study to assess the feasibility of inland canals as an alternative to bay and river margin port and industrial development Texas Coastal Management Program, General Land Office of Texas

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

INLAND CANALS:
INFORMATION GENTER
An Alternative for Industry

i~~~~~~~~~z ~~ ~ 4

_1111ll1l, 1J1,, Ill11llm ll1l[PSl II~n l _I ~ ~iil l ~ I~?III!!!1111~IIrII!_TH]11 ~?!!fll~ il[I II]1 !!!!! l_!!'!!! !! ' 1 llF!'!?!1
L'39 -

COASTAL ,,,
INFORMATION CENTER
A STUDY TO ASSESS THE FEASIBILITY OF INLAND CANALS
AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO BAY AND RIVER MARGIN
PORT AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Texas Coastal Management Program
General Land Office of Texas
Bob Armstrong, Commissioner

U - S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

Prepared by
Research and Planning Consultants
Austin, Texas
July, 1977
Second Printing

Property of csc Library

cg ~ Project Manager Quality Control Reviewer Management Reviewer

cr t

This report was funded through financial assistance provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, administered by the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, U.S. Department of Commerce.

(~3~~~ 1T< X ~~g~RESEARCH & PLANNING CONSULTANTS

C , I

FOREWORD

In February of 1977, the General Land Office contracted with Research and Planning
Consultants to assess the feasibility of inland canals as a special study of the Texas Coastal
Management Program.

RPC, Inc., has evaluated the concept through a hypothetical case study in Brazosport,
Texas. The results of the case study indicate that the inland canals are a feasible alternative
to traditional navigation developments, both in terms of cost to industry and in minimizing
adverse environmental, social, and economic impacts.

I believe that the study findings present important policy implications for accommodating
industrial growth and economic viability while protecting our productive coastal resources.
My staff will be reviewing the study in the forthcoming months and investigating a position
on energy facility siting which incorporates the advantages of the inland canal alternative.

Bob Armstrong, Commissioner
GENERAL LAND OFFICE

CONTENTS

Page
I. Executive Summary ..1.......................
A. introduction ............................1
1. Purpose and Objectives ..1...... ............
B. Summary of Findings ........................1
1. Cost Feasibility........................ 1
2. Design Feasibility ........................2
3. Governmental Assistance .....................2
4. Assessment Procedure ......................2
C. Study Approach ..........................3
D. Study Limitations..........................3

II. Study Area Selection ..........................
A. Study Area Selection.........................5
1. Study Area Selection Criteria ....................
2. Criteria Application....................... 5
3. Summary Description of the Study Area ...............11
B.4. Study Area Selection References ..................12
B.Description of the Study Area Environment................14
1. Climatic Characteristics and Air Quality................14
2. Geology and Substrate Characteristics ................19
3. Drainage Systems ........................27
4. Ecosystems and Wildlife......................28
5. Land Use ...........................32
6. Social and Infrastructural Characteristics ...............36
7. Description of the Study Area Environment References .........40

III. Project Feasibility Analysis.......................43
A. Industry Location Analysis ......................43
1. Industry Location Factors.....................43
2. Selection of Industries ......................47
3. Specific Requirements of Refinery-Petrochemical Complex ........58
4. Industry Location Analysis References................68
B. Environmental Engineering ......................70
1. Environmental Constraints.....................70
2. Engineering Alternatives......................74
3. Design Criteria Summary .....................94
C. Least Environmental Impact Corridor Section...............95
1. Corridor Dimensions.......................95
2. Selection of Alternate Corridors...................95
3. Corridor Descriptions.......................109
4. Corridor Selection........................114
5. Least Environmental Impact Corridor Selection References ........115
D. Project Layout, Design, and Construction.................116
1. Project Layout and Design.....................116
2. Construction Procedures .....................126
3. Project Costs..........................130
4. Project Layout, Design, and Construction References ..........130
E. Legal/Institutional Analysis ......................1 33
1. Public and Private Alternatives for Ownership, Financing,
Construction, and Operation of an Inland Canal ..1..........3 3
2. Regulatory Authority Affecting the Construction and
Maintenance of an Inland Canal...................137

3. Regulatory Authority Affecting Industrial
Development Along the Canal ...................140
4. Governmental Programs for Alleviating
Adverse Impacts of the Project ...................142
5. Interpretation..........................142
F. Economic Feasibility Analysis .....................143
1. Market Comparison .......................143
2. Cash Flow and Rate of Return Analysis................144
3. Summary ...........................156
4. Economic Feasibility Analysis References...............156
IV. Environmental Impact Analysis .....................157
A. Impacts of Inland Canal Construction and industrial Site Preparation. . ....157
1. Economic Impact Analysis.....................157
2. Environmental impact Analysis...................174
3. Social and Infrastructural Impact Analysis...............195
B. Impacts of Industrial Site Development and Operation............204
1. Economic Impact issues......................205
2. Environmental Impact Issues....................208
3. Social and Infrastructural Impact Issues................211
V. Alternatives to the Inland Canal Concept...... .............213
A. Impacts Typically Associated with Navigation Projects ...........213
B. impacts Differing Between Traditional and Inland Canal Concepts.......214
C. Evaluation of Differing Impacts....................215
D. Alternatives to the Inland Canal Concept References............216
VI. implications for Further Research ....................217
A. Additional Data Needs .......................217
B. Deep Draft Channel.........................217
C. Waterfront Terminal Facility .....................217
VII. Appendices
A. Theory of industry Location Analysis..................219
B. Petroleum Refineries and Petrochemical Plants
Located on the Texas Gulf Coast ...................222
C. Environmental Data Base and Data Evaluation ..............227
D. The Brazoria County Input/Output Model................23 3
E. Ecological Alterations Analysis ....................243
F. Bibliography ...........................256

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title Page
1. Feasibility Assessment Methodology..................4
2. Study Area Selection Criteria.....................6
3. Preliminary Locations for Siting an inland Canal .............6
4. Study Area Location....................... 8
5. Distribution of Manufacturing Plants in the Texas Coastal Zone, 1975 . .... 9
6. Area of Projected Population .................... 13
7. Brazoria County Temperature Patterns.................15
8. Brazoria County Precipitation Patterns.................16
9. Wind Current Frequency Rose at Galveston ...............17
10. Combined Emission Source Inventory .................18
It. Generalized Geologic Map of the Gulf Coastal Plain and the
Principal Hydrographic Features of the Gulf of Mexico...........20
12. Generalized Gulf Coastal Aquifer Profile Showing
Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers ....................21
13. Deltaic Depositional Environments in the Brazos Coastal Basin........24
14. Physical Properties Groups Natural Suitability Analysis...........25
15. Land Use by Census Tract......................33
16. Census Tract Map .........................34
17. 1975 Traffic Map-Annual Average 24 Hour Traffic Volume.........35
18. Brazoria County Population Statistics .................36
19. Population Age Profile-Brazoria County, Texas .............37
20. Brazoria County Employment by Occupation ..............38
21. Parks in Brazoria County ......................39
22. The Site Selection Process......................44
23. Competitive Advantage Ranks of Transportation Modes ..........45
24. Tax Comparisons as the Basis for the Location Decision ..........48
25. Importance Attached to Having a Plant Site with Water Transportation Facilities 49
26. Locational Objectives To Be Achieved as a Percentage of Survey Respondents ..50
27. Percentage of Products Shipped by Water, 1972 .............50
28. Major Users of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Texas ..........5 1
29. Basic Chemical Capacity, 1975.................... 53
30. Energy Used by U.S. Petrochemical and Petroleum
Refining industries for Heat and Power, 1974.............. 53
31. Water Consumption by Industry in Texas, 1973 .............55
32. Water Intake by Purpose and Kind, U.S. and Texas, 1973..........56
3 3. Expected Employment at Fully Operational Plants ............57
34. Representative Petrochemical Complex.................59
35. Requirements of Postulated Refinery and Petrochemical Complex ......60
36. Classification of Employment in a Gulf Coast Refinery...........61
37. Estimated Acreage Requirements by Refineries..............62
38. Net Energy Consumption of Average U.S. Refineries............63
39. Water Intake, Value Added, and Employment in the
Refining industry in Texas and the U.S., 1973 ..............64
40. Sales Value of Representative Complex.................65
41. Electric Power Use by the Texas Petrochemical Industry, 1974........67
42. Water Intake, Value Added and Employment in the
Chemical Industry in Texas and the U.S., 1973..............67
43. Environmental Constraints......................7 1
44. Engineering Alternatives.......................75
45. Design Criteria Summary ....:..................96
46. Evaluation Map Elemental Constraints .................100

vii

47. Environmental Evaluation Procedure ................................. 110
48. Corridor Evaluation Matrix ........................................ 111
49. Alternative Inland Canal/Industrial Site Corridors ....................... 112
50. Conceptual Site Plan ............................................. 117
51. Canal Cross Section .............................................. 118
52. Redfish Bayou Diversion .......................................... 119
53. Harbor Dimensions and Berth Zone .................................. 121
54. Acreage Allocation by Use ......................................... 121
55. Site Drainage ................................................... 123
56. Inland Canal Project Schedule ...................................... 128
57. Inland Canal/Industrial Site Project Summary .......................... 130
58. Cashflow Stage I Private Financing .................................. 146
59. Present Value Analysis-Stage 1, Stage 2, and Stages 1 and 2 Combined ...... 148
60. Cashflow Stage 2 Private Financing .................................. 150
61. Cashflow Stage 1 Public Financing ................................... 153
62. Cashflow Stage 2 Public Financing ................................... 154
63. Major Activities, Canal Construction and Industrial Site Preparation ......... 158
64. Distribution of Activities Over Time, Phase 1 ........................... 159
65. Distribution of Activities Over Time, Phase 2 ........................... 159
66. Primary Expenditures ............................................. 161
67. Direct and Indirect Employment Requirements ......................... 163
68. Resident, New Resident and Commuter Employment Requirements ......... 164
69. New Population and New Students .................................. 165
70. Primary and Indirect Personal Income ................................ 167
71. State Tax Payment Coefficients-Construction Sector .................... 168
72. State Tax Payments .............................................. 168
73. Local Tax Payment Coefficients Construction Sector, Brazoria County ....... 170
74. Local Tax Payments-Brazoria County ................................ 170
75. Government Expenditures-Brazoria County ........................... 171
76. Fiscal Impact Brazoria County ...................................... 172
77. Summary of Economic Impacts,
Canal Construction and Industrial Site Preparation ....................... 173
78. Inland Canal Project Activities and Resource Areas ...................... 176
79. Potential Primary Ecological Alterations .............................. 177
80. Primary Ecological Alterations Matrix ................................ 179
81. Nutrient-Sediment Relationship ..................................... 182
82. Infrastructural Issues, Indicators, and Standard Measures .................. 196
83. Population and Employment as the Result of Canal Construction ........... 197
84. Brazoria County-Rate of Growth ................................... 198
85. Projected Population for Brazoria County 1970-2020 .................... 198
86. School Enrollment in Brazosport Area ................................ 199
87. Hospitals and Physicians ........................................... 200
88. Distribution of Refinery Construction Costs ........................... 205
89. Summary of Annual Economic Impacts, Refinery and
Petrochemical Complex Construction and Operation ..................... 207
90. Typical Environmental Loadings Associated with a
250,000 B/D Refinery/Petrochemical Complex ...........................209

viii

Appendices
Al Summary of Location Factors.....................220
B 1 $ Million Output and Employment...................222
B2 Petroleum Refineries Located on the Texas Gulf Coast...........22 3
B3 Petrochemical Plants Located on the Texas Gulf Coast ...........224
Cl Soil Interpretations for Selected Uses, Limitations and Suitabilities ......229
DlI Transactions Table.........................2 34
D2 Direct Requirements Table......................234
D 3 Direct and Indirect Requirements Table.................235
El Fluvial Woodland Ecological Systems Diagram ..............244
E2 Prairie Grassland Ecological Systems Diagram...............246
E 3 Brackish-Water Marsh Ecological Systems Diagram.............248
E4 Record of Ecological Alterations Analysis................250

Map No. Title
I1.Natural Hazards..........................101
2. Substrate, Soils, Aquifers ......................102
3. Ecosystems............................103
4. Wildlife .............................104
5. Land Use ............................105
6. Transportation, Minerals, Archeology .................106
7. Composite Constraints .......................107

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Research and Planning Consultants is responsible for the preparation and content of this
report. The project was managed by Andrew Reed. The principal authors of the report are
Alan Dutton, environmental inventory, impact analysis, and planning; Ann Orzech and
Stuart Greenfield, industry location analysis and economic impact analysis; Arthur Eatman,
environmental engineering and design; Leah Pagan, social impact analysis; Polly McGlew and
John McLaren, legal/institutional analysis; and Denise Girard, research assistant. Additional
research participants are David Brown, Dennis Cooper, Bill Longley, Frank Sturzl, and
Lloyd Urban. Graphics and typesetting were prepared by Oscar Rizk-Aziz, Pat Wiles,
Eleanor Dailey, David Fox, and LaWanna Kaatz.

Numerous agencies, organizations, and individuals contributed their time and resources to
this study. Notable data sources are: Seadock, Inc.; the U.S. Soil Conservation Service;
Brazosport Chamber of Commerce; Brazos Harbor Navigation District; Dow Chemical
U.S.A.; Union Carbide Corporation; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District;
Friendswood Development Corporation; General Crude Oil Company; and Texas Industrial
Commission. Field surveys were assisted by Ed Stokely and H. M. Garner.

Review of the draft manuscript was conducted by the Texas General Land Office and by
interested individuals and organizations. We appreciate their thoughtful comments and
suggestions.

Ron Jones, President
Ronald Luke, Principal-in-Charge
Austin, Texas
July, 1977

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Coastal industries are highly dependent upon water transportation. Water is an efficient
means for moving raw materials to industry and for shipping finished products to markets. The
development of navigation channels and associated industry in coastal waters and shorelands has
destroyed vast areas of productive wetlands. This study analyzes inland canals as a method of pro-
viding navigation access without large-scale alteration of wetlands. Subject to the limitations ex-
pressed below, the study substantiates the hypothesis that widespread wetland alteration is not a
necessary part of coastal industry siting and navigation development.
Purpose and Objectives
The growing demand for navigation access, dredged material disposal sites, and industrial
development has increased concomitant with public policy restrictions against large-scale altera-
tion of productive wetlands. As the State agency with primary responsibility for managing the
coastal public lands and implementing the policies designed for their protection, the General Land
Office is investigating alternatives to traditional industrial navigation development which can reduce
channelization and filling of valuable wetland systems. This study was initiated by the General Land
Office through the Texas Coastal Management Program. The purpose of the study is to investigate
the feasibility of the inland canal alternative and formulate a methodology which can be applied to
an analysis of energy facility siting on the Texas coast.

The objectives of the study are threefold. First, the hypothesis that the inland canal is a
feasible alternative to traditional navigation developments must be tested. Second, a usable
methodology to locate and design an inland industrial canal with least environmental impact must
be developed. Third, the information of most value in applying this methodology and in determin-
ing the impacts of an inland canal project must be compiled.

Given these objectives, two audiences are expected to find the study results to be interesting
and useful. Industry will find it opportune to incorporate the study results into future development
decisions. Governmental entities responsible for managing coastal resources will find the study con-
clusions of use in reviewing plans for coastal industrial navigation developmens.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The inland industrial canal concept can be a feasible alternative for industrial siting on the
Texas coast. This determination is based on the analysis of a hypothetical case study of an inland
industrial canal located in the Brazosport area of Brazoria County, Texas.

Cost Feasibility
1. The financing of land purchase, canal construction, and site preparation would be a profitable
venture for the private investor. Site improvements, including the installation of utilities, are
necessary to the marketability of the project, but result in a less profitable private investment.

2. Public financing of the project would likewise be feasible, and would be desirable for the utility
system. Public ownership of the project through a navigation district would confer unique
financing advantages. Federal funding of canal construction, while reducing local public or
private investment costs, would cause an inexpedient project delay.

3. Feasibility of the concept is contingent upon acquisition of a large parcel of land providing
7,000 to 10,000 net salable acres. This finding is based on the magnitude of project costs, the
existing real estate market, and experience of similar developments.

Design Feasibility
I1. The inland industrial canal approach can successfully reduce wetland alteration and dredged
material disposal problems often associated with traditional industrial navigation projects.
2. A conceptual design which incorporates excavated and dredged material into industrial site fillI
and flood protection levee construction is a practical solution to disposal of dredged material
and to hurricane and river flood hazards. it would not be economical to transport material
dredged at the lower reaches of the canal to the industrial site. This material would have to be
placed within the canal right-of-way.

3. Routing of the canal on a drainage divide or low coastal ridge would minimize the detrimental
modification of surface runoff flows to wetlands and reduce sedimentation in the canal. Long-I
term maintenance dredging requirements for an inland canal may be lower than for bay or

4. Potential environmental impacts which should be closely studied in inland canal design include:
a. upland habitat loss and habitat isolation;
b. the modification of upland sheetfiow runoff to point source flow;
c. modification of the flow rate and volume of intermittent streams if their diversion under the
canal is required;
d. saltwater intrusion into the water table adjacent to the canal;
e. the potential for the flow of hazardous spills to escape the canal and enter adjacent wet-
lands; and
f. concentrated air pollutant levels resulting from aggregation of industries.

5. Potential social and economic impacts detected in the hypothetical case study include:
a. the possible creation of a short-term municipal fiscal deficit in the project area due to new
residents and infrastructural requirements; and
b. stress on existing transportation and water supply systems;4
Public interaction throughout the planning process is essential to protection of community
character and social structure.

Governmental Assistance
Numerous governmental assistance programs available to alleviate the adverse impacts
caused by project development have been identified. Programs relevant to the case study include the
Coastal Energy Impact Fund, construction grants for wastewater treatment works administered by
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Water Quality Board, funds provided under the
Clean Air Financing Act, EPA water quality enhancement bonds, and funds provided by the
Economic Development Administration. Participation in these and other programs will depend on
the allocation of funds and ability to qualify.

Assessment Procedure
The environmental assessment procedure, which combines aspects of least impact corridor
identification and the Activity Assessment Routine of the Texas Coastal Management Program is a
useful environmental planning tool. The ecological systems diagram analysis is effective in screening
the potential ecological alterations of a project, but a quantified data system based on field sam-
pling would be essential to the application of environmental analysis beyond the conceptual stage.
The number of judgments required to assess the ecological impacts is lessened with a systematic
approach, even in a qualitative systems analysis; the need for discretion, however, is not eliminated.

STUDY APPROACH

The feasibility of the inland industrial canal concept was assessed according to three factors:

1. the cost of developing an inland canal and associated industrial site with features corn-
parable to traditional industrial navigation developments;
2. the economic, environmental, and social impacts of an inland canal development; and
3. the relative ability of an inland canal approach to minimize adverse impacts associated
with traditional industrial navigation developments.

The assessment methodology employed is shown in Figure 1. The four primary tasks include
selection of a case study area, project feasibility analysis, environmental impact analysis, and comn-
parison to alternatives.

In the site selection process (Chapter II) IS preliminary inland canal sites on the Texas coast
are analyzed according to criteria which include physical/geographic requirements, suitability for
potential industries, and requirements of the study methodology.

The project feasibility analysis (Chapter III) employs a process to identify a least environ-
mental impact corridor for the canal based on an evaluation of the environmental and socio-
economic design constraints in the study area. The requirements of two postulated industrial sectors
and a detailed compilation of engineering parameters are then applied to layout and design of a con-
ceptual inland canal within the selected corridor.

The environmental impact analysis (Chapter IV) is an application of two existing method-
ologies. Ecological impacts are determined through the Activity Assessment Routine developed by
the Texas Coastal Management Program. Non-ecological environmental impacts and economic and
social impacts are assessed by the methodology developed by the OCS impact study of the Texas

CatlThe final task in the study is a comparison of the impacts of the inland canal approach to

the impacts of traditional navigation developments (Chapter V). This process identifies the impacts
that differ between the two approaches, thereby establishing a basis for a comparison of the relative
advantages and disadvantages of the inland canal concept.

Additional information concerning industry location analysis, data evaluation, and impact
analysis is included as appendices along with a bibliography.

STUDY LIMITATIONS

A case study of a hypothetical design is inherently limited by the assumptions which must
be made in postulating the design. Field investigations to obtain primary data for refining the state-
ment of industrial requirements, environmental engineering design, and of project costs were
beyond the scope of this study. The feasibility conclusions, therefore, are contingent both on the
appropriateness of the many study assumptions and also on the generalizability of the project
design.

The scope of the study is limited to the activities of design and construction of the inland
canal and the industrial site preparation. Although significant operational issues are discussed, a
detailed analysis of industrial facility construction and operation has not been attempted because
this development phase is comparable to what would be incurred under typical projects, and would
therefore not greatly contribute to the feasibility analysis.

Figure 1
Feasibility Assessment Methodology

PROJECT AREA SELECTION

lApplication of Hypothetical Case Study Criterial

IDescription of Study Areal

PROJECT FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

lIndustrial Location Analysis I IEnvironmental Engineering Alternatives ILeast Impact Corridor Analysis|

IProject Corridor Evaluation
I
1Project Layout & Desiqn

ICost Feasibility Analysisl ILegal/Institutional Analysisl

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

IEnvironmental Impacts| IEconomic Impacts I iSocial/Infrastructural Impacts|

I
COMPARISON WITH ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

IEvaluation of Differing ImpactsI

I
jNET FEASIBILITY DETERMINATION I

all aL - - *.-s - --

II. STUDY AREA SELECTION

This section describes the process leading to selection of a study area in Brazosport, Texas.
The procedure includes a survey of general siting criteria which were applied to 18 inland canal
sites preliminarily identified by McFarland et at. (1976).

The study area selection is based on two primary objectives:

1. identification of an area suitable for an inland canal, and
2. identification of an area suitable for an inland canal route selection and impact assess-
ment methodology.

The first objective provides that site selection criteria consider the inherent suitability of an
area for an inland canal based on potential industrial requirements, geographic factors, and ability
to meet physical construction requirements. The assumption that demand for the canal and indus-
trial sites will, in fact, exist is basic to this study (see Industrial Location Analysis, Chapter III-A).

The second objective provides that the study area selection process consider such factors as
data quality, quantity, and availability; a variety of geographic, socioeconomic, and ecological
conditions providing a comparison of alternatives; accessibility to the site by the study team; and
proximity to traditional port developments to facilitate comparisons.

Study Area Selection Criteria
The study area selection criteria are based on the preceding objectives, a set of inland canal
site criteria (McFarland et al., 1976), other lineal feature routing studies (Allen et al., 1974; Minne-
sota Power and Light, 1976), and on channel, port, and industry siting studies (Takel, 1974; Loch-
moeller, et al., 1975; Panel on Future Port Requirements, 1976).

The study area selection criteria are shown in Figure 2. Three categories of factors have been
identified. The first category includes the characteristics of the site which should be considered to
F ~~~~assure that it is physically suited to canal construction. The second category considers the require-
ments of industries which locate at the canal, and the last category represents the requirements of
the study methodology.

The criteria applied at this stage are general in scope and designed for a coastwide reconnais-
sance of areas which are suited for an inland canal. More specific criteria will be presented subse-
quently in determining a channel route and industrial site within the designated study area, the
postulated industries, and industrial requirements.

The selected site is certainly not the only suitable location on the Texas coast for such a
project. Other potential locations have been identified as discussed below. The suitability of other
sites, however, can be better evaluated based on the results of the feasibility analysis itself.

Criteria Application
McFarland et al. (1976) preliminarily identified 18 geographic areas suitable for locating
an inland canal (Figure 3). These sites were selected on the basis of 1) access to existing waterways
and proximity to other transportation modes, 2)the industrial demand and availability of develop-
ment sites, 3) the presence of other industry location requirements, and 4) geological and environ-
mental factors.
A detailed analysis of these sites indicated three case study area candidates: the upper
Corpus Christi Bay area, the Lavaca Bay area, and Brazosport. For the reasons cited below, the
Brazosport area provides an optimum combination of factors meeting the study area selection
criteria.

Figure 2

Study Area Selection Criteria

Physical Requirements
access from GIWW available at reasonable distance
distribution of large' contiguous, undeveloped tracts of land
proximity to upland areas free from flooding and subsidence
distribution of potential route corridors which minimize conflict with wetlands or other critical systems
Industry Requirements
location with respect to product markets and raw material
multi-model transportation linkages
utility services available-water, electricity, gas, waste treatment
labor available
local environment conducive to industrial growth
land cost and availability
freedom from environmental conflicts
Study Requirements
current, accurate, and comprehensive data available
site accessible by the study team
site representative of coastal environments and physiography
site proximate to existing port and industrial facility developments for comparison
area consistent with industrial development trends

Figure 3

Preliminary Locations for Siting an Inland Canal
(Identified by McFarland, et al., 1976)

1. From the Sabine River Channel to Echo (north of Orange) westward to an area north of Orange.
2. From the Neches River to an area between Beaumont and Orange.
3. From Taylor's Bayou or the GIWW to an area south of Beaumont.
4. From the GIWW near High Island north toward the Winnie-Stowell area.
5. From the Anahuac Channel eastward into Chambers County.
6. From existing channels in Trinity Bay into an area southeast to east of Baytown.
7. Inland from the Chocolate Bayou Channel, or from the GIWW in the vicinity of Chocolate Bayou.
8. From existing barge canals or GIWW in the vicinity of Oyster Creek north of Freeport.
9. From the Brazos River southwest toward Clemens State Prison Farm, or from the GIWW between the Brazos
and San Bernard Rivers, or from the San Bernard River, inland toward Clemens State Prison Farm.
10. From the GIWW north of the Colorado River or from the Colorado River, inland toward Bay City.
11. From the GIWW between the Colorado River and Tres Palacios Bay, or from the Colorado River, inland toward
Buckeye in the general vicinity of Bay City.
12. From Palacios Channel north to area near Buckeye or south to area near Blessing.
13. From the channel in upper kavaca Bay or the channel to Alcoa Aluminum to an area northwest of Point
Comfort (or possibly south to an area west of Port Lavaca).
14. From Lavaca Channel inland towaro Placedo.
15. From La Quinta Channel to an area north of La Quinta Channel.
16. From the GIWW inland, immediately south of Corpus Christi.
17. From the GIWW inland to area near Kingsville.
18. From the Brownsville ahip Channel to an area north-northwest of the Port of Brownsville.

Physical Requirements
The Brazosport area ranks high in its natural suitability for an inland canal. The Brazosport
area is one of the few sections of the Texas coast with a mainland-type shore bordering the Gulf of
Mexico (Figure 4). Navigation related development in the area is confined to the Old Brazos River,
whereas other potential sites on the Texas coast benefit from inland access through bay or estuarine
systems. Presently available waterfront land in the Brazosport area which is suitable for industrial
development is limited to the south side of the Brazos Harbor Channel, with approximately four
miles of water front. Small parcels of land are available bordering the GIWW, although access is
limited.

Large, undeveloped tracts of land exceeding 5,000 acres area located on upland sites in the
area. Land at 10 to 20 foot elevation occurs from 8 to 10 miles inland from the GIWW. Wetland
areas adjoining the GIWW in the Brazosport area are interspersed with narrow ridges of upland
coastal prairie which may prove to be suitable access corridors to the upland sites. Two river sys-
tems, the Brazos and San Bernard, are located in proximity to upland areas, providing additional
navigation access possibilities.
Industry Requirements
In addition to being physically suited for canal construction, the study area must also be
consistent with industry location objectives. One measure of industry location preferences is the
present distribution of manufacturing plants and new construction activities.

The pattern of industrial development on the Texas coast can be described in terms of four
acreas of concentrated manufacturing: Jefferson County, Harris-Galveston-Brazoria-Fort Bend
Counties, Nueces County, and Cameron County. This pattern is dominated by chemical and allied
products, petroleum refining, and related products, primary and fabricated metal products, and
machinery fabrication sectors. The area including Harris, Galveston, Brazoria, and Fort Bend
Counties represents the largest concentration of manufacturing firms on the coast (see Figure 5).

There were forty new waterside plant construction starts or expansions in the Texas coastal
area in 1974 (American Waterways Operators, Inc., 1975). Thirty-four (85 percent) of these plants
were located in the Freeport, Chocolate Bayou, Texas City, and Houston area. Harris, Galveston,
and Brazoria Counties also account for 63 percent of the operating petrochemical plants and 65 per-
cent of the plants under construction as of 1976. One-third of the nine new refineries, refinery
expansions, and reactivations scheduled for the Texas coast between 1976 and 1980 are located in
the Houston-Brazosport area. In Brazoria County alone, four new plants are scheduled by 1978.

One of the most extensive petroleum related facilities proposed for the area is Seadock,
which would include a crude oil unloading facility located approximately 31 miles offshore con-
nected to a receiving and distribution terminal located between the Brazos and San Bernard Rivers.
Seadock projections (1974) indicated that the anticipated 40 cents per barrel (bbl.) transport sav-
ings realized by the facility will provide a regional advantage to refinery petrochemical plant loca-
tion. Although the actual Seadock crude oil throughput will be a function of national demand,
importation must exceed 2 million bpd (barrels per day) by 1985 to require additional refinery
capacity.

These data indicate a strong attraction to the Houston-Galveston-Brazosport area. This can
be explained by a combination of factors including transportation linkages, labor force, competitive
utilities, and land prices.

Available waterborne raw material inputs and product distribution facilities are significant in
the Houston-Galveston-Freeport area. This area is presently served by four deepwater ports-Free-
port, Galveston, Texas City, and Houston-and five smaller ports, including Sweeny, Chocolate
Bayou, Dickinson Bayou, Clear Creek, and Cedar Bayou. These ports handled a total of
129,980,000 short tons of cargo in 1974, compared to a Texas coastwide total of 243,820,000

2$' �~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f

I~~~~~~~~~~TUYAE
-t I' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ VI~~~~~~~00

Figure 5
Distribution of Manufacturing
Plants in the Texas Coastal Zone

State Total -13,257
/ ~NUMBER OF PLANTS

Less than 10

10-24

- ~~25-49

50-99
FL - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~100-249

2,000 and over

(Source: 1975 Directory of Texas
Manufacturers; Adapted from:
Atlas of Texas, Bureau of
Business Research, 1976)

short tons, or over one-half the total state waterborne cargo. Petrochemical and related products
accounted for 70 percent of this total.

Surface transportation is also well developed in the area. Pipeline capacities (crude oil and
products) in the Houston-Galveston-Freeport area total over 160 million tons per year. Railroads in
the area have a capacity of over 105 million tons, but are operating at less than 20 percent of capa-
city. Due to the balance of material sources, manufacturing centers, and market distribution pat-
terns, there is a net inflow of goods by rail into the northern coastal area.

Highway transportation linkages are also well established. Major corridors connect Houston,
Galveston, Freeport, Victoria, Austin, Waco, Dallas/Fort Worth, Tyler, and Beaumont/Port Arthur.
Goods moved by truck on highways leading northwest from Houston total over 10.5 million
tons/year, as compared to 21 million tons moved by rail in the same corridor.

Utilities and a suitable labor force are also important industry considerations. The concen-
tration of manufacturing industries in the Houston-Galveston-Brazosport area has stimulated the
supply of utility services. The primary electricity supplier to the area is Houston Lighting and Power
Company. Scheduled completion of the South Texas Nuclear Plant in 1980 will provide additional
industrial use capacity to the Brazosport area with an anticipated 345 kv line. Water for existing
Brazosport industries is obtained from an extensive system utilizing the Brazos River and ground-
water well field withdrawal. Industrial freshwater, although available, is not abundant in the area,
either from ground or surface sources. This situation would improve with completion of a proposed
reservoir on the Navasota River.

The labor force in the Brazosport area is characterized as manufacturing and construction
oriented, with a high skill level. The single largest employer in the area is Dow Chemical Company,
which provides the economic stimulus for numerous smaller manufacturing firms. Unemployment
rates in the area have traditionally been higher than Houston rates, and presently are slightly lower
than the statewide rate. As a general observation, the labor market may prove to be more competi-
tive in a heavily industrialized area, such as Brazosport or Houston, than in a predominantly rural
area. The relevance of this to an industry depends upon labor mobility, the ability of industry to
attract labor and the availability of other location requirements.

An attractive real estate market and local environment are two additional factors which
must be included in evaluating industry response to the study area. Land prices in the Brazosport
area are competitive, although recent escalation has occurred due to stimulation by the proposed
Seadock facility. Undeveloped, rural land ranges in price from $1,000 to $3,000 per acre. A median
1974 land price in the Brazosport area was $1,100 to $1,300 per acre, compared to a median price
of $800 to $850 per acre in the Brownsville area, and $400 to $450 per acre in the Corpus Christi
and Beaumont/Port Arthur areas (Schmedeman et al., 1974).

In response to the final industry requirement, the local environment is conducive to indus-
trial growth. Brazosport has a diversified, expanding industrial base; construction expenditures total
over $100 million per year. The median family income in Brazoria is comparable to that of all
SMSA's in the United States ($10,433 compared to $10,469, 1969 data). The median family
income in the Houston SMSA is slightly lower than the national average; however, the cost of living
is also lower. Housing in the Brazosport area is in demand, with complete occupancy of rental units
and a shortage of residences for sale. An expanded Houston-based construction trend is to be
expected, however, as demand for housing increases (Seadock, 1975). Brazosport compares favor-
ably with other coastal communities in tax rate. The average 1976 adjusted tax rate for representa-
tive coastal cities (Houston, Beaumont, Corpus Christi, Victoria, and Brownsville) was $0.8614 per
$100 assessed valuation, compared to an average adjusted tax rate in the Brazosport community
(Freeport, Lake Jackson, Clute, and Brazoria) of $0.735 per $100 assessed valuation (the adjusted
tax rate is the gross tax rate multiplied by ratio of assessment).

Study Requirements
To fulfill the requirements of the study methodology, the selected site should not only be
desirable from an industrial standpoint but should also minimize the constraints on the study itself.
Probably the most limiting factor in a study of this scope is the availability of data. Compared to
other potential sites, the Brazosport area is particularly suited in this respect due to the comprehen-
sive environmental analysis performed as a prerequisite to the Seadock license application. These
data and the subsequent environmental impact statement compiled by the Department of Transpor-
tation are also timely; data were collected generally between 1970 and 1976. Two planning units in
the area which serve as regional and local data sources are the Houston/Galveston Area Council and
the Brazosport Chamber of Commerce.

The Brazosport area is also particularly suited to study because of its proximity to existing
facilities. The Dow Chemical Company located in Freeport is an excellent example of an integrated
industrial complex which is served by an inland canal. Brazos River Harbor, also located in Free-
port, is a deepwater terminal handling general cargo. Chocolate Bayou, located approximately 20
miles to the northeast, is a bargewater channel serving multi-industry developments.

Finally, the Brazosport area satisfies the study criteria in that it is representative of most
Texas coastal environments. The area comprises a range of ecosystems, including tidal wetlands,
coastal prairie, brushland, and fluvial woodland. The project interface with these systems will con-
tribute to the applicability of the study results to locations, if not specific conditions, elsewhere on
the coast.

In summary, the Brazosport area is the site selected for study of the inland canal concept
for three primary reasons: 1) the area is naturally suited for an inland canal because of its geo-
graphic location on the coast, its interface with the GIWW, and its mainland-type Gulf shoreline;
2) the area is well adapted to industry location trends, particularly with respect to raw material and
product distribution markets; and 3) the area is suited to the particular requirements of the study
methodology, including data availability, proximity to existing facilities for analytic comparison
and representation of coastal biologic environments.

Summary Description of the Study Area
The study area is located in Brazoria County, on the upper central Texas coast, bounded by
the San Bernard River on the west and towns of Brazoria and Richwood on the north. The eastern
boundary of the study area consists of a line formed by Swan Lake and Square Island Lake. The
GIWW forms the southern boundary. The physical features are typical of the Texas Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province, ranging in elevation from about 3 feet at the Gulfward boundary to about
26 feet at the northern boundary. Ecological systems in the area include sandy beaches along the
Gulf shoreline, marsh at the lower elevations, and coastal prairie and fluvial woodlands on the
higher elevations. Surface drainage in the area is generally poorly defined, consisting of a series of
small, isolated lakes, bayous, and marshes within three major coastal drainage basins: the Brazos-
Colorado River Basin, Brazos River Basin, and San Jacinto-Brazos River Basin. Dominant drainage
features consist of the San Bernard River, Jones Creek, the Brazos River, and Oyster Creek.

The study area is characterized by an industrial nucleus in the vicinity of Freeport sur-
rounded by the primarily residential communities of Surfside, Oyster Creek, Richwood, Lake
Barbara-Clute, Lake Jackson, Brazoria, Jones Creek, and Quintana. These communities constitute
an area commonly referred to as Brazosport.

The City of Freeport has the primary water transportation linkage in the Brazosport area,
with waterfront facilities located along both sides of the Old Brazos River and at the Brazos River
Harbor. Dow Chemical Company operates a barge canal extending from the Gulf Intracoastal Water-
way to plants east and north of the City of Freeport.

The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), ranging from .5 to 2 miles inland from the Gulf,
forms the southern boundary of the study area. The segment of the GIWW from Galveston to
Corpus Christi is the second most utilized portion of the Texas Waterway, with 20,212,427 tons
handled in 1970 (Miloy and Phillips, 1974).

The official planning agency of the area is the Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC),
which includes the counties of Matagorda, Brazoria, Galveston, Chambers, Liberty, Harris, Fort
Bend, Wharton, Colorado, Austin, Waller, Walker, and Montgomery. According to HGAC data
(TPWD, 1975), the regional population in 1970 was 2,181,315, a 38 percent increase over 1960.
Growth trends in the region indicate a pattern of future development surrounding the Houston
metropolitan area, Galveston Island, and north to Montgomery County. A significant growth cor-
ridor is also projected from Brazosport to Angleton, trending along Highway 288 to Houston and
along Highway 36 to Alvin (Figure 6).

Population in Brazoria County is anticipated to increase from 108,312 in 1970 to 750,000
in 2020 (Bureau of Business Research, 1976; TPWD, 1975), as compared to a 1920 to 1970 popula-
tion increase of 87,608 (Bureau of Business Research, 1976). The largest existing land use in the
study area is open rangeland and woodland. Industrial development in the Freeport community
accounts for 42 percent of the county industrial acreage. The towns of Clute, Lake Barbara, Lake
Jackson, and Richwood account for 46 percent of the residential acreage in the county. Public
landholdings in and near the study area are the Clemens and Retrieve State Prison Farms, the San
Bernard and Brazoria National Wildlife Refuges, public beaches, and Bryan Beach State Park.

Land use projections for Brazoria County (1970-1990) suggest a 21 percent increase in
residential acreage, a 225 percent increase in commercial acreage, and 547 percent increase in
industrial land. The projected industrial land use conversions (1970-1990) for Brazoria County are
second only to Chambers County in an eight county analysis prepared by HGAC (TPWD, 1975).1
Recent population growth in the Brazosport area has occurred primarily in the communties of
Clute, Lake Jackson, and Richwood. The rapid growth in the area since 1940 is largely due to the
location of two Dow Chemical Plants (Seadock, 1974). These and other aspects of the study area
will be described in greater detail in subsequent chapters.

Study Area Selection References
Allen, B. L. et al. 1974. Procedure for Location of a Least Impact Environmental Corridor for a
Lineal Development. Prepared for the Texas Water Development Board by Water Resources
Center, Texas Tech University.

American Waterways Operators, Inc. 1976. 1974 Waterwide Plant Locations and Expansions: A
Study in Economic Growth. Arlington, Virginia.

Bureau of Business Research. 1976. Atlas of Texas. University of Texas at Austin.

Houston-Galveston Area Council. 1976. 1975 Census Tract Land Use, Brazoria County, Texas. Un-
published data.

Lochmoeller, D. C. 1975. Industrial Development Handbook. The Urban Land Institute, Washing-
ton, D. C.

McFarland, Frank, et al. 1976. Coastal Inland Canals. Interim Report (Draft). Prepared for the Gen-
eral Land Office, Coastal Zone Management Program by Texas A&M University.

1. Note that these projections may be more accurately represented as projections to year 2000 than
1990-see Seadock, (1974) p. 2. 1-4, vol. I.

Trinity Bay

Galveston Bay

� ,~<' /~~ Texas City

Galveston

Angleton

-77j7 AreRailroad
VZY >2>S;Cj < / V//// Area of Projected
4 " '__ iFreeport / CCCZ /J Population Increase
by 1990 (Density
varies within Area)
Adapted from Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.,1975)
13

Miloy, John and Christian Phillips. 1974. Primary Economic Impact of the Gulf Intracoastal Water-
way on Texas. Texas A&M University.

Minnesota Power and Light, and Northern States Power Company. 1976. Twin Cities to Forbes
Transmission Project-Construction Permit Applications for a 5001345 KV. Transmission
Facility. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Panel on Future Port Requirements, 1976. Port Development in the United States. Prepared by the
Panel on Future Port Requirement of the U.S. Maritime Transportation Research Board, Com-
mission on Sociotechnical Systems, Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Sciences.

Schmedeman, Ivan W., et al. 1974. "Dynamics of the Rural Land Market." Texas Agricultural Pro-
gress, Vol. 20, No. 4, Fall, 1974, Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M College Station,
Texas.

Seadock, Inc. 1974. Environmental Report. Texas Offshore Crude Oil Unloading Facility. 3 Vols.

. 1975. Deepwater Port License Application. Seadock, Inc., Texas Offshore Crude Oil
Unloading Facility.

Takel, R. E. 1974. Industrial Port Development. Bristol Scientechnica.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1975. Regional Environmental Analysis of the Houston-Gal-
veston Region, Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan, Austin, Texas.

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ENVIRONMENT

This section inventories 1) climatic characteristics and air quality, 2) geology and substrate
characteristics, 3) drainage systems, 4) ecosystems and wildlife, and 5) land use characteristics of
the selected study area. The description provides background information for six environmental
data maps used in selecting a least environmental impact corridor (see Maps 1-6) and for a detailed
ecological systems description in part of the activity assessment routine (see Chapter IV-A-2).
Climatic Characteristics and Air Quality
The climate of the project area is characteristically sub-tropical, with short, mild winters and
long, warm summers. Figure 7 presents mean minimum and maximum monthly air temperature and
mean annual temperature patterns in Brazoria County. High humidity and a uniform yearly rainfall
distribution are typical climatic conditions. Figure 8 presents typical seasonal and annual precipita-
tion in Brazoria County. Heavy rainfalls are infrequent but are most likely to occur between June
and August. Average net lake-surface evaporation is 16 inches per year (Seadock, 1974, p. 2. 1-15).
There is an estimated four inches annually of excess rainfall after evapotranspiration in the project
area (based on the Thornwaite method). Over a ten year period, the area may expect four to six
years of excess rainfall, and from six to four years of 'drought' conditions.

Two principal wind patterns dominate this portion of the Texas coast: persistent gentle
southeasterlies from March to November, and strong, shortlived northerlies from December to
February (Figure 9). Wind speeds seldom exceed 45 miles per hour.

There is a relatively high probability of tropical storms landing on this part of the Texas
coast. Between 1901 and 1973 there were 12 tropical cyclones of which 5 were designated as being
of hurricane strength. Two of these were severe hurricanes (wind speeds greater than 100 mph and
core pressure below 28 inches of mercury). There is, then, in any given year, a 16 percent chance
that a tropical cyclone will cross this area, 7 percent chance of a hurricane, and a 3 percent proba-

Figure 7
Brazoria County Temperature Patterns

69o

... 69�

53Q ..
................ 530

~ 40
70 7 .... 0�

North

~~~~~~~83o

. --e-Minimum monthly temperature (January normal)
1941-1970 averages

Maximum monthly temperature (July or
August normal) 1941-1940 averages

Annual normal temperature 1941-1970 averages

Source: Rice Center for Community Design and Research, 1976, Map 2.

Figure 8
Brazoria County Precipitation Patterns

46" }0"
/
26:"

44"
// : 26" ~~~~~~~4611
/ ~ ~~.

24"1.
24"�
h~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.21

North

- - - -Normal "Summer" Rainfall (June-October)
1941-1970 averages

Normal "Frontal" Rainfall (November-May)
1941-1970 averages

Normal Annual Rainfall 1941-1970 averages

Source: Rice Center for Community Design and Research 6, Map l.

16
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 22"1

/~~~ - Noma "Sme"Rifll(ueOtbr

Sore Ric Cete forComntyDsganRearh, 1 7 M p .

j.j~~~~~~1

Figure 9
Wind Current Frequency Rose at Galveston

12.8
11.6
11.7

11.0
10.2

8.45%

2.57% 5.31%
10 I 10.6
3.56% %

7.65%;r - 4 .83%

2.21%
8.3- 9.7
"'q8.98%

6.6
2.65 l3.89\8

14.19%
7.1

10.0

9.6 10.2

Directional Frequency

Mean Wind Speed (knots)

(Original data from U.S. Department of Commerce, 1973. Annual Wind Distribution by
Pasquill Stability Classes, Galveston, Texas. NOAA, Environmental Data Service. National
Weather Records Center, Asheville, North Carolina. Cited in: Seadock, Inc. 1974. Environ-
mental Report.)

bility that the storm will be a severe hurricane (Rice Center for Community Design and Research,
1976). The probable hurricane months are August and September. Beulah, Celia, Carla, and Fern
are recent hurricanes which affected the area. Only minor property damage in the more rural areas
occurred, however, because these hurricanes made their landfall considerably to the south, and be-
cause the heavily industrial and populated areas between Freeport and Lake Barbara are protected
by storm surge levees. Surge-tide flooding occurred inland as far as 8 miles, between the 5 and 10
foot elevation contours.

The local weather patterns which favor minimizing air quality impacts include moderate
winds, and absence of long-term or frequent surface air inversions and unstable to neutral above-sur-
face air layers. These factors combine to maximize air mixing and dispersion. In general, the mixing
conditions and dispersion potential are good in the study area (Seadock, 1974, vol. I pp. 2. 2-5.-6).

Air quality information on much of the Texas coast is incomplete because of a lack of
monitoring in rural areas and because of problems in assessing non-point air emission sources. Self-
reported industrial air emissions for Brazoria County include, in tons per year (Texas Air Control
Board, 1971):

Particulates 6,000
NOx 60,000
SOx 9,000
Hydrocarbons 150,000
Carbon Monoxide 180,000

Not included in this inventory are municipal incineration and non-point source emissions, princi-
pally auto and truck emissions. Such non-point source transportation emissions typically play a
small yet statistically significant role in total atmospheric emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide. In the 13-county air quality control region including Brazoria County (but dominated
by Harris and Galveston Counties), automobile hydrocarbon emissions represent 21 percent of
industrial hydrocarbon emissions levels and are 17.4 percent of total hydrocarbon emissions (Rice
Center for Community Design and Research, 1976, p. 104).

The composite structure of Texas coastal area air pollutant sources is presented in Figure
10. Gaseous emissions account for 98 percent by weight of total emissions. Carbon monoxide (CO)
is the highest single air pollutant, followed by hydrocarbons. Over 70 percent of (CO) emissions and
roughly 50 percent of hydrocarbon (HC) emissions are due to automobiles. Industrial chemicals and
petroleum refining account for over 84 percent of industrial processing emissions. Municipal
incineration accounts for about 60 percent of the particulate and sulfur oxides (SOx) emissions in
the solid waste disposal category. Aircraft emissions account for about 66 percent of particulate
emission in the transportation category (Texas A&M University, 1973, p. IV-24).

Figure 10
Combined Emission Source Inventory

Emissions due to: NOx SOx HC CO Particulates

Fuel Combustion 38% 0.1% 10.1% - 11.2%
Industrial Processing 23% 95% 36.8% 28% 27.1%
Solid Waste Disposal .6% .7% 1.7% 1% 40.5%
Transportation 38% 4.2% 15.3% 71.2% 18.4%
(From: Waste Management in the Texas Coastal Zone, p. I V-24.)

The Texas Air Control Board currently has three monitoring stations at Freeport and Clute.
Information from 1973-1974 and 1976 ambient air quality monitoring programs indicates that
major air quality problems exist. Ozone levels of 0.145 ppm and 0.186 ppm (1973 and 1976)
exceed the national standard (0.008 ppm maximum hourly average). Ozone is an early and con-
tinuing product of photochemical smog reactions between various pollutants, especially hydrocar-
bons, in the presence of sunlight. Non-methane hydrocarbon concentrations of 3.8 ppm and 4.5
ppm (1973 and 1976) frequently violate the respective national air quality standard (0.24 ppm 6-9
am. average). Finally, particulate concentrations of 48-73 #g/m3 and 71 #ug/m3 (1973 and 1976)
exceed the national 'secondary' standard (60 /ag/m3) indicating a known and anticipated adverse
effect on public health (Texas Air Control Board 1974, 1977).

The Brazosport study area is part of the Houston SMSA Air Quality Maintenance Area
designated by EPA (38 Fed. Reg. 30439, 1973), signifying a high priority requirements for the
reduction of photochemical oxidants and particulate matter. Further, the EPA has zoned all the
Texas Coastal area as a Class II Nondegredation area, allowing moderate emission increases accom-
panied by well controlled growth (39 Fed. Reg. 31001, 1974). Some industries are voluntarily fol-
lowing an offset policy, by which new industrial plant emissions must be accompanied by reduc-
tions in current plant emissions. The EPA offset policy is, however, yet in the formative stage. The
Texas Air Control Board is still issuing permits in the area for air emissions if best available tech-
nologies are used.
Geology and Substrate Characteristics

Geologic History
During the late Mesozoic Era (about 150 to 80 million years ago) the Gulf was a shallow en-
closed sea. Extensive carbonate reefs from Florida to the Yucatan Peninsula may have restriced Gulf
water exchange with the open ocean. Under hot and arid climatic conditions, little fresh water and
sediment entered the basin from North American streams, and evaporation from the Gulf surface
resulted in hypersaline conditions. There were extensive salt and anhydrous gypsum deposits. The
opening of the Gulf began in the Cretaceous period with a change in the North American tectonic
setting. Nearly continuous Gulf sedimentation and subsidence has occurred since the beginning of
the Cenozoic.

A picture of the Cenozoic history of Gulf coastal sedimentation may be painted as a "con-
flict between a rich source of (terriginous or continental) sediments and the waters of the Gulf of
Mexico for possession of a (subsiding basin's margin)" (Williamson, 1959). Net sedimentation and
seaward extension of the coastline since the Mesozoic-Cenozoic transition shows that deposition
generally won the conflict. A general view of the Gulf Coastal Plain illustrates the broad deposi-
tional belts paralleling the coast resulted from the interaction of the geologic processes of alluvial
delta construction and progradation, reworking of the deltaic sediments and longshore transport,
marine sedimentation, subsidence, and relative sealevel change (Figure 11).
Groundwater
The Evangeline, lower Chicot, and upper Chicot Aquifers are the major components of the
Gulf Coastal Aquifer supplying fresh groundwater in Brazoria County (Figure 12). However, only
the upper unit of the Chicot supplies fresh to slightly saline groundwater in the study area; the
downdip (Gulfward) limit of the two aquifers lower in the subsurface occurs to the north of the
study area. Industrial water wells supplying moderately saline groundwater tap the lower Chicot in
the Freeport area.

In much of northern Brazoria County, well water levels in the lower unit of the Chicot
declined by about 30 to 50 feet between 1946 and 1967 (Sandeen and Wesselman, 1973. pp.
3 5-37). In the upper unit of the Chicot, no appreciable water level declines occurred over this time
period except around Freeport, where locally as much as a 90 foot decline has occurred in well
water levels which tap artesian sands. In comparison, water levels in large capacity wells in the

* ~~~~~~~~~~~GULF OF MEXICO
AND ADJACENT
COASTAL PLAINS
EE] Recent (N.W. Gulf
L ~~~ Region only)
-Z Pleistocene (including
Recent in S.E. Gulf)
Late Tertiary
(Pliocene-Oligocene
Early Tertiary
* (Paleocene- Eocene
Upp~er Cretoceous
"e~re -upper Cretoceous
\Map sources US Hydragrophic
> " Chart 1290 and U.S. Air Force
* Lorvg Range Navigation Charts
N LR-21 and LR-32
.N modified after Greenman
'~...~ and LeBlanc (1956)

Contours in feet
.A
'A

0 ~ ~ ~ ~~ 0

Figure 11

Generalized Geologic Map of the Gulf Coastal Plain and the Principal
Hydrographic Features of the Gulf of Mexico

(After Greenman and LeBlanc (1956) and Ewing, Ericson, and Heezen
(1958). Taken From Bernard and LeBlanc (1965).)

Figure 12

Generalized Gulf Coastal Aquifer
Profile Showing Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers

(Source: Louisiana Dept. of Conservation, 1963)

t agict
. - MSL

-200

-400

-600

-800

0 I 2 3 4 5 miles
I ! I I I

W Sand or sand and gravel containing water (Chloride
content less than 250 ppm)

:m] Sand or sand and gravel containing water (Chloride
content more than 250 ppm)

m~ Clay and silt

heavily pumped zones of aquifers in the Houston area have declined about 90 to 370 feet in the
last 34 years.

The pumpage of groundwater around Freeport has resulted in a 1.6 foot land surface subsi-
dence, as measured between 1918 and 1959. Most of southern Brazoria County has experienced
only slight subsidence (less than 0.5 feet). To the northeast of Angleton the amount of subsidence
increases towards Houston at a gradient of one foot per 18 miles (Sandeen and Wesselman, 1973,
p. 54). In comparison, areas in Houston in association with groundwater withdrawal and surface
faulting have subsided as much as 5 to 8 feet (Brown et al., 1974).

Faulting
A suface fault is a fracture of the substrate which intersects the land surface. Most faults
extend to depth below the Gulf Coastal Plain and are not a product of surficial phenomena. Con-
versely, not all sub-surface faults reach the surface. The surface expression of "deep" fault is a
geologic hazard.

There are different types of faults. Growth faults in the Texas coastal area are associated
with such large river-dominated, high mud areas as found in the coastal Brazos Basin. The principal
zones of faulting occur at the boundary between delta-front sands and thick prodelta mud facies.
Increased consolidation of the thick, highly compressible mud facies is generally believed to cause
this fault development (Kreitler, 1976b, p. 6). Growth fault development is enhanced by Gulfward
creep of the whole sedimentary mass (Bruce, 1973). Faulting may also be associated with regional
basement tectonics (Shelton, 1968) and with salt tectonism (Murray, 1961).

Potential fault zones may be recognized by two methods. Long, regional lineations which
are both subparallel and perpendicular to the coast, are apparent on aerial photographs. Also,
demonstrable offset fractures, observed in the subsurface Tertiary sediment mass, may be extrapolated
upward to the surface. In many cases the lineations coincide with the surface expression of subsur-
face faults, and in the Houston area, with known active faults (Kreitler, 1976b, pp. 8-15).

In the Houston-Baytown area activation of such faults has been known since 1926 to be
associated with large-scale ground fluid (oil, water) withdrawal (Reid, 1973, pp. 19-24; Kreitler,
1976a). Inactive faults are not readily identifiable within urban areas until they become active and
cause damage. This is because paving and other ground surface modification prevents the fault here
from being apparent in high-altitude photography. Both active and inactive faults in rural areas are
identifiable and mappable from aerial infrared photographs (Reid, 1973, p. 87).

In the inland canal project study area, long lineations which trend generally N 750 E and N
500 E cross between the Jones Creek and Clute areas. Another lineation striking N 450 extends
from the Brazoria to Jones Creek areas, and a lineation strikes N 350 W just east of the community
of Oyster Creek. Arcuate surface tracings of subsurface faults are in many places parallel and near
these lineations. For example, an apparent fracture set occurs to the north and east of Oyster Creek.
Of perhaps special interest is the surface expression of a fault located during Seadock's preparation
of their Environmental Report (Seadock, 1974, supplemental vol. p. 2.1). This fault crosses the pro-
posed location of Seadock's onshore terminal site southeast of the community of Jones Creek.
However, it is not yet known if this fault is currently active.

The probability of movement of a particular fault is a function of 1) its apparent past
activity as evidenced by surface manifestations; 2) the type of structure it is associated with in the
subsurface (e.g., growth fault, salt dome deformation); and 3) its orientation with respect to any
change in elevation of the piezometric surface (an imaginary surface coinciding with the static level
of water in an aquifer, or the surface to which groundwater from an aquifer will rise under its full
head) in the last ten years, and that change expected for the next twenty years (Reid, 1973, pp.
85-87).

It is not verified that any of the faults in the study area are or have been recently active. All
of the faults described in this area appear to be related to deep-seated growth faults, although
shorter fractures are likely to be associated with Clemens, Allen, Bryan Mound, and Stratton Ridge
Salt Domes. Furthermore, it has been seen that the water levels in the local aquifers have declined
and that subsidence has occurred, although both at a lesser scale than in the Houston area.

Thus it may be possible for faults in the inland canal project study area to become active,
although a quantitative prediction of either the probability of movement or of the extent of move-
ment, however small, cannot be made in this study. Should faulting take place comparable to that
around Houston, vertical displacement across the fault scarp may be expected to range from less
than 6 to 34 millimeters (mm.) per year and the zone of influence may extend from 6 to 65 feet on
either side of the fault (Reid, 1973).
Substrate Characteristics
The most important factor affecting the current substrate characteristics in the study area
was the activity of the ancestral Brazos-Colorado River systems. These systems combined to fill
their sizable drowned-river valley estuary between 3,000 and 1,500 years ago, once modern sea
level had been reached. This coastal sedimentation and estuary-filling has resulted in the unique
feature along the upper Texas coast of a well-developed mainland shoreline without an offshore
barrier island.

The Brazos-Colorado river systems drain an area of more than 88,200 square miles, making
the river system one of the largest feeding the Gulf of Mexico and one of the major sources of sedi-
ment to the northwestern Gulf basin. The coastal delta lobe of this system has developed a cuspate
shape representing the effect of opposing levels of energy involved in supplying sediments, basin
subsidence, and the reworking of sediment. Within the broad area of the cuspate lobe (Figure 13),
there are serveral sub-deltaic features in which modern geologic processes have resulted in present
substrate characteristics. Such features include natural levees and overbank deposits, channel and
point bar deposits, upper and lower delta plain and floodbasin mud and silt deposits, reworked pro-
delta sand and silt, and other interdistributary marshes, lakes, and swamps.

Figure 14 lists the substrate units characterizing these geologic environments, their physical
properties, and their suitability for alternate human uses. In developing these physical properties
analyses, the Bureau of Economic Geology states that they were 'derived from basic map units on
the environmental geology map by applying quantitative test data to the areally defined and
mapped environmental geologic units. The (BEG) physical properties maps are designed to provide
regional data for a variety of uses applicable both to the surface and to depth of approximately 60
feet. The resulting map characterization is, however, qualitative. The map units and their capabil-
ity evaluations cannot be substituted for specific site testing and evaluation, but can be used to rate
large tracts of land for a particular use." (McGowen et al., 1976, p. 59).

The Group III substrates represent a composite of meanderbelt sands, levee and crevasse
splay deposits and fluvial distributary sediments. They follow the courses of the Oyster Creek
meander belt, the Brazos River, and the three distributary channels extending to the GIWW between
the Brazos and San Bernard Rivers. These substrates include most of the upland area above 10 feet
in elevation. The Group I substrates, predominantly resulting from interdistributary floodbasin
muds and silts, occur in the areas between these channels. Finally, fresh and brackish water swamps
and marshes (Groups IV and V) occur in low-lying areas within cut-off meander loops along Oyster
Creek; and brackish water marshes dominate lowlying inter-ridge areas to the west of the Brazos
River, usually to height less than five feet above sea level.

Soils
There are four principal 'orders' of soils in the study area, identified and classified on the
basis of soil properties and similarity of genesis. The factors affecting soil development are type of
parent material, climate, vegetation, relief, and drainage. Climatic conditions may be accepted as

N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Rsosblte.

Fi gure 13
Deltaic Depositional Environments
in the Brazos Coastal Basin

DELTUAIC ENVIRONMENT
18 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~MADERTI PLAIINCL~

I~~~~~~~-s' DAPR.EL TAIC PLAINLO R LTI PLf'
FLOOD BASIN, INCLUDING, LAKE f~51FLOOD BASIN: INCLUDING MARSH,
AND SWAMP STREAM 19 ]LAKE AND TIDAL CHANNEL
''~~-~~ '\'~~- ~ MEANDER BELT. INCLUDING prjMEANDER BELT. INCLUDING
ABANDONED CHANNEL.POINT BAR ABANDON ED CHANNELPOINT BAR
--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N NAUA EE.ADNTRLLVE
_ ~~~~~~~~~~PRODELTAIC PLAIN
~~ ~~ -I -~ FRINGEINCLUDING BEACH.BAY,LAKFM DISTAL
B7 DISTRIBUTARY MOUTH BAR
y ~ ~ ~ ~ _ADNTRLL~'E ~ADNTRLLVE
* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~OTHER ENVIRONMENTS
~~*-~~~-~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAX~~E.BSAY. TIDAL DELTASB CHANNEL
~~ -~ ~~- "~~' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ COASTA NTRLTC.AINCLUS NORMAL MARINE
-' "- ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~... ~~~~~AEOLIAN. BEACH a SHORZFACIE
* ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ -~~22i E-~~~~:---I ~~UNDI FFERENTIATED

(Source: Bernard et al.,1970.) 24

Figure 14

Physical Properties Groups Natural Suitability Analysis

Suitability is evaluated on the basis of natural properties and may be improved by special engineering and construction methods Significant properties considered as positive
criteria for evaluating land-use suitability + = satisfactory; - = unsatisfactory; o = possible problemsl:

(1) Road construction: earthen structures and fill material- (6) Foundation: heavy-high load-bearing strength, subsurface drainage.
low shrink-swell potential, low compressibility, and low low shrink-swell potential, and good drainage. (12) Waste disposal: solid waste-low permeability and good
plasticity. (7) Foundation: light-low shrink-swell potential. surface drainage.
(2) Road construction: base material-low compressibility, (8) Underground installations-low shrink-swell potential, 113) Waste disposal: unlined liquid waste retention ponds-
low shrink-swell potential, and high shear strength. high load-bearing strength, and good drainage. low permeability.
(3) Road construction: grade material-low compressi- (9) Buried cables and pipes-low shrink-swell potential (14) Earthen dams and dikes: low permeability, moderate
bility, low shrink-swell potential, and high shear strength. and low corrosivity. shear strength, and moderate compressibility.
141 Fill material: topsoil-loam or sandy/silty clay compo- (10) Excavatability-ease of digging with conventional (15) Water storage: unlined reservoirs or ponds above
sition, machinery, ground-water level-low permeability.
(5) Fill material: general, below topsoil-siltylsandy clay (11) Waste disposal: septic systems-moderate permea- (161 Water storage: reservoirs or ponds below ground-water
composition with low to moderate shrink-swell potential. bility, low to moderate shrink-swell potential, and good level-high permeability.

LAND USE
ROAD FILL FOUN- WASTE WATER
CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL DATIONS DISPOSAL STORAGE

GENERAL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES PRINCIPAL -=_ M-
GEOLOGIC MAP UNIT a

E = _, a

Group I
Dominantly clay and mud. low Interdistributary muds, barrier - o o + - + + o +
pe rmeability. high water-holding strandplain-chenier swales
capacity, high compressibility, abandoned channel-fill muds,
high to very high shrink-swell overbank fluvial muds, mud-
potential, poor drainage, level filled coasal lakes and tidal
to depressed relief, low shear creeks
strength, high plasticity, high
to very high acidity, high
corrosivity
Group 11
Dominantly sand, high to very Beach, foredunes, barrier- + + + 0 + + + + + + o +
high permeability, low water- strandplain-chenier vegetated
holding capacity, low compressi- flats, Pleistocene barrier nd
bility, low shrink-swell potential, strandplain sands
good drainage, low ridge and
depressed relief, high shear
strength, low plasticity
Group III
Dominantly clayey sand a nd silt, Meanderbelt san ds, alluv iumer- + + + + + +
low permeability, modhigh waerate levee, crevasse spla y, distribu-
drainage, moderate water-holding tary sands, bay-margin sand
capacity, l ow to moderate co- ibiity and mud, Pleistocene fluvial,
pressibility and shrink-swell d istribut ary, deltafront sands
potential, leve l refilled with loc and tidal
mounds anpre d ridges, high shear
strength
Group IV
Co astal marsh, fresh to brackish, foresh to brack ish er- + + + + + + + + + - - - - +
high pery low p waer- mebility, ig brandplackish ma rsh, mrsh-flled
holding capacity, v e ry poor drainage, abandoned coa rrl lakes and
depressed relief, low shear strength, tidal creeks
high plasticity, high organic content,
subject to salt-water flooding, high
to very high corrosivity
Group V
I nland sw aey sand nd m arsh , perm eand Sw erbep, inl and m arsh, ium, + + + + + a + + + + + +
nonfly high water table. very low marsh-filled channels
permeability, high wate cr e splay. diholding
capacity, v ery po or drainage , very
poor load-bea ring distr ength high
organic content, subject wito fre-
quent flooding, very high acidity
Group Vl
Tidal marsh, flat and salt marsh pema Tida l flat and salt marsh- - -
nently high water table, very low
permeability, hig h water holding
capacity, ve ry poor drainage, very
poor l oad-bea ring str ength, very
high corrosivity, subject to fre
quent tidal inundations
Group VII
Made land and spoil, poperties Subaerial spoil heaps or m ounds, HIGHLY VARIABLE: USE WITH CAUTION
highly v ari able, mixed low msilt, subaerial reworked spoil, sub
and sand, reworked spoil ommonly aqueous spo il, made land
sorg ady and moderately sorted with
properties similar to those of
Group VIII

(from: Environmental Geologic Atlas, Texas Coastal Zone, University

of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology)

uniform over this small area. Relief is also approximately a constant factor in coastal Brazoria
County. Although vegetation has certainly affected soil development, in this discussion the differ-
ence of affect of one vegetative type or another is not distinguished. Soil properties, in turn, have
only a marginal influence on vegetative patterns in the area, as subsequently discussed under 'Eco-
systems.' Thus, this discussion of soils emphasizes genesis from parent material and the effect of
drainage conditions.

Four main soil 'orders,' the highest classification level used to organize soils, may be recog-
nized in the study area, loosely paralleling the environments of deposition of the parent material.
The correspondence of these soil orders and the underlying geologic substrates is not precise, be-
cause drainage conditions have affected the soil properties. The soil orders which have been identi-
fied are Mollisols, Entisols, Vertisols, and Alfisols.

The Mollisols are clayey and silty with soft granular or crumb like structures which are not
hard when dry. These soils have a black, organic rich surface horizon. All of the great groups of the
Mollisols in the study area are characterized by seasonal water saturation and intermittant dryness.
Included in this order are the Bernard Series (Vertic Arguaquoll), Morey Series (Typic Agiaquoll),
Harris Series (Typic Haplaquoll), Pledger Series (Vertic Haplustoll), Asa Series (Fluventic Haplu-
stoll), and Miller Series (Vertic Haplustoll).

The Bernard Soils were formed on montmorillonitic clay substrates of the Beaumont For-
mation, an upper delta plain deposit. The Morey Soils were formed in very silty deltaic alluvium and
now occur in depressed upland areas. They include silty loam at the surface and silty clay loam in
the subsurface. The Harris Clay is formed in the coastal marshes of saline sediments. The Pledger
Soils characterize upper delta plain areas, and were formed on stratified calcareous clayey and silty
floodbasin sediments. The Asa Soils also occur in a floodbasin setting, are associated with overbank-
ing channels, and were formed on a calcareous, stratified, loamy silt, alluvial sediment. The Asa soils
tend to lack distinctive horizons. The Miller Soils are lower delta plain floodbasin silty clays formed
on alluvium, and have tendencies to shallow cracking during intermittent dry periods.

Entisols are mineral soils without natural horizons or with horizons not fully developed. In-
cluded in this order in the study area are the Veston Series (Typic Fluvaquent-proposed to be
Typic Halaquent) and Norwood Series (Typic Udifluvent). The Veston Series included saline, loamy
soils which were formed in the setting of coastal flats and ridges. The Norwood Series include cal-
careous loamy alluvium typically occurring in river bottomlands.

Vertisols have a high content of swelling clays. The udert vertisols form shallow, wide sur-
face cracks during seasonal dry periods. Included in this order in the study area is the Lake Charles
Series, which was formed on an alkaline marine clay of an interdistributary bay environment.

The Alfisols are characterized by high degrees of weathering and leaching, often producing
concretionary nodules at the subsurface. The surface soil is usually brown to grey. The Clodine
Series has a characteristic lack of organic material at the surface layer, and is a siliceous coarse loam
formed on unconsolidated alluvium adjacent to meanderbelt sands in the study area.

Soil associations are groups of soil series which occur in an individual and characteristic pat-
tern over a geographic region. The Pledger-Miller Soil Association covers more than 50 percent of
the more coastward part of the study area. Its inner boundary roughly parallels the coast to about
the five foot elevation contour between the San Bernard River and Oyster Creek. This Association
is typified by floodbasin calcareous and montmorillonitic clays. On broad areas between the San
Bernard and Brazos River are the Harris Clay, occurring in most of the present brackish marsh, and
the Veston Soil Series, an entisol comprising the topographic ridges separating the marshes.

The Miller-Norwood-Pledger Association covers more than 50 percent of the upland part of
the study area. The Norwood Soils occur on the floodplain river bottoms of the Brazos and San

Bernard Rivers and of Oyster Creek. Both Miller and Pledger soils now cover most of the upland
prairie, along with occurrances of Lake Charles and Asa Series.

The Harris-Morey-Clodine Association underlies the study area to the east of Oyster Creek.
The Harris Clay underlies much of the lower marsh further to the east. Most of the soils in this
area are part of the Clodine silt loam. Depressional areas within the Clodine Soil, now often con-
taining fresh water swamps and marshes, are probably underlain by the Morey Soil Series.

An analysis of soil suitability and use capability is presented in Figure C1, Appendix C.
Drainage Systems
The study area includes portions of the San Jacinto-Brazos, Brazos, and Brazos-Colorado
river basins. In the San Jacinto-Brazos Coastal basin, Big Slough drains the northeastern corner of
the study area to the east into a series of lakes and the intracoastal waterway. Oyster Creek extends
inland across the study area, draining much of the north and east-central areas. Oyster Creek is
tidally influenced for most of its extent in the project area, and has a drainage basin of 36 square
miles. Both Big Slough and Oyster Creek are former courses of the Brazos River. Oyster Creek was
entrenched in its present course, and had developed an extensive meander belt, before the river
abandoned this channel (McGowen et al., 1976, p. 44). Many ox-bow lakes occur along the course
of Oyster Creek, formed by meander cut-off.

In 1930 the Brazos River was diverted from its old channel at a point north of Freeport to
its present course. The Brazos is tidally influenced 23 miles inland, which comprises most of its
extent in the study area. This tidal segment of the Brazos River has a drainage area of 268 square
miles. There have been subsequent modifications to the area's natural drainage including the con-
struction of the Dow barge canal and several drainage canals. Graded drainage sloughs extend south-
westward from the Lake Jackson-Clute communities toward the Brazos River to carry excess storm-
water runoff.

The San Bernard River forms the southern boundary of the study area. The San Bernard is
navigable for 26 miles with a nine foot draft as a Federal Navigation Project to Sweeny. The river is
tidally influenced to several miles north of Sweeny.

Three to four miles to the west of the Brazos River lies a ridge less than five feet above the
surrounding lowlands. This ridge was formed through natural levee-building by an abandoned chan-
nel of the Brazos River. This ridge, just to the west of Jones Creek, forms a drainage divide between
the Brazos and San Bernard Rivers. Jones Creek in the eastern subbasin originates north of the com-
munity of Jones Creek and flows through a series of small lakes to its mouth on the intracoastal
waterway. A smaller and narrower ridge with an intermittent stream lies between Jones Creek and
the Brazos River.

In the western subbasin east of the San Bernard River, several small permanent and intermit-
tent streams drain the coastal marshes through McNeal and Pelican Lakes before entering the San
Bernard River just inland of its confluence with the intracoastal waterway. Redfish Bayou, between
these lakes and the subbasin divide, has both permanent (lower reach) and intermittent (upper
reach) flow conditions, and extends inland to the south of the Perry Landing community. Redfish
Bayou has been grouped with the lower San Bernard River and Cedar and nearby lakes as an area of
particular concern (Texas General Land Office, 1975). The bases of concern generally include its
vulnerable natural habitat, high productivity, its role in replenishing coastal resources, and its func-
tion in supply fresh water to the coastal brackish water marshes. Redfish Bayou is also an area of
concern as a spawning ground for shrimp and finfish, notably redfish (Sciaenops ocellata).

In addition to these major channels, there are many other irregular and unconnected inter-
mittent surface streams and ponds. The abundance of such features is related in part to the even,
flat topography across the study area. The Brazos River, unlike most coastal river segments, does

not have an entrenched valley. Not only has its estuary been filled by sedimentation, but fluvial
deposition has raised and filled the level of land throughout the area.

Soils to a great extent determine percolation and runoff of rainwater. In general, a clayey
soils have low percolation rates and water tends to run off. Silty, loamy, and sandy soils allow per-
colation. Given a sufficient hydrolic gradient, water will move horizontally through the coarse silty
and loamy soils at a much greater rate than through clayey soil, as the former higher permeability.

Most of the coastal area included in the Pledger-Miller Soil Association is brackish marsh
underlain by clayey soils. Over much of this area the land surface elevation is less than three feet
MSL. Due to the nature of clayey substrates, most of the drainage into this low-lying area is prob-
ably from sheetflow runoff rather than ground water movement. Water may percolate into the
Veston Loam, which comprises the intermarsh ridges, and then laterally and seaward towards the
clayey substrates of the marshes.

The 'upland' Miller-Norwood-Pledger Association contains, in general, somewhat coarser
grained soils. In the upland area, water may percolate into the ground more than runoff due to
greater soil permeability, generally less soil water saturation, and due to the stabilizing influence of
grasses. Water percolating into the upland prairie's soils may be recharging the uppermost Chicot
Aquifer.
Ecosystems and Wildlife
The climate in the study area is very favorable to vegetative growth due to a normal annual
precipitation of 47 to 51 inches, an estimated annual surplus of rainfall after evapotranspiration on
the order of three to four inches, and uniform seasonal temperatures between approximately 530
and 830 F., with a growing season almost year-round.

As was previously discussed, most of the area's soils have poor drainage characteristic with
slow percolation. Therefore, rainwater will slowly enter the root zones of the vegetated areas and
once the soils are saturated, the water will remain for long periods because of the soil's generally
high water holding capacity. Much of the study area has low relief and is less than five feet above
sea-level. Therefore, the area is subject to various extents of tidal inundation and infrequent saline
surge-flooding during severe Gulf storms. Those areas of less than three foot elevation are typically
periodically submerged, brackish water marshes.

In addition to topography, the course of major fluvial systems affects the distribution of
vegetative ecosystems. The frequency of fluvial flooding, the generally more sandy substrates accom-
panying overbanking areas of the river levees, and the higher ground near the major channels are
parameters delimiting the extent of water-tolerant hardwood species and other associated woody
plants.

Between the coastal marshes and fluvial (river-associated) woodlands are swaths of coastal
prairie. The prairie may be divided into two communities, Gulf cordgrass and savannah-shrub. The
transition between these two communities is usually gradual, determined mainly by elevation and
frequency of brackish water flooding and to a large extent by grazing practices.

In the following sections the several ecosystems in the study area are described in terms of
their areal distribution, their soil associations and flooding characteristics, and dominant plant com-
munities and associated wildlife usage. Additionally, the effect of land management practices in
altering the native condition of the ecosystems is noted.
Brackish-Water Marshes
Brackish marshes in the study area occur predominantly inland to approximately the three
foot contour and west of the Old Brazos River channel (Brazos Harbor). Marshes extend in lineal
belts further inland along tidal channels or small bayous. The continuity of the marsh is broken by
coastal lakes (McNeal, Pelican, and Jones) and by small positive relief features. The small change in

elevation along ridge flanks is in places sufficient to significantly change the substrates' wetness, and
thereby delimits the distribution of marsh vegetation.

Brackish-water marshes occur relatively independently of soil types in the study area due to
the dominant influence of brackish to fresh water flooding. The area lacks continuous sheet flow of
water from the uplands typifying large deltaic marshes. Thus the water conditions are more variable,
tending towards fresh water conditions after heavy rainfalls and tending towards saline conditions
when the marsh's water supply is mainly from tidal exchange (through the Intracoastal Waterway to
the Gulf of Mexico). Overall, however, this low area may be considered a brackish water marsh,
with salinity decreasing inland across the marsh. Nutrient levels in the water and substrate of the
marsh is mainly a factor of self-supplied vegetative decay and to a lesser extent from nutrients from
upland runoff. Water turbidity varies whether input is fresh sheetflow or saline tidal overflow and
subsequently may vary within the marsh.

The coastal lakes lying within the tidal marsh have similar water characteristics. Salinity may
be more variable than surrounding marsh areas as these lakes are collecting basins for small creeks.
The coastal lakes may act as local staging areas for much of the water flow into and out of the
marsh in the western sub-basin of the study area. The small water bodies along Jones Creek may
serve a similar function in the eastern sub-basin.

The characteristic feature of the tidal marsh is a highly productive marsh vegetation.
Distichlis spicata (saltgrass or marsh spikegrass) dominates this area's marsh vegetation; Scirpus
olneyi (olney bulrush) is a common producer. A 10 to 12 thousand kilogram per hectare annual
productivity value may be representative of a healthy D. spicata assemblage in this area (Seadock,
supplemental volume 1974, p. 2.3), however, little of this production is directly used in the marsh
food web. Rather, bacteria and their altered biochemical products of marsh vegetation decay are the
important food sources for small invertebrates (primary consumers). These species may be utilized
by a second level of consumers (blue crab-Callinectes sapidus, spot-Leiostomus xantburus,
anchovy-Anchoa mitchelli, and tidewater silverside-Menidia beryllina). Members of a final trophic
level often are not permanent residents of the marsh, but may include migratory carnivorous/omni-
vorous waterfowl or mammals which live in the upper marsh or adjacent ecosytems. This may be
the major transfer of energy from the marsh to upland ecosystems. It may be deduced that since
tidal exchange/flushing of the marsh is restricted, much of the unconsumed organic matter collects
until it is washed out by seasonal floods or periodic storms, rather than by tidal cycle export.

Significant populations of migratory puddle ducks and geese make use of the marsh habitat
and the marsh-oriented coastal prairie located further inland. The annual wintering goose popula-
tion (primarily blue, snow, white-fronted, and Canadian) of the area was estimated at 125,000
(h. Garner, pers. comm. 1977), although the population varies with the previous year's wetness and
hence, the winter habitat quality. The proportion of ducks to geese fluctuates over the years. The
duck population in 1976 was estimated near 25,000 (h. Garner, pers. comm., 1977). Most of the
ducks and geese do not breed in the region; and exception is the mottled duck (J. Dutz, TPWD,
pers. comm., 1977).

Another important member of the marsh community is the American Alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis), which ranges in the study area through most of the tidal reach of the Brazos River;
a fresh-water marsh bordering Salt Bayou east of Oyster Creek; the brackish marshes, especially near
creeks and tidal channels; and along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The Brazoria County popula-
tion is estimated at 5,000 and is increasing. American Alligator habitat in the country totals more
than 162,000 acres (TPWD, 1975, p. 37).

