October 2007 - Sierra Club



January 18, 2016

Mr. Mark Garza

Regulatory Branch, CESWG-RD-E

Galveston District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 1229

Galveston, Texas 77553-1229

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

401 Coordinator

MSC-150

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Dear Mr. Garza and TCEQ,

Enclosed are the comments of the Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club (Sierra Club) regarding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Galveston District, Section 10/404 Permit Application No. SWG-2015-00306, January 14, 2016, Public Notice for Brazoria County, hydraulic dredging of San Luis Pass and West Bay for beach nourishment 1.6 miles southwest of the Bluewater Highway and San Luis Pass intersection, Brazoria County, Texas.

1) The proposal will:

1. Hydraulically dredge 376,200 cubic yards of sand material from West Bay and San Luis Pass to a depth of 9 feet deep, starting about 1.9 miles north of the intersection of Bluewater Highway and San Luis Pass and ending about 600 feet southeast of the bridge.

2. Create a beach nourishment project 160 feet wide 12,000 feet long area (96 acres on Follets Island Beach on the north end of Follets Island) next to which will benefit a residential development about 0.9 miles northeast of the project and a town-home rental development and residential properties about 0.7 miles southwest of the project, and recreational users.

3. Pump the dredge material, via pipeline, about 1.6 miles southwest of the intersection of Bluewater Highway and San Luis Pass.

2) Pages 1 and 2, Location, Project Description, Avoidance and Minimization, and Mitigation, this is a bad proposal and the Corps should deny the permit application. No mitigation is proposed and the applicant states that it has “conducted sensitive resource surveys”. However, the applicant forgot the most sensitive resource that must be protected: San Luis Pass.

According to the eminent and longtime scientist and coastal geologist at Rice University, Dr. John B. Anderson, in his book of 2007, “The Formation and Future of the Upper Texas Coast, A Geologist Answers Questions about Sand, Storms and Living by the Sea”, “San Luis Pass is one of the few remaining natural tidal inlets on the Texas Coast.” (Page 12, Chapter 1) Dr. Anderson further states on Pages 131 through 134, Chapter 7, “The San Luis tidal delta is the largest natural tidal delta in Texas. It is what engineers refer to as an “unimproved” tidal inlet, a term that has never ceased to amuse me. The delta contains most of the sand that has been eroded from Galveston Island by natural processes. Most of this sand occurs in the flood tidal delta, but part of the tidal delta is a protected wetlands and bird sanctuary. Removal of just the sand from bars within the flood tidal delta would potentially alter the flow of water into and out of West Bay and could have adverse impact on the bay. It would certainly influence future wetlands development. The flood tidal delta should be considered off-limits for sand exploitation.”

“The sizable ebb tidal delta at San Luis Pass is considered by some a viable sand resource for beach nourishment. However, removal of sand from the ebb tidal delta could also alter the natural tidal circulation between the Gulf and West Bay. The impact could be quite significant. Furthermore, the sand within the ebb tidal delta will ultimately make its way west, where it is needed to maintain Follets Island.”

In other words, the applicant proposes to “Rob Peter, to Pay Paul”. Any changes to natural tidal circulation could harm West Galveston Bay, Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge and all the natural resources within these federal lands, and the Christmas Bay Preserve which the Texas General Land Office owns and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department leases it as a State Scientific Area. This is the wrong place and the wrong project for the wrong purpose. Destroying what is stable and works makes no sense for a temporary fix or a band-aid that will be washed away in a few years and which will require further destruction, degradation, and damage to the best, most natural, estuarine tidal flat ecosystem left on the entire Texas Coast. The Corps should deny this permit application to “Stop the stupidity and ignorance” of the applicant and this proposal.

