Post on 23-May-2020
transcript
Essential Fish Habitat
Assessment Neches River Bridge Study
March 2016
Jefferson and Orange Counties
CSJ: 7220-01-001
Texas Department of Transportation – Rail Division
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment i
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Overview ............................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Essential Fish Habitat and Managed Species ............................................................ 3
2.1 Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Managed Fish Species ................................................................................................. 8
2.2.1 Red Drum Fishery ........................................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Shrimp Fishery ................................................................................................ 11
2.2.2.1 Brown Shrimp .................................................................................................. 11
2.2.2.2 White Shrimp ................................................................................................... 12
2.2.3 Reef Fishery ..................................................................................................... 12
2.2.3.1 Gray Snapper ................................................................................................... 12
2.2.3.2 Lane Snapper .................................................................................................. 13
2.2.3.3 Yellowtail Snapper .......................................................................................... 13
2.2.4 Highly Migratory Species Fishery ................................................................... 13
2.2.4.1 Spanish Mackerel ........................................................................................... 13
2.2.4.2 Bluefish ............................................................................................................ 13
3.0 Assessment of Impacts .............................................................................................. 14
3.1 Direct Impacts to EFH ................................................................................................. 14
3.2 Direct Impacts to Managed Species .......................................................................... 14
3.3 Encroachment Alteration Impacts ............................................................................. 17
3.3.1 Encroachment Alteration Impacts to EFH ..................................................... 17
4.0 Proposed Mitigation .................................................................................................... 18
5.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 18
6.0 References .................................................................................................................. 19
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment ii
List of Tables
Table 1. Fishery Species and Life History Stages with Designated EFH in the Neches River. 7
Table 2. Life Stages of Managed Species and Associated EFH and EFH Functions. ................ 9
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Location .............................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Salinity Data from I-10 and Neches River Station (TCEQ, 2015) ............................... 5
Figure 3. Water Temperature Data from I-10 and Neches River Station (TCEQ, 2015) ........... 6
Appendix
Plan and Profile
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 1
1.0 Project Overview
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is studying a proposed project to add track
capacity to the rail corridor crossing of the Neches River in the City of Beaumont, Texas (Figure
1). The proposed project consists of an additional track over the Neches River with an
additional lift bridge or fixed bridge north of the existing bridge.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve rail operations through the Beaumont area
by providing a second rail crossing of the Neches River. Improved rail operations would focus
on maintaining existing rail mobility and continuity while providing new rail capacity to
accommodate growth. Improved rail operations would increase overall freight and passenger
rail capacity and efficiency and reduce rail and vehicular congestion by addressing vehicular
mobility at railroad-highway grade crossings. The project would support and enhance
industrial facilities utilizing rail, marine and highway services in the Beaumont region.
Improving the movement and interface amongst rail, marine and vehicular modes would
benefit the Beaumont region in terms of development and economic growth, which are top
priorities for stakeholders and the public in the region.
The proposed project is needed because existing rail operations through the Beaumont area
are affected by track capacity, track switching, industrial service access, and bridge openings
for marine vessel traffic. Future rail traffic across the Neches River is expected to increase
with both through traffic along this national corridor as well as local rail traffic serving the
region’s existing and expanding industrial facilities. Without improvements to the existing rail
crossing of the Neches River at Beaumont, operations will deteriorate in the future with
increased rail traffic.
The full range of alternatives considered for the project are discussed in the Neches River
Bridge Alternative Development and Screening Technical Report (TxDOT, 2015). The
alternative screening process and consideration of stakeholder comments to date has
resulted in a recommended Preferred Alternative (Alternative E-1) that is the least impactive
yet fiscally feasible option that addresses the purpose and need objectives for the project. As
such, Alternative E-1 will be presented in detail in the environmental document as the
proposed Build Alternative along with the No Build Alternative.
For the purposes of this assessment, existing right-of-way (ROW) is defined as the existing
railroad ROW; the proposed ROW is under other ownership. Not all existing railroad ROW
would be necessary to complete this project and further research of ownership records is
ongoing. Therefore, the existing and proposed ROW is subject to change.
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 2
Figure 1. Project Location
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 3
For the purpose of this assessment, the project area is defined as the existing ROW, proposed
ROW, and proposed laydown area. The proposed laydown area is located along the eastern
shoreline of the Neches River and will be accessible through Interstate 10 (I-10). The
proposed laydown area would temporarily be used to provide space for construction of the
main truss span that would likely need to be floated in to place spanning the Neches River.
Information presented in this assessment was established to consider the effects of the
project, regardless of ownership.