The native marsh has been altered to various extents by human practices. The Intracoastal
Waterway truncated and diverted the marsh drainage pattern and decreased tidal influence by re-
moving direct association with the open Gulf. The upper marsh is grazed by cattle and may be
burned, usually more frequently than every three years, to improve vegetation palatability (Sea-
dock, 1974 supplemental vol. p. 2.3-2). Hunting and trapping probably have affected marsh char-
acteristics to a lesser extent.
29

Coastal Prairie
The coastal prairie extends typically from about the three foot contour, bordering along
marshland, to an inland elevation of more than 15 feet in places. The coastal prairie covers the
greatest areal extent of any ecosystem in the study area. Two major components of the coastal
prairie may be recognized: Gulf cordgrass prairie and shrub-savannah. These two ecosystems are
delineated by elevation, wetness, and to a lesser extent by substrate. Grazing also affects their dis-
tribution, as discussed later.

Gulf Cordgrass Prairie. Gulf cordgrass prairie is the lower-lying, seaward component of the
coastal prairie. West of the Brazos River, the brackish marsh forms the seaward limit of the cord-
grass prairie. Indeed, some sources include the cordgrass prairie with the coastal marsh as an upper
or inland marsh component (McGowen et al., 1976, p. 69). On the other hand, the Gulf cordgrass
prairie may extend to the intracoastal waterway, as in the area east of the Old Brazos River.

The inland boundary of the cordgrass prairie generally follows a discontinuous line between
5 and 10 feet in elevation. The 'belt' pattern is interrupted by community and industrial develop-
ments in the Freeport-Clute area, by elevated ridges extending into the cordgrass prairie (which are
included in the shrub-savannah community), and by low-lying fresh water marshes along the courses
of Oyster Creek and Big Slough.

The cordgrass prairie is infrequently subject to fluvial flooding, storm surge tides, and to
tidal flow during unusually high tides (e.g., southwest of Jones Creek). West of the Brazos the sup-
porting substrate is predominantly of Pledger and Veston soils formed in interdistributary alluvium.
The substrate is usually saline and clayey, providing habitat good for grasses and legumes but poor
for wetland plants (U.S.D.A., 1972).

The cordgrass prairie most subject to saline influence, whether native to the soil or from
periodic flooding, is dominated by Spartina spartinae (gulf cordgrass). Western ragweed (Ambrosia
psilostacbya) is at least a subdominant species, especially in those areas subject to heavy grazing
pressure. Prairie pleatleaf (Nemastylis geminiflora) is very common during the early part of the
growing season (Seadock, 1974, p. 2.3-11).

The Gulf cordgrass prairie, for all its tendencies towards wetland association, supports a ter-
restrial type of food web. Plant-feeding insects support numerous insectivorous birds (mocking-
birds-Mimus pollyglottus, eastern meadowlark-Sturnella magna, seaside sparrows-Ammospiza
maritima). Hispid cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus) are the most common small mammals in the
area. Various carnivorous birds hunt over the cordgrass prairie and adjoining savannah. The short-
eared owl (Asio flammeus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Swainson's hawk (B swainsoni),
and sharp-shinned hawks (Accipiter striatus) are winter residents. The marsh hawk (Circus cyaneus)
is a permanent resident of the prairie grasslands.

Range grazing is the major use of the cordgrass prairie, especially in the higher and drier
extents of the grassland. Other developments on the cordgrass prairie include Seaway's oil terminal
south of Gulf Park, sand quarries east of Oyster Creek, and scattered residential subdivisions (e.g.
off from Brazoria County Road 792 south of Slough Ridge Creek).

Shrub-savannah. Shrub-savannah characterizes the components of the coastal prairie which
lies inland from the cordgrass prairie, and extends inland far beyond the study area. The shrub-
savannah community extends into the cordgrass community following the higher elevations of silty
levee and crevasse-splay deposits along Big Slough, Ridge Slough, and Oyster Creek to the east of
the Brazos, and along the interbasin divide west of Jones Creek. Its distribution includes areas only
infrequently flooded and occurs on nonsaline, clayey, loamy, and calcareous soils of floodplain
alluvium, mixed with an appreciable amount of montmorillonite. The soils are moderately alkaline
and calcareous to neutral in the surface and moderately alkaline and calcareous below. Drainage of
the shrub-savannah follows low gradient streams into the major sloughs and bayous flowing into the
brackish marshes or major rivers (including Oyster Creek and the Brazos and San Bernard Rivers).

The seaward limit of the savannah is mainly limited by factors associated with elevation
(e.g., wetness). Therefore, in those broad areas of the coastal plain where relief is less than one per-
cent, the savannah may imperceptibly grade into the cordgrass prairie. In areas of greater relief,
particularly along the aforementioned 'ridges,' the transition of savannah to cordgrass may be
abrupt.

The shrub community consists of woody plants ranging in height from two to nine feet, in-
cluding huisache (Acadia farnesiana), mesquite (Prosopis juliflora), retama (Parkinsonia aculeata),
and live oak (Quercus virginiana). Bluestem and Indiangrass are dominant grasses over much of the
savannah. As may be expected, the shrub community may intergrade spatially with the out fringe
of fluvial woodlands, although the species composition markedly changes across the ecosystems
boundary.

The plant bug (Trigonotylus pulcher) and meadow grasshopper (Conocephalus fasciatus) are
the important insect species found in the shrub-savannah community. Common mammals include
hispid cotton rats, cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoons (Procyon lotor), coyotes
(Canis latrens), striped skunk (Memphitis memphitis), and armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus).
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) occur in the wooded areas in low density (1 to 2.9 deep
per 100 acres), primarily using the savannah as a feeding ground (TPWD, 1975, p. 18-19).

Important avian members of the community include hawks, bobwhite quail (Colinus
virginianus), mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura), flycatcher (Muscivora forficata), and sparrows.
Sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) are known to winter on the savannah of this area, foraging on all
parts of the grains and wild plants. Hawks and vultures use the shrub for perches and prey on the
small mammals, principally the hispid cotton rat. Quail, doves, and other insectivores/herbivores
feed on seed during the winter and on insects during the summer (Seadock, 1974, p. 2.3-13).

The shrub-savannah is, perhaps, the ecosystem being most severely altered by grazing. Burn-
ing has been a common practice to maintain preferable grasses, but appears to be decreasing due to
air quality considerations. The heavy grazing and decreasing use of fire is allowing significant inva-
sion of woody shrubs into the savannah, notably huisache and osage orange (Machura pomifera).
Some shrub-savannah areas west and south of Jones Creek are periodically converted to dryland
farming, alternating with improved pasture.

In many areas, the difference in location of an upland savannah-type community and of a
cordgrass-type community appears to be not a natural pattern, but a temporal response to grazing.
During a field reconnaissance by the study team, an association between current grazing and
savannah vegetation was observed. In areas which recently had little grazing, as indicated by the
height of plant growth, the vegetation was clearly of the cordgrass association. In areas with more
grazing, with plant height cropped almost evenly in patches over a large field, an admixture of cord-
grass and grasslands communities could be seen. Finally, areas showing evidence of heavy grazing
seemed to be completely of a savannah-type vegetation. These contrasts were strikingly seen to abut
sharply at artificial barriers such as roads and fences in a manner not explicable by natural spatial
variance.

This interpretation, which is in contrast to that made during Seadock field studies, may be
supported by observations in the coastal area from Rockport, Texas to Lake Charles, Louisiana
(Allen, 1950, p. 60). Marshhay cordgrass (Spartina patens) and olney bulrush on a saltmeadow
marsh are the first species to disappear under overgrazing. They are replaced to a large extent
temporarily by needlegrass rush (Juncus romerianus), seashore saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), and sea-
shore paspalum (Paspalum vaginatum). Finally, these are replaced by a variety of annuals and
unpalatable herbs.

Therefore, in conclusion it may be postulated that the cordgrass community is the natural
climax vegetation in the area under undisturbed conditions. Under grazing and land management

pressures, a savannah-grasslands community attains dominance. Certain grazing practices may en-
courage the invasion of woody shrubs into the 'savannah,' over a long term. It is possible for such an
area to revert back to a cordgrass community.
Fluvial Woodlands
Fluvial woodlands occur as the seaward tip of a major water-tolerant hardwood ecosystem
along the Brazos-Colorado fluvial belt. They extend into the study area along the Brazos River to
north of the Dow Industrial complex and along Oyster Creek to the community of Oyster Creek.
Their distribution is broken by agrarian practices in the Clemens and Retrieve State Farms, and by
the community developments of Clute, Lake Jackson, and Richwood.

The setting of the fluvial woodlands is on nearly level high bottomlands on soils predomi-
nantly of the Miller-Norwood-Pledger Association. These soils were formed in stratified, calcareous,
loamy alluvium. They are well drained with slow runoff and slow to moderate permeability.

The fluvial woodland provides the most heterogeneous habitat of any of the ecosystems in
the study area, for within parts of the wooded area occur both small fresh water marshes and small
prairies in open areas. In the wooded area, pecan (Carya illinoenis), live oak, hickory (Carya cordi-
formis), and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) are common species, the latter two being invaders over the
past 40 years (Seadock, 1974, p. 2.3-14). There is a varied and indistinct brush or shrub layer
throughout most of the woodland. Salt marsh mosquitoes (Acdes sollicitans) are the dominant
insects in the woodlands. The woodlands provide excellent, if limited in area, habitat for fox
squirrel (Sciurus niger) and gray squirrel (S. carolinensis) as well as oppossum, white-footed mouse,
swamp rabbit, and armadillo. Bobcats (Lynx rufus) have been observed.

The avian use of fluvial woodlands is mainly by migratory species, including Baltimore
orioles, fly catchers, and more than 15 warbler species. Cardinals and vireos are resident herbi-
vores and insectivores, respectively. Owls and vultures are the dominant predators (Seadock, 1974,
p. 2.3-14).
A comparison of U.S.G.S. topographic maps and aerial photographs shows in the last 15-25
years that the distribution of the woodlands has been decreasing around the fringes, due to increas-
ing rangeland development, and also under pressure of subdivision development.
Fresh-water Marsh
Fresh-water marshes and swamps occur in the study area mainly along the course of Oyster
Creek, in a low area south of Salt Bayou, and between Big Slough and Bastrop Bayou. These
marshes are generally present at slightly higher elevations than the coastal brackish water marshes.
However, the influence of fresh water overbank flooding overwhelms any saline influence, mainly
during storms, which might make these marshes tend to brackish water conditions. The freshwater
marshes are very shallow water bodies of very limited areal extent.

The vegetation of the inland freshwater marsh includes rush (Juncus romerianus), bulrush
(Scirpus sp.), cattail (Typha sp.), and sloughgrass (Spartina pectinata). Several water-tolerant trees
may inhabit fresh-water swamps, including the dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor), baldcypress (Taxo-
dium distichum), elm (Ulmos sp.), mulberry (Morus sp.), and water oak (Quercus nigra). Typical
associated wildlife occurring in the freshwater marsh/swamp habitat includes nutria, muskrat, otter,
alligator, raccoon, oppossum, snakes, and waterfowl.
Land Use
Six major categories of land use in the study area have been identified: industrial, residen-
tial, rangeland, fluvial woodland, brackish marsh, and public/governmental holdings. Fluvial wood-
lands and brackish marsh are not significant in human utilization. Land use in the public/govern-
mental category includes two State Prison Farms, where cropland is the major land use, and the
Brazosport Navigation District's port and storage facilities and dredged material disposal areas.
Figure 15 presents, by census tract, the type and intensity of land use in the study area. Figure 16

Figure 15
Land Use by Census Tract

Census Commercial Open Resource Highway
Tract No. Residential + Services Industrial Education Space Production Row Vacant Water Total

612i 819.86 76.69 11.62 -- 278.35 1.5 -- 21,581.91 2497.27 25,237.26

613i 135.71 35.65 6.8 4.5 -- -- -- 22,847.03 923.2 23,952.89

620i 1038.04 217.24 294.39 88.0 6.64 5.25 -- 34,844.45 659.4 37,153.41

621 i 289.27 11.36 -- -- 14,606.0 -- 35,425.65 3722.12 54,054.4

622 298.36 5.4 0.47 22.8 -- -- -- 25,826.83 1135.74 27,289.6

623 186.79 9.31 0.5 -- -- 0.75 -- 7,402.68 215.37 7,814.4

624 37.81 102.14 2149.47 -- 0.5 27.0 132.24 18,335.03 1590.39 22,374.48

625 1399.44 148.34 16.21 222.3 57.72 -- 110.78 2,873.16 19.6 4,847.55

626 516.3 195.52 2.5 106.0 14.0 7.0 53.89 2,228.86 45.8 3,169.87

627i 221.4 17.55 39.5 4.0 11.75 -- 8,546.54 189.65 9,030.87

628 313.9 155.86 63.6 83.4 65.62 -- 2,271.79 226.7 3,180.87

629 622.93 159.1 124.92 53.08 63.35 8.25 -- 17,395.26 1521.77 18,948.66

631 i 247.89 11.3 480.02 -- 3882.8 1.5 -- 31,048.57 3582.12 39,255.2

Total 6126.71 1145.46 3190.0 560.28 18,978.98 65.5 297.07 230,628.76 16,329.13 277,334.08

(Source: Houston-Galveston Area Council, unpublished data, 1975.)

Figure 16
Census Tract Map
(See Figure 15)

! %~

(

r, 6131., ;,/ ',
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
', ,Y/f_~ k.. -~ 627i - 631i ' -i/

A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
620i ''626,%

623 '-',, 624 /-

622
: / ~ ~ ~ ~~~629t-.;", .

-__study area
621 '

630 - Census Tract Number
i - not all of tract is in area
....-. tract boundary

shows the location of the census tracts within the area. Residential and industrial land uses as a
composite account for three percent of the study area, in approximately two to one proportions.
About six percent of the area is water (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, etc.). Eighty-three percent is 'vacant,'
or undeveloped. This great fraction represents both marsh habitat and rangeland used for cattle
grazing.
The major transportation routes in the study area include State Highway 288 from Freeport
to Angleton (17 miles) and to Houston (60 miles); State Highway 36 from Freeport to Brazoria (15
miles), West Columbia (26 miles), Rosenberg (59 miles), and connections with U.S. 10 (87 miles);
State Highway 332 from Surfside through Lake Jackson to Brazoria; FM 2004 from Richmond to
Hitchcock (31 miles); FM 521 west from Brazoria; and FM 2611 from Jones Creek west to Sargent.
Figure 17 shows the daily vehicle usage of these major routes.

Rail service in the area consists of the Missouri Pacific Railroad, which connects industrial
sites near Freeport to Houston. At Angleton the north-south and east-west railroads intersect. The
east-west line connects the area to Bay City and Texas City.

The Brazoria County Airport is the only public airport in the Brazosport area. It has a
5,000 foot concrete runway and is located to the northwest of the community of Lake Jackson.
These facilities are shared with Dow Chemical Corporation with operates its own terminal at that
site.

Figure 17

1975 Traffic Map
Annual Average 24 Hour Traffic Volume
(Source: Texas Highway Dept.)

.60 1590 4
\78n4480
59

~~5600)7 159 22
041

11,5~~30
610
00
2193

32 95,-2850

700 8

75 X g ~~201
( 60 270C990

7Ct\3 ~6200~ ? 6)/ ,9 6
367
rl 4990 A4
1150 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~236G
14 g2,720 1,530

14&< (ra
16,430

25\ 15,25
21,380
692b '; L2350
7520~~~~~~~~~~~5

i6 4260q W

3570

Major and minor pipelines and transmission lines crisscross the area, with some of the rights-
of-way bearing multiple pipelines.

Social and Infrastructural Characteristics
Brazoria County covers an area of 1,422 square miles, with the county seat located in Angle-
ton. The Brazosport area occupies 270 square miles within the county. Brazosport is composed of
nine separate municipalities and a number of unincorporated neighborhoods. The municipalities
include: Clute, Freeport, Lake Jackson, Brazoria, Jones Creek, Oyster Creek, Quintana, Richwood,
and Surfside. The unincorporated neighborhoods include Bryan Beach and Gulf Park.

The Brazosport area is distinctive in that while it contains these distinct municipalities and
neighborhoods, it tends to function as one community. Not only do many residents of a particular
town work or shop in the others, but also the area shares a number of service systems. The Brazos-
port Independent School District serves most of the area, with the exception of the Brazoria muni-
cipality. There is a single, daily newspaper-The Brazosport Facts. There is a Brazosport Mayors
Association and a Brazosport Chamber of Commerce. Similarly, there are a number of cultural asso-
ciations which link the area, such as the Brazosport Community Concert Association.

Since these municipalities and neighborhoods do tend to interact extensively, it is assumed
that general characteristics of the whole Brazosport area should be considered in this study. In addi-
tion, it is assumed that the impacts as the result of canal construction will be distributed over the
area. However, issues or impacts which are particular to a specific area of Brazosport will be identi-
fied.

Brazoria County, which is part of the Houston SMSA, had a 1970 population of 108,312
(U.S. Census data). While more recent population figures are available (see Figure 18) for certain
of the cities in the Brazosport area, the 1970 census is the only source of complete population
characteristics. Unfortunately, the organization of the Census data makes it difficult to separate the
Brazosport municipalities from the Brazoria County statistics. In addition, Oyster Creek, Quintana,
and Surfside have only recently incorporated and Jones Creek has recently reincorporated. This
makes acquisition of exact population statistics difficult. Figure 18 presents exact figures when they
were available and approximations in the other cases.

Figure 18
Brazoria County Population Statistics

Population
Brazoria . . ....................................... 1,6811
Clute .... 6,0231
Freeport ........................................11,9971
Jones Creek .................... 2,1002
Lake Jackson .................... 3,3761
Oyster Creek .................... 2,5002
Quintana ..................................212
Richwood .....................1,4521
Surfside ......................................... 1,5002
Total for Brazosport Area ...........................44,9001
Total for Brazosport Area .......................... 58,0002

1Source: Texas Municipal Taxation and Debt, 1976 (1970 Population
Figures).
21977 estimates-Brazosport Chamber of Commerce.

Figure 19

Population Age Profile
Brazoria County, Texas

AGE NUMBER

under 5 9,936

5 -9 11,745

10 - 14 12,281

15 - 19 10,416

20 - 24 8,062

25 - 29 8,685

30 - 34 7,504

35 - 39 7,285

40 - 4 7,245

45 - 49 6,301

50 - 54 5.,370

55 - 59 4 ,384

60 - 64 3 379
~~~~~-
65 - 69 2,241

70 - 74 1,521

II
75 79 1,006

80 - 84 589

85 - over 389

Under 18 40,909 -Median Aqe - 26.1 years
65 and over 5 746

Source: Brazosport Chamber of Commerce

According to the 1970 Census, the residents of the county tend to be well-educated with
31.2 percent having completed high school, and 6.5 percent completed four years of college. The
median educational level of persons 25 years of age and over is 12.1 years as compared with 11.6
years for the state as a whole.

The median age of the county population is 26.1 years. The median age of the State of
Texas population is 26.6 years. As shown in Figure 19, the population of age 65 and over is 5,749
(5.4 percent), as compared with 8.9 percent statewide. The small percentage of individuals over 65
years of age is probably related to the industrial development and high immigration rate of the
area.

The Brazosport area is primarily industrial and is one of the fastest growing areas in the
state. The 1970 Census reports that 33.9 percent of the county's population moved from outside
the county since 1960. This growth rate means that many of the residents are relatively newcomers
to the area. In general, Brazosport residents seem to be very pro-growth, an attitude which will be
discussed further in Social Issues and Impacts.

Most of the people who work in Brazoria County reside there. A total of 1,285 Harris
County residents commuted to work in Brazoria County in 1970 (U.S. Census data). Workers also
commuted from other nearby counties including Galveston, Montgomery, and Fort Bend Counties.

The median 1970 family income in Brazoria County was $10,433, higher than both the
Houston SMSA ($10,191) and the State of Texas ($8,486 median levels. Although the Houston
SMSA and the Brazoria County median family incomes were slightly lower than the national aver-
age ($10,469), there was not necessarily a lower standard of living. The Houston SMSA had the low-
est cost of living of all the SMSA's in the United States in 1970. The 1970 statistics list only 8.4
percent of all families in Brazoria County (2,267 people) as being below the national poverty level
of $3,388 for all families.

The employment by occupation for the county is shown in Figure 20. The highest percent-
age of workers in the county are employed by the manufacturing industry. This is related to the
presence of Dow Chemical and 86 other large manufacturing establishments, 30 percent of which
employ more than 20 persons. The presence of these industries and the high construction and
growth rate of the area result in relatively low employment figures. Texas Employment Commission

Figure 20
Brazoria County Employment by Occupation

Occupation Number Percentage

White Collar Workers 9,486
Professional & Technical 6,441 15.1
Managers & Administrative 3,045 7.2
Industry 29,918
Manufacturing 11,765 27.6
Wholesale & Retail Trade 6,707 15.8
Business, Repair & Personal Service 3,146 7.4
Educational Services 2,997 7.0
Construction 5,303 12.5
Non-Industry 3,147
Farm Workers 848 2.0
Laborers 2,326 5.5

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census of the Population.

(TEC) reports a 4.5 percent unemployment rate in the county as of April, 1977. TEC lists the aver-
age unemployment rate in the county in 1976 as 5.3 percent, as compared with the average state
unemployment rate 5.7 percent in 1976.

There is a large commercial fishing industry in the area. A major shrimping fleet makes the
area its seasonal home and produces as much as 15 million pounds of shrimp annually (Brazosport,
1976).

Another large industry in the area is tourism. There are 33 miles of ocean frontage in
Brazoria County of which 22 miles is open to the public. Available recreational land in the county
totals 27,235 acres. Two percent of the available recreational land is developed. The developed
parks are associated with saltwater recreational areas. Figure 21 lists the various parks and their
acreage.
Figure 21
Parks in Brazoria County

Acres

Federal
San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge 15,414
Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge 9,625
State
Mud Island 1,075
Bryan Beach State Park 554
County
Surfside Beach 304
Quintana-Bryan Beach 157
Brazoria Beach Park 5
Total Acres 27,134
Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 1975.

Brazoria County exceeds the Texas coastal counties' average for boat landings, slips and
stalls, and fishing and skiing. Brazoria County has no campsites, picnic tables, or designated trails
for hiking (Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan, Vol. 5, 1975).

In addition to salt water recreational opportunities, the area is the winter home of large
populations of geese and ducks. These two species may be hunted during the open season.

The recreational opportunities available to the area's residents are supplemented by a num-
ber of cultural facilities. The Atlas of Texas (1973) lists two public museums in Brazoria County:
the Brazosport Museum of Natural Science in Lake Jackson, and the Varner-Hogg Plantation House
in West Columbia. The Brazosport Museum of Natural Science features many displays of shells,
rocks, fossils, marine life and Texas wildlife. The Varner-Hogg Plantation house is located in the
Varner-Hogg State Historic Park. This two-story columned mansion was the center of a sugar cane
plantation in the periods before and after the Civil War.

The Brazoria County Library System consists of a main library in Angleton and eight
branches in cites throughout the county. A bookmobile provides service to communities without
a library. Over 180,000 volumes are available as well as recordings, magazines, newspapers, paper-
backs, and filmstrips.

The Houston metropolitan area provides additional cultural features such as opera,
symphony, and museums.

The historical sites in the project area are houses, plantation sites, and cemeteries. In Surf-
side is Allen House, an historical cottage; in Quintana are two vernacular Greek Revival cottages, as
well as the site of Fort Velasco; in the Richmond area are the Brock House Ranch with a vernacular
19th century frame structure, and Phair Cemetery; near Lake Jackson are the plantation ruins of
Lake Jackson Farms; in Clute is the site of Eagle Island Plantation; and in Jones Creek are the Gulf
Prairie Cemetery and Peach Point Plantation (TPWD, 1976).

Archeological sites are more numerous. Not all of the likely archeological sites in the project
area have been discovered and surveyed, as most sites are revealed only during excavation or con-
struction operations. Most consist solely of shell midden. Shell middens occur at Cone Island in the
Oyster Creek-Chubb Lake area, at and around Lake Jackson, and near Jones Lake at the GIWW. Of
special interest are firepits, possible burials, Neo-Indian campsites, and Anthropomorphic pumic
heads and camel teeth found near Lake Jackson. To the east of Clemens State Farm, south of High-
way 36, is an historic Anglo-American site in two structural concentrations with several cisterns
(Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, open file information, 1976).

Description of the Study Area Environment References
Allen P. F. 1950. "Ecological Basis for Land Use Planning in Gulf Coast Marshlands."Journal Soil
and Water Conservation, Vol. 5, pp. 57-62.

Bernard, H.A. and R. J. LeBlanc. 1965. 'Resume of the Quaternary Geology of the Northwestern
Gulf of Mexico Province.' H. E. Wright, Jr. and D. G. Frey (eds.) The Quaternary of the
United States. Princeton University Press.

Bernard, H. A. et al. 1970. Recent Sediments of Southeast Texas, A Field Guide to the Brazos
Alluvial and Deltaic Plains and the Galveston Barrier Island Complex. University of Texas,
Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology. Guidebook 11.

Brazosport Chamber of Commerce. 1976. Brazosport. Chamber of Commerce Brochure.

Brown, Jr., L. F. et al. 1974. Natural Hazards of the Texas Coastal Zone. University of Texas,
Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, 13 pp., 7 maps.

Bruce, C. H. 1973. "Pressured Shale and Related Sediment Deformation: A Mechanism for Develop-
ment of Regional Contemporaneous Faults." Amer. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull. v. 57(5)
pp. 878-886.

Dutz, J. (TPWD) March 15, 1977, personal communication to A. Dutton (RPC).

Ewing, M., D. B. Ericson, and B. C. Heezen. 1958. "Sediments and Topography of the Gulf of
Mexico." Weeks, L. G. (ed.) Habitat of Oil. Amer. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists pp. 995-1053.

38 Fed. Reg. 50439. 1973

39 Fed. Reg. 31001. 1974

Garner, H. (Wildlife Manager) March 30, 1977, personal communication to A. Reed (RPC).

Greenman, N. N. and R. J. LeBlanc. 1956. "Recent Marine Sediments and Environments of North-
west Gulf of Mexico." Amer. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Billetin, V. 40, pp. 813-847.

Houston-Galveston Area Council, 1976. 1975 Census Tract Land Use, Brazoria County, Texas.
Unpublished data.

Kreitler, C. W. 1976a. Faulting and Land Subsidence from Groundwater and Hydrocarbon Produc-
tion, Houston-Galveston, Texas. Proc. Second International Symposium on Land Subsidence,
December, 1976. Anaheim, California.

Kreitler, C. W. 1976b. Lineations and Faults in the Texas Coastal Zone. Univ. Texas, Austin, Bur.
Econ. Geology. RI No. 85. 32 pp.

Louisiana. Department of Conservation. 1972. Groundwater Conditions in Southwestern Louisiana,
1961 and 1962. Department of Conservation, Geological Survey, and Department of Public
Works. Water Resources Pamphlet No. 12. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

McGown, J. H. et al. 1976. Environmental Geologic Atlas of the Texas Coastal Zone-Bay City-
Freeport Area. University of Texas, Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology. 98 pp. 9 maps.

Murray, G. E. 1961. Geology of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Province of North America. Harper
and Bros., New York. 692 pp.

Reid, W. M. 1973. Active Faults in Houston, Texas. University of Texas, Austin, Ph.D. dissertation,
122 p.

Rice Center for Community Design and Research. 1976. Texas Gulf Coast Program Research
Report 1. 3 vols. Rice Center for Community Design and Research. Houston.

Sandeen, W. M. and J. B. Wesselman. 1973. Groundwater Resources of Brazoria County, Texas.
Texas Water Development Board. Report No. 163. 199 pp.

Seadock, Inc. 1974. Environmental Report-Texas Offshore Crude Oil Unloading Facility. 3 vols.

Shelton, J. W. 1968. Role of Contemporaneous Faulting During Basinal Subsidence. Amer. Assoc.
Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 52(3) pp. 399-413.

Texas Air Control Board. 1971. Self-Reporting Industrial Air Emissions by County. TACB Com-
puter file.

Texas Air Control Board. 1974. Ambient Air Quality Survey-Clute and Freeport, Texas. October
15, 1973 through April 3, 1974.

Texas Air Control Board. 1976. Air Surveillance Report, Clute (Station 11), Commerce Sheet at
Cobb Field.

Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, 1976. Brazoria County Archeological Site Information.
Balcones Research Center, Austin, Texas.

Texas A&M University. 1973. Waste Management in the Texas Coastal Zone. Office of the Gover-
nor, Div. Planning Coordination, Coastal Resources Management Program, ICNRE, Austin,
Texas.

Texas Highway Department. 1973. Brazoria County, Texas-Traffic Map. Austin, Texas.

Texas Municipal League. 1976. Texas Municipal Taxation and Debt. 1975-1976. Austin: Texas
Municipal League.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Comprehensive Planning Branch, 1975. Regional Environ-
mental Analysis of the Houston-Galveston Region, Outdoor Recreation Plan. Austin, Texas
236 pp.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1974. Outdoor Recreation Plan, Vol. 5. Austin: Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1970. Census of the Population, 1970. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Washington, D.C.: GPO.

U. S. Department of Argiculture. Soil Conservation Service. 1972 (among others). Established Soil
Series Descriptions. Fort Worth, Texas.

U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1973. Annual
Wind Distribution by Pas quill Stability Classes, Galveston, Texas. Environmental Data Service,
National Weather Records Center. Asheville, North Carolina.

University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Business Research. 1976. Atlas of Texas.

University of Texas. 1973. Population Projections for Texas Counties: 1980-2020. Austin, Texas:
Population Research Center.
Williamson, J. D. M. 1959. "Gulf Coast Cenozoic History." Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. of Geological
Societies. Vol. 9, pp. 15-29.

III. PROJECT FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

INDUSTRIAL LOCATION ANALYSIS

Because land and waterfrontage requirements vary among industries, the types of industries
locating within the development will influence the site's ultimate size, design and layout. The pur-
pose of this chapter is the postulation of particular industries which would most likely locate along
an inland canal and the identification of their requirements.

The industries are chosen by considering traditional factors in industrial location decisions,
by examining historical waterborne commodity flows within the study area, and by comparing the
general requirements of those industries utilizing water transportation with the availability of these
factors in Brazoria County. Finally, specific requirements of the selected industries are discussed.
These steps parallel the steps which an industry would take in evaluating the suitability of an area
for a particular project, with modifications as per the study orientation of describing the case study
hypothesis.

The results of this analysis indicate that a refinery and petrochemical plant industrial com-
plex can reasonably be expected to locate at the site given past waterway development patterns,
industrial requirements, and trends in the industrial development of the study area. This industrial
complex should be considered as the core of the site development, and not exclusive of other in-
dustries which might locate along the inland canal. A brief summary of the types of associated
industries, such as the metal products sectors and their requirements is included at the end of this
section.
Industry Location Factors
Location theory provides a framework within which the process of location decision-making
and subsequent industrial development can be described and analyzed. The theory is well developed
and its evolution is summarized in Appendix A.

The location decision for most firms, especially in the manufacturing sector, is a long-term
capital investment decision. Consequently, the process of choosing a site, outlined in Figure 22,
considers many factors relevant to minimizing location risks. These factors include:

1. Transportation costs
I ~ ~~~~2. Proximity to resource and/or product markets
3. Availability and quality of utilities (electricity, fuels, water)
4. Quantity and quality of labor
5. Availability and cost of land
6. Existence of legal/institutional incentives or barriers
These factors affect a firm's profitability through their influence on revenues and costs.

Transportation
A firm is concerned with the costs of transporting both its raw materials and its products.
Thus, industry evaluates a potential location in terms of assembling the required inputs and distri-
buting the final output. These costs are determined by several considerations: the bulk, weight, and
value of the cargo, the need for special handling or service, the distance involved, and the prevailing
freight rate (Hunker, 1974).

Each transportation mode varies as to its cost, capacity, flexibility, and speed. Figure 23
summarizes the competitive advantages associated with the modes. To a considerable degree, the
nature of the cargo will determine the types of transport used. For example, marine transport is

Figure 22

The Site Selection Process

BRATCH COMPLETE RIELOCATION

qualitative k quantitative
ties with parent requirements

state pressure

labour- raw materials energy external economics markets- public
numbers, skills, etc. components I linkage, etc. existing & services
IN\ potential J
!'o'st~~ r~ I land-
cost transport costs transport costs tenure, bldgs.
per unit of as embly of distri butionion

e)pansion machinery
VARIABLE COSTS taxe, grants
COST and rebates
COST~ CAPACITY COSTS
finance competitors reactions

non-financial]
management VIABILITY ASSESSMENT local attitudes
considerationj amenity
facilities
Consultatiorn Personal Preference
Urgency f
Uncertainty t ch o
feasible
satisfactory on chosen
optimum criteria
ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS
EVALUATED

LOCATION CHOSEN feedback as co
and preference
alternatives are
adjusted
SOURCE: P.M. Townroe, Industrial Location Decisions, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, The University of Birmingham (London:
Research Publications Services, Ltds., 1971) p. 25

Figure 23

Competitive Advantage Ranks of Transportation Modes

Cost Capacity Flexibility Speed
1. Pipeline 1. Pipeline 1. Motor Carrier 1. Airline
2. Marine 2. Marine 2. Rail1 2. Motor Carrier
3. Rail 3. Rail 3. Marine 3. Rail
4. Motor Carrier 4. Motor Carrier 4. Pipeline 4. Marine
S. Airline 5. Airline S . Airline S. Pipeline
Source: Kearney, A. T., Inc. 1974. Domestic Waterborne Shipping
Market Analysis, prepared for the Maritime Administration,
U.S. Dept. of Commerce.

generally preferred for bulky, nonperishable cargo of low value since the transportation costs repre-
sent a significant portion of total costs. In contrast, light weight, high value cargo is often moved by
air.

Markets
Many studies of industrial location determinants reveal that proximity or access to product
or raw material markets is a prime consideration in the location decision. In general, the location of
firms depends upon the transportation costs associated with both the raw materials and the indus-
try's products. Firms tend to locate near the market of goods which have high transportation costs.
For example, firms using materials which gain weight in manufacturing tend to locate close to their
product market because the transportation costs of the finished product will be greater than that of
the raw materials. Alternately, when the processing of the raw material into a final product results
in a significant weight loss, production will tend to occur at or near the raw material source.

Those firms locating near the product market are market-oriented; those locating near raw
material sources are resource-oriented (Kinnard and Messner, 1971).

Market-oriented firms can be further classified according to the type of customer. Those
which sell to final consumers will be located near population centers, and changes in industry loca-
tion are closely associated with population growth and shifts. Those which sell to other firms locate
near their customers; demand for their product is dependent upon the demand for the customer's
product.

Resource-oriented indutries are primarily concerned with either the availability of a specific
input or the cost of transporting that input. For instance, firms in the pulpwood industry tend to
locate near timber sources.

utilities
While electricity, fuels, and water are essential to the continuing operation of a manufactur-
ing plant, their availability has only recently become an important factor in the location decision.

In the future, the location patterns of energy-intensive industries are expected to change
due to 1) lack of necessary and traditional energy resources in a given region; 2) the need to relocate
in order to obtain a lower-cost energy source; and 3) the need to change production processes to
adjust to changing energy supplies (Hunker, 1974).

As energy supplies diminish and costs rise, regions with relatively secure energy supplies will
become particularly attractive to those firms whose production processes require an unsubstitutable
energy. in addition, the quality of fuels may be critical as industries comply with environmental
regulations restricting levels of permissible pollution.

The availability of water in sufficient quantity and quality is also gaining importance as a
location factor. For example, McGregor (1970) found in his study of the role of water in industrial
location that:

Concern over adequate supplies of fresh water, . ,has spread in recent decades to
many other parts of the United States. It will become more intense and spread still
more rapidly as population-especially urban population-and industrial activity con-
tinue to grow.

Water of varying quality is often required in a production process. If water of varying qualities is
not available to the industry, the water of the highest quality required will guide the industry loca-
tion. Water of the same quality can then be used in other stages of the production process.

In summary, the availability and quality of energy and water are becoming more important
in the location decision, especially for firms employing production processes which are energy- or
water-intensive, or which require a particular energy or water of specific quality.
Labor
Both the quantity and quality of labor can be significant factors in a firm's location deci-
sion. Characteristics of the local or regional labor force which may be considered include:

I1. Availability of job type within the region
2. Labor costs

3. Strength and activity of unionsI

An example of the sensitivity of the industry is found in the shift of the U.S. textile industry from
the Northeast to the South, attributed at least in part to the existence of a low-cost, nonunionized
labor pool in the latter region.

Although labor is an important location factor, the lack of labor force with required skills
in an area may not necessarily be a constraint. Rather, because labor is more mobile than other
factors of production, firms may select a site knowing that labor will be attracted by the new job
opportunities. This has been the experience, for instance, in the construction of the Alaskan Pipe-
line, and of the coal mining industry in Montana. In addition, local unskilled labor may be trained
by the industry.

Land
The amount of land needed for an industrial site depends upon the production process em-
ployed and thus varies widely among industries and firms. in general, though, a modern industrial
site will require sufficient area for the following functions:

1. Processing or production
2. Storage of materials
3. Storage of finished goods
4. offices and salesrooms
5. Wash rooms, locker rooms, lunch rooms
6. Heating and ventilating equipment
7. Repair or tool shops
8. Parking for employees
9. Parking for visitors
10. Loading and unloading

In addition, land is often provided for landscaping, employee recreation areas, garages or
parking for fleet trucks, and internal streets and walks in larger plants.

Within the past 25 years, the industrial land use trend in the U.S. has been toward a less in-
tensive use of land as plants occupy larger sites. Reasons for this trend include: 1) land is less expen-
sive as plants locate away from urban areas; 2) reserve land is purchased for future expansion; 3)
larger portions of the land area are reserved for buffer between the plant and surrounding land uses.
There have been cases, for example, of occupants of neighboring residential areas ultimately forcing
closure of a plant due to noise, odors or other objectionable aspects of its production process, even
though the plant may have preceded the residential development.

institutional Factors
Inducements or disincentives offered by governments can directly affect the location deci-
sion of a firm. State and local governments in particular have traditionally attempted to attract new
tirms or encourage the expansion of existing industry. Inducements provided by states include
financial assistance, tax relief, research and development support, and employee training programs.
Among the incentives offered by local governments are subsidies and tax concessions.

Indeed, tax relief is a major tool used to attract new industry. The manner in which taxation
and differences in tax structure influence a firm's location decision is discussed in Figure 24. If costs
of alternative sites are equal, the firm will choose a site in that area offering the most favorable tax
structure.

Very rarely, however, are all costs of alternative sites equal. Any concession offered by one
locality or state can also be offered by other areas. The difference in local base tax rates may, in
fact, weigh more heavily on a firm's location decision. As a result, the importance of these induce-
ments may be relatively minor, coming into play only when the final site is selected. This is espe-
cially so in Texas, where no direct incentives are allowed.

in the past, the federal government has also influenced industry location, particularly by
encouraging industry to locate in economically depressed regions. This has been effectuated through
such legislation as the Appalachian Regional Development Act.

Government action can serve to discourage as well as encourage location in an area. Federal
and state environmental regulations have, in some cases, restricted sites available for industrial
development as have local governments through zoning restrictions.

in summary, while no one factor determines the outcome of a location decision, a particular
factor may dominate or be more important to the firm than others. In the context of this study, the
primary focus is on industries which are transportation-oriented. Specifically, the concern is with in-
dustries which place critical importance on the availability of water transportation facilities and are
thereby inclined to locate along an inland canal. While this may not be the firm's sole consideration
in choosing a site, it is assumed to be the primary one of the industries selected in this study.

Selection of Industries
Although the actual site selection for a plant is made on the basis of numerous considera-
tions, for the purpose of this study, dependence on water transportation is assumed to be the pri-
mary location factor for those industries which would utilize a site along an inland canal. Repre-
sentative industries which might reasonably locate in the study site are chosen by considering 1) the
importance of water transportation to various industrial sectors; 2) the other requirements of those
industries identified as using water transportation; 3) the capability of the study area to meet these
needs.

Figure 24
Tax Comparisons as the Basis for the Location Decision

REGIONAL CHOICE BETWEEN STATES REGIONAL CHOICE WITHIN ONE STATE

SaeC Slate C

Sflae B1 -

Statetaxesdiffr beteen te thee sttes.Any site within the circle is acceptable. The
Statetaxesdiffr beteen te thee sttes.circle falls within one state. Comparison of
Any site within the circle is acceptable, i.e., taxes with other states would be meaning-4
all other costs are equal. The state with the less. The enterprise will seek the comn-
lowest tax rate should attract the enter- munity within the circle with the most
prise. favorable tax structure.

CHOICE BETWEEN COMMUNITIES CHOICE BETWEEN PARTS OF
AT STATE LEVEL A METROPOLITAN AREA

- JJ~~[A JjjSuburb

C Suburb
ED COUNTY eto

OEF

Sburb

All sites shown are within one state. Alter- Within a metropolitan area, parts of the
native locations exist, but only those with- central city, suburbs, and county lie within
in the circle meet the "all other costs being the circle. The choice of location will re-
equal" measure. Communities C, D, and E flect the most favorable tax structure.
can compete; the others do not meet this
test. Of the three within the circle, the
enterprise will locate at the one providing
the most favorable tax structure.

Source: Henry L. Hunker, Industrial Development (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1974).

industries Utilizing Water Transportation
An analysis of studies of location determinants and waterborne commodity flows along the
Texas coast suggests that the petrochemical and refining industries are two sectors which rely
heavily on water transportation.

One of the most comprehensive surveys of the factors which are considered by firms in loca-
tion decisions was undertaken by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development
Administration (EDA) in 1970. Water transportation access was of greatest importance in final site
slcinfor two sectors:
SIC 28 - Chemicals and Allied Products
SIC 29 - Petroleum Refining
The importance attached to water transportation access by firms in these industries is shown in
Figure 25.
Figure 25
Importance Attached to Having
A Plant Site With Water
Transportation Facilities1

Percent In Industry
SIC 282 SIC 293
Value Attached Chemical and Allied Products Petroleum Refining
Critical 23% 33%
Significant to Average 52% 67%
Minimal 21% 0
No Response 4% 0
Number of Firms 56 6
1. The survey used the SIC classification system in effect before 1972.
Totals may not add to I100 percent due to rounding.
2. Consists of the following 3-digit SIC codes: 281 (industrial Inorganic
and Organic Chemicals), 282 (Plastic Materials), and 287 (Agricultural
Chemicals).
3. SIC 291 1, Petroleum Refining.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Agency,
Industrial Location Determinants, 7977-1975, Section 1 (Washing-
ton, D.C.: Department of Commerce, February, 1973).

The existence of adequate transportation facilities seems to be particularly crucial to the
chemical industry. Of the firms in that industry, 45 percent selected improvements in transporta-
tion efficiency as a location objective in the EDA survey. Figure 26 summarizes the objectives cited
by firms in both the chemical and refining industry,

In a study which analyzed why firms locate along the Texas Gulf coast, Wright and
Matthews (1971) also found that adequate transportation facilities were of major importance in the
location decision of the petrochemical industry. The most important location factors were ranked
by the industry as follows:

I1. Near raw materials
2. Good transportation
3. Skilled labor supply
4. Land availability
5. Water supply

Figure 26
Locational Objectives To Be Achieved
As A Percentage of Survey
Respondents'

SIC 282 SIC 293
Chemicals And Petroleum
Objective Allied Products Refining

(1) Improvement in transportation efficiency or economy ............. 45
(2) Availability of larger parcel of land .......................... 11 33
(3) Closer proximity to resources and/or major suppliers .............. 46 67
(4) Closer proximity to other plants of your company ............... 7
(5) Closer proximity to your distributors and/or your customers ....... . 70 67
(6) Closer proximity to other firms in same or related industries ......... 7
(7) Ability to serve new and/or expanded markets ........... ....... 57 67
(8) Minimize competition from other plants for labor force ............ 7
(9) To secure factors of location unique to your industry
(special energy requirements, etc.) .......................... 38 67
Number of Respondents ................................... 56 6

1. Respondents could select as many as three objectives. The survey used SIC classifications in effect before 1972.
2. Consists of SIC codes 281, 282, and 287.
3. SIC 2911.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Agency, Industrial Location Determinants, Section
1 (Washington, D.C.: Dept. of Commerce, February, 1973).

The reliance of the chemical and refining industries on water transportation is confirmed
when one considers the modes of transportation used by the industries to ship their products. This
information is provided in Figure 27 for Texas as a whole, and for the Beaumont-Port Arthur-
Orange, Galvestori-Texas City, and Houston SMSA's. The study area is a part of the Houston SMSA.
Examination of this data reveals that 43 percent of the chemicals and allied products (most of
which were petrochemicals) and 93 percent of the petroleum refining products shipped from the
coastal production area to other points in the U.S. were conveyed by water.

Figure 27
Percentage of Products
Shipped By Water, 19721

From Texas From Coastal Area2
Million Percent Million Percent
SIC Industry Tons by Water Tons by Water

28 Chemicals and Allied Products 38.9 31.7 25.7 43.2
281 Industrial Inorganic and
Organic Chemicals 20.6 25.4 12.2 34.3
285 Paints, Enamels, Etc. 0.9 31.6 0.5 37.0
291 Products of Petroleum
Refining 119.6 89.3 91.5 93.2

1. Commodities shipped to all regions of the U.S.
2. Coastal area consists of these Texas counties: Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, Jefferson,
Orange, Galveston.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of Transportation, 1972, Commodity Transportation Survey-Area Series:
Area Report 6, TC72C2-6 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1975).

Major components of the traffic along the Texas portion of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
(GIWW) are crude petroleum, petroleum products, and chemicals, as shown by Figure 28. Since the
GIWW is a barge canal, its commodity flow patterns are indicative of the chemical and petroleum
refining industries as major candidates for an inland canal site.

Figure 28
Major Users of the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway in Texas

NON-METALLIC
MINERALS 16.7%

PETROLEUM AND PRODUCTS 60

Source: Analysis of the Role of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Texas,
Texas A&M University, December, 1974, p. 160.

in summary, chemical and petroleum refining are two industries which can reasonably be
expected to locate along a barge canal, because they use water transportation in general, and barge
transportation in particular. The importance of water transportation to the industries is evidenced
by results of studies of location factors and is further supported by analysis of transportation modes
utilized by the sectors and commodity flow patterns along the GIWW.

Other Location Factors
Although utilization of barge transportation is considered to be the primary criterion for
selection of industries for the study site, other factors such as proximity to markets, and availability
of utilities, land and labor are considered in a firm's location decision. The importance of these fac-
tors to the petrochemical and refining industries and the capability of the study area to meet these
needs are now discussed.

Proximity to Markets. The results of the EDA survey of location determinants, summarized
in Figure 26, reveal the importance of market factors in the location decision of the chemical and
refining industries. Close proximity to customers was the location objective most frequently cited,
followed by other market-oriented objectives such as closer proximity to resources and the ability
to sere new or expanded markets.

Proximity to raw materials is especially important to the chemical industry, and in particu-
lar, to that segment which produces petrochemicals. Very broadly defined, petrochemicals are those
products derived from petroleum and natural gas. They generally are considered to consist of three
components: basic petrochemicals (those made directly from petroleum and natural gas fractions),
intermediates (those for which a definite chemical precursor can be identified and which will under-
go further chemical reactions), and end products (such as fibers, plastic resins, and rubber). The last
does not include fabricated products such as plastic articles and tires.

Proximity to raw materials, including feedstocks, is especially important for the makers of
basic and intermediate petrochemicals. In one study of petrochemicals plants in Texas, for example,
47 out of 60 firms ranked "nearness to raw materials" as the primary site selection factor (White-
horn, 1973).

The major petrochemical feedstocks are natural gas; liquified petroleum gases (LPG) such as
ethane, propane, and butane, and heavy liquids such as naphtha and gas oil. The LPG's are produced
in refineries or extracted at gas processing plants; the heavy liquids are refinery products.

Since Texas is the nation's largest producer of natural gas and crude petroleum, it is not
surprising that 22 percent of the nation's refining capacity and 17 percent by number of the
nation's petrochemical plants are located in coastal counties (International Petroleum Encyclopedia,
1976). Figure 29 compares Texas' capacities for production of major basic chemicals with total U.S.
capacities and reveals that, with the exception of ammonia, at least 40 percent of production
capacity for each product is in Texas. Refineries and petrochemical plants on the Texas Coast are
listed in Appendix B.

In addition to the feedstocks listed above, raw materials for the petrochemical industry also
include the products of other petrochemical firms. Complementary linkages among petrochemical
firms give rise to substantial transfer economies or economies of agglomeration, resulting in cost
reductions to the firms. A firm locating in the study area would thus benefit not only from the con-
centration of the petrochemical industry along the Texas Gulf coast, but also from a close associa-
tion with industries in an industrial complex.

In short, selection of an inland canal site in the study area would satisfy the need of the
petrochemical and refining industries to be near input and output markets. In addition, such a site
would provide maximum transportation flexibility, as feedstocks and products could move by pipe-
line, rail, or truck in addition to barge.

Figure 29
Basic Chemical Capacity, 1975
MM Lbs/Yr.

Texas Continental U.S. Texas as a
Product Capacity Capacity Percentage of U.S.

Ethylene 15,310 24,895 61%
Propylene 6,235 13,510 46%
Butadiene 3,295 3,965 83%
Acetic Acid 1,140 1,140 100%
Butyl Rubber 180 385 47%
Polybutene 280 460 61%
Butyl Alcohol 192 459 42%
Benzene 3,859 7,674 50%
Toluene 5,009 7,180 70%
Xylenes 3,123 4,191 75%
Carbon Black 1,865 4,223 44%
Ammonia 6,867 37,566 18%
Methanol 5,350 8,354 64%
TOTAL 52,705 114,002 46%

Source: Texas/Louisiana Petrochemicals, prepared for the Petrochemical Energy Group
(Houston: Groppe and Long, June, 1975).

Figure 30
Energy Used by U.S. Petrochemical and Petroleum Refining Industries for
Heat and Power, 19741

Petrochemical2 Petroleum Refining
Percent Percent
All of All of All
Energy Industries Quantity Industries Quantity Industries

Purchased Fuels
(BKWh Equivalent) 3,307.6 491.4 14.9 409.2 12.4
Fuel Oil (MMB) 285.1 12.9 4.5 D D
Coal (MM Short Tons) 47.8 6.93 14.43 0.3 0.6
Coke (MM Short Tons) 14.7 0.0 -- D D
Natural Gas (TCF) 6.3 1.13 17.53 1.1 17.5
Electric Power (BKWh) 696.2 54.8 7.9 D D
Purchased 616.8 43.4 7.1 25.8 4.2
Generated Less Sold 79.4 11.4 14.4 D D
Total Purchased
Energy Consumption
(BKWh Equivalent) 3,924.4 534.8 13.6 435.0 11.1
Total Energy
Consumption
(BKWh Equivalent) 4,003.8 546.2 13.6 D D

1. D = not revealed because of disclosure regulations.
2. Petrochemical industry is defined as comprising these 4-digit SIC groupings: 2821, 2822, 2824, 2865, 2869,
2873, 2895.
3. Represents a minimum value, since data for one or two sectors were not revealed because of disclosure regulations.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures, 1974, Fuels and Electric Energy Consumed,
Series M74 (AS)-4.2 (Washington, D.C. Department of Commerce, 1976).

.Energy. Both the petrochemical and refining industries are extensive energy users, account-
ing for about a quarter of total usage for heat and power of purchased energy by U.S. industry in
1974. As shown in Figure 30, fuel oil, natural gas, and electricity are the major energy forms
utilized.

Nationwide, the petrochemical industry purchased about 80 percent of the electricity it
consumed (the other 20 percent being generated by the industry). Because of disclosure regulations,
the percentage of electricity purchased by the refining industry cannot be discerned from Figure 30.
However, it also has been estimated at 80 percent (Nelson, 1976a).

Of the fuels and feedstocks required by the industry, natural gas supplies are becoming in-
creasingly critical nationwide. Because most natural gas in Texas is sold on the intrastate market,
however, this fuel is generally available in the state, although at higher prices than gas sold on the
interstate market.

Industry sources reveal that sufficient electric power should be available to meet the needs
of a refinery-petrochemical complex. This will be especially true when the South Texas Nuclear
Plant becomes operational in 1980.

Water. The chemical and refining industries are heavy users of water, accounting for about
72 percent of the total industrial water intake in Texas in 1973 (see Figure 31). Although the water
intake of these industries is substantial, the water composition must also be considered. The chemi-
cal industry's water intake in 1973 was 17 percent fresh, 12 percent brackish, and 71 percent salt
water. The proportions of the water intake consumed (as opposed to throughput) by the two indus-
tries were about 5 to 17 percent, respectively.

The various uses of water by the industries are shown in Figure 32. The major use in Texas
and in the U.S. by the petrochemical and refining industries is for cooling and condensing.

Figure 31
Water Consumption by Industry in Texas, 1973
(Billion Gallons)1

SIC 282 SIC 292
All Texas Chemicals and Petroleum
Industries Allied Products Refining

Gross Water Used3 1 2,004.9 3,270.4 6,673.1
Total Water Intake 1,669.8 930.1 272.6
Fresh Water 478.7 161.7 D
Brackish Water 282.3 112.2 157.8
Salt Water 908.8 656.2 D
Water Intake Discharged 1,554.4 879.3 225.6
Water Intake Consumed 115.4 50.8 47.0

1 . Data are for firms reporting consumption of 20 million gallons or more.
D = not reported because of disclosure regulations.
2. Data are given for 2-digit SIC codes in this figure because much of the information by 4-digit SIC codes is
not available due to disclosure restrictions.
3. Represents the estimated quantity of water that would have been required if no water not been recirculated
or reused. Thus it is higher than total water intake.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972 Census of Manufactures, Special Report Series: Water Use in Manufacturing,
MC 72(SR-4) (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1975).

Figure 32
Water Intake by Purpose and Kind, United States and Texas, 1973
(Billion Gallons)

SIC 282 SIC 292
All Industries Chemicals and Allied Products Petroleum Refining
Fresh Brackish Salt Fresh Brackish Salt Fresh Brackish Salt

Texas

Process 152.7 17.7 D 36.9 D 0.1 D D D

Cooling and Condensing 233.5 219.23 309.93 80.93 88.93 D D 129.33 D

Sanitary Service 10.7 D 0 4.1 0 0 D D 0

Boiler Feed and Other 81.7 3.4 1.2 31.9 0 D D D D

Total 478.7 282.3 908.8 161.7 112.2 656.2 D 157.8 D
VJI

United States

Process 3,772.4 68.7 109.5 365.7 25.8 D 45.7 D D

Cooling and Condensing 7,602.4 1,308.3 1,313.8 2,382.9 444.6 746.1 427.33 D 178.33

Sanitary Service 206.6 1.0 0.1 27.1 0 0 D D 0

Boiler Feed and Other 610.0 17.5 10.3 150.7 0.9 D 116.1 D D

Total 12,194.9 1,395.6 1,433.8 2,926.6 471.3 778.4 639.3 462.7 180.6

1. D = not reported because of disclosure regulations. Totals do not add because of incomplete reporting.
2. Data given for 2-digit SIC codes in this figure because much of the information by 4-digit SIC codes is not available due to disclosure restrictions.
3. Part of the data is not reported because of disclosure regulations. Thus, this figure represents minimum water usage.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972 Census of Manufactures, Special Report Series: Water Use in Manufacturing, MC 72 (SR-4) (Washington, D.C.: GPO,1975).

.The primary available surface water source in Brazoria County would be the Brazos River.
The Brazos River has one of the largest drainage basins in the state with one of the highest flow
rates, averaging one million acre-feet in the spring and 210,000 acre-feet in the summer. Of all the
river basins in the area, this one has the highest water availability. Three reservoirs totalling 50.4
thousand acre-feet capacity are located in the county. Dow Chemical Company operates William
Harris and Brazoria Reservoirs which are off-channel diversions from the Brazos River. Within 100
miles of the study area are four existing major reservoirs, having a combined dependable yield of
190,000 acre-feet per year and an unsold yield of 18,000 acre-feet per year. A proposed reservoir
on the Navasota River would provide 120,000 unsold acre-feet per year and a 105,000 acre-feet
dependable yield per year.

The Gulf Coastal Aquifer is the major groundwater source in the Texas coastal region.
Yearly groundwater deficits, as averaged recharge minus withdrawal over large areas, are 60,000
acre-feet in the Brazos-Colorado River Basin, and 50,000 acre-feet in the San Jacinto-Brazos River
Basin. The coastal segment of the Brazos River Basin has a current groundwater surplus of about
3 0,000 acre-feet per year (Rice Center for Community Design and Research, 1976).

Groundwater resources within Brazoria County are fully developed towards the coast.
Farther inland groundwater resources may still be developed. Two aquifers comprise the Gulf
Coastal Aquifer in the study area, the Evangeline aquifer and lower and upper units of the Chicot
aquifer. The Evangeline aquifer may supply fresh water to large capacity wells at 1,000 gpm
(gallons per minute). The lower Chicot is capable of yielding 1,000 to 3,000 gpm fresh water, 10O's
gpm slightly saline water, and 3,000 gpm saline water, depending upon the exact area. Where sand
thickness in the upper Chicot exceeds 100 feet, along the Brazos River and between Freeport and
Manvel, wells may yield freshwater at 1,000 to 3,000 gpm (Sandeen and Wessleman, 1973). In
1974, 16.6 thousand acre-feet were withdrawn for irrigation, 11.7 thousand acre-feet for municipal
supply, and 1 1 thousand acre-feet for industrial use (Texas Water Development Board, 1976).

It may be concluded that groundwater is not a viable sole source of most of the postulated
industries' water requirements in the Brazosport area. The bases for this conclusion include the
manifestation of excessive withdrawal by land subsidence around Freeport, recharge deficits in the
coastal areas near Brazosport away from the recharge potential of the Brazos River, and the
potential for increased subsidence and salt water encroachment.

Groundwater well fields could be developed to the north of the Brazosport area, avoiding
depleted aquifer conditions around Houston and in the Jackson-Matagorda County area. Such
development's cost would include, however, the construction and operation of a major pipeline to
transfer the water to the Brazosport area. A combination of surface water and groundwater supplies
will be required to meet industrial requirements.

Labor. The EDA survey of location determinants provides an idea of the number of persons
employed in fully operational chemical and refining plants. Of the firms surveyed, 75 percent of the
chemical firms and 83 percent of the refining firms indicated that employment would equal 100 or
more (see Figure 3 3). Average 1974 plant employment in Texas for the petrochemical and refining
industries was 286 and 406, respectively. it should be noted that those firms producing industrial
organic chemicals (SIC 2869) employ more workers than other firms in the petrochemical industry,
averaging 411 per plant (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1977).

Because of the concentration of the industries in the Texas coastal region, a pool of refinery
and chemical plant workers already exists in Brazoria County. In December, 1975, for example, the
chemical industry in the county employed 8,472 persons and the refining industry employed 635
persons. The county unemployment rate in April, 1977, was 4.5 percent. Of the 1970 county popu-
lation aged 25 years or older, 22 percent had attended college and 75 percent had attended high
school.

Figure 33
Expected Employment at Fully
Operational Plants1

Percent Responding
SIC 282
Chemicals and SIC 293
Employment Allied Products Petroleum Refining
Less than I100 25% 17%
100 -249 39% 33%
250 -499 21% 50%
500 or more 20% 0%
No. of Respondents 56 6

1 . The survey used the SIC classification system in effect before
1972.
2. Consists of the following 3-digit SIC codes: 281 (industrial
Inorganic and Organic Chemicals), 282 (Plastic Materials), and
287 (Agricultural Chemicals).
3. SIC 291 1, Petroleum Refining.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development
Agency, Industrial Location Determinants, 1971-1975,
Section 1 (Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce,
February, 1973).

Although the existence of a labor force with experience in an industry is a positive point in
most location decision, the lack of such force is not necessarily a constraint. Labor is the most
mobile resource. Consequently, even if a trained labor force is lacking in an area, a firm may locate
in the region with the expectation that labor will be attracted to the area by the job opportunities
provided by the plant.

Land. Compared to other sectors, the chemical and refining industries require rather large
tracts of land. In the EDA survey of plant characteristics, 48 percent and 57 percent of the firms in
the chemical and refining industries, respectively, reported preferences for plant sites in excess of
100 acres. The postulated study site has sufficient large undeveloped tracts of land to accommodate
both types of plants.

Other Possible Industrial Sectors
As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, the purpose of the industry selection process
was to identify some industries which could reasonably be expected to locate along a barge canal; it
was not to predict future industrial development in the study area. The sectors chosen are obviously
not the only industries which might be attracted to the study site or adjoining areas along the canal.
The possibility that sectors other than those postulated in this study would utilize a barge canal
should be kept in mind if such a project were actually undertaken.

One such additional sector might be the fabricated structural metal products industry, espe-
cially firms producing fabricated structural steel products (SIC 3441) and fabricated platework-
boiler shops (SIC 3443). Of the firms in these sectors responding to the EDA survey of location
determinants, 18 and 31 percent, respectively, indicated that the availability of water transportation
was of critical or significant to average value. However, as seen in Figure 28, these sectors only
account for a small proportion of total water-way use in Texas.

The location factors considered by the metal-machine tools and parts fabrication industries,
ranked in order of importance, are (Wright and Matthews, 1971):

1. Near product markets
2. Good transportation
3. Unskilled labor supply
4. Skilled labor supply
5. Land availability

Plants in these industry segments tend to be smaller than plants in the petrochemical and re-
fining sectors and require considerably less energy, water, labor, and land. The energy forms used
for heat and power are primarily fuel oil, natural gas, and electricity. In 1974, firms with SIC codes
3441 and 3443 consumed 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 percent of total U.S. industrial heating and power usage
of fuel oil, natural gas, and electricity, respectively. Annual water intake is generally less than 20
million gallons and plant sites are rarely in excess of 100 acres (EDA, 1973). These industries' aver-
age plant employment in Texas in 1974 was 71.

Other sectors which might be expected to locate at the study site would include petrochemi-
cal and refinery service and supply firms such as equipment sales, construction contractors, and
pipe fitting; barge service facilities; and chemical sectors utilizing petrochemical outputs, such as
plastics, pharmaceuticals and fibers.
Summary of Industry Selection
An analysis of studies of location determinants, waterborne traffic in and near the study
area, and commodity flows along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway identified in petrochemical and
petroleum refining industries as among those which utilize water transportation in general and barge
transportation in particular. Other location determinants of these industries were discussed and the
capability of Brazoria County to meet the other locational objectives was assessed. There seem to
be no locational constraints to the industries locating in the study area. Thus, it is postulated in this
study that firms in the petrochemical and refining sectors can locate in the study site. Other possi-
ble industries include the fabricated structural metal products sectors, chemical sectors and service
and supply firms.
Specific Requirements of a
Refinery - Petrochemical Complex
Firms in the petrochemical and refining sectors were considered in the previous section as
likely to locate the study site. A typical complex of such firms would consist of a refinery to pro-
vide petrochemical feedstock and a billion pound-per-year olefins plant with associated production
facilities and the appropriate downstream derivative and polymer production plants (Shell Oil Com-
pany, n.d.). The petrochemical portion would produce the basic organic chemicals and key deriva-
tives which are usually manufactured close to feedstock sources and would be representative of
expected future development in the petrochemical industry.

The development of petrochemical/refinery complexes will be caused in part by an antici-
pated shift in feedstocks to naphtha and gas because of the increasing price and diminishing supply
of natural gas liquids. Although the change in feedstocks will increase the linkages between petro-
chemical plants and refineries in any case, both sectors would benefit from close relationships
(National Petroleum Council, 1973a).

To the refiner, the integrated complex offers an attractive disposal alternative for
low quality gasoline streams and the olefins plant serves as a partial conversion unit
in that gas oil can be converted to highly aromatic gasoline and to olefins for poten-
tial alkylation feed. On the other hand, the complex provides the petrochemical pro-
ducer with an assured feedstock supply and a convenient and attractive means for
disposal of energy products form the olefins plants.

Two types of refineries might locate at the site. The first, a "chemical refiner," would pro-
cess crude oil "for the production of olefins and aromatics with no net production of energy pro-

Figure 34

Representative Petrochemical Complext

45,000 BPD of 19M
Ortho-xylene*------~ Sale
full range naptha, G Y
with returns to 10M
refinery of 14,000 Toluene -G - Sale
BPD 85M
Xylenes --GP Sale 12M
Sale -GPY SEthylbenzene I
(AROMATICS) Y S2M
,_p'yclohexanone
200M 36M GPY _ 330hG
Benzene -rStyrene Monomer lbs/yr

92M lbs yr

1000M 100M I I 90M
Ethylene +-o -_ Polyethylene I .
lbs/yr lbs/yr Ilbs/yr

-~ B-(OLEFINS)
OLFINS 133M Ethylene Oxide/ 200M
lbs/yr * Glycol lbs/yr

|I |281M Vinyl Chloride 500M
lbs/yr Monomer lbs/yr
95M lbs/yr
Acetone
I Sale Phenol 150M lbs/yr
25M GPY
560M -- __ lbs/yr
Propylenel 65M
lDs/yr - I I lbs/yr -

, | 80M! I 70M
(Supplemental propylene olypropylene bs/yr
available from refinery
in an integrated refin- 90M lOOM
ery/petrochemical crylonitr le
complex) bs/yr crylonitrile nlbs/yr

N -- _ 255M j 245M
lbs/ xo Alcohols bs/yr

150 G
Butadiene./ lbs/yr' Sale
Butylenes _ 43M Sale
lbs/yr W

1. Relatively low severity process/high return process with a gross
feedstock to ethylene ratio of 4.5.

Source: Resource Planning Associates, Inc. OCS Oil and Gas - An Environmental
Assessment, Vol. 4, prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality
(Washington, D.C.: GPO, April, 1974), p. IV-7.

ducts excepting residual fuel." (NPC, 1973a). These are not as economically attractive, however,
as the second type of refinery--an integrated facility producing a wide range of products.

The initial capacity of new refineries is expected to average between 200,000 to 300,000
barrels per day (BID) (A. D. Little, Inc., 1973). Thus, this study assumes that the refinery will be
an integrated facility with an initial capacity of 250,000 BID. Its product mix will include naphtha
and/or gas oil which will be used as feedstock by the olefins plant.

The petrochemical portion of the site will center around the one billion pound per year ole-
fins production facility, a standard-sized olefins plant of today. The particular complex of plants
assumed in this study to be located at the site is presented in Figure 34. The combination is repre-
sentative of the types which might cluster around a large olefins plant. Thus, the specific plants are
to be considered as typical of those which might locate in a refinery/petrochemical complex rather
than predictive of actual development of the site.

In the discussion which follows, historic and projected relationships between outputs and in-
puts are used to determine the specific land, labor, water, and energy requirements of the two
industries. A complete summary of these requirements is provided in Figure 3 5. The use of historic
relationships assumes, of course, that these relationships will continue into the future. Major
changes in the relative resource prices or technology would affect optimal input combinations and
thus specific input requirements. The suitability of the site with respect to these changes depends
on the substitutability of inputs; a conversion to coal as an energy source and/or feedstock, for in-
stance, would be complimented by a location with inland waterway access.

Figure 35
Requirements of Postulated
Refinery and Petrochemical Complex

Petrochemical
Refinery Complex
Employment 870 1930
Land (acres) 1 500 acres 400 acres
Electric Power
(KWd/h) 653,000 2,400,000
Water Intake
(mgd) 22.9 100.3-112.6

Refinery Requirements
Labor. Both the size and composition of the labor force may vary with the capacity and
complexity of a refinery, where complexity in this sense is an index value measuring how compli-
cated a refinery is vis-a-vis one with only a crude distillation unit (i.e. a refinery with a complexity
of 9 is 9 times more complicated than one that conducts only crude distillation), The relationship
between manpower (M), complexity (C), and capacity in barrels per day (B) has been estimated as
follows (Nelson, 1974).

M = 28.5 + 27.6C - 0.77C2 + O.000354CB

Applying this formula to the hypothesized refinery with complexity of 9 (the average com-
plexity of U.S. refineries as reported by Nelson, 1976b) and capacity of 250,000 B/D yields esti-
mated total manpower requirements of approximately 1,010.

In addition to deriving total manpower requirements, Nelson has estimated the skill level of
workers for a Gulf Coast refinery. Skills are divided into five classes and are presented with the per-
centage of employment in each class in Figure 36.

Figure 36
Classification of Employment
In a Gulf Coast Refinery
(Percent of Total Employment)

Size of Refinery
Type of Worker Small Average Largest
Administrative 7% 5% 3%
Technical 8% 11% 8%
Operations 38% 26% 16%
Maintenance 37% 46% 59%
Others 10% 12% 14%
100% 100% 100%
Source: Oil and Gas Journal, 16 December, 1974, p. 70.

In general, the industrial trend is toward larger refineries, suggesting that in the future, fewer
operations and maintenance personnel will be required per barrel of output. However, these
employees will require a new and higher level of skills (NPC, 1973b).

Estimations of a variety of industry requirements have been compiled from industry sources
by Nelson and reported in the Oil and Gas Journal since 1958. His formula is used as a basis for
estimating employment requirements. Assuming annual productivity increases of three percent,
total employment at the postulated refinery in 1980 would be approximately 870. Of these, 226
would be operators, 400 would be maintenance workers, and the remainder would be divided
between administrative, technical, and other positions.

Land. As with labor, land requirements vary with both the capacity and complexity of the
refining operation. Nelson (1972) has estimated that about 26 acres per 10,000 B/D capacity would
be used for buildings and processing units for a refinery of complexity 9. This compares with his-
torical land use of 175 acres for each 10,00 B/D capacity, comprised of 22 acres for buildings and
processing units, 13 acres for a buffer zone and 140 acres for further expansion (Nelson, 1972).

The ADL study derived the relationship between acreage and refinery capacity shown in
Figure 37. Direct requirements are indicated by the dashed line. A 250,000 B/D refinery would re-
quire 850 acres. The study noted, however, that a "conservative rule of thumb" would be to at
least double the direct requirements in determining the proper amount of land to be purchased.
Thus, total land purchased for a 250,000 B/D refinery would approximate 1,700 acres.

Other studies have estimated slightly smaller sized tracts. The most recent analysis, done by
the New England River Basins Commission (1976), determined that "a new domestic refinery in the
250,000 B/D range is likely to require on the order of 1,000 to 1,500 acres of clear, flat industrially
zoned land." Another study estimated that 1,200 to 1,400 acres would be required for a 200,000
B/D refinery, allowing sufficient land for future expansion to 400,000 B/D (Research Planning
Associates, Inc., 1974).

In this study, it is estimated that 1,500 acres would be required for a 250,000 B/D refinery,
assuming that 26 acres would be used for building and processing units, and 13 acres for buffer
zones for each 10,000 B/D of crude capacity. This would allow sufficient acreage for direct refinery
operations, crude oil and product storage, waste treatment, and administrative facilities, and still
provide space for expansion to 400,000 B/D.

Energy. The refining industry is among the heaviest users of energy in the U.S. Net energy
consumption for refineries, however, has declined over time, as demonstrated in Figure 38. As the

Figure 37

Estimated Acreage Requirements
By Refineries

500

400 ...........

~~~~~~~~~~. -..( .......
>, 300 -AxqG f

e~~~s C~~~t~~~ (Port Arthur)
.200

Tenneco
100 (Chalmet.~] P(Port Arthur)

*~p:~~(Beicia)
Texas City Ref. (Texas City)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I I! I IIIIIIII I IIIII
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22

Hundreds of Acres Used

Source: Arthur 0. Little, Inc., Potential Onshore Effects of'Deepwater oil Terminal - Related
Industrial Development, Vol. IV, NTIS PB 224-021, September, 1973.

Figure 38
Net Energyl Constumption of Average U.S. Refineries
(Percentage of Crude Oil)2

Complexity
Year 3 5 7 9 11 13

1930 6.15 10.2 14.4
1950 5.8 9.6 13.5 16.3 --
1955 5.2 8.75 12.2 15.75 19.3 22.8
1960 4.8 7.95 11.15 14.4 17.6 20.8
1965 4.4 7.4 10.4 13.4 16.4 19.3
1970 3.9 6.5 9.1 11.7 14.4 17.0
1973 3.4 5.65 8.0 10.25 12.55 14.8
1975 est. 2.8 4.8 6.65 8.6 10.5 12.4

1. Fuel, catalytic coke, gases, purchased steam, and purchased power less steam on power sold.
2. Energies converted to BTU/bbl divided by 6,300,000 BTU/bbl fuel. The barrels of fuel oil are stated as percentage
of crude oil. Five-year averages around dates shown, except for the years 1973 and 1975. New refineries (under
6 years old) use about 10 percent less than average refineries.

Source: Oil and Gas Journal, 17 March 1975.

cost of fuel has increased, refineries have been willing to invest to save fuel. Nelson (1975) suggests,
however, that the industry is approaching a limit to further reduction of energy consumption using
the present technology.

The total power required per barrel of output has been estimated by Nelson (1976a) accord-
ing to the following formula:

Total power per barrel = 0.2 + 0.3 Complexity

These total power requirements include power needed for water treatment, water pumping, tank
farms, transfer pumping and other offsite activities in addition to power required to process each
barrel of crude throughput. Thus, a refinery of 250,000 B/D capacity would requie 653,000 KWH
per day, assuming that crude throughput was equal to 90 percent of capacity.

Water. Industry water requirements vary by quantity, by quality, and by use. The uses of
water by a refinery include processing, power, cooling, boiler feedwater, and sanitation and other
services related to employees. Water utilized in processing is either incorporated into the final
product or used in the cleaning and conveyance of inputs. The use of water for power generation
includes in-plant generation of energy such as steam. Cooling water is associated with furnace cool-
ing and air conditioning.

Total industrial water requirements are generally estimated by examining the relationships
between water intake and a standard unit such as value added, number of employees, or volume of
output. In 1973, the yearly water intake of Texas refineries averaged 38.6 gallons per dollar of value
shipped and 9.4 million gallons per employee.

As Figure 39 shows, differences in these relationships exist between Texas and U.S. For in-
stance, water use per employee for the U.S. refining industry other than in Texas is 45 percent
higher than in Texas. Substantial variation exists within the refinery industry concerning gross water
used, net water used, total water intake, and composition of water intake and discharge. The
quantity and quality of water used in any production process is particularly variable. According to

Figure 39
Water Intake, Value Added,
and Employment in the Refining
Industry in Texas and the
U.S., 19731

U.S. Excluding
Texas Texas

Water Intake
(Billion gallons) 272.6 1,009.9

Value Added
($ Million) 1,300.9 3,017.6

Employment
(1,000) 29.1 74.1

Gallon of Water
Intake Per Dollar
of Value Added 209.5 334.7

Water Intake
(Million gallons)
Per Employee 9.4 13.6
1. Data is only for firms which reported water consumption of 20
million gallons or more.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972 Census of Manufactures,
Special Report Series: Water Use in Manufacturing, MC
72(SR-4) (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1975).

Bowers (1966), water use in the petroleum industry will vary for any particular plant and plant site
even within the same area and with similar production mixes.

In estimating water requirements for the proposed refinery, U.S. Bureau Census data
(1975a) was used, as this reflects the most current usage rates by the refining industry in Texas.
Assuming an intake rate of 9.4 million gallons per employee per year and employment of 870, the
refinery would use 8.4 billion gallons of water per year, or 22.9 million gallons per day (mgd).

This is slightly higher than the range of water requirements estimated by other studies, a
result which can be partially explained by the higher employment level assumed in this study and
the fact that current usage rates reflect some older, less efficient plants. Resource Planning Associ-
ates (RPA, 1974), in comparison, estimated that four mgd would be required per 10,000 B/D of
capacity. Thus, a 250,000 B/D refinery would require 10 mgd. On the other hand, A. D. Little
(1975) postulated that a 250,000 B/D refinery would require 20.9 mgd.

According to the National Petroleum Council (1973b), water use per barrel of crude
throughput has decreased substantially over the last two decades.

In the early 1950's refineries typically used 350 gallons of water per barrel of crude
intake; by 1960 this figure had dropped to 175 gallons per barrel; today some re-
fineries have a water usage of less than 40 gallons per barrel of crude intake.

This compares with a usage in the hypothesized refinery of 102 gallons per barrel of crude through-
put, assuming operations at 90 percent of capacity.

Petrochemical Requirements
Labor. A common approach to estimating typical manpower requirements of a petrochemi-
cal complex is based on the relationship between employment and value of output. In this process,
employment is the product of number of workers per value of output times expected sales of the
petrochemical complex.

Employment per million dollars of shipments in the chemical industry in Texas in 1973 was
8.5, compared to a national ratio of 13.8 (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1975b). This indicates that opera-
tions in Texas are less labor-intensive than in the nation as a whole.

Annual sales of the postulated petrochemical complex are estimated at $341 million (1973
dollars), as shown in Figure 40. The employment to value of shipment ratio utilized in this study
represents the 1973 employment per million dollars of sales for firms in the plastics materials (SIC
282) and industrial organic chemicals (SIC 286) sectors in Texas (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1976).
These sectors were chosen because the outputs of the postulated complex are normally produced by
firms in these sectors. The resulting ratio of seven was applied to estimated sales, giving estimated
employment in the complex of 2,390 at 1973 productivity levels. Required employment would de-
crease to 1,930 in 1980, assuming annual productivity increases of approximately three percent.

Figure 40
Sales Value of Representative Complex1

Annual Average 1973 1973
Output Price Per Unit Sales Value
Product (Millions) (Cents) ($ Millions)

1. Orthoxylene 20 gal. 36 7.2
2. Toluene 10 gal. 22 2.2
3. Xylenes 85 gal. 20.5 17.4
4. Benzene 200 gal. 29.2 58.4
5. Cyclohexane 30 gal. 46.92 14.1
6. Ethyl benzene 12 gal. 33.53 4.0
7. Styrene 380 lbs. 16 60.8
8. Ethylene 1,000 lbs. 3 30.0
9. Polyethylene 901 lbs. 14 12.6
10. Ethylene glycol 200 lbs. 7 14.0
11. Vinylchloride monomer 500 lbs. 4 20.0
12. Propylene 560 lbs. 2.8 15.7
13. Cumene 275 lbs. 10 4 27.5
14. Phenol 150 lbs. 8 12.0
15. Polypropylene 70 lbs. 17 11.9
16. Acrylonitrile 100 lbs. 11 11.0
17. Oxo alcohols 245 lbs. 6 14.7
18. Butadiene 150 lbs. 27 4.1
19. Butylenes 40 lbs. 9 3.6
$341.2
1. Source for all products except Cumene and Butylene was Baumgartner, man. ed, Predicasts'
Basebook, 1976.
2. Assumes a conversion factor of 6.7 lbs/gal.
3. Source was U.S. International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals, U.S. Produc-
tion and Sales of Cyclic Intermediates, 1974 preliminary.
4. Source was U.S. International Trade Commission, Synethic Organic Chemicals, U.S. Produc-
tion and Sales of Crude Products from Petroleum and Natural Gas, 1974 preliminary.

The distribution of employment between production and administrative personnel has been
estimated to be in the ratio of 3:2 (Happel, 1975). Thus, the representative complex would employ
about 1, 15 8 production workers and 7 72 administrative workers.

Land. Land requirements for petrochemical complexes are often estimated by considering
the relationships between acreage and employment or acreage and output. Plants in the chemical
industry have an average 9.5 employees per acre (Ide, 1970). Applying this ratio to estimated
employment for the postulated petrochemical complex yields a land requirement of about 203
acres.

A. D. Little (1973) hypothesized that one acre of land would be required per $1.75 million
annual output. Use of this relationship implies a land requirement of 195 acres.