The applicant fails to state how long the sand that will be dredged from San Luis Pass will last before it is eroded away and more dredged sand is needed. Dr. Anderson, in the book mentioned above, states about Follets Island, “The sand eroded from Galveston Island ends up in the San Luis Pass tidal delta. Sand eroded from Follets Island washes over this narrow barrier into wetlands and bays (Page 18) … “Follets Island, located west of Galveston Island, actually is no longer an island, but when it was first mapped it was apparently not connected to the mainland at its western end. A relatively low barrier island, with elevations mostly less than 4 feet, it has been completely submerged by tropical storms, such as Hurricane Carla, in historical time … Unlike Galveston Island, Follets Island is narrow, and a significant amount of the sand that is being eroded from the island washes over into back-barrier wetlands. This stage of barrier island evolution, referred to as the “rollover” stage, is the final stage before the island is completely eroded. The island is highly prone to breaching during storms, as evidenced by numerous storm channels and wash-over deposits on the landward side of the island (Pages 32 and 33) … Follets Island has a low profile and limited sand supply, and in places the shoreline is retreating landward at a rate of nearly 10 feet per year. The island also rests on water-saturated clay and is believed to be subsiding relatively fast due to compactions of these clays (Page 71) … There is no question that Galveston Island will suffer major damage if it is struck by a Category 5 hurricane … The San Luis Pass Bridge would likely suffer major damage (Pages 110 and 111) … Follets Island would be the hardest hit by a powerful hurricane because the island is narrow and low, and because it consists of only a few feet of sand resting on clay. The main effect of a major storm would be significant over-wash and landward migration of the island and associated expansion of the wetlands … the island would likely breach in a number of locations, and it would probably take many years for the island's meager longshore sediment supply to fill the breached areas. County Road 3005 (Bluewater Highway) would be destroyed along much of its extent.” (Page 111)

Follets Island is the last place for beach nourishment since removal of the sand will not only cause tremendous damage to San Luis Pass but the sand will not stay in place for any appreciable amount of time. It makes no sense to place people and property in “harm's way” via a band-aid of sand.

The applicant has failed scientifically to document and prove that its proposed actions will not negatively affect San Luis Pass, wetlands and other important ecosystems that exist in and near it, and the Gulf of Mexico where the pipeline or barges will be placed. For instance, in the document “Texas Coastal Wetlands Guidebook” by Daniel W. Moulton and John S. Jacob, San Luis Pass is identified as a wetland site available to the public which represents Galveston Bay and Barrier Island. On Page 39 of this document the authors state, “Extensive tidal sand flats on the bay side of San Luis Pass, at the western tip of Galveston Island. Some tidal marsh established in areas protected from erosive wave action. Sand may be soft, so be careful when driving on the flats. No facilities or fees.” The authors go on to say that estuarine-tidal flats and saltmarsh are wetlands in this area and that the area is good for wildlife viewing, fishing, and beach activities. These activities will be degraded if sand is dredged from San Luis Pass. Again, why “Rob Peter, to Pay Paul”.

So the applicant is scientifically wrong when it says “that no wetlands … would be impacted by the proposed project.” The entire project area has wetlands that would be impacted by this proposal. The 200,000 cubic yards that the applicant says accumulates per year is not excess to the working of a natural, functioning tidal flat ecosystem and other ecosystems with natural functioning ecological processes including wetland creation, other habitat creation, shoreline protection, wildlife protection, water, salinity, nutrient, and organic matter circulation, and for recreational enjoyment by people. This material will naturally flow down to Follets Island, according to Dr. Anderson.

The “Oil Spill Planning and Response Atlas, Upper Texas Coast”, as prepared by the Texas General Land Office and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S. Department of Commerce) in October 1996, on Pages 46 through 49, documents the biological and ecological importance of San Luis Pass with emphasis on gulls/terns, wading birds, shorebirds, diving birds, fish, crabs, shrimp, and dolphins with many oyster beds nearby.

There is no more important place to protect and no worse place to conduct this proposal. The applicant has not conducted scientific studies to document that this proposal will not have unacceptable environmental impacts. The Sierra Club requests that the Corps prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This is a “major federal action significantly affected the quality of the human environment” and the applicant must be held accountable for review and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of its proposal.

3) Page 2, Notes, the Corps states that project information has not been verified. The Sierra Club is concerned about the Corps policy that allows the release of Public Notices with information furnished by the applicant that has not been verified by the Corps. This puts the public in an untenable situation of not knowing if the information it reviews is valid, complete, or accurate. The Sierra Club strongly believes that verified project information should be a part of all Public Notices. Without verified public information the public does not know whether the information that it relies upon to make public comments is accurate and true. The Corps should change its policy and verify applicant information. After all, if the Corps, the regulatory agency that gives the permit, does not verify applicant information then who will? The public must have this information so that it can review, comment on, and understand all the potential environmental impacts of the proposal.

4) Page 2, Mitigation, the applicant fails to submit a mitigation plan for the damage, degradation, and destruction of tidal flats, other wetlands, and other important ecosystems. The Corps should deny this permit application. For instance, the applicant does not propose the use of silt curtains to reduce siltation and the negative impacts of dredging and transfer of the dredged material to Follets Island. The applicant has provided no acreage for wetlands mitigation or a way to protect wetland mitigation areas in perpetuity. The applicant should be required to protect an area of equal ecological importance and size if it is allowed to damage, degrade, or destroy San Luis Pass and adjacent ecosystems and wildlife habitats. In addition, there is no monitoring required to determine impacts during and after the proposal is conducted and determine if mitigation (none which is proposed) effectively works.

