AMD-0001_W912HY19B0011_SPECS_Part_3.pdf

File:L.\ 120-10849-00 I \4-0-Prcauction\ 4-01 -Drow,ngs\Perm,t\PR015-PLAN'.l.dwq Plotted By. Sorber, Jo,ed 7/14/2014

COASTAi. DATUM (O .. n "JI, HOOi lC>i \OJUI (IWM) llAN HQ< ••.:R 111'1•1

IU>;Sl'.ALML(l<Si..l n 0.1, n KNI LOW 'O,l'[Jt (Iii 'i\)

":E" ...... LDlrJ '°' ... Tll l\lLWI M"11lli!

n .,__,,, LO. 10[ /" ,fl n.£\'Ar!OHS SH(W,N "Rf kA~ IN.£55

OTH~,SE NOTID

l,ll'AN l-llf:I-IF'R I-IIGH WATER (-t-t.27)

C--/1·----

GRANNIS OUTFALL

EDGE OF SABINE-NECHES SHIP CHANNEL SIDE SLOPE

FOGF OF SAAi NF -NFCHFS SHIP CHANNEL BOTTOM

EXrSTlNG 48" PUMP STATION OUlFALL P1PE

84'

1514' -- --

194'

110·

[ XISllNG BUtLOlNG

--28'.= 2904'--------------v

SABINE-NECHES SHIP CHANNEL

o·

.N

/ 1J

WiEHJl_ g l ~ g ~ PORT OF PORT ARTHUR ra-f;-~ PROPOSED RIP RAP ~ t::: 0 9

Lockwood Andrews SHORELINE STABILIZATION & WHARF DREDGING □~~,~, '""'"'~ .,. oo ~:;; ~ mn & Newnam', Inc. PROPOSED PROJECT FEATURES ·· · cONcRrn MAT (ACM) :· · ; · ~ ~ g_ ~ A LEO A DAL y CO M p AN y PLAN VIEW (5 OF 5) = \0 ?; g p- l.,.)

,.. 0 ::; l.,.)

r

_L

400'

File:L \120 10849- 001\4-0-Proouct,on\4-01-0row,ngs\Perm,t\PROl9-SEC•.owQ Plotted By: Berber, Jore<! 7/14/2014

CO..STAL .llAlJJM.

£!'"" !(Jo HDOl t«><""" (""'1 "£AA tt"'1 ~•T[R t - I ::;.r,, l

T o.•) fl l ITn

·7 a_~ n

IKMIEAIM, Mil

II"""' t,o,, W•m> tlliWI l(N,IDl(JI LOO~(ltl., I \IEAI< LO. IC)( ("'n a!VAf!Of(S SHOWN AAf NA\()8! L.~!SS 011<£lf0,<,: t,OIU)

JO

WHARF FENDER @ 25'-0" SPACING

MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER ( + 1.27)

-3.0 DRIVEN CONCRETE PILE (TYP)

EXISTING ACM

I I

EXISTING

BULi<HEAD

APPROX. EXISTING GROUND

10 -5 0 ' .. ,, ,. J" -0 1' 'O •~ ~ 55 o0 to, IO IO bl] M 90 'H 100 ·t~ 110 •T~ 110 11, I.JO 1~ l•CJ 1'4.S t!,O IY.J, 160 16, 1,0 t15 IIO t&-:. t~ 11f!>

@ SECTION WHARVES 1 & 2

SEE PLAN SHEETS 1 0 & 15

,0

.>O

EXISTING

BULKHEAD

TT

EXISTING WHARF DECK ,--------------110.2' 84.0'- ---------1

WHARF FENDER O 25'-0" SPACING

_L~EAN HIGHER HIGH WATER (+1.27)

DRIVEN CONCRETE PILE (TYP)

APPROX. EXISTING GROUND

PROPOSED POPA FACILITY BOTTOM

-51.78 = -48(+2)(+ 1) MLT

BOUNDARY

CHANNEL, Tg~ FEDERAL

V Of SLOPE~

BOUNDARY

CHANNEL Eg~ FEDERAL

CHANNEL. SLOP~ OF I

I

15 10 ,, 0 ~ IQ •5 l'O 15 JO .XI •0 45 50 ,~ IIO 65, JO ,, IIO ~ 90 g., 100 ,~ 110 na, 120 '2~ 1JO lJ.e. 1-0 ,., 1:,0 ,se. ,eo 1&ei 170 175 180 I~ !IQ Ii) Xie) 2'0:'!! 1,0 21, 210 22:i 2'JO ·u:i 7•0 2•-'l 1-')0 1~ 260 2tl!li :170 ,,!!

@SECTION WHARVES 3, 4 & 'i mn Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc.