RPA (1 974) estimated that about 3 50 acres would be required for a petrochemical complex
similar to the one postulated in this study. They assume, however, that future land requirements
wi'II increase due to such factors as a need for additional buffer land in response to increased
environmental pressures.

Estimates of acreage requirements derived through the application of Ide's and A. D. Little's
relationships would seem to be conservative in view of current trends toward less intensive use of
land and larger buffer zones. The former ratio in particular does not consider productivity increases,
a result of which is fewer employees per plant, thus fewer employees per acre.

In view of the above, a site of between 300 and 400 acres would seem to provide sufficient
space for production and support activities while allowing for future expansion and adequate buffer
zones.

Energy. As discussed previously in this chapter, the petrochemical industry is a heavy user
of energy, accounting for about 14 percent of total industries purchased energy consumption in the
U.S. in 1974 (see Figure 30).

Electric power requirements for the petrochemical complex were estimated by first deriving
electricity use per employee and then multiplying this ratio by expected employment. As shown in
Figure 41, average use of electricity in the petrochemical industry in Texas equals 0.45 MM KWH
per employee per year. Applying this ratio to the expected employment of 1,930 gives an estimated
electric power requirement of 869 billion KWH per year or 2.4 million KWH per day.

Water. The chemical industry (SIC 28) is a major user of water in Texas, accounting for 56
percent of total industrial water intake. This is in part because it represents a major industrial sector
within the state. A more meaningful picture of water use is provided by Figure 42, which presents
water intake per employee and per dollar of value added for the Texas and U.S. chemical industry.

Water intake per employee by Texas industry as a whole is more than triple that of industry
as a whole in the rest of the nation and this differential is maintained within the chemical industry.
The chemical industry in Texas used 21.3 million gallons per employee in 1973 as compared with
6.3 million gallons per employee by the industry in the rest of the nation.

Two techniques are available for determining water intake requirements. The first was
developed by Marshall (1973) in his studies of the relationship between employment and fresh
water intake in million gallons per day (mgd) for various industries in Texas. He determined that the
following relationship existed for firms in the chemical industry (SIC 28):

Water Intake (mgd) = 0.038 + 0.009 Employment

Since employment in the hypothesized petrochemical complex is estimated to be 1,930,

Figure 41
Electric Power Use By
The Texas Petrochemical Industry, 1974

Employment in Texas Petrochemical Industry1 . ........ 38,689

Electric Energy Used By Texas Petrochemical
Industry2 (Million Kwh) ........................17,329.3

Purchased ................................ 11,814.2

Generated Less Sold .......................... 5,515.1

Use of Purchased Electricity (Million KWh)
Per Employee Per Year3 ........................ 0.31

Total Use of Electricity (Million KWh)
Per Employee Per Year4 ........................ 0.45

1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns, 1974 (Washing-
ton, D.C.: GPO, 1977). Data is provided for SIC's 282 and 286.
2. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Fuels and Electric Energy Consumed,
Annual Survey of Manufactures, 1974 (Washington, D.C.: Department
of Commerce). Data is provided for SIC's 282 and 286.
3. Purchased electricity divided by employment.
4. Total electric energy used divided by employment.

Figure 42
Water Intake, Value Added,
And Employment in the Chemical
Industryi in Texas and the U.S., 19732

Texas U.S. Excluding Texas
Chemical All Chemical All
Industry Industries Industry Industries

Water Intake
(Billion gallons) 930.1 1,669.8 3,246.1 13,354.5
Value Added
($ Million) 2,719.1 8,283.8 20,198.3 164,476.5
Employment
(1,000) 43.6 258.4 499.7 6,824.6
Gallon of Water Intake
Per Dollar of Value Added 342 202 161 82
Water Intake (Million gallons)
Per Employee 21.3 6.5 6.5 2.0

1. SIC 28.
2. Data is only for firms which reported water consumption of 20 million gallons or more.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972 Census of Manufactures, Special Report Series: Water Use
in Manufacturing, MC 72(SR-4) (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1975).

fresh water requirements would equal about 17.3 mgd. Applying the 1973 total water intake to the
fresh water intake ratio of 5.8 gives an estimate of total water required of about 100.3 mgd.

The second estimation technique is based on the ratio of total water intake to employment,
equal to 21.3 million gallons per employee per year in 1973. This ratio, multiplied by employment
in the complex, result in a daily water requirement of approximately 112.6 mgd.

Thus, daily water intake is expected to range between 101 and 113 mgd. Using the 1972
water composition rates from the U.S. Bureau of Census (1975a), water intake would be comprised
of about 17 percent fresh water, 12 percent brackish water, and 71 percent salt water. The resulting
water intake requirements are:

Total Water Intake 100.3- 112.6 mgd
Fresh 17.1- 19.1 mgd
Brackish 12.0- 13.5 mgd
Salt 71.2- 80.0 mgd
Summary
The estimated total requirements for the postulated refinery and petrochemical complex are
summarized in Figure 35. A comparison to the study area indicates that labor, land, and energy
would not constrain industrial development. Fresh water is more limited in availability but initial
requirements could be provided by a combined groundwater and surface water supply.

Industrial Location Analysis References
Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1973. Potential Offshore Effects of Deepwater Oil Terminal-Related Indus-
trial Development, Volum IV, NTIS PS 224 021, September, 1973.

-----. 1975. Petroleum Development in New England, Volume II. Energy Program Technical
Report 75-6, prepared for the New England Regional Commission.

Baumgartner, R. (ed.). 1976. Predicasts' Basebook. Cleveland, Ohio: Predicasts, Inc.

Bower, B. T. 1966. "The Economics of Industrial Water Utilization" Water Research. Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins Press.

Happel, J. and D. G. Jordon. 1975. Chemical Process Economics, 2nd edition. New York: Marcel
Dekker, Inc.

Hunker, H. L. 1974. Industrial Development. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

Ide, E. A. 1970. Estimating Land and Floor Area Implicit in Employment Projections. Prepared
for the Federal Highway Administration, July, 1970.

International Petroleum Encyclopedia. 1976. Tulsa, Oklahoma: The Petroleum Publishing Co.

Kearney, A. T., Inc. 1974. Domestic Waterborne Shipping Market Analysis. Prepared for the Mari-
time Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Kinnard, W. N. and S. D. Messner. 1971. Industrial Real Estate, 2nd edition. Washington, D.C.:
Society of Industrial Realtors.

Marshall, J. L. 1973. Industrial Water Use in the Texas Coastal Zone. Technical Report EHE-73-
03, CRWR-101. Center for Research in Water Resources. Austin: University of Texas at
Austin.

McGregor, John R. 1970. "Water as a Factor in the Location of Industry in the Southeast" South-
eastern Geographer, Vol. X, No. 1, pp. 41-54.

National Petroleum Council. 1973a. Factors Affecting U.S. Petroleum Refining: Impact of New
Technology. National Petroleum Council, Committee on Factors Affecting U.S. Petroleum
Refining, September, 1973.

�----. --1973b. Factors Affecting U.S. Petroleum Refining. Prepared by NPC's Committee on
Factors Affecting U.S. Petroleum Refining.

Nelson, W. L. 1972. "How Much Land Investment Needed for Grass Roots Refineries." Oil and Gas
Journal. December 4, 1972, pp. 56-57.

�----. --1974. "Manpower and Labor Costs." Oil and Gas Journal. December 16, 1974. pp.
70-72.

-----. 1975. "Energy Consumption Declines." Oil and Gas Journal. March 17, 1975. p. 132.

-----. 1976a. "Unit Utility Requirements." Oil and Gas Journal. June 14, 1976. p. 73.

-----. 1976b. "How to Apply Complexity." Oil and Gas Journal. September 27, 1976. pp.
83-84.

New England River Basins Commission. 1976. Onshore Facilities Related to Offshore Oil and Gas
Development, Factbook. Boston, Mass.: New England River Basins Commission.

Resource Planning Associates, Inc. 1974. OCS Oil and Gas-An Environmental Assessment, Volume
4. Prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality. Washington, D.C.: GPO, p. IV-7.

Rice Center for Community Design and Research. 1976. Texas Gulf Coast Program-Research Re-
port 1. 3 volumes. Rice Center for Community Design and Research, Houston, Texas.

Sandeen, W. M. and J. B. Wesselman. 1973. Ground Water Resources of Brazoria County, Texas.
Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the Texas Water
Development Board, Report 163.

Shell Oil Company. No date. The National Energy Problem: Implications for the Petrochemical
Industry. Houston, Texas: Shell Oil Company.

Texas/Louisiana Petrochemicals. 1975. Prepared for the Petrochemical Energy Group. Houston:
Groppe and Long.

Texas Water Development Board, Texas Natural Resource Information Service. 1976. Self-reported,
self-supplied water use by county. Computer file. Data as of 1974.

Townroe, P. M. 1971. Industrial Location Decisions. Center for Urban and Regional Studies, The
University of Birmingham. London: Research Publications Services Ltd.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1975a. 1972 Census of Manufactures, Special Report Series: KWater Use
in Manufacturing, MC 72 (SR-4). Washington, D.C.: GPO.

-----. 1975b. Census of Transportation, 1972, Commodity Transportation Survey-Area Series:
Area Report 6, TC 72C2-6. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

-----. 1976. Annual Survey of Manufactures, 1974, Fuels and Electric Energy Consumed.
Series N74 (AS)-42. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.

-�. -- 1977. County Business Patterns, 1974. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration. 1973. Industrial Location
Determinants 19 72-1975, Section 1. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.

U.S. International Trade Commission. 1974. Synthetic Organic Chemicals. U.S. Production to
Sales of/Crude Products from Petroleum and Natural Gas, preliminary. Washington, D.C.
-�. -- 1974. Synthetic Organic Chemicals. U.S. Production and Sale of Cyclic Intermediates,
preliminary. Washington, D.C.
Whitehorn, Norman C. 1973. Economic Analysis of the Petrochemical Industry in Texas, Texas
A&M University. Sea Grant 7 3-203.

Wright, Arthur L. and Warren T. Matthews. 1971. Industrial Economic Development and Factors
Affecting industrial Location on the Texas Gulf Coast. Industrial Economic Research Divi-
sion, Texas Engineering Experiment Station, Texas A&M University. SG-71-214.

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

The objective of this section is to develop criteria for project layout, design, and construc-
tion. The criteria recognize typical problems associated with development and express these prob-
lems as physical-biological system constraints, natural hazards constraints, and socioeconomic sys-
tem constraints. Engineering alternatives are reviewed which satisfy these constraints as well as the
project requirements. The analysis culminates in a design criteria summary matrix, which is a tool
for evaluating tradeoffs between mutually exclusive design objectives.
Environmental Constraints
Introduction
Environmental constraints express objectives which relate environmental quality to project
design. The most general objective is the minimization of deleterious environmental impact. All
environmental constraints assume the objective.

The general approach to designing this inland canal project incorporates environmental con-
straints from the beginning. The foresight allowed by this approach is instrumental in realizing the
stated objective throughout the project design. However, at this phase of design there is clearly no
a priori' certainty of the impacts to be incurred by an inland canal/industrial site development. The
set of constraints presented in this section are derived from a survey of literature pertaining to
coastal or wetland construction related impacts in general and impacts of inland waterways in
particular (Darnell et al., 1976; Thurow, Toner, and Erley, 1975; Gianno and Wang, 1974; EPA,
1973). The survey provides an array of problems to be expected in designing the inland canal and
industrial site development and operation. This array of problems is the set of impacts to be
minimized, and is expressed as designed constraints.

Certain aspects should be considered in specifying a set of environmental constraints. First,
any project will obviously produce environmental change. Therefore, most constraints are expressed
as minimizations or maximizations; few can be expressed as the absolute 'avoid.' Second, con-
straints apply over different time scales. Activities resulting in direct and immediate effects may be
differently constrained than activities imposing long-term, essentially permanent, effects. Finally,
constraints should reflect all aspects of the environment which may be altered, not solely ecological
or fiscal.

The following section presents three constraint groups; physical and biological systems,
natural hazards, and socioeconomic systems (Figure 43). Each group is discussed in terms of the
bases for concern and the nature of their constraints. These constraints form the basis for evaluat-
ing environmental data elements (see Appendix C) and aid in the selection of a least environmental
impact corridor for the inland canal/industrial site development (see Chapter III-C).

Figure 43
Environmental Constraints

1. PHYSICAL-BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
A. Direct Biological Constraints
1. Minimize disruption of wildlife habitat, migration routes, feeding zones
2. Avoid rare and endangered species habitat and rookeries
3. Minimize disruption of productive bay and estuarine areas
4. Minimize disruption of productive wetland areas
B. Biological Support Constraints
1. Minimize disruption to natural drainage and maximize fresh water inflow to wetlands
and estuaries
2. Minimize erosion and sedimentation
3. Maximize air quality
C. Physical/Chemical Contraints
1. Minimize breaching of groundwater aquilude
2. Minimize disruption of aquifer recharge zones
3. Minimize disruption of riverine systems
4. Maximize biological productivity of inland canal
5. Maximize water quality (canal, surface, and subsurface)

II. NATURAL HAZARDS
A. Minimize Flood Potential
B. Avoid Areas of Active Subsidence
C. Minimize Accelerated Subsidence
D. Avoid Areas of Active Surface Faulting
E. Avoid Areas of Active Shoreline Erosion
F. Preferentially Develop on Stable Substrates

III. SOCIOECONOMIC SYSTEMS
A. Cultural Constraints
1. Minimize disruption of existing and potential human settlement
2. Minimize relocations of railroads and highways and maximize use of existing
access and right-of-way
3. Minimize congestion of existing land transportation
4. Minimize disruption of productive agricultural land
5. Minimize disruption of recreational resources
6. Minimize disruption of archeological and historic resources
7. Minimize disruption of existing and potential extractive resources
8. Minimize visual impact
B. Infrastructural Constraints
1. Minimize overburdening of existing infrastructure
a. water supply and water treatment
b. waste (solid and liquid) treatment and disposal
c. police and fire departments
d. schools, hospitals, parks, and other community facilities
2. Minimize loss to local tax base
3. Minimize out-migration of labor

Physical and Biological Systems
The coastal zone contains many transitions or gradations, such as between habitat types,
substrate properties, and groundwater quality. These spatial changes are in large part due to a
unique interrelationship of the physical processes of the coastal zone, such as the degree of influ-
ence of upland freshwater runoff versus tidal salt-water flooding, continental air masses versus sea
breezes, and fluvial sediment influx versus the actions of marine erosion and transport. Constraints
on coastal projects must be sensitive to the value of resources and to the dynamic intersystem rela-
tionships which often form the basis of those values.

The constraints of the physical and biological systems are divided into three groups, which
are direct biological constraints, biological support constraints, and other physical/chemical con-
straints.

Direct Biological Constraints. One of the most damaging effects of construction in the
coastal zone is the removal of habitats. Direct biological constraints address this problem. Of special
concern are rare and endangered species habitats and productive wetland and estuarine areas. The
bases for concern are that such areas are usually irreplaceable and that these habitats provide an im-
portant link between the natural environment and its human use. It is well established that estuarine
and coastal wetlands characterized by a certain interchange of saline and fresh water are prime habi-
tat for commercial fish during spawning and nursing life stages (Odum, Copeland, and McMahan,
1974). The direct biological constraints require a project design which minimizes immediate and
long-term habitat disruption or loss.

Biological Support Constraints. Biological support constraints are stated separately from
direct constraints to emphasize the fact that coastal habitats require the coinfluence of various pro-
cesses. The value of the coastal habitats derives from the storing, in the coastal habitats, of nutrients
and water provided by both upland runoff and tidal forces (Odum, Copeland, and McMahon, 1974).
This category essentially constrains the project design to conserve habitat quality, and measures that
quality by the processes which contribute to the value of that habitat.

Physical/Chemical Constraints. The other physical/chemical constraints in this major group
reflect more general environmental features rather than ecological features. Some of the constraints
identify the importance of maintaining groundwater resources during the site preparation and con-
struction phases. Others address the need to protect coastal water quality from sedimentary, ther-
mal, or chemical pollution, and the desire to design a channel of high environmental quality which
complements the local area. A final constraint on riverine changes reflects the importance of
drainage systems, both major and minor, as the conveyances of much of the nutrients, sediments,
and water upon which the ecosystems depend.
Natural Hazards
Natural hazards impose design constraints because of their potential for structural and pro-
perty damage rather than because of the potential for impact by the project on the natural environ-
ment. There are five major natural hazards along the Texas Gulf Coast which should be considered
by any project. These are flooding, subsidence, faulting, shoreline erosion, and substrate stability.
Flooding due to either river overbanking or hurricane surge-tide is an obvious constraint because of
the potential for property damage, accidental spills, and loss of life. Areas of active subsidence and
active surface faulting should be avoided. Little engineering control is currently available over these
hazards which may cause extensive structural damage. Shoreline erosion is a concern because of the
active loss of land and the potential for destruction or damage to piers, dwellings, highways, and
other nearshore structures. The constraint to minimize the hazard of shoreline erosion on the pro-
ject is complemented by the constraint to minimize additional erosion in the first constraint group,
physical and biological systems. Finally, the stability of substrates for constructing heavy load
foundations is also an important constraint. The basis of concern is the potential for structural
damage to roads and buildings if substrates possess high shrink-swell potential or low load-bearing
strength. The constraint is expressed as a preferential use of stable substrates, thus minimizing
engineering cost in reducing the hazard.

It should be noted that many of these natural hazards are interrelated. Land subsidence in-
creases the area of flooding influence and the extent of active erosion. When subsidence is due to
ground-fluids withdrawal, differential subsurface compaction may result in surface faulting (Kreitler,
1976; Brown et al., 1974). Therefore, a project design should attempt to avoid or minimize related
hazards, not solely individual hazards.
Socioeconomic Systems
Human uses is an important aspect of the environment. The socioeconomic systems of the
environment discussed here include cultural and infrastructural features and do not include human
use features of the natural environment, such as hunting and bird-watching.

Cultural constraints are distinguishable from infrastructural constraints, although there are
many strong relationships between culture and infrastructure. There is certainly a substantial degree
of overlap. However, a misclassification within these subgroups (Figure 43) is not serious. It should
be kept in mind that classification is an aid in considering the various constraints. What is important
is the consideration of all relevant constraints in project design, irrespective of their grouping.

Cultural Constraints. These constraints reflect the potential for creating adverse community
attitudes, for disrupting life styles, population distribution patterns, and cultural artifacts for incur-
ring expense in required relocations, and for affecting economic practices. It is obvious that any of
these problems would increase the cost of a project. Some of the costs could be measured in dollars,
for example, the cost of relocating homes. However, some costs are not easily quantifiable and are
subjective, but not necessarily of small importance. Such a cost may be expressed as a negative feel
ing about giving up a home; or changing community life style.

Infrastructural Constraints. These constraints derive from the potential for impact on com-
munity's ability to provide services to its residents and businesses. Rapid population growth asso-
ciated with major construction projects often results in overuse of services and a decrease in govern-
mental ability to timely provide services (Wolf, 1974; Shields, 1975). Services most typically
affected include water supply and water treatment, waste (solid and liquid) treatment and disposal,
police and fire departments, and schools, hospitals, and community facilities, such as parks. Infra-
structural problems may also arise from outmigration of labor and from a decreasing tax base
(Carnes and Friesma, 1975).

The various potential problems impose constraints on design implementation and long-range
development planning, rather than on physical project engineering.

Environmental Constraint References
Brown, Jr., L. F., R. A. Morton, J. H. McGowen, C. W. Kreitler, and W. L. Fisher. 1974. Natural
Hazards of the Texas Coastal Zone. University of Texas at Austin. Bureau of Economic
Geology. p. 12.

Carnes, S. and P. Friesma. 1975. Urbanization and the Northern Great Plains. Northwestern Univer-
sity, Center for Urban Affairs: Evanston, Illinois.

Darnell, R. M. et al. 1976. Impacts of Construction Activities in Wetlands of the United States. U.S.
Enivronmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. Corvallis Environ-
mental Research Laboratory. Corvallis, Oregon. p. 392.

Gianno, S. P. and H. Wang. 1974. Engineering Considerations forMarinas in Tidal Marshes. Univer-
sity of Delaware. College of Marine Studies. Newark, Delaware. p. 105.

Kreitder, C. W. 1976. Faulting and Land Subsidence from Ground-Water and Hydrocarbon Produc-
tion, Houston-Galveston, Texas. Proc. Second International Symposium on Land Subsidence.
Anaheim, California. December, 1976.

Odumn, H. T., B. J. Copeland, and E. A. McMahon. 1974. Coastal Ecological Systems of the United
States. Vol. I-IV. The Conservation Foundation: Washington, D. C.

Shields, M. A. 1975. "Social Impact Studies: An Expository Analysis." Environmental and Be-
havior. Vol. 7, No. 3. Sage Publications, Inc. New York. pp. 265-284.

Thurow, C., W. Tones, and D. Erley. 1975. Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands: A Practical
Guide for Local Administrators. American Society of Planning Officials. Planning Advisory
Service. Chicago. Report Nos. 307, 308.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. The Control of Pollution from Hydrographic Mo di-
fications. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. p. 188.

Wolf, C. P. (ed.). 1974. Social Impact Assessment. Environmental Design Research Association, Inc.
Milwaukee.

Engineering Alternatives

The following section discusses alternative approaches, methods, and materials which can be
used in designing an inland canal complex. The choice among the alternatives presented will be
determined by the problems imposed by the industrial location requirements and environmental
constraints. Four categories of alternatives have been identified: channel and harbor design; channel
and harbor excavation; industrial site area development; and relocations. The discussion compares
the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative as well as cost and other influencing factors. A
summary of the engineering alternatives is presented Figure 44.
Channel and Harbor Design
Access to an industrial site from existing navigation routes is a primary project design
objective. Associated environmental constraints include avoiding conflicts with coastal wetlands and
protection from hurricane storm surge. Because the channel and harbor comprise a major portion of
the site development investment, a cost efficient design is also a priority concern.

This section considers channel routing from existing waterways to the proposed industrial
site; geometry of the project channel; design limitations such as substrate characteristics, side slope
stabilization, and surface drainage; and a generalized design for docks and bulkheads.

Channel Routing. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) is the major bargewater navi-
gation artery along the Texas coast. it provides access to the entire United States inland waterway
system, and allows transshipment with deepwater navigation. The GIWW system crosses all Texas
deepwater channels and includes tributary bargewater channels. Access to an inland site from the
GIWW is a requisite attainable by three possible routes: indirectly via an existing bayou or river
channel; indirectly with connection through an existing bay channel; or directly with a cut through
coastal lowlands.

Access to an inland industrial site located above hurricane surge-flood elevation, utilizing
existing river or bayou navigation projects, would entail a short project channel length. This alter-
native minimizes excavation costs. An additional advantage of this alternative is that a channel
flushing system could be constructed using the natural drainage forces of the river or bayou.
Particular disadvantages including shoaling at the junction of the project channel and the river
channel, increased barge travel time, and navigation problems during flood stage.

Figure 44

Engineering Alternatives

Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Cost Influencing References

Factors

1. Channel Design and Routing
A. Channel Route

1. From GIWW to site Low dredging maintenance Flushing provision - See G Cost controlled by routing. 1976 Godfrey, ed. 1975
Means Cost Data indicates 1.00-
2.50/cy for dragline or clamshell

2. From GlYI via river to Flushing, reduced channel length, High sediment; higher sediment loads Maintenance dredging Godfrey. ed. 1975
site less excavation carried by stream may require more
frequent maintenance dredging
3. Follow high ground route Least drainage Inflows and erosion More excavation, less fresh water in- More excavation cost to remove over-
flow for flushing burden

4. Follow low ground route Less excavation, mare Inflow for Possible flooding and erosion Flood protection may be required
flushing

S. Straight route Shortest length, ease of navigation Difficult to avoid natural or man-made
features

6. Curved route Best fit to avoid natural or man-made Difficulty In navigation, greater More excavation, but may be offset by Allowable direction change dictated
features channel length reduced relocation costs by controllability of vessels; widen
channel in bends to allow for swing of
vessels and to provide increased
maneuver

B. Channel and Port Geometry Site area/unit length; industry types McFarland et al, 1976
may dictate special needs which define
port geometry

1. "U"-shaped Flushing. Largest port area More construction required Bridges; channel length

2. 'T'- or "Y"-shaped Good port service area Possible flushing problems

3. 'L'-shaped Landform fit. Tidal flushing

4. 'I"-shaped Least construction. Tidal flushing Poor port service area

S. Crescent Landform fit. Tidal flushing Possible poor service area

6. Canal-river systems May incorporate features allowing for high sediment loading; increased Maintenance dredging .45/cy; see I-A-
qrbater flushing maintenance dredging 2
Similar to "L' or "I' shape

C. Channel D-manions Area equation when used w/water depth
will give cross-sectional area of the
channel at that depth. When it Is
desired to find the cross-sectional
area required for excavation, be sure
to consider depth from original land
surface to channel bottom. See note
in I-C-1 for volume excavation.

area bd * zd2where
b . bottom width
d depth
z * sid slope ratio
A In ft

Vol. - L (-) where

L length
A1 * area at start of reach
A2 * a5ea at end of reach
Cy Vol.. ft, 27

1. Depth-12' below MLT Pr-osnt GIWW size Minimum for navigation requirement 0/tlcy t 25(/cy extra for booster pump
station
14' below MLT Improve navigation
16 below MLT Possible future GlWW Quantity of material

2. Bottom ldth-125' Present GIWW size Minimum for present tows
150' to 175' Improve safety
250' Allow double tows Possible safety problem Quantity of material
Other

3. Side Slope-4:l Stable slopes - low erosion More material to be excavated Highest quantity of material Soil tests may sho that steeper
slopes Ore permlssible, or mi der
slopes may be required

3:1 lyplcal lexas channels
2:1 Less quantity Hloh rosonanten
1:1 Least excavation Least stability; most erosion Hiqh maintenance

Figure 44

Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Cost Influencing References
Factors

U. Potential Excavation Mate- Distribution depends on local condi-
rials tlons; composition related to use as
fill, canal water holding capacity,
and side slope stability

1. Consolidated Stable banks. Use as compacted fill. Difficult to dewater See C-1

2. Unconsolidated Higher dredge production per hour. Erosion See C-l; might be lower unit cost
Rapid dewatering

E. Side Slope Stabilization
1. Vary route through stable Least cost per mile More miles; see also 1.A. 6 Tradeoff between stabilization costs Possible environmental conflict
material and additional excavation costs

2. Shallow side-slope ratio Low project cost Wider R(O Excavation quantity More environmental conflict; Ref. C-3
(4:1)

3. Vegetation stabilization Low cost and stable Maintaining healthy growth may be Lowest of 3-6; hydraulic seeding for Godfrey, ed. 1975; Engineering News
difficult large areas, including seed and ferti- Record 1976
lizer; .35/sy w/wood fiber mulch
added, add .04/sy; large jobs may
run $600-1500/acre
4. Rip rap Stability; wave absorption Repair after storms $20 to S5O/cy; GIWS dimensions require Godfrey, ed. 1975
50 cy/ft, according to published data
5. Concrete lining Stability Pore water pressure In clays can cause 315-$25/cy; G61W dimensions require 4
pop-out; wave reflection cy/ft.
6. Fabric Stability; wave absorption Replacement frequency Relatively expensive maintenance; Godfrey, ed., 1975
plastic netting or polypropylene mesh
stapled is .SS/sy

7. Gablons Stable banks, can be utilized to form Wire may corrode In sea water; repairs Stone filled gabions, 18- deep are Godfrey ed. 1975
steeper slopes needed after storms Slg/sy
F. Minimum Change in Surface
Drainage

1. Rldgeline route Least change in drainage Maximum depth of excavation, possibly 15% increase in cheapest part of pro- See I-A-3
excessive bends in channel ject cost

2. Collection/Diversion into Can direct into channel to promote Cost of erosion control Concrete ? $BO/cy; may be able to Environmental change
channel flushing action stabilize drainage-ways w/vegetation,
rip rap or other design to minimize
costs

3. Siphon Drainage Crossings Maintain drainage regime Cost-foundation problems High. Concrete Sl150/cy; cost of CMP: Environmental change; corrugated Godfrey, ed. 1975
15" diam, 16 ga. � S. IO/LF metal pipe prices don't include ex-
30' diam, 12 ga. - 32/LF cavaton, backfill, or support
48" diam, 15 ga. - $42/LF systems
G. Canal Flushing

_____LN[1tural flushino
a) Tide Simplest system Slow turnover time Low cost Must have inflow to maintain net sea-
ward flux ___ __
b) River Fast turnover time Flood protection, salinity control, Control structures and flood protec- Seasonal changes in river flo may
sediment tion have effect on availability and con-
trol structure design

2. Mechanical systems
a) Pumps Degrees of control Cost: capital and energy; maintenance Pumps, pipe foundation; more expen-
sive than gates

b) Gates Natural (tidal) energy for flushing 0 & M; personnel Structures, foundations Tidal amplitude governs effectiveness

H. Bulkhead and Dock Designs

'Nn.JConcrete Bulkhead Strength, Durability Foundation requirements, permanence, S450/ft of length USCE, Galveston. 197
low salvaqe value
2. Steel Piling Bulkhead Least construction time. High salvage Subject to corrosion $SSO/ft of length. Godfrav. ed. 1975; 1977
value, can be modified easily
3. Timber Piling Bulkhead Sood durability $360 ft. of length Specify retention for durability USCE. Galveston, 1977
4. Docks

Alternate designs (finger Regular dock for dry bulk cargos.
piers, cluster piles, Cluster piles and finger piers for
etc.) are industry- liquid bulk
snecifirc.

Engineering Alternatives (cont'd)

Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Cost Influencing References
Factors

II. Channel Excavation

A. Type Equipment

a) utterhed fill; capacity f(dame ter); high
1,0gg cy/hr turbidity generated; may cause en-
vironmental conflict near bayv or GIWW...

b) Mechanical Spoil control Rehandling; low productivity Additional handling

c) Hydraulic Productivity vs. cost Limited to unconsolidated material

La)nScraserig producilon race Llmlteo by water taole Haul distance; $t.b-f.uU/cy range We ather Godfrey. od. 1975
~~~~~~~~a) Scraper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~for 1S50c ft haul distance for net
terrain.

b) Dragline Water table not a factor Relatively low productivity Rehandling. Costs near Sl/cy. Godfrey, ad. 1975

c) Toner Water table not a factor Complexity and availability High initIal cost; foundation proh- Godfrey. ed. 1975
lens; rehandling. Costs near S1.60/cy
Anticipate maintenance dredging re-
B. Spoil 01sposal gurements

1. Land
a) Industrial Site F111 tOoeslraOle elevaiv Cost of rehandleng, repump or haul Control of eater. 2.SO/AF of f ater quality; heavy clays are gen- Herbich John S. 1976
material in place erally suitable for stable fills;
sands may require containment by a
stable dike; silts probably are not
suitable for dike construction or ele-
vated disposal areas

b) alongside channel Low cost; can aid run-off control (See Larger ROW; waste of material Envirormental conflict and water
II-d); no hauling required 2quality, aesthetics; related to II-A-

2. Eoisting GIWW Disposal initially; nearby location already Use up scarce sites and not use good Lo. cost Permission from USCE
Sites committed for this purpose resource
3. Open Gulf (II - C-li Previde bpch nouroshmeent. May create pumping distance or rehandling cost of Environmental conflictohn B. 1976
slaqds (in designated areas) for Cost and turdty hopper barge
recreational land or for light In
,ustry

C. Spoil Disposal Method

1. Hopper Barge (Ref II-A-i) temoval from xork area. Function of Limited to open Gulf disposal Rehandlinq Environmental conf"rt
capacity. quantity and distance
'rveled

2. Pipeline (Ref II-A-i-a & /igh productivity; control of final Turbidity at discharge Lowest unit cost Environmental quality control
c) location; function of size, length
md pumplng required

3. Truck (Ref II-A-2-b b c) ocational control Low Productivity; high cost Haul distance; approx. S.65 to 1/cy Godfrey, ed. 1975
or more

D. Disposal Control and Dewater-
ing

I. No control L~ast cost Environmentally detrimental; tur- I 404 and TWlB don't allow
bidSty, Water quality

2. Containment Cqntrol of effluent Levee cost Embankment construction and com- Requirement of permit; consolidated
naterial must be used: see tI-B-l-a

3. Drainae dewatering by h: labor/equlpment cost Time to end-condition Low if time is not a major factor Poor foundation; see II-B-i-a
natural processes

4. Compaction at site, other Efficient time use of area-construc- Equipment and cost of handling Net technology
than Ind. site tion site fill.

S. Disposal at Indusrfial Use as fill material Cost of extra pumping Extra pumps, pipe and labor Energy cost
site ti-l-a))

Figure 44

Engineering Alternatives (cont'd)

Figure 44

Engineering Alternatives (cont'd)

Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Cost nfluencing Refernces
Factors
IIIl. Industrial Site Area
A.foundations

All foundation types: foundation Peck. Hanson & Thornburn. 1963
choice dependent on 1) nature of the
superstructure and loads to be trans-
mitted to the foundations, 2) sub-
surface conditions, 3) capability of
alternatives to carry required loads
n/o experiencing detrimental settle-
ments and 4) compromise between per-
formance and cost
1. Naturally stable sub- Slnoliflis design, promotes safet. None Simplest foundation design Availability
surface

2. Excavate & backfill Stuble foundation Placement of spoil Borrow material and haul distance - Care of water
include dewatering cost, compaction
requirements

Estimated cost for pilings is $10-
3. Slab on pilings Load capability vs. cost SIS/CLF Additional cost for concrete
and reinforcing
Concrete, steel, boring: in place Godfrey, d. 1975
4. Spread footings Load capability Cost includin forms (4 used) and reinforc-
ing steel i S 6/cy; additional cost
for floor slab

S. Slab on grade Best for light unit loads Problems /differential settling t steel 1.20SF f or C . ed
thick slab (not including form, or
reinforcing)

B. Water supply

i. Surface water (river w/ Low energy cost of supply, in general. Treatment requirements; quality may Pumping to site; treatment, pump and
007 or w/o reservoir) heoter Dualitv than 3,4,5 vary seasonally, necessitating p mdi- pipeline, energy costs
fication in treatment process

2. Well field Low degree of treatment Cost of wells, pumps and supply lines
$200,O00/MGO well + conveyance costs - Consider aquifer capacity; danger of
8" well drilled and cased is $11/VLF salt water intrusion; quality of Godfrey, ed. 1975; U.S. Army Ctal9
6" submersible pump (50-125 GPM) is water; contamination Engineering Rseach Center 1966
S4000; add energy costs for pumping,
pipeline
3. Desalt Up t' distilled water Very expensive > 1.00o ,o000 gal. estimate for elec- Quantity required; may be able to com-
trodlalysis and reverse osmosis blne desalting operation w/geothermal De Longe & Guaino, 1q715; Fair, Geyer
systems energy recovery process; potential and Okun, 1971
recovery of bromine. chlorine,
Special material and equipments re- and refned salt
4. Salt rater conversion Ho supply limit quired; high cost, eneeat echanger; coneyance pipelines Discharge requirements; see above
4. Salt eater conversion noons erg rque- and pumps, see 3 above
Low :ost, suitable for many industry May require special treatment Pipeline from source; treatment re- Ultimate treatment requirements

Determine flooding potental from U.S. Army Coastal Engineering RPs
C. Flood protection hurricane surge; use methods de- Center, 1966; Reid 6 Bdine, 1968;
scribed by the U.S Army, Reld and arnnos & Wuoodward 1968
bodine Marlnn and Wudnnr np er m
1. Natural ele.v above flood No fcnstructlon cost incurred Possible non-availability of other Land cost Site avai ability

J. F1II th desired elevation
J. Fill to desired elfeatlun Cont ol of degree of protection High toal cost Haul distance, compaction Availability of materials
0. Runoff control

1. Location to minimize
sheet flor Less construction cost incurred Possible non-availability of other Land cost Site availability
features ... . . ............
2. Collection and Discharoe
a) to channe Low nvronmental conflict Aids Cst of appurtenances for sp; slope adn te
flushing action. Good quality as long prtectin rans; rp rap; slope grdn ater all
as fl-ws do not receive point source
efflurnt, and erosion and sediment
measu:-es are in effect
b) to local drainage Halnt.1n normal inflows Possible treatment required Drains; rip rap; slope Orading Water quality; can utilize any of1972
several erosion and sediment control Environmental Protection Agency 1972
alternatives to maintain quality;
these include chenical stabilizers.
mulches, control structures, vegeta-
tion covers and other special prac-

3. Collection and Reuse LO. cost la. water collect"' _Uce_
3. Collection and Reuse La ay treatm ra ater ect Reduce nflaow to natural system; Un- Pumps and conduit
sto l oca raiage, aen posb reame dependable supply. seasonal i Treatment reiluireets
aoan

Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Cost Influencing References

Factors

E. Waste Disposal
I olid wastes
a) Land Fill Simple system. Creates higher elev. Limits land use options to lighter Land, equipment cost and operation Ipermable soils required; eater Pavone. er 6 Hagert. 1974
l)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~and fouon~~datioo loadings ~table; compacted density of caste is
typically BO f/icy; optimal life en-
pectancy 15-20-50 years; cover
material is needed of 4 parts of
refuse to I part cover soil; TWQB
ronulates industrial solid waste;
Te-as Dept. Health Resources regu-

b) Incineration nequlres :ittle land. Possible energy Air quality control t; large Incnerator /ton for icipa TAC.
recovery reduces weight and volume capita cost and operational e- ins5/ton forallaton cpeost may ary ind-
pensos; air and water pollation trial waste; volumes of air pollu-
tants, control requirements
c) Recycling Maxlmum ,se of resources, resource Reduction to local inflots; expense of Additional labor and equipment for Local use or exportt
recovery. possible economic return systems: markets for products selection of recyclables Shipping rates

2. Liquid Waste Disposal
a) Secondary Treatment Loest c st. Possible for use In Discharge ctlons limited Capital S cost - 35.6 x 6PO 0.75. See TH pemt Godfrey f .
IrrIgatl-u but use as irrigation water Also data from Godfrey
unllkely for most crops In the coastal
region given typical water quality
r'luirp_ lt�

b) Tertiary Treatment Option to reuse or discharge to local High treatment cost See 111-B-3. costs should De slmllar Land avnailablity
drainage

c) Reuse Maximum u a of resource Total unit cost may be uncompetttive Special treatment See a & b above
Least lot 1 environmental conflict. Possible water quality problem Secondary treatment or better TWQB permit; quality' requirement may
d) Discharge Inoa]than- A id to flushing Spills be such that advanced treatment is
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nel ~~~~~~~~reconended; degree of treatment
dependent on quality of effluent, in-
dustrial use

el Discharge into lMcal Maintain Inrlow quantity Probable tertiary treatment require- Tertiary treatmeni Is prnhobhl re- OB and S 404
drainage ments. Spills are high risk; may qul ,mnnt
require expensive treatment or other
safeguards

f) InJection Wells Least treatment; 14QB requires poorer
quality reck-ver than injected mate- High cost; danger of contamination of Deep well and high pressure pumps; may Suitable geologic formation required
qrality .ec 1 tha inete ate fresh water supplies require pre-treatment to prevent
clogging, mnntenmance

It. Relocations

A. Pipeli n es - Loner Ho overhead clearance problem. Relower if project deepened; possible Anti-flotatlon and/or extra strength Cost of nea line min,,s alvage value;
On Bridges Fauvorable cjntrurction conditions eltensive rerouting eola bridge availability; safety
B. Highways - High Bridge Permanent clearance to some limit;
Swing Bridge Low cost: i clearance limit High Cost Bottleneck - limit to length $40/f1t to SS/ft2 Subsidence problem potential
Tunnel Eltremely high cost O&M Traffic load; safety TDHPT, 1977
Other Caissons; soil types Subsidence

C. Railroads - High Bridge
Swing Bridge NpMaxrm grade of 1% Rail, ti es fill; 1SO/ft plus struc- Subsidence problem potential
LiftN Bridge 'o a pproach elevation; No
T eL i f h change n approach elevation; No Traffic bottleneck; water elevation ture
Tunnel change i approac eati n 1rn Traffic bottleneck; water elevation ObM
clearance 1 'mit Maximum grade IS; extremely high cost O&M; foundations Water table; subsidl-ce
Caissons; soil type
D. Homes, cemtert es, or other
features
Maointain public relatlons; allows High cost
optimanm rou' ; less cost than for re- GS-S6/SF for buildings Public sentiment Godfrey, ed. 1976
route

2. Reroute around Best public relatlons higher cost; see also'I-A Length. excavation. ha,l, distance

Figure 44

Engineering Alternatives (cont'd)

With additional dredging, access to an inland development site could be provided via linkage
to existing navigation channels which cross all Texas bays except Baffin Bay and Copano Bay.
Because many bays have headlands at elevations above hurricane surge tide, excavation through this
high ground to the proposed development site would mean a maximum depth of channel excavation
and concomitant spoil disposal problem. Use of those bays with shorelines at low elevation and
relatively flat slopes into the uplands could require a fairly long approach channel to reach a site
above hurricane flooding. Dredged material disposal problems in this instance would stem from the
frequency of maintenance dredging required as well as the lengthy pumping to acceptable disposal
sites.

An advantage of a direct cut from the GIWW to a nearby upland site of marginal elevation
would be the availability of the excavated material for fill at the industrial site and protective levee
construction. Routing along a local drainage divide would minimize interruption of natural drainage
because local runoff naturally would flow away from the channel. This would minimize the mainte-
nance dredging required and lessen the problems of land acquisition for maintenance material
disposal sites. The difference in elevation between a wetlands area and a local drainage divide may
be less than five feet. The additional expense of excavation of the "high ground" would in part be
offset by lessened sedimentation of the channel. Significant cost factors of this alternative would
include pumping dredged material forward to the development site, dewatering the material, and
compaction to an appropriate density.

Channel and Port Geometry. The geometry of the canal will affect such factors as project
cost, water quality in the channel and port area, and the amount of land available for industrial
development and waterfront. The decision is constrained, in part, by geological substrates, eco-
system requirements, and land availability and access.

Principal shapes or layouts for the canal system considered are: "U"-shaped; "I"-shaped,
"L"1-, "T", or "Y''-shaped; crescent shaped; and lastly a system associated with a river, although not
using the river for navigation (see Figure 44). These concepts are amplified below.

U-shaped System. According to McFarland, et al. (1976), this concept is advanta-
geous in areas with suitable substrates near the coastline and where the land slopes fairly
steeply upward from the coast. Each end of the "U" would each provide navigation access,
with the proximity to the coast promoting flushing of the canal by wind and tidal action.

However, for maximum land area utilization, this shape requires part of the indus-
trial development to be on the island inside the U. Thus, the cost of bridging for rail and
highway access is added, as well as extra costs in providing utilities.

I-shaped System. This layout would be a straight channel cut inland to an appro-
priate area for industrial development. The harbor would be a widened extension of the
channel. The lack of turns would aid navigation, particularly if the orientation were parallel
to prevailing winds.

The primary disadvantage of this shape would be in maintaining water quality in the
harbor and channel. Stagnation might be overcome by the use of treated wastewater as
flushing water or by diversion from a nearby stream of adequate volume of flow, as dis-
cussed below.

L-, Y-, or T-shaped System. These shapes might be used to accommodate a linear,
physical constraint parallel to the shoreline, such as a developed area or a major highway,
rail and pipeline corridor. An advantage of this design is a maximization of canal frontage
for development relative to approach channel length. The major disadvantage would be
maintenance of adequate water quality in the upper reaches of the harbor.

Crescent-shaped System. Constraints on corridor routing or site layout imposed by
critical ecosystems or by geologic features (e.g.: drainage divides) may preclude straight-line
development of a channel or harbor. These features may be avoided with a crescent shaped
channel, although these are limits such as minimum curve radius imposed by navigation
requirements.

River-associated System. Regardless of the plan-view configuration or geometry of
the channel, satisfactory water quality will be difficult to maintain without some design for
flushing. Unless a net seaward flux of flow is maintained, the water in the channel could
become stagnant. Coupled with evaporation, the concentration of conservative materials
may continue to increase. Tidal action may provide mixing, but the materials may remain in
the harbor area until periods of high rainfall are experienced, or until flushing is provided. If
the harbor area is located in proximity to a major stream, sufficient water might be diverted
to the project to provide flushing. Diversion from a low-head, small-volume demand
reservoir might also be used to encourage circulation in the channel. Appropriately designed
diversion could minimize any sedimentation within the harbor, thus assuring low mainten-
ance dredging requirements.

Project Dimensions
Entrance Channel. Given that a barge canal would be tributary to the GIWW, the
dimension of the GIWW (-1 2' mean low tide (mlt), 12 5' bottom width) control those of the
project. That is, the project may have lesser dimensions and possibly meet the industrial
navigation requirements, but no benefits accrue from any depth dimension greater than that
of the GIWW.

A study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on enlargement of the GIWW`, begun
in 1976, is scheduled for completion near 1986. In the event that the GIWW is enlarged,
tributary channels could then be enlarged as deemed appropriate by local interests. Project
design should call for corridor right-of-way dimensions to allow enlargement.

McFarland, et al. (1976) point out that the design depth of a barge canal should be
at least two feet greater than the barge's design draft. In a confined channel, a vessel
underway will draw more water than when at rest. This phenomenon, known as "squat,"'
adds approximately one foot of draft for the typical barge tow at six knots on the GIWW.
Because most barges used on the Texas coast are designed for nine to 1 1 feet of draft, the
12 foot depth of the GIWW appears to be appropriate for a tributary project.

The bottom width of the channel is a function of barge width and minimum safe
passage clearance of at least two barge tows. Empirical formulas can be applied to calculate
desirable bottom widths and to determine potential casualty rates for various dimensions.
The GIWW design is suitable for barges of 35-foot width; standard barge dimensions now in
use are commonly between 26 and 35 foot widths. Widths up to 54 feet are also being used.

Side slopes of the channel are site specific, controlled by substrate characteristics.
They are also affected by erosion resulting from both natural processes and boat wakes. A
sideslope ratio of three horizontal to one vertical (3: 1) is common practice along the Texas
coast. Material of low stability would require flatter slopes. The revised Victoria barge
channel project design indicates a 3: 1 side slope for the channel cut, with slopes as flat as
6:1 for the slopes of the drainage protection levees (USCE, 1957).

Design philosophy for the California Aqueduct, one of the major water conveyance
projects in the world, called for excavation on a minimum safe sideslope along the entire
state portion of the project. Some failure was expected to necessitate reexcavation to some
flatter slope. in practice, there were fewer slope failures than expected. Project costs were
minimized in that the least possible excavation was done, and the minimum amount of field

testing and slope stability analysis was required. This design philosophy could be applied to
an inland canal project if the entrance channel was of a significant length.

Harbor. The depth of the harbor should not differ from the depth of the entrance
channel. The width of the harbor will depend in a large part on the traffic load and
requirements for safe maneuvering of barge tows during passing, docking, and turning.

Typical canal designs provide a turning basin at the end of the navigation channel
with industries locating along the channel. Barge turning within the canal requires maneuver-
ing room provided at the waterfront. Harbors for barge traffic have minimum widths of
roughly 350'-400', with barges docked on both sides of the channel (USCE, 1974). Vessel
yaw is limited to approximately five degrees by these dimensions.

Side slopes along the harbor would depend on the degree of development of docks
and bulkheading. Undeveloped areas would be sloped appropriately for local substrate and
drainage conditions.

Potential Excavation Materials. Substrates along the Texas coast commonly fall into three
physical properties groups (as defined by the Bureau of Economic Geology), Clays and muds,
clayey sands and silts, and sands account for 80 to 95 percent of the substrates encountered in any
one area.

Spatial distribution of the substrates is determined by the historic pattern of depositional
processes. The more homogeneous sands deposited under shoreface conditions are linear bodies,
two to five miles in width, paralleling the coast. Clayey sands and silts resulting from fluvial
processes typically are "fingers" perpendicular to the coast. In many areas these silty deposits
represent levees bordering abandoned channels and now stand in positive topographic relief above
surrounding marshes and coastal lowlands. Finally, clay and mud substrates occur over broad areas
between the silty sand "fingers," and represent low-energy, interdistributary environments.

In general, these substrates are unconsolidated. Exceptions may be found in clay and mud
substrates along the southern Texas coast. In this drier area, the clays tend to have dewatered and to
have become cemented and hard.

The three general substrate types present few excavation problems. Their excavatibility is
much higher than that of substrates farther inland, for example, in Central Texas where blasting is
often required. Clays and muds may present more difficulties; either by hardness when dry or by
stickiness when wet.

Substrate properties affect project aspects other than excavatibility. Clayey material allows
a steeper canal side slope than does sandy material. A firm clay substrate erodes more slowly under
wave action than does loose silty sand. Clay substrates also have higher water-holding capacity and
lower internal drainage than silty sands. Silty sand side slopes may require internal drains if concrete
paving is used for side slope stabilization. The higher permeability of silty sand side slopes may
allow saline canal water to percolate through the canal flanks into the adjoining areas.

Material dredged from the canal may be used as levee and fill at the industrial site. Earthen
hurricane protection levees should possess low permeability, moderate shear strength, and moderate
compressibility-clayey silts possess these characteristics. However, fill material to support industrial
plants needs to have the high load bearing strength, low shrink-swell potential, and good drainage
characteristics of coarser material.

In summary, clayey substrates allow steeper canal side slopes, are less erodible, present
fewer internal drainage problems in the canal flanks, and as dredged material are useful in building
levees around the industrial site. The sandier substrates may be easier to excavate, and are useful for
filling and raising the elevation of the industrial site.

Side Slope Stabilization. In order to reduce erosion of the banks of the channel and harbor,
some slope protection measures will be necessary. Cost effectiveness will control the choice of
material, as the primary tradeoff is between channel dredging maintenance over a period of years
versus the one-time capital investment in slope protection. Available alternatives range from vegeta-
tion to stone rip-rap.

Vegetation generally has not proved to be satisfactory when exposed to wave (wake) action
in tidal waters. At low tide, the wave energy is expended on exposed soil in and below the root
zone, eroding the soil. Vegetation is useful in stabilizing areas above the wave zone, such as a
channel berm or levee. The cost of vegetating the side slopes depends on project size. Prices may be
expected to range from $600 to $1,700 per acre.

Sprayed-on concrete, known as gunite, is an effective means of slope protection. It is in the
midrange of expense of permanent stabilization materials, estimated at approximately $1.25 per
square foot ($54,450 per acre). Care must be taken in control of its application to provide adequate
underdrainage. Development of excessive porewater pressures in underlying clay material can ex-
ceed the strength of the gunite, causing section to fail. The ensuing erosion behind the remaining
material can lead to total failure of the surface. Provision of weepholes and drains with a follow-on
inspection/maintenance program can ensure its effectiveness.

Stone rip-rap, while expensive, is a relatively maintenance-free method of protecting slopes
against wave action. The stone ranges from just under a cubic foot to derrick stone weighing several
tons, and is applied over a course base of well-graded large gravel to cobble-sized material. Handling
and transportation costs have escalated the price to $25-$30 per cubic yard in place, and higher for
placement from water borne equipment.

In recent decades an alternative known as soil cement has been used. Soil cement is essen-
tially a weak concrete commonly near 1,500 psi in compressive strength. It is usually composed of
three sacks of cement per cubic yard, plus locally available sandy material. It has a stair-step
appearance upon completion when placed in six- or eight-inch thick courses approximately eight
feet wide. Like gunite, some form of underdrainage must be provided. The advantages of soil
cement as an inexpensive alternative to stone rip-rap are reduced by the increasing cost of cement.

Depending on the type of substrate encountered, design of the canal cross-section may
ensure a stable side slope. Wave energy would be expended over a larger area if a gentle slope or
berm is provided extending from just below low water elevation. Vegetation on this berm could
pervent or significantly reduce erosion. The viability of this option is a tradoff between initial
construction cost and slope/channel maintenance costs.

Any slope protection design must consider the degree of exposure to tropical storm wave
action. What may suffice for normal conditions might result in an expensive reconstruction prob-
lem after exposure to storm wave action. On the other hand, the initial cost of meeting the demands
of a storm wave situation may be prohibitively expensive. It is expected that the maximum expo-
sure (and required protection) would be at the juncture with the GIWW.

Surface Drainage. A channel route which follows a ridgeline of the local drainage pattern is
desirable for two reasons: 1) sedimentation into the canal is minimized, and 2) water, sediment, and
nutrient flows into local wetland areas are maintained.

Safe and efficient navigation, however, requires a channel as straight as possible and drainage
divides may have more curvature than is desirable. Thus, it is expected that some side-hill excava-
tion would be necessary. Levees on the uphill side of the channel will prevent surface runoff and
sediments from entering the channel. This may be detrimental, however, if runoff flows to areas
downhill of the channel are cut off. Local runoff can be siphoned to the downhill side of the
channel with culvert pipes under the channel. Pumps can be added to supplement the flows if
necessary. The risk of sediment filling and blocking the pipes would be a major design problem.

While the collection-culvert system could maintain the quantity of flow across the canal, the
local drainage pattern would likely change from sheet-flow to point discharge. There would also be
a lessening of sediment availability downslope from the channel. The area between the discharge
points would dry out to some extent. The magnitude of this effect would be a function of both
slope and drainage area.

Flushing Systems and Water Quality. Water quality problems in closed channels are the
result of two factors: poor water circulation, and polluted discharges or runoff. These two factors
are related. That is, the tolerance or carrying capacity of the receiving waters to assimilate inflows
will be a function of the flushing rate.

Several alternatives to maintaining water quality are available, depending on the channel and
harbor design. One solution is the use of waste treatment effluent of sufficient quality and quantity
to flush the harbor and channel. Water withdrawal from the channel for industrial use also encour-
ages circulation. This process has been notably successful in the Brownsville Ship Channel.

As mentioned previously, a U-shaped channel system may have a reasonable degree of
flushing as promoted by the action of wind and tide. If the site is in proximity to the GIWW or a
bay, water might be pumped to the harbor without excessive cost. Other layouts might allow
diversion from a major stream or river. The magnitude of cost of a diversion system for flushing will
depend primarily on distance and on whether the diversion must be pumped or it can be conveyed
by a gravity-flow canal. In any event, the environmental ramifications of such a diversion must be
considered, both at the water source and the receiving basin. If the importation of flushing water
can be part of a conveyance system for process and/or cooling water, the unit costs may be reduced.

Bulkheads and Docks. Needs for bulkheads and docks will be site and industry specific.
Dock mounted pumps may load or unload bulk barges tied off of cluster piles located alongside the
channel, whereas the unloading dry cargo would require a bulkhead and dock facility with a crane
to handle the material.

Bulkhead construction materials include timber, sheet steel or concrete piles. Current cost
estimates are approximately $350 per linear foot for timber, and $600 for steel, based on 45-foot
length. Timber docks (12"x 12") are estimated at $20 per square foot in place.

Channel and Harbor Excavation
Excavation Methods and Equipment Types. The choice of equipment for construction of
the channel and harbor will depend on such factors as soil characteristics, depth to water table, and
terrain and elevation. Excavation methods are generally categorized as dredging (water-based or
floating equipment) or land-based. Land-based equipment such as bulldozers and scrapers are gener-
ally used to the maximum extent practicable. The dry, excavated material may be used for levees,
road bed, or general site fill. Virgin dredged material is often suitable for fill, although it may
require dewatering and compaction.

Cutterhead Pipeline Dredge. Accoring to Herbich (1975), the cutterhead dredge type
is the most versatile and functions efficiently in both alluvial materials and compacted
deposits such as clay and hardpan. A 30-inch dredge with a 5,000 to 8,000 horsepower
pump and 2,000 horsepower cutter can pump 2,000 to 4,500 cubic yards per hour (cy/hr)
through pipeline lengths up to 15,000 feet. The dredged material is conveyed in a water
slurry which is about 15 to 30 percent solids by weight (McFarland, et al., 1976).

Larger dredges contain on-board living quarters, galley, and equipment repair facil-
ities. They generally operate 24 hours a day with a crew numbering approximately 80
persons.

Smaller dredges, mostly of the 8 to 20 inch size, are also designed as portable
systems. They are built as modular units which can be moved over land, and are assembled
at the job site for operation. These smaller dredges also operate 24 hours a day. Crew size
ranges between 40 and 60 persons. Typical production rates are from 150-400 cy/hr for a
12 foot dredge to 400-1700 cy/hr for a 24 inch unit.

The primary environmental constraints on the operation of a hydraulic dredge relate
primarily to the effects of turbidity at the cutterhead and at the discharge point; the quality
of effluent water from the disposal areas; and the effects of the fill material in the disposal
area.

Turbidity at the cutterhead can be controlled by a cone-shaped shroud around the
suction tube near the intake. Turbidity control curtains have also been successfully em-
ployed.

The location of disposal areas in less critical environments, and the construction of
dredged material containment levees can help alleviate the problems associated with spoil
disposal although the added expense of additional discharge pipe, right-of-way, and booster
pump stations can cause a significant increase in project cost. Bids received in early 1977 by
the Galveston District, USCE, indicate the cost of open water disposal of maintenance
material at $0.24/cy; disposal in containment areas at $0.49/cy; and new work including
construction of containment levees at $1.11/cy (USCE, 1977). Projects with exceptionally
long pumping distances have cost near $4.50/cy (Espey, Huston & Associates, 1977).

Mechanical Dredges. Mechanical dredges are similar in design to land-based exca-
vating equipment. As with the hydraulic dredge, they are limited in the distance that
dredged material can be transported without rehandling. Examples of mechanical dredges
are the grapple dredge, consisting of a barge-mounted derrick which is equipped with a
clamshell bucket; the dipper dredge, similar to the land-based hydraulic excavator; and the
bucket-ladder dredge, with an endless chain of buckets which discharge into a barge's
hopper or onboard bay. Also included in this category is the barge-mounted dragline.

Since the dredged material transport limit for a mechanical dredge is generally under
100 feet, material not disposed of at the site must be hauled by truck or barge. This
secondary handling is quite costly. Thus, the best use of this type of dredging equipment is
on smaller projects where economics do not justify the move in and set up cost of a
hydraulic dredge. Advantages of the mechanical dredge over the hydraulic dredge include its
ability to operate in shallower water, and the excavated material is not a slurry requiring
dewatering.

Land-based Equipment. A wide range of types of land-based excavating equipment
(tracks, wheel, buckets, blades and pans) is available. The type of equipment used is tailored
to size of the job and type of material to be excavated.

For large earthwork projects with haul distances limited to a mile or two, the scraper
offers high productivity at reasonable cost. Specific equipment needs will vary with soil
characteristics, haul road slopes, and haul distance. However, a typical fleet might include
five 20- to 30-cubic yard scrapers and a bulldozer to assist loading. For a one-mile haul,
production would average near 800 cubic yards per hour in alluvial material.

Tracked and wheeled excavators are used to move smaller amounts of material. The
capacity of this equipment, which works in conjunction with a fleet of dump trucks,
averages 4 cubic yards.

For excavation below water surface, but operating from the land, hydraulic exca-

vators and draglines can be used. The hydraulic excavator has a bucket attached to a
hydraulically controlled boom, while the dragline bucket is attached to a cable at the end of
a crane boom. Production rates are approximately 300 cubic yards per hour.

'The elevation of terrain and depth to water table may be such that a combination of
land-based and dredged equipment is used. A dredge can excavate material above water level
by undercutting the earth in front of the dredge. T'his approach is less efficient than
land-based excavation and causes saturation of otherwise consolidated earth. Alternatively,
land based equipment may excavate earth down to the water table, at which depth the
heavy land equipment is removed, and the dredging equipment is installed.

Disposal of Excavated Material. Although the creation of an industrial site is considered a
suitable use for dredged material, the length of a channel and elevation of the route may be such
that use of all the excavated material as site fill is not feasible. T''he disposal of this material must
take place at a location and in a manner which minimizes adverse environmental impacts, and with
monitoring and control of the disposal operation. Alternative disposal sites are in open water, at
existing (;IWW maintenance dredging disposal sites, and new onshore disposal sites.

Open Water Disposal. ()pen water disposal sites may be located in Coastal bays or in
the open Gulf. It can be assumed that most inland canal sites will be sufficiently distant
from a suitable open bay disposal site as to preclude hydraulic pumping of the soil by
pipeline. T'herefore, open water disposal would require loading the excavated material on a
transshipment barge, travel to the disposal site, and the discharge of the spoil from the
barge. The method of loading the barge, depending on the excavation or dredging proce-
dure, would be either by pipeline from a hydraulic dredge, or by mechanical methods.

The open bay disposal site is sometimes prepared with containment levees. The
levees may be constructed by drag-line excavation of the site, with the bottom material
piled in the chosen configuration. Virgin material from the canal excavation may be barged
to the site to form the levees. While such containment may reduce the spreading of turbidity
of the discharge, the levees themselves are subject to current and wave erosion.

The transported material is discharged into a confined or unconfined open bay area,
or at sea, by the same standard procedure. The hopper barge bottom opens, much like a
railroad grain or coal car, and the material is discharged into the water.

Constraints on open water disposal include floral and faunal sensitivity to turbidity,
reduction in bay bottom habitat, and the effect on water movement patterns. With proper
design the open bay disposal can create emergent islands which, when vegetated, provide
increased local habitat diversity.

Existing GIWW Sites. There are a number of dredged material disposal sites along the
GIWW which have been approved by regulatory agencies. The disposal sites are on either
side of the GIWW. The sites gulfward of the GIWW preclude, of course, trucking of the
disposal. Piped disposal would be effective depending on the distance from the inland canal
excavation to the existing disposal site.

These sites, however, are limited in their capacity to contain excavation material
beyond their designed volume. Furthermore, the disposal sites which have been approved
for maintenance spoil should be conserved, because spoil from channels serving industrial
plants and traffic is often contaminated with toxic constituents. Virgin dredged material is
not normally contaminated. New disposal sites for virgin material might be more easily
located than new sites for maintenance spoil.

New Onland Disposal. The dry material excavated by land based equipment will be

of more immediate use for levee or site-fill material because it does not require compaction
and dewatering.

Material dredged from below the water table perhaps would be in surplus, or, if
needed for site fill, would require compaction and dewatering. The wet dredged material to
be placed in new onland disposal sites can be piped in slurry form into containment levees.
The high proportion of water in the material requires that the constructed volume of the
containment areas be greater than the original volume of dredged material in situ. The
expanded volume of the slurry is calculated from a "bulking factor." The bulking factor
may range from unity for sand to two for silt or clay (McFarland, et al., 1976). In addition,
a water quality control method is required for outflowing slurry water. Various sediment
control methods include filters, vegetation, and channelizations. Generally, more polluted
sediments require a longer period of water retention and thus more volume in the disposal
area (McFarland, et al., 1976). The drainage rate of the water can be easily controlled by a
weir gate at the discharge point.

The material for which use as fill at the industrial development site is feasible must
be placed in a manner which allows expeditious dewatering and compaction. The develop-
ment area must be compartmented by levees constructed of material excavated by land
based equipment. The compartment sizing should be such that a rotating sequence of use
would provide enough time interval for dewatering and compaction prior to the next place-
ment of dredged material. While one part of the compartment is dewatering, another may be
filling. Under natural conditions, sand and gravel drain almost immediately, silts drain more
slowly, and clays are very slow to consolidate. Dewatering can be accelerated with disc-
harrowing (scarification) to increase exposure of the material to air. The material can be
compacted with a sheepsfoot roller. This technique may be used if the slurry is not more
than a foot in depth during the operation. The net accumulation of clayey material may be
limited to 2 or 3 feet of compacted depth, beyond which dewatering time dramatically
increases. Success of the compaction process will also be dependent upon rainfall.

The location of an upland disposal site for material not used as industrial site-fill
should avoid natural drainage channels. The largest available area nearest to the dredge
operation with least environmental conflict should be selected. Marshes and lowlands should
be avoided. Finally, it should be noted that material placed in the spoil areas need not be
mechanically dewatered and compacted on the same schedule as industrial site disposal,
although some amount may be favorable to successful revegetation of the disposal area.

Industrial Site Area
The design application of an industrial site selection process, which incorporates an
analysis of the capability and suitability of the land to accommodate use, will serve to
minimize conflict with systems or natural environments unfavorable for development. Envi-
ronmental engineering alternatives are employed as a means of responding to marginal site
characteristics or design requirements that may exist even in the most tolerant and intrinsic-
ally suitable location. They are discussed here in terms of five design criteria: foundations,
water supply, flood protection, runoff control, and waste management.

Foundations and Substrates. Foundation conditions in substrates along the Texas
Gulf Coast present a range of potential problems for industrial construction. Notable are the
low shear and bearing strength, high water holding capacity, and high shrink-swell potential
characteristics of coastal clays.

A more naturally stable foundation material is sand or sandy clay. The improved
drainage characteristics of these substrates avoid the saturation that constrain the use of
clays.

The choice among alternative designs to accommodate substrate limitations must be
predicated on detailed, site specific information. Core-boring data, soil mechanics analysis,
and an understanding of the property and behavior of substrates can provide design informa-
tion to avert such problems as differential settlement, corrosion, piping failures, and poor
drainage. These factors are particularly critical in the design of structures, roadbeds, em-
bankments, and water retention ponds.

Foundation Treatment. The type of foundation design employed depends on the
type of constraint encountered as a function of both the substrate and loading to be
imposed. The slab foundation on grade is a relatively stable and simple foundation design.
This design, commonly used in housing foundations, spreads the structural loading to a low
unit stress on the underlying material. Bending of the foundation will occur, however, if
located where the moisture content of the subgrade is variable and the material changes
volume with changing moisture content, as is typical of clays. Typical effects of this instabil-
ity on the structure are jamming of doors and windows, fracture of the slab and cracking of
the walls. Instability can be overcome by excavation of the poor quality material and
replacing it with a compacted, stable material such as sand, sandy clay, or shell. These free
draining materials prevent the buildup of differential pore pressures against the slab. The
method may be practical only for smaller structures due to the costs of excavation, fill
material acquisition and handling, drainage treatment, and subgrade compaction.

Piling may be required for more severe substrate instability under particularly high
unit stress loadings. Depending on local stratigraphy and substrate, pilings provide support
through friction between the piling and soil, and/or columnar support when driven to a firm
subsurface. As previously described, piling material may be wood, steel or concrete, as
determined by loading requirements and relative cost and durability factors.

Spread footing foundations may be required when a severe structural loading is
placed on an unstable substrate, particularly where the structure is concentrated in a small
area. This method requires a drilled shaft, underreamed at the bottom to a conic section, in
which reinforcement steel and concrete are placed. Bearing area of the spread footing
increases as the square of the footing base (conic section) diameter. These footings cost
approximately $80 to $90 per cubic yard, in place.

Water Supply. The need for large volumes of water of good quality is a principal
location factor and a major operating cost for many industries. The capital requirements for
a suitable water supply may range from installation of local well fields to construction of
distant dams and reservoirs. Operational costs such as the energy input for pumping is also a
consideration. The availability and relative costs of various water sources are factors which
can strongly influence plant design as well as location.

Surface Water. There is a close correlation of river flow with average annual rainfall
in Texas, that is, there is a decreasing availability of fresh water from northeast to south-
west. Recent data indicate a present surplus of water in the Sabine River Basin, adequate
supplies in the Guadalupe Basin, marginal supplies in the Nueces River, and shortfall south
of Corpus Christi. The Rio Grande is wholly allocated to existing users; any new water
demand would require the purchase and conversion of existing water rights. Basins with a
surplus-to-adequate supply may be expected to decline in the upper coast with increased
upstream use and recurrence of historical low rainfall sequences.

Surface water treatment requirements vary between different streams. Generally,
filtration, precipitation of dissolved constituents, and control of biological toxicants are
sufficient to meet industry quality requirements. The range of operating costs for surface
water supply typical to new plant construction is estimated to be from 10 to 15 cents per
thousand gallons.

Groundwater. On the upper Texas Gulf Coast, industries have historically developed
groundwater well fields more extensively than surface water sources. High-quality water has
been available at or near the plants at relatively low cost, and in many instances only a
minor degree of treatment has been required. This has resulted in withdrawal rates which
have lowered water tables by 90 to 370 feet in the last 34 years (Sandeen and Wesselman,
1973). Intrusion of brackish or salt water into the aquifers and subsidence of the land
surface have been associated results. Land subsidence has become severe in many places in
Harris County, and is dramatically evident at Baytown. The land has subsided up to 8 feet
near the Houston Ship Channel, with lesser amounts to the south. In Brazoria County
(Brazosport Area), two feet of subsidence has been reported.

The effect on subsidence of groundwater withdrawal may be reduced if wells are
properly spaced and sized for a reasonable correlation with aquifer recharge rates.

Wells of over 1 MGD capacity are fairly common in fresh water aquifers of the upper
coastal counties, and wells of approximately 5 MDG have been developed in brackish water.
An estimated installed cost of a developed well of 1 MGD capacity is approximately
$100,000.

Desalination. With current technology, maximum practical desalination capability is
approximately 10 MGD. The costs of the product water (at least $1.00/1000 gallons) make
desalination a questionable alternative for most industries, particularly when considered in
conjunction with the cost of disposal of concentrated effluent brines. Brine disposal on land
presents potential problems with water contamination. Disposal in bay waters often creates
local hypersalinity, and the costs of transport for disposal in the Gulf is generally prohibi-
tive.

Desalination may be a feasible alternative if excess heat to drive the process is
available from other industry operations and if the recovery of magnesium or other elements
from the brine is cost effective. If the efficient development of geothermal or geopressured
energy resources were realized, an integrated energy/industrial process/desalination system
might be cost competitive.

Salt Water. The reduction in availability of unallocated surface water, the escalating
costs of developing and transporting new fresh water supplies and the problems related to
groundwater development has led industry to more extensive use of marine waters, particu-
larly for cooling purposes. Salt water for industrial cooling is a relatively common practice
on the Texas coast, particularly for major electric utility generating plants. This alternative
is especially attractive to plants located along an industrial navigation channel where there is
a relatively inexpensive, short length of intake conduit. For cooling water discharge, flow
may be through evaporation ponds to lower the water temperature prior to release to the
channel, bay, river, or Gulf. If cooling water is both drawn from and discharged to a
navigation channel, the discharge point must be isolated from the intake point and the
volume of the receiving waters should be greater than that of the discharge to avoid heat
build-up over time. An additional benefit from cooling water withdrawal in the navigation
channel would be the promotion of flushing action. The efficacy of the system would
depend on the volume of water withdrawn. This process would add to the requirement of
maintaining water quality in the channel, and of containing and removing accidental spills.

Recycling. The costs of recycling treated wastewater for industry must be weighed
against the purchase, conveyance, and treatment costs of the primary water supply. The use
of treated municipal wastewater by industries has proven successful, particularly in areas of
limited water supply. Reuse may also be a suitable alternative if available water supplies are
of poor quality, requiring costly treatment. Water recycling, as with other water treatment
alternatives, may be particularly suited to an industrial complex because of industry interre-
lationships which would allow use of a common, integrated facility.

Flood Protection. Most coastal lands are vulnerable to flooding from hurricane surge-tides,
high intensity local rainfall runoff, and river flooding along low gradient coastal reaches. The
100-year hurricane surge flooding height (typical design storm) along the Texas coast is approxi-
mately 10 feet at Brownsville, 15 feet between Port Isabel and Corpus Christi, 11 feet at Port
Aransas, 13 feet at Freeport, and near 20 feet at Port Arthur (Texas Coastal Marine Council, 1976).
One of the more severe hurricanes to recently strike the Texas coast was Carla (1961), which had a
maximum surge flooding height of 22 feet above mean sea level at Port Lavaca.

River flooding may follow post-hurricane intense rainfall in coastal watersheds and heavy
rainfalls farther inland, although the effect of the latter is regulated by flood control dams. The
extent of river flooding depends on the size of the watershed, amount of recent rainfall, height of
natural levees, stream gradient, width of floodplain, and the extent of erosion control along stream
banks.

An inland industrial site has two strategies for avoiding either type of major flooding: either
build at an elevation above flood influence, or to construct flood protection levees. A combination
of the two approaches may be the best alternative, with a calculated tradeoff between the cost of
channel length to an upland elevation and the cost of higher levees for flood protection at lower
elevations.

The distance (perpendicular to the coast) inland to an elevation above hurricane surge
flooding is 17 miles at Brownsville, between 6 and 10 miles along the reach from Port Isabel to
Corpus Christi, 8 to 10 miles at Freeport, and 15 to 20 miles at Port Arthur as measured inland
from Sabine Lake. The headlands of most Texas bays are commonly at elevations above typical
storm design surge height and face the bay with cliffs or bluffs. The western end of Corpus Christi
Bay and Lavaca Bay are typical examples.

Examples of industrial areas which are protected by a levee system include Texas City, the
Freeport-Dow Complex area, and Port Arthur. Levees are generally constructed of compacted
earthfill with a side slope of 2:1 or 3:1, stabilized by vegetation.

Control of Runoff. Drainage control involves the collection and diversion of surface runoff,
both within and adjacent to the site. The design of a drainage system incorporates considerations of
potential flooding, erosion control, and the management of accidental spills and leaks. Water quality
in the harbor and channel is protected by avoiding uncontrolled runoff and toxic materials dis-
charges from the industrial site and adjacent area. Finally, drainage control includes the manage-
ment of runoff on the site to avoid accentuated flooding conditions on adjacent property.

The basic design of a site drainage control system channels runoff away from developed
areas and roadways to retention ponds to allow control of the volume and rate of discharge, settling
of sediments and treatment of toxic materials. Drainage ditches and control levees immediately
surrounding the industrial plants, storage areas and parking lots should control flow away from the
harbor area to a waste treatment complex. Vegetative planting in exposed site areas assists in
reducing soil loss, sediment accumulation in control structures, and reduces the velocity of runoff.

The discharge point for stormwater runoff will depend on the water quality of the effluent
and receiving waters and the nature of surrounding lands. Flows which are free of sediment and
toxic material can be routed from on-site retention ponds to off-site local drainage or to the harbor.
Discharge of runoff into the harbor may assist water circulation and encourage flushing; however,
the return of runoff to a local drainage may be required to maintain the fresh water inflow
requirements in coastal wetlands.

The cost feasibility of internal use of runoff water in lieu of water conveyed from off-site
also should be investigated. Possible negative factors include low frequency and small quantity in
this supply, and relatively large areal requirements for a useful retention pond.

Waste Disposal. Alternative waste control practices applicable to this study are concerned
with the organization of a waste management program which minimizes the cost of handling and
treatment, maximizes environmental compatibility and allows for innovative reuse of material
where practical. Critical options are the degree of treatment required and design of the effluent
discharge.

Solid Waste. Solid wastes are commonly disposed of in landfills. A proper landfill
operation consists of an excavation wherein the wastes are repeatedly placed, compacted,
and covered by a layer of the excavated material. After final backfill and grading, the site is
available for use to other purposes. General design parameters provide that the base of the
excavation be an impervious material (to avoid groundwater contamination), that the waste
be compacted to approximately 800 pounds per cubic yard, and that the cover be propor-
tioned one part cover soil to four parts of refuse. Life expectancy of the site will be a
function of landfill capacity, solid waste production rate of suitable substrate, and of land
availability.

Incineration of solid wastes has the potential advantage of energy recovery, but it is
a costly and complex process. The process is advantageous because the weight and volume
of the refuse are reduced, but air quality control may preclude use in a non-degradation air
quality maintenance area. Municipal installation and operation costs of incinerators have
been in the range of 10 to 15 dollars per ton of refuse. Industrial wastes may require
additional costs for separation or sorting of refuse and more complex air pollution control
equipment.

Other disposal options include baling, shredding, and soil enrichment programs.
Baling may result in cost savings through reductions in handling, transportation, and landfill
size requirements. Shredding and soil enrichment programs have advantages in special appli-
cations, and all of these alternatives require specialized equipment and increased initial
costs.

Recycling of solid waste materials is beneficial for resource recovery. The justifi-
cation of separation and sorting costs will depend on the quantity and value of wastes.
Again, this is an industry-specific consideration, but one which is becoming a more attrac-
tive alternative as resource depletion escalates materials prices.

Liquid Waste. Disposal of liquid wastes from industrial processes can be very costly.
Primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment in a combined plant system can require approxi-
mately $12.6 million in capital investment for a 10 MGD capacity. Land requirements
include retention ponds for settling of suspended solids as well as biological and chemical
treatment plants to remove dissolved constituents. Effluent may be contained in a lagoon to
supplement other treatment processes. The discharge of the treated water must be designed
so as to avoid exceeding the assimilation capacity of the receiving water, be it the harbor,
local drainage, or open water system.

Sludge disposal must also be considered, particularly with respect to potential metals
and toxic materials accumulating in industrial waste treatment. Typical sludge disposal
alternatives include biologic digestion, drying incineration, use as fertilizer, and ocean
dumping by barge. Reclamation of chemicals in sludge for reuse of salable by-products has
proven effective by certain industries. Waste Management in the Texas Coastal Zone
(TAMU, 1973)/provides a detailed analysis of alternative waste treatment methods and cost
estimating procedures.

Reuse of wastewater may be a viable alternative when treatment to a high quality
level is required prior to discharge. This practice has proven particularly successful in indus-
trial use of municipal wastewater. However, where there is a wide disparity between the

quality of the intake water required and the quality of the effluent, the costs of further
treatment may easily exceed other available water sources.

Certain liquid wastes do not lend themselves to treatment at sufficient quality for
reuse or release into the surface environment. Underground injection of wastes provides an
alternative disposal method. Injection wells are drilled to a formation which will contain the
type of waste discharged without contamination of groundwater supplies.

Relocation
The location of a large land area suitable for industrial development and the location of an
access channel route of significant length will seldom be free of conflict with previous human
activity. Pipelines, powerlines, roads, railroads, houses, and cemeteries may conflict with develop-
ment plans and require special relocation, rerouting or removal.

Pipelines. Two primary considerations are evident in relocating pipelines crossing an inland
canal development area. One is clearance beneath the channel or harbor area; the other is rerouting
around an area proposed for structures. Channel clearance is obtained by construction of a parallel
section of line deep enough to safely clear the maximum dredging depth, tying into the existing
line, and salvaging the old line. Costs are affected by diameter, line pressure requirements, and
material prices. In areas where structures are planned, routing of an existing pipeline around an area
of structural development may be necessary to assure safety and serviceability. Plant location
selection maximizing the use of existing lines and/or rights-of-way is desirable.

A generally less desirable method of obtaining clearance is the use of a bridge structure.
While clearance might be obtained at a cost not significantly more expensive than below grade
construction, the overhead pipeline is more vulnerable to hazards and presents navigation restric-
tions.

Powerlines. The objective in powerline relocations is generally to avoid a mixture of above-
grade and below-grade routing. Thus, an above-ground powerline crossing the canal should be raised
by taller support structures. Existing underground lines should be routed underneath the channel.
Powerline conflicts in the industrial development area can best be resolved by rerouting.

Roads and Highways. Relocation concepts for roads and highways will vary with type of
road and traffic volume. Smaller roads may be rerouted, removed, or incorporated into the site.
Major highways would be rerouted around the harbor and industrial area, or bridged over the
channel. Movable span bridges have been employed in the past although they are generally less
desirable due to traffic delays, safety, and operation and maintenance requirements. Fixed span
bridges, although expensive (approximately $50 per square foot) do not present these problems.

Increases in the size of barge towboats and dredging equipment has increased the height and
width requirements for highway bridges crossing barge channels. Current standard project design of
the Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation is a bridge clearance of 52 feet above
normal high water.

Railroads. Railroad grades are limited to a maximum of 1 percent. Therefore at least one
mile of major construction is required either side of a bridge with 52-foot clearance. If barge and
rail traffic volume is not excessive, a lift bridge may be used, as has been constructed at the Victoria
barge canal. A rerouting of the track alignment around the project may be more desirable and easily
coordinated with industrial rail service requirements. Considerations for such a project include
right-of-way acquisition and foundation substrate.

Houses. It is common to purchase existing houses with the site acquisition and, depending
on condition, sell for salvage value. As an alternative, existing structures may be utilized as office

space during construction The possibility of incorporation into the industrial site is also a function
of the condition and location of structures.

Cemeteries. The relocation of graves generally requires permission from heirs and may
require approval from the Texas Historical Commission. A cemetery could be incorporated into
greenspace portions of the project if not relocated.

Other Historical Sites. Proper route selections and development layout can avoid all but the
most extensive historical sites. An archeological survey during site planning and design should be
coordinated with and approved by the Texas Historical Commission. In most cases, provision of
opportunity for archeological survey, inventory, and site investigation prior to development will be
required.

Engineering Alternatives References

Delonge, H. C. and G. C. Guarino. 1975. "Variations in Raw Water Supply-Effect on Treatment
and Cost." Journal A WWA. Vol. 67, No.2:

Espey, Huston and Associates, Inc. 1977. A Study of the Placement of Materials Dredged from
Texas Ports and Channels. General Land Office of Texas.

Fair, G. M. J. C. Geyer, and D. A. Okun. 1971. Elements of Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal,
Second Ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Godfrey, R. S. (ed). 1975. Building Construction Cost Data - 1976. Duxbury, Massachusetts:
Robert Snow Means Company, Inc.

Herbich, John B. 1975. Coastal and Deep Ocean Dredging. Gulf Publishing Company.

Herbich, John B. 1976. "Engineering Aspects of Operation and Maintenance of the Gulf Inter-
coastal Waterway in Texas." Dredging: Environmental Effects and Technology. Proc. of
WODCON VII, San Francisco.

Marinos, George and J. W. Woodward. 1968. "Estimation of Hurricane Surge Hydrographs."
Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, No. WW2.

McFarland, Frank, et al. 1976. Coastal Inland Canals. Interim Reports (Draft). Prepared for the
General Land Office Coastal Zone Management Program. Texas A&M University.

Pavoine, J. L., J. E. Heer, Jr., and D. J. Hagerty. 1974. Handbook of Solid Waste Disposal. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.

Peck, R. B., W. E. Hanson, and T. H. Thornburn. 1963. Foundation Engineering. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York.

Reid, R. O. and B. R. Bodine. 1968. "Numerical Model for Storm Surges in Galveston Bay."
Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, No. WW1.

Sandeen, W. M. and J. B. Wesselman. 1973. Ground Water Resources of Brazoria County. Prepared
by the U.S. Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the Texas Water Develop-
ment Board, Report 163.

Texas A&M University. 1973. Waste Management in the Texas Coastal Zone. Office of the
Governor, Division Planning Coordination, Coastal Resources Management Program, ICNRE,
Austin, Texas.

Texas. Coastal and Marine Council. 1976. Model Minimum Hurricane Resistant Building Standards
for the Texas Gulf Coast. Prepared for the General Land Office of Texas.

U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center. 1966. Shore Protection, Planning and Design.
Technical Report No. 4, 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1957. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway: Guadalupe River, Texas. Revised
Definite Project Report. Galveston District.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1974. Project Maps. U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston Corps
of Engineers.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. "News Release," Galveston District, Various issues.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control
Planning and Implementation. Report No. EPA-R2-72-015. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Decision-Makers Guide to Solid Waste Management.
Report No. SW-500. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

"Unit Prices," Engineering News Record, August 5, 1976 and August 26, 1976.

Design Criteria Summary

Three sets of criteria which will be utilized in selection and design of an inland canal/in-
dustrial site have been discussed: industry location factors, engineering alternatives, and environ-
mental constraints. These factors, taken as a group, guide the planning process to meet the project
objectives; that is, the selection and design of a site which appeals to industry, minimization of
adverse environmental impact, and competitive cost.

A matrix has been prepared as a summary of the three groups of criteria (see Figure 45).
The industry location factors and the environmental constraints are considered constant in the
matrix. The list of engineering alternatives provides a checklist of variations in site characteristics or
design which can be employed and can visualize the effects of design decision on the project
objectives.

Another way to view the matrix is as a tool for evaluating the tradeoffs between mutually
exclusive objectives. In this context, the objective of achieving a locational factor (for example,
access to navigable water) can be compared to the opposing environmental constraints (a site in
proximity to navigation may also be more prone to hurricane flooding and disturbance of wetland
systems; the needs for suitable industrial infrastructure may also cause an overburden on existing
social services).

The list of engineering alternatives is a checklist which is used to evaluate the cost of the
tradeoff, or in some instances, to point to a variation which alleviates a detrimental tradeoff.

Regardless of the utility of the matrix, is should be considered only as a design tool. As
mentioned in the discussion on environmental constraints, the use of such a list as an accurate
prediction of the impacts of decisions can be misleading. But it can be helpful to remind the
designer of available options to meet the objectives of the facility and to maintain minimal environ-
mental disruption.

LEAST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CORRIDOR SELECTION

A least environmental impact corridor which allows sufficient area for inland canal site
layout is located departing from the GIWW about 3.4 miles south of the Brazos River and 3/4 miles
north of the San Bernard River. The channel corridor extends inland about 5 miles along a low ridge
to the west of Jones Creek. The industrial site corridor includes large land tracts both north and
south of the community of Jones Creek. This corridor is one of three alternatives identified in the
study area and is considered typical of other locations found on the Texas coast.

The selection of the least impact corridor for the canal and industrial site is based on an
interpretation of environmental design constraints as well as the spatial requirements of the
project's design components. The following section presents the appropriate corridor width allowing
maximum flexibility in the location of the canal and industrial park. It also presents the basis for
preparation of the composite constraint map. Alternative environmental corridors which maximize
environmental and socioeconomic compatibility and suitability are identified and described and a
least impact corridor is selected for further study.

Corridor Dimensions
The dimensions of the project corridor reflect the number of features to be located within
the corridor, the type of features, and their respective requirements. The objective at this point is to
identify a zone within which the expected maximum dimensions of a typical canal-industrial park
complex could be located. The specific composition and characteristics of both the canal and
industrial park are subsequently presented (see Chapter III-D).

On the basis of existing canal systems (GIWW, Dow Barge Canal, Victoria Barge Canal) and
typical industrial sites, a suitable corridor would be a minimum of 1500 feet wide for the canal and
terminate in a contiguous minimum area of 2000 to 5000 acres for barge landing and industrial
development sites, These parameters allow the inclusion of the direct project components (actual
width of the canal, access roads, and levees, and area for industrial structures, support facilities and
expansion area) as well as additional area to accommodate flexibility in the final alignment.

Selection of Alternate Corridors

Composite Constraint Map
The primary tool for identification of the least environmental impact corridor is the com-
posite constraint map. The composite constraint map represents the net accumulation of mapped
data elements which have been interpreted in terms of their respective innate characteristics and
their suitability for or limitations to development. The general utility of composite constraint maps
is to enhance the visibility of alternate areas most capable of development, and conversely, to define
those areas most restrictive to development. The use of composite constraint maps in selecting
alternate development corridors contributes to a maximization of environmental suitability and,
conversely, a minimization of environmental cost.

The procedure applied in preparation of the composite constraint map is founded on the
overlay mapping process. This concept, developed largely from the works of Phillip Lewis (1969)
and Ian McHarg (I197 1), consists of mapping various environmental features and assigning an intrin-
sic value to each variable or map element. Each map presents not only the location of environ-
mental features, but also the relative value or importance of that feature as a constraint on project
development.

A. Lasii 1i1so- l III I

a. '-sl~~~idng -UcssLoe~ .M rods eino.1 lioading II I II

3. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l 4 -lard - tan pota n acces ... I fruI I,
a. 511c'ao jd fi PItI It

7. rai- l I I-

8. -I I td- ft-aIiiiiit.5 fllp ."d Iffki-lg IIy
2. 1. ater di- o-f process. Mlgol/t-diaig' II

3. liu d.catsireloo sod dipalfacilitiel- I I I I

4. toilteand tic! poteionI I I I
5. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ - spil prssionec, toi aslliethKKi I I I
S. elestricitoll I Ii II ii Iiib-

7. taturaigasli~~~~~~~~ts II I I I i
C. aside tr~nsps'tati-oaces

suiiatid~oerslnsioeesicailosoafetra~defficeocy I I I I I I I I I U I I I I I I I..IJ

II Il~llil I Kliii 111K.l i

D~~~~~~~~~cesig Coris terial Summaor y ~ j I III 1 1 1 I I I

crlei~nsqs..erclto io osee~otr I I I II I II I I 9 6 I

F~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - VP 417I1<-

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IL

LL~~~~~~ IT - I I r I4111+I I4

i4- Li

-. - ~~~~~~~Figure 45
Design Criteria Summary
(cont' d)

~~~~~~~- - -c41, - -- -- e--a
D. Avod ar an eoaUre Oeie biutt and rok-rie

~~~~ 4 z -~~~~~~~I _ _____

_ _ -l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -i.

, .ior dl-o .. 'oteotia
I 0 0.010 Oreas oC k~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f 0tie SbId'Mc

~~~~~~~~~i'I. fIii

Wlla-1d -'ssot-t f00 accs

t,.l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i

1. ca~~te forl d. ocyss soo l f.di'i- ..I l i ~

I.~ ~ ~ ~~ wh P~Ie cdf0 OtCI5 --- 4-4 - -444 -41 -+ 4

_________________~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~44 - iet10 -~-----i

7.~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ sacalo 2
Fig~~~~~~~0a, oure~ 45C5
Djfjcesdig~fI~sn Crieri~aiSum. arey adefce
7.cont'led)~esoslfpsef. ~re1.dsg

3.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -__ -cen -~n -li - - ------

7. ccsSsosa sctefa4-dotin ad ao fndlngf~ils98

-- ------~-------

Figure 45
Design Criteria Summary
(cont'd)

W I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1011 di -trpI., of oi Idiif. 10bi Ut. Ig.tsilt ots

b. Aootd r-, and Ind-gle,e 'Pllies tablltt Mn rok-ris

8. O~~ledlorootl.n or P,.d-tt b., Mtln .a....

i itrntai~~~~~~-t WI- roo L. -dtra I0irt- ndto. r r

I. ti l-tCdi ptt.n of ol.If".roat ot
3. MI 0m. dilltr i-O OfM otMsyts

Mlti.9k.1 AO~dltraild f I.ItM.-

6. iitdid Arut, of k Ia Stigan O teta f,.f tt.~~

d. lie.tt Alt-to Of k dtoin, *sttttref - n

tlt, iat ditrtlop oreetIonL eur
hill. dlsrcp I ti-t Iftoeta e-d~ .ab tighset~t itor
~~ 5. riotatbi titoot 100401 iht~f-

Six environmental data maps have been prepared with a base map of drainage and major
highway features:
Map 1 - Natural Hazards
Map 2 - Substrate, Soils, and Aquifer
Map 3 - Ecosystems
Map 4 - Wildlife
Map 5 - Land Use
Map 6 - Transportation, Minerals, Archeology

The data sources for each map are listed in Appendix C.

