DOCSLIB.ORG

Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi LLC West Refinery Biological

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi LLC West Refinery Biological Endangered Species Act Biological Evaluation Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi, LLC Corpus Christi, Texas In Support of West Refinery Domestic Crude Project Permit Application Prepared for Flint Hills Resources February 2014 4700 West 77th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 Phone: (952) 832-2600 Fax: (952) 832-2601 Endangered Species Act Biological Evaluation Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi, LLC Corpus Christi, Texas In Support of West Refinery Domestic Crude Project Permit Application February 2014 Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. vii Existing Site and Project Description ...................................................................................................... vii Identification of the Action Area ............................................................................................................ viii Federally-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................. x Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ xiii 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Statutory and Regulatory Overview ............................................................................................ 2 2.1 Environmental Protection Agency Regulations and Standards ....................................................... 2 2.2 Endangered Species Act .................................................................................................................. 2 3.0 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 5 3.1 Project Purpose and Process ............................................................................................................ 5 3.2 General Construction Information ................................................................................................. 20 3.3 General Operation and Maintenance.............................................................................................. 20 3.4 Emission Controls .......................................................................................................................... 21 3.5 Water Use/Intake ........................................................................................................................... 21 3.6 Discharge to Surface Waters .......................................................................................................... 21 3.6.1 Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System ...................................................................... 21 3.6.2 Storm Water ............................................................................................................................ 23 3.7 Marine Terminal Use and Vessel Traffic ....................................................................................... 24 4.0 Determination of the Action Area .............................................................................................. 26 4.1 Step One: Identify a Preliminary Action Area Based on Potential Direct Effects ......................... 26 4.1.1 Ground Disturbance and Construction Activities ................................................................... 26 4.1.2 Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 26 4.1.3 Lighting and Visual Impacts ................................................................................................... 27 4.1.4 Intrusion into Air Space (Height of Structures) ...................................................................... 27 4.2 Step Two: Determine if Preliminary Action Area Should be Expanded by Potential Indirect Effects ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 4.2.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................. 29 4.2.2 Water Intake and Discharge Water Volume and Water Quality ............................................. 39 4.3 Step Three: Define the Final Action Area ..................................................................................... 49 5.0 Environmental Setting and Resource Inventory ....................................................................... 50 5.1 General Description ....................................................................................................................... 50 5.1.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 50 5.1.2 Climate .................................................................................................................................... 51 5.1.3 Topography ............................................................................................................................. 51 i 5.1.4 Geology ................................................................................................................................... 51 5.1.5 Soils ......................................................................................................................................... 51 5.1.6 Water Resources ..................................................................................................................... 52 5.1.7 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................... 53 5.2 Federally-Listed Species ................................................................................................................ 54 5.2.1 Identification of Federally-Listed Species .............................................................................. 54 5.2.2 Initial Federal Agency Contacts .............................................................................................. 54 5.2.3 Critical Habitat Designation .................................................................................................... 54 5.3 Listed Species Habitat Evaluation in the Action Area ................................................................... 57 5.3.1 Plant Communities Observed .................................................................................................. 57 5.3.2 Listed Species Habitat Evaluation Results .............................................................................. 58 5.3.3 Conclusions on Potential Habitat for Listed Species .............................................................. 60 5.4 Descriptions of Listed Species and Assessing the Project’s Potential for Effects ......................... 61 5.4.1 Reptiles ................................................................................................................................... 61 5.4.2 Mammals ................................................................................................................................. 69 5.4.3 Birds ........................................................................................................................................ 73 5.4.4 Fish .......................................................................................................................................... 77 5.4.5 Plants ....................................................................................................................................... 77 5.5 Candidate Species .......................................................................................................................... 79 5.5.1 Red Knot ................................................................................................................................. 79 5.5.2 Sprague’s Pipit ........................................................................................................................ 79 5.5.3 Yellow-billed Cuckoo ............................................................................................................. 80 6.0 Summary of Effects of the Federal Action ................................................................................. 82 6.1 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 82 6.2 Water Quantity and Water Quality ................................................................................................ 82 6.3 Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 83 6.4 Infrastructure-Related Impacts ....................................................................................................... 83 6.5 Human Activity Impacts ................................................................................................................ 84 6.6 Species Effect Analysis.................................................................................................................. 84 7.0 Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • November 14, 2019 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy
    Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4900 Denver, Colorado 80202 O +1 303 830 1776 F +1 303 894 9239 squirepattonboggs.com John R. Sharp T +1 303 894 6183 [email protected] November 14, 2019 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy Docket Room 3F-056, FE-50 Forrestal Building 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585 Dear Ms. Sweeny: Enclosed please find SeaOne Corpus Christi, LLC's application for authority to export natural gas contained in or mixed with Compressed Gas Liquid ("CGL"TM) to certain Free Trade Agreement ("FTA") countries in or adjoining the Caribbean Basin and Gulf of Mexico. SeaOne intends to use the Port of Corpus Christi as the point of export of CGL to power generation facilities to be constructed in Colombia in fulfillment of several recently awarded power tenders in the Pacific and Central regions in Colombia as well as a government-sanctioned concession for the development of a major energy port in Buenaventura, Colombia (Puerto Solo) that has provisional Colombian government approval to import as much as 1.9 Million barrels per a day of fuels and feedstocks. Service for these operations will require CGL transport vessels larger than those which can be efficiently operated out of SeaOne’s Gulfport facility. We have entered into land lease negotiations with the Port of Corpus Christi Authority, as well as with private landowners within the Port, regarding SeaOne's use of a location within the Port. Conclusion of these negotiations will be contingent on completion of the Department of Energy ("DOE") FTA authorization process, and will be finalized upon issuance of an order approving this application.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Ports and Courts Update
    Texas Ports and Courts Update March 2021 1. COVID-19 Ports Update We have collected and summarized these items to In response to decreasing COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations, the help keep you apprised of the latest news and Governor of Texas recently rescinded statewide public occupancy developments from the ports and courts on the restrictions and mask mandates. Businesses are free to enforce their Texas coast. own restrictions, and many have kept their previous requirements in place. Texas port/terminal facilities nearly uniformly continue to require the same preventative measures (e.g., masks, temperature checks, physical distancing, etc.) despite the Governor’s recent announcement. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Coast Guard, and many vessel agents continue to board vessels and conduct activities in person. Vessels still need to advise CBP and Coast Guard boarding teams of any In this Update: crew illnesses prior to embarkation. Vessels are also required to notify the Coast Guard Captain of the Port of any crewmember showing symptoms consistent with COVID-19. 1. COVID-19 Ports Update Rapid COVID-19 testing is generally available, and test administrations can be scheduled and completed in relatively short timeframes. 2. Recent Port Activity & Shore leave remains allowed. Crew changes/repatriation requests are Development Projects permitted on a case-by-case basis. Off-signing crewmembers are generally required to proceed directly to 3. News from the Courts the airport for their flights, and overnight hotel stays are typically not permitted. CBP is generally requiring the following items in relation to a crewmember’s repatriation requests: (1) passport bio page; (2) C1/D visa; (3) I-95 landing permit; and (4) e-tickets with direct flights departing the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Final 2017 Emissions Inventory Report
    Port of Corpus Christi Authority 2017 Air Emissions Inventory Prepared for: September 2019 Prepared by: Port of Corpus Christi Authority 2017 Air Emissions Inventory TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Reason for Study .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Study ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2.1 Pollutants ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2.2 Temporal Extent ................................................................................................................................. 2 1.2.3 Emission Source Categories .................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Geographical Domain ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 Marine-side Geographical Domain ....................................................................................................... 4 1.3.2 Land-side Geographical Domain .......................................................................................................... 5 SECTION
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 14. Wildlife and Forest Communities 341
    chapteR 14. Wildlife and Forest Communities 341 Chapter 14. Wildlife and Forest communities Margaret Trani Griep and Beverly Collins1 key FindingS • Hotspot areas for plants of concern are Big Bend National Park; the Apalachicola area of the Southern Gulf Coast; • The South has 1,076 native terrestrial vertebrates: 179 Lake Wales Ridge and the area south of Lake Okeechobee amphibians, 525 birds, 176 mammals, and 196 reptiles. in Peninsular Florida; and coastal counties of North Species richness is highest in the Mid-South (856) and Carolina in the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The Appalachian- Coastal Plain (733), reflecting both the large area of these Cumberland highlands also contain plants identified by subregions and the diversity of habitats within them. States as species of concern. • The geography of species richness varies by taxa. • Species, including those of conservation concern, are Amphibians flourish in portions of the Piedmont and imperiled by habitat alteration, isolation, introduction of Appalachian-Cumberland highlands and across the Coastal invasive species, environmental pollutants, commercial Plain. Bird richness is highest along the coastal wetlands of development, human disturbance, and exploitation. the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, mammal richness Conditions predicted by the forecasts will magnify these is highest in the Mid-South and Appalachian-Cumberland stressors. Each species varies in its vulnerability to highlands, and reptile richness is highest across the forecasted threats, and these threats vary by subregion. Key southern portion of the region. areas of concern arise where hotspots of vulnerable species • The South has 142 terrestrial vertebrate species coincide with forecasted stressors. considered to be of conservation concern (e.g., global • There are 614 species that are presumed extirpated from conservation status rank of critically imperiled, imperiled, selected States in the South; 64 are terrestrial vertebrates or vulnerable), 77 of which are listed as threatened or and 550 are vascular plants.