A I FO A nA I V CO MPAN Y

PORT OF PORT ARTHUR

SHORELINE STABILIZATION & WHARF DREDGING

SECTIONS (4 OF 4)

~ PROPOSED Flll

(7771 PROPOSED QJT

[LL.d ( ~ 16,200 CY TO BE RE'-1O\IED)

'"0 0 I)) -..J

(Jq -----~ N N ..... -----\0 N

0 0 ...., ~ -= \0

"'ti C/l

Sl ~ 0 I ....,N '"O 0 0 - ::I. ";""

~8 ::,0 C: w

CJD

s:

Attachment A SWG-2011-00303 07/02/2014 Port of Port Arthur Page 1 of 12

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN

PORT OF PORT ARTHUR'S SHORELINE STABILIZATION AND

WHARF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

JEFFERSON CO UNTY, TEXAS

USACE FILE NO. SWG-2011-00303

MAY2014

INTRODUCTION

MAY f 9 2014

This document serves as a mitigation plan for the Port of Port Arthur's (POPA's) proposed Shoreline

Stabilization and Wharf Construction Project, which is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under File No. SWG-2011-00303. Under the proposed project, POPA will construct 600 linear feet of new wharf and 398 linear feet of new bulkhead as an extension to an existing wharf and bulkhead; deepen the existing open water area along the proposed wharf to accommodate vessel docking; deepen the open water area along the existing wharfs to accommodate larger vessels;

repair and stabilize an additional 1,198 linear feet of the Sabine-Neches Ship Channel (SNSC) shoreline;

construct a new breasting dolphin and mooring dolphin; and fil l in two existing storm water outfall channels/ditches that cross the property. The purpose of the project is to provide additional cargo unloading and ship/barge berthing areas; to accommodate larger vessels; to protect POPA's property and existing infrastructure from damage caused by ongoing erosion; to increase access to all portions of the project site, as well as to nearby properties owned by POPA (e.g., southwest of the SH 82 bridge); to facilitate storage and staging of cargo; and to maximize the use of the property for port cargo operations.

The adjacent upland areas on POPA's property are currently being, and will continue to be, developed and used for port operations.

The proposed project is water dependent and could not be constructed without impacting waters of the

U.S. POPA has prepared this plan to mitigate the losses to waters of the U.S. and aquatic functions that will result from the project. The remainder of this compensatory mitigation plan addresses, as applicable, the 12 mitigation components outlined in 33 CFR 332: Compensatory Mitigation for losses to Aquatic Resources, which include:

I. Objectives

2. Site Selection

3. Site Protection Instrument

4. Baseline Information

5. Detem1ination of Credits

6. Mitigation Work Plan

7. Maintenance Plan

8. Performance Standards

9. Monitoring Requirements

CompensaL01y Mitigation Plan SWG-20/ /-00303: POPA Shoreline Stahilization and Wha1f Construction Proj ect Jefferson County, Texas

Attachment A SWG-2011-00303 07/02/2014 Port of Port Arthur Page 2 of 12

MAY 1 9 2014

I 0. Long-tenn Management Plan

11. Adaptive Management Plan

12. Financial Assurances

l. Objectives

The goals and objectives of this mitigation plan are to compensate for the loss of 3.26 acres of shallow open water habitat and 0.08 acre of emergent wetlands that will result from the proposed project. POPA will mitigate the losses by implementing a pennittee-responsible mitigation plan under a watershed approach. T he plan entails planting smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) behind approximately 6,239 linear feet (1.2 miles) of new rock breakwater that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 's (TPWD)

J .D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area (WMA) will install along the WMA's Compartment 9 shoreline along the Gulf Lntracoastal Waterway (GfWW). The TPWD's rock breakvvater was permitted by

Permit No. SWG-2009-00277. Smooth cordgrass will be planted within an estimated 4. 1 acres.

2. Site Selection

POPA evaluated a number of options for mitigating the unavoidable loss of waters of the U.S. resulting from the proposed project. In accordance with the USACE's and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's

2008 Final Compensatory Mitigation Rule (33 Code of Federal Regulations 332 Compensatory

Mitigation for losses of Aquatic Resources; 73 Federal Register 19670, Apri l 10, 2008), the mitigation options were evaluated based on the following hierarchy. Table I and the paragraphs following the table summarize the evaluation of each mitigation option.

• Mitigation bank credits

• Lo-lieu fee program credits

• Permittee-responsible mitigation under a watershed approach

• Permittee-responsible mitigation through on-site and in-kind mitigation

• Perm.ittee-responsible mitigation through off-site and/or out-of-kind mitigation

Mitigation Bank Credits

In-lieu Fee Program Credits

Permittee Responsible Mitigation (Watershed Approach)

Pennittee Res onsible Miti ation On-site and In-kind) Permittee Res onsible Miti ation (Off-site/Out-of-kind)

Compensa101J' Mitigation Plan

Evaluation/Conclusion Option Dismissed - The project is located in the service area of one active mitigation bank: however, the mitigation bank does nol contain a ro riatc resource- e credits.

Option Dismissed - The project is not located within the service area for an in-lieu fee ro rams.

Option Selected - Plant smooth cordgrass bebind 6,239 linear feet of new rock breakwater at the TPWD's J.D. Murphree WMA estimated 4. 1 acres).

tion was selected

SWG-2011-00303; POPA Shoreline Stahilizalion and Wha,f Con.~trurlion Prnject

Attachment A SWG-2011-00303 07/02/2014 Port of Port Arthur Page 3 of 12

Mitigation Bank Credits

According to the 2008 Final Compensatory Mitigation Rule, the USACE should give preference to the use of mitigation banks when ( 1) the pennitted impacts are located within the service area of an approved mitigation bank, and (2) the mitigation bank has the appropriate number and resource type of credits avail.able. As such, POPA evaluated the use of mitigation banks to compensate for project impacts. Based on the USACE's Regulatory In Lieu Fee and Bank lnfom1ation Tracking lnfom1ation System (RrBITS) website (http://geo.usace.anny.mil/ribits/index.html) and knowledge of mitigation banks in the area, POPA identified six potential mitigation banks in the project region (Table 2). POPA assessed each of the mitigation banks using the avai lable data on the RJBITS website and by contacting the mitigation bank points of contact. As shown in Table 2, the proposed project is located in the service area for one active mitigation bank, the Daisetta Swamp Mitigation Bank (DSMB), which is located near the City of Daisetta in Liberty County, Texas. Discussions with the USACE and the DSMB's point of contact confim1ed that the DSMB does not contain appropriate resource type credits (e.g., tidal shallow water or marsh) and therefore is not a suitable option for mitigating the proposed impacts. The other five mitigation banks were dismissed because they do not have credits available or the project is not located in the bank's service area. Based on this analysis, POPA dismissed the option of purchasing mitigation bank credits.