Each element on a map was evaluated by the study team and assigned a weight (Figure 46).
Higher weight values represent higher levels of constraint. A description of the evaluation for each

Figure 46
Evaluation Map Elemental Constraints

Map Elements Constraint Value
Natural Hazards
Flooding
5 foot surge flood (Carla-type) 1.5
10 foot surge flood (Beulah-type) 3
Subsidence areas
Less than 0.5 feet 1.5
More than 0.5 feet 3.0
Faults (including apparent lineations) 3
Substrate
Suitable for most developments 1
Possible problems 2
Unsatisfactory for most developments 3
Ecosystem Sensitivity
Shrub-savannah 0.6
Cordgrass prairie 1.2
Freshwater marsh 1.8
Fluvial woodland 2.4
Brackish water marsh 3.0
Wildlife Habitat
Duck, or deer (each-presence) 1
Geese (high or low presence) 1, 0.5
Endangered species 3
Drainage Systems
Ditch, intermittent stream 1
Prominent river, bayou 2
Lake 3
Land Use
Rangeland 0.75
Improved grazing or cropland 1.5
Wooded areas 2.25
Developed-industrial, residential 3
Transportation, Resource extraction, Archeological sites
Major/minor roads 3/1
Sand and gravel operation, oil and gas operations 3
Archeological sites 3

100

FLOOD-PROTECTE

log AREA

"t4

4 REA
-FLOOD PRONE A.
(HURRICANE) CID-PROTECTED
AREA

BY
SUBSIDENCE > 1.0 FEET
p FAULT LINEATION
GROWTH FAULT LINE
HURRICANE 100-YEAR
FLOOD HEIGHT
RIVER 100-YEAR FLOOD six
HEIGHT
Ql

0 5000 110000 1^ 1 z

U-

UNSUITABLE SUBSTRATE U
F-= POSSIBLE SUBSTRATE

SUITABLE SUBSTRATE I
SOIL ASSOCIATION
BOUNDARY
UPPER CHICOT AQUIFER j
~.O~ SAND THICKNESS r

scale 'et!

ASCII-_Fe-,,

orm,

Ilq

BRACKISH-WATER MARSH U)
FRESH-WATER MARSH/SWAMP
F.--=. CORDGRASS PRAIRIE Lu
V= SHRUB SAVANNAH
FLUVIAL WOODLAND
MADE LAND
(n
0

0 5000 10000 100-k Lu

scale' feet

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

<"~~~~CVVVN> ..~~~~~~~~N~~~tNNN~~~~~NN~~~V 0~X

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~d~ m I

~~J &~~ i~~ 4 T 4~~~~ 2~~ L J~~ W~~ _______________________ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vkm
scale feet~Xx

;44

"'A

RAZING- RANGE
RESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL
WOODLAND LU
MARSH U)
FLOOD PROTECTION LEVEE
SYSTEM

0 5000 10000 ^ 1

llm_ 12.217 Wrt 1::1- Lo!

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

----- -

- /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

V \ ~~~~~~~Th \~~~~

0 5000 10 000 )

map element and the basis for weighing the data elements are discussed in Appendix C. A composite
map was prepared by superimposing each of the six evaluation maps. The composite map (Map 7)
depicts zones of highest constraint (highest value)/and least constraint, from which a least environ-
mental impact corridor can be selected.

An inherent difficulty in the data evaluation procedure is the comparability of the data
values. Valid interpretations can be made concerning the relative suitability of constraints of a series
of data elements (e.g., ranking the suitability of substrate types or soils). However, the comparison
of those values on more than one map (e.g., substrate suitability and ecosystem sensitivity) must
assume some relative weighting of one category versus another.

A review of similar applications of the evaluation mapping process provides a variety of
approaches to preparation of the composite value map. One approach recommends that (1) the
highest constraint classes from each map be combined to form a composite constraint map, and (2)
that a network of links and nodes be developed to avoid the high constraint areas on the composite
map (Minnesota Power and Light Company and Northern States Power Company, 1976). Another
procedure for the location of a lineal least impact corridor first overlays natural processes maps and
man-made and cultural features maps (Texas Tech University, 1974). A macro-corridor is then
selected through the lightest area of the composites, representing the least concentration of high
value features. A more precise least impact corridor is finally determined by selecting a series of low
value points within the macro-corridor. The latter study differs essentially from the former by using
a more select association of data elements and thereby avoiding the conceptual problems of com-
paring the other, more diverse environmental data categories. Neither of these studies attempted to
rank or scale the evaluated data elements in such a way as to support composite averaging.

A more reliable data evaluation procedure for deciding among alternative lineal routes, but
requiring detailed statistical calculations, attempts to develop a quantitative comparison of data
elements (University of Georgia institute of Ecology, 1971). The method applied a linear combi-
nation of component values multiplied by a weighting factor, giving the relative importance of the
particular component values. Values were then numerically scaled so that a mean impact index
could be calculated for each possible route. The calculation of the index for the routes and the
comparison of routes was conducted by computerized matrix analyses. The route selection was
verified through a sensitivity analysis, in which relative data values were varied over 20 stochastic
runs.

The approach in this project to evaluate the mapped data elements assumes a range of
weights from I to 3 for each data element. While this assumption unrealistically implies that each
data category has equally high constraints, it is more valid than the many assumptions which would
be required to posit different maximum constraints for each data category. Values within a category
are assigned by arithmetically dividing the possible weight of three by the number of constraint
levels per data category (2, 3, 4, or 5). The reader is referred to Appendix C for the relative ordering
of importance of the elements in a data category.

The composite constraint map was prepared by laying a uniform sampling grid over each of
the six constraint maps. The values of data elements at each sampling point on the grid were
summed and value contours were drawn. The final contouring was made over all data maps on a
light table, thereby assuring that the contours would most accurately follow the apparent con-
straints of each environmental feature.

The final composite constraint map was examined to determine an appropriate distribution
of low value points. These points were linked linearly to identify corridors of least environmental
constraint. Clusters of low value points were also isolated as representative of suitable industrial
development areas.

108

Corridor Evaluation
After identifying the linear and clustered linkages of low value points, each corridor was
investigated on the ground to verify the characteristics of the corridor.

Following field verification, a route comparison matrix was prepared. This matrix provided
an index by which each low value corridor could be analyzed for individual constraints, thereby
allowing a direct comparison of the alternative corridors.
In addition to the analysis of the individual environmental constraints, each corridor eval-
uation included engineering suitability and industry location factors. Engineering suitability was
judged according to the applicability of various engineering alternatives as a means of alleviating
environmental constraints. The advantages, disadvantages and cost of the applicable engineering
alternatives were compared. The design criteria matrix presented in Figure 45 provided the guiding
parameters for this analysis. Suitability for meeting industrial location factors was tested by deter-
mining the applicability of various engineering alternatives in providing for industrial requirements,
again as presented in the previously prepared design criteria matrix.

The final factor to be evaluated was land ownership. Existing ownership, existing land use,
and future development plans were determined and evaluated as a constraint or enhancement on the
project for the selected corridor.

Figure 47 summarizes the sequence of steps followed in selecting least impact environmental
corridors.

Corridor Descriptions

As identified in the analysis of engineering alternatives (see Chapter III-B-2) the two basic
canal routing options are (1) following an existing river/canal route to higher elevation, then by
canal to the industrial site, and (2) from the GIWW to the industrial site via canal. Upon analysis of
the composite constraint map, one corridor has been identified in the first category and two in the
latter category (Figure 48). The three corridors are shown in map view in Figure 49.

Existing Canal/River Route
Dow Canal to Oyster Creek Area. The corridor which fits the first category (route/site 11I)
would utilize the existing Dow Barge Canal to a point north of State Highway 523. An access canal
would be constructed from this junction trending perpendicular to the Dow Barge Canal and
crossing State Highway 332. The industrial site would be bounded by Highways 332 and 523, the
Missouri Pacific railroad, Chubb Lake, and Oyster Creek.

Response to design criteria. This corridor provides a suitable, contiguous industrial
site of approximately 1700 acres. The site is relatively undeveloped, except for the Oyster
Creek community at the southern boundary along State Highway 3 32. However, the area is
industrializing at the present time. Firms which have located in this area include equipment
sales, engineering contracting, oil field supply, metal goods, and a Houston Lighting and
Power Co. substation.

Transportation access is provided by State Highway 3 32 on the southern boundary
and State Highway 5 23 to the west. The Missouri Pacific railroad forms the west boundary
of the site. A petroleum products pipeline and power transmission line cross the site
between Chubb Lake and the community of Oyster Creek. Two drainage channels cross the
site, one adjacent to the Dow Barge Canal and Flagg Lake Drainage/East Union Bayou.
These channels and a small intermittent stream would require diversion.

Savannah-shrub and cordgrass prairie are the dominant vegetative communities. The

109

Figure 47

Environmental Evaluation Procedure

INVENTORY
DATA ELEMENTS

I
EVALUATE
DATA

DETERMINE I
ENVIRONMENTAL LINTERPRETONSRINT
CONSTRAINTS
CONSTRAINTSLIGHT OF CONSTRAINTS

MAP DATA AT
COMMON SCALE

I
ASSIGN RELATIVE
CONSTRAINT VALUE
WEIGHTS
I
COMPILE WEIGHTS
ON OVERLAY GRID

I
CONTOUR SUMMED VALUES
ON OVERLAY GRID
(COMPOSITE CONSTRAINT MAP)
I
IDENTIFY LOW CONSTRAINT
CORRIDORS

EVALUATE CORRIDORS IN
TERMS OF CORRIDOR DIMENSIONS
AND LOCATION FACTORS

COMPARE [
ALTERNATIVE
CORRIDORS

SELECT LEAST
IMPACT CORRIDOR
AND ALTERNATIVES

110

Figure 48

Corridor Evaluation Matrix

LOCATION FACTORS/CO1ISTRAINTS ALTERNATE SITES/ROUTES

overall constraint value 4-8 4 A 5-9 4-5

developable area 2500 acres 1600 acres 800 acres 1700 acres

elevation 9'-20'msl 4.5 -20'msl 6'-9' msl 3-9 msl

highway access ST 36 2 lanes, ST 36 2 lanes, ST 36 2 lanes, ST 332 4 laces
paved shoulders paved shoulders paved shoulders service roads

railroad access needs 7 mi. to needs 7 mi to 11.7 mi. to close to Mo.Pac.
Brazoria; 4.5 Brazoria; 5.7 Brazoria; 3 mi
mi. bridoe to mi to Clute + bridge to
Clute (2 hwy. with bridge * Freeport
crossings) 3 hwy crossine

ecosystems affected savannah-shrub savannah-shrub savannah-shrub savannah-shrub
woodland cordgrass prai- cordgrass prai- cordgrass prairie
rie brackish rie brackish
marsh marshofresh
water marsh

wildlife A endangered spp. minor deer duck gqeese - duck a and geese
habitat

natural drainage I Jones Cree k headwaters of drainage bayou-
headwaters Redfish Bayou intermittant
Jones Creek
tributary, +
proximal to
, marsh

soil characteristics med to well poorly to well poorly to well , poor drainage
'3 drained slow drained slow drained very slow runoff
i runoff mod. ranoff slow to slow to slow u very slow pemeability
perneability med. perm. runoff very
L slow perm.

stolm flooding river flooding I0-15' river flooding levee protection
5-10' hurri- hurricane 9-12 hurricane
cane flood flood flood

land subsidence .5' to date .5' to date .5' to date .5'-1.0' to date

surface faulting fault + linea- fault linea- - lineation evidence
tion evidence tion evidence

foundation substrate suitability suitable suitable suitable to poss. possible problems
problems by area

land use 1�wooded, 1�grazing improved pasture rangeland; strong
rangeland; grassland; local industry industrial trend
near small near small development
community cornunity

road relocation I small road unpaved road small fann road no internai road
thru site thru site thru site, site projects
straddles major hwy

pipeline relocation I mjr. pipeline 6 njr.pipeline 1 najor pipeline 1 major pipelire at SE
thru site across site thru ite site boader
North Site en Sne te Crk Census Tract 628 Co -Chubb Lake ar-a
Jones Creek an reutn

LOCATION FACTORS/CONSTRAINTS ALTERNATE SITES/ROUTES

overall constraint value 6-8 6-8 6-B 4-6

canal width (minimum) 2500 feet 1000 feet 1000 feet not restricted

canal length to site 7.6 miles 5.7 miles 5.3 miles 0.57 miles

canal access water dimensions 12'mlt x 125' 12' mt x 125' 12! x 125' (G:Id) 12' mit x 100' (Dow)
(GIWW) (GIWW)

ecosystems crossed, separated cordgrass prai- co-dgrass prai- cordgrass prai- cordgrass prairie
rio, small rie; grassland- rie; grassland;
grassland; wood! shrub closely bounded
by marsh

wildlife habitat S migrations Alligator, duck Alligator, duck Alligator, d.ck, -
qeese geese geese

natural drainage runoff flows runoff flows cross sloughs cross process water
c away from canal away from canal drainage ditch channel A drainaae
g no crossings close to Jones w channel
ov a s Creek & trib.

stom flooding e: hurricane hurricane hurricane
, flooding flooding flooding

land subsidence .5' .5' 5' c 0.5'-1.0'

surface faulting perhaps crosses perhaps crosses
2 faults 3 faults

canal excavatibility good fair to good fair to good poor

canal substrate permeability moderate moderate deroerate low

land use rangeland, res- rangeland, rangeland rangeland,
Identiel Indus. industrial industrial
(SEAOCK) (SEADOCK)

road relocation 1 major 2 lane 1 minor road major 4 lane h"Y
+1 minor road

pipeline relocation S major pipe- 3 major pipe- major pipeline
line crossings line crossings crossings
Eastern Western Stringfellow oo Canal to Os-r
-- Jones Creek Ridge Ridge Creek Area

I-A

5000 10000
6-1

FIGURE 49
ALTERNATIVE INLAND CANAL/
INDUSTRIAL SITE CORRIDORS.

Creek Ridge 11 Stringfellow Ridge
aCre:k North ::-A Census Tract 626 & South
I-B JonesCe k South I Dow-Chubb Lake

industrial corridor provides habitat for wintering duck and geese populations. These migra-
tory birds do not make high use of the area. it is at the western end of a major wintering
area extending from Oyster Creek eastward to the Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge. It is
probable that recent development trends have lessened the suitability of the area to the
wintering fowl.

The industrial corridor is close to the Freeport heavy groundwater withdrawal area
and has experienced land surface subsidence of 0.5 to 1.0 feet in the past 34 years. The area
is protected from hurricane and riverine flooding by a levee along the Dow Barge Canal and
Oyster Creek. Should the area be flooded, poor soil drainage, very slow permeability, and
slow runoff characteristics would increase the duration of the flood's effect in the low-lying
area (3 to 9 feet msl).

Direct G1WW to Site Route
Stringfellow Ridge Route. This corridor (route/site II) departs from the G1WW about 2.2
miles south of the Brazos River-GIWW confluence and extends inland 5.3 miles along a low, narrow
ridge to a point about 1.1 miles south of State Highway 36. The industrial site would be bounded
on the north and cast by the Brazos River and on the west by industrial land, freshwater marsh, and
prairie rangeland. The southern boundary is about one mile south of State Highway 36.

Response to design criteria. Roughly 800 acres of land are developable in this
corridor's industrial site. This area is, however, divided into two tracts by State Highway 36.
There are about 600 acres north of the two lane highway and about 200 acres to the south.

The industrial site appears as a low constraint area as it contains grazing land use,
negligible extent of subsidence, no critical habitat areas, and a suitable foundation substrate
over most of the area. The canal corridor is also a low constraint area. Cordgrass prairie
supports duck and geese populations on or adjacent to the ridge. The ridge substrate,
formed by an abandoned channel's levee building processes, presents fair to good excava-
tability. Land-use is cattle grazing.

There are other aspects which are less suitable. Transportation conflicts result from
traffic flow across the major east-west highway (see Figure 17). The elevation of the site is
low at 6 to 9 feet (msl) and subject to riverine and hurricane flooding. The canal excavation
would probably not produce sufficient quantities of material suitable for levee and fill. The
site is also very close to a sizeable fresh water marsh formed in a low area along an
intermittent drainage channel. That channel itself would either be crossed or included in the
site area development. Finally, the corridor width of this canal route is 1000 feet at maxi-
mum, which is less than corridor dimension specifications. Other aspects are summarized in
Figure 48.

Jones Creek Ridge. This corridor (route I) departs from the GIWW about three-quarters of a
mile north of the San Bernard River and about 3.4 miles south of the Brazos River. The channel
corridor extends inland about 5 miles along a ridge west of Jones Creek. The industrial site corridor
includes more than 8000 acres encircling the community of Jones Creek.

Within this corridor are two alternate channel routes. One route, designated as Eastern Jones
Creek Route (I-A), extends 7.6 miles inland to a termination north of the community of Jones
Creek, crossing Highway 36. The other, designated as Western Jones Creek Route (I-B), is about 5
miles long and terminates to the south of the community of Jones Creek. This route crosses the
upper reach of Redfish Bayou which is an area of particular ecological concern (see Chapter
III-C-4). The amount of developable land is about equally divided between the north and south
areas. The north and south sites are connected by a swath about 2300 feet wide between Clemens
State Farm and the community of Perry Landing.

113

IThis corridor includes Seadock's proposed onshore pipeline alignment and oil storage
terminal area. The corridor width is sufficient to allow compatible routing of both the inland canal
and Seadock's pipeline and terminal with a minimum of conflict with the brackish water marshes on
either side of the Jones Creek Ridge.

Response to design criteria. Land transportation access is provided by Highway 36.
An abandoned railroad right-of-way extends from Brazoria into Clemens State Farm. The
Brazos River is a close-by source of water, although tidal influence increases river water
salinity. The industrial site north of Jones Creek includes woodlands and prairie grasslands.
Part of the wooded area has been cleared for grazing. The woodland provides habitat for a
low density deer population. It has also been identified as an attractive area for potential
residential development. The southern site includes prairie grasslands with both cordgrass
and savannah communities. It is above the inland boundary of the coastal brackish water
marsh. Duck and geese winter at the site, but not in as large numbers as closer to the coast
in the marsh. The southern site is at the headwaters of Redfish Bayou, a critical habitat in
its lower reaches and a major source of fresh water to the adjacent brackish marshes.

The northern site is at elevation between 9 and 20 feet (msl). The southern site
varies in elevation between 4 and 20 feet, with most of the area less than 12 feet (msl). Most
of either site is susceptible to both hurricane surge-tide and river flooding. Soil and substrate
characteristics are generally suitable for heavy industrial development throughout the area.
There is evidence of a surface fault and structural lineation (see Appendix C; Map 1)
crossing both north and south sites.

The canal corridor width is approximately 2500 feet, although it narrows to about
1500 feet close to the GIWW. The ridge on which the canal is routed separates brackish
water marsh bodies and is actually a drainage divide between the Brazos and San Bernard
Rivers. Natural drainage would therefore flow away from the route. The ridge is vegetated
by cordgrass and savannah-grassland assemblages. The channel corridor crosses as many as
three surface faults, not known to be active, and as many as six pipelines.

Corridor Selection

The route using the existing Dow Canal for inland access has obvious advantages. The major
share of canal excavation is, of course, complete. The area is already strongly tending to industrial
development and there is almost sufficient land available to meet corridor dimension criteria.
Finally, there are few striking environmental constraints.

However feasible this alternative is, its adoption is not satisfactory toward the furtherance
of this study. The purpose of the study is not to prepare a site specific project design, but is to
assess the feasibility of inland canal alternatives to traditional bay margin or riverine developments
generalizable to other areas. The Dow Barge canal and Dow Industrial Complex is a working
example of the inland canal concept. Yet to incorporate the Dow Canal in this study's scenario
would greatly reduce the generalizability and utility of the study's results.

Although the Stringfellow Ridge Route is a low environmental constraint corridor, location
factors preclude it as a suitable project area in this study. First, it has overall insufficient acreage.
Secondly, the acreage is not contiguous, but is divided by a high-use highway above grade to a fixed
span bridge. Finally, the canal corridor width is insufficient to ensure environmental protection to
surrounding brackish marsh and coastal prairie.

The Jones Creek Ridge corridor is the more likely project area. First, it has between 3,000
and 8,000 acres of developable land in a low constraint area. The north and south sites could be
developed separately or in tandem, depending on the total amount of land needed for returning

114

*development investment. Secondly, the ridge route is of sufficient width and minimizes disruption
to drainage.

The major comparison between the eastern route and western channel route alternatives
(Figure 48) in this corridor is the monetary cost of building a bridge at the canal-Highway 36
juncture versus the ecological cost of crossing the upper reach of Redfish Bayou. The major
comparison between the north and south industrial sites is between developing in the woodland
north of Jones Creek, which is a scenic potential residential area, versus developing adjacent to the
coastal brackish water marshes, thereby potentially disrupting water and nutrient supply patterns in
the productive wetland.

In conclusion, the Jones Creek Ridge Route is the best corridor in the study area for
developing an inland canal/industrial park complex with minimal environmental impact. This cor-
ridor allows alternative route selections for both channel and industrial sites. This final selection and
concomitant project design is presented in Chapter III-D.

Having made this corridor selection, it is necessary to note the land ownership patterns in
the corridor area. Seadock, Inc., is the single largest landholder in the corridor. Their property
includes the access ridge, part of the adjacent marshland, and almost all of the coastal prairie
directly south of the incorporated limits of Jones Creek. Representatives of Seadock have indicated
that this large tract exceeds their land requirements and would be suitable for industrial develop-
ment. Another private corporation owns land between Jones Creek and Clemens State Farm. Most
of the land between the Seadock property and the San Bernard River is privately owned. This tract
of land may be closed to industrial development. It consists partly of rangeland and partly of
natural woodland, shrub, and marsh ecosystems which are presently managed as a wildlife preserve.
Most of the area to the north of Jones Creek consists of small, privately owned tracts. In summary,
it may be excepted that more than 50 percent of the corridor is currently owned by industrial firms
open to land development, and that most of the remaining land is available for purchase.

Least Environmental Impact Corridor Selection References

Allen, B. L., et al. 1974. Procedure for Location of a Least Impact Environmental Corridor for a
Lineal Development. Prepared for the Texas Water Development Board by Water Resources
Center, Texas Tech University.

Lewis, P. H., Jr. 1969. Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Study: Appendix B, Aesthetic
and Cultural Values. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Northeast Region.

McHarg, L. L. 1971. Design with Nature. Doubleday/Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y. 198
Pp.

Minnesota Power Light Company and Northern States Power Company, 1976. Twin Cities to
Forbes Transmission Project - Construction Permit Application for a 500/345 KV Trans-
mission Facility. Minneapolis, Minn.

University of Georgia. Institute of Ecology. 1971. Optimum Pathway Matrix, Analysis Approach to
the Environmental Decision-Making Process. Test case: Relative Impact of Proposed Highway
Alternates. Athens, Georgia.

115

PROJECT LAYOUT, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

The overall configuration and design of the canal and industrial site are determined by the
physical characteristics of the corridor, the traffic to be handled, and the requirements of prospec-
tive industries. The choice among engineering alternatives is determined by the extent that environ-
mental degradation can be avoided while answering project objectives with minimal cost.

The following discussion describes the site layout and design of the channel, harbor, and in-
dustrial site, applying the engineering alternatives compiled in Chapter III-B-2. A summary of the
estimated construction costs, equipment production rates and project work scheduling is included.

Project Layout and Design
The least impact corridor for routing of the navigation channel is generally confined to the
ridge west of Jones Creek. The selected development sites are located north and south of highway
36 in the vicinity of the Jones Creek Community. These areas and the alternate channel corridors
are shown in Figure 49.

Entrance Channels and Main Approach Channel
Routing. Alternatives in routing the channel within the study site corridor are affected by
the presence or absence of the proposed Seadock onshore pipeline and terminal (tank farm). In the
absence of the Seadock project, the preferred route would essentially follow the centerline of the
corridor, bending to the west into the southern industrial site. This channel would be 24,000 feet
long. if Seadock's proposed pipeline and terminal alignments are developed, the channel would
follow the western edge of the corridor, as shown in Figure 50. The approach to the industrial site
would follow a more southern alignment to avoid conflict with the Seadock terminal. This channel
would be 20,000 feet long.

For either route alternative, there would be north and south entrance channels connecting
the centerline of the GIWW to the project channel. The radius of curvature must be at least 2,000
feet. Limiting the south entrance channel to this radius would minimize disruption of the lower
Redfish Bayou marsh area.

Channel Traffic Demand. Although it is anticipated that the major input to the refinery
would be supplied by pipeline, and that the refinery would feed the petrochemical plant, each
facility and other industries locating at the site may require input by barge. The average daily input
will be determined by the type and size of industry, petroleum and petrochemical supply, and pro-
duct markets, Receipts at existing Texas port systems serving similar industrial facilities range from
approximately 25,000 to 100,000 barrels per day. A maximum estimated daily input at the study
site, if all refinery inputs were supplied by barge, would be 250,000 barrels per day.

Shipments at similar existing port systems range from 10,000 to 100,000 barrels per day.
Exports barged from the refinery are expected to be 170,000 barrels per day. The petrochemical
complex is expected to export 20,000 barrels per day by barge.

A common size of barge currently in use on the GIWW is 3 5 feet wide, 195 feet long, and
has a capacity of 10,000 Wb. when loaded to nine feet. Barges of 54 by 297 feet with a capacity of
30,000 bbl. when loaded to 10 feet are also frequently used (Patton, 1977). Tows of one or two
10,000 Wb. barges are typical for transport of chemicals, while tows for petroleum may range from
50,000 to 100,000 Wb. in 20,000 to 30,000 Wb. barges, respectively. According to trends in water-
way traffic, the probable maximum-sized tows expected in the channel would be either three
3 5'x 195' or two 54'x297' barges (Patton, 1977). The length of the project canal would be approxi-
mately seven miles. Average towing speed, considering curves and harbor requirements, should be
three to four miles an hour, resulting in a maximum transit time of two hours.