2.0 Essential Fish Habitat and Managed Species
2.1 Essential Fish Habitat
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), first enacted in
1976, then reauthorized in 2006, requires that Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) be identified for
all federally managed fisheries. EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to
fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” The Act further requires projects
which are funded, permitted, or implemented by federal action agencies to consult with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding potential adverse impacts to EFH.
EFH in the project area is identified and described for various life stages of 19 managed fish
and shellfish species that commonly occur in the Neches River, Sabine Lake, and Gulf of
Mexico (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], n.d.). A provision of the
MSA requires that Fishery Management Councils identify and protect EFH for every species
managed by a Fishery Management Plan (FMP)(U.S.C. 1853(a)(7)). FMPs for shrimp (Gulf of
Mexico Fisheries Management Council [GMFMC], 1981a), red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus)
(NMFS, 1986), reef fishes (GMFMC, 1981b), and coastal migratory pelagics (GMFMC, 1981c)
may exist in the project area.
EFH is separated into estuarine and marine components. The estuarine component is defined
as “all estuarine waters and substrates (mud, sand, shell, rock, and associated biological
communities), including sub-tidal vegetation (grasses and algae) and adjacent tidal
vegetation (tidal wetlands and mangroves)” (GMFMC, 2004). Estuarine fishes include species
that inhabit the estuary for part of their life cycle and are commonly associated with seagrass
beds, oyster reefs, and unvegetated habitats. The marine component is defined as “all marine
waters and substrates (mud, sand, shell, rock, hard bottom, and associated biological
communities) from the shoreline to the seaward limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone”
(GMFMC, 2004). The project is located within the Neches River and is located entirely in the
estuarine component of the EFH; no marine component of the EFH occurs in the project area.
The project area includes 1.76 acres of unvegetated substrate (soft bottom or sand/shell
bottom) and the associated water column of the Neches River. The project area is located in
the upper reach of the tidal portion of the Neches River. A review of five years of water quality
data (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ], 2015) indicates salinity in the
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 4
project area ranges from freshwater to 23 parts per thousand (ppt). This range is largely due
to the influence of the saltwater wedge which migrates upstream during periods of low flow.
Water temperature in the project area ranges from 43 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to 89°F.
Figures 2 and 3 show salinity and temperature data over a five year period from a sample
station located at I-10 and the Neches River (TCEQ, 2015). No Habitat Areas of Particular
Concern occur within the project area. Table 1 presents the federally managed estuarine fish
species within the four FMPs that may be present in the Neches River and their life history
stages with designated EFH (NOAA, n.d.).
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 5
Figure 2. Salinity Data from I-10 and Neches River Station (TCEQ, 2015)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 10 20 30
De
pth
(m
ete
rs)
Salinity (ppt)
2010
Jan
Apr
Jul
Oct
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 10 20 30
De
pth
(m
ete
rs)
Salinity (ppt)
2011
Jan
Apr
Jul
Oct
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 10 20 30
De
pth
(m
ete
rs)
Salinity (ppt)
2012
Jan
Apr
Jul
Oct
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 10 20 30
De
pth
(m
ete
rs)
Salinity (ppt)
2013
Jan
Apr
Jul
Oct
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 10 20 30
De
pth
(m
ete
rs)
Salinity (ppt)
2014
Jan
Apr
Jul
Oct
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 10 20 30
De
pth
(m
ete
rs)
Salinity (ppt)
2015
Jan
Apr
Jul
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 6
Figure 3. Water Temperature Data from I-10 and Neches River Station (TCEQ, 2015)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
20 40 60 80 100
De
pth
(m
ete
rs)
Temperature (F)
2010
Jan
Apr
Jul
Oct
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
20 40 60 80 100
De
pth
(m
ete
rs)
Temperature (F)
2011
Jan
Apr
Jul
Oct
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
20 40 60 80 100
De
pth
(m
ete
rs)
Temperature (F)
2012
Jan
Apr
Jul
Oct
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
20 40 60 80 100
De
pth
(m
ete
rs)
Temperature (F)
2013
Jan
Apr
Jul
Oct
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
20 40 60 80 100
De
pth
(m
ete
rs)
Temperature (F)
2014
Jan
Apr
Jul
Oct
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 20 40 60 80 100
De
pth
(m
ete
rs)
Temperature (F)
2015
Jan
Apr
Jul
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 7
Table 1. Fishery Species and Life History Stages with Designated EFH in the Neches River.