T bl 2 M 0 f a e 1 12:ation an s B k E t d va ua e

Is the MB Is the Project

Tidal Credits Mitigation Bank (MB) Approved/ Active?

within MB Available? Conclusion

Service Areas?

Daisetta Swamp MB Yes - Credits available Yes

No Dismissed - Appropriate resource

(Secondary) type credits are not available.

Possible Dismissed - Pending approval;

Sabine Lake MB No - Pending approval (Pending)

No appropriate resource type credits are not available.

Poss ible Dismissed - Pending approval:

Spindletop Bayou MB No - Pending approval (Pending)

No appropriate resource type credits are not available.

Gulf Coastal Plains MB Yes - Credits available No Dismissed - Project is outside the

Yes MB ' s primary and secondary service areas.

Neches River MB No - Sold out of credits Yes Not Applicable Dismissed - No credits arc available.

Dismissed - Project is outside the

Pineywoods MB Yes - Credits available No No MB 's primary and secondary service areas.

In-lieu Fee Program Credits

The proposed project is not located within the primary or secondary service area for any in-lieu fee programs.

Permittee-responsible Mitigation under a Watershed Approach

The proposed project is located in the Sabine Lake watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 12040201 );

therefore, POPA evaluated pennittee-responsible mitigation options within the Sabine Lake watershed

Compensato,y Mitigation Plan SWG-2011-00303; POPA Shoreline Stahilization and 1¥haifConstruction Project

Attachment A SWG-2011-00303 07/02/2014 Port of Port Arthur Page 4 of 12 and focused on potential mitigation sites that are connected to larger areas of simi lar wetland habitats.

POPA assessed in detail the following two options:

• Option 1: Purchase preservation credits at the Rose City Site (managed by Edwin Arnaud, Tnc.) near

Beawnont, Texas. T his option would result in the preservation of tidal marsh that is connected to other valuable wetland habitats.

• Option 2: Plant smooth cordgrass marsh behind 6,239 linear feet (1.2 mile) of proposed breakwater structure to be installed by the TPWD's J.D. Murphree WMA.

POPA selected Option 2 because planting smooth cordgrass behind the J. D. Murphree WMA's proposed breakwater structure would create new tidal marsh habitat; provide a biological buffer, in addition to the rock breakwater, between the GIWW and the J.D. Murphree WMA; and help protect interior wetlands in the WMA.

3. Site Protection Instrument

The proposed mitigation site is located on the J .D. Murphree WMA, which is owned and managed as coastal wetland habitat by the TPWD, a state resource agency. As such, after POPA achieves the success criteria outlined in the Performance Standards section of this mitigation plan, the site will be managed and protected by the TPWD in accordance with the WMA 's goals and management plan.

4. Baseline Information

This section provides baseline information on the project area, followed by a general description of the mitigation site.

Project Area

The project area encompasses existing POPA property located on the SNSC between the State Highway

82 bridge (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Bridge) and Houston Avenue in the City of Port Arthur.

The property has been previously cleared and graded, and portions have been developed and used for various port operations. Approximately 2,900 linear feet of wharfs and related port infrastructure, including rail spurs and warehouses, exist on the property. In late 2012 to early 2013, construction of large storage silos began on portions of the property.

Areas of the property that have not been developed contain maintained upland herbaceous vegetation and open water areas associated with the SNSC and two storm water outfall channels (the Foley Outfall and the Grannis Outfall). Dominant species in the maintained vegetation community include bennudagrass

( Cynodon dacty /011 ), Angleton bluestem (Dichanthium aristatum ), crabgrass (Digitaria ciliaris), dallisgrass (Paspalum dilaratum), johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), bahiagrass (Paspalum 110/atum), knotroot bristlegrass (Setaria parv(flora), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), southern dewben-y (Rubus trivia/is), pink sensitivebrier (Mimosa strigillosa), and pepperweed (Lepidium sp.).

Compensatory Mitigation Plan SWG-2011-00303; POPA Shoreline Stabilization and WhC11fConstrnction Project

Attachment A SWG-2011-00303 07/02/2014 Port of Port Arthur Page 5 of 12

Aquatic resources in the project area include the SNSC, two stom, water outfall channels (the Foley

Outfall and the Grannis Outfall), and emergent wetlands located adjacent to the outfall channels, which are described below. The SNSC is an excavated channel that provides deep water for commercial and recreational navigation. No wetlands or other special aquatic sites were observed in or abutting the SNSC in the project area.