    [Show full text]
  • The Potential Impacts of the Panama Canal Expansion on Texas Ports Final Report
    The Potential Impacts of the Panama Canal Expansion on Texas Ports Final report PRC 17-78 The Potential Impacts of the Panama Canal Expansion on Texas Ports Texas A&M Transportation Institute PRC 17-78 January 2018 Authors Jolanda Prozzi Sarah Overmyer Copies of this publication have been deposited with the Texas State Library in compliance with the State Depository Law, Texas Government Code §441.101-106. 2 Potential Impacts of Panama Canal Expansion on Texas Ports The 2016 expansion of the Panama Canal allows significantly larger cargo ships traveling from East Asia to access the U.S. Gulf and East Coasts via an all-water route, which is typically the least costly way to transport goods. This study sought to examine the potential impacts specifically on Texas sea ports. • The Port of Houston has predicted an increase in traffic in the long-term due to the Panama Canal expansion, expecting that the newly deepened Port will attract heavier or larger vessels to unload there. Other Gulf Coast ports also expect an increase. Expanded channels have been approved for the Ports of Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Freeport, and the Sabine-Neches Waterway, but no funding has been appropriated to these projects. • To date, the greatest impact of the expansion appears to be associated with tankers, especially for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Some 86 percent of the world’s LNG fleet can now pass through the Canal, compared to only 8 percent before the expansion. • Prior to the expansion, about 40 ships passed through the Canal each day.
    [Show full text]
  • Lone Star State Ports Setting Records, Enhancing Diverse Cargo Infrastructure
    Lone Star State ports setting records, enhancing diverse cargo infrastructure by Paul Scott Abbott 5 hours ago | Published in Issue 704 Page 1: Port Houston Page 2: Port of Port Arthur Page 3: Port of Beaumont Page 4: Port of Galveston Page 5: Port Freeport Page 6: Calhoun Port Authority Page 7: Port of Corpus Christi Page 8: Port of Brownsville With record cargo volumes seemingly becoming commonplace, ports throughout Texas are assertively forging ahead with a multitude of infrastructure enhancements to handle even more activity in the future. Recent developments include not only expansions of on-terminal capabilities but also, in a number of cases, the advancement of deeper, wider ship channels. Beginning with Port Houston, the longtime No. 1 U.S. foreign tonnage port, then heading east to the Sabine-Neches Waterway facilities of Port Arthur and Beaumont before taking a southwestward jaunt along the Texas Gulf Coast to just north of the Mexico border, here’s the latest going on at key ports of the Lone Star State: Port Houston Marking a fourth consecutive year of double-digit growth in containerized cargo volume, Port Houston handled a record 2,987,291 twenty-foot-equivalent units in 2019 while adding three new container services and two general cargo liner services. Loaded container exports, buoyed by shipments of polyethylene resins, led the way with a 17 percent year-over-year increase. Overall tonnage moving through Port Houston public facilities also reached an all-time high last year, rising 5 percent over the preceding 12-month period, to 37.8 million tons.
    [Show full text]
  • Harvey Mitigation Competition Application CDBG-MIT Public Notice October 12, 2020
    Harvey Mitigation Competition Application CDBG-MIT Public Notice October 12, 2020 Project: Nueces County Living Breakwater Introduction: Nueces County is giving notice of its intent to submit an application to the Texas General Land Office (GLO) for funds through the Community Development Block Grant – Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) program as lead applicant, with the Port of Corpus Christi as a joint applicant. In particular, the County will seek funding for public infrastructure and flood mitigation measures for their Living Breakwater Project. The proposed project will improve the resiliency of the County and surrounding communities that sustained damage Hurricane Harvey. The CDBG-MIT program is funded through the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and administered at the state level by the Texas General Land Office (GLO). Applications are due to GLO by October 28, 2020 and awards are expected in 2021. Nueces County will receive public comments for fourteen (14) days from the date of this posting until October 26, 2020. The public is encouraged to submit comments to Maria Bedia via email at [email protected] or at Nueces County Court House, 901 Leopard Street, Corpus Christi, TX, 78401. All comments must be received by 5:00pm on October 26, 2020. Comments will be incorporated into the draft application documents, as appropriate. The application will prioritize the mitigation of the devastating effects of natural disasters, as well as ensure the project is in line with environmental regulations, affirmatively furthering fair housing activities, and, if applicable, minimizing displacement of persons by project activities. Upon the expiration of this comment period, Nueces County will review and address the public comments in the proposed application.
