07-09-2003 Bayport Expansion Review Committee Meeting

Browse Search

e e Members of the GBCP A continue to make incorrect comparisons between the Spilman Island site and the site for the proposed terminal at Shoal Point currently being developed by Texas City. The GBCP A's contrast between the estimated costs of stabilizing Shoal Point ($90,000 per acre, a cost which is only valid for the most stable portion of their site) and the PHA's estimate for Spilman Island ($258,750 per acre) fails to recognize the difference between the composition of the materials placed at each site. Shoal Point soils are composed of harder clays; which have consolidated naturally during years of inactivity. Spilman Island is an active dredge material disposal site, consisting primarily of soft, silt materials dredged from the Houston Ship Channel - material so unstable as to prevent walking on most of the site. The S&ME analysis confirms that the cost to prepare the soil at Spilman Island for construction is at least twice as expensive as Shoal Point. The GBCP A has stated, "building on a dredge spoil would have no impacts on environmentally sensitive wetlands and coastal prairie. . ." This assertion ignores the fact that the elimination of Spilman Island as an active dredge disposal site requires the development of a replacement site in the same general region of Galveston Bay. Sites in this area are extremely limited, and it is safe to say that such a site would be over 500 acres in size, cost more than $150 million, and result in significant environmental impacts to wetlands and coastal prairies. One member of GBPCA was recently quoted as stating that the S&ME report "adopts conservative assumptions" with regard to cost. In fact, S&ME acknowledges that the average cost for fill stated from their source of cost data appears ''unrealistically low", and, therefore they adopted a value more in line with anticipated costs. The PHA and local experts believe that the S&ME report underestimated the cost to import and eventually remove hundreds of thousands of truckloads of earth, to be placed up to 18 feet high on Spilman Island to help stabilize the soil. In addition, it appears the S&ME report also didn't consider the cost of purchasing the material or the full cost of its removal. The GBCP A also contends that choosing Spilman Island over Bayport would reduce the PHA's costs for land acquisition and environmental mitigation, while reversing the potential for local property tax revellue'losses. In truth, because Li.c Spilman Island site is smaller, additional off site acreage would have to be acquired - either by the PHA or by private interests - in order to ensure the terminal could accommodate current and future market demands. The lack of cruise and industrial co-development in the Spilman Island plan would actually reduce revenue to the PHA and increase the need for supplemental public funding. The PHA's design for the Bayport facility includes several mitigation features for environmental impacts. For example, the use of clean fuel and clean engine technology will help reduce air emissions. The PHA has also committed to help fund several local transportation projects in the Bayport area in an effort to increase the safety and efficiency of the local transportation network while reducing congestion and air pollution.