FMP Common
Name Scientific Name Larval
Post
Larval
Early
Juvenile
Late
Juvenile Adult
Spawning
Adult
Red
Drum Red drum
Sciaenops
ocellatus X X X X X X
Shrimp
Brown shrimp Penaeus aztecus X X X
White shrimp Penaeus
setiferus X X X
Reef Fish
Hogfish Lachnolaimus
maximus X X X
Mutton
snapper Lutjanus analis X X X
Schoolmaster Lutjanus apodus X X X
Cubera
snapper
Lutjanus
cyanopterus X X X
Gray snapper Lutjanus griseus X X X X
Dog snapper Lutjanus jocu X X X
Lane snapper Lutjanus
synagris X X X
Yellowtail
snapper
Ocyurus
chrysurus X
Goliath
grouper
Epinephelus
itajara X X X
Red grouper Epinephelus
morio X X
Black grouper Mycteroperca
bonaci X X
Yellowmouth
grouper
Mycteroperca
interstitialis X X
Gag grouper Mycteroperca
microlepis X X
Yellowfin
grouper
Mycteroperca
venenosa X X
Coastal
Migratory
Pelagics
Spanish
mackerel
Scomberomorus
maculatus X X X
Bluefish Pomatomus
saltatrix X X
Source: NOAA, n.d.
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 8
2.2 Managed Fish Species
According to GMFMC (2004), estuarine and nearshore habitats may include submerged
aquatic vegetation, emergent/intertidal wetlands, soft bottom (mud, sand, or clay), live hard
bottom, manmade structures, or oysters reefs. A field investigation was conducted from
September 14, 2015, to September 17, 2015, by qualified environmental staff to document
various habitats within the project area. The project area crossing the Neches River is
approximately 30 feet deep and is a maintained dredged channel. According to U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (2011), bed sediments average 62 percent silt and clay and 38 percent
sand. Based on the channel depth, dredging activities, and bed sediment data, it is assumed
the channel bottom is unvegetated and consists of soft bottom and/or sand/shell.
Potential species within the project area requiring soft bottom or sand/shell during various
life stages are presented in Table 2. In addition, life history, habitat requirements, and
preferred prey items are presented in the sections below.
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 9
Table 2. Life Stages of Managed Species and Associated EFH and EFH Functions.
Species Life Stage Soft Bottom Sand / Shell Pelagic Function
Red drum
Larval X Growth, Feeding
Post Larval X X Growth, Feeding
Early Juvenile X Growth, Feeding
Adult X X Feeding
Spawning Adult X X Feeding
Brown shrimp
Post Larval X X Growth, Feeding
Early Juvenile X X Growth, Feeding
Late Juvenile X X Growth, Feeding
White shrimp
Post Larval X Growth, Feeding
Early Juvenile X Growth, Feeding
Late Juvenile X Growth, Feeding
Gray snapper Adult X X Feeding
Lane snapper Early Juvenile X X Growth, Feeding
Late Juvenile X X Growth, Feeding
Yellowtail snapper Early Juvenile X Growth, Feeding
Spanish Mackerel
Early Juvenile X Growth, Feeding
Late Juvenile X Growth, Feeding
Adult X Growth, Feeding
Bluefish Early Juvenile X Growth, Feeding
Late Juvenile X Growth, Feeding
Source: NOAA, 2004
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 10
2.2.1 Red Drum Fishery
EFH for the Red Drum FMP entails all waters from estuaries out to the GMFMC and South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) boundary between depths of 30 and 60 feet
(GMFMC, 2005). The red drum is one of the most important fishery resources along the Texas
coast. While commercial harvest of red drum is not permitted, recreational fishing of the
species is allowed. The red drum is common throughout the Gulf of Mexico and is most
prevalent in bays and estuaries. Red drum can also be found in tidally influenced streams,
wetlands, and along beachfronts.
Larval
Red drum larvae are abundant from mid-August through late November (Reagan, 1985).
Larvae enter estuaries where they feed on mysids, amphipods, copepods, and shrimp
(GMFMC, 2004). In the project area, essential habitat for larvae consists of soft bottom and
the water column (GMFMC, 2004). Water conditions for the larvae range from 65°F to 89°F
with a salinity range from 16 to 36 ppt. Optimal conditions for the larvae consist of waters
that are 77 °F with a salinity of 30 ppt (Gulf State Marine Fisheries Commission [GSMFC],
1998a). The project area is located in the upper reach of the tidal portion of the Neches River
and does not contain nursery habitat for red drum larvae. Project will not adversely affect red
drum larvae.
Post-Larval
Red drum post-larvae are abundant in estuaries from August through October (Reagan,
1985). In the project area, essential habitat for post-larvae consists of soft bottom,
sand/shell, and the water column (GMFMC, 2004). Post-larvae feed on mysids, amphipods,
shrimp, and copepods (GMFMC, 2005). Water conditions for post-larvae consist of
temperatures ranging from 65°F to 89°F with a salinity range from 8 to 36 ppt. Optimal water
temperature for post-larvae range from 77°F to 86°F (GSMFC, 1998a). The project area is
located in the upper reach of the tidal portion of the Neches River and does not contain
nursery habitat for red drum post-larvae. Project will not adversely affect red drum post-
larvae.