    [Show full text]
  • General-Brochure-Web.Pdf
    PAPALOTE ST. PAUL GENERAL INFORMATION Port Corpus Christi is the fifth largest port in the United States in total tonnage. The Port provides a straight, 45’ deep channel (approved and authorized for 52 ft.) and quick access to the Gulf of Mexico and the entire United States inland waterway system. The Port delivers outstanding access to overland transportation, with on-site and direct connections to three Class-I railroads, BNSF, KCS and UP, and direct, vessel-to-rail discharge capabilities. InnerInner HarborHarbor LA QUINTA TRADE GATEWAY The La Quinta Trade Gateway Terminal is an 1,100 acre greenfield project by Port Corpus Christi. When fully developed, this facility will provide a state-of-the-art multipurpose dock and container facility. The project consists of the Federal extension of the 45’ deep La Quinta Ship Channel, a 3800’, three berth ship dock with nine ship-to-shore cranes, 180 acres of container/cargo storage, an intermodal rail yard, and over 400 acres for on-site distribution & warehouse centers. The facility will be served by on-site Class I railroads. REFUGIO LaLa QuintaQuinta ChannelChannel COUNTY A ran sas R iver NORTHSIDE TERMINAL Project Cargo, RO/RO, Breakbulk and General Transfer Capabilities • Dockside rail or truck transfer capability Cargo can be loaded, unloaded and transferred • 122,000 square feet of shipside covered storage directly between trucks, rail and vessels at Dock • RO/RO ramp handles bow or stern ramp vessels 9. Shipside tracks on Dock 9 allow direct transfers between vessels and railcars and a 48-foot wide Rail and Highway Access canopy over double rail tracks allows loading of The Northside docks have uncongested, direct weather-sensitive cargoes.
    [Show full text]
  • PROJECT SUMMARIES Port Authority Advisory Committee
    Port Authority Advisory Committee TEXAS PORTS 2017 – 2018 CAPITAL PROGRAM PROJECT SUMMARIES Port Authority Advisory Committee Port of s Orange Port of Beaumont a Port of Cedar Bayou Port Arthur Port of Navigation District x Houston Te Port of Texas City Port of Galveston Port of Freeport Port of Bay City Calhoun Port Authority Victoria County Port of Navigation District Palacios Port of West Calhoun Aransas County Navigation District ico Port of x Corpus Christi e M f o Port Mansfield f l Port of Harlingen Port of Port Isabel u Port of Brownsville G TEXAS PORTS 2017 – 2018 CAPITAL PROGRAM Page 1 Port Authority Advisory Committee LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN s chairman of the Port Authority Advisory Committee (PAAC), I am pleased to Apresent the Texas Ports 2017–2018 Capital Program. Texas has the most robust maritime system in the United States. In 2015, Texas was ranked first in the nation in total foreign imports and exports and second in the nation for total tonnage. The state’s maritime system continues to be a critical gateway to international trade and provides the residents of the state with a multitude of economic opportunities through the movement of waterborne commerce and trade. In 2015, the Texas Ports Association conducted an economic study focused on defining the value of Texas ports to the state and the nation. Maritime activity at Texas ports: • Moved over 563 million tons of cargo including 350 million tons of international tonnage and nearly 200 million tons of domestic cargo • Handled over 1.8 million containers • Served over 1.6 million cruise passengers • Supported over 1.5 million jobs in the state • Provided over $368 billion in total economic value to the state, 23% of the overall state GDP • Generated over $92 billion in personal income and local consumption of goods • Generated $6.9 billion of state and local taxes Texas ports are critical economic engines for their communities and the state.
