Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />one inch, and then release it slowly. This retention pond will have a created wetland <br />in its bottom to filter the storm water before its release. <br />o The areas of the terminal with the highest chance to contribute contaminants to storm <br />water (the Maintenance Facility, RTG maintenance areas, and equipment parking <br />azeas) will have isolated drainage basins, which will have inlet treatment units to <br />remove TSS, oil and grease, with the remaining water then proceeding to the first <br />flush basins. <br />3. Alternative Sites <br />• The USACE analysis of alternatives includes several sites that, in the opinion of the PHA, <br />aze not practical or reasonable. <br />- Cedar Point is located in Chambers County, not Hams County. There is no deep <br />water access, so a new 40 foot deep channel approximately 15,000 feet long would <br />need to be constructed from the Houston Ship Channel to Cedar Point. An additional <br />1021ane miles above that needed for the Bayport alternative would be required. <br />From both an operational and financial standpoint, this alternative is neither <br />reasonable nor practical. <br />- . Spillman's Island cannot be used for a container terminal. The site is a key <br />component of the 50-yeaz plan~to dispose of dredged material from the <br />congressionally authorized Houston Ship Channel project. Disposal of maintenance <br />material is essential to keeping the Houston Ship Channel open. A replacement for <br />Spillman's Island must be located and permitted before Spilhnan's Island could be <br />used. This alternative disposal site would also produce environmental impacts. Even <br />if that hurdle is overcome, repeated analyses have demonstrated that the costs of <br />constructing a container terminal on the active disposal site are much higher than . <br />those for construction at Bayport. <br />- Shoal Point in Texas City is not available to the PHA. A permit has been granted to <br />another applicant to use that location. The construction of a Texas City terminal does <br />not lessen the need for Bayport, but it does eliminate the location as a reasonable or <br />practical alternative. <br />• Bayport is a good location for the project. It is located in an area designated for industrial <br />uses along an existing federally maintained deep water channel. It has synergistic <br />operational efficiencies with the existing Barbours Cut Terminal. It is in the overall public <br />interest. <br />4. Noise Matters <br />• It is important to recognize that the noise modeling in the FEIS is extremely <br />conservative. Indeed, according to the FEIS, it was "designed to evaluate aworst-case <br />condition." <br />BAYPOR7 POS277ON PAYER <br />page 4 of 7 <br />May 2DD3 <br />