07-09-2003 Bayport Expansion Review Committee Meeting

Browse Search

e e SUGGESTED BAYPORT COMMENTS It is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that everyone writes a comment letter about the Bayport FEIS to the Corps of Engineers, with copies to the EP A, Congressmen' Lampson 'and DeLay, and Harris Co. Commissioner Sylvia Garcia (the addresses are on the back). The deadline is July 16, 2003. 1. The issuance of the Shoal Point permit has not been considered in the FEIS. That is a huge issue. The analysis of alternatives as presented is false. The need for the proposed action is false. At the least, the false statements must be ' corrected. The Corps issued the Shoal Point permit. They knew that the information in the PElS was false. We have a right to a full and fair analysis of alternatives., ' 2. The container and cruise terminals do not have to be located together. The Corps admits in the FEIS that there is no functional relationship between the two. They do not have to be at th~ same location. However, the PElS does not evaluate placing the cruise terminal in Galveston or Pelican Island, for example, , and the Port of Houston's container facility at Spilmans Island. The alternative analysis must be redone. 3. Harris County'just released a report on the cost of developing Spilmans Island that concludes that the cost is ~uch lower than indicated by the Port 01 Houston Authority. This report must be considered in evaluating whether or not Sp;lman~ is a. viable alternative to Bayport. 4. In December 2002, new topographic information was released for Harris County by Harris County and FEMA as part of a LIDAR study. This data must be used to reanalyze the acreage of jurisdictional wetlands at the Bayport site. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that the wetlands on this site are unique and of national importance, yet only 19.7 of the 140 acres are regulated. If the Corps used the new topo data, the full 140 acres would likely be jurisdictional. If the Corps uses this information, then alternative sites will certainly have less environmental impact and denial of the Bayport permit may be mandated. S. In mid-2002, a study was released by EP A, stating that diesel emissions caused cancer. This study was, delivered to the Corps. The Corps has failed to ,undertake any'analysis of the increased risk of cancer associated with the extensive diesel air pollution coming from Bayport. There is no safe exposure level for carcinogens. There is only varying degrees of risk. The people living near the Bayport site need to be told the truth about this issue. 6. We are just now seeing the results of air quality, noise and vibration studies, all of which show violation of standards, health effects and/or significant disruption of homes. These studies are not complete. 7. We need an analysis of the impact of widening and deepening the Houston and Bayport Ship Channels that is likely to occur if this Bayport permit is issued. The Port of Houston Authority is seeking approval to construct a 56 deep