The Foley Outfall is directly connected to the SNSC and is therefore tidally influenced. The channel averages approximately 95 feet wide, and the channel banks are steep, 2 to 4 feet high, and show signs of erosion. The channel provides shallow (l to 6 feet deep) open-water habitat that is usually turbid due to regular disturbances from wakes and drawdown/retum surges generated by ships and other vessels in the

SNSC. Each time a ship passes in the SNSC (on average, five loaded tankers, five unloaded tankers, and

80 to I 00 other vessels pass each day), the water in the Foley Outfall is drawn down by a foot or more, followed by a return surge after the ship passes, causing repeated series of wakes that continually erode the channel banks and disturb the bottom sediments. Based on aerial photography, the channel has widened by 10 feet or more over the last 5 to 10 years due to erosion. One small (0.004 acre in size) emergent wetland dominated by smooth cordgrass is located along the channel 's east bank. In addition, a

0.05-acre emergent wetland dominated by maritime saltwort (Batis maritima) is located in an upland drainage swale that drains into the Foley Outfall channel through a small comJgated plastic pipe. Based on field investigations, water from the Foley Outfall flows through the culvert and into this wetland at very high tides.

The Grannis Outfall is an excavated ditch that fonnerly received stonn water discharged by the Grannis

Avenue Pump Station. The outfall from the pump station has been rerouted through a 48-inch-diameter pipe, and the Grannis Outfall no longer serves a stom, water management function. Ln addition, the ditch is no longer tidally influenced. T he Grannis Outfall ranges from approximately IO to 40 feet wide and provides primarily shallow non-wetland habitat. Approximately 2,000 linear feet of the ditch are within the project area, of which approximately 490 feet al the upper end are concrete-lined. The banks are generally I to 2 feet high and sloping and are dominated by maintained upland herbaceous vegetation.

Approximately 0.026 acre offringe wetland occurs along the ditch banks. The wetlands range from 1.5 to

2.5 feet wide and 25 feet to 272 feet long and are dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis), eastem baccharis (Baccharis halim{folia), sea oxeye (Borrichia frutescens), and marshhay cordgrass (Sparti11a patens).

Impacts to Waters of the U.S.

The proposed project will convert 3.34 acres of waters of the U.S. to uplands, which includes 3.26 acres of non-wetland waters in the Foley Outfall cha1mel/SNSC and Grannis Outfall ditch and 0.08 acre of emergent wetland.

Since the proposed project is water dependent, it could not avoid impacts to waters of the U.S. POPA considered a number of alternatives and selected the alternative that minimizes impacts to waters while meeting the project's purpose. Open water habitat will be maintained under the proposed wharf, and the stabilized shoreline will provide for a sloped shoreline that allows for shallow water along it (rather than a

Compensato,y Mitigation Plan SWG-2011-00303: POPA Shoreline Stahilization and Wha,f Conslrnclion Project

Attachment A SWG-2011-00303 07/02/2014 Port of Port Arthur Page 6 of 12

MAY 1 9 201~

sheet pile bulkhead that would convert all open water behind the bulkhead to uplands). After construction, the proposed project will reduce erosion and sedimentation by stabilizing the shoreline.

Mitigatiofl Site

The proposed mitigation site is located on the northwest bank of the GIWW along the J.D. Murphree

WMA, approximately 6.8 miles southwest of the project area (Sheet l ). The J.D. Murphree WMA is a

24,498-acre property that is owned and managed by the TPWD as coastal wetland habitat and contains fresh, intem1ediate, brackish, and saline marshes. As part of their Compartment 9 Phase fl Rock

Breakwater Project, the WMA will construct 6,239 linear feet ( 1.2 miles) of new rock breakwater between GIWW stations 258+53.79 and 320+92.35 to protect the shoreline and interior marsh. The proposed breakwater will be installed as much as 60 feet into the unvegetated shallow water of the

G IWW. The breakwater was constructed in the Spring of 2014 (personal communication with Jim

Sutherlin, Manager of the WMA) and will connect with approximately 4,643 linear feet (0.9 mile) of existing rock breakwater. Sheet I provides an inset showing the approximate breakwater structure on aerial photography base. Detailed drawings showing plan views and profiles of the proposed breakwater structure were provided by the TPWD and are included as Attachment I .

The exact elevations of the mitigation are unavailable at this time; however, Mr. Jim Sutherlin, Project

Leader of the Upper Coast Wetland Ecosystem Project and Manager of the J.D. Murphree WMA has stated that the water depths in much of the area behind the rock breakwater will be conducive to planting and establishing smooth cordgrass because the breakwater was placed as close to the G IWW bank as possible and the bottom behind the breakwater is gently sloping (personal communication with Jason

Schindler, Blanton & Associates, Inc., April 21, 2014). He also stated that some of the area may be 1.5 to

2 feet deep at normal tides and not be conducive to smooth cordgrass planting, but the planted cordgrass is expected to encroach naturally into the deeper areas as sediments accrete over time. Based on this conversation, the elevations in the proposed mitigation site are expected to be appropriate for planting smooth cordgrass.