116

N7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PRAIRIE GRASSLI~ND

BRACKISH WTR~ ; A�0

-~LEVEE SYSTEM,

tZRUNOFF RETENTION POND
RESERVOIR
BRUFFER ZONE
A~~~ SD DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL SITE
i---PHASE 4 EXPANSION

- ~~~~~CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN

To provide a daily input of 200,000 to 250,000 bbl. per day, a maximum of 25 10,000-bbl.
barges or 12 two-barge tows would be required. Refinery exports could necessitate 17 10,000-bbl.
barges, or 8 two-barge tows daily. Petrochemical exports would require two 10,000-bbl. barges and
possibly two one-barge tows each day. If barges were carrying a load only one way, channel traffic
could be as much as 22 tows each way, daily.

On-board pumps can unload 3,000 to 5,000 bbl. per hour, depending on pipeline capability.
Thus, unloading time for a 10,000 bbl. barge ranges from two to three-and-half hours. With a two-
hour allowance for docking, inspection and departure, a dock-capability of five to six tows per day
is expected. In order to avoid critical scheduling, three oil docks would be required to handle a
maximum import of crude oil.

The distribution of docks will depend on the actual industries. A typical pattern would be a
central facility at the refinery site with about four loading/unloading docks and two or three docks
located at the petrochemical plant.

Channel Dimensions. The approach channel from the GIWW to the project channel would
have a bottom width of at least 240 feet. This width would allow for 700'x54' tows to pass with 30
feet of clearance and five degrees of yaw. The length of the approach channels would be 2,000 feet
and have 2,000 feet of transition into the main project channel.

At 3: 1 channel side slope is considered typical for consolidated clay substrate. Because this
is the material expected to be most prevalent in the route (Seadock, 1974; Sandeen and Wesselman,
1973), the channel would be dredged to a 3:1 slope initially and areas of particular instability (gen-
erally sandier unconsolidated materials) would be dredged to a 4:1 slope.

With a main channel bottom width dimension of 125 feet, 3:1 side slopes and a project
depth of 13 feet msl, the water surface width would be 209 feet at mean high tide (see Figure 51).
The channel will initially be dredged in a vertical cut to two feet below project depth, to allow for
sedimentation. The top width of the cut would increase by six feet for each additional foot of eleva-
tion inland. Although the project dimensions for expansion of the GIWW have not been formulated,
proposals indicate a bottom width of up to 250 feet and a depth of up to 16 feet.

Figure 51
Canal Cross Section

MEAN HIGHXI 20
TIDE

-13 MSL
-15 MSL
125'

118

Slope Protection. The channel slope protection would consist primarily of seeding and sprig-
ging, where necessary, of adapted grass species. After a period of navigation use, areas susceptible to
erosion can be additionally protected by stone riprap or gunite. Erosion problems are to be
expected particularly at the junctures with the GIWW, because of the increased exposure to boat
and wind-fetch wakes. A delay in placement of erosion control materials until problem areas are
visible allows installation on a specific need basis, resulting in less unnecessary expenditures.

Drainage Control. Although reaches of the channel exposed to a significant surface drainage
area are minimized by design, a drainage control levee will be required along the south entrance
channel, between Stations 50+00 and 70+00, and between Stations 180+00 and 220+00 (see Figure
50) to provide protection from bank erosion. The levee should be 15 feet in elevation, with a top
width of 10 feet.

Redfish Bayou Diversion. The barge canal would cross Redfish Bayou at Station 200+00.
This drainage area is intermittent north of the crossing point and flows regularly south of the
crossing. Redfish and McNeal Bayous carry the majority of the freshwater flow to the wetland
areas south of the industrial site.

Diversion of Redfish Bayou under the channel would be required to maintain its flow (see
Figure 52). Although a siphon conduit would be the most economical design, sufficient slope could
probably not be obtained to gain adequate flow. A sump pump would be required on the down-
stream end of the conduit to increase flow and minimize sediment accumulation.

Figure 52
PUMP Redfish Bayou Diversion

At the upstream end of the conduit a 2,000-foot diversion levee with a crest height of 15
feet (msl) would be required. Material for this levee can be obtained from land-based excavation of
the inland channel route gulfward of the diversion and from grading of the bayou channel at the
interface with the conduit to form a shallow pond. A concrete headwall would be constructed
around the intake and discharge conduit.

Dredged Material Disposal Sites. A minimum amount of material dredged from the channel
can be feasibly used as fill for the industrial site because of excess pumping distance. The estimated
area required for disposal of this material is 310 acres. One 45-acre site with containment levees
would be developed on the south side of the GIWW across from the entrance channel. Three addi-
tional sites of 64 acres, 69 acres and 132 acres would be constructed adjacent to the main channel,
centered approximately at Stations 30+00, 85+00, and 160+00. Containment levees would be con-
structed on each site at 10 feet above grade with a 10-foot top width and 3:1 side slopes. The 45-
acre site could contain approximately 560,000 cubic yards of dredged material, assuming a bulking
factor of 1.3. The other site could contain 790,000 cy, 850,000cy, and 1.6 million cy, respectively.

It is assumed that through natural compaction of the initial material these sites could also be
used for disposal of maintenance dredged material. The largest site (Station 160+00) would be
reserved only for harbor maintenance material.

119

Shoaling would be greatest at the entrance of the channel and harbor entrance. Additional
material in the channel may be expected from bank failure. Although exact shoaling rates cannot be
predicted, the adjacent reach of the GIWW by comparison is dredged on an average of 52,300 cubic
yards per year per mile. Dreding frequency averages once every 2.4 years. The project channel, how-
ever, (beyond the entrance reaches) would not be expected to shoat as rapidly as the adjacent
GIWW because it will receive less traffic and is less susceptible to river and Gulf sediments. Existing
channels of similar design tend to verify a lower maintenance dredging requirement for the inland-
type channel. Many of the inland portions of the Victoria Barge Channel have never required main-
tenance dredging (e.g. Miles 12-14; 22-3 2). Those inland reaches of the Victoria Canal that do
require dredging average less than 6,000 cubic yards per year with a dredging frequency of seven
years. The inland Dow Barge Canal at Freeport does not require maintenance dredging. But this is
primarily a result of high volume water withdrawal which tends to keep sediments suspended and
removes them from the channel.

If the project channel required dredging of 25,000 cubic yards per year per mile, 187,000
cubic yards or 243, 100 cubic yards at a 1. 3 bulking factor would be generated per year; 2.4 million
cubic yards would be generated in 10 years. The maintenance material capacity of the three desig-
nated sites within and adjacent to the channel right-of-way is approximately 1.5 million cubic yards.
Additional sites could be utilized south of the GIWW and a large site may be available adjacent to
the San Bernard River south of the GIWW.

Right-of-Way. A minimum channel right-of-way of 500 feet should be acquired from Station
0+00 to 180+00 and at the entrance channel. This would provide control over land use adjacent to
the channel and necessary land for enlargement of the channel, particularly upon enlargement of
the GIWW. A 500 foot channel right-of-way would amount to 275 acres.

Harbor. The layout of the harbor is designed to provide sufficient waterfront for the postu-
lated industries in accord with the projected barge traffic, channel capacity and maneuvering re-
quirements. The location, design, and number of docking facilities and turning basins within the
harbor are considered industry specific and will be discussed only in general terms.

Site Layout. In the study case, the majority of shipping would be associated with
the refinery. Therefore, an advantageous positioning of the refinery within the site would
minimize travel time, and congestion. The other principal waterfront industry would be the
petrochemical complex. These two industries would be spatially related, requiring proximity
for pipeline connections as well as allowing barge maneuvering between the two docking
facilities.

Assuming a maximum berthing requirement of five docks at the refinery, 2,000 feet
of waterfront would be required without perpendicular slips. Three docks at the petro-
chemical complex would occupy about 1,200 feet.

The site layout shown in Figure 50 includes a total of approximately 20,000 feet of
waterfront with 8,000 feet on the north side and 12,000 feet on the south side. A 1,OOOx
1,500 foot turning basin would be located at the terminus of the canal.

The design bottom width of the harbor would be 250 feet, with 3:1 side slopes and
a depth of 1 3 feet msl. If the land elevation at the harbor is IO feet msl, the surface width
of the channel would be approximately 388 feet. 69 feet along each side of the channel
would be available for berthing room if dredged to project depth (see Figure 53).
Industrial Site
Site Layout. The site is a 9,000-acre tract in two segments located north and south of high-
way 36 and the communities of Perry Landing and Jones Creek (see Figure 50). The boundaries of
the site are the Brazos River on the north, the Clemens State Prison Farm on the west, and the

120

Figure 53
Harbor Dimensions and Berth Zone

BERTH
LAND SURFACE ZONE
388' i

I~I

13'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~15

-250'9

McNeal/Redfish Bayou wetland on the south. The north site has Jones Creek as its east boundary,
while Redfish Bayou limits the eastern edge of the south site.

The prominent features determining the configuration of the industrial site are surface
drainage patterns, distribution of wetlands, and existing and projected land uses. Within the indus-
trial site, the principal land allocation considerations include the control of site runoff, the land re-
quirements of the primary industries, and the location of utilities. The site acreage allocation is
shown in Figure 54.

Figure 54
Acreage Allocation by Use

Use Area, Acres
Refinery 1,100
Petrochemicals 400
Other Industry 4,000
Commercial 94
Future Development 1,520
Sub Total 7,114
Public Dock and Storage 20
Utilities 965
Administrative 30
Buffer Zones 881
Upper Channel, Harbor and Turning Basin 155
Sub Total 2,051
Channel ROW and Spoil Disposal Areas 612
Total Land Area 9,777

121

The two sites are functionally separate; the south site would be developed with waterfront
industry and terminal facilities and the north site would contain associated or ancillary industry,
water and liquid waste treatment facilities and reservoirs.

A primary corridor connecting the sites would be located west of the community of Perry
Landing. This corridor would contain highway, rail, pipeline, and transmission line linkage between
the two sites. A secondary corridor would be located along Perry Landing Lane, between the com-
munities of Perry Landing and Jones Creek. This right-of-way could be used to route process
water, wastewater and return cooling water pipelines from the reservoirs and treatment facilities
located in the northern tract.

Site Drainage and Flood Protection. Minimizing interruption of natural drainage is
particularly critical in this area because of the impounding nature of the flood protection levees
required and the proximity of the site of productive wetlands.

An analysis of topography and runoff patterns in the site area (see Figure 55) indicates two
watersheds with minor subdivisions. The channel alignment follows a major watershed divide to Sta-
tion 150+00, at which point it crosses the Redfish Bayou watershed and then follows a minor divide
between the Redfish Bayou and McNeal Bayou watersheds. The upper drainage area of the Redfish
Bayou watershed is confined generally by S. F. Austin Road, the channel alignment area, and higher
elevations southwest of Perry Landing. Flows to McNeal Bayou and associated wetlands are from an
area south of the channel alignment and the southern boundary of the State Prison Farm.

The south site includes the upper watershed of Redfish Bayou, which has only intermittent
channelized flow. In the McNeal Bayou drainage area, the site boundary is located above defined
intermittent drainages in an area of predominant sheet flow.

As indicated in Chapter Il-B, the 100-year flood limit would inundate land ranging in eleva-
tion from 14' to 17' msl on the northern site. The 100 year flood limit by hurricane surge is to ele-
vation 13' msl at the southern site. Therefore, a flood protection levee of elevation 18 feet msl
would be required on the north site and 15 feet msl elevation on the south site.

Material excavated from the harbor and the approach channel above Station 100+00 would
be suitable for construction of the flood protection levees along the south site boundary, the harbor
and the turning basin. The levees would have a top width of 10 feet, and 3:1 side slopes, which
would be stabilized by vegetation.

Additional excavated material would be used to fill the interior of the industrial site south
of Highway 36. Fill on the north side of the harbor would raise the site to 10 feet msl. This area
would be graded to the east. The south side of the harbor would be filled to eight feet msl, and
graded to drain to the south.

The flood protection levee at the north site would be constructed of material borrowed
from within the site. This levee would also have a top width of 10 feet and 3:1 side slopes. Addi-
tional site fill is not contemplated for the north side.

Retention Ponds. The flood protection levees on the south site can also be beneficial in pre-
venting spills or polluted runoff from entering the harbor or adjacent watersheds. Drainage ditches
and the general slope of the site fill would be designed to direct runoff into three holding ponds,
two located on the southern boundary, and one located in the buffer zone on the eastern boundary.
These ponds can be utilized to retain pollutants as well as to manipulate the quantity and timing of
runoff. Water released to the local drainages can thereby approximate original freshwater flow pat-
terns to the wetlands. Within these ponds a series of smaller ponds may be constructed, to allow for
settling of sediment and/or sequential treatment of toxic materials.

122

FIGURE 55

aITE DRAINAIXE

U ~~~~ Genera~~~~~~~~zG~~~ Di~orection Of Flow

1 ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~0 5000 100

The outflow from the holding ponds should be designed to encourage sheet flow rather than
point discharge. This can be accomplished in part by directing the flow to a series of discharge
points radiating out from the levee.

Reservoir Design. The borrow area for the levees on the north site would be further exca-
vated for construction of reservoirs for process water, wastewater, and cooling water. The embank-
ments would be constructed with a core of compacted clay on 1:1 side slopes covered with topsoil
to a 3:1 side slope. The width of the embankment crest would be 10 feet at elevation 25 feet msl.

Buffer Zones. The acquisition of buffer zones to visually and spatially separate heavy indus-
try from other land uses is common practice in industrial park design (see Lochmoeller, et al, 1975).
The buffer zone may include highways, commercial areas, and/or greenspace. As shown on the con-
ceptual site plan (Figure 50), greenspace at least 400 feet wide is proposed between the industrial
site and adjoining residential areas. Because more intense industrial development is projected for the
tract north of the harbor, a buffer zone of up to 1,700 feet in width is proposed for the area adja-
cent to S. F. Austin Road. This tract's flood protection levee, which would be constructed along the
southern edge of the buffer zone, will assist in reducing visual and audible impacts. Tree planting
along the northern edge of the zone would provide protection. Greenspace acquisition is also pro-
posed along the eastern boundary of this tract to discourage waterfront development in the Redfish
Bayou watershed.

The flood protection levees and reservoir embankments constructed on the north site would
isolate the industrial area from the Brazos River Road and residents of Jones Creek. A buffer zone
acquired idjacent to the Highway 36 right-of-way would minimize the impacts on the residents of
Perry Landing.

Utilities. The utilities to be constructed during the Phase 2 site preparation include a process
and potable water supply, wastewater treatment facility, and cooling water reservoirs. It is assumed
that electricity would be brought to the site area by Houston Lighting and Power Company upon
completion of the South Texas Nuclear Plant. The design concept employed for utility services
envisions construction of major, capital intensive facilities during preparation of the industrial site
thereby minimizing the initial investment required by the industry. The cost of the facility would
be returned by utility service fee. Each tenant would be responsible for installing the internal con-
nections to the central facilities as well as providing facilities unique to that industry, such as
specialized waste treatment.

Water Supply. The total initial potable and process water demand for the refinery
and petrochemical plant will be approximately 20 mgd (see Chapter Ill-A). This demand can
be supplied by a combination of surface and ground water. Surface water supplies for the
Brazos River will amount to approximately 13.mgd (Hogue, 1977). To avoid the saltwater
wedge, diversion from the Brazos would require an intake channel and pump station located
north of Highway 332 in the vicinity of the Dow Brazoria Reservoir. A 30-inch conduit
would carry the raw water a distance of approximately five miles to a 5,600 acre-foot capa-
city storage reservoir at the site.

The remaining initial water demand of seven mgd may be supplied by groundwater
or a combination of groundwater and recycled wastewater. A development cost for nine
mgd of groundwater was assumed in expecting additional development. Groundwater in the
Brazosport area is pumped primarily from the upper Chicot Aquifer. This aquifer is fully
developed; further pumpage may increase saline intrusion. Wells have been developed in the
northern part of the county, however, drawing from the lower Chicot and Evangeline Aqui-
fers with yields as high as 4.8 mgd (TWDB, 1977). The total volume of water available from
these aquifers without detrimentally affecting existing withdrawals cannot be determined
without detailed data and field analysis. Wells developed in this area would require adequate
spacing (at least one mile apart) to minimize the effects of aquifer drawdown.

124

Additional water, however, could be supplied by reuse of treated wastewater. A 90
percent return of tertiary treated process water would initially provide 18 mgd. Thus, if
seven mgd were available from groundwater, a total of 38 mgd of process water could be
supplied. This option would likely require upgrading of the waste treatment facility to full
tertiary and would only be justified by shortages from other alternative supplies.

An adequate supply of water will be a critical factor in expanding development of
the industrial site beyond the initial tenants. A reasonable possibility exists that Millican
reservoir, an authorized project on the Navasota River tributary to the Brazos River, will be
constructed. Yields from this reservoir would provide up to 140,000 acre-feet per year to
the basin, assuring an adequate supply for future industrial development. Without comple-
tion of this reservoir, the most likely option would be to purchase existing water rights or
surplus capacity presently diverted from the Brazos.

Cooling Water. The cooling water requirement of the initial industries would be
approximately 110 mgd. Because of existing limitations on fresh water supply, the most
feasible alternative is the diversion of cooling water from the harbor. This option is addi-
tionally advantageous in that it creates a net inflow through the harbor from the GIWW
which would discourage stagnation of the canal water. A potential shortcoming of this
concept is the susceptibility of the system to contamination during accidental spills. This
problem can be at least partially alleviated by locating the intake conduit in the lower
water strata, thereby maximizing the possibility that less dense pollutants can be isolated
before entering the cooling system.

Discharged cooling water would be stored in an 120-acre reservoir located at the
north site prior to release to the Brazos River. Retention time in the reservoir would be
manipulated to obtain a reduction temperature comparable to that of receiving water.
Water would be conveyed to the Brazos River through a gravity flow pipeline. The dis-
charge point would be located approximately near the Highway 3 6 bridge.

The temperature of the Brazos River at this point ranges from 54"F in the winter
to 93OF in the summer. The salinity range at this point varies from 6 ppt in the winter to
24.1 ppt in the summer (Seadock, 1974), compared to intake (GIWW) water salinity range
from 7 ppt to 18 ppt. The discharge conduit should be located near the river bottom to
ensure contact with the saltwater wedge.

The estimated discharge flow would be 150 cfs. requiring a 66-inch diameter pipe-
line. With a withdrawal rate of 170 cfs. the harbor water would be turned over on approxi-
mately a five-day cycle.

Raw Water Treatment. A water treatment plant with an initial capacity fo 25 mgd
would be constructed on the north side. Provision for expansion of the facility as industrial
demands increase would be included. The treatment process would include sedimentation,
flocculation, chemical treatment, and deionization as necessary. Cost estimates for the
facility are based on the assumption that the quality of all water sources will be equal to or
better than that obtained from the Brazos River. Treated water would be stored in a ground
reservoir or clear well and elevated tanks as necessary.

Waste Water Treatment. Wastewater and potentially polluted runoff collected from
the immediate plant areas would be collected and conveyed to the waste treatment facility
which is also located on the north side. Depending upon effluent restrictions, the facility
would be designed to provide between secondary and tertiary treatment. A tertiary treat-
ment plant would be more costly (see Figure 57) but would provide additional water for
reuse. Depending upon the cost feasibility, supplementary recycled water may be critical for
future development of the site if present water shortages continue. Initial capacity of the
facility would be 25 mgd with provisions for expansion as needed.

125

Solid Waste Disposal. At present, the most realistic alternative for industrial solid
waste disposal would be landfill. Existing industries in the area operate their own landfill
sites. Permitted sites in the county total approximately 500 acres, although those have been
designated primarily for municipal use. Depending on the impermeability of the substrate, a
portion of the tract in the northeast corner of the study area could be reserved for landfill.
It is estimted that a 75-100 acre site would accommodate solid waste from the primary
tenants for approximately 10 years, based on 86,000 pounds per year generated per
employee, a bulk density of 50 pounds/cubic foot (conservative) and a 10-foot disposal
depth. If the waste had a bulk density of 100 pounds/cubic foot, this site would have twice
the capacity.

A centralized system will help decrease solid waste disposal costs. Industry may also
find it profitable to either salvage solid waste or incinerate. These alternatives can also be
enhanced by a centralized collection and disposal system.

Pipeline Relocations. Available data sources indicate 10 pipelines, ranging in size from four
to 30 inches in diameter, which cross the south site. Four of these lines cross the proposed channel
and harbor alignment.

The routing of pipelines across the waterway would be similar to procedure currently
employed at the GIWW. This involves excavating a trench across the canal with a dragline and laying
the pipeline with an angled approach under the channel. The top of the pipeline should be 10 feet
below channel bottom with at least a 12 foot set back from the channel edge at each side.

Relocation of Structures. The study site does not directly conflict with concentrated resi-
dential areas. However, topographic maps and aerial photographs indicate approximately 20 in-
dividual structures located within the project boundary. Where possible, residential structures would
be relocated rather than purchased. Structures located within undisturbed buffer zone areas could
be optioned for lifetime tenancy.

Rail and Highway Acess. Railroad service to the site could be provided by constructing a
five-mile spur connecting to the Missouri Pacific line at Brazoria. An abandoned easement running
from Brazoria to within 1.5 miles of the industrial site through the Clemens Farm could possibly be
utilized. An additional two miles of main line would be required to access the harbor and water-
front industries. Spurs and sidings servicing individual tracts would be constructed according to
industry needs.

The primary highway access would be from State Highway 36, entering both the north and
south sites through the corridor west of Perry Landing. Additional access to the south site may be
gained by upgrading S. F. Austin Road located south of the community of Jones Creek.

Administrative Services. Land for administrative facilities is allocated at the harbor entrance.
The 25-acre site would include docks for service boats and maintenance barges and facilities for fire
protection, spill control, and monitoring of waterway traffic. Land area would also be designated
at this location for a public dock and service facility.

Administrative offices would be located on a five-acre tract near the site entrance.
Construction Procedures
The construction activities are separated into two phases. Phase 1 activities consist of site
preparations, mainly earthwork, which must be completed before industrial plant construction
begins. Phase 2 activities consist of support facility constructions which must be completed by the
time the industrial plants are operational. Phase 2 activities begin immediately after Phase 1 comple-
tion.

126

Not all of the activities occur simultaneously or for the same length of time in either phase
of construction. In some cases, the completion of one activity is necessary before another may
begin. These temporal relationships are shown in the project schedule chart (Figure 56).
Phase 1
The first construction activities in Phase 1 are grouped as land-based excavation. Wooded
areas at the location of the ponds and along the flood protection levee alignment in the north site
would be cleared, stumped, and grubbed. This would be accomplished with a bulldozer and chain-
saw crew. After vegetation removal, the fertile topsoil in both north and south sites would be
stripped and stockpiled for subsequent use as coarse cover on levees and in final landscaping. Top-
soil stripping and stockpiling will use a fleet of one bulldozer and six scrapers. Water holding ponds
(raw water reservoir, waste water, and cooling water holding and treatment ponds) on the north site
would be excavated by dozer and scraper. The excavated material would be used to build dikes
around the ponds and the north site flood protection levee.

Various pipelines crossed by the canal route would be relocated concurrently with the top-
soil stripping activity. A dragline would be used to expose the pipelines and to excavate a new
trench next to the old pipeline alignment. The relocated pipeline would be sloped to a maximum
depth of 25 feet msl and would have a bottom width 25 feet greater than the canal bottom width,
allowing for future channel enlargement in both vertical and horizontal dimensions. The relocated
pipeline would be anchored with thrust blocks where the pipeline changes grade. The old pipeline
will be salvaged.

Spoil disposal area construction would take place concurrent with the construction of the
water holding ponds. The dredge spoil site at the Gulf side of the GIWW would be constructed by
draglines brought to the site by barge. A grader would assist in constructing the spoil containment
levee. The disposal site levee at Station 2 would be constructed by land-based dragline and grader.
The construction periods of the first two disposal sites would overlap by about three weeks. Dis-
posal area 3 and 4 would be completed before subsequent land-based excavation proceeds, and
would require a bulldozer and grader as well as six scrapers to excavate the site and to build the con-
tainment levee.

Dredging of the entrance channels and the initial two miles of the main channel (to Station
100+00) would start shortly after spoil disposal area 1 preparation is completed. A 24-inch cutter-
head hydraulic dredge would be used. Approximately 2.3 million cubic yards of material would be
discharged into the first three spoil containment areas in sequence as the dredge moves up the
channel. Maximum pumping distance would be about 3,000 feet. Discharge from dewatering of the
slurry would pass over a weirgate and into the dredged channel.

Redfish Bayou would be diverted before the remaining section of the channel excavation is
completed. A bulldozer would build a diversion levee and grade an upstream containment pond. A
dragline would trench the course of the diversion conduit, which would be lowered by crane into
place. A sump pump would be installed at the lower end of the pipeline diversion. A levee on the
south side of the channel route would protect the lower reach of Redfish Bayou from channel water
overbanking. A concrete headwall on the upstream side of the northern levee would minimize levee
erosion by the action of the ponded water.

The remaining length of channel would be excavated by both land-based and dredge equip-
ment. Two tracvators would precede the dredge up the length of the channel, removing an esti-
mated 400,000 cubic yards of relatively dry material between grade elevation and elevation two feet
msl. This material would be hauled by a fleet of 10 trucks to the industrial site to raise part of the
south site to a five foot msl grade and to provide material for containment levees enclosing 50 acre
tracts. These tracts would receive slurry from channel dredging for site fill. Part of this excavated
material will also be used at the Redfish Bayou diversion levee.

127

weeks

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 130 200

PHASE I

LAND BASED EXCAVATION

North Site Clear & Grub m
North Site Strip & Stockpile -
North Site Levee Construction
South Site Grubbing, Stripping & Stockpiling
South Site Levee Construction
Channel Excavation -
Harbor & Turning Basin Excavation
Industrial Site Fill Compaction
Industrial Site Grading & Cleanup
Disposal Area Construction

DREDGING

Entrance Channels I
Main Channel to 100 = 00
Main Channel 100 + 00 to 170 + 00
Main Channel 170 + 00 to 240 + 00
Harbor
Turning Basin m

REDFISH BAYOU DIVERSION

00 RELOCATIONS

Pipelines

RAILROAD SPUR

Engineering, Survey, Supervision

PHASE II

Raw Water Supply
Water Treatment Plant
Waste Treatment Plant
Cooling Water Discharge
Engineering & Supervision _

Figure 56

Inland Canal Project Schedule

Approximately 1.5 million cubic yards would be dredged from the channel between point
100+00 and the harbor. Pipelining distance for the slurry would be initially two miles, decreasing to
under 3,000 feet as the dredge approaches the harbor. Delivery of roughly half of the slurry,
670,000 cubic yards, would be assisted by a booster pump station. The slurry would fill the pre-
pared dewatering tracts in a rotational sequence to a one or two foot average depth. Disc harrows
would be used to accelerate aeration and drying of the slurry. Compactors and sheepsfoot rollers
would compact the fill. A new cycle of slurry fill, dewatering and compacting then follows. The
outflowing water from the containment fill tracts would be channeled to the excavated channel.

Excavation of the harbor and turning basin would also involve both land-based and dredge
equipment. As haul distances within the industrial site are less than that from the channel, scrapers
and crawler tractors may be used instead of the tracvator and truck fleet. Excavation of the harbor
and turning basin would remove 1.7 million cubic yards of relatively dry material to be used in levee
construction around both north and south industrial site. The flood protection levee is estimated to
require one million cubic yards. The remainder of the dry material would be used as additional site
fill. One-way drainage culverts under the southern levee would be installed to allow monitored run-
off from retention ponds to be constructed during final site preparation activites.

Dredging of the harbor and turning basin to project depth would remove 2.3 million cubic
yards. The dredged material would be added to the south site 50-acre dewatering tracts, as described
above. This fill would bring the overall south site elevation to 10 to 12 foot elevation msl, with an
average compacted thickness of five feet. The dewatering and compaction activity would last
approximately one year.

Final earthwork activities during Phase 1 would involve final grading of the north and south
sites, preparing and installing drainage culverts to channel on-site runoff and retention ponds, and
general site cleanup. Landscaping would include the distribution of the stockpiled topsoil; revegeta-
tion of levees, buffer zones, and administrative areas; and other surface stabilization such as spread-
ing pea-gravel.

A final activity during Phase 1 would be to construct a railroad spur from Brazoria to the
north industrial site. This activity would involve preparing the roadbed, laying the track and ties,
and placing ballast.
Phase 2
The Phase 2 activities are not unique to the inland canal/industrial site postulation. The
activities are comparable to any industrial complex construction which offers water supply and
water and waste treatment facilities to potential industrial builders.

The construction of the waste treatment plant and water treatment plant would follow
standard construction procedures, which need no elaboration here. Raw water supply involves the
development of groundwater well field, installation of water mains from the well field(s) and from
the surface water source, and the construction of a raw water pump station. The cooling water dis-
charge activity involves laying a pipeline from the north site cooling water holding pond eastward
along an alignment north of highway 36 to a discharge point at the Brazos River.
Phases 3 and 4
Phase 3 activities would include the construction of industrial plants such as a refinery and
petrochemical plant. This construction is contracted by the tenant. Phase 3 activities may overlap in
time with Phase 2 activities. Roads within the industrial site as well as utility hookups would be
constructed during Phase 3, as required by the industrial tenants for their construction activities.

Phase 4 consists of long-term, future development of a 1,520 acre tract between the north
site and the Brazos River Road. Phase 4 activities would include extension of the flood protection
levee system; clearing, grubbing, and stripping of the site; and grading and stabilization of the land

129

Figure 57

Inland Canal/Industrial Site Project Summary

Work Item Major Quantity/ Contingency Cost
Number Description Equipment Capacity Factor $

Phase 1
Disposal Area #1 Dragline 89,000CY 267,000
2 North Site Clear Dozer 323 acres 65,000
& Grub
North Site Levees Scraper, Rower 1,056,000CY 1069,000
Stripping Scraper 1,000,000CY 800,000
Disposal Area #2 Dragline 139,000CY 417,000
Disposal Area #3, Scraper 169,000CY 313,000
#4
Channel Excava- Tracvator 382,OO000
tion 724,000
Harbor Excava- Scraper 1,114,000CY
tion 356,000
Turning Basin Scraper 548,000CY356,000
Excavation
South Site Levee Roller 999,000CY000
Compaction 25,000
Channel Drain Roller 125,000CY
Levees
Harbor & Site 450,000
Drains 1,001,000
Compaction of Roller 5,473,000CY
Site Fill
Site Cleanup Grader, Dozer000
Sub Total 10% 5,741,000

3 Entrance Dredge 1,066,000CY 800,000
Channels
Channels 836,000
Main Channel Dredge 1,194,000CY
to Sta. 100+00
Sta. 100+00 to Dredge with 670,000CY 636,000
170+00 Booster 2,124,000
Sta. 170+00 to& 3,035,000CY
inc. Harbor
Turning Basin 506,000
Sub Total 10% 4,902,000

4 Pipeline Reloc. 25% 250,000
5 Redfish Bayou 25% 230,000
Diverson 15% 1,030,000
6 Engineering & 15% 1,030,000
Supervision 1,514,000
7 Railroad Spur 5
mi. (unless
funded by rail-
road company)
Total Phase 1
Field &
Engineering -
Cost 13,934,000

130

Figure 57 (cont'd)

Contingency Cost
Capacity Factor $
Phase 2 Brazos R. Pump 14 MGD 20% 180,000

Station 20% 1,354,000
Raw Water Main 20% 1,354,000
Well Field 9 MGD 20% 1,200,000
Well Field Water 20% 1,045,000
Main 3,779,000
Sub Total 3,779,000

2 Water Treatment 25 MGD 20% 5,020,000
Plant 25% 806.000
High Service
Main 5,826,000
Sub Total _

3 Tertiary Waste 25 MGD 15% 25,000,000
Treatment Plant 700 000
Wastewater Mains 25%
25,700,000
Sub Total

4 Cooling Water 100 MGD 20% 1,140,000
Discharge Main 2,920,000
5 Engineering &
Supervision

Total Phase 2
Field &
Engineering Cost
52,299,000
Tost Cost
Phase 1 & 2

131

surface. These activities are comparable in procedure to those previously described as part of
Phase 1.
Project Costs
Data Sources
The estimated costs of construction are based primarily on information current in the
period October, 1976 to March, 1977. Cost data sources include: Engineering News Record (1976),
Building Construction Cost Data-1976 (Godfrey, 1975), and personal communication with the
Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation and with the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, Galveston District. Unit costs for earthwork by land-based equipment are derived from pro-
duction rates (Caterpillar Tractor Co., 1974). Unit dredging costs were provided by the Corps of
Engineers, Galveston District. Various engineering firms, equipment vendors, and construction con-
tractors provided both cost estimates and procedural information.

Scraper fleet production was estimated at 850 cubic yards per hour, tracvator production at
3 50 cylhr, and fill compaction at 1,085 cy/hr. Dredge production for a 24-inch dredge operating in
silty-clay substrates is assumed to be 1,000 cy/hr with pumping distances less than 10,000 feet.
With longer pumping distances, a discharge line booster pump is estimated to add 25 percent to the
unit cost of dredging and to decrease production rates to 660 cylhr.

Volume of earthwork and dredge material handling is estimated with geometrical calcula-
tions of the channel, harbor, turning basin, levees, spoil areas, site fill, and of other components.
Volume of dredge material slurry is estimated with a bulking factor of 1.3.

The site preparation schedule assumes a 10-hour work day and 15 net working days per
month. The estimated dredging schedule assumes two 10-hour shifts daily, and seven working days
per week. Scheduling of work between the north and south sites is coordinated to achieve tempo-
rally even personnel deployment and equipment use.

The construction period during Phase 2 for the major utilities is based on experiences of
similar projects on the Texas coast.
Finally, a cost contingency factor of 10 percent to 25 percent was included in each esti-
mate, varying with the reliability of the estimate.
Project Costs
The project activities costs, derived as discussed above, are presented in Figure 57. Phase I
activities are grouped into seven work item categories. Levee construction of spoil disposal area 1,
gulfward of the GIWW, is separated from other land-based work because of its location and differ-
ent equipment requirements. The cost of the railroad is included, although in actuality it may be
funded by the railroad company. The total Phase I project cost is $13.93 million.

Phase 2 activities are grouped in four contract categories. The design capacity and contin-
gency cost factor for several of the Phase 2 activities are shown in Figure 57. Waste treatment plant
cost is based on tertiary treatment to specify the maximum expense. The total Phase 2 cost is
$39.37 million. The total Phases I and 2 project cost is $53.3 million.

Project Layout and Design References
Caterpillar Tractor Co. 1974. Caterpillar Performance Handbook.

Engineering News Record, August 5, 1976 and August 26, 1976. Unit Prices.

132

Godfrey, R. S., editor. 1975. Building Construction Cost Data-19 76. Duxbury, Massachusetts:
Robert Snow Means Company, Inc.

Hogue, C. 1977. Brazos River Authority. Personal Communication.

Lochmoeller, D. C. et al. 1975. Industrial Development Handbook, Washington, D.C.: the Urban
Land Institute.

Patton Bill. 1977. Patton Towing Company. Personal Communication.

Sandeen, W. M. and J. B. Wesselman. 1973. Groundwater Resources of Brazoria County, Texas.
Report No. 16 3. Texas Water Development Board.

Seadock, Inc. 1974. Environmental Report Summary. Texas Offshore Crude Oil Unloading Facility.

Texas Water Development Board. 1977. Continuing Water Resources Planning and Development for
Texas. Draft. Phase I-Planning Methods, Revised Estimates of Present Water Demand and
Availability, Projections of Future Water Needs, and Identification of some Potential Sources
of Water Supply for Use in Modifying and Amending the Texas Water Plan. Austin, Texas.

LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

This section considers alternatives for financing the project and discusses the local, state,
and federal requirements which will affect project development. Financing alternatives for both
public and private entities are discussed. A survey of local, state, and federal requirements is
included both for development of the canal and for industries which may locate at the site.

Navigation districts appear to be the most suitable public entity to sponsor an inland canal
project. Private ownership could consist of either individual industries, a real estate development
corporation, or an industrial consortium. The necessary federal and state permit requirements
would be met with minimal difficulty to both inland canal developer and to user industries because
of the comprehensive design of the project. Applicable governmental assistance programs for allevia-
tion of adverse impact include the Coastal Energy Impact Fund, EPA and TWQB sponsored waste-
water treatment works construction grants, Clean Air Financing Act funds, EPA water quality
enhancement bonds, and Economic Development Administration Funds.
Public and Private Alternatives for Ownership, Financing,
Construction, and Operation of an Inland Canal
Public entities with authority relevant to development of an inland canal include navigation
districts, the Corps of Engineers, municipal corporations and county governments. The primary
considerations in private development include various ownership organizations and their respective
financing options.
The Public Sector
Navigation Districts. Most ports in Texas are governed by navigation districts, which are
political subdivisions of the state. As political subdivisions, they possess numerous governmental
powers, including that of eminent domain. Navigation districts generally fall into three categories,
although some districts may cross category lines:

1. districts primarily concerned with construction, development, and operation of deep-
water ports;

1 33

2. districts concerned with the development and maintenance of water channels that con-
nect ports with the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway; and
3. districts concerned with development of an area for water recreation and tourism.
Buchanan, Texas Navigation Districts and Regional Planning in the Gulf Coast Area,
10 HOUS. L. REV. 533, 534 (1973).

Navigation districts may construct, develop, and operate facilities useful for or incidental to
navigation. TEX. WATER CODE ANN. secs. 60.101, 61.151, 63.153 (1972). Chapters 60-63 of the
Texas Water Code define the creation, operation, and authority of the districts. Although the
authority held by a particular district varies according to the constitutional provision under which it
was created, conversion statutes enable districts to take advantage of powers given to them under
other provisions of the state constitution. TEX. WATER CODE ANN. secs. 60.241-.246 (1972).

Among the powers held by navigation districts is the authority to pass regulations pertaining
to waterway traffic and policing of the port's facilities, to fix rates and fees for the use of port
facilities, and to employ specific financial methods to defray operating costs and finance new struc-
tures or facilities. TEX. WATER CODE ANN. secs. 60.071, 60.103, 63.171 (1972).

The Texas Water Code is flexible in that it allows choices in the type of government frame-
work for the individual districts. Navigation districts created under chapters 61 and 63 of the Texas
Water Code may include two counties or parts of two counties within their boundaries. TEX.
WATER CODE ANN. secs. 61.022, 63.023 (1972). Districts formed under chapter 62 may include
three counties or parts of three counties. id. sec. 62.022 (1972).

Three sources of funds are available to navigation districts: tax revenues, operating revenues,
and long-term debt. Of the three, debt is the most important because it offers the large amount of
capital necessary for port or waterway development.

Each port's gross operating revenue is a function of cargo volume, services provided, and
charges levied. Services provided by Texas ports vary. All ports except Galveston may levy a tax
for maintenance and operations. This is generally limited to $0.10 or $0.14 per $100 assessed valua-
tion. TEXAS COASTAL AND MARINE COUNCIL, PUBLIC PORT FINANCING IN TEXAS 11
(1976). In some cases an unlimited tax for general obligation debt service is authorized, but taxes
levied for this purpose may not be used for any other purpose. ETTER & GRAHAM, FINANCIAL
PLANNING FOR THE TEXAS PORT SYSTEM 12-14 (1974).

Navigation districts may issue bonds to finance capital improvements when funds from
operation and tax revenues are inadequate. Three types of bonds can be issued: 1) general obliga-
tion (tax) bonds, 2) revenue bonds, and 3) combination revenue and tax bonds. TEX. WATER
CODE ANN. sec. 60.3 31 (Supp. 1976). Of these types, only revenue bonds may be issued without
voter approval. id, sec. 60.332 (Supp. 1976).

Revenue bonds may be secured by all or part of district revenues. Charges for services must
be set at a level sufficient to meet principal and interest payments, as well as other bond require-
ments, and to pay designated expenses of the district. id. sees. 60.3 38, 60.341 (Supp. 1976).

As a general rule, interest paid by the districts to bondholders is exempt from taxation
under section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code. I.R.C. sec. 103, as amended by Tax Reform Act of
1976, Pub. L. No. 94-45 5, 90 Stat. 1 520, et seq. This provision allows navigation districts and other
political subdivisions to pay a lower rate of interest than would be required for taxable bonds.
Industrial development bonds are taxed in some instances, but not in others. Reference should be
made to current regulations and revenue rulings to determine the taxable status of particular pro-
jects. id,

Although general obligation bonds must be approved by a general election within the dis-

134

trict, once the amount has been approved new bonds can be issued periodically until the approved
indebtness has been reached. By requesting a larger indebtniess than is immediately needed, a district
can decrease the frequency of elections.

Navigation districts may also help finance installations for private industries. This is
especially important in the financing of environmental improvements. An industry can guarantee
revenue bonds to be sold by the district. The capital derived from the bond issue can then be used
to construct a pollution control facility such as a waste treatment plant. The district can lease the
facility to the industry, and the industry operates the facility. TEXAS COASTAL AND MARINE
COUNCIL, PUBLIC PORT FINANCING IN TEXAS 21 (1976).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Rivers and Harbors Acts have cumulatively established
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' responsibility for investigation, construction, operation, and
maintenance of civil works projects for navigation, flood control, and related purposes. The Corps
would require a local public sponsor to participate in construction of an inland canal. The local
sponsor would be responsible for providing and maintaining an adequate public terminal and secur-
ing all land casements and rights-of-way.

The process of obtaining participation by the Corps begins with authorization from Con-
gress to prepare a survey report. Appropriations for surveys are made to the individual Corps dis-
tricts. The chief of engineers in each district allocates funds for the specific surveys.

After completing its investigation, the Corps submits its report to Congress. Congressional
committees hold hearings on proposed projects. After completion of the hearings, Congress may
authorize a number of projects in a single bill.

Authorization does not guarantee funding, however. Congress has a substantial backlog of
authorized projects that go unfunded. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE, FEDERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 861-865 (1974).

As an example of the time schedule involved, the Corps has prepared a model of the "typi-
cal" project. This typical project requires four years and nine months from authorization of a sur-
vey to funding of the investigation. Four years and 10 months may pass before the survey report
is prepared. Processing of the report prior to project authorization and funding may take over a
year. Other conditions, such as the need for advanced engineering and design work, may lengthen
the time period. THE CIVIL WORKS PLANNING CONTINUUM, REPORT OF THE TASK
FORCE ON CIVIL WORKS PLANNING (1971). According to the Corps representatives, an inland
canal project of the magnitude indicated in the conceptual design would require a minimum of
I10-1 1 years from authorization of initial study to funding for construction.

Municipal Corporations. Municipal corportations are authorized to construct navigational
facilities, such as harbors, docks, and wharves. Home-rule cities may issue bonds for capital improve-
ments in the amount fixed by the charter. TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 1175(10) (1963).
Cities and towns with a population in excess of 5,000 are authorized to issue tax and revenue bonds
for navigational improvements. TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 1187f (1963), as amended,
(Supp. 1976). Bonds payable from ad valorem taxes cannot be issued without authorization by a
majority of the voters.

Counties. Texas counties have been granted the authority to issue bonds to acquire rights-
of-way and spoil disposal areas for canals and waterways authorized by Congress. TEX. REV. CIV.
STAT. ANN. art. 822a (1964). Issuance of the bonds requires an election.

Coastal counties are authorized to acquire rights-of-way and spoil disposal sites by eminent
domain, and to issue time warrants at six percent interest to pay the cost of acquisition. id. art.
822c (1964). County authority is rarely used, however, because navigation districts and the State

13 5

Department of Highways and Public Transportation have similar authority to acquire rights-of-way
and spoil disposal areas by eminent domain. TEX. WATER CODE ANN. secs. 61.120, 61.161,
62.106, 63.155, 63.156 (1972); TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 5415e-2 (Supp. 1976).
The Private Sector
There are many forms of business organizations applicable to development of an inland
canal. The optimal organizational structure will depend on the capital requirements, tax advantages
and investment objectives involved. Ownership would likely consist of industries planning to locate
at the site, a real estate development corporation, or a development syndicate.

Private financing of the project could take one or a combination of three basic forms: un-
secured debt, secured debt, or equity. Secured debt differs from unsecured debt only in that speci-
fic property or revenues are pledged as collateral to insure the repayment of the debt.

Debt of a corporation, whether secured or unsecured, is often represented by bonds. Bonds
are securities which are sold by an organization, usually through dealers, for a face value and which
are repaid on a fixed date. Interest on bonds is normally paid periodically, one or more times per
year. Bonds may be secured by particular property or revenues or by the assets of the issuer. The
type of bonds issued depends in part on the schedule of revenues from the project. Series bonds are
often used when revenues will be produced gradually and when there is no need for additional
financing during that time. Term bonds may be used when either the revenues to pay off the bonds
will be concentrated toward the end of the bond term or when revenues will be used to finance
additional projects.

Equity for the project could be paid in by the participants in a syndication or development
corporation. Other sources of equity including use of existing capital, issuance of securities, or by
personal loans. Both personal loans and debt securities are more properly classified as debt than as
equity although they may be used free up equity capital committed to other projects.
Other Considerations
Services such as security, fire protection, maintenance of common areas, spill prevention
and clean up, and maintenance of roads could either be provided by a public or private developer,
or provided separately by each tenant. The economies of scale suggest that some or all of these ser-
vices provided by a single source for all project industries would be a more attractive approach. The
developer could provide the services and charge the industries accordingly or the tenants could form
an association to finance and manage the services. Some services (fire protection, spill prevention)
might be mandatory to the industry while others (security of individual plants) might be optional.

Taxes on common areas could be paid by the developer with the industries agreeing to reim-
burse their pro rata shares. Ownership of the common areas could also be included in ownership of
the individual plant sites, with taxes and other expenses assumed by the tenant. This alternative
would require restrictions against development in designated areas (e.g. buffer zone) established in
the deed.

in the event that a private entity is the developer of the project, it may be advantageous to
form a special governmental district to provide the services described above. Some of these special
districts are described in chapters 50 through 57 of the Texas Water Code. Types of districts which
may be established include: water control and improvement districts, freshwater supply districts,
municipal utility districts, water improvement districts, drainage districts and levee improvement
districts. In addition to these general law districts, article XVI, section 59 of the state constitution
provides for the creation of other special districts by the legislature.
Summary
If an inland canal project were publicly owned and financed, the navigation district would
have unique advantages including the authority to finance the project by revenue, debt, and bonds.

136

The ability to finance pollution control facilities in conjunction with industry is also an important
factor.

Construction of the canal by the Corps of Engineers would be feasible only if project sche-
duling can accommodate the required time period for authorization and funding.

Private ownership and financing could be accomplished by either the individual industries
planning to locate at the site, a corporation, or a development syndicate. The creation of a special
governmental district to provide common services at the site may be advantageous,

Additional considerations relevant to these alternatives are discussed in the economic feasi-
bility analysis.

Regulatory Authority Affecting the Construction
and Maintenance of an inland Canal
This section discusses the federal, state, and local permitting regulations which would apply
to construction of an inland canal and the industries which locate there. The primary permits re-
quired for the inland canal project include:

1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "Section 10" and "Section 404" permits.
2. Environmental Protection Agency NPDES permit.
3. Texas Water Quality Board waste control order.

Additional permits may be required from the Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas
Antiquities Committee, General Land Office and School Land Board. An environmental impact
statement may be required for the Section 404 permit.

The industries which locate at the site will also be required to obtain state and federal water
and air quality permits. Many of the permits typically required for industrial site development
would be obtained by the project sponsor for construction of the canal and major utilities.
Federal Regulatory Authority
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has extensive authority
over activities occurring in or affecting navigable waters. Statutory authority requires an entity who
wants to construct, reconstruct, or conduct major renovation of a structure in, on, or under a navi-
gable water to obtain a permit from the Corps. 3 3 U.S.C.A. sec. 403 (1970). The Corps also requires
a permit for the construction of a channel or upland canal connection to navigable waters. 3 3
C.F.R. sec. 209.120(g)(1 1) (1975).

Corps authority over the discharge of dredged or fill material has been supplemented by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA) 3 3 U.S.C.A. sec. 1251 et seq.
(Supp. 1977). Section 404 of this act (33 U.S.C.A. sec. 1344) (Supp. 1977) provides that the Corps
must regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters by a permit system.
Under this law, the Corps will evaluate the inland canal project with respect to potential alteration
of wetland areas.

Corps permits for a project of the magnitude of an inland canal will require a public hearing
and circulation of the application of all interested state, federal, and local agencies for their com-
ments. The Texas Water Quality Board will have to certify dredging, dredged material disposal, and
stream channel diversions before the Corps may issue the permit.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has the follow-
ing major responsibilities in the coastal area:

137

1. Enforcement of federal regulations and statutes pertaining to the protection of fish,
migratory birds, and certain marine mammals (16 U.S.C.A. sec. 757a et seq. (1974), as
amended, (Supp. 1977); 701 et seq. (1974), 1361 et seq. (1974), as amended, (Supp.
1977);
2. Review of all federal water use projects and those water use projects requiring federal
permits to determine effect on fish and wildlife (16 U.S.C.A. sec. 662 (1974));
3. Establishment and maintenance of national wildlife refuges (16 U.S.C.A. 668 dd (1974),
as amended (Supp. 1977)); and
4. Provision of federal funds to states for fish and wildlife restoration projects (16 U.S.C.A.
sec. 669 et seq. (1974)).

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides that federal agencies must give adequate
attention to the wildlife consequences of water use projects. 16 U.S.C.A. sec. 662 (1974). The
USFWS, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Depart-
ment must be consulted. The major objections which could be raised in the inland canal can study
would include the effect on migratory bird habitat (particularly as related to nearby wildlife
refuges) and assurances of adequate wetland protection during dredging and spoil disposal
operations.

Compensatory mitigation requirements may also be recommended by both federal and state
fish and wildlife agencies for certain projects. Under these requirements, "mitigate" has been inter-
preted as means which should be taken to diminish the impact of a project. "Compensation" in this
context is the provision of additional land for fish and wildlife habitat. If compensatory mitigation
is required, project cost for an inland canal would include the provision of an acre of similar habitat
dedicated in perpetuity for every acre of habitat adversely affected. In terms of the conceptual site
plan indicated in Figure 45, the project would directly alter approximately 20 acres of wetland at
the GIWW entrance and a similar amount in the Redfish Bayou diversion.

The USFWS will also determine the presence of endangered plant or animal species in the
project area which are protected in regulations promulgated under the Endangered Species Act. 16
U.S.C.A. sec. 1531 et seq. (1974), as amended, (Supp. 1977). Endangered species located in
Brazoria county are Attwater's prairie chicken, the southern bald eagle and red wolf. The southern
bald eagle has been observed north of the study area.

National Environmental Policy Act. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for "major federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment." 42 U.S.C.A. sec. 4332(c) (1973). Most federally
funded projects or projects for which federal permits or licenses must be issued, are considered
federal actions. An EIS would probably have to be prepared to obtain a section 404 permit for the
inland canal in the case study and if federally sponsored dredging and discharge of dredged materials
were involved.
State Regulatory Authority
General Land Office and School Land Board. Management of Texas coastal public lands is
shared by the commissioner of the General Land Office (GLO) and the School Land Board (SLB).

The SLB regulates the leasing of state lands covered wholly or partially by the waters of the
bays or other arms of the sea. These lands may be leased to navigation districts for uses reasonably
related to navigation. TEX. WATER CODE ANN. secs. 61.116, 61.117 (Supp. 1976). The SLB may
also grant easement rights to the owner of adjacent littoral property authorizing construction on
coastal public lands.

An easement for construction of an inland canal would be required for coastal public lands
located between the point of departure at the GIWW and the upland segment of the channel. This
requirement would be more significant in a bay approach than a location with uplands adjacent to

138

the GIWW as encountered in the case study. Maximizing the use of existing access channels, upland
dredged material disposal sites, upland channel alignment to minimize disruption of drainage flows,
minimized disruption of productive wetland areas, and provision for waterfront access via a central
channel are features of the inland canal concept which should favor granting of an easement by the
SLB.

Parks and Wildlife Department. The Parks and Wildlife Department (P&WD) authority rele-
vant to an inland canal may be divided into two categories: 1) regulation of fish and wildlife re-
sources, and 2) regulation of dredging. In the first category, the most significant responsibility per-
taining to construction and maintenance of a canal is P&DW's review and comment authority under
the federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. In the second category, the most important factor is
P&WD's permit program for the removal of marl, sand, shell, and gravel from the public waters of
the state. Although a P&WD permit is normally required for dredging, a permit is not required for
"1. dredging incidental to and reasonably necessary in construction of state or federally authorized
navigation projects, or 2. work of a lessee of the School Land Board necessary to carry out the pur-
pose of his lease." TEX. NAT. RES. REPT., Parks and Wildlife Department Commentary 1 (Jan.
1977). The proposed inland canal would presumably fall under one or both of the exceptions,
therefore eliminating the need for a permit.

Texas Water Quality Board. As discussed previously, the Texas Water Quality Board
(TWQB) must certify that a proposed discharge will meet requirements of the FWPCA before a
federal permit can be issued. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cannot authorize the discharge of
dredged or fill material into United States water in Texas without certification or waiver by TWQB.
33 U.S.C.A. sec. 1341 (Supp. 1977).

TWQB approval for an inland canal project would pertain to such activities as dredged
material disposal and stream channel diversion. Strict control of dredged material discharge and con-
tainment of the effluent within the dredged area should minimize TWQB objections. Other project
aspects which would be reviewed include runoff control in the site area and cooling water and
wastewater discharges.

Antiquities Committee. The Antiquities Committee is responsible for historical and prehis-
torical landmarks in Texas. TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 6145-9 (1970), as amended, (Supp.
1976). A person may not damage, alter, or remove a protected artifact without a permit or contract
from the committee. Antiquities Committee Rule 355.01.00.001.

An historical survey is normally included in the environmental assessment required in pre-
paration of the environmental impact statement for a proposed project. If any artifacts are found,
the developer is required to obtain a permit from the committee and to protect, preserve, and, upon
occasion, restore the discovered artifacts.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a federal body charged with commenting on
projects that may affect a property listed in the National Register, works very closely with the
Antiquities Committee. 16 U.S.C.A. sec. 470i (1974), as amended, (Supp. 1977).

Recent surveys performed in the case study area indicate the presence of archeological/his-
torical sites. Although none of the sites are believed to be altered by the designed project, preserva-
tion and/or relocation would be required for one structure located inside the flood protection
levee.
Local Regulatory Authority
Depending on the specific site location, construction and operation of an inland canal may
be regulated by numerous local governments, including special districts such as navigation districts
or municipal utility districts.

139

An inland canal site located in proximity to a municipality would likely be annexed. Devel-
opment within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a municipality cannot be incorporated.

Private interests in the project will be subject to ad valo rem taxes levied by school districts,
the county, junior college district, navigation district, and drainage district.
Regulatory Authority Affecting Industrial
Development Along the Canal
Industry will be attracted to the inland canal primarily by the access to water transportation
and the availability of water for cooling purposes. Among the primary tenants of the canal are re-
fineries and petrochemical plants. Although the industry's decision to locate on the canal has much
to do with the canal itself, the location must also meet other requirements, such as adequate waste
disposal facilities. The feasibility of these facilities depends in part on the regulatory framework.

The inland canal concept offers an advantage to industry in that the major permits for con-
struction, operation, and maintenance of the channel and waste disposal system will be secured by
the developer. This process can also include a preliminary screening of permits required by the
tenants.

The following discussion will outline the primary federal, state, and local regulations affect-
ing industrial development.

Federal Regulatory Authority
Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA is the federal agency charged with the regula-
tion of air and water pollution. Two applicable statutes, the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.A. sec. 1857
et seq. (1969), as amended, (Supp. 1977), and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33
U.S.C.A. sec. 1251 et seq. (Supp. 1977) authorize the states to conduct much of the regulation sub-
ject to EPA review.

Permits must be obtained from both the EPA and the Texas Water Quality Board (TWQB)
before a discharge of pollutants can be made from a point source. In addition, the TWQB must
certify that the proposed discharge is in compliance with sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of
FWPCA.

The requirements of the NEPA apply to the EPA's issuance of a discharge permit. There-
fore, an EIA would have to be prepared for a facility such as a wastewater treatment plant.

The `208" program is a federally funded program for areawide waste treatment manage-
ment planning. 33 U.S.C.A. sec. 1288 (Supp. 1977). The program is in its early stages, so predic-
tion of what effects it will have on the inland canal project is difficult. The waste treatment
facilities for the project may be integrated with nearby facilities to form an areawide waste treat-
ment system. Also, the 208 program may result in non-point source pollution regulations that will
affect the project. The design features of the inland canal which minimize non-point source pollu-
tion with runoff retention ponds and control levees are expected to conform with these regulations.

Oil and hazardous substances spills are also within the EPA's jurisdiction. 33 U.S.C.A. sec.
1321 (Supp. 1977). The EPA maintains a list of hazardous substances and shares enforcement of
the spill laws with the U.S. Coast Guard. Spill control levees within the industrial site and contain-
ment facilities in the harbor would be necessary for compliance.

The EPA's primary responsibility in combatting air pollution is to establish the standards
that will be used at the state level to regulate air contaminants. Nevertheless, it does have original
permitting authority over hazardous air pollutants. 42 U.S.C.A. see. 1857c-7 (Supp. 1977). A list
of these air contaminants is maintained by the EPA's administrator. An entity cannot construct or

140

modify a stationary source of a hazardous pollutant without receiving a permit from the adminis-
trator. 40 C.F.R. sec. 61.

State Regulatory Authority
Texas Air Control Board. The Texas Air Control Board (TACB) issues permits for both con-
struction and operation of a facility. A person who wants to build or modify a facility which may
emit air contaminants must obtain a permit from the TACB before starting construction. TEX.
REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 4477-5, sec. 3.27(a) (1976).

An operating permit from the TACB must be obtained within 60 days of the beginning of
operations. Id. sec. 3.28 (1976). TACB may extend this limitation if start-up or testing of the
facility requires more time.

A variance may be granted by the TACB to a facility in order to allow the facility to operate
outside usual TACB requirements. The TACB will not grant a variance unless there is adequate
proof that denial of the variance will result in an arbitrary and unreasonable taking of property or
the closing of a business without a corresponding public benefit. Id. sec. 3.21 (1976). Detailed
criteria which are used by the TACB in deciding whether to issue a variance or other permit are
listed in the TACB Rule 131.08.00.003.

The TACB's State Implementation Plan must conform to EPA standards. Development in
industrialized areas of Texas may be more costly and difficult in the future because of the EPA's
new "offset" policy, which requires that existing pollution sources in an Air Quality Maintenance
Area must be reduced before new sources will be permitted. 41 Fed. Reg. 55,524 (1976). This
policy may present a unique obstacle to the inland canal concept because of the concentration of
emissions in the development site.

Texas Water Quality Board. The TWQB is the lead agency in Texas for matters relating to
water quality. Although the TWQB plays an important role in the federal certification process dis-
cussed above, it administers an extensive state permitting system as well.

The TWQB issues three types of waste control orders: 1) regular waste control order; 2)
waste disposal well waste control order, and 3) industrial solid waste order. TWQB Rule
130.01.30.002. Any or all of these permits may be required by a particular industrial development
but the first and third types are more likely to be needed than the second type.

In addition to issuing waste control orders, the TWQB must approve plans and specifications
for sewage systems for the treatment and disposal of industrial liquid wastes before construction
can begin. TEX. WATER CODE ANN. secs. 21.086, 21.707(d) (1972), as amended, (Supp. 1976).
Water control districts are exempt from obtaining TWQB approval if they obtain Texas Water
Rights Commission approval instead. TWQB Rule 130.01.62.001(b). TWQB approval is required,
however, for any sewage disposal plans of water districts if state or federal funding is involved.

Major permits for the waste treatment facility would be secured by the inland canal
developer. Provisions for tertiary treatment should ensure compliance although individual discharge
permits would still be required by industries using the facility.

The clean up of spills of oil and hazardous substances in or adjacent to the waters of the
state is regulated by the state Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, prepared
by the TWQB. TWQB Rule 130.09.01.002.011. TWQB is also responsible for administering the
Texas Coastal Protection Fund, which is used to pay for clean-up oil and other spills when the costs
cannot be recovered from the responsible party or the federal government. TEX. WATER CODE
ANN. sec. 21.805 (Supp. 1976). While the party responsible for the activity or facility from which
an oil spill occurs is responsible for containment or clean-up, it would be advisable for the project
developer to set up a spill clean-up and control service. Costs could be paid by user fees, or
recovered from the responsible operator.

141

.Local Regulatory Authority
If the inland canal is within the boundaries of a municipality or special district, associated
industrial development will be subject to local regulation. Special districts such as water control and
improvement districts may regulate sewer systems. TEX. WATER CODE ANN. sec. 5 1.127 (1972).

Municipalities may regulate utilities within their boundaries. TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN.
art. 1446c (Supp. 1976). Utilities outside corporate limits are regulated by the Public Utility Com-
mission (all utilities except natural gas) and the Railroad Commission of Texas (natural gas). Id.

If the inland canal is within a city's corporate boundaries, development must also conform
to zoning ordinances, building codes, and other restrictions. Also, coastal counties have the
authority to implement land use regulations to restrict the development of land to minimize flood
damage. TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 1581e-1 (Supp. 1976). Therefore, developers in the
floodplain may have to meet special building standards.

Governmental Programs for Alleviating
Adverse Impacts of the Project
There are several governmental assistance programs which may be applicable in alleviating
the adverse environmental, social and economic impacts of an inland canal development. Parti-
cularly relevant federal government programs provide assistance in the areas of housing, water
supply, wastewater treatment, waste disposal, solid waste collection, crime prevention, fire protec-
tion, recreation facilities, health facilities, education facilities, and coastal energy-related impacts,
among others. Most of these federal programs are administered by state agencies. State funded pro-
grams provide assistance in highway construction and maintenance, water supply, wastewater treat-
ment, health, recreation, education, and other areas. These programs are generally designed to
supplement local funds. In addition to these specific programs, virtually unrestricted federal revenue
sharing funds are also available.

An authoritative discussion of the specific governmental programs which might be of assist-
ance in alleviating the adverse impacts of the canal project is constrained by the restrictions and
conditions of various programs. The regulations which govern the availability of assistance, as well
as the specific amounts of assistance available change frequently. The Texas Department of Commu-
nity Affairs (TDCA) is the state agency which catalogs and coordinates the various state and federal
assistance programs. The TDCA should be consulted by the affected communities as the project
planning continues to determine what types and amounts of assistance may then be available. At
the federal level, the Federal Regional Council (FRC) is responsible for coordination.

Interpretation
On the basis of the project feasibility analysis the inland canal concept would be expected
to more easily comply with applicable developmental regulations that do traditional industrial
navigation developments. The noteworthy inland canal design provisions which minimize the
adverse environmental impacts associated with traditional developments include:

1. minimal wetland alteration,
2. upland disposal of dredged material,
3. runoff control,
4. minimal disturbance of surface drainage patterns, and
5. contained turbidity during canal dredging.

As determined in the Environmental Impact Analysis (see Chapter IV), factors which would
receive particular attention in the permit review process for the case study project include:

1. the potential for disruption of drainage at the Redfish Bayou diversion,
2. the protection of migratory bird habitat in adjacent National Wildlife Refuges,

142

3. the disruption of approximately 40 acres of wetland located at the south entrance
channel and upper Redfish Bayou areas, and
4. the potential for alteration of surface runoff sheet flow conditions to point source
directionalized flow.

The environmental effects are considered to be of less magnitude and importance than those which
would be encountered in the typical traditional navigation development, and thus would likely be
favored by regulatory agencies. This postulation is further investigated in a comparison between the
impacts of the inland canal concept and traditional alternatives documented in Chapters IV and V.

The inland canal concept also appears to offer relative advantages in an industrial operation
context. The development of the project as a single planned unit would relieve the individual
tenants of the responsibility for securing permits for construction and maintenance of the access
channel, berths, and major utilities. Individual industrial operating permits would be required,
although a preliminary investigation of the features necessary for compliance could be performed
by the project developer. Operating restrictions are generally not expected to significantly differ
between an inland canal-type development and other industrial sites. One possible exception is
meeting air quality maintenance restrictions. Less concentrated industrial developments with dis-
persed emission sources may more easily meet air quality requirements. However, this issue may be
resolved in part by incorporating emissions reduction technology through public financing of pollu-
tion control facilities.

ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

The conomic feasibility analysis consists of two parts. First, the project costs (see Figure 57)
are compared to the present market for industrial development land with similar features. in the
second part, the project cost feasibility is tested in a cash flow and rate of return analysis.

The results of this analysis indicate that the financing of land purchase, canal construction,
and site preparation would be a profitable venture for the private investor. Utility services construc-
tion would have only a marginal return on investment as a private venture. Public financing of the
project would be feasible, and would be desirable for the utility system.
Market Comparison
The comparison between the project costs and the existing industrial land market reveals
that raw land in the Brazosport-Houston-Galveston area is generally more expensive than other
coastal locations. Unimproved land prices in the study vicinity range from $1,000 to $3,000 per
acre, according to local realtors. Similar land in the lower coast and Beaumont-Port Arthur areas
would be slightly lower, ranging from about $500 to $2,000 per acre. Unimproved industrial land
between the study site and Houston ranges from $3,000 to $5,000+ per acre.

Costs for land improvements vary with industry needs. A general survey of industry repre-
sentatives indicate that a competitive price for full-service industrial land in the Houston-Brazosport
area would range from $10,000-$15,000 per acre. Land prices at Bayport, an industrial develop-
ment offering improvements comparable to the project design, range from $16,000 to $39,000 per
acre. Bayport's waterfront land, however, is serviced by a channel of 40 foot depth. Their repre-
sentatives suggest that comparable land with barge-water access would sell in the $8,000 to $10,000
range.

A generalized comparison to the project costs indicates that approximately 10,000 acres in
the study site could be purchased for an average of $2,000 per acre. Improvements to provide full
utilities, navigation, rail and highway access, and flood protection would cost approximately
$60,000,000. Thus the land purchase and initial site preparation plus initial utility developments
represent an investment of approximately $12,000 per acre with net salable land of 7,100 acres.
Although a more extensive market analysis would be required for a refined comparison, these pro-

143

ject costs appear to compare favorably with the existing market. This conclusion will be further
tested in the cash flow and rate of return analysis.
Cash Flow and Rate of Return Analysis
This aspect of the feasibility analysis is used to determine the profitability of an investment
in an inland canal and industrial site. The process for determining feasibility involves estimating a
cash flow over the life of the project and a rate of return on the investment.

As determined in the conceptual design, the project is divided into two phases or stages. In
Stage I, the canal, industrial site fill, levees, reservoirs, railroad and pipelines will be constructed.
Development expenses for this stage will occur in years 1, 2, and 6. Construction of the water and
wastewater systems are included in Stage II. These expenditures occur in years 3, 4, and 6. Reve-
nues from land sales in Stage I begin the first project year. Revenues from Stage II utility services
start in year 5.

The analysis is presented both with private and public financing. This provides an indication
of the profitability of the project for the private investor and the potential decrease in cost to the
tenant if publicly financed. in addition, project Stage I investments (land purchase, construction of
the canal and site preparation) are presented both as separate from Stage II (utility construction)
investments and with Stage if investments as a combined investment. This indicates that the relative
feasibility of each Stage, the potential desirability of a combined public/private investment, and the
profitability of a total Stage I and II investment.

The primary variables in the cash flow analysis are the projected annual absorption sales
rate on the effective retail acreage and the retail sales price per acre. The return provided by these
estimations compared to the land investment and land development costs determines the project
cash flow. The actual absorption rate and sales prices would be determined by projections based on
an analysis of the local and regional market. For purposes of this analysis, a declining absorption
rate and appreciating land values are assumed (see Carestio, 1971; Thorne, 1971) patterned
generally on the rate at which initial tracts would be available for occupancy, the completion of
utility services, and future development phasing.

The rate of return is calculated according to the method of Lochmoeller, et al. (1975) using
present worth values at the midpoint of the year. Rate of return is calculated separately on a free
and clear basis and on equity after financing.
Private Financing
Stage I. The cash flow and rate of return analysis for private financing are based on the fol-
lowing assumptions:

1. Of the 9,777 acres to be purchased for the project, a net of 7,109 acres are available
for sale. it was assumed all would be sold.
2. The total land cost is $20 million. The acreage prices range from $500 per acre to
$3,000 per acre and average $2,045 per acre.
3 . Financing would be a $13.5 million loan with an interest rate of 10 percent. The
principal will be repaid through payments of $2,800 per acre after sale of the first
1,500 acres. An acceleration factor in the release payments of approximately 16 per-
cent was applied.
4. Development of the project was predicated upon firm purchase commitment by the
refinery and petrochemical industries. The lower price per acre for their waterfront
sites reflects their early commitment and purchase of large tracts.
5. Acreage prices are intended to compare with other full-service industrial parks. Water-
front acreage is approximately 50 percent more costly than non-waterfront; prices
escalate over time.

144

6. Rate of land sales (as a percentage of total) is based on historical patterns, although the
total number of years to full occupancy could vary.
7. The seven percent sales expense represents commissions to external sales efforts.
8. The expenses of development and engineering are indicated in the conceptual design.
Engineering and contingency expenses are expected through the project life.
9. Real estate taxes are based on an average assessment of $1,000 per acre. The accumu-
lated tax of $18 per acre is based on the rates of the various taxing authorities in
Brazoria County as listed by Seadock (1974). Taxes on undeveloped land (e.g., the
buffer zone) will continue beyond the absorption period.
10. Direct overhead includes the project owner's development and management staff,
I11. Cost of promotion and signs includes internal sales effort in advertising and seeking
tenants.
12. Other costs include legal fees, auditing, etc.
1 3. Management fees account for head-office expenses in the parent corporation~s).
14. Annual interest payments are based on one year's interest on the remaining balance
after the release payment is made and one-half year's interest on the release payment.
1 5. A short-term loan at 12 percent interest would be used to meet the deficit shown in
the second year, and would be repaid in the third year.

Cash Flow. A cash flow for Stage I, construction of the canal and site preparation, on a 10-
year project life is shown on Figure 58. It is assumed that $13,500,000 of the $20,000,000 pur-
chase price is borrowed at a 10 percent interest rate. The $6,500,000 equity would be provided by
corporate capital, sale of stock or personal loans. Revenues are based on completed land sales for
the initial waterfront tracts (south site) between years four and five and sale of the north site tracts
would begin in year six. The loan is to be repaid as land is sold in payments of $2,800 per acre. Pay-
ment is deferred on the first 1,500 acres to ensure adequate intial development funds.

Land development costs for the first (south) tract are incurred in years one and two. The
second (north) tract development costs occur in year six.

Because the majority of development costs occur in year two, a deficit is realized requiring
an additional short term loan. This loan is repaid in year three.

Return on Investment. The present value of the net cash from sales (free and clear) was cal-
culated at a variety of discount rates. The rate at which the sum of the present values equals the
$20,000,000 purchase price is 19 percent before taxes. The present value analysis at 19 percent is
shown on Figure 59.

The Stage I return on equity shown in Figure 59 was calculated in the same manner. The
rate at which the sum of cash after financing equals an investment of $6,500,000 is 30 percent
before taxes.

Discussion. A 19 percent rate of return on a free and clear basis and a 30 percent rate of
return on equity indicate that Stage I of the project may be a feasible investment for the private sec-
tor. A more refined analysis, however, would lend more certainty to the absorption rate and pricing
schedule as well as include a profit and loss statement to account for taxable income.

A simplified sensitivity analysis on the rate of return would assume that the input data
could either be 25 percent too high or too low. Reevaluating the rate of return with this margin of
error indicates a range from 14.25 to 23.75 percent return on net cash and 22.5 to 37.5 percent
return on equity.

145

Figure 58

Cashflow Stage 1 Private Financing

Given Data:
Financing Assumptions:
Gross Acres 10,000 Mortgage $13.5 million
Net Salable Acres 7,109 Interest 10%
Purchase Price $20,000,000 Releases $2,800/Acre after 1,500 Acres
Market Proj. 100% sold Equity $6.5 million
years
Marketing: 1 2 3 4 5
Acres Sold 1,500 700 850 800 750
Price per Acre 8,000 12,500 12,500 8,000 8,250

Gross Revenue 12,000,000 8,750,000 10,625,000 6,400,000 6,187,500
Less Sales Expense @ 7% 840,000 612,500 743,750 448,000 433,125

Net Proceeds: 11,160,000 8,137,500 9,881,250 5,952,000 5,754,375

Expenses:
Land Development 3,281,000 9,523,000 -0- -0- -0-
Engineering 550,000 490,000 40,000 25,000 25,000
Contingency 250,000 250,000 100,000 75,000 75,000
Real Estate Taxes 128,000 115,000 100,000 85,000 71,000
Direct Overhead 200,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 100,000
Promotion &Signs 200,000 200,000 75,000 75,000 75,000
Other 60,000 60,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Management Fees 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000

Total Expenses 4,744,000 11,013,000 580,000 476,000 461,000

Net Cash From Sales 6,416,000 (2,875,500) 9,301,250 5,477,000 5,293,375
(free and clear)

Financing 13,500,000
Release Payments ---------- 1,960,000 2,380,000 2,240,000 2,100,000
Interest 1,350,000 1,252,000 1,035,009 804,000 587,000

Total to Lender 13,500,000 3,212,000 3,415,000 3,044,000 2,687,000

Net Cash After Financing 5,066,000 (6,087,500) 5,866,250 2,433,000 2,606,375

Short Term Note 1,021,500

Principal Payment 1,021,500
Interest @ 12% 61,290 64,970
Total to Lender 1,147,760
New Net Cash, Yrs. 2_& 3 (5,066,000) 4,718,490

146

Figure 58

Cashflow Stage 1 Private Financing
(cont'd)

years
6 7 8 9 10 TOTAL
900 600 450 350 209 7,109
8,500 8,750 9,000 9,250 9,500

7,650,000 5,250,000 4,050,000 3,237,500 1,985,500 66,135,500
535,000 367,500 233,500 225.625 138,985 4,629,485

7,114,500 4,882,500 3,766,500 3,010,875 1,846,515 61,506,015

2,250,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- 15,154,000
1,500,000 40,000 25,000 25,n00 25,000 1,395,000
1,500,000 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 1,150,000
55,000 44,000 36,000 30,000 27,000 691,000
1,500,000 100,000 75,000 75,000 50,000 1,200,000
1,000,000 75,000 50,000 50,000 30,000 930,000
50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 390,000
75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 750,000

2,980,000 474,000 366,000 325,000 24,200 21,660,000

4,134,500 4,408,500 3,400,500 2,685,875 1,604,515 39,846,015

2,520,000 1,680,000 620,000 13,500,000
242,600 176,400 31,000 5,478,000

2,762,600 1,856,400 651,000 18,978,000

1,371,900 2,552,100 2,749,500 2,685,875 1,604,515 20,868,015

126,260

20,741,755

147

Fiaure 59

Present Value Analysis

Stage 1, Stage 2, and Stages 1 & 2 Combined

STAGE I STAGE 2
Year Free & x 19% P. P.V. P.V. Net Cash After 30% P.V. p,v, Free x 10% PV. P.V. Net Cash After 10 P.V. P.V.
Clear 10% .V.P.V
Clear Factor Financing Factor Clear Factor Financing x Factor
1 $6,416,000 0.91670 $5,881,500 $5.065,000 0.87706 $ 4,443,200 $ $ -0-
2 (2.875.000) 0.77033 (2,215,100) (5.066,000) 0.67466 (3,417.800) -0- -0-
3 9.301,200 0.64734 6,021,100 4.,718,490 0.51897 2.448, 80 -- -0-
4 5.477,000 0.54398 2,979.400 2.433.000 0.39921 971300
5 5.293,400 0.45713 2,419.800 2,607,400 0.3070 -0,00
800,400 4.420,900 0.65123 2,879.000 1,114.900 0.60051 669,500
6 4,134.500 0.38414 1.588,200 1,317,900 0.23622 324.100 5.276.000 0.59202 3.123.500 2,028,800 0.53617 1,087.800
7 4,408.500 0.32281 1,423,100 2,552.100 0.18171 463.700 3.986,000 0.53820 2.145.300 788,800 0.47872 377.600
8 3,400,500 0.27127 922,500 2.749,500 0.13977 384,300 6,625,400 0.48928 3,241.7C0 2053,200 0.42743 877.600
9 2.685,900 0.22796 612,300 2.685,900 0.10752 288,800 6,953,000 0.44480 3,092.700 2,580.800 0.38163 984,900
10 1.604.500 0.19156 307,400 1.604.500 0.08271 132.700 7.185.800 0.40436 2.905,700 3.013.600 0.34074 1,026.900
11 7.385,000 0.36760 2,714.700 3.412.800 0.30424 1,038,300
12 7,495,000 0.33418 2,504.700 3,722.800 0.27164 1,011,300
13 7,495.000 0.30380 2.277,000 3.827,800 0.24254 928.00
14 7,495,000 0.27618 2,070,000 4,037,800 0.21655 874.400
15 7.495.000 0.25108 1,881.800 4.247.800 0.19335 821,300
16 7,495.000 0.22825 1.710,700 4.457,800 0.17263 769,600
17 7,495.000 0.20750 1,552.000 4,667,800 0.15414 719.500
18 7,495,000 0.18864 1,413.800 4,877.800 0.13762 671,300
19 7,495,000 0.17149 1,285.300 5.087.800 0.12288 625.200
20 7,495.000 0.15590 1,168,500 5,372,000 0.10971 589,400

Total Present Value 19.940,200 Total Present Value 6,839,500 Total Present Value 35,969,000 Total Present Value 13.073,000
Purchase Price 20,000,000 Equity 6,500,000 Construction Cost 36,678,400* Equity 12,499.100*

00
STAGES I & 2 COMBINED
Year Stage I Stage 2 Total 12% P.V. Project Stage I Stage 2 Total 16% P.v Project
Free & Clear Free & Clear Free & Clear Factor Present Value Net Cash Net Cash Net Cash Factor Present Value
After Financing After Financing After Financing
1 6.416,000 -- 6416,000 0.94491 6.062,600 5,056,000 -0- 5.066.000 0.92848 4,703,700
2 (2.875,000) -0- (2,875,000) 0.84367 (2.425,600) (5,066,000) -0- (5,066.000) 0.80041 (4,054,900)
3 9.301,200 -0- 9.301,200 0.75328 7,006,400 4,718 A90 -0- 4,718,490 0.69001 3,255,800
4 5.477.000 -0- 5,477.000 0.67257 3,683,700 2.433,000 -0- 2,433,000 0.59484 1,447,200
5 5.293.400 4.420.900 9.714.300 0.60051 5.833.500 2,607.400 1,114,900 3.722,300 0.51279 1,908,800
6 4.134,500 5,276.000 9,410.500 0.53617 5,045.600 1,317,900 2,208,800 3,346.700 0.44206 1,479,400
7 4,408,500 3.986.000 8.394.500 0.47872 4.018.600 2,552,100 788.800 3,340,900 0.38109 1.273,200
8 3,400.500 6,625.400 10,025,900 0.42743 4.285.400 2,749,500 2,053,200 4,802.700 0.32852 1,577,800
9 2.685.900 6,953,000 9,638,900 0.38163 3.678,500 2,685,900 2,580,800 5,266,700 0.28321 1.491.600
10 1,604,500 7,185,800 8,790,300 0.34074 2,995,200 1.604,500 3.013,600 4,618.100 0.24415 1,127.500
t11 7,385,000 7,385.000 0.30424 2,246,800 3.412,800 3.412,800 0.21047 718.300
12 7,495.000 7.495,000 0.27164 2,035,900 3.722.800 3.722.800 0.18144 675.500
13 7,495.000 7,495,000 0.24254 1,817.800 3,827,800 3,827,800 0.15641 598,700
14 7.495.000 7,495,000 0.21655 1,623,000 ,4,037.800 4,037,800 0.13484 544,500
s15 7,495,000 7.495,000 0.19335 1.449.100 4.247,800 4,247.800 0.11624 493,800
16 7,495,000 7.495,000 0.17263 1.293,900 4,457,800 4,457,800 0.10021 446,700
17 7.495,000 7,495,000 0.15414 1,155,200 4,667,800 4,667.800 0.08639 403,200
18 7.495.000 7.495,000 0.13762 1,031,500 4,877,800 4,877.800 0.07447 363,300
19 7,495.000 7.495.000 0.12288 921,000 5,087,800 5.087,800 0.06420 326.600
20 7.495.000 7,495,000 0.10971 822,300 5,372,000 5,372,000 0.05534 297,300

Total Present Value 19,070,8.000 Total Present Value 54,580.400
Equity 18,999,100* Land Purchase & Construction Costs 56,678,500

*Stage 2 Construction Cost and Equity are Present Valued to year 1 07%

Varying the absorption rate to account for less rapid land sales is one way to test the sensi-
tivity of the projected rate of return, By lowering the projected land sales to a maximum annual
sale of 650 acres and extending the sales period to 12 years, the rate of return on equity lowers to
21 percent and a deficit of $250,800 occurs in year six. Varying land sales such that 1,120 acres
remained unsold after year 10, the rate of return on equity would be 10 percent with a net cash
deficit of $1,777,3 00 in year 1 1.
Stage 11
Cash Flow. The cash flow analysis for private financing of Stage II, construction of the
major utility services, is based on assumptions similar to those in Stage I, with the following excep-
tions:

1. Marketing efforts are assumed not to be required and are not included.
2. Management costs accrue after the completion of construction.
3. Operation and maintenance costs include an allowance for replacement of capital
equipment.
4. Growth in water and wastewater treatment requirements is a function of acreage sold.
Water demand is calculated on a percentage of the initial demand with the assumption
that the initial industries (petrochemical and refinery) have higher requirements than
secondary industries. Future water demand is assumed to be .0025 MGD/acre. Addi-
tional cooling water requirements are not estimated.'The projected water use over the
life of the project increases from an initial 20.3 MGD to 34.4 MGD and is constant
after year 10.
5. The project cost is $41,370,000.
6. Financing would be $28,221,900 at 10 percent interest.
7. Construction of Stage If begins in the third year of Stage I.

The projected cash flows for Stage 11 on a 20 year project life are shown in Figure 60. The
primary development expenses of this Stage occur in the third and fourth years of the project.
Facility expansion expenses occur in year seven.

Revenues from sales begin with completion of the construction in the fifth year of the pro-
ject. Service rates were assumed to be a combined total of $1.15/M gallons of treated water and
wastewater.

Return on Investment. The present value of return on Stage If investment (see Figure 59)
was calculated by the same procedure used for Stage I. While investment begins in year three of the
project, present values of the returns and investment costs were calculated back to project year one.
The present value of investment costs was taken at seven percent, to represent an opportunity inter-
est rate at which money, borrowed in year one, could be invested for a short-term return, This pro-
cedure was used to bring all costs and returns to a common time-base.

Pricing was based on 50 cents per thousand gallons of treated water, and 65 cents per thou-
sand gallons of wastewater treatment, With the simplifying assumption that the amounts of treated
water and wastewater are equal, the combined cost is $1.15 per thousand gallons.

Based on the assumption discussed above, the before-tax rate of return on the free-and-
clear was found to be just under 10 percent. For equity, the rate of return was found to be just over
10 percent.

Discussion. The rate of return before taxes on Stage 11 is low for the private investor. The
after tax return would be significant for this phase, however, because of depreciation on the facili-
ties.

149

Figure 60

Cashflow Stage 2 - Private Financing

Financing Assumptions:

Construction Cost $41,370,000 Mortgage $28,221,900
Interest During Construction 1,351,900 Interest Rate 10%
Project Capital Cost 42,721,900 Equity S14,500,000

years
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Sales, MGD 20.3 24.2 28.1 30,4 31.9
Revenue @1.15/M 8.520,900 10,15,000 11.795,000 12,760,400 13,390,000

Construction Expenditures 12,850,000 23,600,000

Expenses:
Expansion 2.000,000
Engineering 1,029,000 1,891,000 40,000 50,000 160,000 65,000 70,000
Contingency 705,000 1,295,000 25,000 30,000 75,000 40,000 45.000
e&M 3,835,000 4,572,000 5,309,000 5,743,000 6,026,000
Management 200,000 230,000 265,000 287,000 301,000
'Total Fxppnse 1,734,D00 3,186,000 4.100,000 4,882,000 7,809,000 6,135,000 6,437,000
Project Construction Cost 14,584,000 26,786,000
Interest During Construction 4,200 1,347,700
Capital Cost 14,588,200 28,133,700
Net Cash Free & Clear 4,420,900 5,27S,000 3,986,000 6,625,400 6,953,000
Financing

Interest Payment -0- -0- 2,806,000 2,747,200 2,697:200 2,572,200 2,372,200
Principal Payment -O- -0- 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Loan Balance 88,200 28,221,900 27,721,900 27,221,900 26,721,900 24,721,900 22,721,900
Net Cash After Financinq 1,114,900 2,02E,800 788,800 2,053,200 2,580,800

150

Figure 60

Cashflow Stage 2 - Private Financing

(cont'd)

years

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
33.0 33.9 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4
12,851,800 14,229,000 14,439,000 14,439,000 14,439.000 14,439,000 14,439,000 14.439,000 14,439,000 14,439,000 14,439,000

75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000
A5,000 45,000 45:000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000
6,234,000 6,404,000 6,499,000 6,499,000 6,499,000 6,499,000 6,499,000 6,499,000 6,499,000 6,499.000 6,499.000
312,000 320,000 325,000 325,000 325,000 325,000 325,000 325,000 325,000 325,000 325,000
6,666,000 6,844,000 6,944,000 6,944,000 6,944,000 6,944,000 6,944,000 6,944,000 6,944,000 6,944.000 6,944,000

7,385,800 7,385,000 7,495,000 7,495,000 7,495,000 7,495,000 7,495,000 7,495,000 7,495.000 7,495,000 7,495,000

2,172,200 1,972,200 1,772,200 1,567,200 1,357,200 1,147,200 937,200 727,200 517.200 307,200 101.100
2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,021,900
20,721,900 18,721,900 16,721,900 14,621,900 12,521,900 10,421,900 8,321,900 6,221,900 4,121,900 2,021,900 -0-
3,013,600 3,412,800 3,722,800 3,827,800 4,03Z,800 4,247,800 4,457,800 4,667,800 4,877,800 5,087,800 5,372,000

151

Combined Stage I and II. The previous analyses have shown that Stage I would provide a
reasonable rate of return for the private investor. Stage II provides a much lower rate of return and
would be a risky venture. The marketability of the project, however, would be improved if the
developer can offer a tenant full utility services. Therefore, a rate of return for a combined private
investment in Stages I and II is also shown in Figure 59. Stage II construction costs are present
valued to year one at seven percent.

As would be expected, the rate of return is lower for both the free and clear basis and on
equity with Stage II included in the project. The free and clear rate of return on the $56,678,400
land purchase and construction costs is 12 percent before taxes. The rate of return on the
$18,999,100 equity is 16 percent before taxes. Assuming that a reasonable rate of return should
approach 20 percent before taxes, private financing of Stage II would still be considered a risky
investment.
Public Financing
Projected cash flows for a publicly financed project are shown in Figures 61 and 62. This
analysis is based on 100 percent financing of the land purchase with an additional 15 percent
reserve. It is assumed that financing would be provided by general obligation bonds or revenue
bonds with a six percent interest rate. A 10-year amortization schedule is provided for Stage I and a
15-year schedule for Stage IL. To simplify calculations, a level annual principal and interest payment
is assumed. Other assumptions follow the private financing cash flow analysis.

Stage I Cash Flow. The annual level principal and interest payments for Stage I would be
$3,125,000 to amortize a $23,000,000 loan in 10 years. The $3,000,000 reserve is drawn down to
$533,500 to meet a deficit in year two. At the same land prices as those of the privately financed
project, proceeds are such that the reserve is restored in year three and a surplus over reserve of
$3,276,250 accrues. The surplus accumulates to $8,753,455 at the end of the amortization period.

if the channel excavation costs were assumed by the Corps of Engineers, Stage I develop-
ment costs would be reduced by $5.6 million or 40 percent. This would result in concomitant sur-
plus of revenue to a public financier.

Stage If Cash Flow. Stage It construction costs and expenses for public financing would be
the same as for private financing. The cash flow, however, is analyzed for two separate price sche-
dules. For the first case, revenues are based on $1.05/M gallons. Financing includes $41,370,000
construction costs and a 15 percent reserve of $6,205,000 for a total bond indebtedness of
$47,575,500. Amortization at 6 percent over 15 years requires an annual level principal and interest
payment of $4,900,000. Revenues at the case 1 price schedule create a surplus in excess of reserves
starting in project year 13. Deficits draw the reserve down to a minimum of $422,300 in the
seventh project year. Total accumulated surplus over reserve at the end of the amortization period
is $8,769,100.

Cash flow was also calculated for a price schedule of $1.00/M gallons to determine the
effect on required financing. At this rate, a reserve of 20 percent of the construction costs would be
requires for a total bonded indebtedness of $49,644,000. Amortization at 6 percent over 15 years
requires a level annual principal and interest payment of $5,11 1,500. Deficits in the first four years
of the payout period reduce the reserve to a minimum of $381,000 in project year eight. At the end
of the amortization period, the reserve balance is $5,165,000. This is $3,109,000 less than the
original reserve.

Discussion. The cash flow analysis for a publicly financed project indicates that Stage I can
be financed with a 15 percent reserve to cover deficits in year two and general contingencies. Reve-
nues provide a surplus over reserve at the end of the amortization period. This surplus indicates
that a publicly financed project could offer land at lower prices than the private development,
thereby providing an incentive for industry to locate at the site. As an alternative interpretation, the

152

Figure 61

Cashflow Stage 1 Public Financing

Given Data: Financing Assumptions:

Gross Acres 10,000 Bonded Indebtedness $23,000.000
Net Salable Acres 7,109 Reserve $ 3,000,000
Purchase Price $20,000,000 Interest rate 6%
Market Projections 100% sold Payout 10 years @ $3,125,000/year

Year 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Marketinq:
Acres Sold 1,500 700 850 800 750 900 600 450 350 209 7,109
Price Per Acre 8,000 12,500 12,500 8,000 8,Z50 8,500 8,750 9,000 9,250 9,500

Gross Revenue 12,000,000 8,750,000 10,625,000 6,400,000 6,187,600 7.650,000 5,250,000 4.050,000 3.237,500 1.985,500 66,135.500
Less Sales Expense B 7% 840,000 612,500 743,750 448.000 433,125 535,000 367,500 283,500 226,625 138,985 4.629,485

Net Proceeds: 11,160.000 8,137,500 9,881,250 5,952,000 5,754,375 7,114,500 4,882,500 3,766,500 3,010,815 1,846,515 61,506,015
Epenses:
Land Development 3,281,000 9,623,000 -0- -0- -0- 2,250,000 -0- -0- -�- -�- 15.154,000
Engineering 550,000 490.000 40,000 25,000 25,000 1,500,000 40,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 1,395,000
Contingency 250,000 250,000 ]00.000 75,000 75,000 1,500,000 100,000 75.000 50.000 25,000 1.150.000
Direct Overhead 200,000 200,000 150,000 100.000 100.000 1,500,000 100,000 75,000 75,000 50,000 1 200 000
Promotion & Signs 200,000 200,000 75.,000 75,000 75.000 1,000,000 75,000 50,000 50,000 30,000 9
Other 60,000 60,000 40.000 40,000 40,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000
Management fees 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75000,0 50 000
75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 750,000
IoittalExenses 4,616,000 10,898,000 480,000 ' 390,000 390,000 2,925,000 430,000 330,000 295,000 215,000
Available to Debt Service 6,544,000 (2.760,500) 9,401.250 5,562,000 5,364,375 4,189,500 4.452,500 3,436,SOO 2,715,875 1.631,515
Payments(Principal & Interest) 3,125,000 3,125.000 3,125,000 3,125,000 3.125,000 3,125,000 3,125,000 3,125,000 3,125,000 3,125,000
Reserve Balance 3.000,000 533,500 3,000,000 3,000,000 3.000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3.000,000
Surplus over Reserve 3,419,000 -0- 3,276,250 5,713,250 7,952,625 9,�17,125 10,344.625 10,656,125 10,246,940 8.753,455

Figure 62

Cashflow Staoe 2 Public Financing

Financing Asssavptians: aeIcs
Bonded Indebtedness $47,575,500'q-WW
Reserve 6.205.500 (15%) 8.274.000 (20%)
Interest rate 8
Payout 15 yea's 4.9DO00.OOyr. S . 111I,500/yr. years

Year 1 23 4 5 2 8

Sales, MM 20.3 24.2 28.1 30.1
Case 2 Revenue U 400M water treatnent 7,409,500 8.833,D00 10,256,500 11,096,000
6D9114 waste water 927,5 107,35 16080
Case I Revenue C 40t * 854 . 95924601,6,2 160B

Construction Expenditures 12,850,000 23,500, D

Expenses:
Expansoin 2,000000
Engineering 1,029,000 1.3919000 40,000 50,DW 160,000 65,000,
Contingency 105,000 1,295.000 25.000 30,000 75,000 40,000
DO.1 3,835,000 4,572,000 5,309,000 5.743,000
)4anagneastwt173 200.000D 230,000O 265,:000 287, 000
I9fAULEADnne 1.340 3.186.000 4,1 00,00 4,882,000 7,809,000 6,135,000
Project Constractich Cost 14.584.000 26.786.000

Financing:
Interest During Construction 437,500 1.678,600
Capital cost 15.021,500 28,464,600
.Total ca pital cost (yr. 3 A 4 constructione intirest) 43,486,300

Case I Available to Debt Service 3,679,975 4.392,650 2,960.325 S . 515.800
Paymnent's 4,900,000 4,900,000 4.900,000 A,900.000
Deficit (1,220,000) C507,400) (1.939.700)
Reserve 4,089,400 2,669.400 2,362,000 422,300 1.038.100
Surplus over reserve

Case 2 Available to Debt Service 3,309,.500 3,951,000 2,447,500 4,961,000
Pay~neasts 5.111.500 5,111,500 5,311.500 5,111,500
Defici (1.802.000) (1.1160,500) C2,664.000) ( 15o0soo)
citrv 6, 158,000 4,356,000 3.195.500 531,500 381,000

154

Figure 62

Cashflow Stage 2 Public Financing

(cont'd)

years

9 10 11 12 13 14 2 5 16 17 18 19
31.9 33.0 33.9 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4
11.643,500 17,045,000 12.373,500 12.556,000 12.556,000 12,556,000 12.556,000 12.556.000 12,556,000 12.556.000 12,556,000
12,225,675 12,647,250 12,992,175 13,183,800 13,183,800 13,183,800 13.183.800 13.183.800 13.183,800 13, 183,800 13,183,800

70,000 75.000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000
40,000 45,00 45.000 45,000 45,000 45.000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45.000
6,026,000 6.234.000 6,404,000 6,499,000 6,499,000 6,499.000 6,499,000 6.499.000 6,499,000 3,499.000 6,499,000
101,000 317,00 1W 20,000 325,000 3 25,000 3 25,000O 325,000 375.000 3 2 5.000 375.000 125,000
6,437,000 6,666,000 6.644,000 6,944,000 6,944,000 6,944,000O 6.94.4.0DO 6,944,000 6,944,000 3,.944,000 6,944,000

5,788,675 5,981,250 6,148, 175 6.739.800 6,239,800 6,239,900 6,239,800 6.239.900 6,739.600O 6,239.900 6,239.800
4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900.000O 4,900,000 4,9(00,00 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,930,000 4.900,000
1.926.800 31W,00.00 4,256,700 5,596,000 6,205,5D0 6,255,500 6,205,500 6.205.500 6,705;500 6, 205,5Soo 6,700,500
730,300 2,070.100 3.400.900 4,749,700 6.089.500 7,479,300 8,769,100

5,206.500 5,179.000 5,529.500 5,612,000 5.612.000 5,612,000 5.612,000 5.612.000 5.612.000 5 ~612. 000 5,612,000
5,111.500 5,111,500 5.111.500 5,111,500 5 ~111. 500 5.111.500 5,111,500 5.111.600 5,111,500 5,111,500 511,500 ,S
476.000 743.500 3,161,500 1.662.000 2,162.500 2.663.000 3.163,500 3,664,000 4.164.500 4,665,000 5,165,000

surplus could be applied to financing additional pollution control facilities, or for assisting local
political subdivisions in mitigating social and economic impacts of the project.

If the Corps funded the channel excavation, Stage I development costs would be decreased
by approximately 40 percent. The feasibility of this alternative, however, would depend upon the
extent to which a project schedule could allow for a minimum of 10 years in authorization and
funding.

The cash flow for public financing of Stage II indicates that services could be provided at a
13 percent reduction in price at the case 2 ($1 .OO/M gallons) rate if financing includes a 20 per-
cent reserve. A price of $1.05/M gallons would be an 8.7 percent reduction over private rates, and
require a 15 percent reserve in financing.
Summary
At a price per acre comparable to the existing full service industrial land market, Stage I of
the project (land purchase, canal construction, and site preparation) could be profitable private
investment. A private investment of both Stage I and the utility services construction in Stage II
would be a marginal investment if competitive rates are charged. Public financing of Stage II by a
Utility District or Navigation District would be feasible at slightly lower rates. Because Stage I
feasibility is contingent upon the services provided in Stage II, public financing of the utilities
appears to be warranted.

Stage I of the project could be publicly financed by an entity such as a Navigation District.
The cash flow analysis indicates that revenues from land sales would provide a surplus which could
be applied to other navigation improvements or mitigation of the project impacts, or could be
reflected in lower land prices as an incentive for industry to locate at the site. Development of the
project by a navigation district would be advantageous primarily in terms of the flexibility of
financing alternatives and the ability to exercise power of eminent domain. A potential disadvant-
age of public financing is that tax revenues generated by the development would be reduced until
tracts are purchased or leased by industry.

As a final alternative, funding of the canal construction could be provided by the Corps of
Engineers, reducing Stage I development costs by approximately 40 percent. However, the feasibil-
ity of this alternative is limited by the uncertainty of authorization and funding. Estimates provided
by the Galveston District, U.S. Corps of Engineers indicate that a project of this magnitude would
require at least 10 to II years in preconstruction studies, authorization, planning, and design (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1977). Authorization for Corps funding would also be contingent upon
sponsorship by a port authority, navigation district, or other public entity.

Economic Feasibility Analysis References
Carestio, R. M. 1971. "Land Absorption in industrial Parks." Industrial Development and manu-
facturers Record. January, pp. 18-2 1.

Lochmoeller, D. C. et al. 1975. Industrial Development Handbook, Washington, D. C.: The Urban
Land Institute.

Thorne, 0. J. 1971. "Industrial Park Cash Flow Analysis." industrial Development and Manufac-
turers Record. March/April.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District. 1977. Personal Communication.

156

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

The environmental impact analysis is presented in two parts: impacts of inland canal con-
struction and industrial site preparation, and impacts of industrial site development and operation.
Each part includes an economic, environmental, and social and infrastructural assessment.

The major impacts of inland canal construction and industrial site preparation include: (1) a
short-term fiscal deficit of as much as $72,808 in the local governments of Brazoria County; (2)
various environmental effects such as upland habitat loss and habitat isolation, modification of
upland sheetfiow runoff to point source flow, modification of the flow rate and volume of Redfish
Bayou in its upper reach, and potential salt-water intrusion into the water table adjacent to the
canal-, and (3) various social and infrastructural effects such as possible relative decline in levels of
public service, stress on existing transportation systems, and possible home relocations in Jones
Creek north of Highway 3 6.

The major impact issues of industrial site development and operation include (1) short-term
governmental fiscal deficits and decline in infrastructural ability to efficiently provide expanded
public services; (2) stress on existing transportation and water supply systems; (3) various environ-
mental impact issues such as exacerbated subsidence problems with groundwater impact issues such
as exacerbated subsidence problems with groundwater withdrawal, concentrated and increased air
emissions loadings from aggregated industries, and the possibility of hazardous spills in the inland
canal harbor and channel escaping into nearby wetlands; and (4) social responses to environmental
impacts such as increased industrial activity and air pollution.

IMPACTS OF INLAND CANAL CONSTRUCTION
AND INDUSTRIAL SITE PREPARATION

The construction of the canal and preparation of the industrial site involves a number of
activities including dredging, earthwork, and construction of a railroad spur, and construction of
water and waste treatment plants. It is a major project which will take several years to complete and
which, because of its scope, will affect the economic, environmental and social systems of Brazoria
County as a whole and of the Brazosport area in particular. The major components of this project
and its impacts are discussed in this chapter.

Economic Impact Analysis*

Construction Activities
The construction activities can be grouped into distinct phases. Phase 1 consists of those
activities which must be undertaken before refinery and petrochemical complex construction may
begin. Phase 2 involves those activities which must be completed by the time the locating plants
become operational.

Activities within each phase are clustered by major contract; these are presented with their
estimated cost and job time in Figure 63. Each phase is expected to take approximately two years.
Because it takes about two and a half to three years to build a refinery (New England River Basins
Commission, 1976) and because the second phase would normally be scheduled for completion
upon commencement of the actual operation of the plants, it is assumed that the two phases do not
overlap.

*The economic impact methodology was first developed as part of the study Offshore Oil: Its Impact on Texas
Communities, prepared for the General Land Office of Texas by RPC, Inc., June, 1977. As a result, certain
portions of this section borrow heavily from that study.

157

Figure 63

Major Activities
Canal Construction and Industrial Site Preparation

job Time Size of Contract Location of
Activities (Weeks) ($Mill ions) Contractor]1

Phase J: 113 13.93
Disposal Levee 6 0.27 Local
Land-Based Earthwork 88 5.74 Non-local
Dredging 52 4.90 Non-local
Redfish Bayou Diversion 9 0.23 Non-local
Railroad Spur 10 1.51 Non-local
Pipeline Relocation 12 0.25 Local
Engineering and Supervision 11 3 1 .03 Non-local

Phase 2: 104 39.37
Raw Water Supply 1 3 3.78
Pump Station 6 0.1 8 Non-local
Raw Water Main 5 1.35 Local
Well Field 12 1.20 Local
Well Field Main 7 1.05 Local
Water Treatment Plant 52 5.83 Non-local
Waste Treatment Plant 104 25.70 Non-local
Cooling Water Discharge 8 1.14 Local
Engineering and Supervision 104 2.92 Non-local

1"Local" means that the firm is from Brazoria County. "Non-local" means that the firm is from elsewhere
in the state. It is expected that most of the "non-local" firms will be from the Houston area.

Not all of the activities will occur simultaneously or for the same length of time. And, in
some cases, completion of one activity is necessary before another can begin. Consequently, the
activities of Phases I and 2 must be distributed over time; this is done in Figures 64 and 65
respectively.

The economic impacts of the construction activities on the study area will vary according to
the location of the contracting firm, For a given project in Brazoria County, a firm located in the
County (a "local" firm) can be expected to spend a greater percentage of its expenditures within
the county than would a firm from Houston for example. And, while the local firm's labor force
would be drawn almost entirely from the local labor pool, the nonlocal firm would tend to bring
into the county its regular skilled operators while hiring unskilled workers locally.

judgments concerning the probable location of the contractor for each activity were based
upon a consideration of the types of construction firms currently located in Brazoria. and Harris
Counties and elsewhere in the state and upon discussions with industry sources. Figure 63 shows the
postulations made concerning the location of each contractor. Due in part to the proximity of
many large construction firms in the Houston/Galveston area, most of the activities are seen as
