site ID No. 113) is located at 1745 Buford Street and adjacent to the waterway west

of channel station 930+00. The site is reported to have impacted soil and groundwater and is currently

undergoing an investigation.

919
3. Affected Environment

3-39

The Star Lake Canal priority site has potential to affect PA 17. PA 17 is located adjacent to the Neches

River in Port Neches, Texas, at river station 260+00. The 392-acre parcel on the west bank of the Neches

River has been used as a PA for dredged material for over 40 years. A recent environmental survey of the

property identified Recognized Environmental Conditions on the tract including a capped landfill, waste

disposal areas containing unknown substances, asbestos-containing material, lead, and furfural. These

sites are located inside and close to the southwest boundary of PA 17.

Also, another potential HTRW concern has been identified on adjoining land. A recently updated EPA

Region 6 fact sheet (EPA Publication date March 6, 2006) for the Star Lake Canal Superfund Site

indicates the Potentially Responsible Parties are planning Remedial Investigations (RI) and a study to

determine the nature and extent of contamination. Heavy metals, PCBs, and PAHs have been identified as

having migrated or have the potential to migrate to Molasses Bayou, Star Lake Canal, the Neches River,

and Sabine Lake. Pentachlorophenol and toxaphene have been found in Jefferson Canal sediments (EPA,

2006). The preliminary area of concern lies outside the eastern and southern boundaries of PA 17.

The Star Lake Canal Superfund site consists of contaminated surface water and sediments in the Star

Lake Canal, adjoining Jefferson Canal, and Molasses Bayou (EPA, 2006). The Jefferson Canal and the

Star Lake Canal have served as industrial wastewater and stormwater outfalls since the late 1940s.

Although the Star Lake Canal borders PA 17, the current configuration of PA 17 distances it from the

canal. PA 17 has been leveed to contain dredged material for at least 36 years, as indicated by a 1969

aerial photo. The levee system also acts as a barrier to encroachment of surface water and sediments

outside the PA.

RRC files indicate that there are a total of 6,951 permitted well sites located within the study area. These

well sites include 6,073 vertical wells and 878 directional wells. The database indicates that the vertical

well sites include the following types/status:

• 1,370 are listed as active producing oil/gas wells;

• 2,372 as plugged;

• 1,861 as dry holes;

• 7 as permitted locations;

• 158 as shut-in wells;

• 35 as storage wells;

• 57 as injection wells;

• 28 as saltwater disposal wells;

• 1 as a brine mining well; and

• 184 well sites listed as miscellaneous well types.

One thousand ninety-eight of the producing vertical wells are listed as oil wells, 168 are listed as gas

wells, and 104 are listed as producing oil and gas.

920
3. Affected Environment

3-40

The database indicates that directional well sites include the following types/status:

• 226 active producing oil/gas wells;

• 291 plugged wells;

• 202 dry holes;

• 10 injection wells;

• 5 permitted locations;

• 90 shut-in wells;

• 2 storage wells;

• 8 saltwater disposal wells;

• 1 brine mining well; and

• 43 well sites were listed as the miscellaneous well types.

One hundred fifty-eight of the producing directional wells are listed as oil wells, 50 are listed as gas wells,

and 18 are listed as producing oil and gas.

A total of 533 pipeline systems were identified within the study area. Five hundred seventeen (517) of the

pipelines are listed as active, 16 are listed as inactive. The pipelines are reported to transport the following

material:

• 314 transport natural gas;

• 49 crude oil;

• 91 oil and gas;

• 8 LPG;

• 161 gas and condensate; and

• 1 pipeline system was listed as idle.

While the RRC pipeline database is the most comprehensive account of pipelines in the State of Texas,

this database does not include every existing pipeline. Therefore, a remote sensing survey for pipelines,

wells, and other obstructions in the SNWW navigation channel has been conducted (PBS&J, 2005); field

survey data have been matched with the results of record searches that are reported in PBS&J (2002).

3.7 AIR QUALITY

3.7.1 Regulatory Context

The Clean Air Act (CAA), which was last amended in 1990, regulates air emissions from area, stationary,

and mobile sources. The CAA requires the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment and establishes two

types of national air quality standards. Primary standards define the maximum levels of air quality that the

921
3. Affected Environment

3-41

EPA judges necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including the health of

“sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards define the

maximum levels of air quality that the EPA judges necessary to protect public welfare, including

protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Air

quality is generally considered acceptable if pollutant levels are less than or equal to these established

standards on a continuing basis.

The EPA has established NAAQS for seven principal pollutants, called “criteria” pollutants, in 40 Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50. The criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen

dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), lead (Pb), inhalable particulate matter (PM) with an aerodynamic diameter

less than or equal to a nominal 10 microns (PM10), fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter

less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). These standards are

summarized in Table 3.7-1.

Table 3.7-1

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Air Constituent Averaging Time NAAQS Primary NAAQS Secondary

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 3 hours

24 hours

Annual Arithmetic Mean

0.50 ppm

0.14 ppm

0.030 ppm

0.5 ppm

Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 hours 150 μg/m3 150 μg/m3

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 hours

Annual Arithmetic Mean

35 μg/m3

15 μg/m3

35 μg/m3

15 μg/m3

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour

8 hours

35 ppm

9 ppm

---

---

Lead (Elemental) (Pb) Calendar 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3

Quarter

Arithmetic Mean

Rolling 3-Month Average 0.15 μg/m3 0.15 μg/m3

Ozone (O3) 1 hour

8 hour (1997 standard)

8 hour (2008 standard)

0.12 ppm

0.08 ppm

0.075 ppm

0.12 ppm

0.08 ppm

0.075 ppm

Source: 40 CFR, Part 50, National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.

--- = An ambient air quality standard has not been promulgated.

ppm = parts per million.

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.

CO is a colorless and practically odorless gas primarily formed when carbon in fuels is not burned

completely (Lewis, 1987). It may temporarily accumulate at harmful levels, especially in calm weather

during winter and early spring, when fuel combustion may reach a peak and CO is chemically more stable

due to the low temperatures. Transportation activities, indoor heating, industrial processes, and open

burning are among the anthropogenic (man-made) sources of CO.

NO2, nitric oxide (NO), and other oxides of nitrogen are collectively called nitrogen oxides (NOx). These

compounds are interrelated, often changing from one form to another in chemical reactions. NO2 is

922
3. Affected Environment

3-42

commonly measured in ambient air monitors. NOx emissions are generally emitted in the form of NO,

which is oxidized to NO2. The principal anthropogenic sources of NOx are fuel combustion in motor

vehicles and stationary sources such as boilers and power plants. Reactions of NOx with other

atmospheric chemicals can lead to the formation of O3.

Ground-level O3 is a secondary pollutant, formed from daytime reactions of NOx and (volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) rather than being directly emitted by natural and anthropogenic sources. VOCs are

released in industrial processes and from evaporation of organic liquids such as gasoline and solvents.

Ozone contributes to the formation of photochemical smog.

Pb is a heavy metal that may be present as dust or fumes. Dominant industrial sources of Pb emissions

include waste oil and solid waste incineration, iron and steel production, lead smelting, and battery and

lead alkyl manufacturing. The lead content of motor vehicle emissions, which was the major source of

lead in the past, has significantly declined with the widespread use of unleaded fuel.

The NAAQS for particulate matter is based on two different particle diameter sizes: PM10 and PM2.5.

PM10 are small particles that are likely to reach the lower regions of the respiratory tract by inhalation.

PM2.5 is particulate matter that is considered to be in the respirable range, meaning these particles can

reach the alveolar region of the lungs and penetrate deeper than PM10. There are many sources of

particulate matter, both natural and anthropogenic, including dust from natural wind erosion of soil,

construction activities, industrial activities, and combustion of fuels.

SO2 is a colorless gas with a sharp, pungent odor (Lewis, 1987). SO2 is emitted in natural processes, such

as volcanic activity, and by anthropogenic sources such as combustion of fuels containing sulfur and the

manufacture of sulfuric acid.

The CAA requires the EPA to assign a designation of each region of the U.S. regarding compliance with

the NAAQS. The EPA categorizes the level of compliance or noncompliance with each criteria pollutant

as follows:

• Attainment – area currently meets the NAAQS

• Maintenance – area currently meets the NAAQS, but has previously been out of compliance

• Nonattainment – area currently does not meet the NAAQS

Ozone nonattainment areas are further classified as extreme, severe, serious, moderate, or marginal

depending on the severity of nonattainment.

The TCEQ has the responsibility for developing a plan for maintaining or attaining the NAAQS. This

plan, which was submitted to and approved by the EPA, is called the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Similarly, the LDEQ has the responsibility for developing the SIP for Louisiana. For areas that are in

nonattainment with the NAAQS, the SIP describes how the area would reach attainment of the air quality

standards. The SIP sets emissions budgets for point sources such as power plants and manufacturers,

923
3. Affected Environment

3-43

areawide sources such as dry cleaners and paint shops, off-road mobile sources such as boats and lawn

mowers, and on-road sources such as cars, trucks, and motorcycles.

As previously noted, the project study area includes Jefferson and Orange counties. These counties are

within an area designated as the Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA) Air Quality Control Region (AQCR).

Ozone is the only criteria pollutant from which the BPA fails to meet the NAAQS. The EPA has

classified the BPA area as a “serious” nonattainment area under the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone and a

“moderate” nonattainment area with regard to the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Under the current attainment

classification, the BPA has until June 15, 2010, to attain the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. However, 8-hour

ozone data for 2005, 2006, and 2007 indicate that the BPA area is monitoring attainment of the standard.

As a result, the TCEQ adopted a SIP revision that includes a Redesignation Request and a Maintenance

Plan for the BPA area (TCEQ, 2008). This maintenance plan is currently pending review by the EPA.

Calcasieu Parish is in the Lake Charles AQCR and Cameron Parish is in the southern Louisiana-southeast

Texas AQCR. These parishes are currently classified as being in attainment with the NAAQS for all

criteria pollutants.

3.7.2 Conformity of Federal Actions

As required by the CAA, the EPA has also promulgated rules to ensure that Federal actions conform to

the appropriate SIP. Two rules were promulgated: (1) the Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part

93); and (2) the General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W). The Transportation Conformity

Rule applies to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/Federal Transit Authority projects within

maintenance or nonattainment areas. The General Conformity Rule applies to Federal actions, except

FHWA and Transit Authority actions, within maintenance or nonattainment areas.

The CAA prohibits Federal agencies from funding, permitting, or licensing any project that does not

conform to an applicable SIP. The purpose of this General Conformity requirement is to help ensure that

Federal agencies consult with State and local air quality districts to assure these regulatory entities know

about the expected impacts of the Federal action and have considered or will include expected emissions

in their SIP emissions budget.

The General Conformity Rule provides for emission thresholds above which a General Conformity

Determination would be required. For the BPA ozone nonattainment area, which is classified as

”moderate” under the 8-hour ozone standard, the emissions threshold is 100 tons per year (tpy) of NOx or

of VOC. Therefore, if the total emissions from the project are estimated to be equal to or greater than this

threshold for NOx or VOC, the USACE must prepare a General Conformity Determination showing how

the project conforms or would conform with the SIP for that pollutant, prior to undertaking the action.

Even if emissions of NOx or VOCs are below these levels, a conformity determination would also be

required if the increase in emissions due to the project would equal or exceed 10 percent of the total

emissions of those pollutants for the entire nonattainment area (i.e., the project is considered a regionally

significant action). The General Conformity Determination was submitted to the TCEQ and the EPA for

924
3. Affected Environment

3-44

review concurrently with the DEIS. The TCEQ has provided written concurrence that project emissions

are consistent with the most currently approved SIP emissions budgets for the BPA nonattainment area.

As Cameron Parish and the Lake Charles area are in attainment with the NAAQS, a general conformity

determination would not be required for these areas.

3.7.3 Air Quality Baseline Condition

Table 3.7-2 is a summary of emissions for the BPA and Cameron/Calcasieu parishes based on the

currently available air emissions inventory information provided by the EPA. The emissions information

for each pollutant is broken out by category: area source, highway, off-highway, and point source

emissions based on emissions inventory information for 2002. Although this emissions inventory is not

current, it contains the most recent data available, and it provides a base from which to compare the

proposed project emissions.

Air pollutants within and near the project area are measured by numerous air monitoring stations. Most of

the stations in the region measure the concentrations of criteria air pollutants, as well as temperature, wind

velocity, wind direction, and other meteorological parameters. The monitors operate continuously and are

routinely calibrated and maintained to assure quality data. Monitoring data (2004 through 2008) for

counties in the BPA nonattainment area and for Cameron and Calcasieu parishes are presented in Table

3.7-3 to provide an indication of monitored pollutant concentrations relative to the NAAQS.

As previously noted, the BPA area is classified as a “serious” nonattainment area under the 1-hour

NAAQS for ozone and a “marginal” nonattainment with the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. According to the

TCEQ, 8-hour and 1-hour ozone design value trends for the BPA ozone nonattainment area from 1991 to

2007 show decreases in both the 8-hour and 1-hour ozone design values. The design values are used in

the evaluation of attainment with the ozone standards. The 8-hour ozone design value has decreased by

17.8 percent over the past 17 years, and the 1-hour ozone design value has decreased by 28.7 percent over

the past 17 years. The decreases in ozone have occurred despite increases in population in the BPA area.

Eight-hour ozone monitoring data for 2005, 2006, and 2007 indicate that the BPA area is monitoring in

attainment of the standard. Monitoring data for Calcasieu Parish (Lake Charles Area) also indicate levels

above the 8-hour standard.

3.8 NOISE

3.8.1 Fundamentals and Terminology

Noise is defined as unwanted sound that disrupts or interferes with normal activities, or that diminishes

the quality of the environment. Noise is usually caused by human activity and is added to the natural, or

ambient, acoustic setting of an area. Exposure to high levels of noise over an extended period can cause

health hazards such as hearing loss; however, the most common human response to environmental noise

is annoyance. Individuals respond to similar noise events differently based upon various factors that may

925
3. Affected Environment

3-45

Table 3.7-2

Summary of Air Emission Inventory for the Beaumont-Port Arthur Area

and Cameron/Calcasieu Parishes, 2002

Source Category

CO

(tpy)

NOX

(tpy)

PM10

(tpy)

PM2.5

(tpy)

SO2

(tpy)

VOC

(tpy)

Hardin County

Area 5,758 745 13,796 1,999 109 2,264

Highway Vehicles 9,401 1,233 31 22 58 719

Off-Highway 1,879 623 29 27 43 191

Point Source 296 396 141 86 1 436

SUBTOTAL 17,334 2,997 13,997 2,134 211 3,610

Jefferson County

Area 6,713 1,868 13,834 2,028 1,610 11,506

Highway Vehicles 43,370 8,246 186 136 304 3,469

Off-Highway 24,459 32,690 1,804 1,663 6,044 3,330

Point Source 8,196 24,217 1,669 1,338 27,043 10,864

SUBTOTAL 82,738 67,021 17,493 5,164 35,001 29,169

Orange County

Area 1,357 723 17,745 2,022 572 1,573

Highway Vehicles 19,588 3,347 76 55 126 1,465

Off-Highway 5,667 1,423 89 83 201 737

Point Source 8,270 10,731 1,303 1,160 3,855 3,360

SUBTOTAL 34,882 16,224 19,213 3,320 4,754 7,134

TOTAL – BPA 134,953 86,242 50,702 10,618 39,966 39,913

Cameron Parish

Area (1996) 7,571 154 2,019 834 133 2,121

Highway Vehicles 2,415 286 9 6 11 204

Off-Highway 8,858 5,543 455 420 2,854 3,184

Point Source 2,076 3,119 111 93 32 2,268

SUBTOTAL 20,920 9,102 2,594 1,354 3,030 7,777

Calcasieu Parish

Area (1996) 4,167 1,475 5,470 971 115 11,311

Highway Vehicles 42,091 5,802 159 118 198 3,425

Off-Highway 17,033 16,962 629 616 1,389 2,243

Point Source 10,805 34,924 4,246 3,261 53,664 9,797

SUBTOTAL 74,096 59,163 10,504 4,966 55,366 26,776

TOTAL CAMERON/CALCASIEU 95,016 68,265 13,098 6,319 58,397 34,553

TOTAL BPA/CAMERON/CALCASIEU 229,969 154,507 63,800 16,937 98,363 74,467

Source: EPA (2002a).

926
3. Affected Environment

3-46

Table 3.7-3

Monitored Values1 Compared with NAAQS, Beaumont-Port Arthur

and Cameron/Calcasieu Parishes2

, 2004–20083

County/

Parish Year

24-hour

Value

for

PM2.5

(μg/m3

)

Annual

Mean

Value

for

PM2.5

(μg/m3

)

1-hour

Value

for O3

(ppm)

8-hour

Value

for O3

(ppm)

24-hour

value

for SO2

(ppm)

Annual

Mean

Value

for SO2

(ppm)

1-hour

Value

for CO

(ppm)

8-hour

Value

for CO

(ppm)

Annual

Mean

Value for

NO2

(ppm)

Quarterly

Mean

Value for

Pb

(μg/m3

)

Hardin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Jefferson

2004 26.8 11.57 0.132 0.091 0.068 0.004 -- -- 0.010 --

2005 36.4 15.00 0.129 0.083 0.029 0.004 3.1 1.4 0.009 --

2006 26.7 11.14 0.114 0.085 0.050 0.004 1.3 0.9 0.0009 --

2007 26.7 11.60 0.124 0.082 0.030 0.003 1.9 0.7 0.009 --

2008 32.6 10.41 0.110 0.078 0.034 0.003 1.8 1.0 0.008 --

Orange

2004 29.3 12.17 0.100 0.078 -- -- -- -- 0.007 --

2005 34.8 12.52 0.103 0.078 -- -- -- -- 0.007 --

2006 28.8 11.31 0.103 0.078 -- -- -- -- 0.008 --

2007 28.6 10.49 0.110 0.075 -- -- -- -- 0.006 --

2008 25.3 9.11 0.107 0.069 -- -- -- -- 0.006 --

Cameron -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Calcasieu

2004 29.5 10.39 0.118 0.082 0.020 0.003 -- -- 0.007 --

2005 27.4 12.14 0.117 0.085 0.016 0.003 -- -- 0.008 --

2006 28.4 11.51 0.125 0.080 0.010 0.002 -- -- 0.009 --

2007 23.7 9.58 0.103 0.078 0.013 0.003 -- -- 0.007 --

2008 20.9 9.32 0.101 0.073 0.010 0.003 -- -- 0.007 --

NAAQS 35 15.0 0.12 0.075 0.14 0.03 35 9 0.053 1.5

Source: EPA (2002b).

-- Not available.

1 Selection of monitored values is based on criteria established in 40 CFR, Part 50. Parameters and data reported here represent those available in

EPA’s Aerometric Information Retrieval Database (AIRData): “AIRData-Monitor Values Report” as of September 2009.

2 Data for Hardin County and Cameron Parish were not available in EPA Air Data Report.

3 2004–2008 available data to date.

927
3. Affected Environment

3-47

include the existing background level, noise character, level fluctuation, time of day, the perceived

importance of the noise, the appropriateness of the setting, and the sensitivity of the individual.

Sounds of the same pressure but different frequencies are not perceived by the human ear as equally loud.

The human ear is less sensitive to low frequencies and extremely high frequencies, and most sensitive to

the mid-range frequencies that correspond with human speech. Therefore, in order to measure sound in a

manner similar to human perception, an adjustment known as “A-weighting” is used. All regulatory

agencies require that measurements be taken using the A-weighted sound level (dBA).

Although A-weighted sound measurements indicate the level of environmental noise at any given time,

community noise levels vary constantly. Typical noise environments consist of numerous noise sources

that vary and fluctuate over time. Because of the varying noise levels within a community, it is necessary

to use a descriptor called the equivalent sound level (Leq). Leq provides a way to describe the average

sound level, in decibels (dB), for any time period under consideration.

Another measurement descriptor of the total noise environment is the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn),

which is the A-weighted equivalent sound level for a 24-hour period with an additional 10 dB weighting

imposed on the equivalent sound levels occurring during nighttime hours (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.). For

example, an environment that has a measured daytime equivalent sound level of 60 dBA and a measured

nighttime sound level of 50 dBA, would have a weighted nighttime sound level of 60 dBA (50 + 10), and

an Ldn of 60 dBA. Numerous Federal agencies including the EPA, Department of Defense, Department of

Housing and Urban Development, and Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) have adopted this descriptor in assessing environmental impacts. Regulatory agencies generally

recognize an Ldn of 55 dBA as a goal for the outdoor noise environment in residential areas. Studies have

found that outdoor noise environments across the U.S. range from approximately 40 Ldn in rural

residential areas, to nearly 60 Ldn in older urban residential areas, to as much as 90 Ldn in congested urban

settings (EPA, 1974).

3.8.2 Affected Environment

Noise-sensitive receptors are facilities or areas where excessive noise may disrupt normal activity, cause

annoyance, or loss of business. Land uses such as residential, religious, educational, recreational, and

medical facilities are more sensitive to increased noise levels than are commercial and industrial land

uses. Noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the study area are located in the cities of Port Arthur, Port

Neches, and Beaumont. The existing noise environment of these communities is affected by a number of

sources, most of which are transportation related (i.e., barges, roadway, railway, etc.). Waterborne

transportation activities that currently contribute to the region’s ambient noise environment include

barges, commercial fishing/shrimping vessels, sport and recreation boats, and current maintenance

dredging of the canal. Other sources that contribute to the existing noise environment of these

communities include activities at nearby commercial enterprises, such as restaurants, marinas, activities at

commercial fishing and shrimping businesses, and numerous heavy industrial uses. Ambient noise levels

928
3. Affected Environment

3-48

measured in other Texas coastal communities with a similar degree of activity generally ranged between

60.9 and 65.1 Ldn (HFP Acoustical Consultants, Inc., 2002).

3.9 VEGETATION

3.9.1 Introduction

The study area is located within the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes and Pinewoods Vegetation Areas

(Hatch et al., 1990). A generalized map of the vegetation and land cover types appears on Figure 3.9-1.

Maps of each hydro-unit are provided in Appendix C. The vegetation communities include saline to fresh

marshes, swamps, bottomland hardwood forests, upland grasslands, and forests. The study area includes

an important ecosystem called the Chenier Plain (aka strandplain). Chenier is derived from a French word

that means “a place where oaks grow.” Cheniers are paleo-beach ridges that parallel the shoreline

(USFWS, 1998; White et al., 1987) fanning out (diverging) where they are cut by river mouths. This

“fanning out” pattern occurs near Sabine Pass. The ridges are topographically higher than the surrounding

area because they are composed of coarse-grained material (sand and shell) that is more resistant to

erosion. The formation and maintenance of the cheniers depends on the input of sand deposited by rivers,

transported by westerly longshore currents, and reworked by storms. The upland habitat of the cheniers

supports the Coastal Live Oak-Sugarberry Series (Quercus virginiana-Celtis laevigata), a maritime

woodland or forest (woodlots/oak mottes) of the Upper Gulf Coast that is unique to the Chenier Plain and

should be considered sensitive habitat (USFWS, 1998). The modern Chenier Plain system occurs in

Louisiana and Texas where the linear ridges and swales are evident in topography and vegetation

communities. Transitional and upland vegetation communities occur on the ridges, and wetland

communities occur in the interridge swales. The Chenier Plain is separated from the Pleistocene Prairie

Complex to the north by a broad low area, which is dominated by brackish marshes (LCWCR/WCRA,

1998).

A band of saline and brackish marshes parallels the coast immediately landward at the beach/dune

complex and shore areas. This area is widest in the Mississippi delta and narrows to the west. This eastto-west narrowing is evident in the study area. The wetland communities extend up river, bayou, and

creek floodplains, becoming increasingly fresh upstream. The forested wetlands occur in the fresher areas

of these floodplains and are primarily cypress-tupelo swamps. These swamps occur along with

bottomland hardwood forests and other wetlands within the floodplains. Uplands predominate in the north

(especially the northwestern) part of the study area and include grassland and forests. Most of the

nonforested upland has been converted to agricultural land. The upland forest is predominantly a pine-oak

mix forest (USFWS, 1998; White et al., 1987). Chinese tallow, an exotic, invasive species that has been a

management problem since the 1970s, occurs in both upland and bottomland areas, especially in disturbed

areas such as fallow croplands.

929
Sabine

Lake

Neches River

Sabine River O R A N G E

H A R D I N

J E F F E R S O N

C A M E R O N

C A L C A S I E U

T E X A S

L O U I S I A N A

GIWW

TX-9

LA-3

LA-2

LA-5

LA-1

LA-9

LA-4

TX-6 LA-8

TX-8

TX-5

LA-7

LA/TX-1

TX-2

TX-1

TX-3

LA-6

TX-10

TX-7

TX-7

LA/TX-2

TX-2

TX-1

TX-11

TX-7

TX-12

TX-4

TX-13

Figure 3.9-1

SNWW Hydrographic

Unit Index Map

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 100007609Prepared by: EM /RC /AC

File: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/geo/figs/Fig3_9_1_vr2.mxd

Scale: 1" = 5 miles

Date: 09/04/2009

Collapsed Vegetation Codes

Placement Area

Saline Marsh

Shrub/ScrubSwampUpland/Impoundment/OtherWater

L I B E R T Y

Legend

Vicinity Map

GULF OF

MEXICO

Calcasieu

Lake

Black Marsh

Lake

Hyrdologic Unit

μ

0 5 10 2.5

Miles

^_

G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

County/Parish Line

Unit #s Names Unit #s Names

TX 1 North Neches River LA 1 Perry RidgeTX 2 Neches-Lake Bayou LA 2 Willow BayouTX 3 Rose City LA 3 Black BayouTX 4 West of Rose City LA 4 West Johnsons BayouTX 5 Bessie Heights LA 5 Sabine Lake RidgesTX 6 Old River Cove LA 6 Johnsons Bayou RidgeTX 7 GIWW North LA 7 Southeast SabineTX 8 Texas Point LA 8 Southwest Gum CoveTX 10 Cow Bayou LA 9 East Johnsons BayouTX 11 Adams Bayou LA/TX 1 Sabine IslandTX 12 Blue Elbow South LA/TX 2 Blue ElbowTX 13 GrovesLA/TX 1 Sabine IslandLA/TX 2 Blue Elbow

Texas Louisiana

Saline Marsh

Brackish MarshBottomland HardwoodFreshwater MarshIntermediate Marsh

Texas Louisiana

3-49

930
3. Affected Environment

3-50

(This page left blank intentionally.)

931
3. Affected Environment

3-51

3.9.2 Protected and Sensitive Habitats in the Study Area

The term “sensitive habitat” should not be confused with the term “critical habitat.” Critical habitat is a

legal term with respect to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and refers to a specific geographic area

identified by the USFWS for a federally protected species (see Section 3.12). Sensitive habitat is a

subjective term, not a legal term, and generally refers to the vulnerability of a habitat. Spatial extent,

uniqueness, endemic quality, or vulnerability to ongoing pressures or imminent changes may make a

habitat environmentally sensitive (e.g., large historical losses as with the coastal prairie or fresh marsh

losses due to saltwater intrusions). For various reasons the following habitats that occur in the study area

should be considered sensitive.

The study area contains a high concentration of significant coastal wetlands. The ICT identified

109,175 acres (171 square miles) in Texas and 197,530 acres (309 square miles) in Louisiana of coastal

marsh, bottomland hardwood, and cypress-tupelo swamp habitats, which are addressed in the impact

evaluation and described in detail in the following subsections.

3.9.2.1 Texas Portion of the Study Area

In Texas, beginning at the coast and working inland, the following protected and sensitive habitat areas

are present within the study area:

• Approximately 10,000 acres of fresh to salt marsh in the Chenier Plain west of Sabine Pass, the

majority of which consists of the Texas Point NWR. This NWR is part of the Texas Chenier Plain

NWR complex (USFWS, 2005a). This area is indicated as hydro-unit (HU) TX 8 on Figure 3.9-1.

• 55,700 acres of fresh to salt marsh located west of the Sabine River between Texas Point and the

mouth of the Neches River (TX 7 and 9). Much of this area is protected by the J.D. Murphree

WMA and the McFaddin NWR. Managed by the TPWD, the J.D. Murphree WMA totals

24,250 acres of fresh, intermediate, and brackish water wetlands in the Texas Chenier Plain

(TPWD, 2005a). It is located just inland of the Texas Point WMA and extends north of the

GIWW. The eastern half (approximately 23,000 acres) of the McFaddin NWR is also part of the

study area. This NWR is also part of the Texas Chenier Plain NWR complex. The McFaddin

NWR protects one of the largest remaining freshwater marshes on the Texas coast and thousands

of acres of intermediate to brackish marsh (USFWS, 2005a). It is located adjacent to and just west

of Texas Point WMA.

• 22,100 acres of fresh, intermediate, and brackish marshes and 2,850 acres of cypress-tupelo

swamp and bottomland hardwoods on the Neches River from the mouth of the river where it

empties into Sabine Lake to the City of Beaumont (TX 3 through 6). Approximately 9,580 of

these acres consist of open-water areas resulting from breaking and eroding marsh in the marshes

at Rose City, Bessie Heights, and Old River Cove. The Nelda Stark Unit and Old River units of

the Lower Neches River WMA (TPWD, 2005b) are located in this area.

• 6,490 acres of Neches River cypress-tupelo swamp and bottomland hardwoods and 1,970 acres of

fresh marsh between the City of Beaumont and the new Neches River Saltwater Barrier near Pine

Island Bayou (TX 1 and 2). A USACE-approved, privately operated, wetlands mitigation bank

(the Neches River Cypress Swamp Preserve) is located within this area (USACE, 2005a).

932
3. Affected Environment

3-52

• 4,771 acres of cypress-tupelo swamps, bottomland hardwood, and fresh and intermediate marshes

on Cow and Adams bayous (TX 10 and 11). The Adams Bayou Unit of the Lower Neches River

WMA (TPWD, 2005b) is located in this area.

• 689 acres of cypress-tupelo swamp west of the Sabine River and south of IH 10 (TX 12).

• 2,737 acres of cypress-tupelo swamp and bottomland hardwoods in the Blue Elbow Swamp

(LA/TX 2). Located north of IH 10 and west of the Sabine River, this area is owned by TxDOT

and managed as the USACE-approved Blue Elbow Mitigation Bank (USACE, 2005b). The area

includes the Tony Houseman WMA, managed as a cooperative effort between the TxDOT and

TPWD (TPWD, 2005c).

• 2,277 acres of cypress-tupelo swamp and bottomland hardwoods west of the Sabine River, across

from the Sabine Island WMA in Louisiana (LA/TX 1).

• 6,000 acres of cypress-tupelo swamp, bottomland hardwood forest, and freshwater marsh below

the Saltwater Barrier, on Big Thicket National Preservelands in Texas (TX1 and 2).

3.9.2.2 Louisiana Portion of the Study Area

In Louisiana, beginning at the coast and working inland, the following protected and sensitive habitat

areas are present within the study area (LCWCR/WCRA, 1998; USGS-NWRC, 2004):

• 71,470 acres of saline, brackish and intermediate marshes in the Louisiana Chenier Plain habitat

at Louisiana Point, Blue Buck Point, and Johnson’s Bayou areas (LA 4, 5, 6, and 9). Sensitive

areas include Sabine Lake Ridges (33,472 acres of chenier ridge, and saline, brackish, and

intermediate marsh), Johnson’s Bayou Ridge (4,089 acres of saline and brackish marshes, and

chenier ridges), West Johnson’s Bayou (13,190 acres of brackish and intermediate marsh), and

East Johnson’s Bayou (26,719 acres of chenier ridge, and fresh, intermediate, and brackish

marsh).

• 44,325 acres of brackish, intermediate, and fresh coastal marsh in the western half of the Sabine

NWR (LA 3 and 7). The Sabine NWR, as a whole, contains 124,511 acres of fresh, intermediate,

and brackish marsh between Calcasieu and Sabine lakes in southwest Louisiana (USFWS,

2005b). Approximately 13,744 acres of marsh within this study area has degraded to open water.

This sensitive area contains the Willow Bayou mapping unit (36,291 acres) and 8,034 acres in the

west section of the Southeast Sabine mapping unit.

• 46,511 acres of brackish, intermediate, and fresh marsh in an area north of Willow Bayou and

south of the GIWW (LA 2 and 8). This sensitive area contains the Black Bayou mapping unit

(36,291 acres) and 10,220 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh in the Southwest Gum Cove

mapping unit.

• 25,721 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh and bottomland hardwood habitat in the Perry

Ridge mapping unit, north of the GIWW and east of the Sabine River (LA 1).

• 650 acres of cypress-tupelo swamp and bottomland hardwoods in the Blue Elbow Swamp, east of

the Sabine River and north of IH 10 (LA/TX 2).

• 7,039 acres of cypress-tupelo swamp and bottomland hardwoods in the Sabine Island WMA,

north of the Blue Elbow Swamp and east of the Sabine River (LA/TX 1).

933
3. Affected Environment

3-53

3.9.3 Historical Changes

The coastal wetlands of the Calcasieu and Sabine river basins were historically an unbroken stand of

coastal wetlands including fresh to brackish marshes and swamps (Marcantel, 1996). Most of the brackish

marshes bordered Calcasieu and Sabine lakes. In the 1940s and 1950s, this ecosystem began to fragment

and exhibit other significant alterations, due in part to the construction of several major navigation

channels (Calcasieu Ship Channel, GIWW, SNWW), which increased salinity throughout the estuary,

including the lakes and surrounding marshes (Marcantel, 1996). The presence of the GIWW and activities

along the GIWW made several changes to previous hydrologic conditions. Levees associated with the

GIWW and other channels changed drainage patterns, flooding some areas, and blocking sheet flow

across extensive areas of marsh. Several miles of Salt Bayou, north of Shell Lake, were lost. Taylor

Bayou was rerouted to join the GIWW. Concrete water control structures were placed on both sides of the

canal at Star Lake, at the outfall of Salt Bayou and the GIWW, and at Little Keith Lake Cut on Port

Arthur Canal, which eventually became inoperable (Sutherlin, 1997).

Petroleum exploration has also caused hydrologic changes in the area. Four major oil fields were

developed in Texas marshes west of Sabine Lake beginning in the mid-1920s: Bessie Heights (Neches

River), Rose City (Neches River), Clam Lake (McFaddin NWR), and Shell Lake (Sea Rim State Park).

Gum Island (La Belle Ranch) was developed in Louisiana, east of Sabine Lake. Levees, roads, and canals

associated with these operations, as well as accelerated subsidence caused by subsurface water and

petroleum extraction, have changed hydrology and contributed to the conversion of marshes to open

water (Sutherlin, 1997). The extensive construction of channels for navigation, petroleum exploration,

hunting, fishing, and trapping throughout the area has increased saltwater intrusion into the interiors of

the marshes (Marcantel, 1996).

The Chenier Plain in the area of Calcasieu and Sabine lakes has been identified as one of the two

Louisiana coastal zones that has experienced the most severe land loss. More than 25 percent of the marsh

was lost between 1933 and 1990 within the Sabine, Calcasieu, and Mermentau basins (LCWCR/WCRA,

1998). According to the LCWCR/WCRA report, a 1994 study by Barras et al. found that the westernmost

area of Louisiana lost approximately 15,950 acres (18 percent) of marsh between 1978 and 1990.

Currently, within the State of Louisiana, there are approximately 3,800 square miles of marsh and over

800 square miles of swamp. It is predicted that approximately 600 square miles of marsh and 400 square

miles of swamp would be lost by conversion to open water by the year 2050 (LCWCR/WCRA, 1998).

The Calcasieu/Sabine Basin had 317,100 acres of marsh and 170 acres of swamp in 1990. Using current

restoration levels, there would be a net loss of 38,400 acres by 2050; however, no swamp loss is predicted

(LCWCR/WCRA, 1998).

According to Morton and Paine (1990), Sutherlin (1997), and White et al. (1987), the most extensive

losses of interior coastal wetlands in Texas have occurred along the Neches River delta where

12,632 acres of marshes have been converted to open water. This is more than 90 percent of the marshes

in the lower Neches River delta. Contributing factors include subsidence associated with subsurface

934
3. Affected Environment

3-54

petroleum and groundwater extraction, eustatic sea level rise, altered hydrology that caused saltwater

intrusion, and decreases in sediment and/or nutrient supply.

The inflow of fresh water, primarily from the Sabine and Neches rivers, buffers the salt water emanating

from the Gulf; that is, the salt water coming inland, via the SNWW and other channels, is buffered by

discharges of fresh water from reservoirs on the Sabine and Neches rivers. Saltwater coming up the

Calcasieu Ship Channel is only buffered by rainfall, so the surrounding marshes of the ship channel and

Calcasieu Lake are more vulnerable to saltwater intrusion. There is more-active management to protect

wetlands from saltwater intrusion around Calcasieu Lake than Sabine Lake (Marcantel, 1996). See

Section 3.5 for further discussion on the hydrology.

Saltwater intrusion and its impact on marshes have been managed, in part, by the use of water control

structures. In 1990 there were 174 water control structures identified in the Calcasieu and Sabine River

basins (Marcantel, 1996). See Section 3.5 of this FEIS for more information regarding water control

structures and other hydrologic alterations.

The construction of the GIWW and activities associated with the SNWW had several effects, some of

which are:

• altered habitat associated with Salt Bayou (north of Shell Lake);

• severed Salt Bayou north of Star Lake;

• altered course of Taylor Bayou to join GIWW;

• constructed concrete water control structures on both side of canal at Star Lake, at outfall of Salt

Bayou and the GIWW, and at Little Keith Lake Cut on Port Arthur Canal, which eventually

became inoperable;

• altered habitat and land loss in the Black Bayou watershed;

• altered habitat and land loss in the Willow Bayou watershed;

• shoreline erosion along the banks of the GIWW; and

• blocked sheet flow across marshes.

Roads and levees also altered hydrologic patterns, particularly in the coastal zone where a small change in

topographic relief can significantly alter surface hydrology. Openings and water control structures

associated with these features also affect the hydrology. Important features include:

• Louisiana SH 27 along east boundary of the Calcasieu/Sabine River Basin (north to south

orientation);

• SH 82 (Calcasieu Ship Channel to Sabine Pass) along south boundary forms barriers along the

east and south perimeters;

• Rycade Canal (south of Black Lake);

• Gray’s Ditch levee/cattle walkway (north to south, Pines Ridge – Johnson’s Bayou) forms a

barrier along east bank of Sabine Lake (Marcantel, 1996); and

935
3. Affected Environment

3-55

• SH 87 and SH 73 altered hydrology in Orange and Jefferson counties (Sutherlin, 1997).

Wildlife management units within the river basins use levees and other water control structures to manage

areas for specific habitat types (Marcantel, 1996):

• Pool 3A on Sabine NWR is managed as a freshwater marsh.

• Round Lake and Lost Lake in the J.D. Murphree WMA are managed as fresh marsh.

According to Morton (1996), the marshes on the eastern shoreline of Sabine Lake and Sabine Pass have

remained essentially natural in contrast to the more developed west side that has been greatly altered by

the SNWW and associated ports. Also, most of the western shore of Sabine Lake has been elevated by

placement of dredged material, and shorelines have been armored to protect against erosion associated

with the predominant southeastern winds.

According to Marcantel (1996), the overall condition of the marshes within the Calcasieu/Sabine River

Basin have been improving. This is attributed to above-average rainfall and the stabilization of tidal

fluctuations and water salinity. Marcantel (1996) warns that the salinity in Sabine Lake needs to continue

to be stabilized to avoid the level of management required in Calcasieu Lake. As discussed in Section 3.5,

freshwater inflows from the Sabine and Neches rivers are largely moderated by flood control structures

and freshwater impoundments upstream. A freshwater inflow study was prepared to establish the basic

requirements of the ecosystems of the floodplains and the estuary (Kuhn and Chen, 2005).

Land loss has occurred at high rates in recent decades (Berman, 2005; Morton, 2003; Morton et al., 2005;

Shinkle and Dokka, 2004; Titus and Narayanan, 1995). In Louisiana, a net land loss of 21 percent

between 1978 and 2000 has been reported in the Chenier Plain subregion of coastal Louisiana, which

includes the Sabine estuary (USACE, 2004a). In Texas, the most extensive losses of interior coastal

wetlands in the state (12,632 acres between 1930 and 1978) have occurred in the Neches River delta. In

total, over 90 percent of the emergent marshes in the Lower Neches River delta have been converted to

open water (Morton and Paine, 1990; White et al., 1987), which is more than half of the total wetland loss

in the State of Texas (Sutherlin, 1997).

Underlying causes of coastal land loss can be divided into two general categories, natural and maninduced (Morton, 2003). Natural causes include erosion, sediment reduction, submergence due to relative

sea level rise, and wetland deterioration. Induced causes include construction and dredging in the coastal

zone, upstream dams, river channelization, changes to overland sheet flow, fluid extraction, and climate

alterations. NOAA has documented a trend of mean sea level rise at Sabine Pass of 0.2 inch/year from

1958 through 1999 (USDC-NOAA, 2009). The reader is referred to Appendix C for further discussion of

the rates and cause of RSLR and coastal land loss.

3.9.4 Wetland and Aquatic Vegetation Communities

The following paragraphs include general descriptions of the wetland (including aquatic) vegetation

communities that occur in the study area. The descriptions include ecological functions, historical trends,

936
3. Affected Environment

3-56

and vulnerabilities. Detailed descriptions of the vegetation communities within each hydro-unit are

provided in the Ecological Modeling Report (Appendix C, Section 7.0), so to avoid duplication, they are

not included here.

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

SAV provides important food and cover to a wide variety of fish and wildlife. SAV beds are associated

with many kinds of marshes from saline to fresh, as well as in open bay waters. Fresh and intermediate

marshes, in particular, often support diverse communities of submerged and floating leaved vegetation.

Brackish marshes can support aquatic plants that provide food and cover for several species of fish and

wildlife. Although amounts are generally less than those that occur in fresh or intermediate marshes,

certain species such as widgeon grass, coontail, and milfoil can be abundant under some conditions, and

widgeon grass, in particular, is an important food source for waterfowl. Low-salinity saline marshes may

contain widgeon grass, which tolerates a wide range of salinities. Open-water areas in saline marshes

generally contain sparse aquatic vegetation and are primarily important as nursery areas for marine

organisms.

To a large extent, seagrass distribution in Texas parallels the precipitation and inflow gradients along the

Texas coast. Seagrasses are common along the middle to lower coast where rainfall is low and

evaporation is high. This correlates with average baywater salinities above 20 ppt. Conversely seagrass is

scarce in bays of the upper coast where rainfall and inflows are high and salinities are lower (TPWD,

1999). These areas are also more turbid, which also limits sunlight penetration for seagrass growth

(TPWD, 1999).

The TPWD (1999) reports that well-known annual species often occur in at least portions of all Texas

bays except for Sabine Lake. However, the low-salinity-tolerant species, widgeon grass, technically not a

seagrass because it tolerates very low salinity, can be found in protected parts of the Sabine Lake system.

In addition, other SAV found in the study area include Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)

and freshwater eelgrass (Vallisneria americanum). Most available data on distributions of SAV for the

Texas Gulf Coast are for seagrass meadows of the Laguna Madre (Onuf, 1995; Pulich et al., 1997;

Quammen and Onuf, 1993). Few data are available for the upper Texas coast (Adair et al., 1994).

Polyhaline species (18 to 30 ppt) found in the study area include widgeon grass; mesohaline species (5 to

18 ppt) include Eurasian watermilfoil, a nonnative invasive species, and freshwater eelgrass.

Baseline values for SAV, used in the EMCM, were based largely upon previous observations by Habitat

Workgroup members in the hydro-units that they manage or regulate, and data collected for CWPPRA or

other restoration projects in or near the areas under evaluation.

SAV cover and species type can and do change rapidly in response to a complex interaction of many

conditions (e.g., salinity, freshwater introduction, nutrient input, turbidity, water depth, fetch).

937
3. Affected Environment

3-57

Marshes and Flats

Coastal marshes include a variety of wetland communities (species assemblages) that are differentiated by

salinity, elevation, and soil regimes. Marshes range from saline, brackish, intermediate, to fresh water.

Soil saturation is highly correlated with elevation and influences the type of marsh community that an

area supports. The terms Low and High reflect this relationship and may actually reflect only small

changes in elevation, but may be significant when compared to the broad, flat areas of the coast. These

plant communities, as well as unvegetated flats, commonly form intricate mosaics of the various

communities associated with these subtle changes in topography.

Flats may be sparsely vegetated. In general, less than 30 percent vegetative cover will distinguish a flat

from a marsh. Tidal flats are periodically flooded by tidal waters. The term flat includes sandbars,

mudflats, and other nonvegetated or sparsely vegetated habitats also called salt flats. Sparse vegetation

that occurs on salt flats may include glasswort (Salicornia spp.), saltwort (Batis maritima), and shoregrass

(Monanthochloe littoralis).

These wetlands serve many ecological functions. Persistent emergent vegetation provides foraging,

resting, and breeding habitat for a variety of coastal fish and wildlife species. Detritus from coastal

marshes also provides a source of mineral and organic nourishment for organisms at the base of the food

chain. Loss of emergent coastal marsh is a serious existing condition in the study area, and it is assumed

that this loss would continue due to RSLR (USDC-NOAA, 2009). Existing and potentially accelerated

marsh loss associated with channel deepening has been identified as one of the highest concerns by

resource agencies and the general public. Mitigation measures should, therefore, maximize emergent

marsh creation, maintenance, and protection.

Important features of marshes include the amount of marsh edge (linear distance of open water/vegetation

interface) and interspersion that reflects the relative amount of marsh to open water and the degree to

which open water is dispersed throughout the marsh. Interspersion is an important characteristic for fresh

water and estuarine fish and shellfish nursery and foraging habitat in all marsh types. The marsh/openwater edge provides cover for postlarval and juvenile organisms.

Deeper water is assumed to be less biologically productive than shallow water because sunlight, oxygen,

and temperature are reduced as depth increases. Shallow water also provides better bottom access for

waterfowl, better foraging habitat for wading birds, and more-favorable conditions for the growth of

aquatic vegetation.

Increase in salinity associated with the existing navigation project are one of the most important factors

affecting coastal land loss in the study area. As salinity increases, biological productivity in the marsh is

reduced thereby increasing vulnerability to land use.

Access by estuarine-dependent fishes and shellfishes, as well as other aquatic organisms, is important in

assessing the quality of marsh systems. It is assumed that a high degree of hydrologic connectivity with

adjacent systems provides high organism access, as well as providing greater nutrient exchange. Brackish

938
3. Affected Environment

3-58

and saline marshes are assumed to be more important than fresh/intermediate marshes as habitat for

estuarine-dependent fish and shellfish.

White and Tremblay (1995) summarize many factors that have contributed to marsh loss in the study

area. In most cases, marsh loss occurs by conversion of the marshes to open water. In the lower Neches

River Valley, this conversion is caused by subsidence and faulting (sometimes related to oil and gas

production), dredged canals, alteration of hydrologic regime (due to channelization and placement of

dredged material), decreased input of fluvial sediment (due to upstream dams), and construction of

artificial levees. Similar factors are responsible for marsh loss in the Sabine River Basin.

Since 2000, there have been large areas of die-off in the low salt marshes on the Gulf Coast, commonly

called Brown Marsh phenomenon (LDNR, 2002a). The area most severely impacted is east of the study

area, between the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers. Although the causes are unknown, it is believed to

be a combination of factors, including weather regimes, and is currently under study.

Low marshes for all salinity types are distinguished by the species composition. Indicator species by

marsh type appear below (LDNR, 2002b; McKee et al., 2006; USFWS, 1998). More-extensive species

lists appear in Visser and Sasser (1998) and White et al. (1987). Additional descriptions of these marsh

types appear in Appendix C, Section 7.0.

Saline Marsh

• Smooth cordgrass, oystergrass (S. alterniflora) – dominant species in low marsh

• Seashore saltgrass (Distichlis spicata)

• Blackrush (Juncus romerianus)

• Saline marsh aster (Symphyotrichum tenuifolius, syn. Aster t.)

• Glasswort – dominant species in high marsh

• Marshhay cordgrass, wiregrass (S. patens)

• Sea ox-eye daisy (Borrichia frutescens)

Brackish Marsh

• Saltmarsh bulrush (Scirpus robustus) – (co-)dominant species in low marsh

• Marsh pea (Vigna luteola)

• Waterhemp (Amaranthus tamariscinus)

• Seashore saltgrass – (co-)dominant species in high marsh

• Dwarf spikerush (Eleocharis parvula)

• Marshhay cordgrass, wiregrass – (co-)dominant species in high marsh

939
3. Affected Environment

3-59

Intermediate Marsh

• Seashore paspalum (Paspalum vaginatum) – (co-)dominant species in low marsh

• Olney bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus, syn., Scirpus a.) – (co-dominant species in low

marsh

• California bulrush, giant bulrush – (co-)dominant species in low marsh

• Common reedgrass, roseau cane (P. australis) – (co-)dominant species in low marsh

• Sand spikerush (E. montevidensis)

• Marshhay cordgrass, wiregrass – (co-)dominant species in high marsh

• Bulltongue (Sagittaria lancifolia)

Freshwater Marsh

• Maidencane (Panicum hemitomen) – (co-)dominant species in low marsh

• Giant cutgrass (Zizaniopsis milacea) – co-dominant species in low marsh

• Bulltongue – (co-)dominant species in low marsh

• American lotus (Nelumbo lutea)

• Watershield (Brasenia screberi)

• Duckweed (Lemna spp.)

• Fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana)

• Squarestem spikerush (E. quadrangulata) – co-dominant species in high marsh

• Marshhay cordgrass, wiregrass – co-dominant species in high marsh

In general, the saline marshes are located nearest to the Gulf shoreline. In this area they tend to be linear

features, which grade into brackish marshes with increasing distance from the shoreline. Some occur near

Sabine Pass in the swales of the Chenier Plain.

Most of the area between the GIWW and the Gulf shoreline is covered with brackish marsh. Most of the

marshes on and near the shoreline of Sabine Lake and Sabine Pass are brackish to intermediate, becoming

fresher to the north with proximity to the Neches and Sabine rivers. There is generally a gradation from

more open-water areas that are saline or brackish to the intermediate marsh areas. These intermediate

marshes are encroaching on formerly freshwater areas, but in turn are being encroached upon by brackish

waters and marshes.

By altering the natural hydrology, the GIWW and its levees have created a sharper (formerly more

gradual) transition from fresh-intermediate water marshes north of the GIWW to brackish-saline marshes

on the south side. There are some scattered fresh and intermediate marshes associated with the swales of

the Chenier Plain. Some areas with relatively higher elevations support fairly freshwater areas that only

seasonally support wetland communities (i.e., “wet prairies”). There are additional freshwater marshes in

940
3. Affected Environment

3-60

the riparian zone of the Neches and Sabine rivers. The central part of the Sabine NWR previously

supported more freshwater marshes. However, some of this area has been converted to intermediate and

brackish marsh due to saltwater intrusion. This intrusion has encroached from the west (Sabine Lake),

east (Calcasieu Lake), and south. Some large levied areas within the Sabine NWR (e.g., Pool 3) are being

maintained as freshwater impoundments.

Shrub/Scrub Wetlands

These wetlands are generally located adjacent to marshes at somewhat higher elevations. Estuarine

intertidal scrub-shrub wetlands are dominated by woody vegetation and periodically flooded by tidal

waters. Common species include the black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) and big leaf sumpweed (Iva

frutescens). Sea ox-eye daisy is a woody species that is frequently a co-dominant species in high salt

marsh and is described in this report with the marshes.

Freshwater shrub-scrub wetlands are generally associated with riverine systems or in isolated depressional

areas (e.g., swales). Common species include buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), rattlebean

(Sesbania spp.), and alder (Alnus spp.).

Swamps (Forested Wetlands)

Two types of swamps or forested wetlands occur in the Chenier Plains of Texas and Louisiana (USFWS,

1998). These occur within the floodplains of waterways, primarily the Neches and Sabine rivers. One of

these is a true swamp, which is flooded most or all of the year. It is dominated by bald cypress and tupelo

gum trees (Nyssa sp.). Many swamp species, especially tupelo gum trees and many herbaceous species,

are salinity-sensitive. Bald cypress is able to tolerate higher salinities than the other species. These

swamps may occur streamside or in abandoned channels or other depressional areas within the floodplain.

Swamps with mature sizable trees are considered to be rare and ecologically important because of the

historical loss of swamp habitat from timber harvesting, saltwater intrusion, and a reduced growth rate in

the subsiding coastal zone. The hardwoods have been logged repeatedly since the turn of the century

(USACE, 1998a), so much of this community is secondary growth.

The other forested wetland is also located within the same floodplains. Common tree species of these

bottomland hardwoods include water oak (Quercus nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), eastern cottonwood

(Populus deltoides), box elder (A. negundo), Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), overcup oak (Q.

lyrata), sugar maple (A. saccharum), bald cypress, tupelo gum, and swamp privet (Forestiera acuminata).

These are flooded seasonally at high-water events when the waterways overflow their banks. Some

bottomland hardwood areas may not be true and/or CWA Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands, but may be

more appropriately considered as dry-riparian communities.

Swamps provide unique habitat to many species. Wildlife foods in swamp habitats consist predominantly

of soft mast, other edible seeds, invertebrates, and vegetation. Most swamp tree species produce soft mast

or edible seeds. A variety of stand structure (overstory, shrub, herb layer) provides habitat for resting,

foraging, breeding, nesting, and nursery activities. The hardwoods, especially the cypress trees, have been

941
3. Affected Environment

3-61

logged repeatedly since the turn of the century and as recently as perhaps the 1950s (USACE, 1998a).

Though much of the forest is secondary growth, the swamp and bottomland hardwood habitats have

medium to high value for food and cover to resident and migratory fish and wildlife.

The hydrology determines the existence and quality of forested wetlands. Seasonal flooding with periodic

drying cycles increases nutrient cycling, vertical structure complexity, and recruitment of dominant

overstory trees. Seasonal flooding with abundant and consistent riverine/tidal input and water flowthrough is considered to be optimal hydrologic characteristic. Optimal conditions for forested wetlands

are discussed in the WVA (Appendix C). The WVA model considered several variables (e.g., tree species

composition, stand maturity) to assess the overall condition and characterization of the forested wetlands.

Bottomland Hardwood Forests

Bottomland hardwood forests are located in river bottomlands, generally in the floodplain. They are

commonly associated with and form mosaics of stands with cypress-tupelo swamps and other forested

wetlands (e.g., water oak or ash flats); however, they may not actually be considered wetlands. In the

lower Sabine and Neches watersheds, bottomland hardwood forests are found on an intricate network of

sandy ridges interspersed with wet sloughs that have formed within the rivers’ relict meanderbelts. These

are highly productive and diverse ecosystems and serve many ecological functions.

Bottomland hardwood wildlife depends heavily on mast, other edible seeds, and tree buds as primary

sources of food. Typical hard mast producers in the study area are oaks, pecan (Carya illinoinensis), and

other hickories. Soft mast and other edible seeds are produced by red maple, sugarberry (Celtis laevigata),

green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), boxelder (A. negundo), common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana),

sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthus), red mulberry (Morus rubra),

bald cypress, tupelo gum, American elm (Ulmus americana), and cedar elm (U. crassifolia).

Nonmast/inedible seed producers are eastern cottonwood, black willow (Salix nigra), and American

sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).

Mature stands of bottomland hardwood are rare and ecologically important. Historical and ongoing timber

harvesting has reduced the number of mature stands and increased the ecological importance of those that

remain. These stands provide more hard and soft mast, other edible seeds, and buds than younger stands.

They provide important wildlife requisites such as snags, nesting cavities, and medium for invertebrate

production.

Upland Grasslands (including Coastal Prairies)

Virtually all (99 percent) of the original Gulf Coastal Prairies (commonly referred to as Cajun Prairies in

Louisiana) community has been converted to agricultural, industrial or other uses although some remnants

still exist (Smeins et al., 1991). Undeveloped upland grasslands usually have a mix of the original prairie

species and introduced pasture species as well as various forbs and occasional shrubs such as honey

mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), eastern baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia), and southern wax-myrtle

(Myrica cerifera). Hatch et al. (1990) list common species for Gulf Coast prairie as follows: little

942
3. Affected Environment

3-62

bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), coastal bluestem (S. scoparium var. littoralis), yellow indiangrass

(Sorgastrum nutans), eastern gammagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides), hairy awn muhly (Muhlenbergia

capillaris), Texas wintergrass (Stipa leucotricha), panicgrasses (Panicum spp.), several Paspalum species,

broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus), threeawn grasses (Aristida spp.),

yankeeweed (Eupatorium compositifolium), western ragweed (Ambrosia cumanensis), prickly pear

(Opuntia spp.), several aster species, Texas paintbrush (Castilleja indivisa), poppy mallows (Callirhoe

spp.), phlox (Phlox spp.), bluebonnets (Lupinus spp.), and evening primrose (Oenothera spp.). Because of

the higher rainfall and gradual transition to coastal marshes, the Coastal Prairies in the study area,

particularly in Louisiana, switchgrass (P. virgatum) is more common than in Coastal Prairies farther west.

The upland grasslands, most of which have been converted to agricultural purposes (crops or pasture), are

primarily north of the GIWW, inland of the coastal marshes. Upland grasslands also occur south of the

GIWW in Louisiana on the uplands provided by Gum Cove and Perry Ridge (Fearn, 1995) and also in

small, scattered patches in the uplands of the chenier complex. Only small, scattered remnants of coastal

prairie may be found within the study area.

Upland and Nonwetland Riparian Woodlands and Forests

Several communities of upland forest occur in the study area, including the Coastal Live Oak-Sugarberry

Series, Water Oak-Coastal Live Oak series, Loblolly Pine-Oak Series, and Chinese Tallow Woodland.

The Coastal Live Oak-Sugarberry Series is essentially a maritime woodland or forest (woodlots/oak

mottes) of the Upper Gulf Coast, which is unique to the Chenier Plain (USFWS, 1998). Associated

species include yaupon, cedar elm, and ash (Fraxinus spp.) intermixed with open patches of little

bluestem grasslands (Bezanson, 2001; Harcombe and Neaville, 1977; Texas Natural Heritage Program

[TNHP], 1993). The Water Oak-Coastal Live Oak series is a mostly deciduous, riparian woodland of the

floodplains and along bayous in the Upper Coastal Prairie, along the Sabine and Neches rivers.

Associated species include pecan, cedar elm, sugarberry, yaupon, hawthorns (Crataegus spp.), and

deciduous holly (I. decidua) (TNHP, 1993). The Loblolly Pine-Oak Series may include post, southern

red, white, and water oaks (Q. stellata, Q. falcata, Q. alba, and Q. nigra). These occur on higherelevation uplands that generally have acidic soils. This community often occurs as second growth or after

disturbance and is highly variable and is a mix of pine and hardwood species (USFWS, 1998). Overstory

species include loblolly pine, slash pine (Pinus elliottii), water oak, overcup oak, willow (Salix spp.),

sweetgum, southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), American elm, and sugarberry. Understory species

include eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), blackcherry (Prunus serotina), roughleaf dogwood

(Cornus drummondii), sugarberry, American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), and poison ivy

(Toxicodendron radicans). These occur in scattered patches in the uplands in the north part of the study

area, but also on Perry and Gum Cove ridges. Another woodland type has been created by the

introduction of an exotic species, the Chinese tallow tree, which rapidly invades upland and freshbrackish wetlands in disturbed areas or abandoned agricultural fields. These woodlands are virtual

monocultures of tallow trees, but commonly include native species such as sugarberry, American elm,

cedar elm, water oak, and ash (Bruce et al., 1995).

943
3. Affected Environment

3-63

Beach/Ridge (includes barrier dune complex)

The current beach communities include a primary and secondary dune complex that is leeward of the

unvegetated, beach sands of the shoreline. The primary dunes, located immediately landward of the

beach, are taller and offer more protection from wind and hurricane storm surge than the secondary dunes.

The secondary dunes, which are landward of the primary dunes, are not as tall and are more densely

vegetated. Typical plant species of the primary dunes include sea oats (Uniola paniculata), bitter panicum

(P. amarum), Gulf croton (Croton punctatus), beach morning glory (Ipomea pes-caprae var. emarginata),

and fiddleleaf morning glory (I. stolonifera). Secondary dune species include marshhay/wiregrass,

seashore dropseed (Sporobolus virginicus), seashore saltgrass, pennywort (Hydrocotyle bonariensis), and

partridge pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata) (Britton and Morton, 1989; USFWS, 1998). Swales that occur

between or within the primary and secondary dune complexes may support brackish-to-intermediate

marsh vegetation. The ridge and swale topography of the Chenier Plain represents ancient beach systems.

These occur behind the active beach system and exhibit alternating, linear, upland/transitional, and

wetland features. The Gulf beach in the study area is heavily eroded and virtually nonexistent in places

(e.g., Texas Point) where saline marshes can occur on the coastline.

3.9.5 Preparation of Baseline Data Set to Support the WVA Model

Since the primary impact expected with the proposed project is salinity intrusion, units used to evaluate

impacts were defined to the greatest extent possible on hydrologic characteristics. Sensitive habitats that

are hydrologically connected to waterways influenced by the proposed project were divided into hydrounits. Uplands and developed areas were excluded from the analysis. Baseline habitat types within each

hydro-unit were then classified as marsh (fresh, intermediate, brackish, or saline), cypress-tupelo swamp,

or bottomland hardwood. Habitat classification definitions were derived from Cowardin et al. (1979).

Numerous other sources were used to map and characterize the wetlands. These are described in detail in

Appendix C of this FEIS.

Baseline habitats for the Texas hydro-units were classified and mapped with the assistance of the Habitat

Workgroup. The TPWD provided habitat mapping for the Keith Lake/Salt Bayou hydro-unit, the Lower

Neches WMA (TPWD, 1992), and Cow Bayou (TPWD, 2004). The USFWS (2001) provided habitat

maps of the McFaddin NWR and also mapped habitat types on the Neches River using the National

Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data (USFWS and GLO, 1992), supplemented and revised as necessary on the

basis of expert knowledge and field visits. All other Texas hydro-units were mapped by PBS&J using

collapsed NWI data, reviewed and revised as necessary by the Habitat Workgroup.

Hydro-units and habitat types for Louisiana marsh habitats were drawn directly from mapping units

developed for the Louisiana CWPPRA program (Chabreck and Linscombe, 1978; Linscombe, 2001;

USGS-NWRC, 2004). Nonmarsh habitats on the Sabine River were mapped by PBS&J using NWI data,

reviewed and revised by the Habitat Workgroup.

944
3. Affected Environment

3-64

The existing vegetation and conditions, including detailed descriptions and maps for each hydro-unit, may

be found in Appendix C (Section 7), so to avoid duplication, they are not included here.

3.10 AQUATIC ECOLOGY

3.10.1 Freshwater

The study area consists of both freshwater and marine ecosystems. The Sabine and Neches rivers and

their tributaries were dominated by fresh water prior to the late 1800s, before Sabine Lake was opened for

navigation. It is likely that Sabine Lake was almost entirely fresh, with the exception of saltwater

intrusions that emanated from tidal surges during storms or during severe droughts (see Section 3.5 for

additional discussions on hydrology). Thus, the biological communities have changed significantly within

the past century due to the encroachment of salt water. Most of the tributaries adjacent to Sabine Lake are

also influenced by salt water to some extent. Many of the deep navigational channels maintain

predominant saltwater wedges that underlie freshwater inflows into the estuary. As a result of this,

freshwater species adapted to stenohaline environments may be typically restricted to the upper reaches of

the tributaries or occur above (on top of) the saltwater wedge. With high freshwater inflows, Sabine Lake

and its tributaries often flush most of the salt water from the estuary resulting in a temporary expansion of

freshwater habitat. However, with a return of normal freshwater inflows and tidal currents, Sabine Lake

returns to a euryhaline (wide range of salinity) system.

Freshwater fauna typically occur in the tributaries of Sabine Lake including the Sabine and Neches rivers,

Taylor, Cow, Adams, and Little Cypress bayous in Texas, Black and Johnson’s bayous in Louisiana, as

well as numerous other smaller tributaries. Rose City Marsh is predominantly a freshwater environment,

and portions of Bessie Heights Marsh, distantly removed from the study area, contain low salinity. In

addition, freshwater fauna can be found in the multitude of wetlands, oxbows, ponds, canals, and ditches

within the study area.

3.10.1.1 Fisheries

Due to the variety of habitats and the typical diversity of southeastern United States streams, the study

area has an exceptionally diverse fish community consisting of approximately 56 freshwater and 25

estuarine species (Hubbs, 1982; USACE, 1975b). Fishery surveys conducted by the TPWD on the Sabine

and Neches rivers (TPWD, 1980, 1994) and Taylor, Hildebrand, Cow, Little Cypress, and Adams bayous

(TPWD, 1985, 1995a, 1995b) confirm many of these species. Some of these species, including

largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), crappie (Pomoxis spp.),

white bass (Morone chrysops), and sunfish (Lepomis spp.), are important recreational species. Although

little information is available regarding angler use, all of these areas are extensively utilized by sport

anglers (Driscoll, 2001). There is little to no commercial freshwater fishing on the Texas side of the study

area (Young, 2001). Table 3.10-1 lists species collected by the TPWD from Bessie Heights Marsh using

gill nets, and from the Neches River using bag seines (Tirpak, 2002). The number of data lines for gill

nets represents the number of samples where at least one individual of that species was encountered per

mesh size. The TPWD gill nets are 600 feet in length with 150-foot panels each of 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-inch

945
3. Affected Environment

3-65

mesh. For bag seines, the “number of data lines” represents the number of samples where at least one

individual of that species was encountered. For each gear type, a higher number of lines indicate a higher

encounter rate (not necessarily catch rate) for that species and gear.

The LDWF, Inland Fisheries Division, monitors fish populations with an emphasis on sport fish

management on the Sabine River at Niblett’s Bluff and within associated bayous downstream of Niblett’s

Bluff. A variety of freshwater species has been collected from this area including largemouth bass,

spotted bass (M. punctulatus), bowfin (Amia calva), black crappie (P. nigromaculatus), spotted sucker

(Minytrema melanops), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), sunfish, blue catfish (I. furcatus),

channel catfish, spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus), shad (Dorosoma spp.), and striped mullet (Mugil

cephalus) (LDWF, var.). According to the LDWF (pers. comm. District Biologist, 2001), angling along

the Sabine River is very popular, including tournament fishing for largemouth bass by local anglers.

3.10.1.2 Macroinvertebrates

Both benthic macroinvertebrates and plankton support the food chain in the freshwater zones. Food

chains in the larger, slow-moving rivers, bayous, and backwater areas are similar to those found in lakes.

In these systems, the food chain consists primarily of plankton, including microscopic algae

(phytoplankton) and crustacea (zooplankton) that are suspended in the water column. Diverse

communities of plankton occur throughout the freshwater system, but gradually shift to marine taxa as the

water enters the estuarine areas. For the most part, plankton communities found in the study area are

ubiquitous and common throughout the southern United States. Phytoplankton communities that occur in

the freshwater zones of the study area typically include blue-green algae (Cyanophyta), green algae

(Chlorophyta), and diatoms (Bacillariophyta). Zooplankton common to this same area include rotifers

(Rotifera), calanoid and cyclopoid copepods (Copepoda), seed shrimp (Ostracoda), and Daphnia and

Ceriodpahnia spp. (Cladocera).

In small streams or streams with higher water velocities, benthic macroinvertebrates are the primary basis

of the food chain. Species composition in the rivers, bayous, and streams in the study area is similar to

other southeastern United States rivers and streams. General groups of organisms commonly found in

these areas include aquatic worms (Oligochaeta), scuds (Amphipoda), crayfish (Cambaridae), mayflies

(Ephemeroptera), caddsiflies (Trichoptera), water beetles (Coleoptera), midge flies (Chironomidae), water

bugs (Hemiptera), dragonflies (Odanata), and mussels (Bivalvia).

Within the tidally influenced zones, where saltwater wedges or intrusion occur, the macrobenthic

community is complex and dynamic (see subsection 3.10.2.1 for additional discussions). Community

structure in the shallow margins of these tributaries may consist of those organisms common to

freshwater environments due to the partitioning between fresh- and saltwater. However, these freshwater

organisms are greatly affected by the encroachment of saltwater wedges. McKee and Wolf (1973)

consider dissolved solids between 5,000 and 10,000 mg/L to be beyond the tolerance of most freshwater

organisms. Persistent saltwater intrusion with saltwater wedges may allow for the encroachment of

estuarine organisms.

946
3. Affected Environment

3-66

Table 3.10-1

Species Collected by TPWD from Bessie Heights (Gill Nets) and Neches River (Bag Seines)

January 1986–June 2001

Number of Data Lines

Family Name/Scientific Name Common Name

Gill Nets

Bessie Heights

Bag Seines

Neches River

HYDROZOA

Hydractiniidae

Podocoryna carnea Smoothspined snailfur 1

CTENOPHORE

Beroidae

Beroe ovata Sea walnut (comb jelly) 12

Bolinopsidae

Mnemiopsis mccradyi Phosphorus jelly 8

MOLLUSKS

Mactridae

Rangia cuneata Atlantic rangia 2 10

CRUSTACEANS

Penaeidae

Farfantepenaeus aztecus Brown shrimp 51

Litopenaeus setiferus White shrimp 61

Xiphopenaeus kroyeri Seabob 1

Palaemonidae

Palaemonetes pugio Daggerblade grass shrimp 1

Palaemonetes sp. unidentified grass shrimp 40

Macrobrachium ohione Ohio shrimp 5

Portunidae

Callinectes sapidus Blue crab 95 136

Callinectes similis Lesser blue crab 8

Xanthidae

Family mud crabs 2

Grapsidae

Sesarma reticulatum Heavy marsh crab 1

Cambariidae

Procambarus clarkii Red swamp crawfish 2

BRYOZOANS

Gymnolaemata

Zoobotryon verticillatum Sauerkraut bryozoan 2

947
3. Affected Environment

3-67

Table 3.10-1, cont’d

Number of Data Lines

Family Name/Scientific Name Common Name

Gill Nets

Bessie Heights

Bag Seines

Neches River

FISHES

Lepisoseidae

Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted gar 131 1

Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar 6

Lepisosteus spatula Alligator gar 117

Elopidae

Elops saurus Ladyfish 10 3

Clupeidae

Alosa chrysochloris Skipjack herring 2

Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad 145 1

Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad 21

Harengula jaguana Scaled sardine 2

Brevoortia patronus Gulf menhaden 10 50

Family herrings 3

Engraulidae

Anchoa hepsetus Striped anchovy 2

Anchoa mitchilli Bay anchovy 61

Cyprinidae

Cyprinus carpio Common carp 4

Ictaluridae

Ameiurus natalis Yellow bullhead 1

Ictalurus furcatus Blue catfish 83 2

Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish 3

Ariidae

Arius felis Hardhead catfish 117 18

Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfish 1

Belonidae

Strongylura marina Atlantic needlefish 7

Cyprinodontidae

Cyprinodon variegatus Sheepshead minnow 15

Fundulus grandis Gulf killifish 13

Lucania parva Rainwater killifish 1

Poeciliidae

Poecilia latipinna Sailfin molly 2

Atherinidae

Membras martinica Rough silverside 1

Menidia beryllina Inland silverside 57

948
3. Affected Environment

3-68

Table 3.10-1, cont’d

Number of Data Lines

Family Name/Scientific Name Common Name

Gill Nets

Bessie Heights

Bag Seines

Neches River

Syngnathidae

Syngnathus scovelli Gulf pipefish 1

Percichthyidae

Morone mississippiensis Yellow bass 20

Morone saxatilis Striped bass 2 1

Family Percichthyidae Family temperate basses 1

Centrarchidae

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 3 1

Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish 2

Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass 16 1

Carangidae

Caranx hippos Crevalle jack 7

Trachinotus carolinus Florida pompano 3

Chloroscombrus chrysurus Atlantic bumper 2

Oligoplites saurus Leatherjacket 11

Gerreidae

Eucinostomus argenteus Spotfin mojarra 2

Eucinostomus gula Silver jenny 8

Sparidae

Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 29 1

Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish 3 8

Sciaenidae

Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum 3

Cynoscion arenarius Sand seatrout 1 26

Cynoscion nebulosus Spotted seatrout 72 13

Cynoscion nothus Silver seatrout 1

Leiostomus xanthurus Spot 61 32

Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker 24 122

Pogonias cromis Black drum 252

Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum 345 18

Menticirrhus americanus Southern kingfish 5

Menticirrhus littoralis Gulf kingfish 1

Muglidae

Mugil cephalus Striped mullet 57 95

Mugil curema White mullet 14

Polynemidae

Polydactylus octonemus Atlantic threadfin 2

949
3. Affected Environment

3-69

Table 3.10-1, cont’d

Number of Data Lines

Family Name/Scientific Name Common Name

Gill Nets

Bessie Heights

Bag Seines

Neches River

Gobiidae

Gobionellus boleosoma Darter goby 6

Gobionellus shufeldti Freshwater goby 5

Gobiosoma bosc Naked goby 4

Bothidae

Citharichthys spilopterus Bay whiff 23

Etropus crossotus Fringed flounder 2

Paralichthys lethostigma Southern flounder 34 29

Soleidae

Achirus lineatus Lined sole 1

Trinectes maculatus Hogchoker 1

Tetraodontidae

Sphoeroides parvus Least puffer 3

Synodontidae

Synodus foetens Inshore lizardfish 4

Uranocopidae

Astroscopus y-graecum Southern stargazer 1

Triglidae

Prionotus tribulus Bighead searobin 7

Cynoglossidae

Symphurus plagiusa Blackcheek tonguefish 4

MAMMALS

Myocastoridae

Myocastor coypus Nutria 1

Source: A. Tirpak (2002).

Prior to the implementation of the CWA in the early 1970s, the Neches River, downstream of the

saltwater barriers on the Neches River, and Pine Island Bayou were highly impacted by industrial

wastewater effluent and saltwater encroachment. Studies by Harrel (1975, 1993), Harrel and Hall (1991),

and Harrel et al. (1976) documented the impacts of increased salinity and depressed dissolved oxygen

(DO) on benthic macroinvertebrates. The degree of impact was greater downstream in the industrialized

portions of the river. Since the implementation of the CWA, water quality has improved with a significant

reduction in biochemical oxygen demand (EPA, 1978); however, saltwater intrusion continues to be a

problem for freshwater organisms in this area.

950
3. Affected Environment

3-70

3.10.2 Marine

3.10.2.1 Estuarine Habitats and Fauna

3.10.2.1.1 Open-Bay

Sabine Lake, when compared to the other estuarine ecosystems in Texas, covers the smallest surface area

(43,978 acres/68.6 square miles) and volume; however, it has the largest surrounding marshland (over

185,000 acres/288.6 square miles) (Armstrong et al., 1987; Blackburn et al., 2001). The average depth of

Sabine Lake is 6 feet. Due to the large amount of freshwater inflow into Sabine Lake from stormwater

runoff, return flows, and diversions, this estuary has the highest loading of nutrients than any other

estuary in Texas (Armstrong et al., 1987). Due to its dynamic salinity (see subsection 3.5.5), Sabine Lake

supports a diversity of fish species, plankton, and benthic organisms.

Plankton Assemblages. Phytoplankton (microscopic algae) are the major primary producers (plant life)

in the open bay, taking up carbon through photosynthesis and nutrients for growth. Phytoplankton are fed

upon by zooplankton (small crustaceans), fish, and benthic consumers. EH&A (1976), found that

phytoplankton in Sabine Lake were comprised primarily of both freshwater and marine diatoms

(45 percent) and green algae (36 percent). Species composition changed seasonally with minimum

abundance occurring in the winter and maximum in the summer. Zooplankton were most abundant during

the summer and early fall, coinciding with higher salinities. The dominant species was the copepod

Acartia tonsa (85 percent), with several other marine copepods also present. Commensurate with higher

salinities, the higher numbers were found in the lowest reaches of the estuary. Freshwater species,

including rotifers and cladocerans, were the dominant taxa near the mouth of the rivers. Abundance of

zooplankton was lowest in the winter and spring and highest in the summer and fall, which is the opposite

in other estuaries (with the exception of Galveston Bay) (Armstrong et al., 1987; EH&A, 1976). Marine

zooplankton abundance is apparently related to the greater inflow of fresh water into Sabine Lake and

Galveston Bay during the winter and spring (Armstrong et al., 1987).

Nekton Assemblages. Nekton assemblages (organisms that swim freely in the water column) consist

mainly of secondary consumers, which feed on zooplankton or juvenile and smaller nekton. Sabine Lake

supports a diverse nekton population including fish, shrimp, and crabs. Some of these are resident species,

spending their entire life in the bay, whereas others are migrant species spending only a portion of their

life cycle in the estuary (Armstrong et al., 1987).

Dominant nekton species inhabiting the Sabine Lake estuary are Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias

undulatus), white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus), brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), Gulf

menhaden (Brevoortia patronus), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), blue

crab (Callinectes sapidus), southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma), black drum (Pogonias cromis),

striped mullet, sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), and spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus),

all of which are estuarine dependent (Chambers and Sparks, 1959; Parker, 1965; Reid, 1957). These

species are ubiquitous along the Texas and Louisiana coast and are unaffected by changes in salinity.

Seasonal differences occur in abundance with the fall usually being the smallest in biomass and number.

951
3. Affected Environment

3-71

Newly spawned fish and shellfish begin migrating into the bay in winter and early spring with the

maximum biomass observed during the summer months (Parker, 1965).

Recreational and Commercial Fisheries. Sabine Lake has the second-lowest percentage of the total

commercial finfish harvest from all Texas bay systems (Culbertson et al., 2004). Table 3.10-2 lists the

TPWD commercial landings for Sabine Lake from 1992 through 2001. From 1992 to 2001, an average of

only 1,629 pounds of finfish were commercially harvested in Sabine Lake, with a value averaging $1,540.

The amount harvested has declined in recent years. Commercially caught species include Atlantic

croaker, black drum, flounder, king whiting (Menticirrhus americanus), striped mullet, and sheepshead

(Auil-Marshalleck et al., 2001; Culbertson et al., 2004).

The main commercially harvested shellfish species in Sabine Lake are blue crabs (Table 3.10-3). Sabine

Lake sustains an important blue crab fishery in Texas and Louisiana. From 1997 through 2001, 27 percent

of all blue crabs on the Texas coast were landed from Sabine Lake (Culbertson et al., 2004). From 1990 to

1999, over 1 million pounds of blue crabs were commercially harvested annually from Sabine Lake, with

an annual value averaging $843,273 (Culbertson et al., 2004). At one time, white shrimp made up a

330 ton/year fishery. In 1997, this fishery began to decline, possibly as a result of changes in freshwater

inflow and concurrent isolation of wetlands from Sabine Lake. This decline was only observed in Sabine

Lake while the white shrimp fishery in Galveston Bay and Lake Calcasieu remained the same (Sheridan

et al., 1989). Eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) are not currently commercially harvested from

Sabine Lake (see Table 3.10-2); however, they were harvested during 1986 and 1987 (Auil-Marshalleck

et al., 2001).

The commercial landings data collected by the LDWF is shown in Table 3.10-3. From 1995 to 2005, an

average of 10,375 pounds of finfish were commercially harvested from Sabine Lake, with a value

averaging $10,610. These species include alligator gar (Lepisosteus spatula) and blue catfish. Shellfish

were only harvested in 2001 and 2002, and included 88,362 pounds of blue crab with a value of $76,726

and 908 pounds of white shrimp with a value of $1,223 (Kasprzak, 2007).

Due to the variety of both fresh and saltwater species, recreational fishing is Sabine Lake’s largest

recreational activity (Davis, 1996). The most sought after species include Atlantic croaker, black drum,

gafftopsail catfish (Bagre marinus), red drum, sand seatrout (Cynoscion arenarius), sheepshead, southern

flounder, and spotted seatrout (see subsection 3.10.1.1 for additional discussion on freshwater sport fish).

Between May 1982 and May 1992, Sabine Lake (including Sabine Pass) accounted for 10 percent of the

annual coastwide recreational fishing landings among bay systems. The majority of these species included

Atlantic croaker, southern flounder, black drum, and gafftopsail catfish (Warren et al., 1994). The catch

per unit effort in Sabine Lake is 0.35 fish per man-hour of fishing, second only to Galveston Bay. Annual

fishing effort is estimated at 500,000 man-hours (Blackburn et al., 2001). The LDWF only collects

recreational landings data on a statewide level; there are no data specific to Sabine Lake (Kasprzak,

2007).

952
Table 3.10-2

Texas Commercial Landings for Sabine Lake

Annual Summaries, 1992–2001

Year

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $

(x 1,000) (x 1,000) (x 1,000) (x 1,000) (x 1,000) (x 1,000) (x 1,000) (x 1,000) (x 1,000) (x 1,000)

Fish

Atlantic Croaker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.02 0.13 0.05 0 0 0.01 0.04 0.11 0.75 -- -- -- --

Black Drum 0.03 0.20 0 0 0.52 0.42 0 0 1.17 0.83 0.70 0.49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.86 0.60Flounder 2.03 2.43 0.06 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.07 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.09 0 0King Whiting 7.22 2.02 0.1 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- -- --

Mullet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.36 0.18 0.41 0.20 0.12 0.3 0.22 0.84 0.08 0.33 1.37 4.16 0.26 1.15Sand Seatrout 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0.09 0.04 0.02 0 0 -- -- -- --

Sheepshead 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL FISH 9.40 4.68 0.20 0.09 0.52 0.42 0.41 0.20 1.71 1.08 1.06 0.95 0.27 0.90 0.19 1.08 1.41 4.25 1.12 1.75

Shellfish

Blue Crabs 266.31 169.49 871.53 354.64 736.07 387.67 1,278.13 952.96 1,654.86 1,093.93 1,670.86 1,072.53 1,268.24 871.04 1,796.99 1,303.11 1,522.64 1,108.54 1,415.62 1,118.82Oyster Meats 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

Shrimp (Heads On):

Brown and Pink 2.89 3.17 5.01 3.85 0 0 0.69 0.94 23.83 16.81 0.92 0.59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

White 19.31 13.89 21.87 15.00 14.92 18.36 9.04 8.52 8.12 8.59 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.21 66.29 0 0

Other 0 0 0.44 0.15 0.91 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL SHELLFISH 288.51 186.55 898.85 373.64 751.90 406.28 1,287.86 962.42 1,686.81 1,119.33 1,671.78 1,073.12 1,268.24 871.04 1,796.99 1,303.11 1,564.85 1,174.83 1,415.62 1,118.82

3-72

Species

GRAND TOTAL 297.91 191.23 899.05 373.73 752.42 406.70 1,288.27 962.62 1,688.52 1,120.41 1,672.84 1,074.07 1,268.51 871.94 1,797.18 1,304.19 1,566.26 1,179.08 1,416.74 1,120.57

Source:

Auil-Marshalleck et al. (2001).

Campbell (2001).Culbertson et al. (2004).

953
Table 3.10-3

Louisiana Commercial Landings for Sabine Lake

Annual Summaries, 1999–2005

Year

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $

Fish

Alligator gar 21,439.35 19,420.65 16,407.65 17,375.45 10,340.75 10,062.80 3,812.16 4,889.00 0 0 6,522.46 8,097.35 2,900.49 3,256.65

Blue catfish 0 0 0 0 825.36 556.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL FISH 21,439.35 19,420.65 16,407.65 17,375.45 11,166.11 10,619.00 3,812.16 4,889.00 0.00 0.00 6,522.46 8,097.35 2,900.49 3,256.65

Shellfish

Blue Crabs 0 0 0 0 88,362.30 76,726.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

White shrimp 0 0 0 0 0 0 908.00 1,022.70 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL SHELLFISH 00 00 88,362.30 76,726.45 908.00 1,022.70 00 00 00

GRAND TOTAL 21,439.35 19,420.65 16,407.65 17,375.45 99,528.41 87,345.45 4,720.16 5,911.70 0.00 0.00 6,522.46 8,097.35 2,900.49 3,256.65

Source: Kasprzak (2007).

3-73

Species

954
3. Affected Environment

3-74

Offshore fishing is also popular in the study area. The main recreational species are king mackerel

(Scomberomorus cavalla), red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), and sand seatrout. From May 1982 to

May 1992, offshore recreational fishing in this area accounted for 4 to 7 percent of the annual coastwide

private-boat fishing landings (Warren et al., 1994). The main commercially landed species include

flounder, mullet, snapper, and blue crab (Table 3.10-4) (Culbertson et al., 2004). From 1997 to 2001,

Sabine Lake represented less than 1 percent of the total annual coastwide finfish commercial landings

(Culbertson et al., 2004).

3.10.2.1.2 Open-Bay Bottom

The open-bay bottom includes all areas of Sabine Lake not covered with oyster reefs (Lester and

Gonzales, 2001) but does not include the bottoms of ship channels because they are so frequently

disturbed by ship passage and maintenance dredging that they never establish a population even

approaching a climax community. Benthic organisms are divided into two groups: epifauna, such as crabs

and smaller crustaceans, which live on the surface of the bottom substrate, and infauna, such as mollusks

and polychaetes that burrow into the bottom substrate (Green et al., 1992). Mollusks and other infaunal

organisms are filter feeders that strain suspended particles from the water column. Others, such as

polychaetes, feed by ingesting sediments and extracting nutrients. Many of the epifauna and infauna feed

on plankton, and are then fed upon by numerous fish and birds (Armstrong et al., 1987; Lester and

Gonzales, 2001). The open-bay bottom includes flat areas consisting of mud and sand that contribute

large quantities of nutrients and food, making them one of the most important components of this habitat

type. EH&A (1976) found that the dominant infauna organism throughout Sabine Lake was the clam

(Rangia cuneata) and a polychaete of the family Capitellidae. R. cuneata was most abundant in areas of

lower salinity, whereas polychaetes increased in abundance in areas of higher salinity (EH&A, 1976).

Vittor & Associates (1997) found the dominant benthic taxa of Sabine Lake were the polychaetes,

Paraprionospio pinnata (29.0 percent) and Mediomastus sp. (7.7 percent), the oligochaete, Tubificoides

heterochaetus (23.2 percent), and the bivalve, R. cuneata (5.2 percent).

3.10.2.1.3 Oyster Reef

Eastern oyster reefs are present in several areas of Sabine Lake, Sabine Pass, and Keith Lake, and provide

ecologically important functions. Oyster reefs are formed where a hard substrate and adequate currents

are plentiful. Currents carry nutrients to the oysters and take away sediment and waste filtered by the

oyster. Most oyster reefs are subtidal or intertidal and found near passes and cuts, and along the edges of

marshes. Oysters can filter water 1,500 times the volume of their body per hour which, in turn, influences

water clarity and phytoplankton abundance (Powel et al., 1992; Lester and Gonzalez, 2001). Due to their

lack of mobility and their tendency to bioaccumulate pollutants, oysters are an important indicator species

for determining contamination in the bay (Lester and Gonzalez, 2001).

955
Table 3.10-4

Texas Commercial Offshore Landings

Annual Summaries, 1992–2001

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $ lbs. $

(x 1,000) (x 1,000) (x 1,000) (x 1,000) (x 1,000) (x 1,000) (x 1,000) (x 1,000) (x 1,000) (x 1,000)

Fish

Black Drum 0.19 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.05 0.33 0.14 0.008 0.003Flounder 4.33 4.36 1.61 1.37 1.48 1.49 2.61 2.26 0.83 0.79 0.34 0.38 0.53 0.64 52 0.64 0.45 0.63 0.22 0.33

Sheepshead 0.21 0.10 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.002 0.26 0.08 0.09 0.04

Mullet 5.15 1.45 3.3 0.93 0.1 0.05 0.17 0.08 0 0 0.25 0.13 0.05 0.03 0.46 0.23 0 0 0.02 0.012Cobia 0.18 0.19 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grouper 0.20 0.31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Snapper 45.50 80.79 44.25 76.39 26.65 47.53 4.66 9.23 10.49 17.11 9.91 20.26 0.05 0.09 0.39 0.81 0.30 0.73 0.08 0.16

TOTAL FISH 55.76 87.28 49.39 78.76 28.27 49.09 7.57 11.73 11.32 17.90 10.50 20.77 0.63 0.76 52.93 1.73 1.34 1.58 0.41 0.55Shellfish

Blue Crabs 7.26 3.83 2.11 1.16 29.03 26.80 0 0 0.28 0.11 3.60 2.42 2.47 2.04 0 0 16.46 12.72 0 0

TOTAL SHELLFISH 7.26 3.83 2.11 1.16 29.03 26.80 0 0 0.28 0.11 3.60 2.42 2.47 2.04 0 0 16.46 12.72 0 0GRAND TOTAL 63.02 91.11 51.50 79.92 57.30 75.89 7.57 11.73 11.60 18.01 14.10 23.19 3.10 2.80 52.93 1.73 17.80 14.30 0.41 0.55

Source:

3-75

Year

Species

ource:

Auil-Marshalleck et al. (2001).Culbertson et al. (2004).

956
3. Affected Environment

3-76

Many organisms, including mollusks, polychaetes, barnacles, crabs, gastropods, amphipods, polychaetes,

and isopods, can be found living on the oyster reef, forming a very diverse community (Sheridan et al.,

1989). Oyster reef communities are dependent upon food resources from the open bay and marshes. Many

organisms feed on oysters including fish, such as black drum, crabs (Callinectes spp.), and gastropods

such as the oyster drill (Thais haemastoma) (Sheridan et al., 1989; Lester and Gonzales, 2001). When

oyster reefs are exposed during low tides, shore birds would use the reef areas as resting places

(Armstrong et al., 1987).

The majority of oyster reefs in the study area are located in the southern part of Sabine Lake near Blue

Buck Point, in Sabine Pass, and in Keith Lake (GLO, 1996). Oysters are not commercially harvested from

Sabine Lake. In Texas, all areas not specifically designated as Restricted, Conditionally Approved, or

Approved by the Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS) are classified as Prohibited and

closed for harvesting of molluscan shellfish (Heideman, 2002; TDSHS, 2008). Louisiana has designated

Sabine Lake as a “Public Oyster Area.” Commercial harvesting is prohibited and public harvesting

methods are restricted to tonging. However, Sabine Lake and its tributaries north of a line from Texas

Point to Louisiana are closed to oyster harvesting.

3.10.2.1.4 Salt Marsh

Sabine Lake has the largest salt marsh coverage (over 185,000 acres) of any bay system in Texas

(Blackburn et al., 2001). This emergent vegetation plays an important role in sustaining the health and

abundance of life in the estuary. Emergent vegetation contributes to the productivity of the estuary by

providing particulate matter, nutrients, structure, protection, substrate, habitat for estuarine species, flood

control, and improved water quality. Salt marshes serve as spawning and nursery grounds for many fish

and shellfish species (Sheridan et al., 1989; TPWD, 1997). As an example, Table 3.10-1 lists species that

have been collected from Bessie Heights Marsh. Refer to subsection 3.9.2.1 for a more detailed

description of this habitat type.

3.10.2.2 Offshore Habitats and Fauna

The Gulf is a partially enclosed, oceanic basin connected to the Atlantic Ocean by the Straits of Florida

and to the Caribbean Sea by the Yucatan Canal. Numerous currents circulate water throughout the basin.

Surface temperatures range from 57°F in January to 88°F in July (GMFMC, 2004). Salinities also vary

seasonally ranging from 29 ppt near the coastline to 32 ppt in the open Gulf (Minerals Management

Service [MMS], 1997). The nearshore area is predominantly composed of coarse sediments, while fine

sediments are found in the deeper areas beyond the 260-foot contour (GMFMC, 2004). Sediment type

plays an important role in determining community structure. Each species has optimal habitat and

tolerance limits regarding sediment particle size and chemical composition that influences the distribution

of fauna in nearshore waters (Britton and Morton, 1989).

957
3. Affected Environment

3-77

3.10.2.2.1 Offshore Sands

There are few seagrasses or attached algae found in the offshore sands due to the strong currents and

unstable sediments. Most of the bottom surface is populated with macroinfauna such as an occasional

hermit crab, portunid crab, or ray. Even though there is little life on the sand surface itself, the overlying

waters are highly productive. Phytoplankton are abundant, including microscopic diatoms,

dinoflagellates, and other algae (Britton and Morton, 1989).

Much of the faunal diversity lies buried in the sand and relies on the phytoplankton for food. Bivalves

found in offshore sands include the blood ark (Anadara ovalis), incongruous ark (A. brasiliana), southern

quahog (Mercenaria campechiensis), giant cockle (Dinocardium robustum), disk dosinia (Dosinia

discus), pen shells (Atrina serrata), common egg cockle (Laevicardium laevigatum), cross-barred venus

(Chione cancellata), tellins (Tellina spp.), and the tusk shell (Dentalium texasianum). One of the most

common species occurring in the shallow offshore sands is the sand dollar (Mellita quinquiesperforata) as

well as several species of brittle stars (Hemipholis elongata, Ophiolepis elegans, and Ophiothrix

angulata). Many gastropods are common, including the moon snail (Polinices duplicatus), ear snail

(Sinum perspectivum), Texas olive (Oliva sayana), Atlantic auger (Terebra dislocata), Salle’s ager

(Terebra salleano), scotch bonnet (Phalium granulatum), distroted triton (Distrosio clathrata),

wentletraps (Epitonium sp.), and whelks (Busycon spp.). Crustaceans inhabit these waters including white

and brown shrimp (both commercially caught species), rock shrimp (Sicyonia brevirostris), blue crabs,

mole crabs (Albunea spp.), speckled crab (Arenaeus cribrarius), box crab (Calappa sulcata), calico crab

(Hepatus epheliticus), and pea crab (Pinotheres maculatus). The most abundant infaunal organism, with

respect to the number of individuals, are the polychaetes (Capitellidae, Orbiniidae, Magelonidae, and

Paraonidae) (Britton and Morton, 1989).

3.10.2.2.2 Artificial Reefs

In the Gulf, two types of artificial reefs exist, those structures placed to serve as oil and gas production

platforms and those intentionally placed to serve as artificial reefs (GMFMC, 2004). The more than 4,500

oil and gas structures in the Gulf form unique reef ecosystems that extend throughout the water column

providing a large volume and surface area, dynamic water-flow characteristics, and a strong profile

(Ditton and Falk, 1981; Dokken, 1997; Stanley and Wilson, 1990; Vitale and Dokken, 2000). Fish are

attracted to oil platforms because these structures provide food, shelter from predators and ocean currents,

and a visual reference, which aids in navigation for migrating fishes (Bohnsack, 1989; Duedall and

Champ, 1991; Meier, 1989; Vitale and Dokken, 2000). The size and shape of the structure affect

community characteristics of pelagic, demersal, and benthic fishes (Stanley and Wilson, 1990). Many

scientists feel that the presence of oil platform structures allows for the fish populations to grow, which

increases fishery potential (Scarborough-Bull and Kendall, 1992).

The Texas Artificial Reef Program, administered by the TPWD, comprises three concepts. These are Rigs

to Reefs, which provides for the recycling of obsolete petroleum platforms into permanent artificial reefs

rather than allowing them to be taken ashore as scrap; Ships to Reefs, which at present only includes 12

958
3. Affected Environment

3-78

Liberty Ships from the 1970s and the USTS Texas Clipper; and the Near Shore/Shallow Reef program,

which is in water too shallow for rigs or ships and uses obsolete bridge and road-bed material and

nonfunctional preformed concrete structures like culverts. There are three Near Shore/Shallow Reef sites

that are relatively near the proposed new ODMDSs for the Entrance Channel Extension: Basco’s Reef,

SALT Reef, and Sabine Reef (Appendix B). Basco’s Reef (HI-117) is located 23 nautical miles from

Sabine Pass in 50 feet of water and has received numerous donations. SALT Reef (HI-85, 18 nautical

miles from Sabine Pass, 43 feet of water) and Sabine Reef (HI-117, 22 nautical miles from Sabine Pass,

36 feet of water) have not yet received donations but are formally part of the Artificial Reef Program.

SALT Reef, which is closest to the proposed ODMDSs, is 6.6 miles from ODMDS B.

Artificial reefs are colonized by a diverse array of microorganisms, algae, and sessile invertebrates

including shelled forms (barnacles, oysters, and mussels), as well as soft corals (bryozoans, hydroids,

sponges, and octocorals) and hard corals (encrusting, colonial forms). These organisms (referred to as the

biofouling community) provide habitat and food for many motile invertebrates and fishes (GMFMC,

2004).

Species associated with the platforms that are not dependent on the biofouling community for food or

cover include the Atlantic spadefish (Chaetodipterus faber), lookdown (Selene vomer), Atlantic moonfish

(S. setapinnis), creole-fish (Paranthias furcifer), whitespotted soapfish (Rypticus maculatus), gray

triggerfish (Balistes capriscus), and lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris), all transients (move from platform

to platform) and resident species (always found on the platforms) including red snapper, large tomate

(Haemulon aurolineatum), and some large groupers. Other resident species that are dependent upon the

biofouling community for food or cover include numerous species of blennies, sheepshead, small grazers

(butterflyfishes, Chaetodontidae). Highly transient, large predators associated with these structures

include barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda), almaco jack (Seriola rivoliana), hammerhead sharks (Sphryna

spp.), cobia (Rachycentron canadum), mackerels (Scombridae), other jacks (Caranx sp.), and the little

tunny (Euthynnus alleteratus) (GMFMC, 2004).

3.10.2.3 Essential Fish Habitat

The DEIS initiated EFH consultation under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (MSFCMA). Congress enacted amendments to the MSFCMA (PL 94-265) in 1996 that

established procedures for identifying EFH and required interagency coordination to further the

conservation of federally managed fisheries. Rules published by the NMFS (50 CFR Sections 600.805–

600.930) specify that any Federal agency that authorizes, funds or undertakes, or proposes to authorize,

fund, or undertake an activity that could adversely affect EFH is subject to the consultation provisions of

the above-mentioned act and identifies consultation requirements. A letter (Appendix A) was submitted to

NMFS requesting a list of EFHs in the study area.

The GMFMC has identified the study area as EFH for adult and juvenile brown and white shrimp, red

drum, red snapper, lane snapper, greater amberjack (Seriola dumerilli), king mackerel, Spanish mackerel

959
3. Affected Environment

3-79

(Scomberomorus maculatus), cobia, Gulf stone crab (Menippe adina), gag grouper (Mycteroperca

microlepis), scamp (Mycteroperca phenax), and adult gray snapper (L. griseus).

EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or

growth to maturity.” When referring to estuaries, it is further defined as “all waters and substrates (mud,

sand, shell, rock, and associated biological communities) within these estuarine boundaries, including the

sub-tidal vegetation (seagrasses and algae) and adjacent tidal vegetation (marshes and mangroves)”

(GMFMC, 2004). No Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) identified by the GMFMC are located

within the study area.

The following describes the preferred habitat, life history stages, and relative abundance of each EFH

managed species based on information provided by GMFMC (2004). Table 3.10-5 describes EFH for

each of these species.

Brown Shrimp. Brown shrimp eggs are demersal and are deposited offshore. The larvae begin to migrate

through passes with flood tides into estuaries as postlarvae. Migrating occurs at night mainly from

February to April, with a minor peak in the fall. Brown shrimp postlarvae and juveniles are associated

with shallow vegetated habitats in estuaries, but are also found over silty sand and nonvegetated mud

bottoms. Postlarvae and juveniles occur in salinity ranging from 0 to 70 ppt. The density of late postlarvae

and juvenile brown shrimp are highest in marsh-edge habitat and submerged vegetation, followed by tidal

creeks, inner marsh, shallow, open water, and oyster reefs. Muddy substrates seem to be preferred in

unvegetated areas. Juvenile and subadult brown shrimp can be found from secondary estuarine channels

out to the continental shelf, but prefer shallow estuarine habitats, such as soft, muddy areas associated

with plant-water interfaces. Subadult brown shrimp migrate from estuaries, at night, on ebb tides during

new and full moon phases in the Gulf. Their abundance offshore correlates positively with turbidity and

negatively with hypoxia (low levels of oxygen in the water). Adult brown shrimp inhabit neritic Gulf

waters (marine waters extending from mean low tide to the edge of the continental shelf) and are

associated with silt, muddy sand, and sandy substrates (GMFMC, 2004). Adult brown shrimp are

common within the Sabine Lake estuary during the spring and summer months, while juveniles are

abundant in this area in the spring, summer, and fall.

Larval brown shrimp feed on phytoplankton and zooplankton. Postlarvae brown shrimp feed on

phytoplankton, epiphytes, and detritus. Juvenile and adult brown shrimp prey on amphipods, polychaetes,

and chironomid larvae, but graze on algae and detritus (Pattillo et al., 1997).

White Shrimp. White shrimp inhabit Gulf and estuarine waters and are pelagic or demersal, depending

on their life stage. Their eggs are demersal and larval stages are planktonic, and both occur in nearshore

Gulf waters. Postlarvae migrate into estuaries through passes from May to November with most migration

occurring in June and September. Migration is in the upper 6.5 feet of the water column at night and at

mid-depths during the day. Postlarval white shrimp become benthic once they reach the estuary. Here

they seek shallow water with mud or sand bottoms high in organic detritus or rich marsh where they

develop into juvenile white shrimp. Postlarvae and juveniles prefer mud or peat bottoms with large

960
3. Affected Environment

3-80

Table 3.10-5

Essential Fish Habitat – Adult and Juvenile Presence

in the Sabine-Neches Study Area

Species

ESTUARINE MARINE

Adults Juvenile Adults Juvenile

Brown Shrimp common abundant major adult area spawning area

(Farfantepenaeus aztecus) March–May March–May spring, summer, fall

June–July June–July spawn year-round at depths

August–October greater than 13 meters

rare

August–October common

November–February November–February

White Shrimp common highly abundant adult area year-round not present

(Litopenaeus setiferus) March–May March–May

June–July June–July

August–October

highly abundant November–February

August–October

November–February

Red Drum rare common adult area year-round not present

(Sciaenops ocellatus) March–May March–May spawn in coastal

June–July June–July waters in the

August–October August–October fall and winter

November–February November–February

common in Sabine Pass

June–July

August–October

November–February

Gag Grouper

(Mycteroperca microlepis)

not present nursery area adult occurrence not present

Scamp

(Mycteroperca phenax)

not present not present adult occurrence not present

Red Snapper not present not present adult occurrence nursery area

(Lutjanus campechanus) year-round

Gray Snapper not present nursery area major adult area not present

(Lutjanus griseus) year-round

spawn June–August

Lane Snapper

(Lutjanus synagris)

not present nursery area adult occurrence nursery area

Greater Amberjack not present not present adult area year-round nursery area

(Seriola dumerilli) year-round spawning year-round

King Mackerel not present not present adult area year-round year-round

(Scomberomorus cavalla) spawn May–November nursery area

Spanish Mackerel rare rare adult area year-round nursery area

(Scomberomorus March–May March–May year-round

maculatus) June–July June–July

August–October August–October

November–February

not present

common in Sabine Pass March–May

June–July (in certain areas)

August–October November–February

961
3. Affected Environment

3-81

Table 3.10-5, cont’d

Species

ESTUARINE MARINE

Adults Juvenile Adults Juvenile

Cobia not present not present adult area summer nursery area

(Rachycentron canadum) year-round

spawn in spring and summer

Gulf Stone Crab rare to not present rare to not present adult area year-round spawning area

(Menippe adina) March–May March–May spawning from March–October

June–July June–July March–October

August–October August–October

November–February November–February

quantities of decaying organic matter or SAV. Densities are usually highest along marsh edge and in

SAV, followed by marsh ponds and channels, inner marsh, and oyster reefs. White shrimp juveniles

prefer salinities of less than 10 ppt and occur in tidal rivers and tributaries. As white shrimp juveniles

mature, they migrate to coastal areas where they mature and spawn. Adult white shrimp are demersal and

inhabit soft mud or silt bottoms (GMFMC, 2004). Adult and juvenile white shrimp are abundant in the

Sabine Lake estuary throughout the year. Adult white shrimp also occur throughout the Gulf to depths of

about 131 feet.

White shrimp larvae feed on phytoplankton and zooplankton. White shrimp postlarvae feed on

phytoplankton, epiphytes, and detritus. Juvenile and adult white shrimp prey on amphipods, polychaetes,

and chironomid larvae, but also graze on algae and detritus (Pattillo et al., 1997).

Red Drum. Red drum occupy a variety of habitats, ranging from offshore depths of 131 feet to very

shallow estuarine waters. Spawning occurs in the Gulf near the mouths of bays and inlets during the fall

and early winter. Eggs usually hatch in the Gulf, and larvae are transported with tidal currents into the

estuaries where they mature. Adult red drum use estuaries, but tend to migrate offshore where they spend

most of their adult life. Red drum occur over a variety of substrates including sand, mud, and oyster reefs

and can tolerate a wide range of salinities (GMFMC, 2004).

Estuaries are especially important to larval, juvenile, and subadult red drum. Juvenile red drum are most

abundant around marshes, preferring quiet, shallow, protected waters over mud substrate or among SAV.

Subadult and adult red drum prefer shallow bay bottoms and oyster reefs (GMFMC, 2004). Adult red

drum that migrate into the Gulf are pelagic.

Estuaries are also important for the prey of larval, juvenile, and subadult red drum. Red drum larva feed

primarily on shrimp, mysids, and amphipods, while juvenile red drum prefer fish and crabs. Adult red

drum feed primarily on shrimp, blue crab, striped mullet, and pinfish (GMFMC, 2004). Within the Sabine

Lake estuary, adult and juvenile red drum are common in the summer, fall, and winter, whereas in the

Gulf, adult red drum are present year-round.

Gag Grouper. Gag grouper are demersal and are most common in the eastern Gulf. Eggs are pelagic and

are spawned from December through April. Larvae are pelagic and most abundant in the early spring.

962
3. Affected Environment

3-82

Postlarvae and pelagic juveniles move through inlets into high salinity estuaries from April through May,

where they become benthic and settle into grass flats and oyster beds. Older juveniles move offshore in

the fall to shallow reef habitat in depths of 3 to 165 feet. Adults prefer depths of 33 to 328 feet and utilize

hard bottoms, oil platforms, and artificial reefs. Spawning occurs on the west Florida shelf from

December through April (GMFMC, 2004).

Gag grouper feed on estuarine-dependent organisms such as shrimp, small fish, and crabs during their

juvenile stages. As they mature and move farther offshore, they become opportunistic predators, feeding

on a variety of fish and crustaceans (GMFMC, 2004). Adult gag grouper occur in Gulf waters within the

study area.

Scamp. Scamp are demersal and widely distributed on shelf areas of the Gulf. Scamp eggs and larvae are

pelagic and are spawned offshore in the spring. Juvenile scamp occur on shallow, nearshore hard bottoms

and reefs in depths of 40 to 620 feet. Scamp spawn in aggregations from late February to early June.

Juvenile scamp feed on estuarine-dependent organisms such as shrimp, small fish, and crabs. As they

mature and move offshore, they become opportunistic predators, feeding on a variety of fish and

crustaceans (GMFMC, 2004). Adult scamp occur in Gulf waters within the study area.

Red Snapper. Red snapper are demersal and found over sand and rock substrates around reefs, and

underwater objects to depths of 656 feet. However, adult red snapper prefer depths ranging from 131 to

360 feet (GMFMC, 2004). Spawning occurs in the Gulf from May to October, at depths of 60 to 122 feet

over fine sand substrate. Larvae, postlarvae, and early juveniles occur from July through November in

shelf waters. Early and late juveniles are often associated with underwater structures or small burrows,

but are also abundant over barren sand and mud bottoms.

Juvenile red snapper feed on shrimp, but after age one, prey primarily on fish and squid. Of the

vertebrates consumed, most are not obligate reef dwellers, indicating that red snapper feed away from

reefs (GMFMC, 2004). All life stages of the red snapper occur in the Gulf waters within the study area.

Gray Snapper. Gray snapper can be demersal, structure, or mid-water dwellers inhabiting marine,

estuarine, and riverine habitats. They inhabit depths to about 550 feet in the Gulf. Juvenile gray snapper

are common in shallow water around SAV while adult gray snapper tend to congregate in deeper Gulf

waters around natural and artificial reefs. Spawning occurs in the Gulf from June to August around

structures and shoals. Their eggs are pelagic and the larvae are planktonic, both occurring in Gulf shelf

waters and near coral reefs. Postlarvae migrate into the estuaries and are most abundant over Halodule

and Syringodium grassbeds. Juveniles seem to prefer Thalassia grassbeds, seagrass meadows, marl

bottoms, and mangrove roots, and are found in estuaries, bayous, channels, grassbeds, marshes, mangrove

swamps, ponds, and freshwater creeks (GMFMC, 2004).

Juvenile gray snapper feed on estuarine-dependent organisms such as shrimp, small fish, and crabs. Gray

snapper are classified as opportunistic carnivores at all life stages (Pattillo et al., 1997). In estuaries,

juvenile gray snapper feed on shrimp, larval fish, amphipods, and copepods. Adult gray snapper feed

963
3. Affected Environment

3-83

primarily on fish, but smaller individuals will prey on crustaceans (GMFMC, 2004). Only adult gray

snapper are found in the Gulf waters of the study area.

Lane Snapper. Lane snapper are demersal, occurring over all substrate types, but are most commonly

found near coral reefs and sandy bottoms. Spawning occurs in Gulf waters from March through

September. Nursery areas include mangrove and grassy estuarine habitats in southern Texas and Florida

and shallow waters with sand and mud bottoms along all Gulf states. Juvenile lane snapper appear to

favor grass flats, reefs, and soft bottoms to depths of 66 feet. Adult lane snapper occur offshore in depths

ranging from 13 to 433 feet near sand bottoms, natural channels, banks, and artificial and natural

structures (GMFMC, 2004).

Juvenile lane snapper feed on estuarine-dependent organisms such as shrimp, small fish, and crabs. Lane

snapper are considered to be unspecialized, opportunistic predators, feeding on a variety of crustaceans

and fish. However, adult lane snapper tend to prefer fish (GMFMC, 2004). Juvenile lane snapper are

found in estuaries and marine waters, while adults are found only in marine waters.

Greater Amberjack. Greater amberjack occur throughout the Gulf to depths of 1,300 feet. Adults are

pelagic and epibenthic, occurring near reefs and artificial structures. Spawning occurs offshore, and

juvenile greater amberjack are associated with floating Sargassum and debris (GMFMC, 2004). Adult and

juvenile greater amberjack are found in the Gulf within the study area.

King Mackerel. King mackerel are pelagic and found in Gulf waters from nearshore to 655 feet.

Spawning occurs in the Gulf from May to October. Eggs are pelagic, occurring over depths of 98 to

590 feet. Nursery areas are located in marine waters with juveniles only occasionally entering estuaries

(GMFMC, 2004).

While estuaries are important for most of their prey, king mackerel feed on a variety of fishes, but

extensively utilizing herrings. Squid, shrimp, and other crustaceans are also fed upon by king mackerel.

Adult and juvenile king mackerel are found in the Gulf within the study area.

Spanish Mackerel. Spanish mackerel are pelagic, inhabiting depths to 245 feet throughout the coastal

zone of the Gulf. Adult Spanish mackerel are usually found from nearshore to the edge of the continental

shelf. However, they may also migrate seasonally into estuaries with high salinity, but this migration is

infrequent and rare. Spawning occurs in the Gulf from May through October. Larvae typically occur in

the Gulf in depths ranging from 30 to 275 feet. Juveniles inhabit the Gulf surf, and sometimes estuarine

habitats. However, juvenile Spanish mackerel prefer marine salinities and are not considered estuarinedependent. Adult and juvenile Spanish mackerel are common in Sabine Pass from June through October.

Juvenile Spanish mackerel prefer clean sand bottoms, but the substrate preferences of the other life stages

are unknown (GMFMC, 2004).

While Spanish mackerel rarely use estuarine environments, estuaries are important for most of their prey.

They feed on a variety of fishes, but extensively utilize herrings. Squid, shrimp, and other crustaceans are

also fed upon by Spanish mackerel.

964
3. Affected Environment

3-84

Cobia. Cobia are large, pelagic fish occurring from nearshore to depths of 131 feet near artificial and

natural structure, including floating objects. In the study area, cobia occur only in the Gulf and do not use

estuarine waters.

While cobia rarely use estuarine environments, estuaries are important for most of their prey. They feed

on a variety of fishes, but extensively utilize herrings. Squid, shrimp, and other crustaceans are also fed

upon by cobia.

Gulf Stone Crab. Gulf stone crabs occur in the study area, inhabiting the Gulf and the Sabine Lake

estuary. Gulf stone crab seek cover under rock ledges, coral heads, dead shell, and grass clumps. They

also inhabit burrows in seagrass flats and along the sides of tidal channels. Larval Gulf stone crabs are

planktonic, suspended in the water column. Juvenile Gulf stone crabs prefer seagrass flats, channels, shell

bottoms, sponges, and Sargassum mats. Once they reach a width of 0.5 inch, they live among oyster

shells and rocks in shallow estuaries. Adult and juvenile Gulf stone crabs can tolerate a range of salinity;

however, larvae require salinities from 30 to 35 ppt for optimal growth. Broad fluctuations in salinity and

temperature can result in high mortality of larval Gulf stone crabs (GMFMC, 2004).

Gulf stone crabs are predatory throughout their life. Juvenile Gulf stone crabs feed on polychaetes,

molluscs, and crustaceans. Adult Gulf stone crabs feed mainly on oysters and mussels, but also consume

dead or decaying tissue and vegetable matter such as seagrass (GMFMC, 2004).

Gulf stone crabs are dependent upon fertile estuarine waters. High phytoplankton productivity in fertile

estuarine waters results in food for oysters, worms, and other organisms, which, in turn, provide food for

juvenile and adult stone crabs.

3.10.2.4 Ballast Water

Ballast water is loaded on empty ships to provide weight and stability while traveling from one port to the

next. There are thousands of marine species that can be carried from port to port in ballast water, which

may ultimately result in the introduction of unwanted aquatic species from foreign ports of origin (Global

Ballast Water Management Programme, 2002). As a consequence, invasive, exotic species have been

introduced into United States waters through ballast water. Ballast water is the largest single vector for

nonindigenous species transfer (EPA, 2001). The USCG does not have a list of species of concern (SOC)

that could potentially be introduced through ballast water into the study area (Allen, 2002). However, the

EPA has compiled a list of invasive species that have the potential to be unintentionally introduced in

Texas, although not necessarily through ballast water alone (Table 3.10-6) (EPA, 2001).

The USCG, under the provisions of the National Invasive Species Act, has implemented a program that

consists of a suite of mandatory ballast water management protocols. All vessels, foreign and domestic,

equipped with ballast water tanks that operate within U.S. waters are required to comply with 33 CFR

Part 51 regarding management protocols. This includes submitting a ballast water exchange report to the

National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC) to ensure compliance with the management

requirements (USCG, 2006).

