08-21-2002 Committee Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• DRAFT August 26, 2002 Certified Mail Mr. Kerry M. Stanley Regulatory Branch, CESWG-PE-RE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, TX 77553-1229 RE: Response to Public Notice dated July 22, 2002 For Revised Permit Application No. 21520 Dear Mr. Stanley: On behalf of the City of La Porte, please accept, record and file this letter as the City's comments regarding the revision of Permit Application #21520 described in the Public Notice issued on July 22, 2002. Because of changes introduced by Revision #1 and now #2, we believe there should be consideration for a supplemental DEIS because the proposed Bayport Container Project has been substantially altered since it was presented and discussed in the DEIS. Even in the absence of a supplemental DEIS, the public comment period on the DEIS should be reopened and/or at least a public meeting should be conducted to explain these changes in the proposed project. We feel strongly that these actions should be considered because the proposed revisions clearly effect the DEIS evaluation of alternative sites which is the heart of the DEIS. The more notable changes that affect the "analysis of alternatives" are: ■ The acreage of jurisdictional wetlands has been decreased. ■ The total acreage of wetlands has been disclosed. ■ The number of cruise terminal berths and number of cruise ships has been reduced. ■ The land use associated with the cruise terminal has been changed ■ The noise mitigation has changed by introducing a 20-foot tall concrete wall along the north line of the Bayport Channel adjacent to a residential neighborhood (separated only by a pipeline corridor). Aside from and in addition to our belief that a supplemental DEIS is warranted, the City is opposed to the proposed revisions because we are firmly opposed to the Bayport site as evidenced by our January 10, 2002 response to the DEIS. Further manipulation of the Bayport site does not change our view of the analysis of alternative sites contained in the DEIS. In general, our review found 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 PHA does not prevail over real environmental impacts to adjacent and nearby homes and communities. The proposed 20-foot wall is objected to for a number of reaso&s. First, there is no study or evidence to either evaluate or support its potential effectiveness for noise mitigation.