Early Juvenile
Early juvenile red drum are most abundant during the early winter months. In the project area,
essential habitat for early juveniles consists of soft bottom and the water column (GMFMC,
2004). Early juveniles inhabit waters up to 10 feet in depth and feed on copepods, mysids,
amphipods, shrimp, polychaetes, insects, fish, isopods, bivalves, and decapod crabs. Optimal
water conditions for early juvenile red drum consist of water temperatures from 55°F to 88°F
with salinity ranging 0 to 40 ppt. Optimal conditions consist of water temperatures between
50°F and 86°F with salinities ranging from 20 to 40 ppt (GSMFC, 1998a). The project area
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 11
is located in the upper reach of the tidal portion of the Neches River and does not contain
nursery habitat for juvenile red drum. Project will not adversely affect red drum post-larvae.
Adult
In the project area, essential habitat for adult red drum consists of soft bottom, sand/shell,
and the water column (GMFMC, 2004). Spawning adults travel in schools close to shore until
summer when they move into estuaries (Reagan, 1985). They are often found around inlets,
shoals, the surf zone, and up to several miles offshore (GMFMC, 2005). Adult red drum feed
on crabs, shrimp, and fish. Water conditions for adult red drum consist of water temperatures
ranging from 36°F to 91°F with salinities of 0 to 45 ppt. Optimal salinities for sub adults
range from 20 to 40 ppt (GSMFC, 1998a). The project area is located in the upper reach of
the tidal portion of the Neches River and does not contain preferred habitat for adult red drum.
Project will not adversely affect adult red drum.
Spawning Adult
Red drum spawn in late summer and fall when they migrate out of estuaries and lagoons and
move into deeper water near the mouths of bays and inlets (Reagan, 1985). In the project
area, essential habitat for spawning adult red drum consists of soft bottom, sand/shell, and
the water column (GMFMC, 2004). Water conditions for adult red drum consist of water
temperatures ranging from 68°F to 86°F with salinities of 25 to 34 ppt (GSMFC, 1998a). The
project area is located in the upper reach of the tidal portion of the Neches River and does
not contain habitat for spawning adult red drum. Project will not adversely affect spawning
adult red drum.
2.2.2 Shrimp Fishery
The shrimp fishery is of great economic importance along the Texas coast and in the Gulf of
Mexico. EFH for the Shrimp FMP entails all waters from estuaries out to depths of 600 feet
(GMFMC, 2005).
The commercial shrimp industry harvests three different shrimp species throughout the Texas
coast and the Gulf coast. These include the brown (Penaeus aztecus), white (P. setiferus),
and pink (P. duorarum) shrimp. EFH for the brown shrimp and white shrimp may exist within
the project area.
2.2.2.1 Brown Shrimp
Post Larval / Early Juvenile
Post larval and early juvenile brown shrimp occur in estuaries and are associated with shallow
vegetated habitat, but are also found over silty sand and non-vegetated mud bottoms
(GMFMC, 2004). Post larval and early juvenile shrimp are most abundant in the spring and
early summer. They are opportunistic feeders and consume detrital organic matter, small
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 12
invertebrates, small fishes, and plants (Darnell 1958; Perez-Farfante, 1969). In the project
area, essential habitat for this life stage consists of soft bottom, sand/shell, and the water
column (GMFMC, 2004). Water conditions for post larval and juvenile shrimp consist of water
temperatures between 45°F to 95°F with a salinity of 0 to 70 ppt (GSMFC, 1998b).
2.2.2.2 White Shrimp
Post Larval / Early Juvenile
Juvenile white shrimp are found from late spring to fall and are most abundant during the
summer and early fall. In the project area, essential habitat for these life stages consists of
soft bottom and the water column (GMFMC, 2004). They can also be found in marsh ponds,
channels, inner marshes, shallow subtidal areas, and oyster reefs. The post larval and
juvenile white shrimp prefer muddy substrates with high organic content (Carpenter, 2002a).
Post larval and juvenile white shrimp are omnivorous, feeding on detritus, annelids,
crustaceans, shrimp, and diatoms (GSMFC, 1998c). Water conditions for the juvenile white
shrimp include water temperatures between 55°F and 88°F with salinities ranging from 0.5
to 37 ppt.
2.2.3 Reef Fishery
EFH for the Reef Fish FMP entails all waters from estuaries out to the GMFMC and SAFMC
boundary up to depths of 600 feet (GMFMC, 2005). Within the project area, EFH is designated
for three species (NOAA, n.d.). Many reef species occupy inshore areas during their juvenile
stages where they feed on estuarine dependent prey. As they mature and move offshore, the
diets in many cases change more to fish; however, estuarine dependent species still
constitute an important component of the species diet (GMFMC, 2005).