965
3. Affected Environment

3-85

Table 3.10-6

Current and Potential Aquatic Species that Pose a Threat to Texas and Louisiana

Scientific Name Common Name Texas Louisiana

Shrimp Viruses

Taura Syndrome Virus shrimp virus 4

White Spot Syndrome Virus shrimp virus 4

Coelenterates

Phyllorhiza punctata spotted jellyfish P P

Roundworms (phylum Nematoda)

Anguillicola crassus eel parasite P

Mollusks

Corbicula fluminea Asian clam P P

Crassostrea gigas Japanese (or Pacific giant) oyster 4

Dreissena polymorpha zebra mussel P P

Perna perna brown mussel P P

Pomacea canalicula channeled applesnail 4

Crustaceans

Carcinus maenus green crab P P

Charybdis helleri marine swimming crab P P

Eriocheri sinensis Chinese mittencrab P P

Fishes

Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum Rio Grande cichlid 4 4

Ctenopharyngodon idella grass carp 4 4

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix silver carp P 4

Hypophthalmichthys nobilis bighead carp P 4

Mylopharyngodon piceus black carp P P

Neogobius melanostomus round goby P

Oreochromis aureus blue tilapia 4

Oreochromis mossambicua Mozambique tilapia 4

Mammals

Myocastor coypus nutria 4 4

Algae

Aureoumbra lagunensis brown tide algae 4*

Vascular Plants

Alternathera philoxeroides alligatorweed 4 4

Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth 4 4

Hydrilla verticillata hydrilla 4 4

Ipomoea aquatica waterspinach P

Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife P P

Panicum repens torpedograss 4

Pistia stratiotes waterlettuce 4 4

Salvinia minima common salvinia 4 4

Salvinia molesta giant salvinia 4 4

Semi-Aquatic Vascular Plants

Imperata cylindrica cogongrass P

Pueraria montana kudzu P 4

Sapium sebiferum Chinese tallow tree 4 4

Source: EPA (2001).

P = Potential threat; 4 = Current threat.

* = Cryptogenic (a species whose status as indigenous or nonindigenous remains unresolved).

966
3. Affected Environment

3-86

According to the NBIC (2007) ballast water–reporting database, between 2000 and 2005, 1,279 ballast

water exchange reports were submitted for the study area. Of these, 136 represented treated and 90

represented untreated discharges. Treated discharges consisted of either flow-through or empty/refill of

ballast tanks.

3.11 WILDLIFE

Wildlife native to the study area include those that inhabit the Austroriparian Biotic Province (Blair,

1950). Diversity in the study area is high, with large numbers of vertebrate and invertebrate species. The

Austroriparian Biotic Province is situated in the eastern portion of Texas and extends southward to the

Gulf coast and east through Louisiana to the Atlantic Ocean. The vertebrate fauna of the Austroriparian

Biotic Province in Texas and Louisiana, with few exceptions, is the typical vertebrate fauna of the

Austroriparian Biotic Province eastward to the Atlantic seaboard. According to Blair (1950), at least 47

species of mammals, 29 species of snakes, 10 lizards, 2 land turtles, 17 anurans, and 18 urodeles occur or

have occurred there.

3.11.1 Amphibians

Amphibians common to marsh habitats within the study area are the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea),

American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), eastern narrow-mouthed toad (Gastrophryne carolinensis), Great

Plains narrow-mouthed toad (G. olivacea), Blanchard’s cricket frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi), squirrel

treefrog (H. squirella), bronze frog (R. clamitans), and the southern leopard frog (R. sphenocephala

utricularia).

Amphibian species that are common to the upland grasslands include the Gulf Coast toad (Bufo

nebulifer), southern leopard frog, and the northern spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer crucifer).

Amphibian species that are commonly found in forest habitats include the gray treefrog (H. versicolor),

eastern narrow-mouthed toad, squirrel treefrog, and the Great Plains narrow-mouthed toad (Blair, 1950).

3.11.2 Birds

Avian species known to occur year-round within the study area include herons and egrets (Family

Ardeidae), gulls, terns, and skimmers (Family Laridae), Anhinga (Anhinga anhinga), turkey vulture

(Cathartes aura), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), eastern screech-owl (Megascops asio), red-bellied

woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), tufted titmouse

(Baeolophus bicolor), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), northern cardinal (Cardinalis

cardinalis), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), and blue jay

(Cyanocitta cristata). Winter migrants that reside within the study area may include the long-billed

curlew (Numenius americanus), lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla),

mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus), cedar waxwing

(Bombycilla cedrorum), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), yellow-rumped warbler

(Dendroica cornata), American coot (Fulica americana), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia

967
3. Affected Environment

3-87

leucophrys), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), and the American goldfinch (Spinus tristis). Migratory

waterfowl are known to be abundant in the study area. In the northern reaches of the study area and in the

forested wetlands of Pine Island Bayou, wood ducks (Aix sponsa) can be found perching in tree cavities.

In more-shallow areas, dabbling ducks, also known as “puddle ducks,” can be found in ponded wetlands

closely associated with the Neches and Sabine rivers and their tributaries. During winter, they frequent

the salt marshes along the immediate coastlines. Some of these species may include northern pintail (Anas

acuta), American wigeon (A. americana), Northern shoveler (A. clypeata), green-winged teal (A. crecca),

cinnamon teal (A. cyanoptera), mallard, and gadwall (A. strepera). Diving ducks, ducks inhabiting deeper

waters such as Sabine Lake, may include redhead (Aythya americana), lesser scaup (A. affinis), and

canvasback (A. valisineria). Common geese found foraging in the study area’s agricultural fields and

freshwater wetlands as well as roosting in salt marshes include snow goose (Chen caerulescens), greater

white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons), Ross’s goose (Chen rossii), and Canada goose (Branta

canadensis).

Possible transient species that may occur in the study area during winter migration are chuck-will’swidow (Caprimulgus carolinensis), chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica), ruby-throated hummingbird

(Archilochus colubris), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), purple martin (Progne subis), yellowthroated warbler (Dendroica dominica), and the black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia) (Lockwood

and Freeman, 2004).

According to the USFWS Texas Colonial Waterbird Census (USFWS, 2007), 25 documented rookeries

occur within the study area. Table 3.11-1 provides information on nesting activities at these rookeries. No

documented rookeries occur within the Louisiana portion of the study area (Clark, 2009).

3.11.3 Mammals

Common mammals that inhabit forest habitats in the study area include Virginia opossum (Didelphis

virginiana), Brazilian free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus

novemcinctus), swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), eastern gray

squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern fox squirrel (S. niger), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus

leucopus), eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana), northern raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk

(Mephitis mephitis), and coyote (Canis latrans).

Mammals common to upland grassland habitats within the study area include the least shrew (Cryptotis

parva), hispid pocket mouse (Chaetodipus hispidus), pygmy mouse (Baiomys taylori), coyote, ninebanded armadillo, Baird’s pocket gopher (Geomys breviceps), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus),

hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), and fulvous harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys fulvescens).

Mammals that are common to marsh habitat areas include the northern rice rat (Oryzomys palustris),

nutria (Myocastor coypus), swamp rabbit, least shrew, coyote, striped skunk, Virginia opossum, bobcat

(Lynx rufus), Attwater’s pocket gopher (G. attwateri), northern raccoon, and common muskrat (Ondatra

zibethicus) (Blair, 1950).

968
3. Affected Environment

3-88

Table 3.11-1

Number of Nests of Colonial Waterbirds at Selected Rookeries in the Study Area

Census Year

Rookery/ID Common Name Scientific Name 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

McFadden/587-120 N/A

Beaumont Ship

Channel/587-121

N/A

Nederland Spoil

Area/587-122

Neotropic cormorant Phalacrocorax

brasilianus

55

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga 4

Great egret Ardea alba 55

Snowy egret Egretta thula 25

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea 5

Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor 12

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis 140

Black-crowned nightheronNycticorax

nycticorax

2

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi 2

Roseate spoonbill Platalea ajaja 13

DuPont Spoils Area

XPNSN/587-123

Neotropic cormorant Phalacrocorax

brasilianus

10 40 10

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga 1 4

Great egret Ardea alba 2 70 17

Snowy egret Egretta thula 25 60 20

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea 25 35

Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor 20 45 14

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis 300 260 143

Black-crowned nightheronNycticorax

nycticorax

1

Yellow-crowned

night-heron

Nyctanassa violacea 2

Roseate spoonbill Platalea ajaja 2

Shangrila/588-009 Neotropic cormorant Phalacrocorax

brasilianus

50 107

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga 0 4

Great egret Ardea alba 15 350 275

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis 30 150 350

Roseate spoonbill Platalea ajaja 5 6 4

Taylor Bayou/600-

052

N/A

Texaco/601-100 N/A

Texaco Parking

Lot/601-101

N/A

Motiva Savannah

Ave./601-102

N/A

Motiva Headquarters/

601-103

Least tern Sternula antillarum 15 35 8 30 50

Black skimmer Rynchops niger 2

969
3. Affected Environment

3-89

Table 3.11-1, cont’d

Census Year

Rookery/ID Common Name Scientific Name 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Motiva Old FCC

Area/601-104

Least tern Sternula antillarum 45 15 9 17

Motiva West of

Headquarters/601-105

Least tern Sternula antillarum 7 8 70 100

Black skimmer Rynchops niger 45 1

Sydney Island/601-

120

Neotropic cormorant Phalacrocorax

brasilianus

300

Great egret Ardea alba 500

Snowy egret Egretta thula 221

Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor 140

Black-crowned nightheronNycticorax

nycticorax

12

White ibis Eudocimus albus 2,000

Roseate spoonbill Platalea ajaja 250

Dooms Island/601-

121

N/A

Point Hunt Island,

Louisiana/601-122

Neotropic cormorant Phalacrocorax

brasilianus

20 40 300

Double-crested

cormorant

Phalacrocorax

auritus

4

Great egret Ardea alba 130 50 500

Snowy egret Egretta thula 120 40 221

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea 2 15

Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor 80 140

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis 9

Black-crowned nightheronNycticorax

nycticorax

2 20 12

Yellow-crowned

night-heron

Nyctanassa violacea 4

White ibis Eudocimus albus 300 2,000

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi 80

Roseate spoonbill Platalea ajaja 100 80 250

Port Arthur/ICWW

Bridge/601-140

N/A

Gulf Oil Pit/601-141 N/A

Chevron Plant/601-

142

N/A

Motiva West 7th

St./601-144

Neotropic cormorant Phalacrocorax

brasilianus

7 20 50 140 90

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga 1

Great egret Ardea alba 25 110 110 68 52

970
3. Affected Environment

3-90

Table 3.11-1, concluded

Census Year

Rookery/ID Common Name Scientific Name 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Snowy egret Egretta thula 50 30 30 37 76

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea 4 4 6 20

Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor 15 10 8 10

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis 50 50 40 50 22

Black-crowned nightheronNycticorax

nycticorax

20 12 7 3 3

Yellow-crowned

night-heron

Nyctanassa violacea 1 1

White ibis Eudocimus albus 1 4 10

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi 1 10

Roseate spoonbill Platalea ajaja 60 55 45 25 6

Backridge Road/601-

145

N/A

Premcor/601-146 Least tern Sternula antillarum 197 50

Beaumonts Cattail

Marsh/601-147

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis 40 6

Texas Point

NWR/601-150

N/A

United Marine

Enterprise/601-151

N/A

Sabine Pass/601-160 N/A

Source: Texas Colonial Waterbird Census Database (USFWS, 2007).

3.11.4 Reptiles

Reptiles known to inhabit forested habitats in the study area are the little brown skink (Scincella

lateralis), Texas ratsnake (Elaphe obsoleta), rough greensnake (Opheodrys aestivus), eastern gartersnake

(Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), Texas coralsnake (Micrurus tener), and southern copperhead (Agkistrodon

contortrix contortrix).

Reptiles common to upland grassland habitats include the three-toed box turtle (Terrapene carolina

triunguis), ornate box turtle (Terrapene ornata ornata), green anole (Anolis carolinensis), prairie lizard

(Sceloperus consobrinus), eastern six-lined racerunner (Aspidoscelis sexlineata sexlineata), little brown

skink, diamond-backed watersnake (Nerodia rhombifer rhombifer), Texas ratsnake, Texas spotted

whiptail (A. gularis gularis), prairie kingsnake (Lampropeltis calligaster calligaster), Mediterranean

gecko (Hemidactylus turcicus turcicus), Texas coralsnake, and the western diamond-backed rattlesnake

(Crotalus atrox).

Reptiles common to marsh habitats include the diamond-backed watersnake, snapping turtle (Chelydra

serpentina), stinkpot (Sternotherus odoratus), Mississippi mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), red-eared

slider (Trachemys scripta elegans), Texas ratsnake, speckled kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula holbrooki),

and the western cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorous leucostoma) (Bartlett and Bartlett, 1999).

971
3. Affected Environment

3-91

3.11.5 Insects

Common terrestrial insects that occur within the study area include the field cricket (Gryllus sp.),

American cockroach (Periplaneta americana), wheel bug (Arilus cristatus), leaffooted bug (Leptoglossus

phyllopus), dog-day cicada (Tibicen sp.), green lacewing (Chrysoperla spp.), ground beetle (Scarites

subterraneus), June beetle (Phyllophaga sp.), firefly (Photinus sp.), blister beetle (Epicauta sp.), boll

weevil (Anthonomous grandis), Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus), deer fly (Chrysops sp.), house

fly (Musca domestica), blow fly (Calliphora sp.), giant swallowtail (Heraclides cresphontes), cloudless

sulphur (Phoebis sennae eubule), snout butterfly (Libytheana sp.), honey bee (Apis mellifera), paper wasp

(Polistes carolina), and the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) (Drees and Jackman, 1998).

3.12 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Congress enacted the ESA (16 USC 1531 et seq.) of 1973, as amended, to provide a program for the

preservation of threatened and endangered species and to provide protection for the ecosystems upon

which these species depend for their survival. All Federal agencies are required to implement protection

programs for these designated species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA. An

endangered species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range

in the U.S. A threatened species is one likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The USFWS and NMFS are the primary agencies

responsible for implementing the ESA. The USFWS is responsible for birds and terrestrial and freshwater

species, while the NMFS is responsible for nonbird marine species.

The State of Texas also has regulations to protect endangered species (chapters 67, 68, and 88 of the

TPWD Code and sections 65.171–65.184 and 69.01–69.14 of Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code).

These regulations, administered by the TPWD, prohibit commerce in threatened and endangered plants

and wildlife and the collection of listed plant species from public land without a permit. In addition, the

State of Louisiana, through the LDWF, provides protective status for all threatened and endangered

species listed by the USFWS and also to those species listed as threatened or endangered by the State

Natural Heritage Program. This assessment addresses State-listed threatened and endangered species;

however, the ESA does not protect these species.

Only those species that the USFWS or NMFS lists as threatened and endangered have complete Federal

protection under the ESA. Inclusion on the following lists does not imply that a species occurs in the

study area, but only acknowledges the potential for occurrence. The USACE prepared a Biological

Assessment (BA) to evaluate the potential impacts the SNWW CIP may have on federally listed

threatened and endangered species (Appendix G1). The NMFS (n.d.), TPWD’s Natural Diversity

Database (NDD, 2005a, 2005b), TPWD (2010), and USFWS (2005c, 2009) provided county/parish-level

lists of threatened and endangered species of potential occurrence in the study area (Table 3.12-1). In

addition, NDD (2006) provided digital map data presenting specific locations of listed species within the

study area.

972
3. Affected Environment

3-92

Table 3.12-1

Threatened and Endangered Species1 of Potential Occurrence

Within the Study Area

Common Name2 Scientific Name2

Status3

Federal State

BIRDS

Brown pelican4 Pelecanus occidentalis DL E

Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E E

Piping plover Charadrius melodus T w/CH T

Peregrine falcon4 Falco peregrinus DL T

Bald eagle4 Haliaeetus leucocephalus DL T

Reddish egret Egretta rufescens NL T

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi NL T

Wood stork Mycteria americana NL T

Swallow-tailed kite Elanoides forficatus NL T

Sooty tern Onychoprion fuscatus NL T

MAMMALS

Red wolf Canis rufus E E

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis E NL

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus E E

Finback whale Balaenoptera physalus E E

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E NL

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus E E

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E E

Louisiana black bear Ursus americanus luteolus T T

Black bear Ursus americanus T/SA; NL T

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii NL T

REPTILES

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E E

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E E

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E E

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T T

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas T T

Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum NL T

Northern scarletsnake Cemophora coccinea copei NL T

Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus NL T

Alligator snapping turtle Macrochelys temminckii NL T

FISH

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata E E

Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhinchus desotoi T NL

Dusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus SOC NL

Sand tiger shark Carcharias taurus SOC NL

Night shark Carcharhinus signatus SOC NL

Saltmarsh topminnow Fundulus jenkinsi SOC NL

Warsaw grouper Epinephelus nigritus SOC NL

973
3. Affected Environment

3-93

Table 3.12-1, cont’d

Common Name2 Scientific Name2

Status3

Federal State

Speckled hind Epinephelus drummondhayi SOC NL

INVERTEBRATES

Elkhorn coral Acropora palmata T NL

Staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis T NL

Ivory tree coral Oculina varicose SOC NL

1 According to USFWS (2009), NMFS (n.d.), NDD (2005a, 2005b, 2006), and TPWD (2010).

2 Nomenclature and taxonomic orders follow American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,

2007), Crother et al. (2000, 2001, 2003), Baker et al. (2003), Hubbs et al. (2008), NMFS (n.d.), USFWS (2009), TPWD (2010), and

NDD (2005a, 2005b).

3 E = Endangered; species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range; T = Threatened; species which is

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range; T/SA = Threatened

because of similarity of appearance to other listed species; CH = Critical Habitat; SOC = Species of Concern (NMFS); species for

which there is some information showing evidence of vulnerability, but not enough data to support listing at this time. These species

are afforded no formal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, but may be protected under other State or

Federal laws; DL = Formerly listed as threatened or endangered, but due to significant population increases, has officially been

removed from threatened or endangered status.

4Recently removed from the Federal list of endangered and threatened species, the brown pelican, the peregrine falcon, and bald eagle

retain their state status (74 FR 220:59443–59472; 64 FR 164:46542–46558; 72 FR 130:37346–37372). The brown pelican roosts and

nests on islands and spill banks, the peregrine falcon is a statewide migrant in Texas, and bald eagles overwinter on several central

Texas lakes (TPWD, 2010).

3.12.1 Insects

No federally listed threatened or endangered insect SOC potentially occur within the study area.

3.12.2 Flora

No federally listed threatened or endangered plant species or plant SOC potentially occurs within the

study area.

3.12.3 Fauna

According to the NMFS (n.d), USFWS (2005c, 2009), NDD (2005a, 2005b), and TPWD (2010), 33

federally and/or State-listed threatened and endangered species, and 7 NMFS-designated SOC are of

potential occurrence in Jefferson and Orange counties, Texas, and Calcasieu and Cameron parishes,

Louisiana (see Table 3.12-1).

Twenty of the 40 species listed in Table 3.12-1 are federally listed as threatened and endangered. These

include the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), red wolf (Canis rufus), sei whale

(Balaenoptera borealis), blue whale (B. musculus), finback whale (B. physalus), humpback whale

(Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), West Indian manatee (Trichechus

manatus), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta),

hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), green sea

turtle (Chelonia mydas), and smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata), as well as the threatened, piping

974
3. Affected Environment

3-94

plover (Charadrius melodus), Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus), Gulf sturgeon

(Acipenser oxyrhinchus desotoi), elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata), and staghorn coral (A. cervicornis).

The USFWS lists the black bear (U. americanus) as threatened, only because of its similarity in

appearance to the Louisiana subspecies of black bear. This designation, however, only applies within the

historic range of the Louisiana black bear and not elsewhere.

Thirteen of the 40 species listed in Table 3.12-1 are identified by the TPWD as State-listed threatened

species in Texas. These include brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), peregrine falcon (Falco

peregrinus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), white-faced ibis

(Plegadis chihi), wood stork (Mycteria americana), swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus), sooty tern

(Onychoprion fuscatus), Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii), Texas horned lizard

(Phrynosoma cornutum), northern scarletsnake (Cemophora coccinea copei), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus

horridus), and alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii).

Seven of the 40 species listed in Table 3.12-1 are identified by NMFS as SOC: dusky shark

(Carcharhinus obscurus), sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus), night shark (C. signatus), saltmarsh

topminnow (Fundulus jenkinsi), Warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus), speckled hind (E.

drummondhayi), and ivory tree coral (Oculina varicosa). These species do not receive Federal protection

under the ESA.

3.12.3.1 Birds

The historic range of the red-cockaded woodpecker (endangered) included 34 east Texas counties.

Currently, only 18 Texas counties support this species (Jackson, 1994; USFWS, 1995). Old-growth pines

(60 to 70 years or more), often with the centers rotted by red-heart fungus, are the usual nesting sites, but

younger, uninfected pines are also used (Hooper et al., 1980; Jackson, 1994). No known current

populations occur in any of the study area counties or parishes, and suitable habitat is absent in the study

area. Thus, the species is unlikely to occur in the study area.

The piping plover (threatened) is a small shorebird that inhabits coastal beaches and tidal flats.

Approximately 35 percent of the known global population of piping plovers winters along the Texas Gulf

Coast, where they spend 60 to 70 percent of the year (Campbell, 1995; Haig and Elliott-Smith, 2004). The

piping plover population that winters in Texas breeds on the northern Great Plains and around the Great

Lakes. The species is a common migrant and rare to uncommon winter resident on the upper Texas coast

(Lockwood and Freeman, 2004; Richardson et al., 1998). The USFWS has designated critical habitat for

the species in its nesting and wintering range (65 FR 41781–41812). Designation of critical habitat

became final on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 36038–36143). Within Louisiana, the USFWS has designated

critical wintering habitat for the piping plover along the entire shoreline from the east side of Sabine Pass

(Texas-Louisiana border) east approximately 16 miles to the west end of Constance Beach (Unit LA 1, in

part). No USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for the piping plover is present within the Texas portions of

the project area.

975
3. Affected Environment

3-95

The USFWS recently removed the peregrine falcon, the brown pelican, and the bald eagle from the

Federal list of threatened and endangered species, but the Arctic subspecies (F. p. tundrius) and the bald

eagle retain their State-listed status of threatened in Texas. The brown pelican retains its State-listed status

of endangered in Texas. The Arctic subspecies of peregrine falcon is an uncommon migrant statewide and

an uncommon winter resident along the Texas Gulf Coast, where it typically occurs near bays and

estuaries (Lockwood and Freeman, 2004). Peregrine falcons may occur within the study area during

migration; however, no suitable nesting or wintering habitat is present in the study area. NDD (2006)

indicates no documented records from the study area; however, the species may occur in winter or as a

transient during migration.

The brown pelican is a common resident along the Texas Gulf Coast, occasionally wandering inland

during postbreeding in late summer and fall (Lockwood and Freeman, 2004). Brown pelicans breed on

barrier, natural estuarine, or dredged material placement islands (Shields, 2002). Richardson et al. (1998)

list the species as an abundant year-round resident on the upper Texas coast, which includes Jefferson

County, Texas. Shields (2002) indicates that the species is a winter resident along the western Louisiana

coast, but does not breed there. Brown pelicans are unlikely to nest in the study area, but are present

throughout most of the year. In 2009, the USFWS removed the brown pelican from the list of threatened

and endangered wildlife (74 FR 220; 59443–59472; December 17, 2009); however, the brown pelican

still receives Federal protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

The bald eagle is present year-round in Texas and may be found breeding, wintering, and during

migration. In Texas, bald eagles breed along the Gulf Coast and on major inland lakes and reservoirs.

Additional numbers of bald eagles winter in these habitats. Bald eagles prefer large bodies of water

surrounded by tall trees or cliffs, which they use as nesting sites. In 2007, the USFWS removed the bald

eagle from the list of threatened and endangered wildlife (72 FR 130; 37345–37372; July 9, 2007);

however, the bald eagle still receives Federal protection under provisions of the Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This species may be present within the study area.

The reddish egret (State threatened) is a common resident along the Texas coast. This species inhabits

saline and freshwater habitats in all coastal counties, although it is more numerous southward. The

reddish egret is also a rare postbreeding visitor over most of Texas, south of the Panhandle (Oberholser,

1974). It is possible that this species may occur within the study area in areas containing appropriate

habitat.

The white-faced ibis (State threatened) is a medium-sized wading bird that inhabits freshwater marshes,

sloughs, and irrigated rice fields, but also frequents brackish and saltwater habitats. White-faced ibis are

permanent residents along the Texas Gulf Coast; however, nesting records exist for many scattered inland

localities (Lockwood and Freeman, 2004; Ryder and Manry, 1994). The species is a common

migrant/summer resident and uncommon winter resident on the upper Texas coast (Richardson et al.,

1998). NDD (2006) indicates no documented records within the study area; however, the species is likely

present year-round in the general area.

976
3. Affected Environment

3-96

The wood stork (State threatened) is an uncommon to locally common postbreeding visitor to coastal

Texas and inland waters in east and central Texas (Lockwood and Freeman, 2004). Wood storks

historically bred in North America along the Gulf Coast from east Texas to Florida, but their range has

significantly declined since the 1960s and their North American breeding range is now restricted to

Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina (Coulter et al., 1999; Oberholser, 1974). In Texas, wood storks

typically occur near freshwater or saltwater wetlands, lakes, or along rivers and streams. The USFWS lists

the wood stork as federally endangered in Florida, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and South

Carolina, but not in Texas. Wood storks are uncommon to common in summer and fall along the upper

Texas coast (Richardson et al., 1998). The species likely occurs in the study area during summer and fall.

The swallow-tailed kite (State threatened) is a medium-sized raptor that historically occurred along the

coastal plains, interior lowlands, and riparian areas throughout the southeastern U.S. and Mississippi

River Valley, west to central Texas (Meyer, 1995). Beginning in the late 1800s and early 1900s, this

species’ U.S. range dramatically decreased, likely because of forestry practices, which resulted in the loss

of tall trees used for nesting. Today, swallow-tailed kites breed primarily in Florida, with scattered

breeding populations in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and southeastern

Texas (Meyer, 1995). In Texas, the species is a rare to uncommon migrant throughout the eastern third of

the state, with occasional migration records west to the eastern Edwards Plateau (Lockwood and Freeman,

2004). The species is a rare migrant in the study area, with the majority of records occurring between

April and June (Richardson et al., 1998; Shackelford and Simons, 2000). NDD (2006) indicates no

records within the study area; however, Shackelford and Simons (2000) indicate recent records of

migrating birds, and the species may occur in the study area as a migrant.

The sooty tern (State threatened) is a largely pelagic (open ocean) species that nests on isolated tropical

and subtropical islands (Schreiber et al., 2002). The species is a rare and local summer resident along the

middle and lower Texas Gulf Coast from Matagorda County to Cameron County, where they nest in

small numbers on natural and spoil islands, particularly in the Laguna Madre (Lockwood and Freeman,

2004; Oberholser, 1974). Sooty terns are rare in summer along the upper Texas coast (Richardson et al.,

1998). It is unlikely that this oceanic species would regularly occur in the study area; however, their

occurrence is possible.

3.12.3.2 Terrestrial Mammals

The red wolf (endangered) formerly inhabited a variety of wooded habitats including pine forests,

bottomland hardwood forests, swamps, marshes, and coastal prairies (Schmidly, 2004). Most authorities

consider the species extirpated, and red wolves are unlikely to occur in the study area.

The TPWD lists the Louisiana black bear (threatened) as a potentially occurring species in the study area,

along with the black bear, because of its similarity in appearance to the Louisiana subspecies. The

Louisiana black bear historically inhabited east Texas, Louisiana, and southern Mississippi, but now

occurs only in small numbers in Mississippi and Louisiana (USFWS, 1992). The last Texas Pineywoods

record of native black bear is from the late 1950s, near the town of Livingston in Polk County (Fleming,

977
3. Affected Environment

3-97

1980). There are periodic reports of black bears from various counties of east Texas; however, these bears

most likely represent individuals dispersing from neighboring areas in Louisiana (Taylor, 2000).

According to Garner (1995), no recent documented sightings of black bears exist from the Texas Gulf

Coast. It is unlikely that either subspecies of black bear would occur in the study area.

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (State threatened) occurs eastward from the Pineywoods of Texas throughout

the southeastern U.S. This species roosts most frequently in hollowed trees, beneath bark, and under leaf

litter, but often roosts in man-made structures such as buildings, wells, and barns (Schmidly, 1991, 2004).

According to Schmidly (2004), documented records exist from Jefferson County, and the species may

occur in the study area where appropriate habitat occurs.

3.12.3.3 Aquatic Mammals

NMFS identifies five endangered whale species of potential occurrence in the Gulf. These are the sei

whale, blue whale, finback (or fin) whale, humpback whale, and sperm whale. These species are generally

restricted to deeper offshore waters; therefore, it is unlikely that any of these five species would regularly

occur in the study area (NMFS, 2003).

The West Indian (endangered) manatee historically inhabited the Laguna Madre, Gulf, and tidally

influenced portions of rivers. It is currently, however, extremely rare in Texas waters, and the most recent

sightings are likely individuals migrating or wandering from Mexican waters. Historical records from

Texas waters include Cow Bayou, Sabine Lake, Copano Bay, the Bolivar Peninsula, and the mouth of the

Rio Grande (Schmidly, 2004). In May 2005, a live manatee was photographed in the Laguna Madre near

Port Mansfield (Blankinship, 2005). The West Indian manatee is chiefly a marine species; however, its

occurrence in the study area is unlikely.

3.12.3.4 Reptiles

The leatherback sea turtle (endangered) is probably the most-wide-ranging of all sea turtle species. It

occurs in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans; as far north as British Columbia, Newfoundland, Great

Britain, and Norway; as far south as Australia, Cape of Good Hope, and Argentina; and in other

waterbodies such as the Mediterranean Sea (National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory [NFWL], 1980). The

leatherback is mainly pelagic, inhabiting the open ocean, and seldom approaches land except for nesting

(Eckert, 1992) or when following concentrations of jellyfish (TPWD, 2006), when it can be found in

inshore waters, bays, and estuaries. It dives almost continuously, often to great depths. Leatherbacks nest

primarily in tropical regions and only sporadically along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the continental

U.S., with one nesting reported as far north as North Carolina (Schwartz, 1976). In the Atlantic and

Caribbean, the largest nesting assemblages occur in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Florida

(NMFS, 2006a). No nests of this species have been recorded in Texas for at least 70 years (National Park

Service [NPS], 2006); the last two, one from the late 1920s and one from the mid-1930s, were both from

Padre Island (Hildebrand, 1982, 1986). Apart from occasional feeding aggregations such as the large one

of 100 animals reported by Leary (1957) off Port Aransas in December 1956, or possible concentrations

in the Brownsville Eddy in winter (Hildebrand, 1983), leatherbacks are rare along the Texas coast,

978
3. Affected Environment

3-98

tending to keep to deeper offshore waters where their primary food source, jellyfish, occurs (NMFS and

USFWS, 1992). There are no records of sea turtles nesting on Louisiana Point or anywhere in that area

(Firmin, 2006), but documented records of leatherbacks exist from Jefferson County, Texas (Dixon,

2000); however, the species is unlikely to occur in the project area since only one has been captured by a

relocation trawler (1.5 miles offshore of Aransas Pass), and there is no record of a take by a hopper

dredge (NMFS, 2003).

The hawksbill sea turtle (endangered) is circumtropical, occurring in tropical and subtropical seas of the

Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans (Witzell, 1983). This species is probably the most tropical of all

marine turtles, although it does occur in many temperate regions. The hawksbill sea turtle is widely

distributed in the Caribbean Sea and western Atlantic Ocean, with representatives of at least some life

history stages regularly occurring in southern Florida and the northern Gulf (especially Texas), south to

Brazil (NMFS, 2006a). The hawksbill sea turtle generally inhabits coastal reefs, bays, rocky areas, passes,

estuaries, and lagoons, where it occurs at depths of less than 70 feet. Like some other sea turtle species,

hatchlings are sometimes found floating in masses of marine plants (e.g., sargassum rafts) in the open

ocean (NFWL, 1980). In the continental U.S., the hawksbill sea turtles largely occur in Florida where

they are sporadic at best. In 1998 the first hawksbill sea turtle nest recorded on the Texas coast was found

at Padre Island National Seashore. This nest remains the only documented hawksbill sea turtle nest on the

Texas coast (NPS, 2006; Shaver 2006). Elsewhere in the western Atlantic, hawksbills nest in small

numbers along the Gulf Coast of Mexico, the West Indies, and along the Caribbean coasts of Central and

South America (Musick, 1979). Texas is the only state outside of Florida where hawksbills are

encountered with any regularity. Most of these sightings involve posthatchlings and juveniles, and are

primarily associated with stone jetties. These small hawksbill sea turtles are believed to originate from

nesting beaches in Mexico (NMFS, 2006a). There are no records of hawksbill sea turtles nesting on

Louisiana Point or anywhere in that area (Firmin, 2006); no documented records of hawksbill sea turtles

exist from Jefferson or Orange counties, Texas (Dixon, 2000), and they are not expected to be present in

the project area.

The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (endangered) inhabits shallow coastal and estuarine waters, usually over

sand or mud bottoms. Adults are primarily restricted to the Gulf, although juveniles may range throughout

the Atlantic Ocean since they have been observed as far north as Nova Scotia (Musick, 1979) and in

coastal waters of Europe (Brongersma, 1972). Almost the entire population of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles

nests on an 11-mile stretch of coastline near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, approximately

190 miles south of the Rio Grande. Sporadic nesting has been reported from Mustang Island, Texas,

southward to Isla Aquada, Campeche. Kemp’s ridley sea turtles occur in Texas in small numbers and in

many cases may well be in transit between crustacean-rich feeding areas in the northern Gulf and

breeding grounds in Mexico. It has nested sporadically in Texas in the last 50 years. The number of

nestings in Texas, however, has increased over the last decade from 4 nests in 1995 to 51 nests in 2005,

28 of which were from the Padre Island National Seashore (NPS, 2006; Shaver, 2006). Several of the

ridley nests were from headstarted individuals. Such nestings, together with the proximity of the Rancho

Nuevo rookery, probably account for the occurrence of hatchlings and subadults in Texas. Between 1996

979
3. Affected Environment

3-99

and 2005, maintenance dredging in the Sabine Pass Entrance Channel by hopper dredges resulted in the

lethal take of a Kemp’s ridley sea turtle in 1997 (Rob Hauch, pers. comm., 2006). In 2006, maintenance

dredging in the Sabine Bank Channel resulted in the lethal take of one Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (USACE,

2006c). The species is of potential occurrence in the project area.

The loggerhead sea turtle (threatened) is widely distributed in tropical and subtropical seas, occurring in

the Atlantic Ocean from Nova Scotia to Argentina, the Gulf of Mexico, the Indian and Pacific oceans

(although it is rare in the eastern and central Pacific), and the Mediterranean Sea (Iverson, 1986; Rebel,

1974; Ross, 1982). In the continental U.S., loggerhead sea turtles nest along the Atlantic coast from

Florida to as far north as New Jersey (Musick, 1979) and sporadically along the Gulf coast, including

Texas. Like the worldwide population, the population of loggerhead sea turtles in Texas has declined. The

loggerhead is the most abundant turtle in Texas marine waters, preferring shallow inner continental shelf

waters and occurring only very infrequently in the bays. It is often seen around offshore oil rig platforms,

reefs, and jetties. Loggerhead sea turtles are probably present year-round but are most noticeable in the

spring when one of their food items, the Portuguese man-o-war, is abundant. Loggerheads constitute a

major portion of the dead or moribund turtles washed ashore (stranded) on the Texas coast each year.

Most of these deaths are the result of accidental capture by shrimp trawlers, where caught turtles drown

and their bodies dumped overboard. In 1999, two loggerhead sea turtle nests were confirmed in Texas,

while in 2000, five loggerhead sea turtle nests were confirmed (Shaver, 2000). For the last 5 years, up to

five loggerhead sea turtle nest per year have been recorded from the Texas coast (Shaver, 2006). Between

1996 and 2005, maintenance dredging in the Sabine Pass Entrance Channel by hopper dredges resulted in

the lethal take of a loggerhead sea turtle in 2002 (Rob Hauch, pers. comm., 2006). The species is of

potential occurrence in the project area.

The green sea turtle (threatened) is a circumglobal species in tropical and subtropical waters. In U.S.

Atlantic waters, it occurs around the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and continental U.S. from

Massachusetts to Texas. Major nesting activity occurs on Ascension Island, Aves Island (Venezuela),

Costa Rica, and in Surinam. Relatively small numbers nest in Florida, with even smaller numbers in

Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas (Hirth, 1997; NMFS and USFWS, 1991a, 1991b). The green sea

turtle in Texas inhabits shallow bays and estuaries where its principal foods, the various marine grasses,

grow (Bartlett and Bartlett, 1999). While green sea turtles prefer to inhabit bays with seagrass meadows,

they may also be found in bays that are devoid of seagrasses. The green sea turtles in these Texas bays are

mainly small juveniles. Adults, juveniles, and even hatchlings are occasionally caught on trotlines or by

offshore shrimpers or are washed ashore in a moribund condition. Green turtle nests are rare in Texas.

Five nests were recorded at the Padre Island National Seashore in 1998, none in 1999, and one in 2000

(Shaver, 2000). For the last 5 years, up to five nests per year have been recorded from the Texas coast

(Shaver, 2006). Since long migrations of green sea turtles from their nesting beaches to distant feedings

grounds are well documented (Green, 1984; Meylan, 1982), the adult green sea turtles occurring in Texas

may be either at their feeding grounds or in the process of migrating to or from their nesting beaches. The

juveniles frequenting the seagrass meadows of the bay areas may remain there until they move to other

feeding grounds or, perhaps, once having attained sexual maturity, return to their natal beaches outside of

980
3. Affected Environment

3-100

Texas to nest. There are no records of green sea turtles nesting on Louisiana Point or anywhere in that

area (Firmin, 2006), but documented records of green sea turtles exist from Jefferson County, Texas

(Dixon, 2000). It is of potential occurrence in the project area.

The Texas horned lizard (State threatened) occurs throughout the western two-thirds of the state in a

variety of habitats, but prefers arid to semiarid habitats in sandy loam or loamy sand soils that support

patchy bunch-grasses, cacti, yucca, and various shrubs (Dixon, 2000; Henke and Fair, 1998). Dixon

(2000) shows historic records from the study area; however, because of the limited terrestrial habitat, it is

unlikely they would occur in the study area.

The Northern scarletsnake (State threatened) inhabits loose, sandy soil of pine, hardwood, and mixed

forest environments as well as adjacent open, agricultural fields, swamps, and stream banks of extreme

east Texas (Tennant, 1998). Dixon (2000) shows historic records from the study area; however, because

of the limited terrestrial habitat, it is unlikely they would occur in the study area.

The timber rattlesnake (State threatened) typically inhabits dense thickets and brushy areas along the

floodplains of major creeks and rivers throughout the eastern third of Texas. It occurs in a variety of

habitats including floodplains and riparian areas, swamps, upland pine and deciduous woodlands,

abandoned farmland, and limestone bluffs (Werler and Dixon, 2000). This rattlesnake is most active

during the summer and fall, with some activity noted in spring and as late as December (Werler and

Dixon, 2000). Documented records exist from Jefferson County, Texas (Dixon, 2000); however, it is

unlikely the species would occur in the study area because of the lack of suitable habitat.

The alligator snapping turtle (State threatened) is the largest North American freshwater turtle species.

Alligator snapping turtles inhabit deep rivers, lakes, and large streams of the southeastern U.S. (Garrett

and Barker, 1987). Documented records exist from Jefferson and Rusk counties, Texas (Dixon, 2000), but

the species is unlikely to occur in the study area because of the lack of suitable habitat.

3.12.3.5 Fish and Amphibians

The smalltooth sawfish (endangered) historically was common throughout the Gulf from Texas to

Florida, and along the east coast from Florida to Cape Hatteras. The current range of this species has

contracted to peninsular Florida, and smalltooth sawfish are relatively common only in the Everglades

region at the southern tip of the state. Smalltooth sawfish are usually found in shallow (typically less than

33 feet), warm (water temperatures exceeding 61°F) coastal waters, close to shore, over muddy and sandy

bottoms. The most recent verified report of a smalltooth sawfish from Texas waters was in 1998. Since

the smalltooth sawfish prefer shallow water, it is unlikely they would be encountered in the project areas

that would be dredged.

The Gulf sturgeon (threatened) historically ranged along the northeastern Gulf, in major rivers from the

Mississippi delta in Louisiana, east to Charlotte Harbor, Florida, and in marine waters of the central and

eastern Gulf (NMFS, 2006b; USFWS and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission [GSMFC], 1995). Its

current range extends from Lake Pontchartrain and the Pearl River in Louisiana and Mississippi east to

981
3. Affected Environment

3-101

the Suwannee River in Florida. Sporadic records exist from as far west as the Rio Grande between Texas

and Mexico, and as east and south as Florida Bay. As with other sturgeon species, the damming of rivers

has been the most significant threat to the Gulf sturgeon (NMFS, 2006b). The study area is not within the

known historic range of the Gulf sturgeon. Fish are mobile species and frequently occur outside of their

normal ranges; however, it is unlikely that the species is present in the study area.

The dusky shark (SOC) is a large shark with a wide-ranging distribution in warm-temperate and tropical

continental waters. It is coastal and pelagic in its distribution, where it occurs from the surf zone to well

offshore. Habitat for this species does exist in the project area.

The sand tiger shark (SOC) has a broad inshore distribution. In the western Atlantic, this shark occurs

from the Gulf of Maine to Florida, in the northern Gulf, in the Bahamas and in Bermuda. They are

generally coastal, usually being found in the surf zone down to depths around 75 feet. They may also be

found in shallow bays. They usually live near the bottom, but may be found throughout the water column.

Their biggest threat is overfishing. Habitat for this species may exist in the project area.

The night shark (SOC) is a deepwater shark reported in waters from Delaware south to Brazil, including

the Gulf. This shark is usually found at depths greater than 900 to 1,200 feet during the day and 600 feet

at night. Habitat for this shark does not exist in the project area.

The saltmarsh topminnow (SOC) is endemic to the north-central coast of the Gulf from Galveston Bay

eastward to western Florida. They tend to live in salt marshes and brackish water. This species requires

shallow flooded marsh surfaces for breeding and feeding. Coastal erosion and loss of marsh is thought to

be the greatest threat to this species. It is possible that this species occurs in the project area.

The Warsaw grouper (SOC) is a very large fish found in the deepwater reefs of the southeastern U.S. This

fish ranges from North Carolina to the Florida Keys and throughout much of the Caribbean and Gulf to

the northern coast of South America. This species inhabits deepwater reefs on the continental shelf break

in waters 350 to 650 feet deep. Habitat for this species does not exist in the project area.

The speckled hind (SOC) inhabits warm, moderately deep waters from North Carolina to Cuba, including

Bermuda, the Bahamas, and the Gulf. The preferred habitat is hard-bottom reefs in depths ranging from

150 to 300 feet. Habitat for this species does not exist in the project area.

3.12.3.6 Invertebrates

Elkhorn coral was listed as threatened on May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26852) and is found on coral reefs in

southern Florida and the Bahamas, and throughout the Caribbean. Its northern limit is Biscayne National

Park, Florida. This species is particularly susceptible to damage from sedimentation. Neither the project

area nor the study area is located within the historical range for this species, nor does suitable habitat exist

in the project vicinity.

982
3. Affected Environment

3-102

Staghorn coral was listed as threatened on May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26852) and is found throughout the

Florida Keys, the Bahamas, and the Caribbean islands. This coral occurs in the western Gulf, but it is

absent from U.S. waters in the Gulf. Neither the project area nor the study area is located within the

historical range for this species, nor does suitable habitat exist in the project vicinity.

Colonies of ivory tree coral (SOC) are found to depths of 500 feet on substrates of limestone rubble, lowrelief limestone outcrops, and high-relief, steeply sloping prominences. The project area is not located

within the historical range for this species, nor does suitable habitat exist in the project vicinity.

3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Archival and historical research was conducted to develop a baseline level of knowledge for prehistoric

and historic period cultural developments and to identify archeological and historical sites previously

recorded in the SNWW project area. Among the research efforts, a review of published historical

literature and previous archeological investigation reports yielded information useful for developing a

general chronology of cultural developments across the region. Also, archeological reports and official

site records maintained by State historic preservation offices in Texas and Louisiana were relied upon to

identify previously recorded archeological and historical sites in the project area. Other sources of

information included official industrial and agricultural census data as well as historical maps of the area

prior to 1900 through 1955.

Cultural resources found in the project vicinity are generally of the following common types. Terrestrial

prehistoric sites typically found in the SNWW CIP project vicinity consist of eroded or partially eroded

prehistoric shell midden sites. The majority of shell middens are located along the main waterways,

oxbows, and near the coast. Approximately 80 percent of these sites are comprised primarily of shells

from the brackish-water clam (Rangia cuneata) mixed with sparse pottery shards and faunal food

remains. Some sites located closer to the coast also contain shells from the eastern oyster. Historic

terrestrial sites in the project vicinity are related primarily to Civil War military forts and outposts,

although a few National Register structures such as the Sabine Pass Lighthouse and the Rainbow Bridge,

are also present. The most typical marine sites in the project area are Civil War shipwrecks.

3.13.1 Prehistoric Chronology and Historic Context

3.13.1.1 Prehistoric Chronology

The prehistoric chronology of the Sabine Lake area is not well understood, as the area has received only

limited testing (Aten, 1983). However, since the current project area is a part of the upper Texas coast, the

three-phased chronological sequence that was developed for that region (Paleoindian to Archaic to Late

Prehistoric) can be employed, with each transition marked by significant adaptations in technology and

settlement patterns. Chronological designations are Before the Common Era (B.C.E.) and Common Era

(C.E.) as per the American Anthropological Association Style Guide (2009).

983
3. Affected Environment

3-103

Paleoindian (10,000 B.C.E. to 8000 B.C.E.) populations ranged over most of North America by the end of

the Pleistocene. In the northern Gulf region, the Paleoindian culture is identified by the occurrence of

large lanceolate, fluted projectile points. Typically, Paleoindian sites are considered to reflect low-density

populations and hunter-gatherer subsistence strategies.

The Archaic period (6000 B.C.E. to C.E. 700) is typically subdivided into four components; the Early

Archaic (6000 B.C.E. to 2500 B.C.E.), the Middle Archaic (2500 B.C.E. to 1000 B.C.E.), the Late Archaic

(1000 B.C.E. to 300 B.C.E.), and the Transitional Archaic (300 B.C.E. to C.E. 700). Evidence of the Early

Archaic is scarce along the upper Texas coast, due to either a decrease in human population or the lack of

stratified excavations (Story et al., 1990).

Although there is a dearth of information on the Early Archaic along the upper Texas coast, other areas in

North America have produced data pointing to a generalized hunting and gathering technology and a

minimum band level social organization. Ricklis and Blum (1997) hypothesized that coastal sites were

frequented during the winter months as part of a seasonal exploitation pattern.

Coastal sites and shell middens become more frequent during the Middle Archaic, expressing a unique

subsistence activity. The Middle Archaic populations displayed a more involved method of seasonal

exploitation, as documented by Voellinger (1990) at 41GV22. Evidence found at this site indicates early

spring exploitation.

A hunting and gathering pattern of subsistence continued during the Late Archaic in Texas, with preCaddo sites marking the beginning of settled village life shortly after 500 B.C.E. in parts of East Texas, as

well as a marked rise in bison exploitation as a game resource, as reflected in bison-kill sites in Central

Texas.

The Transitional Archaic is marked by an increase in settlement sites, often having large burial mounds.

Such sites mark the introduction of, and reliance upon, agriculture that leads to population growth and the

emergence of social and political systems (Turner and Hester, 1985).

The Late Prehistoric period (C.E. 700 to C.E. 1600) is marked by the emergence of ceramics and

terminates with European contact and interaction. While Aten (1983) has identified six chronological Late

Prehistoric periods in the Galveston Bay area, he notes that the Sabine Lake area lacks sufficient

controlled excavations to place it within this chronological sequence.

3.13.1.2 Historic Context

European interest in the coastal areas of Texas began almost as soon as the first Spanish explorers landed

on the mainland of North America in 1513. Shortly thereafter, the Spanish crown began granting

contracts to private investors to colonize and explore the new territory. One expedition led by a Spaniard

Panfílo de Narváez ended in disaster. It is due to this unfortunate expedition that we have the earliest

report of Europeans coming ashore in the vicinity of Sabine Pass (Weddle, 1985).

984
3. Affected Environment

3-104

European activity in the region decreased over the next 100 years. It was not until the French explorer

Rene Robert Cavalier, Sieur de La Salle entered Spanish territory in the northern Gulf in the late

seventeenth century that the Spanish government hastened plans to colonize the area. The French

continued to visit the region as they explored, established posts, and traded goods as far east as the Trinity

River during the late 1600s and 1700s (Bolton, 1970). The early French and Spanish explorers relied on

the Sabine and Neches rivers as their principal transportation route.

In 1763, Spain was given the Louisiana Territory by Louis XV of France; however, by 1802 the Spanish

crown relinquished control of the Louisiana Territory back to France due to the territory’s increasing

demands on Spain’s resources (Haggard, 1945). Less than 1 year later, Napoleon sold the territory to the

United States.

With Louisiana in the hands of the U.S., Spain had a new problem at their border. The close proximity

between Spanish and U.S. troops in the area of the Sabine River led to a great deal of tension and brought

about an agreement between the two sides in 1806, whereby a strip of land was defined between the two

countries that neither would rule. The land called the “Neutral Strip” extended between the Sabine River

eastward to the Arroyo Hondo and from the Gulf to the 32nd parallel. The Neutral Strip was a wild

ungoverned area open to smuggling, slave trade, and other criminal activity. The area also was the staging

ground for military expeditions against Spanish Texas by ostensibly freelance organizations called

filibusters (Haggard, 1945).

The Neutral Strip was abolished by the Adams-Onis Treaty of February 1821 whereby Spain relinquished

its claims on the Sabine and Neches river area (Gibson et al., 1978). The treaty was ratified by the

Mexican government that same year. Also in 1821, the Treaty of Cordova transferred Spanish Texas to

the Republic of Mexico (Block, 1976). The land subsequently became a part of the Republic of Texas in

1836, at which time the Republic of Texas and the U.S. encouraged trade across the border formed by the

Sabine River.

Goods were moved along the Sabine and Neches rivers as early as 1830 due to the economics of river

versus overland transport (Chick, 1988). Settlement and economic use of the region increased from the

early days of the Texas Republic through early statehood, and the rivers continued to be used as the

primary transportation route until the Civil War.

After Texas’s decision to secede from the Union on February 1, 1861, Sabine Pass became an important

source of revenue and supplies for the Confederacy. Blockade-runners could operate virtually undetected

out of Sabine Pass, shipping large amounts of cotton and other supplies to foreign markets and returning

with coffee, sugar, munitions, and medical supplies. The U.S. recognized the importance of Sabine Pass

to the Confederacy, and it soon became a focal point for the Union blockade of the Texas Gulf Coast.

Fearing a Union invasion during the Civil War, the citizens of Sabine Pass decided to build a fort to

protect their town. Local residents, including many slaves, constructed a dirt and timber earthwork

overlooking the Sabine River. On September 24, 1862, the fort was shelled by Union gunboats and

985
3. Affected Environment

3-105

severely damaged. The following March, Major Josephus S. Irvine determined that the site was no longer

useful (Block, 1976).

A new fort, Fort Griffin, was constructed a few miles away. With 30 engineers and 500 slaves, Major

Julius Kellersberg constructed a triangular fort on an eminence overlooking the Sabine River. The fort

was named for the commander of the Twenty-first Texas Battalion, Colonel William H. Griffin (Block,

1976).

Located across Sabine Pass opposite Fort Griffin, the Sabine Pass Lighthouse, which began operation in

1857, was an ideal observation post for the Confederate forces during the Battle of Sabine Pass. In

September 1863, four Union gunboats leading a strong amphibious invasion force attacked Fort Griffin.

At the Battle of Sabine Pass, Lieutenant Richard Dowling and a 46-man garrison disabled two of the

attacking vessels and scattered the remainder of the Union ships (Block, 1976).

The U.S. strengthened its position at Sabine Pass with the arrival of the USS Hatteras and became more

aggressive in the autumn of 1862. Union vessels conducted raids into the region as far north as Beaumont

on the Neches River, destroyed much of the town of Sabine Pass, and bombarded and forced the

temporary abandonment of Fort Griffin at Sabine Pass using both sail and steam vessels (Francavigilia,

1998). In January 1863, the Confederate forces fought back when they burned and destroyed the USS

Dan near the Sabine Pass Lighthouse and captured the Union Vessel USS Morning Light and the

schooner Velocity off Sabine Pass using the cotton-clad side-wheel steamers Josiah H. Bell and Uncle

Ben (Francaviglia, 1998; Hardison, 1998).

The standoff between the two forces culminated with the Battle of Sabine Pass in September 1863. Under

the direction of Lieutenant Richard W. Dowling, a 45-minute battle resulted in a Confederate victory.

Lieutenant Dowling and his 46 men captured two gunboats, the USS Sachem and the USS Clifton and

350 prisoners, with an additional 61 U.S. soldiers and sailors missing or killed. Without losing a man,

Dowling and the Guards prevented an invasion of Texas. The location of this battle is now preserved as

the Sabine Pass Battleground and Historic Site (41JF36). A bronze statue of Dowling overlooks the

57.5-acre park.

The U.S. failed to establish itself in Texas during the war; however, the Union blockade did hinder the

growth of burgeoning port cities in the state and all but decimated the economy of Sabine Pass for years

to come (McGuff and Roberson, 1974).

3.13.2 Previous Investigations

3.13.2.1 Terrestrial Investigations and Recorded Sites

During 1939 and 1940, Gus Arnold of the University of Texas at Austin conducted an archeological

survey in the region as a part of a larger east Texas study sponsored by the Works Progress

Administration (Im, 1975). Arnold identified 28 sites within the project vicinity. Unfortunately, Arnold

never published his results and the only record of his work exists as a Master of Arts thesis from the

986
3. Affected Environment

3-106

University of Texas (Im, 1975). In this thesis, Im presents each site’s general location, a short description,

temporal components found, and a brief description of the artifacts (Im, 1975). Im noted the similarities

between the ceramic artifacts collected by Arnold and those from the Lower Mississippi Valley and

“supposed” (Im, 1975) that there were Mississippi Valley sherds among Arnold’s collection. However,

Im was not able to separate the Lower Valley sherds out of the collection, having particular difficulty in

separating sherds dating to the Plaquemine and Coles Creek periods. Im concluded by noting that it

seemed that sandy paste sherds occur more frequently early in the chronology and grog-tempered sherds

later. Furthermore, he identified two culture areas in east Texas that he termed Caddoan and non-Caddoan

with a boundary between the two areas located approximately 80 to 100 miles from the Gulf coast (Im,

1975).

After Arnold, McIntire (1958) recorded several sites in west Louisiana, and then used these sites to extend

the Red River Chronology into that part of the state. In the late 1960s, Lawrence Aten and Charles Bollich

undertook a survey in the Sabine Lake area of Louisiana and Texas (Aten and Bollich, 1969). Of the 14

sites visited by Aten and Bollich, four are within the project vicinity. Aten and Bollich (1969) attempted

to order their ceramic artifacts by paste type (sandy paste and grog-tempered) with the assumption that

sandy paste sherds would dominate the earlier assemblages. The authors (1969:Figure 4) concluded that

both paste categories existed throughout the history of pottery making in the area with sandy paste sherds

being a bit more numerous early in the sequence.

In 1973, the Texas Archeological Survey conducted an archeological survey along the Sabine and Neches

rivers for the USACE (McGuff and Roberson, 1974). They visited 81 sites, 61 of which are located near

the project area. McGuff and Roberson (1974) provided information on site description, condition, and

impacts. Of the 81 sites visited, McGuff and Roberson (1974) listed 21 as potentially eligible for the

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

In 1978, the USACE, Fort Worth District, sponsored two surveys of the lower Sabine River. The

University of Southwestern Louisiana (now University of Louisiana, Lafayette) Center for Archeological

Studies inventoried sites along the Sabine River from Toledo Bend Reservoir to the GIWW (Gibson,

1978). Gibson visited 12 sites in the project vicinity and determined that 10 of the sites were potentially

eligible for National Register listing. In conjunction with the Gibson study, the University of New

Orleans Archeological and Cultural Research Program inventoried sites along the Sabine River and its

tributaries from the GIWW south to the Gulf (Beavers, 1978). Forty-two sites were visited by Beavers

(1978), 19 of which are located in the project vicinity that he recommended for additional work.

The most recent archeological inventory was conducted by the Brazos Valley Research Associates for the

City of Beaumont’s Colliers Ferry Wetlands and Recreational Area and Nature Preserve (Moore and

Aronow, 1993). No cultural resources were located during this survey, although they do discuss site

41JF1, which they noted was covered by 2 to 3 feet of dredged deposits.

While there has been a substantial amount of cultural resources inventory work done in the project area,

there has been a distinct lack of more-detailed investigations involving archeological test excavations.

987
3. Affected Environment

3-107

Several sites in the project vicinity have been subjected to some minimal level of formal testing: 41JF26,

41JF31 (Aten, 1983); 41OR58 (Rogers, 1991); 41CM141 (Servello and Blanchard, 1992); and 41JF11

and 41JF35 (Raab and Smith, 1983). Excavations were either limited to National Register eligibility

testing or were not formally reported. The one site where extensive excavation has taken place is the

Gaulding site (41JF27), excavated by the Texas Archeological Society (Aten and Bollich, 2002).

In addition to these traditional types of terrestrial archeological investigations, recent geological and

remote-sensing investigations of submerged landforms located offshore have suggested that older

prehistoric sites may have survived despite long-term inundation and sea level changes in the submerged

relict Sabine River valley. A study by the MMS (Stright, 1990) located two possible Rangia midden sites

approximately 16 miles offshore of the Louisiana/Texas border in the Gulf. Stright’s work appears to

confirm predictions published by Coastal Environments, Inc. (Pearson et al., 1986) that intact archeological sites may be located along relict tributaries associated with the now submerged Sabine River

Valley.

3.13.2.2 Marine Investigations and Reported Shipwrecks

Several previous marine archeological investigations have occurred on the SNWW. Of these, four reports

are pertinent to the current project. The four investigations discussed here are Bond and Foster (1993),

Hoyt and Schmidt (1997), and Hoyt et al. (1994, 1998).

EH&A conducted a magnetometer survey on the lower Neches River in 1992 (Bond and Foster, 1993).

Work was conducted under USACE permit number 19611 for the LNVA to identify possible shipwrecks

at four potential saltwater barrier locations. Several magnetic anomalies were recorded during this survey,

none of which were recommended as potential historic properties.

EH&A performed a remote-sensing survey of the Sabine Pass Channel and an assessment of the

American Civil War–era shipwreck the USS Clifton (41JF65) under contract with the USACE in 1994

(Hoyt et al., 1994). Work was conducted in order to identify historic properties that might have been

adversely affected by the USACE maintenance-dredging program and to locate and assess the wreck of

the Clifton. EH&A was tasked with determining its potential for impacts during future jetty maintenance

and repair activities (Hoyt et al., 1994). The remote-sensing survey recorded 26 localities that were

recommended for diver investigation to identify whether they were historic shipwrecks. The report concluded that the wreck of the Clifton was eligible for listing in the NRHP. Further field investigations of

the wreck, in the form of remote-sensing investigations and/or archeological excavation, were

recommended should it be threatened by future projects.

EH&A followed up its 1994 work in the Sabine Pass Channel with diving assessments of the 26 localities

identified in the previous work (Hoyt and Schmidt, 1997). This work was conducted in 1996 under

contract with the USACE to determine whether the 26 localities were potential cultural resources. EH&A

determined that 15 localities contained modern construction debris; 4 localities, although unidentified,

were small and/or deeply buried objects not indicative of shipwrecks; 4 localities had been displaced or

removed from the study area; 1 locality was located outside the impact area and within a previously

988
3. Affected Environment

3-108

dredged area and therefore likely was modern in origin; and 2 (L25 and L26) remained unidentified and

not fully investigated. The latter were located in an area where project dredging had been completed and

therefore were not recommended for further investigation. However, EH&A recommended that additional

investigations be conducted, should future plans include channel widening at this location, due in part to

the localities’ possible association with a recorded American Civil War shipwreck in the area.

EH&A conducted archival research, a remote-sensing survey, and a terrestrial survey in 1997 for the

USACE (Hoyt et al., 1998). Work was conducted to identify possible cultural resources at a proposed site

for the Neches River Saltwater Barrier, north of Beaumont in the vicinity of Pine Island Bayou. Archival

research identified a single historic structure in the study area, a navigation light, which was not

physically located during the survey. Numerous magnetic anomalies and side-scan sonar images were

recorded during the remote-sensing survey. None of these anomalies was identified as possible cultural

resources, and further archeological investigations were not recommended.

As part of the marine investigation, PBS&J researched several databases and secondary sources in order

to produce a list of shipwrecks, archeologically sensitive areas, State Archeological Landmark (SAL) and

NRHP sites potentially located within the study area. Such sources include PBS&J’s shipwreck database,

the shipwreck files at the Texas Historical Commission’s (THC) Office of the State Marine Archeologist,

the shipwreck files at the Louisiana Division of Archaeology (LDA), the NOAA Automated Wreck and

Obstruction Information System, the MMS shipwreck database, the GLO’s Resource Management Codes,

the NPS’s NRHP listings, the THC’s SAL listings, and the THC’s Historical Marker Program. In addition

to these databases, cartographic resources such as NOAA’s historical and modern navigation charts were

useful in identifying possible shipwreck locations. Additional secondary sources such as Lytle and

Holdcamper’s (1975) Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States and the United States Bureau of

Navigation’s (various years) Merchant Vessel Losses of the United States were important sources for

identifying historic and modern vessel losses.

PBS&J conducted a marine remote-sensing survey for the current FEIS along portions of the SNWW in

Jefferson and Orange counties, Texas, and Cameron Parish, Louisiana, throughout February 2003. The

survey covered the Outer Bar Channel, the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel, the Sabine Pass Channel, the Port

Arthur Canal, the Sabine-Neches Canal, and the Neches River Channel. The survey included the

assessment of potential historic properties, oyster reefs, pipelines and wells, and potential obstructions to

navigation in the survey area. PBS&J’s survey identified 27 potential historic properties, of which 15

would be impacted by the proposed project. Two previously recorded magnetic anomalies, L25 and L26

(Hoyt and Schmidt, 1997), were also identified as potential shipwrecks. PBS&J recommended that all 27

potential historic properties be avoided by bottom-disturbing activities. Anomalies for which avoidance is

not feasible were recommended for further archeological investigations in the form of close-order remotesensing surveys to aid differentiation between anomalies requiring diver assessment and anomalies

associated with debris.

The results of the remote-sensing survey can be found in the report titled, Historic Properties

Identification, Oyster Reef Identification, and Pipeline and Obstruction Identification for the Sabine/

989
3. Affected Environment

3-109

Neches Waterway Widening and Deepening, Jefferson and Orange Counties, Texas, and Cameron

Parish, Louisiana, prepared for the USACE by PBS&J dated September 2005 (Enright and Gearhart,

2005). Project plans have been modified since the study was conducted. The 27 anomalies located during

the February 2003 survey are included on the current project plans.

The density of reported shipwrecks increases at the northwest corner of Sabine Lake where the SNWW

divides near the mouth of the Neches River and Stewts Island. Farther up the Neches River, reported

shipwrecks are present near Deer Bayou, Smith Bluff Cutoff, and Bethlehem Steel in Beaumont. In

addition to these shipwrecks, the National Defense Reserve Fleet maintains a reserve of vessels on the

Neches River near Beaumont that can be activated to help meet U.S. shipping requirements during a

national emergency. Many are mothballed World War II naval vessels moved from the Reserve Naval

Station Orange facility. This large fleet of intact and floating naval vessels may also extend into the old

river channel that was cut off at Smith Bluff. Although not technically shipwrecks, many of these vessels

are of sufficient age to meet NRHP eligibility requirements and may represent important World War II–

era military developments associated with the study area.

A high density of reported shipwrecks is present in Sabine Pass. Sabine Pass and the adjacent Gulf coast

are deemed to be archeologically sensitive in regards to the potential for historic shipwrecks, some of

which include the CSS Clifton, three steam-driven vessels (Pearl Plant, USS Dan, and CSS Sachem),

three sail-driven vessels (schooners Manhassett and Revenge and USS Morning Light), as well as an

unknown quantity of jettisoned cargo lost in the area during the American Civil War. Sabine Pass is also

home to the Sabine Pass Lighthouse, which is listed on the NRHP.

No remote-sensing survey has been conducted for the Sabine Bank Channel, the proposed Extension

Channel, or the existing or proposed ODMDSs. The USACE researched the MMS files on known and

potential historic shipwrecks in the Gulf portion of the SNWW project area. The MMS locations are only

approximate because many wreck locations cannot be determined with certainty and are reported by lease

block only. The approach corridor to Sabine Pass is a high probability area for shipwrecks. Numerous

shipwrecks have been documented in the area including vessels that participated in the Battle of Sabine

Pass during the American Civil War. Several shipwrecks have been reported in the vicinity of these

anomalies, including Terry Walker, Beulah, Esther, Kile No. 1, L.A. Burnham, and one unidentified wreck

(u128). Other wrecks reported in the general vicinity of the Outer Bar Channel include Ella, Hattie, John

Sealy, Manhassett, USS Morning Light, and Revenge.

3.13.2.3 National Register Properties

There are two sites listed on the NRHP that are located adjacent to the proposed SNWW CIP: Rainbow

Bridge and the Sabine Pass Lighthouse. Rainbow Bridge is the cantilever bridge crossing the Neches

River just upstream from Sabine Lake. It allows SH 87 and SH 73 to connect Port Arthur with Bridge

City. The Sabine Pass Lighthouse was described above. There is also one SAL (site 41JF65, the USS

Clifton), also discussed above, that is located adjacent to the proposed SNWW CIP.

990
3. Affected Environment

3-110

3.14 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

3.14.1 Introduction

This section presents detailed economic and demographic characteristics of the study area. Information

evaluated within this section includes population, demographic, and community cohesion factors,

employment, labor force characteristics, economics, tax base, land use, transportation, community

services, aesthetics, future development and development restrictions, life, health, and safety, and

Environmental Justice (EJ).

Two geographic levels have been selected to analyze the socioeconomic components of the proposed

study area. These two levels have been chosen to capture more fully the socioeconomic setting and its

relationship to the regional economy. These two geographic levels are the study area and the detailed

study area.

3.14.1.1 Study Area

For the purposes of this section, the following counties and parishes are used as units of socioeconomic

analysis: Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange counties in Texas, and Cameron and Calcasieu parishes in

Louisiana. Also the following cities are discussed: Beaumont, Port Arthur, Port Neches, Nederland,

Vidor, Orange, and Bridge City in Texas; and Lake Charles in Louisiana. Also, census data and other

socioeconomic data are provided for the BPA Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) (includes Hardin,

Jefferson, and Orange counties, Texas), although some portions of these MSAs are not part of the study

area. The Lake Charles MSA is the only other MSA within the study area, but it is not included because it

includes only Calcasieu Parish (which is already discussed). Also, wherever it was possible, the Texas

portion of the study area, and the Louisiana portion of the study area are discussed. In such cases,

socioeconomic data are provided separately for all Texas counties and for all Louisiana parishes. Finally,

some communities within the study area are discussed in more detail than others simply because they are

located closer to areas affected by the proposed project, or areas near to the detailed study area, which is

the second geographic level of analysis (below).

3.14.1.2 Detailed Study Area

The detailed study area for this section is defined differently than for other sections of this FEIS. The

detailed study area, for this section, includes only census tracts that are within (or at least partially overlap

into) the “detailed study area” that is shown on Figure 3.14-1 (2000 census tracts). The detailed study

area, as defined within this section only, includes areas within a 1-mile-wide corridor of the areas

proposed for ship channel improvements. Many of the census tracts included in this section overlap partly

into the detailed study area, but cover much larger areas outside of the detailed study area. Therefore, the

census data (provided by census tract) for the detailed study area include much larger populations than

those that physically live within the detailed study area (areas included in the census tract level analysis

are shaded yellow). These areas include incorporated areas of Beaumont, Port Neches, Nederland, Bridge

City, and Port Arthur and unincorporated areas within Jefferson, Hardin, and Orange counties, Texas, and

991
TEXAS

LOUSIANA

WEST

ORANGE

PORT

NECHES

CAMERON

PARISH

ORANGE CO.

HARDIN CO.

JEFFERSON CO.

Sabine

Lake

Sabine

Lake

PORT

ARTHUR

GROVES

NEDERLAND

VIDOR

BEAUMONT

ORANGE

BRIDGE

CITY

9702

116

220

217

1.03

10

16

17

112.01 222

224

66

223

61

53

54

55

56

101

51

306

BEAUMONT

216

7

G U L F O F M E X I C O

Sabine-Neches Canal

Port Arthur Canal

Sabine Pass Channel

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel

Neches River Channel

Figure 3.14-1

2000 Census Tracts

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Prepared for: USACE Galveston

Job No: 100007609

Prepared by: 18895

N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/Census_2000_11_17_vr4.mxd

Scale: 1" = 16500'

Date: 07/9/2009

Project Area, Proposed Channel

Census Tracts within the Main Channel Corridor

Source: TIGER Census 2000 data.

102 Census Tract Number

16,500 8,250 0 16,500 Feet

3-111

992
3. Affected Environment

3-112

(This page left blank intentionally.)

993
3. Affected Environment

3-113

Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Finally, the census tract figure breaks up the detailed study area into the

following subcategories based on the names of different segments of the ship channel (from north to

south): Neches Channel, Sabine-Neches Channel, Port Arthur Channel, Sabine Pass Channel, and the

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel.

3.14.2 Population and Community Cohesion

3.14.2.1 Historic and Projected Population

Table 3.14-1 presents the current and historic population data for the study area. From 1980 to 1990,

population growth within the study area was negative, with only a few communities exhibiting positive

population growth during the 1980s. Negative population growth in the study area during the 1980s is

largely attributable to high unemployment rates, and economic problems within the region due to the

1980s “oil bust,” when manufacturing and construction industries within the study area (and other

locations in Texas and Louisiana) suffered heavy economic losses and layoffs (Helen, 2002). During the

1980s the study area cities with the greatest population growth were Bridge City (6.5 percent increase)

and Nederland (0.0 percent growth), while the greatest decreases in population were experienced in the

City of Orange (at negative 12.9 percent) and Port Arthur (at negative 7.6 percent). Among study area

counties and parishes, the greatest population growth during the 1980s occurred in Hardin County (at

1.5 percent growth) and Calcasieu Parish (at 0.5 percent growth), while the greatest decreases in

population occurred in Jefferson County (at negative 4.6 percent) and in Orange County (at negative

4.0 percent). The population changes within the study area during the 1980s contrasted sharply with that

of the State of Texas (at 19.4 percent), while it was fairly consistent with that of the State of Louisiana (at

0.3 percent) during this period. A possible reason for this trend is that the Texas economy, during the

1980s, was more diverse overall than the study area economy and that of the State of Louisiana, and

therefore unemployment rates and economic losses were not as high, and out-migration of the population

was not as prevalent.

Between 1990 and 2000 the study area population became positive again, with slow to moderate

population growth (at 7.4 percent) occurring during this period. During the 1990s (especially during the

late 1990s), the national economy had greatly improved, and within the study area less out-migration of

population was occurring, as manufacturing and construction sectors were experiencing a partial recovery

from the economic problems they had experienced during the 1980s. These sectors were retaining more of

their employees, and the services sector was expanding, especially along the IH 10 corridor (Helen,

2002). During the 1990s the study area cities with the greatest population growth were Bridge City

(6.0 percent increase) and Nederland (3.3 percent growth), while the greatest decreases in population

were experienced in Orange (at negative 9.4 percent) and Port Arthur (at negative 0.9 percent). Among

study area counties and parishes, the greatest population growth during the 1990s occurred in Hardin

County (at 16.3 percent growth) and Calcasieu Parish (at 9.2 percent growth), while the slowest

population growth occurred in Jefferson County (at 5.3 percent) and in Orange County (at 5.5 percent).

The population changes within the study area during the 1990s contrasted sharply with that of the State of

Texas (at 22.8 percent), while it was fairly consistent with that of the State of Louisiana (at 5.9 percent)

994
3. Affected Environment

3-114

during this period. Much of this trend is attributable to the diversification of the study area economy

relative to that of the states of Texas and Louisiana. The Texas economy was more diverse overall and

was booming in the communications, high-tech, and services industries overall, and the population was

expanding as a result. These trends were not occurring in the study area or the State of Louisiana to nearly

the same degree.

Table 3.14-1

Study Area Population Trends, 1980–2000

Population Percent Change

Place 1980 1990 2000 1980–1990 1990–2000 1980–2000

Beaumont 118,102 114,323 113,866 –3.2 –0.4 –3.6

Bridge City 7,667 8,164 8,651 6.5 6.0 12.8

Lake Charles 75,226 70,508 71,757 –6.3 1.8 –4.6

Nederland 16,855 16,858 17,422 0.0 3.3 3.4

Orange 23,628 20,571 18,643 –12.9 –9.4 –21.1

Port Arthur 63,053 58,274 57,755 –7.6 –0.9 –8.4

Port Neches 13,944 13,615 13,601 –2.4 –0.1 –2.5

Vidor 12,043 11,385 11,660 –5.5 2.4 –3.2

Hardin County 40,721 41,320 48,073 1.5 16.3 18.1

Jefferson County 250,938 239,397 252,051 –4.6 5.3 0.4

Orange County 83,838 80,509 84,966 –4.0 5.5 1.3

Calcasieu Parish 167,223 168,134 183,577 0.5 9.2 9.8

Cameron Parish 9,336 9,260 9,991 –0.8 7.9 7.0

Beaumont-Port Arthur MSA 375,497 361,218 385,090 –3.8 6.6 2.6

Lake Charles MSA 167,223 168,134 183,577 0.5 9.2 9.8

State of Louisiana 4,205,900 4,219,973 4,468,976 0.3 5.9 6.3

State of Texas 14,229,191 16,986,510 20,851,820 19.4 22.8 46.5

Project Study Area* 552,056 538,612 578,658 –2.4 7.4 4.8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990, 2000a).

*The Project Study Area population is calculated from a combined total of the Beaumont-Port Arthur MSA, the Lake Charles MSA, and

Cameron Parish.

Table 3.14-2 provides population projections from 2000 to 2050 for Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange

counties, Texas, and Calcasieu and Cameron parishes, Louisiana, the State of Texas, and the State of

Louisiana. Generally, population within the study area counties and parishes is expected to be slow to

moderate through year 2050.1 The greatest population growth rates within the study area during this

period are anticipated in Hardin County (average decade growth rate of 8.1 percent). The slowest

population growth rates during this period are anticipated in Cameron Parish (average decade growth rate

of negative 16.3 percent) and in Orange County (average decade growth rate of 3.3 percent).

1Population projections for Calcasieu and Cameron parishes and the State of Louisiana for the years 2030 to 2050 were not available from the

Louisiana State Data Center. Therefore, projections were made for these years based on average increases in population from the preceding 3

decades (for which projections were available). The average rate of growth that was used for these 3 decades for Calcasieu and Cameron parishes

and the State of Louisiana were 5.7 percent, 1.3 percent, and 5.8 percent, respectively, for each decade from 2020 to 2050.

995
Table 3.14-2

Detailed Study Area Population Projections, 2000–2050

Percent Change

Place 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000–2010 2010–2020 2020–2030 2030–2040 2040–2050Hardin County 48,073 54,504 59,115 61,211 63,381 65,627 13.4% 8.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%Jefferson County 252,051 259,700 270,686 280,590 288,225 295,924 3.0% 4.2% 3.7% 2.7% 2.7%Orange County 84,966 90,503 94,274 95,818 96,473 97,843 6.5% 4.2% 1.6% 0.7% 1.4%State of Texas 20,851,790 24,915,388 29,117,537 33,052,506 36,893,267 41,071,409 19.5% 16.9% 13.5% 11.6% 11.3%

Calcasieu Parish 183,577 85,400 183,740 197,420 NA NA 1.0% -0.9% -2.4% NA NA

Cameron Parish 9,991 7,230 6,660 5,760 NA NA -27.6% -7.9% -13.5% NA NAState of Louisiana 4,424,550 4,683,030 4,991,410 5,360,774 NA NA 5.8% 6.6% 7.4% NA NASources: TWDB (2007); Louisiana State Census Data Center (2007).

3-115

996
3. Affected Environment

3-116

There are a few factors that are likely to contribute to the slow to moderate population growth that is

projected for the project study area from 2000 to 2050 (see Table 3.14-2). The population projections are

based on socioeconomic trends in the last 30 years or so, which are likely to continue in the future.

Namely, the study area’s economy has grown at a slow to moderate rate over the past 2 decades, since the

“oil bust” of the 1980s. During the 1980s, the study area’s population growth was negative, as the

manufacturing sector lost about 17,000 jobs, and many residents left the area to find better opportunities

elsewhere. During the 1990s, the economic situation improved somewhat, but not enough to fully recover

from major job losses in the 1980s. Population growth during the 1990s was slow to moderate in all

communities of the study area, largely as a response to these economic trends. Population growth has

been slow even as many large cities in Texas had booming economies during the late 1990s. Job growth

occurred in the services, wholesale and retail trade, government, and medical services industries within

the study area during this period, but not enough to offset lagging job growth in the manufacturing

industry. Housing units were added at a relatively steady rate, but the average household size got smaller

during the decade, so that the new housing units were not an indicator of rapid population growth. Many

manufacturing companies upgraded or expanded their facilities, but with these improvements came

mechanization of jobs, and this led to little growth in new jobs. Therefore, the study area economy has

seen very few economic indicators that the economy is going to grow at a rate that is any different than

what has occurred in the recent past. Without such growth in new jobs, it is unlikely that the study area

population is going to grow any faster than slow to moderate, as it has done in the recent past. Without

any economic indicators showing otherwise, analysts with the TWDB, and locally based population

analysts believe that population growth within the study area would continue to be slow to moderate from

2000 to 2050 (Helen, 2002). Table 3.14-3 provides population figures for 2000 for the detailed study area.

The total detailed study area population was 82,401 in 2000.

3.14.2.2 Demographics and Community Cohesion Factors

Being an intangible concept, the definition and, therefore, the measurement of community cohesion is not

precise. There are certain factors, however, that can be measured and that can be interpreted to reflect

community cohesion. The following community cohesion factors are presented within this section:

• Education and income

• Travel time to work

• Length of residence

• Degree of home ownership

• Age distribution

997
3. Affected Environment

3-117

Table 3.14-3

Detailed Study Area Population, 2000

Census Tracts 2000 Population

Hardin County, Texas

306 3,116

Jefferson County, Texas

1.03 3,084

7 3779

10 1,739

16 104

17 2,776

51 1,689

53 1,154

54 2,053

55 3,352

56 3,893

61 2,139

66 4,905

101 3,287

108 5,210

112.01 7,175

116 2,307

Orange County, Texas

216 3,929

217 2,623

220 4,082

222 3,027

223 6,475

224 5,950

Cameron Parish, Louisiana

9702 4,553

Total Detailed Study Area Population: 82,401

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000a).

Education and Income. Table 3.14-4 shows educational attainment levels for detailed study area census

tracts (2000), and provides a comparison with state, county and parish figures. In terms of higher

education (bachelor’s degrees and graduate or professional degrees), the highest levels of educational

attainment in the study area are found in Calcasieu Parish (at 16.9 percent) and the lowest levels of

educational attainment are found in Cameron Parish (at 7.9 percent). In terms of high school education,

the highest levels of educational attainment in the study area are found in Hardin County (at

79.3 percent), and the lowest level of educational attainment is found in Cameron Parish (at 68.1 percent).

The average of the detailed study area census tracts’ highest educational levels attained are as follows:

high school graduate (80.6 percent), bachelor’s degree (6.6 percent), and graduate or professional degree

(2.3 percent). In terms of high school education, the detailed study area was consistent with study area

998
3. Affected Environment

3-118

Table 3.14-4

Detailed Study Area Educational Attainment, 2000

Percent of Persons 25 Years and Older

Study Area Census Tracts

High School

Graduate Bachelor's Degree

Graduate or

Professional Degree

Hardin County

306 801 79.3% 170 8.5% 62 3.1%

Jefferson County

1.03 547 73.8% 51 3.5% 38 2.6%

7 689 64.4% 82 3.9% 18 0.9%

10 336 51.6% 26 2.3% 16 0.4%

16 22 88.2% 21 27.6% 10 3.2%

17 719 66.0% 49 2.6% 3 1.6%

51 390 71.9% 70 5.9% 25 2.1%

53 223 57.8% 35 4.9% 0 0.0%

54 485 62.4% 21 1.7% 24 2.0%

55 587 62.7% 128 6.7% 54 2.8%

56 575 56.7% 96 4.8% 19 0.9%

61 568 57.8% 34 2.3% 0 0.0%

66 934 65.3% 102 4.1% 22 0.9%

101 597 67.7% 105 6.0% 39 2.2%

108 1,236 84.6% 413 12.5% 102 3.1%

112.01 1,566 84.3% 528 11.4% 292 6.3%

116 627 76.7% 160 10.6% 32 2.1%

Orange County

216 1,055 70.2% 139 5.6% 42 1.7%

217 721 72.5% 69 4.1% 22 1.3%

220 992 70.7% 70 2.8% 37 1.5%

222 777 83.5% 168 8.9% 63 3.4%

223 1,531 85.3% 359 8.6% 129 3.1%

224 1,277 80.5% 256 6.9% 54 1.4%

Cameron Parish

9702 1,138 62.4% 140 4.8% 65 2.2%

Detailed Study Area Total/Average 18,393 80.6% 3,292 6.6% 1,168 2.3%

Hardin County, Texas 12,380 79.5% 2,972 9.7% 1,027 3.3%

Jefferson County, Texas 53,421 78.5% 18,477 11.5% 7,786 4.8%

Orange County, Texas 21,012 79.0% 4,450 8.2% 1,506 2.8%

Total Texas Study Area Counties 86,813 84.8% 25,899 9.8% 10,319 3.6%

Cameron Parish, Louisiana 2,677 68.1% 338 5.4% 158 2.5%

Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana 39,616 77.0% 13,280 11.6% 6,037 5.3%

Total Louisiana Study Area Parishes 42,293 80.0% 13,618 8.5% 6,195 3.9%

State of Louisiana 899,354 74.8% 339,711 12.2% 180,067 6.5%

State of Texas 3,176,743 75.7% 1,996,250 15.6% 976,043 7.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000b).

999
3. Affected Environment

3-119

county and parish attainment levels, and higher than the State of Louisiana and the State of Texas. In

terms of higher education, the detailed study area was relatively low as compared with study area county

and parish attainment levels, and very low when compared with the State of Texas and the State of

Louisiana. Considering the Texas and Louisiana portions of the study area (the total/average for the

counties/parishes for each respective state within the study area), the 2000 Census data show that the

Louisiana portion of the study area (at 12.4 percent) has a slightly lower level of educational attainment in

terms of higher education when compared with the Texas portion of the study area (at 13.4 percent). In

terms of high school education, the levels of educational attainment for the Texas and Louisiana portions

of the study area are 84.8 and 80.0 percent, respectively.

Table 3.14-5 provides the 1999 median family income for detailed study area census tracts and provides a

comparison with county, parish, and state figures. The highest median family income within the study

area is found in Hardin County (at $37,612), while the lowest median family income is found in Cameron

Parish (at $34,232). All of the median family income figures for study area counties and parishes are

higher than that of Louisiana (at $32,566), and lower than that of Texas (at $39,927). The detailed study

area (average) median family income is $28,884, which is substantially lower than the State of Texas, and

study area counties and parishes, and lower than the State of Louisiana. The detailed study area census

tracts with the highest median family income were Orange County tract 223 (at $48,586) and tract 222 (at

$46,474), while the lowest median family incomes were found in Jefferson County tracts 16 (at $11,833)

and tract 53 (at $13,803). Within the Texas and Louisiana portions of the study area, the Texas portion

had a higher median household income (at $36,635) than the Louisiana portion of the study area (at

$34,802).

Travel Time to Work. Table 3.14-6 provides 2000 average travel time to work data for the detailed

study area census tracts and provides a comparison with county, parish, and state figures. The longest

average travel time to work is found in Hardin County (at 29.2 minutes), while the shortest average travel

time to work is found in Jefferson County (at 19.9 minutes). The average travel time to work for the

detailed study area is 21.5 minutes, which is relatively low when compared with the study area counties

and parishes, and is lower than both Texas and Louisiana. The detailed study area census tracts with the

shortest travel time to work were Jefferson County tracts 16 (at 12.1 minutes) and 53 (at 15.1 minutes).

The longest travel times to work were found in Jefferson County tracts 10 (at 28.4 minutes) and 116 (at

27.4 minutes). Commute times within the Texas portion of the study area are only slightly longer (at

23.6 minutes) than in the Louisiana portion of the study area (at 22.7 minutes).

Generally speaking, the prevailing movement of commuters is from study area suburbs towards

Beaumont and Port Arthur, and to industrial employment centers in Bridge City and Orange. Major

employers draw the largest number of commuters, and these are concentrated primarily along the ship

channels within the study area. One major commuter movement is from Hardin County, south along

SH 96/69/287 towards Beaumont in the morning, and returning northward from Beaumont to Hardin

County in the afternoon. Also, in the mornings many of these commuters continue to travel south along

SH 96/69/287 towards the Port Arthur area and employment locations along the ship channel, and return

1000
3. Affected Environment

3-120

Table 3.14-5

Detailed Study Area Median Family Income, 1999

Place/2000 Census Tract Median Family Income $ (1999)

Hardin County

306 35,727

Jefferson County

1.03 18,393

7 17,409

10 17,225

16 11,833

17 22,500

51 16,393

53 13,803

54 18,711

55 27,719

56 32,845

61 16,449

66 20,177

101 29,792

108 41,890

112.01 45,789

116 39,868

Orange County

216 39,728

217 30,476

220 30,599

222 46,474

223 48,586

224 38,254

Cameron Parish

9702 32,575

Detailed Study Area Average 28,884

Hardin County, Texas 37,612

Jefferson County, Texas 34,706

Orange County, Texas 37,586

Average of Texas Counties 36,635

Cameron Parish, Louisiana 34,232

Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana 35,372

Average of Louisiana Parishes 34,802

State of Louisiana 32,566

State of Texas 39,927

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000c).

1001
3. Affected Environment

3-121

Table 3.14-6

Detailed Study Area Travel Time to Work, 2000

Place/Census Tracts

Aggregate Travel Time

(minutes)

Total Workers

(16+ years old)

Average Travel Time

(minutes)

Hardin County

306 36,385 1,408 25.8

Jefferson County

1.03 18,790 1,012 18.6

7 29,300 1,104 26.5

10 17,120 602 28.4

16 255 21 12.1

17 21,260 891 23.9

51 7,620 476 16.0

53 4,740 313 15.1

54 11,785 639 18.4

55 22,785 1,114 20.5

56 26,630 1,158 23.0

61 11,345 511 22.2

66 27,055 1,381 19.6

101 19,985 963 20.8

108 41,500 2,258 18.4

112.01 58,880 2,965 19.9

116 25,555 931 27.4

Orange County

216 41,320 1,618 25.5

217 23,315 1,060 22.0

220 36,650 1,634 22.4

222 26,250 1,257 20.9

223 58,910 2,839 20.8

224 53,780 2,600 20.7

Cameron Parish

9702 36,015 1,747 20.6

Detailed Study Area Total/Average 657,230 30,502 21.5

Hardin County, Texas 592,630 20,314 29.2

Jefferson County, Texas 1,943,425 97,437 19.9

Orange County, Texas 758,520 34,839 21.8

Average of Texas Counties 1,098,192 50,863 23.6

Cameron Parish, Louisiana 103,620 4,071 25.5

Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana 1,560,330 77,899 20.0

Average of Louisiana Parishes 831,975 40,985 22.7

State of Louisiana 45,993,645 1,831,057 25.1

State of Texas 226,011,890 9,157,875 24.7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000d).

1002
3. Affected Environment

3-122

northward in the afternoons. Another major commuter route is from suburban areas north of Orange,

along SH 87/62 towards Orange and industrial employment centers in Orange County, and returning

northward in the afternoons. Another important employment corridor is along SH 73/87 from the Port

Arthur area towards industrial employment centers in Orange County in the mornings and back towards

Port Arthur in the afternoons (Helen, 2002).

Length of Residency and Housing. Table 3.14-7 provides length of residence data for the study area

population and compares them with county, parish, and state data. The “length of residency” category

shows the year that residents moved into their household unit (as reported in the 2000 census). The 2000

census data show that a majority of residents living within the detailed study area census tracts moved

into their homes between 1995 and 1998 (at 23.3 percent of housing units) and between 1999 and March

of 2000 (at 17.9 percent of housing units). This trend was also true for residents of Jefferson County,

Orange County, Calcasieu Parish, the State of Texas, and the State of Louisiana, although to slightly

varying degrees. Also, significant percentages of detailed study area residents reported moving into their

homes between 1980 and 1989 (at 16.7 percent of housing units). This trend was also true for residents of

Orange County and Cameron Parish, with percentages that were slightly greater than in the detailed study

area. It is noteworthy that Cameron Parish had substantial numbers of residents who moved into their

homes from 1969 and earlier (at 18.1 percent of housing units). Finally, there is some variation among

detailed study area census tracts in terms of household residency. Specifically, the following detailed

study area census tracts had greater than 50 percent of residents moving into their homes before 1990:

Jefferson County tracts 7, 51, 53, 54, 55, and 61. In the Texas portion of the study area, a majority of

residents moved into their housing units between 1995 and 1998 (at 25.4 percent of housing units) and

between 1999 and March of 2000 (at 18.9 percent). In the Louisiana portion of the study area, also, a

majority of residents moved into their housing units between 1995 and 1998 (at 27.4 percent) and

between 1999 and March of 2000 (at 20.4 percent).

Table 3.14-8 provides a tally of owner-occupied versus renter-occupied housing units for the detailed

study area census tracts compared with study area counties, parishes and states, as reported by the 2000

census. The greatest percentage of owner-occupied housing units is found in Cameron Parish (at

85.1 percent), and the lowest percentage of owner-occupied housing units is found in Jefferson County (at

66.0 percent). Conversely, the highest percentage of renter-occupied housing units is found in Jefferson

County (at 34.0 percent), and the lowest percentage of renter-occupied housing units is found in Cameron

Parish (at 14.9 percent). The detailed study area was 72.3 percent owner-occupied housing units, and

27.7 percent renter-occupied housing units, which is a relatively low level of owner-occupied housing

units compared with study area counties and parishes, and also lower than both Texas and Louisiana. The

highest percentage of owner-occupied housing units within the detailed study area census tracts, is found

in Orange County tracts 222 (at 89.0 percent) and 216 (at 87.8 percent), and the lowest percentage of

owner-occupied housing units is found in Jefferson County tracts 16 (at 1.6 percent) and 1.03 (at

42.0 percent). The Louisiana portion of the study area has a slightly higher percentage of owner-occupied

housing units (at 72.2 percent) than the Texas portion of the study area (at 70.6 percent).

1003
Table 3.14-7

Detailed Study Area Length of Household Residency, 2000

Year Householder Moved Into Residence

Number

Occupied

Housing Units

%%%%%%

Hardin County

306 1,009 187 18.5% 279 27.7% 213 21.1% 260 25.8% 127 12.6% 80 7.9%

Jefferson County

1.03 1,058 266 25.1% 210 19.8% 191 18.1% 50 4.7% 179 16.9% 162 15.3%

7 1,445 302 20.9% 221 15.3% 192 13.3% 160 11.1% 248 17.2% 322 22.3%

10 619 145 23.4% 139 22.5% 63 10.2% 110 17.8% 43 6.9% 119 19.2%16 69 12 17.4% 9 13.0% 36 52.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12 17.4%

17 997 173 17.4% 212 21.3% 123 12.3% 138 13.8% 132 13.2% 219 22.0%51 763 102 13.4% 120 15.7% 142 18.6% 74 9.7% 79 10.4% 246 32.2%53 437 68 15.6% 33 7.6% 14 3.2% 100 22.9% 88 20.1% 134 30.7%54 717 117 16.3% 91 12.7% 119 16.6% 137 19.1% 134 18.7% 119 16.6%55 1,070 130 12.1% 257 24.0% 144 13.5% 266 24.9% 195 18.2% 78 7.3%56 1,172 179 15.3% 310 26.5% 168 14.3% 290 24.7% 118 10.1% 107 9.1%61 990 105 10.6% 110 11.1% 96 9.7% 166 16.8% 73 7.4% 350 35.4%66 1,752 418 23.9% 440 25.1% 245 14.0% 189 10.8% 154 8.8% 306 17.5%

101 1,021 158 15.5% 310 30.4% 182 17.8% 143 14.0% 82 8.0% 146 14.3%108 2,010 356 17.7% 393 19.6% 372 18.5% 292 14.5% 221 11.0% 376 18.7%

112.01 2,401 385 16.0% 611 25.4% 452 18.8% 437 18.2% 142 5.9% 374 15.6%

116 848 137 16.2% 181 21.3% 136 16.0% 155 18.3% 47 5.5% 192 22.6%

Orange County

216 1,413 260 18.4% 370 26.2% 234 16.6% 216 15.3% 190 13.4% 143 10.1%217 988 194 19.6% 319 32.3% 97 9.8% 137 13.9% 122 12.3% 119 12.0%220 1,539 256 16.6% 469 30.5% 228 14.8% 231 15.0% 183 11.9% 172 11.2%222 1,021 146 14.3% 281 27.5% 131 12.8% 246 24.1% 155 15.2% 62 6.1%223 2,331 476 20.4% 458 19.6% 326 14.0% 468 20.1% 338 14.5% 265 11.4%224 2,238 463 20.7% 617 27.6% 324 14.5% 394 17.6% 208 9.3% 232 10.4%

C Ct

3-123

1999 to

March 2000

1969 or

Earlier 1995 to 1998 1990 to 1994 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979

Cameron County

9702 1,654 258 15.6% 462 27.9% 236 14.3% 292 17.7% 204 12.3% 202 12.2%

Detailed Study Area Total 29,562 5,293 17.9% 6,902 23.3% 4,464 15.1% 4,951 16.7% 3,462 11.7% 4,537 15.3%

Hardin County, Texas 17,805 2,927 16.4% 4,974 27.9% 3,426 19.2% 2,850 16.0% 2,196 12.3% 1,432 8.0%

Jefferson County, Texas 92,880 18,360 19.8% 23,162 24.9% 14,190 15.3% 13,995 15.1% 10,000 10.8% 13,173 14.2%

Orange County, Texas 31,642 5,639 17.8% 8,067 25.5% 4,793 15.1% 5,421 17.1% 4,161 13.2% 3,561 11.3%

Total Texas Study Area Counties 142,327 26,926 18.9% 36,203 25.4% 22,409 15.7% 22,266 15.6% 16,357 11.5% 18,166 12.8%

Cameron Parish, Louisiana 3,592 540 15.0% 837 23.3% 526 14.6% 634 17.7% 406 11.3% 649 18.1%

Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana 68,613 14,157 20.6% 18,950 27.6% 9,694 14.1% 9,538 13.9% 7,769 11.3% 8,505 12.4%

Total Louisiana Study Area Parishes 72,205 14,697 20.4% 19,787 27.4% 10,220 14.2% 10,172 14.1% 8,175 11.3% 9,154 12.7%

State of Texas 7,393,354 1,842,731 24.9% 2,233,669 30.2% 1,126,526 15.2% 1,030,476 13.9% 630,749 8.5% 529,203 7.2%

State of Louisiana 1,656,053 309,663 18.7% 446,127 26.9% 258,185 15.6% 253,627 15.3% 194,288 11.7% 194,163 11.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000e).

1004
3. Affected Environment

3-124

Table 3.14-8

Detailed Study Area Household Tenure, 2000

Place/Detailed Study

Area Census Tracts

Number of

Occupied

Household Units

Owner

Occupied

Units

Percent Owner

Occupied Units

Renter

Occupied

Units

Percent Renter

Occupied Units

Hardin County

306 1,146 997 87.0 149 13.0

Jefferson County

1.03 1,087 457 42.0 630 58.0

7 1,445 778 53.8 667 46.2

10 610 263 43.1 347 56.9

16 64 1 1.6 63 98.4

17 1,019 653 64.1 366 35.9

51 753 530 70.4 223 29.6

53 445 294 66.1 151 33.9

54 709 465 65.6 244 34.4

55 1,070 756 70.7 314 29.3

56 1,172 871 74.3 301 25.7

61 886 585 66.0 301 34.0

66 1,762 820 46.5 942 53.5

101 1,021 752 73.7 269 26.3

108 2,010 1,425 70.9 585 29.1

112.01 2,401 2,000 83.3 401 16.7

116 848 721 85.0 127 15.0

Orange County

216 1,413 1,241 87.8 172 12.2

217 988 761 77.0 227 23.0

220 1,539 1,109 72.1 430 27.9

222 1,021 909 89.0 112 11.0

223 2,331 1,931 82.8 400 17.2

224 2,238 1,707 76.3 531 23.7

Cameron Parish

9702 1,654 1,392 84.2 262 15.8

Detailed Study Area Total 29,632 21,418 72.3 8,214 27.7

Hardin County, Texas 17,805 14,717 82.7 3,088 17.3

Jefferson County, Texas 92,880 61,274 66.0 31,606 34.0

Orange County, Texas 31,642 24,424 77.2 7,218 22.8

Total Texas Study Area Counties 142,327 100,415 70.6 41,912 29.4

Cameron Parish, Louisiana 3,592 3,056 85.1 536 14.9

Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana 68,613 49,106 71.6 19,507 28.4

Total Louisiana Study Area Parishes 72,205 52,162 72.2 20,043 27.8

State of Louisiana 1,656,053 1,125,135 67.9 530,918 32.1

State of Texas 7,393,354 4,716,959 63.8 2,676,395 36.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000e).

1005
3. Affected Environment

3-125

Age Distribution. Table 3.14-9 shows the age characteristics of the detailed study area census tracts and

provides a comparison with county-, parish-, and state-level data. Within the detailed study area census

tracts, the median age in 2000 was 35.3, which is consistent with county and parish figures but higher

than the State of Louisiana (at 34.0) and the State of Texas (at 32.3). In general, a majority of the detailed

study area population is within the 25 to 34 (at 12.4 percent), the 35 to 44 (at 16.2 percent), and the 45 to

54 (at 14.1 percent) age cohorts. In the states of Texas and Louisiana, these same age cohorts represent a

majority of the population, but to a lesser extent than in the detailed study area population. In Texas, the

25 to 34 cohort represents 15.2 percent, the 35 to 44 cohort represents 15.9 percent, and the 45 to 54

cohort represents 12.5 percent. In Louisiana, the 25 to 34 cohort represents 13.5 percent, the 35 to 44

cohort represents 15.5 percent, and the 45 to 54 cohort represents 13.1 percent. The Texas portion of the

detailed study area has a slightly higher median age (at 35.9) than the Louisiana portion of the study area

(at 34.8). In the Texas portion of the study area, a majority of the population is within the 35 to 44 age

cohort (at 15.8 percent) and within the 45 to 54 age cohort (at 13.2 percent). In the Louisiana portion of

the study area, a majority of the population is within the 35 to 44 age cohort (at 15.8 percent) and within

the 45 to 54 age cohort (at 13.2 percent).

One reason that the study area population (including study area counties and parishes and the detailed

study area census tracts) has a higher median age, and a larger “baby boomer” population than the states

of Louisiana and Texas, is that opportunities for higher education are not as readily available within the

study area, as compared with cities offering higher education in Louisiana and Texas. As a result, many

young adults move away from the study area, for higher education opportunities elsewhere in Texas,

Louisiana, or other states. Also, the spike in the “baby boomer”–aged population may be a result of

families of “baby boomer” age returning to the study area (returning to where they grew up) after living

elsewhere to pursue higher education and/or careers (Helen, 2002).

3.14.2.3 Demographics and Community Cohesion Factors Summary

Analysis of demographic and community cohesion factors within the study area and within the detailed

study area suggests a moderate degree of community diversity. Study area counties and parishes exhibit

low to moderate differences in levels of educational attainment. In terms of high school education, the

detailed study area was consistent with study area counties and parishes. In terms of higher education, the

detailed study area had achieved a relatively low level of educational attainment when compared with

study area counties and parishes. There are some wide differences in levels of educational attainment

among individual detailed study area census tracts. Study area median family income in 1999 by study

area counties and parishes shows a fair amount of overall homogeneity. However, the detailed study area

population had a substantially lower median family income than any of the study area counties and

parishes. Also, median family incomes within the individual detailed study area census vary significantly,

showing a high degree of community diversity. In terms of the median travel time to work, study area

counties and parishes vary somewhat, varying from about 20 to 29 minutes. The detailed study area

population has a relatively low average commute time when compared with the study area counties and

parishes, and individual detailed study area census tracts show a relatively small degree of variation in

commute times. In terms of length of household residency, the study area counties and parishes had a

1006
Table 3.14-9

Detailed Study Area Age Characteristics, 2000

Total Median

# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Persons Age

Hardin County

306 218 7.0% 235 7.5% 260 8.3% 270 8.7% 179 5.7% 400 12.8% 554 17.8% 397 12.7% 158 5.1% 129 4.1% 182 5.8% 103 3.3% 31 1.0% 3,116 31.0

Jefferson County

1.03 440 14.3% 350 11.3% 265 8.6% 214 6.9% 309 10.0% 420 13.6% 333 10.8% 286 9.3% 113 3.7% 113 3.7% 151 4.9% 68 2.2% 22 0.7% 3,084 24.4

7 314 8.3% 354 9.4% 317 8.4% 355 9.4% 246 6.5% 373 9.9% 475 12.6% 483 12.8% 171 4.5% 170 4.5% 264 7.0% 205 5.4% 52 1.4% 3,779 33.1

10 120 6.9% 114 6.6% 143 8.2% 127 7.3% 123 7.1% 200 11.5% 232 13.3% 187 10.8% 83 4.8% 72 4.1% 139 8.0% 100 5.8% 99 5.7% 1,739 37.216 2 1.9% 0 0.0% 9 8.7% 21 20.2% 2 1.9% 3 2.9% 7 6.7% 7 6.7% 2 1.9% 1 1.0% 17 16.3% 16 15.4% 17 16.3% 104 58.0

17 161 5.8% 192 6.9% 211 7.6% 219 7.9% 143 5.2% 287 10.3% 402 14.5% 326 11.7% 133 4.8% 122 4.4% 230 8.3% 209 7.5% 141 5.1% 2,776 39.751 68 4.0% 117 6.9% 131 7.8% 129 7.6% 68 4.0% 170 10.1% 219 13.0% 219 13.0% 98 5.8% 76 4.5% 166 9.8% 169 10.0% 59 3.5% 1,689 42.353 66 5.7% 71 6.2% 100 8.7% 104 9.0% 66 5.7% 114 9.9% 159 13.8% 154 13.3% 69 6.0% 70 6.1% 107 9.3% 62 5.4% 12 1.0% 1,154 38.854 130 6.3% 149 7.3% 182 8.9% 222 10.8% 128 6.2% 229 11.2% 297 14.5% 273 13.3% 96 4.7% 93 4.5% 177 8.6% 57 2.8% 20 1.0% 2,053 34.555 244 7.3% 325 9.7% 316 9.4% 314 9.4% 234 7.0% 412 12.3% 465 13.9% 425 12.7% 133 4.0% 86 2.6% 197 5.9% 127 3.8% 74 2.2% 3,352 30.656 366 9.4% 417 10.7% 371 9.5% 374 9.6% 273 7.0% 565 14.5% 530 13.6% 426 10.9% 128 3.3% 89 2.3% 160 4.1% 143 3.7% 51 1.3% 3,893 27.861 98 4.6% 156 7.3% 167 7.8% 166 7.8% 100 4.7% 214 10.0% 326 15.2% 251 11.7% 84 3.9% 108 5.0% 260 12.2% 176 8.2% 33 1.5% 2,139 40.366 625 12.7% 533 10.9% 464 9.5% 424 8.6% 378 7.7% 583 11.9% 615 12.5% 469 9.6% 146 3.0% 125 2.5% 314 6.4% 180 3.7% 49 1.0% 4,905 25.4

101 344 10.5% 365 11.1% 292 8.9% 286 8.7% 217 6.6% 454 13.8% 491 14.9% 331 10.1% 110 3.3% 88 2.7% 118 3.6% 146 4.4% 45 1.4% 3,287 27.8108 366 7.0% 403 7.7% 390 7.5% 388 7.4% 339 6.5% 705 13.5% 861 16.5% 658 12.6% 205 3.9% 199 3.8% 378 7.3% 260 5.0% 58 1.1% 5,210 35.2

112.01 393 5.5% 425 5.9% 496 6.9% 643 9.0% 543 7.6% 953 13.3% 1,326 18.5% 933 13.0% 342 4.8% 300 4.2% 502 7.0% 254 3.5% 65 0.9% 7,175 36.1

116 138 6.0% 146 6.3% 194 8.4% 218 9.4% 117 5.1% 275 11.9% 387 16.8% 315 13.7% 124 5.4% 114 4.9% 188 8.1% 84 3.6% 7 0.3% 2,307 37.3

Orange County

216 281 7.2% 274 7.0% 344 8.8% 324 8.2% 221 5.6% 541 13.8% 635 16.2% 529 13.5% 215 5.5% 195 5.0% 221 5.6% 123 3.1% 26 0.7% 3,929 34.7217 189 7.2% 204 7.8% 190 7.2% 203 7.7% 161 6.1% 341 13.0% 395 15.1% 364 13.9% 99 3.8% 118 4.5% 211 8.0% 108 4.1% 40 1.5% 2,623 35.6220 320 7.8% 313 7.7% 332 8.1% 308 7.5% 321 7.9% 566 13.9% 592 14.5% 506 12.4% 180 4.4% 165 4.0% 295 7.2% 150 3.7% 34 0.8% 4,082 32.8222 176 5.8% 235 7.8% 317 10.5% 289 9.5% 168 5.6% 295 9.7% 585 19.3% 465 15.4% 116 3.8% 109 3.6% 187 6.2% 68 2.2% 17 0.6% 3,027 35.7223 371 5.7% 457 7.1% 537 8.3% 557 8.6% 382 5.9% 713 11.0% 1,074 16.6% 961 14.8% 353 5.5% 280 4.3% 519 8.0% 231 3.6% 40 0.6% 6,475 37.1224 419 7.0% 462 7.8% 455 7.6% 499 8.4% 363 6.1% 772 13.0% 934 15.7% 844 14.2% 297 5.0% 208 3.5% 424 7.1% 218 3.7% 55 0.9% 5,950 35.1

Cameron Parish

9702 322 7.1% 323 7.1% 370 8.1% 360 7.9% 320 7.0% 544 11.9% 755 16.6% 624 13.7% 248 5.4% 214 4.7% 303 6.7% 131 2.9% 39 0.9% 4,553 35.5

Detailed Study Area

Total/Average 6,171 7.5% 6,620 8.0% 6,853 8.3% 7,014 8.5% 5,401 6.6% 10,129 12.3% 12,649 15.4% 10,433 12.7% 3,703 4.5% 3,244 3.9% 5,710 6.9% 3,388 4.1% 1,086 1.3% 82,401 35.3

Hardin County 3,337 6.9% 3,615 7.5% 3,865 8.0% 3,949 8.2% 2,698 5.6% 5,930 12.3% 7,656 15.9% 6,606 13.7% 2,566 5.3% 1,987 4.1% 3,356 7.0% 1,910 4.0% 598 1.2% 48,073 36.0

Jefferson County 16,925 6.7% 18,187 7.2% 18,476 7.3% 19,336 7.7% 17,666 7.0% 34,164 13.6% 39,779 15.8% 32,624 12.9% 11,053 4.4% 9,572 3.8% 17,933 7.1% 12,253 4.9% 4,083 1.6% 252,051 35.5

Orange County 5,712 6.7% 6,461 7.6% 6,683 7.9% 6,767 8.0% 4,983 5.9% 10,515 12.4% 13,351 15.7% 11,610 13.7% 4,350 5.1% 3,758 4.4% 6,243 7.3% 3,529 4.2% 1,004 1.2% 84,966 36.1

Total Texas Study Area

C i 25,974 6.7% 28,263 7.3% 29,024 7.5% 30,052 7.8% 25,347 6.6% 50,609 13.1% 60,786 15.8% 50,840 13.2% 17,969 4.7% 15,317 4.0% 27,532 7.1% 17,692 4.6% 5,685 1.5% 385,090 35.9

55 to 59 45 to 54 Place/Detailed Study Area

Census Tracts

35 to 44 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24

3-126

under 5 5 to 9

Years of Age

85 and over 25 to 34 60 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84

Counties 25,974 6.7% 28,263 7.3% 29,024 7.5% 30,052 7.8% 25,347 6.6% 50,609 13.1% 60,786 15.8% 50,840 13.2% 17,969 4.7% 15,317 4.0% 27,532 7.1% 17,692 4.6% 5,685 1.5% 385,090 35.9Cameron Parish 667 6.7% 757 7.6% 871 8.7% 821 8.2% 663 6.6% 1,218 12.2% 1,744 17.5% 1,257 12.6% 490 4.9% 445 4.5% 660 6.6% 293 2.9% 105 1.1% 9,991 35.0

Calcasieu Parish 13,253 7.2% 13,792 7.5% 14,036 7.6% 15,147 8.3% 12,925 7.0% 23,793 13.0% 28,912 15.7% 24,220 13.2% 8,492 4.6% 7,248 3.9% 12,399 6.8% 7,152 3.9% 2,208 1.2% 183,577 34.5

Total Louisiana StudyArea Parishes 13,920 7.2% 14,549 7.5% 14,907 7.7% 15,968 8.2% 13,588 7.0% 25,011 12.9% 30,656 15.8% 25,477 13.2% 8,982 4.6% 7,693 4.0% 13,059 6.7% 7,445 3.8% 2,313 1.2% 193,568 34.8

State of Louisiana 317,392 7.1% 336,780 7.5% 347,912 7.8% 365,945 8.2% 325,571 7.3% 601,162 13.5% 691,966 15.5% 586,271 13.1% 208,761 4.7% 170,287 3.8% 282,925 6.3% 175,328 3.9% 58,676 1.3% 4,468,976 34.0

State of Texas 1,624,628 7.8% 1,654,184 1.8% 1,631,192 7.8% 1,636,232 7.8% 1,539,404 7.4% 3,162,083 15.2% 3,322,238 15.9% 2,611,137 12.5% 896,521 4.3% 701,669 3.4% 1,142,608 5.5% 691,984 3.3% 237,940 1.1% 20,851,820 32.3Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000f).

1007
3. Affected Environment

3-127

majority of residents moving into their housing units relatively recently (since 1995). The only exception

was Cameron Parish, where a large proportion of residents had moved into their housing units prior to

1970, although this has changed due to the devastating effects of Hurricane Rita on the parish. The

detailed study area also had a majority of the households moving into their housing units since 1995, but

there is a high degree of variability within individual census tracts related to the year that households

moved into their housing units. The study area counties and parishes have a low degree of variation

related to the percentage of housing units that are owner-occupied, with all counties and parishes having

between 70 and 83 percent owner-occupied housing units. The detailed study area census tracts had a

proportion of owner-occupied housing units that was lower than that of the study area counties and

parishes. There was a high degree of variability in individual detailed study area census tracts in terms of

the percentage of owner-occupied housing units, varying from 1.6 to 89 percent. In terms of median age,

there was very little variation among study area counties and parishes, with the median age varying from

34.5 to 36.1. The average detailed study area median age was consistent with the study area counties and

parishes. However, there was a moderate to high degree of variability among individual detailed study

area census tracts in terms of median age, varying from 24.4 to 58.0. In general, the population living

within the study area and the detailed study area demonstrated a moderate level of community diversity

judging from the community cohesion factors evaluated in this section.

3.14.2.4 Environmental Justice

In compliance with Executive Order (EO) 12898 – Federal Action to Address EJ in minority populations

and low-income populations, an analysis has been performed to determine whether the proposed project

would have a disproportionately adverse impact on minority or low-income population groups within the

detailed study area. The EO requires that minority and low-income populations do not receive disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts and requires that representatives of

minority or low-income populations, who could be affected by the project, be involved in the community

participation and public involvement process.

3.14.2.4.1 EJ Index Methodology

Three levels of analysis are provided to help determine whether there is potential for disproportionately

high and adverse effects accruing to the population living within the detailed study area. These analyses

were patterned after the EPA Region 6 model called the EJ Index, which depicts a survey of ethnicity and

income within the study area (EPA, 2003). The raw data used to recreate the analysis are based on 2000

U.S. Census Bureau census tract–level data for ethnicity and tract-level data for income data (U.S. Census

Bureau, 2000a, 2000b).

The EPA EJ Index model is a modification of the Region’s Human Health Risk Index Formula. The

model uses GIS and census data to delineate the demographics within census tracts. The EJ Index model

calculates the degree of vulnerability for the area based on population density and two socioeconomic

criteria: a community’s percentage minority population and percentage of economically stressed households. This information is then compared with the calculated State index and a ranking criterion is

1008
3. Affected Environment

3-128

established. There are three ranking variables that comprise the EJ Index: population density, minority

status, and economic status.

A score is assigned to each detailed study area tract that represents the population density. The criterion

used to determine the population density score (from 0 to 4) is based on the number of persons per square

mile. If a tract has no persons living within it, it is given a ranking score of 0, a population of 1 to 200 is

ranked as 1, a population of greater than 200 but less than 1,000 is ranked as 2, a population of greater

than 1,000 but less than 5,000 is ranked as 3, and a population of greater than 5,000 is ranked as 4.

A score is also assigned to each detailed study area tract that represents the percentage of minority

population and the percentage of economically stressed persons. To establish the rankings for both the

minority population and the percentage of economically stressed persons, each tract is assigned a score

that represents how that tract compares to the state’s percentage (SP). Therefore, a score of 1 indicates

that the tract’s average is less than or equal to the SP, a score of 2 indicates that the tract is greater than

the SP, but less than or equal to 1.33 times the SP, a score of 3 indicates that the tract is greater than 1.33

times the SP, but less than or equal to 1.66 times the SP, a score of 4 indicates that the tract is greater than

1.66 times the SP, but less than or equal to 1.99 times the SP, and a score of 5 indicates that the tract is

equal to or greater than twice the SP. The EJ Index score is established by multiplying the population

density score with the minority status score and the economically stressed score.

3.14.2.4.2 Minority Status Degree of Vulnerability

The Minority Status Degree of Vulnerability figure (Figure 3.14-2a) portrays the degree of vulnerability

for minority status by detailed study area census tract. The percentages of minority populations that are

living within census tracts that overlap into the detailed study area (entirely or partially) are compared

with the respective SP of minority population. Tracts that are located within the State of Texas were

compared with Texas’s percentage of 47.5 percent, and tracts that are located within the State of

Louisiana were compared with Louisiana’s percentage of 37.4 percent. Minority status is defined to

include all non-white as well as Hispanic-origin households. A ranking score (as described in the EJ

Index Methodology) is assigned to each tract.