likely to be performed by Texas firms from outside of Brazoria, County.

Economic Impact Analysis Procedure
Among the impacts on the Brazoria County economy expected as a result of the construc-
tion project would be increases in employment, personal income, and tax revenue, In addition, an
anticipated influx of construction workers from outside the county would result in a temporary rise
in total population accompanied by a higher level of demand for public goods and services. Within
the county, the Brazosport area surrounds the canal site and thus seems likely to experience most of
the identified impacts. (Brazosport is a name given to these closely associated municipalities: Jones
Creek, Lake Jackson, Clute, Freeport, Richwood, Brazoria, Quintana, Surfside, and Oyster Creek.)

158

Figure 64
Distribution of Activities Over Time

Phase 1

ACTIVITIES

Disposal Levee

Land-based
Earthwork

Dredging II

Bayou Diversion

Railroad Spur

Pipeline
Relocation

Engineering &
Supervision
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Week

Figure 65
Distribution of Activities Over Time

Phase 2*

ACTIVITIES

Raw Water Supply

Water Treatment
Plant

Waste Treatment
Plant

Cooling Water
Discharge

Engineering &
Supervision
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Week

*There is assumed to be no overlap between Phases 1 and 2

159

An input/output (I/O) model of Brazoria County was used to estimate many of the eco-
nomic impacts on the county. in its essence, an input/output model is an accounting system which
traces the flow of goods and services throughout a regional economy. Such a model is especially
suited for the calculation of indirect and induced effects (referred to throughout this study simply
as indirect effects) of any change in the level of sales, purchases, production, or employment in any
one of a region's economic sectors. In very basic terms, if sector A reduces or increases expendi-
tures, for example, those changes can be termed primary effects. The changes in sectors B through
Z, which are brought by the primary effects, can be called indirect effects.

A Texas I/O model was developed in 1973 and has since been updated to incorporate 1972
Department of Commerce data. The state model served as the basis for the Brazoria County (BC)
I/O model used in this study. A detailed description of this regional model is presented in Appendix
D.

Primary Expenditures
Total expenditures and expenditures made in Brazoria County for each activity over time
are presented in Figure 66. These estimates were derived in the following manner:

1. The total expenditure for each activity was assumed to be equal to its estimated cost, as
shown in Figure 63.

2. Expenditures made locally, that is, in Brazoria County, by local firms were calculated by
using the BC I/O model. According to the model, 39.8 percent of all purchases by
Brazoria County construction firms are made locally. This ratio was then applied to the
total expenditures of the firms to give estimated expenditures by local firms within the
county.

3. Estimates of local expenditures by construction firms located outside of Brazoria County
were based on conversations with individuals from the construction industry, from the
Texas industrial Commission, and from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Payments
assumed to be made locally include the following: wages paid to new and existing
residents, subsistence items (for example, food) by the dredging firm, ready-mix, and
diesel fuel and lubricating oil for all activities except dredging.
Of expenditures totalling $54 million, $6.6 million, or about 12 percent, are estimated to be
made within Brazoria County.
Employment
The project will require workers in Brazoria County, both in the construction sector and in
other sectors which supply the construction sector. Of the construction jobs, some will be filled by
current residents of the county, some by people who will move into the area for the duration of the
job, thereby temporarily increasing the area's population, and some by people who will continue to
live outside the county while commuting each day to the construction site.

The new population associated with the construction project, then, is primarily a function
of the new employment; the same can be said of the number of new housing units and of the
number of new students. Thus, the first step in calculating new population, housing units, and
students, is to calculate new employment, and the first step in that process is the determination of
total manpower requirements over time. This process can be seen graphically as follows:

Total Employment. Total employment in Brazoria County required by both phases of the
project consists of those hired to work directly on the project and those hired in other sectors of
the economy as a result of the project. The former, or direct employment, is calculated by deter-
mining the project's total manpower requirements over time. The latter, or indirect employment,
was estimated by using the indirect employment coefficient from the BC I/O model.

160

Figure 66

Primary Expenditures1
($ Thousands)

Expenditures in
Brazoria County Total Expenditures
Time Period By Local By Non-local By Local By Non-local
(Weeks) Firms2 Firms3 Total Firms2 Firms3 Total

Phase 1:
1-25 - 55.1 55.1 - 227.9 227.9
26-31 - 51.8 51.8 446.1 446.1
32-35 - 41.9 41.9 - 297.4 297.4
36-44 74.6 94.3 168.9 187.5 669.1 856.6
45-46 52.4 21.4 73.8 131.7 148.7 280.4
47 26.2 11.9 38.1 65.8 74.3 140.1
48-50 53.7 35.8 89.5 135.0 223.0 358.0
51-54 - 63.1 63.1 - 674.3 674.3
55-61 - 103.6 103.6 1,180.0 1,180.0
62-63 - 32.4 32.4 388.3 388.3
64-70 - 101.9 101.9 - 1,358.9 1,358.9
71-76 - 130.7 130.7 - 1,011.4 1,011.4
77-79 - 63.9 63.9 - 505.7 505.7
80-98 - 334.6 334.6 - 3,202.9 3,202.9
99-102 - 62.6 62.6 - 674.3 674.3
103 - 11.8 11.8 - 74.3 74.3
104-113 - 153.5 153.5 - 2,253.4 2,253.4
Total $ 206.9 $1,370.4 $1,577.2 $ 520.0 13,410.0 $13,930.0

Phase 2:
1-6 - 66.9 66.9 - 1,651.2 1,651.2
7-52 - 800.7 800.7 - 12,658.9 12,658.9
53-60 - 238.6 238.6 - 3,098.5 3,098.5
61-91 - 1,426.3 1,426.3 - 12,006.5 12,006.5
92-96 736.3 257.2 993.5 1,850.0 2,086.5 3,936.5
97 - 96.5 51.4 147.9 242.5 417.3 659.8
98-103 937.3 276.1 1,213.4 2,355.0 2,323.8 4,678.8
104 116.4 46.0 162.4 292.5 387.3 679.8
Total $1,886.5 $3,163.2 $5,049.7 $4,740.0 $34,630.0 $39,370.0

1. Totals may not add due to rounding.
2. Local firms are those firms located in Brazoria County.
3. Non-local firms are those firms not located in Brazoria County. It is expected that most
will come from the Houston area.

161

Resident Employment

New Population

Total New Resident New Housing
Employment Employment Units
Requirement

New Students

Commuter Employment

This coefficient is equal to 19.847 employees per million dollars of primary expenditures in
the county per year. That is, almost 20 indirect jobs will be required in the county each year for
each million dollars of direct expenditures spent by the construction sector in Brazoria County. The
product of the coefficient and direct expenditures in Brazoria County, adjusted for time, is equal to
the indirect employment required by the project.

Direct and indirect employment requirements are displayed in Figure 67. Total employment
for any time period is simply the sum of the direct and indirect employment; this also is displayed
in Figure 67. No aggregate employment is calculated because the employment figures cannot be
cumulated from one time period to the next. Each of the construction activities has an employment
requirement. Since the activities occur at different times, the total employment varies between time
periods, as the employment associated with one activity ends and another begins. Thus, the employ-
ment figure for any time period must not be seen as an addition to the previous, corresponding
figure. Rather, it should be considered as the total employment requirement in that time period in
Brazoria County.

Origin of Employment. Having calculated total employment requirements, it remains to be
determined what percentage of those requirements will be resident employment, what percentage
new resident, and what percentage commuter employment. By "resident employment" is meant
employees who do not currently reside in the county but who move to the county to work and
establish residences there; and by "commuter employment" is meant employees who do not cur-
rently reside in the county and who commute to the project site to work but do not establish
residences there.

The following postulations concerning employment patterns were based on conversations
with individuals in the construction industry, the Texas Industrial Commission, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers:

1. All of the indirect requirements will be met by resident employees. Because of the
temporary nature of the project and the small number of jobs involved, it seems unlikely

162

Figure 67

Direct and Indirect Employment Requirements

Time Period Direct Indirect Total
(Weeks) Employment Employment Employment

Phase 1:
1-25 25 1 26
26-31 27 0 27
32-35 36 0 36
36-44 46 1 47
45-46 55 0 55
47 60 0 60
48-50 50 0 50
51-54 109 0 109
55-61 104 0 104
62-63 118 0 118
64-70 142 0 142
71-76 135 0 135
77-79 133 0 133
80-98 117 2 119
99-102 72 0 72
103 43 0 43
104-113 69 1 70

Phase 2:
1-6 84 0 84
7-52 84 14 98
53-60 127 1 128
61-91 127 17 144
92-96 150 2 152
97 153 0 153
98-103 149 3 152
104 144 0 144

that new residents will move into the area solely in anticipation of securing construc-
tion-generated employment.

2. Employees of firms based in Brazoria County will be residents of the county.

3. Firms from outside the county will generally hire unskilled labor locally and bring in
skilled workers.

4. A typical maximum daily commuting distance is 50 miles. Construction workers who live
more than that distance from the job site tend to become temporary new residents in the
surrounding area. Thus for activities other than dredging, it was assumed that 75 percent
of the non-local workers of firms from the Houston area (50-75 miles from the site) will
commute to the study site. The remainder of the non-local workers from the Houston
area, and all of the non-local employees of firms from other than the Houston area will
become new residents of Brazoria County and will concentrate in the Brazosport area.
5. Crews on the dredge work one week and then are off a week. While working, they live on
the dredge. Thus, it is assumed that dredge workers from outside the county will not
move their families to the Brazosport area but rather return to their place of residence
during the "off" week.

163

The application of these postulations to the employment requirements in Figure 67 results
in the numbers of resident, new resident, and commuter employees shown in Figure 68. It should
be stressed that these estimates are study assumptions (not predictions) made after considering the
particular activity in question, employment patterns in the construction industry and discussions
with industry officials.

As Figure 68 reveals, the maximum number of new residents in Phase I is 40 and in Phase 2
is 48. In order to estimate the project's maximum impact on the surrounding area, it is hypothe-
sized that the new resident employees and their families will locate predominately in the Brazosport
area because of its proximity to the construction site. Actual location elsewhere in the county
would lessen the impact on the Brazosport area. Since the new resident employees will move with
their families, the number of new resident employees provides the key with which new population,
new housing units, and new students can be determined.

Figure 68
Resident, New Resident and Commuter Employment Requirements
Time Period Resident New Resident Commuter
(Weeks) Employment Employment Employment

Phase 1:

1-25 7 4 14
26-31 7 6 14
32-35 10 12 14
36-44 20 12 14
45-46 29 12 14
47 29 17 14
48-50 19 17 14
51-54 36 17 56
55-61 34 14 56
62-63 39 16 63
64-70 43 36 63
71-76 39 40 56
77-79 39 38 56
80-98 37 24 56
99-102 37 1 6 56
103 1 3 1 6 14
104-113 18 12 39

Phase 2:
1-6 25 1 5 44
7-52 25 1 5 44
53-60 35 48 44
61-91 35 48 44
92-96 47 48 55
97 s o 48 55
98-103 57 48 44
104 52 48 44

New Population. The expected increase in population was calculated by considering the
relationship between employment and total population in Texas. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau
and the Texas Employment Commission reveals that in 1975 employment in the state equalled

164

4,986,000, and total population was 12,244,678. Thus, there were 2.46 persons in the total popula-
tion for every employed person. Application of this multiplier to the new resident employment
column in Figure 68 yields the new population estimates over time shown in Figure 69. As
discussed above, these people are expected to settle primarily in the Brazosport area.

New population is expected to reach a maximum of 118 in Phase 2. This is less than 0.3
percent of the 1970 population of Brazosport, and equal to about 0.1 percent of the 1975 popula-
tion of Brazoria County.

Figure 69
New Population and New Students

Time Period
(Weeks) New Population New Students

Phase 1
1-25 10 2
26-31 15 4
32-35 30 7
36-44 30 7
45-46 30 7
47 42 10
48-50 42 10
51-54 42 10
55-61 34 8
62-63 39 9
64-70 89 21
71-76 98 23
77-79 93 22
80-98 59 14
99-102 39 9
103 39 9
104-113 30 7

Phase 2:
1-6 37 9
7-52 37 9
53-60 118 28
61-91 118 28
92-96 118 28
97 118 28
98-103 118 28
104 118 28

New Housing Units. Each new resident employee is assumed to represent one household,
implying that the number of housing units required by the population influx is equal to the number
of new resident employees. Because it is likely that the new residents will be temporary, that is, live
in the area for the duration of the project, it is postulated that they will be primarily interested in
renting an apartment, house, or mobile home rather than purchasing a house.

Discussion with officials from the Brazosport Chamber of Commerce reveals that about
1200 apartment units have been built in the past three years, in addition to motel expansions and
new houses, some of which are rented. The number of renter-occupied units is currently about
13,500 and the rental occupancy rate is close to 100 percent, with a two-to-three week waiting

165

period, About 20 percent of the rental units are apartments, 68 percent houses, and 12 percent
mobile homes.

The options open to a construction worker planning on moving with his family to the
Brazosport area for the duration of the project include the following:

1. He could find a suitable rental unit immediately.
2. He might live in a motel or a beach cottage in the off season for two or three weeks, until
a unit becomes available.
3. He might bring in his own mobile home.
4. He might rent in other areas of the county, such as Angleton or West Columbia.

Because of the small number of households involved, it seems unlikely that new units would
be constructed solely to handle the increase in population due to this project. Thus, in this study it
is assumed that the new residents will either select housing from among the existing rental units or
bring a mobile home into the Brazosport area. if a unit is not immediately available, temporary
arrangements will be made until suitable housing becomes available.

As discussed above, it is postulated that the new residents will locate primarily in the
Brazosport area. As a result, most of the population-induced effects, such as demand for housing,
new students, and demand for social services, will be felt primarily in the Brazosport area.

New Students. Like new population, the number of new elementary and secondary school
students brought into the area by the construction activities was calculated through the use of a
multiplier.

Based on data from the Texas Education Agency, average school enrollment in Texas in
1975 was 2,931,192, compared with a total Texas population equal to 12,244,678 (U.S. Census
Bureau data). Thus, there were 0.236 students per person in the state that year. This multiplier
expresses the relationship between population and school enrollment and is applied to expected
new population (shown in Figure 69) to derive the estimated number of new students, also pre-
sented in Figure 69.

The maximum number of new students occurs during Phase 2 and is equal to 28. This
compares with total enrollment in the Brazosport Independent School District during the
1975-1976 school year of 10,316.
Personal Income
Personal income, both primary and indirect, generated in Brazoria County by the two
phases of the canal construction and industrial site preparation is shown in Figure 70. The primary
income is equal to the wages of the resident and new resident construction workers directly
employed on the project. Based on information from the Texas Industrial Commission, the average
hourly wage for all activities except dredging is assumed to be $3.50 for unskilled workers and
$7.00 for skilled and supervisory personnel. Wage information for workers on the dredge was
obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; hourly wages ranged from $4.08 to $6.52.

Indirect personal income was estimated by using the indirect personal income coefficients of
the BC I/O model. This coefficient is equal to 0.13215 per dollar of primary expenditure made in
Brazoria County per year. The product of the coefficient and direct expenditures in Brazoria
County (taken from Figure 66), adjusted for time, equals the indirect income in the county
generated by the project.

Of the $4.2 million in primary income generated by both phases of the project, $2.2
million, or about 51 percent, is assumed to accrue to resident or new resident employees. When the
indirect income of over $280,000 is considered, total income postulated to be received within the
county exceeds $2.4 million.

166

Figure 70
Primary and Indirect Personal Income

Primary Income1 Total Income Received
Time Period Indirect by Residents of
(Weeks) Non-Residents2 Residents3 Income Brazoria County4

Phase 1:
1-25 $ 85,750 $ 55,125 $ 3,501 $ 58,626
26-31 20,580 16,170 790 16,960
32-35 13,720 18,130 426 18,556
36-44 30,870 56,228 3,863 60,091
45-46 6,860 15,925 375 16,300
47 3,430 9,188 97 9,285
48-50 10,290 22,417 682 23,099
51-54 52,496 37,934 641 38,575
55-61 91,868 59,526 1,843 61,369
62-63 29,678 19,212 165 19,377
64-70 103,873 55,728 1,813 57,541
71-76 78,744 92,917 1,993 94,910
77-79 39,372 44,988 487 45,475
80-98 249,356 215,101 16,156 231,257
99-102 52,496 37,444 636 38,080
103 3,430 5,880 30 5,910
104-113 95,550 93,100 3,901 97,001
Total $ 968,363 $ 855,013 $ 37,399 $ 892,412

Phase 2:
1-6 61,740 45,570 1,020 46,590
7-52 473,340 349,370 93,603 442,973
53-60 82,320 133,280 4,851 138,131
61-91 318,990 516,460 112,366 628,826
92-96 62,475 85,750 12,624 98,374
97 12,495 19,722 376 20,098
98-103 61,740 127,155 18,502 145,657
104 10,290 20,213 413 20,626
Total $1,083,390 $1,297,520 $243,755 $1,541,275

1. Assumes a work week of 35 hours per employee.
2. Non-residents are commuters.
3. Includes both "resident employment" and "new resident employment."
4. Sum of indirect income and primary income received by residents, including new resident employees.

State Tax Revenue
Direct and indirect tax payments to the state government are calculated by using the
appropriate tax payment coefficients from the BC I/O model for firms located in Brazos County,
and for the State of Texas Mini-Input-Output-Model for firms located outside the county. These
coefficients are displayed in Figure 71; the state tax payments are shown in Figure 72.

It must be noted that the tax payments for any given time period in Figure 72 represent
only the amount of tax dollars accruing to the state government during that time period. They do
not indicate that the state will actually collect that amount of tax revenue during that particular
time period. Indeed, in many cases there may be a significant time lag between the time that taxes
accrue to the state and the time at which it actually collects these taxes.

Total tax revenue accruing to the state would exceed $470,000. Of this amount, $54,000
would accrue during Phase 1, and $417,000 during Phase 2.

167

Figure 71
State Tax Payment Coefficients Construction Sector
($ Per $ of Total Expenditure Per Year)

Location of Firm Direct Indirect

Brazoria County 0.002011 0.001486
Outside of Brazoria County 0.002327 0.018973

Figure 72
State Tax Payments

Time Period
(Weeks) Direct Indirect Total

Phase 1:
1-25 $ 255 $ 2,079 $ 2,334
26-31 120 977 1,097
32-35 53 434 487
36-44 335 2,245 2,580
45-46 23 117 140
47 6 29 35
48-50 46 256 302
51-54 121 984 1,105
55-61 370 3,014 3,384
62-63 35 283 318
64-70 426 3,471 3,897
71-76 272 2,214 2,486
77-79 68 554 622
80-98 2,723 22,204 24,927
99-102 121 984 1,105
103 3 27 30
104-113 1,008 8,222 9,230
Total $ 5,985 $ 48,094 $ 54,079

Phase 2:
1-6 $ 443 $ 3,615 $ 4,058
7-52 26,058 212,465 238,523
53-60 1,109 9,044 10,153
61-91 16,656 135,803 152,803
92-96 826 4,070 4,895
97 28 159 187
98-103 1,170 5,491 6,661
104 28 22 50
Total $46,317 $370,669 $416,986

The state can be expected to experience increased expenditures in the county in such areas
as health, education, and law enforcement due to the increased population resulting from the
project. The net change in state expenditures, however, will depend to some extent on the geo-
graphic origin of the new residents. If they come from other parts of the state, the increased
expenditures in Brazoria County would be partially offset by the amount that the state would have
spent to service the same population in another county. However, if new residents move into the
state to fill project employment requirements (direct or indirect), the state can be expected to
experience an increase in demand for public services, whether expenditures are made in Brazoria or
other counties, such as Harris and Galveston.

168

Fiscal Impact on Local Governments
The local governments in Brazoria County are expected to experience increased tax revenue
and infrastructural costs as a result of the canal construction. The former will occur due to the
employment and income generated by the project, and the latter as a consequence of expanded
demand for public services. These fiscal effects are considered in this section. The expected tax
revenues and infrastructural costs are first estimated and then compared in order to determine
anticipated budgetary surpluses or deficits over time.

It should be noted that, due to data limitations, the fiscal effects on specific units of local
governments cannot be ascertained. For example, the Brazoria County I/O model was used to derive
tax revenues; revenues accruing to all units of local government, including the county government,
result. The assumption that all economic activity associated with the canal construction will occur
in Brazosport and thus all tax revenue will accrue to Brazosport area local governments would seem
to be unwarranted: first, some revenue will accrue to the county government; second, not all of the
purchases in the county by the construction sector will necessarily be made in Brazosport. The
effects will be felt by Brazosport, however, to the extent to which primary expenditures are made
in the area, and new resident employees and their families locate in Brazosport.

Tax Revenue. Direct and indirect tax payments to local governments are calculated by using
the tax payment coefficients from BC I/O model. These coefficients are displayed in Figure 73; the
local tax payments are shown in Figure 74.

As with the state tax payments, the tax payments shown in Figure 74 represent only the
revenue accruing to local governments during the respective time period. The amount of tax revenue
actually received during each time period may differ due to normal time lags between tax accruals
and tax collections.

Total tax revenue accruing to local governments approximates $13,800. As discussed above,
this revenue cannot be allocated to specific units of government because of data limitations.
Because of the expected concentration of economic activity associated with the construction of the
canal in the Brazosport area, however, much of the tax revenue is expected to accrue to Brazosport.
Dispersion of subsidiary activity to other areas of the county, such as to Angleton, would imply, of
course, dispersion of the tax revenue as well.

Infrastructural Costs. Infrastructural costs to local governments in Brazoria County resulting
from canal construction can be explained by considering per capita service costs as they are now
constituted.

Per capita cost can be multiplied by the number of anticipated new residents to obtain a
figure which represents an increase in costs of providing services to those new residents. For
example, if City A's expenditures are $2,500,000 annually and its population is 10,000, City A's
per capita annual expenditure is $250. If the population of City A were to increase by 100 persons,
one could reasonably expect that, all other things being equal, City A's annual expenditures would
increase by $25,000 (100 x $250). Such a procedure, of course, assumes that an increase in
population is the primary factor which leads to increased expenditures. It is likely that other
variables also influence the level of expenditures-geographical size of the governmental unit,
government regulations, and employment statistics are just three examples. But when those inter-
vening variables are held constant, as this procedure assumes, increase in population becomes the
dominant variable.

This procedure incorporates these additional assumptions:

1. The cost of providing services to the existing population and the cost of providing
services to an increase in population (marginal cost) are comparable. While there is some
evidence to indicate that service costs at the margin are greater than ongoing costs, this

169

Figure 73
Local Tax Payment Coefficients
Construction Sector, Brazoria County
($ Per $ of Primary Expenditure in the County Per Year)

Direct .....................................0.004129
Indirect ...................................0.002333

Figure 74
Local Tax Payments
Brazoria County

Time Period
(Weeks) Direct Indirect Total

Phase 1:
1-25 $ 109 $ 62 $ 171
26-31 25 14 39
32-35 13 8 21
36-44 121 68 189
45-46 12 7 19
47 3 2 5
48-50 21 12 33
51-54 20 11 31
55-61 58 33 91
62-63 5 3 8
64-70 57 32 89
71-76 62 35 97
77-79 15 9 24
80-98 505 285 790
99-102 20 11 31
103 1 1 2
104-113 122 69 191
$1,169 $ 662 $ 1,831

Phase 2:
1-6 $ 32 $ 18 $ 50
7-52 2,925 1,652 4,577
53-60 152 86 238
61-91 3,511 1,984 5,495
92-96 394 223 617
97 12 7 19
98-103 578 327 905
104 13 7 20
$7,617 $4,304 $11,921

procedure assumes that a unit of government's annual expenditures for physical plant
and operating costs can absorb an increase in population at the same per capita rate.

2. All expenditures of a unit of government can be expressed meaningfully in, and are
therefore included in, the cost per capita figure.

3. Increased services will be provided in the short-run.

In order to derive local governmental costs per capita in Brazoria County, the following data
(sources are in parentheses) were collected.

170

1. The study site's 1972 population estimate (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census; Series P-25, No. 535; November, 1974).

2. Total expenditures of local governments within the study site (less intergovernmental
transfer of funds) for Fiscal Year 1972 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census; 1972 Census of Governments, Volume 4, Numbers 3, 4, and 5; October, 1974).
Expenditures, both capital outlay and operating expenses, for the following categories
were included in the total:

a. Education j. Natural Resources
b. Highways k. Housing and Urban Renewal
c. Public Welfare 1. Corrections
d. Hospitals m. libraries
e. Health n. Financial Administration
f. Police Protection o. General Control
g. Sewerage p. General Public Buildings
h. Sanitation other than Sewage q. Interest on General Debt
i. Parks and Recreation r. Other and Unallocable

Figure 75 summarizes per capita expenditures for Brazoria County. When the data are
applied to the projected increases in population over time, costs to the county and municipal
governments in Brazoria County result. These cost estimates are summarized in Columns D and E of
Figure 76 and are derived by multiplying the projected population figures by the appropriate per
capita annual service cost and adjusting to correspond to the length of the time period in Column A.
The cost to local governments includes county government expenditures.

Expenditures of the local units are estimated to approach $86,600 including about $12,600
by the county government. Since most of the new resident employees and their families are
expected to locate in the Brazosport area, the Brazosport governments are expected to bear much
of the increase in municipal infrastructural costs associated with the population influx. As with tax
revenue, however, dispersal of the new population will result in dispersal of these costs.

Fiscal Impact. The above cost data present an incomplete picture of the two-sided fiscal
impact; they must be subtracted from the corresponding tax revenues to show the net gains or
losses to government treasuries from the canal construction and site preparation phases of the
project. This was also done in Figure 76; column F reveals the resulting deficits for local govern-
ments.

Figure 75
Government Expenditures
Brazoria County

1. Population ................................113,000
(1972 Estimate)
2. Local Government ........................$40,367,000
Expenditures
3. Local Government .............................$357
Per Capita Expenditures
4. County Expenditures ...................... $6,152,000
(Included in Item No. 2)
5. County Government Per Capita Expenditures ............$54
(Included in Item No. 3)

171

Figure 76

Fiscal Impact Brazoria County

A B1 C2 D E3 F
Cost to Local Cost to County Local Tax Revenue
Time Period Local Governments Governments Surplus or
(Weeks) Population Tax Revenue (Pop. x $357 Annually) (Pop. x $54 Annually) Deficit

Phase 1:
1-25 10 171 1,716 260 ( 1,545)
26-31 15 39 618 93 ( 579)
32-35 30 21 824 125 ( 803)
36-44 30 189 1,854 280 ( 1,665)
45-46 30 19 412 62 ( 393)
47 42 5 288 44 ( 283)
48-50 42 33 865 131 ( 832)
51-54 42 31 1,153 174 (1,122)
55-61 34 91 1,634 247 ( 1,543)
62-63 39 8 536 81 ( 528)
64-70 89 89 4,277 647 ( 4,188)
71-76 98 97 4,037 611 ( 3,940)
77-79 93 24 1,915 290 (1,891)
80-98 59 790 7,696 1,164 ( 6,906)
99-102 39 31 1,071 162 ( 1,040)
103 39 2 268 41 ( 266)
104-113 30 191 2,060 312 ( 1,869
$ 1,831 $31,224 $4,275 ($29,393
Phase 2:
1-6 37 50 1,524 231 ( 1,474)
7-52 37 4,577 11,685 1,767 ( 7,108)
53-60 118 238 6,481 980 ( 6,243)
61-91 118 5,495 25,114 3,799 (19,619)
92-96 118 617 4,051 613 ( 3,434)
97 118 19 810 123 ( 791)
98-103 118 905 4,861 735 ( 3,956)
104 118 20 810 123 ( 790)
$11,921 $55,336 $8,371 ($43,415)

1. Taken from Figure 7.
2. Taken from Figure 12.
3. The figures in Column E are included in the corresponding figures of Column D.

fiscal impact on any governmental unit will vary depending upon the level of construction-related
expenditures (which would generate tax revenue) and the number of new resident employees
(which would increase demand for public services and thus infrastructural costs) experienced by
that unit. The Brazosport area is expected to be most heavily impacted both by the construction of
the canal and industrial site simply because the site is within the Brazosport area.

Economic Impact Analysis References

Bankers Trust Company. 1976. Capital Resources for Energy Through the Year 1990. Prepared by
the Energy Group, Bankers Trust Company, New York.

New England River Basins Commission. 1976. Offshore Facilities Related to Offshore Oil and Gas
Development Facthook. Boston, Massachusetts: New England River Basins Commission.
Oil and Gas Journal. August 20, 197 3. Petroleum Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Seadock, Inc. 1974. Environmental Report. Texas Offshort Crude Oil Unloading Facility.

Texas Water Development Board. March 16, 1977. 1972 I/O Model, Draft Version, Computer
Printout.

Texas Water Development Board. June 7, 1977. Texas 1972 Employment Multipliers. Draft
Version, Computer Printout.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1976. Survey of Current Business, July, 1976.

Environmental Impact Analysis

The environmental assessment of the inland canal project scenario is divided into two parts,
an impact analysis of inland canal construction and site preparation, and a more general impact
issue analysis of inland industrial development and operation. This part assesses the impacts of
initial construction and preparation activities.

The environmental impact analysis of inland canal construction and site preparation
addresses both ecological impacts and other environmental effects. This analysis is presented in five
sections:

1. primary ecological alterations,
2. ecological systems analysis,
3. ecological attribute alterations,
4. other environmental impacts, and
5. impact evaluation.

The first three sections are presented in the format of an impact measurement procedure or
"9activity assessment routine" which was prepared as part of the Texas Coastal Management Program
(TCMP, 1976, appendices). Other environmental impacts, which are those not identifiable as results
of ecological value changes and those of Phase 2 activities, are presented separately in the fourth
section. The last section presents parameters which could be recorded to monitor ecological change
should such a project come to fruition, and also discusses several project adjustments which could
lessen the extent of impact.

Primary Ecological Alterations
introduction and definitions. The ecological analysis assesses the effects of activities in
particular resource areas. A study of "primary ecological alterations" provides an interface between

174

The existence of a deficit is not surprising, considering the assumptions made concerning
expenditure and employment patterns. First, much of the construction work is expected to be
performed by firms located outside the county These firms are expected to make fewer expendi-
tures within the county than would a local firm. it was assumed, in fact, that the major expendi-
tures in the county for non-local firms would be for wages for resident and new resident employees,
for expendables such as subsistence for the dredge, diesel fuel, and lubricating oil, and for high
volume, low bulk supplies such as readymix. Capital equipment and spare parts would come from
the normal supply sources outside of the county, and the firm's physical plant would be outside of
the taxing jurisdictions of government units in Brazoria County. Most of the wages paid to com-
muters can be expected to be spent in their places of residence outside of the county. More tax
revenue would accrue to local units of government if more of the activities were performed by local
firms, or if the expenditures of the non-local firms within the county were greater.

Second, new population, new student and new infrastructural cost estimates were based on
postulations concerning the origin of employment of the construction workers. Fewer new residents
than postulated would imply smaller increases in population and infrastructural cost.

Third, a specific unit of government may have a lower per capita cost than the average per
capita cost of all local governments in the county of $357. The per capita costs in 1972 in Freeport
and Lake Jackson (two municipalities in Brazosport), for example, were $94 and $101, respectively.
Units of governments with significantly lower per capita costs than the county-wide average would
experience significantly lower infrastructural costs and thus a lower deficit.

Summary of Economic Impacts
The economic impacts expected as a result of the construction of the canal and preparation
of the industrial site are summarized in Figure 77. Perhaps the most salient feature is the existence
of deficits to local governments as a whole in the county during the construction phase. The actual

Figure 77
Summary of Economic Impacts,
Canal Construction and Industrial
Site Preparation

Impact
1 . Primary Expenditures
In Brazoria County ............$6,626,900
Total.................$53,300,000
2. Total Employment
Minimum ..................26
Maximum ..................144
3. New Population in Brazoria County
Minimum..................10
Maximum ..................118
4. New Students in iBrazoria County
Minimum...................2
Maximum ..................28
5. Personal Income
In Brazoria County ............$2,433,687
Total.................$4,485,440
6. Total State Tax Revenue ............$471,065
7. Fiscal Impact on Local Governments in Brazoria County
Total Local Tax Revenue............$1 3,752
Total Cost to Local Government .........$86,560
Total Deficit...............($72,808)

173

activities in a resource area and the ramifications of those activities in the resource area or eco-
system.

Activities can be described as specific actions which impinge on resources either by con-
struction-oriented development or by operation and maintenance. The Phase I inland canal pro-
ject's activities considered in this part of the environmental assessment may be broken into two
stages: construction of the inland canal and turning basin and industrial site preparation. The
activities within these stages include site clearing, relocations, drainage control, excavation and
material disposal, water quality control, and flood protection. A specific listing, description, and
location of these activities is presented in Chapter III-D.

Resource areas, composed of intrinsically related biotic and abiotic components, are pre-
sented as mappable units and are defined by relationships between sustaining environmental factors,
or parameters, and the products which flow from them. Each resource area is described in terms of
several classes of distinguishing features: water characteristics, water movement, subaerial or
subaqueous bottom morphometry, substrate, and characteristic biota. Any given location may be
identified as a certain resource area and described by these features.

The resource areas, or ecosystems, which occur in the study area were described in Chapter
TI-B, Description of the Project Area Environment. The inland canal-industrial site corridor,
selected in Chapter Ill-C, is located in the following resource areas: brackish-water marsh, prairie
grassland, and fluvial woodland (see Figure 49 and Map No. 3). These ecosystems will be analyzed
in greater detail in the following section.

Approach to Determining Primary Ecological Alterations. Figure 78 presents a cross-tabu-
lation of this project's activities and the resource areas in which they would occur. Some of the
activities occur at locations that have been altered by previous activities in the sequence.

Primary Ecological Alterations (PEA) are a reflection of the principal ecological processes
and features which may modify or disrupt ecological systems through a chain of events. As a
conceptual interface between activities in resource areas and ecosystem changes, the PEA's show the
first, most direct ecological response to activities and thereby define the points of access to the
ecological systems impact analysis.

A list of primary ecological alterations is presented in Figure 79. The list is generally based
on a formulation by Texas Coastal Management Program (1976). The categories were drawn from
several sources, including Sorensen (1971), Dickert (1974), Dee, et al. (1973), Rice Center for
Community Design and Research (1974, 1976), Moore, et al. (1973), and Leopold, et al. (1971).
Primary ecological alterations in Figure 79 are presented in five sequential categories: direct biotic
effects, transfer of materials, changes in properties, energetic changes, and changes in water move-
ment. Each category is prefaced by a question which specifies the condition by which any PEA in
that category can be identified.

The PEA categories are arranged sequentially, from the top to bottom of the list. This
arrangement avoids identifying correlated responses between natural processes and the resulting
states or movements of materials. For example, increased rate of water flow causes erosion of
sediment, yet increased rate of flow is the primary alteration-erosion of sediment is a subsequent
response. Therefore, in reading down the list, sediment removal would be identified as a primary
alteration only if it was indeed a direct and immediate alteration (e.g., of topsoil stripping).

Several examples may serve to illustrate how decision criteria may be applied in determining
primary ecological alterations.

Vegetation or consumer removal would result from the first activity if the sequence
(e.g., topsoil stripping), but not from subsequent activities occurring at a site already altered
by such biotic removal;

175

Figure 78

Inland Canal Project Activities and Resource Areas

-> U
,. r~ - m.
ACTIVITIES ~~~~~~~~~U_ 0 -

Clearing (for roads, sites, etc.) �
Grubbing �k A
Topsoil Stripping A
Topsoil Stockpiling A
Pipelining (relocations) A A
Land-based excavation to water table depth A
Water pond excavation (reservoir, waste treatment,
cool ing) '
Cons truct flood protection levees A A
Canal diking A �
Collectinind (rs ions of Redfish Bayou A
Diversion discharge into Redfish Bayou�
Dredging of can al and harbor to project depth A
Disposal of material in containment levees and
compaction
Site compaction, grading, stabilization & cleanup A A
Vehicle traffic along non-constructed routes
during construction
Railroad base construction A

176

Figure 79

Potential Primary Ecological Alterations

Vegetation Removal - complete

Vegetation Removal - specific layers or parts of plants

Vegetation Removal - only selected species

Consumer Removal - complete 4.

Consumer Removal - selected species

Dissolved Inorganic Materials (non-toxic concentrations)

Colloidal Inorganic Materials - 3

Particulate (settleable) Inorganic Materials <

Dissolved Organic Materials (non-toxic concentrations) |

Immiscible Organic Solutions o

Toxic Materials

Water M

Particulate Inorganic Materials (with any adsorbed molecules) . _
In,
Particulate Organic Materials t 0*0

Toxic Materials

Slope (broad expanse)

Relief (microtopographic features)

Elevation (relative to surrounding area) C In

Texture/structure (soil) D.
C -~
n0
Water Infiltration Rate n D

Soil Depth I

Soil Moisture - 3

Water Column Depth ,

Benthic Sediment Texture .

Aerobic (anaerobic) Sediment Layer Thickness

Slope (stream grade, bottom morphology)

Relief (microtopographic features)
ar ID 0M
Kinetic Enerqy to Water |

Heat Energy to Water | *

Heat Energy to Soil .<

Rate of Flow x l
C-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
Duration of Flow 5

Frequency of Flow 3 -

Direction of Flow i
~ a'
Rate of Flow .

Duration of Flow . c

Frequency of Flow . i

Direction of Flow

177

Particulate inorganic materials of water system would result if the activity exposes
sediment to increased erosion potential or directly adds sediment to the water system, but
not if the activity changes water flow dynamics which then effect erosion;

Water in soil system would result if the activity directly changes the amount of
water which may enter the soil (e.g., ponding), if the activity interrupts groundwater/land
surface relations, or if the activity simply adds water to the soil;

Texture/structure (soil) as subaerial surface properties would result if the activity
directly adds or exposes material of a texture different from the previous surface, or if the
activity changes the properties of present material in situ, but would not result if soil
texture change is part of the activity (e.g., scarifying and compaction of dredge-fill material
in containment areas);

Water infiltration rate as subaerial surface property would result if the activity
changes infiltration rate (e.g., paving) or if textural changes, as above, result in different
permeabilities; and

Rate and duration of water flow would result if channel or surface morphometry is
changed, or if changed surface properties allow different flow states.

Primary Ecological Alterations. Figure 80 displays a matrix of the inland canal project
activities by resource area and the primary ecological alterations resulting from the activities. The
resource area-activities axis is a reorganization of Figure 78. The identification of the PEA's
resulting from the project activities followed the previously outlined procedure. Each PEA was
evaluated in a manner similar to the preceding decision criteria.

Three major patterns are apparent in the PEA matrix (Figure 80). First, certain PEA's stand
out as most frequently resulting from the various activities. Such common PEA's include vegetation
removal, exposure of particulates to the water system, removal of soils and substrates, changes in
relief, and changes in water flow properties. These primary ecological alterations would be expected
in a major earth-moving project as inland canal site preparation and excavation.

Secondly, the common primary alterations are notably similar between fluvial woodlands
and prairie grasslands. Many activities are in common between resource areas. The PEA's represent
changes in the influence of processes common to most ecological systems, as well as changes in
intrinsic environmental characteristics of most ecological systems.

Finally, certain types of activities have a larger number of primary ecological alterations
than have others, as would be expected. These activities include the major earthworks of canal
excavation, diking and levee-building, and topsoil stripping and stockpiling. Drainage control or
modification activities also result in a large number of PEA's. These two major activity types are
significant because of the important relationships between water movement, sediment budgets,
substrate characteristics, and microtopography in the coastal environment. While all of the activity
PEA's are input to the ecological systems analysis, these PEA's resulting from major earthwork and
drainage control activities merit special attention.

Ecological Systems Analysis
Introduction. Each ecological system in the project area is made up of a number of com-
ponents: populations of organisms, substrates, drainage patterns, and other elements. Each system
has the characteristics of these components yet also has characteristics of its own which result from
unique combinations and interactions of the components. The food web and the uptake of various
limiting materials, such as nutrients and water, are the typical linkages between each system's
components. Some components of the system exert control over other components. Various forms
of control include competition for food, water, or nutrients; regulation of nutrient and sediment

178

0O[4 40 004p'030

-~~~~~~~~~~~~LO 001 40 130004 193

CC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J~t G CI Oja DjaI

00~~~~~~~(sjja a 414400305pjJaLa

C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iia IUWa DI8

1,04 00

(asvdx poj)aou 5

0,00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SRJBR 40005 03 ' 03 9+CCd

)15011oJI5a000 wXO-U oq stpjwOpo.5 00845 p Lslots

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3P Co s0e 4 030 SJXV -,-,-.-wa uilla

C C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I 0

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 I. .4 . .I

to 0~ 044[444-k0317 9

inflow by the extent of water movement; and regulation of evaporation rate by the extent of plant
cover and effective soil heat. In summary, each ecological system may be defined as an interacting,
interdependent group of components, functioning as a whole. Each component has characteristics,
but is linked to, may influence the control of, or be controlled by, other components. By knowing
details of how each component operates and relations between components, the characteristics of
the whole system may be described.

This section expands the description of the project area environment (Chapter II-B) by
describing the ecological function of each ecosystem, and the ecological links between ecosystems,
in the area around Jones Creek which would be affected by the inland canal development postu-
lated in this study. Four systems are analyzed: the abiotic system, the fluvial woodland ecological
system, the coastal grassland ecological system, and the brackish marsh ecological system. The
distinction of an abiotic system separate from the ecosystems is a convenience allowed by the
similarity of physical and chemical processes which operate in each ecosystem, which provide
support for each ecosystem in the form of storages of various limiting factors, and which act as
connecting links between adjacent ecosystems. Each ecosystem is, in reality, intimately associated
with the abiotic system.

The description of each system details the characteristic components, energy and material
flows, regulating or modifying factors, and linkages between systems. Linkages between ecosystems
are conceptually described as being, in part, through the physical processes of the abiotic system.
Background information on each ecosystem is presented in Chapter II-B.

Abiotic System. The abiotic system describes the physical and chemical processes and
components which are common to the coastal ecosystems, as well as microbial activity which is
more intimately associated with a general abiotic system than with a particular ecosystem.

The abiotic system receives outside-of-the-system inputs in the form of sunlight, Gulf salt
spray, atmospheric water and gases, surface water from farther inland, and groundwater flowing
down a hydrologic gradient. The abiotic system also receives inputs from the particular ecosystems
which it supports. Such ecosystem inputs include nutrients and macro- and micro-plant detritus.
The abiotic system provides outputs as flows to each ecosystem, upon which the ecosystems
depend. Such abiotic outputs include surface salts, soil moisture, nutrients, soil heat, and surface
water. Finally, certain outputs of the abiotic system are lost-from-the system, at least temporarily,
such as evaporated water and leached nutrients and salts.

The abiotic system is dominated by two interrelated subsystems: the hydrologic cycle and
the nutrient cycle. The components and flows within each of these subsystems is discussed in this
section. The section points out the factors which regulate the flow within and between each
subsystem. Some of these regulating factors are not unique to the abiotic system, but also regulate
in various ways the flows in each ecological system. Finally, the relation of each abiotic subsystem
"output" to the common ecological system "requirements" is described.

Hydrologic cycle. The project area corridor in the vicinity of the community of Jones Creek
lies in a coastal watershed between the Brazos and San Bernard Rivers. The "water economy" of the
local hydrologic system includes "new" input from rainfall, Brazos River flooding, tidal action, and
from groundwater flow in the upper Chicot Aquifer and in shallow water table aquifers. There is
effectively no surface water runoff into the local hydrologic system because of the configuration of
topography and river courses. Brazos River flooding accounts for all runoff into the system.

Water is stored in the abiotic system as either surface water or as groundwater. (The reader
is urged to keep in mind that these storages can be considered as part of each ecological system, or
as one abiotic system storage, generalized for all local ecosystems.) The surface water storage
includes surface runoff within and between local ecological systems; standing water bodies such as
McNeal Lake and other ponds in the brackish marsh; and flowing watercourses such as Jones Creek,
Redfish Bayou, and their tributaries.

180

The surface and groundwater storages interface through soil water storages. Two soil water
storages (macropore and micropore water) are distinguished by soil structure and texture. The
macrostructure of a soil provides larger void or pore space (macropore) in a soil horizon than does
intergranular porosity (micropore). Clayey soils tend to exhibit various macrostructures because of
their particle cohesiveness. The more sandy is a soil, less will there be a distinction between soil
structure and texture.

Surface water percolation into the macropore space of the soil is regulated by vegetative
cover and land slope. Cover and increasing land slope tend to reduce percolation rates. Water will
more rapidly fill or drain macropore space (due to soil structure) than will it fill or drain micropore
space (due to soil texture). Water permeating down through the soil horizons may enter the
groundwater storage if the depth to the groundwater surface is greater than a certain distance below
the land surface. The rate and extent of downward percolation is affected by soil structure, texture,
and the presence of micro-detritus which has high water retention properties. However, in much of
this low-lying coastal area, the groundwater surface comes close to or intersects the land surface.
Groundwater directly contributes to the standing water of the brackish marshes between the Brazos
and San Bernard Rivers.

Evaporation takes place both from the surface of standing water and from macropore water.
The rate of evaporation from either storage is regulated by various climatic conditions. The rate of
micropore water evaporation is also controlled by soil heat, vegetative cover, soil texture, and the
presence of water-retaining detritus. Soil moisture is the major contribution of the abiotic hydro-
logic cycle to vegetative growth. Surface water itself also affects the distribution and abundance of
community species, and is, in fact, one of the major driving forces in all of the local ecological
systems.

Nutrient Cycle. The nutrient cycle is a major, complex part of the abiotic system. The
components, processes, and flows of the nutrient cycle are only briefly itemized here as its detailed
description is beyond the scope of this section. The description is general in application and not
intended as a specific description of this cycle in the project area.

There are three main sources of material stored in the nutrient cycle (these sources are
arbitrarily selected as the starting point in the cycle description), which are: plant material from the
ecosystems; inorganic nutrients bound with sediments; and marine salts, either relict in coastal
sediments or from salt spray.

Plant material is stored as macro-detritus, micro-detritus, or as available nutrients. Macro-
detritus consists of dead leaves, stems, roots, and general plant litter. Micro-plant detritus results
from oxidation (with volatilization) of macro-plant detritus by burning; incomplete digestion by
consumers, including insects and worms; and by bacterial action. Macro- and micro-detritus may be
converted to directly available nutrients by burning.

Silicate clays are the most important source of bound inorganic nutrients. In addition to the
exchangeable bases in the sheet silicate structure, clay particles contain adsorbed organic and
inorganic molecules which are additional nutrient storages. There is a physical/chemical/biological
balance between bound inorganic nutrients and available nutrients in the surface soil where most of
the nutrient cycle processes occur. This dynamic balance is summarized in Figure 81. The flows in
either direction are regulated by soil moisture, soil water pH, and bacterial action. The pH is an
especially significant factor.

A final source of potential nutrients is salt spray which coats both plant and substrate
surfaces. Rainfall washes these surface salts into the soil where, once dissolved, they add to the
storage of available nutrients. Relict marine salts in the substrates are also contained in the "avail-
able nutrient" storage.

181

Figure 81
Nutrient - Sediment Relationship

Inorganic
raction

F regl t
12
E

Dg~ ~ Flow workgate ; X = positive alteration, -
= negative alteration
Sensing switch

Storage

( ) Flow regulator

182

The final, major component of the nutrient cycle may be called bacterial processes. Active
bacteria in the soil include nitrifying bacteria, denitrifying bacteria, and nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
Detritus, nitrogen compounds, and dissolved organic matter available to nitrifying bacteria, or
nitrobacteria, is enzymatically oxidized to form free ionizable nitrate. Denitrifying bacteria bio-
chemically reduce detritus, dissolved organic matter, and nitrogen compounds, especially of nitrate.
Denitrification is thought to be the most widespread type of nitrogen volatilization (Buckman and
Brady, 1969). Nitrogen-fixing bacteria take free nitrogen from soil air, and synthesize it into
complex forms. The fixing takes place symbiotically in root nodules in certain plants. Bacterial
activity is affected by such factors as soil heat, soil water pH and aeration, moisture, and presence
of exchangeable bases. Some of the nutrients generated by the bacterial decomposition of organic
material are returned to available nutrient storage, some is made directly available to plants, and
some are lost by soil leaching. Some elemental products of the bacterial processes are lost to the
atmosphere.

Other Aspects. Several other aspects of the abiotic system are important. They have,
in various extents, been assumed in the discussion of the hydrologic and nutrient cycles. Soil
heat is an important limiting or regulating factor of several physical/chemical/biological
processes including, for example, evaporation and microorganismal activity. Soil heat is a
function of incident sunlight, regulated by the darkness of soil color (amount of organics),
and by vegetative cover. Soil heat may be temporarily increased by fire. A critical soil
temperature is 1000 C., above which most soil organisms are killed.

Soils have been discussed as water-containing regulators of hydrologic rates (struc-
ture and texture) and as the site of microbial activity. The composition of most of the
project area's soil is mineral clays, high in organic content and water-holding capacity. The
coarser textured soils, as along the ridge west of Jones Creek, tend to be drier and more
drained. Soil aeration is an important limiting factor of plant growth and microbial activity.
It is controlled by the structure and texture of the soil, by soil water content, and by
infaunal activity in churning the soil. Soil composition and soil properties markedly influ-
ence all aspects of the abiotic system, as well as affecting, to some extent, the presence of
particular vegetative species.

Fluvial Woodland. Four groups of primary producers are distinguished by ecological role in
the fluvial woodlands north and east of Jones Creek. The primary producers are dominated in
biomass and in the importance of ecological role by water-tolerant hardwood trees and by shrub or
brush. Perennial herbs and grasses and hardwood seedlings account for a small portion of the
primary producers. The species composition of the hardwoods is described in Chapter II-B-4.

The primary producers provide both forage and habitat cover for the successive levels of
consumers. The primary consumers include insects, granivorous song and game birds, small
mammals, and deer in low relative density (one per hundred acres). Some granivorous songbirds are
insectivores in the summer months. Other secondary consumers include predaceous beetles, owls
and vultures, and bobcats (Seadock, 1974).

The distribution and abundance of organisms is controlled by limiting factors. Important
limiting factors in the fluvial woodland are soil mixture, nutrients, soil heat, soil oxygen, and soil
salt content. Brazos River flooding is a major source of "new" water, nutrients, and sediments to
the fluvial woodlands of the study area.

Flows between system components include the uptake of soil water, oxygen and nutrients
by the producers and the transfer of energy from the producers to consumers in the food web. Soil
oxygen, soil heat, and soil salt content affect the presence and success of the producers. The flows
out of the fluvial woodland ecological system include energy loss to the abiotic system through
detritus and surface water outflow. Producers account for most of the detritus as plant debris. Fecal
material, regurgitation, and dead animal bodies add only a slight amount to the net detrital biomass.

183

Surface water outflow is through the drainage of the Jones Creek watershed. There is little sheet-
water runoff of rainwater because of the baffling action of shrubs and grasses. Most of the sheet-
water outflow occurs south of Highway 36, where "fingers" of the woodland extend into the prairie
grassland along low relief ridges.

There are various biologic limiting factors which, along with the physical/chemical limiting
factors, affect the distribution and abundance of fluvial woodland organisms. The greater ability of
the mature hardwoods to obtain water from the soil regulates the availability of soil moisture to
hardwood seedlings and perennials. This competition for water is one of the most important biotic
regulating factors maintaining the community structure of the fluvial woodlands. The hardwood
tree canopy, by shading the lower shrub layer, regulates the amount of sunlight penetrating to the
forest floor, thereby controlling soil heat, light for photosynthesis, and local atmospheric conditions
within the growth stands.

The woodland is currently being modified by human practices. The most direct effect is
clearing around the periphery of the woods north of Jones Creek, which reduces the areal extent
but does not alter community structure or function. In the margins of the woodlands, with less
dense vegetative cover, cattle grazing markedly changes basal cover. Most of the cattle grazing takes
place on the prairie grasslands or at transitional areas between grassland and woodland. Little
grazing occurs in the woodland itself because of the dense understory growth and lack of palatable
forage.

Prairie Grassland. Two major subsystems were recognized as part of the coastal prairie or
prairie grassland in Chapter I1-B-4: Gulf cordgrass prairie and shrub-savannah. Each of these
sybsystems function similarly and have a similar species composition. The subsystems differ mainly
in the dominance of brush or shrub versus perennial grasses, notably cordgrass. The basis for the
difference is believed to be a response to grazing pressure (Allen, 1960) and in part to elevation-
releated substrate wetness and salinity (Johnston, 1955). One ecosystem diagram suffices to
describe the dynamics of either system. The appropriate dominant producer group is noted in
considering either particular subsystem.

The prairie grassland is a distinctly terrestrial ecological system in the area around the inland
canal/industrial site corridor, bordering on brackish water marsh at a three foot elevation (m.s.l.)
and extending inland to the fluvial woodland between 8 and 15 feet (m.s.l.). The community
structure and species composition differ from that of the woodlands, but the ecological roles of the
various components are similar.

The primary producers include brush or shrub and perennial grasses (either maybe domi-
nant depending on the subsystem), perennial herbs, a small proportion of hardwoods (dwarf live
oak), and hardwood seedlings. The brush and grasses provide forage and cover for consumer groups.
Hawks perch on the shrub of the upper shrub-savannah subsystem.

Primary consumers include diverse insects, granivorous game and song birds, and small
mammals. The species composition of these groups is presented in Chapter II-B-4. Large wintering
populations of several geese species forage in the cordgrass prairie as well as in the brackish marsh.
The geese preferentially feed on plant roots and legumes. Large cattle herds graze throughout the
coastal prairie. This land use practice markedly disrupts the existing natural balance of the coastal
grassland, changing and adding components such as cattle egrets and cow-pie insects.

Secondary consumers in the coastal grassland include predatory insects, insectivorous birds,
and omnivorous small mammals. Hawks living in the coastal grassland also hunt over the brackish
marsh. The coyote is the prairie couterpart of the fluvial woodland's bobcat.

The limiting factors of prairie grassland producers include the same components as in the
fluvial woodland, with the additional factor of plant surface salts from salt spray, which restrict the

184

distribution of perennial herbs and annual weeds to species adjusted to higher salinity levels. The
system is subject to periodic storm surge flooding which increases soil salinity, but is rarely influ-
enced by normal tidal action.

Surface sheetwater inflow to the coastal grassland is restricted by Highway 36. This barrier
to flow causes minor floods north of the community of Jones Creek following heavy rains. North of
Highway 36, the topographic relationship of the savannah-shrub and fluvial woodland is such that
surface runoff tends to flow from the grasslands into the woodlands. Surface runoff of rainwater
out of the grassland ecosystem south of Highway 36 is regulated by the baffling action of brush and
grasses. Grassland runoff consists of both sheetflow into the upper marsh and inflow into drainage
channels such as Redfish Bayou and Jones Creek. The sheetflow is significant in contributing to the
salinity gradient across the brackish marsh.

Fire is one of the most important regulating factors of the prairie grassland. Fire is both a
common natural agent and a land management tool, as described in Chapter II-B-4. Surface fire is
used before the growing season to burn off accumulated grass litter, increasing soil fertility, thus
encouraging new shoot growth which is more palatable to cattle. The effectiveness of fire as a
management tool decreases with overgrazing. Overgrazing tends to reduce the density of ground-
cover which is necessary for carrying a fire and thereby encourages the invasion of brush and
unpalatable invader species. Once a dense stand of brush is established, surface fire is less successful
in penetrating the stand and in killing off the brush. Fire also affects consumer groups by burning
nests, destroying vital habitat, removing insect food sources, and by temporarily removing forage.
The timing and extent of burning is, of course, important in determining the influence of fire. It is
likely that most of the prairie grassland south of Highway 36 has been burned at some recent time.
Burning usually occurs at least once in three years in the project area.

Competition for water is also an important regulating factor. Perennial grasses may success-
fully compete with invading annuals and woody seedlings for available soil moisture. Grasses and
shrubs both affect soil heat and evapotranspiration rate.

Brackish-Water Marsh. This ecological description specifically addresses the tidally influ-
enced, brackish-water marsh occurring between the low ridge west of Jones Creek and the San
Bernard River. The major share of this description is also applicable to the marsh which flanks Jones
Creek, with modifications pertaining to differences in upland freshwater inflows and tidal action.
The western marsh is emphasized in this description as it is likely to sustain more and greater
impacts from inland canal/industrial site activities.

Water flow is clearly one of the important driving forces behind the productivity of the
brackish-water marsh. The marsh receives fresh water sheetflow runoff from the upland coastal
grasslands as well as channelized flow through Redfish Bayou. The lower reach of Redfish Bayou is
also important in channeling salt water into the marsh. Some tidal exchange takes place between the
GIWW and the lower marsh, however the spatial influence of this flow is less than that of Redfish
Bayou. McNeal and Pelican Lakes act as staging areas for tidal flow in the lower marsh. As large
water bodies, they retard tidal influence farther upstream in McNeal Bayou. The diurnal tidal range
in the area is low, probably between 1.2 and 1.8 feet. In the spring, upland drainage masks the
influence of tidal inundation.

Part of the surface water which enters the marsh, either from upland or tidal sources,
percolates into the soil as macropore and micropore water, and may be taken up by marsh grasses.
Saturated pore spaces restrict the volume of soil air present and may thereby restrict available
oxygen to plant roots. Water inflow to the marsh may also contribute to standing water. Standing
water is a habitat for phytoplankton, aquatic insects, fish, alligators, waterfowl, and wading birds.
Such standing water may exist either as permanent channels or ponds, or as a sheet-veneer over the
flat marsh surface (such as in the upper marsh and between the water courses in the middle and
lower sections of the marsh). The duration and average depth of submergence differentially affects

185

plant species and phytoplankton standing crop, as previously mentioned. The frequency of the
emergency-submergence cycle affects (1) gaseous exchange between plants, soils and the atmo-
sphere, and (2) the rate of decomposition of the Distichlis rough mat (and of other plant detritus)
to an available nutrient form.

The inflow of water to the marsh is the major source of dissolved nutrients and sediments.
Much of the sediment is fine clay with adsorbed organic and mineral nutrients. The suspended
sediment may have a negative effect on the marsh system by decreasing available sunlight to
primary producers. It should be noted here that periodic storms with high tides are more significant
in contributing relict salts to the soil throughout the marsh than is normal tidal action.

A final importance of tidal action is in flushing or removing detritus from the marsh. In a
typical salt water marsh, an estimated 45 percent of production is removed by the ebb tide before it
is utilized by marsh consumers (Teal, 1962). As tidal flow in this brackish-water marsh is generally
limited to few channels feeding the San Bernard River, it is likely that detritus accumulates for
longer periods of time than in other tidal marshes with more direct Gulf exchange.

The major primary producers in this brackish-water marsh include water-tolerant perennial
grasses, annual sedges, and phytoplankton in areas of standing water. Distichlis spicata, a perennial
grass, is the dominant producer. Scirpus olneyi, an annual sedge, is common (Seadock, 1974). In
other areas Spartina patens replaces D. Spicata as the dominant. Competition between Distichlis and
Scirpus is regulated by soil salinity and hydroperiod. The latter regulates gaseous exchange via soil
aeration and submergence/emergence cycles. Distichlis has a wider range of salt tolerance than does
Scirpus (Palmisano, 1967; Penfound and Hathaway, 1938). Both species prefer fresh to brackish
water (Babcock, 1967; Rossa and Chabreck, 1972; Penfound and Hathaway, 1938). Scirpus
apparently has a greater ability to either receive or store oxygen under submergent conditions,
thereby having a competitive advantage during high-stress flooding conditions. Finally, stands of
Distichlis accumulate a "rough mat" composed of dead, recumbent leaves which trap and bind
sediment and detritus. The rough mat inhibits Scirpus invasion into Distichlis stands and gradually
raises marsh elevation, decreasing the influence of flooding and substrate wetness. The Distichlis-
rough mat feature is apparently a self-perpetuating mechanism contributing to long-term Distichlis
dominance in this brackish-water marsh (Blum, 1968).

Phytoplankton is seasonally abundant in standing water bodies such as McNeal and Pelican
Lakes, McNeal and Redfish Bayous, and in the numerous small and shallow marsh ponds. Phyto-
plankton productivity is regulated by water temperature, available nutrients, and by the incident
light energy. The latter is affected by water depth and suspended sediments.

The marsh grasses provide both food and cover to various consumer groups. Primary con-
sumer groups feeding on the grasses include insects, small mammals, furbearers, and waterfowl (see
Chapter II-B-4 for a more detailed species identification). Geese and ducks are of special importance
because of their high population level in the winter. The geese preferentially eat the rhizomes of the
sedges. Their activities can result in "eat-outs" of the Scirpus stands (Lynch, O'Neil, and Fay,
1947). Furbearers, principally nutria and muskrats also prefer Scirpus rhizomes and may also
produce eat-outs.

Juvenile fish and aquatic invertebrates feed primarily on phytoplankton and detritus. The
former two groups can be limited by dissolved oxygen levels. Dissolved oxygen levels are decreased
by increasing water heat, water salinity, and concentration of oxidizable material. Redfish and
McNeal Bayous and Pelican and McNeal Lakes support an important spawning and nursery popu-
lation of shrimp and finfish, and essentially represent an estuarine habitat within the brackish-water
marsh.

Secondary consumers, such as wading and shorebirds, feed on fish, aquatic invertebrates,
and insects; adult fish prey on other fish (including their young) as well as aquatic invertebrates.

186

Raptors and mammals prey on furbearers, small mammals, insects, and birds. An important top-
carnivore in this brackish-water marsh as in most upper Texas coastal marshes, is the alligator, which
primarily feeds on aquatic animals (invertebrates and fish).

In summary, the vegetation of the brackish-water marsh supports a more diverse food web
than do the other vegetative communities in the project area. Migratory birds, endangered species,
and Gulf fisheries rely in part on this productive coastal area, and contribute to its overall human
use value.
Ecological Attribute Alterations
Procedure of Analysis. The preceding descriptive analysis of the components, flows, and
regulating factors in each ecological system is the basis for ecological systems diagrams. The dia-
grams are visualizations of the ecological dynamics of each system, expressed in energy circuit
language. Energy is essentially the common connecting link between system components (see, for
example, Odumn, 1967, 1971, 1972 a,b). The diagrammatic visualization of the ecological systems is
not intended to be inclusive of all detail, subtleties, or complexities of any of the systems. It is used
with the previously described primary ecological alterations (PEA) in systematically analyzing
changes in ecological attributes resulting from project activities.

The primary ecological alterations previously presented are the first analytical record of
change. The PEA indicates a direct effect in the ecosystem either on storages of material (soil salt,
nutrients, standing water), transformers (various primary producers and consumers), or on pathway
regulators (ground cover, shading, pH, flowing water). A change in one of these first levels may
cause secondary attribute alterations, depending on the magnitude and duration of the initial
perturbation. These secondary alterations may be systematically identified by checking, on the
respective system diagram, altered energy/material pathways and altered energy/material transform-
ers or storages. Tertiary alterations may be similarly identified.

The direction of change in the transformers, storages, and pathway regulators may be
depicted either as an increase or decrease (other dimensions of alteration must be verbally noted).
In addition, some estimate of durations of change, either long- or short-term, may be indicated.
Finally, a range of potential alterations distinguishes between probably and possible impacts.

The ecological attribute alterations of the project activities are presented in Appendix E.
The lists are indexed by ecosystem area, activity, and PEA. The direction, likelihood, and duration
of attribute alterations are indicated. Comments provide clarifying points as well as indicating
inter-ecosystem effects.

Summary of Phase I Ecological Attribute Alterations. The list of ecological attribute altera-
tions presented in Appendix E details the ecological ramifications of the Phase I inland canal
project activities. The major ecological impacts which would be expected are summarized in this
section. The summarization takes three factors into consideration. First, some activities' impacts
can be recognized as being short-term in duration and small in magnitude and importance. Second,
some activities' impacts may be masked or rendered insignificant by the impacts of subsequent
activities. Third, many of the impacts of activities occurring late in the sequence of site preparation
actually occur within an already modified environment, and under controlled conditions, as in the
industrial site area. With these considerations, the summary excludes some impacts from further
analysis, and aggregates others into a comprehensive impact issue.

The major Phase 1 ecological impacts may be summarized as follows: (1) about 30 percent
of the fluvial woodland habitat between the Brazos and San Bernard Rivers in the study area, and
about 22 percent of the prairie grassland habitat in the same area, would be lost to industrial
development; (2) the north site would act as a barrier to migration, thereby isolating remaining
woodland habitat (especially under Phase 4 development); (3) the canal would act as a barrier to

187

migration of ground animals between the Jones Creek and Redfish Bayou marshes; (4) the various
earthwork activities expose unstabilized substrates, thereby possibly increasing surface water runoff
and erosion; (5) transported sediments would have a detrimental effect on marsh plant growth; (6)
the diversion of Redfish Bayou at the channel crossing would probably alter downstream flow
conditions, with concomitant changes in the Bayou course and in the relative influence of tidal and
fresh water inflow to the marsh; and (7) sheetwater flow from prairie grassland to the upper marsh
would to a large extent be converted to point source flow from retention pond water release,
resulting in altered wetness patterns through the upper McNeal-Redfish Bayou marsh and in species
distribution patterns.

Fluvial Woodlands. As a result of Phase 1 project activities, approximately 1820 acres of
fluvial woodland would be cleared for permanent conversion to industrial development (see Figure
49). This decrease in extent of the fluvial woodlands represents 30 percent of such ecological areas
south of the Brazos River and east of Clemens State Farm. Almost 50 percent of the largest, single
contiguous tract of woodlands in the area would be destroyed. The remainder of the tract, com-
prising more than 1400 acres of fluvial woodland, would be similarly cleared under Phase 4,
long-term future development. This reduction in irreplaceable ecological habitat accentuates similar
loss through development north of the Brazos River, west of the community of Lake Jackson.

In addition to significant and direct woodland habitat loss, the project indirectly affects the
wooded areas to the southeast by increasing the isolation of that fluvial woodland habitat from
similar habitats located upstream. This increased isolation is not so important as the direct wood-
land habitat loss, however, because the Clemens State Farm already greatly severs migration within
the woodland along the course of the Brazos River.

It is probable that the small population of deer presently residing in the area's woodlands
would be eliminated by direct habitat loss. The remaining isolated wooded tracts south of the
Brazos would probably not be sufficient for continual support of the deer. Those wooded areas are
currently under pressure by residential development. Any population of bobcats which have been
observed in the area (Seadock, 1974) would also probably be eliminated. The habitat range of
various raptors would also be decreased. The raptors may gradually vacate the area in preference of
more rewarding wooded areas.

More subtle ecological impacts may occur in the short-term in preparing the north site. Tree
and ground vegetative cover removal would allow greater rates and volumes of rainfall runoff with
concomitant erosion and transport of sediment exposed by the project's activities. This impact's
duration would probably be less than a year, as measured from the time of grubbing and topsoil
stripping to the time that northsite flood protection levees are successfully stabilized by vegetation.
The increased flow and sediment transport would enter the upper watershed of Jones Creek. The
capacity of Jones Creek to handle peak runoff following storms may be exceeded. Excessive
sedimentation in the channel may occur, especially where flow is restricted under the Highway 36
diversion. The tendency of Jones Creek to flood north of Highway 36 could be exacerbated.

Another environmental alteration at the north site results from the presence of the flood
protection levee. By preventing Brazos River flooding from dissipating within the area to be
occupied by the north industrial site, flood stage flow to the east and south of the site, along the
course of Jones Creek, would be accentuated. Greater flooding depths and duration in the re-
maining woodlands may alter woodland community composition in the long-term. The frequency
of such flooding, of course, would not be changed. The height of river flooding in the community
of Jones Creek may be increased.

Prairie Grassland. As a result of Phase 1 project activities, approximately 5470 acres of
prairie grassland would be cleared for permanent conversion to industrial development. This eco-
logical system loss includes some 1730 acres of shrub-savannah at the north site and 3560 acres of
cordgrass prairie at the south site. In addition, about 180 acres of grassland will be lost to the

188

channel and its right-of-way. More than 310 acres will be altered in the long-term by the higher
elevation of dredge spoil disposal areas.

The prairie grassland loss to the south industrial site represents approximately 22 percent of
comparable habitat between the Brazos River and San Bernard River. Perhaps the most significant
impact of this habitat loss is the reduction of feeding area for wintering populations of geese. If the
same wintering goose population size is attracted to this area, denser feeding patterns would likely
result in rapid depletion of the food supply. The residence time of the wintering population south
of Jones Creek would decrease. The decrease in available habitat and food resources in the area
would probably result in increased demand on the neighboring San Bernard and Brazoria National
Wildlife Refuges.

'Ihe wintering population ot sandhill cranes on Jones Creek Ridge would be adversely
affected by the presence of the inland canal. Most of the ridge habitat lies contiguously east of the
channel route. However, the three leveed spoil disposal areas at 10 feet above grade could displace
the population as birds prefer to be secluded when feeding rather than exposed in prominent relief.

The presence of the canal would be an effective barrier to migration across the prairie
grassland vegetated ridge separating the Jones Creek and Redfish-McNeal brackish marshes. The
barrier would affect furbearers, other rodents, and also the alligator. To the extent that such
migration is essential to the feeding patterns of these species' populations, the impact of the canal
would be significant.

The dredging of the canal through the prairie grasslands would result in channel water
turbidity. Additional sources of suspended sediments in the channel include water outflow from the
spoil containment areas and from the south industrial site prior to site stabilization and clean-up.
These suspended sediments would be transported to the GIWW. The probable short-term increase in
turbidity in the GIWW could decrease photosynthesis of grasses and phytoplankton. It should be
noted that turbidity in the GIWW is quite variable and depends largely on wind strength and
duration (a seasonal function). The GIWW is seldom clear of turbidity. In the long-term (2 to 3
years) the increase in sedimentation from canal construction would probably stimulate plant growth
by having increased the supply of nutrients.

The presence of the canal in the upland prairie grassland would allow some extent of saline
water intrusion into the substrate below the prairie grassland. The salinity of the canal water would
seasonally vary from 2 to 25 ppt. The water in the zone of saturation below the prairie grassland
varies spatially from approximately 0.8 to 2.8 ppt. It is possible that soil water in the vicinity of the
canal would increase. However, there may not be an important effect on the salt-tolerant cordgrass
assemblages of the prairie grassland. The extent of the impact of saline water intrusion will depend
upon the distribution and thickness of clay to silty clay substrates and the ability to maintain
freshwater percolation from surface drainage.

As at the north industrial site, the removal of ground cover during the south site preparation
activities would allow increased runoff and concomitant erosion and transport of sediments. The
duration of this impact would probably be less than one year. The extent of impact would probably
be small due to the negligible slope to the land surface. The direction of flow would be to the
southeast toward the upper part of the brackish-water marsh. It is likely that most of the eroded
sediment would be stopped in the remaining strip of prairie grassland between the south site and the
brackish water marsh. Depending upon the season in which the preparatory activities take place, a
significant increase in fresh water sheetflow into the marsh could occur.

There are, however, more severe, long-term results of drainage alteration in the prairie
grassland. First, flow patterns in Redfish Bayou would be altered. The uppermost mile of Redfish
Bayou would be removed as it lies within the north tract of the south site. A runoff retention pond
would collect rainfall falling in the upper area of the watershed. This stored runoff would be

189

released under a monitoring program to assure water quality and to deliver water to Redfish Bayou
in simulation of natural flow. This controlled release would probably increase the channelization of
Redfish Bayou above the marsh, where it is now only an intermittent stream. There may be a
concomitant long-term decrease in soil moisture in the remaining watershed of Redfish Bayou
between the harbor entrance and the community of Jones Creek. Second, Redfish Bayou would be
ponded on the north side of the channel crossing. The vegetation of the ponded area would be
altered from that of a prairie grassland to aquatic vegetation. Although the sump pump would be
designed to pull the suspended sediments through the diversion pipe, there would be a net decrease
in sediments and associated nutrients reaching the marsh.

Finally, sheet water flow from the prairie grassland toward the upper marsh and McNeal
Bayou would be replaced by point-source discharge from the runoff retention ponds along the
southern border of the industrial site. While various methods may be used to distribute flow out of
the ponds, the net result would be that some sections of upper marsh would receive more water
inflow than normal, and other sections would receive less than normal amounts. The retention
ponds would also trap sediments. There would be a net decrease in sediments and nutrients reaching
the marsh.

Brackish-Water Marsh. The McNeal-Redfish marsh would be affected both directly by activ-
ities occurring at the periphery of the marsh and indirectly by altered patterns of upland drainage
from the prairie grassland. Direct alterations include decreasing tidal flux by diking the south
entrance channel and locally increasing sedimentation of the marsh periphery. Indirect, inter-eco-
system alterations include changing hydrologic conditions in Redfish Bayou and in replacing sheet-
water inflow by point-source inflow.

The south entrance channel dike would decrease direct saline water exchange between the
GIWW and the lower reach of the marsh. The only effective remaining course of tidal flux would be
through Redfish Bayou, via the San Bernard River. The tidal flux through Redfish Bayou is pres-
ently the more important source of salt water to the marsh.

Sediment and associated nutrients would locally affect the periphery of the marsh due to
increased rate of inflow associated with greater relief features. The Jones Creek marsh could be
affected by runoff from the slopes of spoil containment areas 2 and 3 on the Jones Creek ridge.
Brackish-water marsh south of the GIWW could be affected similarly by runoff from the slopes of
spoil containment area number 1. Runoff from the slopes of canal dikes located at the south
channel entrance, between stations 50+00 and 100+00 along the west side of the canal, and at the
Redfish Bayou diversion could also carry sediments into the periphery of the marsh. The magnitude
of this impact would decrease after the slopes are vegetatively stabilized. Increases in local turbidity
(suspended sediments) could interfere with photosynthesis and with filter feeding of invertebrate
consumers. The overall magnitude and importance of this impact would probably be slight and
short-term.

The discharge of water at the Redfish Bayou diversion at the inland canal crossing would
vary with rainfall in the watershed. The pump would continuously operate only when there is
sufficient waters collected in the diversion pond. The flow velocity of the discharged water would
probably be at a higher velocity than current flow rates. To more efficiently handle this changed
flow condition, it is probable that the proximate downstream course of Redfish Bayou would move
into a straighter alignment (Figure 55). There is already a branch of Redfish Bayou developed at
this alignment. There would be a short-term increase of sediments transported to the lower reach
from the scouring of the new channel. With the increased flow, it is also probable that the pulsed
water release will move more rapidly down Redfish Bayou into the lower reach of the marsh, as
opposed to a gradually seaward flow in which materials are exchanged with the surrounding upper
and middle marsh. There would therefore be a relative decrease in salinity in the lower course, with
a possible long-term effect on the estuarine fish and invertebrate residents as well as on marine
species seasonally spawning and nursing.

190

.Finally, the alteration of upland drainage sheetfiow to point-source flow from the South site
area would have a probably, indirect, long-term effect on upper marsh substrate wetness. Chan-
nelized flow would tend to increase, especially in the northwestern portion of the marsh (Figure
55). Substrate wetness would tend to decrease in between such flow routes. Detritus and rough mat
would probably accumulate for longer periods, thereby gradually increasing local relief. Distichlis
would, in those drier areas, gain clear dominance over Scirpus. it is possible that this community
composition change would further the likelihood of eat-outs. Over many years, it is conceivable that
certain upper marsh areas may dry out sufficiently to allow upland species to invade.

Other Environmental Impacts
There would be environmental impacts other than those which may be discussed in an
ecological context. During Phase I site preparation there may be short-term, small magnitude, air
quality impacts from construction equipment and vehicle exhaust. However, this pollution would
be of minimal importance because of the dispersed, non-point nature of the loadings, loadings
magnitude and duration, and because of the good air mixing and dispersion characteristics of the
area.

The construction activities would also generate noise. However, it is probable that only
activities taking place close to the community of Jones Creek would be heard. Noise perception by
wildlife varies in importance and is markedly influenced by background noise to which wildlife may
be accustomed. It is expected that noise impacts would be less important than the ongoing habitat
disruption involved in Phase I site preparation.

The industrial site may pose a visual impact in the short-term while the area is barren and
before flood protection levees and buffer zones are vegetated. This visual impact, however socially
important, would be manifest only around the communities of Jones Creek and Perry Landing.

Altered land use patterns would probably be a more important general environmental
impact than those previously cited. Approximately 6000 acres will be changed from agricultural
(grazing) to industrial use. The pattern of developed residential and industrial land uses will be
altered under subsequent project phases. This further alteration is addressed in Chapter TV-B,
Impacts of Industrial Site Development and Operation.

There would be impacts on archeological and historical resources. The north entrance
channel is located near a prehistoric shell midden. West of Perry Landing, in the access corridor
between the north and south sites, are two concentrations of Anglo-American structures with
cisterns, recorded by the Texas Archeological Survey. In the course of excavation and dredging it is
possible that more archeological sites, especially of middens, would be found. The two known
archeological sites may be removed or be relocated, or would require in situ protection. It is
assumed that appropriate Texas Historical Commission and Texas Archeological Survey officials
would be notified if further sites were found, and that those sites would be analyzed prior to
collection and removal. Historic sites include the Gulf Prairie Cemetery and Peach Point Plantation
along Perry Landing Lane south of Highway 36. It is likely that the pipeline corridor connecting the
north and south sites along this alignment would avoid disruption of these two historic sites.

It is reasonable to assume that many impacts related to utility plant construction (raw water
and waste treatment facility) during Phase 2 would generally not be important because they would
occur within the already modified industrial site environment and because the previous Phase I
preparation of the site would have established environmental controls on site water runoff, which
would otherwise be a major agent of construction-related impacts. A low level of air pollutant
loadings would result from equipment exhaust. The effect of construction noise would be small and
isolated by the presence of the flood protection levee and buffer zone between the north site
location of construction and the community of Jones Creek.

The remaining sources of impact during Phase 2 include groundwater well field development

191

and pipeline construction. One possible groundwater well field development area lies north of a line
formed by Harris Reservoir, Danbury, and Liverpool. Two to five wells constructed in that area
with 500-foot to 1100-foot depth would probably supply at lease the minimum 9 mgd as part of
the raw water supply. There are currently more than 60 public supply, industrial, and irrigation
wells spread over more than 370 square miles in that area. It is reasonable to assume that the small
amount of well drilling would not result in any important environmental impacts in the upland
prairie grasslands located in northern Brazoria County.

There would be approximately 30 miles of water main to the inland canal industrial site
from the groundwater well field, 5 miles of raw water main from the Brazos River at a point just
north of Brazoria, and a maximum of about 18 miles of cooling water discharge pipeline from the
site to the Brazos River near the Highway 36 bridge. These pipelines would cross through upland
prairie grasslands and fluvial woodlands. The groundwater well field would cross as many as seven
irrigation and drainage ditches, Oyster Creek, and the Brazos River. The raw water main from the
Brazos River would cross a highway and railroad between Brazoria and the Brazos River and would
pass through Clemens State Prison Farm. The cooling water discharge pipeline would cross Jones
Creek above Highway 36, another small drainage course feeding a freshwater marsh east of the
community of Gulf Park, Brazos River Road, and four small residential roads north off from
Highway 36 between Jones Creek and the Brazos River.

The potential impacts of pipeline installation would involve little short-term disruption of
the various ecological systems as the amount of digging at any one place is small in areal extent and
the excavation pipeline trench is rapidly covered over and revegetated. A small amount of erosion
may occur, and would probably be unimportant in the upland ecosystems. Crossings of small
irrigation and drainage ditches would probably be above grade and have little influence on the water
course. The groundwater supply main's crossing of Oyster Creek and the Brazos River would
probably be buried in the bed of those water courses. Various methods are well established for such
major water course crossings. The impacts on channel hydrology and water quality would mainly be
short-term increases of turbidity downstream from the crossing.

Impact Evaluation
Parameters. There are various parameters which may be used to test and monitor the
significance of Phase 1 site preparation impacts. These parameters represent the sustaining prop-
erties of the ecological systems. Temporal influences and baseline characteristics must be established
over a period of time before parameter observation for determing impact would be useful. This
section presents a brief list, by resource area, of those parameters which may be of greatest interest
in recording environmental change. The list is drawn from the preceding discussion of ecological
alterations, and includes those parameters which may effectively verify or refute the cited potential
ecological impacts.

Fluvial Woodland parameters include a biocensus of game and other small mammal
and bird populations; and Jones Creek water pH, turbidity, flow rate, particulate matter,
and alkalinity, particularly in that stretch north of Highway 36.

Prairie Grassland parameters include various carrying capacity measures such as
amount of preferred food resources, furbearer population size trends, and wintering goose
population size; water quality in the Redfish Bayou diversion point north of the inland
channel (salinity, pH, particulate matter, turbidity, temperature, alkalinity, oxygen de-
manding material, nutrient levels, ionic balance, and toxic materials); water economy of the
upper Redfish Bayou watershed (rainfall, runoff, soil infiltration, stream inflow, and evapo-
ration by mapped unit areas); and soil moisture in a transect paralleling the southern
boundary of the south site. It is assumed that retention pond water quality will be moni-
tored as part of the project.

192

Brackish Water Marsh parameters include Redfish Bayou channel geometry, sub-
strate texture, rate and volume of flow, and salinity; a seasonal biocensus of Redfish Bayou
and of marsh benthos; marsh salinity, north of the south entrance channel dike; particulate
matter in water flowing from the channel and off dikes into the marsh; upper marsh wetness
transects; biocensus of Distichlis and Scirpus stands; and microtopographic mapping in the
upper marsh.

Adjustments. Activity adjustments are locational, design, or temporal activity alternatives
which can be employed to lessen adverse impacts. They are aimed at avoiding the ecological
attribute alterations with undesirable environmental consequences which are important in their own
right as well as to economic and human use values. It hould not be assumed that the adjustments
can completely remove impacts; rather they are minimizations. Furthermore, it should be observed
that the best possible adjustment may likely be very costly. Its justification varies with the impor-
tance of the impact which it would lessen.

Stabilization of high relief features, such as levees, should occur as soon as the features are
completed. This rapid stabilization would reduce the short-term impact of increased sediment
transport, which is particularly important near the marsh at channel levees and spoil containment
levees.

Scheduling of the project such that channel excavation and dredging occurs after wintering
bird populations have left the area would allow the revegetation of the route before the next season,
thereby reducing direct and indirect biologic impacts.

Various methods may be employed to distribute water outflow from site runoff retention
ponds in approaching natural sheetwater flow toward the marsh. As much as 10,000 feet of
distributing pipe (e.g., clay-tile pipe) in a dendritic pattern would be necessary to be effective.

Regulation of discharge velocity in Redfish Bayou to more closely simulate natural flow
rates would minimize changes (1) in Bayou alignment and (2) in the influence of more fresh water
reaching the lower reaches of the Bayou.

Marsh vegetation management could regulate the proportion of Distichlis and Scirpus, selec-
tively increasing the more palatable Scirpus. The enhanced food resource of the marsh might offset
the habitat loss to wintering geese due to south site development. However, the impacts of the
management procedures on the ecological balance of the marsh could be important in themselves.

Finally, an extension of the north and south site flood protection levees around the eastern
site of the community of Jones Creek would alleviate Brazos River flooding caused by the north
side levee. This adjustment would also have the positive effect of protecting Jones Creek from
hurricane surge flooding.

Environmental Impact Analysis References

Allen, P. F. 1950. "Ecological Basis for Land Use Planning in Gulf Coast Marshlands." Journal Soil
and Water Conservation. Vol. 5, pp. 57-62.

Babcock, K. M. 1967. The influence of Water Depth and Salinity on Wiregrass and Saltmarsh Grass.
Master's dissertation. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.

Blum, J. T. 1968. "Salt Marsh Spartina and Associated Algae." Ecol. Monograph. Vol. 38, pp.
199-222.

193

Buckmann, H. 0. and N. C. Brady. 1969. The Nature and Properties of Soil. Seventh Edition. New
York: MacMillan Co.

Dee, N., et al. 1973. Planning Methodology for Water Quality Management Environmental Evalu-
ation System. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle, Columbus Laboratories.

Dickert, T. G., editor with K. R. Domeny. 1974. Environmental Impact and Assessment: Guidelines
and Commentary. University Extension, University of California at Berkeley.

Johnston, M. C. 1955. Vegetation of the Aeolian Plain and Associated Coastal Features of Southern
Texas. University of Texas doctoral dissertation. Austin, Texas.

Leopold, L. F. E. Clark, B. B. Hanshaw, and J. R. Bolsley. 1971. Procedure for Evaluating Environ-
mental Impact. Geological Survey Circular 645. U.S. Department of the Interior.

Lynch, J. J., T. O'Neil, and D. W. Fay. 1947. "Management Significance of Damage by Geese and
Muskrats to Gulf Coast Marshes." Journal Wildlife Management. 11(1), pp. 50-76.

Moore, J. L., et al. 1973. Final Report on a Methodology for Evaluating Manufacturing Environ-
mental Impact Statements for Delaware's Coastal Zone. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle, Columbus
Laboratories.

Odum, H. T. 1967. "Biological Circuits and the Marine Systems of Texas." Pollution and Marine
Ecology, T. A. Olson and F. J. Burgess (eds.), pp. 99-157. New York: Interscience Publishers.

-----. 1971. Environment, Power and Society. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

-----. 1972a. "An Energy Circuit Language for Ecological and Social Systems: Its Physical
Basis." Systems Analysis and Simulation in Ecology, ed. B. C. Patten, V. 2, pp. 140-211. New
York: Academic Press.

-----. 1972b. "Use of Energy Diagrams for Environmental Impact Statements." Tools for
Coastal Zone Management. pp. 197-213. Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology Society.

Palmisano, A. W., Jr. 1967. Ecology of Scirpus olneyi and Scirpus robustus in Louisiana Coastal
Marshes." Master's dissertation. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical
College.

Penfound, W. T. and E. S. Hathaway. 1938. "Plant Communities in the Marshlands of Southeastern
Louisiana." Ecological Monographs 8(1) pp. 1-56.

Rice Center for Community Design and Research. 1974. Environmental Analysis for Development
Planning, Chambers County, Texas. Technical Report, Volume One, Appendices, An Approach
to Natural Environmental Analysis. Houston: Rice University.

Rice Center of Community Design and Research. 1976. Texas Gulf Coast Program Research Report
1. 3 cols. Houston: Rice University.

Rossa, W. M. and R. H. Chabreck. 1972. "Factors Affecting the Growth and Survival of Natural and
Planted Stands of Scirpus olneyi." Proc. 26th Ann. Conference of the Southeast Game & Fish
Commission, pp. 178-188.

Seadock, Inc. 1974. Environmental Report Summary. Texas Offshore Crude Oil Unloading Facility.

Sorenson, J. C. 1971. A Framework for Identification and Control of Resource-Degradation and

194

Conflict in the Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone. Department of Landscape. Architecture,
College of Environmental Design, University of California at Berkeley.

Teal, J. M. 1962. "Energy Flow in the Salt Marsh Ecosystem of Georgia." Ecology 43(4) pp.
614-624.

Texas General Land Office. 1976. Texas Coastal Management Program. Appendices. Prepared by
Research and Planning Consultants, Inc. Austin, Texas.

Social and Infrastructural Impact Analysis

Introduction

This section examines the infrastructural and social impacts which the inland canal project
would produce in the surrounding areas. The section is divided into three major parts: infrastruc-
tural issues and impacts, specific planning concerns, and social issues and impacts.

Impact assessment research generally separates environmental considerations from eco-
nomic, social, and infrastructural ones. Ecological, economic, infrastructural, and social systems are
part of a larger environmental system. A change in one of the systems may be felt throughout the
larger system. While separation of the systems proves useful for analytical pusposes, in reality, these
four systems are intricately connected. Each represents only one aspect of the whole, and all
combine to determine the impact of a particular project.

Infrastructural Issues and Impacts

The methodology employed to nominate potentially significant infrastructural issues was
developed by RPC,Inc., in Offshore Oil: Its Impact on Texas Communities (1977). In that study, a
list of major candidate issues was developed. They include:

1. Administrative/Financial Capabilities;
2. Housing;
3. Water Demands;
4. Sewage Collection and Treatment;
5. Solid Waste Collection and Disposal;
6. Crime Prevention;
7. Fire Protection;
8. Recreational Facilities;
9. Health Facilities; and
10. Educational Services.

While it is recognized that these represent only a small number of the actual services a community
or unit of government may provide, they are the major ones. To expand this list would increase the
study requirements without meaningfully increasing the insights into a unit of government's capac-
ity to absorb impact.

A candidate issue is isolated as significant if the demand on an infrastructural service as a
result of development could potentially exceed a unit of government's capacity to provide that
service. For each candidate issue, one or more indicators is established of a government's capacity to
handle that issue. Standard measures are then established. These standard measures are derived from
a variety of sources as indicated in Figure 82. The government's current or future capacity to deal
with a particular issue is compared with the standard measures for each indicator. A significant

195

Figure 82

Infrastructural Issues, Indicators, and Standard Measures

Source of
Issue Indicator Standard Measure Standard Measure

1. Administrative/ a. Assessed Valuation/ a. lO/l Ratio a. State Law or
Financial General Obligation City Charter
Capabilities Bonds

b. Ratio of Assessment b. Maximum of 100% b. State Law

c. Tax Rate c. Cities With Less c. State Law
Than 5,000 Popu-
lation: $1.50
Cities With More
Than 5,000 Popu-
lation: $2.50
2. Housing a. Vacancy Rate in a. NA* a. NA*
County for Rental
Units/Homes

b. Construction Rate b. NA* b. NA*

3. Water Supply a. Maximum Daily Sys- a. NA* a. NA*
tem Capacity/
Maximum Daily Use

b. Storage Capacity b. 100 Gallons Per b. TWQB*
Person
4. Sewage Collection a. Maximum Daily a. NA* a. NA*
Capacity/Maximum
Daily Use

5. Solid Waste a. Existing Solid a. One Acre Per a. TWQB*
Collection and Waste Disposal 3,900 Residents
Disposal Site Acreage

6. Crime Preven- a. Number of Police a. One Per 80GO a. TCLEOSE*
tion Officers Residents

7. Fire Protection a. Number of Fire- a. One per 1,800 a. TML*
fighters Residents

b. State Insurance b. $.40 per $100 b. State Board
Board Fire Rate Valuation of Insurance

8. Recreational a. Number of Parks a. Metropolitan a. State
Facilities in Immediate Areas: .267 Averages
Vicinity parks per 1000
population.
Cities: .465
parks per l00
population.
Towns: .511
parks per 1000
population

b. Acreage of Parks b. Metropolitan b. State
Areas per 1000 Averages
population. Cities:
9.8 acres per 1000
population. Towns:
7.4 acres per 1000
population.
9. Health Facilities a. Number of Hospital a. One Per 225 Resi- a. TDHR*
Beds dents

b. Number of Physicians b. One Per 1,500 b. TDHR*
Residents
10. Educational a. Student/Teacher Ratio a. 16.35/1 a. State
Services Average

*NA = Not Applicable
TWQB = Texas Water Quality Board
TCLEOSE = Texas Commission of Law Enforcement
Officer Standards and Education
TML Texas Municipal League
TDHR = Texas Department of Health Resources

196

infrastructural issue is identified if a development-generated demand on an infrastructural service
(water, sewage, etc.) would potentially exceed the government's capacity to provide that service, as
demonstrated by the comparison of the indicators and standard measures. For example, if the
government has one hospital bed for every 300 residents, medical facilities is identified as a signifi-
cant issue, because the state average standard measure is one hospital bed for every 225 residents
(see Figure 82). In this example, the introduction of new residents as a result of any development
would further tax the government's ability to provide adequate services at the present time.

It should be noted that a number of these issues and the effects of construction of an inland
canal have been analyzed with other parts of this study. Figure 83 details the maximum require-
ments for Phase I and Phase 2 of the postulated canal construction. It should be noted that only
maximum requirements are presented in Figure 83, because these peak periods should indicate
maximum impact. Similarly, it is hypothesized that the maximum impact will occur when new
employees move to and become residents of that area.

Figure 83
Population and Employment
as the Result of Canal Construction

Phase I Phase 2
Maximum Direct Employment 142 1 53
Maximum Indirect Employment 2 142
Maximum Total Employment 1 7 1 53

Maximum Resident Employment 43 57
Maximum New Resident
Employment 40 48
Maximum Comuter Employment 63 55

Maximum New Population 98 118
Maximum New Students 23 28
Maximum New Population as
percent of 1975 county
population 0.1% 0.1 %
Maximum New Students as
percent of total 1976-77
school year enrollment in
Brazosport Ind. School
District (I10,316) 0.2% 0.2%

The maximum population increase as a result of construction of a canal must be viewed in
context to the past and present growth rate of the county. Rapid growth in the area began with oil
discovery and refinery development in the early decades of this century. The Dow Chemical
Company, which is the center of the industrial complex in the area, has been responsible for much
of the county's growth since 1940. The rate of growth since 1940 is shown in Figure 84. The
1960-1970 rate of 42.1 percent was far greater than the rate for United States (I13.3 percent) and
the rate for Texas (16.9 percent) in the same period. The rate was consistent with that of Houston-
Galveston region as a whole (35 percent).

The University of Texas, Population Research Center (1973) has projected steady continued
growth for Brazoria County in the period 1970-2020. Their projects are summarized in Figure 85.

Given the high growth rate of Brazoria County, it does not seem likely that the 0.1 percent
maximum population increase as a result of construction of the canal would have a significant

197

Figure 84
Brazoria County-Rate of Growth

Population at Percent of
Period End of Period Population Increase
1940-1950 46,549 71.9%
1950-1960 76,204 63.2%
1960-1970 108,312 42.1%
1970-1975 134,000 23.7%

Figure 85
Projected Population for Brazoria County 1970-2020

Year Projection Percent Increase

1980 145,870 34.0
1990 189,138 29.6
2000 238,424 26.0
2010 293,220 22.9
2020 355,244 21.1
Source: Population Research Center, (1973).

infrastructural impact on the area. The governmental units in the area are aware of and planning for
a 29.6 percent population increase in the period 1980 through 1990. Thus, the application of the
impact assessment methodology fails to nominate significant infrastructural issues.

This does not mean there will be no infrastructural impacts as a result of canal construction,
but rather only that the methodology does not delineate any as being significant. In other words,
the population increase associated with canal construction should not result in a significant increase
of demand for services exceeding the local government's capacities to provide services. While no
issues can be nominated as significant due to canal construction, certain issues may demand careful
planning in the future. These issues are of particular importance when the possibility for growth due
to other projects in the area, for instance Seadock, is considered. While individually no project may
significantly impact the infrastructural system, their combined effect may increase the service
demands on the local governments in the area.

Specific Planning Concerns

The nine local governments and the officials and residents of the Brazosport area seem very
aware of the need for careful, long-range planning. In addition, the nine local governments coordi-
nate their planning efforts and services, which increases their ability to cope with the growth
process. While the methodology employed in the previous section did not identify significant
infrastructural issues, certain issues which may require particular attention in future planning efforts
should be discussed. These include: local tax revenue deficits, housing, educational facilities,
medical facilities, transportation, and flood protection. With the exception of local tax revenues,
which is reviewed vis-a-vis deficits as a result of canal construction, these issues may require atten-
tion regardless of the development of the canal.

Local Tax Revenues. The Economic Impact Analysis (see Chapter IV-A-1), calculates the
deficit in local tax revenue as a result of construction to be $29,393 for Phase 1 and $43,415 for
Phase 2. These deficits assume that levels of service proportionally increased with population

198

growth. The amount of deficit should not exceed the financial capabilities of local governments,
particularly if the deficit is spread proportionately over the nine community area. Past residential
location trends indicate that there is likelihood that this settlement pattern would occur. If services
were not increased, their impact on quality of life would be greater than that on fiscal liability.

Housing. The county's vacancy rate of year-round units for sale at the time of the 1970
census was 21.1 percent. The county's vacancy rate of year-round units for rent at the time of the
1970 census was 12.1 percent. However, local officials indicated that there is a shortage of housing
in the Brazosport area. Given the short duration of the construction activities, it is likely that
construction employees would rent housing, bring their own mobile homes, or commute to the
area. Discussions with local individuals also indicated that it was more difficult to buy a house than
to rent one, especially since a number of beach houses are available for rent during the fall through
the spring. The shortage of housing is stimulating a large amount of newly built apartments and
houses. However, the supply will probably not parallel the demand for some time. In addition, the
number of mobile homes in the area is growing. The location and utilities of mobile home sites
should be carefully considered, as they often lack suitable sewage facilities and effective flood
protection.

Educational Facilities. There are eight independent school districts and two junior college
districts in Brazoria County. The Brazosport area is served by its own independent school district
(Brazoria is in the Columbia-Brazoria District) and Brazosport Junior College. The Brazosport
Independent School District has 10 elementary schools, 3 junior high schools, and 2 high schools.
Figure 86 details enrollment figures for Brazoria County. Only the Damon ISD has a student/
teacher ratio below the state average of 16.35/1 and Brazosport ISD (19.2/1) is slightly above the
state average. With the projected growth of the area, the increasing number of students in each ISD
could cause some overcrowding and thus, a need for additional teachers.

Figure 86
School Enrollment in Brazosport Area
Independent School District 1975-1976 School Year

Student/
School District Enrollment Teachers Teacher
Brazosport 11,350 590 19.2/1
Columbia-Brazoria 2,779 167 16.6/1
Source: Texas Education Agency, 1977.

Medical Facilities. The Brazosport area is served by a single community hospital with a
capacity of 465 beds (1976 data). The Brazosport Telephone Directory lists 34 physicians and 20
dentists. Brazosport medical characteristics are compared to state medical characteristics in Figure
87. Although Brazosport medical capabilities are below the state average in the number of physi-
cians per 1000 residents, it should be noted that Brazosport is very near the extensive health
industry of Houston, which provides many specialized medical services. The Gulf Coast Regional
Mental Health and Mental Retardation Center, whose main office is in Galveston, operates several
mental health programs in the area.

Transportation. There is no extensive public transportation system available in the Brazos-
port area. Private automobile is the major means of work related transportation in Brazoria County.
In 1970, 30,800 workers (78.8 percent of the labor force)used private automobiles and 4279
workers (10.9 percent of labor force) were passengers in private automobiles. In that year, only 44
employees rode a bus, 13 rode a railroad, and 1331 walked to work.

199

Figure 87
Hospitals and Physicians

Brazosport Average' State Standard3
Number of Hospital Beds
per I1000 residents 8.01 2 4.4

Number of Physicians
per I1000 residents .58 .66
1. Using current population estimate of 58,000.
2. Using surveyed capacity (465).
3. Texas Department of Health Resources.

With the high usage of private automobiles, careful road and traffic planning is important.
Two freeways are proposed as part of an inter-community road system. The relocation of Highway
36 from Brazo sport to Freeport will involve the construction of a new bridge over the Brazos River
south of the present one. This should aid traffic flow between Freeport and Jones Creek. According
to the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (SDHPT), the relocation of this
highway has been approved and should be completed in approximately four years.

There is also a proposed extension of FM 2004 which would aid traffic flow between the
Clute/Lake Jackson area and Jones Creek. While the right of way was acquired by the county when
FM 2004 was constructed, the SDHPT reports that construction of the extension has not been
approved and probably will not occur in the foreseeable future.

Although construction of these two roads would help alleviate traffic flow problems, intra-
city problems may remain. Given the lack of an extensive public transportation system and the
concentration of industries in particular areas, intra-city traffic congestion may increase in the
future.

Another potential traffic congestion problem is Highway 288 between Clute and Angleton,
which extends on to Houston. This is the main artery connecting Houston and the Brazosport area.
Though Highway 288 has been expanded to four lanes and is currently being upgraded between
Clute and Angleton, the highway narrows to two lanes outside Brazoria County. With the increasing
commuting and truck traffic from Houston to the area, the two lane portions of the highway may
prove inadequate.

The Brazosport area has a public airport/airstrip located in Lake Jackson. This airport has
no charter service available. The only airline serving the airport is Metro Airlines which has daily