The applicant fails to consider cumulative, connected, direct, and indirect potential environmental impacts that this proposal will have. The creation of a beach could cause greater residential development in the area, more water pollution including non-point source run-off, more soil erosion, more sedimentation, more trash due to more use by people for recreational and other uses, more compaction of sand, loss of shoreline and dune vegetation, and disturbance of birds and wildlife, more light pollution, noise pollution, spills, and nuisance situations. The impacts on West Galveston Bay and San Luis Pass are ignored.

5) Page 2, Current Site Conditions, the Sierra Club is concerned about the location of this proposal. The proposal is located in or next to jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the U.S. The Sierra Club is concerned that the proposal is in the existing 100-year floodplain and 100-year storm surge area. Follets Island is possibly the most hazardous and sensitive area on the Texas Coast with regard to storm surge due to its very low topography above sea level (4 feet). No 100-year floodplain and 100-year storm surge maps for this site are provided by the applicant in the Public Notice. The idea is not to place citizens in “harm's way” but that is exactly what this proposal would do.

6) Page 2, Notes, the applicant has failed to submit a wetlands delineation. This makes it impossible for the public to review, comment on, and understand all of the potential environmental impacts of the proposal. This permit application should be rejected because no wetlands delineation has been submitted and verified by the Corps.

7) Page 3, National Register of Historic Places, the Corps states that “The State tracts proposed for work under this permit application are included in the Texas Antiquity Committee's list of State land tracts containing State Archaeological Landmarks. Therefore, the proposed activities may affect pre-20th century shipwrecks.” The applicant has provided no surveys or mitigation plan to ensure that archaeological finds are not damaged, destroyed, or degraded. This means that the public is not privy to the results of historic surveys. The Corps must explain why historic surveys are not done when the Public Notice is published. Failing to do so blinds the public so it does not know whether there are any important historic resources on the site and what mitigation will be done to protect these resources. The Corps should deny the permit application because no historic surveys and mitigation plan has been done.

8) Page 4, Threatened and Endangered Species, the applicant admits that threatened and or endangered species or their critical habitat my be affected by the proposal. But apparently no surveys have been done and no mitigation plan is provided. This means that the public is not privy to the results of such surveys. The Corps must explain why threatened and endangered species surveys were not done before the Public Notice was published. Failing to do so blinds the public so it does not know whether there are any threatened or endangered species resources on the site, whether they are at risk, and what mitigation will be implemented to protect these resources. The Corps should deny the permit application because no threatened and endangered species surveys and a mitigation plan has been done.

9) Page 4, Public Interest Review Factors, the Public Notice is inadequate as a basis for determining the environmental impacts of this proposal and the effect that this proposal will have on the public interest review factors in 33 CFR 320-332, regulatory programs of the Corps, and other pertinent laws, regulations, and executive orders.

The Corps should require that an IS be produced which accurately assesses, analyzes, and evaluates all the environmental impacts on the “human environment.” The Corps must take a “hard” look and make the EIS its own and not simply agree with the EIS because the applicant prepared it.

The loss of wetlands, increased water quality effects, alteration of floodplain values and functions, and other environmental impacts trigger the “major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act. (NEPA) and the need for an EIS.

Some of the public interest review factors that must be considered and are relevant include conservation, economics, aesthetics, air quality, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, and the needs and general welfare of the people.

The public interest factors analysis is very important and is separate and larger than simply reviewing the proposed dredge/fill impacts and proposed mitigation. The Corps should prepare its analysis of public interest factors carefully when reviewing this proposal.

10) Page 2 of 10, Plans, the applicant fails to state what the impacts of this proposal will be on West Galveston Bay. This is particularly important since the application documents that there will be a proposed access route that may affect the Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge, may use the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, may affect Chocolate Bayou or Bay, or may affect other features in the area. The applicant does not state how it will access the site. The impacts of a barge or other floating vessel on West Bay and the surrounding environment is not stated. There is no mitigation plan to minimize any impacts due to the dredging and access to the dredge site.

10) The Sierra Club requests that the Corps deny this permit application because it does not include all relevant information and is too environmentally damaging. If the Corps does not deny this proposal then it must prepare an EIS for this proposal and the EIS must be put out by the Corps for a minimum of 60-days for public review/comment.

The Sierra Club appreciates this opportunity to comment. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Brandt Mannchen

Chair, Forestry Subcommittee

Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club

5431 Carew

Houston, Texas 77096

713-664-5962

brandtshnfbt@

-----------------------

1

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download