3.14.2.4.3 Economic Status Degree of Vulnerability

The Economic Status Degree of Vulnerability figure (Figure 3.14-2b) shows the percentage of

economically stressed persons (or economically vulnerable) based on household income (the risk group is

defined by the EPA – Region 6 as households with incomes less than $15,000 per year). The percentage

of economically stressed persons who are living within the detailed study area census tracts that overlap

into the detailed study area (entirely or partially) are compared with the respective SP of economically

stressed households. Census tracts that are located within the State of Texas were compared with Texas’s

percentage of 15 percent, and tracts that are located within the State of Louisiana were compared with

Louisiana’s percentage of 19 percent. A ranking score (as described in the EJ Index Methodology) is

assigned to each tract.

1009
TEXAS

LOUSIANA

WEST

ORANGE

PORT

NECHES

CAMERON

PARISH

ORANGE CO.

HARDIN CO.

JEFFERSON CO.

G U L F O F M E X I C O

Sabine

Lake

?é

?í

PORT

ARTHUR

GROVES

NEDERLAND

VIDOR

BEAUMONT

ORANGE

BRIDGE

CITY

9702

116

220

217

1.03

10

16

17

112.01 222

224

66

223

61

53

54

55

56

101

51

306

BEAUMONT

216

Io

?Ü

Is

If

112.01

112.01

112.01

Is

51

Sabine-Neches Canal

Sabine Pass Channel

Port Arthur Canal

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel

Sabine

Lake

7

Neches River Channel

.

2 0 2 4 Miles

16,500 8,250 0 16,500 Feet

!"`$

!"`$

!"`$

N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/geo/figs/Census_2000_minority_status_vr5.mxd

Source: US Census Bureau, 2009g (Summary File 3 [SF3] Data)

Potential Environmental Justice

Index for the Detailed Study Area Census Tracts

Persons Per Sq. Mile 1377 Population Ranking 3

Percent Minority 48.8%

Minority Status 3

Percent Economically Stressed 20.6%

Economic Status 3

Environmental Justice Index 27 Project Area, Proposed Channel

Census Tract Boundary

> the SP but <=1.33 times the SP

> 1.33 times the SP but <= 1.66 times the SP

> 1.66 times the SP but <= 1.99 times the SP

>= 2 times the SP

Less than the State Percentage (SP)

Percent Minority by Census Tract Figure 3.14-2a

Detailed Study Area

Minority Status 2000

Prepared for: USACE Galveston

Job No.: 100007609

Prepared by: 18895/ 20192

Scale: 1" = 16500'

Date: 09/10/2009

3-129

1010
3. Affected Environment

3-130

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1011
TEXAS

LOUSIANA

PORT

NECHES

CAMERON

PARISH

ORANGE CO.

HARDIN CO.

JEFFERSON CO.

G U L F O F M E X I C O

?é

?í

PORT

ARTHUR

GROVES

NEDERLAND

VIDOR

BEAUMONT

9702

116

220

217

1.03

10

16

17

112.01 222

224

66

223

61

53

54

55

56

101

51

306

BEAUMONT

216

Io

?Ü

Is

If

112.01

112.01

112.01

Is

51

Sabine-Neches Canal

Sabine Pass Channel

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel

Sabine

Lake

Sabine

Lake

Port Arthur Canal

!"`$

!"`$

!"`$

7

Neches River Channel

.

Potential Environmental Justice

Index for the Detailed Study Area Census Tracts

Persons Per Sq. Mile 1377 Population Ranking 3

Percent Minority 48.8%

Minority Status 3

Percent Economically Stressed 20.6%

Economic Status 3

Environmental Justice Index 27

16,500 0 16,500

Feet

2 0 2 4 Miles

Figure 3.14-2b

Prepared for: USACE Galveston

Job No.: 100007609

Prepared by: 18895/20192

N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/geo/figs/Census_2000_economic_status_vr5.mxd

Scale: 1" = 16500'

Date: 09/10/2009 Source: US Census Bureau, 2009g (Summary File 3 [SF3] Data)

Detailed Study Area

Economic Status 2000

Project Area, Proposed Channel

Census Tract Boundary

Percent Economically Stressed by Census Tract

> the SP but <=1.33 times the SP

> 1.33 times the SP but <= 1.66 times the SP

> 1.66 times the SP but <= 1.99 times the SP

>= 2 times the SP

Less than the State Percentage (SP)

3-131

1012
3. Affected Environment

3-132

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1013
TEXAS

LOUSIANA

WEST

ORANGE

PORT

NECHES

CAMERON

PARISH

ORANGE CO.

HARDIN CO.

JEFFERSON CO.

G U L F O F M E X I C O

Sabine

Lake

Sabine

Lake

?é

?í

?l

PORT

ARTHUR

GROVES

NEDERLAND

VIDOR

BEAUMONT

ORANGE

BRIDGE

CITY

9702

116

220

217

1.03

10

16

17

112.01 222

224

66

223

61

53

54

55

56

101

51

306

BEAUMONT

216

Io

?Ü

Is

If

112.01

112.01

112.01

Is

51

Sabine-Neches Canal

Port Arthur Canal

Sabine Pass Channel

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel

7

Neches River Channel

.

2 0 2 4 Miles

Potential Environmental Justice

Index for the Detailed Study Area Census Tracts

Persons Per Sq. Mile 1377 Population Ranking 3

Percent Minority 48.8%

Minority Status 3

Percent Economically Stressed 20.6%

Economic Status 3

Environmental Justice Index 27

16,500 8,250 0 16,500 Feet

!"`$

!"`$

!"`$

Figure 3.14-2c

Prepared for: USACE Galveston

Job No.: 100007609

Prepared by: 18895/20192

N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/geo/figs/Census_2000_envir_justice_layout_vr5.mxd

Scale: 1" = 16500'

Date: 09/10/2009

Project Area, Proposed Channel

Census Tract Boundary

Source: US Census Bureau, 2009g (Summary File 3 [SF3] Data

Detailed Study Area

Environmental Justice Index

13 to 25

26 to 37

38 to 50

51 to 100

1 to 12

Criteria Ranked by Census Tract

3-133

1014
3. Affected Environment

3-134

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1015
3. Affected Environment

3-135

3.14.2.4.4 Potential Environmental Justice Index

The Potential Environmental Justice Index figure (Figure 3.14-2c) shows a composite index incorporating

population density, income, and ethnicity factors. Because the EJ Index is derived in part by the

population of the project area, there is no county or state EJ Index number for comparison purposes.

3.14.2.4.5 Environmental Justice Index Analysis

The Minority Status Degree of Vulnerability figure (Figure 3.14-2a) shows that the detailed study area’s

population density (on average) is ranked as a 3, and the average percentage of ethnic minorities is

48.8 percent, which is substantially greater than all counties and parishes of the study area, greater than

the State of Louisiana, and slightly greater than the State of Texas. The overall minority status for the

detailed study area is ranked 3.

The Economic Status Degree of Vulnerability figure (Figure 3.14-2b) shows that the detailed study area

census tracts have an average of 20.6 percent of the population that is economically stressed, which is

slightly greater than in all study area counties and parishes, and the states of Texas and Louisiana. The

overall economically stressed status is ranked 3.

The Potential Environmental Justice Index figure (Figure 3.14-2c) shows that the overall EJ Index for the

detailed study area is 27. In addition to the EJ Index methodology, an analysis of the census tracts was

also performed. The census tract data were used in this study to determine the potential for

disproportionate effects to low-income and/or minority populations within the detailed study area and are

presented in Table 3.14-10. The information is based on 2000 U.S. Census Bureau state, county, and

census tract–level data for ethnicity and income (see Figure 3.14-1). All study area census tracts that

overlap into the detailed study area (entirely or partially) were used in this analysis.

3.14.2.4.6 Census Tract Analysis

Within the detailed study area census tracts, the average percentage of African Americans is 26.7 percent,

which is lower than the percentage of African Americans in Jefferson County (33.4 percent) and the State

of Louisiana (32.2 percent), but is higher than the percentage of African Americans in Orange County

(8.6 percent), Hardin County (6.9 percent), Cameron Parish (3.5 percent), Calcasieu Parish (23.5 percent),

and the State of Texas (11.3 percent). Individual detailed study area census tracts with unusually high

percentages of African Americans include the following: Jefferson County tracts 1.03, 7, 17, 51, 53, 54,

55, 61, and 66. The average percentage of Hispanics within the detailed study area is 9.6 percent, which is

lower than Jefferson County (10.6 percent) and the State of Texas (32.0 percent), but is higher than the

percentage of Hispanics in Orange County (3.5 percent), Hardin County (2.4 percent), Cameron Parish

(2.1 percent), Calcasieu Parish (1.7 percent), and the State of Louisiana (2.4 percent). Individual detailed

study area census tracts with unusually high percentages of Hispanics include the following: Jefferson

County tracts 10, 56, and 101. The average percentage of “Other Race” population within the detailed

study area is 4.1 percent, which is lower than the percentage of “other races” in Jefferson County

(4.1 percent), the State of Louisiana (2.9 percent), and the State of Texas (4.3 percent), but is higher than

1016
Table 3.14-10

Detailed Study Area Ethnic Distribution and Poverty Status, 2000

Place/Detailed Study Area Census Tracts Population

Number

White

Percent

White

Number

African

American

Percent

African

American

Number

Hispanic

Origin

Percent

Hispanic

Number

Other

Percent

Other

Number

Below

Poverty

Percent

Below

Poverty

Hardin County

306 3,116 2,965 95.2% 5 0.2% 61 2.0% 85 2.7% 216 6.9%

Jefferson County

1.03 3,065 360 11.7% 2,605 85.0% 65 2.1% 35 1.1% 1,257 41.0%

7 3,779 104 2.8% 3,451 91.3% 172 4.6% 52 1.4% 1,321 35.0%

10 1,783 366 20.5% 711 39.9% 665 37.3% 41 2.3% 443 24.8%16 105 76 72.4% 22 21.0% 0 0.0% 7 6.7% 0 0.0%17 2,735 319 11.7% 2,385 87.2% 31 1.1% 0 0.0% 675 24.7%51 1,842 119 6.5% 1,723 93.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 711 38.6%

53 1,074 47 4.4% 934 87.0% 62 5.8% 31 2.9% 481 44.8%54 2,133 63 3.0% 1,455 68.2% 386 18.1% 229 10.7% 691 32.4%55 3,352 478 14.3% 1,710 51.0% 534 15.9% 630 18.8% 768 22.9%56 3,893 585 15.0% 1,133 29.1% 1,613 41.4% 562 14.4% 608 15.6%61 2,100 12 0.6% 1,960 93.3% 116 5.5% 12 0.6% 783 37.3%66 4,752 1,444 30.4% 2,102 44.2% 753 15.8% 453 9.5% 1,843 38.8%

101 3,287 668 20.3% 896 27.3% 1,490 45.3% 233 7.1% 994 30.2%108 5,210 4,760 91.4% 13 0.2% 377 7.2% 60 1.2% 351 6.7%

112.01 7,193 6,151 85.5% 603 8.4% 299 4.2% 140 1.9% 411 5.7%

116 2,307 2,040 88.4% 59 2.6% 158 6.8% 50 2.2% 195 8.5%

Orange County

216 3,929 3,767 95.9% 0 0.0% 78 2.0% 84 2.1% 471 12.0%

217 2,623 2,473 94.3% 0 0.0% 113 4.3% 37 1.4% 493 18.8%

220 4,082 3,798 93.0% 12 0.3% 178 4.4% 94 2.3% 555 13.6%

222 3,027 2,853 94.3% 0 0.0% 84 2.8% 90 3.0% 159 5.3%

223 6,475 6,031 93.1% 6 0.1% 275 4.2% 163 2.5% 569 8.8%

224 5,950 5,508 92.6% 7 0.1% 245 4.1% 190 3.2% 639 10.7%

Cameron Parish

9702 4 553 4 079 89 6% 229 5 0% 136 3 0% 109 2 4% 600 13 2%

3-136

9702 4,553 4,079 89.6% 229 5.0% 136 3.0% 109 2.4% 600 13.2%

Detailed Study Area Total 82,365 49,066 59.6% 22,021 26.7% 7,891 9.6% 3,387 4.1% 15,234 18.5%

Hardin County 48,073 42,714 88.9% 3,322 6.9% 1,176 2.4% 861 1.8% 5,314 11.1%

Jefferson County 252,051 130,655 51.8% 84,290 33.4% 26,664 10.6% 10,442 4.1% 41,142 16.3%

Orange County 84,966 72,921 85.8% 7,275 8.6% 2,978 3.5% 1,792 2.1% 11,518 13.6%

Total Texas Study Area Counties 385,090 246,290 64.0% 94,887 24.6% 30,818 8.0% 13,095 3.4% 57,974 15.1%

Cameron Parish, Louisiana 9,991 9,266 92.7% 354 3.5% 207 2.1% 164 1.6% 1,220 12.2%

Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana 183,577 133,607 72.8% 43,197 23.5% 3,166 1.7% 3,607 2.0% 27,582 15.0%

Total Louisiana Study Area Parishes 193,568 142,873 73.8% 43,551 22.5% 3,373 1.7% 3,771 1.9% 28,802 14.9%

State of Louisiana 4,468,974 2,794,348 62.5% 1,437,100 32.2% 107,854 2.4% 129,672 2.9% 851,113 19.0%

State of Texas 20,851,820 10,927,538 52.4% 2,349,641 11.3% 6,670,122 32.0% 904,519 4.3% 3,117,609 15.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000a, 2000g).

1017
3. Affected Environment

3-137

the percentage of “Other Race” population in Orange County (2.1 percent), Hardin County (1.8 percent),

Cameron Parish (1.6 percent), and Calcasieu Parish (2.0 percent). Individual detailed study area census

tracts with unusually high percentages of “Other Race” persons include the following: Jefferson County

tracts 54, 55, and 56.

The average percentage of persons living below the poverty level within the detailed study area is

18.5 percent, which is lower than the percentage of people living below the poverty level in the State of

Louisiana (19.0 percent), but is higher than the percentage of people living below the poverty level in

Jefferson County (16.3 percentage), Orange County (13.6 percent), Hardin County (11.1 percent),

Cameron Parish (12.2 percent), Calcasieu Parish (15.0 percent), and the State of Texas (15.0 percent).

Individual detailed study area census tracts with unusually high percentages of poverty status persons

include the following: Jefferson County tracts 1.03, 7, 51, 53, 54, 61, 66, and 101.

3.14.2.4.7 Results

The results of the census tract analysis suggests that within the detailed study area census tracts, the

potential for disproportionately high effects to ethnic minority populations is high, and the potential for

disproportionately high effects to poverty status persons is moderate. The detailed study area exhibits a

disproportionately high percentage of African Americans relative to other portions of the study area and

the State of Texas. In addition, there are several detailed study area census tracts with exceptionally high

percentages of African Americans. Also, the detailed study area has a moderately high percentage of

Hispanics when compared with most counties and parishes within the study area and also the State of

Louisiana. There are three detailed study area census tracts with unusually high percentages of Hispanics.

Also, the detailed study area has an overall “Other Race” population that is slightly higher than four of the

five study area counties and parishes. There are three detailed study area census tracts with unusually high

percentages of “Other Race” population. The population living within the detailed study area census tracts

has a moderately high percentage of poverty status when compared with most counties and parishes

within the study area and the State of Texas. There are numerous census tracts within the detailed study

area that have unusually high percentage of poverty status persons.

3.14.2.5 Port-Related Population

In subsection 3.14.3.3, the number of direct port-related employees for the Port of Beaumont, the Port of

Port Arthur, and the Port of Orange is estimated at 41, 16, and 8, respectively, or a total of 65 direct

employees for the three ports (Floyd, 2009; Myers, 2009). Applying a multiplier of 2.65 for the average

household size within the study area, an estimate of the direct port-related population in the area is 172

persons. This represents only a very small fraction of the total population within the five-county study

area.

Also, in subsection 3.14.3.3, it is estimated that total port-related employment in the port, manufacturing,

and industrial industries is currently around 21,000. To estimate the population that is related to these

industries, a multiplier of 2.65 was again applied to yield a port-related population of approximately

1018
3. Affected Environment

3-138

55,650 people. Since the study area consisted of 578,658 persons in 2000, this port/manufacturing/

industrial population represents approximately 9.6 percent of the current study area population. This is an

estimate of the population that has at least one family member that works in any of these industries that

are either directly or indirectly linked to waterborne commerce. However, this estimate likely undercounts

the population within the study area that is employed by companies that are suppliers to port,

manufacturing, and industrial employers. Within the study area, outside vendors provide a wide diversity

of expendables and services to these industries (Davis, 1996). Given that these estimates likely

undercount the degree to which the local population depends on port, manufacturing, and industrial

employment for its livelihood, it seems apparent that the a substantial portion of the population does

depend on the these industries, probably at least 25 percent of the population. However, this dependency

on port-related industry employment is less than it was before the 1980s “oil bust,” as the study area

economy has made adjustments since the 1980s (Helen, 2002). Now the study area population relies to a

greater extent on industries such as services, Federal, State, and local government, retail and wholesale

trade, medical services, education, and Federal and State jails for its livelihood.

3.14.3 Economics

3.14.3.1 Historical Perspective

The SNWW forms a Y-shaped set of interlocking river channels and canals extending from the Gulf to

Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, Texas. Extensive construction to improve the waterways began with

river and harbor acts of 1875, 1882, and 1896, when the mouth of the channel was deepened and jetties

were built to prevent silting. Some improvements in the Sabine and Neches rivers were authorized in

1878, and the Port Arthur Canal and Dock Company began building a more suitable channel to Port

Arthur in 1895. The Port Arthur Canal opened in 1899. The discovery of the Spindletop oil field in 1901

increased demand for deepwater navigation along the lower Sabine and Neches rivers. In response,

Congress provided authorization and money in 1905 to complete the GIWW from New Orleans to

Galveston Bay. This channel was dredged to a depth of 9 feet and a width of 100 feet and provided a

direct connection with the Port Arthur Canal. By 1916 Congress approved the extension of the Port

Arthur Canal, and a 25-foot-deep channel was completed to Beaumont in 1916 (known as the Neches

Channel). Additional dredging and improvements extended the waterway to Orange (known as the Sabine

Channel). By 1972, the SNWW was 40 feet deep and 400 feet wide (University of Texas, 2001).

A series of jetties, canals, rivers, and turning basins now compose the waterway. At the mouth of the

channel is Sabine Pass, with jetties extending 3 miles into the Gulf. Twenty-four miles north, up the

SNWW, is Port Arthur. The SNWW then splits. To the west, the Port of Beaumont is 19 miles up the

Neches River from Port Arthur. To the east, the Port of Orange is 15 miles above the confluence of the

Sabine and Neches rivers, via the Sabine Channel. The SNWW, the Neches Channel, the Sabine Channel,

and the GIWW have all been tremendously important to development within the study area. The system

supported more than 45,000,000 tons of cargo annually by the late 1930s, and over 40,000 vessels used

the waterway by 1943. In 1979 well over 75,000,000 tons passed through the Sabine Pass jetties, making

the Sabine-Neches shipping district the second largest in the State of Texas, behind that of Galveston1019
3. Affected Environment

3-139

Houston-Texas City (University of Texas, 2001). In 2007, the SNWW ranked 4th in the Nation in total

tonnage, importing 141 million short tons. Individually, the Port of Beaumont ranked 5th nationally for

domestic and total tonnage, and the Port of Port Arthur ranked 28th in the Nation (IWR-WCUS, 2007).

3.14.3.2 Employment

Table 3.14-11 provides employment by major industry sector and total employment for the study area for

three Texas counties, two Louisiana parishes, the State of Texas, and the State of Louisiana. In Texas, a

study of the fourth-quarter data for 2006 and 2008 show that total employment in Hardin County

decreased from 12,616 to 12,527 (–0.7 percent), Jefferson County increased from 123,417 to 127,523

(3.3 percent), and Orange County increased from 22,493 to 23,275 (3.5 percent). Total employment in the

State of Texas increased from 10,104,642 to 10,512,878 (4.0 percent) during this same period (Texas

Workforce Commission [TWC], 2009).

In Louisiana, a study of the fourth-quarter employment data for 2006 and 2008 show that total

employment in Calcasieu Parish increased from 85,506 to 87,877 (2.8 percent), and Cameron Parish

increased from 2,501 to 3,046 (21.8 percent). Total employment in the State of Louisiana increased from

1,843,179 to 1,903,858 (3.3 percent) during this same period (Louisiana Department of Labor [LDOL],

2005, 2009).

In Texas, fourth-quarter TWC employment data for 2008 show that the leading economic sectors in

Hardin County were government (20.1 percent), retail trade (15.5 percent), and construction

(11.5 percent). For Jefferson County, leading sectors are construction (14.4 percent), government

(14.1 percent), and manufacturing (12.2 percent). For Orange County, the leading sectors were

manufacturing (23.7 percent), government (19.1 percent), and retail trade (13.3 percent). State of Texas

leader sectors were government (16.9 percent), retail (11.5 percent), and manufacturing (8.7 percent)

(TWC, 2009).

In Louisiana, data for 2008 show that the leading economic sectors in Calcasieu Parish were construction

(12.9 percent) and retail trade (12.4 percent); leading sectors in Cameron Parish are transportation and

warehousing (14.8 percent) and construction (13.2 percent); for the State of Louisiana, retail trade

(12.0 percent) and manufacturing (8.0 percent) (LDOL, 2009).

Table 3.14-12 provides unemployment data for the study area including three Texas counties, two

Louisiana parishes, the State of Texas, and the State of Louisiana. In Texas, a study of TWC

unemployment data in 1998, 2001, 2003, 2006, and 2008 indicates that the highest unemployment rates

were as follows: Hardin County (7.8 percent in 2003), Jefferson County (8.6 percent in 2003), Orange

County (9.8 percent in 2001), and the State of Texas (6.7 percent in 2003). The lowest unemployment

rates for these areas are as follows: Hardin County (5.3 percent in 2006), Jefferson County (6.1 percent in

2006), Orange County (5.9 percent in 2006), and the State of Texas (4.8 percent in 1998).

1020
3. Affected Environment

3-140

Table 3.14-11

Study Area Major Employment Sectors

Employment Sector

4th Quarter Employment

Percent Total

Employment

Percent

Change

2006 2008 2006 2008 2006–2008

Hardin County

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and

Hunting

81 100 0.6 0.8 24.7

Mining 476 396 3.8 3.2 –16.8

Utilities 34 33 0.3 0.3 –2.9

Construction 1,867 1,443 14.8 11.5 –22.7

Manufacturing 1,016 795 8.1 6.3 –21.8

Wholesale Trade 315 402 2.5 3.2 27.6

Retail Trade 1,920 1,947 15.2 15.5 1.4

Transportation and Warehousing 147 168 1.2 1.3 14.3

Information 62 76 0.5 0.6 22.6

Finance and Insurance 206 189 1.6 1.5 –8.3

Real Estate and Rental Leasing 110 102 0.9 0.8 –7.3

Professional and Technical Services 179 210 1.4 1.7 17.3

Federal/State/Local Government 2,548 2,518 20.2 20.1 –1.2

Total Employment* 12,616 12,527 100.0 100.0 –0.7

Jefferson County

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and

Hunting

158 143 0.1 0.1 –9.5

Mining 625 638 0.5 0.5 2.1

Utilities 1,213 1,259 1.0 1.0 3.8

Construction 12,178 18,385 9.9 14.4 51.0

Manufacturing 15,550 15,508 12.6 12.2 –0.3

Wholesale Trade 3,872 4,316 3.1 3.4 11.5

Retail Trade 15,766 15,474 12.8 12.1 1.9

Transportation and Warehousing 5,945 4,598 4.8 3.6 –22.7

Information 2,421 1,792 2.0 1.4 –26.0

Finance and Insurance 2,688 2,601 2.2 2.0 –3.2

Real Estate and Rental Leasing 1,905 1,719 1.5 1.3 –9.8

Professional and Technical Services 6,505 6,453 5.3 5.1 –0.8

Federal/State/Local Government 19,014 17,959 15.4 14.1 –5.5

Total Employment* 123,417 127,523 100.0 100.0 3.3

Orange County

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and

Hunting

15 30 0.1 0.1 1.0

Mining 259 394 1.2 1.7 52.1

Utilities 318 332 1.4 1.4 4.4

Construction 1,451 1,954 6.5 8.4 34.7

1021
3. Affected Environment

3-141

Table 3.14-11, cont’d

Employment Sector

4th Quarter Employment

Percent Total

Employment

Percent

Change

2006 2008 2006 2008 2006–2008

Manufacturing 5,082 5,512 22.6 23.7 8.5

Wholesale Trade 485 556 2.2 2.4 14.6

Retail Trade 3,174 3,093 14.1 13.3 –2.6

Transportation and Warehousing 745 747 3.3 3.2 0.3

Information 147 147 0.7 0.6 0.0

Finance and Insurance 780 853 3.5 3.7 9.4

Real Estate and Rental Leasing 180 208 0.8 0.9 15.6

Professional and Technical Services 657 403 2.9 1.7 –38.7

Federal/State/Local Government 4,547 4,448 20.2 19.1 –2.2

Total Employment* 22,493 23,275 100.0 100.0 3.5

State of Texas

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and

Hunting

63,518 61,649 0.6 0.6 –2.9

Mining 194,188 236,690 1.9 2.3 21.9

Utilities 74,240 79,307 0.7 0.8 6.8

Construction 652,822 703,026 6.5 6.7 7.7

Manufacturing 943,090 918,704 9.3 8.7 –2.6

Wholesale Trade 507,253 527,792 5.0 5.0 4.0

Retail Trade 1,174,230 1,204,234 11.6 11.5 2.6

Transportation and Warehousing 441,559 452,243 4.4 4.3 2.4

Information 231,216 220,795 2.3 2.1 –4.5

Finance and Insurance 449,394 454,303 4.4 4.3 1.1

Real Estate and Rental Leasing 182,938 186,166 1.8 1.8 1.8

Professional and Technical Services 543,372 593,833 5.4 5.6 9.3

Federal/State/Local Government 1,717,411 1,780,480 17.0 16.9 3.7

Total Employment* 10,104,642 10,512,878 100.0 100.0 4.0

Calcasieu Parish

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and

Hunting

183 247 0.2 0.3 35.0

Mining 1,016 1,191 1.2 1.4 17.2

Utilities 572 587 1 1 3

Construction 10,005 11,337 11.7 12.9 13.3

Manufacturing 8,683 8,849 10.2 10.1 1.9

Wholesale Trade 2,586 2,553 3.0 2.9 –1.3

Retail Trade 10,945 10,861 12.8 12.4 –0.8

Transportation and Warehousing 3,411 3,492 4.0 4.0 2.4

Information 1,169 1,243 1 1 6

Finance and Insurance 1,881 1,877 2 2 –0.2

1022
3. Affected Environment

3-142

Table 3.14-11, cont’d

Employment Sector

4th Quarter Employment

Percent Total

Employment

Percent

Change

2006 2008 2006 2008 2006–2008

Real Estate and Rental Leasing 1,160 1,153 1.4 1.3 –0.6

Professional and Technical Services 3,605 3,599 4.2 4.1 –0.2

Federal/State/Local Government NA NA NA NA NA

Total Employment* 85,506 87,877 100.0 100.0 2.8

Cameron Parish

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and

Hunting

11 15 0.4 0.5 36.4

Mining 176 211 7.0 6.9 19.9

Utilities NA NA NA NA NA

Construction 302 402 12.1 13.2 33.1

Manufacturing 235 302 9.7 9.9 28.5

Wholesale Trade 246 295 9.8 9.7 19.9

Retail Trade 115 89 4.6 2.9 –22.6

Transportation and Warehousing 480 450 19.2 14.8 –6.3

Information NA NA NA NA NA

Finance and Insurance NA NA NA NA NA

Real Estate and Rental Leasing 68 103 2.7 3.4 51.5

Professional and Technical Services 55 47 2.2 1.5 14.5

Federal/State/Local Government NA NA NA NA NA

Total Employment* 2,501 3,046 100.0 100.0 21.8

State of Louisiana

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and

Hunting

11,349 10,137 0.6 0.5 –10.7

Mining 47,606 53,154 2.6 2.8 11.7

Utilities 14,203 14,529 0.8 0.8 2.3

Construction 140,896 147,318 7.6 7.7 4.6

Manufacturing 155,394 151,603 8.4 8.0 –2.4

Wholesale Trade 73,709 75,233 4.0 4.0 2.1

Retail Trade 227,399 228,731 12.3 12.0 0.6

Transportation and Warehousing 79,770 81,311 4.3 4.3 1.9

Information 29,066 30,074 1.6 1.8 3.5

Finance and Insurance 58,886 58,608 3.2 3.1 –0.5

Real Estate and Rental Leasing 34,968 33,804 1.9 1.8 –3.3

Professional and Technical Services 80,358 86,570 4.4 4.5 7.7

Federal/State/Local Government NA NA NA NA NA

Total Employment* 1,843,779 1,903,858 100.0 100.0 3.3

Source: TWC (2009); Louisiana Workforce Commission (2007, 2009).

*Total employment includes all industry sectors, including sectors not listed.

1023
3. Affected Environment

3-143

Table 3.14-12

Study Area Unemployment, 1998 to 2008

% Annual Average Unemployment Rate

1998 2001 2003 2006 2008

Hardin County 6.1 6.8 7.8 5.3 5.5

Jefferson County 6.8 7.9 8.6 6.1 6.8

Orange County 8.6 9.8 9.4 5.9 6.6

Calcasieu Parish 5.5 6.1 6.6 3.3 4.8

Cameron Parish 4.4 5.9 6.4 2.9 4.7

State of Louisiana 5.7 6.0 6.6 4.3 4.6

State of Texas 4.8 5.1 6.7 4.9 4.9

Source: TWC (2009); Louisiana Workforce Commission (2007, 2009).

In Louisiana, LDOL data in 1998, 2001, 2003, 2006, and 2008 indicate that the highest unemployment

rates were as follows: Calcasieu Parish (6.6 percent in 2003), Cameron Parish (6.4 percent in 2003), and

the State of Louisiana (6.6 percent in 2003). The lowest unemployment rates were as follows: Cameron

Parish (2.9 percent in 2006), Calcasieu Parish (3.3 percent in 2006), and the State of Louisiana

(4.3 percent in 2006).

Table 3.14-13 provides a list of the top 20 major employers within the study area. The top employers are

concentrated in the public education, health care, petrochemical, manufacturing, gambling, shipbuilding,

Federal prisons, and other port-related industries. Together these top 20 (overall) employers provide over

41,000 jobs within the study area economy. Based on a labor force around 300,000 for the fivecounty/parish study area, this represents approximately 13.7 percent of employment within the fivecounty/parish study area. Among the top 20 employers, 8 of them are port-related employers (includes

manufacturing employment), and these employers encompass 15,735 workers.

3.14.3.3 Port-Related Employment and Operations

Direct employment with the three study area ports, the Port of Beaumont, the Port of Port Arthur, and the

Port of Orange, make up a very small fraction of the overall employment that is indirectly tied to port

activities. Discussions with area port staff indicated that permanent full-time staff at the ports is as

follows: Port of Beaumont (41 employees), the Port of Port Arthur (16 employees), and the Port of

Orange (8 employees). Each of these ports also contracts with varying numbers of longshoreman to

handle loading and unloading of cargo from ships when they are at port. Information on the average

number of longshoremen was not readily available except in the case of the Port of Port Arthur where it

was estimated that in an average month there are approximately 6,350 labor hours of employment, which

is equivalent to approximately 40 full-time employees for that month, assuming a 40-hour-per-week

schedule. Based on the yearly tonnage of cargo, it may be assumed that both the Port of Beaumont and

the Port of Orange would have more longshoremen than the Port of Port Arthur (Bouillon, 2002; Davis,

2002; Floyd, 2009; Myers, 2009; Richard, 2002).

1024
3. Affected Environment

3-144

Table 3.14-13

Top 20 Employers, Study Area, 2008

Employers Number of Employees

Calcasieu Parish School System 4,850

Beaumont Independent School District (ISD) 2,896

Exxon-Mobile Corporation 2,500

Christus St. Elizabeth Hospital 2,300

Turner Industries, LTD. 2,250

E.I. Dupont De Nemours 2,000

Dupont Sabine River Works 2,000

Memorial Hermann Baptist Beaumont Hospital 1,614

Bayer Corporation 1,600

Harrah's Lake Charles 1,600

Northrop Grumman Corporation 1,500

West Teleservices Corporation 1,464

PPG Industries 1,296

Citgo Petroleum Corporation 1,275

Lamar University 1,252

City of Beaumont 1,217

Isle of Capri Casino 1,171

Christus St. Patrick Hospital 1,085

Lake Charles Memorial Hospital 1,039

Source: Beaumont Independent School District (2008); Calcasieu Parish School Board (2008);

Nederland Economic Development Corporation (2008); Southwest Louisiana - The Chamber (2008).

Conservative estimates of all port, manufacturing, and industrial-related employment, based on

information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates approximately 21,000 jobs in the study

area in 2009 (TWC, 2009). It is likely, however, that an even greater number of port-related jobs exist

within the area economy, as numerous small supplier companies provide goods and services to larger

port, manufacturing, and industrial-related employers (Davis, 1996).

There are a few factors that have had effects on employment within port, manufacturing and industrialrelated industries within the study area. One major factor that has led to relatively high unemployment

levels within the study area has been a downturn in oil-related industries since the 1980s “oil bust.”

During the 1980s, the study area experienced relatively high unemployment rates, as oil refineries and

other manufacturing plants laid off as many as 17,000 workers. Since, the 1980s the manufacturing and

other port-related industries have been slow to add large increases in the workforce, so unemployment

rates did not fully recover even during the national economic boom of the 1990s. The particular

“industrial mix” of the study area, which is heavily concentrated in manufacturing, port-related,

construction, transportation, and public utilities, is also susceptible to employment volatility due to heavy

reliance on contract labor. As new contracts are awarded, employees are contracted to accomplish the

work, and when the project is completed, these companies would lay off their workforce until the next

1025
3. Affected Environment

3-145

contract is awarded unless current contracts can allow them to maintain staffing levels. In terms of

competition for workers, the port-related, manufacturing, and industrial-related employers of the study

area do not have to compete much with other industries in order to retain their workers. This is because

overall these employers pay substantially higher wages than other industries that are important to the area,

such as the services, retail and wholesale trade, and government services. Another factor affecting

employment among manufacturing and port-related employers is an increased reliance on mechanized

means of production. In many cases, large investments have been made to increase the size, capacity, and

output of manufacturing plants and other port-related industries, but these expansions have led to

relatively small increases in the number of employees (Crawley and Sanchez, 1999; Helen, 2002).

Table 3.14-14 provides a list of the top 10 industrial, manufacturing, and port-related employers in the

study area. Collectively, these top 10 employers provide over 17,000 jobs to the area. Based on a labor

force around 300,000 for the five-county/parish study area, this represents approximately 5.7 percent of

employment within the five-county/parish study area.

Table 3.14-14

Top 20 Industrial, Manufacturing and Port-Related Employers – Study Area

Employers

Number of

Employees

Exxon-Mobile Corporation 2,500

Turner Industries, LTD. 2,250

Dupont Sabine River Works 2,000

E.I. Dupont De Nemours 2,000

Master-Halo, Inc. 2,000

Bayer Corporation 1,600

Northrop Grumman Corporation 1,500

Motiva Corporation 1,300

PPG Industries 1,296

Citgo Petroleum Corporation 1,275

Source: Beaumont Chamber of Commerce (2005); Greater Orange

Chamber of Commerce (2002); Nederland Economic Development

Corporation (2008); Southwest Louisiana - The Chamber (2008).

Table 3.14-15 provides a list of the top 10 export commodities and import commodities at the Port of

Beaumont, the Port of Orange, the Port of Port Arthur, and the Port of Sabine Pass. In terms of

waterborne export commodities, 4 of the 10 top commodities being shipped are petroleum-based

products, most of which are manufactured at plants located within the study area. The greatest export is

petroleum coke at 3,777 short tons in 2003. In terms of waterborne import commodities, by far the single

greatest waterborne commodity being received at these four study area ports (in terms of tonnage) is

crude petroleum, at 69,260 short tons in 2003, or 91 percent of all inbound freight traffic tonnage.

Examination of the top 10 import and export commodities provides a better understanding of the nature of

the port-related economy within the study area. Because the single most important commodity (in terms

of tonnage and value) being moved through the four ports is imported foreign crude petroleum, the price

1026
3. Affected Environment

3-146

of oil on the foreign market has very large implications in terms of economic success for study area

manufacturing plants, and most other port-related businesses. If the price for a barrel of oil is either too

low or too high, the entire manufacturing, and port-related sector of the study area economy as well as

overall-employment levels, and economic activity within the study area can be adversely affected. Other

important nonpetroleum based commodities (both imports and exports) include wheat, sand and gravel,

waste and scrap materials, and iron and steel products.

Table 3.14-15

Top 10 Waterborne Export and Import Commodities – Ports of Beaumont,

Port Arthur, Orange, and Sabine Pass, 2003

Short Tons

Top 10 Export Commodities*

Petroleum Coke 3,777

Gasoline 1,571

Wheat 1,209

Other Hydrocarbons 496

Distillate Fuel Oil 401

Metallic Salts 379

Plastic Fertilizer 293

Paper and Paperboard 148

Plastics 91

Organic comp. NEC 88

Top 10 Import Commodities*

Crude Petroleum 69,260

Naphtha & Solvents 1,532

Distillate Fuel Oil 1,325

Lube Oil & Greases 1,301

Iron and Steel Primary Forms 744

Petroleum Coke 674

Gasoline 521

Limestone 314

Ammonia 172

Pulp and Wastepaper 160

Source: USACE (2003b).

*The number of short tons for each commodity represents a total of all

Foreign, Canadian, Domestic-Coastwise, and Internal (inbound or

outbound) tonnage for each commodity that is either an export or an

import to the four study area ports.

3.14.3.4 Commercial Fishing

Commercial fishing within the Sabine Lake system is a relatively small contributor to the study area

economy compared with other industry sectors. Table 3.14-16 compares the commercial fishing landings

of the Sabine Lake system to all Texas bay systems in 2004. The total wholesale value for all finfish and

shellfish landings in the Sabine Lake system in 2004 was $623,160. It is noteworthy, however, that 2004

was not a particularly good year for commercial fishing in the Sabine Lake system. During the 1990s,

1992 had the greatest total value for all finfish and shellfish landings at $6.0 million.

1027
3. Affected Environment

3-147

Table 3.14-16

Trends in Commercial Fishery Landings – Sabine Lake System

Compared with All Texas Bay Systems, 1999

Sabine Lake System All Texas Bay Systems

Weight (lbs) of

Fish Landed

Wholesale ($)

Value of Fish

Landed

% of Total (lbs)

From All Texas

Bay System

Landings

Weight (lbs) of

Fish Landed

Wholesale ($)

Value of Fish

Landed

Black drum 0 0 0 1,717,000 1,444,000

Flounder 0 0 0 151,000 325,000

Sheepshead 0 0 0 68,000 28,000

Mullet 535 668 0.7 76,000 143,000

Other finfish 7,312 38,793 66.5 11,000 9,000

Total finfish 7,847 39,461 0.1 5,620,000 10,585,000

Shrimp, bait 0 0 0 1,330,000 3,666,000

Shrimp, commercial 344 355 <0.1 31,150,000 96,055,000

Total shrimp 344 355 <0.1 32,480,000 99,721,000

Blue crab 707,086 439,036 17.8 3,967,000 2,668,000

Eastern oyster 0 0 0 5,569,000 14,954,000

Squid 0 0 0 42,000 40,000

Total shellfish 707,430 439,371 7.4 9,578,000 17,662,000

Total finfish and shellfish 715,277 478,832 1.5 47,715,000 128,168,000

Source: TPWD (2005d).

The 2002 and 2003 Gulf annual commercial fishery statistics for Louisiana and Texas (NMFS, 2005)

were reviewed. The commercial catch and the value of that catch for Louisiana were 1.3 billion pounds

($307 million) and 1.2 billion pounds ($294 million) for 2002 and 2003, respectively. The Texas catch

was 93 million pounds ($173 million) and 96 million pounds ($168 million) for the same time periods.

Menhaden were the dominant poundage in Louisiana, while shrimp accounted for most of the weight in

Texas. Shrimp, in terms of value, were most dominant in both states. Commercial finfish catches in the

Gulf result from beach seines (under certain circumstances), longlines, and incidental catch in shrimp

trawls. The blue crab fishery is located in the bays as well as the Gulf. From 1982 to 1986, an annual

average of 7.1 million pounds of blue crabs was landed in Texas at an annual average value of

$2.8 million. More species-specific commercial catch information is located in Appendix B ODMDS,

subsection 3.5.1.1.

3.14.3.5 Recreation

3.14.3.5.1 Recreational Fishing

Among sport-related activities, recreational fishing continues to be a major outdoor recreational activity.

In 2006, 3.0 million people aged 16 and older fished in Texas. Between 2001 and 2006, the number of

anglers increased by 25 percent, and fishing expenditures increased by 66 percent. Saltwater fishing

increased by 33 percent, and freshwater fishing increased by 1 percent (USFWS, 2002e, 2006).

1028
3. Affected Environment

3-148

Sabine Lake, numerous wetlands, and the Gulf are sources of recreational fishing within the study area.

The large variety of fresh and saltwater species in the area make fishing the most popular recreational

activity within the marsh environment within the region. Recreational fishing in this area is a yearround

activity that varies with the breeding cycle, water levels, fishing pressure, and aquatic-life productivity.

Largemouth bass in inland waters and speckled trout in the Gulf and Sabine Lake are favorites among

anglers in the area. Many local freshwater and saltwater anglers join fishing clubs, and enter contests for

prize money. The estuarine-marsh-swamp environment provides the necessary nursery ground for an

abundant seafood supply. More than 90 percent of the Gulf’s finfish spend part of their lifecycle within

the coastal zone. Although most species are commercially exploited, recreational anglers contributed

more than $420 million to the local economy (within southeastern Texas and southwestern Louisiana) in

2006, with more than half a million people involved in this leisure time activity (USFWS, 2003).

Also, crawfish are an important source of recreational fishing within freshwater wetlands and creeks

within the study area (as well as throughout Louisiana). These crustaceans are collected from natural

water areas and cultivated in ponds. In Louisiana and the Louisiana portion of the study area, the crawfish

is more than a source of recreational fishing or even a food supply, but rather part of the local culture.

Found in almost every ditch and harvested from large ponds, crawfish are utilized as food, bait, income,

recreation, weed control, and as a literary topic (Davis, 1996).

3.14.3.5.2 Wildlife-Associated Recreation

Outdoor recreation is a booming business throughout the United States, and Texas and Louisiana offer

many outdoor recreational activities. According to the USFWS 2006 National Survey of Fishing,

Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation, 29 percent of the total population of Louisiana and

26 percent of the total population of Texas was involved in wildlife-related recreation (USFWS, 2006).

Among the 1.2 million people who participated in wildlife-related recreation in the State of Louisiana in

2006, 91 percent were involved in sporting wildlife recreation (fishing, hunting, or both) and 60 percent

were involved in wildlife-watching (feeding, photographing, and observing). Among the 6.0 million

people who participated in wildlife-associated recreation in the State of Texas in 2006, 68 percent were

involved in sporting wildlife recreation and 70 percent were involve in wildlife-watching (USFWS,

2006).

One of the benefits of outdoor recreation is the economic impact it has on a state and its regions. In

Louisiana, over $2.0 billion was spent on wildlife-associated activities (sporting yielded over $1.7 billion

and wildlife-watching yielded over $312 million), and in Texas, almost $2.3 billion was spent on wildlifeassociated activities (sporting yielded almost $1.3 billion and wildlife-watching yielded almost

$2.9 billion) (USFWS, 2006).

The Big Thicket National Preserve covers 106,684 acres of wetland, riparian and upland forest habitat

within portions of Hardin and Orange counties, Texas, in the vicinity of the study area. It has been

referred to as an “American Ark” because of the tremendous amount of biological diversity that occurs

there. Recreational activities include auto touring, backpacking, biking, birdwatching, boating, camping,

1029
3. Affected Environment

3-149

fishing, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, interpretive programs, kayaking, nature walks, stargazing,

swimming, and wildlife viewing. As a major recreational attraction of the area, the Big Thicket received

106,237 visitors in fiscal year 2004. The annual budget has decreased from $2,266,000 in fiscal year

2002, to $2,251,000 in fiscal year 2004 (USFWS, 2003). As with most attractions, money spent in the Big

Thicket area would move into local economies. Many visitors to the Big Thicket National Preserve come

as weekend visitors from the Houston metro area, and most visitors to the preserve spend money within

the BPA MSA and the Lake Charles MSA (within the study area) on hotels, restaurants, entertainment,

groceries, supplies, and sporting equipment. The popularity of outdoor recreation and “eco-tourism”

within the study area is expected to increase over time, and with the increase in visitors to the area, there

would be an increase in visitor spending within the local economy (Helen, 2002).

3.14.3.5.3 Hunting

The economic impact of hunting in Texas resulted in $2.2 billion spent in Texas in 2006. Trip-related

expenses totaled $874 million, including $338 million on food and lodging, $336 million on

transportation, and $785 million for equipment rental. Hunting within the Louisiana portion of the study

area is equally popular, with numerous seasonally occupied camps located primarily on private land, and

leased to club members who often travel from metropolitan areas of Louisiana and Texas to waterfowl

and deer hunting, among other game. Spending on hotels, restaurants, groceries, entertainment, supplies,

and sporting goods by these hunting recreationists is a boon to both the economies of the BPA MSA and

the Lake Charles MSA and is expected to increase over time as an important economic contributor

(Helen, 2002).

In 2001, 6 percent of the U.S. population aged 16 and older were involved in hunting activities. An

average of 18 days was spent by each hunter on their sport. The USFWS reports that the number of

hunters has dropped by 7 percent between 1991 and 2001. The drop occurred primarily in small game and

other animal hunting. Big game and migratory bird hunting numbers remained constant. Hunting-related

expenditures also dropped by 12 percent. Neither the drop in hunters nor the drop in their expenditures is

considered statistically significant (USFWS, 2002e).

3.14.3.5.4 Wildlife Watching

In 2006, 24 percent of the U.S. population aged 16 and older were involved in wildlife-watching

activities. Between 2001 and 2006, people involved in wildlife-watching activities decreased by

7 percent. The USFWS differentiates between wildlife-watchers who participate around their homes and

those who take trips to view wildlife. In spite of the decrease in the population of wildlife-watchers, their

total expenditures have increased over the last 5 years by 16 percent, primarily due to equipment

expenditures (USFWS, 2002e, 2006).

In 2006, expenditures related to wildlife-watching in the State of Louisiana were almost $312 million, and

in the State of Texas were almost $2.9 billion. Expenditure totals include food and lodging,

transportation, equipment, magazine subscriptions, membership dues, and contributions (USFWS,

2002e).

1030
3. Affected Environment

3-150

Wildlife-watching, particularly birding, is an extremely popular activity within the study area and in the

nearby vicinity. The Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail (GTCBT) is a series of trails that links 308 birdwatching sites and many communities within 43 Texas counties on or near the Gulf Coast. The GTCBT

offers boardwalks, parking pullouts, kiosks, and observation platforms for the comfort of wildlifewatchers. Participation in the GTCBT has grown by 33 percent overall between 2001 and 2002.

Participation by youth teams has grown from one team to 97 teams in the 7 years of its existence

(Scroggs, 2002; USFWS, 2002e).

There are several sections of the GTCBT that are located in or near the project study area. They are:

Claiborne West Park, Lower Neches WMA and Bailey’s Fish Camp, Big Thicket National Preserve, Gore

Store Road and Turkey Creek, Roy E. Larson Sandyland Sanctuary, Village Creek State Park, Tyrrell

Park and Cattail Marsh, Tony Houseman State Park and WMA, Pleasure Island, J.D. Murphree WMA,

Taylor Bayou, Sabine Pass, Sabine Pass Battleground State Historic Park and Texas Point, Texas Point

NWR, Sabine Woods, Sea Rim State Park, and McFaddin NWR.

3.14.3.6 Tax Base

In Texas the state sales tax is 6.25 percent, with local sales/use tax not to exceed 8.25 percent (Texas

Comptroller of Public Accounts, 2009). In Louisiana the aggregate rate of state sales tax is 4.00 percent,

which consists of 3.97 percent Louisiana sales tax and 0.03 percent Louisiana Tourism Promotion District

sales tax (Louisiana Association of Tax Administration, 2008). Within the general vicinity of the study

area, local sales/use taxes are as shown in Table 3.14-17.

Table 3.14-17

Sales and Use Taxes by Study Area Jurisdictions, 2004*

Taxing Jurisdiction

City Rate

(%)

County/Parish

Rate (%)

Total Rate

(includes State

sales/use tax %)

City of Beaumont 1.25 0.50 8.25

City of Port Arthur 1.25 0.50 8.25

City of Port Neches 1.25 0.50 8.25

City of Groves 1.25 0.50 8.25

City of Nederland 1.25 0.50 8.25

City of Bridge City 1.25 0.50 8.25

City of Orange 1.25 0.50 8.25

City of West Orange 1.25 0.50 8.25

City of Vidor 1.25 0.50 8.25

City of Lake Charles 2.25 2.25 8.75

Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (2005a, 2005b); Louisiana Department of Revenue

(2005); Louisiana Economic Development (2005).

*2002 for Louisiana.

In Texas property is appraised, property tax is collected by local (county) tax offices or appraisal districts,

and these funds are used to fund many local needs including public schools, city streets, county roads,

1031
3. Affected Environment

3-151

police, and fire protection (Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, 2009). In Louisiana property is

appraised, property tax is collected by local (parish) tax offices or Police Juries, and these funds are used

for local schools and services. Table 3.14-18 provides a summary of property tax jurisdictions and tax

rates for jurisdictions that affect large portions of the population living in the vicinity of the study area.

3.14.4 Land Use

The study area is approximately 1,900 square miles in area, and includes portions of Jefferson, Hardin

and Orange counties, Texas, and Calcasieu and Cameron parishes, Louisiana. The study area includes

nine municipalities: Beaumont, Port Neches, Nederland, Groves, Port Arthur, Bridge City, Vidor, Orange,

and West Orange. Land uses for portions of the study area that are relatively close to the detailed study

area are shown on figures 3.14-3a (Beaumont, Vidor, and vicinity), 3.14-3b (Nederland, Groves, Port

Neches, Port Arthur and vicinity), and 3.14-3c (Sabine Pass and vicinity).2

The most currently available coverages were obtained from a variety of public agencies and private

entities, and were integrated into a GIS using ArcView 3.2 and ArcView GIS. A land use/land cover

coverage for the study area in 1990 was obtained from the USGS. This coverage was developed by the

USGS through interpretation of satellite imagery (USGS, 1990). This land use/land cover coverage uses

the Anderson system of classification, which categorizes land uses into 19 categories. Also, 1999 TxDOT

county roads coverage (TxDOT, 1999a) and a 1999 parks coverage (derived from the TxDOT urban data)

were obtained from Texas Natural Resource Inventory System (TxDOT, 1999b). Additional state parks

and wildlife management areas (GLO, 1997) and wildlife refuge coverages (USFWS, 2001) for Texas

were obtained from the GLO and USFWS. In addition, 1999 road and park coverages were obtained from

the Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office for Cameron and Calcasieu parishes. A combination of these

coverages was used as a working base map for aerial interpretation.

Within the study area, new urban development had occurred since 1990, so the land use/land cover

coverage did not adequately capture areas of development since 1990. In order to address this issue, land

use interpretation was conducted from working maps to identify and categorize land uses from areas that

had been developed since 1990. Land use observations taken from a windshield survey of the study area,

on October 2 and 3, 2001, were used to verify interpretation from the land use working maps. These new

land use polygons were digitized and combined with the existing USGS land use/land cover coverage. In

addition, the Anderson system of classification categories were aggregated for display in order to focus on

urban land uses rather than vegetation types.

The study area includes all of Sabine Lake and portions of the Sabine and Neches rivers (flowing into

Sabine Lake). The land use figures show the detailed study area that consists of the proposed areas for

channel deepening within a 1-mile corridor and includes portions of land adjacent to the channel. The

2Land use maps were developed for portions of the study area that are relatively close to the detailed study area, because these are the areas where

potential effects (either beneficial or adverse) from project implementation may accrue to the local population.

1032
3. Affected Environment

3-152

Table 3.14-18

Property Tax Role for Study Area Jurisdictions

Tax Jurisdictions

Tax Rate per $100

of Appraised

Valuation Tax Jurisdictions

Tax Rate per $100

of Appraised

Valuation

Jefferson County, Texas Orange County Lateral Roads 0.00649

Jefferson County 0.365 Orange County Navigation and

Port District

0.0125

Hamshire Fannett ISD 1.325 Orange County Drainage District 0.12111

Beaumont ISD 1.1925 Bridge City ISD 1.66320

Nederland ISD 1.12 Little Cypress-Mauriceville CISD 1.6

Port Arthur ISD 1.3111 Orangefield ISD 1.585

Port Neches-Groves ISD 1.284 Vidor ISD 1.64250

Sabine Pass ISD 1.134808 West Orange Cove CISD 1.57357

City of Beaumont 0.6400 City of Bridge City 0.58850

City of Groves 0.624207 City of Orange 0.846

City of Nederland 0.578 City of Port Arthur 0.775

City of Port Arthur 0.76 City of Pinehurst 0.42

Port of Sabine Pass 0.194148 City of Rose City 0.17318

Drainage District #3 0.304615 City of Vidor 0.561

Drainage District #6 0.195587 City of West Orange 0.42939

Drainage District #7 0.13965 Orange Co. Water Control and

Improvement District

0.36412

Navigation District 0.022418 Orange Co. Emergency Services

District #1 (Vidor)

0.1

Water District #10 0.244705 Orange Co. Emergency Services

District #2 (Bridge City)

0.1

Emergency Services

District #1

0.026726 Orange Co. Fire District #3 (Little

Cypress)

0.03

Emergency Services

District #2

0.049721 Orange Co. Fire District #4

(McLewis-Mrcville)

0.03

Hardin County, Texas Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana

Hardin-Jefferson ISD 1.485 City of Lake Charles 2.25

West Hardin ISD 1.69 Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 2.25

Kountze ISD 1.5 Calcasieu Parish School Board 2.00

Lumberton ISD 1.456 City of Iowa 2.50

Silsbee ISD 1.62 City of Vinton 2.50

Lumberton MUD 0.18428 City of Westlake 2.50

City of Silsbee 0.37 Cameron Parish, Louisiana

City of Kountze 0.45 Parishwide 0.00372

City of Sour Lake 0.45 Parishwide Road 0.00661

City of Rose Hill 0.057742 Courthouse 0.00264

Silsbee Fire #2 0.03 Library 0.006

Batson Fire #4 0.03 Mosquito 0.00563

Saratoga EMSD #3 0.07 Consolidated Garbage #1 0.00786

Kountze EMSD #1 0.05 Law Enforcement 0.01141

Lumberton EMSD #2 0.08 Law Enforcement Special 0.01

Sour Lake EMSD #5 0.048949 Assessment District 0.00271

Orange County, Texas Combined School District 0.05072

Orange County 0.53913

Source: Hardin County Tax Appraisal District (2008); Jefferson County Tax Appraisal District (2008); Orange County Tax Appraisal District

(2008); Calcasieu Parish School System Sales and Use Tax Department (2008).

ISD = Independent School District; CISD = Consolidated Independent School District; MUD = Municipal Utility District; EMSD = Emergency

Services District.

1033
LOWER NECHES WMA

BESSIE HEIGHTS

HARDIN

CO.

BEAUMONT

VIDOR

%

%

?l

!"`$

!"`$

!"`$

?Ü

?Í

?Í

Aã

C¢ AÄ

Aã

Cg

C¢

Cg

If

I§

Iw

?« JEFFERSON

CO.

ORANGE

CO.

It

KANSAS C TI Y SOUTHERN RA LI WAY

BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE CORP

U N I O N P A C I F I C R A I L R O A D

BROOKS

WALDEN

WASHINGTON

UN OI N PAC FI CI RA LI WAY MANSF EI LD FERRY

UN OI N CANAL

UN OI N PACIF CI RAILROAD

UNION PACIFIC

KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY

N eches River

Port of

Beaumont

Iw

Neches River Channel

LOWER NECHES WMA

BESSIE HEIGHTS

HARDIN

CO.

BEAUMONT

VIDOR

%

%

?l

!"`$

!"`$

!"`$

?Ü

?Í

?Í

Aã

C¢ AÄ

Aã

Cg

C¢

Cg

If

I§

Iw

?« JEFFERSON

CO.

ORANGE

CO.

It

KANSAS C TI Y SOUTHERN RA LI WAY

BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE CORP

U N I O N P A C I F I C R A I L R O A D

BROOKS

WALDEN

WASHINGTON

UN OI N PAC FI CI RA LI WAY MANSF EI LD FERRY

UN OI N CANAL

UN OI N PACIF CI RAILROAD

UNION PACIFIC

KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY

N eches River

Port of

Beaumont

Iw

Neches River Channel

Figure 3.14-3A

Land Use

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 440870.00Prepared by: MQual/RCoopFile:

Scale: 1" = 8,000'

Date:

. Commercial

IndustrialMining

Rural (Large lot/Ranchette)ResidentialTransportation and Utilities

Vacant LandWater Features

Other Urban Land

Park

Residential

1999 RoadsRivers & Streams

Study Area Inset

Land Use/Land Cover (Source: USGS LU/LC 1990 Digital Data updated by PBSJusing aerial photo interpretation from 1995 aerial photos)

05/19/2008

N:/440870/av/landuse_3_14_3A.mxd

GULF OF

MEXICO

CAMERON

JEFFERSON

CALCASIEU

ORANGE

HARDIN

6,300 0 6,300

Feet

9,300 0 9,300

Feet

Detailed Study Area Boundary

Study Area

County Boundary

3-153

1034
3. Affected Environment

3-154

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1035
J.D. MURPHREE

WMA

LOWER NECHES

WMA-OLD RIVER ORANGE

CO.

NEDERLAND

GROVES

PORT

ARTHUR

%

%

%

If

?Ü I§

Iw

?Ü

?í

?é

?Ü

?í

A}

?Ü

PORT

NECHES

%

Sabine

Lake

CAMERON

PARISH

SABINE

NWR

JEFFERSON

CO.

GULF

NI TRACOAS AT L

WATE

WR AY

K C S R W Y Neches River UNION

PACIFIC

?ò

McFaddin

Reservoir

Big

Hill

Reservoir

SOUTHEAST

TEXAS

REGIONAL

AIRPORT

OL US AI NA TEXAS 2Pleasure Island

Sabine-Neches Canal

Neches River Channel

J.D. MURPHREE

WMA

LOWER NECHES

WMA-OLD RIVER ORANGE

CO.

NEDERLAND

GROVES

PORT

ARTHUR

%

%

%

If

?Ü I§

Iw

?Ü

?í

?é

?Ü

?í

A}

?Ü

PORT

NECHES

%

Sabine

Lake

CAMERON

PARISH

SABINE

NWR

JEFFERSON

CO.

GULF

NI TRACOAS AT L

WATE

WR AY

K C S R W Y Neches River UNION

PACIFIC

?ò

McFaddin

Reservoir

Big

Hill

Reservoir

SOUTHEAST

TEXAS

REGIONAL

AIRPORT

OL US AI NA TEXAS 2Pleasure Island

Sabine-Neches Canal

Neches River Channel

N:/440870/av/landuse_3_14_3B.mxd

05/19/2008

Land Use/Land Cover (Source: USGS LU/LC 1990 Digital Data updated by PBSJusing aerial photo interpretation from 1995 aerial photos)

Commercial

IndustrialMining

Rural (Large lot/Ranchette)ResidentialTransportation and Utilities

Vacant LandWater Features

Other Urban Land

Park

Residential

1999 RoadsRivers & Streams

Detailed Study Area BoundaryStudy AreaCounty Boundary

Study Area Inset

.

Scale: 1" = 8,000

Date:

'

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 440870.00Prepared by: MQual/RCoopFile:

Figure 3.14-3B

Land Use

Sabine-Neches Waterway

8,000 0 8,000 4,000 Feet

4,700 0 4,700 2,350 Feet

GULF OF

MEXICO

CAMERON

JEFFERSON

CALCASIEU

ORANGE

HARDIN

3-155

1036
3. Affected Environment

3-156

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1037
TEXAS

LOUSIANA

SEA RIM SP

SABINE

PASS

BATTLEGROUND

SP

J.D. MURPHREE WMA

CAMERON

PARISH

?í

?é

?í

JEFFERSON CO.

Sabine

Lake

TEXAS

POINT

G U L F O F M E X I C O

Sabine Pass

Port Arthur Canal

KEITH LAKE

Port of

Port Arthur

GIWW

NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE

±

Sabine Pass Channel

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel

2Pleasure

Island

Pt Arthur Canal

.

Date:

Scale: 1" = 8,000'

File:

Prepared by: 18895

Job No.: 100007609

Prepared for: USACE

Figure 3.14-3C

Land Use

Sabine-Neches Waterway

TEXAS

LOUSIANA

SEA RIM SP

SABINE

PASS

BATTLEGROUND

SP

J.D. MURPHREE WMA

CAMERON

PARISH

?í

?é

?í

JEFFERSON CO.

Sabine

Lake

TEXAS

POINT

G U L F O F M E X I C O

Sabine Pass

Port Arthur Canal

KEITH LAKE

Port of

Port Arthur

GIWW

NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE

±

Sabine Pass Channel

Sabine Pass Jetty Channel

2Pleasure

Island

Pt Arthur Canal

Land Use/Land Cover (Source: USGS LU/LC 1990 Digital Data updated by PBSJ

using aerial photo interpretation from 1995 aerial photos)

07/09/2009

N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/landuse_3_14_3C.mxd

Commercial

Industrial

Mining

Vacant Land

Rural (Large lot/Ranchette)

Residential

Transportation and Utilities

Water Features

Other Urban Land

Residential

Park

1999 Roads

Rivers & Streams

County Boundary

Project Area, Proposed Channel

Study Area Inset

8,000 4,000 0 8,000 Feet

1 0.5 0 1 Miles

JEFFERSON

CAMERON

ORANGE CALCASIEU

Gulf of Mexico

3-157

1038
3. Affected Environment

3-158

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1039
3. Affected Environment

3-159

detailed study area is divided into the following subcategories: the Neches Channel, the Sabine-Neches

Channel, the Port Arthur Channel, the Sabine Pass Channel, and the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel. Cities that

are located adjacent to the detailed study area include Beaumont, Port Neches, Nederland, Groves, Bridge

City, and Port Arthur.

As shown on Figure 3.14-3a, the City of Beaumont is located along the IH 10 corridor and along the

western banks of the Neches Channel. Beaumont’s downtown central business district (CBD) is located

immediately west of the Neches Channel, and includes a variety of land uses including restaurants, retail

shops, civic buildings, museums, hotels, and apartment buildings. The Beaumont CBD area includes the

Art Museum of Southeast Texas, the Texas Energy Museum, the Jefferson County Courthouse, the

Beaumont Civic Center, the Edison Plaza Museum, the Riverfront Park, the Fire Museum of Texas, and

various other City of Beaumont and Jefferson County facilities. The Port of Beaumont is located on the

southeast side of the CBD (at the intersection of Main Street and Blanchette Street) adjacent to the

Neches Channel. Industrial sites in the Beaumont area are located adjacent to the Port of Beaumont along

the Neches Channel, and to the southeast of the Beaumont city limits. Industrial uses in this area include

Trinity Industries, ExxonMobile, Mobile Chemical, and North Star Steel.

Located east of Beaumont and along IH 10 is the City of Vidor. Vidor is a relatively small town with

commercial uses located mainly along the IH 10 corridor. Residential neighborhoods of Vidor extend

both north and south of the IH 10 corridor.

The City of Nederland is located southeast of Beaumont along the US Highway 287 corridor. This city is

mostly residential in character with some commercial areas and parks. Industrial uses are located adjacent

to Nederland to the north.

The City of Groves is located north of Port Arthur along SH 73. This relatively small city is mostly

residential in nature and is bordered by heavy industrial uses to the northwest, north, northeast, and east.

Located along the southwest side of the Neches Channel is the City of Port Neches. This city includes

older residential neighborhoods (located mostly near the Port Neches CBD), new subdivisions (mostly

located on the southwest side of the city and near SH 347), commercial development along state

highways and arterial roadways, and some civic buildings located mostly in the CBD. Industrial uses are

located west and east of the city limits and along the Neches Channel. Notable industrial uses located to

the west of Port Neches include Huntsman, Ameripol Synpol/Huntsman, Motiva Enterprises, and Air

Liquide. Adjacent to the Neches River on the north side (north of Port Neches), land uses are mostly

vacant land, with the exception of the Entergy – Sabine Plant.

North of the Sabine Pass area, the SNWW divides Pleasure Island and Sabine Lake from land areas west

of the channel. Pleasure Island is a long narrow island that extends from the Sabine Pass area northward

to the vicinity of the confluence of the Sabine and Neches rivers. The southern half of Pleasure Island

consists primarily of vacant land. The northern half of Pleasure Island has some development in areas

directly across from downtown Port Arthur. These developed areas consist of the Port Arthur Marina and

1040
3. Affected Environment

3-160

Yacht Club, the Pleasure Island Golf Course, Logans Park, City Hall Park, residential areas, and buildings

and facilities operated by the USCG, the U.S. Army Reserve, the USACE, and Lamar University. SH 82

(T.B. Ellison Parkway) provides north-south access along Pleasure Island.

West of Pleasure Island and the Sabine-Neches Ship Channel is the City of Port Arthur. This area is

characterized by heavy industry south, southwest, and north of the city. Land uses in the City of Port

Arthur include commercial development mostly along state highways and arterial roadways, and

residential neighborhoods, offices, and parks are interspersed throughout the city on collector and

residential streets. Housing stock varies widely in terms of date of construction, size, and degree of

maintenance. Civic buildings are located mostly in Port Arthur’s CBD, which is located near the SabineNeches Ship Channel. Also located in the Port Arthur CBD is Lamar University – Port Arthur, and the

Port of Port Arthur.

Notable industrial uses located east, southeast, and south of Port Arthur include Motiva Enterprises LLC,

Huntsman, Ethyl Additives, Equilon, Premcor, Chevron, and the Texaco Terminal. Notable industrial

uses that are located north of Port Arthur include Atofina, Horizon, Pabtex, R&R Marine Maintenance,

and a variety of other industrial companies located either along SH 87/73 or adjacent to the SNWW.

Sabine Pass forms the southern entrance of the Sabine-Neches Ship Channel from the Gulf into the study

area. In this area, on the Texas side (on the west side) of the Sabine Pass, is the Texas Point NWR and the

Sabine Pass Battleground State Historical Park. Farther west along the Gulf coastline is Sea Rim State

Park and the McFaddin Marsh NWR. This area is characterized by (mostly) undeveloped marshland and

beaches, with numerous small lakes and wetland areas. The eastern side of Sabine Pass (the Louisiana

side) consists almost entirely of undeveloped marshland and beaches. SH 82 parallels the Gulf coastline

and connects with Johnson’s Bayou, Holly Beach, Cameron, and the Calcasieu Lake area to the east.

In Louisiana, east of Sabine Lake, land is mostly vacant and consists primarily of wetland areas. The

Sabine NWR makes up much of the land area in this portion of Cameron Parish. Very few roads or other

urbanized land uses are located in this area.

3.14.4.1 Transportation

3.14.4.1.1 Roadways

Surface transportation in the vicinity of the study area is provided by a network of primary, secondary,

and local roads. IH 10 is the primary artery of the BPA MSA. US 69, 90, and 287 and SH 347 also

facilitate travel throughout the study area. As a result of the area’s heavy dependence on industrial

manufacturing, rail and sea transportation are vital within the area.

Transportation in Cameron Parish is served by two major state highways. The major north-south routes

through the parish follow SH 27, which connects with IH 10 in Calcasieu Parish (16 miles north of the

Cameron Parish border). The major east-west route through the parish is SH 82, which follows the Gulf

Coast. Traffic on SH 27 and SH 82 must use the Cameron Ferry to cross the Calcasieu River Ship

1041
3. Affected Environment

3-161

Channel. Intercity bus service is provided only in Lake Charles and in Sulphur (Cameron Parish Police

Jury, 2002). In Cameron Parish, IH 10 provides for east-west travel through the parish. SH 171 provides

for travel to points north of Lake Charles.

3.14.4.1.2 Airports

There are no public general or commercial aviation airports in Cameron Parish. There are several private

companies that have landing strips and offer helicopter services (primarily to the offshore oil and gas

industry).

The Southeast Texas Regional Airport is located 10 miles south of Beaumont on US 69. This airport is

served by Continental Express providing direct service to Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth. The Orange

County Airport, located 3 miles southwest of Orange, serves general aviation needs for the study area.

The Beaumont Municipal Airport serves the City of Beaumont and is located on US 90, 6 miles west of

the city.

Due to the increasing concern about aircraft-wildlife strikes, the FAA has implemented standards,

practices, and recommendations for holders of Airport Operating Certificates issued under Title 14, CFR

Part 139, Certification of Airports, Subpart D (Part 139), to comply with the wildlife hazard management

requirements of Part 139. Airports that have received Federal grant-in-aid assistance must use these

standards.

When considering proposed dredged spoil, BU features, and mitigation areas, developers must take into

account whether the proposed action will increase wildlife hazards. The FAA recommends minimum

separation criteria for land use practices that attract hazardous wildlife to the vicinity of airports. These

criteria include land uses that cause movement of hazardous wildlife onto, into, or across the airport’s

approach or departure airspace or air operations area (AOA).

These separation criteria include:

• Perimeter A: For airports serving piston-powered aircraft, hazardous wildlife attractants must be

5,000 feet from the nearest AOA (does not include any of the three airports within the study

area);

• Perimeter B: For airports serving turbine-powered aircraft, hazardous wildlife attractants must be

10,000 feet from the nearest AOA (includes the three airports within the study area); and

• Perimeter C: 5-mile range to protect approach, departure, and circling airspace (includes the three

airports within the study area).

Airports within the study area that must comply with these standards include the Orange County and

Southeast Texas Regional airports and the Beaumont Municipal Airport, which is located just outside the

study area (Figure 3.14-4a). Figures 3.14-4b–c show the perimeters around the AOA of 5,000 feet,

10,000 feet, and 5 miles surrounding these airports. Although the Beaumont Municipal Airport itself is

not located within the study area, the 5-mile perimeter does fall within the study area (Figure 3.14-4d).

1042
G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

10

10

27 82

90

27

108

27

27 82

10

90

108

10

27

73

12

87

62

73

96

365

365

347

69

287

105

421

105

62

87

90

10

10

10

10

73

365

365

90

105

10

69

96

287

347

10

105

73

62

10

62

421

12

87

87

Gum

Cove

Texas

Louisiana

HARDIN

Rose City

East

Bessie Heights

East

Old River Cove

LA3-10R LA3-18

LA3-15

LA2-18B

LA2-ADDB

JEFFERSON

ORANGE

CAMERON

Port Arthur

Beaumont

Orange Vidor

Nederland

Bridge City

West Orange

Pine Forest

Bevil Oaks

Pinehurst

China

Rose Hill Acres

SABINE NWR

J. D. MURPHREE WMA

BLUE ELBOW SWAMP/

TONY HOUSEMAN WMA

LOWER NECHES WMA -

OLD RIVER UNIT

J. D. MURPHREE WMA

LOWER NECHES WMA -

ADAMS BAYOU

LOWER NECHES WMA

NELDA STARK

Bayou

Bayou

Bayou

Island

Blue Buck

Pine Island

Perry Ridge

South Stark Canal

Cove

Blue

Bayou

Elbow

Adams

Bayou

Bessie

Willow

Sabine

Heights

Johnson

Green's

Cow Bayou

Rose City

Old River

Taylor Bayou

State Park Area

GIWW

Canal

Sabine Lake East Shore

East

Port Arthur and Turning Basin

Sabine-Neches Canal

Taylor Bayou Channel

Neches River Channel

Neches River Saltwater Barrier

6504 Bridge Point Pkwy, Ste. 200Austin, Texas 78730Phone: (512) 327-6840 Fax: (512) 327-2453

Legend

0 3 6 1.5

Miles

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 100007609 Scale: 1 inch = 6 miles

Date: 1 April 2010 Prepared by: RF

File: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/Fig_airport_AOA_vr3.mxd

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Airport Locations

FAA AOA

Figure 3.14-4a State Boundaries

Channel Centerlines

County Boundaries

Study Area

Channel Reach Limits

Perimeter

Airport

5,000 ft10,000 ft5 mi

Project Area, DredgedChannelState Parks, National WildlifeRefuges, and WildlifeManagement AreasProject Area, DredgedMaterial Placement AreasProject Area,BU Features

BIG THICKET

NATIONAL PRESERVE

Texas

Louisiana

3-162

1043
G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

So th t T

73

Orange County

Airport

Texas

Louisiana

Rose City

East

Bessie Heights

East

Old River

Cove

LA3-10R LA3-18

LA3-15

ORANGE

Beaumont

Orange Vidor

Nederland

Bridge City

West Orange

Pinehurst

SABINE NWR

BLUE ELBOW SWAMP/

TONY HOUSEMAN WMA

LOWER NECHES WMA -

OLD RIVER UNIT

LOWER NECHES WMA -

ADAMS BAYOU

LOWER NECHES WMA

NELDA STARK

Neches

River Channel

10

69

105

1442

3247 1135

1136 1078

408

365

366

1132

1130

3514

87

62

347

12

10

90

3112

109

Cove

Blue

Island

Sabine

Heights

Cow Bayou

Old River

Perry Ridge

Elbow

Bayou

Adams

Bessie

Rose City

6504 Bridge Point Pkwy, Ste. 200Austin, Texas 78730Phone: (512) 327-6840 Fax: (512) 327-2453

0

Legend

1.5 3 0.75

Miles

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 100007609Prepared by: RF

Scale: 1 inch = 3 miles

Date: 1 April 2010

N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/Fig_airport_AOA_OrangeCountyArprt_vr3.mxd

Figure 3.14-4b

Sabine Neches Waterway

Orange County Airport

FAA AOA

State Boundaries

Channel Centerlines

County Boundaries

Study Area

Channel Reach Limits

Perimeter

Airport

5,000 ft10,000 ft5 mi

Project Area, DredgedChannelState Parks, National WildlifeRefuges, and WildlifeManagement AreasProject Area, DredgedMaterial Placement AreasProject Area,BU Features

Texas

Louisiana

3-163

1044
G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

Texas Louisiana

Southeast TexasRegional Airport

73

Old River

Cove

Bessie Heights East

Taylor Bayou Channel

and Turning Basin

JEFFERSON

ORANGE

Port Arthur

Beaumont

Nederland

Bridge City

SABINE NWR

J. D. MURPHREE WMA

LOWER NECHES WMA -

OLD RIVER UNIT

J. D. MURPHREE WMA

LOWER NECHES WMA

NELDA STARK

Sabine-Neches Canal

Neches River Channel 10

69

90

365

364

366

1442

3514

408

823

73 347

124

87

82

Bayou

Bayou

Willow

Heights

Johnson

Cow Bayou

Cove

Bessie

Old River

6504 Bridge Point Pkwy, Ste. 200Austin, Texas 78730Phone: (512) 327-6840 Fax: (512) 327-2453

Legend

0 1.5 3 0.75

Miles

Figure 3.14-4c

Sabine Neches Waterway

Southeast Texas Regional Airport

FAA AOA

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 100007609Prepared by: RF

Scale: 1 inch = 3 miles

Date: 1 April 2010

File:N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/Fig_airport_AOA_SoutheastTxRegional_vr3.mxd

State Boundaries

Channel Centerlines

County Boundaries

Study Area

Channel Reach Limits

Perimeter

Airport

5,000 ft10,000 ft5 mi

Project Area, DredgedChannelState Parks, National WildlifeRefuges, and WildlifeManagement AreasProject Area, DredgedMaterial Placement AreasProject Area,BU Features/ Mitigation Areas

Texas

Louisiana

3-164

1045
G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

Southeast TexasRegional Airport

Beaumont Municipal Airport

Nome

Sour Lake

JEFFERSON

HARDIN

Rose City

East

ORANGE

Beaumont

Vidor

Nederland

Bevil Oaks

China

Neches River Channel

Neches River Saltwater Barrier

10

90

69

69

364

365

1009

3514

105

1132

366

105

326

124

347

12

Bayou

Rose City East

6504 Bridge Point Pkwy, Ste. 200Austin, Texas 78730Phone: (512) 327-6840 Fax: (512) 327-2453

0

Legend

1.5 3 0.75

Miles

Figure 3.14-4d

Sabine Neches Waterway

Beaumont Municipal Airport

FAA AOA

Prepared for: USACEJob No.: 100007609Prepared by: RF

File:

Scale: 1 inch = 3 miles

Date: 1 April 2010

N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/Fig_airport_AOA_BeaumontMunicipal_vr3.mxd

State Boundaries

Channel Centerlines

County Boundaries

Study Area

Channel Reach Limits

Perimeter

Airport

5,000 ft10,000 ft5 mi

Project Area, DredgedChannelState Parks, National WildlifeRefuges, and WildlifeManagement AreasProject Area, DredgedMaterial Placement AreasProject Area,BU Features

BIG THICKET

NATIONAL PRESERVE

Texas

Louisiana

3-165

1046
3. Affected Environment

3-166

3.14.4.1.3 Railways

There is no rail service to Cameron Parish. Connections to three major freight rail systems (the Kansas

City Southern Railway, the Union Pacific System, and the Southern Pacific Transportation Company) can

be obtained in the nearby Lake Charles/Westlake/Sulphur metropolitan area of Calcasieu Parish. Amtrack

Intercity Rail Passenger service is also available in Lake Charles.

Several rail carriers provide transportation within the study area, and form an important link to the Port of

Beaumont, the Port of Port Arthur, and the Port of Orange. The four major rail carriers are Burlington

Northern Santa Fe, Union Pacific, Kansas City Southern Railroad, and Tex Mex Rail Road. The Sabine

River and Northern is a short-line railroad running through the area. Beaumont has 13 motor freight

carrier terminals and 53 general freight carriers that serve the MSA’s transportation needs (Texas A&M

University, 2000).

3.14.4.2 Community Services

3.14.4.2.1 Fire, Police, and Emergency Medical Service

Fire protection within the vicinity of the study area is handled by a combination of municipal and

volunteer fire departments (VFD). Fire departments serving the study area include the Beaumont Fire

Department, Nederland Fire-Rescue Department (includes the Nederland VFD), Port Arthur Fire

Department, and the City of Groves Fire Department.

In Beaumont, fire protection is provided by the City of Beaumont Fire Department, which covers

approximately 85 square miles and serves approximately 113,400 people. There are 229 paid personnel

serving the city. This fire department responds to fire, medical, hazardous material, high-rise rescue, and

dive rescue emergencies. The department includes 10 fire engines, 2 aerial pumpers, 2 aerial trucks, and 3

rescue trucks (City of Beaumont, 2009).

Fire protection within the city limits of Nederland is handled by the Nederland Fire-Rescue Department,

which includes the Nederland VFD. Together, the Nederland Fire-Rescue Department and the Nederland

VFD serve an area of approximately 4.5 square miles and approximately 17,400 residents who live within

the City of Nederland and its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). There are 17 volunteer firefighters, and 6

of these personnel form a 6-person specialized rescue team. This fire department has the following

equipment: three pumpers/engines, one 75-foot aerial truck, and one rescue truck. These fire departments

respond to both fire and medical emergencies (City of Nederland, 2009).

In Port Arthur, fire protection is provided by the City of Port Arthur Fire Department, which covers an

area of approximately 142 square miles serving approximately 57,800 people. There are 105 firefighters

and 7 fire stations serving the residents and industrial areas of the city. This fire department responds to

fire, medical, and hazardous materials emergencies. The services of this fire department are broken into

the departments of Administration, Suppression, Training, Prevention, Communications, and

Maintenance. This fire department includes the following equipment: seven fire engines, one snorkel, one

1047
3. Affected Environment

3-167

dive and high-angle rescue van, one hazardous materials truck, and several rescue boats (City of Port

Arthur Fire Department, 2009).

Fire protection within the city limits of Groves is provided by the City of Groves Fire Department, which

covers approximately 4 square miles and serves approximately 15,733 residents living within the city

limits and its ETJ. The fire department responds to fire, medical, and hazardous materials emergencies.

There are 14 paid firefighters and 25 volunteers operating from one fire station that is centrally located.

This fire department includes the following equipment: three pumpers, one utility van, one utility pickup

truck, one Chief’s car, and one Assistant Fire Marshall’s car (City of Groves, 2009).

The Insurance Services Office (ISO) ranks in accordance with the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule

manual. The rankings are determined through the examination of three primary factors: the city’s alerting

system (i.e., 911 service and fire alarm systems) (10 percent); the fire department itself (50 percent); and

the existing water system (40 percent). In Texas, the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule has been modified

to include the following fire prevention activities: fire prevention code information, fire investigation,

public fire safety education, construction code enforcement, attendance in Texas A&M’s Fireman Training School, the number of certified volunteer firefighters available, and membership in the State Fire

Marshall’s Association or Texas Commission on Fire Protection. On the Fire Suppression Rating

Schedule scale of 1 to 10 (1 being best), the ISO gives the City of Nederland Fire-Rescue Department a

rating of 5, the City of Port Arthur Fire Department a rating of 3, and the City of Groves Fire Department

a rating of 4 (Bradley, 2002).

3.14.4.2.2 Public Services and Utilities

Within the study area, a variety of entities provides electric utility, natural gas, water, wastewater, and

solid waste disposal services. These services are summarized in Table 3.14-19.

3.14.4.2.3 Regional Water Planning

The TWDB has provided information pertaining to water supply, demand, and management direction for

16 Regional Water Planning Areas in Texas in the 2007 State Water Plan, Water for Texas – 2007, which

was adopted by the Board on November 14, 2006. This State Water Plan document provides baseline

information and planning policy related to the East Texas Region (Region I), which includes 20 counties

of East Texas, including three counties (Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange) within the proposed project study

area (TWDB, 2007).

The East Texas Region Planning Group identified water supply needs for 92 out of 165 water user groups

in the region. The total needs by 2060 are about 1,261,320 acre-feet per year. There are 47 urban and rural

municipalities and 18 irrigation and livestock user groups with needs in 2060. Estimated capital costs of

recommended water management strategies for meeting needs over the 50-year planning horizon are

about $613 million (TWDB, 2007).

1048
3. Affected Environment

3-168

Table 3.14-19

Public Service and Utility Providers within the Study Area

Electric

Utility

Service

Natural Gas

Service Water

Waste

Water

Solid Waste

Disposal

Service

City of Beaumont Entergy Reliant Entex City of

Beaumont

City of

Beaumont

City of

Beaumont

City of Nederland Entergy Reliant Entex City of

Nederland

City of

Nederland

City of

Nederland

City of Port Neches Entergy Southern Union

Gas

City of Port

Neches

City of Port

Neches

City of Port

Neches

City of Groves Entergy Southern Union

Gas

City of Groves City of Groves City of Groves

City of Port Arthur Entergy Southern Union

Gas

City of Port

Arthur

City of Port

Arthur

City of Port

Arthur

Unincorporated

areas of Jefferson

County

Entergy Southern Union

Gas and Reliant

Gas

Unincorporated

areas of Hardin

County

City of Vidor

City of Bridge City Entergy Reliant and

Entergy Entex

City of Bridge

City

City of Bridge

City

City of Bridge

City

City of Orange City of Orange City of Orange City of Orange

City of West

Orange

Unincorporated

areas of Orange

County

Entergy and

Gulf States

Utilities

Entex and United

Texas

Transmission

Unincorporated

areas of Calcasieu

Parish

Entergy Reliant Entex Publicly

provided by

multiple water

districts

Mechanical

Sewer and

Septic Systems

Waste

Management

Inc.

Unincorporated

areas of Cameron

Parish

Sources: Entergy Louisiana (2002); City of Beaumont (2002); City of Bridge City (2002); City of Nederland (2005); City of Port Neches (2002);

Bellard (2002); Cendercast (2002); Greater Orange Area Chamber of Commerce (2002).

The largest water user in the East Texas Region is steam electric, which accounts for 51 percent of the

total demand of about 1.75 million acre-feet per year in 2060. Increases in steam-electric power

generation, mining, and irrigation demands are also expected. Municipal water use for the region is

projected to increase between 2010 and 2060, from about 151,000 acre-feet per year to 188,000 acre-feet

per year. Five counties (including two study area counties), Angelina, Jefferson, Nacogdoches, Orange,

and Smith, account for most of the total municipal use for the region in 2060. The cities (includes three

study area cities) of Lufkin, Beaumont, Port Arthur, Nacogdoches, Orange, and Tyler are included in

these counties. These cities would rely on increased groundwater and surface water production to meet

1049
3. Affected Environment

3-169

their needs. The only unmet needs in 2060 are 3-acre-feet per year for mining and 17 acre-feet per year

for municipal uses (TWDB, 2007).

3.14.4.3 Aesthetics

The term aesthetics deals with the subjective perception of natural beauty in a landscape by attempting to

define and measure an area’s scenic qualities. Consideration of the visual environment includes a

determination of aesthetic values (where the major potential effect of a project on the resource is

considered visual) and recreational values (where the location of a proposed project could potentially

affect the scenic enjoyment of the area). Aesthetic values considered in this study, which combine to give

an area its aesthetic identity, include:

• topographical variation (hills, valleys, etc.)

• prominence of water in the landscape (rivers, lakes, etc.)

• vegetation variety (woodlands, meadows, etc.)

• diversity of scenic elements

• degree of human development or alteration

• overall uniqueness of the scenic environment compared with the larger region

The study area consists of a variety of terrain characterized by varying levels of aesthetic quality. The

topography of the area is mostly flat to gently rolling, with very few outstanding elevational changes.

Natural water features within the study area include the following: Sabine Lake, the Neches River

(upstream of the Neches Channel), the Sabine River (upstream from the Sabine Channel), Black Marsh

Lake, Black Bayou, Cow Bayou, Old River Bayou, numerous relatively small lakes, and many wetland

areas. Also, the Gulf forms the southern border of the study area. Water features that are heavily used for

waterborne commerce show a high a degree of human development and alteration and include the

following: the Neches Channel, the Sabine Channel, the Sabine-Neches Channel, the Port Arthur

Channel, the Sabine Pass Channel, the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel, and the GIWW. Also some areas of

Sabine Lake (especially on the Texas side of the lake) show a moderate degree of human development

and alteration.

In general, in areas that are not urbanized, the study area exhibits a variety of vegetation types.

Generalized vegetation within the study area is shown on Figure 3.9-1 and discussed in more detail in

Section 3.9. Wetland areas are found surrounding Sabine Lake, along the Gulf Coast on both the Texas

and Louisiana side, throughout most of the Louisiana portion of the study area and within the floodplain

areas of the Sabine and Neches rivers/channels. Agricultural lands are found mostly in the western,

northern, and northeastern portions of the study area. Forested or woodland upland areas are found

primarily in the northern portion of the study area between the Sabine and Neches rivers.

However, the study area has also seen widespread human development, which can, depending on the type

and scale, detract or add to the overall aesthetic quality (see figures 3.14-3a–c). Urban development

1050
3. Affected Environment

3-170

within the study area is concentrated in and around the following municipalities: Beaumont, Nederland,

Port Neches, Groves, Port Arthur, Vidor, Bridge City, West Orange, and Orange. Land uses within the

urbanized areas include a variety of residential neighborhoods, commercial or CBD districts,

transportation systems (highways and railways), civic uses, parks, schools, port facilities, and heavy

industry areas. The single largest detraction from the aesthetics of the study area is undoubtedly the heavy

industry areas. There are large areas of heavy industry located near to the detailed study area (along the

SNWW) southeast of Beaumont and in areas near Port Neches, Groves, and Port Arthur.

Generally speaking, the study area is not particularly distinguished in aesthetic quality from other

adjacent areas within the region, although some areas within the region lack the vast waterbodies of the

study area. The landscape exhibits a generally moderate to high level of impact from human development

and alteration. No designated scenic views or scenic roadways were identified from the literature review

or from field reconnaissance of the study area.

1051
4-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter is divided into 16 sections. Section 4.1 describes how the HS and WVA models were used to

evaluate project impacts. Section 4.2 discusses risk and uncertainty in the application of these models.

This is followed by separate sections that discuss project impacts to each category of physical, natural,

cultural, and socioeconomic resources in the SNWW study. The chapter ends with a discussion of

cumulative impacts in Section 4.16.

Environmental consequences analysis of the Preferred Alternative includes the assumption that the eight

Neches River Turning and Anchorage Basins (Alternative G, Table 2.3-1) are a component of the SNWW

CIP.

4.1 MODELING FUTURE WITHOUT AND WITH-PROJECT

CONDITIONS

The evaluation of ecological impacts to the extensive wetland habitats in the study area was performed

primarily with WVA models. These models provide quantitative estimates of changes to the quality and

quantity of fish and wildlife habitat in the SNWW’s wetland communities. The WVA is primarily driven

by salinity predictions from the HS model. Both FWOP and FWP effects must be determined using the

WVA models and the differences between the two calculated in order to determine the effects of the

proposed project.

The HS model is described in detail in a separate report (Brown and Stokes, 2009). In brief, the HS model

is a 3-dimensional TABS-MDS code that propagates flow and salinity throughout the model domain in

response to many factors (e.g., tides, Gulf boundary conditions, winds, freshwater inflows). A

3-dimensional simulation was employed in the navigation channels and Sabine Lake, and 2-dimensional

simulation (vertically integrated) was used in the shallow tributaries.

As described in Brown and Stokes (2009), the HS model was calibrated and verified using field

observations collected by the ERDC during a long-term data collection effort at 16 stations in the study

area from May 16, 2001, through January 10, 2002 (Fagerburg, 2003). The model tidal elevations,

discharge measurements, current velocities, and salinities were compared to field data obtained during the

period, and figures showing these comparisons can be reviewed in Brown and Stokes (2009). In general,

the model performed reasonably well. The tidal elevations were comparable to field data near the coast

with the level of agreement reduced somewhat in the upper reaches. Discharge and current velocity

observations were also similar to model output at most but not all stations. The salinity comparisons were

also reasonably close. It was noted that while salinity stratification was qualitatively correct, the model

was somewhat more diffusive than observed and the amount of upstream salinity transport may at times

be underestimated. However, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate how well the model

behaves under conditions when the flow is not changing rapidly. Since flow changes associated with the

project would not be rapid, the behavior of the model under these conditions provides a better reflection

of the gradual changes expected with the project. The model was found to behave better at most gages

1052
4. Environmental Consequences

4-2

under these conditions. Overall, the model provides a very detailed representation of the system and

appears to be a suitable tool for evaluating project effects.

With the model developed and performance demonstrated against field data, the next step was using the

model to quantify changes in the FWP and FWOP conditions. Two key components of this future

evaluation are freshwater inflows and relative sea level change. After these components are described, the

FWOP and FWP conditions are presented.

4.1.1 Freshwater Inflows

Freshwater inflow for the SNWW HS model’s future conditions were developed using model outputs

from Run 8 of the TCEQ Water Availability Models (WAM) for the lower Sabine and Neches rivers. For

existing conditions, “Run 8 uses modified diversion amounts (maximum use for the last 10 years), year

2000 area-capacity parameters for major reservoirs, and assumed return flows. It also includes term water

rights and provides the most realistic assessment of current streamflow conditions” (TWDB, 2007). The

TWDB projected flows for the year 2060 by modifying Run 8 “to include projected increased demand

from existing water rights, expected change to return flows, projected new strategies to come online

before 2060, and estimated year 2060 storage capacities for major reservoirs” (TWDB, 2007).

The 2060 WAM runs were selected for use in the SNWW HS modeling because they were developed by

the State’s lead water planning agency, and they include future water supply strategies approved by the

2007 Texas State Water Plan (TWDB, 2007). The SNWW study area is included in Regional Plan I for

the East Texas Region. The Region I water plan takes into consideration existing flows that are dedicated

to the State of Louisiana as prescribed by the Sabine River Compact. All existing and proposed future

strategies for meeting Texas’s demand must be met by the Texas firm-yield share (750,000 acre-feet) of

the total Sabine River flow, as appropriated under the use provision of Certificate of Adjudication No. 05-

4658 (March 5, 1958). The 2060 WAM model does not attempt to predict future demand in the Louisiana

portion of the Sabine Basin. This should not significantly affect future projections because the Louisiana

portion of the basin is comprised primarily of undeveloped, coastal wetlands.

By 2060, Region I’s population is projected to grow 36 percent, and water demands are projected to

increase by 41 percent. The greatest increase (48 percent) is expected in the demand for water for

manufacturing. Municipal demand is expected to grow 24 percent. The existing water supply is projected

to decrease slightly by 2060, due primarily to reservoir sedimentation and a small decline in groundwater

supply. Although the region as a whole appears to have enough supply to meet demands through 2060,

the total water supply is not readily available to all users.

The regional plan recommends the following strategies to provide the additional water supply projected to

be needed by 2060: (1) the construction of Lake Columbia reservoir in the Neches River watershed; (2)

cooperation with Region C, which includes the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, in the use of surface

water from Toledo Bend Reservoir and proposed Lake Fastrill; (3) expanded groundwater use by smaller

communities; and (4) municipal conservation throughout the region.

1053
4. Environmental Consequences

4-3

The WAM outputs were developed using current patterns of precipitation and evaporation. The USACE

did not modify the models to use projected precipitation or evaporation for SNWW future conditions

because the Texas State Climatologist has recently concluded that it is impossible to predict with

confidence what precipitation trends would be in Texas over the next half century (Nielsen-Gammon,

2009). Unlike precipitation, there is more consensus for a predicted temperature increase in Texas of

close to 4°F by 2060. No attempt was made to change future temperatures in the model because resulting

changes in evapotranspiration would be so small as to negligibly change modeling results.

Two freshwater inflow conditions, median and low, were developed for project evaluation. For both flow

conditions, the ERDC provided salinities for all model stations and nodes for WVA modeling. Figure 4.1-

1 illustrates the inflow values employed for the two major inflow sources for both the 10th percentile, low

flow (dotted lines), and 50th percentile, median flow (solid lines), obtained from the WAM monthly

output files.

Figure 4.1-1. SNWW Low and Median Inflow

Hydrographs

These inflows were used for all impact analyses. The low inflow runs were conducted for 5 months, June

through October, with June and July used for model spin-up. The spin-up months allow the model to

reach a dynamic equilibrium for salinity and are not used in the analysis. The model output for the

3-month period from August through October was used for the low-flow sensitivity analysis. The medianflow simulation covered 6 months, April through September, with only 1 month, March, used for spin-up.

The shorter spin-up period for the median flow was because the higher flow resulted in lower water

residence times in the system. The median-flow output was used for all impact analyses.

1054
4. Environmental Consequences

4-4

Additional boundary conditions include flows in and out of the GIWW on the east and west boundaries of

the study area, direct precipitation inputs, and the Gulf boundary condition salinity. Details are provided

in Brown and Stokes (2009).

4.1.2 Relative Sea Level Rise

While the future rate of RSLR at the Sabine-Neches Estuary is very uncertain, it must be considered in

project planning. Current USACE guidance (ER 1105-2-100; April 2000) stipulates that NRC (1987)

should be used to determine the potential impacts of sea level rise on plan formulation and engineering

structures. RSLR consists of two components: global (eustatic) sea level rise and local subsidence. The

uncertainty inherent in the rates of eustatic sea level rise is evident in the variability of the different

modeled rates given for the NRC (1987) projections and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC, 2007). A similar degree of uncertainty exists with the rate of local subsidence.

A detailed review of both eustatic and local subsidence rates was performed by the ERDC (Brown and

Stokes, 2009). This review found the eustatic rate estimates range from 1.8 mm/year to 6.45 mm/year for

the next 50 years. This study employs an estimate for eustatic rise (4.5 mm/year) that is in the middle of

the range projected by NRC (1987) and in the high middle range of that predicted by IPCC (2007). In

coastal Louisiana, estimates of the local subsidence component of RSLR were found to range from 0.4 to

0.6 mm/year based on basal peat measurements (Törnqvist et al., 2006), 2 to 5 mm/year as averaged from

48 years of tide gage data (Morton et al., 2006), and to 10 to 15 mm/year as measured from settling rates

of established benchmarks (Shinkle and Dokka, 2004). The ERDC’s review concluded that the lower

rates were the most technically valid. These lower rates represent long-term trends in the subsidence rate,

and seem to be the closest approximation of consensus concerning the local subsidence rate that is

currently available.

Adding these to the NRC II projections for eustatic sea level rise yields a value for the RSLR in the

SNWW study area over 50 years of 4.9 to 5.1 mm/year. The average of these, 5.0 mm/year is used for

modeling purposes.

Therefore, the “most likely” value of RSLR to be used for the SNWW deepening study’s 50-year period

of analysis is 250 mm (0.82 foot). Adjusting this to account for the period of analysis beginning in 2019

and ending in 2069 (the new period of analysis for the SNWW reformulation), the “most likely” amount

of RSLR by the year 2069 is 335 mm (1.1 feet).

Figure 4.1-2 illustrates the effect of RSLR on predicted FWOP salinity in the system with the low (10th

percentile) flows. The two simulations illustrate the salinity difference between the FWOP salinities

without RSLR and the FWOP salinities with RSLR. Both simulations use the same inflows (WAMs 2060

inflows). At most stations, the RSLR is predicted to cause average salinity to increase about 1 ppt.

Incorporating RSLR in the HS model raises water elevation uniformly by 1.1 feet, which in turn allows

greater salt transport through the system. At Bessie Heights, the salinity increase with the low-flow inputs

is 2.0 to 2.5 ppt. At the median inflows, the salinity increase from RSLR is 1.0 to 1.5 ppt.

1055
4. Environmental Consequences

4-5

Figure 4.1-2. Mean Salinity Values, Low-Flow Conditions

4.1.3 Application of HS Model to Predict Project Effects

Having established the HS model’s performance against field data and future conditions expected for

freshwater inflows and RSLR, the next step is to use the model to predict changes in water elevations and

salinity associated with project alternatives (the FWP condition). All simulations were performed using

the low and median freshwater inflows and the 1.1 feet RSLR increase. Three types of project alternatives

are considered: the 48-foot depth, other depth alternatives, and the effect of salinity mitigation measures.

4.1.3.1 Water Surface Elevations – 48 Foot Channel

Water surface elevation over the study area was largely unaffected by the deeper navigation channel. An

exception to the general result is the upper end of the Neches River near the saltwater barrier. Figure 4.1-3

provides a sample of the tides with and without the 48-foot channel at this location. The average highwater elevation appears to increase by 0.067 foot.

4.1.3.2 Salinity Changes – 48-Foot Channel

The effect of the 48-foot navigation channel is to increase salinity over most of the study area. The

increase is greater for the median flows than for the low flows, reflecting a greater salinity gradient at

high inflows, which allows a greater effect from the density current. Tables 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 provide a

statistical analysis of salinity differences at 17 stations throughout the system for the low- and median1056
4. Environmental Consequences

4-6

flow conditions. The tables provide the average differences between FWP and FWOP for surface, middepth, and bottom depths at each station.

Figure 4.1-3. Time Series of Tide at Neches River Salt Water Barrier – Low-Flow Case

The model salinity results are used for WVA modeling. The WVA requires input of “mean salinity”

during the growing season and “mean high salinity” for impacts to fresh and intermediate habitats. The

term “mean high salinity” is defined as the average of the highest 33 percent of consecutive salinity

readings during a specified period of record. These two outputs of the HS model: mean and highest

33 percent, are the primary inputs to the WVA modeling.

4.1.3.3 Salinity Changes – Other Channel Depths

A model run with a 45-foot channel indicated that the salinity differences from the FWOP were similar to

those with a 48-foot channel but lower in magnitude. To address salinity changes at other channel depths

besides 48 and 45 foot, a quadratic equation was developed at each station based on model results at 0-,

5-, and 8-foot channel depth increase. This allowed the salinity change for each channel depth alternative

to be predicted without having to model each deepening scenario independently.

1057
4. Environmental Consequences

4-7

Table 4.1-1

Statistical Analysis of Salinity Differences – Low Flow

Station Number

Average Differences

1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 14 15 16 17

Surface Salinity 0.14 0.68 0.41 0.89 0.08 –0.31 1.03 –0.10 1.01 0.96 –0.05 1.01 0.02

Mid-depth

Salinity 0.14 0.83 0.69 0.68 0.06 –0.25 1.03 –0.11 0.99 0.96 –0.04 0.01

Bottom Salinity 0.14 0.85 0.55 0.58 0.00 –0.21 1.03 –0.12 0.99 0.97 –0.05 0.00

Station Number

Standard Deviation of the Differences

1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 14 15 16 17

Surface Salinity 0.15 0.20 0.36 0.49 0.45 0.32 0.17 0.55 0.18 0.13 0.40 0.20 0.23

Mid-depth

Salinity 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.32 0.47 0.27 0.17 0.55 0.15 0.13 0.40 0.23

Bottom Salinity 0.15 0.23 0.25 0.35 0.47 0.26 0.17 0.55 0.15 0.14 0.41 0.23

Note: Statistics calculated after the spin-up period (hr 5088-7296)

Table 4.1-2

Statistical Analysis of Salinity Differences – Median Flow

Station Number

Average Differences

1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 14 15 16 1.62

Surface Salinity 0.00 0.13 0.79 0.23 1.60 0.11 1.37 1.18 1.09 1.61 1.41 1.38 1.60

Mid-depth

Salinity 0.00 0.16 1.18 0.22 1.78 0.25 1.37 1.16 1.11 1.62 1.42 1.58

Bottom Salinity 0.00 0.26 1.18 0.21 1.70 0.29 1.38 1.12 1.11 1.62 1.41

Station Number

Standard Deviation of the Differences

1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 14 15 16 17

Surface Salinity 0.01 0.22 0.64 0.44 1.20 1.01 0.73 0.90 0.73 0.59 0.88 0.61 0.83

Mid-depth

Salinity 0.01 0.28 0.69 0.38 1.24 0.98 0.73 0.92 0.73 0.59 0.92 0.83

Bottom Salinity 0.01 0.43 0.63 0.37 1.26 0.95 0.73 0.97 0.73 0.60 0.97 0.83

Station Number

Highest 10 Percent of Differences

1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 14 15 16 17

Surface Salinity 0.01 0.55 1.63 0.91 3.04 1.53 2.26 2.14 2.01 2.42 2.47 2.24 2.79

Mid-depth

Salinity 0.01 0.68 1.92 0.89 3.33 1.63 2.26 2.15 2.00 2.44 2.51 2.78

Bottom Salinity 0.01 1.03 1.87 0.84 3.26 1.65 2.26 2.14 2.00 2.47 2.51 2.78

Note: Statistics calculated after the spin-up period (hr 2136-6552)

1058
4. Environmental Consequences

4-8

4.1.3.4 Salinity Changes – Salinity Mitigation Measures

Three types of salinity mitigation measures were considered: large scale, small scale, and local. The largescale measures are those such as Rose City, Bessie Heights East and West, and Old River Cove. These

large-scale measures have the potential to influence the entire system and were modeled with the TABSMDS model. The small-scale features were evaluated with a desktop model, and the local measures such

as shoreline restoration or plugging of a logging canal were not modeled. The salinity results were used to

develop WVA benefits for the wide array of mitigation measures that were evaluated during the

preliminary screening of mitigation measures. The model runs for the large-scale measures were primarily

concerned with reclamation of wetlands along the Neches River. Salinity reductions predicted by the

modeling would only be effective if all of the proposed measures were adopted. Least-cost analyses

resulted in the exclusion of Bessie Heights West, a large feature that contained about one-third of the

proposed reclamation area. An FWP reduction in salinity is not forecast in conjunction with reclamation

of the remaining components of the Neches River BU Feature because salinity effects of this revised BU

plan have not been modeled, and the removal of Bessie Heights West would be expected to significantly

reduce salinity benefits.

4.1.4 Application of the WVA Model

4.1.4.1 Comparison of the FWOP and FWP Conditions

The WVA methodology provides a comprehensive, quantitative estimate of FWP changes in the quality

and quantity of emergent marsh, cypress-tupelo swamp, and bottomland hardwood forests.

Each WVA model consists of variables considered important to each habitat type and suitability indices

(SI) for each variable. All of the variable SIs for a specific community (i.e., fresh/intermediate, brackish,

or saline marsh; swamp; bottomland hardwood) are combined in a mathematical formula to calculate the

Habitat Suitability Index (HSI), which represents the composite habitat quality of the wetland being

evaluated. Within each HSI formula, important variables may be weighted relative to other variables in

the formula. The HSI formulae employed for the SNWW ecological modeling are based on those

developed by the CWPPRA Environmental Work Group (USFWS, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c).

The WVA methodology quantifies changes in specific wetland structural and functional characteristics

determined to be significant indicators of habitat health and quality. It combines the effects of changes in

wetland productivity and structure to calculate impacts measured as AAHU values. Future without project

and FWP conditions for the period of analysis were projected using salinities from the HS model as input

into the WVA model. The FWOP condition predicts changes expected to occur under the No-Action

Alternative described in Section 3. The FWP condition addresses the changes expected to result from

project construction, including impacts from the placement of dredged material, benefits of the BU

features, and effects of the compensatory mitigation plan.

HSIs are established for the FWOP and FWP conditions for selected target years (TY) throughout the life

of the project. Habitat units are calculated by multiplying these HSIs by the affected acreage at each target

1059
4. Environmental Consequences

4-9

year. The habitat units for the FWOP and FWP conditions totaled over the project life are divided by the

total years of the project to determine AAHUs. Small changes in some variables like salinity, when

applied to thousands of acres in the large hydrologic units in this study area, produce the changes in

AAHUs shown tables 4.1-3 and 4.1-4 for Texas and Louisiana, respectively. The impacts or benefits of

the project are then quantified by comparing AAHUs between FWP and FWOP conditions. This

procedure fulfills the USACE requirement that compensation be evaluated using a unit of comparison that

measures quality and quantity of habitat values over time.

The same procedure used to estimate FWP land loss was used to quantify the compensation associated

with mitigation measures, which is described in detail in Chapter 5. Screened mitigation measures

affected salinities in some areas, blocked shoreline retreat, and restored emergent marsh elevations in

others. These changes were reflected in land loss tables specific to each mitigation measure as follows:

(1) revised FWP land loss rates were calculated by substituting salinity values predicted by the HS model

(Brown and Stokes, 2009) in the land loss rate formula for hydro-units on the Neches River; (2) acreages

were adjusted in the land loss tables to account for the effect of mitigation measures, such as breakwaters

or shoreline nourishment, which stopped or slowed existing shoreline retreat; and (3) acreages were

adjusted in the land loss tables to add emergent marsh acres restored by the placement of dredged material

or in-situ marsh terracing. Credit for marsh acreage was generally delayed by 1 year to allow time for

planted and volunteer marsh vegetation to become established. This is based upon recent experience with

CWPPRA and other marsh restoration projects in the lower Sabine and Neches watersheds where marsh

plantings and natural vegetation rebounded quickly and robustly to create a stable marsh landscape.

Procedures to estimate the effects of mitigation measures deviate from the FWP land loss method in the

specific instances where mitigation measures add mineral soils to degraded areas of former marsh. In

these cases, the ICT projected that the loss rate for the mitigation areas would be lower because the

addition of denser, mineral soils and the increase in marsh elevation would create a more stable landform.

Accordingly, land loss rates due to the project were reduced by 50 percent in the land loss change

spreadsheets for these areas. Other mitigation measures that did not involve the creation of a higher,

more-stable landform were modeled using a land loss rate equivalent to the FWP rate.

4.1.4.2 Emergent Marsh Community Models

The EMCMs were used to evaluate saline, brackish, intermediate, and fresh marsh habitats in the study

area. Variables included in the models were selected based upon their importance to fish and wildlife in

coastal marsh ecosystems. A large number of species-specific HSI models for a variety of fish and

shellfish, freshwater fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians, and mammals were reviewed and considered in

the development of model assumptions. Six variables represent wetland habitat quality in the model:

1060
4. Environmental Consequences

4-10

Table 4.1-3

SNWW WVA Impacts Summary – Before DMMP Benefits

and Mitigation (Louisiana Impacts Sorted by AAHUs)

HU #

Hydrologic

Unit Habitat Type

FWOP

Net

Change

Acres

FWP

Net

Change

Total

Acres

FWP

Net

Change

%

Acres

FWOP

Net

Change

AAHUs

FWP

Net

Change

AAHUs

FWOP

Salinity

(ppt)

FWP

Salinity

(ppt)

FWP

Net

Salinity

Change

(ppt)

LA 3 Black

Bayou

Intermediate

Marsh

–1,713 –130 –0.3 14,734 –509 4.00 5.10 1.1

LA 2 Willow

Bayou

Intermediate

(Brackish

lumped)

–2,116 –102 0.3 11,249 –328 6.30 7.20 0.9

LA 4 West

Johnson’s

Bayou

Intermediate

Marsh

–1,703 –142 –0.8 5,729 –269 6.30 7.50 1.2

LA 5 Sabine Lake

Ridges

Intermediate

Marsh

–1,103 –93 –0.7 4,868 –218 6.30 7.50 1.2

LA 9 East

Johnson’s

Bayou

Intermediate

Marsh

–895 –46 –0.2 13,820 –190 4.20 5.20 1.0

LA 1 Perry Ridge Fresh Marsh –921 –50 –0.2 8,947 –65 0.90 1.24 0.3

LA 1 Perry Ridge Intermediate

Marsh

–191 –12 –0.1 1,873 –53 0.90 1.24 0.3

LA 5 Sabine Lake

Ridges

Saline Marsh –398 –10 –0.5 2,184 –35 17.00 18.40 1.4

LA 8 Southwest

Gum Cove

Fresh Marsh –152 –8 –0.3 2,170 –2 1.20 2.10 0.9

LA 5 Sabine Lake

Ridges

Brackish Marsh –2,567 –43 –0.1 9,113 –14 8.00 8.60 0.6

LA 7 Southeast

Sabine

Fresh Marsh –40 0 0.0 1,231 –11 1.80 2.30 0.5

LA 6 Johnson’s

Bayou

Ridge

Brackish Marsh –707 –22 –0.3 1,285 –6 6.00 6.70 0.7

LA 8 Southwest

Gum Cove

Intermediate

(Brackish

lumped)

–233 –15 –0.2 3,253 –4 2.40 3.30 0.9

LA 6 Johnson’s

Bayou

Ridge

Saline Marsh –93 –5 –1.0 195 –2 12.00 13.80 1.8

LA 3 Black

Bayou

Brackish Marsh –803 –4 0.0 1,643 –1 3.00 3.80 0.8

LA 4 West

Johnson’s

Bayou

Brackish Marsh –1,189 –6 –0.2 768 –1 6.00 6.70 0.7

LA 2 Willow

Bayou

Brackish Marsh –695 –2 498 –1 1.4

LA/TX 1 Sabine

Island

Cypress/Tupelo

Swamp

0 0 0.0 4,499 0 0.69 1.10 0.4

LA/TX 2 Blue Elbow Cypress/Tupelo

Swamp (BH

lumped)

0 0 0.0 300 0 1.00 1.60 0.6

LA 7 Southeast

Sabine

Intermediate

(Brackish

lumped)

–96 –1 0.0 3,204 0 1.80 2.00 0.2

LA 1 Perry Ridge Bottomland

Hardwood

0 0 0.0 2,080 0 0.90 1.24 0.3

LA/TX 1 Sabine

Island

Bottomland

Hardwood

0 0 0.0 999 0 0.69 1.10 0.4

Total –15,615 –691 94,642 –1,709

1061
4. Environmental Consequences

4-11

Table 4.1-4

SNWW WVA Impacts Summary – Before DMMP Benefits

and Mitigation (Texas Impacts Sorted by AAHUs)

HU #

Hydrologic

Unit Habitat Type

FWOP

Net

Change

Acres

FWP

Net

Change

Total

Acres

FWP

Net

Change

%

Acres

FWOP

Net

Change

AAHUs

FWP

Net

Change

AAHUs

FWOP

Salinity

(ppt)

FWP

Salinity

(ppt)

FWP

Net

Salinity

Change

(ppt)

TX 7 GIWW North Fresh (Intermediate

lumped)

–539 –63 –0.4 2,602 –140 0.70 1.20 1.6

TX 6 Old River

Cove

Brackish Marsh –1,518 –46 –0.3 3,061 –116 10.00 11.00 1.8

TX 3 Rose City

PA24A

Fresh Marsh –3 –86 –63.3 53 –32 0.3

TX 8 Texas Point Intermediate (Fresh

lumped)

–245 –6 –1.3 940 –19 5.50 8.00 0.8

TX 12 Blue Elbow

South

Cypress/Tupelo Swamp 0 0 0.0 418 –18 1.67 2.60 0.6

TX 10 Cow Bayou Fresh Marsh –75 –6 –0.1 824 –18 2.00 2.20 1.0

TX 11 Adams Bayou Fresh Marsh –28 –3 –0.7 305 –15 2.10 4.10 1.5

TX 5 Bessie Heights Intermediate (Brackish

lumped)

31 –1 0.0 1,273 –14 4.20 4.70 0.3

TX 10 Cow Bayou Intermediate Marsh –59 –3 0.0 741 –12 2.00 2.20 1.0

TX 7 GIWW North Brackish Marsh –62 –2 –0.1 380 –8 9.00 9.60 1.6

TX 8 Texas Point Brackish Marsh –252 –5 –0.4 1,464 –7 8.50 11.00 0.8

TX 8 Texas Point Saline Marsh –2,446 –17 –0.9 2,480 –5 12.50 15.00 0.8

TX 11 Adams Bayou Cypress/Tupelo Swamp 0 0 0.0 44 –4 2.10 4.10 0.8

TX 13 Groves Intermediate Marsh –68 –3 –0.7 220 –3 1.0

TX 3 Rose City Fresh Marsh –93 –3 –0.1 1,365 –1 0.25 0.55 0.3

TX 2 Neches-Lake

Bayou

Cypress/Tupelo Swamp 0 0 0.0 1,977 0 2.00 2.90 0.0

TX 1 North Neches

River

Cypress/Tupelo Swamp 0 0 0.0 2,399 0 0.90 1.70 0.0

LA/TX 2 Blue Elbow Cypress/Tupelo Swamp

(BH lumped)

0 0 0.0 1,261 0 0.3

TX 2 Neches-Lake

Bayou

Fresh Marsh –24 0 –0.1 808 0 2.00 2.90 0.1

LA/TX 1 Sabine Island Cypress/Tupelo Swamp 0 0 0.0 896 0 0.0

TX 5 Bessie Heights Fresh Marsh –40 –2 –0.1 1,313 0 1.00 1.50 0.5

TX 1 North Neches

River

Fresh Marsh –8 0 0.0 249 0 0.90 1.70 0.0

TX 10 Cow Bayou Cypress/Tupelo Swamp 0 0 0.0 55 0 2.00 2.20 1.0

TX 4 West of Rose

City

Fresh Marsh –24 –1 –0.1 238 0 0.10 0.40 0.4

TX 5 Bessie Heights Bottomland Hardwood 0 0 0.0 225 0 1.00 1.50 0.5

TX 3 Rose City Cypress/Tupelo Swamp 0 0 0.0 217 0 0.25 0.55 0.3

TX 1 North Neches

River

Bottomland Hardwood 0 0 0.0 277 0 0.90 1.70 0.0

LA/TX 1 Sabine Island Bottomland Hardwood 0 0 0.0 503 0 0.0

TX 3 Rose City Bottomland Hardwood 0 0 0.0 698 0 0.25 0.55 0.3

TX 6 Old River

Cove

Bottomland Hardwood 0 0 0.0 149 0 1.00 1.50 0.5

TX 10 Cow Bayou Bottomland Hardwood 0 0 0.0 286 0 2.00 2.20 1.0

TX 11 Adams Bayou Bottomland Hardwood 0 0 0.0 402 0 2.10 4.10 0.8

TX 2 Neches-Lake

Bayou

Bottomland Hardwood 0 0 0.0 1,164 0 2.00 2.90 0.0

Totals –5,453 –247 28,124 –412

1062
4. Environmental Consequences

4-12

V1 percent of the wetland covered by emergent vegetation

V2 percent of the open water covered by SAV

V3 marsh edge and interspersion

V4 percent of the open-water area less than or equal to 1.5 feet deep

V5 salinity

V6 aquatic organism access

The reader is cautioned that straightforward comparisons of impacts associated with changes in salinity or

other variables are not easily made between hydro-units. The varying AAHUs and acreage results are due

to differences in project impacts, underlying conditions (i.e., existing land loss rate, marsh interspersion,

SAV), and the size of the hydro-unit. Salinity is not the only determinant; changes in other variables can

also have significant effects. Additional information about the weighting of variables is provided below.

