essential fish habitat assessment -...

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.


Figure 1. Project Location


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


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.).


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


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


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.


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.


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


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



Adult X Growth, Feeding

Bluefish Early Juvenile X Growth, Feeding


Source: NOAA, 2004


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


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


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).


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.


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-


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


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.


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


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.


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.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/GrSnapper/Grsnapper.html


_____. 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



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



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.

http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/Habitat/tables/reddrum.pdf

http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/Habitat/tables/brownshrimp.pdf

http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/Habitat/tables/whiteshrimp.pdf

http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/Habitat/tables/lanesnapper.pdf

http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/habitat/tables/yellowtailsnapper.pdf

http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/Habitat/tables/Spanishmackerel.pdf


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.

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/

https://gisweb.tceq.texas.gov/segments/default.htm


APPENDIX

Plan and Profile

essential fish habitat assessment -...

Documents