2.2.3.1 Gray Snapper
Adults
Adult gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus) inhabit waters over the continental shelf and in
estuaries. The gray snapper is demersal but is also found in the water column. Adults inhabit
waters up to 600 feet deep and occur in waters 18 miles offshore to coastal plain freshwater
creeks and rivers. In the project area, essential habitat for adults consists of soft bottom,
sand/shell, and the water column (GMFMC, 2004). Adult gray snapper feed on small fish,
shrimp, crabs, gastropods, and cephalopods (Florida Museum of Natural History, n.d.). Water
conditions for adult gray snapper include water temperatures from 55°F to 89°F with
salinities ranging from 0 to 67 ppt (Tolan and Fisher, 2009).
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 13
2.2.3.2 Lane Snapper
Early Juvenile, Late Juvenile
Juvenile lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris) are abundant in late summer and early fall and are
found inshore (GSMFC, 1998d). Juveniles prefer seagrass beds and mangroves in estuarine
habitats. However, they also inhabit reefs, natural channels, banks, and natural and
manmade reefs (GMFMC, 2004). In the project area, essential habitat for these life stages
consists of sand/shell, soft bottom, and water column (GMFMC, 2004). Juveniles feed on
copepods, grass shrimp, and other small invertebrates (GSMFC, 1998d). Water conditions
for juvenile lane snapper include salinities less than 15 ppt (GSMFC, 1998d).
2.2.3.3 Yellowtail Snapper
Early Juvenile
Early juvenile yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus) are found inshore in shallow grass beds,
around mangrove roots and amongst jetties and pilings (GSMFC, 1998e). In the project area,
essential habitat for this life stage consists of soft bottom and the water column (GMFMC,
2004). Juveniles feed primarily on zooplankton. Water conditions for juvenile yellowtail
snapper include temperatures between 75°F and 86°F (GSMFC, 1998e).
2.2.4 Highly Migratory Species Fishery
EFH for the Highly Migratory FMP entails all waters from estuaries out to the GMFMC and
SAFMC boundary up to depths of 600 feet (GMFMC, 2005). Within the project area, EFH is
designated for two species (NOAA, n.d.).
2.2.4.1 Spanish Mackerel
Early Juvenile / Late Juvenile
Juvenile Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) use estuaries as nurseries (GSMFC,
1998f). In the project area, essential habitat for this life stage is listed as pelagic (GMFMC,
2004). Juveniles feed on engraulid and clupeid fishes, gastropods, and some squid (GMFMC,
2004). Spanish mackerel tolerate a wide salinity range and are found in temperatures below
77°F (GSMFC, 1998f).
2.2.4.2 Bluefish
Early Juvenile / Late Juvenile
Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) are a schooling, migratory pelagic species occurring in
estuaries, inshore waters, and over the continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico (GMFMC,
2004). In the project area, essential habitat for this life stage is listed as pelagic (GMFMC,
2004). Juveniles are commonly found in estuaries feeding on anchovies, killifish, silversides,
and small shrimp and crabs.
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 14
3.0 Assessment of Impacts
Potential impacts to EFH and managed species would result from activities associated with
the construction of the proposed project, with direct impacts to the soft bottom and sand/shell
resulting from bridge column construction.
3.1 Direct Impacts to EFH
While the proposed bridge design is subject to change based on additional engineering,
impacts to the river have been approximated using the 30 percent design plans for the
Alternative E-1 alignment. The project would directly impact approximately 0.14 acres of
unvegetated substrate through filling and placement of bridge columns. The impact to
unvegetated substrate consists of impacts to sand/shell and soft bottom. Soft bottom and
sand/shell habitats are inhabited by various infauna and epifauna which burrow into the
substrate. The placement of bridge columns would result in the loss of the benthic
community.
No direct impacts to the water column habitat would occur since the proposed project would
not result in the removal or loss of water and there would be minimal loss of water column
due to bridge column placement. Increased turbidity levels may occur as a result of
construction activities but would be minor and temporary. Water quality impacts could result
from accidental spills during construction; however a Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be
completed prior to construction in order to reduce the potential for water quality impacts.