However, refer to Appendix C of the FEIS for detailed narratives of the FWOP and FWP conditions in

each hydro-unit.

The primary focus of the SNWW application of the EMCM is the preservation of vegetated wetlands, but

it is also recognized that some marsh restoration or protection strategies could have an adverse effect on

aquatic organisms. Therefore, variables V1 (percent emergent vegetation), V2 (percent SAV), and V6

(aquatic organism access) are grouped together and weighted more than the remaining variables. For all

marsh models, V1 receives the greatest weighting; however, the relative weights of V1, V2, and V6 vary by

marsh model to reflect different levels of importance between the marsh types.

The EMCM employs a split model format to account for the value of both marsh and open-water habitats.

Two HSI formulas are calculated for each marsh type – one for emergent marsh habitat and one for openwater habitat. The HSI formula for emergent marsh contains the variables important for evaluating its

habitat quality (V1-percent coverage of emergent vegetation, V3-marsh edge and interspersion, V5-

salinity, and V6-aquatic organism access). The HSI formula for open-water habitat contains only the

variables important to that habitat component (V2-percent open water with SAV, V3-marsh edge and

interspersion, V4-percent open water <1.5 feet deep, V5-salinity, and V6-aquatic organism access).

4.1.4.3 Swamp Community Model

The SCM uses variables that evaluate the ability of swamps to provide resting, foraging, and nesting

habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species. In general, the swamp model can be applied if woody

canopy cover is at least 33 percent of the surface area, and at least 60 percent of the canopy consists of

any combination of bald cypress, tupelo gum, red maple, buttonbush, and/or planertree (Planera

aquatica). The following four variables represent swamp habitat quality in the model:

V1 stand structure

V2 stand maturity

V3 water regime

V4 mean high salinity during the growing season

1063
4. Environmental Consequences

4-13

All of the SIs are combined in a mathematical formula, the HSI, which represents the composite habitat

quality. Variables V1 and V3 (stand structure and water regime) are considered the most important

variables in characterizing swamp habitat quality and therefore are weighted more than other variables.

Variables V1 and V2 were adjusted for the dampening effect of salinity on tree growth, using output from

the HS model. Variable V4 (salinity) is weighted lower than the other variables.

4.1.4.4 Bottomland Hardwood Model

The BHM applies to forested wetlands that support a canopy of woody vegetation of which more than

40 percent of tree species consist of oaks, hickories, American elm, cedar elm, green ash, sweetgum,

sugarberry, boxelder (Acer negundo), common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), honeylocust

(Gleditsia triacanthos), red mulberry (Morus rubra), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), black

willow (Salix nigra), and American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Variable selection for the model

was based upon a review of various USFWS HSI models for bottomland hardwood wildlife. The

following variables represent bottomland hardwood habitat quality in the model:

V1 tree species composition

V2 stand maturity

V3 midstory/understory

V4 hydrology

V5 size of contiguous forested area

V6 surrounding land uses

V7 disturbance

The model incorporates site-specific habitat quality features (tree species composition, forest stand

structure, stand maturity, and hydrology) and landscape parameters (forest size, surrounding land use, and

disturbance). Because the primary application of this model is to quantify the loss of ecological values

due to changes in the site-specific conditions, variables that are likely to be affected by these changes (V1,

V2, V3, and V4) are considered more important than the landscape variables. Of the site-specific variables,

V1 (tree species composition) and V2 (stand maturity) are considered equal and of greater importance than

the other variables. Variable V3 (understory/midstory) and V4 (hydrology) are weighted less than V1 and

V2. The “landscape” variables (V5, V6, and V7) are not weighted. Variables V1, V2, and V3 were adjusted

for the dampening effect of salinity on tree growth, using output from the HS model.

4.1.5 Storm Surge Sensitivity Modeling

The potential for proposed project features to increase storm surge impacts in the study area was analyzed

with a storm surge sensitivity analysis (Wamsley et al., 2010). The ADCIRC model was run to estimate

water levels for two worst-case hypothetical storms, both with and without proposed SNWW CIP project

features in place. Project features evaluated by the modeling are the deeper navigation channel, proposed

PAs with maximum levee heights, and two expanded PAs. The two simulated storms exhibited minimum

central pressures of 900 millibars, offshore pressure radii between 14.9 and 18.4 nautical miles, and

1064
4. Environmental Consequences

4-14

forward speeds of 11 knots. Each produced water levels near or higher than the estimated 500-year level,

and both would be considered extreme events. One storm tracked in the northwesterly direction,

producing maximum surges of 18 feet near the coast at Sabine Pass and surges of 13–14 feet in Sabine

Lake near Port Arthur, Texas. The second storm tracked in a north-northeasterly direction, producing

maximum surges of over 20 feet near Sabine Pass and surges of 15 to 17 feet in Sabine Lake near Port

Arthur.

The sensitivity analysis concluded that the greatest changes would occur north of Port Arthur along the

Neches River. These changes are primarily due to the proposed increase in depth of the navigation

channel. All changes are local, and there are no project-induced increases in surges away from the

immediate vicinity of the navigation channel. Water levels in the marshes and open-water areas

immediately north of the river would increase on the order of 4 to 8 inches or less. The modeling indicates

some interior flooding would occur within the City of Port Arthur with both storms, both with and

without the project. Changes in peak surge within the city for these two events, with the project in place,

are caused by a slight increase in surge elevation and/or duration causing additional overtopping of the

surrounding levee or internal topographic features. Peak surges for 100-year events are estimated to be

approximately 9 feet in the Port Arthur area. Although simulations of less-intense events were not made

as part of this study, in light of the 14- to 24-foot levees surrounding Port Arthur, significant interior

flooding is not expected for the base condition. Any changes in peak surge on the order of inches should

not cause any significant change in interior flooding for the with-project condition.

The Preferred Alternative for the SNWW CIP also includes ODMDS and marsh restoration measures. All

of the existing and proposed ODMDSs are located several miles from the Gulf shoreline in water too deep

to affect wave setup on the shoreline. The influences of marsh restoration on hurricane surge have been

documented by Wamsley et al. (2009a, 2009b). Surges tend to slightly increase over and just seaward of

the marsh as the surge propagation is slowed, which may result in reductions in peak water levels

landward of marsh features. The impact of the proposed SNWW CIP marsh restoration features is

relatively small and expected to modify peak surge levels locally by a minimal amount (Wamsley et al.,

2010). No significant reductions or increases in surge level would be expected from either the marsh

restoration or ODMDS.

4.2 UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH ECOLOGICAL

MODELING FOR THE SNWW CIP

An analysis of risk and uncertainty associated with the WVA model application to the SNWW CIP has

been performed in consideration of recommendations contained in the Actions for Change directive

(USACE, 2006d). This analysis will facilitate risk-informed decision-making regarding the levels of

ecological impacts and resulting recommended compensatory mitigation that were established using the

models. The primary risks associated with ecological modeling for the SNWW CIP relate to the accuracy

of the impact assessment and the cost of mitigation. Risks to human health or safety associated with

ecological impacts are small. Incremental marsh loss attributable to the Preferred Alternative

1065
4. Environmental Consequences

4-15

(approximately 691 acres or about 2/5th of 1 percent of emergent marsh in the study area) would not

affect the overall effectiveness of the coastal wetlands in buffering inland areas from storm surge effects.

An evaluation of the risks and uncertainties involved in application of the ecological model, on which the

amount of proposed compensatory mitigation is based, is necessary to evaluate the adequacy of the

recommended amount of ecological mitigation, and to support the recommended Federal investment. The

reader is referred to Appendix C of this FEIS for the complete sensitivity analysis, including detailed

methodology and analysis. A brief summary of the results of the analysis is presented below.

There are two types of uncertainty that have been identified for the predictive ecological modeling

conducted in this study—uncertainty associated with model quality and performance, and uncertainty

associated with model predictions. In regard to the first type of uncertainty, extensive technical review of

the WVA models has been conducted to ensure that they are technically sound and defensible (LBG and

TEA, 2008). The assessment determined that the concept and application of the models are sound for

planning efforts. Theoretical approaches of the WVA models use scientifically established structural

surrogates to evaluate wetland quality. The models’ variables provide a reasonable description of the

emergent marsh, swamp, and bottomland hardwood habitats, and are capable of evaluating project effects

to habitat-based, functional processes that may be affected by the project. Based upon the results of this

assessment, the Deep Draft Navigation Planning Center of Expertise, in consultation with the National

Ecosystem Planning Center of Expertise, concurred with the findings of this assessment and approved the

use of the WVA EMCM, BHM, and SCM for the SNWW feasibility study (Memorandum for

Commander, HQ USACE [CECW-PC] and Commander, Southwest Division [CESWD-PDS] from the

Director of Deep Draft Navigation Planning Center of Expertise [CESAD-PDS-P], dated June 30, 2009).

This satisfies the requirements of EC 1105-2-407, as the WVA models were developed by a Federal

agency other than the USACE, and are therefore subject to approval for use rather than certification.

Uncertainty associated with predictions of the WVA models (i.e., how different predictable outcomes

could affect ecological impacts and costs) was evaluated by varying input values for the most significant

variables. The WVA models do not include a direct way to measure risk, i.e., the model does not calculate

a probability distribution that provides a statistically significant confidence level for the model

projections. Since salinity is the driving force influencing WVA model predictions, salinity-related

variables were targeted in one sensitivity analysis. The other analysis focused on an assumption

underlying the valuation of the percent of emergent marsh cover. A range of possible outcomes associated

with variable V1 (percent of emergent marsh) in the EMCM, and variables V4 and V5 (salinity) in the

SCM and EMCM, respectively, were evaluated to determine how uncertainties related to variable

assumptions and values could affect impact predictions and compensatory mitigation decisions. Since the

analysis was conducted to evaluate uncertainties with the recommended level of compensatory mitigation,

the analysis was performed for the Louisiana hydro-units in which unavoidable impacts would occur.

1066
4. Environmental Consequences

4-16

4.2.1 Salinity Sensitivity

Because of uncertainties associated with HS model predictions of salinity impacts, a sensitivity analysis

was performed to evaluate the full range of potential project effects. Salinity changes predicted with

implementation of the Preferred Alternative were provided by the HS model. High- and low-salinity

values bracketing the 95 percent confidence level were entered into WVA model for all habitats in

Louisiana hydro-units. Ranges of AAHU impacts were then produced based on the 95 percent salinity

range.

For cypress-tupelo swamps, the sensitivity analysis yielded a range of potential loss from 0 to 9 AAHUs,

with no impact predicted to be most likely. The uppermost reaches of the Sabine River would remain

essentially fresh; however, the Blue Elbow swamp near the GIWW could experience suboptimal salinities

at the high end of the salinity range. Even at the maximum salinity, levels would not be suboptimal to the

extent that sustainability of the swamp forest would be threatened. No impacts would be expected in the

bottomland hardwood habitats at the maximum range of salinity predicted by the sensitivity analysis.

The largest range of potential impacts could occur within the intermediate marsh communities located

east of Sabine Lake. AAHU losses for the intermediate marshes could range from 312 to 2,407 AAHUs,

as compared to the FWP’s most likely loss of 1,571 AAHUs. The highest potential salinities are

suboptimal for most of the intermediate marshes east of Sabine Lake, and some exceed the maximum

tolerance range. At the highest potential salinities, intermediate marshes in Willow Bayou, West

Johnson’s Bayou, and Sabine Lake Ridges would likely convert to brackish marsh about 20 years after

project construction.

Impacts at the highest potential salinities would not threaten the sustainability of any of the other marsh

communities over the period of analysis. Salinities remain within or close to the optimal range. For fresh

marsh communities, AAHU losses could range from 8 to 477, as compared to the most likely loss of

78 AAHUs. For saline and brackish marshes combined, AAHU losses could range from 20 to 253, as

compared to the FWP’s most likely loss of 60 AAHUs.

The salinity sensitivity analysis of the WVA models demonstrated that there is a wide range of potential

outcomes in AAHU losses attributable to uncertainties in salinity predictions. These outcomes range from

a loss of 340 to 3,146 AAHUs within the 95 percent confidence range of salinity, the primary driver in the

EMCM and SCM. After adjustments for the Gulf Shore BU Feature benefits (210 AAHUs) and the BU

offset of impacts to Federal lands (340 AAHUs), losses could range from zero to 2,596 AAHUs. Based

on the cost per AAHU of the recommended mitigation plan ($77.5 million; 1,181 AAHUs), the cost of

compensatory mitigation could range from $0 to about $170 million. The total predicted FWP loss of

1,499 AAHUs in Louisiana is based upon forecasts of the most likely salinity levels, and takes into

account the potential FWOP effects of RSLR and changes in future freshwater inflows.

1067
4. Environmental Consequences

4-17

4.2.2 Percent Emergent Marsh Sensitivity Analysis

Ninety-nine percent of Louisiana impacts predicted by the ecological model were made using the EMCM.

The most highly weighted variable in this model is V1 (percent emergent marsh). This parameter is

considered most significant because persistent emergent vegetation provides foraging, resting, and

breeding habitat for a variety of coastal fish and wildlife species. Detritus from coastal marshes also

provides a source of mineral and organic nourishment for organisms at the base of the food chain.

Without the structure provided by the emergent marsh, the majority of the ecological benefits provided by

this system disappears. Changes in the value of this parameter were predicted by relating changes in

salinity to changes in marsh loss using a process that is described in Section 4.10. This sensitivity analysis

explores the effects of an assumption that underlies the valuation of emergent marsh in this variable. The

SNWW application of this model uses the same assumptions adopted by the EnvWG in its application of

the model to CWPPRA restoration projects (USFWS, 2002b). In this model, optimal vegetative coverage

is assumed to be 100 percent (SI = 1.0) for all marsh types. This assumption diverges from the general

biological understanding that optimal cover falls in the 60 to 80 percent range, but it was adopted by the

EnvWG to reflect CWPPRA’s objective of long-term marsh creation and restoration. Questions have

arisen as to whether maximizing the value of marsh coverage is appropriate for the SNWW application in

which the primary purpose is the identification of project impacts and compensatory mitigation.

Selection of 100 percent marsh cover as the optimal habitat condition (V1-Original) for the SNWW

application was based upon several factors. Maximizing the value of emergent marsh over associated

shallow-water habitat is based upon the important ecological concept of long-term sustainability. With the

SNWW project, marshes would continue to degrade over the 65-year period of analysis due to the effects

of RSLR. Without the associated marshes, the small open-water areas would lose their value as nursery

habitat, becoming open-bay or open-Gulf habitat. Restoration or mitigation projects generally need to

maximize the creation of emergent marsh, so as to ensure the sustainability of the land itself.

To evaluate the effect of this assumption on the SNWW application, the EMCM was rerun for all of the

Louisiana marsh communities using a revised formula for the variable in which optimal vegetative

coverage (SI = 1.0) is assumed for a marsh coverage of 60 to 80 percent (V1-Revised). Overall, impacts

using V1-Revised dropped by 3 percent. As would be expected, the smallest percentage changes occurred

in marshes where the percent emergent marsh remained between 60 and 80 percent for both the FWOP

and FWP conditions. If the V1-Revised formula were used to calculate the mitigation target for the

recommended mitigation plan, the net loss would be 244 AAHUs. If V1-Revised were used to compute

compensatory mitigation as it is currently designed, mitigation costs would increase by at least 42 percent

to meet the V1-Revised mitigation target.

If the same mitigation measures were redesigned so that marsh fill would never exceed 80 percent, the

amount of restored acres would drop from 2,696 to 2,215 acres. However, compensation as measured

with the V1-Revised formula would increase and the net loss would be 167 AAHUs. Based upon the cost

of the recommended mitigation plan, it is estimated that the total mitigation cost would be about 3 percent

greater than the recommended mitigation plan. More significantly, the modified plan would restore about

1068
4. Environmental Consequences

4-18

18 percent fewer acres and do less to ensure the long-term sustainability of the marsh than the

recommended mitigation plan.

4.2.3 Recommendations Resulting from WVA Model Sensitivity

Analysis

The recommended compensatory mitigation plan is based upon the most likely range of salinity change as

established by the HS model, scientifically based projections of changes in habitat resulting from the

predicted salinity change, and the professional judgment and knowledge of the area by the large team of

natural resource and engineering professionals who applied the WVA model to the SNWW CIP. The ICT

HW contained professionals with expertise in wetland impact evaluation, marsh restoration, wetland

forest management, aquatic habitat evaluation, freshwater and marine fisheries, terrestrial and avian

wildlife biology, as well as natural resource management personnel from all of the protected lands in the

study area.

In addition, the recommended mitigation plan maximizes the value of emergent marsh when measuring

impacts and determining compensatory mitigation for project-related losses to this nationally significant,

endangered resource. Without the structure provided by the emergent marsh, the majority of the

ecological benefits provided by these systems disappear. For these reasons, no changes to the

recommended mitigation plan are proposed as a result of this sensitivity analysis. It is recommended that

Best Buy Plan #6 mitigation plan (described in Chapter 5) be selected as it incorporates the level of

compensation needed to address the most likely impacts of the SNWW CIP.

4.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY

4.3.1 No-Action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative would not impact physiography or geology within the study area. Alterations

to bathymetry from maintenance dredging of existing ship channels, in addition to topographic changes

from the placement of dredged materials at PAs, would continue under the No-Action scenario.

4.3.2 Preferred Alternative

The total estimated amount of dredged material generated from the proposed project would be

approximately 98 mcy of new work material and approximately 650 mcy of maintenance material over

50 years after the project is constructed. This material would be placed in BU features, PAs, and

ODMDSs, as described in Section 2.5.

Impacts on local geology during dredging associated with the Preferred Alternative would include

redistribution of existing sediment, local increases in turbidity, and potential changes in local scouring

and shoaling rates. Net impacts on local geology would be minimal from these operations. Additionally,

no impacts or modifications to geologic hazards such as faulting and subsidence are expected.

1069
4. Environmental Consequences

4-19

Two PAs would be created. The area where PA 24A would be created is currently a wetland habitat with

a central upland ridge, which is set back from the shoreline of a Neches River oxbow and does not block

overland flow to bottomland hardwoods along the shore. A critical section of marshhay cordgrass wetland

was excluded from the proposed PA, and the boundaries were drawn to exclude bottomland hardwoods

that line the Neches River oxbow west of the PA. The area where PA 18A would be created is already an

upland area so there should be no topographic impact. Further information pertaining to specific PA

descriptions and quantities of new work and maintenance material involved are presented in Section 2.4.

Three miles of shoreline located at Texas and Louisiana Points would be affected by the proposed Gulf

Shore BU Feature (see Figure 2.5-2). Over the 50-year period of analysis, 16 placement episodes are

expected, occurring in 3-year cycles, alternating between Texas and Louisiana. The Gulf Shore BU

Feature would provide a regular source of predominantly fine-grained sediment that should contribute to

mudflat accretion and periodically move onshore to become shore-attached through a process described

by PIE (2003). On the western Louisiana and east Texas coasts, sediments accumulate as mudflats and

underwater mudshoals (or “fluid mud”) in the nearshore region. Nearshore, fluid mud can be trapped

against the shoreline by prevailing south and southwesterly winds, and storms carry the trapped muddy

ooze onto the chenier shoreline. The presence of additional fine-grained sediments in the littoral system

that would be provided by the BU feature should reduce the current erosion rate, and minimize the small

increase in shore erosion predicted with the project (Gravens and King, 2003). In systems that have an

abundant supply of fine-grained sediments, the nearshore seabed can be blanketed with fluid mud. The

presence of additional muddy sediment in the nearshore environment may attenuate waves and lessen

wave-induced erosion (Hsiao and Shemdin, 1980; Tubman and Suhayda, 1976; Wells and Kemp, 1986).

Although the BU sediments would be largely fine grained, approximately 18 percent of maintenance

material is expected to be sand. Sands that are deposited on shore would nourish and stabilize eroding

marshes; sand deposited in the nearshore zone should stay in the nearshore environment, moving back

and forth across the shoreface (Wamsley, 2008). More details on the expected behavior of the material

can be found in subsection 2.5.3.2.

Three degraded marsh areas along the Neches River would be combined into the Neches River BU

Feature. This large BU feature would use new work material and future maintenance material to benefit a

total of 4,958 acres of degraded marsh on the lower Neches River by restoring 2,853 acres of emergent

marsh; improving 871 acres of shallow water by creating shallower ponds and interconnecting channels;

and nourishing 1,234 acres of existing fringing marsh by winnowing fine-grained material from

unconfined flows of dredged material effluent. It would fulfill 53 percent of the restoration target set by

the CEPRA 2004 plan update for the lower Neches River (GLO, 2004). Further information pertaining to

this BU feature can be found in subsection 2.5.3.2.

Construction of mitigation measures in Louisiana would use sediment obtained from nearby waterbodies

to restore marsh. The Willow Bayou Mitigation Measure would use sediment obtained from dredging the

bottom of Sabine Lake to restore soils and marsh elevation to open-water areas in the marsh east of

Sabine Lake. A 1.8-mile-long borrow trench in Sabine Lake would be dredged about 1,000 feet from the

Sabine NWR shore and would average 1,030 feet wide by 7.5 feet deep. The borrow trench would be

1070
4. Environmental Consequences

4-20

continuous and parallel the current shoreline; the common longshore circulation pattern in Sabine Lake is

expected to eventually fill the trench with Sabine River sediments. An access channel from the GIWW

near the mouth of the Sabine River would be needed for the dredge to reach the proposed borrow trench

area. The exact locations of the borrow trench and access channel would be determined in consultation

with the ICT after PED bottom surveys of potential locations. Black Bayou Mitigation Measures LA 3-

15B and LA 3-18B would hydraulically dredge accumulated material from the 30-foot-deep Lake Charles

Deepwater Channel (co-located with GIWW in Louisiana) and use it to restore marsh in open-water areas

south of the GIWW. While changes would occur to local bathymetry and topography during construction

of the proposed project, these alterations would be expected to have negligible impacts on the regional

physiography of the submerged and subaerial portions of the study area. No impacts associated with

geologic hazards are expected, and impacts on local geology are expected to be minimal.

4.4 WATER QUALITY

4.4.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no construction dredging; therefore, there would be no

new work material for placement. While no turbidity or possibility for the release of undesired chemicals

would occur, there would also be no opportunity for the creation of marshes using dredged material

beneficially.

Under the No-Action Alternative, water quality would be as it is presently, as described in Section 3.3,

with a gradual increase in salinity from RSLR in the future without the proposed project. There would be

short-term increases in turbidity and the possibility of release of undesired chemicals during maintenance

dredging, as there is now. All maintenance material is currently placed into PAs or ODMDSs.

4.4.2 Preferred Alternative

USACE has received §401 State Water Quality Certification from Texas and Louisiana for this action. A

CWA §404(b)(1) evaluation of the proposed action, provided in Appendix E, describes the effects of the

proposed discharges. All relevant sediment and water quality data for both new work and maintenance

dredging material were reviewed by a team of State and Federal resource agencies (ICT CW), including

the TCEQ and LDEQ, and they found no cause for concern over water or sediment quality in any channel

reach. New work sediments were deemed suitable for use in constructing restoration or mitigation sites,

BU features, placement in ODMDSs, and upland confined PAs. Maintenance material would be handled

according to the DMMP. The DMMP measures, to the greatest degree possible, the use of dredged

material as a beneficial resource. The Gulf Shore BU feature shares the material from Sabine Pass equally

between the states. The new work and maintenance material used in the BU features of the Preferred

Alternative would allow the restoration of approximately 4,958 acres of emergent marsh in Texas. It

would also be used for beach nourishment on Texas and Louisiana Points.

The Preferred Alternative is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. As noted above,

there should be little, if any, difference in inland turbidity or DO levels between the No-Action

1071
4. Environmental Consequences

4-21

Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. Best Management Practices would be employed during

construction of restoration and mitigation areas. Significant detrimental environmental effects have not

been noted in past construction and maintenance operations and are not expected with the Preferred

Alternative since much of the construction and maintenance material would be used beneficially, and the

rest would go into PAs or ODMDSs. Short-term increases in turbidity may be caused by the unconfined

flow of dredged material during construction of BU features and mitigation measures. There would be

temporary, minor impacts from ocean placement at the new proposed ODMDSs, as discussed in detail in

Appendix B. Temporary water quality impacts may occur during borrow trench and access channel

dredging in Sabine Lake and the Lake Charles Deepwater Channel for mitigation measures (see also

sections 5.5.1, Willow Bayou Mitigation, and 5.5.2, Black Bayou Mitigation).

There is the possibility of contamination of the maintenance material by a spill or other event, as there is

now, but deepening of the channel should reduce the probability of a spill by reducing the number of

vessel trips. Additionally, the USACE routinely tests the elutriates prepared from maintenance material

according to ITM and RIA protocols before dredging to ensure that there is no contamination. As noted in

Section 3.3, past Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III evaluations of maintenance material elutriates with chemical

analyses and water column bioassays have indicated no cause for concern.

4.5 SEDIMENT QUALITY

4.5.1 Surficial Sediments

4.5.1.1 No-Action Alternative

There would be no change in the quality of the surficial sediments of the project area unless there is an

impact in the future without the proposed project.

4.5.1.2 Preferred Alternative

The quality of surficial sediments that would be dredged during construction of the Entrance Channel

Extension is discussed in Appendix B. Extensive chemical analyses, bioassays, and bioaccumulation

studies of this material were conducted in accordance with EPA Regulations and the Ocean Testing

Manual. The data indicate that there are no causes for concern related to chemical contaminants and that

these sediments are suitable for ocean placement. Similar testing was performed numerous times on

maintenance material dredged from the 22-mile existing SNWW entrance channel, and these sediments

were always found to be acceptable for ocean placement. The sediments to be dredged for the Extension

Channel are located from 22 to 35 miles from shore, and thus are sufficiently far removed from known

existing and historical sources of pollution on the inland portion of the SNWW to provide reasonable

assurance that the material is not contaminated. The ICT CW (which included representatives from the

EPA and USFWS) approved the use of the grab samples for SNWW bioassay and bioaccumulation

samples, and agreed that the materials were suitable for ocean placement.

1072
4. Environmental Consequences

4-22

4.5.2 Maintenance Material

4.5.2.1 No-Action Alternative

The existing maintenance material was described in Section 3.4. The quantity and quality of this material

would not be expected to change with the No-Action Alternative.

4.5.2.2 Preferred Alternative

The quantity of maintenance material is expected to increase by roughly 60 percent in the SNWW with

the Preferred Alternative but the quality of this material would not be expected to change. While more

maintenance material is expected to be dredged with the Preferred Alternative, the source and the method

of placement would not change, except that much more of the maintenance material would be used

beneficially. As noted above, project actions should decrease the probability of a spill. The USACE also

routinely tests the maintenance material according to ITM and RIA protocols before dredging to ensure

that the material is environmentally acceptable under all applicable regulations.

4.5.3 Summary

As summarized in subsection 3.4.2, recently tested sediment quality data presented in PBS&J (2004a) and

from March 2008 and April 2009 indicates no cause for concern, related to the new construction dredging

and dredged material placement. Although it was identified that one reach within the Neches River

contained elevated levels of PAHs within the tested sediments, the elutriate tests for those sediment

sampling stations did not reveal high concentrations of PAHs. Therefore, it can be concluded that PAHs

are not expected to be released during dredging and/or placement, and it can be further concluded that

there are no channel reaches within the SNWW that exhibit a chemistry cause for concern.

4.6 HYDROLOGY

4.6.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative that includes 1.1 feet of RSLR, there should be an increase from the

present condition in the tidal circulation and water exchange with the Gulf, and a corresponding increase

in sediment transport in the navigation channels. No significant change is expected in the direction or

amount of longshore sediment transport. Longshore transport and wave modeling have been performed,

and a sediment budget has been prepared for the study area in conjunction with a shoreline erosion study

of the Texas coast from Sabine Pass through Galveston Island (King, 2007; Morang, 2006).

Shorelines will continue to retreat due to RSLR, and the rate can be expected to increase with an increase

in the rate of RSLR. The highly erodible and weakly compacted soil on Pleasure Island and the east shore

of Sabine Lake would likely continue to erode from tidal currents and wind waves. Vessel-generated

waves and surges would continue to accelerate the process on Pleasure Island as in the past. Existing Gulf

shoreline erosion of up to 40 to 50 feet/year on the Texas shoreline (King, 2007) and an erratic pattern of

1073
4. Environmental Consequences

4-23

accretion and erosion on the Louisiana shoreline (USACE, 2004a) would also continue, with the potential

for significant increases due to climate change and sea level rise (IPCC, 2007).

The FWOP does include expected changes in water demands and supply strategies that are part of the

2007 Texas State Water Plan (TWDB, 2007) and permitted flows from upstream reservoirs. Existing

Sabine River flows that are dedicated to the State of Louisiana by the Sabine River Compact are also

taken into consideration.

4.6.2 Preferred Alternative

4.6.2.1 Circulation, Exchange, Inflows, Velocities

Under the Preferred Alternative, the same RSLR and inflow changes assumed in the FWOP will apply,

and there would be a deeper navigation channel that will allow a greater amount of tidal circulation and

exchange with the Gulf than is currently the case. The deepening project would cause only a minimal

increase of water surface elevation over the study area; the average increase would be 0.8 inch (Brown

and Stokes, 2009). The channel deepening results generally in increases in velocity along the entire

channel; however, magnitudes are quite small, less than 0.5 foot per second in most cases (Parchure et al.,

2005). The largest changes are observed in the Sabine-Neches Canal, but the absolute magnitudes are still

small.

The potential for proposed project features to increase storm surge impacts in the study area was analyzed

with a storm surge sensitivity analysis (Wamsley et al., 2010). The ADCIRC model was run to estimate

water levels for two worst-case hypothetical storms, both with and without proposed SNWW CIP project

features in place. Project features evaluated by the modeling are the deeper navigation channel, proposed

PAs with maximum levee heights, and two expanded PAs. The sensitivity analysis concluded that the

greatest changes would occur north of Port Arthur along the Neches River. These changes are primarily

due to the proposed increase in depth of the navigation channel. All changes are local and there are no

project-induced increases in surges away from the immediate vicinity of the navigation channel. Water

levels in the marshes and open-water areas immediately north of the river would increase on the order of

4 to 8 inches or less. The modeling indicates some interior flooding would occur within the City of Port

Arthur both with and without the project. Changes in peak surge on the order of inches should not cause

any significant change in interior flooding for the with-project condition.

The Preferred Alternative for the SNWW CIP also includes ODMDS and marsh restoration measures. All

of the existing and proposed ODMDSs are located several miles from the Gulf shoreline in water too deep

to affect wave setup on the shoreline. The influences of marsh restoration on hurricane surge have been

documented by Wamsley et al. (2009a, 2009b). Surges tend to slightly increase over and just seaward of

the marsh as the surge propagation is slowed, which may result in reductions in peak water levels

landward of marsh features. The impact of the proposed SNWW CIP marsh restoration features are

relatively small and expected to modify peak surge levels locally by a minimal amount (Wamsley et al.,

2010). No significant reductions or increases in surge level would be expected from either the marsh

restoration or ODMDS.

1074
4. Environmental Consequences

4-24

The Preferred Alternative would not have an effect on freshwater inflows to the system. However, by

increasing slightly the amount of tidal exchange, the inflows would be conveyed to the Gulf marginally

faster than would be the case in the No-Action Alternative.

4.6.2.2 Sediment Transport

There are two main types of sediment transport in the system—sediment carried into the channels by

heavy rains in the watershed and conveyed through the navigation channels, and sediment transport along

the coast. Both are addressed here.

The low velocities near the bottom of the navigation channel offer conditions favorable for sediment

deposition. The amount of sediment-laden runoff would be unchanged between the FWOP and FWP

(Parchure et al., 2005). The slightly larger cross sections and lower current velocities would offer slightly

better conditions for sediment to settle. This is one reason why the Preferred Alternative would require

more maintenance dredging than the No-Action Alternative. Another reason is that the deeper channel

will have a larger volume below the existing seabed, making it function as a larger sediment trap.

Furthermore, the increased length of the channel results in higher dredging quantities for the offshore

channel extension. Changes in salinity that also affect shoaling quantities are discussed in a later section.

The effect on Gulf shoreline change was investigated by Gravens and King (2003). Their shoreline impact

study addressed the effects of changes in the wave climate produced by the deeper offshore channel and

the changes in longshore sediment transport that would be expected from the altered wave climate. Under

the Preferred Alternative, a deeper and longer entrance channel would have some effect on waves moving

from the Gulf to the shore, and that would in turn exert an effect on the rate of longshore sediment

transport.

The Gravens and King (2003) study also addressed a 45-foot alternative and noted that the effect of the

Preferred Alternative (48-foot channel) would be intermediate and somewhat less than the 50-foot

alternative. The direction of sediment transport is to the west on the Texas side of the channel and to the

east on the Louisiana side, with little difference between existing conditions and the 50-foot channel. The

effect of channel deepening is to reduce the westward transport on the Texas side and increase the eastern

transport on the Louisiana side. The effect of channel deepening is to slightly reduce the net westward

transport on the Texas side and the net eastern transport on the Louisiana side.

The Gulf Shore BU Feature proposes to restore 0.86 mcy of sediment to the littoral environment every

3 years using maintenance material from dredging the Sabine Pass Channel. Material placement during

each 3-year dredging cycle would alternate between Texas and Louisiana, so that material would be

placed on each state’s shoreline every 6 years. Some material is expected to flow into the existing marsh

while the remainder would flow into nearshore waters. This recurring action would nourish eroding

marsh, restore sediment to the littoral zone, minimize projected FWP shoreline impacts, and potentially

create new marsh. The BU dredged material is expected to be composed largely of unconsolidated muds.

The fine-grained sediments are expected to initially be highly mobile, and some portion of the material

would be rapidly lost from the vicinity of the shoreline. Because of the prevailing wave climate, the

1075
4. Environmental Consequences

4-25

mobile material within the surf zone should generally migrate to the west at both Texas and Louisiana

Points (Wamsley, 2008). Transport processes identified by the Sabine Pass sediment budget (Morang,

2006) indicate that the material west of Sabine Pass would move toward the eroding shoreline at Texas

Point. There, the additional fine-grained sediments could lower erosion rates through mudflat accretion

and wave attenuation. A small quantity of material may migrate to the east and contribute to the Sabine

Fillet at the west jetty (King, 2007; Morang, 2006). In Louisiana, the sand bar formed by BU sediments

from the Cheniere LNG project may shelter the shoreline from wave energy sufficiently to allow finegrained sediments to form a mudflat behind the sandbar (Nairn and Willis, 2002; PBS&J, 2004b). While a

significant percentage of the sediment would be rapidly carried offshore, some is likely to move

downcoast with the littoral current, enlarging the sand and mudflat already present at the east jetty.

4.6.2.3 Coastal Shoreline Erosion Impacts

The changes in sediment transport, while very small, can be expected to have some effect on the rates of

shoreline erosion. Under the Preferred Alternative, there is a slight reduction in the erosion rate near the

jetties. Near the jetties, the average rate of shoreline accretion was calculated to be as much as

60 feet/year. However, between 0.5 mile and 3 to 4 miles on either side of the jetties the erosion would be

increased by less than 0.5 foot/year for a 50-foot project, and farther from the jetties than that, the change

in the shoreline change would decrease to zero. The effect of the 48-foot channel on the Gulf shoreline

between 0.5 mile and 3.5 miles from each jetty was estimated to be 0.42 foot/year based upon the 45- and

50-foot project effects.

The Gulf Shore BU Feature should have a positive effect on reducing shoreline erosion. The presence of

additional fine-grained sediments in the littoral system, which would be provided by the BU feature,

should reduce the current erosion rate and minimize the small increase in shore erosion predicted with the

project. In systems that have an abundant supply of fine-grained sediments, the presence of additional

muddy sediment in the nearshore environment may attenuate waves and lessen wave-induced erosion

(Hsiao and Shemdin, 1980; Tubman and Suhayda, 1976; Wells and Kemp, 1986). Furthermore, the

predominantly fine-grained sediment provided by this BU feature should contribute to mudflat accretion

by periodically moving onshore and becoming shore-attached. On the western Louisiana and east Texas

coasts, sediments accumulate as mudflats and underwater mudshoals (or “fluid mud”) in the nearshore

region. Nearshore, fluid mud can be trapped against the shoreline by prevailing south and southwesterly

winds, and storms carry the trapped muddy ooze onto the chenier shoreline (Morgan et al., 1958; Wells

and Kemp, 1982, 1986). Accretion of the shoreline can then occur by poorly understood processes (Huh

et al., 1991; King, 2007; PIE, 2003).

Although the BU sediments would be largely fine grained, approximately 18 percent of maintenance

material is expected to be sand. Sands that are deposited onshore would nourish and stabilize eroding

marshes, and sand deposited in the nearshore zone should stay in the nearshore environment, moving

back and forth across the shoreface (Wamsley, 2008). Sand placed at Louisiana Point should remain on

the shoreface where it was deposited; no significant amounts of sand are expected to enter the Jetty

Channel. On erosive mud shorelines like those in the BU area, the sand percentage should increase and it

1076
4. Environmental Consequences

4-26

would form sandy lenses or a veneer over the mud shoreline substrate. As the sand lenses thicken, the

sands help protect the underlying mud from further erosion (Nairn, 1992). However, in smaller quantities,

sand can also accelerate erosion of a mud beach. If the consolidated mud is not covered by a sand veneer,

any sand that is mobilized by wave action would act as a scouring agent (King, 2007).

4.6.2.4 Inland Shoreline Erosion Impacts

The primary area of concern for inland shoreline impacts is Pleasure Island along the confined channels

of the Port Arthur and Sabine-Neches canals (Parchure et al., 2005). No increase in the existing erosion

rate is predicted with the project for the eastern shore of Sabine Lake. The primary mechanism for

shoreline erosion associated with the project is from passage of large vessels. Maynord (2003)

investigated the mechanisms of ship-induced bank recession (shoreline erosion). The analysis employed a

numerical model (HIVEL2D) to simulate the ship-induced velocity at the bank and employed information

on the vessels in the existing and future fleets and information on the speeds that would be needed in both

the No-Action and Preferred alternatives. The analysis focused on two sites on Pleasure Island; the north

site is in the Sabine-Neches Canal, and the south site is in the Port Arthur Canal. The north site has no

existing erosion protection, while the south site has riprap protection. Neither site will have a change in

channel width. The analysis was calibrated to the existing rates of bank recession, and it used the model to

account for differing numbers of vessel trips projected for the years 2030 and 2060 for both the NoAction and 50-foot alternatives. The Preferred Alternative is expected to have a lesser effect than the

50-foot alternative.

Maynord (2005) found that the rates of erosion are lower for the 50-foot alternative than for the NoAction Alternative at both the north and south sites for both 2030 and 2060 traffic levels. Overall, the

effect of the Preferred Alternative should be to reduce the rate of erosion on inland channels relative to

the No-Action Alternative because of fewer vessel trips that are predicted with the Preferred Alternative

than in the No-Action Alternative.

4.6.3 Salinity

4.6.3.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the modeled RSLR of 1.1 feet is expected to increase salinity levels

from the present condition. RSLR is expected to increase salinities up to 2 ppt in portions of the project

area in the FWOP area. The complicated circulation and salinity patterns of the SNWW system would

change substantially. Freshwater enters the system via several tributaries, including the Sabine River, the

Neches River, and other smaller inflows. The Neches River flows directly into Sabine Lake and the

Sabine-Neches Canal. The Sabine River flows into Sabine Lake, the Sabine NWR, and into Calcasieu

Lake via the GIWW. During times of low flow, the direction of flow in the GIWW is reversed and higher

salinity Calcasieu waters flow westward into the Sabine basin (Gammill et al., 2002).

The Sabine-Neches Canal connects the Neches River Channel to Sabine Pass, flowing through a narrow,

confined channel between Pleasure Island on the east and Port Arthur on the west. This canal conducts

1077
4. Environmental Consequences

4-27

both fresh water from the rivers and Gulf waters intruding via tidal propagation through Sabine Pass. As a

result, substantial salinity stratification forms in the Sabine-Neches Canal. Stratification contributes to salt

water intruding up the Sabine-Neches Canal, into the northwest corner of Sabine Lake, and the lower

reaches of the Neches River Channel. Consequently, observed salinity in Sabine Lake is highest at both

the southern end (where it connects to Sabine Pass) and at the northern end (where it connects to the

Sabine-Neches Canal). Lowest salinities are observed in the central and eastern portions of Sabine Lake,

farthest from the hydraulic connection to sources of saline water.

Wide swings in salinity associated with shifts from periods of drought to high freshwater inflows would

continue. Hydrologic conditions in some wetlands in the study area are managed with passive water

control structures (rock weirs, flap-gate culverts, rock plugs, and rock dikes). FWOP conditions were

developed using field salinity data collected with these structures in place. It is assumed these would

continue to operate as they do today. A summary of water controls is below and they are described more

fully in Section 3.5.

• In Louisiana, one large, rain-fed, freshwater impoundment (Pool 3) is located in the center of the

SNWR, at the eastern edge of the SNWW study area (Gammill et al., 2002). A containment levee

was constructed in 1951 around a large area of unbroken marsh. It is managed to hold fresh water

at high levels, increasing the water-to-marsh ratio for wintering waterfowl habitat. Pool 3 was not

included in the study area because it is hydrologically isolated from the surrounding wetlands.

Two CWPPRA hydrologic restoration projects in the Black Bayou and Willow Bayou marshes

east of Sabine Lake have been constructed (USFWS-LDNR, 2008a, 2008b). FWOP conditions in

the Willow Bayou hydro-unit assume that all elements of Construction Unit 1 of the Willow

Bayou Hydrologic Restoration Project are in place. The FWOP condition reflects a small

reduction in the land loss rate due to the effects of the breakwater and in-situ terracing. Likewise,

FWOP conditions in the Black Bayou hydro-unit include the projected effects of the Black Bayou

Hydrologic Restoration Project. In WVA computations, land loss throughout the unit was reduced

by two-thirds for the 20-year CWPPRA project life to reflect erosion protection and flow

reductions with the GIWW shoreline protection. In addition, FWOP salinity in the intermediate

marshes was expected to increase to 4.2 to 5.1 ppt, the salinity level projected to result from the

Black Bayou hydrologic management measures (rock dike, rock weirs, and self-regulating tide

gate).

• In Texas, saltwater barriers restrict saltwater intrusion from the GIWW into Taylor Bayou to the

north and into the J.D. Murphree WMA to the south. Low rock weirs restrict flow on some

smaller channels in the Texas Point NWR. FWOP conditions for the GIWW North, Salt Bayou,

and Texas Point hydro-units were developed using field salinity data collected with these

structures in place. Restrictions to the access of marine organisms caused by these structures were

reflected in the EMCM variable (V6) for aquatic organism access.

Mean salinities used in the FWOP condition of the WVA model are presented in tables 4.6-1 (Mean

Salinity at Median Inflow) and 4.6-2 (Mean High Salinity at Median Inflow). The tables show salinities

modeled at field sampling stations, and include a range of salinities calculated for the 95 percent

confidence level. In general, empirical salinity data were used, when available, for the FWOP salinity

parameter in the WVA model. HS model output was used when empirical data were not available. For

1078
4. Environmental Consequences

4-28

marshes inland and far from model nodes, the salinity gradient was estimated based upon empirical data

from adjacent hydro-units, and local resource managers’ knowledge of the magnitude of water exchange

with the larger channels and waterbodies.

Table 4.6-1

FWOP and FWP Mean Salinities and 95 Percent Confidence Range

Mean Salinity (ppt)/Median Flow

Station

Number Data Collection Station

FWOP

Mean

Salinity

FWP 48-

Foot

Project

Mean

Salinity

FWP Mean Salinity

95% Confidence

Range

Salinity

(–2 SD)

Salinity

(+2 SD)

1 Upper Neches River 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2 Beaumont Turning Basin 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.7

3 Mouth of Neches River 3.4 4.2 2.9 5.5

5 Sabine River at Orange 0.4 0.6 0.0 1.5

6 Sabine-Neches Canal 12.8 14.4 12.0 16.8

7 Mouth of Sabine Pass 22.7 22.9 20.8 24.9

9 Mouth of Sabine River 5.3 6.6 5.2 8.1

10 South Sabine Lake 10.4 11.6 9.8 13.4

11 Black Bayou 4.1 5.2 3.7 6.6

14 Mouth of Johnson’s Bayou 5.1 6.7 5.5 7.9

15 Keith Lake Fish Pass 14.6 16.0 14.8 17.2

16 Mouth of Willow Bayou 4.3 5.7 4.5 6.9

17 GIWW West at Taylor Bayou 13.0 14.6 13.0 16.3

1079
4. Environmental Consequences

4-29

Table 4.6-2

FWOP and FWP Mean High Salinities and 95 Percent Confidence Range

Mean High 33 Percent Continuous Salinity (ppt)/Median Flow

Station

Number Data Collection Station

FWOP

Mean

High

Salinity

FWP

Mean

High

Salinity

95% Confidence

Range

Salinity

(–2 SD)

Salinity

(+2 SD)

1 Upper Neches River 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

2 Beaumont Turning Basin 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.9

3 Mouth of Neches River 8.0 9.4 8.6 10.3

5 Sabine River at Orange 1.1 1.7 0.5 2.9

6 Sabine-Neches Canal 20.5 21.3 19.6 22.9

7 Mouth of Sabine Pass 27.6 27.6 26.4 28.7

9 Mouth of Sabine River 11.8 13.7 12.6 14.8

10 South Sabine Lake 17.5 18.7 16.3 21.1

11 Black Bayou 9.5 11.2 9.7 12.7

14 Mouth of Johnson’s Bayou 10.5 12.7 11.9 13.5

15 Keith Lake Fish Pass 21.2 22.1 20.9 23.4

16 Mouth of Willow Bayou 8.7 10.6 8.3 13.0

17 GIWW West at Taylor Bayou 20.2 21.0 20.1 21.9

Although expected to occur only infrequently, when low flows, considered drought flows for the purpose

of this analysis, occur during late summer and fall of some years, the HS model predicts substantially

higher salinities (Table 4.6-3 Mean Salinity at Low Inflow). The HS model defines drought conditions as

the 10th percentile of the WAM Run 8 2060 flows. At the upper reaches of the Neches River, the relative

salinity increase as a result of low inflow is relatively small, only 0.1 ppt under the FWOP condition.

Salinity in the Sabine River at Orange would increase from 3.8 ppt under the modeled existing condition

to 4.9 ppt under the FWOP condition. The HS model predicts salinities throughout the remainder of the

project area would range from 0.5 to 2.2 ppt higher during droughts under the FWOP condition than

under existing conditions. Modeled FWOP salinity at Black Bayou during median flow is 4.1 ppt

increasing to 15.6 ppt under drought conditions. Likewise, at the mouth of Willow Bayou, the predicted

salinity increases from 4.3 ppt at median inflows to 14.6 ppt during drought under the FWOP condition.

The HS model analysis (Brown and Stokes, 2009) reports that the largest salinity differences would occur

in the Neches River near Bessie Heights and along the western shore of Sabine Lake. These analyses

indicate that drought conditions cause substantial increases in salinity in the project area and that RSLR

associated with the FWOP condition has relatively little additional affect on salinity during droughts.

1080
4. Environmental Consequences

4-30

Table 4.6-3

Mean Salinity Predicted by the Hydrodynamic-Salinity Model*

Mean Salinity (ppt)/Low Flow

Station

Numbers Data Collection Station

Modeled

Existing

Condition

FWOP

Mean

Salinity

FWP 48-

Foot

Project

Mean

Salinity

FWP Mean Salinity

Range

Salinity

(–2 SD)

Salinity

(+2 SD)

1 Upper Neches River 0.0 0.1 0.26 0.0 0.6

2 Beaumont Turning Basin 1.0 1.9 2.6 2.2 3.0

3 Mouth of Neches River 11.4 13.6 14.0 13.3 14.7

5 Sabine River at Orange 3.8 4.9 5.8 4.8 6.8

6 Sabine-Neches Canal 23.0 24.6 24.7 23.8 25.6

7 Mouth of Sabine Pass 28.9 29.4 29.1 28.4 29.7

9 Mouth of Sabine River 15.9 17.4 18.4 18.1 18.7

10 South Sabine Lake 21.7 23.3 23.2 22.1 24.3

11 Black Bayou 14.1 15.6 16.6 16.2 16.9

14 Mouth of Johnson’s Bayou 15.0 16.9 17.9 17.6 18.2

15 Keith Lake Fish Pass 24.2 25.5 25.5 24.7 26.3

16 Mouth of Willow Bayou 12.7 14.6 15.6 15.2 16.0

17 GIWW West at Taylor Bayou 22.9 24.5 24.5 24.1 25.0

* Brown and Stokes (2009) – Under low-flow conditions (based on WAM Run 8 output for 2060 [TWDB, 2007]). All conditions assume

intermediate RSLR of 1.1 feet.

4.6.3.2 Preferred Alternative

4.6.3.2.1 FWP Salinity Impacts

The Preferred Alternative would deepen the navigation channel and allow more tidal circulation and

exchange with the Gulf than at present. Salinity would increase in much of the system, and the salinity

wedge would extend farther upstream in the Neches River Channel. Increased salinity is expected to

reduce health and biological productivity of a large area of intertidal marsh in Louisiana and Texas.

Salinity changes in the SNWW estuarine system were projected with the HS model described in sections

3.1 and 4.1 of this FEIS (Brown and Stokes, 2009). The HS model also determined that the average water

surface elevation would be altered slightly by the channel deepening. The water surface is lower by less

than an inch at Sabine Pass. The average water surface elevation is somewhat higher in the upper reaches

of the Neches River, where the average elevation increase is about 0.8 inch. The change likely results

from an increase in the landward extent of tidal propagation.

Two scenarios (low flow and median flow) were developed in the HS model to evaluate changes resulting

from the project (see tables 4.6-1, 4.6-2, and 4.6-3). The HS modeling indicated that the highest average

salinity increases for the Preferred Alternative over the FWOP condition are found in the following

locations:

1081
4. Environmental Consequences

4-31

Low Flow:

• Neches River, near Rose City (approximately 0.7 ppt)

• Sabine River at Orange (approximately 0.9 ppt)

• Eastern shore of Sabine Lake (approximately 1.0 ppt)

Median Flow:

• Neches River near Bessie Heights (approximately 1.8 ppt)

• Keith Lake Fish Pass (approximately 1.4 ppt)

• Eastern Shore of Sabine Lake (approximately 1.4 to 1.6 ppt)

In addition to changes in salinity and stratification within the navigation channels and Sabine Lake,

salinities in interior marshes were predicted with the HS model. The hydrologic effect of smaller channels

in the marshes was included and salinity gradients were projected for wetland areas set back from the

primary waterbodies. Modeling results indicated that salinity increases in the interior marshes, based upon

average salinities, would be 1.0 ppt higher in the marshes east of Sabine Lake, and 0.1 to 1.8 ppt higher in

the Neches River marshes. Salinities in the cypress-tupelo swamps in the upper Neches and Sabine River

reaches were predicted to be about 0.3 ppt and 1.0 ppt higher, respectively. Salinity impacts are not

expected to result from borrowing material from Sabine Lake and the Lake Charles Deepwater

Channel/GIWW (for Willow and Black Bayou mitigation measures) because the borrow areas do not

connect to the Sabine River Channel or the Calcasieu Ship Channel.

The potential for salinity impacts to be magnified in areas subjected to hydrologic management was

considered by the ICT during application of the WVA model. In the Black Bayou hydro-unit, the new

structures would not restrict flow sufficiently to impound water and exacerbate impacts of the 1.4 ppt

increase in salinity within the intermediate marsh. Flow is considered to be essentially unrestricted

because of the many remaining hydrologic access points. In Willow Bayou, water control structures

proposed for Construction Unit 2 were eliminated when HS modeling determined that they would be

ineffective. Control structures built in Construction Unit 1 would not restrict flow sufficiently to impound

water. Like Black Bayou, flow is considered unrestricted because of the many remaining hydrologic

access points. In Texas, saltwater barriers on Taylor Bayou and along the GIWW are actively managed

and can be opened to accept flows from the GIWW when salinity levels inside the marshes are higher

than the GIWW. Furthermore, flows in and out of the marshes affected by these barriers remain through

smaller drainages and the larger Keith Lake Fish Pass and Texas Bayou.

An extensive literature review conducted for the Louisiana Coastal Areas Ecosystem Restoration Study

(LCA Study) documented that increases in salinity negatively affect primary productivity of selected

indicator species found in typical wetlands of the Louisiana coastal zone (Visser et al., 2004). These

studies used measurements of productivity, including total biomass, stem/leaf elongation, and

photosynthesis, gathered in greenhouse experiments on saturated soils. Linear regression equations were

developed to predict percentage changes in habitat productivity per 1 ppt salinity increase for each major

coastal vegetation community, regardless of inundation. For every 1 ppt increase in salinity, total primary

1082
4. Environmental Consequences

4-32

productivity of swamps was reduced by 8.4 percent, fresh marsh by 11.1 percent, intermediate marsh by

an average of 6.8 percent, brackish marsh by 2.6 percent, and saline marsh by 2.1 percent. These

relationships were used to predict land loss rate changes in the current study. The method and results of

that analysis are presented in Section 4.10. Habitats in the SNWW study area are dominated by the same

marsh and swamp vegetation species found in the western Louisiana coastal zone. Supporting references

for salinity-related productivity changes in vegetation include:

• Swamp – co-dominant species bald cypress and tupelo gum (Conner et al., 1997; Megonigal et

al., 1997; Mitsch et al., 1991; Pezeshki et al., 1987a, 1990)

• Fresh marsh – co-dominant species maidencane and bulltongue (Greiner LaPeyre et al., 2001;

Hester et al., 2001; Howard and Mendelssohn, 1999; McKee and Mendelssohn, 1989; Pezeshki et

al., 1987b, 1987c; Spalding and Hester, 2007; Willis and Hester, 2004)

• Intermediate marsh – co-dominant species bulltongue and marshhay cordgrass (Baldwin and

Mendelssohn, 1998; Greiner LaPeyre et al., 2001; Howard and Mendelssohn, 1999, 2000;

Pezeshki et al., 1987b; Spalding and Hester, 2007; Webb and Mendelssohn, 1996)

• Brackish marsh – co-dominant species marshhay cordgrass and seashore saltgrass (Bertness et

al., 1992; Broome et al., 1995; Ewing et al., 1995; Greiner LaPeyre et al., 2001; Hester et al.,

2001; Kemp and Cunningham, 1981; Parrondo et al., 1978; Warren and Brockelman, 1989)

• Saline marsh – Smooth cordgrass and blackrush (Bradley and Morris, 1992; Eleuterius, 1989;

Gosselink, 1970; Linthurst and Seneca, 1981; Parrondo et al., 1978; Pezeshki and DeLaune,

1995).

4.6.3.2.2 WVA Model Evaluation of Salinity Impacts

The impact of salinity changes on the estuarine habitats in the SNWW study area was assessed with the

WVA model. Optimal salinity ranges assumed by the WVA model for the various habitat types are as

follows:

• Swamp and Bottomland Hardwood (≤1 ppt)

• Fresh Marsh (≤2 ppt) (upper limit of 4 ppt during March–November growing

season)

• Intermediate Marsh (≤4 ppt) (upper limit of 8 ppt during March–November

growing season)

• Brackish Marsh (≤10 ppt) (upper limit of 16 ppt as an annual average)

• Saline Marsh (≥9 and ≤21 ppt) (upper limit in excess of 24 ppt as an annual

average)

The optimal salinity ranges in the WVA model were based upon established salinity tolerances of

common vegetation communities and salinity ranges associated with life history requirements of fish and

wildlife species utilizing the habitats. Information from 32 HSI species models (USFWS, 1980) for

estuarine fish and shellfish, reptiles and amphibians, birds and mammals was relied upon in establishing

the optimal ranges (USFWS, 2002a).

1083
4. Environmental Consequences

4-33

The WVA model assumes that periods of high salinity are most detrimental in fresh/intermediate marsh

and swamp when they occur during the growing season. This assumption is supported by a recent

summary of annual primary productivity by season and habitat type that was developed for the habitatswitching module of the LCA Study (Visser et al., 2004). In swamps, 75 percent of annual primary

productivity occurs from March 1 through June 30, and no primary production occurs from November 1

through February 28 (Keeland and Sharitz, 1995). The seasonal productivity of fresh marsh is longer,

with approximately 38 percent of annual productivity occurring from March 1 through June 30, and

48 percent occurring from July 1 through October 31 (Sasser and Gosselink, 1984). Seasonal productivity

of intermediate marsh is very similar to that of fresh marsh, with somewhat lower productivity in the July

through October months (Hopkinson et al., 1978).

Median flow has been used to model the effects of FWP salinity changes for all vegetative communities.

Run 8 of the TCEQ’s WAM was used to represent the median-flow condition for salinity modeling. The

TWDB (2007) projected flows for the year 2060 by modifying Run 8 “to include projected increased

demand from existing water rights, expected change to return flows, projected new strategies to come

online before 2060, and estimated year 2060 storage capacities for major reservoirs” (TWDB, 2007).

These WAM Run 8 inflows were developed using current patterns of precipitation and evaporation. The

median-flow condition was modeled for the period from approximately April through September.

Model output included mean salinities used to model impacts to brackish and saline wetlands during their

growth season. These marshes are most influenced by long-term, prevailing salinity conditions. The

productivity of brackish marsh is relatively stable throughout the year, with only slightly lower

productivity from November 1 through February 28 (Hopkinson et al., 1978). Nearly half of the annual

productivity of saline marsh occurs from July 1 through October 31, 29 percent in late spring and

summer, and 24 percent in late fall and winter.

The median flow was also used to evaluate possible effects on fresh and intermediate marshes and

forested wetlands. However, because these systems are more sensitive than brackish and saline wetlands

to relatively small seasonal salinity changes, mean high salinity is used as the salinity parameter for the

WVA models. Mean high salinity is the roaming mean of the highest 33 percent of consecutive daily

salinity values during the growing season calculated for a specific period of record. This statistic is

applied to model effects of high salinity during the growing season, when episodes of sufficient duration

would reduce productivity of these freshwater habitats (Hester et al., 1996, 2001; McKee and

Mendelssohn, 1989).

In the EMCM, effects of salinity changes are reflected most directly by two variables: V1 (percent

emergent marsh) and V5 (salinity); however, changes in salinity can also result in changes to variables V2

(percent SAV coverage), V3 (marsh edge and interspersion); and V4 (percent shallow water). The model

assumes even small changes beyond the optimal salinity range of a marsh result in a small change to the

land loss rate. This effect is captured in V1 and described in relation to vegetation impacts in Section 4.10.

Variable V5 focuses on the effects of salinity on vegetation; changes within the optimal salinity ranges of

each regime are not considered an impact and do not change the SI score of “1.0.” However, even small

1084
4. Environmental Consequences

4-34

salinity increases outside of the optimal range reduce the SI below “1.0.” This impact is based upon the

assumption that small changes in salinity beyond the optimal range (suboptimal) for a specific hydrologic

regime and its habitats affects the primary productivity of marsh grasses and forested wetlands.

FWOP and FWP salinities are presented for each hydro-unit in Texas and Louisiana in tables 4.6-4 and

4.6-5, respectively. Tables 4.6-6 and 4.6-7 present an acreage analysis by state and habitat type that

identifies areas where FWOP and FWP salinities, respectively, are predicted to remain within, or extend

into the suboptimal salinity range.

4.6.3.2.3 Salinity Impacts by Vegetation Community

Bottomland Hardwoods

Bottomland hardwoods in the study area are located on elevated ridges and natural river levees, as well as

on upland terrace margins, most often separated from the navigation channels by fringing marsh or

swamp. The study area contains 3,206 acres of bottomland hardwoods in Louisiana, and 5,458 acres in

Texas. In the FWOP condition, this habitat is projected to remain within the optimal salinity range. The

upper reach of the Sabine River is generally fresh, with salinity intruding only during times of drought

and low freshwater inflow, or with tidal surges during hurricanes. Prevailing conditions are reflected in

the median-flow scenario of the HS model, in which a FWOP salinity of 0 ppt is predicted in the Sabine

River just south of IH 10. During FWP conditions, salinities would rise near the GIWW from a FWOP

salinity of 2.5 ppt to a FWP salinity of 4.1 ppt. Upstream at the confluence of the Sabine and Old rivers,

salinity is predicted to rise about 0.1 ppt under both the FWOP and FWP conditions.

The Sabine River watershed also contains bottomland hardwood communities located on the Texas side

of the river in the Sabine Island (524 acres), Blue Elbow (189 acres), Cow Bayou (388 acres), and Adams

Bayou (640 acres) hydro-units. FWOP and FWP salinity conditions for the Texas portions of Sabine

Island and Blue Elbow are identical to those in Louisiana. Cow and Adams bayous enter the Sabine River

south of the GIWW and receive runoff from developed areas south and west of the city of Orange. They

have been rectified and deepened to provide shallow-draft access for oil field development vessels. The

HS model projects FWOP mean salinity of about 0 ppt in Cow Bayou and 3.1 ppt in Adams Bayou. FWP

salinities are predicted to range from about 1.0 ppt in Cow Bayou to 3.9 ppt in Adams Bayou. Although

modeled salinities predicted under both the FWOP and FWP conditions are above the optimal range

(≤1.0 ppt), in Adams Bayou the bottomland hardwoods are located on higher ridges or terrace margins,

and are buffered from bayou salinities by intervening swamp and marsh.

In the Neches River watershed, the Neches River just south of IH 10 is normally fresh. The HS model

predicts salinities in areas with bottomland hardwoods will remain near 0 in both the FWOP and FWP

conditions. Several bottomland hardwood communities also occur south of IH 10 along the Neches

River—1,775 acres in the Rose City hydro-unit, 293 acres in the Bessie Heights hydro-unit, and 197 acres

in the Old River hydro-unit. FWOP mean annual salinities in these areas range from 0.3 ppt near Rose

City to 1.5 ppt near Bessie Heights and Old River Cove. The bottomland hardwood stands are located

well east of the river on the upland terrace margin and are not affected by salinity in the Neches River.

1085
4. Environmental Consequences

4-35

Table 4.6-4

Salinity Changes in Texas Hydro-units

#

Hydrologic Unit

Name Habitat Type

FWOP

Salinity

(ppt)

FWP

Salinity

(ppt)

FWP Net

Change

(ppt)

Bottomland Hardwoods (optimal salinity range ≤1 ppt)

Neches River Watershed

TX 1 North Neches River Bottomland Hardwood 0.0 0.0 0.0

TX 2 Neches-Lake Bayou Bottomland Hardwood 0.0 0.0 0.0

TX 3 Rose City Bottomland Hardwood 0.3 0.6 0.3

TX 5 Bessie Heights Bottomland Hardwood 1.5 2.0 0.5

TX 6 Old River Cove Bottomland Hardwood 1.5 2.0 0.5

Sabine River Watershed

TX 10 Cow Bayou Bottomland Hardwood 0.0 1.0 1.0

TX 11 Adams Bayou Bottomland Hardwood 3.1 3.9 0.8

LA/TX 1 Sabine Island Bottomland Hardwood 0.1 0.1 0.0

Cypress-Tupelo Swamp (optimal salinity range ≤1 ppt)

Neches River Watershed

TX 1 North Neches River Cypress-Tupelo Swamp 0.0 0.0 0.0

TX 2 Neches-Lake Bayou Cypress-Tupelo Swamp 0.0 0.0 0.0

TX 3 Rose City Cypress-Tupelo Swamp 0.3 0.6 0.3

Sabine River Watershed

TX 10 Cow Bayou Cypress-Tupelo Swamp 0.0 1.0 1.0

TX 11 Adams Bayou Cypress-Tupelo Swamp 3.1 3.9 0.8

TX 12 Blue Elbow South Cypress-Tupelo Swamp 1.1 1.7 0.6

LA/TX 1 Sabine Island Cypress-Tupelo Swamp 0.1 0.1 0.0

LA/TX 2 Blue Elbow Cypress-Tupelo Swamp 0.6 0.9 0.3

Fresh Marsh (optimal salinity range ≤2 ppt)

Neches River Watershed

TX 1 North Neches River Fresh Marsh 0.0 0.0 0.0

TX 2 Neches-Lake Bayou Fresh Marsh 0.0 0.1 0.1

TX 3 Rose City Fresh Marsh 0.3 0.6 0.3

TX 4 West of Rose City Fresh Marsh 0.2 0.6 0.4

TX 5 Bessie Heights Fresh Marsh 1.5 2.0 0.5

TX 7 GIWW North Fresh Marsh (Intermediate lumped) 2.5 4.1 1.6

Sabine River Watershed

TX 10 Cow Bayou Fresh Marsh 4.0 5.0 1.0

TX 11 Adams Bayou Fresh Marsh 3.5 5.0 1.5

Intermediate Marsh (optimal salinity range ≤4 ppt)

Neches River Watershed

TX 5 Bessie Heights Intermediate (Brackish lumped) 4.4 4.7 0.3

TX 8 Texas Point Intermediate (Fresh lumped) 7.0 7.8 0.8

TX 13 Groves Intermediate Marsh 4.0 5.0 1.0

Sabine River Watershed

TX 10 Cow Bayou Intermediate Marsh 4.0 5.0 1.0

Brackish Marsh (optimal salinity range ≤10 ppt)

Neches River Watershed

TX 6 Old River Cove Brackish Marsh 11.2 13.0 1.8

TX 7 GIWW North Brackish Marsh 10.8 12.4 1.6

TX 8 Texas Point Brackish Marsh 9.8 10.6 0.5

Saline Marsh (optimal salinity range ≥9 to ≤21 ppt)

Neches River Watershed

TX 8 Texas Point Saline Marsh 13.8 14.6 0.8

1086
4. Environmental Consequences

4-36

Table 4.6-5

Salinity Changes in Louisiana Hydro-units

# Hydrologic Unit Name Habitat Type

FWOP

Salinity

(ppt)

FWP

Salinity

(ppt)

FWP

Net

Change

(ppt)

Bottomland Hardwoods (optimal salinity range ≤1 ppt)

LA 1 Perry Ridge Bottomland Hardwood 1.7 2.3 0.6

LA/TX 1 Sabine Island Bottomland Hardwood 0.1 0.1 0.0

LA/TX 2 Blue Elbow Bottomland Hardwood 0.6 0.9 0.3

Cypress-Tupelo Swamp (optimal salinity range ≤1 ppt)

LA/TX 1 Sabine Island Cypress-Tupelo Swamp 0.1 0.1 0.0

LA/TX 2 Blue Elbow Cypress-Tupelo Swamp

(Bottomland Hardwoods lumped) 0.6 0.9 0.3

Fresh Marsh (optimal salinity range ≤2 ppt)

LA 1 Perry Ridge Fresh Marsh 1.7 2.3 0.6

LA 7 Southeast Sabine Fresh Marsh 2.1 2.4 0.3

LA 8 Southwest Gum Cove Fresh Marsh 1.4 2.0 0.6

Intermediate Marsh (optimal salinity range ≤4 ppt)

LA 1 Perry Ridge Intermediate Marsh 4.5 5.6 1.1

LA 2 Willow Bayou Intermediate Marsh 6.8 7.7 0.9

LA 3 Black Bayou Intermediate Marsh 5.1 6.5 1.4

LA 4 West Johnson’s Bayou Intermediate Marsh 5.5 7.3 1.8

LA 5 Sabine Lake Ridges Intermediate Marsh 5.5 7.3 1.8

LA 7 Southeast Sabine Intermediate Marsh 2.1 2.4 0.3

LA 8 Southwest Gum Cove Intermediate (Brackish lumped) 2.8 3.9 1.1

LA 9 East Johnson’s Bayou Intermediate (Brackish lumped) 3.8 4.8 1.0

Brackish Marsh (optimal salinity range ≤10 ppt)

LA 2 Willow Bayou Brackish Marsh 7.2 8.6 1.4

LA 3 Black Bayou Brackish Marsh 4.2 5.3 1.1

LA 4 West Johnson’s Bayou Brackish Marsh 5.3 7.0 1.7

LA 5 Sabine Lake Ridges Brackish Marsh 7.1 8.3 1.2

LA 6 Johnson’s Bayou Ridge Brackish Marsh 5.3 7.0 1.7

Saline Marsh (optimal salinity range ≥9 to ≤21 ppt)

LA 5 Sabine Lake Ridges Saline Marsh 16.6 17.3 0.7

LA 6 Johnson’s Bayou Ridge Saline Marsh 16.6 17.3 0.7

1087
4-37

Table 4.6-6

FWOP Optimal Salinity Range – Acreage Analysis by Habitat Type*

Bottomland

Hardwoods (acres)

Cypress-Tupelo

Swamp (acres) Fresh Marsh (acres)

Intermediate Marsh

(acres)

Brackish Marsh

(acres) Saline Marsh (acres)

Within

Optimal

Range

Suboptimal

Range

Within

Optimal

Range

Suboptimal

Range

Within

Optimal

Range

Suboptimal

Range

Within

Optimal

Range

Suboptimal

Range

Within

Optimal

Range

Suboptimal

Range

Within

Optimal

Range

Suboptimal

Range

Texas

Neches River Watershed 3,717 0 5,501 0 12,592 731 37,651 344 30,469 1,832 3,262 2,446Sabine River Watershed 1,552 0 4,656 0 2,271 103 1,522 59 0 0 0 0Total Acres of Habitat Type 5,269 0 10,157 0 14,863 834 39,173 403 30,469 1,832 3,262 2,446Percentage 100.0 0 100.0 0 94.6 5.4 99.0 1.0 94.2 5.8 57.1 42.9

Louisiana

Sabine River Watershed 3,206 0 6,641 0 23,995 1,113 125,227 8,050 19,200 5,961 3,646 491Percentage 100.0 0 100.0 0 95.6 4.4 94.0 6.0 76.3 23.7 88.1 11.9

Total Project

Project Total – Habitat Type 8,475 0 16,798 0 38,858 1,947 164,400 8,453 49,669 7,793 6,908 2,937Percentage 100.0 0 100.0 0 95.2 4.8 95.1 4.9 86.4 13.6 70.2 29.8

Total FWOP Project Acres Within Optimal Range = 285,040 acres (93.1%)Total FWOP Project Acres Within Sub-optimal Range = 21,198 acres (6.9%)*Calculated using WVA Impacts Summaries from tables 4.1-3 and 4.1-4 and Habitat Acreage from Table 7 in Appendix C.

1088
4-38

Table 4.6-7

FWP Optimal Salinity Range – Acreage Analysis by Habitat Type*

Bottomland

Hardwoods (acres)

Cypress-Tupelo

Swamp (acres) Fresh Marsh (acres)

Intermediate Marsh

(acres)

Brackish Marsh

(acres) Saline Marsh (acres)

Within

Optimal

Range

Suboptimal

Range

Within

Optimal

Range

Suboptimal

Range

Within

Optimal

Range

Suboptimal

Range

Within

Optimal

Range

Suboptimal

Range

Within

Optimal

Range

Suboptimal

Range

Within

Optimal

Range

Suboptimal

Range

Texas

Neches River Watershed 3,717 0 5,501 0 12,437 886 37,641 354 30,416 1,885 3,245 2,463Sabine River Watershed 1,552 0 4,656 0 2,262 112 1,519 62 0 0 0 0Total Acres of Habitat Type 5,269 0 10,157 0 14,699 998 39,160 416 30,416 1,885 3,245 2,463Percentage 100.0 0 100.0 0 93.6 6.4 98.9 1.1 94.2 5.8 56.9 43.1

Louisiana

Sabine River Watershed 3,206 0 6,641 0 23,937 1,171 124,686 8,591 19,123 6,038 3,631 506Percentage 100.0 0 100.0 0 95.3 4.7 93.6 6.4 76.0 24.0 87.8 12.2

Total Project

Project Total – Habitat Type 8,475 0 16,798 0 38,636 2,169 163,846 9,007 49,539 7,923 6,876 2,969Percentage 100.0 0 100.0 0 94.7 5.3 94.8 5.2 86.2 13.8 69.8 30.2

Total FWP Project Acres Within Optimal Range = 284,170 acres (92.8%)Total FWP Project Acres Within Sub-optimal Range = 22,068 acres (7.2%)*Calculated using WVA Impacts Summaries from tables 4.1-3 and 4.1-4, Habitat Acreage from tables 4.1-3 and 4.1-4, Habitat Acreage from Table 7 in Appendix C.

1089
4. Environmental Consequences

4-39

The HW considered potential effects of brief salinity increases by adjusting growth rates of woody and

herbaceous vegetation at rates correlated to the salinity SI in the SCM. Changes in salinity were reflected

with changes in variables V1 (tree species composition), V2 (stand maturity), and V3 (midstory/understory

coverage) in consideration of potential impacts. Trees species found in the bottomland forest community

such as oaks (Quercus spp.), hickories (Carya spp.), American elm, green ash, sweetgum, boxelder, etc.,

are generally sensitive to even low levels of salinity. Among many other adverse effects, salinity is known

to cause a reduction in seed germination, with germination in many nonhalophytes inhibited by very

small percentages of salt (Kozlowski, 1997). Woody plants usually are very sensitive during emergence

and young seedling stages, but become progressively more tolerant with increasing age (Shannon et al.,

1994). Given the small FWP salinity increase, only small reductions in growth rates were forecast, and no

AAHU losses were projected by the BHM.

Cypress-Tupelo Swamps

Cypress-tupelo swamps in the study area occur streamside or in abandoned channels or other low areas

within the floodplain. Approximately 6,641 acres of cypress-tupelo swamp are located in the Louisiana

portion of the study area, and 10,157 acres in the Texas portion. Large continuous stands of swamp are

present in the upper reaches of both the Sabine and Neches rivers, with thousands of acres protected in the

Sabine Island and Blue Elbow Swamp WMAs. Smaller, isolated stands are found in the bottoms of small

drainages along the upland margins, generally buffered from exposure to higher salinities by intervening

marsh. Swamps are located in the same reaches of the river systems as the bottomland hardwoods, and

experience the same FWOP and FWP predicted salinity conditions. Louisiana swamps in the study area

are located in the Sabine Island (5,998 acres) and Blue Elbow (643 acres) hydro-units north of IH 10.

During FWOP and FWP conditions, swamps in the Sabine Island hydro-unit would experience a salinity

of 0.1 ppt. In the Blue Elbow hydro-unit, predicted salinity would increase from 0.6 ppt during FWOP

conditions to 0.9 ppt during FWP conditions. No impacts to swamps in these areas are expected.

Swamps in the Texas portion of the study area occur in both the Sabine and Neches river watersheds.

Swamps in the Sabine Island (1,194 acres) and Blue Elbow (2,548 acres) hydro-units straddle the border

between the states, and thus the salinity changes reported for Louisiana swamps in these areas are the

same in Texas. These predicted salinity changes are not expected to impact swamps in these areas.

Swamps also occur in three hydro-units on the Texas side of the Sabine River watershed—Blue Elbow

South (689 acres), Cow Bayou (110 acres), and Adams Bayou (115 acres). In the Neches River

watershed, swamps occur in the hydro-units north of IH 10 (North Neches, 2,760 acres, and Neches-Lake

Bayou, 2,277 acres), and a small swamp is located south of IH 10, at the upland margin of the Rose City

hydro-unit (464 acres).

Under the median-flow condition, swamps in the Blue Elbow South hydro-unit are generally fresh with

predicted salinities of 1.1 ppt in the FWOP condition and 1.7 ppt in the FWP conditions. Predicted

salinity increases in Cow Bayou swamps from 0.0 ppt for the FWOP condition to 1.0 ppt for the FWP

condition. The predicted salinities for Adams Bayou are higher, up to 3.1 ppt for the FWOP condition and

1090
4. Environmental Consequences

4-40

3.9 ppt for the FWP conditions. In total, FWP salinity increases in these swamps would result in the loss

of 22 AAHUs.

The habitat switching module of the LCA Ecosystem Model projects that loss of swamp acreage would

not be expected to occur until average annual salinities exceed 4 ppt, based on the literature review

discussed above (Visser et al., 2004). None of the increases in salinity reported for the swamps in the

Sabine River watershed would be expected to result in the conversion of swamp to marsh, and therefore

the same swamp acreages were entered into the FWOP and FWP conditions of the SCM worksheets.

Fresh Marshes

Fresh marshes are widespread, but represent a smaller percentage of all marsh in the study area than

intermediate and brackish marshes. Approximately 25,108 acres of fresh marsh occur in the Louisiana

portion of the study area, and 15,697 acres occur in the Texas portion. In general, fresh marsh occurs

along the Neches River, north of the GIWW in Louisiana and Texas, and in protected interior pockets of

intermediate marsh throughout the study area. In the FWOP condition, 95 and 96 percent of this habitat in

Texas and Louisiana, respectively, remain within the optimal salinity range. The proportion of fresh

marsh predicted to remain in Texas within optimum salinities is 95 percent, with 94 percent remaining

under the FWP condition. The WVA model predicts FWP AAHU losses of 173 AAHUs in the Neches

River watershed and 111 AAHUs in the Sabine River watershed.

In Louisiana, fresh marshes are located in the Perry Ridge (18,859 acres), Southeast Sabine (2,634 acres),

and Southwest Gum Cove (3,615 acres) hydro-units. Located north of the GIWW, Perry Ridge is by far

the largest expanse of fresh marsh in the Louisiana study area. During most of the year, the Sabine River

and the GIWW are fresh in the reaches adjacent to Perry Ridge. The Vinton drainage ditch provides

hydrologic access to the eastern part of this area. However, in the FWP, salinities could increase in Perry

Ridge from 1.7 ppt (FWOP) to 2.3 ppt (FWP).

The Southwest Gum Cove and Southeast Sabine hydro-units are located at the eastern edge of the SNWW

study area, north and south of Pool 3, respectively. The northern hydro-unit is hydrologically connected to

the GIWW through the Black Bayou Cutoff, and the southern unit is hydrologically connected to Sabine

Lake through Willow Bayou. Average salinities during the growing season range from 1.2 ppt in the

Southwest Gum Cove marsh to 1.7 ppt in the Southeast Sabine fresh marshes. Salinity in Southwest Gum

Cove is projected to rise from 1.4 ppt (FWOP) to 2.0 ppt (FWP). Located closer to the coast, salinity in

the Southeast Sabine hydro-unit is projected to rise from 2.1 ppt (FWOP) to 2.4 ppt (FWP).

In Texas, most of the fresh marshes are located in the Neches River watershed. However, smaller pockets

occur in the Cow Bayou (1,775 acres) and Adams Bayou (599 acres) hydro-units in the Sabine River

watershed. Mean annual salinities in these smaller bayous range from 0 ppt in the uppermost reaches to

3.5 ppt near the mouth of Cow Bayou. Adams Bayou salinity averages about 2.5 ppt. The HS model

predicts salinity will increase to 4.0 ppt (FWOP) and 5.0 ppt (FWP) in Cow Bayou. In Adams Bayou,

modeled salinities rise to 3.5 ppt (FWOP) and 5.0 ppt (FWP). FWP salinity would move from the

1091
4. Environmental Consequences

4-41

maximum of the fresh marsh optimal range to roughly the maximum of the optimal range for intermediate

marsh in Adams Bayou.

In the Neches River watershed, all of the fresh marsh is located north of the GIWW. North of IH 10,

approximately 436 acres of fresh marsh occur in the North Neches River hydro-unit, and 1,535 acres in

the Neches-Lake Bayou hydro-unit. On the lower Neches River, fresh marsh occurs in the Rose City

(3,327 acres), West of Rose City (492 acre), and Bessie Heights (2,147 acres) hydro-units. Nineteen

percent of Rose City is open water, and a central expanse of tidally influenced mud flats is the site of

eroded wetlands that were formerly fresh marsh and cypress-tupelo swamp. About half of the Bessie

Heights hydro-unit is open water, averaging 2 to 3 feet in depth, that has developed in what was

historically a large, mostly emergent, intermediate marsh. Salinities in these Neches River fresh marshes

under the FWOP condition range from 0.0 in the North Neches River and Neches-Lake Bayou hydrounits to 1.5 ppt in Bessie Heights. Salinities would not be expected to change in the North Neches fresh

marsh under the FWP condition. The greatest salinity increase projected for these marshes under the FWP

condition is 0.5 ppt for the Bessie Heights marsh.

The GIWW North hydro-unit comprises three separate areas on the north side of the GIWW. All are

located within the largest remaining coastal freshwater marsh in Texas (USFWS, 2005a). Most of this

area is not hydrologically connected to the waterways, which form its southern and eastern boundary, the

GIWW, and the Taylor Bayou Diversion Channel, respectively. FWOP salinities predicted by the HS

model for the GIWW North fresh marsh average 2.5 ppt. PAs along the GIWW and levees, created when

the waterways were originally dredged, serve as barriers along the banks of the waterway that protect the

marshes from bank overwash. The TPWD data indicate that salinities in the fresh and intermediate marsh

average 0.7 ppt. Areas selected for inclusion in the hydro-unit are likely to be affected by salinity

increases associated with SNWW channel improvements. They are influenced by breaks in the levees and

PAs, or through natural bayous that allow higher-salinity waters to enter the marsh system. Predicted

salinity would increase to 2.5 ppt (FWOP) and 4.1 ppt (FWP) in portions of the fresh and intermediate

marsh.

Intermediate Marshes

Intermediate marshes comprise the largest percentage of marshes throughout the study area, and most

occur in Louisiana east of Sabine Lake. In total, approximately 133,000 acres of intermediate marsh occur

in the Louisiana portion of the study area, and 39,500 acres in the Texas portion. Approximately

99 percent of Texas intermediate marsh (the majority of which is located in the Salt Bayou hydro-unit) is

predicted to have salinities in the optimum range in the FWP condition. In Louisiana, about 94 percent of

the intermediate marsh is predicted to have salinities in the optimum range under FWP conditions. The

WVA model predicts FWP AAHU losses of 36 AAHUs in the Neches River watershed and

1,583 AAHUs in the Sabine River watershed.

In Louisiana, all but one of the hydro-units (Perry Ridge, 4,704 acres) are located south of the GIWW.

Salinity in Perry Ridge intermediate marshes would rise from 4.5 ppt (FWOP) to 5.6 ppt (FWP).

1092
4. Environmental Consequences

4-42

Extensive intermediate marshes occur in the Louisiana portion of the study area south of the GIWW.

These marshes are found in Willow Bayou (35,109 acres), Black Bayou (34,941 acres), West Johnson’s

Bayou (11,110 acres), Sabine Lake Ridges (9,270 acres), Southeast Sabine (5,400 acres), Southwest Gum

Cove (6.605 acres), and East Johnson’s Bayou (26,138 acres). The primary hydrologic connections to

these marshes are the Black Bayou Cutoff/GIWW, Black Bayou/upper Sabine Lake, Willow

Bayou/central Sabine Lake, and Johnson’s Bayou (south-central Sabine Lake). Mean annual salinities at

these hydrologic connections are 0.4 ppt in the GIWW, 2.8 ppt in Black Bayou, 4.3 ppt at Willow Bayou,

and 6.3 ppt at Johnson’s Bayou. However, mean annual salinities within these interior marshes are

generally lower, ranging from 1.3 ppt in the northern marshes, through 2.0 ppt in the central marshes, to

6 ppt in the southern marshes. Black Bayou has the lowest projected salinity of these three marshes under

the FWOP condition with a modeled salinity of 5.1 ppt and Willow Bayou has the highest with a FWOP

salinity of 6.8 ppt. FWP salinities in these marshes are predicted to increase to 6.5 ppt in Black Bayou,

7.3 ppt in West Johnson’s Bayou, and 7.7 ppt in Willow Bayou.

In hydro-units located farther from Sabine Lake (Southwest Gum Cove, Southeast Sabine, and East

Johnson’s Bayou), salinity increases of 0.3 to 1.1 ppt are expected under the FWP condition. However,

salinities within the Southwest Gum Cove and Southeast Sabine hydro-units would remain within the

optimal range. Salinity in East Johnson’s Bayou is predicted to rise from 3.8 ppt (FWOP) to 4.8 ppt

(FWP). For most of the intermediate marshes in this area, FWOP salinities during these higher-salinity

periods are already at or beyond the high end of the optimal range, and FWP conditions move them

further into the brackish range for at least several weeks a year.

In Texas, intermediate marshes are located on the lower Neches River (Bessie Heights – 6,913 acres, and

Groves – 437 acres) and at Texas Point (1,631 acres). The Bessie Heights and Groves hydro-units are

adjacent to the Neches River and fed by several hydrologic connections. Average salinity in Bessie

Heights intermediate marsh is about 4.2 ppt during the growing season. Intermediate marshes in Bessie

Heights are primarily located along its southern fringe, but are separated from the Neches River by upland

PAs. About half of the Bessie Heights hydro-unit is open water, averaging 2 to 3 feet in depth, which has

developed in a formerly large, mostly emergent, intermediate marsh. Salinity in Bessie Heights

intermediate marsh is predicted to be 4.4 ppt (FWOP), increasing to 4.7 ppt (FWP). In the Groves hydrounit, shallow, meandering streams cross the marsh and drain into the Star Lake Canal and Neches River.

Mean annual salinities within the marshes themselves are close to the Neches River levels. In the portions

of the Groves hydro-unit, FWP salinities are expect to rise from 4.0 ppt (FWOP) to 5.0 ppt.

At Texas Point, approximately 1,742 acres of intermediate marsh (with small pockets of fresh marsh) are

located inland of the extensive brackish marsh in this hydro-unit. Marshes are hydrologically connected to

the Sabine Pass Channel through Texas Bayou and a large, interconnected man-made canal. FWOP

modeled salinities are 7.0 ppt. FWP salinity would increase to 7.8 ppt.

Intermediate marsh is also located along the lower third of Cow Bayou (1,144 acres) in the Sabine River

watershed. Salinity under the FWP condition is projected to increase to 5.0 in parts of the Cow Bayou

marshes from 4.0 ppt in the FWOP condition.

1093
4. Environmental Consequences

4-43

Brackish and Saline Marshes

Brackish marshes occur just inland of saline marshes along the coast and at Sabine Pass, and form

fringing marsh around Sabine Lake, Keith Lake, Salt Bayou, and Old River Cove. In total, approximately

25,161 acres of brackish marsh occur in the Louisiana portion of the study area, and 32,201 acres in the

Texas portion. Little to no change would be expected between the FWOP and FWP conditions with

respect to the percentage of both brackish and saline marsh remaining within the optimal range. The

WVA model predicts FWP AAHU losses of 131 AAHUs in the brackish marshes of the Neches River

watershed and 23 AAHUs in the Sabine River watershed. For saline marsh, a FWP loss of 5 AAHUs

would be expected at Texas Point, and a loss of 37 AAHUs would be expected at Louisiana Point.

In Louisiana, brackish marshes are found in the Willow Bayou (1,182 acres), Black Bayou (3,195 acres),

West Johnson’s Bayou (2,078 acres), Johnson’s Bayou Ridge (2,744 acres), and Sabine Lake Ridges

(15,962 acres) hydro-units. The hydrologic connections and mean annual salinities are generally the same

as reported for intermediate marshes located east of Sabine Lake. However, brackish marshes in Sabine

Lake Ridges and Johnson’s Bayou Ridge are hydrologically connected to Sabine Pass through Lighthouse

Bayou. Under average annual conditions, FWP salinities would remain within the optimal range

(≤10 ppt), increasing an average of 1.4 ppt, and ranging from 5.3 ppt at Black Bayou to 8.6 ppt at Willow

Bayou.

In Texas, brackish marshes occur in the Old River Cove (8,530 acres), GIWW North (647 acres), and the

Texas Point (2,546 acres) hydro-units. About 30 percent of the Old River Cove hydro-unit is open water,

and mean annual salinities are about 10.0 ppt. At GIWW North, salinity in some of the brackish marsh

during late summer months is expected to rise from 10.8 ppt (FWOP) to 12.4 ppt (FWP) At Texas Point,

FWOP mean salinity in the brackish marshes averages 9.8 ppt and FWP salinity is projected to rise to

10.6 ppt, just into the suboptimal range.

Saline marshes in the study area are restricted to the immediate coastal zone. In Louisiana, they occur in

the Sabine Lake Ridges (3,767 acres) and Johnson’s Bayou Ridge (370 acres) hydro-units. In the FWOP

condition, 100 percent of this habitat in both Texas and Louisiana remains within the optimal salinity

range. In Texas, 5,708 acres of saline marsh occur in the Texas Point hydro-unit. These areas are

hydrologically connected to Sabine Pass and are generally protected from saltwater incursion from the

Gulf by low shoreline ridges. FWP mean annual salinity is projected to rise an average of 0.8 ppt above

the FWOP condition in these marshes, while remaining within the optimal range for saline marsh (≥9 and

≤21 ppt).

4.6.3.2.4 Sensitivity to Potential Salinity Changes during FWP Drought Condition

The HS model predicts salinities at 13 locations at median and low flow under the FWOP and FWP

conditions (see tables 4.6-1 and 4.6-3). FWP salinities ranged from 0 to 22.9 ppt at median flows and

from 0.26 to 29.1 ppt at drought flows. Salinities under the modeled existing condition during drought

ranged from 0 to 28.9 ppt. The average salinity increase from FWOP to FWP conditions at the 13 stations

was 1.0 ppt at median flows and only 0.5 ppt at low flows. This suggests that the relative effect of RSLR

1094
4. Environmental Consequences

4-44

on salinities is lower as drought conditions cause salinities to increase. The greatest salinity increases

from FWOP to FWP conditions at low flow were estimated for the east shore of Sabine Lake, near Rose

City on the Neches River, and the Sabine River at Orange, areas where the salinity is predicted to increase

0.7 to 1.0 ppt from the FWOP to the FWP condition. Predicted salinities in the portion of Sabine Lake

adjacent to the Louisiana shore are projected to reach levels ranging from 15.6 to 17.9 ppt, under the FWP

drought condition compared to a range of 12.7 to 15.0 ppt under the modeled existing drought condition.

FWP salinities under drought flows would average 8.2 ppt above FWP salinities at median flows. FWOP

salinities under drought flows would average 8.9 ppt higher than FWOP salinities under median flows.

Drought flows in the upper Neches River and Sabine River under the FWP condition are not likely to

affect marshes in these areas since predicted salinities in the upper Neches River would be 2.6 and 5.8 ppt

in the Sabine River at Orange. Salinities in adjacent marshes would be expected to be lower.

Possible impacts that may occur if predicted FWP salinities occur in the project area during drought will

depend on the extent, frequency, and duration of low inflows. These possible impacts are difficult to

predict because of the complexity of the project area ecosystem; uncertainty about future changes in

major variables like inflow, temperature changes, and sea level rise; and limited understanding of

ecosystem structure and function in the project area. There is currently substantial discussion in the

scientific community regarding the role of tipping points in determining effects of ecosystem stressors.

However, there are no current, reliable, studies describing salinity tipping points for marshes or wetlands

in this part of Texas. It is clear that FWOP drought flows will substantially increase salinities above the

modeled existing condition, over 8 ppt, but the FWP contribution to the additional salinity increase is

small, averaging 0.5 ppt.

4.6.4 Groundwater Hydrology Impacts

4.6.4.1 No-Action

The No-Action Alternative would have no additional direct impacts to groundwater resources at or near

the proposed study area beyond those that may result from existing dredging activities or placement of

dredged material independent of this project. Any direct effects of those projects may result in local and

regional changes (i.e., sedimentation, altered hydrology, or a relative rise in sea levels) over time and

would be common to all alternatives considered in this FEIS. Their effects would be evaluated under their

own environmental studies.

With the projected future effects of climate change, there is a potential for saltwater intrusion into shallow

groundwater aquifers at or near the SNWW area due to a rise in sea levels. The USACE, Galveston

District analyzed the potential for RSLR to affect aquifers in the study area (USACE, 2009b). If the sea

level rises half an inch (0.04 foot), the freshwater/saltwater interface could potentially rise as much as

1.67 feet, which would not have a significant impact on a freshwater aquifer. However, for a 50-year

assessment, sea level rise of 1.1 feet would cause the interface to rise up to 44 feet. For every foot the

saltwater level rises, the height of free ground surface water reduces by a foot. As a result, the interface

between saltwater and freshwater underground rises approximately 40 feet for every foot the sea level

1095
4. Environmental Consequences

4-45

rises. This could have a significant effect on the amount of fresh water in deep aquifers in the study area

with or without the proposed project.

4.6.4.2 Preferred Alternative

The potential to affect groundwater hydrology in this project is related to construction and maintenance

dredged material placement in 16 existing and 2 expanded upland PAs, as proposed in the Preferred

Alternative. Groundwater hydrology potential effects may result in physical (ability to infiltrate and/or

contact groundwater in area aquifers) and chemical (TDS or salinity) attributes of the dredged material.

In the area, the Gulf Coast aquifer is subdivided into the Chicot aquifer (uppermost) and the underlying

Evangeline aquifer, separated by differences in lithology and permeability. Higher permeabilities are

usually associated with the Chicot aquifer. The Chicot aquifer has been divided into an upper unit and

lower unit, separated by a clay bed in some areas and, in other areas, merged into one large mass of

interbedded and interconnected sand and clay.

No effects are anticipated to the lower unit of the Chicot, any portion of the Evangeline, or the massive

portions of the upper Chicot aquifers because clay barrier layers are anticipated to prevent contact with

dredged material. Therefore, no adverse effects are anticipated to groundwater wells documented by the

TWDB in the area counties.

Dredged material produced by construction of the Preferred Alternative would be managed in accordance

with the DMMP. PAs would be able to accommodate material from both construction and maintenance

dredging over the 50-year period of analysis. More details can be found in the DMMP (Appendix D). The

upper stratigraphic units of the upper Chicot aquifer may become saturated from newly discharged

dredged material and/or precipitation stored within the PA. With time and as material is discharged into

the PA, the water would evaporate and the solids of the dredged material would compact to form a low

permeability cap over the substrate within the PA. This cap, composed of new work material, would form

an effective barrier to future dredged material infiltration.

SNWW dredge elutriate, water, and sediment data were collected and archived by the USACE within

5 years of this project’s initiation. Data from this set collected within the area’s footprint were compared

to the regulatory thresholds set through Texas and Louisiana WQS. These findings are discussed in detail

in sections 3.3 and 3.4. Water and sediment samples were collected at locations that are most likely to

have been impacted by industrial properties undergoing remedial action. No WQS or WQC was exceeded

by water or elutriate samples from any of the three sampling sites, and none of the concentrations was

noticeably higher in the channel samples than the reference samples. Therefore, no adverse potential

effects are expected if groundwater in the upper Chicot aquifer comes into contact with water or elutriate

from construction and maintenance dredged material.

In general, water from the SNWW project area ranges in salinity from essentially zero to that of 30 ppt.

Groundwater quality data from the TWDB database indicates that groundwater from water wells

completed in the Chicot aquifer within the project vicinity generally has TDS concentrations less than

1096
4. Environmental Consequences

4-46

200 mg/L (fresh) to more than 3,000 mg/L (brackish). Most of the groundwater from the Chicot aquifer

has an average TDS concentration of less than 1,500 mg/L. In general, storage of saline/brackish water on

an upland impoundment would suggest that impacts to the uppermost contact with land surface could

occur. Additionally, if groundwater occurs in this uppermost level, then saline/brackish water may blend

with shallow-occurring groundwater. Greater permeability of the land surface would contribute to faster

surface water entry into the subsurface, and potentially into the groundwater. This would suggest that

impacts to groundwater may be likely during the first placement of dredged material into the PA;

however, over the life of a PA, solids in the dredged material settle to the bottom and create a layer of

low-permeability material. This physical barrier would, in time, minimize the intermixing of surface and

groundwater in that area. Most of the PAs in the project area are existing, previously used impoundments,

with an established layer of low-permeability material. Two new areas are proposed in upland areas

adjacent to the Neches River where salinity levels in the navigation channel are lower overall. No

domestic or livestock wells are in the vicinity of the PAs, and no reported complaints by groundwater

users have been registered in the area. No prior use of the PAs has resulted in known groundwater

resource impacts, and no impacts are anticipated from additional placement through this project. Salinity

increases from dredged material water infiltration to the upper Chicot is not a concern.

With the projected future effects of climate change, there is a potential for saltwater intrusion into shallow

groundwater aquifers at or near the proposed study area due to a rise in sea levels. These impacts would

be the same as the No-Action Alternative discussed above in subsection 4.6.4.1.

4.7 HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE

4.7.1 No-Action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative would have no impact on hazardous materials associated with regulated

facilities in the region. However, maintenance dredging of existing ship channels and from future channel

deepening and/or widening projects, in addition to the placement of dredged materials at PAs, would

continue under the No-Action Alternative. In the absence of project activity, the existing historic impacts

related to area industry are also expected to continue.

4.7.2 Preferred Alternative

According to a review of regulatory agency database records and interviews conducted with regional

TCEQ personnel, industrial activity has caused measurable impacts to the surface water, sediment, soil,

and groundwater in localized areas within the study area. However, chemical analysis of sediment and

surface water samples collected from the waterway indicate that these impacts have apparently been

limited to the industrial facilities and adjoining properties (PBS&J, 2002). The nature and potential for

any HTRW site to impact the surrounding environment varies considerably. The majority of the regulated

facilities and incident locations identified in the regulatory agency database review do not pose an

environmental concern for the project. However, several facilities within the study area do pose a greater

potential to impact the environment. These facilities pose a potential concern based on the nature and

1097
4. Environmental Consequences

4-47

extent of contaminants at the site, their location relative to the PAs and the waterway, and the number of

pathways in which the contaminants could reach the PAs and the waterway. The facilities that are

considered priority HTRW sites of concern are summarized in Table 4.7-1; their locations on shown on

Figure 4.7-1.

Table 4.7-1

Summary of Priority HTRW Sites within Sabine-Neches Waterway

Site Name Site ID Constituents of Concern

Media

Impacted Status

Bailey Waste

Disposal Site

512 Arsenic compounds, benzene, phenols,

pyridenes, naphthalenes, and chlorinated

hydrocarbons

Surface water,

groundwater,

soil

Cleanup complete in 1998; Operation and

Maintenance underway since 1999

State Marine 203 PAHs, metals Surface water Evaluation and cleanup are underway, but

the nature and extent of contamination

and the risks posed to human health and

the environment are unknown

Palmer Barge

Lines

548 Aluminum, barium, chromium, cobalt,

iron, lead, magnesium, nickel, zinc,

pesticides, VOCs, PAHs, PCP, and

benzene

Surface water Evaluation and cleanup underway since

2000; the EPA is considering various

remedial alternatives

Star Lake Canal 471 Chromium, copper, PAHs, and PCBs Surface water,

sediments

Evaluation and cleanup underway since

2001, but the nature and extent of

contamination and the risks posed to

human health and the environment are

unknown

International

Creosoting

30 Arsenic, chromium, lead, creosote

compounds, SVOC, and VOCs

Groundwater,

sediment, soil,

surface water

Clean up underway

Maintech

International

410 PAHs Groundwater,

soil

Cleanup completed in 2000; undergoing

Operation and Maintenance

Excell 28 TPH, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and

xylene

Groundwater Investigation underway

Port of Beaumont,

Beaumont

Elevator

113 VOCs, herbicides, and pesticides Groundwater,

soil

Investigation underway

Woodcrest Site 584 VOCs Soil Investigation underway

Source: Banks Information Solutions (2002).

The USACE has determined that the 316-acre PA 17 is needed for future material disposal in conjunction

with the Preferred Alternative and that PA 17 would be included in the DMMP; however, issues related to

contaminated materials in a capped landfill and other waste disposal areas within this PA remain

unresolved at this time. Pursuant to Department of the Army Engineering Regulation 1165-2-132, HTRW

Guidance for Civil Works Projects, construction of civil works projects in HTRW-contaminated areas

should be avoided. The non-Federal local sponsor has been notified that they are responsible for the

investigation and remediation of HTRW issues for use of PA 17 for the project. Additional information is

needed to fully identify and delineate onsite contaminants, and the EPA remedial investigations planned

for the Star Lake Canal Superfund Site, which could potentially affect parts of PA 17, need to be

completed. Surface and subsurface sampling and analysis would be necessary to identify and delineate

contaminants of concern and to determine whether contaminates are present at levels of concern. Based

upon available information at the time of this document’s production, it is expected that PA 17

contaminant concerns would be resolved in time for its scheduled use in maintenance dredging; however,

1098
4. Environmental Consequences

4-48

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1099
87

12

62

73

96

365

347

69

287

105

62

10

10

10

87

365

69

96

287

347

10

105

73

62

10

62

12

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

!

!

!

!

!

Texas

Louisiana

MP56

MP40

MP30

MP16

MP14

Port Arthur

Beaumont

Vidor Orange

Groves Nederland

Bridge City

West Orange

Pine Forest

International Creosoting

Excell

Port of Beaumont,

Beaumont Elevator

Bailey Waste Disposal Site

Maintech

International

Star Lake Canal

Woodcrest Site

State Marine

Palmer Barge Lines

Cove

Point

Bayou

Bayou

Willow

Heights

Johnson

Fish Pass

Blue Buck

Cow Bayou

Old River

Keith Lake

Star Bayou

Salt Bayou

Pine Island

GIWW WEST

SABINE PASS

PORT ARTHUR CANAL

SABINE PASS CHANNEL

Bayou

E

Bayou

Adams

Bessie

Rose City East

S

JETTY CHANNEL

SABINE-NECHES CANAL

NECHES RIVER CHANNEL

Priority HTRW Sites

Prepared for: USACE

Job No.: 100007609

Prepared by: 18827/AP/AC

Scale: 1" = 3 miles

Date: 09/15/2009

N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/100007609/geo/figs/Figure_4_7_1_vr3.mxd

Legend

0 3 6 μ

Miles

Channel Centerlines

Figure 4.7-1

Texas Point

Turning and Anchorage Basin No. 1

Turning and Anchorage Basin No.4

Anchorage Basin No. 8

County Boundaries

") HTRW Site

State Boundaries

! Mileage Points MP14

Mile (approx. nautical miles)

14 Sea Buoy (Markers 29/30)

30 Texaco Island

40 Neches River Junction

56 Municipal Docks Beaumont

16 East Jetty Light

Project Area, Dredged Channel

Taylor Bayou Channel

and Turning Basin

4-49

1100
4. Environmental Consequences

4-50

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1101
4. Environmental Consequences

4-51

if these issues are not resolved and PA 17 is not available, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

analysis and coordination would be performed to designate a new PA or expand an existing PA to replace

the lost capacity.

A baseline evaluation of facilities that pose a potential concern to the project must also consider whether

the release of contaminants is ongoing or has been effectively eliminated through remedial efforts. Based

on these criteria, State Marine, Palmer Barge Lines, Star Lake Canal, and Beaumont Elevator continue to

present on ongoing threat to impact the environment of the project area since these sites have not

completed remedial activities. The remaining priority sites present a lesser threat due in part to either

effective corrective action or distance to the waterway.

Based on the findings of the HTRW survey, there is the potential of encountering contaminated material

during construction of the project. The contaminated material could increase project cost and/or lost time

from discovery and remediation of the contaminated materials within the project area. The potential of

encountering contaminated material appears to be greatest in areas adjacent to priority HTRW sites and in

outfall canals adjacent to the SNWW. Surveys have been conducted to locate oil and gas wells and

petroleum pipelines crossing the navigation channel (PBS&J, 2005). Prior to construction, additional

pipeline surveys would be necessary for proposed BU features and mitigation measures.

The highest probability of residual contamination in water and sediments would be in the area of the Star

Lake Canal outfall, the northern end of Pleasure Island, and near Taylor Bayou. According to TCEQ

personnel, the Star Lake Canal and Taylor Bayou convey industrial wastewater effluent and stormwater to

the SNWW. The sediment adjacent to the mouths of these canals could contain elevated levels of organic

and inorganic compounds. Similarly, sediment adjacent to the State Marine and Palmer Barge Lines sites

located near the north end of Pleasure Island could contain a variety of organic and inorganic compounds.

These sources of potential contaminants are a result of migration and runoff of impacted groundwater and

surface water into the waterway. However, based upon the recent chemical analysis of water and

sediment collected within these channels, the potential for encountering contaminated material during

dredging operations is considered minimal.

4.8 AIR QUALITY

This section provides a discussion of the air quality impacts associated with the No-Action and Preferred

alternatives. The evaluation of air quality impacts associated with the proposed SNWW CIP was based on

the identification of air contaminants and estimated emission rates for the Preferred Alternative. The air

contaminants considered are those covered by the NAAQS (except for lead, which is not relevant to

project emissions) including CO, O3, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2. Air emissions were considered for

channel improvement activities and placement of dredged material as well as emissions from vehicular

traffic associated with the project employee commute. Project emissions were estimated based on

preliminary assumptions regarding construction timing and equipment developed for this project. It is not

within the scope of this analysis to perform the refined dispersion modeling necessary to predict

1102
4. Environmental Consequences

4-52

concentrations for each contaminant and alterative. Rather, the impact of emissions was analyzed relative

to the existing inventory for air contaminant emissions in the BPA nonattainment area and the parishes of

Cameron and Calcasieu.

The estimated air contaminant emissions, except O3, were compared to the 2002 emissions inventory for

the BPA ozone nonattainment area and for Cameron and Calcasieu parishes. Assuming an increase in air

emissions would result in a corresponding increase in the ambient air concentration for that air

contaminant, the ratio of the estimated emissions to the existing 2002 emissions for that contaminant

provided a relative indication of the potential increase in ambient concentrations for the air contaminant.

That difference was then compared to the NAAQS. As shown in Table 3.7-3 in subsection 3.7.3,

monitored values indicate that concentrations of air contaminants (except O3) for BPA are below the

NAAQS over the period from 2004 to 2008. Because air emissions are generally dispersed with distance

and time, a relatively small increase in emissions may be assumed to cause a correspondingly small

increase in ambient air quality concentrations for that air contaminant, and it is therefore expected that the

increase in emissions would not cause an exceedance of the NAAQS. Because authorization for the

project is considered a Federal action, estimated emissions from the project were also considered in terms

of the General Conformity Rules.

4.8.1 No-Action Alternative

No construction or new operating emission sources are associated with the No-Action Alternative.

However, it is expected that air contaminant emissions would increase due to continued operational

constraints on the existing system and projected increased ship traffic resulting both from growth of

existing business and from new business.

4.8.2 Preferred Alternative

The evaluation of air quality impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative was based on the

identification of air contaminants and estimated emission rates for this project alternative. Emissions

inventories were estimated for project-related activities based on the schedule, dredging volumes, and

other construction-related assumptions regarding construction timing and equipment developed for this

project. The emission sources for this alternative would consist of marine vessel and land-based mobile

sources that would be used during the channel improvement activities, as follows:

• Marine Vessels. Includes dredges (cutter and hopper), dredge support equipment (tugboats,

survey boats, crew boats, and tenders), and shrimp trawlers; and

• Land based. Includes off-road (amphibious track hoe, dozer, dragline, excavator, and rolligon)

and on-road (employee vehicles).

Air contaminant emissions associated with the channel widening would be primarily combustion products

from fuel burned in equipment used for project dredging, support vessels, and dredged material placement

equipment. Activities at dredged material placement sites would involve the use of earth-moving

equipment. The marine vessel emissions sources are primarily diesel-powered engines. The off-road

1103
4. Environmental Consequences

4-53

construction equipment was assumed to be all diesel-powered, and on-road vehicles were assumed to be

all gasoline-powered vehicles. Detailed emission estimates are provided in the General Conformity

Determination (Appendix F).

4.8.2.1 Air Quality Analysis Results

The project construction emissions represent the estimated emissions from the activities associated with

the Preferred Alternative. These activities would be considered one-time activities, i.e., the channel

widening activities would not continue past the date of completion. Because of the high moisture content

of the dredged material, it is expected that there would be no particulate matter emissions from the

placement of dredged material in placement areas.

A summary of the total estimated annual emissions, in tons, resulting from the use of dredging equipment,

support vessels, off-road equipment, and on-road equipment is presented in Table 4.8-1. A detailed

summary of emissions can be found in the General Conformity Determination (Appendix F).

The total estimated annual emissions for each year of construction were compared to the 2002 emissions

inventory for the BPA nonattainment area and the emissions inventory for Cameron and Calcasieu

parishes. This comparison is presented in Table 4.8-2.

As shown on Table 4.8-2, air contaminant emissions from the Preferred Alternative would result in a

relatively small increase in emissions above those from existing sources in the BPA and for Cameron and

Calcasieu parishes. As a result, it is expected that air contaminant emissions from the combustion of fuel

in equipment used for dredging and placement activities would also result in correspondingly minor

short-term impacts on air quality in the immediate vicinity of the project area and even less as emissions

are dispersed over the BPA and Cameron/Calcasieu areas.

4.8.2.2 General Conformity Applicability

For comparison with the thresholds defined in the General Conformity Rule, the estimated emissions of

NOx and VOC for each year for the project activities subject to the General Conformity are summarized

in tables 4.8-3 and 4.8-4. For purposes of General Conformity, only air contaminant emissions that might

occur within the BPA nonattainment area out to the 9-mile natural resources limit for the State of Texas

were considered. The 9 nautical mile boundary is the seaward limit of the submerged lands of Texas as

defined in the Submerged Lands Act (U.S. Code Title 43, Chapter 29, Subchapter II, § 1312). Emissions

of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter are not considered in the General Conformity

evaluation as this area is in attainment with the NAAQS for each of those pollutants.

1104
4. Environmental Consequences

4-54

Table 4.8-1

Estimated Annual Project Construction Emissions – SNWW CIP Preferred Alternative

Year 2011 CO NOX PM2.5 PM10 SO2 VOC

Dredge and Support Equipment 41.56 371.87 8.42 8.89 61.61 4.21

Construction Equipment 28.74 34.67 2.74 2.82 7.27 2.92

Employee Vehicles 4.35 0.285 0.006 0.013 0.004 0.422

Subtotal 74.65 406.83 11.17 11.72 68.87 7.55

Year 2012 CO NOX PM2.5 PM10 SO2 VOC

Dredge and Support Equipment 166.23 1,487.47 33.70 35.55 246.42 16.84

Construction Equipment 52.04 128.65 12.64 13.02 28.39 10.71

Employee Vehicles 19.03 1.246 0.026 0.057 0.018 1.842

Subtotal 237.29 1,617.37 46.36 48.62 274.83 29.39

Year 2013 CO NOX PM2.5 PM10 SO2 VOC

Dredge and Support Equipment 167.80 1,500.92 34.00 35.87 248.65 17.00

Construction Equipment 55.84 123.20 14.69 15.13 28.42 10.28

Employee Vehicles 19.75 1.293 0.027 0.059 0.019 1.912

Subtotal 243.38 1,625.41 48.71 51.06 277.09 29.19

Year 2014 CO NOX PM2.5 PM10 SO2 VOC

Dredge and Support Equipment 172.79 1,540.20 34.89 36.81 255.21 17.54

Construction Equipment 60.84 118.58 17.26 17.79 29.42 10.16

Employee Vehicles 19.44 1.273 0.027 0.058 0.018 1.883

Subtotal 253.08 1,660.06 52.18 54.66 284.65 29.58

Year 2015 CO NOX PM2.5 PM10 SO2 VOC

Dredge and Support Equipment 171.41 1,513.49 34.30 36.18 250.92 17.51

Construction Equipment 60.01 106.21 18.61 19.17 28.33 8.67

Employee Vehicles 19.49 1.276 0.027 0.059 0.018 1.887

Subtotal 250.91 1,620.98 52.93 55.41 279.27 28.07

Year 2016 CO NOX PM2.5 PM10 SO2 VOC

Dredge and Support Equipment 161.73 1,417.91 32.14 33.91 235.16 16.63

Construction Equipment 53.71 91.89 19.44 20.03 26.69 5.92

Employee Vehicles 19.26 1.261 0.026 0.058 0.018 1.865

Subtotal 234.71 1,511.06 51.61 54.00 261.87 24.42

Year 2017 CO NOX PM2.5 PM10 SO2 VOC

Dredge and Support Equipment 155.59 1,363.78 30.92 32.61 226.19 16.00

Construction Equipment 56.96 88.30 22.47 23.16 28.10 6.10

Employee Vehicles 20.05 1.316 0.028 0.061 0.019 1.945

Subtotal 232.60 1,453.40 53.42 55.84 254.31 24.05

Year 2018 CO NOX PM2.5 PM10 SO2 VOC

Dredge and Support Equipment 53.29 467.93 10.61 11.19 77.60 5.47

Construction Equipment 24.74 34.07 10.49 10.81 12.07 9.07

Employee Vehicles 6.82 0.446 0.009 0.020 0.006 0.660

Subtotal 84.84 502.45 21.10 22.02 89.68 15.20

1105
4. Environmental Consequences

4-55

Table 4.8-2

Total Annual Project Emissions Compared with BPA/Cameron/Calcasieu 2002 Emissions Inventory

2002 EMISSION INVENTORY CO NOX PM2.5 PM10 SO2 VOC

BPA 134,953 86,242 10,618 50,702 39,966 39,913

CAMERON/CALCASIEU 95,016 68,265 6,319 13,098 58,397 34,553

BPA/CAMERON/CALCASIEU 229,969 154,507 16,937 63,800 98,363 74,467

ANNUAL PROJECT EMISSIONS CO NOX PM2.5 PM10 SO2 VOC

Year 2011 74.65 406.83 11.17 11.72 68.87 7.55

% of BPA 0.06 0.47 0.11 0.02 0.17 0.02

% of Cameron/Calcasieu 0.08 0.60 0.18 0.09 0.12 0.02

% of BPA/Cameron/Calcasieu 0.03 0.26 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.01

Year 2012 237.29 1,617.37 46.36 48.62 274.83 29.39

% of BPA 0.18 1.88 0.44 0.10 0.69 0.07

% of Cameron/Calcasieu 0.25 2.37 0.73 0.37 0.47 0.09

% of BPA/Cameron/Calcasieu 0.10 1.05 0.27 0.08 0.28 0.04

Year 2013 243.38 1,625.41 48.71 51.06 277.09 29.19

% of BPA 0.18 1.88 0.46 0.10 0.69 0.07

% of Cameron/Calcasieu 0.26 2.38 0.77 0.39 0.47 0.08

% of BPA/Cameron/Calcasieu 0.11 1.05 0.29 0.08 0.28 0.04

Year 2014 253.08 1,660.06 52.18 54.66 284.65 29.58

% of BPA 0.19 1.92 0.49 0.11 0.71 0.07

% of Cameron/Calcasieu 0.27 2.43 0.83 0.42 0.49 0.09

% of BPA/Cameron/Calcasieu 0.11 1.07 0.31 0.09 0.29 0.04

Year 2015 250.91 1,620.98 52.93 55.41 279.27 28.07

% of BPA 0.19 1.88 0.50 0.11 0.70 0.07

% of Cameron/Calcasieu 0.26 2.37 0.84 0.42 0.48 0.08

% of BPA/Cameron/Calcasieu 0.11 1.05 0.31 0.09 0.28 0.04

Year 2016 234.71 1,511.06 51.61 54.00 261.87 24.42

% of BPA 0.17 1.75 0.49 0.11 0.66 0.06

% of Cameron/Calcasieu 0.25 2.21 0.82 0.41 0.45 0.07

% of BPA/Cameron/Calcasieu 0.10 0.98 0.30 0.08 0.27 0.03

Year 2017 232.60 1,453.40 53.42 55.84 254.31 24.05

% of BPA 0.17 1.69 0.50 0.11 0.64 0.06

% of Cameron/Calcasieu 0.24 2.13 0.85 0.43 0.44 0.07

% of BPA/Cameron/Calcasieu 0.10 0.94 0.32 0.09 0.26 0.03

Year 2018 84.84 502.45 21.10 22.02 89.68 15.20

% of BPA 0.06 0.58 0.20 0.04 0.22 0.04

% of Cameron/Calcasieu 0.09 0.74 0.33 0.17 0.15 0.04

% of BPA/Cameron/Calcasieu 0.04 0.33 0.12 0.03 0.09 0.02

1106
4. Environmental Consequences

4-56

As shown in Table 4.8-3, estimated emissions of VOC for the Preferred Alternative are exempt from a

General Conformity Determination because they are below the 100 tpy threshold for each year of

anticipated activity. However, estimated NOx emissions for the Preferred Alternative exceed the general

conformity threshold, i.e., greater than 100 tpy, for all years of construction. Therefore, a General

Conformity Determination for NOx emissions would be required for these years.