5. Determination of Credits

The amount of smooth cordgrass to be planted was determined by the area that is available between the

J.D. Murphree WMA's proposed rock breakwater and the top of bank, as identified in the pennjt drawings for the breakwater. An estimated 4. 1 acres of smooth cordgrass marsh would be planted behind the breakwater. This would fully compensate for the 3.34 acres of aquatic resources that would be lost as a result of POPA 's proposed project because the mitigation would provide higher quality habitat with greater functions than the impacted resources and would provide other important functions such as natural shoreline and adjacent wetland protection. The impacted water resources include 3.26 acres of non wetland waters in the Foley Outfall channel/SNSC and Grannis Outfall and 0.08 acre of adjacent emergent wetland. The impacted resources are considered to provide limited function for the following reasons:

Compensato1y Mitigation Plan SWG-2011-00303; POPA Shoreline Stahilization und Wha,fConstruction Projec/ Jefferson County. Texas

Attachment A SWG-2011-00303 07/02/2014 Port of Port Arthur Page 7 of 12

I\ 1/IIJt

I I

$1S,'.l Rim Slot~

3."ic• L_,.., Ctedlh 3ourcn. C·u-. O•lot"""• U"'VTCO. TomToin, ltll•nn1p. wt<••m-ent P Co,p m:sco USGS, tAO, t4PS NRCAN. Glot1Uf tGFI Kadasttrm Omn.tnu SuNty f$11.top;an. Mm f!~I Gft~ (Hon9 l<ongJ. cw~~topo 3ntl elt:1 GI$ u~ COIMIUl'lty

Proposed Rock Breakwater -- (see Attachment 1) c:] POPA Project Nea

Compensa101y Mitigation Plan

I

1:64,000

0.5 I

MIies

\l"'I J ,k .-

Sheet1 Project and Mitigation Site Location

Port of Port Arthur Shoreline Stabilization and Wharf Construction Project

Jefferson County, Texas File No. SWG-2011-00303

SWG-2011-00303; POPA Shoreline Stahilization and Wha,f Construction Project

Attachment A SWG-2011-00303 07/02/2014 Port of Port Arthur Page 8 of 12

• T he SNSC is a designated navigation channel that is routinely disturbed by ship, barge, and other vessel traffic. On average, five loaded tankers, five unloaded tankers, and 80 to 100 other vessels pass through the SNSC each day.

• The Foley Outfall channel is regularly disturbed by wakes and drawdown/return surges generated by ships and other vessels passing in the SNSC. As a result, the channel is often turbid, bottom sediments are often disturbed and flow into the SNSC, the banks continually erode, and wetlands are unable to establish along the banks.

• The wetlands adjacent to the Foley Outfall channel are small, and the larger wetland (0.05 acre) is surrounded by uplands and is only inundated during very high tides.

• The Grannis Outfall channel is no longer tidally influenced and no longer receives or conveys storm water outfalls from the Grannis A venue Pump Station. lt is surrounded by upland industrial areas.

• The fringe wetlands along the Grannis Outfall are narrow ( I to 3 feet wide) and serve limited functions similar to the adjacent maintained upland herbaceous vegetation.

The USACE Galveston District's interim Hydrogeomorphic Approach model for assessing Tidal Fringe wetlands was not deemed appropriate for assessing the impacted waters because 98 percent of the impacts would occur to non-wetland waters. However, the indices used in the model allow a qualitative assessment for comparing the functions of the impacted resources and anticipated mitigation wetland. 1n comparison to the impacted resources, the proposed mitigati9n marsh will provide greater functions related to biota, botanical , physical, and chemical processes. lt will provide a natural buffer and shoreline protection behind the breakwater, it will further help the protection of interior wetlands, and it will provide estuarine wetland habitat that will benefit aquatic animals and wading birds.

6. Mitigation Work Piao

After the J.D. Murphree WMA installs the proposed rock breakwater at the mitigation site, the area will be allowed to stabilize for 3 ro 6 months (depending on coordination with the WMA Manager) before the proposed smooth cordgrass planting is initiated. Planting will be conducted dwing the season of the year that is conducive for establishing the plugs. Once the planting is initiated, healthy plugs of smooth cordgrass will be harvested from nearby cordgrass communities at the J.D. Murphree WMA, tbe Location of which will be selected in coordination with the WMA Manager. The plugs wi ll be planted in the proposed mitigation site within 24 hours of harvesting and will be kept moist prior to planting. A TPWD pennit for transplanting plants into state waters will be obtained, if needed, prior to harvesting and transplanting activities are initiated.

The smooth cordgrass plugs will be planted in the mitigation site on approximately 3-foot lo 5-foot centers, depending on final coordination with the WMA Manager. The plugs will be planted at appropriate water depths and will be installed by hand using shovels, spades, or similar tools. The holes

Compensato,y Mitigation Plan SWG-2011-003()3: POPA Shoreline Stahilization and Wha1.f Constrnction Pmjerl

Attachment A SWG-2011-00303 07/02/2014 Port of Port Arthur Page 9 of 12 will be of sufficient depth and width to accommodate the entire root mass of the plugs. After planting, each hole will be closed around the plant and gently compacted to prevent the plants from floating free.

7. Maintenance Plan

The mitigation area wiU be normally inundated by tides to maintain low marsh conditions that will support a healthy smooth cordgrass marsh. The planted marsh will be protected by the rock breakwater that the WMA will install.

POPA will be responsible for ensuring the successful establishment of the planted marsh, as outlined in the Performance Standards and Monitoring Requirements sections below. During the monitoring period, POPA will replant or control invasive and noxious plant species as needed to meet the success criteria.

After the mitigation site achieves the success criteria outlined in the Performance Standards section, the site will be managed and protected in accordance with the TPWD's current goals and management plan for the WMA.