    [Show full text]
  • GRI STANDARDS REPORT 2021 GRI Report
    AEP’S 2021 GRI STANDARDS REPORT 2021 GRI Report AEP’s 2021 Corporate Accountability Report has been prepared in accordance with the GRI Standards Core Option and reflects data for the 2020 performance year. All Standards below are based on the most recent set of GRI Standards published. AEP discloses additional information through the GRI Electric Utility Sector Supplement, providing industry-specific information. The GRI Standards are a voluntary reporting framework used by organizations around the world as a basis for sustainability reporting. AEP uses the GRI Framework as a supplement to our Corporate Accountability Report (CAR), providing additional detail on data and programs that are relevant to stakeholders but not necessarily covered in the CAR. For this reason, many of the GRI Standard are linked to sections of the CAR as a response along with other annual financial company-wide disclosure documents. Links to other AEP websites and company documents are also used to support our responses. For those Standards not supported by the CAR or other company websites and document, the detail is contained within the appendix section of this report. For more information contact: Sandy Nessing Managing Director, Corporate Sustainability American Electric Power [email protected] Melissa Tominack Manager, Corporate Sustainability American Electric Power [email protected] Madeline Moses Corporate Sustainability Coordinator Associate American Electric Power [email protected] 2 GRI Indicator GRI Data Requests AEP Response Organization overview
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Ports: Essential to the Economy TXDOT and the MARITIME TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
    TxDOT Maritime Division Texas Ports: Essential to the Economy TXDOT AND THE MARITIME TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FAST FACTS 1.8 MILLION jobs supported by the port industry ( 12.5% since 2015)1 TEXAS PORTS: 597.5 MILLION total tons of cargo moved ESSENTIAL TO makes Texas 1st in U.S. maritime commerce THE ECONOMY ( from 2nd place in 2018)2 Generating over $242 billion in annual overall trade, Texas ports play an essential role in driving $102 BILLION the Texas economy.3 In 2019, Texas became the personal income and local number one state in maritime commerce by tonnage, consumption supported overtaking Louisiana. Three of the top five ports in by the port industry the U.S. based upon tonnage were in Texas with Port ( 11% since 2015)1 Houston becoming the tonnage leader among U.S. ports for the first time.2 Even during the coronavirus pandemic, Texas ports stayed in business— $7.8 BILLION protecting jobs, bolstering the economy, and keeping state/local tax shelves stocked with food and medical supplies for revenue generated by consumers. Despite the effects of the pandemic and port industry in part due to the strong export market for oil and gas, ( 13% since 2015)1 Texas ports continue to thrive. Page 1 Texas Ports: Essential to the Economy TxDOT Maritime Division TxDOT Maritime Division Texas Ports: Essential to the Economy Ports Port of Port of Orange Deep Draft Channel Beaumont TEXAS MARITIME Shallow Draft Channel Cedar Bayou Navigation District Port of SYSTEM AND NEEDS Shallow Draft Recreational Channel Anahuac Highways Port Houston Port of The Texas maritime system includes 11 deep draft ports, eight shallow draft Port Arthur ports, two recreational shallow draft ports, and the 379-mile-long Texas arm of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW).
    [Show full text]
  • Port of Corpus Christi Commission
    PERMIAN BASIN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION Omar Garcia | Chief External Affairs Officer September 19, 2019 The Energy Port . Independent political district of the State of Texas, governed by of the Americas seven commissioners . Large industrial energy hub & gateway to global markets . A landowner, a land developer, and a landlord . Economic development agency specializing in P3’s Port of Corpus Christi Commission Wayne Squires, Vice-Chair Charles W. Zahn, Jr., Chair Richard R. Valls, Jr., Secretary City of Corpus Christi Appointee Nueces County Appointee City of Corpus Christi Appointee Catherine Tobin Hilliard Wes Hoskins Richard Bowers David P. Engel Nueces County Appointee San Patricio County Appointee Nueces County Appointee City of Corpus Christi Appointee Port of Corpus Christi World-Class Facilities . Straight 47’ deep channel, being deepened to 54’ . Quick access to the Gulf of Mexico and the entire United States inland waterway system . Outstanding access to overland transportation, with on-site and direct connections to three Class I railroads: BNSF, KCS, and UP, and direct, vessel-to-rail discharge capabilities . 28,296 acres of submerged and emerged land . Facilities for Both Liquid and Dry Bulk . 15 Port owned liquid docks . 33 Customer owned liquid docks Economic Impact in 2018 Multimodal Connectivity POSITIONED FOR GROWTH $50 Billion Capital Investments ($10 Billion Foreign Direct Investments) Texas: Largest Crude Oil Producer in U.S. Port of Corpus Christi Crude Oil Cargo Outbound/Exports (2016-2019 YTD) 800,000 2019 Exports
    [Show full text]