Table 4.8-3

Summary of VOC Construction Emissions Subject to General Conformity

Year

Dredge and

Support

Equipment

Construction

Equipment

Employee

Vehicles Total

2011 2.57 3.12 0.42 6.10

2012 12.38 11.43 1.84 25.65

2013 12.54 10.99 1.91 25.44

2014 13.82 10.86 1.88 26.57

2015 13.94 9.90 1.89 25.73

2016 14.22 8.69 1.87 24.78

2017 15.40 8.73 1.94 26.07

2018 5.47 34.89 0.66 41.02

Table 4.8-4

Summary of NOx Construction Emissions Subject to General Conformity

Year

Dredge and

Support

Equipment

Construction

Equipment

Employee

Vehicles Total

2011 217.77 34.05 0.29 252.11

2012 1,106.59 126.17 1.25 1,234.01

2013 1,120.03 120.72 1.29 1,242.05

2014 1,222.80 116.52 1.27 1,340.59

2015 1,208.15 104.22 1.28 1,313.65

2016 1,212.23 90.55 1.26 1,304.05

2017 1,312.36 87.97 1.32 1,401.65

2018 467.93 34.07 0.45 502.45

To initiate the General Conformity process, the USACE, prepared a document entitled, “Draft General

Conformity Determination, Sabine-Neches Channel Improvement Project.” This document was noticed

for public comment and was submitted by the USACE to the TCEQ, the EPA, and other air pollution

control agencies, as appropriate, concurrently with the DEIS. As part of the General Conformity process,

the USACE made this document available to the public for review and comment for a period of 30 days.

The TCEQ has provided written concurrence that emissions from the Preferred Alternative are

conformant with the Texas SIP for the BPA (Appendix A1). Based on the TCEQ's comments, the

1107
4. Environmental Consequences

4-57

USACE has prepared a Final General Conformity Determination for the proposed SNWW CIP (Appendix

F).

4.9 NOISE IMPACTS

Project-related noise impacts were evaluated by considering the noise emissions related to dredge and

placement operations of the proposed channel improvement project at noise-sensitive land uses

(residential, educational, health care, recreational). Potential noise impacts associated with dredging and

placement activities were evaluated by modeling predicted noise levels as a function of distance between

the noise-generating equipment and noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the project area. Noise

levels were calculated based on industry accepted standards and properties of noise attenuation.

4.9.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the channel would not be deepened to project specifications. However,

the existing regime of maintenance dredging, which generally includes a cutterhead suction dredge and

various tending/crew boats within the channel, would continue as normal. Table 4.9-1 summarizes

dredging-related noise levels produced by equipment type.

Table 4.9-1

Typical Noise Levels

Noise Level

Equipment (dBA)

Cutterhead Dredge (at 160 feet) 791

Hopper Dredge (at 50 feet) 872

Large Tug boat (at 50 feet) 873

Small Tug Boat 723

Bulldozer (at 50 feet) 824

Bucket Crane (at 50 feet) 824

1 Geier & Geier Consulting (1997).

2 Assumed same as large tug.

3 Epsilon Associates (2006)

4 FHWA (2006).

Potential short-term noise impacts related to the No-Action Alternative would occur during maintenance

dredging activities throughout the channel’s length. Noise-sensitive land uses exist in various locations

along both sides of the channel’s banks. These areas are concentrated in the cities of Port Arthur, Port

Neches, and Beaumont. Other noise-sensitive land uses include recreational areas (J.D. Murphree State

WMA, Sea Rim State Park, Sabine Pass Battleground State Park, and Pleasure Island) in the southern

portion of the project. Table 4.9-2 summarizes the estimated noise levels produced by maintenance

dredging activities at increasing distances from the ship channel. The No-Action Alternative would not

result in permanent noise level increases, however, short-term impacts could be considered potentially

significant at noise-sensitive land uses within 600 feet of maintenance dredging activities.

1108
4. Environmental Consequences

4-58

Table 4.9-2

Calculated Noise Levels of Maintenance Dredging

Distance From

Center of Channel

Calculated Noise Level

From Dredging Activities

160 feet 79 dBA (Leq)

300 feet 73 dBA (Leq)

600 feet 67 dBA (Leq)

1,200 feet 61 dBA (Leq)

2,400 feet 55 dBA (Leq)

4.9.2 Preferred Alternative

Under the Preferred Alternative, the channel would be deepened as described in Section 2.4. Equipment

to be used for the proposed action would include separate crews consisting of a 30-inch hydraulic

cutterhead dredge, three 500-horsepower tugboats, and one survey/crew boat within the channel. A large

hopper dredge with tending boats would be used beyond the channel in the Gulf. However, noise levels

associated with this portion of the project were not calculated since no noise-sensitive land uses are

located beyond the channel. Although more than one crew could operate on the channel simultaneously,

they would operate on separate reaches of the channel, and therefore would not be within the vicinity of

noise-sensitive land uses at the same time. Dredging operations are expected to occur approximately

20 hours per day for a total of 7 years. Dredging activities would generate noise from a variety of

equipment sources, however, the primary sources of equipment noise would include the dredges (with

their associated pumps and generators) and tugboats (see Table 4.9-1). Smaller vessels, such as tending

boats and survey boats, would not substantially contribute to the noise associated with dredging activities.

The proposed action under the Preferred Alternative is not expected to result in long-term noise impacts.

No permanent noise sources would be installed as part of this project. In the short term, however, the

proposed action could result in temporary elevated noise levels at noise-sensitive land use locations.

Because the same type of equipment used for maintenance dredging would be used for the proposed

action, short-term noise impacts related to the proposed action would be nearly identical to the short-term

impacts that occur during current maintenance dredging, as discussed above in subsection 4.9.1. Table

4.9-2 summarizes the estimated noise levels produced by the proposed action at increasing distances from

the ship channel. As is the case with current maintenance dredging, short-term impacts could be

considered potentially significant at noise-sensitive land uses within 600 feet of the proposed project’s

dredging activities.

Reduction of the short-term noise levels could be achieved by using quieter-running equipment and by

adding supplemental noise shielding around engines and pumps of the dredging equipment. Additional

acoustical shielding panels could be used when the dredges operate in close proximity to residential areas.

Additionally, dredging operations could be limited to daytime hours in proximity to residential areas.

Limiting the hours of operation, however, would increase the length of the project significantly.

1109
4. Environmental Consequences

4-59

4.10 VEGETATION

4.10.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the combined effects of RSLR, shoreline recession, and interior marsh

loss are expected to result in the significant loss of marsh and expansion of open-water areas, and this is

likely to be exacerbated by the effects of global climate change. These processes would continue a trend

of wetland loss that has been occurring in the study area in recent decades (Berman, 2005; Morton, 2003;

Morton et al., 2005; Shinkle and Dokka, 2004; Titus and Narayanan, 1995). In Louisiana, a net land loss

of 21 percent between 1978 and 2000 has been reported in the Chenier Plain subregion of coastal

Louisiana, which includes the Sabine estuary (USACE, 2004a). In Texas, the most extensive losses of

interior coastal wetlands in the state (12,632 acres between 1930 and 1978) have occurred in the Neches

River delta. In total, over 90 percent of the emergent marshes in the Lower Neches River delta have been

converted to open water, which is more than half of the total wetland loss in the State of Texas (Morton

and Paine, 1990; Sutherlin, 1997; White et al., 1987). During this same period, NOAA documented a

historical trend of mean sea level rise at its Sabine Pass tide gage of 0.2 inch/year over 48 years from

1958 through 2006 (USDC-NOAA, 2009), one of the highest on the Gulf Coast.

FWOP land loss projections for the SNWW project are based upon a single “most likely” estimate of

1.1 feet of RSLR by 2069. There is great uncertainty in the prediction of RSLR, which combines rates of

global sea level rise and local subsidence. Uncertainties are related to the rate and degree of global

climate change, including changes in the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, future

trends in temperature and regional precipitation, the timing and quantity of freshwater inflows, sediment

delivery to coastal marshes, and the rates of vegetative growth and biomass accumulation (Barras et al.,

2004; IPCC, 2007; Langley et al., 2009; Nielsen-Gammon, 2009). In particular, some recent studies of

geologic terrestrial and marine records support the plausibility of sea level rise on the order of 3.3 ±

1.64 feet by A.D. 2100 (Carlson et al., 2008; Rahmstorf, 2007; Rohling et al., 2008). Uncertainties in the

rate of regional subsidence are related to the effect of anthropogenic factors such as oil, gas, and

groundwater withdrawals, the compaction of deep reservoir rocks, the reactivation of surficial faults, and

the erosion and/or accumulation of surface sediments (Gonzalez and Törnqvist, 2006; Milliken et al.,

2008a, 2008b; Morton et al., 2006). This results in a very wide range of potential RSLR, calculated as

stipulated by the most recent USACE relative sea level guidance (EC 1165-2-211, July 2009) to be

between 0.3 and 2.8 feet over the period of analysis.

For this study, FWOP projections of land loss include the effects of rising salinities and shoreline

recession associated with RSLR. Approximately 5,500 acres (7.5 percent) in Texas and 15,500 acres in

Louisiana (10.5 percent) are forecast to be lost by 2069. In the near term, the marsh degradation process

provides fisheries organisms with short-term benefits by releasing organic and mineral-rich sediments

into the open-water system as the marsh is lost (Minello and Rozas, 2002). In the long term, the important

ecological functions of the wetlands in the affected area would decline, resulting in the loss of fish and

wildlife and their habitats, adverse effects on water quality, and reductions in erosion protection.

1110
4. Environmental Consequences

4-60

4.10.1.1 FWOP Shoreline Recession

The forecasted RSLR would result in the recession of Gulf and Sabine Lake shorelines in the SNWW

study area. Potential problems associated with sea level change can be categorized into two classes; those

of the open coast and large waterbodies where both water level and wave action are concerns, and those

of inland tidal waters where wave action is usually much less severe (NRC, 1987). The NRC report

discusses different approaches that can be used to model the change in shoreline configuration associated

with RSLR. Two of those techniques were applied to project shoreline recession in the SNWW study area

over the period of analysis (2019 through 2069).

The first technique is recommended for areas of active wave attack and erosion, and was applied to the

Texas Gulf shoreline and the eastern shoreline of Sabine Lake. It is a historical trend analysis that

includes an adjustment for higher future rates of RSLR. The second method was applied to the shorelines

of interior lakes and inland waterways where the wave climate is subdued and the stable or accreting

Louisiana Gulf shoreline (as described below). This method involves applying the projected change in sea

level over the period of analysis to preexisting topography.

Two major factors influencing erosion and eventual shoreline profiles are fetch and exposure to

predominant directions of wave approach (Wilson and Allison, 2008). In the SNWW study area,

prevailing winds and wave approach are from the southeast; however, low-pressure weather systems

(northers) frequently move across the upper coast from the north during winter months (Anderson, 2007).

The portions of the study area most affected by these prevailing wind patterns are the Gulf shoreline and

the eastern shore of Sabine Lake. In Sabine Lake, fetch and wave attack associated with prevailing

southeasterly winds primarily affect the western shore, an area that is protected from erosion by riprapped

levees around PAs 8 and 11. These levees are quite large and sufficiently high such that the rates of RSLR

predicted here would have little to no effect. Winter northers, however, do affect the unprotected eastern

shore of Sabine Lake (Greco and Clark, 2005; Parchure et al., 2005).

For the Gulf and east Sabine Lake shorelines, the historical trend, modified by the projected RSLR over

the period of analysis, was used to project shoreline recession (NRC, 1987). Historical rates of change

incorporate the inherent variability of the shoreline response based upon local coastal processes, local

subsidence rates, coastline exposure, the local sedimentary environment, and eustatic sea level changes.

This method assumes that the amount of recession during the historical record is directly correlated with

the rate of sea level rise. Therefore, an accelerated rate of RSLR is assumed to result in a commensurate

accelerated increase in shoreline recession. For example, a projected fourfold rise in the rate of RSLR in

the study area would result in a fourfold increase in the recession rate. For the SNWW study area, the

future rate of RSLR was forecast to be roughly 4.2 times the existing rate.

For this study, rates of existing historical Gulf shoreline change were obtained from several recent studies

(Barras et al., 1994; BEG, 2009; USACE, 2004a). Most of the Texas shoreline in the study area

experienced very high rates of shoreline retreat from the 1950s through 2002, ranging from –5 to

−51 feet/year. However, small reaches near the SNWW west jetty and near Sea Rim State Park are stable

1111
4. Environmental Consequences

4-61

or accreting. The BEG (2009) has developed a projected shoreline for the upper Texas coast for the year

2056, based upon historical Gulf shoreline changes. The historical rate of change includes historic rates of

RSLR but not the accelerated rates expected in the future. The projected shoreline retreat was adjusted to

account for the accelerated rate of future RSLR by multiplying the width of the BEG shoreline retreat by

the projected increase in the rate of RSLR and mapping a revised shoreline with GIS, adjusted as needed

for controlling features such as roadways or large chenier ridges that are likely to block retreat.

A similar method was followed for Sabine Lake; however, in this case an average annual loss rate

provided by the USFWS was applied as the baseline historical rate. Erosion on the east shore of Sabine

Lake is caused primarily by wind-induced waves and soft sediments (Parchure et al., 2005). The historical

rate was calculated with a GIS analysis of aerial photographs taken between 1978 and 2004 (Greco and

Clark, 2005). This analysis estimated an average shoreline retreat rate of 4.5 feet/year for the Sabine Lake

shoreline between the Sabine River and Willow Bayou. For the purposes of this analysis, the 4.5 feet/year

rate is applied to the entire east Sabine Lake shoreline as shoreline retreat is also a problem along the

Sabine Lake shoreline between Willow Bayou and Blue Buck Point (LCWCR/WCRA, 1998). The

4.5-foot/year rate was increased by a factor of 4.2 to account for the accelerated rate of RSLR, resulting in

an estimated 1,200 feet of shoreline retreat by the year 2069. The current shoreline was recessed by this

width, except where other controlling features such as levees, cattle walkways, or roadways would block

retreat, and the lost acreage was calculated by GIS.

For the Louisiana Gulf shoreline in the study area, no change was projected through the year 2050 (Barras

et al., 1994). The history of shoreline change for this area, developed in conjunction with the Louisiana

Coastal Areas Ecosystem Restoration Report (USACE, 2004a), documented that the segment of the

Chenier Plain shoreline between Sabine Pass and Ocean View Beach (located 6 miles beyond the 10-mile

SNWW study boundary) prograded seaward at an average rate of +12.9 feet/year between 1883 and 1994.

Between 1985 and 1995, the average rate of progradation slowed to +1.2 feet/year. The shoreline in the

study area is dominated primarily by the effect of the Sabine Pass jetties, which intercept the westwardmoving littoral drift and tend to trap sediment, creating a more stable shoreline than that nearer to Ocean

View Beach. For this study, a stable shoreline through the period of analysis was assumed, and the

projected RSLR at the Gulf shoreline (1.1 feet in year 2069) was applied to the preexisting topography

using the GIS method described below.

For the Louisiana Gulf shoreline and the shorelines of all other major waterways and waterbodies in the

study area, the second method was applied. Preexisting topography along shorelines was assumed to be

fixed; current shoreline elevation was combined with the projected increase in sea level to project a new

shoreline. The increase in sea level at the end of the period of analysis (year 2069) is equivalent to the

change in water surface elevation projected by the HS model for the FWOP with RSLR condition; this

change is +1.1 feet throughout the study area. Slope is a major controlling variable in the determination of

shoreline changes using this method. Steep slopes would experience little shoreline displacement while

gentle slopes would show a much larger lateral change. It is assumed that man-made features such as

jetties, roads and highways, dikes and levees, bulkheads and fill would continue to be maintained at a

1112
4. Environmental Consequences

4-62

sufficient elevation that they would block shoreline retreat, and that current beneficial use projects that

use dredged material to isolate interior wetlands from large waterways would be continued.

In the WVA EMCM, hydrologic unit acreages were adjusted to remove acres lost to RSLR-related

shoreline recession for the FWOP land loss projection in the WVA model. This adjustment was made in

the WVA land loss tables. The rate of acreage lost due to shoreline recession was assumed to be linear.

The acres lost per year were subtracted from the base acreage before the revised land loss rate for the

interior marsh was applied. This adjustment results in the removal of an equivalent amount of acres (lost

due to RSLR only) from both the FWOP and FWP conditions. FWOP and FWP interior land loss rates

were then applied to the remaining acreage, as described below, to determine the effect of salinity

changes over the period of analysis in both the FWOP and FWP conditions.

In summary, the total acres of marsh forecast to be lost in the FWOP condition due to shoreline recession

is 6,394 acres. The loss for each affected hydro-unit is shown in Table 4.10-1.

Table 4.10-1

Acres Lost to FWOP Shoreline Recession

HU # HU name Marsh Type Marsh Water Total

Louisiana

LA 2 Willow Bayou Brackish 627 20 648

LA 3 Black Bayou Brackish 621 9 630

LA 4 West Johnson’s Bayou Brackish 957 130 1,087

LA 5 Sabine Lake Ridges Brackish 685 49 734

Saline 106 33 138

Louisiana Subtotal 2,996 240 3,236

Texas

TX 7 GIWW North Fresh 8 0 8

Intermediate 4 0 4

TX 8 Texas Point Fresh 1 0 1

Intermediate 68 2 70

Brackish 813 40 852

Saline 2,043 151 2,194

TX 9 Salt Bayou Fresh 0 0 0

Brackish 27 3 30

Texas Subtotal 2,962 196 3,158

Total Project Area 5,958 436 6,394

4.10.1.2 FWOP Interior Marsh Loss

4.10.1.2.1 Interior Marsh Loss

Land loss rates for interior marsh areas were adjusted to account for increasing salinity due to RSLR over

the period of analysis using the land loss methodology of the WVA and a productivity-based land loss

projection methodology based upon a salinity-vegetation productivity relationship developed for the

habitat productivity component of the LCA Ecosystem Model (Visser et al., 2004).

1113
4. Environmental Consequences

4-63

The deepening project would result in a minimal increase in water elevation over the majority of the

project area (averaging less than 1⁄2 inch). Thus no FWP impacts due to water elevation increases are

anticipated. It is, however, assumed that all tidally influenced habitats would see a gradual increase in

water elevation associated with a RSLR of 13.2 inches by 2069.

The effects of the projected rate of RSLR on coastal marshes are very difficult to predict. The RSLR rate

at which marsh will convert to open water depends on the rate of marsh elevation gain by sediment

accumulation and/or biological mechanisms such as biomass accumulation (Langley et al., 2009). Dams

on both the Sabine and Neches rivers have decreased sediment deposition downstream in the coastal

marshes, making biological processes very important in their long-term sustainability. It is possible that

biomass accumulation would offset much if not all of the RSLR change in water surface elevation.

“Primary productivity of salt marsh vegetation is regulated by changes in sea level, and the vegetation, in

turn, constantly modifies the elevation of its habitat toward an equilibrium with sea level (Morris et al.,

2002). A rise in relative sea level brings an increase in production and biomass density that enhances

sediment deposition by increasing the efficiency of sediment trapping. This can lead to an absolute

increase in the elevation of the marsh platform and result in a landward migration of the marsh (Gardner

et al., 1992, Gardner and Porter, 2001). This may change total wetland area, depending upon local

geomorphology and anthropogenic barriers to migration, such as bulkheads, canals, etc.

Existing coastal marshes appear to have adapted to historical ranges of mean sea level, and gradual

changes in RSLR. There has been a decrease in the loss rate in the Sabine-Calcasieu area from 7.0 to

2.6 square miles (17.1 to 3.3 percent) (Barras et al., 1994). Furthermore, the high rate of RSLR in this

region may be ameliorating, as the average increase at the Sabine Pass tide gage was 0.3 inch/year for the

41-year period between 1958 and 1999 compared to 0.2 inch/year for the 48-year period between 1958

and 2006 (USDC-NOAA, 2006, 2009). FWOP projections of coastal land loss in the Louisiana portion of

the SNWW study area forecast relatively stable landforms and shorelines through 2050 (Barras et al.

1994), not accounting for the effects of tropical storms and hurricanes. In general, the interior marshes in

the Louisiana portion of the SNWW study area appear to have stabilized and are not undergoing rapid

conversion of large areas to open water like areas to the east in Louisiana (LCWCR/WCRA, 1998;

USACE, 2004a). Recent Louisiana LIDAR data shows that existing marsh is higher than the projected

RSLR for the period of analysis and thus should be able to withstand the gradual rise in elevation

(Louisiana State University, 2009).

Similar large-scale FWOP land loss projections are not available for the Texas portion of the study area.

However, this study assumed that the Texas portion would also remain relatively stable with respect to

the effects of RSLR through the period of analysis because the same chenier landforms, marshes, and

sediments are present throughout the study area. A GIS study of aerial photographs of the Salt

Bayou/Keith Lake system confirmed that the open-water trend has slowed and possibly reversed itself in

that area in recent years (TPWD, 2003). Texas interior marshes most at risk to the effects of RSLR are

located in the Texas Point NWR and just outside and to the west of the SNWW study area in the

McFaddin NWR. Most recently, marshes in these areas have been highly stressed due to the combined

1114
4. Environmental Consequences

4-64

effects of Hurricane Ike’s storm surge and a subsequent drought, which caused prolonged high salinities

throughout these marshes.

However, many different climatic, physical, and biological processes can affect the rate of accumulation.

Recent experimental evidence suggests that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations could stimulate

biogenic mechanisms of elevation gain in a brackish marsh, and further, that this effect could be enhanced

under salinity and flooding conditions expected with future RSLR (Langley et al., 2009). This response is

further complicated by variations in sediment supply from river discharges and variations in primary

production due to changes in nutrient loading, precipitation, temperature, and other factors (Morris et al.,

2002). Gulf shoreline erosion associated with accelerated rates of RSLR may increase the amount of near

shore sediment. Wilson and Allison (2008) have shown that material released by Gulf shoreline erosion

remains nearshore rather than being dispersed into offshore waters, therefore remaining available for

redeposition by tidal flooding or storm surge overwash. In addition to RSLR, future changes in climate

would influence the quantity and timing of freshwater delivery to the coastal estuaries. At this time there

is no consensus in the direction or amount of changes in precipitation in the study area, while a

temperature increase of 4°F is likely by 2059 (Nielsen-Gammon, 2009). Whatever the net effect of

climate change on basin runoff, most climate change projections agree that more frequent high-intensity

rainfall events are likely. In most drainages, this type of event would most likely produce increased

sediment runoff, and thus periodically increase sediment delivery to the coastal marshes. Uncertainties

related to all of these processes could result in very different predictions of future marsh conditions.

It must be recognized that large areas of interior marsh could quickly convert to open water under certain

extraordinary events. If RSLR accelerates to the extent that the coastal plant community cannot sustain an

elevation within its range of tolerance, rates of primary production would decrease, resulting in an

unstable and rapidly deteriorating marsh community (Morris et al., 2002). In addition, if shoreline

recession cuts existing foredune formations, large areas of interior marsh could quickly be exposed to

higher-salinity Gulf waters and wave attack. In this case, large marsh areas could quickly be lost to the

Gulf.

The EMCM was used to forecast land loss in the emergent marshes of the study area. Variable V1

(percent emergent marsh) of this model requires the projection of the number of acres of emergent marsh

that would remain at the end of the period of analysis, both without and with the project. The WVA land

loss methodology assumes that historical trends can be used to predict future land loss rates. Baseline

historical land loss rates were determined by measuring changes over the most recent 15- to 20-year time

period for which reliable data were available. These rates include the chronic, regional effects of

subsidence, altered sediment delivery, global sea level rise, and tropical storms and hurricanes. They were

calculated from a period that postdates high oil and gas extraction in the region and thus exclude

subsidence that may be related to the higher rates of extraction, which have waned significantly in recent

decades. After changes in acreages were calculated, the amount of emergent marsh that converted to open

water was expressed as a percentage loss per year.

1115
4. Environmental Consequences

4-65

Increasing salinity levels associated with accelerating RSLR would be expected to reduce the primary

productivity of the marsh and increase the land loss rate. Associating a decrease in primary productivity

with an increase in salinity is based upon documented biological responses of inundated vegetation to

salinity. The expected reduction in biological productivity of wetlands in the study area as a result of

salinity stress is discussed in Section 4.6. Decreased plant productivity has been demonstrated to result

from the interaction of excessive submergence and salinity. This interaction leads to a decrease in organic

matter accumulation, which, in turn, results in greater submergence because the rate of increase in marsh

elevation cannot keep up with the rate of submergence due to RSLR (Day and Templet, 1989; Day et al.,

1995; DeLaune et al., 1994; Nyman et al., 1993; Spalding and Hester, 2007). The death of wetland

vegetation often results, followed by peat collapse, erosion, and wetland loss (DeLaune et al., 1994;

Gough and Grace, 1999; Salinas et al., 1986; Visser et al., 1999; Webb and Mendelssohn, 1996).

FWOP effects of RSLR to interior marsh areas are expected to be limited to the effects of increasing

salinity. FWOP land loss rates were adjusted for the gradually rising salinity using the productivity-based

land loss projection described below. Although emergent marshes throughout the tidally influenced

portions of the study area would experience a gradual increase in water elevation associated with a RSLR

of 1.1 feet by 2069, biomass accumulation was assumed to offset all of the RSLR increase in water

surface elevation. The total amount of interior marsh expected to be lost in the FWOP condition,

exclusive of the approximately 6,000 acres lost to shoreline recession, is approximately 15,000 acres.

4.10.1.2.2 Productivity-Based Land Loss Projection

In order to provide a science-based and systematic evaluation of the project effects for the SNWW WVA

model application, the HW applied a productivity-based method of land loss projection that is based upon

a salinity-productivity relationship developed for the habitat productivity component of the LCA

Ecosystem Model (Visser et al., 2004). In the LCA Ecosystem Model, productivity algorithms were

developed for all herbaceous and forested wetlands based on available published and unpublished data.

That report documented extensive literature on the effect of salinity on the productivity of the dominant

species in each of the habitats in this study area (see Section 4.6). These studies used various

measurements of productivity, including total biomass, stem/leaf elongation, and photosynthesis, that

were gathered using greenhouse experiments on saturated soils. To better illustrate the relationship of

salinity and productivity, linear regression equations were developed that predict percentage changes in

habitat productivity per 1 ppt salinity for each major coastal habitat type, regardless of inundation, as

shown in Table 4.10-2. These predicted changes in primary productivity for every 1 ppt increase in

salinity were used to predict land loss rate changes in the current study.

4.10.1.2.3 Assumptions and Uncertainties of the Productivity-Based Land Loss Projection

Relating changes in salinity to specific amounts of land loss is problematic. While there is extensive

literature that relates increases in salinity to decreased productivity, vegetation stress, and eventual

wetland loss, the USACE and the ICT are not aware of any studies that have documented specifically how

much land loss is associated with specific increases in salinity. Similarly, no data are currently available

1116
4. Environmental Consequences

4-66

that relate salinity reduction with a reduction in land loss (Visser et al., 2004). Therefore, the HW

assumed a direct linear correlation between decreased primary productivity due to salinity increases and

increased land loss rates due the project (see Table 4.10-2). The HW considered increasing land loss rates

for salinities that changed from optimal to suboptimal conditions and, conversely, also considered

decreasing land loss rates in target years 20 to 50. The latter consideration is based upon historical

observations that land loss rates generally stabilize and lessen a few decades after channel deepening

projects are completed. Since the effects of these considerations would generally offset one another, the

HW opted for the simpler 1:1 relationship.

Table 4.10-2

Productivity-Based Land Loss Projection

Habitat Type

% Productivity Lowered and Land Loss Rates

Increased per 1 ppt Increase in Salinity

Fresh marsh 11.1

Intermediate Marsh 11.4 (Sagittaria), 2.3 (Spartina patens); mean = 6.8

Brackish 2.6

Saline 2.1

The relationship between productivity decreases and land loss rate increases is assumed to be linear; thus,

a 1 percent decrease in productivity translates to a 1 percent increase in the land loss rate. For example, in

Table 4.10-2, the productivity of fresh marsh decreases by 11.1 percent with every salinity increase of

1 ppt for fresh marshes. This translates to an 11.1 percent increase in the land loss rate for every 1 ppt

increase in salinity. The following standard formula was applied to calculate FWP rates used in the WVA

land loss spreadsheets.

FWP land loss rate = (((fwp salinity ppt – fwop salinity ppt) x percent productivity decrease

per habitat type) + 1) x baseline land loss rate)

4.10.1.3 FWOP SAV

The salinity change occurring with RSLR in the No-Action Alternative would be very gradual, and

therefore the SAV community structure in the majority of intermediate marshes would likely change to

include more salinity-tolerant species, such as widgeon-grass, pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus),

Eurasian watermilfoil, and freshwater eelgrass (USGS, 1997). It is expected that any SAV cover lost as a

result of this change would be replaced by the salinity-tolerant SAVs continuing to grow within their

tolerance range. As a result, no change in percent SAV cover would be expected during the period of

analysis.

4.10.1.4 FWOP Effects of Hydrologic Management Structures

The hydrologic management of emergent tidal marsh has also been shown to contribute to land loss in

nearby areas, such as the eastern section of the Sabine NWR, by increasing both salinity and the duration

of inundation in managed marshes. The potential for hydrologic management in the study area to

contribute to land loss is reviewed in subsection 4.6.3.2.1. None of the current hydrologic management

1117
4. Environmental Consequences

4-67

measures in the study area (the western Sabine NWR excluding Pool 3, the Black Bayou area, the Texas

Point and McFaddin NWRs) lead to long-term ponding or significant delays in the ability of the wetlands

to drain after periodic salinity incursions (i.e., droughts or hurricanes), and thus no adverse FWOP

impacts associated with managed marshes would be expected.

4.10.1.5 FWOP Adjustments for CWPPRA Marsh Restoration Projects

FWOP adjustments to acreages for constructed or funded CWPPRA projects in the east Sabine Lake

marshes (Clark et al., 2000; USFWS and NRCS, 2008a), at Black Bayou (USFWS and NRCS, 2008b),

and at Perry Ridge (USGS-NWRC, 2002a, 2002b) were applied in the WVA land loss spreadsheets as

had been done previously. Acres of restored marsh were added in the FWOP and FWP marsh (acres)

columns in the target year in which they were completed.

4.10.2 Preferred Alternative

4.10.2.1 FWP Effects on Cypress-Tupelo Swamps and Bottomland Hardwood

The Preferred Alternative would have no direct construction impacts to bottomland hardwoods or

swamps, and the FWP “most likely” salinity levels would not result in the loss of any swamp or

bottomland hardwood forest acreage. In the swamp communities, salinities would exceed the optimal

range at Adams Bayou and in the Blue Elbow South hydro-unit. However, FWP salinities would not

exceed 4 ppt and thus would not be high enough to result in the conversion of swamp to marsh, or in the

loss of forested wetland acreage (Visser et al., 2004). Bottomland hardwoods on the upland terrace

margin near the mouth of the Neches River, along Adams Bayou, and at Perry Ridge would be exposed to

occasional insults of salinities exceeding the optimal range, but at levels that are insufficient to cause a

significant loss of productivity.

4.10.2.2 FWP Land Loss

4.10.2.2.1 FWP Shoreline Recession

Shoreline recession along the eastern shoreline of Sabine Lake would not be affected by the proposed

project (Parchure et al., 2005). The deepening project does not significantly increase tidal amplitude,

velocity, or water surface elevation and thus would cause no additional recession of the lake shoreline

(Brown and Stokes, 2009).

Bank erosion along the SNWW navigation channels is not expected to increase in the FWP condition, and

thus would not contribute to shoreline recession over the period of analysis (Maynord, 2005). Existing

erosion of navigation channel banks is caused primarily by vessel wakes. It is predicted that the deeper

channel would result in slightly few vessel trips than the FWOP condition and thus not increase erosion.

FWP erosion of the Gulf shoreline is predicted to increase slightly over the FWOP condition. A deeper

and longer entrance channel would have some effect on waves moving from the Gulf to the shore, and

that would in turn exert an effect on the rate of longshore sediment transport (Gravens and King, 2003). It

1118
4. Environmental Consequences

4-68

is predicted that this would result in the loss of 18 acres of Gulf shoreline within 4 miles from the jetties

over the period of analysis.

4.10.2.2.2 FWP Interior Marsh Loss

FWP impacts would be expected to result when increased FWP salinities interact with FWOP

submergence to cause a marginally higher land loss rate, exacerbating the process already occurring in the

FWOP condition. The EMCM was used to forecast FWP land loss; rates were adjusted using the

productivity-based projection to include the effect of gradually rising FWOP salinities and the abrupt

FWP incremental salinity increase in TY 15 (the year of project completion). See tables 4.1-3 and 4.1-4

for the FWP impacts to wetland acres by habitat type in Louisiana and Texas, respectively, before the

application of benefits from BU features.

Table 2.4-16 provides a summary of the project impact analysis and net losses/benefits after application

of the BU plan benefits. In Louisiana, the WVA model forecasts that 691 more wetland acres in Louisiana

would be lost over the period of analysis in the FWP condition. The highest losses are projected to occur

in intermediate marsh (78.5 percent), with 8.5 percent in fresh marsh, 11 percent in brackish marsh, and 2

percent in saline marshes. Wetland losses in Louisiana are fully compensated by marsh mitigation

measures described in Section 5.0. In Texas, the overall net change in wetland acreage is positive due to

the benefits of the Neches River BU Feature. There is a net gain of 2,606 acres of emergent marsh, 12

percent fresh, 42 percent intermediate, and 46 percent brackish marsh.

4.10.2.2.3 FWP SAV

SAV impacts would be similar to expected changes in the FWOP condition. The SAV community

structure in the majority of intermediate marshes would likely change to include more salinity-tolerant

species, such as widgeon grass, pondweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, and freshwater eelgrass (USGS, 1997).

An increase in salinity would occur with dredging of the Sabine Pass and Sabine Pass Jetty channels. The

HS model projects that the incremental salinity increase would average 1.3 ppt near the mouths of Sabine

and Keith lakes, 0.8 ppt in the east Sabine Lake marshes, 0.7 ppt on the lower Neches and Sabine rivers,

and less than 0.15 ppt on the upper Neches and Sabine rivers. Since salinity change is a function of the

total dredging template, the time required to reach a new FWP equilibrium would likely be considerable,

ranging from a conservative minimum of several months to even a year, because each wetland would be

responding to salinity inputs from multiple sources (Gary Brown personal communication, 2009). The

most rapid change (on the order of 2 to 3 months) would likely occur in marshes immediately adjacent

and open to tidal exchange with the navigation channel that has just been dredged. Because of the salinity

effect of the existing navigation channel, wetlands adjacent to the channel are likely to contain SAVs with

greater salinity tolerances, and thus would be able to adapt to the FWP change more easily.

The Neches River BU Feature and the Louisiana mitigation measures would likely cause SAV impacts

because of temporary but greatly increased turbidity associated with the hydraulic placement of dredged

material for marsh restoration. It was assumed that construction would result in the die-off of SAVs in the

vicinity of placement activities during the year of construction, followed by quick rebounds associated

1119
4. Environmental Consequences

4-69

with increased nutrient input, and the creation of shallow, protected ponds within the restored marsh. No

seagrass would be affected by the Gulf Shore BU Feature, and no impacts to other types of submerged

aquatic vegetation are expected from channel deepening. Seagrasses and other types of submerged aquatic

vegetation are not found along the margins of SNWW channel because conditions conducive for SAV

growth (i.e., calm waters and low turbidity) are not present.

4.10.2.2.4 Adjustments for Land Gains from BU Features and Mitigation Measures

Marsh restoration proposed as BU features or compensatory mitigation adds mineral soils to degraded

areas of former marsh. The addition of denser mineral soils and the increase in marsh elevation were

assumed to create a more stable landform, and the increase in the land loss rate due to the project was

reduced by 50 percent in the WVA land loss change spreadsheets. Other mitigation measures that did not

involve the creation of a higher, more-stable landform were modeled using a land loss rate equivalent to

the FWP rate.

4.11 AQUATIC ECOLOGY

The following presents a discussion of potential impacts to freshwater and marine communities from the

No-Action and Preferred alternatives. A description of each community type discussed below can be

found in Section 3.10.

4.11.1 Freshwater

Freshwater fauna adapted to low-salinity environments are generally restricted to the upper reaches of the

tributaries of Sabine Lake and their distribution depends on the extent of freshwater inflow into the

estuary. Portions of the tidal reaches of the Neches (downstream of the saltwater barrier) and Sabine

rivers generally support freshwater fishes. The Rose City Marsh and the upper reaches of Bessie Heights

Marsh that are farthest from the study area are also freshwater ecosystems under normal conditions. Other

predominantly freshwater streams that flow into Sabine Lake or the tidal reaches of the Neches and

Sabine rivers include Taylor, Cow, Adams, and Little Cypress bayous in Texas, and Black and Johnson’s

bayous in Louisiana. Additional descriptions of the existing environment are provided in Section 3.10.

Sabine Lake was predominantly a freshwater-dominated ecosystem prior to early navigation

improvements, subsidence, oil and gas exploration, and subsequent marsh erosion. Saltwater intrusion

into the lake and its tributaries is largely responsible for the transformation of the lake into a euryhaline

environment. While most of this change occurred in the early part of the twentieth century, the peripheral

marshes and tributaries have continued to change as a result of saltwater intrusion, although at a much

slower rate than before.

In particular, specific impacts to the freshwater ecosystems within the study area include the degradation

of Bessie Heights, Rose City, and Old River Cove marshes through subsidence, intrusion of salt water,

and vegetation loss, which have caused substantial conversion of freshwater marsh to open water. As the

organic soils that support marsh vegetation erode because of saltwater intrusion, open-water areas expand

1120
4. Environmental Consequences

4-70

and exposure to salt water increases along the remaining marsh edge. This process further facilitates

encroachment of salt water into the tributaries of these marsh areas. These processes also impact other

freshwater marsh and tributary areas adjacent to Sabine Lake.

The Rose City Marsh presently consists of freshwater habitats. There is little or no information that

describes the present state of this freshwater ecosystem or its recreational benefits. However, anecdotal

information indicates that a viable freshwater community exists in the open water, channels, and

tributaries of the Rose City Marsh. This area supports some recreational fishing to an unknown extent.

The movement of saline water into Bessie Height Marsh is generally greater than Rose City Marsh since

it is farther downstream and has more hydraulic connections to the Neches Ship Channel. The diversity,

distribution, and importance of freshwater fauna in this area are not well known but are likely spatially

restricted as a result of saltwater intrusion. Species that occur in the open-water portions of Bessie

Heights Marsh tend to be euryhaline.

Marshes at Old River Cove are exposed to higher salinities than all other marshes on the Neches River

tidal because of their location where the Neches Ship Channel connects with the Sabine-Neches Ship

Channel. Like Bessie Heights, the distribution and role of freshwater fauna in this area are not well

known; however, intrusion of saline water probably restricts their diversity and distribution. Much of this

area is managed by TPWD as the Old River Unit of the Neches River WMA. A 2,500-acre area of

controlled, isolated wetlands covers the eastern half of the marsh. Intake and outfall canals for a large

power plant draw higher-saline waters from Old River Cove and discharge them into the Neches Ship

Channel just upstream of the Rainbow Bridge. Salinities west of the outfall canal tend to be lower because

this area is buffered by the bank of the canal and receives lower salinity overland flow from the Bessie

Heights area. Widgeon grass is abundant in shallow waters west of SH 87, but SAVs are not common east

of the highway. Roadside ditches and the utility canals provide access to estuarine species.

4.11.1.1 No-Action Alternative

Two factors are likely to influence freshwater communities in the FWOP scenario. It is possible there

would be a long-term reduction in freshwater inflow to the estuary since the human population of the state

is expected to double during the life of the proposed project. The doubling of the population may increase

demand for freshwater inflow, which may in turn result in lower freshwater inflows to the estuary. The

second factor is relative sea level rise, which is predicted to continue. RSLR would gradually increase

salinities in portions of the estuary. In the absence of the project and associated marsh restoration projects,

the loss of freshwater marsh habitats would likely continue, in part due to continued RSLR, although

RSLR is not expected to significantly change salinities in freshwater portions of the project area.

Salinities would likely increase in tributaries to the estuary, causing continued conversion of fresh water

to brackish marsh, in turn, favoring colonization by euryhaline species. These changes would occur

slowly under most circumstances, although catastrophic changes associated with events like hurricanes

might cause changes to occur more rapidly. There is considerable uncertainty regarding freshwater

inflows to the estuary in the future.

1121
4. Environmental Consequences

4-71

4.11.1.2 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative includes the Neches River BU Feature, which is designed to restore the

elevation in the Rose City, Bessie Heights, and Old River Cove marshes. The restoration efforts would

likely impact short- and long-term, existing open-water communities. A significant portion of the open

water of each marsh would be converted to shallow marsh with emergent vegetation. This habitat

conversion should reduce intrusion of salt water into portions of those marshes.

Short-term impacts would be associated with marsh construction. Placement of dredged material might

result in an initial increase in turbidity in the marsh and nearby tributaries. Increased turbidity might result

in a short-term reduction in the distribution of SAV in the Rose City and Old River Cove marshes. The

initial placement of dredged material would aid in reducing saltwater intrusion and would create more

areas of quiescent water allowing SAV to repopulate the areas quickly after construction of the mitigation

marshes.

Long-term impacts include the conversion of open-water habitat to marsh habitat. Some recreational

benefits exist in the present open-water areas of the marshes. Under normal conditions, Rose City and

Bessie Height marshes are essentially open-water, shallow, brackish to freshwater lakes. The marsh

restoration would significantly reduce the amount of open-water area. Additionally, the freshwater

ecosystem would be protected from future saltwater intrusion. Restoration efforts in this area would

maintain channels, drainages, and some open water, which would greatly improve the complexity and

diversity of marsh habitats and improve the ecological and recreational benefits of this marsh.

The upper reaches of the Neches and Sabine rivers and their tributaries in the study area support valuable

freshwater habitats. Modeling of potential salinity intrusion into the Neches and Sabine rivers associated

with the project indicated that mean salinities on the upper Neches River would remain near existing

conditions over most of the study area. However, slightly higher salinities are expected in swamps and

fresh marsh communities on or near the Sabine River near the GIWW and in the extensive fresh marsh

north of the GIWW in Texas. These potential changes are expected to cause small reductions in the health

and biological productivity of freshwater habitats. Increases in salinity are expected to cause additional

stress on some fresh and intermediate marsh vegetation, over approximately 173,750 acres of fresh and

intermediate marsh in Texas and Louisiana over the study area as a whole. No loss of swamp or

bottomland hardwoods is projected. Reduced growth of some trees in the cypress-tupelo swamps,

particularly near the Sabine River, is expected as a result of the slight increase in salinity from the project.

The loss of freshwater habitat would be expected to increase access to mineral-rich sediments and organic

nutrients in the short term for estuarine fauna, leading to a temporary increase in productivity. But the

increased productivity would decline as the freshwater habitats disappear, eventually leading to some

reduction in freshwater fauna productivity (Minello and Rozas, 2002). The Neches River BU Feature is

intended to create 4,958 acres of restored emergent marsh, improved shallow-water habitat, and nourished

existing marsh in Rose City East, Bessie Heights East, and Old River Cove. The Neches River BU

Feature is also intended to offset the direct loss of 86 acres of freshwater wetland used for the creation of

1122
4. Environmental Consequences

4-72

PA 24A. Once the project, including the DMMP BU features and compensatory mitigation, leads to an

overall net gain in marsh habitat, no detrimental impacts to fauna are anticipated.

4.11.2 Marine

4.11.2.1 Estuarine Habitats and Fauna

4.11.2.1.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, estuarine habitats and fauna would continue as described in subsection

3.10.2.1. However, it should be noted that the No-Action Alternative does not imply that there would be

no dredging or placement activities. Maintenance dredging will continue as it has in the past.

4.11.2.1.2 Preferred Alternative

Due to the reproductive capacity and natural variation in phytoplankton populations, short-term, localized

increases in turbidity associated with dredging within the project area are not expected to be significant

(Brannon et al., 1978; May, 1973; Odum and Wilson, 1962). Under most conditions, fish and other motile

organisms are only exposed to localized suspended-sediment plumes for short durations (minutes to

hours) (Clarke and Wilber, 2000). Should marsh communities benefit from the Preferred Alternative,

finfish and shellfish would also benefit. The potential for the deepening to cause widening at the top of

cut as the side slopes adjust to the new project depth has been evaluated. The present 40-foot channel has

been in existence since the early 1970s and has had adequate time for the dense clay sediments to

stabilize. Deepening will be performed by making a box cut in the bottom of the existing channel. Some

slumping of the side slope at the base of the channel may occur as the deeper channel stabilizes, but no

slumping is expected at the top of cut. Therefore, no impacts to oyster reef located adjacent to the top of

cut in Sabine Pass are expected. No emergent marsh or shallow bottom is present adjacent to the top of

cut.

There are one-time effects of the borrow trench and access channel in Sabine Lake and dredging of

accumulated sediments in the Lake Charles Deepwater Channel. The Preferred Alternative would impact

approximately 275 acres (225 acres for the borrow trench and 50 acres for the access channel) of lake

bottom within Sabine Lake, a designated Louisiana Public Oyster Area. Dedicated dredging of Sabine

Lake would be performed to supply sediment needed to restore 687 acres of emergent marsh, improve

167 acres of shallow water, and nourish 1,112 acres of existing marsh within the 1,966 total acres in

Willow Bayou Mitigation Areas LA 2-18B and LA 2-ADD B. Approximately 3.1 mcy of material would

be dredged from a 1.8-mile-long trench in Sabine Lake, located at least 1,000 feet from the Sabine NWR

shore, averaging 1,030 feet wide by 7.5 feet deep. The borrow trench would be continuous and parallel

the current shoreline; the common longshore circulation pattern in Sabine Lake is expected to eventually

fill the trench with Sabine River sediments. An access channel, approximately 8 miles long, from the

GIWW near the mouth of the Sabine River would be needed for the dredge to reach the proposed borrow

trench area. The exact locations of the borrow trench and access channel would be determined in

consultation with the ICT after PED bottom surveys of potential locations. Also, accumulated material

1123
4. Environmental Consequences

4-73

would be dredged from the 30-foot Lake Charles Deepwater Channel, which is co-located with the

GIWW in Louisiana (13 miles long by 125 feet wide beginning just past Pavel Island Channel and

extending eastward, removing approximately 15 feet of accumulated sediment). The Lake Charles

Deepwater Channel was completed in 1926 (USACE, 1998c) and the last known dredging occurred in

1940. Material would be hydraulically dredged and placed in Black Bayou Mitigation Areas LA 3-15B

and 3-18B. The mitigation measure at West Black Bayou (LA 3-10R) would be constructed using

maintenance material from the Sabine River Channel to Orange over a 30-year period. The Sabine River

Channel dredging is a FWOP impact because it occurs as part of the normal maintenance dredging

practices for the Sabine River Channel.

One-time impacts of the borrow trench and access channel dredging in Sabine Lake for the mitigation

measures in Willow Bayou include an increase in water column turbidity during dredging activities;

however, such effects are temporary and local. No further effects to water quality are expected. Benthic

fauna would be removed due to evacuation of sediment during dredging activities; however, benthic

organisms can rapidly recolonize, and no long-term effects are anticipated. Details of potential impacts

from borrow trench dredging to benthos, salinity, SAV, oysters, and water quality are found in

subsections 5.5.1 (Willow Bayou Mitigation) and 5.5.2 (Black Bayou Mitigation).

The potential for the removal of sediments from Sabine Lake for marsh mitigation to affect oyster reef

has been evaluated. An oyster assessment was performed in 2006 (T. Baker Smith, Inc., 2006) near the

area of the proposed Sabine Lake access channel and borrow trench in conjunction with an unrelated

Department of Army permit application. Bottom types were found to consist of 90 percent firm mud and

buried shell, 8 percent soft mud, and 0.7 percent exposed shell/reef. No live oyster reefs were found.

Similar bottom types are expected in the area of the proposed access channel and borrow trench, which

are located directly east of the surveyed area. Optimal salinities for oyster growth are from 10 to 15 ppt

(Armstrong et al., 1987). Salinities in this area of Sabine Lake range from 1 to 6 ppt year-round, too fresh

for oyster development (Fagerburg, 2003). During construction of the access channel and borrow trench,

no impacts to extant live oyster reefs are likely. Nonetheless, prior to project implementation, a full water

bottom assessment would be conducted by the USACE in accordance with the LDWF survey standards.

This survey would be necessary in order for the LDWF to consider a waiver of compensation for impacts

to the water bottoms of the Sabine Lake Public Oyster Area.

With the deepening of the channel, a small increase in salinity would be observed (see Section 4.6). Most

organisms occupying these environments are ubiquitous along the Texas and Louisiana coast and can

tolerate a wide range of salinities (Parker, 1965; Pattillo et al., 1997). Therefore, no adverse effects on

fauna are expected due to changes in salinity that may result from the Preferred Alternative, except loss of

habitat due to salinity impacts on marshes. Small increases in salinity under median-flow conditions

would affect all tidally influenced brackish and saline marshes in the SNWW study area (approximately

37,000 acres). As discussed in Section 4.6, these potential changes are expected to cause small reductions

in the health and biological productivity of these habitats. Increases in salinity are expected to cause

additional stress on some marsh vegetation. However, since the project, including the DMMP BU features

1124
4. Environmental Consequences

4-74

and compensatory mitigation, leads to an overall net gain in marsh habitat, no detrimental impacts to

fauna are anticipated.

There is little difference in the likelihood of oil spills with the No-Action or Preferred Alternative except

that inclusion of bend easings should make channel transits safer. In the unlikely event a petroleum

product spill should occur, however low the probability, adult crustaceans such as shrimp and crabs and

adult finfish are probably mobile enough to avoid most areas of high oil concentrations. Larval and

juvenile finfish and shellfish tend to be more susceptible to oil than adults and could be affected

extensively by an oil spill during their active immigration periods. Due to their lack of mobility, they are

less likely to be able to avoid these areas and could be negatively impacted if a spill were to occur.

Benthic fauna may be killed, but phytoplankton may be adversely or favorably affected by oil spills. It is

unlikely that an oil spill in the project area would result in significant, long-term impacts to either

phytoplankton or benthic communities, since these organisms have the ability to recover rapidly from a

spill due primarily to their rapid rate of reproduction and to the widespread distribution of dominant

species.

4.11.2.2 Offshore Habitats and Fauna

4.11.2.2.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, Gulf habitats and fauna would continue as described in subsection

3.10.2.2 with maintenance dredging and placement of dredged material in four designated ODMDS sites.

4.11.2.2.2 Preferred Alternative

Construction excavation removes benthic organisms from their habitat and sends them through the dredge

into the hopper. Most cannot be expected to survive placement in the adjacent ODMDS. However, the

benthic community can rapidly recolonize, both on the channel bottom and in open-water PAs. Since the

benthic community occupying the channel bottom is continually disturbed by passing ships, maintenance

dredging, while it may kill the organisms dredged, is not expected to change the community living there

after recolonization.

Construction of the Extension Channel would physically disturb benthic communities in the proposed

channel prism. Impacts to benthic organisms during maintenance dredging are expected to be minor.

While there is some recolonization between cycles, sediments in the channel are continuously disturbed

by passing ships. Placement of dredged material in the offshore placement site would bury those benthic

organisms incapable of escaping or burrowing up through the dredged material. Organisms that are buried

must vertically migrate or die (Maurer et al., 1986). Maurer et al. (1986) demonstrated that many benthic

organisms were able to migrate vertically through 35 inches of dredged material under certain conditions;

however, the species present in early successional stages of recovery are not the same as those buried by

the dredged material. Although vertical migration is possible, most organisms at the center of the

disturbance do not survive, but survivability was shown to increase as distance from the disturbance

increased (Maurer et al., 1986). Benthic organisms would not long survive placement into upland PAs.

1125
4. Environmental Consequences

4-75

Potential beneficial effects of the suspended material associated with dredging operations include a

resuspension of nutrients, absorption of contaminants in the water column, and addition of a protective

cover allowing certain nekton to avoid predation (Stern and Stickle, 1978). As with the various

detrimental effects, the importance of each of these latter effects would vary among groups and with the

physiochemical parameters existing at the time and location of dredging and placement operations.

Material to be dredged is not contaminated and should not pose contamination issues with respect to

aquatic communities. Impacts in the new ODMDSs would be the same as those in the existing ODMDSs

and are not expected to be significant.

4.11.2.3 Essential Fish Habitat

4.11.2.3.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, EFH would continue as described in subsection 3.10.2.3 with periodic

maintenance dredging and dredged material placement for the existing channel.

4.11.2.3.2 Preferred Alternative

EFH for adult and juvenile brown and white shrimp, red drum, gag grouper, scamp, red, gray, and lane

snapper, greater amberjack, king and Spanish mackerel, cobia, and Gulf stone crab occur in the SNWW

study area and may include estuarine emergent wetlands, estuarine mud, sand, and sand and shell

substrates, SAV, estuarine and offshore water column. Shell substrate in the project area would be

dredged with the Preferred Alternative. Open-bay bottom habitat would be impacted by the Preferred

Alternative relative to the No-Action Alternative. In addition, Sabine Lake and the GIWW/Lake Charles

Deepwater Channel would be impacted in one-time contracts to remove sediment for Willow and Black

bayous mitigation measures, causing temporary increases in water column turbidity and removal of

benthic fauna.

Initial placement operations would cover benthic organisms with dredged material in the ODMDS sites.

Recovery of some benthic organisms would likely occur relatively quickly, although the assemblage in

the dredged material might differ from the assemblage that existed at the PA prior to construction.

Sheridan (1999) found that recovery of the benthic community would continue for at least 18 months for

some parameters and beyond 3 years for others.

With the Preferred Alternative, increased water column turbidity during dredging would be localized and

temporary. Teeter et al. (2003) found that the area of high turbidity extended roughly to the edge of the

fluid mud flow, or about 1,300 to 1,650 feet from the discharge pipe. Modeling of dredged material

discharge in the Laguna Madre determined that turbidity caused by dredging only lasts on the order of

weeks to a few months, and therefore impacts to the estuarine and offshore water column would be

minimal (Teeter et al., 2003). Material to be dredged is not contaminated and should not pose

contamination issues with respect to EFH. Accidental spills have the potential to impact EFH, and larval

and juvenile finfish could be affected significantly should a spill occur. Larval and juvenile finfish tend to

be more susceptible to spills than adults and could be affected extensively by a spill during their active

1126
4. Environmental Consequences

4-76

immigration periods. Due to their lack of mobility, they are less likely to be able to avoid these areas and

could be negatively impacted if a spill were to occur; however, there would be no increase in spill

chances because of the larger channel and the fewer vessel trips that are predicted with the Preferred

Alternative versus the No-Action Alternative.

The Preferred Alternative would temporarily and locally impact EFH species by turbidity; however, these

impacts would be minimal since these species are motile enough to avoid areas of high turbidity. Benthos,

as a food source, would be lost at the ODMDS sites until recovery occurs; however, these areas are small

relative to the benthic habitat near Sabine Pass and any impacts would be negligible. Restored marsh and

improved shallow-water habitat in the proposed mitigation and Neches River BU Feature total

13,053 acres of EFH creation, with 43 percent (5,636 acres) being emergent marsh. Approximately

1,828 acres of open water would be improved as EFH habitat by creating smaller, shallow-water pools

and channels in which fetch and turbidity are reduced. In addition, another 5,589 acres of existing marsh

within the influence areas targeted for mitigation measures and BU would be nourished by the winnowing

of fine-grained sediments during unconfined placement of the dredged material.

The DEIS initiated EFH consultation under the MSFCMA. NMFS provided concurrence with the

findings on March 8, 2010 (Appendix A3).

4.11.2.4 Ballast Water

4.11.2.4.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, ship traffic in the SNWW would increase at rates predicted by the

economic analysis.

4.11.2.4.2 Preferred Alternative

Although ship traffic would increase with the Preferred Alternative, the FWP increase would be less than

the predicted growth of ship traffic under the No-Action Alternative, and therefore no additional impacts

with respect to ballast water are expected. The economic analysis has determined that the maximum size

of vessels using the deepened channel is not expected to increase; rather, vessels would be loaded to

deeper drafts to take advantage of the increased depth. Therefore, an increase in the volume of ballast

water is not expected. Furthermore, no changes in foreign ports of call are predicted.

4.11.2.5 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries

4.11.2.5.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, recreational and commercial fisheries would continue as described in

subection 3.10.2.4. Additional discussion of impacts associated with normal maintenance dredging

activities is discussed in subsection 4.11.2.5.2.

1127
4. Environmental Consequences

4-77

4.11.2.5.2 Preferred Alternative

Temporary and minor adverse effects from the proposed project and mitigation measures on recreational

and commercial fisheries may result from altering or removing productive fishing grounds and interfering

with fishing activity. Sheridan (1999) found that sheepshead, spotted seatrout, brown shrimp, pink shrimp

(Litopenaeus duorarum), white shrimp, and blue crab numbers increased as SAV coverage improved

following dredging, with few species collected at the site of the disturbance. Only spot (Leiostomus

xanthurus), Atlantic croaker, and southern flounder were somewhat more numerous at the dredged

material PA. However, the evaluation of effects on the estuarine habitats and fauna and Gulf habitats and

fauna of the region (sections 4.10 and 4.12) concluded that no significant impacts to food sources for

nekton were likely. Therefore, reductions of nekton standing crops would not be expected from the NoAction or Preferred Alternative. In particular, major species of nekton, including sciaenid fishes and

penaeid shrimp, should not suffer any significant losses in standing crop. Recreational and commercial

fishing would therefore not be expected to suffer from reductions in the numbers of important species

from the Preferred Alternative.

Repeated dredging and placement operations may temporarily reduce the quality of recreational and

commercial fisheries in the vicinity of dredging operations. This may result from decreased water quality

and increased turbidity during project dredging and mitigation measures, as well as from a loss of

attractiveness to game fishing resulting from loss of benthic prey. This condition is not permanent, and

the quality of fishing in the vicinity of the channel and PAs should steadily improve after dredging is

completed and would likely be similar to existing maintenance dredging, as under the No-Action

Alternative. During project dredging and mitigation measures, game fish would leave prime recreational

fishing areas for more-favorable, less-turbid locations; however, once dredging is completed, conditions

would improve and game fish would return to the area. The additional habitat created by construction in

the BU sites should provide additional recreational fishing opportunities. Construction activity in this

portion of the channel should not significantly affect overall fishing in the general project area.

The impacts from the Preferred Alternative to both boat and wade-bank fishing would be temporary,

potentially resulting in local disturbances, particularly along the edges of the channels. After dredging is

completed, these areas should return to predredging conditions. A significant portion of the overall

recreational fishing effort in the project area occurs in Sabine Lake and offshore; however, project

dredging activities and mitigation measures should not significantly affect overall fishing.

Commercial fishing for shellfish (specifically blue crab) in Sabine Lake is very important; however, no

significant long-term impacts are expected for the No-Action or Preferred Alternative.

4.12 WILDLIFE

4.12.1 No-Action Alternative

Existing dredging activities and placement of dredged material could result in sedimentation and altered

hydrology, which could have a temporary, short-term, and localized impact on some species. On larger

1128
4. Environmental Consequences

4-78

temporal scales, the No-Action Alternative would result in no immediate direct impacts to the terrestrial

wildlife species or wildlife habitats at or near the proposed study area. However, the combined effects of

subsidence, saltwater intrusion, and wetland loss from sea level rise would convert estuarine and coastal

habitats and their wildlife communities. These habitat changes are likely to be exacerbated by the effects

of global climate change. In the absence of the project and associated marsh restoration projects, the loss

of freshwater marsh habitats would likely continue due to RSLR. Salinities would likely increase in

estuary tributaries, causing continued conversion of freshwater to brackish marsh, in turn favoring

colonization by euryhaline species. Last, a long-term reduction in freshwater inflow to the estuary (since

the human population of the state is expected to double during the life of the proposed project) could also

result in coastal and estuarine habitat conversion.

4.12.2 Preferred Alternative

4.12.2.1 Dredging/Construction Activities

Direct effects of the proposed project are those associated with navigation channel improvements, and the

placement of dredged material. They include (1) impacts to benthic organisms and their Gulf, estuarine,

and riverine water-bottom habitats resulting from dredging to construct navigation improvements,

ODMDSs, borrow areas for mitigation measures, and marsh restoration in shallow, open-water areas for

BU features and mitigation measures; (2) dredging impacts to bottom-feeding and pelagic organisms such

as sea turtles; (3) impacts to marshes and upland habitats from the enlargement of PAs; and (4) impacts to

shorebirds and their habitat from the regular placement of maintenance material on the Gulf shoreline.

While dredging activities from the proposed project are unlikely to have a direct impact on terrestrial

wildlife species, they may have an indirect impact. Such activities may cause temporary, local impacts to

aquatic communities and habitats, including increased turbidity, which in turn may indirectly affect birds

in the immediate vicinity by potentially reducing the availability of the food supply. These impacts are

local and temporary and are not likely to be significant considering the overall availability of similar

habitats in the general area and the mobility of the birds. The slightly increased possibility of accidental

spills of oil, chemicals, or other hazardous materials during construction dredging activities also poses a

threat to the aquatic community and, thus, the food source of many coastal birds in the area. Accidental

spills could adversely affect phytoplankton and zooplankton assemblages, which make up the foundation

of the aquatic food chain. While adult shrimp, crabs, and fish are mobile enough to avoid areas of high

concentrations of pollutants, larval and juvenile finfish and shellfish are more susceptible to those threats.

Any effects would be short term.

The noise of equipment and increased human activity during dredging activities may disturb some local

wildlife, particularly birds, especially during the breeding season. Such impacts, however, should be

temporary and without significant long-term implications. Salinity effects are unlikely, and most infaunal

organisms in the area are relatively tolerant of salinity fluctuations.

Dredging activities for the channel improvement would occur adjacent to many of the rookeries noted in

subsection 3.11.2; however, it is unlikely that dredging activities would result in impacts to these

1129
4. Environmental Consequences

4-79

rookeries since no placement would occur in the rookeries and the birds are accustomed to the noise of

maintenance dredging.

Dredged material would be used beneficially for marsh creation in the Neches River BU Feature and for

shore nourishment in the Gulf Shore BU Feature. Mitigation measures include marsh restoration in the

Willow Bayou hydro-unit and in the Black Bayou hydro-unit. In addition, 16 existing and 2 new upland

PAs would be used for construction and maintenance of the 48-foot project.

Placement of dredged material at these sites would have similar impacts to the dredging activities in that

they would be unlikely to result in direct effects on terrestrial wildlife species but may have indirect

effects. Temporary impacts to aquatic communities and habitat from increased sedimentation and

turbidity would be expected. This in turn may affect birds and amphibians in the area by potentially

reducing the availability of their local food supply temporarily. The impacts may be more noticeable if

the sites are located near known bird rookeries. Noise and increased human activities during construction

may temporarily affect terrestrial wildlife in areas adjacent to the restoration sites. Construction activities

during the placement of material on the beach may temporarily preclude its use by wildlife; however, the

duration of the activity would be temporary and the size of the construction area would not be large

enough to cause any significant loss of habitat. These impacts would likely be minor and short term. The

resultant additional marsh and beach restoration would provide additional habitat for wildlife in the area.

Therefore, the proposed activity would not have adverse effects on terrestrial wildlife.

4.12.2.2 Operational Activities

Upon completion of the initial dredging activities associated with the project, few impacts are likely.

Maintenance dredging activities would have similar temporary impacts as the initial dredging, but on a

much smaller scale and for a shorter term. The number of vessels in the area would not increase or

decrease; therefore, the potential for erosion of PAs would not change. The possibility of accidental oil or

chemical spills would decrease because of safer navigability. Such spills pose a threat to the aquatic

community and, thus, the food source of many coastal birds in the area. Impacts from noise and human

activity are unlikely to be a factor.

Construction activities during the placement of dredged material at marsh creation sites and on beaches

may temporarily preclude its use by wildlife; however, the duration of the activity would be temporary

and the size of the construction area would not be large enough to cause any significant loss of habitat.

The resultant additional marsh and beach restoration would provide additional terrestrial habitat for

wildlife in the area. Therefore, the proposed activity would not have adverse effects on terrestrial wildlife.

4.13 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

A BA for this project has been prepared to fulfill the USACE requirements as outlined under Section 7(c)

of the ESA of 1973, as amended, and is included in Appendix G1. The USACE is consulting with the

NMFS and USFWS as required by Section 7(a)(2). NMFS issued a Biological Opinion (BO) on a

previous similar project alternative. That opinion found that the proposed action was not likely to

1130
4. Environmental Consequences

4-80

jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or

adverse modification of critical habitat of such species (Appendix G2). While the project alternative

changed, project-related impacts remained the same, and therefore the BO conclusion would remain the

same.

4.13.1 No-Action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative would result in no immediate direct impacts to any endangered wildlife

species or endangered species habitat at or near the proposed study area. The potential impacts to

endangered sea turtles from maintenance dredging are covered by the BO for the USACE’s maintenance

dredging activities in the Gulf (NOAA, 2003), and therefore are not addressed in this FEIS.

4.13.2 Preferred Alternative

4.13.2.1 Dredging/Construction Activities

No federally or State-listed plant species are of potential occurrence in Jefferson or Orange counties,

Texas, or Cameron or Calcasieu parishes, Louisiana (NDD, 2005a, 2005b, TPWD, 2010; USFWS, 2005c,

2009). Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts to any threatened or endangered plant

species.

The proposed project is unlikely to affect any threatened or endangered terrestrial species. Many are

inland species that are not likely to occur in the affected areas, while others are migrants that pass through

the region seasonally. Federally listed species likely occurring in the study area at some time of the year

include the piping plover. Several threatened and endangered sea turtle species, of potential occurrence in

study area waters, could be affected by project construction and maintenance activities. Potential impacts

to threatened and endangered terrestrial and marine species have been assessed by the USACE in a BA

presented in Appendix G1 of this FEIS.

Dredging activities, which would occur in open water, would not directly affect the wintering piping

plover. The greatest potential for impacts to the wintering piping plover would be associated with the

placement of dredged materials for shoreline nourishment activities in areas of suitable habitat (the Gulf

Shore BU Feature). The USFWS has designated the entire shoreline between Constance Beach and

Sabine Pass (Unit LA 1, in part) as critical habitat for the piping plover. Proposed beach nourishment

activities at Louisiana Point would occur along approximately 3 miles of this unit, beginning

approximately 0.5 mile east of Sabine Pass. Details of the Gulf Shore BU Feature beach nourishment

activities are included in Section 4.2 of the BA (Appendix G1). A survey of both the Texas and Louisiana

shore nourishment sites was conducted in July 2006 (see Attachment A to the BA). No habitat was found

on the Texas side; the current shoreline within the proposed nourishment zone in Texas is an eroding

marsh and contains no beach. In Louisiana, several areas suitable for piping plovers were identified.

Large tidal sand/mudflats and sandbars located just offshore of Louisiana Point appeared to provide

wintering piping plover feeding habitat. In addition, sandy beaches beginning 2 miles from the east jetty

contain tidal flats with sparse vegetation suitable for feeding and roosting habitat. Placement of dredged

1131
4. Environmental Consequences

4-81

materials (i.e., Gulf shoreline nourishment) at Texas Point and Louisiana Point would not adversely affect

piping plovers or designated Critical Habitat for the wintering piping plover. These impacts of placement

activities would be temporary and local in nature. Some birds could be temporarily displaced, but there is

sufficient habitat nearby to accommodate them. In general, the BU feature should result in positive effects

on the piping plover by increasing the extent of suitable habitat in the study area. On the Louisiana side,

where some Critical Habitat exists, additional beach may allow siltation to create some microtopographic

relief on the backbeach, providing another primary constituent element for the Critical Habitat. Based on

the facts listed above, the proposed project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the piping

plover or its Critical Habitat.

Loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, leatherback, and green sea turtles may be present in study area

waters during certain times of the year. Thus, construction and postconstruction maintenance activities

could result in impacts to the sea turtles, should they be present in the project area. A pipeline dredge

would be used in those reaches of the SNWW inland of the Jetty Channel, and a hopper dredge would be

used in the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel, the Sabine Pass Outer Bar Channel, the Sabine Bank Channel, and

the Extension Channel. Sea turtles easily avoid pipeline dredges because of the slow movement of the

dredge. The potential for incidental take of sea turtles by hopper dredges would be minimized by the use

of draghead deflectors. Since new work dredging would require continuous hopper dredging for

approximately 6 years, a winter dredging window for construction cannot be accommodated.

Maintenance dredging has been conducted during all seasons between 1996 and 2005. Relocation

trawling has been used since 2002, when maintenance dredging in the Sabine Bank Channel resulted in

the lethal take of two sea turtles (Rob Hauch, pers. communication, 2006). In 2006, maintenance dredging

in the Sabine Bank Channel resulted in the lethal take of one Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (USACE, 2006c).

Apart from direct mortality, dredging activities could have an impact on sea turtles through an increase in

sedimentation and turbidity. There have been no reports of sea turtles nesting in the study area. Feeding

opportunities within the proposed channel could attract sea turtles, where they might be exposed to

additional risks from boat traffic, contaminants, fishing activities, tangled fishing lines, and accumulated

plastic detritus, but that is true at the existing channel.

The effects on sea turtles of placing dredged material at the proposed ODMDSs include (1) a collision

potential from the vessel; (2) the deposition of dredged material on turtles and forage areas; and (3) the

possibility of trash and debris from the dredge operation. Regarding the deposition of dredged material,

modeling indicates that most of the dredged material is confined to a relatively small area. Because this is

a short-term effect, and considering the mobility of the turtle species and the lack of limestone ledges in

the proposed ODMDSs, the sea turtles should easily be able to avoid a descending plume and available

food sources should not be seriously reduced (NMFS, 2003). Regarding the vessel and debris possibility,

it is the combined effect of many marine activities (e.g., oil spills, oil and gas operations, commercial

fishing, marine transportation, etc.) that constitute the hazard and not a single activity such as a dredge

operation. These activities, combined with natural predation and development on land, result in a

cumulative adverse effect on sea turtles (Rosman, 1987). The Outer Bar Channel would be deepened at

the existing width of 800 feet, and the width would quickly taper to 700 feet in the Sabine Bank Channel.

1132
4. Environmental Consequences

4-82

The dredging operation in the existing offshore channels is similar to, but of longer duration than, routine

maintenance dredging. The Entrance Channel Extension would begin 18 miles offshore where sea turtles

should be more dispersed than nearer the jetties. Only three lethal takes have been observed during

maintenance dredging between 1996 and 2006, a period that entailed water temperatures ranging from

49.0 to 89.6°F. Based on the facts listed above, the proposed project may affect and is likely to adversely

affect sea turtles. No critical habitat for sea turtles is present within the study area; therefore, the project is

unlikely to adversely affect critical habitat.

4.13.2.2 Operational Activities

Upon completion of the initial dredging activities associated with the project, few impacts to endangered

species or critical habitats are likely. Maintenance dredging activities would have similar temporary

impacts as the initial dredging for recurring but shorter terms. The probability of accidental oil or

chemical spills would decrease because there would be fewer vessel trips. Such spills pose a threat to the

aquatic community and, thus, the food source for the piping plover. Impacts from noise and human

activity are unlikely to be a factor. Maintenance dredging activities for the proposed project are covered

by an existing agreement between the NMFS and USACE regarding the taking of sea turtles with hopper

dredges, to ensure that significant impacts do not occur (NOAA, 2003).

4.13.2.3 USFWS Coordination and NMFS Biological Opinion

4.13.2.3.1 Piping Plover, Brown Pelican, and Bald Eagle

Placement of dredged materials (i.e., Gulf shoreline nourishment) at Texas Point and Louisiana Point

would not adversely affect wintering populations of piping plovers or designated Critical Habitat for the

piping plover. These activities should result in positive effects on the piping plover by increasing the

extent of suitable habitat in the study area. On the Louisiana side, where Critical Habitat is designated,

additional beach may allow siltation to create some microtopographic relief on the backbeach, providing

another primary constituent element of the piping plover Critical Habitat. Based on the information listed

above and presented in detail in the BA (Appendix G1), the Preferred Alternative is not likely to

adversely affect the piping plover or its Critical Habitat.

The current Preferred Alternative eliminates proposed widening from the Sabine Pass Jetty Channel

through the Port Arthur Canal, removes proposed beneficial use of dredged material at Bessie Heights

West, and modifies the size and configuration of the Rose City BU feature. However, all other project

features remain the same, and effects to threatened and endangered species and Critical Habitat have not

changed. The USFWS, in letters dated March 20 and March 22, 2007 (Appendix A2), concurred that the

deepening and widening 48-foot alternative was not likely to adversely affect the piping plover or its

Critical Habitat. The USFWS Louisiana Field Office stated that no further ESA consultation would be

required with its office unless changes are made to the scope or location of the project. Changes to the

Preferred Alternative have not affected project impacts; therefore, no change is anticipated to the

USFWS’s “no effect” determination. The USFWS Clear Lake Field Office letter was silent on the need

for further consultation. However, the USACE staff confirmed by telephone that no further ESA

1133
4. Environmental Consequences

4-83

consultation would be required unless changes are made to the scope or location of the project. The Clear

Lake Field Office did recommend that steps be taken to determine whether bald eagles are nesting within

or near the project area since the number of bald eagles in Texas is increasing. Prior to project

construction, the USACE will check with the TPWD and local landowners to determine whether there

have been recent bald eagle sightings and determine the need for surveys at that time.

The USFWS provided further guidance in a letter dated February 5, 2010, and recommended that all

activity in Louisiana occurring within 2,000 feet of a brown pelican rookery be restricted to the nonnesting period (i.e., September 15 through March 31). However, because nesting periods vary

considerably among Louisiana’s colonies, it is possible that this activity window could be altered based

upon the dynamics of the individual colony. Prior to project construction, the LDWF Fur and Refuge

Division will be contacted to obtain the most current information about the nesting chronology of

individual brown pelican colonies. In Texas, the USFWS recommended all activity occurring within

1,000 feet of a rookery be restricted to the non-nesting season.

4.13.2.3.2 Sea Turtles

Based on the facts listed above and presented in detail in the BA (Appendix G1), the Preferred Alternative

may affect and is likely to adversely affect sea turtles. No Critical Habitat for sea turtles is present within

the study area; therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not affect sea turtle Critical Habitat.

A BO, prepared by the NMFS for the previous 48-foot deepening and widening alternative, is presented

in Appendix G2. The BO (dated August 13, 2007) concluded that the action, as proposed, was likely to

adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley,

hawksbill, leatherback, or green sea turtles. The effects of the current Preferred Alternative on sea turtles

are the same as those previously coordinated, and it is not anticipated that this determination would

change. Although some short-term reduction in numbers and reproduction is expected, the anticipated

take of sea turtles would not appreciably increase the risk of extinction of these species in the wild. The

BO authorizes incidental lethal take of four turtles (three Kemp’s ridley and one loggerhead or green sea

turtle) during the course of the proposed project’s hopper dredging. This estimate is based on the

implementation of relocation trawling to prevent additional lethal takes by hopper dredges. Further, this

opinion authorizes the per-fiscal-year non-lethal, non-injurious take (minor skin abrasions resulting from

trawl capture are considered non-injurious), external flipper-tagging, and taking of tissue samples of 32

sea turtles in any combination, though 7 loggerhead, 21 Kemp’s ridley, 1 hawksbill, 1 leatherback, and 2

green sea turtles would be expected in association with any relocation trawling conducted during the

course of the proposed project.

NMFS determined that the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to

minimize impacts of the incidental take of sea turtles during the proposed action. Only incidental takes

that occur while the following measures are in full implementation are authorized. For brevity, the

reasonable and prudent measures are only summarized below. The reader is referred to the BO in

Appendix G of this FEIS for the detailed measures, terms, and conditions.

1134
4. Environmental Consequences

4-84

Reasonable and Prudent Measures:

1. Temperature- and date-based dredging windows:

• Hopper dredging activities shall be completed, whenever possible, between December 1 and

March 31, when sea turtle abundance is lowest throughout Gulf coastal waters.

• Pipeline or hydraulic dredges, because they are not known to take turtles, must be used

whenever possible between April 1 and November 30.

2. Observer Requirements: The USACE shall arrange for the NMFS-approved protected species

observers to be aboard the hopper dredges to provide 100 percent monitoring of the hopper bin,

screening, and dragheads for sea turtles and their remains between April 1 and November 30, and

whenever surface temperature are 52°F or below.

3. Deflector Dragheads: A state-of-the-art rigid deflector draghead must be used on all hopper

dredges at all times.

4. Relocation Trawling: Relocation trawling is required after the take of one sea turtle during the

project. In general, it is also recommended as a useful conservation tool. The BO authorizes the

per-fiscal-year nonlethal noninjurious take, external flipper-tagging, and taking of tissue samples

of 32 sea turtles in any combination, though anticipates 7 loggerhead, 21 Kemp’s ridley, 1

hawksbill, 1 leatherback, and 2 green sea turtles in association with any relocation trawling

conducted during hopper dredging.

4.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.14.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, archeological sites around the margins of eroding marsh areas would

increasingly be exposed to the erosive effects of wind, tidal action, and RSLR as marshes convert to

water, increasing fetch and erosive potential. Archeological sites along the SNWW navigation channel

would continue to be exposed to the erosive forces of boat wakes; this would increase in the future as

vessel trips rise to support projected imports under the current lightering requirements. Maintenance

dredging of the SNWW would continue, with the potential to affect unidentified shipwrecks in or

alongside the existing channel.

4.14.2 Preferred Alternative

The proposed CIP would not affect the two properties listed in the NRHP that are located near the project

area (the Sabine Pass Lighthouse and the Rainbow Bridge) or the SAL, the USS Clifton, nor would it

affect the submerged, offshore Sabine River Valley. Although the existing channel and ODMDSs cross

the center of the submerged valley, the footprint of the deeper channel and existing ODMDSs would not

be enlarged. The channel extension and new ODMDSs are located south of the valley. The Sabine Pass

Lighthouse, which is listed in the NRHP, is located in an area that would not be affected by channel

improvements to the SNWW. Use of the nearby PA 5 would not limit or remove access to the lighthouse.

1135
4. Environmental Consequences

4-85

All areas that would be impacted by the SNWW CIP have not been assessed for their potential to contain

properties eligible for the NRHP in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

Therefore, the SNWW CIP has the potential to adversely affect eligible historic properties. The USACE

has negotiated a Historic Properties Programmatic Agreement (HPPA) under 36 CFR 800.14(b) to govern

subsequent investigations, to coordinate surveys of impact areas, to test potentially eligible sites (Table

4.14-1), and to manage data recovery or avoidance measures as necessary. A copy of the signed HPPA is

provided in Appendix H of this FEIS.

Table 4.14-1

Terrestrial and Marine Historic Properties Potentially Adversely Affected

by the SNWW CIP

Resource Location Eligibility

Marine

TB8.1 Neches River Channel Potentially Eligible

IS4.2 Neches River Channel Potentially Eligible

IS4.10s Neches River Channel Potentially Eligible

TB4.1 Neches River Channel Potentially Eligible

TB4.2 Neches River Channel Potentially Eligible

TB4.3s Neches River Channel Potentially Eligible

IS4.6 Neches River Channel Potentially Eligible

IS4.12s Neches River Channel Potentially Eligible

IS4.11s Neches River Channel Potentially Eligible

IS4.8 Neches River Channel Potentially Eligible

IS4.9s Neches River Channel Potentially Eligible

IS3.1 Sabine-Neches Canal Potentially Eligible

IS2.1 Port Arthur Canal Potentially Eligible

IS2.14s Port Arthur Canal Potentially Eligible

Terrestrial

41JF29 Neches River Potentially Eligible

41JF43 Neches River Potentially Eligible

41OR10 Neches River Potentially Eligible

41OR11 Neches River Potentially Eligible

16CM26 Near LA 2-19B Mitigation Area Potentially Eligible

16CM86 Within LA 3-10R Mitigation Area Potentially Eligible

16CM103 Near LA 2-18B Mitigation Area Potentially Eligible

Additional investigations are anticipated at this time, including survey of the proposed channel extension,

areas affected by construction of the DMMP BU features, and areas affected by the construction of

mitigation measures. No surveys are recommended for new or existing ODMDSs as placement activities

are not expected to adversely impact unrecorded wrecks that may be present, given the depth of water

through which the material would settle, the expected depth of burial at the time of placement, and the

dispersive nature of the seabed environment in this portion of the Gulf. Impacts to archeological sites in

and around the margins of degraded marsh areas proposed as DMMP BU features or as mitigation

measures would be avoided to the greatest extent possible. The restoration of currently eroding marsh

areas would prevent the further erosion of sites by stabilizing landforms and creating protective marsh

buffers.

1136
4. Environmental Consequences

4-86

Costs for additional terrestrial archeological survey and testing, and nautical archeological survey and

dive assessments are included in the Engineering and Design cost of the project estimate. Funds for

potential archeological data recovery are also included in the project cost estimate as a full Federal cost

per Section 7 of PL 93-291. While no specific historic property impacts have been identified at this time,

there is a high potential to affect a significant historic shipwreck. The highest potential for historic

property data recovery is associated with channel deepening through Sabine Pass, the site of a significant

Civil War naval battle. To cover estimated costs for historic property data recovery, funds have been

included in the project cost estimate for potential data recovery projects during the construction phase.

4.15 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

4.15.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the study area would continue on its present course of economic

development, population growth trends, and residential and industrial development patterns. The demand

for community facilities, services, and housing would not increase within the study area since there is low

projected population growth. The locations of these resources would generally follow development and

land use plans identified by surrounding cities and Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange counties and Cameron

and Calcasieu parishes. Because no property is likely to be removed from the tax rolls, the tax base would

not be affected. The No-Action Alternative could possibly have a negative effect on the local economy

within the study area. Transportation costs and operational inefficiencies with the existing ship channel

could possibly change industry trends, thereby changing the number of employed persons.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the counties of Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange in Texas, and Cameron

and Calcasieu parishes in Louisiana areas of the proposed project would continue to have slow to

moderate population growth and moderately low commercial, residential, and industrial land development

(see Section 3.14). The channel areas starting at the Port of Beaumont and continuing to the Gulf would

continue to function as a leader in industrial facilities and international commerce in the study area. The

ports would also continue to develop their industrial properties but at a slower rate than with the Proposed

Alternative. Without the channel deepening, higher transportation costs and operational inefficiencies

related to large vessels would continue. As a result, future growth at the ports would likely be slower and

less than if the SNWW were improved.

4.15.2 Preferred Alternative

4.15.2.1 Population and Social Characteristics (Demographics)

The Preferred Alternative would not likely have an effect on population growth trends within the study

area. Population in this area is projected to grow at a low rate. As a result of the Preferred Alternative,

demand for community facilities, services, and housing would not increase in the study area. The location

of these resources would generally follow development and land use plans currently identified. Most of

the construction workers are likely to come from the labor force that is already living within Hardin,

1137
4. Environmental Consequences

4-87

Jefferson, and Orange counties, in Texas, and Cameron and Calcasieu parishes in Louisiana; therefore,

immigration to the study area would be small. Over 72 percent of housing within the study area is

occupied. Thus it is unlikely there would be an increase in single-family home construction. The

projected population growth trend over 60 years for the study area has very little or no increase.

Population growth for this area is not expected to change much from present. This alternative would have

a minimal effect on the demographics of the study area.

4.15.2.2 Environmental Justice

The population living within the study area is primarily comprised of white persons (59.6 percent),

followed by black or African American persons (26.7 percent), and Hispanic or Latino persons

(9.6 percent); therefore, the proposed project would not be located within a minority area. Jefferson

County consists of the highest minority populations of both African Americans (33.4 percent) and of

Hispanic Origin (10.6 percent). In Jefferson County, census tracts 51 and 61 consist of the two highest

populations of African American persons at 93.5 and 93.3 percent, respectively. Census tracts 101 and 56

in Jefferson County consist of the highest percentages of Hispanic persons at 45.3 and 41.4 percent,

respectively. Both census tracts 51 and 61 in Jefferson County would be considered minority areas. The

average median household income for the study area census tracts was $28,884, which is above the

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2006 poverty guideline of $20,000 for a family of four

(HHS, 2006). The percent of persons living below poverty for the study area was 18.5 percent, which is

higher than the State of Texas (15.0 percent), but is not more than 10 percent higher than the percent

living below poverty for the Texas counties of Hardin (11.1 percent), Jefferson (16.3 percent), and

Orange (13.6 percent), and Cameron Parish (12.2 percent) and Calcasieu Parish (15.0 percent) in

Louisiana; therefore, the study area is not considered a low-income area.

The minority and low-income populations living within the study area would likely experience no adverse

changes to the demographic, economic, or community cohesion characteristics within their respective

neighborhoods as a result of the proposed project. Generally speaking, the populations living within the

study area would not likely see any change from the proposed project. Therefore, the Preferred

Alternative would not result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income

persons living within the study area.

4.15.2.3 Community Values

The Preferred Alternative would neither divide nor isolate any particular neighborhood nor separate

residents from community facilities. It would likely have a negligible effect on population growth trends

within the study area, and residential, commercial, and industrial development would likely continue at

the same rate. Population in this area is projected to continue with its low growth rate, regardless of the

proposed project, and demand for community facilities, services, and housing would continue at a rate

that is consistent with the projected population growth. The location of these resources would generally

follow development and land use plans identified by local jurisdictions. Therefore, the proposed project

would not result in a negative impact to community values.

1138
4. Environmental Consequences

4-88

4.15.2.4 Housing

The Preferred Alternative is not expected to result in a substantial increase in population within the study

area. In Calcasieu Parish, 10 percent of total housing is vacant, while in Cameron Parish there is

33 percent vacant housing. Hardin County consists of 10.2 percent vacant housing. Jefferson and Orange

counties both have 9 percent vacant housing. Population growth is not expected to increase in the area;

therefore, available housing would not affect the proposed project.

4.15.2.5 Economic Characteristics of Area Population

With the Preferred Alternative, as with the No-Action Alternative, the study area would continue to have

large industrial facilities of the Neches Channel such as Trinity Industries, ExxonMobile, Mobile

Chemical, and North Star Steel located near the Port of Beaumont. Other industries such as Huntsman,

Ameripol Synpol/Huntsman, Motiva Enterprises, Air Liquide, and Entergy-Sabine Plant are located just

north of Port Neches. The Preferred Alternative would not result in negative impacts to the local

economy.

4.15.2.6 Leading Economic Sectors

The “industrial mix” in the study area of manufacturing, port-related, construction, transportation, and

public utilities is typically reliant on contract labor. When a project is completed, companies would lay

off their workforce until the next contract is awarded. In terms of competition for workers, the portrelated, manufacturing, and industrial-related employers of the study area do not have to compete much

with other industries because of the higher wages these employers offer over the services, retail, and

wholesale trade and government services. Another factor affecting employment among manufacturing

and port-related employers is the increased reliance on mechanized means of production. This type of

production has a relatively small increase in the number of employees. During project construction, the

study area may have a slight increase in construction employment and local purchases of construction

materials but would be temporary, if any change at all.

4.15.2.7 Labor Force and Employment

The increase in jobs, economic output, and the tax base would be fairly slow and consistent with

historical growth trends. The ports and their associated industries and international commerce currently

serve an important role for the study area economy. These industries provide jobs, income, and a tax base

for the area, and the effects reverberate within other industries such as housing, retail services, and

wholesale trade. The Preferred Alternative would likely promote the development of industrial sites along

the ship channel in Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange counties and Cameron Parish. This goal would be

consistent with a steady historical trend towards increased reliance on these industries and these types of

development within the region.

As previously discussed, the primary economic bases of the study area include petrochemical processing,

construction, mineral extraction, tourism, commercial fishing, and agriculture. As a result of the proposed

1139
4. Environmental Consequences

4-89

project, the positive economic effects to the study area economy would be moderate at the least and

substantial at best.

4.15.2.8 Personal Income

Within the study area census tracts, tract 16 in Jefferson County had the lowest per capita income

($11,833) and tract 223 in Orange County had the highest ($48,586). Tract 16 is located within Beaumont

and would benefit very little, if any at all, from the Preferred Alternative.

4.15.2.9 Oil and Gas Production

SNWW refinery capacity presently represents 6 percent of the U.S. total; furthermore, SNWW’s 2002–

2006 crude petroleum waterborne imports comprised 12 percent of U.S. and 18 percent of Petroleum

Administration Defense District (PADD III) imports (USACE, 2008b).

In addition to existing crude oil and petrochemical product facilities on the SNWW, one LNG facility

began operation in 2008, and construction of a second facility is nearing completion; a third has received

regulatory approval. It is anticipated that oil and gas production would continue to be a major employer

and industry within the study area. The Preferred Alternative would provide the necessary transportation

improvements that would continue to support the export of petroleum commodities as well as support

predicted crude oil imports.

4.15.2.10 Public Finance

No impacts to public finance are anticipated from the Preferred Alternative.

4.15.2.11 Land Use

All proposed channel improvements for the Preferred Alternative occur in open-water locations (they

would not affect any shoreline land uses). The only land use implications for the Preferred Alternative

relate to upland PAs and indirect future land development, which may occur as a result of the proposed

project.

Approximately 1,900 square miles of the study area includes portions of Jefferson, Hardin, and Orange

counties, Texas, and Calcasieu and Cameron parishes, Louisiana. The study area includes nine

municipalities: Beaumont, Port Neches, Nederland, Groves, Port Arthur, Bridge City, Vidor, Orange, and

West Orange.

The greatest long-term land use consequence of the proposed project would likely be a change in future

land uses that would occur in response to the improvements to the channel. These future land uses are not

considered part of the proposed project but would be less likely to occur without it. When the Preferred

Alternative is complete, the ports would have a deeper ship channel providing an incentive for new

industrial development at all of the ports’ properties, based on navigation cost savings. Future industrial

development may include oil and gas refineries or upgrades, petrochemical plants or upgrades, LNG

1140
4. Environmental Consequences

4-90

plants, and bulk grain facilities. The long-term land use effects of these industrial facilities are largely

unknown; however, given recent trends in the area, they would not likely lead to a substantial increase in

demand for new housing development, new roads, commercial services, schools, or other services within

Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange counties in Texas or Calcasieu and Cameron parishes in Louisiana.

Proposed land uses for the Preferred Alternative were evaluated to determine if they could increase

wildlife hazards to aircraft using public use airports in the study area: the Beaumont Municipal Airport,

the Southeast Texas Regional Airport, and the Orange County Airport (see figures 3.14-4a–d). All three

airports sell Jet-A fuel, and it was therefore assumed that a separation distance of 10,000 feet for any of

the hazardous wildlife attractants would apply, in addition to the 5-mile range to protect approach,

departure, and circling airspace. Certain land use practices such as waste disposal facilities, water

management facilities, gold courses, agricultural cropland, and dredged material placement areas can act

as attractants to wildlife that pose a strike hazard. Some natural areas such as wetlands may attract

wildlife species that are associated with aircraft strikes.

Project features of the Preferred Alternatives that could serve as attractants are PAs, BU marsh restoration

areas, and marsh mitigation areas. None of these project features are located within the separation

perimeters for the Beaumont Municipal Airport and the Orange County Airport. None of the BU and

mitigation areas are located within separation areas for any of the three airports. However, all or portions

of four PAs are located between the 10,000-foot and 5-mile perimeters of the Southeast Texas Regional

Airport. All of PA 23/23A and PA 21 are located between the 10,000-foot and 5-mile perimeter; PAs 18

and 24 straddle the 5-mile perimeter. All are existing designated placement areas for the SNWW

navigation project. Although they are designated PAs, at times during the dredging cycle they provide

habitat for birds and wildlife species that pose a strike hazard. However, no new PAs would be

constructed within the separation perimeters, and no change in land use is proposed in conjunction with

the Preferred Alternative.

4.15.2.12 Recreation/Tourism

Among sport-related activities, recreational fishing, wildlife watching, and hunting continue to be major

parts of the outdoor recreational activities in the study area. Sabine Lake, numerous wetlands, and the

Gulf are sources of recreational fishing and wildlife watching. The construction of the Preferred

Alternative would have minimal negative effects on recreation within the study area, and the proposed

BU and mitigation marsh restoration areas are expected to have beneficial impacts to recreational

activities in the area by providing additional habitat. The Neches River BU Feature will create 2,853 acres

of emergent marsh, restore 871 acres of shallow-water habitat, and nourish 1,234 acres of existing marsh.

Mitigation in Louisiana’s Black Bayou and Willow Bayou watersheds would restore 2,783 acres of

emergent marsh, 957 acres of shallow-water habitat, and nourish 4,355 acres of existing marsh. The Gulf

Shore BU Feature at Texas Point and Louisiana Point would nourish 6.0 miles of Gulf shoreline. All of

these locations would provide new habitat for native fish and wildlife species, providing more fishing and

wildlife watching for this area, thus enhancing the life for recreational use.

1141
4. Environmental Consequences

4-91

4.15.2.13 Aesthetics

The Preferred Alternative would have a minimal effect on the overall visual quality within the study area.

There would be no negative effect to the appearance of the shorelines that are adjacent to the proposed

channel improvements except for temporary turbidity. The study area includes a variety of land uses,

including residential neighborhoods, commercial or CBD, transportation systems (highways and

railways), civic uses, parks, schools, port facilities, and heavy industrial areas. Some regions in the study

area already show moderated human development. Generally speaking, the study area is not particularly

distinguished in aesthetic quality from other adjacent areas within the region. The landscape exhibits a

generally moderate to high level of impact from human development and alteration. The study area is not

considered scenic as defined by Federal regulations by view or by roadway.

4.16 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

4.16.1 Introduction

The President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines cumulative impacts as those impacts

“on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal)

or person undertakes such other actions.” Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but

collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. Impacts include both direct effects

(caused by an action, occurring at the same time and place as the action) and indirect effects (caused by

the action, but removed in distance or later in time, and reasonably foreseeable). Ecological effects are

those on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems,

whether direct, indirect, or cumulative.

4.16.2 Method and Evaluation Criteria

The SNWW CIP FEIS follows a traditional cumulative assessment method as typically addressed under

NEPA. To define the evaluation criteria and provide additional resource input to the USACE, SNND, and

other project staff, an ICT comprised of resource agency representatives was established. The ICT,

USACE, and SNND defined the cumulative impacts study area and evaluation criteria considered in this

cumulative impacts assessment. This assessment is limited to the SNWW project area for the Preferred

Alternative as defined in the Affected Environment section.

The ICT defined criteria and a project list of key past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.

Criteria used to select projects identified as “reasonably foreseeable” for the purpose of this cumulative

assessment are as follows:

a) a Congressionally mandated study or project authorized by and specifically included in a Water

Resources Development Act within the last 20 years, for which there is a readily available report

that documents environmental consequences, or;

1142
4. Environmental Consequences

4-92

b) a current or recently initiated Federal study for which there is a readily available report that

documents environmental consequences, or;

c) a specific proposed or permitted, private (non-Federal, non-State, non-local government) Section

404 action or any aggregate of individual private Section 404 actions where the private action or

actions required an environmental assessment (EA) or EIS for authorization and for which there

is a readily available report that documents environmental consequences of the action or

actions(s), or;

d) an existing or updated regional water plan or reservoir operating plan specifically related to the

project area.

Projects that qualified as past, present, or reasonably foreseeable include several LNG and pipeline

projects, regional water planning efforts, maintenance and operating plans and projects, habitat restoration

and protection activities, and port improvements from the Gulf to the Port of Beaumont, along the

SNWW. Project impacts are determined from the best publicly available information in existing

documents. Not all projects are included in the impacts summary table and/or resource impact discussions

because publicly available environmental documentation is insufficient to quantify and compare impacts;

however, these project-specific influences may in time have additive impacts or benefits to resources in

the area.

Using the above-defined criteria, the ICT defined the following projects as relevant past or present actions

or existing conditions:

• SNWW 40-foot Project (maintenance dredging);

• GIWW –Texas Section, Main Channel and Tributaries, Maintenance Dredging;

• GIWW – Louisiana Section, Sabine Lake to Lake Charles;

• Neches River Saltwater Barrier Operating Plan;

• Toledo Bend Reservoir Operating Plan;

• Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material for Marsh Preservation, GIWW Port Arthur to High Island,

Texas;

• Salt Bayou – McFaddin Ranch Wetlands Salt Water Control Project;

• SNWW Marine Organism Access between PA No. 11 and Sabine Lake, Texas;

• Several CWPPRA habitat protection and restoration projects;

• Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline;

• Golden Pass LNG and Pipeline;

• Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline; and

• Jefferson County Drainage District No. 6 (Diversion Channel from South Fork of Taylor Bayou,

south to the GIWW).

Additionally, the ICT defined the following projects as reasonably foreseeable future actions:

1143
4. Environmental Consequences

4-93

• Port Arthur LNG and Pipeline;

• East Texas Regional Water (ETRW) Plan (as part of the approved Texas 2007 State Water Plan);

• Port of Beaumont Intermodal Improvements Projects, Northside and Southside;

• Keith Lake Section 1135 CAP;

• Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay Shoreline Erosion Feasibility Study; and

• Toledo Bend Reservoir relicensing.

Ongoing regional activities, initiatives, and programs may also affect local and regional drainage,

navigation, flood control, and erosion control in the SNWW project area, but these actions/programs

occur outside of the study area and/or effects are not project-related and cannot be quantified in this

document. Programs under which such activities and initiatives may occur include the following:

• the GLO’s Coastal Management Program (CMP), including “Coastal Texas 2020” (a long-term,

statewide initiative to promote Texas coastal environmental and economic health);

• Louisiana’s CMP;

• the USACE Galveston District navigation, flood control, and hurricane-flood protection

programs, and regulatory efforts to protect wetlands and navigation channels;

• Jefferson County Drainage Districts (other than No. 6); and

• the Trinity Bay Conservation District.

Resource evaluation criteria include biological, ecological, physical, chemical, cultural, and

socioeconomic resources for projects within the SNWW study area. The following resource parameters

are addressed:

Physical Environment Biological Attributes Socioeconomic Attributes

Air Quality and Noise Wetlands Recreational Facilities/Areas

Topography and Bathymetry Bottomland Habitat Commercial/Recreational Fisheries

Soils Terrestrial Vegetation Ship Accidents/Spills

Sediment Quality Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Oil/Gas Production on Submerged Lands

Water Quality Plankton/Benthos Cultural Resources

Nutrients Finfish/Shellfish Public Health

Salinity Mammals Safety

Turbidity Reptiles/Amphibians Land Use

Contaminants Threatened and Endangered Sp.

Freshwater Inflow Essential Fish Habitat

Circulation/Residence Migratory Birds

Tidal Influence

All impacts in the above categories that can be quantified from existing documents are displayed in Table

4.16-1. If an impact cannot be quantified, a qualification sourced from available documents (i.e.,

“benefit,” “net benefit,” No Impact, or Not Applicable) is presented in most instances for comparison.

Project descriptions and cumulative impact assessment results follow.

1144
Table 4.16-1

Impact Summary for Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects with Publicly Available Information

Existing

SNWW 40-

foot Channel

Neches

River

Saltwater

Barrier

Salt Bayou/

McFaddin

Ranch

SNWW

Marine

Organism

Access

Beneficial

Uses: Port

Arthur – High Island

Sabine

Pass LNG

and

Pipeline

Golden Pass

LNG and

Pipeline

Kinder

Morgan

Louisiana

Pipeline

Habitat

Restoration

Projects

Taylor Bayou

Flood Reduction

Port Arthur

LNG and

Pipeline

Physical EnvironmentAir Quality NA NI UN UN NI NOx and

CO

emissions

NI2 NOx and

VOC

emissions

NA NI NI2 NOx emissions;

anticipate SIP

conformance

Noise NI NI UN UN NI NI NI2 UN NA UN NI NI

Topography,Bathymetry,Soils, SedimentQuality

NI Net Benefit NA NI2 Net Benefit NI2 2.8 ac prime

farmland;

other impact

NI2

NI2 Benefit

emergent

marsh acres

created

51,000 ac

removed from

100 year

floodplain

1 ac prime

farmland loss;

other impact

NI2

NI2

Water Quality NI Net Benefit Benefit NI2 NI2 NI2 NI2 NI2 Benefit NI NI2 Net Benefit

4-94 Freshwater Inflow NI Net Benefit NA UN NA NI UN NA NA NI UN NA

Circulation,Tides, Salinity

I UN NA Benefit Benefit NI UN NA Benefit NA UN Increased salinity,

NI2

Biological AttributesWetlands(permanent loss)

I 48.4 ac NA NI NI 79 ac3 173 ac 0.8 acres NA 629 ac of

jurisdictional

waters directly

impacted

679 ac 86 ac offset by

DMMP; 691 ac NI2

5 ac (plug)

+

8.5 ac (in

fee)

TerrestrialVegetation(conversion andloss)

NI 60.4 ac Limited

Benefit

UN NI 239 ac 205 ac NA NA Preservation of

1,000+ ac

972 ac NI2

135 ac3 NA NA

Proposed SNWW

CIP

Reasonably

Foreseeable

Actions1

583 ac Mitigation-restores

2,783 ac emergent

marsh, nourishes

4,355 ac existing

marsh; DMMP

creates 2,853 ac

emergent marsh

Wetlands(mitigation) andDMMPrestoration

NA NA

Past and Present Actions1

246 ac preserved;

44 ac created

500 ac 2.53 acres Restored

3,695 acres

emergent

marsh

1145
Table 4.16-1

Impact Summary for Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects with Publicly Available Information

Existing

SNWW 40-

foot Channel

Neches

River

Saltwater

Barrier

Salt Bayou/

McFaddin

Ranch

SNWW

Marine

Organism

Access

Beneficial

Uses: Port

Arthur – High Island

Sabine

Pass LNG

and

Pipeline

Golden Pass

LNG and

Pipeline

Kinder

Morgan

Louisiana

Pipeline

Habitat

Restoration

Projects

Taylor Bayou

Flood Reduction

Port Arthur

LNG and

Pipeline

Proposed SNWW

CIP

Reasonably

Foreseeable

Actions1 Past and Present Actions1

SubmergedAquaticVegetation

NI NA Benefit UN Net Benefit NI2 UN NA Benefit NA UN Net Benefit

NI2

(net benefit)

NI2

(net benefit)

Essential FishHabitat(permanent)

NI NA NA UN NI 55 ac 6.3 ac NI2 Benefit NI NI2 NI2

UN

4-95 mitigation plan pending

NI2

(net benefit)

NI2

(net benefit)

Threatened orEndangeredSpecies

NA NI NI NI NI NI Determination pending NA NA NI NI Benefit

Socioeconomic AttributesLand Use Change NA Benefit to

agriculture

NA UN NA 341 ac 911 ac 67 ac NA 246 ac converted

to protected

status; change inland use to flood

control for

>9,000 ac

461 ac May induce

industrial

development

Economy Benefit Benefit UN UN NA Benefit Benefit Benefit NA Benefit Benefit BenefitRecreationalFacilities/Areas

NA Net Benefit UN Benefit Benefit NI Minimal2

(16.1 miles)

Viewshed

alteration

Benefit UN Minimal to

recreational

boating

Net Benefit

NI

NA NI Minimal2 NI2 Benefit NI2 UN Migratory Birds NI Net Benefit Benefit UN

NI NA NA

Net Benefit NI NA NI2 Benefit

2,007 ac NI2 Benefit

28 ac NA

1,497 ac 8,900+ ac

protected

13,053 ac

restored/nourished

marsh and shallow

water

Wildlife Habitat I NI Benefit Benefit NI 236.6 acEssential FishHabitat(mitigation and/orcreation)

NA NA NA UN NA

NI

Minimal2 NI2 Benefit NI UN

UN

Plankton andBenthos

NI NI2 NA Benefit Net Benefit

Finfish andShellfish

NI NI2 NA Benefit

1146
Table 4.16-1

Impact Summary for Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects with Publicly Available Information

Existing

SNWW 40-

foot Channel

Neches

River

Saltwater

Barrier

Salt Bayou/

McFaddin

Ranch

SNWW

Marine

Organism

Access

Beneficial

Uses: Port

Arthur – High Island

Sabine

Pass LNG

and

Pipeline

Golden Pass

LNG and

Pipeline

Kinder

Morgan

Louisiana

Pipeline

Habitat

Restoration

Projects

Taylor Bayou

Flood Reduction

Port Arthur

LNG and

Pipeline

Proposed SNWW

CIP

Reasonably

Foreseeable

Actions1 Past and Present Actions1

Commercial andRecreationalFisheries

NI Net Benefit NI Benefit Benefit NI NI NI2 Benefit NA Minimal Net Benefit

ShipAccidents/Spills

UN NA NA NA NA NI2 NI2 Potential NA NA NI2 Net benefit

probability will

decline

Oil/GasProduction onSubmerged Lands

NA NA NA NA NA UN UN NI2 NA NA UN NA

Public Health &Safety

NA Net Benefit NA NI NI NI2 NI NI2 NI Benefit NI2 NI2

CulturalResources

NI2 NI NI NI NI NI Determination pending NI NI NI UN I2

4-96

NI = no long-term impacts; NA = not available; UN = unavailable; I = impact.2Offset by engineering design, mitigation, data recovery, adaptive management plans/activities based on monitoring, procedures, and project controls.3

Benefit or Net Benefit = Results which have an overall positive effect when compared to the FWOP (baseline, existing) conditions of the resource.

Includes acreage from permit amendment applications.

1 Although not included in the table, several other projects are included in Section 4.16 Cumulative Impacts.

1147
4. Environmental Consequences

4-97

4.16.3 Past or Present Actions

Petroleum-related industries, most prominently refining and crude oil terminal operations, dominate the

area. These and other shipping-dependent industries, alongside commercial and recreational fisheries,

agricultural production, and recreation and conservation areas (NWRs, State Parks, State Historic Sites,

and WMAs), have influenced this area’s land use history, navigation channel development and maintenance, coastal transportation trends, and regional economic and ecological importance to both Texas and

Louisiana. The discussion of baseline conditions discussed in Section 3 of this FEIS presents conditions

in the study area resulting from these past actions. Past projects considered in this cumulative impacts

analysis include the current SNWW 40-foot Project maintenance and other related activities, which may

influence or be influenced by natural and socioeconomic resources of the area.

4.16.3.1 Sabine-Neches Waterway 40-foot Channel (past and current condition)

Two of three major area seaports are included in the SNWW project area: Port Arthur and Beaumont. The

Ports of Port Arthur and Beaumont rely on a series of artificially widened and/or deepened channels that

were dredged from offshore in the Gulf, through Sabine Pass, around the western shore of Sabine Lake,

and up the Neches River. Channel and port improvements began in 1885 when Army Engineers

completed construction of the east and west jetties (Alperin, 1977). When the jetties produced a channel

depth of 25 feet through Sabine Pass, the Kansas City, Pittsburg, and Gulf Railroad and the Port Arthur

Channel and Dock Company dredged a 25-foot-deep by 75-foot-wide channel from Sabine Pass to Port

Arthur in 1897. Located near the seminal 1901 Spindletop oil discovery, the cities of Beaumont and Port

Arthur underwent rapid and substantial growth to accommodate the new petroleum industry. The Port

Arthur International Public Port was established in 1899, and a 9-foot-deep canal was dug in the Neches

River from the Port Arthur Ship Channel to Beaumont in 1908. The channel was deepened to 25 feet in

1916, and a turning basin was dredged in a bend of the Neches River. By this time, dock facilities had

been developed along the Neches River waterfront, creating an inland port for the City of Beaumont.

Beaumont’s status as a shipping center was heightened in 1922 when the channel was deepened to

30 feet. In the 1940s, the channel was deepened to 36 feet and finally to 40 feet in the 1960s (Alperin,

1977). In 1912, a 25-foot navigation channel was constructed from the mouth of the Neches River, across

the northern edge of Sabine Lake, and up the Sabine River to near the city of Orange, Texas. Called the

Sabine River Channel, it was deepened to 30 feet in 1922 and remains that depth today. These deep-draft

navigation channels are collectively known as the Sabine-Neches Waterway.

The shallow-draft GIWW coincides with portions of the SNWW in the study area. Construction of the

GIWW between the Sabine River and Galveston Bay began in 1925. Originally 9 feet deep by 100 feet

wide, it was later enlarged to its current dimensions of 12 feet by 125 feet. The segment of the GIWW

from the Sabine River eastward 25 miles to the Calcasieu River in Lake Charles, Louisiana, was deepened

to 30 feet by local interests and authorized as a Federal project in 1935 (USACE, 1998c). It provided a

deepwater navigation channel to the Port of Lake Charles through the SNWW until the 30-foot depth was

abandoned upon completion of the deep-draft Channel to Calcasieu in 1941; it is presently maintained at

authorized GIWW dimensions of 12 feet by 125 feet.

1148
4. Environmental Consequences

4-98

The existing 40-foot SNWW project is a federally authorized and maintained waterway approximately

77 miles long, located in Jefferson and Orange counties, Texas, and Cameron and Calcasieu parishes,

Louisiana. Currently, SNWW maintenance dredged material, approximately 8 mcy annually, is placed in

16 upland confined PAs and 4 ODMDSs in the Gulf (see Appendix D). There was no NEPA-process

document for construction of the SNWW 40-foot project, which would provide information about impacts

related to construction activities; however, the operational and maintenance impacts were addressed in an

EIS in 1972. The Ecological Modeling Report (Appendix C) also discusses impacts of the current

condition and FWOP. From these two sources, effects for this cumulative impacts analysis include the

conversion and loss of wetlands, terrestrial vegetation, SAV, and wildlife habitats from the creation of

PAs and saltwater intrusion. Relative to other Past and Present Actions, SNWW 40-foot Project impacts

are presented in Table 4.16-1.

4.16.3.2 GIWW – Texas Section, Main Channel and Tributaries

The USACE, Galveston District published “Maintenance Dredging, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Texas

Section – Main Channel and Tributary Channels” (an EIS) in October 1975. This document identified and

evaluated the environmental impacts of continued maintenance dredging of the GIWW Texas Section and

tributary channels. The proposed action was continued maintenance by periodic dredging of shoal

deposits. The main channel was authorized at a 12-foot depth and a 125-foot bottom width. The typical

means of dredging is by hydraulic pipeline dredge, with the exception of the Port Mansfield Channel that

can be maintained by either pipeline or hopper dredge. At the time of the 1975 EIS, the environmental

impact and adverse environmental effects of the proposed action were addressed based on the best

available information (USACE, 1975a, 2004c).

As it leaves Louisiana, the GIWW connects with the SNWW approximately 3 miles below Orange,

Texas. The GIWW then follows the Sabine River Channel and the Sabine-Neches Canal to the head of the

Port Arthur Canal where it exits the SNWW and continues westward to Galveston Bay. Portions of

GIWW Reach I (Sabine River to the Matagorda Ship Channel) and tributaries are within the SNWW

project area. Specific impacts for the GIWW segments within the SNWW project area are not

distinguishable in existing documents, which present impacts of larger reaches of the GIWW. Potential

impact presentation of the entire GIWW in this document would not be comparable to other projects

presented here; therefore, GIWW impacts are not included in Table 4.16-1.

4.16.3.3 Neches River Saltwater Barrier Operating Plan

From 1975 through 1997, the USACE, Galveston District, with cooperation from the LNVA, pursued a

project to prevent saltwater contamination of surface water supplies while maintaining free and

reasonable unobstructed use of the Neches River for existing and future navigation (USACE, 1997a).

Temporary steel-sheetpile barriers installed and controlled by the local sponsor at two locations downstream from their freshwater intakes were environmentally and navigationally unacceptable.

Environmental impacts were described in a 1975 FEIS and updated in a 1981 Supplement and 1997 EA;

however, changes in environmental conditions and requirements necessitated an additional supplement.

1149
4. Environmental Consequences

4-99

The proposed project was revised in 1997 and relocated around river mile 29.7, downstream from the

confluence of the Neches River and Pine Island Bayou, adjacent to the Big Thicket National Preserve.

Installations and construction in approximately 60.4 acres include:

• an overflow dam with crown width of 300 feet in the Neches River;

• a sector gated 1,260-foot-long navigation bypass channel west of the river;

• a tainter gated 2,700-foot-long barrier structure in a diversion channel west of the navigation

channel;

• an access levee road; and

• a service area west of the diversion channel.

Approximately 48.4 acres of the 60.4-acre project area involved vegetation removal and wetlands

conversion, primarily in the form of cypress-tupelo swamp and bottomland hardwood habitats. The

project identified the following environmental beneficial effects:

• set aside and protect 8.5 acres of cypress-tupelo swamp and additional modified mitigation

strategy approved by the USFWS and USACE;

• prevent annual erosion and shoreline loss on the Big Thicket National Preserve;

• create 5 wetland acres around the “plug”;

• conserve groundwater; and

• protect an additional 10 miles of river and bayou wetlands from saltwater intrusion and

downstream pollutant contamination.