3.2 Direct Impacts to Managed Species
Direct impacts to managed species may result from construction related activities from the
bridge column installation and associated increased turbidity. While the proposed bridge
design is subject to change based on additional engineering, impacts to the river have been
approximated using the 30 percent design plans for the Alternative E-1 alignment (included
in the attached Appendix). Approximately 5,990 square feet (0.14 acres) of permanent stream
impacts are anticipated to place the bents required to support the proposed bridge and fender
system. An additional 9,835 square feet (0.23 acres) of temporary impacts are anticipated
to remove the existing fender system and to place cofferdams at Bents 4 through 7 during
construction of the bridge. The following summarizes the likely bridge construction that would
occur within the Neches River:
On the east side of the river, Bents 4 and 5 would be located in the river. Bent 4 is a
two-column concrete drilled shaft structure with an 11-foot by 41-foot concrete pile
cap that supports the single track approach and tower spans. The total plan surface
area of the pile cap at Bent 4 is approximately 450 square feet. Bent 5 is a four-
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 15
column concrete drilled shaft with a 41-foot by 41-foot concrete pile cap that supports
the single track tower span and lift span. The total plan surface area of the pile cap at
Bent 5 is approximately 1,680 square feet.
Continuing to the west side of the Neches River, Bent 6 is a four-column concrete
drilled shaft structure with a 41-foot by 41-foot pile cap that supports the single track
lift span and tower span. The total plan surface area of the pile cap at Bent 6 is
approximately 1,680 square feet. Bent 7 is a two-column concrete drilled shaft
structure with an 11-foot by 41-foot concrete pile cap that supports the single track
tower and approach spans. The total plan surface area of the pile cap at Bent 7 is
approximately 450 square feet. Bent 3 is a two-column concrete drilled shaft structure
with a bent cap that supports single track approach spans. Each column has a 5.5-foot
diameter for a total plan surface area of approximately 50 square feet at Bent 3.
The new fender system is located at the river channel between Bent 5 and Bent 6. The
total surface area of the new fender system on the west side is approximately 815
square feet, and the one on the east side is about 865 square feet. Placement of the
new fender system requires removal of the existing fender system.
Approximately 8,075 square feet (0.19 acres) of temporary stream impacts are
associated with removing the existing fender system (i.e., the fender and a series of
battered piles located behind each fender). The plan surface area on the east side is
estimated to be approximately 4,180 square feet, and the west side is estimated at
3,895 square feet. The areas that overlap permanently impacts have been excluded
from these totals.
During construction of the railroad bridge, an additional 1,760 square feet (0.04 acres)
of temporary stream impacts are necessary for cofferdams at Bents 4 through 7. Bent
4 and Bent 7, each have a 17-foot by 47-foot cofferdam. Excluding the area
permanently impacted by the bent, the increased surface area for each of these
cofferdams is approximately 350 square feet. Bent 5 and Bent 6, each have a 47-foot
by 47-foot cofferdam, and the increased surface area for each of these cofferdams is
approximately 530 square feet.
Bridge Piling Placement
The placement of bridge pilings would permanently modify the structural habitat of managed
fish species and their EFH. The proposed construction and installation of the bridge structure
and pilings would replace the existing substrate and thereby impact the benthic community.
The loss of soft benthic habitat may be partially offset by the creation of hard structure habitat,
which could potentially serve as an attractant to many fish species. The conversion of
unvegetated substrate to a hard-structured habitat may result in the localized loss of demersal
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 16
fish and benthic species. However, the additional structure provided by bridge pilings has
been shown to increase densities of invertebrates and fish dependent on hard structured
habitat (Davis, et al., 1982).
Increased Turbidity
Temporary increases in turbidity would cause short-term, minor adverse effects on fishes.
Increased turbidity would invoke an avoidance response in most fishes and may result in
temporary displacement of finfish from the immediate area of construction; however, those
species would likely return after construction is completed. Fish species in earlier life stages
may be more susceptible to elevated levels of sedimentation and turbidity since they are not
as motile as more mature individuals. Fish species coming into direct contact with higher
levels of turbidity could experience eye and gill damage from suspended sediment particles,
reduced growth rates or stunting of earlier life stages, and disorientation.
Accidental Spill
Short-term, minor adverse impacts to the finfish resources could occur from an accidental
petroleum spill from construction equipment or vessels used during construction. Most
petroleum products stored onboard construction vessels during construction would be light
and, if spilled, would remain on the surface of the water and evaporate quickly.
Lighting
Short-term, negligible adverse impacts on finfish may occur from lighting associated with
construction. Lights would be used to identify construction vessels at night and to illuminate
working decks. Although these lights would not intentionally illuminate surrounding waters,
fishes could be attracted to the construction area, making them more vulnerable to predation.
Sediment Displacement
Piling construction would physically displace sediments along the bridge alignment. As a
result, this action may cause localized mortality, displacement, or burial of benthic organisms,
which provide the prey base for managed species and of eggs and larvae for managed
species. The effects of disturbance of the benthic environment following construction would
most likely be short-term and localized. Many smaller benthic invertebrate species have
relatively short life histories and are capable of opportunistically recolonizing benthic
sediments after a disturbance. These pioneer species include amphipods, polychaetes, and
oligochaetes found in adjacent non-disturbed areas that may migrate to an area soon after
the disturbance has abated. While the placement of the columns would result in the loss of
potential foraging habitat, the loss of the prey base in these areas would not result in a
substantial adverse effect on EFH or managed species.