8. Performance Standards

The proposed mitigation will be considered successful after the following criteria are met:

• A minimum 50 percent survival of transplanted plugs within 45 to 60 calendar days after planting.

• A minimum 35 percent aerial coverage by smooth cordgrass in the planted area within l year after planting.

• A minimum 70 percent aerial coverage of smooth cordgrass in the planted area within 3 years after' planting.

• Nuisance, invasive, noxious, and exotic plant species should consist of 5 percent or less of relative vegetation cover within the planted area.

If the success criteria are not met at any of the scheduled times, the areas that are not sufficiently vegetated will be replanted and monitored, or other corrective action will be taken to meet the success criteria. After the success criteria are met, the mitigation will be considered successful, and no additional monitoring, maintenance, or reporting will be conducted by POPA.

9. Monitoring Requirements

The following monitoring activities will be conducted after planting:

• A transplant survival survey will be performed between 45 and 60 days after the initial planting to determine whether at least 50 percent of the n·ansplanted plugs survived. A report docwnenting the results of the survey wiU be provided to the USACE.

• Percent coverage surveys will be performed annually for up to five years after the initial planting to determine if the success criteria outlined above have been met.

Compensato,y Mitigation Plan SWG-20/ 1-00303; POPA Shoreline S1ahilization and Wha,fCon.ttructinn Project

Attachment A SWG-2011-00303 07/02/2014 Port of Port Arthur Page 10 of 12

• Written reports detail ing plant survival and aerial coverage will be submitted to the USACE within 30 calendar days of each monitoring survey.

After the success criteria outlined in the Performance Standards section are met, the mitigation will be considered successful, and no additional monitoring, maintenance, or reporting wi ll be performed by

POPA.

I 0. Long-term Management Plan

The proposed mitigation site is located on the J.D. Murphree WMA, which is owned and managed as coastal wetland habitat by the TPWD, a state resource agency. After POPA achieves the success criteria outlined in the Performance Standards section of th.is mitigation plan, the site will be managed and protected by the TPWD in accordance with the WMA's goals and management plan.

11 . Adaptive Management Plan

In the event that the proposed mitigation cannot be achieved or success criteria are not being met as anticipated due to unforeseen changes in site conditions or other factors, POPA will consult with the

USACE and the WMA Manager to identify strategies for meeting the POPA 's mitigation obligations.

Adaptive management strategies that may be considered include:

• Supplemental planting of smooth cordgrass within the mitigation area

• Planting of other native marsh species, depending on the hydrology behind the breakwater structure

• Evaluating other options for mitigating if marsh creation at the proposed site becomes unfeasible

After the success criteria outlined in the Performance Standards section are met, the mitigation will be considered successful, and the site will be managed and protected by the TPWD in accordance with the WMA 's goals and management plan.

12. Financial Assu_rances

The success of planting smooth cordgrass marsh may be influenced by a number of factors, such as large storm events, erosion, subsidence, or herbivory (e.g., feral pigs), that may adversely affect the mitigation site from meeting the identified performance standards. As a result, additional efforts or remediation above what is expected may be required to ensure the success of the mitigation site. Based on discussions with the J.D. Murphree WMA Manager, POPA 's proposed mitigation plan is expected to be successful since the site will be protected by a rock breakwater structure and based on bis experience with similar projects that entailed planting smooth cordgrass behind rock breakwater strnctures in the area.

Furthermore, POPA staff bas presented the mitigation proposal, including estimated costs and contingencies, to its Board of Directors, who approved moving forward with tbe plan. As a result, POPA is committed to a successful mitigation plan.

CompensatolJ' Mitigation Plan SWG-201 J-00303: POPA Shoreline Stahilizatinn anrl Wh(//fConstruction Project Jefferson County. Texas

I()

Attachment A SWG-2011-00303 07/02/2014 Port of Port Arthur Page 11 of 12

MAY 1 9 201~

The initial planting for the proposed mitigation plan will be conducted within the same timeframe as construction of the proposed wharf and associated improvements. Funding for the initial planting is included as part of the overal I project budget such that the mitigation p lan will be funded at the same time that the wharf project is funded. ln order to ensure funding is in place beyond the initial construction period to address annual monitoring, maintenance, and contingency specifically for the mitigation project, POPA will establish an escrow account in the amount of $75,000 to account for five years of monitoring estimated at $5,000 per year, and a contingency in the amount of $50,000 for potential maintenance activities. This will ensure that the proposed mitigation plan is fully funded throughout the five year monitoring period.

Compensato,y Mitigation Plan SWG-2011-00303; POPA Shoreline Stabilization and Wha1/Construction Project

II

Rock Breakwater ---- (6,239 linear feet; constructed under SWG-2009-00277)

Approximate area within which proposed Spartina planting will occur.

~ Note that the areas to be planted will depend on elevation/water depth. An estimated 4.1 acres will be planted.

wdJ:n '"?SfE s

1 :8,400

350 700 1,400

Feet

Sheet 2 Approximate Mitigation Area

Port of Port Arthur Shoreline Stabilization and Wharf Construction Project

Jefferson County, Texas File No. SWG-2011-00303

OJ

n ::r Cl)

:::J

V, Cl r-!.J I-' I-'

0 w w

-..J b' N -N I-'

" 0 ;::i.

0 -" 0 ;::i.

;::i.