Additional net benefits were found through additional studies (USACE, 1997a): agricultural (primarily

rice, cattle, turf grass, and crawfish); recreation (bird-watching, hunting, fishing); industrial (cooling and

processing); and municipal uses.

No long-term permanent effects to wildlife, aquatic life, threatened or endangered species, water quality,

air quality, noise, floodplains, cultural resources, or prime farmlands were expected (USACE, 2003c). An

FEIS supplement was prepared in July 1981. A draft Environmental Assessment (EA), contained in the

December 1997 General Reevaluation Report, concluded that the recommended plan would not have

significant adverse environmental effects. The final EA was completed in October 1998. Construction of

the Saltwater Barrier Project was completed in 2003. Current operational impacts are not known at the

time of this document’s production; however, impacts from the FEIS and the General Reevaluation

Report are included in Table 4.16-1.

4.16.3.4 Salt Bayou – McFaddin Ranch Wetlands Salt Water Control Project

In 1992, the USACE, Galveston District, proposed modification of the GIWW by construction of a water

control structure to improve fish and wildlife habitat on 60,000 acres of the wetlands of the McFaddin

NWR, Sea Rim State Park, and J.D. Murphree WMA in Jefferson County, Texas (USACE, 1992). Prior

1150
4. Environmental Consequences

4-100

to construction of the GIWW, the SNWW, and the Keith Lake cut, the area contained fresh to brackish

marshlands drained by bayous and lakes to Sabine Lake. Disrupted natural drainage patterns and

introduced salt water from the Gulf increased salinity in these marshlands causing loss of SAV, erosion,

conversion to open water, and reduced wildlife habitat values. Actions to repair these conditions included

installation of a concrete water control structure with five gated culverts on the GIWW at Salt Bayou;

new channel excavation; training levee construction with stone riprap; and damming the outlet channel. It

was determined that this project would have no significant impact on water quality, federally listed

threatened or endangered species, National Register eligible properties, or floodplains (USACE, 1992).

The project was intended to have a beneficial effect on approximately 60,000 acres of publicly owned

wetlands and migratory waterfowl habitat. Although the barrier is functioning as intended, rainwater

runoff exiting through the single remaining tidal exchange point at the Keith Lake Fish Pass has been

insufficient to block significant saltwater intrusion, and marsh loss is still occurring.

4.16.3.5 Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material for Marsh Preservation, GIWW – Port Arthur

to High Island, Texas

In 2003, the USACE Galveston District proposed BU of routine periodic maintenance dredged material

along part of the Port Arthur to High Island reach of the GIWW, a 17-mile reach, which crosses the

McFaddin NWR and J.D. Murphree WMA in Jefferson County, Texas. For this project, BU included

berm creation and restoration along the channel to restrict saltwater intrusion into adjacent freshwater to

intermediate marshes. Additionally, dredged material in existing PA No. 4 was allowed to flow over the

rear levee into adjoining marsh to offset effects of subsidence. PA No. 4 is located in both the McFaddin

NWR and J.D. Murphree WMA; new PAs as a result of this project were located within the McFaddin

NWR and consist of narrow discharge corridors along the southern bank of the GIWW (USACE, 2003d).

This plan was developed with the USFWS and TPWD, stewards of the NWR and WMA, respectively.

Overall, dredged material discharge impacts to marsh elevation and temporary salinity impacts to

vegetation were considered minor relative to preserving and restoring adjacent marshlands. Wildlife

disturbance was short term and localized during dredged material discharge operations. It was anticipated

that some species of freshwater fish would benefit from the action, and the action would not affect EFH.

No federally listed or proposed species were likely to occur at the project site and several State-listed

species may have benefited from habitat loss prevention, restoration, and preservation. No historic

properties were affected.

The project actions have no significant effect on maritime traffic along this reach of the GIWW.

Vehicular traffic to an adjacent hunting lodge was blocked for 1 to 2 weeks, outside of the hunting season,

to accommodate the discharge pipe. During dredging, the area immediately around the dredge and

pipeline are hazardous (presence of equipment, increase in service boat traffic); however, these impacts to

public safety are minor.

The Port Arthur – High Island Beneficial Use of Dredged Material impacts summary is presented in Table

4.16-1 for comparison to the SNWW CIP and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects.

1151
4. Environmental Consequences

4-101

4.16.3.6 Sabine-Neches Waterway: Marine Organism Access between Placement Area

No. 11 and Sabine Lake

In 1997, the USACE, Galveston District, proposed relocation of two drop-outlet structures, which allow

clarified decanted water to exit PA No. 11 during dredged-material discharge operations. The relocation

intended to enhance estuarine connectivity between PA No. 11 and Sabine Lake Estuary System and

productivity within PA No. 11, between dredging cycles, by opening PA No. 11 to tidal exchange with

Sabine Lake. Additionally, the work included removal of two existing spillways and closure of the

connection between the drainage ditches and the Sabine-Neches Canal. The project was determined to

have no significant adverse effect on human environment, fish, wildlife, water quality, threatened or

endangered species, or historical resources (USACE, 1997b).

4.16.3.7 TxDOT Emergency Action Permit for Fill Along the Sabine River

TxDOT held an emergency permit valid through 2008 to conduct shoreline stabilization activities, as

needed. The permit was valid for approximately 9 miles along the east and west shorelines of the Port

Arthur Ship Channel, along SH 87 from south of the GIWW to northeast of Keith Lake, and along SH 82

from east of the GIWW to east of Keith Lake, south of Port Arthur in Jefferson County, Texas.

4.16.3.8 Habitat Protection and Restoration Projects

CWPPRA (PL 101-646), also known as the Breaux Act, provides Federal funding through the USACE to

five Federal agencies cooperating with local funding-match sponsors to preserve and restore wetlands in

Louisiana (LCWCR, 1998). The Breaux Act also established the Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant

Program to help preserve and restore other coastal wetlands with matching Federal funding in the U.S.

and to assist programs under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, passed in 1989. The

Breaux Act designates that 70 percent of its authorized funds go to Louisiana restoration projects,

15 percent to the Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program, and 15 percent to North American

Wetlands Conservation Act projects. The Breaux Act Louisiana projects typically have a 20-year or less

“lifespan” from planning through implementation and monitoring. As of 2004, approximately 129

projects were active from 13 Priority Project Lists (USACE, 2005c). Four recent projects within the

SNWW study area were considered for the cumulative impacts assessment. The effects of these projects

on land loss were considered in the WVA model analysis of each hydro-unit (Appendix C); they are

combined in Table 4.16-1 under “Habitat Restoration Projects” as they are similar in location, type,

action, and effect. A brief description of each project included in this analysis follows.

4.16.3.8.1 East Sabine Lake Hydrologic Restoration Project

The USFWS, NRCS, and LDNR designed and implemented a restoration strategy to prevent elevated

salinity in freshwater areas of the western Sabine NWR, from Pool 3 to the eastern shoreline of Sabine

Lake in Cameron Parish, Louisiana (LCWCR, 2003). Two construction phases started in 2004 and

included shoreline armoring, revegetation, terracing, dike and levee systems, and other water control

1152
4. Environmental Consequences

4-102

structure installations. Project actions are designed to prevent or restore events that affect the integrity and

function of freshwater marsh areas in the refuge:

• prevent saltwater intrusion from the SNWW and the GIWW;

• restore natural water circulation;

• prevent rapid freshwater runoff;

• reduce marsh loss and subsidence, and

• reduce potential increased salinity from the Texas Water Plan (Senate Bill 1), the SNWW

enlargement project, and the Neches River saltwater barrier north of IH 10.

The East Sabine Lake Hydrologic Restoration project area contains identified EFH for postlarval,

juvenile, and subadult life stages of white shrimp, brown shrimp, and red drum (USFWS, 2004). The

project area also provides important habitat for a number of economically important fishery species and

migratory birds. The protected brown pelican may use the project area for feeding and/or loafing but is

not known to nest in this area. The USFWS completed an intraservice Section 7 ESA consultation prior to

issuing the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Final EA and determined that the project

would not adversely affect any threatened or endangered species within or adjacent to the project area. No

cultural resources were identified within the work area. Habitat for fishery resources including EFH,

migratory and resident waterfowl, wading birds, alligators, game mammals, furbearers, and brown pelican

would be enhanced. Water quality and salinity are expected to show continual improvement. The total

project effects/benefits include the following:

• 101.4 acres converted from shallow water to marsh, 1.4 acres filled by rock dike, and 163 acres of

shallow water deepened for a total of 265.8 acres of shallow water filled or deepened; and

• 127.4 wetland acres protected and restored (USFWS, 2004).

4.16.3.8.2 Black Bayou Hydrologic Restoration Project

NOAA, NMFS, and LDNR sponsored and implemented a strategy to restore coastal marsh habitat and

slow the conversion of wetlands to shallow, open water within a 25,529-acre wetland in Cameron and

Calcasieu parishes, Louisiana (LCWCR, 2002a). The project area includes approximately 6,516 acres of

fresh/intermediate marsh, 7,353 acres of brackish marsh, and 11,660 acres of open water (LDNR, 2003a).

Tidally influenced intermediate and brackish marshes were threatened by saltwater intrusion and wave

action amplified by the GIWW. Several actions were implemented:

• 22,600-foot rock dike constructed on the southern spoil bank of the GIWW;

• 70-foot bottom width barge bay weir in Black Bayou Cutoff Canal;

• 10-foot bottom width weirs with boat bays in Burton Canal and Block’s Creek;

• old, collapsed weir replacement with fixed crest steel sheet-pile weir including a self-regulating

tidegate; and

• in situ terracing in open-water areas to create elevated marsh and marsh plantings.

1153
4. Environmental Consequences

4-103

Construction activities were completed in December 2001, and marsh planting began in April 2002.

Monitoring was conducted in 2003 under a revised plan (LDNR, 2003a). Mean salinity calculated from

continuous recorders and discrete data did not show any large differences between project and reference

areas or between preconstruction and postconstruction conditions. However, discrete salinities were

monitored from June 1999 through March 2004, and data suggest that the impounded hydrologic area 1

was minimally effective in reducing mean salinity and sharp salinity increases compared to the areas

outside the influence of the project structures (LDNR, 2007). California bulrush plantings installed in

2002 were variably successful. No significant change in the shoreline location over 3 years was evident

from the 2003 data. SAV coverage was very high in most of the ponds sampled in 1999 and remained

high in 2003. Dominant species found at both sampling times include Eurasian watermilfoil, southern

naiad (Najas guadalupensis), and the algae Nitella sp. An annual inspection conducted in October 2005

by the LDNR indicated that the project was in good condition and functioning as intended and that

features survived Hurricane Rita basically intact (LDNR, 2005a). As of December 2006, an inspection

field trip with the LDNR and NMFS detected two small breeches: one on the rock dike along the GIWW

and one on a plug along the GIWW. As a result, discussions are underway to develop a plan for corrective

actions (LCWCR, 2006). The project created a total of 2,960 acres of wetlands, protected 634 acres for a

net total of 3,594 acres; 2,812 AAHUs are expected for this project (LCWCR, 2002a).

4.16.3.8.3 Perry Ridge Shoreline Protection Project

In February 1999, the NRCS and LDNR completed a limestone riprap dike within a 4.3-mile reach of the

GIWW north bank and the Vinton Drainage Canal (LCWCR, 2002b). This dike (12,000 linear feet) is

offset from the vegetated shoreline by 60 feet and is designed to break navigation-induced wave action,

prevent further shoreline erosion, and reduce salinity spikes by maintaining a freshwater pool behind the

rocks. The dike protects approximately 1,203 acres of vegetated shoreline, which, in turn, benefits

approximately 5,945 acres of intermediate marsh north of the shoreline. The original monitoring plan was

implemented following construction and has been revised in 1998 and 2003 to conform to similar

monitoring projects (LDNR, 2003b). Approximately 624 acres of AAHUs are expected (LCWCR,

2002b). Results of the 2005 Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Report (LDNR, 2005a) indicate

that the average rate of shoreline accretion was 1.6 feet/year at project stations, while reference stations

showed a continued rate of shoreline erosion at 0.8 foot/year.

4.16.3.8.4 GIWW – Perry Ridge West Bank Stabilization

In 2002, the NRCS and LDNR completed installation of approximately 34,652 linear feet of rock riprap

and terraces along the northern bank of the GIWW between Perry Ridge and the Sabine River in

Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana (LCWCR, 2002c). This section of the GIWW was dredged to allow the use of

doublewide barges, and consequently, wake erosion intensified. In addition, the construction of the

Calcasieu Ship Channel and the deepening of Sabine Pass have increased salinity and water currents

within the GIWW. These activities have caused the GIWW shoreline to breach, thus impacting the

interior marsh of the Perry Ridge West Bank project area. The shoreline protection was accomplished in

three phases:

1154
4. Environmental Consequences

4-104

• 9,500 feet of rock riprap along the northern bank of the GIWW from Perry Ridge to its

intersection with the Sabine River;

• 2,200 feet of rock riprap from the Sabine/GIWW intersection north along the Sabine River; and

• 22,952 linear feet of terraces in the shallow, open-water areas north of the GIWW to reduce fetch

(distance a wave can travel) and allow recovery of the interior marshes. Terraces were vegetated

with 9,400 trade-gallon-sized plantings of California bulrush.

The net benefit in the 1,132-acre project area would be protection and restoration of approximately 83

wetland acres over 20 years (LCWCR, 2002c). This project (CS-30) is directly west of the Perry Ridge

Shoreline Protection Project (CS-24) discussed above. According to the 2005 Operations, Maintenance,

and Monitoring Report (LDNR, 2005b), visual observations indicate an increase in the SAV species in

the project area and potential for accretion.

4.16.3.9 Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an Order on December 21, 2004, granting

approval under Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.’s proposal (FERC

Docket No. CP04-47-000) to construct and operate Phase I facilities at the LNG import terminal and

granting approval under Section 7(c) of the NGA for 16 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline and associated

facilities (called the Sabine Pass Pipeline). This order was based on, among other analyses, the FEIS,

Sabine Pass LNG, and Pipeline Project (Phase I Project FEIS) published in November 2004 (FERC,

2004). Sabine Pass LNG, L.P., has subsequently applied for, and the FERC issued, an EA in May 2006 to

expand facilities at the terminal (Phase II) (FERC, 2006a). The Sabine Pass LNG Terminal received its

first shipment of LNG in April 2008.

The Sabine Pass LNG import terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, includes the following:

• LNG ship unloading berths;

• LNG transfer, storage, and vaporization;

• packaged natural gas turbine/generator sets;

• ancillary utilities, buildings, and service facilities; and

• a new 16-mile, 42-inch-diameter pipeline system to deliver natural gas to existing pipeline

infrastructure (FERC, 2004).

As documented in the FEIS, the Sabine Pass LNG project was expected to affect approximately 540 acres

of open land, consisting of coastal prairie and grasslands, wetlands, and a Dredged Material Placement

Area (DMPA). Approximately 35 acres were converted to open water, 36 acres were converted from

shallow water to deep water, and 341 acres were affected by operational facilities. Construction and

operation were anticipated to have minimal effects to geological and soil resources; no prime farmland

soils were affected. No significant effects were anticipated to groundwater resources or public or private

water supply wells. Surface water impacts included dredging approximately 4.5 mcy from the berth area

1155
4. Environmental Consequences

4-105

and 69,000 cy from the construction dock area. Materials were moved to an unconfined BU area near

Louisiana Point. Maintenance dredging is expected to occur every 4 to 7 years. Protective measures

would be implemented to minimize impacts to surface waters. Although project actions resulted in

temporary decreased water quality during and following dredge placement, potential future dredging

benefits may include the following:

• Creation of a wave barrier to decrease wave energy along the shoreline, resulting in decreased

shoreline erosion;

• Accretion of shoreline from redeposition of dredged material;

• Increased shallow-water habitat for marine and bird species that use shallow-water areas for

foraging;

• Reoxygenation of sediments;

• Increase in wetland vegetation at water/shoreline interface due to increased shallow water and

decreased wave energy; and

• Accretion of wetland habitats as high tide or storm events carry sediments into wetland areas

Approximately 156 acres of wetlands were expected to be affected by the LNG terminal development.

Permanent wetland impacts included conversion of 17.4 acres of emergent wetland and 30 acres of

DMPA to LNG terminal facility and 3.8 acres emergent wetland for a mainline valve on the pipeline.

Less than 1 acre of forested wetland was converted to emergent wetland for pipeline operation. Additional

wetlands impacts (approximately 27 acres) and mitigation (62 acres) were proposed when the USACE

and LDEQ approved a permit amendment for Phase II (USACE, 2006d).

Wetlands in the Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline project areas are designated as EFH for brown and white

shrimp, red drum, and Spanish mackerel. Temporary EFH impacts during construction of the LNG

terminal and pipeline totaled approximately 83 acres. Operation of the LNG and pipeline facilities was

expected to permanently impact 15 acres of brackish marsh and mudflat wetlands and convert 36 acres of

shallow open-water EFH to deep-water habitat. Wetland and EFH mitigation was proposed to enhance or

create 73-wetland acres onsite, concurrent with the start of construction.

Of the 12 potentially occurring Federal- and State-listed threatened and endangered species, only the

piping plover and brown pelican potentially occurred within the LNG project area. Critical habitat for the

piping plover is designated at Louisiana Point, near the BU area for this project. With protective

measures, construction and operation of the LNG terminal and pipeline facility were not expected to

likely adversely affect either species or designated critical habitat. LNG ship encounters in the open water

of the Gulf during transport create potential adverse effects to sperm whales, Kemp’s ridley sea turtles,

loggerhead sea turtles, green sea turtles, and leatherback sea turtles. As with the terrestrial species,

protective measures and reporting procedures minimize these impacts.

At the time of construction, there were no residences within 1 mile of the LNG terminal location, and no

residences within 50 feet of the pipeline work areas. No visual impacts were expected. No recreational

1156
4. Environmental Consequences

4-106

facilities were directly impacted by construction or operation. It was anticipated that areas along the LNG

ship route and around the terminal slip would be exposed to a potential temporary hazard during ship

transit and while at the berth.

No prehistoric or historic cultural resources were located in the area of potential effect at the time of the

FEIS publication; however, additional deep-water archeological testing and some remaining testing along

the proposed pipeline route were conducted following the issuance of the FEIS. No known archeological

sites or historic properties were affected by use of the Louisiana Point BU dredge disposal area.

Construction air emissions were expected to be short term without adverse effect to regional air quality.

Operational air quality was anticipated to exceed NO2 and CO thresholds and was subject to State air

permitting requirements.

The following plans were implemented to minimize impacts to potentially affected resources:

• Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan;

• Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures;

• Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan;

• Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan;

• Environmental Construction Plan and Procedures; and

• NOAA Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting (Strike

Avoidance Policy).

The Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline impacts summary is presented in Table 4.16-1, in comparison to the

SNWW CIP and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects.

4.16.3.10 Golden Pass LNG and Pipeline

In July 2005, FERC authorized (with conditions) Golden Pass LNG Terminal LP and Golden Pass

Pipeline LP construction and operation of an LNG receiving and transportation facility northeast of

Sabine Pass, Texas, adjacent to the Port Arthur Canal in Jefferson County, Texas (FERC, 2005). The

project was designed to import, store, and deliver foreign-source LNG to natural gas markets and includes

a marine ship berthing area, LNG storage tanks and vaporization facilities, and a natural gas pipeline. The

122.4-mile natural gas pipeline was completed in April 2009, 1 year ahead of schedule (FERC, 2006b).

The pipeline would cross Jefferson, Orange, and Newton counties, Texas, and Calcasieu Parish,

Louisiana. Although the facility was expected to open in mid 2009, damage caused by Hurricane Ike

pushed the anticipated opening into 2010 (Wall Street Journal, 2008).

Measures would be taken to minimize impacts to soil and geological resources. Approximately 2.8 acres

of prime farmland would be permanently affected. No impacts are anticipated to groundwater resources.

Primary impacts to surface waters would be from construction, including dredging 6.3 mcy for the LNG

terminal; this action would create approximately 63.9 acres of open water and convert 43 acres of shallow

water to deep water. Maintenance dredging is expected to occur every 2 years and would result in an

1157
4. Environmental Consequences

4-107

average of 410,000 cy per year. Dredged material would be pumped to PA 8 or PA 9, and approximately

1.2 mcy would be beneficially used for wetland restoration in the J.D. Murphree WMA. The proposed

pipeline would cross the J.D. Murphree WMA. Approximately 0.5 acre of eroded shoreline would be

reclaimed by filling the shallow-water area adjacent to the canal. Pipeline construction would minimize

impacts to surface waters in 19 crossings using 31 horizontal directional drills.

It is anticipated that clearing and construction would affect approximately 2,007 acres of palustrine

wetlands, estuarine emergent marsh, upland prairie, forest, agriculture and pastureland, and openwater/channel shoreline habitat. Approximately 239 acres of forested uplands and wetlands would be

converted to herbaceous cover. Permanent vegetation effects would be approximately 227 acres for the

LNG terminal and access road and 712 acres for the pipeline easement, aboveground facilities, and access

roads (FERC, 2006b).

Golden Pass would affect approximately 399 wetland acres: 109 acres lost to LNG terminal facility

development; 64 acres converted from forested to herbaceous or lost for aboveground facilities and access

roads; and 226 acres affected by pipeline construction. Approximately 83 acres of forested wetlands

would be cleared for pipeline right-of-way (ROW); of this, 40 acres would be maintained as herbaceous

wetland within the ROW and the remaining 43 acres would eventually return to forested wetland areas.

Pipeline construction would cross 14.9 miles of the J.D. Murphree WMA and nearly 1 mile of the Sabine

Island WMA. The impacts to the forested wetland areas are considered permanent because of the time

required for those wetlands to naturally recover to preproject conditions. Three years of invasive species

control would be performed along the pipeline route to facilitate native species’ success. Routing would

minimize wetlands impacts on J.D. Murphree WMA, and directional drilling would minimize impacts to

the Sabine Island WMA. Permanent impacts to wetlands would be mitigated through the following

actions:

• creation of approximately 244 acres of vegetated wetland within the J.D. Murphree WMA;

• purchase of an 829-acre tract (195.5 acres forested wetlands, 7.6 acres emergent and scrub shrub

wetlands, 18.8 acres forested riparian corridor, and 603.2 acres upland mixed-age pine stands)

adjacent to the Big Thicket National Preserve; and

• purchase of 50 acres from The Nature Conservancy’s Southwest Louisiana Pine Wetland

Mitigation Bank to compensate for the forested wetland impacts within the Calcasieu River

watershed.

The Golden Pass projects would affect just over six marshland acres designated as EFH for several life

stages of red drum, Spanish mackerel, and white and brown shrimp. Deep, open-water EFH may be

created by berth and marine basin dredging, providing habitat for some lifestages of some species. Of 15

potentially occurring federally and State-listed threatened and endangered species, the projects may affect

only the red-cockaded woodpecker.

Thirty-three residences are within 1 mile of the proposed LNG terminal. Visual and land use impacts

would occur in limited areas; however, Golden Pass would implement special construction techniques to

1158
4. Environmental Consequences

4-108

minimize land use impacts to affected residences. The Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)

has concurred that no historic properties would be affected by the LNG terminal; however, the pipeline

system consultation is not complete. Investigations and consultation indicate that buried cultural resources

and the viewshed and cultural landscape of historic structures may be affected by the pipeline system.

The following plans would be implemented to minimize impacts to potentially affected resources:

• Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plans;

• Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan;

• Upland Erosion Control Plan;

• Revegetation and Maintenance Plan;

• Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures; and

• Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan.

The Golden Pass LNG and Pipeline impacts summary is presented in Table 4.16-1, in comparison to the

SNWW CIP and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects.

4.16.3.11 Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline

Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC has obtained authorization to construct and operate a 140-mile

pipeline system in Cameron, Calcasieu, Jefferson Davis, Acadia, and Evangeline parishes, Louisiana

(FERC, 2006a; 2007). The proposed Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline is designed to transport regasified

natural gas from the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal to various intrastate and interstate natural gas pipeline

systems, delivering a peak day capacity of not less than 3,395,000 decatherms.

The pipeline system would consist of three pipelines and associated pipeline support facilities, including

pig launchers and receivers and metering equipment. Leg 1 of the pipeline consists of approximately

130 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline originating at a receipt point within the Sabine Pass LNG

Terminal and terminating at an interconnection with an existing Columbia Gulf Transmission interstate

pipeline in Evangeline Parish, Louisiana. Leg 2 is an approximately 0.4 mile of 36-inch-diameter pipeline

originating at a receipt point in the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal and terminating at an interconnection with

the existing Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America north of the LNG terminal. The third pipeline

originates at the termination point of Leg 1 and would not have impacts within the SNWW study area.

Fifteen new lateral pipelines from the proposed pipeline interconnecting sites to existing interstate

pipelines are expected to be constructed by separate entities.

The FEIS was issued in April 2007 (FERC, 2007). Specific resource impact information for the Kinder

Morgan Louisiana Pipeline is included in Table 4.16-1. The corridor for Leg 1 is located in the SNWW

study area; it commences from the Sabine Pass LNG terminal, proceeds north across Sabine Lake, up the

Sabine River, and then turns eastward along the GIWW. The corridor in Sabine Lake was designed to

avoid impacts to the extensive oyster reefs near Blue Buck Point and does not impact other oyster reef or

habitat. Pipeline construction was expected to result in permanent impacts to 0.8 acre of brackish marsh in

1159
4. Environmental Consequences

4-109

the SNWW study area. Compensatory mitigation for these wetland impacts consisted of marsh restoration

and preservation through the creation of 5,511 linear feet (2.53 acres) of wave-dampening terraces.

4.16.3.12 Jefferson County Drainage District No. 6 Taylor Bayou Flood Reduction Project

The Jefferson County Drainage District No. 6 (JCDD6) received a Department of Army permit in 2007 to

construct flood control improvements to Green Pond Gully, Willow Slough, and Taylor Bayou, southwest

of the city of Beaumont, in Jefferson County, Texas (USACE, 2006e, 2007c). Actions will include

regional detention and levee construction, channel improvements, and the construction of a diversion

channel (known as the Needmore Diversion Channel) from near the confluence of the North and South

Forks of Taylor Bayou south to the GIWW. The Green Pond Detention Basin, levee construction, channel

modifications, and Needmore Diversion Channel will be undertaken as part of flood reduction measures

for the Taylor Bayou watershed. The Green Pond Detention Basin will be a 9,000-acre, aboveground

detention facility located between Lawhorn Road, Farm-to-Market Road 365, South China Road, and

Gallier Canal, with a maximum storage capacity of 15,000 acre-feet. The Needmore Diversion Channel is

a 63,000-foot-long, 14-foot-deep, 200-foot-wide bottom channel within a 1,000-foot-wide ROW

extending from near the confluence of the North and South forks of Taylor Bayou to the GIWW.

Rectification of several man-made channel restrictions are included along portions of the North Fork of

Taylor Bayou at Craigen Road, SH 124, IH 10, between Crystal Lakes, and between IH 10 and Green

Pond Gully to restore and improve the flood flow characteristics of the waterway. The project will result

in the direct impact to 692.4 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 337.2 acres of nonjurisdictional low-tohigh-quality forested and medium-to-high-quality herbaceous wetlands.

To offset impacts for the project, the JCDD6 has agreed to preserve 538 acres of wetlands adjacent to

Spindletop Bayou and an additional 1,926 acres of forested wetlands and uplands within the Green Pond

facility. An additional 7,000 acres will have restricted land use to preserve the area from development. A

total of 44 acres of wetlands and riparian forest within or adjacent to the Needmore Diversion (40 acres of

wetland shelf within the channel and 4 acres of riparian wooded corridor along the east border of the

channel from Taylor Bayou south to Willow Slough) will also be created. In total, mitigation will consist

of the preservation of approximately 2,464 acres of wetlands and wetland forests and the creation of

44 acres of wetlands and riparian forest to compensate for impacts to approximately 692 acres of

jurisdictional waters and wetlands. To ensure that impacts to water quality in Taylor Bayou are

minimized, the project design includes a flap gate structure at the Needmore Diversion Channel’s south

end to eliminate the possibility of saltwater intrusion in periods of reduced freshwater inflows and during

storm surge events. In addition, the diversion channel’s input from the South Fork of Taylor Bayou will

be controlled to take only floodwaters above elevation 5.2 feet mean sea level ensuring that normal flows

of Taylor Bayou are not impacted and only severe flood events are reduced in size and duration by the

proposed diversion channel. At issuance, all required Federal, State, and/or local authorization or

certifications had been obtained except for water quality certification and coastal zone consistency

certification. JCDD6 stated that the project is consistent with the Texas CMP goals and policies and

would be conducted in a manner consistent with that program and that water quality certification would

be obtained from TCEQ.

1160
4. Environmental Consequences

4-110

A historic properties investigation has been conducted within the permit area, and no sites determined

eligible for or listed on the NRHP are within the permit area or affected area. No known threatened and/or

endangered species or their critical habitats are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed work. The

action is not anticipated to have a substantial adverse impact on EFH or federally managed fisheries in the

Gulf. Specific resource impact information for the Taylor Bayou Flood Reduction Project is included in

Table 4.16-1.

4.16.4 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

4.16.4.1 Port Arthur LNG and Pipeline

Port Arthur LNG, L.P., and Port Arthur Pipeline, L.P., proposed construction of a new LNG import

terminal and pipeline system in Jefferson County, Texas (FERC, 2006c). The facility includes LNG ship

unloading berths, LNG storage and vaporization, and a new 73-mile, 36-inch-diameter natural gas

pipeline system to deliver the natural gas to existing interstate and intrastate pipeline systems. The project

was authorized by FERC in 2006 and would be constructed in two phases over approximately 10 years.

Geological resources would be minimally affected. Erosion control devices and plans would reduce

shoreline erosion and flooding effects from storm events. Adverse effects to groundwater and water

supplies are not anticipated. Impacts to surface waters would be primarily from the 6.7 mcy of material

dredged for the LNG ship berths and turning basin, pumped to an existing DMPA onsite for beneficial

reuse. Approximately 82 acres of land would be converted to open water. Fourteen areas would be

horizontally directionally drilled to minimize potential adverse water quality effects from the pipeline

crossing several major waterbodies.

Clearing and construction would impact 1,497 acres of palustrine, scrub-shrub, and forested wetlands;

estuarine emergent marsh; coastal prairie/grasslands; coastal woodlands/upland forests; agriculture and

pastureland; disturbed lands; and, open-water/channel shoreline habitats. Operational (permanent)

vegetation impacts would include approximately 198 acres for the LNG terminal and 87 acres (forest to

herbaceous conversion) for the pipeline. Construction of the proposed LNG facility and pipeline would

result in impacts to approximately 391 acres of wetlands, of which 96 acres would be permanent (83 acres

for LNG terminal facility and 13 acres for the pipeline). Approximately 13 acres of the pipeline system

permanently impacted wetlands would be converted from forested to herbaceous cover. The remaining

295 acres of impacted wetlands would be restored and allowed to revegetate to preconstruction

conditions.

The Port Arthur LNG terminal and pipeline projects would affect a total of 456 acres of estuarine and

deep-water habitats designated as EFH for several life stages of red drum, Spanish mackerel, white and

brown shrimp, and bonnethead shark (Sphyrna tiburo). Eighty-two acres of deep, open-water EFH may

be created by berth and marine basin dredging, providing habitat for some lifestages of some species. Of

22 potentially occurring Federal- and State-listed threatened and endangered species, the projects are not

likely to adversely affect any of these species or their designated critical habitats.

1161
4. Environmental Consequences

4-111

No residences occur within 1 mile of the proposed LNG terminal and three residences occur within

50 feet of the proposed pipeline work area. Land use and visual impacts are likely. Site-specific

construction plans would be implemented to minimize effects to these residences during construction. No

direct effects are anticipated to the private, State, and Federal recreation and conservation areas in the

Louisiana or Texas. CZMP consistency determinations have been issued by Louisiana and Texas. Two

cultural sites within the terrestrial portion of the proposed construction area have been assessed as

potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. Additionally, seven magnetic and/or acoustic anomalies have

been detected where the pipeline would cross Sabine Lake. Studies and avoidance/mitigation measure

planning efforts are in progress.

If unmitigated, direct and indirect emissions during the LNG terminal operation would exceed de minimis

air quality conformity thresholds. Mitigation measures would be implemented, preventing increase of

emissions with respect to future baseline emissions. Operational risks to public health and safety would

be none to minimal, depending on the location and activity. The moving safety zone, moored vessel

security zone at the terminal, and one-way traffic areas would affect other commercial and recreational

traffic using the SNWW.

The following minimization and protection plans would be implemented to address unavoidable impacts:

• Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plans;

• Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan;

• Upland Erosion Control Plan;

• Revegetation and Maintenance Plan;

• Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures;

• Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan (primarily for wetlands); and

• LNG Vessel Management and Emergency Plan.

The Port Arthur LNG and Pipeline impacts summary is presented in Table 4.16-1, in comparison to the

SNWW CIP and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects.

4.16.4.2 East Texas Regional Water Plan

The 2007 Texas State Water Plan is the eighth water plan developed by TWDB as a part of its core

mission to ensure that sufficient, clean, and affordable water supplies are available for the citizens of the

State of Texas and that those water supplies foster a healthy economy and environment (TWDB, 2007).

The plan was developed from May 2005 to August 2006 and approved in November 2006. The state plan

includes participation from 16 regional groups (TWDB, 2007).

The ETRW Planning area includes all or part of 20 counties, from Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange

counties north to Tyler County, spanning from the Texas-Louisiana border east to the Trinity River Basin

boundary. Three surface water river basins (Sabine, Trinity, and Neches) and four aquifers (Gulf Coast,

1162
4. Environmental Consequences

4-112

Carrizo-Wilcox, Sparta, and Queen City) serve the water uses in the region. The Neches-Trinity Coastal

Basin and approximately 1 square mile of the Cypress Creek Basin are also partially encompassed in the

planning area. The 2006 ETRW Plan that was adopted as part of the 2007 Texas State Water Plan seeks to

address a projected 41 percent increase in water demand from 2010 to 2060 through several strategies

(TWDB, 2007):

• construction of a new reservoir, Lake Columbia (Eastex) on Mud Creek (tributary of the Angelina

River) in Cherokee County, Texas (approximately 187,839 acre-feet);

• negotiated use of adjacent Region C surface water supplies, Toledo Bend Reservoir (existing),

and Lake Fastrill (not yet constructed on the Neches River);

• expanded groundwater use based on long-term sustainability;

• municipal conservation through plumbing code implementation and public education to save over

20,600 acre-feet of water annually by 2060;

• City of Athens indirect reuse of wastewater discharge, returning a portion of treated wastewater

to Lake Athens, the city’s primary water supply; and

• policy recommendations.

The ETRW Plan is consistent with protection of agricultural, public, park, oil, gas, and coal production

resources. The development of Lake Columbia and Lake Fastrill may affect several resource classes,

including timber, State- and Federal-threatened and/or endangered species, water resources, and others;

however, these reservoirs would not be within the SNWW project area. Lake Columbia is anticipated to

inundate approximately 10,000 acres. Lake Fastrill would inundate approximately 24,950 acres, including

a portion of the proposed USFWS North Neches NWR. Site-specific information to identify wetlands,

bottomland hardwoods, ecologically significant stream segments, Sabine-Neches estuary freshwater

inflow needs, cultural resources, and prime farmland sites is currently not available. Because specific

resource impact information is not available at this time, strategies discussed in the ETRW Plan are not

included in Table 4.16-1.

4.16.4.3 Port of Beaumont Intermodal Improvement Projects

Both the Southside and Northside intermodal improvements projects have received funding from the H.R.

3 Transportation Bill. The Southside Project would provide infrastructure modifications and facilities

expansion for direct intermodal interchange, transfer, and access for the Port of Beaumont to improve

access and operation capabilities. The project would include rail holding tracks and loading ramps, and

would increase the port’s railcar storage capacity by about 75 percent. Operational efficiency and security

would be enhanced by relocating the interchange tracks to expanded facilities at the terminal (Port of

Beaumont, 2005a).

The Northside Intermodal Improvements Project would fund development and construction of an access

road to connect IH 10 to port-owned property on the north bank of the Neches River. Additional funding

was received for a rail infrastructure improvement project under a Federal program designed to promote

air quality and congestion reduction (Port of Beaumont, 2005b).

1163
4. Environmental Consequences

4-113

These projects, combined, are expected to:

• Enhance the port’s capacity for railcars

• Improve the port’s ability to handle military cargo

• Enhance security for military and other cargo

• Increase the efficiency of port operations

• Make downtown riverfront property available for commercial development

• Provide significant growth opportunities for development of the port’s northbank property in

Orange County, Texas

In addition to projects outlined above, additional Port of Beaumont improvements include:

• A general cargo wharf

• A new dock office

• A new building for the port’s military customers

• Repairs of bulkheads and upgrades of lots

• New double layberth for military vessels and new 90,000-square-foot transit shed on the Orange

County, Texas, side

• Extend main Harbor Island east wharf with new transit shed on Beaumont side – new 680-foot

extension to Harbor Island wharf, and linking railroad tracks on the new wharf to existing tracks.

Project is meant to relieve berth congestion at the terminal.

Specific resource impact information is not available at this time; therefore, the Port of Beaumont

intermodal improvement projects’ potential impacts are not included in Table 4.16-1.

4.16.4.4 Keith Lake Fish Pass Ecosystem Restoration Section 1135 CAP

Keith Lake Fish Pass is located in Jefferson County, Texas, approximately 15 miles south of Port Arthur

and intersects SH 87. The pass is approximately 0.3 mile south of the GIWW and on the west bank of the

Sabine-Neches Ship Channel south of Port Arthur. The pass connects Keith Lake to the Port Arthur Canal

and is part of a drainage system that impacts about 60,000 acres of wetlands (10,000 acres of coastal

marsh habitat) in McFaddin NWR, Sea Rim State Park, and J.D. Murphree WMA in the Neches River

delta. At 10,000 acres, the Keith Lake watershed contains approximately 8 percent of existing Texas

coastal estuarine marshes. Assuming no increase in the rate of marsh loss from the most recent estimates,

approximately 3,460 acres (or 35 percent) of brackish marsh in the Keith Lake watershed would be lost

during the next 50 years (USACE, 2002).

Area marsh has been adversely affected by saltwater intrusion and high-energy inflows resulting from an

obsolete and unrefurbishable 1933 USACE structure and the impacts of the 1974 USDA “water exchange

pass” project, now known as the Keith Lake Fish Pass. The pass was created to improve water circulation

into the Salt Bayou Drainage system and was a 3,600-foot straight-line canal, 155 feet wide and 5 feet

1164
4. Environmental Consequences

4-114

deep with 2:1 side slopes. Higher-than-expected water volume and velocity have eroded the pass to

240 feet wide and 7 feet deep since 1977. The cut has improved the amount and variety of marine species

in the area; however, the marsh system has been degraded by high salinity levels and hydraulic energy

impacts from the ship channel.

Emergent coastal wetland habitats and wetland soils loss has been accelerated in Jefferson County, Texas.

Open water is formed when salt-intolerant vegetation dies and the underlying organic topsoil material

erodes away before the succession of salt-tolerant vegetation can take place. The area is vital nesting and

brooding habitat for mottled ducks, with an increasing amount of nesting by fulvous whistling duck

(Dendrocygna bicolor) and black-bellied whistling ducks (D. autumnalis). Several species of migratory

birds traveling the Central Flyway use the area as a rest stop or staging area.

Jefferson County, Texas, and USACE, Galveston District, with support from the TPWD, GLO, and

TWDB, are studying ways to reduce the amount of saltwater intrusion and decrease high-energy inflows

entering the marsh, thus slowing marsh habitat loss. The goal of the study and any recommended

conservation measure is to sustain and protect over 60,000 acres of brackish coastal marshes within the

Saltwater Bayou Watershed, including approximately 2,600 acres in the Keith Lake system. As yet,

undetermined measures must assist in achieving the objective presented in the Salt Bayou Project Joint

Management Concept Plan for Sea Rim State Park, McFaddin NWR, and J.D. Murphree WMA (August

1990). The TPWD is developing alternatives and potential impact information for the Keith Lake Fish

Pass project is not currently available to include in Table 4.16-1.

4.16.4.5 Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay Shoreline Erosion Project

The purpose of the Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay Shoreline Erosion Feasibility Study is to address the

severe shoreline erosion occurring along the upper Gulf Coast of Texas between the SNWW (Sabine

Pass) and the Galveston Entrance Channel (Galveston Bay) and the entire Gulf shoreline of Galveston

Island (USACE, 2004b). The study area consists of approximately 90 miles of Gulf shoreline in Jefferson,

Chambers, and Galveston counties along the upper Texas coast from Sabine Pass to San Luis Pass at the

western end of Galveston Island. The major problems identified in the reach to the north of Galveston

Bay result from shoreline erosion and include the potential destruction of nationally significant wetlands,

loss of land and damage to homes and commercial properties, and significant damage to SH 87. The

Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay Shoreline Erosion Project is in the planning stages, and no information

regarding potential impacts is available for Table 4.16-1.

4.16.4.6 Toledo Bend Reservoir Relicensing

Toledo Bend Reservoir is located on the Sabine River in Texas and Louisiana and forms a portion of the

boundary between the two states. The reservoir is approximately 65 miles long and inundates land in

Newton, Sabine, Shelby, and Panola counties, Texas, and Sabine and DeSoto parishes, Louisiana. Toledo

Bend Reservoir has 1,200 shoreline miles, normally covers an area of 185,000 acres, and has a controlled

storage capacity of 4,477,000 acre-feet. The reservoir was constructed by SRA-TX and Sabine River

Authority of Louisiana (SRA-LA) for water supply with secondary uses of hydroelectric power

1165
4. Environmental Consequences

4-115

generation and recreation. On December 12, 2002, the SRA-TX approved an application to TCEQ to

amend Certificate of Adjudication No. 05-4658 to include the right to divert 293,300 acre-feet per year of

the available portion of the stored Texas water from Toledo Bend Reservoir for multiple use (municipal,

industrial, agricultural) (SRA-TX and LNVA, 2006). TCEQ is mandated to consider environmental flows

(instream and freshwater needs) during permit evaluations for new reservoirs or amended water rights.

The SRA-TX and SRA-LA have initiated the process to renew the FERC license that allows the

generation of hydroelectric power. The current FERC license expires October 14. 2013. The intention of

SRA-TX and SRA-LA is to continue current operations as a hydropower peaking unit during the summer

months. However, as water supply sales increase, hydropower generation may be reduced.

The Authorities submitted a Notice of Intent to file an application for a new license and request

designation as non-Federal representatives in September 2008, and a Proposed Study Plan in July 2009 to

FERC (SRA, 2009), but specific resource impact information is not available at this time; therefore, the

Toledo Bend Reservoir Operating Plan and potential FERC relicensing potential impacts are not included

in Table 4.16-1.

4.16.4.7 Cameron Parish Dredge Project

Cameron Parish Gravity Drainage District #7 proposes to dredge 6,970 feet of Johnson’s Bayou to

remove debris and sediments deposited during Hurricane Ike. Material would be placed into an upland

confined PA. No wetland impacts would occur. Also, preliminary coordination determined no substantial

effects, and no effects to EFH and threatened or endangered species, respectively. Information available is

minimal, and this project is not included in Table 4.16-1.

4.16.4.8 Taylor Bayou Canal Seven Gate Saltwater Barrier

Located at the existing Taylor Bayou Canal Seven Gate Saltwater Barrier at the intersections of the

Taylor Bayou Canal and Taylor Bayou, the SNND proposes to construct four additional saltwater gates.

This effort would include 137-x-40-foot pile-supported slap and gate walls, 98 feet of concrete wing wall,

3,000 cy of riprap, 6,500 feet of 8-inch conduit, replacement of the control building (which was destroyed

by Hurricane Ike), and 50,000 cy of material acquired from dredging. Impacts would involve 2.3 acres of

wetland. Information available is minimal, and this project is not included in Table 4.16-1.

4.16.4.9 Study Area Habitat Protection and Restoration Actions

Four projects are currently planned in the study area that target protection and restoration of wetlands and

include the Star Bayou/Rose City Mitigation Bank, and three restoration and enhancement projects at

McFaddin NWR.

The Star Bayou/Rose City Mitigation Bank would require dredging of Star Bayou (400-x-200-foot area)

to acquire 26,000 cy of material. This material would be used to construct, restore, and enhance wetland

areas at part of another ongoing mitigation effort in the Rose City Marsh Complex Habitat Restoration

1166
4. Environmental Consequences

4-116

Area. Although temporary impacts may occur from dredging, the project would result in long-term

beneficial effects to wetlands in the study area.

The USFWS proposes to rehabilitate earthen levees and install water control structures at two locations

on McFaddin NWR. The first project, Big Hill Unit Restoration, would involve acquisition of 534,000 cy

of dredged material for 8,900 feet of levee rehabilitation along Lost Bayou. Also, 400 feet of new levee

would be created. Water control structures would be used to manipulate freshwater inflows from Willow

Slough, and general aquatic habitat management. Although 0.18 acre of wetlands would be filled through

these actions, the overall long-term effect of the project would result in net benefits to the study area

wetland complexes.

The second project, Clam Lake Restoration Project, would create a 625-square-foot levee with control

structures within wetlands. Material for levees would come from immediately adjacent areas. Although

the project would fill 2.94 acres of marsh and excavate another 3.67 acres, project goals include saltwater

intrusion protection for 1,500 acres of wetlands within the Wild Cow Bayou Unit, restoration of 248 acres

of marsh, and enhancement of 730 acres of wetlands adjacent to 10-mile Cut.

The third project on McFaddin NWR would involve the placement of 12,132 linear feet of graded rock

serving as a breakwater structure for protection along an eroded shoreline along the north side of the

GIWW. The breakwater would be approximately 25 feet wide at the base, 3.5 feet high in the center, 20

to 40 feet from the existing eroded bank, resulting in 43,570 cy of fill below the mean high tide line. No

direct wetland impacts would occur, and the breakwater may have beneficial effects to adjacent wetlands.

Information on these four protection and restoration projects was limited and only included wetland

impacts (or indirect effects) that would all be beneficial to study area wetland complexes. No other

information regarding potential project effects associated with the cumulative impacts analysis was

available, and thus these projects are not included in Table 4.16-1.

4.16.4.10 Sabine Lake Oil and Gas Projects

Eight oil and gas projects are planned for Sabine Lake that would impact regulated waters and include

four exploration wells (El Paso E&P Co.), three flowlines (El Paso E&P Co.), and one oil and gas

drilling, production, and transportation facility (Shoreline Southeast LLC).

Four exploration wells occurring in Sabine Lake would involve minimal discharge of materials into

regulated waters. All four projects combined are anticipated to impact a total of 0.14 acre of bay bottom,

and no mitigation is proposed. These projects would not cause long-term detriment to the study area’s

aquatic resources.

The three proposed flowlines in Sabine Lake are 6-inch diameter and would be jetted into place about

3 feet below mudline. All of these projects combine for a total of 0.43 acre of impacts to bay bottom, and

no mitigation is proposed. These projects would not cause long-term detriment to the study areas aquatic

resources.

1167
4. Environmental Consequences

4-117

Information on these Sabine Lake oil and gas projects was limited and only included regulated waters

impacts. No other information regarding potential project effects associated with the cumulative impacts

analysis was available, and thus these projects are not included in Table 4.16-1.

4.16.5 Cumulative Impacts Results

The following sections provide discussion of the potential cumulative impacts summarized in

Table 4.16-1, which may result from the Preferred Alternative combined with past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable actions within the Study Area.

4.16.5.1 Ecological and Biological Resources

Ecological and biological resources are expected to experience short-term temporary adverse effects

resulting from increased turbidity, disturbed bottom, and placement of dredged material during

construction and maintenance operations. Some permanent impacts are expected to wetlands; however,

these are to be offset by the benefits of BU features and compensatory mitigation for each project

considered in this assessment.

4.16.5.1.1 Wetlands

All projects considered in this analysis have compensatory measures and/or minimization or mitigation

plans to address wetland loss and/or impacts. In total, the restoration activities, purchased-and-protected

areas, and created wetlands offset impacts within and adjacent to the project area, resulting in a net gain

of wetland acres (approximately 10:1). This net gain is not always type-for-type; conversion of forested

wetlands is considered permanent loss given the time it takes to recover mature forested wetlands and the

high potential for invasive species colonization. Overall, cumulative impacts to wetlands are not expected

to be significant with implementation of the Preferred Alternative’s Mitigation Plan.

4.16.5.1.2 Bottomland Forest

The Preferred Alternative causes no loss of forested wetland acreage (either swamp or bottomland

hardwood) throughout the study area. Salinity impacts to the forested wetlands on the Neches River are

avoided by DMMP hydrologic and marsh restoration on the river. Salinity impacts to swamps on the

Sabine River are related to a minor decrease in the function of the ecological system, as conservatively

estimated in the WVA model (Appendix C) by comparison to maximum growth under optimal

conditions. The loss in function is considered to be negligible since projected salinity levels are within the

tolerance levels of the swamps.

4.16.5.1.3 Terrestrial Vegetation

Terrestrial vegetation impacts occur on most projects considered in this cumulative impacts assessment.

Clearing for construction, ROW maintenance (trimming and mowing), prescribed burning, conversion to

open water, and dredged material placement may affect terrestrial vegetation. The conversion of forested

areas to herbaceous cover or open land or water is the most significant impact as the time to recover forest

1168
4. Environmental Consequences

4-118

vegetation communities is significantly longer than that to recover herbaceous habitats, without active

intervention. Additional impacts stem from the invasion of non-native fast-colonizing species in disturbed

areas.

Upland vegetation on any PA would be covered by dredged material deposition; however, this vegetation

consists of mostly opportunistic species, which would recolonize easily once the site has been dewatered.

Herbaceous cover impacted typically recovers in a reasonable timeframe with the implementation of

erosion control measures. Several of the projects considered in this assessment have invasive species

monitoring and control measures, forest land impact minimization actions, or net beneficial actions (such

as native prairie restoration and prescribed burning or replanting disturbed areas), which can reduce the

loss of native terrestrial vegetation.

In the Preferred Alternative, a total of 86 acres of marsh would be converted to upland confined PAs. The

loss of biological function and acreage is fully compensated by DMMP restoration plans resulting in a net

increase in coastal marsh acreage in the project area. Cumulatively, the SNWW does not contribute to

terrestrial vegetation loss or impacts.

4.16.5.1.4 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

Physical impacts to SAV may result from projects augmenting marshlands, protecting shoreline, and

affecting wetlands. Additionally, increased salinity resulting from the Preferred Alternative and other

projects included in this analysis could affect submerged vegetation and related habitats. Marsh

restoration and DMMP restorations and nourishment measures offset adverse effects associated with the

Preferred Alternative. Additionally, the Preferred Alternative would increase the amount of shallow-water

areas and reduce wave action in certain areas, making conditions more conducive to SAV recruitment and

growth, effectively resulting in a net increase of SAV in the study area.

4.16.5.1.5 Plankton and Benthos

Placement of dredged material in offshore placement sites would bury benthic organisms incapable of

escaping or burrowing up through the dredged material. Only the dredge projects considered in this

document would affect benthic organisms in the study area through this method. Recolonization is

expected; however, benthic community structure and abundance may be altered as early successional

recovery stages are not necessarily the same as those buried by excavated materials. Additionally,

repeated localized dredging in one place may prevent full benthic community development and shift

community structure since overall benthic impacts affect a very small percentage of water bottom in the

study area. It is possible that the new community would still provide adequate food source for the aquatic

community. Excavation would increase turbidity levels and may provide cover benefits to certain

organisms. In general, all projects considered in this cumulative impacts assessment have the potential for

short-term negative impacts; none of the coverage or turbidity impacts are expected to adversely affect

benthic organisms or plankton. Minimization and mitigation measures to restore, enhance, and augment

estuarine environments and shorelines would likely provide a net benefit to these organisms.

1169
4. Environmental Consequences

4-119

4.16.5.1.6 Essential Fish Habitat

The Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline, Golden Pass LNG and Pipeline, and the Preferred Alternative have

the potential to affect EFH through excavation and dredged material placement in open-water PAs. These

activities could affect food sources in EFH and increase turbidity. Dredged material associated with these

projects that would be placed in open-water sites would not contain contaminants, as determined by the

EPA and USACE review and permitting. Additionally, loss of shallow-water habitats from some of the

projects’ activities considered in this analysis may adversely affect EFH for lifestages of several species;

however, the Preferred Alternative’s proposed actions would result in a net benefit to EFH through marsh

creation and reduced impacts to SAV.

4.16.5.1.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

Most of the projects included in this assessment are not expected to or did not significantly impact

federally listed threatened or endangered species. In general, the species potentially most affected are sea

turtles during hopper dredging activities and piping plover during dredged material placement. While

turtle mortality is a possibility, the USACE-NMFS sea turtle avoidance and documentation procedures

established for hopper dredging activities and applied during all projects using hopper dredges

significantly reduce the likelihood of adversely affecting protected sea turtles. In relevant projects’

assessment documents, piping plover populations and designated Critical Habitat were determined to not

be affected. Food species potential impacts are short term and recoverable, based on all assessments.

4.16.5.2 Physical and Chemical Resources

4.16.5.2.1 Air Quality

Objectionable odors (mercaptan, hydrogen sulfide) may result from construction and maintenance

excavation and/or dredging of sediments containing high concentrations of organic matter. Several of the

projects in this assessment document that NOx and CO emissions would occur during dredging and/or

excavation equipment activities. These activities are considered temporary and intermittent. Most of the

projects considered in this analysis lie within or adjacent to the BPA Ozone 8-hour Nonattainment Zone,

which includes Jefferson and Orange counties. All projects within the study area with the potential to

affect air quality must conform to the TCEQ SIP. Coordination and compliance with the TCEQ and EPA

would result in no significant cumulative impacts to air quality within the study area.

4.16.5.2.2 Noise

Temporary noise impacts would result from construction and maintenance dredging activities, which

would change with location, depending on the section being dredged. It is unlikely that dredging would

occur for more than one of the reviewed projects at one time.

1170
4. Environmental Consequences

4-120

4.16.5.2.3 Topography, Bathymetry, Soils, Sediment Quality

Terrestrial and marine contours would be permanently changed in construction and maintenance dredging

projects, but not by most of the LNG and pipeline projects (which state that temporarily impacted project

areas would be returned to preconstruction contours). Topography and bathymetry would be cumulatively

changed (increased) in upland and offshore PAs as a result of dredged material deposition. Most soil

impacts in all projects are considered temporary and/or recoverable given best construction and erosion

control practices, including protection measures implemented as a result of stormwater permitting and

water quality certification. No significant impacts to sediments or from sediments are expected, except

that there may be an increased risk of spill during construction of the reasonably foreseeable projects

included in this analysis.

4.16.5.2.4 Water Quality

For those projects that include dredging activities, dredging and placement operations are expected to

temporarily degrade water quality in the project vicinity through increased turbidity and nutrient releases

from the sediment. Dredging placement is not expected to affect water quality as much of the construction

and maintenance material would be used beneficially and the rest would go into PAs. For the most part,

salinity increases for the projects considered in this analysis were negligible, within natural fluctuation

ranges, or offset by mitigation or protective measures. Increased ship traffic in the study area could

increase the risk of a toxic spill; however, that risk is offset by the increased safety in the channel

expected from the widening and deepening of the SNWW. LNG and pipeline projects presented in this

analysis would implement water quality control measures (soil erosion prevention and control, spill

prevention and response plans, and runoff containment).

4.16.5.2.5 Sediment Quality

None of the projects reviewed for this assessment are expected to impact sediment quality. For projects

where contaminant spills or leaks are a potential adverse effect, prevention and response plans would be

implemented. None of the sediment analyses conducted for this project identified cause for concern.

4.16.5.2.6 Shoreline/Bank Erosion

Shoreline fluctuations along the Gulf, natural waterways, and constructed navigation channels within the

study area are ongoing. While some of the erosion and change can be attributed to natural causes, these

can be exacerbated by unmitigated wave action, destabilized shoreline, loss of vegetation, and other

factors. Such factors are generally a result of increased frequency and size of ship traffic (enhancing wave

action), conversion of shallow gradual water – shoreline transition areas to deeper, open water, and

upland activities and development, which can increase runoff and erosion. The Preferred Alternative is

expected to reduce the number of vessel trips when compared to the number of trips expected with the

No-Action Alternative, thus reducing the potential for increased wave action. Some of the habitat

restoration projects reviewed are expected to decrease shoreline erosion in small, localized areas.

1171
4. Environmental Consequences

4-121

Additionally, beach and shoreline nourishment as part of projects’ mitigation measures, slow the rate of

erosion and shoreline loss in specific areas.

4.16.5.3 Cultural and Socioeconomic Resources

4.16.5.3.1 Economy

All of the channel enhancement, maintenance, LNG, and pipeline projects are expected to have a net

benefit to the regional economy.

4.16.5.3.2 Recreational Facilities/Areas

Although some of the projects considered in this analysis create conditions that contribute to shoreline

erosion, vegetation loss, and land use impacts throughout their project areas, many public recreation lands

owned by the USFWS (Texas Point NWR, McFaddin NWR), TPWD (Tony Houseman WMA, J.D.

Murphree WMA, units of the Lower Neches River WMA), TxDOT, and LDWF (Sabine Island WMA)

benefit from many of the mitigation and minimization measures. Cumulative and coordinated wetland

enhancement and restoration efforts on public lands, increased access to public waters, and habitat

creation contribute to habitats, which support recreational activities (bird watching, hunting, fishing). The

Preferred Alternative’s DMMP restoration measures and marsh mitigation would result in a net benefit to

those recreational areas by creating substantial marsh acreage.

4.16.5.3.3 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries

None of the projects reviewed would adversely impact commercial or recreational fisheries (see also

subsection 4.16.5.1.6, Essential Fish Habitat). The Preferred Alternative DMMP and marsh mitigation

measures would provide a long-term net benefit to fisheries by the creation of new nursery areas.

4.16.5.3.4 Ship Accidents/Spills

The LNG and pipeline projects, in combination with this project’s Preferred Alternative, are expected to

increase the number of large vessels using the area’s navigable waterways (i.e., SNWW, GIWW, Neches

River). It is anticipated that the deepening of the SNWW under the Preferred Alternative, in combination

with the other dredging and port projects reviewed in this analysis, would have a net benefit on shipping

safety; therefore, the potential for accidents and spills is likely to decrease.

4.16.5.3.5 Public Health and Safety

Most of the LNG and pipeline projects, in addition to this project, increase the potential for large ship

traffic in inhabited areas along project area waterways. No adverse impacts are anticipated for these

projects, although, small recreational craft traffic and other channel users may experience delays and

reduced mobility with increases in ship traffic throughout the project area.

1172
4. Environmental Consequences

4-122

4.16.5.3.6 Cultural Resources

Activities associated with any of the reviewed projects have the potential to adversely affect unknown

cultural resources by altering the integrity of the location, design, setting, materials, construction, or

association contributing to a resource’s significance (related to National Register eligibility criteria). No

known sites on the NRHP would be impacted by projects reviewed in this analysis; however, projects that

are eligible under NRHP criteria have been identified and could be affected. Discovery of potentially

protected features/sites during construction and maintenance activities would require verification and

further coordination with the SHPO.

4.16.6 Conclusions

Cumulative impacts from past, existing, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, along with the

Preferred Alternative, are not expected to have significant adverse effects within the study area. Many of

the projects within the study area are part of the continued port and shipping industry development. Some

projects considered in this assessment are beneficial to certain natural resources (predominantly wetlands

and the species dependent on them) and add to the diversity and health of publicly held recreation and

conservation areas, migratory bird habitats, EFH, and other sensitive coastal resources. Impacts associated

with the Preferred Alternative have been fully offset by compensatory mitigation measures. In addition,

the Preferred Alternative would have net beneficial effects on wetlands, water quality, and SAV with the

construction of extensive BU features on the Neches River and the Gulf shoreline.

1173
5-1

5.0 MITIGATION PLAN

This chapter discusses the evaluation of mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative, and presents

the Recommended Mitigation Plan that has been developed in consultation with the appropriate resource

agencies. Mitigation is necessary because unavoidable impacts to nationally significant intertidal wetlands

remain after efforts to minimize impacts were exhausted. Net project impacts and benefits after

application of DMMP BU feature benefits, are summarized in Table 5.1-1.

Table 5.1-1

Net Project Impacts and Benefits by Average Annual Habitat Units

Bottomland

Hardwood Swamp

Fresh

Marsh

Intermediate

Marsh

Brackish

Marsh

Saline

Marsh Totals

Preferred Alternative Impacts (negative AAHUs)

Texas 0 –2 –6 –8 –31 – –12

Louisiana 0 0 –8 –571 –3 –7 –709

Total Project Impacts 0 –2 –96 –619 –54 –2 –121

Preferred Alternative Benefits (positive AAHUs)

Texas 0 0 284 433 235 222 1,068

Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 210 210

Total Project Benefits 0 0 178 433 235 432 1,278

Net Project Benefits

or Impacts (AAHUs) 0 –2 –6 –186 81 390 –43

This chapter is divided into six sections: Section 5.1 summarizes Federal policy and regulatory requirements for mitigation plans, and mitigation objectives that were followed in the plan’s development.

Section 5.2 provides a brief history of the development and coordination of the Recommended Mitigation

Plan, including application of the HS and WVA models. Section 5.3 summarizes FWP impacts of the

Preferred Alternative after benefits of the DMMP BU features have been applied. Section 5.4 discusses

the evaluation of alternatives for compensatory mitigation, and presents the cost effective/incremental

cost analysis (CE/ICA) of mitigation alternatives. Section 5.5 describes the Recommended Mitigation

Plan that compensates for unavoidable salinity impacts.

5.1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS

Unavoidable indirect impacts of the Preferred Alternative in Louisiana remain after all benefits of the

DMMP BU features have been applied. Although the SNWW channel is located primarily in Texas, large

indirect impacts may occur due to small increases in salinity levels causing an increase in wetland loss

and a decrease in biological productivity in aquatic habitats of both Texas and Louisiana. Remaining

impacts in Louisiana may affect approximately 182,000 acres (284 square miles) of tidal, emergent marsh

habitats, resulting in a total loss of 1,709 AAHUs (a 1.8 percent loss from the FWOP condition). The

important ecological functions of the wetlands in the affected area would decline as increases in salinity

levels affect marsh communities, and the fish and wildlife that depend upon this habitat. The slightly

1174
5. Mitigation Plan

5-2

higher salinities may lead to the loss of 691 acres of marsh, associated SAV and shallow-water habitat, as

stressed emergent marsh converts to open water. Some direct effects of the Preferred Alternative’s

navigation improvements were not captured and quantified by the WVA modeling. However, a full

impact analysis has been performed for these effects, and they have been determined to be minor and

temporary. These impacts include (1) impacts to water quality and benthic organisms and their Gulf,

estuarine, and riverine water-bottom habitats resulting from dredging to construct the navigation

improvements, the creation of new offshore ODMDSs, the borrow area trench for Willow Bayou

mitigation areas, and marsh restoration in shallow, open-water areas; (2) potential dredging impacts to

bottom-feeding and pelagic organisms such as sea turtles; and (3) potential impacts to shoreline birds and

their habitat from the placement of maintenance material on the Gulf shoreline.

Potential adverse affects to threatened and endangered sea turtles during hopper dredging to construct the

Entrance Channel would be addressed by the adoption of reasonable and prudent measures to avoid

impacts that are established in the BO for the CIP. No other adverse effects to threatened and endangered

species have been identified.

5.2 MITIGATION PLANNING

In the evaluation of alternatives for the SNWW CIP, ecological impacts of the Preferred Alternative have

been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent practicable, as required by national policy (Section

906(d), WRDA 86), national environmental laws and executive orders, and the USACE regulations (ER

1105-2-100). The results of proposed actions to minimize impacts are presented in detail in Chapter 2.

Unavoidable impacts to significant resources that remain are compensated to the extent justified as

described below.

5.2.1 Compliance with Federal Requirements

Implementation guidance for Section 2036(a) of WRDA 07 (Mitigation for Fish and Wildlife and

Wetlands Losses), issued August 31, 2009, requires that the Preferred Alternative contain a specific plan

to mitigate fish and wildlife losses since it has been determined that the Preferred Alternative would have

unavoidable impacts after benefits of the DMMP BU features are applied. Adverse impacts to ecological

resources that are caused by a proposed project must be avoided or minimized to the extent practicable,

and remaining unavoidable impacts must be compensated to the extent justified. The Preferred

Alternative must contain sufficient mitigation to ensure that the CIP would not have more than a

negligible adverse impact on significant ecological resources.

Central to this requirement is the determination of significance, as mitigation is required only for impacts

to significant resources. Significance must be based upon the contribution of the resource to the Nation’s

economy and technical, institutional, and/or public recognition of the value of the resource. Criteria for

determining significance include, but are not limited to, scarcity or uniqueness of the resource from a

national, regional, State, or local perspective. The USFWS Habitat Stewardship Program has identified

estuarine intertidal emergent wetlands as one of three nationally recognized “scarce and vulnerable”

1175
5. Mitigation Plan

5-3

wetland habitats. These are the same sensitive wetland habitats (saline, brackish, intermediate, and fresh

marsh) addressed by the Mitigation Plan.

These habitats are also considered significant and vulnerable by the CWPPRA, Public Law 101-646 (Title

III) and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004). The Texas Land and Water Resources

Conservation Plan (TPWD, 2005e) recognizes the Gulf coastal marshes in Tier One of high priority

ecoregions and considers these habitats to be the most threatened of the State’s two high diversity

ecoregions. Significant marsh habitat on the Lower Neches River and along the Texas Point shoreline

have been declared “critical erosion areas” by the Texas Coastwide Erosion Response Plan. Furthermore,

coastal marshes in the Louisiana portion of the study area are recognized as threatened and vulnerable by

the Louisiana Coast 2050 Plan (LCWCR/WCRA, 1998), the LCA Ecosystem Restoration Study

(USACE, 2004a), and the Louisiana Comprehensive Master Plan (LCPRA, 2007; USACE, 2008a).

Although mitigation technically includes avoiding and minimizing project impacts to ecological

resources, this chapter focuses on actions that are typically considered compensatory mitigation, i.e.,

rectifying impacts by restoration, preservation, or maintenance activities during the life of the project, or

replacing fish and wildlife resources that have been adversely affected. Replacements are generally made

“in-kind,” but substitutions, or replacements “out-of-kind,” are also acceptable mitigation if they are at

least equal in value and significance to the resources lost. The purchase of credits from mitigation banks

established by others was considered as an option in providing compensatory mitigation for the Preferred

Alternative. Only two existing mitigation banks were identified in the lower Sabine and Neches

watersheds. Neither was available for use as the credits from one were sold out and the other was

developed for the exclusive use of a State agency.

The WVA model (Appendix C) quantifies impacts to all habitats in the study area and provides a means

to establish the appropriate amount of compensating mitigation. Recommended mitigation measures must

be justified by CE/ICA, which identifies the least-cost mitigation plan by demonstrating that the value of

the last increment of losses prevented, reduced, or replaced is at least equal to the costs of the last added

increment.

The USACE regulations (ER 1105-2-100) recognize wetland resources for special consideration in

mitigation planning, and these are the type of resources that could suffer long-term impacts from the

Preferred Alternative. Impacts to wetlands must be fully mitigated, and projects must meet the goal of no

net loss of wetlands. The Mitigation Plan described below fulfills the special requirements for wetlands.

These plans also contribute to multiagency regional plans (Louisiana Coast 2050; a TPWD regional

management plan for J.D. Murphree WMA, Sea Rim State Park, Texas Point, and McFaddin NWR; and

the North American Waterfowl Plan) by restoring and preserving scarce and vulnerable wetlands and

wildlife habitat, and using dredged material beneficially to the greatest extent possible.

1176
5. Mitigation Plan

5-4

5.2.2 Compensatory Mitigation Objectives and Target

The following objectives were established to evaluate mitigation measures considered for the SNWW

CIP. The objectives were developed by the USACE in consultation with the ICT.

• Minimize salinity impacts to the SNWW affected area

• Maximize the use of dredged material in marsh restoration measures

• Meet goal of no net loss of wetlands

• Replace lost habitat quality on a one-to-one basis as measured by AAHUs

• Replace habitats in-kind to the extent practicable

• Mitigate losses in the state where they occur

• Share dredged material from Sabine Pass equally between Louisiana and Texas

These objectives reflected the most significant expected impacts of the CIP, widespread interest in

potential beneficial uses of dredged material, the national policy objective to prevent wetland loss, and the

USACE requirements to fully compensate for unavoidable project adverse effects. The last objective is

related to the fact that the CIP affects resources from two states. While this FEIS evaluates impacts on the

SNWW coastal and estuarine system without regard to state boundaries, the mitigation plan complies, to

the greatest extent practicable, with the CZMP for each state. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act

(CZMA), states with approved coastal management programs have jurisdiction within their coastal

boundaries to ensure compliance with their programs. The CZMA and its implementing regulations

require that Federal activities comply to the maximum extent practicable with these programs. In

Louisiana, the Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act functions as the state

coastal management program for CZMA purposes. Compensatory mitigation is used to offset any net loss

of wetland ecological value after efforts have been made to avoid or minimize impacts. Furthermore, the

CWPPRA requires Federal agencies to ensure that maintenance or modification of navigation projects be

consistent with the purposes of the restoration plan submitted under CWPPRA. Louisiana has adopted a

Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan under this authority with a goal of no net loss of wetlands in coastal

areas of Louisiana as a result of development activities. The proposed SNWW mitigation plan would

provide additional compensatory mitigation beyond the total project loss of 843 AAHUs so that impacts

in Louisiana would be compensated in that state. There is, however, a significant exception to this

requirement. Federal lands are excluded from coverage under the CZMA, and this means that

compensatory mitigation for impacts to Federal lands may be developed without regard to state

boundaries.

Since the CZMA does not apply to Federal lands, excess Texas BU benefits could be used to compensate

for impacts to Federal lands in Louisiana. The only lands affected by this exclusion are located in the

Sabine NWR. While the Texas Point and McFaddin NWRs in Texas would also be affected by salinity

increases associated with the project, two DMMP BU features (the Neches River and the Gulf Shore BU

features) provide benefits that offset all project impacts in Texas (including impacts to both NWRs) and

provide excess benefits of 656 AAHUs. The DMMP BU features fulfill Texas’s CZMP requirements to

1177
5. Mitigation Plan

5-5

avoid and minimize impacts to the coastal zone, such that no compensatory mitigation for Texas state

resources is needed.

Total SNWW project impacts to the Sabine NWR are –340 AAHUs. When these are removed from the

total project impacts in Louisiana (–1,499 AAHUs), the mitigation target proposed for compliance with

Louisiana’s CZMP is –1,159 AAHUs. Table 5.1-2 illustrates this calculation. Since all mitigation

measures for the SNWW would be located in Louisiana, the new mitigation target would compensate for

total project losses of –843 AAHUs by providing 1,159 AAHUs of compensatory mitigation.

Table 5.1-2

FWP Compensatory Mitigation Target for Louisiana

Units (AAHUs) Texas Louisiana Project

Net FWP Benefits/Impacts

Total Impacts (negative) –12 –709 –121

Total BU Benefits (positive) 1,068 210 1,278

Net FWP Benefits (positive) or Impacts (negative) 656 –499 –43

Excess Texas Benefits Applied to Federal Lands (Louisiana)

Excess Texas Benefits 656

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Impacts –40

Net Excess Texas Benefits 316

Compensatory Mitigation Target

Net Impacts by State and Project –499 –43

Federal Impacts Compensated with Texas Excess Benefits 340

FWP Compensatory Mitigation Target –159 –43

5.3 RESOURCE AGENCY COORDINATION OF THE

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION PLAN

Since the primary environmental concerns are the interrelated issues of saltwater intrusion, marsh loss,

and destruction of wildlife habitat and fishery nursery areas, the ICT formed two workgroups to oversee

the development and application of models used to evaluate salinity changes and ecological effects of the

CIP. The MW participated in the development and review of the HS model, and the HW participated in

the selection and application of the ecological model. Both models played an integral role in the

development of FWOP and FWP conditions and were used to compare the effectiveness of restoration

and mitigation measures.

Any ICT agency interested in participating was invited to attend these workshop meetings.

Representatives from the following agencies participated in one or both of the workgroups:

• USFWS Clear Lake (Texas) Field Office

• USFWS – Louisiana Field Office

• USFWS – Chenier Plain NWR complex

• USFWS – Sabine NWR

1178
5. Mitigation Plan

5-6

• NMFS – Galveston, Texas

• NMFS – Baton Rouge, Louisiana

• EPA Region 6

• GLO

• TWDB

• TPWD

• TPWD – J.D. Murphree WMA

• LDNR

• LDWF

• SRA-TX

• USACE (Galveston District and ERDC-CHL)

Concerns that a deeper navigation channel would bring higher salinity in the Sabine Lake estuarine

system were addressed with a 3-dimensional HS model that predicts changes in salinity, circulation, and

water elevation due to proposed channel improvements. The modeling was performed by the ERDC’s

CHL worked closely with the MW to calibrate and verify the base model for initial modeling. The

modeling was revised in 2009 to incorporate changes resulting from external and USACE reviews. The

MW reviewed the ERDC’s model calibration and verification process, and the revised modeling results.

The SNWW ICT established the HW to apply the WVA model; representatives from 14 agencies

regularly attended and agreed upon data used as inputs for the model. Over 30 ICT and workgroup

meetings were conducted from 2001 to 2006, and one meeting was held in 2009. The USFWS-Louisiana

Ecological Field Office provided assistance to ensure that WVA methodology (USFWS, 2002b) was

followed properly and that WVA model Excel worksheets were being used appropriately. The USACE

conducted an in-house quality check for worksheet accuracy. In 2009, changes in the proposed project

and HS modeling necessitated that the WVA modeling be revised. Due to schedule constraints, the

USACE performed the modeling without ICT involvement, basing it as closely as possible on methods

and assumptions used by the ICT in the original modeling. The results of this remodeling were

coordinated with the ICT. A quality check was also performed for the revised worksheets.

5.4 EVALUATION OF ECOLOGICAL MITIGATION

MEASURES

5.4.1 Preliminary Screening of Alternatives

A large number of potential mitigation measures were evaluated, but the majority were eliminated during

preliminary screening. Measures were generally of two types: measures to reduce or avoid salinity

intrusion and measures to restore or protect habitat. Salinity effects for large-scale measures affecting the

estuary as a whole were evaluated with the HS model; a desktop model was developed for alternatives

affecting smaller, localized drainages (Brown and Stokes, 2009). Ecological benefits were evaluated for

most of the measures using the WVA model; some were eliminated early in the process because they

1179
5. Mitigation Plan

5-7

were not feasible or implementable. Screening-level costs were based upon conceptual designs and costs

for similar structures that had been constructed recently by the USFWS. Final costs were only developed

for mitigation measures ultimately included in the Mitigation Plan.

5.4.1.1 Measures to Reduce Salinity Intrusion

Since impacts of the Preferred Alternative would be related primarily to salinity increases associated with

a deeper SNWW navigation channel, extensive efforts were made to identify mitigation measures that

could minimize or eliminate the projected increase in salinity intrusion. Measures were formulated that

affected the estuary as a whole, or smaller, localized areas within specific wetlands.

Sabine Pass Lock and Dam

The construction of a lock and dam at Sabine Pass was considered to address increases in saltwater

intrusion from the proposed deepening and widening of the SNWW. The lock and dam were not

considered to be a project alternative because the structures would not improve navigation efficiency, but

it was believed they could minimize salinity impacts. The existing SNWW navigation channel through

Sabine Pass is 40 feet deep and 500 feet wide. Large ocean-going petroleum and chemical product tankers

regularly transit the waterway. Placing a lock in the channel would create new transit delays as discussed

below.

The structures anticipated for salinity control would consist of two navigation locks within the current

SNWW navigation channel. Figure 5.4-1 presents a conceptual drawing of the lock and dam alternative.

A connecting levee would be required from the east lock wall to the Louisiana side of the pass, and a dam

would be required to close the old river channel on the Texas side. This dam would be constructed from

the cutoff island to the Texas shoreline immediately upstream of the City of Sabine Pass. It would consist

of a reinforced concrete sill positioned at elevation –25 feet mean low tide (MLT), with a set of tainter

gates. The tainter gates would be closed under normal conditions, but would open to allow the discharge

of upstream floodwaters. A levee would also be required to connect the west end of the dam to higher

ground.

The lock and dam would prevent continuous saltwater intrusion from the Gulf by blocking the deeper

navigation channel and old river channel, while allowing two-way ship traffic and periodic discharges of

upstream floodwaters. The lock and dam structure would create a pool behind the structures with a 3- to

5-foot increase in water elevations over current conditions. The pool is necessary to create the hydraulic

head pressures required for the lock to function properly.

There are significant engineering challenges to be met in designing the large locks required to

accommodate the large ships, which would use the proposed CIP. The width and depth of the lock

chamber would be larger than any other known lock constructed in the U.S., and therefore additional

research and data would be needed in order to design and construct the large lock gates and machinery.

1180
FIGURE 5.4-1

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF LOCK-DAM STRUCTURE

5-8

1181
5. Mitigation Plan

5-9

With respect to impacts on navigation, the locks would not have a direct effect on the deepening benefits

of the proposed project, but would significantly reduce the navigational efficiency of the existing or

proposed channel. A preliminary economic analysis estimated that annual delay costs for both inbound

and outbound trips would be approximately $7 million. This estimate did not include queuing effects. In

reality, slowdowns due to the locks would generate additional delays and queues would form. The vessel

delay and personnel cost would need to be treated as added costs for the lock feature. The delays

associated with a lock would lead to additional cost and result in a loss of business for the ports of Port

Arthur and Beaumont.

From an environmental standpoint, the proposed lock and dam would have both positive and negative

environmental impacts on the region. On the positive side, the lock would significantly reduce saltwater

intrusion through Sabine Pass into the upriver wetlands systems. Such reduction in saltwater intrusion

would ameliorate degradation caused by current saltwater intrusion and permit slow reestablishment of

some of the former fluvial freshwater wetlands that existed prior to initial channelization of the river.

These freshwater wetlands would likely support increased freshwater sports fishing opportunities,

waterfowl, and perhaps some cypress-tupelo swamp acreage.

However, the proposed lock and dam would produce negative environmental impacts as well. Reducing

saltwater inputs upstream and flooding existing marshes would significantly decrease productivity of the

existing saline and brackish marshes, as the obligate higher-salinity marsh plants are gradually lost in the

freshwater conditions. In addition, even before significant loss of marshes upstream of the lock, many

largely marine species would be physically precluded from reaching the nursery marsh areas by the lock.

Therefore, many commercial, sportfish, and shellfish species would likely decrease in abundance.

The lock alternative was eliminated from further consideration on the basis of navigation economics,

environmental, and cost factors. The lock alternative would reduce navigation benefits and result in

higher vessel transportation costs. Environmental benefits associated with control salinity intrusion would

be partially offset by significant impacts associated with restricting ingress/egress of marine organisms.

Finally, significant engineering challenges associated with construction of such a large structure would

result in high costs, estimated in excess of $2 billion.

Sabine Lake Sill

Three versions of a sill or weir at the mouth of Sabine Lake were modeled with the HS model (Brown and

Stokes, 2009): a submerged sill at –10 feet MLT; a stepped, submerged sill ranging from –2.5 feet MLT

at the shore to a –10-foot MLT boat bay in the center; and an emergent sill with a –10-foot MLT boat bay

in the center of the channel. This alternative was eliminated from further consideration when modeling

determined that a sill provided little, if any, salinity mitigation, except for some reduction in salinity at the

southwest end of Sabine Lake. This is likely because the principal pathway for salinity transport into the

system is via the Sabine-Neches Canal at the northwest corner of Sabine Lake. In addition, the more

restrictive versions created unacceptably high velocities through the mouth of Sabine Lake and

unacceptably high water elevations in the southern part of Sabine Lake during flood events.

1182
5. Mitigation Plan

5-10

Structural Water Control

Nineteen various water-control structures were proposed to control salinity intrusion into the marshes east

of Sabine Lake and west of Sabine Pass (see Appendix C). The ERDC developed desktop models to

evaluate changes in salinity achieved by these structures (Brown and Stokes, 2009), and the WVA model

was applied to evaluate their ecological benefits. Various combinations of a sheet pile wall, a large rock

weir, earthen plugs, and channel fill were evaluated for Texas Bayou in the Texas Point NWR. Large,

adjustable salinity control structures and large rock weirs were evaluated for Willow Bayou, Three

Bayou, Black Bayou, Greens Bayou, and the Right Prong of Black Bayou. Smaller rock weirs and low

rock liners were assessed for numerous smaller channels in the Willow Bayou and Black Bayou hydrounits. Earthen plugs in logging canals and submerged pipeline ROWs were suggested as a means of

reducing salinities within swamps at Blue Elbow and the Sabine Island WMA. NMFS was concerned that

proposed water control structures could adversely affect EFH and other aquatic resources by blocking or

reducing marine fishery access to the Louisiana marshes east of Sabine Lake. It is possible that structures

could cause salinities to be higher in managed areas during droughts or after storm surges. Ultimately, all

of the proposed water control structures were eliminated from further consideration when WVA modeling

yielded net negative benefits (i.e., impacts). Salinity reductions were generally modest and could not

overcome the adverse effects of restrictions to marine organism access.

Ensuring Freshwater Inflow

Purchasing freshwater flows from both the SRA-TX and LNVA was investigated as a potential mitigation

measure. Contracts could be negotiated for the 50-year period of analysis that require annual payments for

a specific volume of flow, which was determined with the HS model. The alternative was eliminated from

further consideration because there is no guarantee that the mitigation flow would be available when it is

needed most—during periods of low flows or drought, when the incremental salinity increase associated

with the deeper navigation channel would have its greatest adverse effect. The new allocation would be

subordinate to preexisting water rights and subject to changes in priorities by State water plans.

Ultimately, there is no guarantee that sufficient flows, although contracted and paid for annually, would

be provided at the expense of human needs.

Marsh Creation

Several measures were considered in which marshes would be used to constrict flows and thereby reduce

salinity intrusion from the navigation channel. Marsh creation was evaluated for the following locations:

(1) upstream and downstream of the mouth of Sabine Lake, (2) a specific shoreline reach of the Port

Arthur Canal, (3) an eroded area at the head of the west jetty, (4) eroding islands between the SabineNeches Canal and the northwest corner of Sabine Lake, and (5) the mouths of channels draining Rose

City and Bessie Heights. Some of these alternatives were eliminated from further consideration when HS

modeling determined they were not effective at reducing salinities. Others were eliminated because they

would block access to private property, cause backwater flooding, or create safety problems with

navigation.

1183
5. Mitigation Plan

5-11

5.4.1.2 Measures to Restore or Protect Habitat

The HW also evaluated a wide array of measures, which utilized marsh restoration, inshore shoreline

protection, and Gulf shore nourishment to compensate for wetland loss or protect from increased erosion.

The most effective of these in terms of costs and ecosystem benefits were ultimately selected for inclusion

in the Recommended Mitigation Plan; those described below were eliminated during preliminary

screening.

Marsh Restoration Measures

Thirty-nine combinations of measures and scales of marsh restoration were evaluated. Screening was

based upon an informal analysis of benefits determined by the WVA model and costs developed by the

USACE. All possible sources of material for marsh restoration were considered (submerged in situ soils,

new work and maintenance material from the nearest SNWW channel reaches, sediments from Sabine

Lake, Sabine River Channel maintenance material, and accumulated material in the Lake Charles

Deepwater Channel/Louisiana GIWW). Locations evaluated for restoration were (1) a degraded marsh

area near the head of the West Jetty in the Texas Point NWR; (2) Old River Cove east of the power plant

intake canal; (3) the eastern shores of PAs 8 and 11 on Pleasure Island; (4) an old logging canal north of

Texas Bayou; (5) a large open-water area south of the Louisiana GIWW and east of Black Bayou Cutoff;

and (6) a small, confined open-water area at the northeast corner of the Louisiana GIWW and Black

Bayou Cutoff. The large open-water area on the GIWW east of the Black Bayou Cutoff was eliminated

because the area was approved for an in situ marsh-terracing project under CWPPRA Project CS-27.

Different scales of marsh fill and source material were used within the same footprints in Willow and

Black bayous to create different alternatives. Most of the alternatives were eliminated because they

produced unacceptably low benefits when compared to costs. Small scales of in situ marsh terracing and

marsh creation using dredged material located in the Willow and Black bayou hydro-units were

eliminated because of low benefits. Twelve larger scales of the same alternatives were advanced for

further screening due to their higher benefits and improved cost effectiveness.

Inshore Shoreline Protection

Twenty-one combinations of shoreline protection measures and scales were evaluated in the preliminary

screening. Measures were developed for two locations: the eastern shore of Sabine Lake and the north

shore of the GIWW in Texas.

For the GIWW shoreline, two separate reaches of rock breakwater (2.4 miles long and 1.5 miles long)

were proposed to stabilize areas where low banklines allow higher-salinity waters from the GIWW to

enter the large expanse of fresh and intermediate marsh north of the GIWW. Benefits were assessed using

the WVA model, based upon an assumed salinity reduction in the marshes protected by the breakwater.

The alternative was eliminated because of low benefits in relation to cost. IWR-PLAN comparison

revealed it was less cost effective than other alternatives.

1184
5. Mitigation Plan

5-12

For the Sabine Lake shoreline, a foreshore dike was proposed for the Sabine Lake shore between Willow

Bayou and the mouth of Black Bayou. This alternative was evaluated in three scales of 3, 4.4, and

8.6 miles in length. Two material types were evaluated for the breakwater: barged-in rock and earthen

material obtained from Sabine Lake sediments adjacent to the breakwater. Each of these alternatives was

also evaluated at three distances from the Sabine Lake shore: 150, 250, and 500 feet. Finally, marsh

restoration behind the dikes was also proposed. Marsh would be created behind the earthen and rock

alternatives, 150 feet from the shore using Sabine Lake sediments from the access channel required for

construction, and new work material from the SNWW channel was evaluated for the 250- and 500-foot

scales. Benefits determined by the WVA were based on the creation of new marsh and the elimination of

shoreline retreat. Initially, the rate of shoreline retreat was determined by a GIS analysis of satellite

images by the USFWS (Greco and Clark, 2005). However, the rate of shoreline retreat was later revised

to incorporate the most likely rate of RSLR, and a forecasted 1.1-foot rise in water surface elevation.

Costs of the different measures were estimated by the USACE, including additional costs to raise the dike

to accommodate RSLR. All of these alternatives were eliminated because costs were high when compared

to benefits.

Gulf Shore Nourishment

Eleven measures and scales of Gulf shoreline nourishment were evaluated for Texas and Louisiana

Points. The measures were developed in an effort to find the most-cost-effective combination of pumping

distance, material type, and length of shoreline nourishment. All of the alternatives were constrained by

the requirement that both new work and maintenance material be split evenly between Texas and

Louisiana. All but one assumed unconfined placement of dredged material along the current shoreline

using a hydraulic pipeline dredge. One alternative envisioned construction of a confined cell along the

Texas Point shoreline using new work and maintenance materials. This alternative was eliminated early in

the screening because of excessively high costs. Alternatives relying upon unconfined placement of either

new work or maintenance material from Sabine Pass sections 5 or 5 and 6 were evaluated for 1⁄2-, 2-, and

3-mile-long shoreline reaches. All would begin 1⁄2 mile from each jetty, avoiding areas near the jetties

where the accretion rate is high. Cost effectiveness analysis determined that the 3-mile-long scale of the

maintenance material alternative was the least-cost alternative for the placement of dredged material, and

therefore it was adopted as part of the DMMP. One alternative that uses new work material to nourish

shoreline at Louisiana Point was advanced for further screening as a potential mitigation alternative.

5.4.2 Final Screening of Ecological Mitigation Measures

The Mitigation Plan was selected using the USACE certified version of IWR-PLAN software. IWRPLAN uses the tools of CE/ICA to weigh the costs of mitigation plans against their nonmonetary output.

A mitigation plan is defined as a group of mitigation measures. Cost-effectiveness analysis is used to

identify least-cost plans, and incremental cost analysis identifies the subset of cost-effective plans that are

superior financial investments, called “best buys plans.” Best buys plans are the most efficient plans at

producing the output variable (in this case, AAHUs); they provide the greatest increase in the value of the

output variable for the least increase in cost.

1185
5. Mitigation Plan

5-13

Mitigation measures advanced for final screening with IWR-PLAN are listed in Table 5.4-1. For the

CE/ICA, the measures were expressed as Solutions A through M, and each solution was evaluated at

different scales (Table 5.4-2). Two categories of solutions were evaluated:

1) Marsh restoration in the Willow and Black bayou areas; and

2) Gulf shore nourishment.

The footprint of several marsh restoration solutions is identical; they propose marsh restoration in the

same physical area using different sources of sediment (i.e., in situ material, SNWW new work material,

and dedicated dredging from Sabine Lake). Solutions with identical footprints are not combinable with

other solutions and were identified as such in IWR-PLAN. Other solutions reflect different placement

sequences and combinations for the various open-water locales within Willow Bayou or Black Bayou.

These were developed in an effort to identify combinations that have more-cost-effective pumping

distances. One alternative (LA 2-18C) was duplicated in the IWR-PLAN solutions, with the cost for

dredging varied by the size of dredge (i.e., an average size dredge versus the largest, most powerful

dredge that could access the area, the California). Scales are defined by adding increments of acreage

restored, varying the amount of sediment used in the restoration, or the length of shoreline protected or

nourished.

Table 5.4-2 contains incremental costs and output for all solutions and scales included in the analysis. The

IWR-PLAN code for each solution and the scales of that solution are indicated in the first column, and a

brief description of each solution is provided in the second column. For example, the first solution is

Willow Bayou in situ terracing (Solution A). This solution has four scales (A1-A4), which increase in

acres incrementally through the four scales. Scale A1 restores 38 acres of emergent marsh; Scale A2

creates an additional 26 acres for a cumulative total of 47 acres for both scales A1 and A2. The third

column provides a unique identification number for each solution and scale that was used for mapping

and tracking through cost estimating and ecological modeling. The fourth column provides the cumulative

AAHU output associated with the cumulative acres being restored, and the fifth provides the cumulative

average annualized cost.

Variables used in the analysis were nonmonetary ecological benefits established by WVA modeling

(expressed in AAHUs) and average annualized costs. These costs include the first cost of construction,

costs for marsh plantings, postconstruction monitoring, and 50-year annualized O&M costs. The costs of

alternatives that involve the use of maintenance material over one or multiple dredging cycles were

amortized over the 50-year period of analysis, using dredging-cycle projections based on historical

dredging data and the discount rate in effect at that time.

1186
5. Mitigation Plan

5-14

Table 5.4-1

Mitigation Alternatives Evaluated in Final Screening

Marsh Restoration - In Situ Terracing

Description of Alternative

“Duck-wing”-shaped earthen terraces built with in situ material using amphibious excavator. Each terrace

is 1,000 feet long; 100-foot gap between terraces; approximately 500 feet between each row of terraces.

Terraces should have 15-foot-wide tops at +2.0 feet NAVD88 and 4:1 side slopes.

HydroUnit No. Size of Influence Area Emergent

Marsh Created

Willow

Bayou

LA 2-16(A)

Influence area – 1,831 acres in north part of Greens Lake;

located within the same footprint as LA 2-16(B) and LA

2-16(C)

38 acres

LA 2-17(A)

Influence area – 2,297 acres in southern part of Greens

Lake; located within the same footprint as LA 2-17(B)

and LA 2-17(C)

45 acres

LA 2-18(A)

Influence area – 680 acres in area north of Willow Bayou

canal; located within the same footprint as LA 2-18(B)

and LA 2-18(C)

11 acres

LA 2-19(A)

Influence area – 1,809 acres in area west of Deep Bayou;

located within the same footprint as LA 2-19(B) and LA

2-19(C)

28 acres

Marsh Restoration – Sabine Lake Dedicated Dredging

Description of Alternative

Hydraulically dredged material from Sabine Lake (dedicated dredging) to restore marsh and shallowwater habitat in open-water areas of marsh. Borrow trench located 500 feet from shore, excavated

approximately 7.5 feet deep; width and length vary for each scale. Assume unconfined flow of

maintenance material, frequent movement of pipe, and few training or containment structures.

HydroUnit No. Size of Influence Area Emergent

Marsh Created

Willow

Bayou

LA 2-16(B)

Influence area – 1,831 acres in north part of Greens Lake;

borrow trench approximately 1,000 feet wide x 2 miles

long

822 acres

LA 2-17(B)

Influence area – 2,297 acres in southern part of Greens

Lake area; borrow trench approximately 1,250 feet wide x

2 miles long

1,035 acres

LA 2-18(B)

Influence area – 680 acres in area north of Willow Bayou

Canal; borrow trench approximately 700 feet wide x

0.8 mile long

251 acres

LA 2-19(B)

Influence area – 1,809 acres in area west of Deep Bayou;

borrow trench approximately 1,200 feet wide x 1.8 miles

long

719 acres

LA 2 ADD

B

Influence area – 1,285 acres in area north of Willow

Bayou Canal; borrow trench approximately 1,000 feet

wide x 1.25 miles long

436 acres

1187
5. Mitigation Plan

5-15

Table 5.4-1, cont’d

Marsh Restoration – SNWW New Work Material

Description of Alternative

Use new work material from SNWW Section 10 to restore emergent marsh and shallow-water habitat in

open water in north part of Greens Lake area. Assume unconfined flow of new work material, frequent

movement of pipe, and few training or containment structures.

HydroUnit No. Size of Influence Area Emergent

Marsh Created

Willow

Bayou

LA 2-16(C)

Influence area – 1,831 acres in north part of Greens Lake

area; located within the same footprint as LA 2-16(A) and

LA 2-16(B)

822 acres

LA 2-17(C)

Influence area – 2,297 acres in southern part of Greens

Lake area; located within the same footprint as LA 2-

17(A) and LA 2-17(B)

1,035 acres

LA 2-18(C)

Influence area – 680 acres in area north of Willow Bayou

Canal; located within the same footprint as LA 2-18(A)

and LA 2-18(B)

251 acres

LA 2-19(C)

Influence area – 1,809 acres in area west of Deep Bayou;

located within the same footprint as LA 2-19(A) and LA

2-19(B)

719 acres

LA 2-ADD

C

Influence area – 1,285 acres in area north of Willow

Bayou Canal; located within the same footprint as LA 2-

ADD B

436 acres

Marsh Restoration – Channel to Orange Maintenance Material

Description of Alternative

Hydraulically pump maintenance material from the Channel to Orange (Sabine River) between East Pass

and the GIWW into areas north of Black Bayou to restore emergent marsh in degraded marsh and openwater areas. Assume unconfined flow of maintenance material, frequent movement of pipe, and few

training or containment structures. Material would come from maintenance dredging of the Sabine River

Channel.

HydroUnit No. Size of Influence Area Emergent

Marsh Created

Black

Bayou LA 3-10R Influence area – 2,465 acres; restoring 132 acres every 5years, TY 5 thru TY 30 (total of 6 cycles, ending TY 30) 792 acres

1188
5. Mitigation Plan

5-16

Table 5.4-1, cont’d

Marsh Restoration - GIWW Dedicated Dredging

Description of Alternative

Dedicated dredging of adjacent GIWW to restore emergent marsh and shallow-water habitat; percent of

open water restored to emergent marsh is different in A and B scales. Assume unconfined flow of

hydraulically pumped material that has accumulated in GIWW (formerly the 30-foot Deepwater Channel

to Lake Charles), frequent movement of pipe, and few training or containment structures.

HydroUnit No. Size of Influence Area Emergent

Marsh Created

Black

Bayou

LA 3-15(A)

Influence area – 1,788 acres in area west of Black Bayou

Cutoff Canal; assume 60 percent of open water restored

to emergent marsh

546 acres

LA 3-18(A)

Influence area – 1,877 acres in large area of open water

south of LA 3-15; assume 60 percent of open water

restored to emergent marsh

497 acres

LA 3-15(B)

Influence area – 1,788 acres area west of Black Bayou

Cutoff Canal; assume 75 percent of open water restored

to emergent marsh

683 acres

LA 3-18(B)

Influence area – 1,877 acres in large area of open water

south of LA 3-15; assume 75 percent of open water

restored to emergent marsh

621 acres

Gulf Shoreline Nourishment

Description of Alternative

Nourish Gulf shoreline at Louisiana Point; length of nourished shore and number of placement cycles

vary. Material pumped along shoreline using hydraulic pipeline dredge. Assume 50:50 split of material

between Texas and Louisiana. Assume 60 percent retention of material after initial placement; 50 percent

of newly added acres remain at end of 6 years.

HydroUnit No. Size of Influence Area Length of

Shoreline

Sabine

Lake

Ridges

LA 5-3

Nourish 0.5 to 1.0 mile from east jetty; assume one-time

unconfined placement of new work material from SNWW

Section 5; all added acres eroded away by TY 51

0.5 mile

LA 5-1 and

6-1

Nourish 0.5 to 3.5 miles from east jetty; assume one-time

unconfined placement of new work material from SNWW

Section 5; all added acres eroded away by TY 51

3.0 miles

LA 5-5

Nourish 0.5 to 3.5 miles from east jetty; assume one-time

unconfined placement of new work material from SNWW

sections 5 and 6; all added acres eroded away by TY 51

3.0 miles

1189
5. Mitigation Plan

5-17

Table 5.4-2

Solutions and Scales for Cost Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analysis

Solutions ID#

Cumulative

AAHUs per

Solution and

Increment

Cumulative Average

Annual Cost ($) per

Solution and

Increment

Marsh Restoration

A1 Willow Bayou In Situ Terracing (38 acres) LA 2-16A 18 145,413

A2 Willow Bayou In Situ Terracing (83 acres) LA 2-16A

LA 2-17A

40 316,720

A3 Willow Bayou In Situ Terracing (111 acres) LA 2-16A

LA 2-17A

LA 2-19A

54 426,845

A4 Willow Bayou In Situ Terracing (122 acres) LA 2-16A

LA 2-17A

LA 2-19A

LA 2-18A

59 472,395

B1 Willow Bayou Sabine Lake Dedicated Dredging

(822 acres)

LA 2-16B 446 2,794,551

B2 Willow Bayou Sabine Lake Dedicated Dredging

(1,857 acres)

LA 2-16B

LA 2-17B

940 5,980,573

B3 Willow Bayou Sabine Lake Dedicated Dredging

(2,576 acres)

LA 2-16B

LA 2-17B

LA 2-19B

1,360 8,183,098

B4 Willow Bayou Sabine Lake Dedicated Dredging

(2,827 acres)

LA 2-16B

LA 2-17B

LA 2-19B

LA 2-18B

1,512 8,806,642

C1 Willow Bayou Sabine Lake Dedicated Dredging

(822 acres)

LA 2-16B 446 2,794,551

C2 Willow Bayou Sabine Lake Dedicated Dredging

(1,857 acres)

LA 2-16B

LA 2-17B

940 5,980,573

D1 Willow Bayou Sabine Lake Dedicated Dredging

(251 acres)

LA 2-18B 152 620,877

D2 Willow Bayou Sabine Lake Dedicated

Dredging (687 acres)

LA 2-18B

LA 2-ADD B

365 1,632,476

D3 Willow Bayou Sabine Lake Dedicated Dredging

(1,406 acres)

LA 2-18B

LA 2-ADD B

LA 2-19B

785 3,945,394

E1 Willow Bayou SNWW New Work using the

Dredge California (2,827 acres)

LA 2-16C

LA 2-17C

LA 2-19C

LA 2-18C

1,552 9,205,547

F1 Willow Bayou SNWW New Work (822 acres) LA 2-16C 446 3,692,959

F2 Willow Bayou SNWW New Work (1,857 acres) LA 2-16C

LA 2-17C

940 7,399,625

1190
5. Mitigation Plan

5-18

Table 5.4-2, cont’d

Solutions ID#

Cumulative

AAHUs per

Solution and

Increment

Cumulative Average

Annual Cost ($) per

Solution and

Increment ($1,000)

G1 Willow Bayou SNWW New Work (251 acres) LA 2-18C 152 1,391,853

G2 Willow Bayou SNWW New Work (687 acres) LA 2-18C

LA 2-ADD C

365 3,010,940

G3 Willow Bayou SNWW New Work (1,406 acres) LA 2-18C

LA 2-ADD C

LA 2-19C

785 6,336,854

H1 Black Bayou Sabine River Maintenance

Dredging (792 acres)

LA 3-10R 198 753,717

I1 Black Bayou GIWW Dedicated Dredging

(546 acres)

LA 3-15A 231 685,753

I2 Black Bayou GIWW Dedicated Dredging

(1,043 acres)

LA 3-15A

LA 3-18A

470 1,695,472

J1 Black Bayou GIWW Dedicated Dredging

(497 acres)

LA 3-18A 239 1,009,720

K1 Black Bayou GIWW Dedicated Dredging

(683 acres)

LA 3-15B 307 833,787

K2 Black Bayou GIWW Dedicated Dredging

(1,304 acres)

LA 3-15B

LA 3-18B

617 2,079,427

L1 Black Bayou GIWW Dedicated Dredging

(621 acres)

LA 3-18B 310 1,245,640

Gulf Shoreline Nourishment

M1 Louisiana Point Gulf Shoreline Nourishment –

SNWW new work material – 0.5 mile

LA 5-3 5 97,144

M2 Louisiana Point Gulf Shoreline Nourishment –

SNWW new work material (Section 5 only) –

3 miles

LA 5-1

LA 6-1

54 370,062

M3 Louisiana Point Gulf Shoreline Nourishment -

SNWW new work material (sections 5 and 6) –

3 miles

LA 5-5 90 1,087,715

5.4.3 Selection of the Best Buy Mitigation Plan

The result of the incremental analysis is illustrated on Figure 5.4-2 and in Table 5.4-3. Ten best buy plans

were identified, with incremental costs ranging from $2,716 to $19,935 per AAHU. Line 1 is the NoAction Plan, with no cost and no output. The first column numbers the plans in order of cost

effectiveness, with the most cost-effective plan (Plan 2) shown on the second line. Column 2 in Table 5.4-

3 lists the codes for all solutions included in each best buy plan, as determined by the incremental cost

analysis. The mitigation alternatives advanced for final screening (discussed previously) are the solutions

evaluated by IWR-PLAN. Refer to Table 5.4-2 for a description of the mitigation measure represented by

the codes shown in column 2. Column 3 shows the incremental output (in AAHUs) of the solution, which

is added with each new best buy plan. Column 4 shows the average annual cost associated with the

incremental output (the last solution added) of each best buy plan.

1191
5. Mitigation Plan

5-19

Figure 5.4-2. Results of CE/ICA Analysis

Table 5.4-3

Incremental Cost of Best Buy Plan Combinations (Ordered by Output)

Counter Plan Alternative

Output

(AAHUs)

Cost

($1.00)

Average

Cost

Incremental

Cost Inc.

Output

($1.00)

Inc. Cost

($1.00/AAHU) Per AAHU

1 No-Action Plan 0.00 0.00

2 A0B0C0D0E0F0G0H0I0J0K1L0M0 307.00 833,787.00 2,715.9186 833,787.0000 307.0000 2,715.9186

3 A0B0C0D0E0F0G0H1I0J0K1L0M0 505.00 1,587,504.00 3,143.5723 753,717.0000 198.0000 3,806.6515

4 A0B0C0D0E0F0G0H1I0J0K2L0M0 815.00 2,833,144.00 3,476.2503 1,245,640.0000 310.0000 4,018.1935

5 A0B0C0D1E0F0G0H1I0J0K2L0M0 967.00 3,454,021.00 3,571.8935 620,877.0000 152.0000 4,084.7171

6 A0B0C0D2E0F0G0H1I0J0K2L0M0 1,181.00 4,465,620.00 3,781.2193 1,011,599.0000 214.0000 4,727.0981

7 A0B0C0D3E0F0G0H1I0J0K2L0M0 1,600.00 6,778,538.00 4,236.5863 2,312,918.0000 419.0000 5,520.0907

8 A0B0C1D3E0F0G0H1I0J0K2L0M0 2,045.00 9,573,089.00 4,681.2171 2,794,551.0000 445.0000 6,279.8899

9 A0B0C2D3E0F0G0H1I0J0K2L0M0 2,537.00 12,759,111.00 5,029.2121 3,186,022.0000 492.0000 6,475.6545

10 A0B0C2D3E0F0G0H1I0J0K2L0M2 2,591.00 13,129,173.00 5,067.2223 370,062.0000 54.0000 6,853.0000

11 A0B0C2D3E0F0G0H1I0J0K2L0M3 2,627.00 13,846,826.00 5,270.9654 717,653.0000 36.0000 19,934.8056

1192
5. Mitigation Plan

5-20

Best Buy Plan 2, shown on line 2, consists of Solution K1; it has the lowest cost per AAHU ($2,716) of all

the best buy plans and consists of only the first scale of that solution, with an output of 307 AAHUs. Best

Buy Plan 3 adds Solution H1 to Solution K1, with an incremental output of 198 AAHUs for Solution H1,

and a total output of 505 AAHUs for the plan. Best Buy Plan 4 consists of Solutions H1 and K2; in this

case, the difference between total output for this plan and Best Buy Plan 3 (H1 and K1) is the incremental

output between K2 and K1 (815 – -505 = 310 AAHUs). The cumulative output for each successive group

of plans is shown in Column 3. The first plan with the cumulative total that exceeds the mitigation target

is generally selected as the Best Buy Mitigation Plan.

The incremental annualized cost per unit of output (Column 5) is calculated by dividing total average

annual cost for each incremental solution by the output from that solution. For Best Buy Plan 4, the total

annualized cost of K2 (in this case, $1,245,640) is divided by the incremental output (310 AAHUs) to

obtain $4,018. Average annual costs were developed for all solutions that were analyzed with IWRPLAN. These costs include the first cost of construction, marsh plantings, monitoring, and 50-year

annualized O&M costs. They are not provided in this document, except as incremental costs per habitat

unit, but are available upon request.

Best Buy Plan 6 (Solutions D2, H1, and K2 – shown in bold in tables 5.4-2 and 5.4-3) appears to be an

efficient mitigation plan since it reaches the mitigation target of 1,159 AAHUs (Table 5.4-4) by providing

a total of 1,181 AAHUs. Best Buy Plan 6 consists of emergent marsh restoration in two Willow Bayou

areas (totaling 607 acres) and three areas in the Black Bayou area (totaling 2,096 acres). Best Buy Plan 7

was also evaluated to determine whether its considerable additional benefits were worth the

comparatively small incremental cost. Best Buy Plan 7 provides 420 additional AAHUs (719 more acres

restored in Willow Bayou) by adding Solution D3 for an additional average annual cost per unit of output

of $4,237 (total average annual cost of $2,312,918). Since the estimated total first cost of this increment is

$39,275,000 (screening-level cost) and Best Buy Plan 6 meets the mitigation target, Best Buy Plan 7 was

deemed not worth the additional investment.

Table 5.4-4

Recommended Mitigation Plan

Recommended Mitigation Plan Mitigation

AAHUs

Willow Bayou

LA 2-18 B Marsh Restoration (Sabine Lake dredging) 152

LA 2-ADD B Marsh Restoration (Sabine Lake dredging) 214

Black Bayou West

LA 3-10R Marsh Restoration (Sabine River Channel maintenance material) 198

Black Bayou East

LA 3-15 B Marsh Restoration (GIWW dredging) 307

LA 3-18 B Marsh Restoration (GIWW dredging) 310

Total Compensation 1,181

FWP Mitigation Target –1,159

Net Benefits After Compensation 22

1193
5. Mitigation Plan

5-21

5.5 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION PLAN

The CE/ICA selected Best Buy Plan 6 as the most efficient combination of mitigation measures to

compensate for the indirect impacts of the Preferred Alternative. It provides 1,181 AAHUs, which is

10 AAHUs more than the mitigation target. It is important to remember that additional compensatory

mitigation would be provided in Louisiana beyond the total 843 AAHUs impacts of the Preferred

Alternative. The mitigation plan would result in a net gain of 338 AAHUs for the project as a whole.

Unavoidable impacts of the SNWW CIP remain only in Louisiana; all CIP impacts in Texas are

minimized and offset by the DMMP, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, all of the mitigation

measures in Best Buy Plan 6 would be located in Louisiana. The mitigation plan consists of restoring five

degraded marsh areas east of Sabine Lake near Willow and Black bayous, Louisiana (Table 5.5-1, Figure

5.5-1). Each of these alternatives is described in detail below. The recommended Mitigation Plan

compensates for the Preferred Alternative’s salinity increase and associated losses in marsh and

productivity by marsh creation activities that would influence a total of 8,095 acres of Louisiana marshes

in the Willow and Black Bayou watersheds. The plan would restore 2,783 acres of emergent marsh in

existing open-water areas within the marsh, improve 957 acres of shallow-water habitat by creating

shallower, smaller ponds and channels within the restored marsh, and stabilize and nourish 4,355 acres of

existing marsh located in and around the marsh restoration zone. The amount of recommended mitigation

is based upon the amount of marsh acreage that could be lost as a result of the project, and the additional

amount that would need to be restored in order to fully compensate for adverse changes to biological

function of the remaining marsh throughout the affected area over the 50-year period of analysis. More

than a one-to-one ratio of created marsh to natural marsh is needed to fully compensate for the loss of

marsh productivity caused by the CIP. Studies by NMFS (Minello, 2000; Minello and Webb, 1997) have

shown that created marshes are not functionally equivalent to natural marshes for all estuarine species for

as much as 15 years after the marshes are planted. In total, these measures would produce 1,159 AAHUs

and provide full compensation for all impacts of the CIP. The USACE and the ICT would monitor all of

the mitigation areas as described by the monitoring plan presented in Appendix I.

Table 5.5-1

Recommended Mitigation Plan – Acreage Analysis

Mitigation

Measure AAHUs

Total

Influence

Area (acres)

Nourished

Existing

Marsh (acres)

Restored

Open Water

(acres)

Restored

Emergent Marsh

(acres)

Willow Bayou

LA 2-18B 152 681 367 63 251

LA 2-ADD B 214 1,285 745 104 436

Subtotal 366 1,966 1,112 167 687

Black Bayou West

LA 3-10R 198 2,465 1,317 356 792

Black Bayou East

LA 3-15B 307 1,788 878 227 683

LA 3-18B 310 1,876 1,048 207 621

Subtotal 617 3,664 1,926 434 1,304

Total Mitigation 1,181 8,095 4,355 957 2,783

1194
5. Mitigation Plan

5-22

Specific performance criteria for the marsh restoration areas were established in consultation with the

ICT: (1) placed material would be 60 to 80 percent vegetated with native, typical, emergent marsh 5 years

after each placement of material; (2) marsh would remain intact and 60 to 80 percent vegetated with

native, typical, emergent marsh through the 50-year period of analysis; and (3) invasive, noxious, and/or

exotic plants would compose less than 4 percent of marsh cover at year 2 and year 5.

5.5.1 Willow Bayou Mitigation

Recommended Willow Bayou mitigation measures (LA 2-18B and LA 2-ADD B) are located within the

boundaries of the Sabine NWR (see Figure 5.5-1). The USACE has requested that the USFWS prepare a

compatibility determination for the proposed activity. See correspondence dated January 24, 2007, in

Appendix A1. Material dredged from a borrow trench in Sabine Lake would be used to restore 687 acres

of emergent marsh within open-water areas, improve 167 acres of shallow-water habitat, and nourish

1,112 acres of existing marsh within the total influence area of 1,966 acres (see Table 5.5-1). Small ponds

and sinuous, interconnected channels would be created to maintain tidal connectivity, increase marsh

edge, and create protected areas for SAV. Approximately 1,966 acres of existing marsh in the influence

area would also be renourished by winnowing fine-grained suspended solids during placement events.

Marsh would be constructed by the unconfined flow of dredged material from a hydraulic pipeline.

Frequent pipe movement and careful elevation control would be necessary to obtain the appropriate marsh

elevations. In order to maximize edge in the marsh, topographic relief would be created by varying the

final elevation of material placement, and planting with appropriate native flora at each elevation. The

varied topography would allow for differences in duration of tidal inundation, create different floral

communities, and maximize biodiversity. Tidal creek channels would be constructed in the marsh

creation area after the dredged material has settled. These would be needed to return the area to normal

tidal regime, facilitate marine organism access, and allow water and nutrients to flow into the area.

The dedicated dredging would take approximately 3.1 mcy of material from a 1.8-mile-long borrow

trench in Sabine Lake. The borrow trench would be located at least 1,000 feet from the Sabine NWR

shore and would average 1,030 feet wide by 7.5 feet deep. The borrow trench would be continuous and

parallel to the current shoreline, in line with the common longshore circulation pattern in Sabine Lake.

The circulation is expected to prevent the development of hypoxic conditions that would be detrimental to

aquatic organisms, and would eventually fill the trench with Sabine River sediments. An access channel,

approximately 8 miles long, from the GIWW near the mouth of the Sabine River would be needed for the

dredge to reach the proposed borrow area. The exact locations of the borrow trench and access channel

would be determined in consultation with the ICT after PED bottom surveys of potential locations. The

USACE and ICT would monitor these mitigation areas in accordance with the specific success criteria

and monitoring plan presented in Appendix J.

1195
10

82

Sabine

Lake

Johnson

Bayou

South Stark Canal

Green's Bayou

Black

Bayou

Cut Off

Perry Ridge

Black

Bayou

Mouth of

Cow Bayou

Bayou

Sabine

Island

Orange

Pinehurst

West

Orange

Sabine National

Wildlife Refuge

Lower Neches

WMA

(Adam's Bayou Unit)

Blue Elbow Swamp/ Tony Houseman WMA

CAMERON

CALCASIEU

!

!

!

!

!

LOUISIANA

LA3-10R

LOUISIANA

LA3-15

LOUISIANA

LA3-18

LOUISIANA

LA2-18B

LOUISIANA

LA2-ADD B

GIWWEast/

Lake Charles Deepwater Channel

Willow

Bayou

Sabine River Channel

Texas

Lousiana

Borrow Trench

Access Channel

Figure 5.5-1

Sabine-Neches Waterway

Mitigation Plan

Prepared for: USACE

Job No.: 441206.01

Prepared by: EM/MF/AC Date: 04/28/2008

File: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/Projects/Sabine_Neches/044198000/figures/Figure_5_5_1_vr6.mxd

10,000

μ0 10,000

Feet

Legend

Channel Centerlines

State Boundaries

State Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wildlife Management Areas

Project Area, Mitigation Measures

5-23

1196
5. Mitigation Plan

5-24

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1197
5. Mitigation Plan

5-25

One-time impacts of the borrow trench and access channel dredging would include an increase in water

column turbidity during dredging activities; such effects are temporary and local to nekton,

phytoplankton, and water quality. A hydraulic pipeline dredge would be used to minimize turbidity. For

further information, see subsection 4.11.2.1. No further effects to water quality and related organisms

would be expected. Benthic fauna would be removed due to excavation of sediment during dredging

activities; however, benthic organisms can rapidly recolonize and no long-term effects are anticipated.