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 17
Construction Noise
Construction noise from the driving of piles into the substrate of the Neches River may directly
impact fish species. Pile driving causes a sound pulse that propagates down the length of the
pile and extends outward through the bottom sediments. Different species of fish respond in
different ways to anthropogenic noises.
Noise emanating from pile driving activities is known to cause direct mortality (Caltrans,
2001). The primary mechanism for fish mortality in the Caltrans study was damage resulting
from the rapid expansion and contraction of the swim bladder. In addition, many fish
sustained injuries to the kidney and liver (Caltrans, 2001). Impairment or loss of hearing has
also been associated with anthropogenic sources of noise. Behavioral changes due to
anthropogenic noise have also been documented, primarily related to the avoidance of the
noise source. The swimming speed of fish increased in an effort to avoid potentially damaging
noise (Mitson, 1995). While direct mortality may result from construction noise, construction
noise from pile driving would be a temporary impact and would temporarily displace fish.
3.3 Encroachment Alteration Impacts
Indirect impacts are reasonably foreseeable and occur as a result of an action, but occur later
in time or are removed from the action location. This section discusses potential
encroachment alteration impacts related to EFH. Other types of indirect impacts will be
discussed in the Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Analysis Technical Report as well as other
resource-specific technical reports.
3.3.1 Encroachment Alteration Impacts to EFH
Shading impacts to unvegetated substrate (soft bottom, sand/shell) would be negligible
because with few exceptions, organisms inhabiting these habitats do not rely on
photosynthesis for food supply. It is conceivable that permanent shading in areas under the
structure could lower water temperatures at the substrate, but adequate water exchange
would limit temperature gradients between shaded and unshaded areas.
Shading impacts to the water column would be minimal and species would most likely not be
impacted by any slight shift in water temperature caused by shading. Sufficient water
movement resulting from winds and current would normally transport even planktonic
organisms away from small shaded areas. Larger species are more mobile and would move
to an area with more desirable temperatures.
The indirect effects of water quality deterioration would be similar for all EFH habitat types in
that the effect would be the introduction of pollutants and toxins into the habitats that would
systematically degrade EFH in the project area. Project-related water quality deterioration
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 18
could consist of increased pollutant loading into EFH from accidental chemical/fuel spills from
trains in transit occurring after the rail bridge is completed, or during operation of the lift truss.
Impacts resulting from contaminants would be localized and the extent of the impact on the
EFH would depend on the quantity and toxicity of the discharged materials. Impacts to EFH
from accidental spills would vary depending on the contaminants involved and the volume of
chemical runoff.
4.0 Proposed Mitigation
Mitigation typically consists of avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation. The
proposed project would comply with federal regulations protecting EFH and would avoid
and/or minimize impacts to fishery species and their associated EFH. In order to avoid and/or
minimize impacts to fishery resources, minimize cost, and maintain traffic within the
navigation channel, the project design would minimize the number of bridge pilings by
maximizing the bridge span lengths. The proposed project would follow guidelines outlined in
federal and state required plans including the preparation of a SPCC Plan and a SWPPP.
If pile driving is used during construction, mitigation for noise impacts may be implemented.
Mitigation for noise impacts may include the use of a “soft start” method while conducting
pile driving. This method allows motile species to move to another area by starting the pile
drive with a small number of lighter hammer impacts. In addition, bubble curtains may be
implemented during pile driving. Bubble curtains are created by forcing compressed air
through small holes in PVC piping. Bubble curtains disrupt sound waves and are effective at
reducing impacts to species within the construction area. In addition, turbidity curtains may
be used to reduce sedimentation impacts.
5.0 Conclusion
Mitigation measures include the use of a project design intended to avoid and minimize EFH
impacts by maximizing span lengths to reduce the number of pilings constructed in the
Neches River. During construction an SPCC Plan and SWPPP for avoidance and minimization
of water quality impacts would be completed. Other methods that may be used to avoid
impacts include the use of “soft starts”, bubble curtains, and turbidity curtains.
The project would permanently convert 0.14 acres of soft bottom, sand/shell, and open water
into hard structure. This impact would be permanent and may result in the localized loss of
demersal fish and benthic species. However, the additional structure provided by bridge
pilings may increase densities of invertebrates and fish dependent on hard structured habitat
(Davis, et al., 1982). Therefore, the potential for adverse impacts to EFH would not be
substantial. In addition, the project would temporarily impact 0.23 acres associated with the
removal of the existing fender system and temporary installation of coffer dams needed to
construct the bridge bents.