::r C

" OJ

Otl Cl)

I-' N 0 - N

3:

~ -ta

"' c:::, --

Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., P.E., Chairman

Toby Baker, Commissioner

Zak Covar, Commissioner Richard A. Hyde, P.E., Executiue Director

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

July 31 , 2014

Ms. Elizabeth Shelton

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preuenling Pollution

Regulatory Branch, CESWG-PE-RE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, Texas 77553-1229

R"'· USACE PermitAppiication No. SWG-2011-00303

Dear Ms. Shelton:

AUG O 5 2614

This letter is in response to the Statement of Findings (SOF) dated July 25, 2014, for the Joint Public Notice dated March 4, 2014, on the Port of Port Arthur's wharf construction and shoreline stabilization project. The project is proposed to construct improvements to the shoreline of the Sabine-Neches Canal and uvgrade the port facility structures within the boundaries of the Pmt of Port Arthur in Jefferson County, Texas.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has reviewed the public notice and re1ated application infonnation along with the SOF. On behalf of the ExecntiYe Director and based on our eYaluation of the information contained in these documents, the TCEQ certifies that there is reasonable assurance that the project will be conducted in a way that will not violate water quality standards. General information regarding this water quality certification, including standard provisions of the certification, is included as an attachment to this letter.

The applicant proposes to discharge fill material into 3.26 acres of open waters and 0.08 ::tr.res of '.vcL1;u1d!; an~ construe~ new concrete hux outfall culverts and pipes. The appiicant also proposes to build a 600-foot-long by 63-foot-long wharf with driven concrete pile supports. The project also includes dredging of 18.31 acres to create slopes of 3:1 within the Sabine-Neches Canal to a depth of -48 feet mean low tide, plus 2 feet overdredge and 1 foot advanced maintenance, removing 454,300 cubic yards of matelial. This dredged material will be piped to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Dredged Material Placement Area #8.

Beneath the whalf, a 398 foot sheet pile bulkhead will be constructed. The applicant also proposes to straighten and armor 1,198 linear feet of shoreline contoured to a 3:1 slope, overlaid with a total of 10 .38 ncres uf articulated concrete matting. Some areas of the shoreline will also have stone riprap installed at the slope toe.

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • tceq.texas.gov

How is our customer service? tceq.texas.gov/customersurvey

_ '1 I

Ms. Elizabeth Shelton U.S. Army Corps of Engineers US.ACE Permit Application No. SWG-2011-00303 Page2 July 31 , 2014

AUG O 5 2014

The applicant plans to mitigate for the loss of 3.26 acres of shallow open water habitat and

0.08 acre of emergent wetlands by planting 4.1 acres of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alte77rijl.ora) behind approximately 6,239 linear feet of new rock breakwater that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department will install in theJ. D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area's Compartment 9 shoreline along the Gulf Inb·acoastal Waterway.

Tbe TCEQ has reviewed this proposed action for consistency with the Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP) goals and policies in accordance with the CMP regulations (Title 31, Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Section (§)505.30) and has determined that the action is consistent with the applicable CMP goals and policies.

This certification was reviewed for consistency witl1 the CMP's development in critical areas policy (31 TAC §501.23) and dredging and dredged material disposal and placement policy (31 TAC §501.25). This certification complies with tl1e CMP goals (31 TAC §501.12(1, 2, 3, 5)) applicable to these policies.

No review of property rights, location of property lines, nor the distinction between public and private ownership has been made, and this certification may not be used in any way with regard to questions of ownership.

If you require additional information or further assistance, please contact Ms. Jenna Lueg, Water Quality Assessment Section, Water Quality Division (MC-150), at (512) 239-4590 or by email atjenna.lueg@tceq.texas.gov

David W. Galindo Water Quality Division Director Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

DWG/ JRL/tc

Attachment ccs: Mr. Larry Kelly, Port of Port Arthur, 221 Houston Avenue, Port Arthur, Texas 77640- Ms. She1i Land, Texas General Land Office, P. 0. Box 12873, Austin, Texas 78711- 28733

USACE Permit Application No. SWG-2011-00303 Attachment - Dredge and Fill Certification Pagel of 3

AUG O 5 2014

WORK DESCRIPTION: As described in the public notice dated March 4, 2014, and the July 25, 2014, Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS: None

GENERAL: This certification, issued pw·suant to the require1nents of Title 30, Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 279, is restricted to the work described in the July 25, 2014, Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings and shall be concurrent with the Corps of Engineers (COE) permit. This certification may be extended to any minor revision of the COE permit when such change(s) would not result in an impact on water quality. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEO) reserves the right to require full joint public notice on a request for minor revision.

STANDARD PROVISIONS: These following provisions attach to any permit issued by the COE and shall be followed by the permittee or any employee, agent, contractor, or subcontractor of the permittee during any phase of work authorized by a COE permit.

1. The water quality of wetlands shall be maintained in accordance with all applicable provisions of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards including the General, Narrative, and Numerical Criteria.

2. The applicant shall not engage in any activity which will cause surface waters to be toxic to man, aquatic life, or ten estrial life.

3. Permittee shall employ measures to control spills of fuels, lubricants, or any other materials to prevent them from entering a watercourse. All spills shall be promptly reported to the TCEQ by calling the State of Texas Environmental Hotline at 1-800- 832-8224.