Due to low salinity (1 to 6 ppt) in this area of Sabine Lake, live oyster reefs are not likely (Fagerberg,

2003). A study by T. Baker Smith, Inc. (2006) found no live oyster reefs in this area. SAV cover is not

likely to be found in this area due to the prevalence of shallow, turbulent, and turbid water.

5.5.2 Black Bayou Mitigation

For the Black Bayou West (LA 3-10R) mitigation measure, material from maintenance dredging of the

Sabine River Channel between East Pass and the GIWW would be used to restore a large area of marsh

north of Black Bayou and west of Rusty Vincent Lake (see Figure 5.5-1 and Table 5.5-1). Maintenance

dredging of the Sabine River Channel is considered a separate project within the SNWW system, with a

different non-Federal sponsor. It is a without-project condition for the SNWW CIP, and therefore only the

incremental cost associated with placing the material in the marsh is included in the cost estimate for the

Preferred Alternative. Material removed during regularly scheduled maintenance dredging of this channel

would be hydraulically pumped into a large degraded marsh area west of Rusty Vincent Lake. This area is

close to the navigation channel, minimizing pumping distance and cost. Marsh restoration in LA 3-10R

would be accomplished in six 5-year dredging cycles beginning by the first year of the completion of CIP

construction. Each dredging cycle would pump approximately 526,000 cy of material to create 132 acres;

a total of 792 acres of emergent marsh would be created over 30 years; 356 acres of shallow-water habitat

would be improved, and 1,317 acres of existing marsh would be nourished within the total 2,465 acres

influenced by the unconfined flow of dredged material.

For the Black Bayou East (LA 3-15B and LA 3-18B) mitigation measures, marsh restoration would be

accomplished in two areas just west of the Black Bayou Cutoff Canal using dedicated dredging of

accumulated material in the Lake Charles Deepwater Channel/GIWW (see Figure 5.5-1 and Table 5.5-1).

The Lake Charles Deepwater Channel was constructed in 1926 and coincides along its entire 24.9-mile

length with the GIWW between the Sabine River and Lake Charles (USACE, 1998c). Communications

with the New Orleans District indicate the depth of the 30-foot channel has been reduced to

approximately 12 feet due to sedimentation.

Dedicated dredging of the Lake Charles Deepwater Channel for the Black Bayou mitigation efforts would

remove and kill benthic organisms; however, constant ship traffic in the shallow channel is an ongoing

disturbance to these organisms. Recovery of benthic organisms would be rapid (Sheridan, 1999). No

impacts to salinity would be expected because the dredged section would not connect with the Sabine

River Channel or the Calcasieu Ship Channel; therefore, there would be no connection with the saltwater

wedge in the Calcasieu Ship Channel (there is no Sabine River wedge; Brown and Stokes, 2009) It is

1198
5. Mitigation Plan

5-26

expected that sediment would accumulate over time, refilling the channel to its current depth of

approximately –12 feet.

Approximately 10.5 mcy of material would be pumped from a 13-mile stretch of the GIWW

approximately 125 feet wide (the width of the GIWW/Deepwater Channel) into the two areas. The first

(LA 3-15B) would be located adjacent to the GIWW and would have the shortest pumping distance; the

second would be located south of LA 3-15B, and pumping would move to it after the first is complete. A

total of 1,304 acres of emergent marsh would be restored, 434 acres of shallow-water habitat would be

improved, and 1,926 acres of existing marsh would be nourished within the total 3,664 acres influenced

by the unconfined flow of dredged material.

Marsh would be constructed by the unconfined flow of dredged material from a hydraulic pipeline.

Frequent pipe movement and careful elevation control would be necessary to obtain the appropriate marsh

elevations. In order to maximize edge in the marsh, topographic relief would be created by varying the

final elevation of material placement, and planting with appropriate native flora at each elevation. The

varied topography would allow for differences in duration of tidal inundation, create different floral

communities, and maximize biodiversity. Tidal creek channels would be constructed in the marsh

creation area after the dredged material has settled. These would be needed to return the area to the

normal tidal regime, facilitate marine organism access, and allow water and nutrients to flow into the

area. The USACE and ICT would monitor these mitigation areas in accordance with the specific success

criteria and monitoring plan presented in Appendix J.

5.5.3 Comparison of Recommended Mitigation Plan to Mitigation

Planning Objectives

The net benefits of the Mitigation Plan are shown in tables 5.4-4 and 5.5-1. Compensatory mitigation was

considered only after impacts were minimized and offset by DMMP BU features. The DMMP features

maximize, to the greatest degree possible, the use of dredged material as a beneficial resource, and share

the material from Sabine Pass equally between the states. The mitigation plan (+1,181 AAHUs) fully

compensates for AAHU losses to state resources in Louisiana and results in a net gain of 338 AAHUs for

the project as a whole. Impacts to East Sabine Lake marshes are replaced in-kind by the marsh mitigation

plans in Willow and Black bayous. Minor productivity impacts to cypress-tupelo swamp on the Sabine

River near the GIWW are not matched in-kind. The ICT considered this to be acceptable since the loss in

function is negligible. Projected FWP salinity levels are within the tolerance levels of these swamps, and

the CIP causes no loss of swamp acreage.

5.5.4 Performance Criteria for DMMP Restoration/Nourishment

and Mitigation Areas

5.5.4.1 Design and Construction

General performance criteria for marsh design and construction for DMMP BU features and Louisiana

mitigation measures are presented below. Reference marshes would be located near to mitigation sites so

1199
5. Mitigation Plan

5-27

that vegetation, salinity regime, and hydrology would be directly comparable. Specific criteria would be

developed during the PED phase.

Goals and Objectives

• To create intertidal marshes compatible with the surrounding natural environment using dredged

material.

• To reach consistent and similar intertidal fluctuations that mimic existing nearby marshes to

provide habitat suitable for local species to survive and grow.

• To create a sustainable habitat that would withstand environmental conditions and anthropogenic

impacts for the period of analysis.

Methods

• Build or reinforce existing containment levees adjacent to large canals with mechanically

dredged, in situ material. Keep containment levees to the minimum necessary to prevent filling of

adjacent navigable canals.

• Place hydraulically dredged material within degraded marsh areas and allow unconfined flow

over larger influence areas.

• Frequently move pipe to prevent the accumulation of unsuitably high elevations of material.

• Allow fine-grained sediments to winnow through fringing marsh while material settles at

discharge locations.

• Shape the material where required and plant vegetation to sustain the intertidal habitat over time.

Standards

• A sustainable marsh habitat maintained.

• Marsh elevations and geotechnical factors shall fall within certain parameters set in the design.

• Marsh water depths, water quality, water temperatures, DO levels, and salinity of the created

marsh shall be favorable to expected flora and comparable to those in reference marshes.

• Water displacement over the tidal cycle shall be similar to reference marshes.

Monitoring and Contingency Plans

Monitoring and contingency plans for the mitigation measures and DMMP BU features are presented in

Appendix J. The monitoring and contingency plans for mitigation measures and BU features have been

developed in accordance with recent implementing guidance for sections 2036 (a) and 2039, respectively,

of WRDA 07, and the monitoring plans for beneficial use of dredged material in Texas and Louisiana as

required by the Section 2039 guidance.

The monitoring plans identify specific ecological success criteria to be used in determining whether the

mitigation and BU DMMP features have been successful. Details of the monitoring plan for all of the

1200
5. Mitigation Plan

5-28

mitigation sites in Louisiana and the BU features are presented in tables 3 and 4, respectively, of

Appendix J. These tables present the key monitoring parameters, periodicity, costs, and responsible

parties.

Periodic monitoring to determine the success of marsh mitigation measures and DMMP BU features

would continue until the Division Commander determines that the ecological success criteria of the

mitigation and DMMP BU features have been met. This determination would be based upon monitoring

results and ICT consultation reports provided by the District Engineer. The ICT would be consulted

annually to determine progress in the planning, construction, and postconstruction evaluation of the

ecological success of these features.

5.5.4.2 Implementation

Upon authorization of the CIP, the USACE would use its Navigational Servitude to obtain access for

construction of the Texas and Louisiana DMMP BU features and the Louisiana mitigation measures, for

the purposes of planning, construction, and postconstruction monitoring. Landowners would be advised

of the need for access. All restored areas would remain jurisdictional wetlands and continue to be subject

to the Servitude; therefore, conservation easements would not be required. Agencies on the ICT have

requested the opportunity to provide input to the future engineering, design, construction, and monitoring

of the project. The ICT would participate in the detailed planning of the marsh creation areas during the

PED phase, monitor construction of the mitigation areas, and participate in planning and conducting

postconstruction monitoring.

1201
6-1

6.0 CONSISTENCY WITH TEXAS AND LOUISIANA COASTAL

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

In an effort to encourage states to better manage coastal areas, Congress enacted the CZMA in 1972.

Texas and Louisiana both have developed and continue to implement federally approved coastal zone

management programs and plans (TCMP and LCMP, respectively). States with approved plans have the

right to review Federal activities (including private activities that require Federal permits) to determine

whether they are consistent to “the maximum extent practicable” with the policies of the state’s coastal

zone management program. Appendix I addresses the compliance of the Preferred Alternative in this

FEIS with the TCMP and LCMP in full detail.

In summary, coastal natural resource areas (CNRAs), would be affected by the Preferred Alternative. The

Preferred Alternative is a result of evaluating six project designs, several mitigation approaches, and

beneficial uses of dredged material. Evaluations were made by an ICT and involved extensive modeling

of ecological functions based on potential impacts, RSLR, and mitigative measures. The alternatives

evaluations included attempts to minimize and avoid CNRAs to the maximum extent practicable and

provide overall benefits to the ecosystem functions.

No net loss of coastal wetlands was a specific goal of the SNWW CIP ICT and alternatives evaluation.

Several components of the DMMP and mitigation plan involve restoration, protection, and enhancement

of coastal wetlands. The Neches River BU Feature would restore 2,853 acres of emergent marsh, nourish

1,234 acres of existing marsh, and improve 871 acres of shallow-water habitat. Additionally, the

mitigation plan consists of restoring five degraded marsh areas east of Sabine Lake near Willow and

Black bayous, Louisiana. This mitigation measure would restore 2,783 acres of emergent marsh in

existing open-water areas within the marsh, improve 957 acres of shallow-water habitat by creating

shallower, smaller ponds and channels within the restored marsh, and stabilize and nourish 4,355 acres of

existing adjacent marsh.

USACE has evaluated the proposed SNWW CIP for consistency with the Texas and Louisiana coastal

management programs, and concluded that the Recommended Plan is fully consistent to the maximum

extent practicable with the enforceable policies of both state programs. An ICT comprised of Federal and

State resource agency representatives from Texas and Louisiana assisted USACE over a nearly 10-year

period to perform appropriate scientific studies and modeling needed to ensure that the proposed project

avoids and minimizes environmental impacts to the greatest extent practicable. USACE in particular notes

that State and Federal agencies including USFWS, NMFS, TPWD, TCEQ, LDEQ, and the EPA have

expressed no outstanding concerns with the project. By letter dated March 30, 2010, the Texas Coastal

Coordination Council concurred with the USACE consistency determination. By letter dated March 31,

2010, the LDNR Office of Coastal Management (OCM) found that the SNWW CIP is conditionally

consistent with their state program. The finding requires that USACE submit an additional consistency

determination no later than the time at which draft contract plans and specifications are circulated for

internal review. A requirement of the conditional consistency is the submission of additional detailed

1202
6. Consistency with Texas and Louisiana Coastal Management Programs

6-2

information on topics that “would include, but not be limited to, the topics of storm surge, bar channel

deepening, salinity, borrow from Sabine Lake, mitigation plans and adequacy, and pipeline relocation.”

The letter also notes that the USACE letter to LDNR-OCM, dated March 19, 2010, does not constitute an

adequate resolution to the issues described. USACE consulted with LDNR (as a member of the ICT)

concerning technical issues raised in this letter, and issues originally approved by LDNR as a member of

the ICT are now being reopened. USACE maintains that the issues, as summarized below, have been

adequately addressed. Since USACE finds that the Recommended Plan is consistent to the maximum

extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the LCMP, USACE does not accept conditional

consistency as proposed by LDNR-OCM. By letter dated April 26, 2010, USACE notified LDNR of its

finding and that it will proceed with the project.

Storm Surge

LDNR asserts that the effects of the deeper shipping channel and the borrow of material from the GIWW

and Sabine Lake may be significant and have not been modeled thoroughly enough to identify all

potential impacts. ERDC-CHL was consulted about the need to model the salinity effect of borrowing

material from the GIWW and Sabine Lake relative to salinity impacts. Neither feature was expected to

increase salinity impacts, and so they were not included in the HS modeling.

ERDC was also consulted on the potential for ODMDSs to increase wave set-up and erosion on Louisiana

shores. ODMDS sites are located too far from shore and in water too deep to affect the Louisiana shore.

Waves of any consequence present within a thousand feet of the shoreline are generally depth limited

because of the mild nearshore slope and the presence of a soft mud (PIE, 2003). The closest ODMDS (#4)

is located between 3.8 and 6 miles from Louisiana in 34 to 43 feet of water. Appendix B discusses

previous monitoring of this ODMDS and studies of bottom ocean currents in the region that have

determined the dredged material would disperse between placement cycles and not accumulate, and thus

would not affect wave set-up or erosion.

ERDC has just completed a sensitivity analysis of potential storm surge impacts from the deeper shipping

channel and placement areas (Wamsley, Cialone, and McAlpin, 2010). The analysis is discussed in more

detail in subsection 4.6.2.1. The analysis clearly and unequivocally identifies no impact to Louisiana from

the deflection of storm surges by the higher PA levees or from the deeper navigation channel. Therefore,

further modeling to identify impacts is not necessary.

Bar Channel Deepening

Modeling of potential impacts on wave climate has been performed by ERDC-CHL as reported by

Gravens and King (2003). The report has been presented on the USACE, Galveston District’s SNWW

webpage since 2003, and it is reported in here in subsection 4.6.2.2. The modeling addressed the changes

in the wave climate that would be produced by a deeper and longer offshore channel, including the Outer

Bar Channel. In the first 2 miles east of Sabine Pass, the net eastward transport would be slightly reduced

(by a maximum of about 1,400 cy/year), and farther east there would be essentially no change. For a

1203
6. Consistency with Texas and Louisiana Coastal Management Programs

6-3

50-foot project, between 1⁄2 mile and 3–4 miles of the east jetty, the accretion would decrease by less than

0.5 foot/year, and farther from the jetties than that, the change in the shoreline would decrease to zero.

This small impact would be more than offset by the proposed Gulf Shore BU feature’s regular shoreline

nourishment at Louisiana Point.

Salinity

LDNR asserts that the SNWW salinity modeling used questionable assumptions and boundary conditions,

and data collected over a short and nonrepresentative time period. Boundary conditions and assumptions

were developed by ERDC and coordinated with the ICT in numerous meetings of the ICT and its MW

from 2000 to 2004, and the revised HS modeling presented at the last ICT meeting on August 27, 2009.

While LDNR participated in most of the MW meetings, and all prior ICT meetings, no representatives

from LDNR attended the last ICT meeting. The ICT presented no objections to the revised modeling at

this meeting. The HS modeling for the Preferred Alternative has been subjected to extensive agency

technical review (ATR) and independent external peer review (IEPR). ATR identified no significant

concerns. The primary IEPR concern related to the need to include the effects of relative sea level rise.

This was included as demonstrated in the latest the HS modeling report (Brown and Stokes, 2009). As

part of the ICT, LDNR participated in the development of modeling assumptions and reviewed the

modeling results. No negative comments were received prior to the consistency determination

coordination.

Borrow Site in Sabine Lake

LDNR has requested more information on design details regarding the proposed Sabine Lake borrow

trench for the Willow Bayou mitigation areas. USACE has agreed to provide all of the information (i.e.,

geotechnical information on borrow quality, analysis of potential access channels, and disposal plans)

needed to develop detailed engineering plans during the PED phase. Designs would minimize impacts to

the maximum extent practicable. This FEIS (subsection 5.5.1) fully evaluates potential impacts of the

access channels and borrow area and has determined that impacts would be minimal and temporary.

LDNR also requires that mitigation of oyster seed ground impacts must be accomplished to the

satisfaction of LDWF. The exact locations of the borrow trench and access channel would be determined

in consultation with the ICT after PED bottom surveys of potential locations. The proposed route of the

access channel was chosen to keep dredging impacts to a minimum; it takes advantage of deeper water in

the center of the lake, thereby minimizing dredging and bottom impacts. Due to low salinity in this area of

Sabine Lake, live oyster reefs are not likely (Fagerberg, 2003; T. Baker Smith, 2006). Nevertheless, as

stated in subsection 5.5.1 and in the USACE letter dated March 4, 2010, to LDWF, USACE has proposed

that a water-bottom survey of the borrow and access channel areas be conducted during the PED phase of

the project. In the unlikely event that oyster reef is encountered, plans will be revised to avoid impacts.

LDNR-OCM asserts that royalty payments and license issues over sediment resources must be resolved

with LDWF before LDNR-OCM can concur that the final design is consistent, to the maximum extent

1204
6. Consistency with Texas and Louisiana Coastal Management Programs

6-4

practicable, with Louisiana Coastal Resources Program. USACE maintains that the United States is not

bound by Louisiana statute (R.S. 56:2011) pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the United States

Constitution, and that Louisiana is not entitled to compensation under the Fifth Amendment, pursuant to

the doctrine of Navigation Servitude. This servitude gives the Federal Government the right to use the

"Navigable Waters" of the United States without compensation for navigation projects. In a letter dated

March 19, 2010, on the issue of payment of royalties, the USACE provided a detailed legal and policy

analysis to support the conclusion that no royalty payments are proper or allowable under current Federal

law.

Mitigation Plans and Adequacy

LDNR asserts that details of the proposed mitigation are insufficient to determine whether all potential

losses will be adequately compensated. USACE disagrees—mitigation site locations have been finalized,

and conceptual designs are sufficient to support ecological modeling of the compensatory mitigation.

USACE has agreed to work with the ICT (which includes LDNR) to obtain all of the information needed

to develop detailed engineering plans, including geotechnical data relevant to site design, during PED.

LDNR asserts that the proposed mitigation plan falls at least 318 AAHUs short of replacing the

anticipated habitat losses to Louisiana, and that additional mitigation will have to be performed in

Louisiana to offset this deficit. USACE maintains that the proposed mitigation plan would more than

compensate for all impacts of the proposed SNWW CIP. LDNR has questioned the use of benefits from

BU features in Texas to offset impacts in Louisiana (see Table 5.1-2). In Louisiana, the benefits of BU

measures offset the loss of 210 AAHUs to private lands along the coast at Louisiana Point, and the loss of

340 AAHUs to Federal land in the SNWR. Exclusion of the Federal SNWR is based upon the definition

of “coastal zone” in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. “Excluded from the coastal

zone are lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the

Federal Government, its officers or agents (16 USC §1453).” The net impact of the project to non-Federal

lands in Louisiana after application of BU benefits is the loss of 1,159 AAHUs, and the proposed

mitigation plan would provide 1,181 AAHUs in order to fully and separately compensate losses to these

lands. Furthermore, the Louisiana marsh mitigation measures would compensate for the predicted loss of

691 acres in Louisiana over 50 years by the restoration of 2,783 acres of emergent marsh, the

improvement of 957 acres of shallow-water habitat, and the nourishment of 4,355 acres of existing marsh.

Since the marsh restoration is several times greater than the predicted marsh loss, there would be no net

loss of wetlands.

LDNR has also questioned the benefits of the Gulf Shore BU feature at Louisiana Point, and asserts that

additional mitigation in Louisiana will be required unless acceptable technical justification of the

projected benefits is provided. The benefits of the BU feature in Louisiana were established by WVA

modeling accomplished by the ICT, of which LDNR was a part. The technical justification presented in

Appendix C, subsection 8.3.1.2 and WVA modeling were reviewed and accepted by the ICT. The

monitoring plan (Appendix J) would determine whether benefits are being reached as predicted.

1205
6. Consistency with Texas and Louisiana Coastal Management Programs

6-5

Pipeline Relocation

A total of 104 pipelines have been identified crossing the SNWW navigation channels. Of the 104

pipelines, 46 require adjustment to meet the minimum required vertical and horizontal clearances for the

SNWW CIP. The individual circumstances of each pipeline will be evaluated by USACE in consultation

with the non-Federal sponsor and the pipeline owner during the PED and Construction phases, and

decisions regarding necessary actions will be made individually for each pipeline at that time. Costs of

pipeline relocations have been included in the economic analysis of potential project benefits. Direct and

indirect economic benefits of the proposed deepening will accrue to all users of the SNWW, including the

energy industries, and to the regional economy in Louisiana as established by an independent economic

analysis (Martin Associates, 2006). The economic analysis presented in FFR Section V.F establishes that

there would be a net economic benefit to the country from the proposed project. Minimal impacts to

Louisiana industries are anticipated because construction would work around pipeline relocations as

needed to accommodate all parties for a safe, effective, and minimally disruptive working plan.

1206
6. Consistency with Texas and Louisiana Coastal Management Programs

6-6

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1207
7-1

7.0 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL

PLANS AND REGULATIONS

This FEIS has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of all applicable environmental laws and

regulations and has been prepared using the CEQ NEPA regulations (40 CFR Part 1500–1508) and the

USACE’s regulation ER 200-2-2 (Environmental Quality: Policy and Procedures for Implementing

NEPA, 33 CFR 230). The USACE will follow provisions of all applicable laws, regulations, and policies

related to the proposed actions, including those for which applicability, review, and enforcement are their

responsibility. Additionally, the local sponsor may be required to secure local municipal permits as a

“Land, Easements, Rights-of-Way, Relocation, and Disposal Areas” requirement. The following sections

present brief summaries of Federal environmental laws, regulations, plans, and coordination requirements

applicable to this FEIS.

7.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

This FEIS has been prepared in accordance with CEQ regulations in compliance with NEPA provisions.

All impacts on terrestrial and aquatic resources have been identified, significant adverse impacts requiring

mitigation have been identified, and mitigation has been proposed.

7.2 RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1899

Sections 9 (33 USC 401) and 10 (33 USC 403) are related to structural construction and dredge-and/or-fill

activities, respectively, within U.S. navigable waterways. The USACE authorizes permits under this

statute. While the agency would not issue a permit for its own actions, the USACE would meet and be

consistent with all applicable elements of the statute. Additionally, the USACE and ICT determined that

dredged material testing was required under the related Regulatory Guidance Letter 06-02 (Guidance on

Dredged Material Testing for Purposes of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers

and Harbors Act, and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, July

6, 2002). Results are presented in sections 3.3 and 3.4.

7.3 CLEAN WATER ACT

USACE has received §401 State Water Quality Certification from Texas and Louisiana for this action.

Both states have determined that the requirements for water quality certification have been met and have

concluded that the placement of fill material will not violate water quality standards of each state. The

Preferred Alternative is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. A CWA §404(b)(1)

evaluation of the proposed action, provided in Appendix E of this FEIS, describes the effects of the

proposed discharges. Short-term increases in turbidity may be caused by the unconfined flow of dredged

material during construction of BU features and mitigation measures. Proposed channel improvements

should decrease the number of vessel trips, thus decreasing the probability of a spill.

1208
7. Consistency with Other State and Federal Regulations

7-2

Appendix E of this FEIS contains the §401(b)(1) evaluation needed for state water quality certification.

All relevant sediment and water quality data for both new work and maintenance dredging material were

reviewed by a team of State and Federal resource agencies (the CW of the ICT), including the TCEQ and

LDEQ, and they found no cause for concern over water or sediment quality in any channel reach. New

work sediments were deemed suitable for use in constructing BU or mitigation sites and upland confined

PAs, although excess new work material would have to be placed in upland confined PAs. Maintenance

material would be handled according to the DMMP. The DMMP measures maximize, to the greatest

degree possible, the use of dredged material as a beneficial resource, and share the material from Sabine

Pass equally between the states.

7.4 CLEAN AIR ACT of 1970

The CAA is the comprehensive Federal law that regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile

sources. An analysis of estimated air contaminant emissions from equipment (including dredges and

support equipment such as tugboats, runabouts, and tenders, as well as land based equipment such as

bulldozers and employee vehicles) associated with the proposed CIP is expected to result in short-term

impacts on air quality in the immediate vicinity of the project area, but no long-term impacts are

expected. Emissions of VOC for the project are exempt from a General Conformity Determination

because they are below the general conformity threshold of 100 tons per year. However, estimated NOx

emissions for the Preferred Alternative exceed the general conformity threshold; i.e., greater than 100 tpy,

for all years of construction.

Pursuant to Section 176 of the CAA Amendments of 1990, the USACE prepared a document entitled,

“Draft General Conformity Determination, Sabine-Neches Channel Improvement Project.” This

document was noticed for public comment and was submitted by the USACE to the TCEQ, the EPA, and

other air pollution control agencies, as appropriate, concurrently with this DEIS. As part of the General

Conformity process, the USACE made this document available to the public for review and comment for

a period of 30 days. The TCEQ has provided written concurrence that emissions from the Preferred

Alternative are conformant with the Texas SIP for the BPA (Appendix A1). Based on TCEQ’s comments,

the USACE has prepared a Final General Conformity Determination for the proposed SNWW CIP

(Appendix F).

7.5 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966

Compliance with the NHPA of 1966, as amended, requires identification of all NRHP-listed or NRHPeligible properties in the project area and development of mitigation measures for those adversely affected

in coordination with the Texas and Louisiana SHPOs and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

As indicated in Section 3.13, this project would not impact NRHP-listed properties or SALs; however, it

may potentially adversely impact terrestrial and marine historic properties eligible for listing in the

NRHP. This FEIS has been coordinated with the Texas and Louisiana SHPOs. An HPPA (Appendix H)

has been executed among the Texas and Louisiana SHPOs, the SNND and USACE to address subsequent

investigations, coordinate surveys of impact areas, test potentially eligible sites, and manage data

recovery or avoidance measures as necessary. Tribal coordination, required by the NHPA, has been

1209
7. Consistency with Other State and Federal Regulations

7-3

conducted. Tribes with historical or cultural ties to the region were contacted early in the study to identify

their interests and concerns. The draft Programmatic Agreement has also been coordinated with the

Tribes. No Tribes have requested to become consulting parties, and no impacts to Tribal land or

traditional cultural properties have been identified.

7.6 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Potential impacts to federally listed threatened and endangered species have been assessed by the USACE

in a BA. The BA determined that several federally listed species of sea turtles and wintering populations

of the piping plover and its Critical Habitat could potentially be affected by project construction or

operation. The BA concluded that the Preferred Alternative would not jeopardize the continued existence

of piping plovers or result in the adverse modification of its designated Critical Habitat. Potential impacts

to sea turtles from hopper dredging were identified, and interagency consultation under Section 7 of the

ESA was initiated. NOAA/NMFS responded with a BO as outlined under Section 7(c) of the ESA of

1973, as amended. The BA and BO are presented in Appendix G of this FEIS; other related

correspondence is present in Appendix A2. While the project alternative changed, project-related impacts

remained the same and therefore the BO conclusions would remain the same.

Potential impacts to the wintering piping plover would be associated with implementation of the Gulf

Shore BU Feature. The recurring placement of dredged material for shoreline nourishment would affect

areas of designated Critical Habitat. The USFWS has designated the entire shoreline between Constance

Beach and Sabine Pass (Unit LA 1, in part) as Critical Habitat for wintering piping plover. Proposed

beach nourishment activities at Louisiana Point would occur along approximately 3 miles of this unit,

beginning approximately 0.5 mile east of Sabine Pass. No designated Critical Habitat, or even suitable

habitat, is present along the Texas portion of the Gulf Shore BU Feature. The USFWS, in letters dated

March 20 and March 22, 2007 (Appendix A2), concurred that the Preferred Alternative is not likely to

adversely affect the piping plover or its Critical Habitat and the brown pelican. The USFWS Louisiana

Field Office stated that no further ESA consultation would be required with its office unless changes are

made to the scope or location of the project. The USFWS Clear Lake Field Office letter was silent on the

need for further consultation. However, the USACE staff confirmed by telephone that no further ESA

consultation would be required unless changes are made to the scope or location of the project. The Clear

Lake Field Office did recommend that steps be taken to determine whether bald eagles are nesting within

or near the project area since the number of bald eagles in Texas is increasing. Prior to project

construction, the USACE would check with the TPWD and local landowners to determine whether there

have been recent bald eagle sightings and determine the need for surveys and further coordination at that

time.

The USFWS provided further guidance in a letter dated February 5, 2010, and recommended that all

activity in Louisiana occurring within 2,000 feet of a brown pelican rookery be restricted to the nonnesting period (i.e., September 15 through March 31). However, because nesting periods vary

considerably among Louisiana's colonies, it is possible that this activity window could be altered based

upon the dynamics of the individual colony. Prior to project construction, the LDWF Fur and Refuge

1210
7. Consistency with Other State and Federal Regulations

7-4

Division will be contacted to obtain the most current information about the nesting chronology of

individual brown pelican colonies. In Texas, the USFWS recommended all activity occurring within

1,000 feet of a rookery be restricted to the non-nesting season.

Loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, leatherback, and green sea turtles may be present in the study area

waters during certain times of the year. Construction and postconstruction maintenance activities

involving the use of hopper dredges could result in impacts to sea turtles. No critical habitat for sea turtles

is present in the study area, and there have been no reports of sea turtles nesting in the study area, as most

of the shoreline is an eroding, muddy marsh. The NMFS has concluded that hopper dredging during

construction and maintenance is likely to adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, leatherback, or green sea turtles. The Opinion

authorizes incidental lethal take of four turtles (three Kemp’s ridley sea turtles and one loggerhead or

green sea turtle) during the course of the proposed project’s hopper dredging. Only incidental takes that

occur while the specified reasonable and prudent measures are in full implementation are authorized.

These measures specify that (1) dredging should be completed, whenever possible, within specified

temperature and date-based dredging windows; (2) NMFS-approved protected species observers must

provide 100 percent monitoring during certain date and temperature-determined periods; (3) rigid

deflector dragheads must be used on hopper dredges at all times; and (4) relocation trawling is required

after the take of one sea turtle during the project. The Opinion authorizes the per-fiscal-year nonlethal

noninjurious take, external flipper-tagging, and taking of tissue samples of 32 sea turtles in any

combination in association with any relocation trawling conducted during hopper dredging. Maintenancedredging activities for the proposed project are covered by an existing agreement between the NMFS and

USACE regarding the taking of sea turtles with hopper dredges to ensure that significant impacts do not

occur (NOAA, 2003).

7.7 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT AND MIGRATORY

BIRD CONSERVATION ACT

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (as amended) extends Federal protection to migratory bird

species; among other activities, nonregulated “take” of migratory birds is prohibited under this Act in a

manner similar to the ESA prohibition of “take” of threatened and endangered species. Additionally,

EO 13186, “Responsibility of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds,” requires Federal activities to

assess and consider potential effects of their actions on migratory birds (including, but not limited to,

cranes, ducks, geese, shorebirds, hawks, and songbirds). The effect of the Preferred Alternative on

migratory bird species has been assessed. The USFWS has concurred that the Preferred Alternative is not

likely to affect designated piping plover habitat at Louisiana Point. DMMP marsh restoration and

Louisiana marsh mitigation areas would result in a net increase in migratory bird habitat in the project

area. Construction contracts would include instructions to avoid impacts to migratory birds and their nests

from construction-related activities. The Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715–715d, 715e,

715f–715r; 45 Stat. 1222) establishes a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve areas of

land or water for acquisition as reservations for migratory birds and is not applicable to the project.

1211
7. Consistency with Other State and Federal Regulations

7-5

7.8 FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT OF 1958

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act directs Federal agencies to consult with the USFWS and relevant

state wildlife resource agencies regarding potential impacts to wildlife from proposed improvements like

the proposed SNWW CIP. The intent of this consultation is to help prevent the loss of and damage to

wildlife resources from water development projects. USACE has consulted with the USFWS throughout

the ICT process, and as a result, USFWS recommendations have been incorporated into the final impact

assessment and the BU and compensatory mitigation plans for the Preferred Alternative. The USFWS

submitted a Coordination Act Report (CAR) that affirms the USACE impact assessment and approves the

proposed BU and mitigation plans. The CAR, dated March 16, 2010, is presented in Appendix A3.

7.9 NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

ACT OF 1997

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 amended the National Wildlife Refuge

System Administration Act of 1966 to improve management of the NWR System. An amendment to the

1966 Act requires that each refuge administrator review any proposed new use of a refuge to determine

whether its use is compatible with the purposes of the refuge and consistent with public safety. Since the

proposed Willow Bayou mitigation measures LA 2-18 and LA 2-ADD B are located in the Sabine NWR,

and the proposed Gulf Shore BU Feature at Texas Point is located in the Texas Point NWR, the USACE

has requested compatibility determinations from each refuge manager. Each refuge must identify the

effects of the proposed use on refuge resources and provide an opportunity for public review and

comment.

7.10 MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972

The Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed in 1972 and amended through 1997. It is intended to

conserve and protect marine mammals and establish the Marine Mammal Commission, the International

Dolphin Conservation Program, and a Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program. The

Preferred Alternative is in compliance with this Act. No impacts to marine mammals are expected.

7.11 FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF

1996

Congress enacted amendments to the MSFCMA (PL 94-265) in 1996 that established procedures for

identifying EFH and required interagency coordination to further the conservation of federally managed

fisheries. EFH consists of those habitats necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity

of species managed by Regional Fishery Management Councils in a series of Fishery Management Plans.

Rules published by the NMFS (50 CFR sections 600.805–600.930) specify that any Federal agency that

authorizes, funds, or undertakes, or proposes to authorize, fund, or undertake an activity that could

adversely affect EFH is subject to the consultation provisions of the above-mentioned Act and identifies

consultation requirements. Sections 3.10 and 4.11 of this FEIS were prepared to address EFH in the

project area and to initiate consultation under the Act. Any detrimental impacts of the Preferred

1212
7. Consistency with Other State and Federal Regulations

7-6

Alternative on EFH are minor and temporary, but the project would provide indirect benefits since the

project, including the DMMP restoration sites, would lead to an overall net gain in marsh habitat. The

NMFS, by letter dated March 8, 2010, has concurred with the FEIS assessment of EFH impacts, and

concurs that the proposed BU features and mitigation will offset the adverse impacts to EFH and provide

a net-benefit to federally managed fisheries. No further consultation under the MSFCMA with NOAA or

NMFS is required.

7.12 FEDERAL WATER PROJECT RECREATION ACT

The Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1995 requires consideration of opportunities for outdoor

recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement in planning water resource projects. The beneficial uses

included in the project for the construction and maintenance material include uses requested by various

recreational groups, environmental groups, and State and Federal regulatory agencies. All would benefit

one or more of the items listed above.

7.13 MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES

ACT OF 1972

This Act requires a determination that dredged material placement in the ocean would not reasonably

degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities or the marine environment, ecological systems,

or economic potential (shellfish beds, fisheries, or recreational areas). Maintenance and construction

dredged material proposed for placement at the existing and new ODMDSs, designated by the EPA under

Section 102 of Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), is subject to evaluation using

the ocean dumping environmental criteria. The proposed new ODMDSs are outlined in Appendix B. The

conclusion of the ODMDS Designation FEIS (Appendix B) was that the Preferred ODMDSs met all of

the 5 general and 11 specific criteria listed in 40 CFR 228.5 and 228.6 and are therefore acceptable under

the MPRSA. All material transported for ocean disposal would be evaluated pursuant to the EPA Ocean

Dumping Regulations and Criteria (Section 103). Use of the ODMDSs would be in accordance with an

approved Site Monitoring and Management Plan (SMMP).

7.14 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

In an effort to encourage states to better manage coastal areas, Congress enacted the CZMA in 1972.

Texas and Louisiana both have developed and continue to implement federally approved coastal zone

management programs and plans (TCMP and LCMP, respectively). States with approved plans have the

right to review Federal activities (including private activities that require Federal permits) to determine

whether they are consistent to “the maximum extent practicable” with the policies of the state’s coastal

zone management program. Appendix I addresses the compliance of the Preferred Alternative in this

FEIS with the TCMP and LCMP in full detail.

In summary, CNRAs would be affected by the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is a result

of evaluating six project designs, several mitigation approaches, and beneficial uses of dredged material.

Evaluations were made by the ICT and involved extensive modeling of ecological functions based on

1213
7. Consistency with Other State and Federal Regulations

7-7

potential impacts, RSLR, and mitigative measures. The alternatives evaluations included attempts to

minimize and avoid CNRAs to the maximum extent practicable and provide overall benefits to the

ecosystems functions.

No net loss of coastal wetlands was a specific goal of the ICT and alternatives evaluation. Several

components of the DMMP and mitigation plan involve restoration, protection, and enhancement of

coastal wetlands. The Neches River BU Feature would restore 2,853 acres of emergent marsh, nourish

1,234 acres of existing marsh, and improve 871 acres of shallow-water habitat. Additionally, the

mitigation plan consists of restoring five degraded marsh areas east of Sabine Lake near Willow and

Black bayous, Louisiana. This mitigation measure would restore 2,783 acres of emergent marsh in

existing open-water areas within the marsh, improve 957 acres of shallow-water habitat by creating

shallower, smaller ponds and channels within the restored marsh, and stabilize and nourish 4,355 acres of

existing adjacent marsh.

USACE has evaluated the proposed SNWW CIP for consistency with the Texas and Louisiana coastal

management programs, and concluded that the Recommended Plan is fully consistent to the maximum

extent practicable with the enforceable policies of both state programs. The Texas Coastal Coordination

Council has concurred with the USACE consistency determination. The LDNR-OCM found that the

SNWW CIP is conditionally consistent with their state program. Since conditional consistency as

proposed by LDNR-OCM is not acceptable, LDNR-OCM has been notified that USACE will proceed

with the project. This issue is discussed in further detail in Section 6.0.

7.15 COASTAL BARRIER IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1990

This act is intended to protect fish and wildlife resources and habitat, prevent loss of human life, and

preclude the expenditure of Federal funds that may induce development on coastal barrier islands and

adjacent nearshore areas. The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 was enacted to reauthorize the

Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982. The Gulf shoreline at the Texas Point NWR is

designated as an “otherwise protected area” (unit T01P). The Gulf shoreline in the Louisiana portion of

the study area contains no CBRA-designated units. Exceptions to the Federal expenditure restrictions also

include maintenance or constructed improvement(s) to existing Federal navigational channels and related

structures (e.g., jetties), including the disposal of dredged materials related to maintenance and

construction (The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, n.d.); therefore, the Preferred Alternative is

exempt from the prohibitions identified in the act.

7.16 FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT OF 1981 AND

THE CEQ MEMORANDUM PRIME AND UNIQUE

FARMLANDS

In 1980, the CEQ issued an Environmental Statement Memorandum “Prime and Unique Agricultural

Lands” as a supplement to the NEPA procedures. Additionally, the Farmland Protection Policy Act was

passed in 1981, requiring consideration of those soils, which the USDA defines as best suited for food,

forage, fiber, and oilseed production, with the highest yield relative to the lowest expenditure of energy

1214
7. Consistency with Other State and Federal Regulations

7-8

and economic resources. The NRCS concurred that the “prime farmland if drained” soil mapped in PA

24A is not Important Farmland, and provided the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form indicating an

exemption.

7.17 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

The Preferred Alternative includes the development of two new PAs (PA18A and PA24) and the Neches

River BU Feature within the floodplain of the Neches River. Alternatives to avoid the adverse effects of

developing the two new PAs in the floodplain were evaluated, and it has been determined that this is the

only practicable alternative. The Neches River BU Feature would construct marsh in areas of open water

within the floodplain that formerly were emergent marsh; they would remain jurisdictional wetlands after

construction. Development in the BU areas would be controlled by Section 404 regulations, and their

construction would not be expected to induce growth in the floodplain. BU alternatives were evaluated in

consideration of existing drainages to ensure that restored wetland areas would not induce flooding. This

FEIS fulfills public notification requirements as it provides an explanation of why these project features

are proposed to be located in the floodplain and provides an opportunity for the public to comment on

these plans.

7.18 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990, PROTECTION OF WETLANDS

This EO directs Federal Agencies to avoid undertaking or assisting in new construction in wetlands,

unless no practical alternative is available. One of the two new PAs proposed for development (PA 24A)

would result in the conversion of 86 acres of wetlands to a confined PA. Alternatives to avoid the loss of

86 acres of wetlands were evaluated, and it has been determined that this is the only practicable

alternative. The Preferred Alternative’s Neches River BU Feature would result in a net gain in wetlands

along the lower Neches River, and the ecological benefits of this feature would more than offset the loss

of 86 wetland acres due to the construction of PA 24A. The Neches River BU Feature would construct

marsh in areas of open water within the floodplain that formerly were emergent marsh; they would remain

jurisdictional wetlands after construction. The Neches River BU Feature would improve water quality,

inhibit erosion and sediment loss, and restore habitat for fish and wildlife species, improving the longterm productivity of the lower Neches River ecosystem.

7.19 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13112, INVASIVE SPECIES

Under EO 13112, Federal agencies may not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely

to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species unless the agency has determined and

made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused

by invasive species. Related to project development and implementation, Federal agencies whose

action(s) may affect the status of invasive species are required to use relevant programs, information, and

authorities to do the following:

• prevent the introduction and/or spread of invasive species;

• accurately monitor invasive species populations related to their area of effects;

1215
7. Consistency with Other State and Federal Regulations

7-9

• provide restoration for natural vegetation communities adversely affected by invasive species;

• provide environmentally sound control of invasive species; and

• consult with the Invasive Species Council and ensure their actions are consistent with the

Invasive Species Management Plan.

Although ship traffic would increase with the Preferred Alternative, the increase would be less than the

predicted growth of ship traffic under the No-Action Alternative, and therefore, no additional impacts

with respect to ballast water are expected. Furthermore, no changes in foreign ports of call are predicted.

7.20 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

This EO directs Federal agencies to determine whether the Preferred Alternative would have a

disproportionate adverse impact on minority or low-income population groups within the project area.

The Preferred Alternative would not significantly affect any low-income or minority population (Section

4.12).

7.21 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE,

COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT AND RESOURCE

CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (as

amended) was designed to help clean up the nation's inactive hazardous waste sites. There are a variety of

different requirements included in this sweeping legislation. CERCLA also requires industries to disclose

to their communities what hazardous substances they use and store. CERCLA authorized the EPA to

remediate polluted sites; for this purpose it created Superfund to pay for site cleanups when there is no

clear-cut responsible party. The EPA can also pursue potentially responsible parties to make them pay for

response and remediation activities. Superfund, 40 CFR 302–310, authorized the EPA to respond to and

remedy polluted sites and created Superfund to pay for site cleanups when a responsible party could not

be identified.

The RCRA of 1976 (as amended) provides for comprehensive cradle-to-grave regulation of hazardous

waste and authorizes environmental agencies to order the cleanup of contaminated sites. Since 1984, it

has also called for the extensive regulation of underground storage tanks and the cleanup of

contamination caused by leaking tanks. In addition, RCRA addresses the environmental problems

associated with nonhazardous solid waste and encourages states to develop solid waste management

programs, regulate solid waste landfills, and eliminate open dumps. Federal facilities are required to

comply with Federal, State, and local regulations and requirements on solid and hazardous waste and

underground storage tanks to the same extent as private parties. RCRA contains provisions on a number

of other topics, such as resource recovery, used oil management and recycling, small town environmental

planning, and plastic ring carriers. While most RCRA provisions focus on the protection of human health,

its wide-ranging attempts to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution have an obvious, if largely unstated,

effect on wildlife protection as well.

1216
7. Consistency with Other State and Federal Regulations

7-10

These acts require the reporting of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste and prescribe specific handling

and remediation requirements. A records search was performed to identify possible RCRA and CERCLA

sites in or near the project area, and these are described in the FEIS. An evaluation of the potential for

these sites to impact the proposed project was conducted, and yielded the following concern. Contaminant

issues affecting PA 17 must be resolved by the non-Federal sponsor before the PA can be used as part of

the preferred alternative. Alternative placement areas are available should this not be resolved in time for

use.

7.22 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION – HAZARDOUS

WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS

In accordance with FAA AC 150/5200-33 and the Memorandum of Agreement among the FAA, the

USACE, and other Federal agencies (July 2003), the Preferred Alternative was evaluated to determine if

proposed land uses could increase wildlife hazards to aircraft using public use airports in the study area.

Potential attractants (four existing PAs) were found to be located between the 10,000-foot and 5-mile

perimeters of the Southeast Texas Regional Airport in Beaumont, Texas. No new PAs would be

constructed within the separation perimeters, and no change in land use is proposed in conjunction with

the Preferred Alternative. USACE provided this information to the FAA, and concluded that continued

use of the four existing PAs does not constitute a change in land-use and is compatible with airport

operations.

7.23 TEXAS CHENIER PLAIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

COMPLEX COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN

The Texas Chenier Plain NWR Complex is four units administered by the USFWS: Anahuac NWR,

McFaddin NWR, Texas Point NWR, and Moody NWR. These units are located along the upper Texas

Gulf Coast in Chambers, Jefferson, and Galveston counties. Only the Texas Point NWR is located within

the SNWW study area. The Refuge Complex’s aquatic habitats (open-water and near-shore Gulf

habitats), freshwater to saline marshes, riparian habitats, coastal woodlots, rice fields, native prairies,

cheniers and coastal beach, and dune habitats harbor over 300 bird species, 75 species of freshwater fish,

and 400 species of salt and brackish water finfish and shellfish.

Long-term, large-scale alterations to the region—over 100,000 acres of coastal wetland loss in 25 years;

loss and conversion of more than 99 percent of the historic tallgrass prairie along the Louisiana and Texas

Gulf Coasts for agriculture, residential, and commercial uses; increases in nonnative plant and animal

species; loss or severe restriction of freshwater and sediment inflows and increased saltwater intrusion;

and ongoing threats from sea level rise and land subsidence—have prompted the USFWS to act to

facilitate the long-term protection of natural resources in the region.

The Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)

provides a 15-year vision to identify and propose solutions to significant problems that may adversely

affect the populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants and the actions necessary to correct or

1217
7. Consistency with Other State and Federal Regulations

7-11

mitigate such problems (USFWS, 2008a). The CCP has four goals: (1) conserve, enhance and restore the

refuge’s coastal wetlands to provide habitat for native fish and wildlife; (2) conserve, enhance and restore

the refuge’s coastal prairies and coastal woodlands to provide habitat for native fish and wildlife; (3)

implement a comprehensive biological program to guide and support conservation effort for all native

fish, wildlife, and plant species; and (4) work with others on a landscape level to address threats to natural

biological diversity, ecological integrity, and environmental health on the Refuge Complex. Specific

strategies will include habitat restoration, protection, and land acquisition from willing sellers.

The Preferred Alternative would impact the goals of the CCP by causing small increases in salinity and

land loss, and related decreases in productivity within the intermediate, brackish, and saline marshes of

the Texas Point NWR. However, losses quantified by the WVA model would be more than offset by

gains from the regular beneficial use of dredged material for shoreline nourishment at Texas Point. This

BU feature complies with another goal of the CCP—the restoration of sediment supply to the Gulf’s

nearshore littoral zone at Texas Point NWR through the beneficial use of dredged material. Other CCP

goals (restoration of hydrology by reducing saltwater intrusion with rock weirs or earthen plugs in Texas

Bayou, and using dredged material to restore mineral sediment to interior marsh) were thoroughly

evaluated in the screening of BU and mitigation measures. Construction of rock weirs or earthen plugs at

Texas Bayou were determined to be ineffective in reducing saltwater intrusion. The beneficial use of

dredged material to restore interior marsh would be feasible, but the cost would exceed the Traditional

Placement Plan. The latter goal could be pursued if a non-Federal sponsor offers to pay the incremental

cost of construction. The SNWW CIP does not conflict with any of the refuge expansion goals of the

Texas Point NWR.

7.24 SABINE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN

The Sabine NWR is part of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which also

includes Cameron Prairie and Lacassine NWRs to the east within Cameron Parish, and Shell Keys NWR

in Iberia Parish. Only the western portion of the Sabine NWR (portions of Unit 5, excluding Pool 3, Unit

6, and Unit 7) is located within the SNWW study area. The refuge contains a diversity of habitat

including extensive coastal marshes and open water, wooded ridges and levees, canals, ponds, and

bayous. The refuge provides habitat for many species of wildlife, including ducks, geese, alligators,

muskrats, nutria, raptors, wading birds, shorebirds, blue crabs, shrimp, and finfish. It is one of the primary

overwintering refuges for waterfowl in the Mississippi Flyway.

Overall, the greatest risk to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats in the Chenier Plain ecosystem is from

extensive wetland habitat degradation and loss that has occurred over the past century. Wetlands in the

Chenier Plain declined 16 percent from the mid-1960s to 1990. These habitat losses have led to

commensurate impacts on wildlife populations, especially those dependent on wetlands. These losses

have prompted the USFWS to implement a 15-year protection plan to facilitate wetland preservation and

restoration, a most important wildlife conservation priority of the Gulf Coast ecosystem.

1218
7. Consistency with Other State and Federal Regulations

7-12

The CCP provides a 15-year vision to identify and propose solutions to significant problems that may

adversely affect the populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants and the actions necessary to

correct or mitigate such problems (USFWS, 2008b). CCP primary goals include (1) maintaining,

restoring, and enhancing unique coastal wetland habitats on the refuge to provide favorable conditions to

improve species diversity and richness of migratory birds and native terrestrial and aquatic species; and

(2) maintaining healthy and viable wildlife and fish populations on the refuge to contribute to the purpose

for which it was established.

The Preferred Alternative would impact the first goal of the CCP by causing small increases in salinity

and land loss, and related decreases in productivity within the intermediate, brackish, and saline marshes

of the refuge. However, losses as quantified by the WVA model would be more than offset by gains from

the regular beneficial use of dredged material for shoreline nourishment at Louisiana Point and other BU

features associated with the project in Texas. In addition, it is proposed that two of the compensatory

mitigation measures proposed for the SNWW CIP be located within the Sabine NWR. These measures

would employ one of the management strategies recommended by the CCP—using dredged material to

restore mineral sediment to emergent marsh in degraded areas of the refuge. In the long term, these

mitigation areas would contribute to the restoration of habitat and maintenance of healthy fish and

wildlife populations in the refuge.

7.25 TEXAS COASTWIDE EROSION RESPONSE PLAN

The Texas Coastwide Erosion Response Plan has identified several parts of the study area as “critical

erosion areas” because of impacts to habitats and traffic safety from ongoing erosion, and has called for

an increase in the beneficial use of dredged material from the SNWW project to help address these issues.

The plan was developed as part of the CEPRA (GLO, 2004, 2005). The program has identified the Gulf

shoreline between Texas Point and Sea Rim State Park as a critical erosion area. It attributes the erosion,

in part, to a lack of sediment coming down the Sabine and Neches rivers, and the interruption of

longshore sediment transport by the SNWW jetties. The CEPRA Plan recommends that long-term

regional sediment management be utilized, along with highway realignment and beach dune restoration,

to protect the important coastal evacuation route of SH 87 in Jefferson County. In Orange County, the

CEPRA Plan calls for restoration of 9,400 acres of marsh in the Lower Neches River using dredged

material to raise soil elevations in the former marsh areas that have become open water. The Preferred

Alternative would address some of the ongoing problems by using maintenance material for shoreline

nourishment at Texas Point and by restoring and nourishing approximately 5,000 acres of marsh in the

Lower Neches River floodplain.

7.26 LOUISIANA COAST 2050

In Louisiana, the Coast 2050 is a comprehensive, ecosystem-based restoration plan, completed in 1998 to

address coastal wetland loss throughout southern Louisiana. Planning involved Federal, State, and local

entities, landowners, environmentalists, wetland scientists, and others in the development of an integrated,

1219
7. Consistency with Other State and Federal Regulations

7-13

multiple-use approach to ecosystem management. A major funding source for these projects comes from

the Federal CWPPRA. The SNWW is located in Region 4 of this plan.

The goals of Coast 2050 are to:

• Sustain coastal ecosystem with the essential functions and values of the natural ecosystem

• Restore the ecosystem to the highest practicable acreage of productive and diverse wetlands

• Accomplish this restoration through an integrated program that has multiple use benefits

In the Sabine Lake area, Coast 2050 strategies include:

• Maintain Sabine River inflow

• Beneficial use of dredged material for marsh creation

• Seasonally operated locks at the mouths of navigation channels to relieve salinity stress on

marshes

Detailed strategies for specific areas are described in the Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal

Louisiana (LCWCR/WCRA, 1998). The USACE, New Orleans District, and LDNR prepared the

Louisiana Coastal Area Feasibility Study to provide the necessary technical data required to implement

the conceptual plan of the Coast 2050 document (USACE, 2004a). The Preferred Alternative would

impact the first goal of the Coast 2050 Plan by causing small increases in salinity and land loss, and small

decreases in productivity. However, these losses would be fully compensated by marsh restoration

mitigation measures in the Willow and Black bayou watersheds.

7.27 LOUISIANA COASTAL AREAS ECOSYSTEM

RESTORATION STUDY AND PLAN

The LCA Ecosystem Restoration Study (USACE, 2004a) documented the most critical human and natural

needs of the endangered Louisiana coastal area, identified short- and long-term critical priorities, and

recommended large-scale, long-term studies that were beyond the scope of that study. The eastern half of

the SNWW study area is located in the western part of Region 4, the Chenier Plain. Without any

preservation or restoration actions, the report predicted that Sabine Lake wetlands would continue to

experience severe wetland deterioration and land loss due to increased salinity levels and marine

influences from the SNWW and the GIWW, relative sea level change, tropical storms, oil and gas

infrastructure, sediment reduction/vertical accretion deficit, and saltwater intrusion resulting from

diminished freshwater inflow.

For Region 4 as a whole, existing rates of habitat loss are predicted to continue, resulting in the loss by

2050 of 9.8 percent of existing fresh marsh, 16.3 percent of intermediate marsh, 100 percent of saline

marsh, and 33.3 percent of swamp habitat. Brackish marsh and open water are predicted to increase by

46.5 and 11.4 percent, respectively. This would reduce habitat diversity and result in a long-term loss of

an estimated 37 square miles of land loss.

1220
7. Consistency with Other State and Federal Regulations

7-14

The LCA report did not recommend any near-term critical restoration features for congressional

authorization or additional study in Region 4. While beneficial use of dredged material from the Calcasieu

Channel is recommended for wetlands adjacent to that channel, no beneficial use projects are identified

for the marshes along the eastern shore of Sabine Lake. A long-term, large-scale study of freshwater and

sediment management in the Chenier Plain was recommended and this would include the portion of the

SNWW study area east of Sabine Lake and the Sabine River. The Preferred Alternative does not include

any features that would conflict with future restoration features. Impacts of the proposed project would be

fully compensated by the marsh mitigation measures.

7.28 LOUISIANA’S COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

Louisiana has developed a coastal master plan that integrates planning for ecosystem restoration and

hurricane protection in planning for a sustainable coast (LCPRA, 2007). The master plan establishes a

clear set of priorities for comprehensive coastal protection in Louisiana. In the Chenier Plain, the plan

notes that navigation channels and canals have allowed salt water to penetrate inland, destroying fringe

marsh and impinging on freshwater lakes. The plan recommends the development of a new plan to

develop appropriate measures to address these impacts. Portions of the plan that affect the SNWW study

area are as follows. The Chenier Plain Freshwater and Sediment Management and Reallocation Plan

suggests managing river and surface fresh water supplies to ensure availability of fresh water throughout

the year. This management would also permit the delivery of fresh water to areas exposed to saltwater

stress. It is suggested that the GIWW could be used as a conduit to distribute fresh water from the

Atchafalaya River toward marshes to the west. The plan also seeks to maintain the integrity of freshwater

resources by raising and fortifying selected portions of SH 82, installing segmented offshore breakwaters

to protect the barrier shoreline, fortifying dredged material banks along the GIWW, and placing saltwater

barriers on the SNWW to manage salinity levels. The plan recognizes that safe and efficient navigation

must be maintained when implementing such a project. It suggests that a barrier could be operated

periodically to manage saltwater intrusion events. Marsh restoration using dredged material from

maintenance dredging of navigation channels is also recommended. In planning hurricane protection

structures, the plan emphasizes nonstructural solutions such as flood insurance, elevating and retrofitting

structures, and revising building codes. No structural solutions for hurricane protection are recommended

for the study area. The State’s Annual Plan would be the vehicle for presenting yearly scheduling and cost

information about proposed projects. The Preferred Alternative does not include any features that would

conflict with restoration priorities of this plan. Impacts of the proposed project would be fully

compensated by marsh mitigation measures.

7.29 LOUISIANA COASTAL PROTECTION AND

RESTORATION

In February 2008, the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Draft Technical Report was released

for public review and comment (USACE, 2008a). The study was conducted as a joint effort of the Federal

government and the State of Louisiana to investigate and integrate hurricane risk reduction and coastal

restoration for south Louisiana. The purpose of the report is to describe the progress that the USACE has

1221
7. Consistency with Other State and Federal Regulations

7-15

made in this effort, which is mandated by the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2006

and the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the

Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic and Influenza Act, 2006. Additional time would be needed for the USACE

to complete the comprehensive hurricane analysis and design for south Louisiana due to engineering,

environmental, and economic complexities. The Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration effort is

closely tied to Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan discussed above. The report does not make

recommendations for project authorizations, appropriations, or nongovernmental decisions. It describes

methodologies used to perform the technical evaluation and the process used to engage stakeholders.

One of the most significant accomplishments is the development and application of numerical models that

replicate hurricane surges and determine the statistical frequency of events along the entire Louisiana

coast. This effort has vastly improved the ability of the USACE to evaluate hurricane threats along the

northern Gulf coast, including storm surge and wave effects. The Louisiana Coastal Protection and

Restoration effort also quantified the risk reduction benefits provided by wetlands. The Louisiana coast is

divided into planning units that generally correspond to previously defined subregions. Planning Unit 4

corresponds to Region 4, the Chenier Plain.

Hurricane modeling determined that certain areas of the Gulf are more likely to experience higherintensity storms. Southeastern Louisiana, Mississippi, and western Alabama were shown to have a higher

probability of severe-storm occurrence than elsewhere along the Gulf. The probability of a hurricane

greater than Category 2 on the Saffer-Simpson Scale hitting the Gulf coastline in the SNWW study area is

2 percent in any 1 year, half that of the highest probability zone (4 percent in any 1 year). Hurricane Rita

is a close comparison to a 100-year storm based on size, intensity, and track. It produced a peak storm

surge with an approximately 90-year return interval, compared to the 400-year storm surge of Hurricane

Katrina. The Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration storm surge modeling projects that a water

surface height in the SNWW study area (east of Sabine Lake) with a 100-year storm would range from

15 feet near the coast to 11 feet north of the GIWW near Orange, Texas. Storm surge effects would be felt

in the Sabine River valley far north of the current study area. For a 400-year storm, water elevations

would range from 19 feet near the coast to 12 feet north of the GIWW near Orange, Texas.

Planning Unit 4 Alternatives located within the SNWW study area are limited to two types:

(1) construction of a 12-foot-high levee along the entire GIWW alignment, ending at the Sabine River:

and (2) marsh restoration in the marshes east of Sabine Lake. The coastal restoration alternative includes

marsh restoration in two areas that are proposed as compensatory mitigation measures for the SNWW

CIP (LA 3-10R and LA 3-15). Coastal restoration scored relatively highly in minimizing environmental

impacts but did not appear to be a cost-effective measure. The potential for channel deepening proposed

in the Preferred Alternative was evaluated with HS modeling conducted for this study. The results of this

analysis indicated there would be no significant increase in storm surge effects.

1222
7. Consistency with Other State and Federal Regulations

7-16

7.30 NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN

The purpose of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP, Plan Committee, 2004) is to

sustain abundant waterfowl populations by conserving landscapes through partnerships that are guided by

sound science. The 2004 Plan establishes a new 15-year horizon for waterfowl conservation in North

America by assessing and defining needs, priorities, and strategies needed to promote waterfowl

conservation in the twenty-first century. The SNWW study area is located in the Gulf Coastal Prairie, an

area of continental significance to North American ducks, geese, and swans as it lies within the Central

Flyway. The plan focuses on habitat conservation at a continental scale and identifies general objectives

for habitat conservation in five key priority regions, including the Gulf Coast Prairie Region. The

beneficial use of dredged material to restore degraded marshes is specifically identified as a habitat

conservation strategy in this plan. The Preferred Alternative would contribute to plan goals with the

restoration and nourishment of approximately 5,000 acres of emergent marsh in the Lower Neches River

floodplain and regular shoreline nourishment at Texas and Louisiana Points.

1223
8-1

8.0 ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH

CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PREFERRED

ALTERNATIVE BE IMPLEMENTED

The Preferred Alternative would result in minor adverse impacts to benthos and fish from dredging and

placement of dredged material but these impacts are temporary. Although the SNWW channel is located

primarily in Texas, large indirect impacts may occur due to small increases in salinity levels causing an

increase in wetland loss and a decrease in biological productivity in aquatic habitats of both Texas and

Louisiana. In Texas, 33,500 acres of intertidal marsh and swamp are expected to be indirectly impacted

due to the slight salinity increase as a result of the proposed action. Biological productivity may be

reduced over approximately 39,000 acres of tidal marsh and swamp in Texas, with the potential loss of

247 acres of emergent marsh, including 86 acres of fresh marsh that would be converted to an upland PA.

Impacts in Louisiana may affect approximately 182,000 acres of tidal, emergent marsh, and potentially

result in the loss of about 691 additional acres of marsh within the area of tidal influence. This includes

86 acres of wetland habitat that would be converted to an upland PA. The BU features and compensatory

mitigation address wetland loss by restoring a total of 5,636 acres of emergent marsh, 1,828 acres of

improved shallow-water habitat, and nourishing 5,589 acres of existing marsh, which more than

compensates for wetland losses resulting from a small increase in salinity and enhances the long-term

productivity of the study area’s ecosystem.

1224
8. Any Adverse Environmental Impacts Which Cannot Be

Avoided Should The Preferred Alternative Be Implemented

8-2

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1225
9-1

9.0 ANY IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES INVOLVED IN THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN

The primary impact of the Preferred Alternative is an indirect impact associated with a small increase in

salinity and an associated reduction in biological productivity over approximately 211,500 acres of

intertidal marsh and swamps in Texas and Louisiana, and the potential resultant loss of about 691 acres of

marsh within the area of tidal influence of the SNWW. Benefits of the Neches River BU Feature more

than offset the direct impact of conversion of 86 acres of fresh marsh to a confined PA (PA 24A) and the

indirect impact of the increase in salinity over 39,000 wetland acres in Texas. The Neches River BU

Feature restores 2,853 acres of emergent marsh, improves 871 acres of shallow-water habitat, and

nourishes 1,234 acres of existing marsh, providing benefits that offset all project impacts in Texas and all

but the loss of 843 AAHUs in Louisiana. The indirect effect of a small increase in Gulf shoreline erosion

in both states (totaling approximately 15 acres over the period of analysis) is minimized by the Gulf Shore

BU Feature. Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts in Louisiana restores 2,783 acres of

emergent marsh, improves 957 acres of shallow-water habitat, and nourishes 4,355 acres of existing

marsh in the Willow and Black bayou areas. The BU features and compensatory mitigation address

wetland loss by restoring 5,636 acres of emergent marsh, 1,828 acres of shallow-water habitat, and

nourishing 5,589 acres of existing marsh, which more than compensates for worst-case wetland losses

resulting from a small increase in salinity and enhances the long-term sustainability of the study area

ecosystem. Since there would be a time lag before the restored marshes become established and

ecologically functional, there would be a temporary loss of productivity during the interim period.

Benthic organisms in the Gulf that are buried during initial and subsequent use of the ODMDSs would

recover quickly after each use. The productivity of expanded PAs on the Neches River and the Sabine

Lake bottom taken for borrow material would be temporarily disrupted, but would shortly be transformed

into different habitats that would contribute to the long-term productivity of the SNWW estuary.

1226
9. Any Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Involved in the Implementation of the Recommended Plan

9-2

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1227
10-1

10.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF

MAN’S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

BU features and compensatory mitigation provided under the Preferred Alternative address wetland loss

by restoring 5,636 acres of emergent marsh, 1,828 acres of shallow-water habitat, and nourishing

5,589 acres of existing marsh, which more than compensates for worst-case wetland losses resulting from

a small increase in salinity and enhances the long-term productivity of the study area ecosystem. Since

there would be a time lag before the restored marshes become established and ecologically functional,

there would be a temporary loss of productivity during the interim period. Benthic organisms in the Gulf

that are buried during initial and subsequent use of the ODMDSs would recover quickly after each use.

The productivity of expanded PAs on the Neches River and the Sabine Lake bottom taken for borrow

material would be temporarily disrupted, but would shortly be transformed into different habitats that

would contribute to the long-term productivity of the SNWW estuary.

1228
10. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man’s Environment

and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

10-2

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1229
11-1

11.0 ENERGY AND NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE RESOURCE

REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF

VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION MEASURES

NEPA regulations in 40 CFR 1502.16(e) and (f) require a discussion of project energy requirements and

natural or depletable resource requirements, along with conservation potential of alternatives and

mitigation measures in an EIS.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the energy requirements for maintaining the channel would continue as

before. However, the navigation requirements for energy (fuel) to transport commercial products is likely

to increase in the future as commerce increases and more traffic increases congestion and navigation time

into and out of regional ports. Air quality impacts are likely to increase with an increase in navigation

traffic congestion and travel time along the SNWW.

The Preferred Alternative is expected to reduce energy (fuel) requirements for transporting products on a

ton/mile basis by deepening the channel and providing bend easings:

• ships can be more heavily loaded with cargo; and

• fewer vessel trips would be required in lightering of crude oil from large ships offshore.

Energy (fuel) would be required to deepen the channel, but this is a short-term impact. Energy to maintain

the deeper channel is expected to increase by roughly a factor of two, with the increase in shoal material

expected for the larger channel. This increase in fuel requirement is expected to be more than offset by

fuel savings in ship traffic in the larger channel and should help reduce air quality impacts slightly over

the No-Action Alternative, especially since the largest increase in shoaling is offshore. Increased

efficiency in moving petroleum and other petroleum-based commodities to the local refineries is expected

to help conserve natural or depletable resources in the future. The reduced energy requirements of the

more-efficient channel would result in a smaller increase in transportation costs in the future, which

reduces overall production costs for the consumer.

1230
11. Energy and Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and

Conservation Potential of Various Alternatives and Mitigation Measures

11-2

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1231
12-1

12.0 LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS TO WHOM

COPIES OF THE FINAL STATEMENT ARE SENT

12.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

The USACE and SNND involved the public through public meetings and other outreach throughout the

history of this project. A proactive approach was taken to inform and involve the public, resource

agencies, industry, local government, and other interested parties about the project and to identify any

public concerns.

The first public scoping meeting was held on May 24, 2000, at the John Gray Center Auditorium, Lamar

University, Beaumont, Texas. The purpose of this meeting was to inform the public about the initiation of

the feasibility study and to solicit comments on navigation concerns, alternatives to be addressed, and

environmental issues and concerns.

The second public scoping meetings were held on May 28, 2002, at the Best Western Hotel, Lake

Charles, Louisiana, and May 29, 2002, at the John Gray Center Auditorium, Lamar University,

Beaumont, Texas. The purpose of these meeting were to inform the public about study progress and to

solicit comments on environmental issues such as changes in salinity and circulation, changes in freshand saltwater marshes, water and sediment quality, erosion along the channel, threatened and endangered

species impacts, and beneficial use of dredged materials.

Other various forms of outreach utilized during this project included early regulatory agency

coordination, ICT, RW, MW, CW, OW, and HW meetings, public workshop to obtain ideas for BU of

dredged material, media trips down the waterway, presentations at the GMFMC Texas Habitat Protection

Advisory Panel, meetings with the Sabine Pilots Association, presentation at the 2007 Southeast Texas

Leaders meeting, meetings with SNWW industries, individual contacts, press releases, and comment

forms.

DEIS Public Hearings were conducted on January 26, 2010, at the Beaumont Civic Center in Beaumont,

Texas, and on January 27, 2010, at the Lake Charles Civic Center in Lake Charles, Louisiana, to solicit

comments and information from the public. Approximately 51 people attended the meeting in Beaumont,

and 19 in Lake Charles. An open house was conducted prior to the Public Meetings, which included

table-top poster presentations and discussions among the USACE, the SNND, USACE consultants, and

the public. Formal presentations were made by SNND and USACE during the public meetings, and then

oral comments were taken from the public. These comments were considered when finalizing the FEIS.

Transcripts of the DEIS public meetings are presented in Appendix K.

12.2 REQUIRED COORDINATION

The FEIS is being circulated to all known Federal, State, and local agencies. Interested organizations and

individuals are also being sent notice of availability. A list of those who are being sent a copy of this

1232
12. List of Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of the Final Statement Are Sent

12-2

document, along with a request to review and provide comments on the documents, is provided in Section

12.3.

12.2.1 PUBLIC VIEWS AND RESPONSES

Public views and concerns expressed during this study have been considered during the preparation of

this FEIS. The views and concerns were used to develop planning objectives, identify significant

resources, evaluate impacts of various alternatives, identify potential PAs, and identify a plan that is

socially and environmentally acceptable. Important concerns expressed included the beneficial use of

dredged material and recreational opportunities.

Development of alternatives is explained in Section 2. The recommended plan takes into consideration

the expressed objectives, views, and concerns of the resource agencies and public. Public comments

received are addressed Appendix A5.

12.3 STATEMENT RECIPIENTS

The following list includes agencies, organizations, and public that were sent a copy of these documents

and/or the Notice of Availability with a request to review and provide comments.

Organizations

Bill Bass

Coastal Conservation

Association-Acadiana

P.O. Box 3527

Lafayette, LA 70502

David Bezanson

The Nature Conservancy

816 Congress, #920

Austin, TX 78701

Charles Bollich

Texas Archeological

Stewardship Network

5795 Viking Dr.

Beaumont, TX 77706

Lowell Boudreaux

Lamar University

P.O. Box 10025

Beaumont, TX

Winnie Burkett

Houston Audubon Society

919 Layfair Place

Friendswood, TX 77546

Raymond Butler

Gulf Intracoastal Canal

Association

2010 Butler Drive

Friendswood, TX 77546

David Corban

Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P.

Fulbright Tower, 1301

McKinney, Suite 5100

Houston, TX 77010-3095

Mark Davis

Coalition to Restore Coastal

Louisiana

6160 Perkins Road, Suite 225

Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Sherri Droddy

Sabine Pass Port Authority

P.O. Box 318

Sabine Pass, TX 77655

Kenneth Duhon

Navigation District

8174 Boyt Rd.

Beaumont, TX 77713

Lee Elliot

Texas Audubon Society

205 N. Carrizo Street

Corpus Christi, TX 78401-3033

Paul Fontenot

Sierra Club - Acadiana Group

120 Rue Du Jardin

Lafayette, LA 70507-4843

Mike Foster

South East Texas Regional

Planning Commission

2210 Eastex Freeway

Beaumont, TX 77703

Cynthia Goldberg

Gulf Restoration Network

P.O. Box 2245

New Orleans, LA 70176

Richard Harrel

Clean Air & Water

750 Wade

Beaumont, TX 77706

1233
12. List of Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of the Final Statement Are Sent

12-3

Captain Charles Lahaye

Sabine Pilots Association

5148 W. Parkway

Groves, TX 77619

Rick Jacob

Nature Conservancy of

Louisiana

3923 Marie Court

Lake Charles, LA 70607

Larry E. Kelly

Toledo Bend Reservoir, Sabine

Parish

210 Hillcrest Drive

Anacocco, LA 71403

Jack Lawrence

Clean Air and Water

5570 Winfree

Beaumont, TX 77705

Bruce Lockett

Texas Archaeological Studies

Association

P.O. Box 905

Vidor, TX 77602

Brandt Mannchen

Sierra Club-Lone Star Chapter

5431 Carew

Houston, TX 77096

Richard Martin

Nature Conservancy of

Louisiana

P.O. Box 4125

Baton Rouge, LA 70821

Charles McGimsey

University of Southwestern

Louisiana, Department of

Sociology-Anthropology

P.O. Box 40198

Lafayette, LA 70504

Ehab Meselhe

University of Louisiana at

Lafayette, Civil Engineering

Department

Abdalla Hall, Room 126

Lafayette, LA 70504-2347

Gretchen Mueller

Audubon Society-Houston

440 Wilchester

Houston, TX 77079

Jerry Norris

Sabine Lake Guide Service

3262 Bell Street

Port Arthur, TX 77640

Todd Brindle

Big Thicket National Preserve,

Superintendent

6044 FM 420

Kountze, TX 77625

Steven Peyronnin

Coalition to Restore Coastal

Louisiana

6160 Perkins Road, Suite 225

Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Lisa F. Regan

Texas Energy Coalition

6207 Inwood Drive

Houston, TX 77057

Denis Calabrese

Texas Energy Coalition

6207 Inwood Drive

Houston, TX 77057

Cynthia Sarthou

Gulf Restoration Network

P.O. Box 2245

New Orleans, LA 70176

Diane Schenke

The Nature Conservancy Texas

City Prairie Preserve

4702 Hwy 146 N

Texas City, TX 77590

Harold Schoeffler

Sierra Club-Acadian Group

P.O. Box 2218

Lafayette, LA 70502

Bruce Sieve

Sierra Club-Groves

4949 Main Ave.

Groves, TX 77619

Ryan Smith

Texas Energy Museum

600 Main Street

Beaumont, TX

Wayne Stupka

Gulf Coast Rod Reel and Gun

Club

P.O. Box 8057

Lumberton, TX 77657

Melvin Swoboda

East Texas Regional Water

Planning Group

P.O. Box 1089

Orange, TX 77631-0579

Ken Sztraky

Audubon Society-Golden

Triangle

P.O. Box 1292

Nederland, TX 77627-1292

Carolyn Thibodeaux

Cameron Preservation AllianceSabine Lighthouse, Inc.

P. O. Box 773

Cameron, LA 70631

Louis Trahan

Audubon Society-Acadiana

Chapter

707 E. Simcoe St

Lafayette, LA 70501-4524

Rebecca Triche

Coalition to Restore Coastal

Louisiana

6160 Perkins Road, Suite 225

Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Captain Charles A. Tweedel

Sabine Pilots Association

5148 West Parkway Drive

Groves, TX 77619

John Whittle

Audubon Society - Golden

Triangle

3015 Nashville Ave.

Nederland, TX 77627

John Wesley Paul

Golden Triangle Sierra Club,

Conservation Chair

13005 Beaverbrook Street

Lumberton, TX 77657

Gina Donovan

Audubon Society-Houston

440 Wilchester

Houston, TX 77079

1234
12. List of Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of the Final Statement Are Sent

12-4

Captain Michael Egan

Sabine Pilots Association

5148 W. Parkway

Groves, TX 77619

Don Gohmert

Natural Resources Conservation

Service

101 S. Main

Temple, TX 76501

Randy Reese

Navigation District

P.O. Box 778

Nederland, TX 77627

Natalie Snider

Coalition to Restore Coastal

Louisiana

6160 Perkins Road, Suite 225

Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Patrick Nugent

Texas Pipeline Association,

Executive Director

604 West 14th Street

Austin, TX 78701

Coastal Conservation

Association-Louisiana Chapter

P.O. Box 373

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-0373

Coastal Conservation

Association-Texas Chapter

6919 Portwest, Suite 100

Houston, TX 77024

The Nature Conservance of

Texas

P.O. Box 1440

San Antonio, TX 78295-1440

The Nature Conservancy of

Louisiana

P.O. Box 4125

Baton Rouge, LA 70821

Local Government

Morris Albright

Chamber - Port Arthur

4749 Twin City Hwy. Suite 300

Port Arthur, TX 77642-5839

Everett Alfred

Jefferson County Commissioner

Precinct 4

7780 Boyt Road

Beaumont, TX 77713

Becky Ames

Mayor of Beaumont, Texas

801 Main Street

Beaumont, TX 77704

Francis Andrepont

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

District 13

1302 Fatima

Sulphur, LA 70663

Eddie Arnold

Jefferson County Commissioner

Precinct 1

1149 Pearl Street, 4th Floor

Beaumont, TX 77701

Brad Bailey

Mayor of Groves, Texas

3947 Lincoln Ave.

Groves, TX 77619

Nancy Beaulieu

City of Beaumont

P.O. Box 3827

Beaumont, TX 77704

Guy Brame

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

District 8

1908 Linden Lane

Lake Charles, LA 70605

Kirk Burleigh

Cameron Parish Police Jury

District 6

P.O. Box 576

Cameron, LA 70631

Owen Burton

Orange County Commissioner

Precinct 2

123 South 6th Street

Orange, TX 77630

W. Brown Claybar

Mayor of Orange, Texas

803 W. Green Ave.

Orange, TX 77630

Cindy Clifton

Chamber – Nederland

P.O. Box 891

Nederland, TX 77627

Dr. Alan B. Coleman

City of Beaumont

P.O. Box 3827

Beaumont, TX 77704

Calvin Collins

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

District 2

2035 Woodring Street

Lake Charles, LA 70601

Brad Corley

Chamber – Groves

4399 Main Ave.

Groves, TX 77619

Daniel Cupit

Mayor of Westlake, Louisiana

1001 Mulberry Street

Westlake, LA 70669-4523

Jimmy Dike

Pleasure Island Commission

520 Pleasure Pier Boulevard

Port Arthur, TX 77640

Mark Domingue

Jefferson County Commissioner

Precinct 2

7759 Viterbo Road, Suite 1

Beaumont, TX 77705

David Dubose

Orange County Commissioner

Precinct 1

123 South 6th Street

Orange, TX 77630

John Dubose

Orange County Commissioner

Precinct 3

123 South 6th Street

Orange, TX 77630

Christopher Duque

City of Nederland - City

Manager

P.O. Box 967

Nederland, TX 77627-0967

1235
12. List of Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of the Final Statement Are Sent

12-5

Les Farnum

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

District 15

312 Oakley Drive

Sulphur, LA 70663

Darryl Farque

Cameron Parish Police Jury

District 7

10690 Hwy. 384

Lake Charles, LA 70607

Steve Fitzgibbons

City of Port Arthur

P.O. Box 1089

Port Arthur, TX 77641

Becky Ford

Mayor Bevil Oaks, Texas

7390 Sweetgum Road

Beaumont, TX 77713

Sabrina Grey

Greater Orange Area Chamber

of Commerce

1012 Green Avenue

Orange, TX 77630

Elizabeth Griffin

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

District 3

903 North Jake Street

Lake Charles, LA 70601

Kevin Guidry

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

District 9

4045 Briarfield Lane

Lake Charles, LA 70607

Terri Hanks

City of Port Arthur

P.O. Box 1089

Port Arthur, TX 77641-1089

Ellis Hassien

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

District 12

4349 Pete Seay Road

Sulphur, LA 70665

Kyle Hayes

City of Beaumont - City

Manager

801 Main Street, Suite 300

Beaumont, TX 77701

Glenn Johnson

Mayor of Port Neches, Texas

P.O. Box 758

Port Neches, TX 77651

Phil Kelly

Jefferson County Drainage

District No. 7

P.O. Box 3244

Port Arthur, TX 77642

Chris Landry

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

District 7

4336 Oaklawn

Lake Charles, LA 70605

Ronald Lelux

Mayor of Sulphur, Louisiana

101 N. Huntington St.

Sulphur, LA 70663

Dr. Charles Mackey

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

District 5

1215 9th Street

Lake Charles, LA 70601

Thomas McDaniel

Cameron Parish Police Jury

District 4

P.O. Box 274

Creole, LA 70632

Mangus McGee

Cameron Parish Police Jury

District 1

121 Alvin Lane

Cameron, LA 70631

Hal McMillin

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

District 14

1423 N. Beech Street

Westlake, LA 70669

S. Mark McMurry

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

Administrator

1015 Pithon Street, 2nd Floor

Lake Charles, LA 70602

Randy Miller

Imperial Calcasieu Regional

Planning & Development

Commission

P.O. Box 3164

Lake Charles, LA 70602

Beamon Minton

Orange County Commissioner

Precinct 4

123 South 6th Street

Orange, TX 77630

R.A. "Dick" Nugent

Mayor of Nederland, Texas

P.O. Box 967

Nederland, TX 77627

Shawn Oubre

City of Orange - City Manager

P.O. Box 520

Orange, TX 77630

Jose Pastrana

Jefferson County Engineer

1149 Pearl Street, 5th Floor

Beaumont, TX 77701

W.L. Pate, Jr.

City of Beaumont

P.O. Box 3827

Beaumont, TX 77704

James Porter

Imperial Calcasieu Regional

Planning & Development

Commission

P.O. Box 3164

Lake Charles, LA 70602

Charles Prect

Cameron Parish Police Jury

District 3

159 W. Precht Rd.

Sweet Lake, LA 70630

Deloris "Bobbie" Prince

Mayor of Port Arthur, Texas

P.O. Box 1089

Port Arthur, TX 77641

Steve Racca

Cameron Parish Police Jury

District 2

478 Myers Rd.

Hackberry, LA 70645

1236
12. List of Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of the Final Statement Are Sent

12-6

Mary Ann Reid

Chamber - Port Arthur

4749 Twin City Hwy. Suite 300

Port Arthur, TX 77642-5839

Jim Rich

Beaumont Chamber of

Commerce

1110 Park Street

Beaumont, TX 77701

Randy Roach

Mayor of Lake Charles,

Louisiana

326 Pujo Street, 10th Floor

Lake Charles, LA 70601

Kirk Roccaforte

Mayor of Bridge City, Texas

260 Rachal Drive

Bridge City, TX 77611-0846

Audwin M. Samuel

City of Beaumont

P.O. Box 3827

Beaumont, TX 77704

Dennis Scott

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

District 6

5733 Bennie Lane

Lake Charles, LA 70605

Michael Sinegal

Jefferson County Commissioner

Precinct 3

525 Lakeshore Dr.

Port Arthur, TX 77640

Jamie D. Smith

City of Beaumont

P.O. Box 3827

Beaumont, TX 77704

Shannon Spell

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

District 1

2296 Pinon

Lake Charles, LA 70611

Tony Stelly

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

District 10

Post Office Box 439

Iowa, LA 70647

Kenneth Stinson

Mayor of Vinton, Louisiana

1200 Horridge Street

Vinton, LA 70668

David Studdert

Mayor of Nome, Texas

P.O. Box D

Nome, TX 77629

George Swift

Chamber of Commerce for

Southwest Louisiana

P.O. Box 3110

Lake Charles, LA 70602-3110

Claude Syas

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

District 4

2506 13th Street

Lake Charles, LA 70601

Carl Thibodeaus

Orange County Judge

123 South 6th Street

Orange, TX 77630

Scott Trahan

Cameron Parish Police Jury

District 5

PO Box 235

Creole, LA 70632

Sandra Treme

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

District 11

920 Overton

DeQuincy, LA 70633

Ronald Walker

Jefferson County Judge

1149 Pearl Street

Beaumont, TX 77701

Fred Jackson

Jefferson County Courthouse

1149 Pearl Street, 4th Floor

Beaumont, TX 77701

John Walker

Mayor of China, Texas

P.O. Box 248

China, TX 77613

Kenneth Williams

City of Nome

P.O. Box D

Nome, TX 77629

Gethrel Williams-Wright

City of Beaumont

P.O. Box 3827

Beaumont, TX 77704

André Wimer

City of Port Neches - City

Manager

P.O. Box 758

Port Neches, TX 77651

Cameron Parish Chamber of

Commerce

433 Marshall Street

Cameron, LA 70631

Jefferson County

1149 Pearl Street

Beaumont, TX 77701-3619

Nederland Chamber of

Commerce

1515 Boston Ave

Nederland, TX 77627

Port Arthur Chamber of

Commerce

4749 Twin City Highway, Suite

300

Port Arthur, TX 77642

Port Neches Chamber of

Commerce

P.O. Box 445

Port Neches, TX 77651

Myles Hebert

Coastal Zone Administrator,

Flood plain Administrator and

Chief Building Official

P.O. Box 1280

Cameron, LA 70631

Fred Jackson

Jefferson County Judge's Office

1149 Pearl, 4th Floor

Beaumont, TX 77701

Taylor Shelton

City of Port Neches

P.O. Box 758

Port Neches, TX 77651

1237
12. List of Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of the Final Statement Are Sent

12-7

Libraries

Kun-Woo Choi

Elmo Willard Library

3590 East Lucas

Beaumont, TX 77701

Library Director

City of Orange Public Library

220 N. 5th Street

Orange, TX 77630

Library Director

Marion & Ed Hughes Public

Library

2712 Nederland Ave.

Nederland, TX 77627

Jose Martinez

Port Arthur Public Library

4615 9th Avenue (at Highway

73)

Port Arthur, TX 77642

Mary Montgomery

Bridge City Public Library

101 Parkside Drive

Bridge City, TX 77611

Gwendolyn Pierre

Theodore Johns Branch Library

4255 Fannett

Beaumont, TX 77701

Geri Roberts

Beaumont Public Library

801 Pearl

Beaumont, TX 77701

Michael Sawyer

Calcasieu Parish Public Library

301 W. Claude Street

Lake Charles, LA 70605

Jim Shoemaker

R. C. Miller Library

1605 Dowlen

Beaumont, TX 77701

Consultants

Chris Claunch

Shiner Moseley & Assoc.

3300 S. Gessner #111

Houston, TX 77063

Ed Fike

Coastal Environments, Inc.

1260 Main St.

Baton Rouge, LA 70802

General Public

American Eagle

American Press

Ameripol Synpol Corporation

Chief Michael Amos

Donnie Ancelet

Leslie Appelt

Eddie Arnaud

Lawrence Aten

AtoFina

D. Babin

Greg Baehr

Curtis Baker

Scott Bare

Delores Barnhill

Barbara Batty

Larry Beaulieu

Rodney Begnaud

James Bel

Regina Bell

Braxton Bennett

Deodat Bhagwandin

Gene Bouillion

Thomas Brent

Rickey P. Brouillette

Rene Broussard

Richard Bryan

Hermie Bundick

Ralph Burch

Tom Burger

Dwayne Burton

Marty Byrd

Clifton Cabell

James Cacioppo

Kim Carroll

Steve Carroll

Centana Intrastate Pipeline

Dan Chand

Citgo Pipeline Company

Dickie Colburn

Henry Combs

Todd Connel

David Conner

Bruce Connery

Bobby Cooper

Jayme Cox

Crain Brothers Inc.

Bryan Crismon

Bucky Crisp

Catherine Cunningham

Kelly Cupero

DCP Midstream, LLC

Susan Davenport

Anne Demuth

Byron DePrang

Jere Dial

Don Dodd

William Doré

Gina Dorsey

Keith Dosch

Melvin Douglas

Ducks Unlimited Texas Field

Office

Dunan Entergy Partners, L.P.

Eugene E. Durand

John Durkay

E.I. DuPont de Nemours

Econo Rail Corp

Jim Ephraim

FOCC (Refinery)

George Fereday

David Fisher

Chris Fisher

Delbert Fore

Billy Fortier

Johnny Frederick

Grant Freund

Paul Friesema

Ginger Funk

Sherwood Gagliano

Phil Gamble

George Gardner

1238
12. List of Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of the Final Statement Are Sent

12-8

Floyd Gaspard

James Gentz

Great Lakes Carbon

Glenn Green

Gulf South Pipeline Company,

L.P.

Donald Hall

Neil Harrison

Michael Heim

Carl Henderson

Michael Hluza

Donald Hofer

Don Hofer

T. Hooks

George Horton

Cecil Howard

Tim Huffer

I.M. Skaugen SE

Investa, B.V.

Kathleen Jackson

Skip James

David Janwich

Raymond Johnson

Roy Johnson

Stan Johnson

Justin Jones

Raymond Jordan

Ron Joseph

James Kaucher

Lori Keeter

George Kelly

Bill Kimbrough

Gary King

Jim King

John Knippa

James Krohe

Kudu Limited II, Inc.

Mary LaBlanc

Lake Charles American Press

Tom Lassiter

Matt Long

Susan Ludwig

Fred Manhart

Josh Martin

Linda Mathews

Masao Mayorga

Lynn McCall

David McMasters

Karen McMillin

Chris T. McPike

Jake Messina

Military Sealift

Frederic Miller

Ike Mills

Stephen Mills

Julea Mitchell

Mobile Oil Corp

Ronald Moon

Dennis Moon

Motiva Enterprises, LLC

Charles Nelson

C. Newell

Patrick Nwakoby

Richard Osburn

Jerry Outremari

Hubert Oxford

Hubert Oxford, III

Hubert Oxford, IV

Panhandle Eastern Corp

Clay Pelloat

David Petty

Vernon Pierce

Ervin Polnick

Port Arthur News

Port City Petroleum, Inc.

Premcor

Darryl Reed

Miles Resnick

Randy Richard

David Richard

Gordon Ricossa

G. Grant Roane

Captain Robinson

James Robinson

John Roby

Catherine Rourke

Steve Russell

Sherrill Sagrera

Andre' Says

Terry Schwertner

Dick/Bill Scott

Pete Shelton

Linda Sickels

Allen Sims

Bryan Speaght

Ted Springs

Hunt Sproull

Daniel Stahl

Mike Stafford

Bill Stanisfer

Hercel Stracener

Philip Stock

Dave Suter

Stephen Swetish

Joe Sydes

TPC Group, Inc.

Arthur Thomas

Cathy Thornton

Collin Thorp

Dennis Tindall

Gabriel Trevino

Robert Troxell

James Tucker

Keith Tyree

Jim Uncapher

Mark Underhill

Unocal

Chuck Uzzle

Vastar Resources, Inc.

Rusty Vincent

Dan Wallach

Aubrey Webb

Donna Weifenbach

Milton Westbrook

Jim Westgate

Michael Weston

Bernard Wheeler

Sam Whitehead

Wayne Wilbur

Melinda Winn

Rick Williams

Lester Winfree

Albert Zipp

Julia Zolandz

1239
12. List of Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of the Final Statement Are Sent

12-9

State Representatives

Honorable Charles Boustany

United States Senator

1117 Longworth House Office

Building

Washington, DC 20515-1807

Charles Boustany

U.S. House of Representatives, 7th

District of Louisiana

Capital One Tower, One Lakeshore

Drive Ste. 1135

Lake Charles, LA 70629

Kevin Brady

U.S. House of Representatives, 8th

District of Texas

301 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Kevin Brady

U.S. House of Representatives, 8th

District of Texas

420 Green Ave,

Orange, TX 77630

Honorable John Cornyn

United States Senator

517 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Honorable John Cornyn

United States Senator

5300 Memorial Drive, Suite 980

Houston, TX 77007

Michael Danahay

Louisiana State Representative,

District 33

1625 Beglis Parkway

Sulphur, LA 70663

Michael Danahay

Louisiana State Representative,

District 33

P.O. Box 44486

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4486

Michael E. Danahay

Louisiana State Representative,

District 33

1625 Beglis Pkwy.

Sulpher, LA 70663

Joseph Deshotel

Texas State Representative District

22

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768

Joe Deshotel

Texas State Representative District

23

One Plaza Square, Suite 203

Port Arthur, TX 77642

Brett Geyman

Louisiana State Representative,

District 35

P.O. Box 12703

Lake Charles, LA 70612-2703

Brett Geyman

Louisiana State Representative,

District 35

P.O. Box 44486

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4486

Garrett Graves

Governor's Office of Coastal

Activities

Capitol Annex 1051 N. 3rd Street,

Suite 138

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

Al Green

U.S. House of Representatives, 9th

District of Texas

3003 South Loop West, Suite 460

Houston, TX 77054

Mike Hamilton

Texas State House of Representatives

District 19

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768

Mike Hamilton

Texas State House of Representatives

District 19

P.O. Box 119

Mauriceville, TX 77626

Dorthy Sue Hill

Louisiana State Representative,

District 32

529 Tramel Rd.

Dry Creek, LA 70637

Joan Huffman

Texas State Senator, District 17

6217 Edloe

Houston, TX 77005

Joan Huffman

Texas State Senator, District 17

P.O. Box 12068, Capitol Station

Austin, TX 78711

Honorable Kay Hutchison

United States Senator

284 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510-4304

Honorable Kay Hutchison

United States Senator

1919 Smith Street, Suite 800

Houston, TX 77002

Chuck Kleckley

Louisiana State Representative,

District 36

130 Jamestown Rd.

Lake Charles, LA 70605

Honorable Mary Landrieu

United States Senator

328 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Honorable Mary Landrieu

United States Senator

Capital One Tower, One Lakeshore

Drive Ste. 1260

Lake Charles, LA 70629

Dan Morrish

Louisiana State Senate, District 25

119 W. Nezpique Street

Jennings, LA 70546

Dan Morrish

Louisiana State Senate, District 25

P.O. Box 94183

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

Ms. Willie Mount

Louisiana State Senate, District 27

P.O. Box 94183

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

1240
12. List of Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of the Final Statement Are Sent

12-10

Ms. Willie Mount

Louisiana State Senate, District 27

P.O. Box 3004

Lake Charles, LA 70602

Jonathan Perry

Louisiana State Representative,

District 47

407 Charity Street, Suite 102

Abbeville, LA 70501

Jonathan Perry

Louisiana State Representative,

District 47

P.O. Box 44486

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4486

Ted Poe

U.S. House of Representatives, 2nd

District of Texas

301 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Ted Poe

U.S. House of Representatives, 2nd

District of Texas

505 Orleans Street, Suite 100

Beaumont, TX 77701

Alan Ritter

Texas House of Representatives,

District 21

P.O. Box 1265

Nederland, TX 77627

Alan Ritter

Texas House of Representatives,

District 21

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768

John Smith

Louisiana State Senate, District 30

P. O. Box 94183

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

John Smith

Louisiana State Senate, District 30

611-B South 5th Street

Leesville, LA 71446

Honorable David Vitter

United States Senator

516 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Honorable David Vitter

United States Senator

3221 Ryan Street, Suite E

Lake Charles, LA 70601

Tommy Williams

Texas State Senator District 4

P.O. Box 8069

The Woodlands, TX 77387

Tommy Williams

Texas State Senator District 4

P.O. Box 12068, Capitol Station

Austin, TX 78711

State Agencies

David Schanbacher

Chief Engineer/Deputy Director,

Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 13087, Mail Code 168

Austin, TX 78711-3087

Glen Shankle

Executive Director, Texas

Commission on Environmental

Quality

P.O. Box 13087, Mail Code 109

Austin, TX 78711-3087

Mike Rezsutek

J.D. Murphree Wildlife

Management Area

10 Parks and Wildlife Drive

Port Arthur, TX 77640

James Sutherlin

J.D. Murphree Wildlife

Management Area

10 Parks and Wildlife Drive

Port Arthur, TX 77640

James Brent

Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality

1209 Leesville Avenue

Baton Rouge, LA 70802

Billy Eakin

Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality

1301 Gadwall

Lake Charles, LA 70615

Kevin Natali

Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality,

Southwest Regional Office

1301 Gadwall

Lake Charles, LA 70615

Jamie Phillippe

Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality, Water

Permits Division

602 N. 5th Street

Baton Rouge, LA 70802

Greg DuCote

Louisiana Department of

Natural Resources, Interagency

Affairs/Field Services Division

617 North 3rd Street, 10th Floor,

Suite 1078

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4027

Terry Howey

Louisiana Department of

Natural Resources, Coastal

Management Division

617 North 3rd Street, Suite 1078

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4027

Brian Marcks

Louisiana Department of

Natural Resources, Coastal

Management Division,

Consistency Section 617 North

3rd Street, Suite 1078

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4027

Kirk Rhinehart

Louisiana Department of

Natural Resources, Office of

Coastal Protection and

Management

450 Laurel Street, Suite 1501

Baton Rouge, LA 70801

Kyle Balkum

Louisiana Department of

Wildlife & Fisheries

2000 Quail Drive

Baton Rouge, LA 70808

1241
12. List of Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of the Final Statement Are Sent

12-11

Ismail Merhi

Louisiana Dept of Natural

Resources, Office of Coastal

Protection and Restoration

(OCPR)

450 Laurel Street, Suite 1200

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4027

Rachel Watson

Louisiana Office of Cultural

Development, Division of

Archeology

P.O. Box 44247

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

Scott Hutcheson

Louisiana State Historic

Preservation Officer

State Capital Annex, 1051 North

3rd Street, Suite 405

Baton Rouge, LA 70802

Lonnie Arrington

Lower Neches Valley Authority

P.O. Box 5117

Beaumont, TX 77708

Dr. Brian Babin

Lower Neches Valley Authority

P.O. Box 5117

Beaumont, TX 77708

Jimmie Cooley

Lower Neches Valley Authority

P.O. Box 5117

Beaumont, TX 77708

Scott Hall

Lower Neches Valley Authority

P.O. Box 5117

Beaumont, TX 77708

Steven McReynolds

Lower Neches Valley Authority

P.O. Box 5117

Beaumont, TX 77708

James Webb

Lower Neches Valley Authority

P.O. Box 5117

Beaumont, TX 77708

Koy Howard

Mobile Source Team, Texas

Commission on Environmental

Quality

P.O. Box 13087, Mail Code 164

Austin, TX 78711-3087

Office of the Governor of

Louisiana

P.O. Box 94004

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9004

Office of the Governor of Texas

P.O. Box 12428

Austin, TX 78711-2428

Donna Phillips

Regional Director, TCEP

5425 Polk Ave, Ste H

Houston, TX 77023-1452

Jerry Clark

Sabine River Authority of Texas

12777 N. Highway 87

Orange, TX 77630

Stanley Mathews

Sabine River Authority of Texas

PO Box 579

Orange, TX 77631

James East

Sabine River Authority

2760 Shadowwood Dr.

Sulphur, LA 70663

Mark Howard

Sabine River Authority

P.O. Box 579

Orange, TX 77631

Jim Brown

Sabine River Authority

P.O. Box 579

Orange, TX 77631

Jack Tatum

Sabine River Authority

P.O. Box 579

Orange, TX 77631

Gerard Sala

Sabine River Authority

P.O. Box 579

Orange, TX 77631

John Payne

Sabine River Authority

P.O. Box 579

Orange, TX 77631

James Pratt

Sabine River Authority,

Louisiana

15091 Texas Highway

Many, LA 71449

Jim Washburn

Sabine River Authority-Toledo

Bend

Route 1, Box 270

Burkeville, TX 75932

Paul Beard

Sabine-Neches Navigation

District

3220 Eugenia Ln.

Groves, TX 77619

Clayton Henderson

Sabine-Neches Navigation

District

2348 Highway 69 North

P.O. Box 778

Nederland, TX 77627

Randall Reese

Sabine-Neches Navigation

District

P.O. Box 778

Nederland, TX 77627

Mark Fisher

Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality

12100 Park 35 Circle

Austin, TX 78753

Robert Hansen

Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality

12100 Park 35 Circle

Austin, TX 78753

Ron Pedde

Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality

12100 Park 35 Circle

Austin, TX 78753

1242
12. List of Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of the Final Statement Are Sent

12-12

James Moore

Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality

ATTN: Michelle Horrocks,

Water Quality Section

12100 Park 35 Circle, MC-150

Austin, TX 78753

Raul Cantu

Texas Department of

Transportation

125 East 11th Street

Austin, TX 78701

Paul Smith

Texas Department of

Transportation

8350 Eastex Freeway

Beaumont, TX 77708-1701

John V. Moser

Texas Department of

Transportation, Port Arthur Area

Office

8350 Eastex Freeway

Beaumont, TX 77708-1701

William Grimes

Texas General Land Office

P.O. Box 12873

Austin, TX 78711-2873

Tom Calnan

Texas General Land Office,

Coastal Management Division

P.O. Box 12873

Austin, TX 78711-2873

Tammy Brooks

Texas General Land Office,

Coastal Management Program

Stephen F. Austin Building,

1700 North Congress Avenue

Austin, TX 78701-1495

James E. Bruseth

Texas Historical Commission

P.O. Box 12276

Austin, TX 78711-2276

Mark Wolfe

Texas Historical Commission,

Texas State Historic

Preservation Officer

1551 Colorado

Austin, TX 78701

Terry Stelly

Texas Parks & Wildlife -

Coastal Fisheries

601 Channelview

Port Arthur, TX 77640

Jerry Mambretti

Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept.

601 Channelview

Port Arthur, TX 77640

William Schubert

Texas Parks and Wildlife

1502 FM 517

Dickinson, TX 77539

Dean Bossert

Texas Point National Wildlife

Refuge

6144 Terry Lane

Port Arthur, TX 77640

Carla Guthrie

Texas Water Development

Board,

Hydrologic and Environmental

Monitoring Division

1700 N. Congress Ave.

Austin, TX 78701

Junji Matsumoto

Texas Water Development

Board,

Hydrologic and Environmental

Monitoring Division

1700 N. Congress Ave.

Austin, TX 78701

Jerry Patterson

Texas General Land Office,

Commissioner

Stephen F. Austin Building

1700 North Congress Avenue

Austin, TX 78701-1495

Jimmy Anthony

Louisiana Department of

Wildlife & Fisheries

2000 Quail Drive

Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Federal Government

Steve Bainter

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 6, Ocean

Dumping Coordinator

1445 Ross Ave, Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Jim Herrington

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

720 East Blackland Road

Temple, TX 76502

Mike Jansky

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 6,

Office of Planning and

Coordination

1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Barbara Keeler

Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 6

1445 Ross Ave, Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Robert Lawrence

Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Jeff Riley

Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Donna Anderson

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

17629 El Camino Real Road,

Suite 211

Houston, TX 77058-3051

1243
12. List of Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of the Final Statement Are Sent

12-13

David Bernhart

National Marine Fisheries,

ARA, Protected Resources

Division

NMFS-SERO, 263 13th Ave

South

St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5511

Aja Bonner

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention Current Rotation

4770 Buford Hwy, Bldg 106

Atlanta, GA 30341

Darryl Clark

U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceEcological Services

646 Cajundome Blvd Suite 400

Lafayette, LA 70506

Tim Cooper

Texas Chenier Plain National

Wildlife Refuge Complex

P.O. Box 278

Anahuac, TX 77514

Miles Croom

National Marine Fisheries,

Habitat Conservation Division

263 14th Avenue South

St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5505

Brigette Firmin

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

646 Cajundome Blvd Suite 400

Lafayette, LA 70506

Robert Gosnell

Southwest Louisiana National

Wildlife Refuge Complex

Headquarters

1428 Highway 27

Bell City, LA 70630

Richard Hartman

National Marine Fisheries

c/o Louisiana State University

Baton Rouge, LA 70803

David Keys

NOAA Fisheries, NEPA

Coordinator, NMFS-SERO

263 13th Ave South

St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5511

William Klein

USACE, New Orleans District

7400 Leake Ave, Room 137

New Orleans, LA 70118

Ronald Land

Department of Energy Pipeline

850 South Clearview Parkway

New Orleans, LA 70123

Terrie Looney

Sea Grant

1295 Pearl Street

Beaumont, TX 77701

Steve Parris

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

17629 El Camino Real Road,

Suite 211

Houston, TX 77058-3051

Capt. J.J. Plunkett

U.S. Coast Guard

2901 Turtle Creek Dr, Suite 200

Port Arthur, TX 77642

Janelle Stokes

USACE, Galveston District

2000 Fort Point Road

Galveston, TX 77550

Rusty Swafford

National Marine Fisheries,

Habitat Conservation Division

4700 Avenue U

Galveston, TX 77551

Don Voros

Southwest Louisiana National

Wildlife Refuge Complex

Headquarters

1428 Highway 27

Bell City, LA 70630

Fort Hood

Headquarters, III Corps Office

of Com. Gen.

Fort Hood, TX 76544

Stephen Spencer

U.S. Department of Interior,

Office of Environmental Policy

and Compliance, Regional

Environmental Officer

1001 Indian School Road NW,

Suite 348

Albuquerque, NM 87104

Tribal

Robert Cast

Caddo Indian Tribe of

Oklahoma

Tribal Historic Preservation

Officer

P.O. Box 487

Binge, OK 73009

Carlos Bullock

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of

Texas

571 State Park Road 56

Livingston, TX 77351

Bryant Celestine

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of

Texas

571 State Park Road 56

Livingston, TX 77351

Augustine Asbury

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town

P.O. Box 187

Wetumka, OK 74883

1244
12. List of Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of the Final Statement Are Sent

12-14

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1245
13-1

13.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Name/Title Experience FEIS Area of Responsibility

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Galveston District

Janelle Stokes, Regional

Environmental Specialist

25 years, Environmental Impact

Assessment and Impact Analysis,

Cultural Resource Coordination,

Archeological Research and Surveys

Project coordination, report

preparation, CE/ICA analysis, WVA

modeling

Carolyn Murphy, Chief,

Environmental Section

27 years, Environmental Impact

Assessment and Impact Analysis,

Planning and Environmental

Resources, Archeological Research

and Surveys

Document review

Richard Medina, Chief, Planning and

Environmental Branch

35 years, Environmental Impact

Assessment and Impact Analysis,

Planning and Environmental

Resources

Document review

Rob Hauch, Physical Scientist 26 years, Environmental Impact

Assessment and Impact Analysis;

Dredged Material, Water, and

Sediment Quality Analyses

Appendix B preparation assistance,

project review

Kristy Morten, HTRW Specialist 28 years, HTRW and Biological

Analysis

HTRW, document review

Nicole Minnichbach, Staff

Archeologist

7 years, Archeology Archeology section preparation and

review

Nancy Young, Civil Engineer 10 years, Civil Engineer Engineering design of BU features and

mitigation measures

John Damm, Geotechnical Engineer 20 years, Geotechnical Engineer Engineering design of BU features

Ryan Brown, Geotechnical Engineer 3 years, Geotechnical Engineer Engineering design of BU features

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

Barbara Keeler 30 years of coastal environmental

science and NEPA experience for

EPA, currently serving as the Region

6 Coastal & Wetlands Planning

Coordinator.

Served as the EPA Regional lead for

technical and policy EIS review.

Participated in this effort as the EPA

representative on the Habitat

Workgroup and the Sabine-Neches

Interagency Coordination Team.

Stephen Bainter 30 years environmental related

activities experience, to include

experiences in positions as the

Municipal Whole Effluent

Coordinator, Water Quality

Permitting Specialist, and Water

Quality Standards Coordinator for

EPA Region 6. Currently assigned as

EPA Region 6's Ocean Dumping

Coordinator.

ODMDS EIS and SMMP technical

review.

1246
13. List of Preparers

13-2

Name/Title Experience FEIS Area of Responsibility

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, concluded

Renee Bellew 9 years environmental related

activities experience, currently

serving as a Water Quality Standards

Coordinator for EPA Region 6.

Participated in this effort while as

the EPA Region 6's Ocean Dumping

Coordinator.

ODMDS EIS technical and policy

review.

PBS&J

Martin Arhelger, Vice President,

Project Director

30 years, Environmental Assessment

and Impact Analysis

Project Manager, water and sediment

quality

Angela Bulger 8 years, NEPA Compliance and

Coordination

Assistant Project Manager, document

coordination

Tony Risko 18 years, Coastal Engineering Assistant Project Manager

Lisa Vitale, Marine Biologist 15 years, Marine Biology Assistant Project Manager, Marine

Fisheries/EFH, document coordination

and production, quality control

Tomas Dixon, Senior Scientist 8 years, Wildlife and Protected

Species

Wildlife and threatened & endangered

species, BA and CMP preparation

Derek Green, Biologist, Wildlife

Specialist

24 years, Environmental Assessment

and Analysis

Wildlife and habitat, threatened and

endangered species, sea turtle analysis

Erik Huebner, Senior Scientist 10 years, Wildlife and Protected

Species

Wildlife and threatened & endangered

species

Tommy Ademski, Senior

Environmental Planner

10 years, Planning Noise analysis

Wendy Connally, Ecologist 4 years, Environmental Assessment

and Analysis

Cumulative Impacts and QA/QC

Kathy Calnan, Ecology, Botany 16 years, Vegetation Analysis and

Impacts

Vegetation Analysis

Dave Buzan, Aquatic Biologist 30 years, Aquatic Biology,

Vegetation Analysis and Impacts

Freshwater Fisheries, Vegetation

Analysis

Ruben Velasquez, Senior Engineer 30 years, Air Quality Air Quality, General Conformity

Bob Gearhart, Archeologist,

Magnetometer and Side-Scan Sonar

Specialist

22 years, Marine Archeology Marine archeology

Steve McVey, Geologist, HazMat

Specialist

12 years, Environmental Geology HTRW Analysis

Tricia LaRue, Environmental Planner 5 years, Planning and

Socioeconomics

Socioeconomics

Michael Hettenhausen,

Environmental Planner

2 years, Planning and Document

Review

General ecology, document review

Eric Monshaugen, GIS Specialist 4 years, GIS GIS data/figures

Chris Vidrick, Senior Word

Processor

30 years, Word Processing Word processing, document

formatting and review

Bob Bryant, Lead Word Processor 18 years, Word Processing Word processing, document

formatting and review

Linda Nance, Technical Editor 35 years, Editing Technical document editing

1247
13. List of Preparers

13-3

Name/Title Experience FEIS Area of Responsibility

Independent Technical Review

Philip M. Payonk, Chief,

Environmental Resources Section,

CESAW-TS-PE

27 years Environmental Impact

Assessment and Impact Analysis;

Dredged Material, Water, and

Sediment Quality Analyses; Ocean

Disposal Coordinator

Environmental Impact Review;

compliance with environmental laws

and regulations

Bernard E. Moseby, Economist,

CESAM-PD-FE

21 years Economic Analysis, Deep

Draft Navigation

Review of Mitigation Measures

CE/ICA

Carl E. Dyess, Dredging Project

Manager, CESAM-OP

18 years, Dredging Operations

Manager

Review of operations and maintenance

plans

Wade A. Ross, Supervisory

Hydraulic Engineer, CESAM-ENHH

16 years, Hydraulic Engineer, Deep

Draft Navigation

Review of hydrology and hydraulics

issues

Dennis E. Mekkers, Hydraulic

Engineer, CESAM-EN-HH

12 years, Structural Hydraulic

Design, Tidally Influenced Wetlands

Modeling and Restoration

Review of HS models

Naomi R. Fraenkel, Civil Engineer,

CENAN-PL-F

5 years, Deep Draft Navigation

Planning

Review of plan formulation

James A. Wagoner III, Assistance

District Counsel, CESAM-OC

18 years, Real Estate Attorney Real estate issues review

Wallace W. Brassfield, Cost

Engineer, CENWW-EC-X

40 years, Construction Cost

Estimating

Project costs review

1248
13. List of Preparers

13-4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1249
14-1

14.0 LITERATURE CITED

Adair, S.E., J.L. Moore, and C.P. Onuf. 1994. Distribution and status of submerged vegetation in

estuaries of the upper Texas coast wetlands 14(2):110–121.

Allen, J. 2002. United States Coast Guard. Port Author, Texas. Personal communication with Lisa Vitale,

PBS&J, Austin, Texas. December 11, 2002.

Alperin, L.M. 1977. Custodians of the Coast: History of the United States Army Engineers at Galveston.

Published by Galveston District, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas.

American Anthropological Association Style Guide. 2009. 2009 Style Guide. http://www.aaanet.org/

publications/style_guide.pdf.

American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. 7th edition. Allen

Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas.

———. 2000. 42nd supplement to the check-list of North American birds. Auk 117:847–858.

———. 2002. 43rd supplement to the check-list of North American birds. Auk 119:897–906.

———. 2003. 44th supplement to the check-list of North American birds. Auk 120:923–931.

———. 2004. 45th supplement to the check-list of North American birds. Auk 121:985–995.

———. 2005. 46th supplement to the check-list of North American birds. Auk 122:1026–1031.

———. 2006. 47th supplement to the check-list of North American birds. Auk 123:926–936.

———. 2007. 48th supplement to the check-list of North American birds. Auk 124:1109–1115.

Anderson, J., and J.S. Wellner. 2002. Evaluation of Beach Nourishment Sand Resources along the East

Texas Coast, June 28, 2002. Report of the Texas General Land Office, Department of Earth

Sciences, Rice University, Houston, Texas.

Anderson, J.B. 2007. The Formation and Future of the Upper Texas Coast. Texas A&M University Press.

Armstrong, N.E., M. Brody, and N. Funicelli. 1987. The ecology of open-bay bottoms of Texas: a

community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.12):104. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Aten, L.E. 1983. Indians of the Upper Texas Coast. Academic Press, New York.

Aten, L.E., and C.N. Bollich. 1969. A Preliminary Report on the Development of a Ceramic Chronology

for the Sabine Lake Areas of Texas and Louisiana. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society

40:241–258.

———. 2002. Late Holocene Settlement in the Taylor Bayou Drainage Basin, Test Excavations at the

Gaulding Site, 41JF27, Jefferson County, Texas. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory Studies

1250
14. Literature Cited

14-2

in Archeology 40. Texas Archeological Society Special Publications 4. Texas Archeological

Research Laboratory, Austin.

Auil-Marshalleck, S., P. Campbell, L. Butler, and L. Robinson. 2001. Trends in Texas commercial fishery

landings, 1972–1999. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin. Management Data Series No.

194:180.

Baker, R.J., L.C. Bradley, R.D. Bradley, J.W. Dragoo, M.D. Engstrom, R.S. Hoffmann, C.A. Jones,

F. Reid, D.W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of

Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University, Lubbock. Occasional Papers, Number 229.

December 1, 2003.

Baldwin, A.H., and I.A. Mendelssohn. 1998. Effects of salinity and water level on coastal marshes: an

experimental test of disturbance as a catalyst for vegetation change. Aquatic Botany 61:255–268.

Banks Information Solutions. 2002. Regulatory Agency Database Report. Banks Information Solutions,

Austin, Texas.

Barras, J., S. Beville, D. Britsch, S. Hartley, S. Hawes, J. Johnston, P. Kemp, Q. Kinler, A. Martucci,

J. Porthouse, D. Reed, K. Roy, S. Sapkota, and J. Suhayda. 2004. Historical and Projected Coastal

Louisiana Land Changes: 1978–2050. USGS Open File Report 03-334 (Revised January 2004).

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

Barras, J., P.E. Bourgeois, and L.R. Handley. 1994. Land loss in coastal Louisiana 1956–1990. National

Biological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana.

Bartlett, R.D., and P.P. Bartlett. 1999. A field guide to Texas reptiles and amphibians. Gulf Publishing

Company, Houston.

Beaumont Chamber of Commerce. 2008. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Year Ended

August 31, 2008.

Beaumont Independent School District. 2008. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Year Ended

August 31, 2008.

Beavers, R.C. 1978. An archaeological reconnaissance and assessment of the Sabine River, north shore of

Sabine Lake to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway: Cameron, Calcasieu parishes, Louisiana and

Orange County Texas. Research Report No. 1. University of New Orleans Archaeological and

Cultural Research Program, New Orleans.

Bellard, S. 2002. City of Port Arthur. Personal communication to Chris Moore, PBS&J, Austin, Texas.

January 17, 2002.

Berman, A.E. 2005. The debate over subsidence in coastal Louisiana and Texas. Houston Geological

Society Publications Bulletin, November 24.