flights to Houston. Houston is the nearest commercial airport having scheduled passenger service. A
new airport is planned for the area.

Flood Protection. At the present time, the 100 year flood plain of the Brazos River skirts
the boundaries of Jones Creek on the north and south sides. in addition, Highway 36 acts like a
levee causing Jones Creek to back up and flood eastern Jones Creek during periods of heavy rainfall.
A relocation of Highway 36 may allow for better hydrologic connection between the upstream and
downstream segments of Jones Creek.

The construction of a levee on the north side of the town as part of the canal project would
protect 2500 to 2600 acres of land from future flooding. However, the construction of this levee
would divert floodwater cast to the Jones Creek watershed. The increase in storm water height
brought about by this diversion might result in greater flooding damage in the community of Jones

200

Creek than has generally occurred. This potential impact might be mitigated by extending the site
levee system to protect the town of Jones Creek. Extending the levee system may require the
relocation of homes. Thus, while the potential for flooding now exists in Jones Creek, without the
mitigating levee system the flooding problems would be increased. The threat of flooding might
discourage residential development in the area, especially since it might be difficult to obtain federal
flood plain insurance on buildings.

Social Issues and Impacts

The assessment of social impacts associated with a construction project differs in a number
of ways from economic, environmental, and infrastructural considerations. impacts on the latter
three systems can be measured quantitatively. For example, the methodology utilized in considering
possible infrastructural impacts relied on precise indicators and standard measures. However, devel-
oping a concise list of social indicators is a difficult task. As pointed out by Vlachos, et al.,
"regardless of the evaluative criteria or social indicators used, the public may have a different
priority" (1975). Even if a list of social indicators is used, the question of standard measures
remains. People living in different areas may have dramatically different perceptions of what consti-
tutes a pleasing social environment. In addition, different groups of people living in the same area
may have distinct perceptions of the kinds of impacts which would negatively or positively affect
their lives. For example, new residents may view increased development as positive, while long-time
residents may see it as a threat to their established lifestyles.

To conduct a specific and comprehensive social impact assessment of a populous area
requires a large number of man-hours. The social scientist must interview individuals in the area,
determine their ideas and values, and discover the various social groupings in the area. A comprehen-
sive social impact assessment of the construction of the canal would require extensive on-site study
in Brazosport and a number of months for analysis of data. Only then could a list of social
indicators and measures specific for this area be developed.

The scope of this study allowed for neither the time nor resources to produce a comprehen-
sive social impact assessment. However, it is possible to generally discuss the social issues and
impacts of the canal construction based on information about the area and on past issues and
experiences gleaned from similar projects. Before discussing this particular project and the social
issues and impacts potentially connected with it, it is important to present some perspective on the
process of growth and its potential impacts.

Change is a constant process in social and cultural systems. Growth is a relative form of
change which also implies increase. Applebaum offers three distinctions that are useful in terms of
understanding this view of change: the magnitude of change, the time span of change, and the
effects on the changing unit (1970). The magnitude of change refers to the scale of change as
reflected in the characteristics, proportion, susceptibility, and degree of alteration of the affected
unit; in other words, large-scale as opposed to small-scale change. "The length of the period over
which change occurs" is defined as the time span of change. Using Parsons' definitions of process
versus structural change (1966), Applebaum's third distinction involves the effect on the changing
unit. Some processes serve to maintain a system; other processes result in structural change in a
system.

Rapid growth, then, could be defined as large-scale change (relative to the system) which
occurs over a short period of time and involves structural changes in a system. Rapid growth
generally has different impacts on individuals (Shields, 1975; Wallace, 1970) and on communities
(Wolf, 1974) than slower, sustained growth. Boom towns experience a form of rapid growth, but
the two are not necessarily synonymous. Economic prosperity of many of the residents of a
community is usually implied in the use of the term "boom town."

201

The list of possible negative impacts of growth on a community expands daily. These range
from infrastructural impacts to environmental impacts. Crime, divorce, land prices, and pollution all
tend to increase. Community cohesion, control by long-time residents, and available housing all
tend to decrease. Carnes and Friesma discuss the possible negative and positive impacts of urbaniza-
tion on the individual, the family, and the community (1975). Potential positive impacts include an
increase in the long-time residents' perception of personal freedom, in the roles available to individ-
uals, in the number of groups, and in the number of local facilities, etc.

in terms of the Brazosport area and this particular study, Applebaum's distinctions are
important in analyzing specific impacts. Recalling the projected growth rate of the area without
construction of the canal (Figure 85), it becomes evident that magnitude of growth as a result of
the canal is very small. Brazosport is a populous, diverse, metropolitan area which has experienced
substantial growth for the last thirty years. In fact, it should be noted again that in 1970, 33.9
percent of the county's population had moved into the county since 1960 (U.S. Census). Thus, the
residents of Brazosport are used to the introduction of new residents who have diverse lifestyles
into the area. In fact, many of them came to the area in the recent years because of its economic
development. Their local governments are accustomed to dealing with the problems that result from
population increases. Perhaps most important, the attitude of those persons who were interviewed
during a visit to the community was overwhelmingly in support of further growth. in Applebaum's
terms, future growth seems to be important in maintaining the present system. In this sense, the
community is geared to absorb future growth.

The actual social impacts associated with the construction of the canal are few. The specific
planning issues identified previously could certainly produce negative impacts on the lives of resi-
dents if planning did not occur. However, as noted previously, the majority of these can not be tied
directly to the canal but rather would result from the general growth rate of the area. Certainly,
however, the canal construction may heighten the potential for problems in terms of these issues.

if local governmental agencies are to extend services to new residents, they may require
outside financial assistance. The determination of local fiscal deficits was calculated to delineate
maximum impact, as described in the Economic Impact Analysis. As previously noted, the larger
cities in the area (such as Freeport and Lake Jackson) may spend substantially less per capita on
services. Thus, they may experience significantly lower infrastructural costs and lower deficits.
Existing residents may experience relative declines of service levels if their governments cannot
afford to proportionately increase services.

New residents would require housing which would further increase the projected housing
shortage. The effect on the current residents would probably be to raise housing costs slightly. As
the housing shortage increases, residents and local governments should carefully consider the possi-
bility of this shortage producing substandard housing, As noted earlier, many new residents may
choose to rent housing or reside in mobile homes. The potential flooding and sewer problems
sometimes associated with mobile home developments must be considered.

As stated in the Environmental Impact Analysis the construction of the canal would result
in changes in land use. Fluvial woodland habitat as a potential residential development area would
markedly be reduced. Agricultural and grazing land would be reduced in extent. The Brazosport
region's industrial land use acreage would increase from 1.15 percent to 4.7 percent of the total area
and from 30 percent to 64 percent of the developed area. Agricultural land and potentially residen-
tial land would be used for industrial development. The result will be a general increase in land
prices in the area. This will lead to an increased valuation of residential land and thus, an increase in
taxes for land land owners.

Given the small number of new residents associated with the construction of the canal, it is
unlikely that residents will experience any significant shortage of medical or educational facilities in
the area. Business may experience an increase in the number of clients they serve, particularly those
such as restaurants and stores that are located near the construction site.

202

Since construction of the canal will probably require certain types of local construction
employees, the unemployment rate in the area should decrease somewhat. However, the canal
construction will promote little indirect employment. While employment opportunities may in-
crease, prices of goods and land may also increase thereby affecting the resident's buying power.

The potential transportation problems may create some anxiety among area residents. Resi-
dents are accustomed to shopping and working throughout the area and their major means of
transportation is private automobile. The result of population increases will mean additional traffic
and longer commuting times. A proposed public transportation system may alleviate this potential
problem. There are additional solutions such as construction of freeways and establishment of
staggered working shifts.

Given the diversity of the Brazosport residents, it is difficult to postulate any negative
impact on the traditional values of residents due to introduction of new residents as a result of canal
construction. Additionally, no measureable increase in crime should result from canal construction.

Aesthetically, the loss of agricultural and woodland habitat may negatively impact residents
in the area. This is especially true in the Jones Creek area, as will be discussed further. in the
Brazosport area as a whole, the loss of agricultural and grazing land will impair migratory waterfowl
management and hunting. To the extent that marsh habitat quality is reduced, sports fishing and
shellfish harvest may be impaired, thus affecting the tourism and commercial fishing industries.
Local residents may feel the loss of this land to industrial development and the impaired sports
fishing to be negative, aesthetic impacts.

Jones Creek. Due to its close proximity to the proposed canal site, the municipality of Jones
Creek may be negatively impacted in a number of ways. Jones Creek is a small town and quieter in
nature than the more populous Clute-Lake Jackson-Freeport area. There are few commercial enter-
prises and these are mainly located along Highway 36. Residents probably value the relative isola-
tion and quiet nature of their town. The canal would certainly disrupt this pattern. Noise, traffic,
and the number of residents would probably increase.

The conversion of agricultural land and woodland to industrial use will certainly affect the
character of the surrounding area. Although presently many of the residents on the north side of
Jones Creek can view Dow Chemical from their homes, the conversion of nearby land to an
industrial plant may negatively impact the aesthetic values of some residents.

While it is doubtful all of the new residents associated with canal construction will locate in
the area, a number may choose to live near the actual construction area. This may increase the
number of mobile homes in the town and deplete the supply of available housing. During a visit to
Jones Creek, a number of houses for sale were located, but there are few multiple family units and
no large apartment complexes.

The construction of the postulated canal might require relocation of a number of families
who now reside on the north side of the town. While relocation due to industrial development has
occurred in the Brazosport area, the relocation of Jones Creek residents is definitely a negative
impact on the lives of these people.

In the event that the proposed canal construction was actually undertaken, close discussion
and cooperation with Jones Creek residents and officials should be encouraged. It is their com-
munity which would be most negatively impacted by the project and they should be included in the
decision-making process, as should residents and officials throughout the Brazosport area.

203

Social and Infrastructural Impact Analysis References

Applebaum, R. P. 1970 Theories in Social Change. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co.

Brazosport Chamber of Commerce. 1976. Brazosport. Chamber of Commerce Brochure.

Carnes, S. and P. Friesma. 1975. Urbanization and Northern Great Plains, Evanston, Ill.: Center for
Urban Affairs, Northwestern University.

Parson, T. 1966. Societies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc,

Research and Planning Consultants, Inc, 1977. Offshort Oil: Its Impact on Texas Communities.
Prepared for Texas Coastal Management Program. General Land Office of Texas. Austin,
Texas.

Shields, M. A. 1975. "Social Impact Studies: An Expository Analysis." Environment and Behavior.
Vol. 7, No. 3. New York: Sage Publications, Inc., September 1975. pp. 265-284.

State Department of Highways and Public Transportation. Personal communication. June 3, 1977.

Texas Education Agency. 1976. 1973-1974 Annual Enrollment Figures. Austin, Texas.

University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Business Research. 1976. Atlas of Texas,

University of Texas. 1973. Population Projections for Texas Counties: 1980-2020. Austin, Texas:
Population Research Center.

Vlachos, W. B., W. J. Filstead, S. E. Jacobs, M. Marunjamna, J. H. Peterson, Jr., and G. Willcke. 1975.
Social Impact Assessment: An Overview. A report submitted to the U.S. Army Engineer
Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Wallace, A. 1970. Culture and Personality, New York: Random House, 2nd edition.

Wolf, C. P , editor. 1974. Social Impact Assessment. Milwaukee: Environmental Design Research
Association, Inc.

IMPACTS OF INDUSTRIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT
AND OPERATION

The purpose of this study is to examine the feasibility of industrial development along an
inland canal vis-a-vis traditional waterfront development. The primary differences in impacts
between the two types of development occur during the canal construction and industrial site
preparation phases. The economic, environmental, and social impacts associated with these activities
were discussed in detail in the previous section.

The residents of the State of Texas, Brazoria County, and the Brazosport area will also be
affected by the construction and operation of the industries which locate in the study site. These
impacts, however, would be expected to be similar whether the industries located along an inland
canal or in a traditional waterfront development. Because the focus of this study is on identification
and analysis of effects unique to development along an inland canal rather than of the general
impacts of refinery and petrochemical construction and operation, this section identifies only major
impact "issues" associated with the industrial site development and operation.

204

Economic Impact Issues

Refinery
Capital investment requirements for a new refinery range from about $1,500 to $3,000 per
barrel per day of installed capacity, depending to a large extent on the area in which a refinery is
built and on its complexity (New England River Basins Commission, 1976). Assuming a capital cost
per daily barrel of $2,500 (Bankers Trust Company, 1976), the capital investment in the 240,000
B/D refinery would equal $625 million.

Direct income generated in the state by construction of the refinery is estimated by consid-
ering the distribution of refinery construction costs along the Gulf Coast and by applying this
distribution to the estimated capital investment requirement. The results of this comparison are
shown on Figure 88. Estimated labor costs and thus direct personal income is about $140.6 million.
Indirect personal income can be derived through the use of the income multiplier from the State of
Texas I/O Model (1972 1-0 Model, Draft Version, 3-16-77). For the Industrial Construction sector
(Sector 24), $27,183 in total income is generated per dollar of direct income. Thus, total income
generated in the state as a result of the refinery construction is about $382.2 million; of this,
$140.6 million is indirect income.

Figure 88
Distribution of Refinery Construction Costs

Estimated
Percent of Cost of
Construction Costs Postulated
for a Gulf Coast Refinery2
Components Refinery1 ($ Million)
Labor 22.5% 140.6
Materials & Equipment 40.5% 253.1
Contractor Costs 25.9% 161.9
Engineering & Design 11.1% 69.4
TOTAL 100.0% $625.0
1. Oil and Gas Journal, August 20, 1973.
2. Derived by applying cost distribution to the refinery estimated cost
of $625 million.

The total number of direct construction employees for such a project can vary from 1800 to
2200 (New England River Basins Commission, 1976). As with indirect income, indirect employ-
ment can be calculated through the use of employment multipliers from the state I/O Model (Texas
1972 Employment Multipliers, Draft Version, June 7, 1977). In the Industrial Construction Sector,
1.8 indirect employees per direct employee per year are required. Thus, between 3240 and 3960
indirect employees will be required in the state.

About one year for design and three years for construction may be required to build the
refinery (New England River Basins Commission, 1976). Consequently, the employment and in-
come effects will be spread out over the time span. The effects are also estimated for the entire
state; the distribution of these impacts within the state and within Brazoria County will depend on
such factors as location of contracting firms, their expenditure patterns, the percentages of workers
which will be residents, commuters and new residents and where the workers reside. While no
attempt was made to allocate these effects to specific locations, in general these relationships exist:

205

1. Local firms tend to hire more employees locally than nonlocal firms. 'The construction of
the refinery by nonlocal firms or a local shortage of specific construction skills would
imply an influx of workers into the area and fewer direct employees drawn from the
local lalbor pool.

2. Somec of these nonlocal construction workers will relocate with their families, thus
temporarily increasing the receiving area's population, school enrollment, housing and
deniand for social goods and services.

3. 'lax revenue will accrue to those units of government in which the physical plant of the
contracting firms are located and in which construction-related expenditures, including
wages, are illade.

In ('Chapter Ill-A, a direct employment requirement for refinery operation was postulated to
b c equal to 870. T'lhe indirect employment required can be calculated through the application of an
employnlcent multiplier from the state I/() model. For the Petroleum Refining Sector (Sector 63),
Ipproxinmaltcly 9.7 indirect employees would be required per direct employee per year. Thus,
indirect employment required in the state as a result of refinery operation is postulated to be about
8440.

Annual employee compensation in the U.S. refining industry averaged $22,326 per full-time
eqtluivalent employee in 1975 (U.S. l)epartment of Commerce, 1976). This includes supplements to
incolec such as employee contributions to social security and pension health funds as well as wages
and salaries. Multiplying average employee compensation by direct employment gives estimated
direct personal income per year in excess of $19.4 million.

Indirect personal income can be calculated for this sector by applying its indirect income
multiplier, equal to $9.9803 per dollar of direct income per year to the direct income estimate.
Indirect income is thus estimated to be approximately $193.6 million. Thus, total personal income
generated in 'Texas through operation of the refinery equals about $213 million per year.

These impacts are determined for the State of Texas as a whole, while it is expected that the
majority of the economic impact of the refinery operation will be felt by the Brazosport area and
Brazoria County, the actual allocation of the effects within the state and county will depend in part
upon the expenditure patterns of the firms, its employees, and the origin-of-employment.

Petrochemical Complex
The economic impacts of construction and operation of the petrochemical complex can be
estimated by employing the process used in assessing refinery impacts. The investment cost of such
a complex is expected to exceed $600 million (Seadock, p. 6.3.20). Assuming the same distribution
of construction costs as for refineries, about 22.5 percent of the investment cost of $135 million,
would be received as direct personal income by the construction sector.

Because the investment cost of the petrochemical complex is approximately the same as
that of the petroleum refinery, it seems reasonable that the construction impacts will be similar. As
with refinery construction, the distribution of the impacts throughout Texas will depend upon the
expenditure and employment patterns of the contracting firms.

Direct employment in the petrochemical complex was estimated in Chapter III-A to be
1930. Application of the indirect employment coefficient from the state I/O Model for the Organic
Chemical Sector (Sector 54), equal to 4.9 indirect employees per direct employee per year, gives
annual indirect employment requirements of about 9460.

Average annual employee compensation in the U.S. in the chemical industry equalled

206

$16,909 in 1975 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1976). Thus, direct income will be about $32.6
million per year, assuming direct employment of 1930. The indirect income multiplier for Sector 54
equals $4.1793 per dollar of direct income per year. As a result, annual indirect income generated in
the state is estimated to be equal to $1 36.2 million. Total personal income, generated through the
operation of the sum of direct and indirect income, is postulated to be approximately $168.8
million. As with refinery operation, the allocation of these impacts on Texas will be determined in
part by actual expenditures and employment patterns.

Estimated employment requirements and personal income generated in the state as a result
of the construction and operation of the refinery's petrochemical complex are summarized in
Figure 89. While no attempt was made to distribute these impacts within the state and Brazoria
County, these observations may be made concerning possible economic impacts on the Brazosport
area in particular and the county in general:

1. The unemployment rate in Brazoria County in April, 1977, was 4.5 percent, indicating
an economy which is approaching the full-employment level. During the construction
phases, heavy reliance on non-local contracting firms and a shortage of workers in the
local labor pool would most likely be reflected in a combination of increased commuter
traffic and a temporary influx of new resident workers and their families. During the
operation phase also, an increase in new resident employment and commuters can be
reasonably expected. The actual employment pattern, of course, will depend upon such
factors as the availability of local labor and adequate housing.

2. New resident employment, whether it is for the duration of the construction project or
associated with the operation phases, implies increased population, student enrollment,

Figure 89
Summary of Annual Economic Impacts,
Refinery & Petrochemical Complex
Operation & Construction'1

Impact Construction Operation
Refinery:
Employment 5040-6160 9,310
Direct 1800-2200 870
Indirect 3240-3960 8,440
Personal Income ($ Million) $382.6 213.0
Direct 140.6 19.4
Indirect 241.6 193.6

Petrochemical Complex
Employment 11,390
Direct 1800-2200 1,930
Indirect 3240-3960 9,460
Personal Income $367.0 $1 68.8
Direct 135.0 32.6
Indirect 232.0 136.2
1. These impacts are for the State of Texas as a whole. Allocation of
these impacts within the state and within Brazoria County will de-
pend upon expenditures and employment patterns. Because of its
proximity to the study site, many of the impacts are expected to
be experienced by Brazoria County in general and the Brazosport
area in particular.

207

and demand for housing and social goods and services in the area in which the new
residents locate. In the Brazosport area, housing appears to be the most critical issue,
with current occupancy of rental units approaching 100 percent.

3. Direct and indirect tax revenue will accrue to the State of Texas and to local units of
government. The Brazosport area in particular should experience an increase in tax
revenue as property taxes are paid on the study site. These tax revenues will be offset by
the increased infrastructural costs resulting from demands on social services by the new
resident population. Consequently, governmental units will experience surpluses or
deficits to the extent to which taxes received exceed or are less than the increased
infrastructural costs.

Environmental Impact Issues

The activities of Phase 3, industrial site development and operation, which may involve
important environmental impact issues include industrial plant (petrochemical and refinery) con-
struction, groundwater and surface water use, and industrial waste generation and disposal.

Industrial Plant Construction
As with Phase 2 utility facility construction, there would generally be little additional
ecological impact due to refinery or petrochemical plant construction. The construction activities
would occur within an already modified industrial site environment which by design, includes
various controls on site runoff and pollution of local watercourses. Air quality impacts would occur
from vehicle and construction equipment exhaust, but would probably be of low magnitude
because of the small amount of loadings and the good atmospheric mixing characteristics. it is
possible that construction noise would be noticed by the community of Jones Creek.

There would be a substantial change in land-use patterns in the Brazosport area with the
construction and operation of industries along the inland canal. At the present time (1975 data) 55
percent of the developed land area is residential and 29 percent is industrial. With complete develop-
ment of the inland canal site, industrial acreage would increase to 62 percent of developed area and
the proportion of residential acreage would decrease to 29 percent. Industrial land use would
increase by 3.5 percent to 4.7 percent of total acreage in the study area (see Chapter Il-B-5 for
census tract data).

Water Withdrawal
The expected groundwater withdrawal rate would be 9 mngd. (million gallons per day). The
industrial groundwater demand represents a 20 percent increase over the current (I1974) withdrawal
rate in Brazoria County of 35 mgd (39,300 acre-feet/year). However, the industrial groundwater
well field would be concentrated in one area of the county, as many areas are already fully
developed or overdrawn, and as the cost of water supply mains is minimized by having one or two
trunk lines serving a smaller area. Therefore, locally the percent increase of water withdrawal would
be much greater than 20 percent.

The most likely area for groundwater development, based on aquifer (Evangeline and lower
Chicot units of the Gulf Coast Aquifer) sand thickness and dependable yield is in the area north of a
line connecting Harris Reservoir, Angleton, and Liverpool. Areas to the northeast of Rosharon and
north of Liverpool have subsided at least 0.5 feet (between 1943 and 1964); to the north of Manvel
subsidence has been greater than I foot (Gabrysch, 1967). It is probable that subsidence in this area
is more influenced by the core of depression under Houston-area groundwater withdrawal than by
local withdrawals. There are, in that area, numerous surface tracings and other evidence of subsur-
face faults.

Therefore, groundwater development as part of Phase 3 must be considered in light of the
probability of accentuating subsidence and of activating differential movement along the subsurface

208

faults, which may be translated to the surface as fault scarps with concomitant structural damage. A
more complete discussion of the interrelation between groundwater withdrawal, subsidence, and
surface faulting may be found in Chapter 11-B-2.

Surface water requirements would include 13 mgd for process water and 110 mngd for
cooling water. The project's surface water system assumed that process water demand would be met
by a diversion from the Brazos River at Brazoria, above tidal influence. Cooling water demand
would be met by intake of harbor water. There would be two water resource recirculation paths.
First, treated wastewater (approximately 90 percent of process water input) would be used to
supplement surface and groundwater sources in meeting total water demand. Second, some and
possibly all of the treated wastewater would be discharged into the harbor, where it would be
available as cooling water. Once-through cooling water would be discharged to the Brazos River as
the project's water system output.

The major impact of the project's surface water use is in reducing available remaining Brazos
River water. The 1 3 mgd (I15,000 acre-feet per year) demand represents all current, unsold yield of
the river in its coastal segment. Future industrial expansion in the area requiring surface water
would have to purchase existing water rights. This impact is not limited to Brazoria County because
Brazos River water is allotted under a statewide planning program. This impact would be less
important if a proposed reservoir on the Navasota Tributary is completed.

Withdrawal of water from the Brazos River may possibly allow greater tidal salinity influ-
ence in the river below Brazoria. However, the water diversion is only about 0.3 percent of average
daily Brazos River flow. This possible impact would be exacerbated by the discharge of saline
cooling water to the river at the Highway 36 bridge. Further discussion of altered river salinity
appears in the next section on waste generation and disposal.

Waste Generation and Disposal
The magnitude of environmental waste loadings from the refinery/petrochemical complex
would depend upon chemical characteristics of the crude oil and chemical feedstock, plant design
and complexity, the type of pollution control equipment installed, and discharge and emission
standards (New England River Basin Commission, 1976). Figure 90 presents expected daily levels of
air emissions, wastewater, and solid waste generation for a typical 250,000 barrel per day refinery

Figure 90
Typical Environmental Loadings Associated With
a 250,000 BB LS/D Refinery/Petrochemical Complex

Air Emissions (pounds per day)
particulates S 02 co N0X HG
24,480 107,440 7,260 55,810 112,330

Wastewater Loadings (pounds per day-30 day average)
BOD TSS COD Ammonia (N)
285 285 1550 348

Solid Wastes (pounds per day)
25,000
Source: New England River Basins Commission, 1976. Onshore Facilities Related to
Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Factbook. Boston, Massachusetts: New
England River Basins Commission.

209

associated in design with a petrochemical complex. Air emissions data assume present technology,
wastewater loadings assume advanced or tertiary, treatment under best available technology eco-
nomically achievable (BATEA), and solid waste generation assumes a distribution of 10 percent
trash and garbage, 15 percent spent catalysts, and 75 percent incinerator (combustion of biological
and oily sludges) ash.

Ambient particulate and photochemical oxidant levels are current air quality problems in
the Brazosport area (see Chapter II-B-1). The refinery/petrochemical complex could possibly in-
crease industrial point-source gaseous loadings to the atmosphere by as much as 22 percent. Particu-
late loadings could be increased by as much as 74 percent. Air emissions would therefore clearly be
an impact.

Air quality is currently an important impact issue in the Brazosport area as well as through-
out the whole Texas coastal zone, classified by EPA as a Class II non-degradation area. Industries in
the Brazosport area are currently following a voluntary offset policy. The increased loadings asso-
ciated with the inland canal industrial operation could make governmental enforcement a greater
necessity. Furthermore, by increasing the net air quality problem, the inland canal industries would
indirectly affect future expansion plans of existing industry, as well as of new locating industries.

As previously mentioned in the description of the industrial plant circulation of surface
water, process wastewater would be discharged into the inland canal harbor after advanced treat-
ment (between secondary and tertiary levels). The wastewater loadings should not tend to be
concentrated in the harbor, as cooling water would be withdrawn from the harbor and discharged
into the Brazos River after use. The impacts of both process wastewater and cooling water would be
located in the receiving area of the Brazos River rather than in the GIWW or inland channel.

In the period of September, 1972 to August, 1973, 22 industrial sources and one electrical
generation plant source discharged approximately 3854.4 mgd with 14,809 lb./day BOD into the
tidal segment of the Brazos River. Water quality is good with possibly low dissolved oxygen levels
under low river flow conditions. At the discharge station, river bottom (in saline wedges) salinity
varies from 6 ppt in winter to 25.5 ppt in the spring to 15.4 ppt in the summer to 12.5 ppt in the
fall. River bottom temperature varies from 12.20C (540F) in winter to 33.90C (930 F) in summer.
The salinity of the discharge might be comparable to the GIWW, which is the source of harbor water
withdrawn for cooling, assuming that process dilution and concentration factors cancel. GIWW
salinity varies from 7.6 ppt in winter to 2.3 ppt in the spring to 22.9 ppt in summer and to about 12
ppt in the fall.

Process wastewater loadings may possibly not pose significant impacts on Brazos River
quality. However, this possibility should be investigated in much greater depth. The discharge may
tend to increase river water salinity in the winter and summer, slightly decrease in the spring, and
might result in little change in the fall. The impact of increasing salinity through the discharge may
be exacerbated by decreasing net flow at the upstream diversion. Temperature effects of the
discharge water would depend upon the heat content of the discharged cooling water, which would
have approached river temperature while in the on-site holding ponds. The discharge may tend to
moderate the annual temperature range of the tidal river segment. Finally, possibly impacts on river
channel flora and fauna resulting from potential water quality, salinity, and temperature alterations
should be considered as an issue, but are not discussed further in this analysis because of the
uncertainty of the extent of physical/chemical impacts.

The primary environmental impact of solid waste generation would be in consuming land
acreage for sanitary landfill operations. In the long term such filled sites could be returned to other
use. With suitable choice of location for the landfill operation (see Figure 14) and sound environ-
mental management of the site, impacts of solid waste disposal may be minimized.

210

Social and Infrastructural Impact Issues

This section presents a general discussion of the possible infrastructural and social impacts
of industry facility construction and operation in the Brazosport area. it is important to emphasize
two points:

1. This study designated Brazosport as the hypothetical site for location of the develop-
ment. The location of the site elsewhere might change substantially the potential list of
social and infrastructural impacts.

2. A complete social impact assessment of site development and operation would require
extensive study. Questionnaire or on-site interviewing would be necessary to discover the
baseline attitudes of local residents. Additionally, longitudinal assessments of change and
formative evaluations should be conducted.

In this particular area, the social impacts of inland canal associated industrial facility con-
struction and operation should parallel those that would be experienced given a more traditional
form of development. In both cases, the number of new resident employees should be approxi-
mately the same. It is estimated that the industrial facility operation would require 1800-2200
direct employees and 3240-3960 indirect employees. These employment figures relate to the state
as a whole, and the actual number of local new residents cannot be predicted. Given the low
unemployment rate in the area, it could be assumed that a significant number of new residents
would move to the area.

Certain of the specific planning issues discussed in the Social and Infrastructural Impact
Analysis would be critical with a significant population increase. These include: local fiscal deficits,
housing, medical facilities, education facilities, and transportation. in addition, air and water quality
may be negatively affected.

The hypothetical site location lies outside the incorporated limits of any municipality and
therefore is only in the county taxing jurisdiction. The possibility of municipal annexation of the
industrial development depends on (1) the need of the site for public utilities, and (2) the ability of
the municipality to timely extend services to the annexation. While local municipalities could not
directly tax the development without annexation, local government revenue would indirectly in-
crease through sales tax and various other personal property taxes. The disparity between the local
governments' revenue and deficits would determine the positive or negative impacts to their finan-
ces. Should local deficits occur, services to residents could be negatively affected.

While it is doubtful that negative impact on the lifestyles of Brazosport residents as a whole
would occur, the residents of Jones Creek may experience a substantial change in the quality of
their lives. Of course, this would probably hold true for persons living in residential areas near
industrial development regardless of the specific location. Brazosport, particularly the municipalities
of Freeport, Clute, and Lake Jackson, is a diverse metropolitan area. However, Jones Creek is
smaller and more isolated and residents may view nearby industrial development as destructive to
their private lives. Residents of Jones Creek appear to enjoy living in an area where larger tracts of
residential land can be acquired. The land near the canal may increase in value to the point where
continued residential use becomes impractical. Areas that remain residential may experience in-
creased noise and traffic.

Nearby industrial development could also effect the web of social relations in the Jones
Creek area. Community cohesion could be disrupted. However, it seems likely that the lifestyles of
residents of Jones Creek resemble those of the residents of Freeport, Lake Jackson, and Clute, and
that the important social networks of Jones Creek extend across the municipal boundaries. Resi-
dents in these more populated areas seem to welcome industrial development rather than viewing it

211

as negative or disruptive. Thus, the major impacts of the operation of the canal may be socio-eco-
logical; in other words, changes in living environment as opposed to socio-economic. However, only
in-depth research would validate this hypothesis.

Impacts of Site Development and Operation References

Bankers Trust Company. 1976. Capital Resources for Energy Through the Year 1990. Prepared by
the Energy Group Bankers Trust Company, New York.

Gabrysch, R. K. 1967. Development of Ground-water in the Houston District, 1961-1965. Texas
Water Development Board, Report 63.

New England River Basins Commission. 1976. Onshore Facilities Related to Offshore Oil and Gas
Development Facthook. Boston, Massachusetts: New England River Basins Commission.

Oil and Gas Journal. August 20, 1973. Petroleum Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Seadock, Inc. 1974. Environmental Report Summary. 3 vols. Texas Offshore Crude Oil Unloading
Facility.

Texas Water Development Board. March 16, 1977. 1972 1-0 Model, Draft Version, Computer
Printout.

Texas Water Development Board. June 7, 1977. Texas 1972 Employment Multipliers. Draft
Version, Computer Printout.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1976. Survey of Current Business, July 1976.

212

V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE
INLAND CANAL CONCEPT

The diverse navigation developments on the Texas coast provide a range of alternatives to
the inland canal concept. This section presents a comparative analysis of the construction proce-
dures, activities, resource area locations, and impacts of general traditional navigation developments
and of the inland canal concept as previously evaluated in the report.

The comparative analysis assumes that the differences, rather than the similarities, between
the site preparation and navigation construction approaches are important. In the following sec-
tions, the differing activities and resource area locations of traditional navigations (see Chapter I)
are used to isolate the differing impacts of the traditional versus inland canal approaches. Finally,
the differing impacts are evaluated in terms of the relative advantages or disadvantages inherent in
the inland canal concept.

The major differences in impacts which has been identified is that the inland canal approach
affects upland habitat loss and disruption, whereas traditional approaches generally affect wetland
habitat loss and disruption. Additionally, the inland canal approach requires lower volume and
frequency of maintenance dredging, and therefore poses few problems of dredge materials disposal.

The state of scientific resource assessment is such that it is not presently possible to state
whether the habitat and resource area loss under the inland canal approach is more or less important
than that loss under traditional industrial navigation. However, this study's evaluation does demon-
strate that the inland canal approach minimizes the impacts on wetlands which are typical of
traditional navigation approaches.

Impacts Typically Associated with Navigation Projects

The principal categories of environmental impact associated with typical navigation/indus-
trial site projects include habitat loss and alteration of channel hydraulic characteristics. There are
many impacts of typical project activities within each of these categories. The details of such
impacts vary, of course, with the particular location and design of the navigation channel and
industry site components of the typical project complex. The purpose of this section is to sum-
marize the major features of each of these two categories.

Wildlife habitat and vegetative stands are removed or disturbed along channel margins where
bank clearing and stream widening are required. Benthic floral and faunal properties are removed
with dredged deepening of a natural channel. The particular biologic impacts differ depending on
whether the navigation project follows a wetland drainage course, tidal bayou, or major river. The
characteristics of water movement, chemical constituents, and natural channel geometry in large
part determine the presence and abundance of plant and animal species in and along the natural
channels and differ with the various types of channels.

The land areas between stream or river meanders are either marsh (fresh to brackish depend-
ing on the relative influence of upland versus tidal inflow), swamp-timber, low-lying fluvial wood-
lands, or prairie grassland. Channelized straightening of the water course would cut through some of
these resource areas, and certain habitat belt losses occur. Habitat between the meander loop and
the dredged channel is isolated.

Dredging temporarily increases turbidity and sedimentation in the channel, In the long-term,
there will be increased turbidity and sedimentation from accelerated bank erosion, industrial site
earthwork activities, and from spoil disposal areas until vegetative stabilization occurs. The impact
of this increased turbidity is felt by the flora and fauna of the estuary receiving inflow from the
dredged stream.

213

Spoil disposal also results in direct and indirect habitat alteration. Spoil sites adjacent to the
channel remove the vegetative communities found there. The recolonizing vegetation usually differ
from previous assemblages, because of the elevation, drainage, and wetness characteristics of the
spoil mounds. It is probable that many consumer species change at and near the sites in association
with the changed vegetation. There is therefore a possible increase in community diversity in the
local area.

The industrial site development represents the largest contiguous area of habitat loss. The
area of influence of the industrial site, however, extends beyond the confined limits of its levees.
Industrial developments on large land tracts may alter or destroy small drainage channels feeding
nearby marshes. The sites also change the distribution of rainfall to groundwater, channels, and
sheetflow. Vegetative communities adjacent to the site are affected to the extent that surface water
characteristics, nutrient availability, and substrate wetness are altered.

The major hydrologic impact of navigation projects traditionally located in coastal water-
sheds is in channeling stream flow. Flow velocity may be increased by mechanical stabilization of
channel banks, bulkheading, removal of channel bottom irregularities, and straightening of the
channel. Increased erosion along the channelized stretch and increased sedimentation downstream
are common results. Maintenance dredging is often more frequent in the downstream section.
Sedimentation can affect channel bottom inhabitants. Channelizing flow also tends to reduce water
exchange between the channel and adjacent resources areas, especially marshes and river bottom-
land swamps. The reduction of water exchange is felt through long-term declines in substrate
wetness and a decrease in nutrient supply, and possibly through altered salinity in the channel.

Impacts Differing Between Traditional and
Inland Canal Concepts

Three points should be made concerning an assessment of differences between the two
navigation/individual site concepts. First, it is obvious that a generalized summary of traditional
projects would not address project specific design components and therefore may only identify the
major impact issues which are typical of the traditional projects. Second, it is reasonable to general-
ize some project design components and impacts which were related to site-specific environmental
concerns in this study's inland canal "test example." Third, the comparison of impact differences
between the traditional and inland canal concepts is based on unmitigated conditions. There are,
however, many feasible and effective adjustments which would lessen a set of impacts within either
approach. Many of these adjustments would pertain to site specific environmental problems.

Intrinsic impact issues associated with both traditional and inland canal projects are habitat
loss and alteration, and alteration of natural drainage patterns. The differences between the impacts
of the two types of navigation projects derive from the essential differences in location of project
activities in respect to resource areas.

Channel dredging habitat loss in traditional projects involves tidal bayou, rivers, and coastal
wetlands and lakes. Channel dredging habitat loss in the inland canal project involves upland
resource aress, such as prairie grassland. Excess dredge spoil in traditional projects is often disposed
of in wetlands. The excess spoil in an inland canal project would be placed adjacent to the channel
in upland ecosystem settings. Industrial sites may be located in either reclaimed marshland, in bay
margin, or in upland environments under the traditional approaches. The inland canal approach, in
its first step of corridor selection, locates a suitable upland area for industrial site development.

Traditional navigation/industrial site projects, by definition, disrupt bottomland or tidal
stream drainage channels and associated water flow characteristics in adjacent low-lying areas. The
inland canal is designed to cut a new navigation route across upland areas, intentionally avoiding
natural drainage courses. Alteration of Redfish Bayou hydrodynamics in this inland canal "test
case" may be assumed to be a unique impact of that site location. The possibility of increased river
flooding problems in the "test case" is also a site-specific problem.

214

There are other environmental aspects which may differ between the two approaches. The
inland canal industrial site development, by locating in upland areas to preferentially avoid wet-
lands, also may be less prone to hurricane surge flooding than would be an industrial site with
traditional navigation access. The inland canal industrial site would require less extensive levee
systems, especially as part of the channel excavation is used to raise site area elevation. In addition,
an inland canal has lower maintenance dredging requirements than traditional navigation projects, as
the former is located along upland drainage divides, rather than within a watershed.

There may be generalizable socioeconomic impact differences between the two industrial
navigation approaches. It should be noted, however, that few formal sociological assessments of
traditional industrial navigation projects, have been conducted, and therefore, there is little informa-
tion for a socioeconomic impact comparison. The differences discussed here are deductive interpre-
tations.

Socioeconomic impacts are largely a function of industrial site location, relative to city and
county regulatory jurisdiction. The generalized location of traditional industrial navigation develop-
ments is along coastal waterways in or near already urbanized and industrial zones. It is possible
that inland canal industrial development, by locating via upland route access, would generally tend
to develop in a more rural setting. To the extent that this generalized urban-rural distinction is valid,
several socioeconomic issues may be raised.

The inland canal industrial complex, by occurring in a rural setting, may be outside of the
taxing jurisdiction of the cities in which the construction and operation workers reside. The workers
demand public services of those cities, which in turn do not receive tax dollars from the industrial
site. Fiscal deficits and decreases in the quality of available public services would possibly be more
frequent impacts of the inland canal development than of traditional developments.

An inland canal industrial complex in a rural setting may result in different land price and
land use pattern impacts than would traditional urban-associated, industrial navigation projects. The
escalation of land value assessment of adjoining rural land may be more abrupt when a "'new"~
(industrial) land use pattern develops than it would if the adjoining area were already industrially
influenced.

As traditional industrial navigation projects have developed on coastal bay margins, marshes,
and bayous, such projects likely have had greater impacts on existing recreational opportunities
than would an inland canal with an upland route. Both approaches tend to diverify recreational
opportunities, to the extent that water based recreation in the channels is feasible and allowed.

In summary to this point, the major differences between the traditional and inland canal
industrial navigation projects derive from differences in environmental location of each respective
project type. The ecological impacts of traditional approaches may be generalized as upland-asso-
ciated. Differences in socioeconomic impacts, to the extent to which they occur, may be a function
of rural versus urban land characters. However, there would be many exceptions to a generalization
that the inland canal tends to rural areas, and traditional projects tend to urban areas.

Evaluation of the Differing Impacts

Given that the important essential differences between the traditional and inland canal
industrial navigation approaches are a function of ecosystem location, the evaluation of the dif-
fering impacts depends upon recognizing ecological and human use values which are intrinsic to the
different ecological areas affected by the two alternative approaches. This necessary value compari-
son forms a test of the specific inland canal postulation of this study. The value comparison should
show that the environmental constraints on the project design and location were correct and
appropriate.

215

Numerous attempts have recently been made to not only measure the absolute value of
various types of wetland and upland ecological systems, but also to compare relative ultimate
human use values between wetland and upland types. Such studies include: Schmedeman, Ronnau,
and Wooten, 1974; Pope and Gosselink, 1973; Odum and Skjei, 1974; and Odum and Odum, 1972.

The various aspects taken into consideration in these investigations are biological produc-
tivity, agricultural efficiency of energy conversion, sport fishing and hunting, marine commercial
fisheries dependence on wetlands, and land value of development (industrial, residential) replacing
natural environments.

An important conclusion of the research is that wetlands, including marshes, grassflats, bay
bottoms, island bird rookeries, and estuaries, have a high ecological value. Recognition of this value
has resulted in the development of policy in regulatory agencies to protect and maintain wetlands to
the extent feasible.

However, such investigations have not been able to demonstrate the relative value of wet-
lands as opposed to uplands, in large part because of the multiplicity of conflicting ultimate uses of
each area. Therefore, it is not possible to make a reasonable statement of whether the upland inland
canal approach or traditional wetland approach present the more important impacts because of
inherent locational differences.

The environmental constraints developed in Chapter II-B-1 were developed on the assump-
tion that an effective alternative to traditional industrial navigation projects should avoid the
impacts which are typical of such projects. This section's evaluation of the differences in impacts
has shown that the postulated inland canal "test case" succeeds in minimizing the environmental
impacts representative of traditional projects.

Alternatives to the Inland Canal Concept References

Odum, E. P. and H. T. Odum. 1972. "Natural Areas as Necessary Components of Man's Total
Environment." Thirty-Seventh North American Wildlife Conference. pp. 178-189.

Odum, W. E. and S. S. Skjei. 1974. "The Issue of Wetlands Preservation and Management: a Second
View." Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 151-163.

Pope, R. M. and J. G. Gosselink. 1973. "A Tool for Use in Making Land Management Decisions
Involving Tidal Marshland." Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1. pp. 65-74.

Schmedeman, I. W. R. M. Ronnau, and A. B. Wooten. 1974. "Dynamids of the Rural Land
Market." In: Texas Agricultural Progress. Vol. 20, No. 4. Texas A&M University. Agricultural
Experiment Station.

216

VI. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Additional Data Needs

Aspects of the inland canal conceptual design which should be further substantiated with
field data include:

1. The sensitivity of wetland systems to alteration of the upland surface drainage regime;

2. the extent to which sheetflow can be maintained or restored in releases from runoff
retention ponds;

3. the efficiency and maximum capability of a diversion system which carries strearnfiow
underneath the navigation channel;

4. the potential for saltwater intrusion into local shallow aquifers, particularly in a sandy
substrate;

5. compatibility of the conceptual design to the plans of state and federal agencies.

Deep Draft Channel

Additional research should investigate the feasibility of the inland canal concept for deep
draft facilities, The methodology utilized for design of the barge-draft channel would be applicable.
Principal variables include:

1. types of industries attracted to deep draft waterfront and their requirements;

2. the differing engineering parameters for a larger channel;

3. dockage, turning basin, and terminal facilities requirements;

4. the alternatives for access to the Gulf.

The deep draft alternative could be considered both as an expansion of a barge-draft facility as
described in this report and initially as a deep-draft facility.

Waterfront Terminal Facility

The inland canal concept should also be evaluated in the context of an associated public
terminal, rather than of an industrial complex as postulated in this study. In this context, the inland
canal would provide navigation access to a public terminal connected to industrial sites distributed
farther inland, primarily by pipeline but also by rail and highway.

217

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

THEORY OF INDUSTRY LOCATION ANALYSIS

The analysis of location decisions has occupied the attention of geographers, economists,
planners and others since the pioneering work by von Thunen (1826) on the most efficient organi-
zation of agricultural land. Further developments of the theory have been made by Weber (1928),
Hoover (1948), Isard (1956), Losch (1943), and Greenhut (1956, 1963). A summary of the evolu-
tion of the factors influencing the location of industry is presented below.

The factors influencing industrial location were first studied by Alfred Weber (1928). Weber
hypothesized that three factors influence the location decision of industry. Two of these factors,
transportation and labor costs, are factors characteristic of a region, while the third, agglomeration
or deglomeration, is a local factor.

The third factor described location in terms of economic advantage accruing from either
concentration or dispersal of industry and associated activities. The economic forces which influ-
ence this factor have been further described by Isard (1975) and Bary, Conkling, and Ray (1976) in
four categories.

1. Scale Economies: Economies in the internal production of a given facility as its scale of
operation increases.

2. Localization Economies: Economies accruing to several firms in a single industry at a
common location, due to utilization of common service facilities, raw materials purchase,
waste processing, and the like.

3. Urbanization Economies: Economics associated with the increases in the total size (in
terms of population, industrial output income and wealth) of a location for an aggregate
of industries, arising from such advantages as a broad-based labor supply, and diverse
facilities, services, and infrastructure.

4. Industrial Complex Economies: Economies arising when closely related productive pro-
cesses are linked together by materials and byproducts flows.

Edgar Hoover (1948), expanding on Weber's basic hypothesis that an industry will be guided
by location factors which minimize costs of production, explained industrial location in terms of
minimizing transfer costs as well as production costs. Transfer costs are those costs associated with
distance. Hoover suggests that the costs of procurement of raw materials and the cost of distribu-
tion of products to the ultimate user have a significant bearing on profitability and thus on industry
location. industries which are sensitive to these transfer costs can be classified as either raw mate-
rial- or market-oriented. Large and variable procurement costs in relation to total costs result in a
raw material-oriented industry. Market-oriented industries have large and variable output distribu-
tion costs.

A significant factor which is neglected by the many theories of industrial location is
demand. Consideration of this element suggests that the maximization of profit rather than the
minimization of cost actually dictates the firm's optimum location. Thus, location analysis involves
a comparison of not only the costs of production at a given location, but also the demand or
revenue factors. Greenhut (1956, p. 4) theorized that firms select a location which will maximize
the long run profit of the firm:

219

The theory of plant location is one segment of economic theory. It, too, rests on the
principle of substitution. The extent to which labor can be substituted for capital or
land and vice versa is basically the same problem as the selection of a plant site
among alternative locations. Both decisions attempt to maximize the ends. The
objective is accomplished when the same means are allocated among competing ends
in the optimum way.

Figure Al summarizes the major factors which Williamson (1977) has identified as influ-
encing the location of industrial plants. The relative importance of the factors to the location
decision is not the same for all industries, nor are these classifications mutually exclusive. The
requirements of many industries encompass more than one factor. For example, a firm may need a
location near its final consumer (market-orientation) as well as require a certain type of labor. Thus,
the location decision will likely involve a trade-off among a variety of factors. The importance an
industry places on these factors will depend on (1) the nature of the industry and the relative
quantities of its different inputs and outputs; and (2) the geographic variability of the price and
productivity of the different inputs and the prices of the outputs (Beckman, 1968).

Figure Al
Summary of Location Factors

I. Cost variations associated with
A. Transfer of inputs
1 . Materials
2. Fuels
3. Transferable services including information
B. Transfer of outputs
C. Local inputs
I1. Labor
2. Land (site, climate, and other land resources not readily transfer-
able)
3. Local government services
4. Local external economics of scale

11. Gross revenue variations

III. Personal factors (influences for factors, such as amenities, not already reflected
in the above cost and revenue variations)
Source: Robert B. Williamson, University of Texas Finance Department, "Location
Models For Use in Forecasting Regional and Urban Growth," unpublished
paper, 1977.

Kinnard and Messner (1971, pp. 53-55) suggest that, depending on the relative importance
of the above factors, industries can be characterized as: (1) market-oriented; (2) materials or
resources-oriented; (3) transportation-oriented; (4) labor-oriented, or (5) non-oriented or "foot-
loose" industries. The focus of this study, of course, is on industries which are transportation-
oriented, and specifically on those industries which place critical importance on the availability of
water transportation facilities.

The models postulated by location theorists have traditionally emphasized either minimizing
costs or maximizing revenues in determining an optimal location. More recent work has attempted
to integrate the two approaches into a generalized theory of location. Although existing models
may not be totally applicable to a specific real world case, they are sufficiently developed to
provide a theoretical framework within which the process of location decision-making and industrial
development can be described and analyzed.

220

Appendix A References

Barry, Brian L., Edgar C. Conkling, and D. Michael Ray. 1976. The Geography of Economic
Systems. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Beckman, Martin. 1968. Location Theory. New York: Random House.

Greenhut, Melvin. 1956. Plant Location in Theory and in Practice. Chapel Hill, North Carolina:
University of North Carolina Press.

Greenhut, Melvin. 1963. AMicroeconomics and the Space Economy. Chicago: Scott Foresman.

Hoover, Edgar M. 1948. The Location of Economic Activity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Isard, Walter. 1956. Location and Space Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

Isard, Walter. 1975. Introduction to Regional Science. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kinnard, William N., Jr. and Stephen D. Messner. 1971. Industrial Real Estate. 2nd ed. Washington,
D.C.: Society of Industrial Realtors.

Losch, August. 1966. The Economics of Location (translation of Die raumliche Ordnung der
Wirtschaft, 2nd ed., 1944). New Haven: John Wiley.

Thunen, Johann Heinrich, Von. 1966. (a reprint of 1826 edition) Der isolirte Staat in Beziehung auf
Nabonalokon onmie and Land wirtschaft. Stuttgart: Gustav Frischen.

Weber, Alfred. 1929. On the Location of Industries (translation of Uber den Standort der Industrie,
1909). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Williamson, Robert B. 1977. "Location models for use in forecasting regional and urban growth."
Austin, Texas: University of Texas Finance Department. Unpublished paper.

221

APPENDIX B

PETROLEUM REFINERIES AND PETROCHEMICAL PLANTS
LOCATED ON THE TEXAS GULF COAST

The Texas coastal area contains the largest concentration of petroleum refineries and petro-
chemical complexes of any state in the nation. Approximately 40 percent of the nation's petro-
chemical industries and 26 percent of the refining capacity are located in Texas coastal counties. in
1972, the total value of output from petroleum refineries along the coast amounted to $6.3 billion;
the output value was $4.6 billion for petrochemical plants. At the same time, the refineries em-
ployed nearly 32,000 workers, and the petrochemical complexes employed approximately 45,000.

Figure Ri
$ Million Output and Employment

Petro- Petroleum
Area chemical Emnp. Refineries Emp.
Beaumont-Port Arthur Area $ 908 9,433 $2,476 14,997
Houston-Galveston Area 3,289 30,338 3,294 1 5,257
Victoria Area 184 1,953 - -
Corpus Christi Area 202 2,708 522 1,371
Lower Rio Grande Valley 5 292 - -
Total $4,588 44,724 $6,292 31,625
Sources: 1972 Census of Manufacturers, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
Texas Employment Commission, Austin, Texas unpublished data.

If the total effect of these industries on the economy was measured, the impact would be
significantly higher. For example, the total income effect of these industries amounts to $16.3
billion for refining and $12.3 billion for petrochemicals. These industries not only employ many
workers and significantly contribute to the economy but they are also the most capital-intensive
industries in the coastal area. They also use more water in their processing than any other manufac-
turing industries along the coast.

While the petroleum refineries and petrochemical complexes are generally thought of in the
same light, they are separate processes. The petroleum refining industries use crude oil as feedstock
and produce gasoline and other fuels used for transportation, power generation, and heating pur-
poses. The petrochemical industry uses natural gas, natural gas liquids, and byproducts from petro-
leum refining as a feedstock. Petrochemical plants manufacture a multiplicity of products including
rubber, plastic synthetic fibers, and organic chemicals.

The refining and petrochemical complex is concentrated along the upper Texas coast in the
Houston and Beaumont-Port Arthur areas. Figures B2 and B3 show the location and capacity of
these plants. in total, refineries in the Houston-Galveston area have a capacity of 1.5 million barrels
per day. The Beaumont-Port Arthur area refineries have a capacity of 1.3 million barrels per day.

222

Figure 82
Petroleum Refineries Located on the
Texas Gulf Coast

Company Location Capacity
Jefferson County 1,294,000
American Petrofina, Inc. Port Arthur 84,000
Gulf Oil Co. Port Arthur 312,000
Mobil Oil Corp. Beaumont 325,000
Texaco Port Arthur 406,000
Texaco Port Neches 47,000
Union Oil of California Nederland 120,000

Hardin County 18,100
South Hampton Co. Silsbee 18,1 00

Harris County 1,063,800
Atlantic Richfield Co. Houston 213,000
Charter International Oil Houston 64,000
Crown Central Petro Corp. Houston 100,000
Eddy Refining Co. Houston 2,800
Exxon Co. Baytown 390,000
Shell Oil Co. Deer Park 294,000

Galveston County 473,500
Amoco Oil Co. Texas City 333,000
Marathon Oil Co. Texas City 64,000
Texas City Refining Co. Texas City 76,500

Brazoria County 85,000
Phillips Petroleum Co. Sweeny 85,000

Nueces County 474,100
Champlin Petroleum Co. Corpus Christi 67,700
Coastal States Petro Co. Corpus Christi 185,000
Quintana-Howell Joint Venture Corpus Christi 44,400
Southwestern Refining Co. Corpus Christi 120,000
Suntide Refining Co. Corpus Christi 57,000

Total Capacity 3,408,500
Source: International Petroleum Encyclopedia. (Tulsa, Oklahoma:
Petroleum Publishing Co., 1976).

223

Figure B3
Petrochemical Plants Located on the Texas Gulf Coast

Company Location Feedstock Major Products
Orange County
Allied Chemical Orange Ethylene Polyethylene
Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Orange Butane, Styrene, SBR-BR, Butadiene
Latex Co. Butadiene
Gulf Oil Chemicals Orange Ethylene Hd polyethylene
Phillips Petroleum Orange Heavy Oil Carbon Black

Jefferson County
Arco Polymers, Inc. Port Arthur NA Id polyethylene
Cosden Oil & Chemical Co. Groves Refinery products Ethylene, proplene
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Beaumont Propylene, C-5 streams, Polybutadiene
butadiene
Gulf Oil Chemicals Port Arthur Refinery fractions Ethylene, benzene, &
benzene derivatives
Houston Chemical Co. Beaumont Ethylene Ethylene glycol, ethylene
oxide
Jefferson Chemical Co. Port Neches Refinery gases Ethylene, ethylene &
propylene derivatives
Mobil Chemical Beaumont Petro fractions Ethylene, propylene
benzene
Texaco Port Arthur Refinery fractions Benzene, cyclohexane
toluene
Union Oil Co. of California Beaumont Reformate Toluene

Hardin County
South Hampton Co. Silsbee NA Benzene

Harris County
Arco Chemical Co. Channelview Butanes, Butylenes Butadiene, butylenes
Arco Chemical Co. Houston Refinery streams Benzene, paraxylene
Arco/Polymers, Inc. Houston NA Ethylene
Celanese Chemical Clear Lake Ethylene Methanol
Charter Int'l Oil Houston NA Solvents, toluene
Crown Central Petro Corp. Houston Reformate, toluene Benzene
Diamond Shamrock Deer Park- Ethylene, vinyl Acetylene, ethylene
Pasadena chloride, methane dichloride, polyvinyl
chloride
Diamond Shamrock Pasadena NA Polypropylene
Dixie Chemical Bayport NA Ethylene glycol
Ethyl Corp. Pasadena Ethylene Alphaolefins, ethyl
propylene & derivatives
Exxon . Baytown NA Benzene, ethylene,
propylene & derivatives
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Houston Butadiene-Styrene Styrene-butadiene rubber
Gulf Oil Chemicals Cedar Bayou Ethane Ethylene, Id polyethylene
Hercules, Inc. Bayport NA Polypropylene
J. M. Huber Corp. Baytown Refinery bottoms Carbon Black

224

Figure B3 cont'd

Company Location Feedstock Major Products
Harris County cont'd
Merichem Co. Houston Refinery treating waste Phenol
Oxirane Chemical Co. Bayport Propylene Propylene oxide
Petro-Tex Chemical Corp. Houston Petroleum base stock Butadiene
Phillips Petro Corp. Pasadena Ethylene, propylene, Ammonia polyethylene
natural gas
Reichhold Chemicals Houston Methanol Formaldehyde
Rohm & Hass Co. Deer Park Natural gas Acrylic esters
Shell Chemical Houston Petro fractions Ethylene, propylene,
benzene & derivatives
Soltex Polymer Corp. Deer Park Ethylene Hd polyethylene
Tenneco Chemicals Pasadena Natural gas, vinyl Methanol, ammonia
chloride
U. S. Industrial Chemicals Co. Houston Ethylene Ethylene derivatives

Galveston County
Amoco Chemical Corp. Texas City Ethylene, benzene, petro Styrene
fractions, refinery gases
Marathon Oil Texas City NA Cumene, toluene
Monsanto Co. Texas City Light crude oils, natural Ethylbenzene, styrene
gas
Texas City Refining Co. Texas City Refinery streams Propylene
Union Carbide Corp. Texas City Natural gas, refinery gases Ethanol, isopropanol

Fort Bend County
Dow Chemical Oyster Creek NA Ethylene derivatives

Chambers County
Union Texas Petro Winnie Reformate, naptha Benzene

Brazoria County
Amoco Chemical Co. Chocolate Bayou Propylcne, ethylene Ethylene
Dow Badische Co. Freeport Propylene, acetylene, Caprolactam
cyclohexane
Dow Chemical Co. Freeport NA Benzen & ethylene
derivatives
Monsanto Co. Alvin Light crude oil Ethylene
Phillips Petro Co. Sweeny Heavy oil, natural gas Ethylene
liquid, benzene

Matagorda County
Celanese Chemical Bay City Ethylene, cyclohexane Vinyl acetate

Calhoun County
Union Carbide Corp. Seadrift Ethane, propane Ethylbenzene, styrene

Nueces County
Celanese Chemical Bishop Natural gas Formaldehyde
Champlin Petro Co. Corpus Christi NA Cyclohexane

225

Figure B3 cont'd

Company Location Feedstock Major Products
Nueces County cont'd
Coastal States Petrochemical Co. Corpus Christi Crude oil Toluene, benzene
Suntide Refining Co. Corpus Christi Refinery streams Paraxylene, cumene

Cameron County
Union Carbide Corp. Brownsville Butane Acetic Acid
NA means not available
Source: International Petroleum Encyclopedia. (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Petroleum Publishing Co., 1976).

226

APPENDIX C

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA BASE AND DATA EVALUATION

Natural Hazards Map No. 1

Data Sources
1. Brown, L. F., R. A. Morton, J. H. McGowen, C. W. Kreitler, and W. L. Fisher. 1974. Natural
Hazards of the Texas Coastal Zone. Austin, Texas: University of Texas, Bureau of Economic
Geology.

2. Brown, L. F., project coordinator. Data varies. Environmental Geologic Atlas of the Texas
Coastal Zone. Austin, Texas: University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology.

3. Seadock, Inc. 1974. Environmental Report. 3 vols. Texas Offshore Unloading Facility.

4. Kreitler, C. W. 1976. Lineations and Faults in the Texas Coastal Zone. Austin, Texas: University
of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology.

5. Rice Center for Community Design and Research, Texas Gulf Coast Research Report No. 1. Rice
University. 1976.

6. Lanver Engineers, 100 Year Flood Prone Areas in Brazoria County, Lanver Engineers, Houston,
Texas.

7. Texas Water Development Board. 1973. Groundwater Resources of Brazoria County, Report
163.

Evaluation of Data
Maps of subsidence, structural lineations, faulting, and hurricane surge flooding are pre-
sented in a regional inventory using scales 1:24,000 (6), 1:250,000 (1,2), 1:750,000 (4), and
1:1,000,000 (5). The first two and sixth references serve as the main data base, having the best
detail.

Lineations and Faults locates many surface expressions of structural faults in the subsurface,
augmenting the Natural Hazards' lineations. The Seadock report adds one growth fault observed at
their proposed onshore site. It is likely that other faults and lineations are present in the study area,
of such size and extent that they were not mapped or observed.

The first two references indicate the extent of flooding by hurricanes Beulah and Carla. The
Seadock report indicates flooding resulting from Hurricane Celia was comparable to that of Beulah,
and also that in some areas the Carla floods approximate the extent of a major 100 year frequency
flood. The accuracy of flooding data is suitable as a predictive tool, given the background potential
for varying floods in the future. Gulf Coast Research Report cites probabilities for such degrees of
major storms and their related flooding based upon the number of storms landing on a given portion
of the Texas coast between 1901 and 1973. Lanver Engineers map 100 year flood heights for both
hurricane and riverine flooding.

Finally, Natural Hazards delineates two degrees of subsidence in the study area: 0.2 to 1.0
feet and 1.0 to 5.0 feet since 1930. Only the latter degree is mapped here. All the remaining area of
the study site is shown by BEG to have subsided 0.2 to 1.0 feet. The extent of subsidence within
this area increases toward the Houston area. Some areas may have experienced less than 0.5 feet or
even negligible subsidence. Small, local subsidence has occurred around all of the oil fields.

227

Basis of Weighting Data Elements as Constraints
Identified relevant constraints to the project location and design include both avoiding
hazardous areas and also minimizing adding to hazard susceptibility. Therefore, for example, a high
constraining weight would be applied to areas likely to be flooded. A 5 foot hurricane flood
(Beulah-Celia level) was given higher weight than that of a 100 year (Carla) flood as the former is
more likely to be repeated in extent or severity. The 100-year flood prone areas are also highly
constrained.

By locating away from the major areas of subsidence, any extensive groundwater withdrawal
by the project's industries will more evenly spread the effect of reservoir dehydrations, and there-
fore tend not to exacerbate current subsidence problems.

Fault expressions and apparent lineations are narrow features not amenable to scaled
weights of constraint. The area of influence of an active fault may be on the order of 20 to 65 feet
to either side of the structure.

Substrates, Soils, and Aquifers

Data Sources
1. Brown, L. F., project coordinator. Date varies. Environmental Geologic Atlas of the Texas
Coastal Zone. Austin: University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology.

2. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. General Soil Map of Brazoria County. 1970.

3. Ibid., Soil Series Description files, Brazoria County SCS Field Office, Angleton, Texas.

Evaluation of Data
The Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) physical properties maps were "derived from basic
map units on the environmental geology map" by applying quantitative test data to the areally
defined and mapped environmental geologic units. The physical properties maps are designed to
provide regional data for a variety of uses applicable both to the surface and to depth of approxi-
mately 60 feet. The resulting map characterization is however qualitative. The map units and their
capability evaluations cannot be substituted for specific site testing and evaluation but can be used
to rate large tracts of land for a particular use.

Superimposed on the subsurface substrates are soil associations, limited in depth and accur-
acy as the distribution of soil series and soil types within a given association is not presented. Figure
ClI shows SCS interpretations of series limitations.

Basis of Weighting Data Elements as Constraints
The constraints on the project design related to substrate characteristics primarily include
preferential location on stable substrates for the plant site, maximizing excavatability, and mini-
mizing disruption of shallow water table groundwater. The latter constraint would require low
percolation and permeability, and is to a great extent a factor of soil characteristics. The substrate
suitability on this map is in terms of foundation suitability and excavatability, as derived from BEG
physical properties maps.

The basis for assigning relative constraint weight to the substrate units is the BEG analysis of
capability/suitability. Three degrees of weighting are presented here. Substrate groups characterized
by very low permeability, very poor drainage, depressed relief, low shear strength, very poor
load-bearing strength, high plasticity, and high water-holding capacity (BEG groups IV and V) are
weighted as most constraining, being unsatisfactory for most project requirements. Dominantly silty
clay substrates (BEG group I) are given a lesser constraining weight, for although such substrates are

228

SANITARY FACILITIES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SOURCE MATERIAL W ATER MANAGEMENT
Septic Tank Sewage Sanitation Sanitation Daily Cover Shallow Loc.] Pond tIbankmen 'S
Soil Setting/ Absorption Lagoon Landfill Landfill for Excava- Streets & Road- Top- Reservoir lik es.
Series Characteristics Field Areas (Trench) (Area) Landfill tions Dwellings Roads fill Sand oil Area Levee, Drainage
Pledger level high flood plains severe severe severe severe poor severe severe severe poor unsuited poor s light moderate poor
calcareous clayey 13/24 / D i ./ 21/24/ 241/i 2W 1_ 1./?2./4 l2l7//
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~12_/
Miller nearly level floodplains severe severe severe severe poo r severe severe s evere poor nsrited f.irto SI moderate
clayey. fine/mixed I Il/3/ l I/ l21 1y 2_ 11.) 2 /17j 2_6 i IT // 71 2/17/ 2jly
~2/~ 6~~~~~~~Z/ poo WIN1 ~)/ )~~
Harris level coastal marsbland severe severe severe severe poor Severe severe severe poor unsuited poor slight moderate poor
montmorlllonitic/saline 13/YL/ /24/ 24/17/2./ l~/ 2J/~ 7/ J 24/11/12// 24 2 IJy' _I
_j ?_4j~~~~~y~~j 24/11/121 1 1 /L21?y 2 11 Z4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~23/12/ _ _ 24/lJ/l1/
Morey upland depressional areas severe severe severe severe severe severe severe severe poor unsuited( poor slght moarat.
silt loam over silt clay 24/13/ 24/1 21/24/ L4/ 2/ 224 24/ l1 5/1I4
12/24/ 12/2~ 2jl 5/18Jl4/2_3/ ~~~~~~~~~~~13/24/
Clodine coastal prairie severe severe severe savere poor severe severe severe poor unsuited poo, slight moderate p
poor rlight moderate ~~~poor
coarse siliceous loam 13/24/ 24/1 24 1 24 4/ L4 / y 4 6/ i 24/ 14/7/ 13
Lake Charles upland severe depending on g severe severe poor severe severe severe poor unsuited poor slight moderate
montmorlllonitic 1~24 slope:O-2,liglrht; 21/24 2 4j 21/ 21/24 12/17/24 l 1J 2 2/ 14
~2L ~7 6/ 21/ 22 32
2-7,mod.:7-8.sev. ' ..
Bernard coastal prairie severe moderate 25/ severe severe poor severe severe severe poor unsuited poor slight moderate poor
.onlt~orilloniti c I)24 21/2 4 24/2 1/ /2J4 12/712/4 12/17 1211 7 21 1 12/ 23 _3/
Norwood nearly level bottomland light to -oderate t6/18/ mderate to mod. to good to fair moderate to severe moderate to moderate to unsuited good to moderate moderate not needed
fine silty, mixed calcamo s evere I I T - Sr m Li / sev e 1-1 severe 2/11 severe L2J fair 2y IN erodes easily
Asa floodplain c are: moderate rare:Moderate . are: .d. rar-od. fair ?/ Ra......derate ... .eve.. moderate fair unsuited ....ired
stratified loam 11/ occasional: 16/, occasional: 11/, occlooal 1 occasional o l, occasional Iloccasional: 12 1 L/j 6/ 16/ L erodes easily
etn o s l ls6 nesevere 11/ se, a II severe I1/ revere ll/ severe II/
Veston coasta) flats & convex - - - T unsuited pooru- slight moderate
jidg s severe s evere severe severe poor severe s evere severe pool I? 12/
Iit loa. ly 2-Y 11/241 11124 112/1/4/ IY240 Z4
W24/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1[24/ iJ4//

N II~~~~~~~~~~~~1 Area Reclaim Borrow areas ame difficult to reclaim. ..d leveg~etation I s/ Seepage Water moves through the soil so quickly that it
\O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~and erosion control on these areas are extremely difficult. 1 7 /Shfk-cel Thesilt psnd onsetin ad sh i nsa.dyig
5/ Dusty Soil1 particles detach easily and cause dust. 7 hlLSe T si xad wtn n rlt n yng
I,/ Excess Finer The soil contains to. much silt and clay for us. as gravel which may cause damage to roads, dams. building
or Sand in construction. foundations, and other structures.
B/ Excess Salt The amount of soluble Salt in the soil is so high that it 218/ Slope Slope too great.
restricts the growth of most plants. 1O/Thin Layer Suitable sol material is not thick enough for
ill Floods - Soil teorrl loe ysra vrlw uof ruse as borrow ..ter"Il or topsoil.
ost rit floam 1vr rnfo 211 Too Clayee So4/l rppery and Sticky when et and slow to dry.-
12/ Low Strength -h I a reas ieat.sreng cth to read 231tUnStable Fill Banktr of fill are likely to cave in or slough.
~) and ~~~~~~~~~~~~Terso cnrol o these iareqas e extremely t difiup ltad.

13/ Percs Slowly Wle ero - ves through the soil Slowly. affecting the specified use. 24/ Wets t speriod use.
141 Piping The solo is S sceptfl tttThe formation of tunnels or pipelike 25/ Excess humus
-vatiles by and cater. 26/ Hard to pank
27/ Compressible

Figure C1

Soil Interpretations for Selected Uses, Limitations and Suitabilities

unsatisfactory as foundation bases, they are favorable in terms of excavatability, solid waste dis-
posal, and for retaining ponds. The dominantly silty or clayey sand substrates (BEG group 1II) are
presented here as least constraining, being favorable for most project requirements including foun-
dation support, fill material, and levee construction.

Ecosystems Map No. 3

Data Source
1. Texas Coastal Management Program, unpublished ecosystems maps adapted from BEG biological
assemblages maps.

2. Brown, L. F., Jr., project coordinator. Date varies. Environmental Geologic Atlas of the Texas
Coastal Zone. Austin: University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology.

3. Seadock, Inc. 1974. Environmental Report. 3 vols. Texas Offshore Unloading Facility.

4. Bureau of Economic Geology. 1975. 1:30,000 Color Infra-Red Aerial photographs. 1975.

5. Texas Coastal Management Program unpublished current land use map (1: 125,000).

Evaluation of Data
Accuracy is best for wetlands areas, poorer in depth for upland coastal plain and wooded
ecosystems. The boundary between brackish water marsh and upland coastal plain varies to some
extent year by year. The Coastal Management Program ecosystem maps were used to define a
boundary line for this gradational change. The Seadock Environmental Report distinguishes a
shrub-savannah community from a Gulf cordgrass prairie community between the Brazos and San
Bernard Rivers. The boundary between these communities may be transitional or abrupt. Color
infra-red photographs were used as an interpretive tool in separating the shrub-savannah community
from a composite "prairie" ecosystem in other areas. The precision and accuracy of this interpre-
tation may, in locations of the study area, be considerably weak.

Basis of Weighting Data Elements as Constraints
Important constraints on the project design include minimizing disruption of wildlife habi-
tat in general and minimizing disruption of productive wetlands areas in particular. The relative
ranking of weights is based upon weights used in the Minnesota Power and Light Transmission
Project, and in A Procedure for Location of a Least Impact Corridor by Texas Tech University. This
project team's evaluation resulted in the following relative importance of ecosystems as constraints,
in descending order of importance: brackish-water marsh, fluvial woodlands, inland fresh-water
marsh, Gulf cordgrass prairie, and shrub-savannah ecosystems. The ranking reflects the factors of
importance of biological productivity, essential habitat and the need for conservation.

Wildlife Map No. 4

Data Sources
1. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Comprehensive Planning Branch. 1975. Regional Environ-
mental Analysis of the Houston-Galveston Region. Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan. Vol. 6.

2. Seadock, Inc. 1974. Environmental Report. 3 vols. Texas Offshore Unloading Facility.

230

Evaluation of Data
Only game animals and endangered species not specifically appearing in the ecosystems
description for their respective habitat are presented on this map. The species presented were
selected by the project team with consultation with officials of Texas Parks and Wildlife Depart-
ment. They are assumed to represent the main wildlife of importance not inherently covered in the
ecosystem descriptions used as the base of Map No. 3-Ecosystems. Species included on the lists of
the Texas Organization of Endangered Species which are found in the study area are: Uniola
paniculata (sea oats), Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass), and Juglans nigra (black walnut). The
data is such that the distribution and abundance of these species cannot be mapped with meaningful
depth and accuracy.

Basis of Weighting Data Elements as Constraints
Constraints upon the project design include minimizing disruption of wildlife habitat, migra-
tion routes, and feeding zones and avoiding rare and endangered species habitat and rookeries.
Other constraints are more applicable to the data set presented on Map No. 3-Ecosystems.

The data presented in terms of wildlife density or levels of usage is readily converted to
relative weightings, with the denser habitat areas being more constraining. Endangered species range
or occurrence may be given a higher weight than, in general, the weight assigned to the other
wildlife. No attempt has been made, however, to compare weights between ducks, geese, and deer.

Land Use Map No. 5

Data Source
i. Brown, L. F., Jr., project coordinator. Date varies. Environmental Geologic Atlas of the Texas
Coastal Zone. Austin: University of Texas. Bureau of Economic Geology.

2. Texas Coastal Management Program, Current land use. Unpublished map developed from RB-57
color infra-red photographs (1:125,000). 1975.

3. Texas General Land Office. 1975. Color infra-red aerial photographs 1:60,000 scale.

4. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Comprehensive Planning Branch. 1975. Regional Environ-
mental Analysis of the Houston-Galveston Region. Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan Vol. 6.

Evaluation of Data
The data is considered to be generally accurate as of 1975. Some area of rangeland may
change cyclically to cropland, depending upon market incentives. The Coastal Management Program
maps were used as main data base. The BEG data was used to identify current land use trends. The
color infra-red photos were consulted to resolve conflicts between sources about land use, especially
discriminating industrial from urban areas. The precision of the residential delineations in rural,
unincorporated areas may not closely follow housing density patterns, but in general represents the
community boundaries as presently perceived and as may be expected in the future (see, for
example, TPWD Regional Environmental Analysis).

Basis for Weighting Data Elements as Constraints
Project constraints on land use conversion include minimizing disruption of existing and
projected human settlement, minimizing disruption of productive agricultural areas, and minimizing
visual impact.

The constraint weighting adopted here is based on the project team's evaluation of factors
such as relative land costs, political pressures, priority ownership, and apparent value to the region

231

as a whole. Therefore, the project's industrial park is constrained away from state property and
major residential-industrial-urban developments. Wooded areas are given the next highest weight,
representing their limited occurrence in the project study area, their visual appeal, and their status
as diminishing under development pressure. Rangeland areas which were found to alternate with
crop production were given a higher weight than range solely used as grazing areas. Brackish-water
marsh areas are not here defined as a developed land use, and hence weighting is inapplicable. Such
areas are evaluated as a constraining resource on Ecosystems Map No. 3.

Transportation, Mineral Resources, and Archeology Map No. 6

Data Source
1. Brown, L. F., Jr. project coordinator. Date varies. Environmental Geologic Map of the Texas
Coastal Zone. Austin; University of Texas. Bureau of Economic Geology.

2. Sandeen, W. M. and J. B. Wesselman. 1973. Groundwater Resources of Brazoria County. TWDB
Report 163.

3. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Comprehensive Planning Branch. 1976. Regional Environ-
mental Analysis of the Houston-Galveston Region. Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan Vol. 6.

4. Texas Archeological Survey. 1977. Archeological sites data files, Balcones Research Center,
Austin.

Evaluation of Data
Depth, accuracy, and precision is good for roads, railroads, major pipelines and powerlines,
water wells, sand quarries, oilfields, and discovered historical/archeological sites. Small feeder pipe-
lines and feeder transmission lines are not located. Undiscovered archeological sites are, of course,
not mapped. Telephone and other above ground wire-lines are not mapped.

Basis for Weighting Data Elements as Constraints
The miscellaneous collection of developments on this map pose constraints related to the
project siting including minimal relocation of railroads, roads, and other transmission lines, mini-
mize disruption of historical/archeological sites, and maximizing the use of existing highway and
railroad access and rights-of-way, and minimizing disruption of minerals extraction potential. These
features, to an extent, are all-or-none variables. Therefore, it is sufficient to plot their locations. The
project canal routing is constrained to cross the least number of such features, minimizing reloca-
tion. The industrial park will be attracted to a position accessible to major transportation networks.

232

APPENDIX D

THE BRAZORIA COUNTY INPUT/OUTPUT MODEL*

The direct effects of the canal construction, that is, the direct employment requirements
and income received, can be calculated on the basis of the construction activities postulated to take
place. Those effects, however, present only part of the total impact picture; indirect effects must
also be calculated. The determination of these indirect effects (indirect employment in subsidiary
activities generated by primary construction activities, and taxes paid by these subsidiary activities
are just a few examples) is a more complex problem than calculation of primary effects.

These indirect and induced effects (referred to throughout this study simply as "indirect"
effects) are calculated through the use of an input/output model. An input/output analysis (some-
times referred to as inter-industry analysis) is especially suited to the calculation of indirect effects
because of these important features of an input/output model:

1. It can be used to systematically describe a regional economy through the use of equa-
tions which represent the trading patterns of the area;

2. It is capable of inter-relating economic and natural resource (water use) data; and

3. The model can be used to estimate future economic activity.

Because of the time and money constraints, the use of an input/output model in this study
would have undoubtedly been impossible if an I/O Model for the State of Texas did not exist. Such
a model has been developed, however, and has been augmented from time to time by several
sub-regional (intra-state) models based on the original state model.

The first state model was developed by the Office of the Governor of Texas in 1973 and has
since been updated to incorporate 1972 U.S. Department of Commerce data. This state model was
the starting point from which the Brazoria County Input/Output Model was constructed. It was
necessary to modify the state model, however, to facilitate analysis of Brazoria County, the region
relevant in this study.

This appendix has as its purpose, therefore, an explication of precisely how this modifi-
cation was achieved and, thus, how the Brazoria County Model was constructed. Included herein is
a brief description of I/O analysis generally and the Texas I/O Model specifically, the subregional
modification of the state model, and the internal operating characteristics of the Brazoria County
model.

Input/Output Analysis*

In its essence, an I/O Model is an accounting system which traces the flow of goods and
services throughout a regional economy. In such a model, each producing entity is treated as both a

*The Brazoria County I/O Model was developed as part of the Study Offshore Oil: Its Impact on Texas Commu-
nities, prepared for the General Land Office of Texas by RPC, Inc., June, 1977. As a result, this appendix was
adapted from Appendix E (Vol. IV) of that report.

233

producer and as a consumer, in that it consumes resources necessary for production. Those entities
which consume only, of course, are treated simply as consumers. (A mathematical description of
input/output analysis can be found in Appendix D1).

An input-output model is presented in matrix form and consists of three tables:

1. The transactions table is the basic table of an input-output model. Essentially, it is a
description of sales and purchases for all sectors in the regional economy. Figure DI is a
hypothetical example of an input-output transactions table.

Figure D1
Transactions Table
Sales, Final
Manufac- Demand Total
Purchases Sector Agriculture turing Trades Households Output
Agriculture $ 30 $ 70 $ 50 $ 30 $180
Manufacturing 50 60 50 30 190
Trades 40 30 60 50 180
Final Payments Households 60 30 20 50 160
Total Inputs 180 190 180 160 710

The transactions table consists of the processing or endogenous sectors (agriculture,
manufacturing, trades, etc.) plus the final demand or exogenous sectors (households, ex-
ports, government, capital formation, and final payments sectors), and imports, gross
savings, and depreciation. The processing sectors produce goods and services which are used
as inputs by other industries and which are also sold to the ultimate consumer in the final
demand sector. Row entries represent a sale by any given sector to another sector. Column
entries represent a sale by any given sector to another sector. Column entries represent a
purchase by any given sector from another sector. The flor of goods and services is con-
tinued throughout the model, since the model employs a double entry accounting system
whereby a sale by one sector is purchased by another sector. Finally, the sum of all outputs
is equal to $710 (in Figure DI) in a balanced model which accounts for all transactions.

2. The direct requirements table is a matrix of technical coefficients which show the
amount of input needed from each sector to produce a dollar of output for any given sector.
Technical coefficients are derived for processing sectors by dividing each column entry by
the sum of the column. Figure D2 is an example of in input/output direct requirements
table. For example, the coefficients for agriculture show that in order to produce a dollar of
output, the agriculture sector would require 17 cents of inputs from other agriculture
businesses, 28 cents from manufacturing, 22 cents from the trade sectors and would pay 33
cents to households for labor.

Figure D2
Direct Requirements Table
Sector Agriculture Manufacturing Trades Households
Agriculture .1667 .3684 .2778 .1875
Manufacturing .2778 .3158 .2778 .1875
Trades .2222 .1579 .3333 .3125
Households .3333 .1579 .1111 .3125
Total Inputs 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

*This section was taken from the report, "Coastal Economy" written by RPC, Inc., under contract to the General
Land Office of Texas, 1975.

234

3. Interdependence coefficients from the direct and indirect requirements table show the
interrelations of the input of a sector to the outputs of all other sectors both directly and
indirectly. These coefficients are important because they show not only the direct effect of
a trade between two sectors but also the indirect effect on the economy that is created by
the initial transaction. For this reason, the numerical value of these coefficients are larger
than the direct requirements coefficients. Figure D3 is a hypothetical example of a direct
and indirect requirements table.
Figure D3
Direct and Indirect Requirements Table

Sector Agriculture Manufacturing Trades
Agriculture 2.0805 1.4607 1.4755
Manufacturing 1.2461 2.4919 1.5576
Trades .9885 1.0770 2.3606
Multiplier 4.3151 5.0296 5.3927

The direct and indirect requirements table presents a more detailed explanation of the
interrelations among all sectors in the model to any given sector than does the transactions
table or the direct requirements table. The interdependence matrix can also be extended to
include the households row and column in the calculations; the same procedure is used, but
the induced effects of households' spending are included in the interdependence matrix.
This table also includes "multipliers" that can be used in predicting the total economic
impact in an area based on a known change in the economy. The summation of each column
is a multiplier that can be used as an integral part of impact analysis. By incorporating
employment and natural resource data into the model, multipliers can be calculated that
show not only the income effect but the socio-economic impact on a regional economy.

Sub-Regional Modification of the State Model

The Brazoria County Model, as was noted earlier, was based on the Texas State Input/Out-
put Model. The initial step in developing the regional model was to estimate the total value of
output (control totals) for each sector in the model for Brazoria County. This information at the
county level is available from a variety of sources, including the U.S. Department of Commerce.
When the value of output was not available or when it was available only at the state level, Texas
Employment Commission data were used to estimate the regional totals. For example, total value of
output for the construction industry is available at only the state level from the 1972 U.S. Census
of Construction. In order to estimate the regional totals, a ratio of construction employment in the
region to construction employment in the state was derived and applied to the state total value of
output.

Let: Rshare = epnx T.V.0. State
SempCn

Where: Rshare = regional share of total value of output in construction;

RemnpCn =employment in construction in region;

SempCn =employment in construction in state; and

T.V.0. State = total value of output in construction State of Texas.

The following list shows the data sources that were used in estimating the control totals for
the regional model.

23 5

Agriculture Publications from Texas Department of Agriculture and the
USDA; Texas Crop and Livestock Reporting Services.
Mining Published and unpublished data from Texas Railroad Com-
mission and Texas Employment Commission; AMineral
Yearbook; 19 72 Census of/Mineral industries.
Construction Texas Employment Commission, unpublished data; 1972
Census of Construction.
Manufacturing 19 72 Census of Manufacturing.
Transportation Texas Employment Commission, unpublished data.
Communications Texas Employment Commission, unpublished data.
Utilities Electric utilities from Texas Employment Commission, un-
published data; Water utilities from 1972 Census of Govern-
ments; Gas utilities from Texas Railroad Commission.

Wholesale Trade 1972 Census of Wholesale Trade.
Retail Trade 1972 Census of/Retail Trade.
Finance, Insurance, Texas Employment Commission, unpublished data.
Real Estate
Services 1972 Census of Selected Services; Texas Employment Com-
mission unpublished data; Texas Education Agency.
Households 1972 Department of Commerce, Survey of/Current Business,
1972 and 1973.
Federal Government 1972 and 1973 Federal Outlays in Texas.
State Government Published data from the Governor's Office of Budget and
Planning.
Local Government 1972 Census of/Governments.

Control total data for each regional sector were run in computer program LOQUOT to
construct the regional input-output models. Program LOQUOT provides a new input-output model
for a sub-region based on a comparison with an existing model for a larger region. The state model
was used as the base model in developing the regional model.

Internal Operating Characteristics of the Brazoria County Model

Some of the most valuable "tools" developed in an input-output model are the various
multipliers that can be used in regional impact analysis. These multipliers are used to estimate
changes in the level of income, employment, tax, or natural resources based on a changing econ-
omy. Multipliers of this type were developed for the Brazoria County I/O model. One of the most
useful of these is the tax multiplier. Tax multipliers were calculated in the model to determine the
relationship between federal, state, and local government revenues and the production levels of each
industry. Specifically, tax multipliers measure the direct, indirect, and induced effects on federal,
state, and local tax revenue resulting from a change in a given industry's sales of goods and services
to final users.* They are used to measure the total tax effect as a result of an industry's sales to a
final user.
*Perrin, John S. "Output multipliers in Input-Output Analysis," Office of the Governor, Austin, Texas, August,
1972.

236

In general, tax multipliers can be of assistance to public and private officials in measuring
the impact on public services as a result of a change in the economy. For example, assume that a
new manufacturing plant is to be built in a community and the company estimates that total sales
of the first year are expected to be x million dollars. By using the tax multipliers in the input-out-
put model for this manufacturing sector, the potential increase in federal, state, and local taxes can
be estimated. This information can be weighted against the public cost of locating the new plant,
such as installing new public utility lines or increased demands on government services to estimate
the first year's benefits (or cost) to the local government. Also, new state and federal tax revenues
can be estimated to determine the increase in total exogenous taxes paid by the local area. This
information can be very useful to public and private planners in providing for the orderly manage-
ment of a local, state, or federal government.

The tax effects relevant to a discussion of the Brazoria County model are of two types. The
first type is the final demand-driven tax effect. This type of tax effect quantifies the amount of
additional taxes which will be paid to any given taxing sector resulting from an increase in sales to
final demand by a sector of the economy. The second type of tax effect is the output-driven tax
effect resulting from an increase in production by a sector. The type of effect which is applicable in
any given situation is dependent upon that situation. For example, if planners are considering steps
to increase the export of a commodity, the tax effect which would be realized is the final demand
type. However, if a new factory were to establish itself in a region, the tax effect of that factory
would be the output-driven type.

Tax effects are computed using a direct requirements table and an interdependence coeffi-
cients table of a regional input-output model. This procedure outlines those direct, indirect, and
induced effects on payments to taxes resulting from changes in either production or final demand.
For purposes here, it is assumed that final demand has changed. While the computation is the same
for both types, to compute the output-driven effects, each columnar element of the interdepen-
dence table must first be divided by the diagonal element in that column.

Basically, the total tax effect is composed of the direct effect (that payment to the tax
sector directly by the sector whose final demand has changed), the indirect effect (that payment to
the tax sector by all the other sectors of economy whose output supports the output of the original
sector), and the induced effect (that payment to the tax sector by all the sectors of the economy
resulting from increased purchases by households).

Mathematically, the tax effect resulting from an increase in final demand by $1.00 for a
sector's output is the summation of products obtained by multiplying each value in that sector's
column of the interdependence matrix by that sector's tax payment per dollar of output found in
the direct requirements table.

Let A = matrix of interdependence coefficients,

Aij ~= interdependence coefficient in the i-th row and
j-th column of the matrix A,

xt,i = direct requirement of the i-th sector upon the tax sector 't', and

n = number of processing sectors in the regional model.

Then the total tax effect is:
n
TEj (i 21 Xt')

237

Briefly, A- is the increase in production by sector i required to support a $1.00 increase in
sales to final demand by sector j. Of that amount, sector i must pay to tax sector t and Xr i share.
Therefore, sector i pays to tax sector t an amount equal to (Aij xtj). Summing the tax effect
across all sectors which must increase their production yields the total tax ettect.

If the interdependence table used in the above computation excludes households (open
model), then the total tax effect consists of only the direct and indirect effects. The indirect
portion can be found as follows:

Indirectj = TEj- xt-

If the interdependence table includes households (closed model), then the total tax effect
includes the induced effect which is computed as follows:

Inducedj = TEj - Indirectj - xt-

Besides tax multipliers, several other types of multipliers are employed in the OCSOG
Model; they are briefly described below.

1. Employment multipliers measure the total increase or decrease in employment based on
a change in employment for any given sector. For example, assume that the employment multiplier
for an industry is equal to 1.75. Also, assume that employment in this industry increases by 100
workers. The total employment impact this change has on the area can be estimated by multiplying
the direct change of 100 employees x 1.75. The total impact is estimated to be 175 employees
including the 100 initially employed.

Employment data for each sector in the Brazoria County model were obtained in most cases
from the Texas Employment Commission. The data came from unpublished sources and includes
employment for all sectors exclusive of agriculture entities. Agriculture employment was estimated
from unpublished sources at the Texas Water Development Board and was based on labor input
coefficients for each sector. A labor input coefficient (L.I.C.) shows the amount of labor required
to produce a given level of output:
Total employment in sector x
L.I.C. =
Total value of output in sector x
2. Type I Household Income Multipliers measure the direct and indirect change in house-
hold income per dollar change in direct payments to households for any given sector. Type II
Household Income Multipliers measure the direct, indirect and induced change for any given sector.
For example, assume that total wage in a sector increased by $10,000 per year and the Type II
income multiplier was 1.65. The total income effect this change would have on household income
in the area would amount to $16,500.

3. Final Demand Multipliers measure the total income impact which new sales to a final
consumer have on the regional economy. They are calculated for each producing sector in the
model. If, for example, sales in a given sector increase by $10 million and the final demand
multiplier for that sector is 2.50, the total effect on trading patterns in the area can be estimated to
be $25 million.

238

APPENDIX D1

MATHEMATICAL EXPLANATION OF AN INPUT/OUTPUT MODEL

The derivation of the static, open input-output model consists of four basic components.
These components include a transactions table; a direct requirements table; a direct and indirect
requirements table; and a direct, indirect, and induced requirements table. All of these components
have been covered in the text of this appendix. The following symbolic presentation is a more
technical explanation of the four input-output tables.

The static, open model is based on three functional assumptions: *

1. Each group of commodities is supplied by a single production sector.

2. The inputs to each sector are a unified function of the level of output of that sector.

3. There are no external economies or diseconomies. The model assumes that demand and
supply are equated through a horizontal shift in the demand function for each sector as a
result of changes in the level of production in other sectors. That is, a change in the
demand function for a given industry is a result of change(s) in the production levels of
other industries. This means the factors of production for any given sector are stable over
time, i.e., the direct requirement coefficients and technology utilized in production are
constant. An assumption of this type is reasonable in the short-run, but is questionable in
the long-run especially when there are significant changes in the level of production
caused by technological advances.

The transactions table is a production matrix of the economy, i.e., each column in the
matrix for any given sector comprises the production schedule for that sector in the statis, short-run
model. For example, the cells in each column represent the inputs necessary for the total produc-
tion of that sector. The economy of the study area is composed of n + 1 sectors. All of the sectors
except one, final demand, are endogenous. The final demand component is an exogenous sector,
that is, it is outside of the processing sectors.

Total production for any given sector is represented by the symbol Xi. Both endogenous
(non-autonomous) and exogenous (autonomous) sectors consume production from all other sectors.
Therefore:

(1) Xi = Xil+ Xil + Xi3. . + Xin + Xf(i = 1...n)

where xf is the autonomous sector and Xi1, Xi2, Xi3, Xin are the non-autonomous sectors.

As previously stated, the inputs to each sector are a unique function of the level of output
of that sector. More specifically, the inputs purchased by each sector are a function only of the level
of output of that sector, i.e., the input function is a linear homogenous function. Let Xi and Xj be
non-autonomous sectors in order to illustrate the previous assumption:

(2) Xij = aijXj

which shows that the demand for part of the output of one non-autonomous sector X1 by another
non-autonomous sector Xj is a unique function of Xj.

*The information in this section was basically constructed from William H. Miernyck, The Flelme'ts of
Input-Output Analvsis (New York. Random House, 1969), pp. 147-151.

239

By substituting equation (1) in equation (2) a more complete equation can be developed:

(3) X i = ail (X 1.) + ai2(X2) + a ia (X3) + ..

..... ain (Xn) + X (i=1...n)
n f

This equation (3) may be reduced to:

n
(4) Xi: a,, (Xj) +Xf (i=lI ...n)
I j=l ljf

Wherc Xi is the demand function for production by the jth sector from the ith sector and where Xf
is the final demand (autonomous) for the output of the ith sector.

Technical coefficients or direct requirements coefficients are calculated from the transac-
tions table by dividing each entry or cell in every column by the sum of the column. These
coefficients show the amount of input needed from all sectors by the ith sector to produce one
dollar's worh of output. The coefficients are calculated for the non-autonomous (endogenous)
sectors only. Equation (2) may be rewritten to show the direct requirements equation:

x,.
(5) a.. ='

In order to calculate these coefficients, the inventory change column of the complete
transactions model is subtracted from each sector's total gross output to obtain adjusted gross
output. Then, each entry in each column of the processing sectors is divided by the adjusted gross
output to obtain the technical coefficients (aij) in equation (5). The following is a matrix of
technical coefficients from this equation.

a 11.. a, , .. an

(6) A= H aj.. .am

an �... anj .. .ann
The next requirement consists of developing and inverting a Leontief matrix in order to
compute the table of direct and indirect requirements per dollar of final demand. The Leontief
matrix is equal to (I-A) where A is the matrix of direct requirement coefficients and I is the identity
matrix. (The identity matrix is a matrix where all elements are zero except the main diagonal
elements from the top left to the bottom right corner of the matrix which are equal to one.) After
(I-A- is completed, the new matrix of coefficients showing direct and indirect effects is transposed
to obtain (I-A)T-1. This matrix (K) is as follows:

240

ku . kli . kln

(7) K kil.kij ... kin

knl ... kni ... knn

A further manipulation of the direct and indirect requirements matrix by including the
households sector provides an extended analysis of the model. The same procedure used to con-
struct the (K) matrix is followed but the model is closed with respect to the household sector. i.e.,
the household sector is included with the processing (endogenous) sectors. After the new matrix is
inverted the coefficients show not only the direct and indirect effects by sector but also the
induced income effects as a result of including the household sector in the model. This analysis
further explains the interlinkages of the model and presents a more complete explanation of the
total effect on the model as a result of a change in any given sector.

Input-output analysis is concerned with determining the interindustry transactions which
are required to sustain a given level of final demand. The following equation is used to compute a
new transactions table when a new final demand sector is inserted into the model.

n
il
(8) >Z Xi x Ki�= then

(9) aij = T'

where 'T' is the new transactions table.

The first equation (8) multiplies each column of (I-A)T~1 by the final demand of each
corresponding row. The columns are summed to get a new total from output (Xi). The second
equation (9) multiplies the direct requirements table times the new total gross output to obtain the
new transactions table T. The new transactions table T' is described in the new balanced equation:
InI
(10) Xi =ai) + X) (i-=(I1...fn)

As previously mentioned, this model is a static, short-run model. When changing to a
dynamic, long-run model, all computational procedures remain unchanged. However, the fixed
technical coefficients of the original A matrix (6) are replaced by new coefficients computed for
each sector. This could be illustrated in equation (10) by changing the technical coefficient aii to
alj, indicating that all components of the balanced equation have been changed in the dynamic
model.

241

APPENDIX E

ECOLOGICAL ALTERATIONS ANALYSIS

The figures presented in this appendix comprise the analytic tools used in the ecological
impact analysis. Figures El, E2, and E3 show ecological systems diagrams of the fluvial woodland,
prairie grassland, and brackish-water marsh. These diagrams indicate the flows of material and
energy within and between ecological systems. A description of these processes and the components
of each system are presented in Chapter IV-A-2.

The procedure for determining ecological impacts using these diagrams is also presented in
Chapter IV-A-2. Figure E4 presents the analytic record of the ecological attribute alterations sum-
marized in that chapter. The matrix (Figure E4) is indexed by ecological system (fluvial woodland,
prairie grassland, or brackish-water marsh); by activity; and by the primary ecological alteration
(PEA) associated with the respective activities per ecosystem. Long-term and short-term changes in
ecosystem attributes are rated as either an increase or decrease in material or energy. The record
*also notes the probability of the impact.

243

Figure El

SOIL
FIRE ETOXICNTS
FRElUENCY ~ FIRE~J GASES

KSPRAY)
LOCIRSSOIL .\
WATER x AIR

SL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MCOPLA ..
ATMOSPHERIC
WATER

UPLAN

DRAIN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TU
GROUND _____________ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AN

WATERbCE ~ I WATER

HAWAE

244L

Fluvial Woodland

SSAMMAIS

MAMMALS

DRA~~~~NSIVORRO U S

RRADTOR

CONSUM ERS

245

Figure E2

GASES SOIL
FIRE FIRE OCAS
FREAUIENCI

SALT -1
SPRAY

BLOCKING
WATER SI
CIINNa

WA~TER /- -f

SLOIPE ` i~~ni

LAND S I I L
ELEVATION

UPLAND\II _ lARPR
SRAANAGE -I DJRFACE t-- - U AXZ------ WATER

GROUND SI
WATER WATER~~~~~~~~~WAE

SEDIMENTSSEPNT

SALTS

246

Prairie Grassland

SMALL

SMAMMALS
8 RAPIORS_

CNSUMERS

LEGEND

Producers

Q ~~Consumers

Energy/Material
Storage

O ~~Energy/Material
Input

ZID cID J~Regulating Factors

247

Figure E3

,~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~r

AWATIC

OftWRAGE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~UREC

INUNDATIOH I - WATER
SALINDTOITY

A~~~~~ I. ATO\
ALIL~

IF )4 cR.
FREM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FR

248

Brackish-Water Marsh