4. Sanitary wastes shall be retained for disposal in some legal manner. Marinas and similar operations which harbor boats equipped with marine sanitation devices shall provide state/federal permitted treatment facilities or pump out facilities for ultimate transfer to a permitted treatment faci}jty. Additionally, marinas shall display signs in appropriate locations advising boat owners that the discharge of sewage from a marine sanitation device to waters in the state is a violation of state and federal law.

5. Materials resulting from the destruction of existing structures shall be removed from the water or areas adjacent to the water and disposed of in some legal manner.

Attachment - Dredge and Fill Certification

6. A discharge shall not cause substantial and persistent changes from ambient conditions of turbidity or color. The use of silt screens or other appropriate methods is encouraged to confine suspended particulates.

7. The placement of any material in a watercourse or wetlands shall be avoided and placed there only with the approval of the Corps when no other reasonable alternative is available. If work within a wetland is unavoidable, gouging or rutting of the substrate is prohibited. Heavy equipment shall be placed on mats to protect the substrate from gouging and rutting if necessary.

8. Dredged Material Placement: Dredged sediments shall be placed in such a manner as to prevent any sediment runoff onto any adjacent property not owned by the applicant. Liquid runoff from the disposal area shall be retained on-site or shall be filtered and returned to the watercourse from which the dredged materials were removed. Except for material placement authorized by this permit, sediments from the project shall be placed in such a manner as to prevent any sediment runoff into waters in the state, including wetlands.

9. If contaminated spoil that was not anticipated or provided for in the permit application is encountered during dredging, dredging operations shall be immediately terminated and the TCEQ shall be contacted by calling the State of Texas Environmental Hotline at 1-800-832-8224. Dredging activities shall not be resumed until authorized by the Commission.

10. Contaminated water, soil, or any other material shall not be allowed to enter a watercourse. Noncontaminated storm water from impervious surfaces shall be controlled to prevent the washing of debris into the waterway.

11. Storm water runoff from construction activities that result in a disturbance of one or more acres, or are a part of a common plan of development that will result in the disturbance of one or more acres, must be controlled and authorized under Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) general permit TXRl.50000. A copy of the general permit, application (notice of intent), and additional information is available at:

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/ stormwater/wq_construction.html or by contacting the TCEQ Storm Water & Pretreatment Team at (512) 239-4671.

12. Upon completion of earthwork operations, all temporary fills shall be removed from the watercourse/wetland, and areas disturbed during construction shall be seeded, riprapped, or given some other type of protection to minimize subsequent soil erosion.

Attachment - Dredge and Fill Certification Page3 of3

AUG O 5 2014

Any fill material shall be clean and of such composition that it will not adversely affect the biological, chemical, or physical properties of the receiving waters.

13. Disturbance to vegetation will be limited to only what is absolutely necessary. After construction, all disturbed areas will be revegetated to approximate the pre disturbance native plant assemblage.

14. Where the control of weeds, insects, and other undesirable species is deemed necessary by the permittee, control methods which are nontoxic to aquatic life or human health shall be employed when the activity is located in or in close proximity to water, including wetlands.

15. Concentrations of taste and odor producing substances shall not interfere with the production of potable water by reasonable water treatment methods, impart unpalatable flavor to food fish including shellfish, result in offensive odors arising from the water, or otherwise interfere with reasonable use of the water in the state.

16. Surface water shall be essentially free of floating debris and suspended solids that are conducive to producing adverse responses in aquatic organisms, putrescible sludge deposits, or sediment layers which adversely affect benthic biota or any lawful uses.

17. Surface waters shall be essentially free of settleable solids conducive to changes in flow characteristics of stream channels or the untimely filling of reservoirs, lakes, and bays.

18. The work of the applicant shall be conducted such that sU1face waters are maintained in an aesthetically attractive condition and foaming or frothing of a persistent nature is avoided. Surface waters shall be maintained so that oil, grease, or related residue will not produce a visible film of oil or globules of grease on the surface or coat the banks or bottoms of the watercourse.

19. This certification shall not be deemed as fulfilling the applicant's/permittee's responsibility to obtain additional authorization/ approval from other local, state, or federal regulatory agencies having special/ specific authority to preserve and/ or protect resources within the area where the work will occur.

11 NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND

REQUEST FOR APPEAL

Aoolicant: Port of Port Arthur \ File Number: SWG-2011-00303 Date: 8/ 11/ 14

Attached is: See Section below

X INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of Permission) A

PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of Permission) B

PERMIT DENIAL C

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E

SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an adminis trative appeal of the above decision. Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Pages/reg materials.asox or Coros re QUlations at 33 CFR Part 331.

A: INITIAL PROFFERED P ERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.

• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.

• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the fom1 to the district engineer.

Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your Jetter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined tbat the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.

B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit

• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Pennit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the perntit.

• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section I1 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This fonn must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

C : PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a perntit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section TI of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the divis ion engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information.

• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.

• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION Il - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this fonn to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarifv the location of information that is already in the administrative record .

POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:

If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal process you may contact:

Elizabeth A. Shelton, Regulatory Specialist CESWG-RD-E, P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, Texas 77553-1229 Telephone: 409-766-3937; FAX: 409-766-6301

If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may also contact:

Mr. Elliott Cannan Administrative Appeals Review Officer (CESWD-PDO) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers I I 00 Commerce Street, Suite 831 Dallas , Texas 75242-1317 469-487-7061 (phone)

RJGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a I 5 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.

Date: Telephone number:

Signature of appellant or agent.