Bertness, M.D., L. Gough, and S.W. Shumway. 1992. Salt tolerances and the distribution of fugitive salt

marsh plants. Ecology 73:1842–1851.

1251
14. Literature Cited

14-3

Bezanson, D. 2001. Natural vegetation types of Texas and their representation in conservation areas. The

Nature Conservancy of Texas, San Antonio. http://tconr.home.texas.net/Vegetation.

Blackburn, J., C. Johnson, and M. Berryhill. 2001. The value of the Texas bays and adjacent wetlands.

CLE International Wetlands Conference, February. Austin, Texas.

Blair, W.F. 1950. The biotic provinces of Texas. Texas Journal of Science 2:93–117.

Blankinship, R. 2005. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Coastal Fisheries Division. Personal

communication to Erik Huebner, PBS&J, May 12.

Block, W.T. 1976. A History of Jefferson County, Texas, from Wilderness to Reconstruction. Master’s

thesis, Lamar University, Nederland Publishing Company, Nederland, Texas.

———. 1984. Sabine Pass’ Famed “Oil Pond,” It Saved Ships, but Snared Whales. Beaumont Enterprise,

February, 1984. http://www.wtblock.com/wtblockjr/oilpond.htm (accessed March 23, 2008).

Blum, M.D., A.E. Carter, T. Zayac, and R. Goble. 2002. Middle Holocene Sea-Level and Evolution of the

Gulf of Mexico Coast (USA), Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 36.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1989. Are high densities of fishes at artificial reefs the result of habitat limitation or

behavioral preferences? Bulletin of Marine Science 44(2):631–645.

Bolton, H.E. 1970. Texas in the middle eighteenth century. The University of Texas Press, Austin.

Bond, C.L., and E. Foster. 1993. Magnetometer Survey of Salt Water Barrier Locations, Pine Island

Bayou and Neches River, Jefferson, Hardin and Orange Counties, Texas. Document No. 930076.

Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas.

Bouillon, J. 2002. Port of Orange. Personal communication to Chris Moore, PBS&J, Austin, Texas.

April 30, 2002.

Bradley, P. 2002. Insurance Services Office (ISO). Personal communication to Kathie Martel, PBS&J,

Austin, Texas. January 16, 2002.

Bradley, P.M., and J.T. Morris. 1992. Effect of salinity on the critical nitrogen concentration of Spartina

alterniflora Loisel. Aquatic Botany 43(2):149–161.

Brannon, J.M., R.H. Plumb, and I. Smith. 1978. Long-term release of contaminants from dredged

material. DMRP. USAEWES. Technical Report D-78-49.

Britton, J.C., and B. Morton. 1989. Shore ecology of the Gulf of Mexico. The University of Texas Press,

Austin.

Brongersma, L.D. 1972. European Atlantic turtles. Zool. Verhl. 121.

Broome, S.W., I.A. Mendelssohn, and K.L. McKee. 1995. Relative growth of Spartina patens (Alt.)

Muhl. and Scirpus olneyi Gray occurring in a mixed stand as affected by salinity and flooding

depth. Wetlands 15:20–30.

1252
14. Literature Cited

14-4

Brown, G.L., and J. Stokes. 2009. Numerical Model Study of Potential Salinity Impacts Due to Proposed

Navigation Improvements to the Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas (August 2009 draft report). U.S.

Army Engineer Research Development Center – Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (ERDC-CHL),

Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Brown, Jr., L.F., W.L. Fisher, J.H. McGowen, and C.G. Groat. 1973. Environmental geologic atlas of the

Texas coastal zone-Beaumont-Port Arthur area. The University of Texas, Bureau of Economic

Geology, Austin.

Bruce, K.A., G.N. Cameron, and P.A. Harcombe. 1995. Initiation of a new woodland type on the Texas

coastal prairie by the Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum (L.) Roxb.). Bulletin of the Torrey

Botanical Club 122(3):215–225.

Buchman, M. 1999. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Screening Quick

Reference Tables. HAZMAT Report 99-1.

Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG). Revised 1982. Geologic Atlas of Texas. Houston Sheet. The

University of Texas at Austin.

———. 2009. The Texas Shoreline Change Project. BEG Coastal Studies Group, The University of

Texas at Austin. http://www.beg.utexas.edu/ coastal/intro.htm/ (accessed February 10, 2009).

Byrnes, M.R., and R.A. McBride. 1995. Preliminary Assessment of Beach Response to a Segmented

Breakwater System: Constance Beach and Vicinity, 1990–1994. Coastal Studies Institute,

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 26 p.

Calcasieu Parish School Board. 2008. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report July 1, 2007–June 30,

2008.

Calcasieu Parish School System Sales and Use Tax Department. 2008. Tax Rate. http://www.calcasieu

salestax.org/ (accessed July 30, 2009).

Cameron Parish Police Jury. 2002. Welcome to Cameron Parish: Other Services (Transportation

Infrastructure). http://user.camtel.net/cameron/public/other.html (accessed 2005).

Campbell, L. 1995. Endangered and threatened animals of Texas, their life history and management.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Resource Protection Division, Austin. 130 pp.

———. 2001. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Rockport Marine Lab. Personal communication to

Lisa Vitale, PBS&J, Austin, Texas. May 21, 2001.

Carlson, A.E., A.N. LeGrande, D.W. Oppo, R.E.Came, G.A. Schmidt, F.S. Anslow, J.M. Licciardi, and

E.A. Obbink. 2008. Rapid early Holocene deglaciation of the Laurentide ice sheet. Nature

Geoscience 1:620–624.

Carothers, H.P., and H.C. Innis. 1960. Design of inlets for Texas and coastal fisheries. Journal of

Waterways and Harbors Division, Vol. 86.

1253
14. Literature Cited

14-5

Cendercast, P. 2002. City of Groves. Personal communication to Chris Moore, PBS&J, Austin, Texas.

January 17, 2002.

Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, The. n.d. Coastal Barrier Resources Act. Washington, D.C.

http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal14coast/coastal_barrier_resources_act_lm.htm (accessed

February 2007).

Chabreck, R.H., and G. Linscombe. 1978. Vegetation type map of the Louisiana coastal marshes.

Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, Baton Rouge.

Chambers, G.V., and A.K. Sparks. 1959. An ecological survey of the Houston ship channel and adjacent

bay waters. The University of Texas Institute of Marine Science Publication 6:215–250, Austin.

Chick, N.H. 1988. Down A Winding River: The Steamboat Era Comes to Orange. In Gateway to Texas:

The History of Orange and Orange County, Dr. Howard C. Williams, editor, pp. 41–48. The

Heritage House Museum of Orange, Texas.

City of Beaumont. 2002. Beaumont Chamber of Commerce. www.bmtcoc.org.

———. 2009. Fire and Rescue. http://www.cityofbeaumont.com/fire.htm (accessed July 30, 2009).

City of Bridge City. 2002. Official City of Bridge City website. www. bridgecitytex.com.

City of Groves. 2009. Fire Department. http://cigrovestx.com/firehome.php (accessed July 30, 2009).

City of Nederland. 2005. Official City of Nederland website. http://www.nederlandtx.com/ cityned.htm

(accessed November 21, 2005).

———. 2009. Fire and Rescue Services. http://www.ci.nederland.tx.us/fire/ (accessed July 30, 2009).

City of Port Arthur Fire Department. 2009. http://pafd.portarthur.com/about.asp (accessed July 30, 2009).

City of Port Neches. 2002. Official Ports of Neches website. http://www.portarthur.net/city_profile.cfm.

Clark, D. 2009. U.S. fish and Wildlife (USFWS), Louisiana. Personal communication with Jan Stokes,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District – September 24.

Clark, D., J. Mazourek, K. Roy, and M. Floyd. 2000. East Sabine Lake hydrologic restoration project,

candidate project information sheet for wetland value assessment. USFWS, Lafayette, Louisiana

and NRCS, Alexandria, Louisiana.

Clarke, D.G., and D.H. Wilber. 2000. Assessment of potential impacts of dredging operations due to

sediment resuspension. DOER Technical Notes Collection. ERDCTN-DOER-E9. U.S. Army

Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana. 2002. Coast Wise Publication. www.crcl.org/pubs/

wise/sabine.htm.

1254
14. Literature Cited

14-6

Conner, W.H., K.W. McKleod, and J.K. McCarron. 1997. Flooding and salinity effects on growth and

survival of four common forested wetland species. Wetlands Ecology and Management 5:99–109.

Coulter, M.C., J.A. Rodgers, and J.C. Depkin. 1999. Wood stork (Mycteria Americana). A. Poole and

F. Gill editors. The birds of North America, No. 409. Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater

Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,

Washington, D.C.

Crawley, R., and R.T. Sanchez. 1999. A Case Study of the Unemployment Rate in the Beaumont-Port

Arthur MSA. http://www.twc.state.tx.us/lmi/publications/tlmr/tlmrhome.html (accessed December

4, 2002).

Crother, B.I., J. Boundy, J.A. Campbell, K. De Quieroz, D.R. Frost, D.M Green, R. Highton, J.B. Iverson,

R.W. McDiarmid, P.A. Meylan, T.W. Reeder, M.E. Seidel, J.W. Sites, Jr., S.G. Tilley, and D.B.

Wake. 2003. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America

north of Mexico: update. Herpetological Review 34(3):196–203.

Crother, B.I., J. Boundy, J.A. Campbell, K. De Quieroz, D.R. Frost, R. Highton, J.B. Iverson, P.A.

Meylan, T.W. Reeder, M.E. Seidel, J.W. Sites, Jr., T.W. Taggart, S.G. Tilley, and D.B. Wake.

2000. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of

Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Society for the Study of

Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Circular No. 29. November 2000.

Crother, B.I., J. Boundy, K. De Quieroz, and D. Frost. 2001. Scientific and standard English names of

amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico: errata. Herpetological Review

32(3):152–153.

Culbertson, J., L. Robinson, P. Campbell, and L. Butler. 2004. Trends in Texas Commercial Fishery

Landings, 1981–2001. Management Data Series No. 224. Coastal Fisheries Division, Texas Parks

and Wildlife Department, Austin.

Daigle, J.J., G.E. Griffith, J.M. Omernik, P.O. Faulkner, R.P. McCulloh, L.R. Handley, L.M. Smith, and

S.S. Chapman. 2006. Ecoregions of Louisiana (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary

tables and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia (map scale 1:1,000,000).

Davis, D.W. 1996. The Sabine Lake area: a region in transition. Proceedings, Sabine Lake Conference,

September 13–14, Beaumont, Texas (TAMU-SG-97-101):8–12.

Davis, P. 2002. Port of Port Arthur. Personal communication to Chris Moore, PBS&J, Austin, Texas.

April 30, 2002.

Day, J.W. Jr., D. Pont, P.F. Hensel, and C. Ibanez. 1995. Impacts of sea-level rise on deltas in the Gulf of

Mexico and the Mediterranean: The importance of pulsing events to sustainability. Estuaries

18:636–647.

1255
14. Literature Cited

14-7

Day, J.W. Jr., and P.H. Templet. 1989. Consequences of sea level rise: Implications from the Mississippi

Delta. Coastal Management 17:241–257.

DeLaune, R.D., J.A. Nyman, and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1994. Peat collapse, ponding and wetland loss in a

rapidly submerging coastal marsh. Journal of Coastal Research 10:1021–1030.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 2006. The 2006 HHS Poverty Guidelines. http://gov/

poverty/06poverty.shtml (accessed February 13, 2006).

Ditton, R.B., and J.M. Falk. 1981. Obsolete petroleum platform as artificial reef material. D.Y. Aska,

editor. Artificial Reefs: Conference Proceedings. Florida Sea Grant Report Number 41:96–105.

Dixon, J.R. 2000. Amphibians and reptiles of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Dokken, Q.R. 1997. Platform reef ecological and biological productivity: fact or fiction? Proceedings:

Sixteenth Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting. OCS Study MMS 97–0038:12–

19. New Orleans: Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Drees, B.M., and J.A. Jackman. 1998. A field guide to common Texas insects. Gulf Publishing Company,

Houston.

Driscoll, T. 2001. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division. Personal

Communication to Andrew Labay, PBS&J, Austin, Texas. October 4, 2001.

Duedall, E.W., and M.A. Champ. 1991. Artificial reefs: emerging science and technology. Oceanus

34(1):94–101.

Eckert, S.A. 1992. Bound for deepwater. Natural History, March, pp. 28–35.

Eleuterius, L.N. 1989. Natural selection and genetic adaptation to hypersalinity in Juncus roemerianus

Scheele. Aquatic Botany 36(1):45–53.

Enright, J.M., and R.L Gearhart. 2005. Historic properties identification, oyster reef identification, and

pipeline and obstruction identification for the Sabine-Neches waterway widening and deepening,

Jefferson and Orange counties, Texas, and Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Texas Historical

Commission, Austin.

Entergy Louisiana. 2002. Calcasieu Parish Profile. http://www.entergy-louisiana.com/Economic_

Development/ssrc_display.asp?parish=Calcasieu (accessed December 1, 2005).

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite

to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA 550/9-74-004.

March. NNA19870406.0098.

———. 1978. A water quality success story: the Neches River. EPA Office of Water Planning and

Standards special publication provided by Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission,

Austin. Publication No. USEPA M W297N C.2.

1256
14. Literature Cited

14-8

———. 1982. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Galveston, Texas Dredged Material

Disposal Site Designation. 152 pp + Appendices.

———. 1986. Quality criteria for water, 1986. EPA 440/5 86 0001, as revised.

———. 2001. An initial survey of aquatic invasive species issues in the Gulf of Mexico Region, Version

4. Prepared by Battelle for the Gulf of Mexico Program U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA/OCPD Contract No. 68-C-00-121. Work Assignment 1-07.

———. 2002a. AIRData net tier report. EPA AIRData. http://www.epa.gov/air/data/nettier.html.

———. 2002b. AIRData monitor values report. EPA AIRData. http://www.epa.gov/air/data/monvals.

html.

———. 2003. Potential Environmental Justice Index Pilot. EPA Region 6. March 11.

———. 2006. Star Lake Canal Superfund Site, Port Neches, Jefferson County, Texas, EPA

ID#TX0001414341, Site ID: 0605043, Updated February 2006 (EPA publication date 3/6/2006).

Region 6 Superfund Program, Information Bulletins/Fact Sheets/Site Updates. http://epa.gov/

region6/6sf/pdffiles/0605043.pdf.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1998. Evaluation

of Dredged material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. – Testing Manual (Inland

Testing Manual). EPA 823-B-98-004. February.

———. 2003. Regional Implementation Agreement (RIA) for Testing and Reporting Requirements for

Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material off the Louisiana and Texas Coasts under Section 103 of the

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. July 2003. EPA Region 6, USACE New Orleans

District and USACE Galveston District. http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/ecopro/em/ocean/

ria.pdf (accessed 2007).

Epsilon Associates Inc. 2006. Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site. Phase 1 Final Design Report

(Attachment J-Noise Impact Assessment).

Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. (EH&A). 1976. Biological studies in Sabine Lake 1974–1975.

Document No. 7644. Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas.

———. 1979. Sabine-Neches Waterway, solid phase bioassay. Document No. 79208. Espey, Huston &

Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas.

———. 1983a. Contract DACW64-83-C-0026 Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas, Sabine Bank Channel

biological services. Document No. 83687. Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas.

———. 1983b. Contract DACW64-83-C-0026 Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas, Sabine Pass Jetty

Channel biological services. Document No. 83583. Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc., Austin,

Texas.

Ewing, K., K. McKee, I. Mendelssohn, and M. Hester. 1995. A comparison of indicators of sublethal

salinity stress in the salt marsh grass, Spartina patens (Ait.) Muhl. Aquatic Botany 52:59–74.

1257
14. Literature Cited

14-9

Fagerburg, T. 2003. Field Data Collection Summary Report for the Sabine-Neches Waterway Study. U.S.

Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station (ERDC-WES).

Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Farris, G.S., G.J. Smith, M.P. Crane, C.R. Demas, L.L. Robbins, and D.L. Lavoie (editors). 2007. Science

and the Storms: the USGS Response to the Hurricanes of 2005. USGS Circular 1306, 283 p.

Fearn, M.L. 1995. Louisiana’s Cajun Prairie: Holocene History of a Southern Grassland. Ph.D.

dissertation. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008. Hurricane Ike Impact Report. Emergency Support

Function #14, Long-Term Community Recovery Interagency Analysis.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Sabine

Pass LNG and Pipeline Project. Docket Nos. CP04-47-0000, CP04-38-0000, CP04-39-0000, CP04-

40-0000. Office of Energy Projects, Washington, D.C. 20426.

———. 2005. Order Granting Authorization under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act and Issuing

Certificates: Golden Pass LNG Terminal LP (Docket No. CP04-386-000) and Golden Pass Pipeline

LP (Docket Nos. CP04-400-000, CP04-401-000, and CP04-402-000) (issued July 6, 2005).

http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/st-mkt-ovr/som-rpt-2004.pdf (accessed January 2007).

Office of Energy Projects, Washington, D.C. 20426.

———. 2006a. Pre-filed Projects FY 2006. Office of Energy Projects, Washington, D.C. http://www.ferc.

gov/industries/gas/indus-act/pre-filing/fy-2006.pdf (accessed January 2007).

———. 2006b. Golden Pass LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Office of Energy Projects, Washington, D.C. http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?

document_id4309499 (accessed January 2007).

———. 2006c. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Port Arthur LNG, LP and Port Arthur Pipeline,

LP's Port Arthur LNG Project http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/Doc_Family.asp?document_

id=4399659 (accessed January 2007).

———. 2007. Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FERC/EIS-0205). Office of Energy Projects, Washington, D.C.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. U.S. Department of Transportation. Roadway

Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWA-HEP-05-054. January 2006.

Firmin, B. 2006. Email from Brigette Firmin, NMFS, to Martin Arhelger, PBS&J, July 6.

Fleming, K.M. 1980. Texas bear hunting. In: Texas Parks and Wildlife 38(5):12–15.

Floyd, J. 2009. Personal communication with Manger of Human Resources and Executive Assistant Port

of Beaumont on July 29.

Francavigilia, R.V. 1998. From Sail to Steam: Four Centuries of Texas Maritime History, 1500–1900.

The University of Texas Press, Austin.

1258
14. Literature Cited

14-10

Frazier, D.E. 1974. Depositional episodes: Their relationship to the quaternary framework in the

northwestern portion of the Gulf Basin, Geological Circular 74-1. Bureau of Economic Geology,

The University of Texas at Austin.

Gabrysch, R.K., and G.D. McAdoo. 1972. Development of ground-water resources in the Orange County

area, Texas and Louisiana, 1963–1971. Report No. 156, Texas Water Development Board, Austin.

Gardner, L.R., and D.E. Porter. 2001. Stratigraphy and geologic history of a southeastern salt marsh

basin. North Inlet, South Carolina, USA. Wetlands Ecology and Management 9:371–382.

Gardner, L.R., B.R. Smith, and W.K. Michener. 1992. Soil evolution along a forest-marsh transect under

a regime of slowly rising sea level, North Inlet, South Carolina, USA. Geoderma 55:141-157.

Garner, N.P. 1995. Performance Report, Federal Aid Project No. W-125-R-6, Job No. 85: suitability of

habitats in east Texas for black bears. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin. December 29.

Gammill, S., K. Balkum, K. Duffy, E. Meselhe, J. Porthouse, E. Ramsey, and R. Walters. 2002.

Hydrologic Investigation of the Louisiana Chenier Plain. Report prepared for the Louisiana Coastal

Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force by the Louisiana Department of Natural

Resources, Baton Rouge.

Garrett, J.M., and D.G. Barker. 1987. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of Texas. Texas Monthly

Press, Inc., Austin.

Geier & Geier Consulting. 1997. Noise Measurements taken on September 23, 1997, to support the

Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement Project EIS.

General Land Office (GLO). 1996. Oil spill planning and response atlas – upper Texas coast. Texas

General Land Office, Austin.

———. 1997. State Parks and Wildlife Management Areas.

———. 2004. Texas Coastwide Erosion Response Plan, 2004 Update. Texas General Land Office,

Austin, Texas. http://www.glo.state.tx.us/coastalerosion/CEPRA-LegReport2005/pdf/.

———. 2005. Coastal Erosion Planning and Response Program (CEPRA) Report to the 79th Legislature.

Texas General Land Office, Austin, Texas. http://www.glo.state.tx.us/coastalerosion/ CEPRALegReport2005/index.html.

Gibson, J. 1978. An archaeological reconnaissance of the lower Sabine River Valley, Toledo Bend dam to

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Louisiana and Texas. Report No. 2. The University of Southwestern

Louisiana Center for Archaeological Studies, Lafayette.

Gibson, J.L., R.B. Gramling, C. Ray Brassieur, S.J. Brazda, and S.G. Lark. 1978. An archaeological

reconnaissance of the Lower Sabine River Valley, Toledo Bend dam to Gulf Intracoastal

Waterway, Louisiana and Texas. Center for Archaeological Studies, University of Southwestern

Louisiana, Report No. 4.

1259
14. Literature Cited

14-11

Global Ballast Water Management Programme. 2002. The problem. http://globallast.imo.org/index.asp?

page=problem.htm?menu=true.

Gonzalez, J.L., and T.E. Törnqvist. 2006. Coastal Louisiana in Crisis: Subsidence or Sea Level Rise?

EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 87(45):493–508.

Gosselink, J.G. 1970. Growth of Spartina patens and Spartina alterniflora as influenced by salinity and

source of nitrogen. Coastal Studies Bulletin No. 5, Special Sea Grant Issue, Louisiana State

University. Pp 97–110.

Gough, L., and J.B. Grace. 1999. Effects of environmental change on plant species density: Comparing

predictions with experiments. Ecology 80:882–890.

Gould, H.R., and E. McFarlan, Jr. 1959. Geologic history of the Chenier Plain, southwestern Louisiana.

Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions 9:261–270.

Gravens, M., and D.B. King. 2003. Shoreline impacts study for Sabine-Neches Project. U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal Hydraulics Laboratory (ERDCCHL), Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Greater Orange Area Chamber of Commerce. 2002. Official website. http://www.org-tx.com/chamber.

Greco, R., and D. Clark. 2005. GIS analysis of East Sabine Lake shoreline retreat, 1978–2004. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, Lafayette, Louisiana.

Green. A., M. Osborn, P. Chai, J. Lin, C. Loeffler, A. Morgan, P. Rubec, S. Spanyers, A. Walton, R.D.

Slack, D. Gawlik, D. Harpole, J. Thomas, E. Buskey, K. Schmidt, R. Zimmerman, D. Harper,

D. Hinkley, T. Sager, and A. Walton. 1992. Status and trends of selected living resources in the

Galveston Bay system. Galveston Bay National Estuary Program Publication GBNEP-19, Webster,

Texas.

Green, D. 1984. Long-distance movements of Galapagos green turtles. Journal of Herpetology 18:121–

130.

Greiner LaPeyre, M.K., J.B. Grace, E. Hahn, and I.A. Mendelssohn. 2001. The importance of competition

in regulating-plant species-abundance along a salinity gradient. Ecology 82(1):62–69.

Griffith, G.E., S.A. Bryce, J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, A.C. Rogers, B. Harrison, S.L. Hatch, and D.

Bezanson. 2004. Ecoregions of Texas (color poster with map, descriptive text, and photographs).

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia (map scale: 1:2,500,000).

Guidroz, W.S., G.W. Stone, and D. Dartez. 2006. Hurricane Rita, 2005: Assessment of a storm-induced

geological event along the southwestern Louisiana coast and adjacent interior marsh: Gulf Coast

Association of Geological Societies Transactions 56:229–239.

Gulf Engineers and Consultants, Inc. (GEC). 2002. Sabine-Neches Waterway Feasibility Study,

Environmental Restoration /Beneficial Use Workshops. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Galveston District, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

1260
14. Literature Cited

14-12

Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (GMFMC). 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement

for the Generic Amendment to the following fishery management plans of the Gulf of Mexico:

Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Red Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Reef Fish Fishery

of the Gulf of Mexico, Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Coral and Coral Reef Fishery of

the Gulf of Mexico, Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Coastal

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, Florida.

Haggard, J.V. 1945. The neutral ground between Louisiana and Texas, 1806–1821. The Louisiana

Historical Quarterly 28:(4).

Haig, S.M., and E. Elliott-Smith. 2004. Piping plover. The birds of North America Online. (A. Poole,

editor) Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved from The Birds of North American

Online database: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/account/Piping_Plover/.

Harcombe, P.A., and J.E. Neaville. 1977. Vegetation types of Chambers County, Texas. Texas Journal of

Science 29:209–234.

Hardin County Tax Appraisal District. 2008. Tax Rates. http://www.hardincad.org/taxrates.htm (accessed

July 30 2009).

Hardison, K.A. 1998. The Time of Thunder: Orange County and the War for Southern Independence. In

Gateway to Texas: The History of Orange and Orange County, Dr. Howard C. Williams, editor, pp.

79–89. The Heritage House Museum of Orange, Texas.

Harrel, R.C. 1975. Water quality and saltwater intrusion in the lower Neches River. Texas Journal of

Science 26(1–2):107–117.

———. 1993. Origin and decline of the estuarine clam Rangia cuneata in the Neches River, Texas.

American Malacological Bulletin 10(2):153–159.

Harrel, R.C., J. Ashcraft, R. Howard, and L. Patterson. 1976. Stress and community structure of

macrobenthos in a Gulf Coast riverine estuary. Contributions in Marine Science 20:69–81.

Harrel, R.C., and M.A. Hall, III. 1991. Macrobenthic community structure before and after pollution

abatement in the Neches River estuary (Texas). Hydrobiologia 211:241–252.

Hatch, S.L., K.N. Ghandi, and L.E. Brown. 1990. Checklist of the vascular plants of Texas. The Texas

Agricultural Experiment Station MP-1655. The Texas A&M University System, College Station.

Heideman, G. 2002. Texas Department of State Health Services, Seafood Safety Division. Personal

communication to Lisa Vitale, PBS&J, Austin, Texas. May 16, 2002.

Helen, F. 2002. Personal communication with Chris Moore of PBS&J and Fred Helen, Director of

Regional Development and Services, Southeast Texas Regional Planning Commission.

November 18.

Henke, S.E., and W.S. Fair. 1998. Management of Texas horned lizards. Caesar Kleberg Wildlife

Research Institute, Texas A&M University-Kingsville. Management Bulletin No. 2.

1261
14. Literature Cited

14-13

Hester, M.W., I.A. Mendelssohn, and K.L. McKee. 1996. Intraspecific variation in salt tolerance and

morphology in the coastal grass Spartina patens. American Journal of Botany 83:1521–1527.

———. 2001. Species and population variation to salinity V stress in Panicum hemitomon, Spartina

patens, and Spartina alterniflora: morphological and physiological constraints. Environmental and

Experimental Botany 46:277–297.

HFP Acoustical Consultants, Inc. 2002. Environmental Noise Survey. Cheniere Energy, Inc. Freeport

LNG Terminal in Quintana Beach, Texas. October.

Hildebrand, H. 1982. A historical review of the status of sea turtle populations in the western Gulf of

Mexico. In K. Bjorndal (editor), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Pp. 447–453.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

———. 1983. Random notes on sea turtles in the western Gulf of Mexico. D. Owens et al., eds.

Proceedings Western Gulf of Mexico Sea Turtle Workshop TAMU-SG-84-105. Texas A&M

University, College Station. Pp. 34–40.

———. 1986. Personal communication to Derek Green, EH&A, Corpus Christi, Texas. January 16.

Hirth, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758).

Biological Report 97 (1). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Hooper, R.G., A.F. Robinson, Jr., and J.A. Jackson. 1980. The red-cockaded woodpecker: notes on life

history and management. U.S. Forest Service General Report SA-GR9, Atlanta, Georgia.

Hopkinson, C.S., J.G. Gosselink, and R.T. Parrondo. 1978. Aboveground production of seven marsh plant

species in coastal Louisiana. Ecology 59(4):760–769.

Howard, R.J., and I.A. Mendelssohn. 1999. Salinity as a constraint on growth of oligohaline marsh

macrophytes. II. Salt pulses and recovery potential. American Journal of Botany 86(6):795–806.

———. 2000. Structure and composition of oligohaline marsh plant communities exposed to salinity

pulses. Aquatic Botany 68:143–164.

Hoyt, S.D., and J.S. Schmidt. 1997. Diving Assessments for Twenty-six Localities, Sabine Pass Channel,

Jefferson County, Texas, Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Document No. 960983. Espey, Huston &

Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas.

Hoyt, S.D., E. Foster, J.S. Schmidt, M. Nash, S. Aronow, and R. Rogers. 1998. Initial investigations,

archival research, remote sensing, and terrestrial survey, Neches River saltwater barrier, Beaumont,

Texas, Orange and Hardin counties. Document No. 980006. Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.,

Austin. Texas.

Hoyt, S.D., J.S. Schmidt, and Robert Gearhart. 1994. Magnetometer survey of Sabine Pass Channel and

assessment of the Clifton, 41JF65, Jefferson County, Texas, Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Document

No. 940510. Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas.

1262
14. Literature Cited

14-14

Hsiao, S.V., and O.H. Shemdin. 1980. Bottom dissipation in finite-depth water waves. Proceedings of the

16th Coastal Engineering Conference. Hamburg, Germany.

Hubbs, C. 1982. A checklist of Texas freshwater fishes. Technical Series No. 11. Texas Parks and

Wildlife Department, Austin.

Hubbs, C., R.J. Edwards, and G.P. Garrett. 2008. An annotated checklist of freshwater fishes of Texas,

with key to identification of species. Texas Academy of Science. http://www.texasacademy

ofscience.org/.

Huh, O.K., H. Roberts, L.J. Rouse, and D.A. Rickman. 1991. Fine grain sediment transport and

deposition in the Atchafalaya and Chenier Plain sedimentary system. Coastal Sediments ’91.

American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. Pp 817–830.

Im, H. 1975. An analysis of the G.E. Arnold Survey of east Texas. Unpublished Master of Arts Thesis,

The University of Texas at Austin.

Institute of Water Resources-Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. (IWR-WCUS). 2007. Waterborne

Commerce of the United States, Parts II and V. IWR-WCUS-06-5. http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/

wcsc.htm/.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.

Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team R.K. Pachauri and A. Reisinger

(editors)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 p.

Isphording, W.C., F.D. Imsand, and G.C. Flowers. 1989. Physical characteristics and aging of gulf coast

estuaries. Transactions – Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, Vol 39.

Iverson, J.B. 1986. A checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the world. Paust Printing,

Richmond, Indiana.

Jackson, J.A. 1994. Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). In The birds of North America, No.

85 (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and the

American Ornithologist’s Union, Washington, D.C.

Jackson, W. 2004. Coast Guard vessel ID system enters critical phase. Government Computer News

23:25 (August 9).

Jefferson County Navigation District (JCND). 2002. Phone interview with Tom Jackson of the Jefferson

County Navigation District regarding saltwater barriers and lock structures in Jefferson County.

September 5.

Jefferson County Tax Appraisal District. 2008. 2008 tax rates, homestead exemptions granted, and taxing

entity codes. http://www.jcad.org/reports/reports_entitycode.aspx (accessed July 30, 2009).

Kane, H.E. 1959. Lake Quaternary geology of Sabine Lake and vicinity, Texas and Louisiana. Gulf Coast

Association of Geological Societies Transactions 9:225–235.

1263
14. Literature Cited

14-15

Kasprzak, M. 2007. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Personal communication to Lisa

Vitale, PBS&J, March 8.

Keeland, B.D., and R.R. Sharitz. 1995. Seasonal growth patterns of Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora, Nyssa

aquatica, and Taxodium distichum as affected by hydrologic regime. Canadian Journal of Forestry

Research 25:1084–1096.

Kemp, P.R., and G.L. Cunningham. 1981. Light, temperature and salinity effects on growth, leaf anatomy

and photosynthesis of Distichlis spicata (L.). American Journal of Botany 68(4):507–516.

King, D.B., Jr. 2007. Wave and Beach Processes Modeling for Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas,

Shoreline Erosion Feasibility Study. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer

Research and Development Center. ERDC/CHL TR-07-6. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Kozlowski, T.T. 1997. Responses of woody plants to flooding and salinity. Tree Physiology Monograph

No. 1. Herron Publishing, Victoria, Canada.

Kuhn, N.L., and G. Chen. 2005. Freshwater Inflow Recommendation for the Sabine Lake Estuary of

Texas and Louisiana. March 15, 2005. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Coastal Fisheries

Division, Coastal Studies Program, Austin.

Langley, J.A., K.L. McKee, D.R. Cahoon, J.A. Cherry, and J.P. Megonigal. 2009. Elevated CO2

stimulates marsh elevation gain, counterbalancing sea-level rise. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences, published on-line before printing of March, 26, 2009.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/03/25/0807695106.full.pdf+html?sid=110db994-42a9-4ab

1-899e-c3dfb 7e78680.

Leary, T. 1957. A schooling of leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea coriacea, on the Texas coast.

Copeia 3:232.

Lee, H.I. 2003. Shoreline Assessment of Jefferson County, Texas. Thesis submitted to Texas A&M

University, College Station.

Lester, J., and L. Gonzales (editors.). 2001. Ebb and flow: Galveston Bay characterization highlights.

State of the Bay Symposium V, January 31–February 2, 2001. Galveston Bay Estuary Program,

Galveston, Texas.

Lewis, R.J. 1987. Hawley’s condensed chemical dictionary, 11th Edition. Reinhold Company, New York.

Linscombe, G. 2001. Vegetation type map of the Louisiana coastal marshes (scale 1:62,500). Louisiana

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, New Orleans.

Linthurst, R.A., and E.D. Seneca. 1981. Aeration, nitrogen and salinity as determinants of Spartina

alterniflora Loisel. growth response. Estuaries 4(1):53–63.

Lockwood, M.W., and B. Freeman. 2004. The TOS handbook of Texas birds. Texas A&M University

Press, College Station.

1264
14. Literature Cited

14-16

Long, E.R. 1999. Survey of sediment quality in Sabine Lake, Texas and vicinity. National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment, Technical

Memorandum NOS NCCOS CCMA 137. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

Louis Berger Group and Toxicological and Environmental Associates (LBG and TEA). 2008. Wetland

Value Assessment Model Application in the Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement

Project: Model Assessment Report. The Louis Berger Group and Toxicological & Environmental

Associates.

Louisiana Association of Tax Administration. 2008. Uniform Local Sales Tax Code.

http://www.laota.com/ (accessed July 30, 2009).

Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (LCPRA). 2007. Integrated Ecosystem

Restoration and Hurricane Protection: Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable

Coast. LCPRA, Baton Rouge.

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force (LCWCR). 1998. Caring for

Coastal Wetlands, a summary of the 1997 Evaluation Report to the U.S. Congress on the

effectiveness of Louisiana Coastal Wetland Restoration Projects. http://www.lacoast.gov/reports/

program/CaringBrochure/index.htm (accessed February 2007). U.S. Geological Survey, National

Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana.

———. 2002a. Black Bayou Hydrologic Restoration (CS-27). http://www.lacoast.gov/reports/

display.asp?projectNumber=CS-27&reportType=general (accessed January 2007) and

http://www.lacoast.gov/projects/overview.asp?statenumber=CS-27 (accessed February 6, 2007).

U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana.

———. 2002b. Perry Ridge Shore Protection (CS-24). http://www.lacoast.gov/reports/display.asp?

projectNumber=CS-24&reportType=general (accessed January 2007) and http://www.lacoast.gov/

projects/overview.asp?statenumber=CS-24 (accessed February 2007). U.S. Geological Survey,

National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana.

———. 2002c. GIWW – Perry Ridge West Bank Stabilization (CS-30). http://www.lacoast.gov/reports/

display.asp?projectNumber=CS-30&reportType=general and http://www.lacoast.gov/reports/

managers.asp?projectNumber=CS%2D30 (accessed February 2007). U.S. Geological Survey,

National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana.

———. 2003. East Sabine Lake Hydrologic Restoration (CS-32). http://www.lacoast.gov/reports/

display.asp?projectNumber=CS-32&reportType=general and http://www.lacoast.gov/projects/

(accessed January 2007). U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette,

Louisiana.

———. 2006. Black Bayou Hydrologic Restoration (CS-27) Project Managers’ Technical Fact Sheet

(update December 19, 2006). http://www.lacoast.gov/reports/managers.asp?projectNumber=

CS%2D27 (accessed February 6, 2007).

1265
14. Literature Cited

14-17

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and

Restoration Authority (LCWCR/WCRA). 1998. Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal

Louisiana, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge.

http://www.coast2050.gov/reports/.

———. 1999. Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana, The Appendices. Appendix FRegion 4 Supplemental Information. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge.

Louisiana Department of Labor (LDOL). 2005. Labor Market Publications and Reports.

http://www.ldol.state.la.us/qm_lmi.asp (accessed November 14, 2005).

———. 2009. Labor Market Publications and Reports. http://www.ldol.state.la.us/qm_lmi.asp (accessed

August 10, 2009).

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR). 1993. Bottomland Hardwoods Model, modified

from Habitat Assessment Models for Fresh Swamp and Bottomland Hardwoods within the

Louisiana Coastal Zone.

———.1997. Holly Beach to Constance Beach Shore Protection Preliminary Feasibility Report. LDNR,

Coastal Restoration Division, Open File Report 97-01. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

———. 2002a. Brown Marsh data information management system. http://www.brownmarsh.net/

contact.htm.

———. 2002b. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. http://www.dnr.state.la.us/crm/coastmgt/gems/

sabinena.htm.

———. 2003a. Monitoring Plan for Black Bayou Hydrologic Restoration (State Project Number CS-27,

Priority Project List 6), Calcasieu and Cameron Parishes. 13 p. Coastal Resources Division,

Monitoring Section, Coastal Restoration and Management, Louisiana.

———. 2003b. Monitoring Plan for Perry Ridge Shore Protection (State Project Number CS-24, Priority

Project List 4), Calcasieu Parish. 8 p. Coastal Resources Division, Monitoring Section, Coastal

Restoration and Management, Louisiana.

———. 2005a. 2005/2006 Annual Inspection Report for Black Bayou Hydrologic Restoration Project

(CS-27). Calcasieu and Cameron Parishes. 6 p. Coastal Restoration and Management, Louisiana.

———. 2005b. 2005 Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Report for Perry Ridge Shore Protection

(CS-24). Calcasieu Parish. 12 p. Coastal Restoration and Management, Louisiana.

———. 2007. 2004 Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Report for Black Bayou Hydrologic

Restoration (CS-27). Calcasieu and Cameron Parishes. 22 p. Coastal Restoration and Management,

Louisiana.

Louisiana Department of Revenue. 2005. Parish tax agencies. www.laota.com/pta.htm.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). Var. Lower Sabine River fisheries data.

Louisiana Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Inland Fisheries Division, Baton Rouge.

1266
14. Literature Cited

14-18

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries District Biologist. 2001. Pers. comm. to PBS&J Senior

Scientist (fisheries) re: Sabine River fisheries data and angling (phone and email November 19,

2001).

Louisiana Economic Development. 2005. Louisiana Parish Profiles. www.lded.state.la.us/overview/

profile.aspx (accessed November 17, 2005).

Louisiana State Census Data Center. 2007. Louisiana Population Projections. http://louisiana.gov/

Explore/Population_Projections/ (accessed July 29, 2009).

Louisiana State University. 2009. LIDAR data provided by Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office,

compiled by Louisiana State University CADGIS Research Laboratory. http://atlas.lsu.edu/central/

(accessed on February 6, 2009).

Louisiana Workforce Commission. 2007. Employment and Wages 4th Quarter 2006. http://www.laworks.

net/LaborMarketInfo/LMI_WageData2002toPresent.asp?year=2008&qtr=4 (accessed July 29,

2009).

———. 2009. Employment and Wages 4th Quarter 2008. http://www.laworks.net/LaborMarketInfo/

LMI_WageData2002toPresent.asp?year=2008&qtr=4 (accessed July 29, 2009).

Lower Neches Valley Authority (LNVA). 2002. 2002 Basin highlights report. Lower Neches Valley

Authority, Beaumont, Texas.

Lytle, W.M., and F.R. Holdcamper. 1975. Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States, 1790–1868.

Reprint of 1952 edition. The Steamship Historical Society of America, Inc. Staten Island, New

York.

Mantz, P.A., and A. Dong. 1996. Tidal circulation in Sabine Lake. Proceedings, Sabine Lake Conference,

September 13–14, 1996, Beaumont, Texas (TAMU-SG-97-101):16–23.

Marcantel, R.J. 1996. Existing ecosystem management systems protecting the coastal wetlands in the

Calcasieu/Sabine River Basin. Proceedings, Sabine Lake Conference, September 13–14, 1996.

Beaumont, Texas (TAMU-SG-97-101):24–26. http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/tamu/tamuw9600.pdf.

Publication by Texas A&M University, College Station (TAMU-SG-97-101).

Martin Associates. 2006. Economic Impacts of the Sabine-Neches Waterway and Economic Benefits of

Maintenance Dredging of the Waterway. Martin Associates, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Martin, L. 2002. Regional Sediment Management: Background and Overview of Initial Implementation.

IWR Report 02-PS-2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Belvoir,

Virginia. http://www.wes.army.mil/rsm/pubs/pdfs/rsm-tn-8.pdf (accessed March 20, 2008).

Mason, C. 1981. Hydraulics and stability of five Texas inlets. Miscellaneous Paper CERC-81-1. U.S.

Army Engineer Coastal Engineering Research Center. Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Mathewson, C.C. 1987. Factors influencing coastal processes and engineering design along the Texas

coast. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists XXIV(3).

1267
14. Literature Cited

14-19

Maurer, D., R.T. Keck, J.C. Tinsman, W. A. Leathem, C. Wethe, C. Lord, and T.M. Church. 1986.

Vertical migration and mortality of marine benthos in dredged material: a synthesis. International

revue gestam Hydrobiologia 71:49–63.

May, E.B. 1973. Environmental effects of hydraulic dredging in estuaries. Alabama Marine Resources

Bulletin 9:1–85.

Maynord, S. 2005. Ship effects before and after deepening of Sabine-Neches Waterway, Port Arthur,

Texas. ERDC/CHL TR-03-15. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,

Mississippi.

McFarlane, R.W. 1996. A conceptual ecosystem model for Sabine Lake. Proceedings, Sabine Lake

Conference, September 13–14, 1996, Beaumont, Texas (TAMU-SG-97-101):27–31.

McGuff, P.R., and W. Roberson. 1974. Lower Sabine and Neches Rivers, Texas and Louisiana: a study of

the prehistoric and historic resources in areas under investigation for navigation improvement.

Texas Archaeological Survey, Research Report No. 46. The University of Texas at Austin.

McIntire, W.G. 1958. Prehistoric Indian settlements of the changing Mississippi River Delta. Coastal

Studies Series No. 1. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

McKee, K.L., and I.A. Mendelssohn. 1989. Response of a freshwater marsh plant community to increased

salinity and increased water level. Aquatic Botany 34:301–316.

McKee, K.L., I.A. Mendelssohn, and M.D. Materne. 2006. Salt marsh dieback in coastal Louisiana:

Survey of plant and soil conditions in Barataria and Terrebonne Basins, June 2000–September

2001. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2006-1167. 71 pp. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/

1167/pdf/of06-1167_508.pdf.

McKee, J.E., and H.W. Wolf. 1973. Water quality criteria. Publication No. 3-A. California State Water

Resources Control Board, Sacramento.

McNab, W.H., and P.E. Avers. 1994. Ecological subregions of the United States: section descriptions.

U.S. Forest Service WO-WA-5. Washington, D.C. 267 pp.

Megonigal, J.P., W.H. Conner, S. Kroeger, and R.R. Sharitz. 1997. Aboveground production in

southeastern floodplain forests: a test of the subsidy-stress hypothesis. Ecology 78(2):370–384.

Meier, M.H. 1989. A debate on responsible artificial reef development. Bulletin of Marine Science

44(2):1051–1057.

Meyer, K.D. 1995. Swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus). A. Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of

North America, No. 138. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Meylan, A. 1982. Sea turtle migration – evidence from tag returns. In: Biology and conservation of sea

Turtles (K. Bjorndal, editor), 91–100. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

1268
14. Literature Cited

14-20

Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command. 2004. “The History Channel captures

operations at Beaumont, Texas,” TRANSLOG Summer 2004. The Transportation Engineering

Agency, the 597th Transportation Group, Alexandria, Virginia.

———. 2006. “Port of Beaumont reaches mile-stone handling military cargo,” TRANSLOG Summer

2006. The Transportation Engineering Agency, the 597th Transportation Group, Alexandria,

Virginia.

Milliken K.T., J.B. Andersen, and A.B. Rodriguez. 2008a. Tracking the Holocene evolution of Sabine

Lake through the interplay of eustasy, antecedent topography, and sediment supply variations,

Texas and Louisiana, USA. The Geological Society of America, Special Paper 443-05.

———. 2008b. A new composite Holocene sea-level curve for the northern Gulf of Mexico, in J.B.

Anderson and A.B. Rodriguez, editors, Response of Upper Gulf Coast Estuaries to Holocene

Climate Change and Sea-Level Rise: Geological Society of America Special Paper 443, p. 1–11.

Minello, T.J. 2000. Temporal development of salt marsh value for nekton and epifauna: Utilization of

dredged material marshes in Galveston Bay, Texas. Wetlands Ecol. and Manag. 8:327–341.

Minello, T.J., and L.P. Rozas. 2002. Nekton populations in Gulf Coast wetlands: fine scale distributions,

landscape patterns, and restoration implication. Ecol Appl 12:441–445.

Minello, T.J., and J.W. Webb, Jr. 1997. Use of natural and created Spartina alterniflora salt marshes by

fishery species and other aquatic fauna in Galveston Bay, Texas, USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

151:165–179.

Minerals Management Service (MMS). 1997. Gulf of Mexico OCS lease sales 169, 172, 175, 178, and

182, central planning area, final environmental impact statement. Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional

Office, U.S. Department of the Interior, New Orleans.

Mitsch, W.J., J.R. Taylor, and K.B. Benson. 1991. Estimating primary productivity of forested wetland

communities in different hydrologic landscapes. Landscape Ecology 5(2):75–92.

Moherek, A.J. 1978. Flume Experiments on sand, silt and clay mixtures from the Offshore Dredged

Material Disposal Site, Galveston, Texas. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,

Technical Report D-78-34.

Morang, A. 2006. North Texas Sediment Budget, Sabine Pass to San Luis Pass. Coastal and Hydraulics

Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC/CHL TR-06-17.

Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Morgan, J.P., L.G. Nichols, and M. Wright. 1958. Morphological effect of Hurricane Aubrey. Technical

Report No. 10, Coastal Studies Institute, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Moore, W.E., and S. Aronow. 1993. An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Colliers Ferry Wetlands

Recreational Area and Nature Preserve, Jefferson County, Texas. Brazos Valley Research

Associates Contract Reports, No. 25.

1269
14. Literature Cited

14-21

Morris, J.T., P.V. Sundareshwar, C.T. Nietch, B. Kjerfve, and D.R. Cahoon. 2002. Responses of coastal

wetlands to rising sea level: Ecology 83(10):2869–2877.

Morton, R.A. 1975. Shoreline Changes Between Sabine Pass and Bolivar Roads, An Analysis of

Historical Changes of the Texas Gulf Shoreline. Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of

Texas at Austin.

———. 1977. Historical Shoreline Changes and Their Causes, Texas Gulf Coast. Bureau of Economic

Geology, The University of Texas at Austin.

———. 1996. Geological and historical development of Sabine Lake – an overview. Proceedings, Sabine

Lake Conference, September 13–14, Beaumont, Texas, (TAMU SG 97-101). http://nsgl.

gso.uri.edu/tamu/tamuw9600.pdf Publication by Texas A&M University, College Station (TAMUSG-97-101).

———. 2003. An Overview of Coastal Land Loss: With Emphasis on the Southeastern United States:

USGS OFR 03-337.

Morton, R.A., J.C. Bernier, and J.A. Barras. 2006. Evidence of regional subsidence and associated

interior wetland loss induced by hydrocarbon production, Gulf Coast region, USA, in

Environmental Geology 50:261-274.

Morton, R.A., Julie C. Bernier, John A. Barras, and Nicholas F. Ferina. 2005. Rapid Subsidence and

Historical Wetland Loss in the Mississippi Delta Plain: Likely Causes and Future Implications:

Open-File Report 2005–1216, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

Morton, R.A., J.C. Gibeaut, and R. Gutierrez. 1995. Pre-project surveys of beach and nearshore

conditions, Galveston beach nourishment project. Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of

Texas at Austin.

Morton, R.A., and J.G. Paine. 1990. Coastal land loss in Texas – an overview. Transactions – Gulf Coast

Association of Geological Societies 40:625–634.

Mosier, D. 2002. Lower Neches Valley Authority, TWC §11.121 Application to Appropriate State Water

06-5743, Neches River Saltwater Barrier, Neches River, Neches River Basin, Jefferson County,

Texas. Memo to David Koinm. Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission. January 2.

Musick, J. 1979. The marine turtles of Virginia with notes on identification and natural history.

Educational Series No. 24. Sea Grant Program, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester

Point, Virginia.

Myers, S. 2009. Personal communication with Human Resources Manager and Executive Assistant Port

of Port Arthur on July 30.

Nairn, R.B. 1992. Designing for cohesive shores. Proceedings Coastal Engineering in Canada. J.W.

Kamphuis, editor, Department of Civil Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada.

1270
14. Literature Cited

14-22

Nairn, R.B., and D.H. Willis. 2002. Erosion, transport, and deposition of cohesive sediments. Coastal

Engineering Manual, Part III, Coastal Sediment Processes, Chapter 5, T. Walton, editor, Engineer

Manual 1110-2-1100, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC). 2007. NBIC Online Database. Electronic

publication, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center and United States Coast Guard.

http://invasions.si.edu/nbic/search.html (accessed March 8, 2007).

National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory (NFWL). 1980. Selected vertebrate endangered species of the

seacoast of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program,

Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-80/01.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2003. Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation,

Biological Opinion for Dredging of Gulf of Mexico Navigation Channels and Sand Mining

(Borrow) Areas Using Hopper Dredges by COE Galveston. Issued November 19, 2003.

———. 2005. Annual Commercial Landing Statistics for Texas and Louisiana, 2002 and 2003.

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html (accessed 2005).

———. 2006a. Information on sea turtles. http://www.nmfs. noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles.html.

———. 2006b. Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhinchus desotoi). http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/

fish/Gulf_ sturgeon.html (accessed March 14).

———. n.d. Office of Protected Resources Species Information. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

species/esa/ (accessed 2001).

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and USFWS). 1991a.

Recovery plan for U.S. population of loggerhead turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

———. 1991b. Recovery plan for U.S. population of Atlantic green turtle. National Marine Fisheries

Service, Washington, D.C.

———. 1992. Recovery plan for leatherback turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003. Biological Opinion regarding

Dredging of Gulf of Mexico Navigation Channels and Sand Mining ("BoITOW") Areas Using

Hopper Dredges by COE Galveston, New Orleans, Mobile, and Jacksonville Districts

(Consultation Number F/SER/2000/01287) (November 19, 2003). http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/

tessp/pdfs/2003GulfBO.pdf (accessed February 2007). National Marine Fisheries Service,

Southeast Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, St. Petersburg, Florida.

National Park Service (NPS). 2006. Information on sea turtles. http://www.nps.gov/pais/myweb2a/.

National Research Council (NRC). 1987. Responding to changes in sea level: engineering implications.

Commission of Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, National

Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

1271
14. Literature Cited

14-23

Natural Diversity Database (NDD), Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2005a. Annotated

county lists of rare species, Jefferson County. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Wildlife

Diversity Branch, Austin. Revised April 6.

———. 2005b. Annotated county lists of rare species, Orange County. Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department, Wildlife Diversity Branch, Austin. Revised June 2.

———. 2006. Special species and natural community data files and NDD data on USGS topographic

maps.

Nederland Economic Development Corporation. 2008. Major employers. http://www.nededc.com/

stats.htm.

Nelson, D.A., and E.J. Pullen. 1988. Environmental considerations using beach nourishment for dredged

material placement. In R.L. Lazor and R. Medina (editors), 1990. Beneficial uses of dredged

material: Proceedings of the Gulf coast regional workshop. USACE, Washington, D.C. Technical

Report D-90-3.

Nelson, H.F., and E.E. Bray. 1970. Stratigraphy and history of the Holocene sediments in the SabineHigh Island area, Gulf of Mexico. Special Publication 15, Deltaic sedimentation, modern and

Ancient, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, J.P. Morgan and R.H. Shaver,

editors, 48–77.

Nielsen-Gammon, J.W. 2009. The Changing Climate of Texas in “The Impact of Global Warming on

Texas” edited by Gerald North, Jurgen Schmandt, and Judith Clarkson, University of Texas Press,

Austin.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), Plan Committee. 2004. North American

Waterfowl Management Plan 2004. Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Initiative Plans. Canadian Wildlife

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secreteria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.

Nyman, J.A., R.D. DeLaune, H.H. Roberts, and W. H. Patrick, Jr. 1993. Relationship between vegetation

and soil formation in a rapidly submerging coastal marsh. Marine Ecology Progress Series 96:269–

279.

Oberholser, H.C. 1974. The Bird Life of Texas. 2 vol. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1,069 pp.

Odum, H.T., and R.F. Wilson. 1962. Further studies on reaeration and metabolism of Texas Bays, 1958–

1960. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci., (8):23–25. The University of Texas at Austin.

Onuf, C.P. 1995. Seagrass meadows of the Laguna Madre of Texas. In: Our Living Resources, A report to

the Nation on the Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals and Ecosystems

(editors, E.T. LaRoe, G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett, P.D. Doran, and M.J. Mac). U.S. Dept. of the

Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, D.C., pp. 275–277.

Orange County Tax Appraisal District. 2008. Tax Rates. http://www.orangecad.net/Appraisal/

PublicAccess/ (accessed July 30, 2009).

1272
14. Literature Cited

14-24

Pacific International Engineering (PIE). 2003. Coastal geomorphology of a non-barrier Gulf of Mexico

beach: Analysis for protection of Highway 87 and McFaddin NWR in Jefferson County, Texas.

Austin, Texas.

Paille, R. 1996. Water exchange patterns and salinity in marshes between Calcasieu and Sabine Lakes.

Proceedings, Sabine Lake Conference, September 13–14, 1996, Beaumont, Texas, (TAMU-SG-97-

101):36–43. http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/tamu/tamuw96001.pdf. Publication by Texas A&M University,

College Station (TAMU-SG-97-101). Author, R. Paille, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological

Services Division, Lafayette, Louisiana.

Parchure, T.M., S. Maynord, and S. Sarruff. 2005. Desktop Study for Sediment-Related Problems at

Sabine-Neches Project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development

Center, Coastal Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Parker, J.C. 1965. Ecology of western gulf estuaries. Pages 63–67 in Fish. Res. Rep Contrib. No. 207, pp.

63–67. Bur. Comm. Fish. Biol. Lab., Galveston, Texas.

Parrondo, R.T., J.G. Gosselink, and C.S. Hopkinson. 1978. Effects of salinity and drainage on the growth

of three salt marsh grasses. Botanical Gazette 139(1):102–107.

Pattillo, M.E., T.E. Czapla, D.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco. 1997. Distribution and abundance of fishes

and invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Vol. II: Species life history summaries. ELMR Rep.

No. 11. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessment Div., Silver Spring, Maryland. 377 pp.

PBS&J. 1999. Sabine-Neches Waterway Entrance Channel, Contaminant Assessment. Document No.

991247. PBS&J, Austin, Texas.

———. 2002. Hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste survey of the Sabine-Neches Waterway.

Document No. 020157. PBS&J, Austin, Texas.

———. 2004a. Sabine-Neches Waterway Entrance Channel 2004 Contaminant Assessment. Document

No. 040338. PBS&J, Austin, Texas.

———. 2004b. Sediment Transport Modeling of Dredged Disposal Material, Cheniere Sabine Pass

Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal, Cameron Parish, Louisiana. PBS&J, Houston, Texas.

———. 2005. Historic Properties Identification, Oyster Reef Identification, and Pipeline and Obstruction

Identification for the Sabine/Neches Waterway Widening and Deepening, Jefferson and Orange

Counties, Texas, and Cameron Parish, Louisiana. PBS&J, Austin, Texas.

———. 2006. Biological Assessment for Impacts to Endangered and Threatened Species Relative to the

Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project, Texas and Louisiana. PBS&J, Austin,

Texas.

Pearson, C.E., D.B. Kelley, R.E. Weinstein, S.M. Gagliano with contributions by Baron K. Sen Gupta,

M.A. Egar, F.M. Wiseman, and P.H. Templet. 1986. Archaeological Investigations of the Outer

Continental Shelf: A Study Within the Sabine River Valley. Offshore Louisiana and Texas. Coastal

Environments, Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

1273
14. Literature Cited

14-25

Penland, S., and K. Ramsey. 1990. Relative sea-level rise in Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico: 1908–

1988. Journal of Coastal Research 6:323–342.

Pezeshki, S.R., and R.D. DeLaune 1995. Variations in the response of two U.S. Gulf coast populations of

Spartina alterniflora to hypersalinity. Journal of Coastal Research 11(1):89–95.

Pezeshki, S.R., R.D. DeLaune, and W.H. Patrick Jr. 1987a. Response of Baldcypress (Taxodiuin

distichum L. var. distichum) to increases in flooding salinity in Louisiana’s Mississippi River

Deltaic Plain. Wetlands 7:1–10.

———. 1987b. Effects of flooding and salinity on photosynthesis of Sagittaria lancifolia. Marine

Ecology Progress Series 41:87–91.

———. 1987c. Response of the freshwater marsh species, Panicum hemitomon Schult, to increased

salinity. Freshwater Biology 17:195–200.

———. 1990. Flooding and saltwater intrusion: potential effects on survival and productivity of wetland

forests along the U.S. Gulf Coast. Forest Ecology and Management 33/34:287–301.

Port of Beaumont. 2005a. “New Vessel Traffic System Safeguards Port,” Welcome Aboard, Fall 2005.

http://www.portofbeaumont.com/news/wa0805.pdf.

———. 2005b. New Release: Port Receives Grant for Infrastructure Projects (August 4, 2005).

http://portofbeaumont.com/news/tealu.htm (accessed January 2007).

———. 2008. Did you know? http://www.portofbeaumont.com/index.htm (accessed May 2008).

Powel, E.N., E.E. Hoffmann, J.M. Klinck, and S.M Ray. 1992. Modeling oyster populations. I. A

commentary on filtration rate. Is faster always better? Journal of Shellfish Research 11(2):387–398.

Pulich W.M., Jr., C. Blair, and W.A. White. 1997. Current status and historical trends of seagrass in the

Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program Study Area. Report CCBNEP-20. Corpus Christi

Bay National Estuary Program, National Resources Center, TAMU-GG, Corpus Christi, Texas.

131 pp.

Quammen, M.L., and C.P. Onuf. 1993. Laguna Madre: seagrass changes continue decades after salinity

reduction: Estuaries 16(2):302–310.

Raab, L.M., and H.A. Smith. 1983. Archeological Site-Testing on Taylor Bayou, Jefferson County,

Texas, Toward a Regional Settlement-Subsistence Model. Rio Grande Associates, Houston.

Rabinow, R.A. 2004. The Liquid Pipeline Industry in the United States, “Where It’s Been, Where It’s

Going, a report for the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, April 2004, p. 14.

Rahmstorf, S. 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise. Science 315:368–370.

Rebel, T.P. 1974. Sea turtles and the turtle industry of the West Indies, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico.

Rev. Ed. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida.

1274
14. Literature Cited

14-26

Reid, G.K., Jr. 1957. Biologic and hydrographic adjustment in a disturbed Gulf coast estuary. Limnol.

Oceanogr. 2:198–212.

Richard, A. 2002. Port of Beaumont. Personal communication to Chris Moore, PBS&J, Austin, Texas.

April 30.

Richardson, D., E. Rozenburg, and D. Sarkozi. 1998. A birder’s checklist of the upper Texas coast:

Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, and Jefferson counties. Houston Outdoor

Nature Club, Ornithology Group, Houston, Texas.

Ricklis, R.A., and M.D. Blum. 1997. The Geoarchaeological Record of Holocene Sea Level Change and

Human Occupation of the Texas Gulf Coast. Geoarchaeology 12(4):287–314.

Rogers, R. 1991. National Register Testing at site 41OR58: Sabine River, Orange County, Texas. Espey,

Huston and Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas.

Rohling, E.J., K. Grant, CH. Hemleben, M. Siddall, B.A.A. Hoogakker, M. Bolshaw, and M. Kucera.

2008. High rates of sea-level rise during the last interglacial period. Nature Geoscience 1:38–42.

Rosman, I. 1987. Underwater sightings of sea turtles in the northern Gulf of Mexico. OCS study. [New

Orleans, Louisiana.] U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico

OCS Regional Office.

Ross, J.P. 1982. Historical decline of loggerhead, ridley, and leatherback sea turtles. In: K. Bjorndal

(editor), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Pp. 189–195. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington, D.C.

Rouse, L.J., Jr., W.J. Wiseman, Jr., L.C. Bender, N.L. Guinasso, Jr., F.J. Kelly, D.A. Brooks, Y-T Lo, J.

She, and A. Valle-Levinson. 2004. Observational and Predictive Study of Inner Shelf Currents over

the Louisiana-Texas Shelf. Coastal Marine Institute, Louisiana State University. Published by U.S.

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS

Study, MMS 2004-036.

Ryder, R.A., and D.E. Manry. 1994. White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The

birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Sabine Pilots Association. 2007. Guidelines: Ship Traffic Control for the Sabine-Neches Waterway.

Sabine Pilots Association, Groves, Texas. http://www.sabinepilots.com/guidelines.htm (accessed

March 9, 2008).

Sabine River Authority (Texas and Louisiana). 2009. Toledo Bend Project Joint Operation website:

www.tbpjo.org (accessed August 8, 2009).

Sabine River Authority of Texas (SRA-TX). 2002. Monthly Water Quality Reports. www.sra.dst.tx.us/.

Sabine River Authority of Texas (SRA) and Lower Neches Valley Authority (LNVA). 2006. Ecological

Condition of the Sabine-Neches Estuary. First published December 2004, updated March 2005 and

April 2006.

1275
14. Literature Cited

14-27

Salinas, L.M., R.D. DeLaune, and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1986. Changes occurring along a rapidly submerging

coastal area: Louisiana, USA. Journal of Coastal Research 2:269–284.

Saloman, C.H., and S.P. Naughton. 1977. Effects of Hurricane Eloise on the benthic fauna of Panama

City Beach, Florida. Marine Biology, Vol 42.

Sasser, C.E., and J.G. Gosselink. 1984. Vegetation and primary production in a floating freshwater marsh

in Louisiana. Aquatic Botany 20:245–255.

Scarborough-Bull, A., and J.J. Kendall, Jr. 1992. Preliminary investigation: platform removal and

associated biota. L.B. Cahoon (editor), Proceedings of the American Academy of Underwater

Sciences Twelfth Annual Scientific Diving Symposium, September 24–27, 1992. University of

North Carolina Sea Grant College Program, Chapel Hill. Pp 31–37.

Schmidly, D.J. 1991. The bats of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

———. 2004. The mammals of Texas, revised edition. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Schreiber, E.A., C.J. Feare, B.A. Harrington, B.G. Murray, Jr., W.B. Robertson, Jr., M.J. Robertson, and

G.E. Woolfenden. 2002. Sooty tern (Sterna fuscata). In: The birds of North America, No. 665 (A.

Poole and F. Gill, editors). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Schwartz, F. 1976. Status of sea turtles, Cheloniidae and Dermochelidae, in North Carolina. Abstr. in

Proceedings and abstracts from the 73rd meeting of the North Carolina Academy of Science, Inc.,

April 2–3, 1976, at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc.

92(2):76–77.

Scroggs, S. 2002. Great Texas Birding Classic Tournament Coordinator. Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department. Telephone conversation with K. Martel Goldsmith, PBS&J, Austin, Texas.

December 5.

Servello, F., and C.E. Blanchard 1992. Cultural resources evaluation of Dreary Island (16CM141). C.H.

Fenstermaker and Associates, Inc., Lafayette, Louisiana.

Shackelford, C.E., and G.G. Simons. 2000. A two-year report of the swallow-tailed kite in Texas: a

survey and monitoring project for 1998 and 1999. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, PWD BK

W7000-496 (6/00). Austin.

Shannon, M.C., C.M. Grieve, and L.E. Francois. 1994. Whole-plant response to salinity. In PlantEnvironment Interactions. Edited by R.E. Wilkinson. Marcel Dekker, New York.

Shaver, D.J. 2000. Padre Island National Seashore, field station leader. Personal communication to Derek

Green, PBS&J, Austin, Texas. November 20.

———. 2006. Padre Island National Seashore, field station leader. Personal communication to Derek

Green, PBS&J, April 3.

1276
14. Literature Cited

14-28

Sheridan, P. 1999. Temporal and spatial effects of open water dredged material disposal on habitat

utilization by fishery and forage organisms in Laguna Madre, Texas. Final Report to the Laguna

Madre Interagency Coordination Team, March.

Sheridan, P.F., R.D. Slack, S.M. Ray, L.W. McKinney, E.F. Kilma, and T.R. Cainan. 1989. Biological

components of Galveston Bay. Galveston Bay: Issues, Resources, Status and Management.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Estuary-of-the-Month Seminar Series No. 13,

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Pp. 23–51.

Shields, M. 2002. Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). In: The birds of North America, No. 609 (A.

Poole and F. Gill, editors). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Shinkle, K.D., and R.K. Dokka. 2004. Rates of vertical displacement at benchmarks in the lower

Mississippi valley and the northern Gulf Coast. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. NOAA Technical Report NOS/NGS 50.

Simon, J.L., and D.M. Dauer. 1977. Reestablishment of a benthic community following natural

defaunation. In Belle W. Barauch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal Research. Ecology of

Marine Benthos, 1st ed. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Smeins, F.E., D.D. Diamond, and C.W. Hanselka. 1991. Coastal prairie. Pages 269–290 in R.T. Coupland

(editor), Ecosystems of the world: Natural grasslands–introduction and western hemisphere.

Elsevier, New York.

Spalding, E.A., and M.W. Hester. 2007. Interactive Effects of Hydrology and Salinity on Oligohaline

Plant Species Productivity: Implications of Relative Sea-level Rise. Estuaries and Coasts,

30(2):214–225.

Soil Conservation Service. 1965. Soil survey of Jefferson County, Texas. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, D.C.

Southeast Texas Waterways Advisory Council (SETWAC). 2007. Meeting Minutes, Meeting of July 12,

2007. http://www.uscg.mil/d8/vts/portarthur/setwac.htm.

Southwest Louisiana – The Chamber. 2008. Top 10 employers – Cameron and Calcasieu parishes,

Louisiana. http://www.chamberswla.org/foundation/toptenemployers.html.

Stanley, D.R., and C.A. Wilson. 1990. A fishery-dependent based study of fish species composition and

associated catch rates around oil and gas structures off Louisiana. Fisheries Bulletin 88:719–730.

Stern, E.M., and W.B. Stickle. 1978. Effects of turbidity and suspended material in aquatic environments.

Literature Review. Tech. Rpt. D-78-21. USACE, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,

Mississippi.

Story, D.A., J.A. Guy, B.A. Burnett, M.D. Freeman, J.C. Rose, D.G. Steele, B.W. Olive, and K.J.

Reinhard. 1990. The archeology and bioarcheology of the Gulf Coastal Plain: Volume 1. Report

prepared by the Arkansas Archeological Survey for the U.S. Army Engineers, Southwestern

Division.

1277
14. Literature Cited

14-29

Stright, M.J. 1990. Archaeological sites on the North American Continental Shelf. Paper submitted to The

Archaeological Geology of North America, edited by N.P. Lasca and J. Donahue, Geological

Society of America, Centennial Special Volume 4, Boulder, Colorado.

Sutherlin, J. 1997. Historical development of the marsh system on the west side of Sabine Lake. Sabine

Lake Conference: Where Texas and Louisiana Come Together (conference proceedings). Sabine

Lake Conference, Beaumont, Texas. http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/tamu/tamuw96001.pds. Publication by

Texas A&M University, College Station (TAMU-SG-97-101).

Taylor, R.B. 2000. Performance Report, Federal Aid Project No. W-125-R-11, Job No. 91: black.

T. Baker Smith, Inc. 2006. Oyster Assessment for Proposed Locations, Flow Lines and Facilities to Serve

the Ballard Well SL 17131 No. 1 and the MF 102080 Well No. 1, Sabine Lake, Cameron Parish,

Louisiana, and Jefferson County, Texas. Lafayette, Louisiana.

Teeter, A.M., G.L. Brown, M.P. Alexandret, C.J. Callegan, M.S. Sarruff, and D.C. McVan. 2003. Windwave resuspension and circulation of sediment and dredged material in Laguna Madre, Texas.

ERDC/CHL TR-02-XX. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,

Mississippi.

Tennant, A. 1998. A field guide to Texas snakes. Second edition. Gulf Coast Publishing, Houston, Texas.

Texas A&M University. 2000. Beaumont-Port Arthur – real estate market overview – 2000. Texas A&M

– Real Estate Center, College Station.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ, formerly Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission [TNRCC]). 2002. Draft 2002 Texas Water Quality Inventory and 303(d) List. Surface

Water Quality Monitoring Team, Monitoring Operations Division, Lab and Mobile Monitoring

Section, Office of Enforcement. TCEQ, Austin. September 2002.

———. 2008. Revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Control of Ozone Air Pollution:

Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Beaumont-Port Arthur

Ozone Nonattainment Areas; TCEQ Adopted December 10, 2008.

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. 2005a. Local sales and use tax information – sales tax.

http://www.cpa.state.tx/taxinfo/salestax.html#localtax (accessed November 17, 2005).

———. 2005b. Local sales and use tax information – property tax. http://www.cpa.state.tx/taxinfo/

proptax/riremedy1.html#1.

———. 2009. Sales and Use Tax. http://www.window.state.tx.us/ taxinfo/sales/ (accessed July 30, 2009).

Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS). 2008. Classification of shellfish harvesting areas of

Sabine Lake. http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/seafood/mapspdf/shellfishclassificationmaps/sabine08.

pdf.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 1999a. TxDOT urban files for Hardin, Jefferson, and

Orange counties, Texas. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin.

1278
14. Literature Cited

14-30

———. 1999b. Parks coverage for Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange counties, Texas. Texas Department of

Transportation, Austin.

Texas Legislature Online (TLO). 2007. Texas Legislature Online actions. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/

BillLookup/BillNumber.aspx.

Texas Natural Heritage Program (TNHP). 1993. Plant communities of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department, Austin.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 1980. Statewide freshwater fisheries monitoring and

management program, Federal aid in sport fish restoration act project F-30-19: existing reservoir

and stream management recommendations for Sabine River. Austin.

———. 1985. Statewide freshwater fisheries monitoring and management program, Federal aid in sport

fish restoration act project F-30-19: Existing Reservoir and Stream Management Recommendations

for Taylor Bayou, Hildebrand Bayou, Cow Bayou, Little Cypress Bayou, Adams Bayou, 1984.

Austin.

———. 1992. Coastal Wetlands Habitat (CWH) – Lower Neches River. TPWD Resource Protection,

Aquatic Studies Branch.

———. 1994. Performance Reports for Sabine and Neches Rivers, as required for the Federal Aid in

Fisheries Restoration Act (report and datasheets). Jasper Inland Fisheries Officer, Jasper, Texas.

———. 1995a. Statewide freshwater fisheries monitoring and management program, Federal aid in sport

fish restoration act project F-30-19: Survey Report for the Neches River, 1994. Austin.

———. 1995b. Statewide freshwater fisheries monitoring and management program, Federal aid in sport

fish restoration act project F-30-19: Survey Report for Taylor Bayou, 1995. Austin.

———. 1997. Texas wetlands conservation plan. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin.

———. 1999. Seagrass conservation plan for Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin.

———. 2003. Salt Bayou Open Water Trend Analysis, 2003 and 2004 Revision. GIS Department,

Austin, Texas.

———. 2004. Wetland Habitat Map of J. D. Murphree WMA. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Port Arthur,

Texas.

———. 2005a. J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild

/hunt/wma/find_a_wma/list/?id=40.

———. 2005b. Lower Neches Wildlife Management Area. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/hunt/

wma/find_a_wma/list/?id=58.

———. 2005c. Tony Houseman Wildlife Management Area. http://ww.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/hunt/

wma/find_a_wma/list/?id=38.

1279
14. Literature Cited

14-31

———. 2005d. 2004 Texas Commercial Landings. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fishboat/fish/commercial/

comland.phtml (accessed July 28, 2009).

———. 2005e. Land and water resources conservation and recreation plan. Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department.

———. 2006. Information on the leatherback sea turtle. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/

species/endang/animals/reptiles_amphibians/leathback.html.

———. 2010. Annotated county lists of rare species, Jefferson and Orange counties. Texas Parks and

Wildlife Department, Wildlife Diversity Branch, Austin.

Texas Water Commission. 1963. Reconnaissance investigation of the ground water resources of the Gulf

Coast region. Bulletin 6305. Texas Water Commission, Austin.

Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). 2007. The 2007 State Water Plan. http://www.twdb.

state.tx.us/publications/reports/State_Water_Plan/2007/2007StateWaterPlan/2007StateWaterPlan.

htm, Chapters 1 (Highlights), 2 (Region I Planning Document), and 3 (Fifty Years of Water

Planning in Texas). Adopted November 14, 2006 (accessed January 2007). Austin, Texas.

Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). 2009. Quarterly Employment and Wages. http://www.tracer2.

com/cgi/dataanalysis/industryselection1.asp?menuchoice=industry (accessed July 29, 2009).

Tirpak, A. 2002. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Coastal Fisheries. Personal communication with

Andrew Labay, PBS&J (via Amanda Schneider, USACE). October 8.

Titus, J.G., and V. Narayanan. 1995. The probability of sea level rise. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), EPA-230-R-95-008.

Törnqvist, T.E., S.J. Bick, K. van der Borg, and A.F.M. de Jong. 2006. How stable is the Mississippi

Delta? Geology 34:697–700, doi: 10.1130/G22624.1.

Tubman, M.W., and J.N. Suhayda. 1976. Wave action and bottom movements in fine sediments.

Proceedings of the 15th Coastal Engineering Conference, Honolulu. ASCE, New York.

Turner Collie & Braden. 2003. Sabine-Neches Waterway Feasibility Site Concept, Beneficial Use

Development, Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by Turner Collie & Braden, Inc.

July 14.

Turner, E.S., and T.R. Hester. 1985. A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians. Texas Monthly

Press, Austin.

University of Texas. 2001. Handbook of Texas – Sabine Lake. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/

online/articles/view/SS/ros1.html.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1961. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana. New Orleans

District, New Orleans, Louisiana.

1280
14. Literature Cited

14-32

———. 1971a. Survey of Holly Beach and Vicinity, Louisiana, Series No. 95. USACE, New Orleans

District, Louisiana. 19 p.

———. 1971b. Texas coast shores regional inventory report.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston

District. Galveston, Texas.

———. 1975a (reprinted 1984). Final Environmental Impact Statement: Maintenance Dredging Gulf

Intracoastal Waterway Texas Section, Main Channel and Tributary Channels. Volumes 1, 2, and 3.

Galveston, Texas.

———. 1975b. Environmental inventory and impact evaluation of maintenance dredging of the SabineNeches Waterway, Appendix A: biological inventory. U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston,

Texas.

———. 1980. Survey of Sabine River, Texas from its mouth to east Hamilton: Annual Report of the

Chief of Engineers, pp. 1195–1204. U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston, Texas.

———. 1982. Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas: feasibility report and environmental impact statement

for channel improvements for navigation. U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston, Texas.

———. 1992. Final Project Modification Report and Environmental Assessment: Salt Bayou, McFaddin

Ranch Wetlands, Texas. Galveston District, Southwestern Division.

———. 1997a. Neches River and Tributaries, Texas, and Saltwater Barrier at Beaumont, Texas: General

Reevaluation Report and Environmental Assessment. Galveston District, Southwestern Division,

Texas.

———. 1997b. Environmental Assessment Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas: Marine Organism Access

between Placement Area No. 11 and Sabine Lake. Galveston District, Southwestern Division,

Texas.

———. 1998a. Environmental assessment for a change in location of the Neches River and tributaries,

saltwater barrier at Beaumont, Texas. U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston, Texas.

———. 1998b. Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs) in Dredged Material Management.

Waterways Experiment Station. Dredging Research Technical Note EEDP-04-29.

———. 1998c. Lake Charles Deep Water Channel, Louisiana, Condition of Improvement, June 30, 1989.

New Orleans District Civil Works Project Maps. http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/eng2/edsd/

proj_maps/1-5A.htm.

———. 2000. Environmental Assessment: Alternate Maintenance Dredging Placement Area for SabineNeches Waterway, Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge, Jefferson County, Texas. Galveston

District, Southwestern Division, Texas.

———. 2002. Keith Lake Fish Pass Ecosystem Restoration Section 1135 CAP (October 10, 2002).

Galveston District, Southwestern Division, Texas.

1281
14. Literature Cited

14-33

———. 2003a. Civil Works Program Congressional Submission, Fiscal Year 2004: Southwestern

Division (February 2003). http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwb/just_state/just_2004/swd.pdf

(accessed January 2007).

———. 2003b. Waterborne Commerce of the United States - Part 2 - Waterways and Harbors, Gulf

Coast, Mississippi River Systems and Antilles. Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria Virginia.

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ ndc/wcsc/wcsc.htm (accessed November 17, 2005).

———. 2003c. Authorities and Policies Supporting Implementation of Regional Sediment Management.

Regional Sediment Management (RMS) Demonstration Program Technical Note. Engineer

Research and Development Center (ERDC). ERDC/RSM-TN-8, June 2003.

———. 2003d. Draft Environmental Assessment: Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material for Marsh

Preservation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Port Arthur to High Island, Texas (May). Galveston

District, Southwestern Division, Texas.

———. 2004a. Louisiana Coastal Areas Ecosystem Restoration Study and Plan, and Final Environmental

Impact Statement. New Orleans District, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana.

———. 2004b. Notice of Studies and Initial Public Scoping Meetings for Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay,

Texas, Shoreline Erosion Project (August 9, 2004). http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/pao/newsrel/

SPtoGBStudy.asp (accessed January 2007).

———.2004c. Laguna Madre Project. http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/items/Laguna/history/ (accessed

January 2007). Galveston, Texas.

———.2005a. Neches River Cypress Swamp Preserve. http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/reg/mitigation/

bank/neches_rivers/neches_river.asp.

———. 2005b. Blue Elbow Swamp Mitigation Bank. http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/reg/mitigation/

bank/blue_elbow/blue_elbow.asp.

———. 2005c. Breaux Act (Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act), as presented

by Col. Peter J. Rowan. http://www.lacoast.gov/cwppra/slideshow/cwppra-TIcommittee18feb05.pdf (accessed February 2007). New Orleans District, Mississippi Valley Division,

Louisiana.

———. 2006a. “12 Points for Change,” USACE Headquarters, Washington, D.C., released August 24,

2006.

———. 2006b. 10 Frequently Asked Questions about Regional Sediment Management. USACE.

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/inside/products/proj/docs_proj/RSMFAQs-3.doc (accessed March

25, 2008).

———. 2006c. USACE sea turtle data warehouse. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/seaturtles/index.cfm

(accessed August 30).

———. 2006d. Public Notice: Permit Application 22643, Jefferson County Drainage District No. 6 Flood

Control Improvements (February 16, 2006). Galveston District, Southwestern Division, Texas.

1282
14. Literature Cited

14-34

———. 2006e. Public Notice: Permit Application 23426(02), Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. Galveston District,

Southwestern Division, Texas.

———. 2007a. Waterborne Commerce of the United States – Part 2 (1970–2004) – Waterways and

Harbors, Gulf Coast, Mississippi River Systems and Antilles. Institute for Water Resources,

Alexandria, Virginia. http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/wcsc.htm.

———. 2007c. Department of Army Permit 22643, Jefferson County Drainage District No. 6 Flood

Control Improvements (August 24, 2007). Galveston District, Southwestern Division, Texas.

———. 2008a. Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Draft Technical Report. U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, New Orleans District.

———. 2008b. Unpublished update of Economic Guidance Memo #08-04, Deep-Draft Vessel Operating

Cost FY 2008, December 2007.

———. 2009a. Circular No. 1165-2-211. Water Resource Policies and Authorities Incorporating Sealevel Change Considerations in Civil Works Programs. Expires July 1, 2011. EC 1165-2-211. 3 pp.

and appendices.

———. 2009b. Memorandum from Michael D. Gonzalez to Michael C. Sterling, P.E. regarding saltwater

intrusion in coastal areas due to a relative rise in sea-level.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. P001. Persons. Data Set: 1990 Summary Tape File 3.

———. 2000a. P8. Hispanic or Latino by Race. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1.

———. 2000b. P88. Ratio of Income in 1990 to Poverty Level. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3.

———. 2000c. P53. Median Household Income in 1999 (Dollars). Data Set: Census 2000 Summary

file 3.

———. 2000d. P30. Means of Transportation to Work. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3.

———. 2000e. H4. Household Tenure. Quick Tables: Summary File 1.

———. 2000f. P1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics. Quick Tables: Summary File 1.

———. 2000g. Census 2000, Summary File 3 (SF 3); American Factfinder; http://factfinder.census.gov/

(accessed November 25, 2005).

U.S. Climate Change Science Program (USCCSP). 2009. Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus

on the Mid-Atlantic Region. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1. 298 pp.

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 2006. Ballast water management program. http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/

bwm.htm.

1283
14. Literature Cited

14-35

———. 2008a. Vessel Traffic Management, Navigation Center, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,

United State Coast Guard. http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/vts/vts_home.htm (accessed March 9,

2008).

———. 2008b. VTS Port Arthur Operating Procedures Guide. http://www.uscg.mil/d8/VTSPortArthur/

Documents/VTS%20Port%20Arthur_Opertating-Guide.pdf (accessed March 9, 2008).

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

2006. NOAA Tides and Currents, Sea Levels Online: Mean Sea Level Trends for Stations in

Texas. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml.

———. 2009. NOAA Tides and Currents, Sea Levels Online: Mean Sea Level Trends for Stations in

Texas. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) Manual (102 ESM).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

———. 1992. Threatened status of the Louisiana black bear and related rules. Federal Register. Vol. 57,

No. 4.

———. 1995. Threatened and endangered species of Texas. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department

of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

———. 1998. Final habitat stewardship program, Texas Chenier Plain. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

———. 2001. National wildlife refuges in Texas owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

———. 2002a. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, Wetland Value Assessment

Methodology, Introduction. Prepared by Environmental Work Group, CWPPRA Technical

Committee, USFWS, Lafayette, Louisiana.

———. 2002b. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, Wetland Value Assessment

Methodology, Procedural Manual. Prepared by Environmental Work Group, CWPPRA Technical

Committee, USFWS, Lafayette, Louisiana.

———. 2002c. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, Wetland Value Assessment

Methodology, Emergent Marsh Community Models. Prepared by Environmental Work Group,

CWPPRA Technical Committee. USFWS, Lafayette, Louisiana.

———. 2002d. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, Wetland Value Assessment

Methodology, Swamp Marsh Community Model. Prepared by Environmental Work Group,

CWPPRA Technical Committee. USFWS, Lafayette, Louisiana.

———. 2002e. The 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation.

http://fa.r9.fws.gov/surveys/surveys.html. Last revised October 1, 2002.

1284
14. Literature Cited

14-36

———. 2003. “2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Texas”;

revised March 2003. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/01fhw/fhw01-tx.pdf (accessed

November 18, 2005).

———. 2004. Final Environmental Assessment: East Sabine Lake Hydrologic Restoration, Project

Construction Unit 1 (CS-32), Cameron Parish, Louisiana. 32 p. plus appendices. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Lafayette, Louisiana.

———. 2005a. “McFaddin and Texas Point National Wildlife Refuges.” http://www.fws.gov/

southwest/refuges/texas/mcfaddin/index. html.

———. 2005b. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. http:// www.fws.gov/sabine/.

———. 2005c. Threatened and endangered species of Louisiana, parish list. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Louisiana Ecological Services Office, Lafayette. July 14.

———. 2006. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/National_Survey.htm (accessed July 28,

2009).

———. 2007. Texas colonial waterbird census database. http://www.fws.gov/texascoastalprogram/

TCWC.htm (accessed January 14).

———. 2008a. Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex Final Environmental Impact

Statement/Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Land Protection Plan (May). http://www.fws.gov/

southwest/refuges/Plan/LINKS.pdf (accessed July 2009). Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New

Mexico.

———. 2008b. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

———. 2008c. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Cameron Parish, Louisiana: Final

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. FR 73: 115 (June 13, 2008).

———. 2009. Endangered species list: list of species by county for Texas. http://www.fws.gov/ifw2es/

EndangeredSpecies/lists/ListSpecies.cfm (accessed March 9).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (USFWS and GSMFC).

1995. Gulf sturgeon recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR).

2008a. East Sabine Lake Hydrologic Restoration, Project Status Report as of April 25, 2008.

http://www.lacoast.gov/reports/managers.asp?projectNumber=CS%2D32.

———. 2008b. Black Bayou Hydrologic Restoration, Project Status Report as of April 25, 2008.

http://www.lacoast.gov/reports/managers.asp?projectNumber= CS%2D27.

1285
14. Literature Cited

14-37

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2003.

Revised Project Information Sheet for Wetland Value Assessment. East Sabine Lake hydrologic

restoration project (CS-32): Construction Unit 1. USFWS Ecological Services Office, Lafayette,

Louisiana.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Texas General Land Office (GLO). 1992. National Wetland

Inventory (NWI).

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1990. Land use and land cover (LULC) data. U.S. Geological Survey,

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

———. 1997. Global Change and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Research. Prepared by National

Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana. USGS FS-090-97.

U.S. Geological Survey-National Wetlands Research Center (USGS-NWRC). 2002a. Perry Ridge Shore

Protection Project No CS-24, General Fact Sheet. http://www.lacoast.gov/reports.

———. 2002b. GIWW-Perry Ridge West Bank Stabilization Project No CS-30, General Fact Sheet.

http://www.lacoast.gov/reports.

———. 2002c. Black Bayou Hydrologic Restoration Project No CS-27, General Fact Sheet.

http://www.lacoast.gov/reports.

———. 2004. Louisiana Coastal Areas Mapping Units for the Calcasieu-Sabine Basin. U.S. Department

of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana

and Coastal Restoration Field Station, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Van Siclen, D.C. 1975. Guidebook for coastal geology field trip. University of Houston, Department of

Geology.

Visser, J.M., and C.E. Sasser. 1998. 1997 Coastal Vegetation Analysis. Report to Greg Steyer of

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge.

Visser, J.M., C.E. Sasser, R.H. Chabreck, and R.G. Linscombe. 1999. Long-term vegetation change in

Louisiana tidal marshes: 1968–1992. Wetlands 19:168–175.

Visser, J.M., G.D. Steyer, G.P. Shaffer, S.S. Höppner, M.W. Hester, E. Reyes, P. Keddy, I.A.

Mendelssohn, C.E. Sasser, and C. Swarzenski. 2004. Chapter 9, Habitat Switching Module in

Appendix C, Hydrodynamic and Ecological Modeling, Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem

Restoration Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, Louisiana, pp C143–157.

Vitale, L.D., and Q.R. Dokken. 2000. Preliminary observations of fish assemblages associated with a

partially removed platform off the Texas coast. Proceedings: eighteenth annual Gulf of Mexico

information transfer meeting. New Orleans.

Vittor & Associates, Inc. 1997. Sabine Lake, Texas: benthic community assessment. Barry A Vittor &

Associates, Inc., Mobile, Alabama.

1286
14. Literature Cited

14-38

Voellinger, L.R. 1990. Prehistoric adaptations along Clear Lake Site 41GV22, Galveston County, Texas

prepared by Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. for USACE, Galveston District, Texas.

Wall Street Journal. 2008. Exxon to Delay Texas LNG Plant: Hurricane Ike Damaged Terminal and

Assessment has Taken Months. By Russell Gold. December 20, 2008. http://online.wsj.com/

article/SB122970422712121943.html (accessed July 31, 2009).

Walther, P. 2005. Personal communication to Janelle Stokes from Pat Walther, USFWS, Texas Point

National Wildlife Refuge.

Wamsley, T.V. 2008. Memorandum from CEERD-HR-C to CESWG, Subject: CHL Response to

Galveston District Information Request Related to Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel

Improvement Project, Draft Feasibility Report, External Peer Review Comments.

Wamsley, T.V., M.A. Cialone, J.M. Smith, J.H. Atkinson, and J.D. Rosati. 2009a. The potential of

wetlands in reducing storm surge. Ocean Engineering. DOI 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2009.07.018.

Wamsley, T.V., M.A. Cialone, J.M. Smith, and B.A. Ebersole. 2009b. Influence of landscape restoration

and degradation on storm surge and waves in southern Louisiana. Journal of Natural Hazards

51(1):207–224.

Wamsley, T.V., M.A. Cialone, and T.O. McAlpin. 2010. Sensitivity analysis for Sabine-Neches

Waterway Navigation Project. USACE, ERDC-CHL, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Warren, R.S., and P.M. Brockelman. 1989. Photosynthesis, respiration, and salt gland activity of

Distichlis spicata in relation to soil salinity. Botanical Gazette 150(4):346–350.

Warren, T.A., L.M. Green, and K.W. Spiller. 1994. Trends in finfish landings of sport-boat anglers in

Texas marine waters, May 1974–May 1992. Data Series No. 109. Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department, Austin.

Webb, D. 2003. Ship Simulation Study for Sabine-Neches Improvement Project (Revised March 2007).

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, ERDC. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Webb, E.C., and I.A. Mendelssohn. 1996. Factors affecting vegetation dieback of an oligohaline marsh in

coastal Louisiana: field manipulation of salinity and submergence. American Journal of Botany

83:1429–1434.

Weddle, R.S. 1985. The Spanish Sea: the Gulf of Mexico in North American discovery, 1500–1685.

Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Wells, J.T., and G. P. Kemp. 1982. Mudflat marsh progradation along Louisiana's Chenier Plain: a natural

reversal of coastal erosion. In: D.F. Boesch, editor, Proceedings of the Conference on Coastal

Erosion and Wetlands Modification in Louisiana: Causes, Consequences, and Options. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service.

———. 1986. Interaction of surface waves and cohesive sediments: Field observations and geological

significance. Estuarine Cohesive Sediment Dynamics, A. J. Mehta, editor. Springer-Verlag, New

York. Pp 43–65.

1287
14. Literature Cited

14-39

Werler, J.E., and J. Dixon. 2000. Texas snakes, identification, distribution, and natural history. The

University of Texas Press, Austin.

Wesselman, J.B. 1971. Ground-water resources of Chambers and Jefferson Counties, Texas. Report No.

190, Texas Water Development Board, Austin.

White, W.A., T.R. Calnan, R.A. Morton, R.S. Kimble, T.G. Littleton, J.H. McGowen, and H.S. Nance.

1987. Submerged lands of Texas, Beaumont-Port Arthur area: sediments, geochemistry, benthic

macroinvertebrates, and associated wetlands. Geology Special Publication, Bureau of Economic

Geology, The University of Texas at Austin.

White, W.A., and T.A. Tremblay. 1995. Submergence of wetlands as a result of human-induced

subsidence and faulting along the upper Texas Gulf Coast. Journal of Coastal Research 11(3):788–

807.

Willis, J.M., and M.W. Hester. 2004. Interactive Effects of Salinity, Flooding, and Soil Type on Panicum

Hemitomon. Wetlands 24(1):43–50. March.

Wilson, C.A., and M.A. Allison. 2008. An equilibrium profile model for retreating marsh shorelines in

southeast Louisiana. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 80:483–494.

Witzell, W.N. 1983. Synopsis of biological data on the hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata

(Linnaeus, 1766). FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 137. FIR/S137, SAST – Hawksbill Turtle – 5.31

Young, L. 2001. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Law Enforcement Division. Personal

Communication to Andrew Labay, PBS&J, Austin, Texas. October 31.

1288
14. Literature Cited

14-40

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1289
15-1

15.0 INDEX

accidents, 1-9, 1-11, 2-5, 4-75, 4-78, 4-79, 4-82, 4-121

Adams Bayou

hydro-unit, 2-79, 4-34, 4-35, 4-39, 4-67, 4-69

air quality, 3-41–3-47, 4-51–4-57, 4-119, 7-2, 11-1

alternative mode of commodity transport, 2-8–2-11

amphibians, 3-87, 3-101, 4-32, 4-79

Average Annual Habitat Units, 2-78, 2-79, 2-81, 4-9, 4-

10, 4-11, 5-1, 5-5, 5-17, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21

ballast water, 3-85, 4-76, 7-9

Beaumont, 1-1, 1-2, 1-11, 2-9, 2-12, 2-52, 2-60, 3-8, 3-

31, 3-48, 3-52, 3-110, 3-111, 3-120, 3-139, 3-152,

3-160, 3-162, 3-167, 3-169, 4-57, 4-89, 4-97, 4-111

beneficial use of dredged material, 1-9, 1-13, 1-15, 2-52,

2-64, 2-65, 5-27, 7-11, 7-14, 7-16

benefit-to-cost ratio, 2-23

Bessie Heights

hydro-unit, 2-79, 4-34, 4-35, 4-41

oil field, 3-54

Best Buy Mitigation Plan, 5-20

biological assessment, 3-92, 4-79, 4-82, 7-3

biological opinion, 4-79, 4-80, 4-82, 5-2, 7-3

birds, 2-67, 2-75, 3-58, 3-92, 3-95–3-97, 4-32, 4-78, 4-

81, 5-2, 7-4, 7-12

Black Bayou

hydro-unit, 2-81, 4-27, 4-31, 4-36, 4-62, 4-79, 4-

102, 5-10, 5-15

Blue Elbow

hydro-unit, 2-79, 2-81, 4-35, 4-36, 4-39, 4-67

swamp, 3-53, 4-16, 4-39, 5-10

bottomland hardwood, 1-12, 3-61, 3-62, 3-64, 4-34, 4-67

Bottomland Hardwood Model, 3-3, 4-13, 4-15, 4-39

Bulk Oil Offshore Transfer System, 2-10

Calcasieu Lake, 3-26, 3-33, 3-54, 3-55, 3-61, 3-72

Calcasieu Parish, 1-9, 1-15, 3-5, 3-24, 3-31, 3-44, 3-46,

3-47, 3-94, 3-111, 3-114, 3-118, 3-123, 3-136, 3-

140, 4-55, 4-80, 4-86, 4-87, 4-98, 4-102, 4-103, 4-

106

Calcasieu River, 2-59, 3-29, 3-54, 4-97

Cameron Parish, 1-15, 3-5, 3-24, 3-44, 3-46, 3-47, 3-94,

3-111, 3-118, 3-136, 3-140, 3-161, 4-55, 4-80, 4-86,

4-87, 4-98

cargo, 1-7, 1-9, 2-8, 2-10, 3-144, 4-113, 11-1

CEQ Memorandum Prime or Unique Farmlands, 7-7

channel

deepening, 1-9, 1-13, 1-14, 2-1, 2-12, 2-28, 2-46, 3-

29, 3-58, 4-21, 4-97, 5-7, 7-15, 11-1

widening, 1-14, 2-1, 2-12, 2-28, 3-2, 3-29, 5-7

Chenier Plain, 1-9, 2-53, 2-55, 3-3, 3-7, 3-49, 3-54, 3-56,

3-61, 7-14

circulation, 2-54, 2-55, 2-56, 2-75, 3-1, 4-23, 4-102, 5-6,

5-22

Clean Air Act, 3-41, 3-43, 3-44, 7-2

Clean Water Act, 3-61, 3-70, 4-20, 7-1

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration

Act, 3-57, 4-8, 4-9, 4-17, 4-67, 4-101, 5-3, 7-13

Coastal Zone Management Act, 5-4

compensatory mitigation, 1-15, 2-23, 2-50, 4-8, 4-15, 4-

109, 5-4, 5-5, 5-26, 7-12, 7-15, 8-1, 9-1, 10-1

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act, 7-9

Cow Bayou

hydro-unit, 2-79, 4-34, 4-35, 4-39

crabs, 3-71, 3-72, 3-77, 3-78, 3-85, 3-148, 7-11

crude oil vessels, 1-7, 1-8, 1-11, 2-10

cultural resources, 3-103–3-110, 4-84–4-86, 4-102, 4-

106, 4-108, 4-122

cumulative impacts, 4-91–4-122

cypress-tupelo swamps, 1-12, 2-67, 2-78, 3-3, 3-52, 3-

64, 4-31, 4-39, 4-67, 5-26

deep draft utility, 2-27, 2-44

deepwater, 2-8, 3-31, 4-97

detailed screening, 2-14, 5-17

Dredged Material Management Plan, 1-2, 1-10, 1-18, 2-

2, 2-46, 2-77–2-79, 5-1, 5-21, 6-1, 7-2, 7-7

dredges

cutterhead, 4-52, 4-57, 4-58

hopper, 1-13, 2-5, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 2-52, 2-68, 3-

99, 3-100, 4-52, 4-57, 4-58, 4-74, 4-81, 4-82, 4-

119, 7-4

hydraulic pipeline, 2-6, 2-39, 2-41, 2-42, 2-52, 4-73,

4-81, 4-84, 4-98, 5-12, 5-16, 5-25

East Johnson’s Bayou

hydro-unit, 2-81, 4-36, 4-42

East Texas Regional Water Plan, 4-111

elutriate, 3-8–3-16, 3-18, 3-22, 3-39, 4-21, 4-45

Emergent Marsh Community Model, 3-3, 4-9, 4-17, 4-

33, 4-64

employment

related to project, 3-144, 4-86, 4-88

endangered species, 1-13, 3-92–3-103, 4-79–4-84, 4-

119, 5-2

Endangered Species Act, 3-52, 3-92, 7-3

1290
15. Index

15-2

Environmental Justice, 3-128–3-139

environmental setting, 3-5–3-8

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

erosion, 1-12, 2-2, 3-36, 4-25–4-26, 7-8, 7-12, 9-1

essential fish habitat, 3-79–3-85, 4-75, 5-10, 7-5

estuarine, 3-71–3-87, 4-30, 5-2

Executive Order 11988, 7-8

Executive Order 11990, 7-8

Executive Order 12898, 7-9

Executive Order 13112, 7-8

existing project, 1-9–1-10, 1-12, 2-6, 2-46, 2-60

farmland, 4-106

Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7-7

Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1995, 7-6

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 7-5

Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996, 7-5

fishery(ies), 1-14, 3-65, 3-72, 3-79, 3-148, 4-77, 5-10, 7-

5

fishing, 1-14, 3-48, 3-54, 3-65, 3-72, 3-147, 3-148

flooding, 2-59, 4-110, 5-9, 7-8

freshwater

demands and discharges, 3-32

flows, 3-25, 5-10

Geology, 3-7

Golden Pass LNG Terminal, 4-106, 4-108

Greens Bayou, 3-23, 5-10

groundwater, 3-32, 3-34, 3-36, 3-39, 3-169, 4-44

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

GIWWNorth hydro-unit, 4-41

Gulf Shore BU Feature, 2-70–2-74, 2-78, 4-19, 5-4, 7-3,

9-1

Gulf Shoreline Effects Study, 3-2

Gum Cove Ridge, 1-2, 3-1, 3-4

Habitat Workgroup, 3-3, 3-57, 3-64, 5-6

hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste, 3-37–3-41, 7-10

historic, 1-14, 3-103, 3-104

hurricane

Ike, 1-7, 3-37, 4-64, 4-106, 4-115

Rita, 2-59, 2-72, 3-30, 3-37, 3-128, 4-103

hurricane(s), 2-8, 2-72, 3-29, 3-33, 7-14

hydrodynamic salinity model, 3-1, 4-1, 5-5, 7-15

Hydrologic Unit (hydro-unit), 3-4, 3-57, 3-64, 4-9, 4-62

hydrology, 3-23–3-37, 7-11

incident(s), 1-11, 2-5, 3-39

insect(s), 3-92, 3-94

Interagency Coordination Team, 1-11, 1-15, 1-16, 2-27,

2-64, 2-65, 2-74, 2-78, 3-1, 3-4, 3-52, 3-85, 4-9, 4-

91, 4-107, 5-4, 6-1, 7-1, 7-8

invasive species, 3-49, 3-57

invertebrates, 3-61, 3-62, 3-79, 3-87

J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area, 1-13, 2-65,

2-78, 3-23, 3-29, 3-52, 3-151, 4-99, 4-107, 5-3

Jefferson County

Drainage District No. 6, 4-109

Drainage District No. 8, 1-14

Navigation District, 1-1

Johnson’s Bayou

Ridge hydro-unit, 4-35, 4-39, 4-43, 4-100, 4-113

Keith Lake Fish Pass, 3-24, 3-29

Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline, 4-108

Lake Bayou, 2-79

land loss, 1-9, 3-4, 3-54, 3-56, 4-9, 4-59, 4-63, 4-65, 7-

11, 7-13

landings, 3-72, 3-147

lightening, 1-8, 1-15

lightering, 1-8, 1-11, 1-15, 2-2, 2-8, 2-11, 4-84, 11-1

Lighthouse Bayou, 3-23, 4-43

liquefied natural gas (LNG), 1-7, 1-8, 2-5, 2-53, 2-73, 4-

25, 4-89, 4-92, 4-104, 4-110, 4-120

longshore transport, 2-63, 2-72

Louisiana

Coast 2050, 3-24, 5-3, 7-12

Coastal Areas Ecosystem Restoration Study, 4-31

Coastal Management Program, 6-1, 7-6

Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration

Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and

Restoration Authority (LCWCR/WCRA), 2-

78, 3-54

Comprehensive Master Plan, 5-3, 7-15

Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), 3-8,

3-43, 4-20, 4-105, 7-2

Department of Labor (LDOL), 3-144

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), 1-1,

3-66, 3-72, 3-92, 4-73

Division of Archaeology (LDA), 3-109

Offshore Oil Port, 1-12

Point, 2-46, 2-57, 2-59, 2-63, 2-65, 2-73, 3-37, 3-

53, 3-99, 4-19, 4-20, 4-105, 5-12, 7-3, 7-12, 7-

16

Lower Neches Wildlife Management Area, 1-13, 3-64,

3-151

macroinvertebrates, 3-66

mammals, 3-88, 3-97, 4-32

marine

mammals, 3-98

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 7-5

1291
15. Index

15-3

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of

1972, 7-1, 7-6

marsh, 1-12, 2-23, 2-27, 2-46, 2-53, 2-65, 4-63, 5-21

Martin Luther King (MLK) Bridge, 2-28, 2-41, 2-43

McFaddin National Widlife Refuge, 1-13, 2-60, 2-63, 2-

78, 3-23, 3-64, 3-151, 4-63, 4-99, 4-113, 5-3, 7-10

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 7-4

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 3-96, 7-4

migratory bird(s), 4-102, 4-114, 4-122, 7-4, 7-12

mitigation, 1-2, 2-2, 2-27, 4-109, 6-1, 7-1, 7-2, 11-1

mitigation plan, 1-15, 2-2, 2-82, 4-16, 4-18, 5-1–5-28, 6-

1, 7-7

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 4-51, 4-91,

4-98, 7-1, 11-1

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 4-85, 7-2

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 1-1, 3-79, 3-

92, 3-94, 4-79, 4-82, 4-83, 4-103, 5-10, 7-3, 7-5

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA), 2-24, 3-16, 3-56, 3-109, 4-59, 4-102, 7-3

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 3-107, 3-

108, 4-84, 4-122, 7-2

navigation aids, 2-27, 2-44

Neches River, 1-9, 2-70, 3-70, 3-160, 7-8, 9-1

Neches River BU Feature, 4-8, 4-19, 4-71, 6-1, 7-7, 9-1

Neches River Channel, 1-2, 1-10, 2-1, 2-11, 2-25, 2-42,

2-46, 2-52, 2-60, 2-65, 2-67, 2-70, 3-4, 3-5, 3-15, 3-

20, 4-26

Neches River Saltwater Barrier, 1-2, 3-4, 3-109, 4-98

Neches River Wildlife Management Area, 2-65, 3-52, 4-

70

Nelda Stark Unit, 3-52

No-Action Alternative, 2-2–2-6

noise, 3-47–3-48, 4-57, 4-78, 4-99, 4-119

North Neches River hydro-unit, 4-41

nourishment

beach, 4-80, 7-3

shore, 2-5, 2-67, 4-79, 4-80, 5-12

shoreline, 1-18, 2-70, 2-78, 4-121, 5-12, 7-3, 7-12,

7-16

Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites (ODMDS), 1-1,

2-48, 2-76, 7-6, 9-1

offshore, 1-2, 1-8, 1-9, 2-1, 2-11, 2-23, 2-28, 2-62, 2-68,

2-77, 3-4, 4-77, 4-97, 11-1

oil

crude, 1-7, 2-2, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 3-8, 4-89, 4-97

petrochemical, 1-14, 3-39, 3-144, 4-89

spill(s), 4-74, 4-78, 4-79, 4-81, 4-82

Old River

Cove, 2-46, 2-67, 3-52, 4-8, 4-43, 4-69, 4-71, 5-11

hydro-unit, 2-79, 4-34, 4-43

Unit, 3-52, 4-70

Orange

City of, 1-1, 3-114, 4-34, 4-97, 7-15

County, 1-9, 1-15, 2-53, 3-5, 3-23, 3-44, 3-94, 3-

109, 3-111, 4-80, 4-87, 4-98, 7-12

oyster reef, 1-12, 3-75, 3-109, 4-72, 4-108, 5-25

park(s), 3-152, 3-161, 3-171, 4-91, 4-97, 4-112

Perry Ridge, 3-53, 3-63, 4-40, 4-67, 4-103

hydro-unit, 2-81, 4-36, 4-41

pesticides, 3-22, 4-47

pilot rules, 1-7, 1-11, 2-1, 2-5, 2-7

piping plovers, 1-13, 2-74, 3-95, 4-80, 4-82, 4-105, 4-

119, 7-3, 7-4

placement areas (PAs), 1-2, 2-45, 2-48, 4-53, 4-90, 7-10

planning objectives, 1-15, 2-1, 2-23

Pleasure Island, 1-10, 2-39, 2-61, 3-2, 3-36, 3-151, 3-

160, 4-22, 4-26, 4-57, 5-11

pollution, 4-21, 7-9

population, 3-114–3-139, 4-2, 4-70, 4-78, 4-86, 7-9

Port Arthur

Canal, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 2-28, 2-40, 2-44, 2-61, 3-5, 3-

14, 3-20, 3-139, 4-26, 5-10

City of, 2-61, 3-48, 3-111, 3-161, 4-57, 4-89

Hurricane Flood Protection Levee, 2-45

LNG Terminal, 1-7, 4-110, 4-111

Port Neches, 1-2, 3-38, 3-48, 3-111, 3-152, 3-171, 4-57,

4-89

Port of Beaumont, 1-2, 1-8, 1-9, 2-12, 3-5, 3-138, 3-144,

4-86, 4-92, 4-112

Port of Orange, 1-9, 3-5, 3-138, 3-144

Port of Port Arthur, 1-2, 2-41, 2-42, 3-138, 3-144

Preferred Alternative, 2-1, 2-14, 2-27–2-45

preliminary screening, 2-1, 2-2–2-14, 2-65, 2-68, 4-8, 5-

6

project area

description of, 1-2

protected habitats, 3-51–3-53

public involvement, 1-10, 3-128

Purpose and Need, 1-2–1-9

Rainbow Bridge, 2-43, 3-33, 3-103, 3-110, 4-84

recreation, 3-148–3-151, 4-76, 4-90, 4-121, 7-6

Regional Sediment Management (RSM), 1-18, 2-49, 2-

52, 2-64

relocations, 2-23, 2-27

removals, 2-43, 4-8, 4-62, 4-101

reptiles, 3-91, 3-98–3-101, 4-32

1292
15. Index

15-4

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 3-

38, 7-9

Resource Management, 1-17

risk and uncertainty, 4-14

River and Harbor Act of 1899, 7-1

Rose City

hydro-unit, 2-79, 4-34, 4-35, 4-39, 4-41

oil field, 3-54

Sabine Bank Channel, 1-9, 2-37, 2-63

Sabine Bank Extension Channel, 2-28, 2-37

Sabine Island

hydro-unit, 2-79, 2-81, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-39

Wildlife Management Area (WMA), 1-2, 1-13, 3-4,

4-39, 4-107, 5-10

Sabine Lake

Ridges hydro-unit, 2-81, 4-36, 4-43, 4-62

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), 1-13, 2-67, 3-

16, 3-23, 3-24, 3-26, 3-33, 3-53, 3-61, 3-161, 4-19,

4-66, 4-72, 4-101, 5-4, 5-22, 7-5, 7-11

Sabine Pass

Battleground, 1-15, 3-106, 3-151, 3-161, 4-57

Channel, 1-7, 1-8, 2-39, 2-62, 3-12, 3-18

Jetties, 2-28, 2-54, 3-139, 4-61

Jetty Channel, 2-39

Lighthouse, 3-103, 3-110, 4-84

LNG Terminal, 2-53, 4-104–4-106

Outer Bar Channel, 1-9, 2-38, 2-62

Sabine Pilots Association, 1-8, 1-11, 2-2, 2-7, 2-63

Sabine River

Authority of Louisiana, 4-114

Authority of Texas, 3-32, 4-115, 5-10

Sabine-Neches Canal, 1-2, 2-6, 2-28

safety, 1-9

salinity, 3-1, 3-33, 4-5–4-8, 4-16, 4-26

salinity intrusion, 3-34, 5-7

Salt Bayou, 1-12, 4-100

Sea Rim State Park, 1-13, 2-52, 2-57, 2-78, 3-23, 3-54,

3-161, 4-57, 4-99, 4-113, 5-3, 7-12

sea turtle(s), 1-13, 3-98–3-101, 4-83

seagrass, 3-57, 4-69

Section 404. See Clean Water Act

sediment budget, 2-60, 4-22

sediment quality, 3-16–3-22, 4-21–4-22, 4-21–4-22

Sediment Study, 2-60, 3-2

sensitive habitats, 1-13, 3-52, 3-51–3-53

sensitivity analysis, 4-1, 4-17, 4-18

shellfish, 3-72, 4-32, 4-77, 5-9

Ship Simulation, 3-2

shipping tonnage, 1-2, 1-8, 2-8, 3-140, 3-146

shipwreck(s), 1-15, 3-108, 4-84, 4-86

shoaling, 2-60

shorebird(s), 3-95, 4-78, 7-4, 7-11

Shoreline Change, 2-58

Shoreline Erosion, 4-25, 4-26, 4-114

Socioeconomic(s), 1-14, 3-111–3-171, 4-86–4-91

soils, 4-120

Southeast Sabine

hydro-unit, 2-81, 4-36, 4-40, 4-42

Southwest Gum Cove

hydro-unit, 2-81, 4-36, 4-40, 4-42

species of concern (SOC), 3-85, 3-93, 3-94, 3-102, 3-103

spill(s), 3-38, 4-21, 4-74, 4-75, 4-78, 4-79, 4-81, 4-82, 4-

120, 4-121, 7-1

State Archeological Landmark (SAL), 3-109, 3-110, 4-

84

Storm Surge Sensitivity Modeling, 4-13

Structural Alternatives, 2-12–2-14

study area

description, 1-2

study authority, 1-1

submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), 3-30, 3-57, 4-118

swamp, 2-24, 3-25, 3-49, 3-54, 3-61, 4-32, 4-39, 8-1, 9-1

Swamp Community Model, 3-3, 4-12, 4-39

Taylor Bayou

Bayou Flood Reduction Project, 4-109

Channels and Basin, 2-39, 3-14, 3-20

Texas

Bayou, 3-29, 4-42, 5-10, 5-11, 7-11

Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), 3-

52, 7-10

Coastal Management Program (TCMP), 4-109, 6-1,

7-6

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 3-

8, 3-24, 3-32, 3-34, 3-38, 3-43, 4-2, 4-20, 4-33,

4-56, 4-109, 4-115, 7-2

Department of Transportation (TxDOT), 1-14, 3-53,

4-101

General Land Office (GLO), 1-1, 3-109, 3-152, 4-

93, 4-114

Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), 2-78, 3-

29, 3-57, 3-64, 3-65, 3-72, 3-78, 3-92, 4-83, 4-

100, 4-114, 5-3, 7-3

Point hydro-unit, 2-80, 4-27, 4-35, 4-43, 4-62

Point Wildlife Management Area (WMA), 1-13, 2-

53, 2-58, 2-60, 2-67, 2-78, 3-29, 3-52, 3-151, 3-

161, 4-63, 5-10, 5-11, 7-5, 7-7, 7-10, 7-11

threatened species, 3-92, 3-93, 3-95

tidal surge, 2-27, 3-25, 3-65

1293
15. Index

15-5

tide(s), 2-54, 3-32

tidal, 1-13, 3-33

Toledo Bend

Reservoir, 3-31, 3-107, 4-2, 4-114

tourism, 4-90

tribe, tribal, 7-3

turbidity, 3-30, 3-80, 4-21, 4-75, 7-1

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

project role, 1-1, 1-11, 2-78, 3-10, 4-47, 4-73, 4-91,

5-21, 7-2, 7-5, 7-14

recommendations, 2-70, 2-75, 4-105, 5-4, 5-6, 5-12,

5-22, 5-28, 7-1

regulations and requirements, 2-1, 2-24, 2-25, 2-49,

3-16, 3-44, 3-108, 4-4, 4-9, 4-15, 4-21, 4-44, 4-

45, 4-56, 4-59, 4-79, 4-82, 4-85, 4-119, 5-2, 5-

3, 5-4, 5-12, 7-1

related studies, 3-1, 3-25, 3-26, 3-92, 3-107, 4-3, 4-

98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-114

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), 1-7, 2-5, 2-8, 3-34, 3-85

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1-1, 3-10, 3-16,

3-37, 3-41, 3-44, 3-85, 3-128, 4-21, 7-9

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1-1, 2-70, 3-

52, 3-88, 3-92, 3-149, 4-13, 4-61, 4-79, 4-80, 4-82,

4-100, 4-101, 4-116, 5-2, 5-6, 5-22, 7-3, 7-4

Utilities, 3-168, 4-88

vegetation, 3-49–3-65, 4-59–4-69

vessel

effects, 1-7, 2-2

Vessel Effects Study, 3-2

vessel traffic service (VTS), 1-11, 2-1, 2-6, 2-14

Veterans Memorial Bridge, 2-43

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 3-43

water quality, 3-8–3-16, 4-20–4-21

Water Quality Standards

Louisiana, 3-10

Texas, 3-10

West Johnson’s Bayou

hydro-unit, 2-81, 4-36, 4-43, 4-62

Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) model, 2-68, 2-74,

2-76, 3-2–3-5, 3-62, 4-1, 4-14, 4-32, 4-40, 4-101, 5-

1, 7-11, 7-12

wetland(s), 3-56–3-62, 4-117

Willow Bayou

hydro-unit, 2-81, 4-27, 4-36, 4-62, 4-79, 5-10, 5-15

1294
15. Index

15-6

(This page left blank intentionally.)

1295

(1297)
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706