~~~~~~~~A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WTER 611

StDPC~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ROED
CU F [ SALI~~~~~~~~~rrynr

- j W ANIDLVI

COVER

IILTAE1
(~IVET COE f sn

"'O1
~~~~LEATIOR~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ImERFR

-~ \EFECTOY SEI DIbBr !LEGEND

Producers

Consumers

Energy/Material
Storage

Energy/Material
0 ~~~Input

2~D ~Regulating Factors

249

ATTRIBUTE ALTERATIONS

ECOSYSTEM ACTIVITY ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERATIONS IIIA1.DCES
Description/Locationl INRES T T L.___ECRA
ProsPas .7 roSPas.Pr.!Ps. Pro. Pas CO-nno
Regulator Transformer Input Storage L L. T. S. T. S. T0T. LfC7 S. T. S. T .1oT
CLEAR.OA. F0 0040 SIIES gNO8ATRIeN ARhlae-TREN TOP95

F..Wa OLOED NkORC.
B~~~~~~~~~~~bC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MAOAT

seACT T. I

ewOR To e

"50k~~~~~~~5001 LaCAC. KrP-tOBa
50npoa 00 Mets IO MAJOR SCU R/iQ. 5 D.
00"S5

5l001nu S 0 M84.6

TaREESTumM40r - LO. QSMOVALuLeL~seT %Y

LOVE UMR-

=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F
TOPSOIL %TGC--IUNC- PC*EOA-~~ILAIS~ T. 9-J-STE..

MIT"~eO

0 05 Otoae 40.0.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AA-f

T 'TWO, NEcotw o~Oc~~O9 00O 6J00;oa
-n.T E., em 60 -I0,5 I--
S "E- -EdsjL
Glk-OX VtG -

Ruocel~~~~~~~~~~~oaJI ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~~LOI

PIPSrUJOLtvTOE /RL'V .0(
RFt.L'T'4 LJEES'
PF0T6C0005 "E6CeRATIEL Ol-~0O00M

Ii Costor.R 'M Tom W$Acr FalIoob I T~ECAk*ta
os~~~~~~~~~o-LOOM VEOATRTE I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2,'-

P~~~~~~~~iurae 00

V.0CC Recor00d5 lO 00550*0.03COk0 C tof Ecologia lertonso Analysi

~~~~~~~~20080,SAI.AO3AioJ

ATTRIBUTE ALTERATIONS ATTRIBUTE ALTERATIONS

I INCREASE I DECREASE -INCREASE DECREASE
Sogolator~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~"'' Trasfome InutStrgePr Pass. ProS. Pass. CrbFon.~obPss COTet-3S os35p5.Pr.fosPo.Pas. Cnent
S TT- rrt ~ Rglao T.asanrIptSoaeT T T T T. L. T. L. T. S. T. S. T.

IIAItA.IRD tsttsuo R T. eOL E.I .
RA5SEOIAIL~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - AotS I00 NOTME

ceoaoarsesI

tnttNRA~~~ioo WHa 7ICJ
Seent or.01S -~ C.A tOOL.. W0

.ewo/a~sesc
psao'n.4 05e~l

em/ne attatotao~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"vot"
San/TO ao~$'tLtO sems 01= 111
Am"'vSI ROu 'R.I W.

Stan T.5Itt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~b,~T

5151/a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~wn Io-cens 5 et.5f
I~~tnO'05S 055005 t~~~~ll bOD

MI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oto aT.

w."a.~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a.sea

500550 ItlC~~~~~~~~~t~~~smo~~~ttoaNTst-'
ft~~~~I .2

i~~~~~~~~~~~~n~~tst boamoi A _5~af

ft ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to -fi KssooO
ptt~~~~~~soea~~~~~~s1l~ J0 pLEionAto

m Tt~~~IIIEAooI.

ntoxnuos ail~~~~~~~~~ts"

SAI~~~~~~~~~~~~~bx ~ ~ ~ ~ 50 51 500055

.mtt.WEtatATux$D

~~~~~~~~~Fgr 4 cnt'nd0100

1050~~~ec o cloia AlteationsAayi

Tacos 'ton - 'laSS &S251

ATTRIBUTE ALTERATIONS
ECOSYSTEM ACTIVITY ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERATIONS
Description/Locationfl~ INCREAS DECREASE
Too. PLs. Prob . PTs. L~Ep . T.mb. Tos. S.n oT.
Regulator Transformer Input StorageL .1.7 .I S. . .V.1.V S. V0.T.
s5Os/M40I 0 w 5a o 403.0. 040710 RE-OAL bezISNoloe-
3aNX-t CR00 CoRK

5--

Dell
0nRXTER

(MOS T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ So OPAUP 530GAXtJ ',

Pp. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~oni0 OArMA, . S" s000*

PIPE LI-M REL~~~~~~~EV SLOI* ~ ~ 4
(0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~no Ak4*"'
>1~~~~~~~~~~~~510 OFw AIF-1y6..epON n
1A,4 BA~~go E~~Alft~' RkI.OA ~~-Wr SR--- 5~~0040 Et"nYo~mt Ont
T. ~~~ATE.-519 DE., Wm,3% L E V ,~~~~~ a.7

~~A~b URSEO GMAVAT.P N 6 L (040111 Pt0 SLMOPE~

7:1 0 TOWAI&A~15004 SAO4j.IX- Mh oArA o.fla'Yu 94nRO3n

S.,

(a o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~~~E'too f

(.fl~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~dtr (IvLOWtumof

Ij~ ~ ~ ~~~CUZINO ,SO A. , *5 OE oA1.TzR.4ft ~u-T
O Q Tauj~~~~~~~~n~~t TOOLE won ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ wrs
-~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D& WATE To6,"wear) -aro AIA

C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IC roe Lc- waTWNUM~kRT
o 1-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~k

~~~~~~~~~~~HWL Rb1G"T-T' CO -ii
(U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D~~, l

,,,TEA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00*4 -49.

S..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a - LIRESrOaob

0~~~~~~~~~~5

ATTRIBUTE ALTERATIONS ATTRIBUTE ALTERATIONS

INCREASE 0E1AS INCREASE DEREN

Roy1ul~t-r Tr"oo,-rno laput Sto-oeo L. T.1L. A] A. T.1 S. T. .TLTiT ]T RN1trTos.fr. InP~tstSoCaqDL.LT. . .L T. 1. 1< S.15.T.

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 I 11lO

D.T. A LAS

6 I0 I Hf.~

0,0000.0 - SR0.O~~~~~~~~~~ost
agom OAS

o5.SDO ____

TOW~ 5--L- O.064

25L 3Oqr0SIOfA5

ATTRIBUTE ALTERATIONS
ECOSYSTEM4 ACTIVIIV EuVIEOW4ENTAL ALTERATIONS -___________________
Descrlptlon/tocation PAC ASE D____ ECREASE
Toss }frb.j roiiTjor.b p05- Coooent
Regulator Transfonoer Input Storage~2 L . TI.Ts.T.1. L. T.. T. I. T.
D1p sA VMTE&.AtSIP ' ADDS. SAIU-iOLOO T. SOI 5.s16s FEo'.iO.d

ECWoATIEZING, ST Frail. Woost .,Anos. T. ~~JE TotCI?

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ze, OCEscI

5"F campA~~~~~~~n.& 5LD~~~~F'~t~lo

I? CoN 010005 ROI'IES 5$0 'A5 T 10A WOCSO 5 1 ro4 E jss - 5xLSTURD

BOA0 SE :SLOPE S;LEP

CH44WJEL CREDGT MG CSOfLYE VL-SS' eSI 0IU~Of
Ar EET nrIEIO ftL-oO.oOt DM00 .wtc
-"E OkOAJS-wlzCK 6s
Wocn~o~to ~frEC~lIStES 0001 011 ~IS SoAI.I
SMUT BOA ALONG- C~~~tIOSO oooolooo�O 7 �o..4SATAC",O

N l CHANNEL WIkING "E000101ME-. REOML " Egg-T.-o EO`DA0 0

.E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EEfsLEVAIWjS*O
O'eP

-r064 SFO-W.OIO' 0-

SHESTPI.EW~~ ~~~~~~~ -W 5C oC

tRSS~ SSOpt 9-ENRT E4.&-C.

%Aq- ~ ~ ~~4:0 L305- R: STI;

VLOWVFigure PEA (cont'd

MLA "'Re~ordo Ecologan-eicaal Ateaton vAnalsi

sweerl"Low 254 4,e

ATTRIBUTE ALTERATIONS ATTRIBUTE ALTERATIONS
ILNCREASE L.. DECREASE I N C R E A S E - O(CASS
P,- 1 os.P~o. Pst.PI-ob. -V0-s--p-,0. -ros-s comm'ent --poSS Pro. 7 o7 os.Pb Poss. Coosent
Regjulator- Teansfo~-ocr Input Storage L3 T. S.S.S S T-, -L-r-T 47TR;~ator TSossf0orer 1,,p~t Storage -TT~TT5 .S .5 .5 .5 .
005 ETATo wco"R

fl40014 050$

A.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rss 0555 .5mr

c of 5,,0. 9-6~~~~~jf~

05055 1'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~'

POT" ~ ~ f PLIO

W~~~*IAO5. Th.S 04101

SoIl to e ,JS
m.STV5

~~,ss~oT son 05LA0L

TO PI.AOTS MIX

-MA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 505 aW~r KWM$01-I
W~~~~tN~~~~~, wo~EOO,I 5 ~015

255I~0II -

APPENDIX F

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Introduction

The study bibliography is presented in seven categories, which are:

Engineering and Design
Environmental Inventory, Impact Analysis, and Planning
Industrial Requirements and Location Factors
Legal and Institutional Analysis
Ports, Waterways, and Canals
Socioeconomics
Bibliographies

The citations of the seven categories include the references to particular sections in the main
body of this report, as well as other references.

Engineering and Design

Brinker, R. C. 1969. Elementary Surveying, 5th edition. Scranton, Pennsylvania: International Textbook Company.

British HIydromechanics Research Association, 1975. First International Symposium on Dredging Technology.
Canterbury, England.

Caterpillar Tractor Co. 1974. Caterpillar Performance Handbook.

Chilton, C. Ii. 1960. Cost Engineering in the Process Industries. McGraw-Hill.

Cornick, EH. F. 1959. Dock and Harbour Engineering, Vol. 2, The Design of Harbours. London: C. Griffin & Co.

Cornick, 1i F. 1962. Dock and Harbour Engineering, Vol. 4, Construction. London: C. Griffin & Co.

DeLonge, fl. C. and G. C. Guarino. 1976. "Variations in Raw-Water Supply-Effect on Treatment and Cost." Journal
of the American Waterways Association, Vol. 67, No. 2.

Espey, Hluston & Associates. 1977. A Study of the Placement of Materials Dredged from Texas Ports and Channels.
Prepared for the General Land Office of Texas.

Engineering News Record. 1976. "Unit Prices." August 5, 1976 and August 26, 1976.

Fair, G. M., J. C. Geyer, and D. A. Okun. 1971. Elements of Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal, Second Edition.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Giannio, S. P. and H. Wang. 1974. Engineering Considerations for Marinas in Tidal Marshes.

Godfrey, R. S. 1975. Building Construction Cost Data-1976. Duxbury, Mass.: Snow Means Company, Inc.

Ilerbich, J. B., et al. 1971. Proceedings of the Dredging Seminar (3rd) held on November 20, 1970. Center for
Dredging Studies, Texas A&M University.

llerbich, J. B. 1975. Coastal and Deep Ocean Dredging. Gulf Publishing Co.

Herbich, J. B. 1976. "Engineering Aspects of Operation and Maintenance of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in
Texas." Dredging: Environmental Effects and Technology. Proc. of WODCON VII, San Francisco, California.

256

Johnson, Bernard Engineers, Inc. 1973. Freeport Shrimpboat Harbor, Brazos River Harbor ANavigation District of
Brazoria County.

Kambe, W. T. 1951. Soil Testing for Engineers. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Kray, C. J. 1973. "Design of Ship Channel and Maneuvering Areas." Journal of the Waterways, Harbors and Coastal
Engineering Division. Proceedings of the ASCE. American Society of Civil Engineers.

Marinos, G. and J. W. Woodward. 1968. "Estimation of Hurricane Surge Hydrographs." Journal of the Waterways
and Harbors Division. ASCE Vol. 94, No. WW2, May 1968.

Pavoine, J. L., J. E. Heer, Jr., and D. J. Hagerty. 1974. Handbook of Solid Waste Disposal. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co.

Peck, R. B., W. E. Hanson, and T. H. Thornburn. 1963. Foundation Engineering. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc.

Rcid, R. 0. and B. R. Bodine, 1968. "Numerical Model for Storm Surges in Galveston Bay." Journal of the
Waterways and Harbors Division. ASCE, Vol. 94, No. WWI. Petroleum Extension Service, UT Division of
Extension, and Pipe Line Contractors Association, Dallas, Texas.

Walmer, M. E. and S. L. Baron. 1972. Manual of Structural Design and Engineering Solutions. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Environmental Inventory, Impact Analysis and Planning

Adkins, W. G. and D. Burke, Jr. 1974. Social, Economic, and Environmental Factors in Highway Decision Making.
In cooperation with the Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Research Report
148-4, Study 2-1-71-148, Highway Decision Making, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas Highway Depart-
ment.

Alden, Dr. H. R 1974. Environmental Impact Assessment, A Procedure for Coordinating and Organizing Environ-
mental Planning. Technical Publication No. 10, for Thorne Ecological Institute and Rocky Mountain Center on
the Environment.

Allbee, R. N. and D. A. Storey. 1973. Elements in a Decision Framework for Planning the Allocation of Coastal
Land and Water Resources with Illustration for a Coastal Community. University of Massachusetts at Amherst:
Water Resources Research Center.

Allen, B. L., et al. 1974. Procedure for Location of a Least Impact Environmental Corridor for a Lineal Develop-
ment, Volume One. For the Texas Water Development Board by the Water Resources Center, Texas Tech
University.

Allen, P. F. 1950. "Ecological Basis for Land Use Planning in Gulf Coast Marshlands." Journal Soil and Water
Conservation. Vol. 5, pp. 57-62.

American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, WPCF. 1971. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Waste Water. 13th edition.

American Society of Civil Engineers. 1976. "Dredging and Its Environmental Effects." American Society of Civil
Engineers: Proceedings.

American Society of Planning Officials. Land Use and the Environment, An Anthology of Readings. Prepared under
the auspices of The Environmental Studies Division of the Office of Research and Monitoring, The Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Washington, D. C.

Babcock, K. V4. 1967. "The Influence of Water Depth and Salinity on Wiregrass and Saltmarsh Grass." Master's
dissertation. LSU and A&M College.

Battelle Memorial Institute. Development of an Economic Environmental Trade-Off Model for Industrial Land Use
Planning. Columbus Laboratories of the Battelle Memorial Institute.

257

Battelle Memorial Institute. 1972. Environmental Evaluation System fbr Water Resources Planning. Final Report to
the Bureau of Reclamation, January 31, 1972. Contract No. 14-06-0-7182. Columbus Laboratories of the
Battelle Memorial Institute.

Becrnard, II. A. and R. J. l.aBlanc. 1965. "Resume of the Quaternary Geology of the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico
Province." In II11. PF. Wright, Jr. and D. G(. Irey (eds.) The Quaternary of the United States. Princeton University
Press.

Bernard, II. A., et al. 1970. Recent Sediments of'Southeast Texas, A Field Guide to the Brazos Alluvial and Dleltaic
Plains and the Galveston Barrier Island Complex. University of Texas, Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology.
Guidebook 11.

Blakey, J. F;. and II. L. Kunze. 1971. Reconnaissance of the Chemical Quality of Surface Waters of the Coastal
Basins of' Texas. Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Texas Water I)evelopment
Board, Report 130.

Blum, J. T. 1968. "Salt Marsh Spartina and Associated Algae." Ecol. Monograph. Vol. 38, pp. 199-222.

Bodine, B. R. 1969. Ilurricane Surge Frequency Estimated for the Gulf Coast of' Texas. Technical Memo No. 26.
Coastal E:ngineering Research Center.

Bragg, D. M. 1974. A Survey of the Economic and Environmental Aspects of an Onshore Deepwater Port at
Galveston, Texas. Texas A&M University Sea Grant Publication, TAMU-SG-74-213.

Brown, I.. F., Jr. R. A. Morton, J. 11. McGowen, C. W. Kreitler, and W. L. Fisher. 1974. Natural Hazards of the
Texas Coastal Zone. University of Texas at Austin. Bureau of Economic Geology.

Bruce, C. 11 1973. "Pressured Shale and Related Sediment Deformation: A Mechanism for Development of Regional
Contemporaneous Faults." Amer. Association Petroleum Geologists Bull. v. 57(5), pp. 878-886.

Buckmann, h. 0. and N. C. Brady. 1969. The Nature and Properties of Soil. Seventh Edition, New York: MacMillan
Co.

Burchell, R W. and D. Listokin. 1975. The Environmental Impact Handbook. The Center for Urban Policy Re-
search, Rutgers University.

California State Polytechnic University. 1972. The Coastal Plain of San Diego County, A Planning System for Phase
1: Northern Sector. Lab for Experimental Design, School of Environmental Design, Department of Landscape
Architecture.

Carnes, S. and P. Friesma. 1975. Urbanization and the Northern Great Pa ins. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern Univer-
sity, Center for Urban Affairs.

Chamberlain, J. 1. 1959. "Gulf Coast Marsh Vegetation as Food of Wintering Waterfowl." Journal of Wildlife
Management. 23(1): 97-102.

Coomber, N. H. and A. K. Biswas. 1973. Evaluation of Environmental Intangibles. New York: Genera Press.

Copeland, B. J. 1966. "Effects of Industrial Waste on the Marine Environment." Journal of Water Pollution Control.
38(6): 1000-1010.

CORE Laboratories, Inc. 1972. A Survey of the Subsurface Saline Water of Texas, Volume 2, Chemical Analyses of
Saline Water. Conducted by CORE Laboratories, Inc., Consulting and Engineering Department, Dallas, Texas.
Prepared under contract for the Texas Water Development Board, Report 157.

CORE Laboratories, Inc. 1972. A Survey of the Subsurface Saline Water of Texas, Volume 8, Geological Well Data.
Conducted by CORE Laboratories, Inc. Consulting and Engineering Department. Prepared under contract for
the Texas Water Development Board, Report 157.

Cronin, L.E. (ed.) Darnell, R. M., et al. 1976. Impacts of Construction Activities in Wetlands of the United States.

258

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. Corvallis Environmental Re-
search Laboratory. Corvallis, Oregon.

Dee, N., et al. 1973. Planning Methodology for Water Quality Management Environmental Evaluation System.
Columbus, Ohio: Battelle, Columbus Laboratories.

Dickert, T. G. (ed.) with K. R. Domeny. 1974. Environmental Impact Assessment: Guidelines and Commentary.
University Extension, University of California at Berkeley.

Ditton, R. B. and T. L. Goodale. 1972. Environmental Impact Analysis: Philosophy and Methods, Proceedings of the
Conference on Environmental Impact Analysis. Green Bay, Wisconsin. Sponsored by the University of
Wisconsin Sea Grant Program.

Doudoroff, P. and M. Katz. 1950. "Critical Review of Literature on the Toxicity of Industrial Wastes and Their
Components to Fish. I. Alkalies, Acids and Inorganic Gases." Sewage, Industrial Wastes. 22(11) 1432-1458.

Doudoroff, P. and M. Katz. 1953. "Critical Review of Literature on the Toxicity of Industrial Wastes and Their
Components to Fish. II. The Metals, Salts." Sewage and Industrial Wastes. 25(7): 802-839.

Ewing, M., D. B. Ericson, and B. C. Heezen. 1958. "Sediments and Topography of the Gulf of Mexico." Weeks, L.
G, (ed.) Habitat of Oil. Amer. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists, pp. 995-1053.

Feld, S. E., T. A. Grigalunas and R. Frye. 1973. An Inter-industry Model for Indicative Regional Water Resource
Planning: Some Preliminary Results. Sea Grant, University of Rhode Island, Marine Reprint Series No. 4.
Article is reprinted from the Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council.

Fisher, W. L., L. F. Brown, Jr., J. H. McGowen, and C G. Grant. 1973. Environmental Geologic Atlas of the Texas
Coastal Zone, Beaumont-Port Arthur Area. Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin.

Gabrysch, R. K. 1967. Development of Ground-water in the Houston District, 1961-1965. Texas Water Develop-
ment Board, Report 63.

Gallion, J. and R. W. Hann. 1973. Compilation and Evaluation of Technical Literature Related to Water Quality
Parameters, Analytical Methods of Analysis, Analytical Modeling Methods and Water Quality Management.
Environmental Engineering Division, Civil Engineering Department, Texas A&M University for the Texas Water
Quality Board.

Galveston County Water Authority. 1974. Study for Development of Water Resources for Galveston County and
Contiguous Area. Prepared by Bovay Engineers, Inc. and Walsh Engineering, Inc. Galveston, Texas.

Greenman, N. N. and R. J. LeBlanc. 1956. "Recent Marine Sediments and Environments of Northwest Gulf of
Mexico." Amer. Association Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, Vol. 40, pp. 813-847.

Hahl, D. C. and K. W. Ratzlaff. 1970. Chemical and Physical Characteristics of Water in Estuaries of Texas,
September 1967-September 1968. Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Texas Water
Development Board. Report 117.

Hahl, D. C. and K, W. Ratzlaff. 1972. Chemical and Physical Characteristics of Water in Estuaries of Texas, October
1968-September 1969. Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the Texas
Water Development Board. Report 144.

Hahl, D. C. and K. W. Ratzlaff. 1973 Chemical and Physical Characteristics of Water in Estuaries of Texas, October,
1969-September, 1970. Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the Texas
Water Development Board, Report 171.

Hahl, D. C. and K. W. Ratzlaff. 1975. Chemical and Physical Characteristics of Water in Estuaries of Texas, October
1970-September 1971. Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the Texas
Water Development Board. Report 191.

Haven, K. F. 1975. A Methodology for Impact Assessment in the Estuarine/Marine Environment, University of
California, Livermore, California. U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service.

259

Houston-Galveston Area Council. 1975. Land Resources Laboratory Map Series, Land and Water Resources.
Houston, Texas.

Houston Lighting and Power Company. 1974. Aliens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. Environ-
mental Report, Vol. 23.

Ingram, B. 1. 1974. Economic Impact of Recreation and Tourism Within Texas Coastal Zone. Industrial Economics
Research Division, College of Engineering, Texas Engineering Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, Sea
Grant Program.

Jain, R. K., et al. 1974. Handbook for Environmental Impact Analysis. Construction Engineering Research Labo-
ratory.

Jehn, K. H. 1974. The Role of the Atmospheric Sciences in the Texas Coastal Zone. Atmospheric Science Group,
The University of Texas, College of Engineering. Report No. 40. Sponsored by the Division of Natural Re-
sources and Environment and the Atmospheric Science Group.

Johnson, S. L., Jack Rawson, and R. E. Smith. 1969. Characteristics of Tide-Affected Flow in the Brazos River Near
Freeport, Texas, March 29-30, 1965. Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Texas
Water Development Board. Report 69.

Johnston, M. C. 1955. "Vegetation of the Edian Plain and Associated Coastal Features of Southern Texas."
University of Texas doctoral dissertation. Austin, Texas.

Kane, J. I. Vertinsky, and W. Thomson. 1973. KSIM: A Methodology for Interactive Resource Policy Stimulation.
Water Resources Research. Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 65-79. University of British Columbia: Resource Science Center.

Kreitler, C. W. 1976. Faulting and Land Subsidence from Ground-Water and Hydrocarbon Production, Houston-
Galveston, Texas. Proc. Second International Symposium on Land Subsidence. Anaheim, California.

Kreitler, C. W. 1976. Lineations and Faults in the Texas Coastal Zone. University of Texas, Austin, Bureau of
Economic Geology. RI No. 85.

Leopold, L. B., F. E. Clarke, B. B. Hanshaw, and J. R. Bolsley. 1971. Procedure for Evaluating Environmental
Impact. Geological Survey Circular 645. U.S. Department of the Interior.

Lewis, P. H., Jr. 1969. Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Study: Appendix B, Aesthetic and Cultural
Values. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Northeast Region.

Lissauer, I. M., et al. 1975. Preliminary Projections of Oil Spill Movement for Three Potential Deepwater Port Sites
in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Tech;nical Information Service.

Louisiana. Department of Conservation. 1963. Groundwater Conditions in Southwestern Louisiana, 1961 and 1962.
Department of Conservation, Geological Survey, and Department of Public Works, Water Resources Pamphlet
No. 12. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Lynch, J. J., T. O'Neil, and D. W. Fay. 1947. "Management Significance of Damage by Geese and Muskrats to Gulf
Coast Marshes." Journal Wildlife Management. 11(1) pp. 50-76.

McGowen, J. H., L. F. Brown, Jr., T. J. Evans, W. L. Fisher, and C. G. Groat. 1976. Environmental Geologic Atlas of
the Texas Coastal Zone - Bay City-Freeport Area. Bureau of Economic Geology. The University of Texas at
Austin.

McHarg, I. L. 1971. Design with Nature. Garden City, New York. Doubleday/Natural History Press.

Masch, F. D. and Associates. 1971. Simulation of Water Quality in Streams and Canals. Theory and Description of
the QUAL-1 Mathematical Modeling System. Texas Water Development Board. Report 128.

Minnesota Power and Light Company and Northern States Power Company. 1976. Twin Cities to Forbes Trans-
mission Project-Construction Permit Application for a 500/345 KV Transmission Facility. Minneapolis,
Minnesota.

260

Mixon, J. 1974. Environmental Analysis for Development Planning. Chambers County, Texas. Technical Report,
Volume 3, Coastal Zone Management: A Proposed Incremental Change System for Texas by Southwest Center
for Urban Research.

Moore, J. L., et al. 1973. Final Report on a Methodology for Evaluating Manufacturing Environmental Impact
Statement for Delaware's Coastal Zone. Battelle-Columbus Laboratories.

Morton, R. A. and M. J. Pieper. 1975. Shoreline Changes in the Vicinity of the Brazos River Delta (San Luis Pass to
Brown Cedar Cut): An Analysis of Historical Changes of the Texas Gulf Shoreline. Bureau of Economic
Geology, The University of Texas at Austin. Geological Circular 75-4.

Murray, G. E. 1961. Geology of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Province of North America. New York: Hlarper and
Brothers.

Navigable Waters Safety and Environmental Quality Act. 1971. Hlearings before the Committee on Commerce. U.S.
Senate, 92nd Congress, 1st Session on S. 2074, September, 1971. U.S. Document.

North Central Texas Council of Governments. 1975. Open Space, Identifying the Critical Areas.

Odum, 11. T. 1967. "Biologic Circuits and the Marine Systems of Texas." Pollution and Marine Ecology. eds. T. A.
Olson and F. J. Burgess, pp. 99-157. New York: Interscience Publishers.

Odum, HI. T. 1971. Environment, Power and Society. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Odum, II. T. 1972. "An Energy Circuit Language for Ecological and Social Systems: Its Physical Basis." Systems
Analysis and Simulation in Ecology. B. C. Patten, ed. Vol. 2, pp. 140-211. New York: Academic Press.

Odum, H. T. 1972. "Use of Energy Diagrams for Environmental Impact Statements." Tools for Coastal Zone
Management. pp. 197-213. Washington, D.C.3/4 Marine Technology Society.

Odum, EH. T., B. J. Copeland, and E. A. McMahan. 1974. Coastal Ecological Systems of the United States. Vol. I-IV.
The Conservation Foundation: Washington, D.C.

Olson, T. and F. Burgess (eds). 1966. Pollution and Marine Ecology. New York: Interscience.

Palmisano, A. W., Jr. 1967. Ecology of Scirpus olneyi and Scirpus robustus in Louisiana coastal marshes. Master's
dissertation. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.

Penfound, W. T. and E. S. Hathaway. 1938. "Plant Communities in the Marshlands of Southeastern Louisiana."
Ecological Monographs 8(1) pp. 1-56.

Rapport, D. J. and J. E. Turner. 1977. "Economic Models in Ecology, the Economics of Resource Allocation
Provide a Framework for Viewing Ecological Processes." Science, Vol. 195, January 28, 1977. pp. 367-373.

Rawson, J. 1967. Study and Interpretation of Chemical Quality of Surface Waters in the Brazos River Basin, Texas.
Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board and the
Brazos River Authority. Report 55.

Reed, A. E. and J. D. Mertes. 1975. Preserving Environmental Integrity, Guidelines for Recreational Development in
Sensitive Areas. Department of Park Administration Landscape Architecture and Horticulture, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, Texas.

Reid, G. K. 1961. Ecology of Inland Waters and Estuaries. New York: Reinhold.

Reid, W. M. 1973. Active Faults in Houston, Texas. University of Texas, Austin, Texas. Ph.D. dissertation, 122 p.

Resource Planning Associates, Inc. 1974. OCS Oil and Gas-An Environmental Assessment. Vol. 4. Prepared for the
Council on Environmental Quality. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

Rice Center for Community Design and Research. 1974. Environmental Analysis for Development Plannling,

261

Chambers County, Texas. Technical Report, Volume One, Appendices, An Approach to Natural Environmental
Analysis. Houston: Rice University.

Rice Center for Community Design and Research. 1975. An Interim Report on an Approach for Identifying Land
Uses Which Have a "Direct Impact on Coastal Waters" Within Chambers County by the Environmental Analysis
Component. NSF/RANN Chambers County Study, Phase 2, June 5, 1975. Research under Sub-Contract to the
Southwest Center for Urban Research.

Rice Center for Community Design and Research. 1976. Texas Gulf Coast Program Research Report 1. 3 vols.
Houston: Rice University.

Rossa, W. M. and R. H. Chabreck. 1972. "Factors Affecting the Growth and Survival of Natural and Planted Stands
of Scirpus olneyi." Proc. 26th Ann. Conference of the Southeast Game & Fish Commission, pp. 178-188.

Rulison, M. V. E., et al. 1972. Evaluation of Planning for Wetlands Drainage Projects in the Southeastern Coastal
Plains. Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission. Prepared for Office of Water Resources Research.
Distributed by NTIS DOC.

Sandeen, W. M.and J. B. Wesselman. 1973. Ground Water Resources of Brazoria County, Texas. Prepared by the
U.S. Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the Texas Water Development Board. Report 163.

Seadock, Inc. 1974. Environmental Report Summary. 3 cols. Texas Offshore Crude Oil Unloading Facility.

Seadock, Inc. 1975. Deepwater Port License Application. Texas Offshore Oil Unloading Facility.

Shelton, J. W. 1968. "Role of Contemporaneous Faulting During Basinal Subsidence." American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 52(3), pp. 399-413.

Shields, M. A. 1975. "Social Impact Studies: An Expository Analysis." Environment and Behavior. Vol. 7, No. 3.
Sage Publications, Inc. New York. pp. 265-284.

Singleton, J. R. 1949. "Coastal Drainage Problems in Relation to Waterfowl." Texas Journal of Science (3): 25-28.

Slotta, L. S., C. K. Sollitt, D. A. Bella, D. R. Hancock, J. E. McCauley, R. Parr. 1973. Effects of Hopper Dredging
and in Channel Spoiling in Coos Bay, Oregon. Final Report October 4, 1972. Interdisciplinary Studies of the
School of Engineering of Oceanography, Oregon State University.

Smith, S. H. 1966. "Effects of Water use Activities in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Estuarine Areas." A
Symposium on Estuarine Fisheries. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 3. Supplement to Transac-
tions of the American Fisheries Society (4).

Sorenson, Jens C. 1971. A Framework for Identification and Control of Resource Degradation and Conflict in the
Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone. Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Environmental Design,
University of California at Berkeley.

Southwest Center for Urban Research. 1975. Environmental Analysis for Development Planning-Chambers County,
Texas. Volume Five, Technical Report. Applications for the Texas Coastal Zone Management Program.

Southwest Center for Urban Research. 1975. Environmental, Economic and Political Factors in Land Use Decision
Making. Applications for the Texas Coastal Zone Management Program.

Teal, J. M. 1962. "Energy Flow in the Salt Marsh Ecosystem of Georgia." Ecology, Vol. 43(4) pp. 614-624.

Texas Air Control Board. 1974. Ambient Air Quality Survey-Clute and Freeport, Texas. October 15, 1973 through
April 3, 1974.

Texas A&M University. 1973. Waste Management in the Texas Coastal Zone. Office of the Governor, Division of
Planning Coordination, Coastal Resources Management Program, ICNRE, Austin, Texas.

Texas A&M University. 1969. Texas Plants, A Checklist and Ecological Summary. Revised. Texas A&M University,
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.

262

Texas General Land Office. 1976. Texas Coastal Management Program. Appendices. Prepared by Research and
Planning Consultants, Inc. Austin, Texas.

Texas. Governor's Water Resource Conservation and Development Task Force. 1976. 1975 National Water Assess-
ment-State Regional Future, Texas Gulf Region.

Texas. Office of the Governor. 1972. A Conceptual Report on the Management of Bay and Estuarine Systems, Phase
1. Division of Planning Coordination. Office of the Governor. Coastal Resources Management Program.

Texas. Office of the Governor. 1973. A Conceptual Report: The Management of Bays and Estuarine Systems in the
Texas Coastal Zone-Phase II, Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the Effects of Man's Activities on
Coastal Environmental Units. Division of Planning Coordination, Office of the Governor. Coastal Resources
Management Program.

Texas. Office of the Governor. 1973. A Conceptual Report: Waste Management in the Texas Coastal Zone. Division
of Planning Coordination, Office of the Governor, Coastal Resources Management Program.

Texas. Office of the Governor. 1972. Electric Power in Texas, a Report of the Advisory Committee on Power Plant
Siting. Division of Planning Coordination.

Texas. Parks and Wildlife Department, Comprehensive Planning Branch, 1975. Regional Environment Analysis of the
Houston-Galveston Region. Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan. Vol. 6. Austin, Texas.

Texas. Water Commission. 1962. Drainage Areas of Texas Streams, San Jacinto River Basin and San Jacinto-Brazos
Coastal Area. Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey. Circular No. 62-05.

Texas. Water Development Board and Water Resources Engineers, Inc. 1970. Systems Simulation for Management of
a Total Water Resource, A Completion Report, Volume 1, Introduction. Report 188.

Texas. Water Development Board. 1968. The Texas Water Plan. Austin, Texas.

Texas. Water Development Board. 1971. Inventories of Irrigation in Texas 1958, 1964, and 1969. Report 127.

Texas. Water Development Board. 1977. Continuing Water Resources Planning and Development for Texas. Draft.
Phase 1 - Planning Methods, Revised Estimates of Present Water Demand and Availability, Projections of
Future Water Needs, and Identification of Some Potential Sources of Water Supply for Use in Modifying and
Amending the Texas Water Plan. Austin, Texas.

Texas. Water Quality Board. 1973. Texas Water Quality Standards.

Thompson, John I. and Company. 1968. A Perspective of Regioi i1 and State Marine Environmental Activities. A
Questionnaire Survey, Statistics and Observations.

Thurow, C., W. Toner, and D. Erley. 1975. Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands: A Practical Guide for Local
Administrators. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials. Planning Advisory Service. Reports Nos. 307,
308.

U.S. Bureau of Soils. 1902. Soil Survey of the Brazoria Area, Texas. Reprinted from Field Operations of the Bureau
of Soils, 1902.

U.S. Corps of Engineers. 1971. Survey Report on San Bernard River, Texas Flood Control. U.S. Army Engineer
District, Galveston, Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas.

U.S. Corps of Engineers. 1972. Draft Technical Paper, Matrix Analysis of Alternatives for Water Resources Develop-
ment. U.S. Army Engineer District, Tulsa, Corps of Engineers, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1972. Land Use and Treatment Alternatives for the Coastal Prairie and Coast Marsh
Land Resource Areas - Texas. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. 1972 (among others). Established Soil Series Descrip-
tions. Fort Worth, Texas.

263

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1972. Texas Coastal Basins Plan of Work. Volume 2, Appendix A - Soils of the
Texas Coastal Basins, Interim Report (Preliminary - Subject to Revision).

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1973. Annual Wind Distribution
by Pasquill Stability Classes. Galveston, Texas. Environmental Data Service, National Weather Records Center.
Asheville, North Carolina.

U.S. Department of Interior. 1966. Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the U.S. U.S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Resource Publication 34. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Interior. 1974. Final Environmental Impact Statement Volumes I and 1, Deepwater Ports. To
accompany legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to regulate the construction and operation of
deepwater port facilities. U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Assistant Secretary, Program Development and
Budget, Office of Economic Analysis. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. The Economic and Social Importance of Estuaries, Estuarine Pollu-
tion Study Series. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office, Technical Support Division.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. Applied Ecology Seminar. Training Manual. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. The Control of Pollution from Hydrographic Modifications.
Washington, D.C.: GPO.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Impacts of Construction Activities in Wetlands of the United States.
Ecological Research Series. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development.
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory. Corvallis, Oregon.

U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1970. The Characteristics and Pollutional Problems Associated
with Petrochemical Wastes. Summary Report. Prepared by Engineering-Science, Inc./Texas. Austin, Texas.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1975. Factors to be Considered in Setting Future Policy for Use of Inland
Waterways. Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the U.S. U.S. Document.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1973. Water Facts and Figures for Planners and Managers. Circular 601-1. Washington, D.C.

Zaporozec, A. 1974. "Environmental Implications in Use of Ground Water." Wisconsin Conservation Bulletin.
39(2):3-5.

Industrial Requirements and Location Factors

Adams, J. W. and M. L. Holloway. 1974. Economic Impact of New or Expanded Industries in the Lower Rio Grande
Region of Texas. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University System in cooperation with
the Office of the Governor, Office of Information Services. Austin, Texas.

American Waterways Operators, Inc. 1976. 1974 Waterside Plant Locations and Expansions: A Study in Economic
Growth. Arlington, Virginia.

Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1973. Potential Offshore Effects of Deepwater Oil Terminal-Related Industrial Development.
Volume IV. NTIS PB 224 021.

-.-.-. - 1975. Petroleum Development in New England. Volume II. Energy Program Technical Report 75-6.
Prepared for the new England Regional Commission.

Bankers Trust Company. 1976. Capital Resources for Energy Through the Year 1990. Prepared by the Energy
Group, Bankers Trust Company, New York.

Barry, B. J. L., E. C. Conkling, and D. M. Ray. The Geography of Economic Systems. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.

264

Baumgartner, R. (ed.). 1976. Predicasts' Basebook. Cleveland, Ohio: Predicasts, Inc.

Beckman, M. 1968. Location Theory. New York: Random House.

Bower, B. T. 1966. "The Economics of Industrial Water Utilization." in Kneese, A. V. and S. C. Smith (eds), Water
Research. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.

Carestio, R. M. "Land Absorption in Industrial Parks." Industrial Development and Manufacturers Record. January,
1971. pp. 18-21.

Datagraphics, Inc. 1971. Projected Wastewater Treatment Costs in the Organic Chemicals Industry (updated).
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring.

Evans, S. Ill. 1972. "Industrial Park Developments." Appraisal Journal, April, 1972. pp. 235-245.

Fulton, M. 1971. "New Factors in Plant Location." tHarvard Business Review. May, 1971. pp. 4-17.

Greenhut, M. 1956. Plant Location in Theory and in Practice. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North
Carolina Press.

Greenhut, M. 1963. Microeconomics and the Space Economy. Chicago: Scott Foresman.

Griefen, R. J. 1970. "Impact of the Industrial Park." Appraisal Journal. January, 1970. pp. 83-91.

Happel, J. and D. G. Jordan. Chemical Process Economics, 2nd edition. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Hoover, E. M. 1948. The Location of Economic Activity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hunker, H. L. 1974. Industrial Development. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

Ide, E. A. 1970. Estimating Land and Floor Area Implicit in Employment Projections. Vols. I and V. Prepared for
the Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation.

International Petroleum Encyclopedia. 1976. Tulsa, Oklahoma: The Petroleum Publishing Company.

Isard, W. 1956. Location and the Space Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Isard, W. 1975. Introduction to Regional Science. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kinnard, W. N., Jr. and S. D. Messner. 1971. Industrial Real Estate, 2nd edition. Washington, D.C.: Society of
Industrial Realtors.

Klimek, J. C. 1972. "Forecasting Industrial Water Requirements in Manufacturing." Water Resources Bulletin,
American Water Resources Association. Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 561-570.

Lochmoeller, D. C., et al. 1975. Industrial Development Hfandbook. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute.

Logan, M. L. 1970. "Locational Decisions in Industrial Plants in Wisconsin." Land Economics. August, 1970. pp.
325-328.

Losch, A. 1966. The Economics of Location (translation of Die raumliche Ordnung der Wirtschraft, 2nd ed., 1944).
New Haven: John Wiley.

McAuliffe, R. D. 1972. "Industry vs. Environment: The Pureland Solution." Industrial Development and Manufac-
turer's Record, March/April, 1972, pp. 4-7.

McGregor, J. R. 1970. "Water as a Factor in the Location of the Industry in the Southeast." Southeastern Geo-
grapher. Vol. X, No. 1, pp. 41-54.

Marshall, J. L. and J. F. Malina, Jr. 1973. Establishment of Operational Guidelines for Texas Coastal Management.
Technical Report. Industrial Water Use in the Texas Coastal Zone, Center for Research in Water Resources,

265

Environmental Health Engineering Research Laboratory. Department of Civil Engineering, The University of
Texas at Austin. Prepared for Division of Planning Coordination, Governor's Office. Coordinated through
Division of Natural Resources and Environment, The University of Texas at Austin.

Miloy, J. and E. A. Copp. 1970. Economic Impact Analysis of Texas Marine Resources and Industries. Texas A&M
University Sea Grant 70-217.

National Petroleum Council. 1973. Factors Affecting U.S. Petroleum Refining. Prepared by NPC's Committee on
Factors Affecting U.S. Petroleum Refining.

National Petroleum Council. 1973. Factors Affecting U.S. Petroleum Refining: Impact of New Technology. National
Petroleum Council, Committee on Factors Affecting U.S. Petroleum Refining.

New England River Basins Commission. 1976. Onshore Facilities Related to Offshore Oil and Gas Development.
Factbook. Boston, Mass.: New England River Basins Commission.

Reid, G. W. and L. E. Streebin. 1972. Evaluation of Waste Waters from Petroleum and Coal Processing. Prepared for
Office of Research and Monitoring. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Schmedeman, I. W., et al. 1974. "Dynamics of the Rural Land Market." Texas Agricultural Progress, Vol. 20, No. 4.
Fall, 1974. Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University. College Station, Texas.

Shell Oil Company. No Date. The National Energy Problem: Implications for the Petrochemical Industry. Houston,
Texas: Shell Oil Company.

Texas A&M University. 1975. Analysis of the Role of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Texas. Executive Summary.
Texas A&M University, Sea Grant 75-203.

Texas. Industrial Commission. 1975. Study of the Supply and Demand for Skilled Construction Workers in Texas.
Final Report for Special Project Commission of State Manpower Council.

Texas/Louisiana Petrochemicals. 1975. Prepared for the Petrochemical Energy Group. Houston: Groppe and Long.

Thorne, O. J. 1971. "Industrial Park Cashflow Analysis." Industrial Development. March/April, 1971.

Thunen, J. H., von. 1966. (a reprint of 1826 edition) Der isolirte Statt in Beziehung auf Nabonalokon onmie und
Land wirtschaft. Stuttgart: Gustav Frieschen.

Townroe, P. M. 1971. Industrial Decisions. Center for Urban and Regional Studies. The University of Birmingham.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1974. Bridge Tunnel, and Elevated Highway Construction Contractors. SIC 1622,
CCT2-1-7. Census of Construction Industries, 1972, Industry Series. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1975. Industry Series United States Summary. CC72-1-1. Census of Construction
Industries, 1972. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1975. Water, Sewer, Pipe Line, Communication and Power Line Construction Contrac-
tors. SIC 1623, CC72-1-8. Census of Construction Industries, 1972, Industry Series. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1975. Heavy Construction Contractors, Not Elsewhere Classified. SIC 1629, CC72-1-9.
Census of Construction Industries, Industry Series. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1975. 1972 Census of Manufactures, Special Report Series: Water Use in Manufacturing.
MC 72(SR-4),. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1975. Census of Transportation, 1972. Commodity Transportation Survey-Area Series:
Area Report 6, TC 72C2-6. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1976. Annual Survey of Manufactures, 1974, Fuels and Electric Energy Consumed.
Series N74 (S)-4.2. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

266

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Agency. 1973. Industrial Location Determinants
1971-1975. Section 1. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1976. Survey of Current Business. Washington, D.C. GPO.

U.S. International Trade Commission. 1974. Synthetic Organic Chemicals. U.S. Production to Sales of Crude
Products from Petroleum and Natural Gas, preliminary. Washington, D.C.

U.S. International Trade Commission. 1974. Synthetic Organic Chemicals, U.S. Production and Sales of Cyclic
Intermediates, preliminary. Washington, D.C.

Weber, A. 1929. On the Location of Industries (translation of Uber den Standort der Industrie, 1909). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

White, R. D. 1971 "Planning Industrial Park Utilities." Public Works, Jan. 1971. pp. 68-70.

Whitehorn, N. C. 1973. Economic Analysis of the Petrochemical Industry in Texas. Texas A&M University Sea
Grant 73-203.

Williamson, R. B. 1977. Location Models for Use in Forecasting Regional and Urban Growth. Austin, Texas:
University of Texas Finance Department. Unpublished paper.

Wright, A. L. and W. T. Matthews. 1971. Economic Development and Factors Affecting Industrial Location on the
Texas Gulf Coast. College Station, Texas: Sea Grant Program. TAMU SG-71-214.

Legal and Institutional Analysis

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition. 1969. Jurisprudence Publishers, Inc.

Baram, M. J. 1976. Environmental Law and the Siting of Facilities. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing
Company.

Buchanan, S. G. 1973. "Texas Navigation Districts and Regional Planning in the Texas Gulf Coast Area." 10
Houston Law Review 533.

Celler, C. 1961. "Compacts and Interstate Authorities," 26 Law and Contemporary Problems 682.

Corpus Juris Secundum. 1961. Brooklyn, New York: The American Law Book Company.

Davis. 1975. "The Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972: Xn Expansion of the Federal Approach to Oil
Pollution," 6 Journal of Maritime Law 249.

Dinkins, C. E. 1973. "Texas Seashore Boundary Law: The Effect of Natural and Artificial Modifications," 10
Houston Law Review 43 (1973)

Dolgin, E. L. and T. Guilbert (ed.). 1974. Federal Environmental Law. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co.

Ereli, E. 1972. The Environmental Regulation of the Sea and Its Resources. Ilouston, University of Houston Sea
Law Program (unpublished).

Fair, M. L. 1961. "Port Authorities in the United States," Law and Contemporary Problems 703.

Federal Reporter. 2d Series. 1977. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Company.

Federal Supplement. 1977. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Company.

"Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments." 1976. 13 Houston Law Review 135.

Goldstein. 1961. "An Authority in Action," 26 Law and Contemporary Problems 715.

267

Mandelker, Daniel R. 1976. Environmental and Land Control Legislation.

"Ports as a Public Service." 1971. 2 Journal of Maritime Law 571.

Practicing Law Institute. 1970. Legal Control and the Environment, 2d edition.

Practicing Law Institute. 1976. Industry and the Environment.

Practicing Law Institute. 1975. Land Use and Environmental Controls.

"Recent Environmental Developments in Maritime and Offshore Activities." 1972. 9 Houston Law Review 655.

RPC Services, Inc. 1977. Texas Natural Resource Reporter. Austin, Texas: RPC Services, Inc.

Skehan. 1959. "The Port Authority," 1959 University of Illinois Law Forum 53.

Southwestern Reporter, 2d Series. 1977. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company.

Teclaff. 1970. "The Coastal Zone - Control Over Encroachment into the Tidewaters," 1 Journal of Maritime Law 2.

Texas Jurisprudence, Second edition. 1963. San Francisco, California: Bancroft-Whitney Company; Rochester, New
York: The Lawyers Cooperation Publishing Company.

Texas. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1976. Solving Texas Housing Problems: An Inter-
governmental Approach. Austin, Texas.

Texas. General Land Office. 1975. Present Authority: Authority of Governmental Entities in the Texas Coastal
Zone. Austin, Texas.

Texas. General Land Office. 1976. Current Permitting Processes in State and Federal Natural Resource Agencies (2
vols.), Austin, Texas.

Texas. Law Institute of Coastal and Marine Resources. 1972. Summary of Selected Legislation Relating to the
Coastal Zone. Austin, Texas.

Texas. Secretary of State. 1977. Texas Register. Austin, Texas.

Texas. State Bar of Texas. 1977. Institute, 1977, Texas Environmental Law. Austin, Texas.

Texas. State Bar of Texas, Professional Development Program. 1975. Environmental Law Conference. Austin, Texas.

United States Code Annotated. 1977. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Company.

United States Government Printing Office. 1977. Texas Register, Austin, Texas.

United States Supreme Court Reports. 1977. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Company.

Vernon's Annotated Revised Civil Statutes of the State of Texas. 1977. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Company.

Ports, Waterways, and Canals

Atturio, J. M., D. R. Basco, and W. P. James. 1976. Shoaling Characteristics of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in
Texas. Ocean Engineering Program. Texas A&M University, Sea Grant Program. TAMU-SG-76-207.

Bhattacharya, S. K. and A. N. Biswas. 1973. "Evaluation of Harbor Deepening Projects." Journal of the Waterways,
Harbors and Coastal Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. American
Society of Civil Engineers.

Etter, W. E. and R. C. Graham. 1974. Financial Planning for the Texas Port System. College Station: Texas A&M
University.

268

Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration. 1966. Inland Waterways Transportation.
Cambridge, Mass.: Baker Library.

Kearny, A. T., Inc. 1974. Domestic Waterborne Shipping Market Analysis. Prepared for Maritime Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.

Liou, Y. C. and J. B. Herbich. 1976. Sediment Movement Induced by Ships in Restricted Waterways. Ocean
Engineering Program. Texas A&M University, Sea Grant Program. TAMU-SG-76-209.

Marshall, J. L. 1973. Industrial Water Use in the Texas Coastal Zone. The University of Texas at Austin: Center for
Research in Water Resources. Technical Report EHE-73-03, CRWR-101.

McFarland, F., et al. 1976. Coastal Inland Canals. Interim Report (Draft). Prepared for the General Land Office
Coastal Zone Management Program. Texas A&M University.

Panel on Future Port Requirements. 1976. Port Development in the United States. Report prepared by the Panel on
Future Port Requirements of the United States, Maritime Transportation Research Board, Commission on
Sociotechnical Systems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

Ray, W. W. 1970. Selection of Significance to the Urban and Regional Planner of Ports and Hinterlands.

Richards, R. R. 1976. Public Port Financing in Texas. College Station: Texas A&M University, Center for Marine
Resources.

San Francisco Department of City Planning. 1975. Land Use: Conditions and Trends, Report Containing Back-
ground Information for the Commerce and Industrial Element of the Comprehensive Plan of San Francisco.

San Francisco Department of City Planning. 1975. Industrial Trends: Report Containing Background Information
for the Commerce and Industrial Element of the Comprehensive Plan of San Francisco.

Schenker and Brockel. 1974. Port Planning and Development as Related to Problems of U.S. Ports and the U.S.
Coastal Environment. Cambridge, Md.: Cornell Maritime.

Takel, R E. 1974. Industrial Port Development. Bristol: Scientechnica.

Texas A&M University. 1975. Analysis of the Role of the Gulf lntracoastal Waterway in Texas. Presented by Texas
Ports Association and Texas Coastal and Marine Council. Texas A&M University, Sea Grant Program.
TAMU-SG-75-202.

Texas A&M University. 1977. Texas Ports Fact Book. College Station: Texas A&M University, Center for Marine
Resources.

Texas. Coastal and Marine Council. 1977. Marine Commerce. Austin, Texas.

Texas. State Department of Highways and Public Transportation. 1976. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Texas,
1976. Presented in response to the Texas Coastal Waterway Act of 1975 and submitted to the 65th Session of
the Texas Legislature. Summary. Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Transportation
Planning Division.

U.S. Comptroller General. November, 1975. Factors to be Considered in Settling Future Policy for Use of Inland
Waterways. Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the U.S.

U.S. Department of the Army. 1957. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Guadalupe River, Texas. (Revised, Definite
Project Report.) Corps of Engineers, Galveston District.

U.S. Corps of Engineers. 1969. The Ports of Freeport, Port Isabel, and Brownsville, Texas. Port Series No. 26
(Revision 1969), Part 2. Prepared by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Army.

U.S. Corps of Engineers. 1975. Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 2, Waterways and Harbors, Gulf
Coast, Mississippi River System and Antilles. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers.

269

U.S. House of Representatives. 1972. Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972. 92nd Congress, 2nd Session. U.S.
House of Representatives, Conference Report.

Waugh, R. G. November, 1975. "Evaluating Costs for Port Distribution Systems," Journal of the Waterways,
Harbors, and Coastal Engineering Division. American Society of Civil Engineers.

Socioeconomics

Applebaum, R. P. 1970. Theories in Social Change. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co.

Houston-Galveston Area Council. 1971. Regional Atlas. Houston, Texas.

Houston-Galveston Area Council. 1975. State of the Region. Houston, Texas.

Houston-Galveston Area Council. 1976. 1975 Census Tract Land Use, Brazoria County, Texas. Unpublished data.

Parson, Talcott. 1966. Societies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Research and Planning Consultants, Inc. 1977. Offshore Oil:/tts Impact on Texas Communities. Prepared for Texas
Coastal Management Program. General Land Office of Texas. Austin, Texas.

Shields, Mark A. 1975. "Social Impact Studies: An Expository Analysis." Environment and Behavior. Vol. 7, No. 3.
New York: Sage Publications, Inc., September 1975, pp. 265-284.

Texas Municipal League. 1976. Texas Municipal Taxation and Debt. 1975-1976. Austin: Texas Municipal League.

Texas. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1973. Texas County Statistics. Compiled by
Texas Crop and Livestock Reporting Service.

Texas. Education Agency. 1976. 1973-1974 Annual Enrollment Figures. Austin, Texas.

Texas. General Land Office. 1976. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development, Natural Resource, Socio-
economic, and Demographic Inventory of the Texas Coastal Area. The Coastal Management Program.

Texas. Office of the Governor. 1973. A Conceptual Report - Economic Development in the Texas Coastal Zone.
Coastal Resources Management Program, Division of Planning Coordination, Governor's Office.

Texas. Parks and Wildlife Department. 1975. Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan, Outdoor Recreation on the Texas Gulf
Coast, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Comprehensive Planning Branch.

Texas. Parks and Wildlife Department. 1975. Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan, State Summary. Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department. Comprehensive Planning Branch.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1977. Census of the Population, 1970. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington,
D.C.: GPO.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1977. County Business Patterns, 1974. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. 1972. Standard Industrial Classification
Manual. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

University of Texas at Austin. 1975. Directory of Texas Manufacturers, Volume I, Alphabetical, Geographical, and
Organizational Reference Listings, and Volume II, Product Listings. Bureau of Business Research.

University of Texas at Austin. 1975. Texas Industrial Expansion. Vol. 25, No. 10. Bureau of Business Research.

University of Texas at Austin. 1976. Atlas of Texas. Bureau of Business Research.

University of Texas at Austin. 1973. Population Projections for Texas Counties: 1980-2020. Austin, Texas: Popu-
lation Research Center.

270

Vlachos, W. B., W. J. Filstead, S. E. Jacobs, M. Marunjama, J. H. Peterson, Jr., G. Willcke. 1975. Social Impact
Assessment: An Overview. A report submitted to the U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources, Fort
Belvoir, Virginia.

Wallace, A. F. C. 1970. Culture and Personality New York: Random Ilouse, 2nd edition.

Wolf, C. P. (ed.). 1974. Social Impact Assessment. Milwaukee: Environmental Design Research Association, Inc.

Bibliographies

Bascom, S., et al. 1975. Secondary Impacts of Transportation and Waste Water Investments: Review and Biblio-
graphy. EPA-600/5-75-002.

Chisholm, J. 1976. Public Participation in Environmental Policy, An Annotated Bibliography. Council of Planning
Librarians Exchange Bibliography No. 1163.

Cordell, H. D. 1976. The State of the Art in Developing and Operating Intensive Use Natural Resource Recreation
Sites. Council of Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography No. 1072.

Erickson, D. L. 1976. Public Involvement in Natural Resource Planning and Decision Making. Council of Planning
Librarians Exchange Bibliography No. 1097.

Gunn, C. 1969. Annotated Bibliography of Resource Use, Texas Gulf Coast. Texas A&M University, Interagency
Natural Resources Council of Texas and the National Science Foundation, Sea Grant Publication No. 204.

Hopkins, S. H. 1973. Annotated Bibliography on Effects of Salinity and Salinity Changes on Life in Coastal Waters.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.

Ingram, W. M. and P. Doudouroff. 1953. Selected Bibliography of Publications on Industrial Wastes Relating to Fish
and Oysters. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Services Bibliography Series No.
10.

Ingram, W. M. 1957. Handbook of Selected Biological References on Water Pollution Control, Sewage Treatment,
Water Treatment. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Health Service, Bibliography Series No.
8.

Jenks, B., J. Sorenson, and J. Breadon. 1976. Coastal Zone Bibliography. University of California. Institute of
Marine Resources. La Jolla, California. Sea Grant Publications No. 49.

Livingston, R., Jr. 1965. A Preliminary Bibliography with KWI' Index on the Ecology of Estuaries and Coastal
Areas of the Eastern U.S. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report, Fisheries No. 507.

Morrison, D. E. 1975. Energy: A Bibliography of Social Science and Related Literature. New York: Garland.

Research and Planning Consultants, Inc. 1976. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development: An Impact
Bibliography. Austin, Texas.

Sherk, J. A., Jr. and L. E. Cronin. 1970. The Effects of Suspended and Deposited Sediments on Estuarine Orga-
nisms. An Annotated Bibliography of Selected References. University of Maryland Natural Resource Institute
Publication 70-19.

Starbuck, J. C. 1976. Recent Articles on Office and Industrial Parks. Council of Planning Librarians Exchange
Bibliography No. 1101.

Stevens, B. H. and C. A. Brachett. 1967. Industrial Location: A Review and Annotated Bibliography of Theoretical,
Empirical and Case Studies. Bibliography Series No. 3. Philadelphia: Regional Science Research Institute.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Environmental Management Research, Annotated Bibliography, Publi-
cations and Active Projects. Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Staff, Media Quality Management Division,
Office of Air, Land and Water Use. Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.

271

Vance, M. (ed.). February, 1976. New Publications for Planning Libraries. Council of Planning Libraries, Exchange
Bibliography No. 22. Monticello, Illinois.

Viohl, R. C., Jr. and K. Mason. 1974. Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies: An Annotated Biblio-
graphy. Monticello, Illinois: Council of Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography No. 691.

Worsham, J. 1976. Water Transportation and Inland Waterways Information. Basic Considerations. Council of
Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography No. 1168.

272