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 19
6.0 References
Caltrans. 2001. Pile Installation Demonstration Project, Fisheries Impacts Assessment. San
Francisco - Oakland B Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project. PIDP EA 012081,
Caltrans Contract 04A0148.
Carpenter, KE. 2002. The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Volume 1:
Introduction, Molluscs, Crustaceans, Hagfishes, Batoid Fishes, and Chimaeras. Rome.
FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes and American Society of
Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Special Publication No. 5. pp. 1-600.
Darnell, R.M. 1958. Food habits of fishes and larger invertebrates of Lake Pontchartrain,
Louisiana, an estuarine community. Publ. Inst.Mar Sci., Univ. of Texas 5: 353-416.
Davis, N, GR VanBlaricom, and PK Dayton. 1982. Man-made Structures on Marine Sediments:
Effects on Adjacent Benthic Communities. Marine Biology 70:295-303.
Florida Museum of Natural History, n.d. Biological Profile - Gray Snapper.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/GrSnapper/Grsnapper.html.
Accessed December 2015.
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1981a. Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States Waters. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council Report. Tampa, Florida. 246 pp.
_____. 1981b. Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. The
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Report. Tampa, Florida. 155 pp.
_____. 1981c. Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fishery of the Gulf
of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Report. Tampa, Florida.
155 pp.
_____. 2004. Final environmental impact statement for the generic amendment to the
following fishery management plans of the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf
of Mexico, United States Waters; Red Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Reef Fish
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerels) in the
Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Spiny
Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Coral and Coral Reefs of the Gulf of
Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Tampa, Florida.
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 20
_____. 2005. Generic Amendment Number 3 for Addressing Essential Fish Habitat
Requirements, Habitat Areas of Concern, and Adverse Effects of Fishing in the
following Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico. Tampa, Florida 106
pp.Mitson, RB. 1995. Underwater Noise of Research Vehicles, Review and
Recommendations. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Copenhagen,
Denmark. 61 pp.
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1998a. Summary Table of Red Drum (Sciaenops
ocellatus) Life History for the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission,
Essential Fish Habitat. [Online]. [Cited: November 20, 2009.]
http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/Habitat/tables/reddrum.pdf.
_____. 1998b. Summary Table of Brown Shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) Life History Information
for the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Essential Fish
Habitat. [Online]. [Cited: November 20, 2009.]
http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/Habitat/tables/brownshrimp.pdf.
_____. 1998c. Summary Table of White Shrimp (Penaeus setiferus) Life History Information
for the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Essential Fish
Habitat. [Online]. [Cited: November 20, 2009.]
http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/Habitat/tables/whiteshrimp.pdf.
_____. 1998d. Summary Table of Lane Snapper (Lutjanus synagris) Life History for the Gulf
of Mexico. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Essential Fish Habitat. [Online].
[Cited: November 20, 2009.]
http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/Habitat/tables/lanesnapper.pdf.
_____. 1998e. Summary Table of Yellowtail Snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus) Life History for the
Gulf of Mexico. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Essential Fish Habitat.
[Online]. [Cited: November 20, 2009.]
http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/habitat/tables/yellowtailsnapper.pdf
_____. 1998f. Summary Table of Spanish Mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) Life History
for the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Essential Fish
Habitat. [Online]. [Cited: November 20, 2009.]
http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/Habitat/tables/Spanishmackerel.pdf.
Mitson, RB. 1995. Underwater Noise of Research Vehicles, Review and Recommendations.
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Copenhagen, Denmark. 61 pp.
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 21
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat
Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies – Gulf of Mexico Region. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration Report. 17 pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). n.d. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper.
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. Accessed December 2015.
Perez-Farfante, I. 1969. Western Atlantic shrimps of the genus Penaeus. Fish Bull. 67: 461-
591.
Reagan, RE. 1985. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of
Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) - Red Drum. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, TR EL-82-4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.36). 16
pp.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2015. Surface Water Quality Viewer. Version
3.4. Station at Neches River and Interstate 10.
https://gisweb.tceq.texas.gov/segments/default.htm. Accessed January 2016.
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2015. Neches River Bridge Alternative
Development and Screening Technical Report. Draft Report. October 2015.
Tolan, JM and M Fisher. 2009. Biological Response to Changes in Climate Patterns:
Population Increases of Gray Snapper (Lutjanus griseus) in Texas Bays and Estuaries.
Fishery Bulletin 107:36-44.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2011. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Sabine-
Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project Southeast Texas and Southwest
Louisiana. Galveston, Texas.
Neches River Bridge Study Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 22
APPENDIX
Plan and Profile