06-30-2003 Bayport Expansion Review CommitteeMeeting

Browse Search

GBCPA Press Release Page 2 of 3 choose the least damaging, environmentally preferable alternative. In April, Colonel Leonard Waterworth, commander of the Corps' Galveston District, issued a permit to the City of Texas City to build a container facility at Shoal Point. This new port will handle more containers than would the proposed Bayport.facility, and it will guarantee that the greater Houston region remains competitive in container traffic. "Col. Waterworth found that Shoal Point was the least damaging practicable alternative site for a container port on Galveston Bay," said Blackburn. "But now we have an EIS issued for Bayport that fails even to mention the issuing of the Shoal Point permit, let alone that the colonel found the Texas City site to be the best one for our bay system. Something is wrong here. Thatls why we are going to court." The wetlands analysis at Bayport poses other types of problems. Although over 140 acres of wetlands were identified on the site, only 19.7 acres were considered to be "jurisdictional" under the Clean Water Act. Further, the Port of Houston Authority has proposed only 66 acres of mitigation for wetland losses. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that these wetlands are unique and of national importance, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has questioned the manner in which the Corps determined that it had regulatory authority over only 19.7 acres. --more-- Bayport Lawuit Filed 3 of 3 "We are involved in this litigation because of the wetland and habitat issues," said Joy Hester, executive director of the Houston Audubon Society. "These are coastal prairie wetlands that are extremely important to us and the birds as well as to the bay. We agree with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that these are wetlands of great significance to the region and to the nation." One of the most important issues included in the lawsuit is concern over the widening and deepening of the Houston Ship Channel. In the later 1980s, environmentalists and the Port of Houston Authority fought over this and reached a settlement whereby the channel would be dredged to 45 feet deep and 530 feet wide. In the plans for Bayport, the container docks are to be constructed to 56 feet of depth, and the wharf cranes are sized for post-Panamax vessels, which have a depth requirement of 45 to 53 feet. "It is clear that a deeper channel will be needed for this port," said Blackburn. "In both the Draft EIS and the Final EIS, the Corps stated that a deeper channel would be necessary and that they were analyzing the impacts, yet no such analysis could be found in the Final EIS. A deeper channel would bring more salt water into Galveston Bay, and the quickest way to kill the marine productivity the oysters and the shrimp and juvenile fmfish is to increase the salinity in the bay. Bayport is a bona fide threat to Galveston Bay. We can't let this happen." Mayor Edmonson noted that the permit akeady issued for the Texas City container terminal is a relief valve for pressure on existing facilities for some time to come, and that other alternatives to the Bayport site exist, should additional capacity still be needed. "Harris County recently issued a report contradicting the Portis analysis of development costs for Spihnan's Island in the Ship Channel," Edmonson said. "The Port has consistently told us that Spihnan's Island is too expensive to develop, but now the County offers us a http://www.gbcpa.net/Press/Bayport Lawsuit Filed.htm 6/26/2003