SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY (SNWW) CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY

DISCUSSION: Length of extension channel was determined by the distance offshore required
for the 8-foot increase in channel depth (including overdepth, advanced maintenance and any
additional advance maintenance). The orientation of the extension channel is consistent with
the existing channel bearings.
SWG ACTION TAKEN: Additional information has been added in the following locations:
• FFR, Section IV (Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives), Structural Plans.
Explanation is provided that “In order to reach the appropriate depths offshore, all
deepening alternatives would involve an increase in the Entrance Channel ranging from
5 to 25 miles in length.”
EPR RECOMMENDATION:
5. A clear, well-documented description of the screening process.
DISCUSSION: None.
SWG ACTION TAKEN: Additional information has been added in the following locations:
• FFR, SectionSection IV (Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives) has been revised to
better describe the formulation and screening process.
• FEIS, Sections 2.1 through 2.3 have been revised to include more detail of the
formulation and screening process.
EPR RECOMMENDATION:
6. A quantitative economic analysis of the use of the existing or an expanded LOOP
facility and the pipelines and other facilities necessary utilize it.
DISCUSSION: The qualitative analysis was expanded and updated. Quantitative information
on LOOP expansion costs is not available and a traditional BCR cannot be estimated within the
scope of the feasibility study. The oil companies using the SNWW have not been provided
detailed cost estimates related to project construction. They noted that they would be provided
anticipated “per barrel throughput costs” when a proposed “LOOP-Type” expansion approaches
construction; however, the expansion proposal is only being discussed periodically and has not
moved forward to construction.
SWG ACTION TAKEN: Additional information has been added in the following locations:
• FFR, Section IV.D (Second Screening), Non-structural Alternatives section provides
more explanation of how non-structural alternatives were evaluated resulting in their
ultimate elimination from further review.
• FFR, Appendix 2 (Economic Appendix), Section 3.2 (Offshore Alternatives).
EPR RECOMMENDATION:
7. A detailed examination of how modification of the Sabine Pilots’ rules and
operations could improve productivity and how safety would be impacted.
DISCUSSION: Relaxation of the rules would reduce transit times under ideal conditions;
however, relaxation of pilot rules cannot be dictated by the Corps and is not an implementable
plan. At the same time, the FFR relies less on pilot input. For instance, while the pilots do not
have confidence in the HarborSym results for the Neches River reach, the model results were
used by the Corps for the baseline evaluation. A side analysis was prepared by SWG prior to
the completion of the HarborSym modifications. The side analysis reflects how the pilots expect
the Neches River anchorages and basins to function.
Addendum SNWW External Peer Review Report 7 Battelle
June 16. 2010