02-04-2002 Port of Houston Expansion Review Committee Minutes

Browse Search

• The DEIS Executive Summary established two categories, non-environmental and environmental, for comparison of alternate sites. In general our review finds that the proposed Bayport site ranked either favorably or equal to other sites in the non- environmental categories of availability, operational effectiveness and site constraints. However, within the environmental category, the Bayport site displayed many negative environmental impacts that were more significant than alternate sites. We sincerely hope that convenience, ease of construction and infrastructure costs for the PHA does not prevail over real environmental impacts to adjacent and nearby homes and communities. Another great concern are the comments on air quality. Except for the No Action Alternative, all comments on Airshed Atmosphere Loading are the same for all alternative sites. Especially disturbing is the statement that "2007 NOX and VOC emissions generated by terminal construction and operations are included in the HGA ozone attainment plan. Therefore, the impact on the region's plan to attain the ozone standard is a long term, less than significant adverse impact". This is in effect saying that the increased emissions from Bayport (and surrounding industry) can be spread out or balanced over an eight county region while in reality the impacts will be a concentrated loading to be borne by the adjacent communities. Please explain why other environmental impacts were site specific while this impact was assumed to be spread out over a region? In La Porte we remember the traffic problems which resulted when Barbours Cut was being built. We remember the discussions and compromises by both sides, which resulted in a grudging acceptance of Barbours Cut by its neighbors. Today, we continue to live with those environmental impacts and lack of planning and public/community involvement in the development of Barbours Cut. We are familiar with the much stricter environmental regulations that exist today and trust that the Corps of Engineers will recognize that Bayport is not the appropriate site. We are submitting additional specific comments on the DEIS for the record as an attachment to this letter together with a copy of the position statement the City has filed regarding the proposed Bayport expansion. If you should require any additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, Mayor Norman L. Malone cc: City Council Robert T. Herrera, City Manger Knox W. Askins, City Attorney