2003-06-23 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

e e Page 2 , . ' o The proposed Bayport site 'was evaluated by the Gaiveston District in its Stloal Point FEIS as one of the alternative sites for locating the Shoal Point container terminal facility, but the Bayport facility was found to be more environmentally damaging and was not selected. ' , o In toe Bayport FEIS, there is no mention of the fact that the Shoal Point site had been found to be the least environmentally damaging- alternative and had already been selected for issuance of a Corps permit to construct a container terminal facil,ity. [J Similarly, Spilmans Island is less damaging environmentally in the categories that impact nearby residential areas. Co-Location o The Bayport FEIS, unlike the DEIS, the Galveston District states for the first time that it does not consider cruise and container facilities to be functionally dependent. [J If these facilities are not functionally dependent; then they do not need to be co-located as stated. o This new recognition significantly affects the evaluation of alternatives by the applicant. 5pllmans Island , , o PHA had determined that developing Spilmans Island would be cost-prohibitive, due to its being a spoil disposal site. o Earlier this year, acting independently of the Port of Houston Authority, Harris County , commissioned a study of the cost of developing Spilmans Island. [J This study by Harris County, dated May 2003, concluded that the cost of development of Spilmans Island was substantially lower than had been determined by the Port of Houston , Authority. ' [J The Galveston District has not considere~ this new study by Ha~ris County in the DEIS or FEIS for Bayport in evaluating Spilmans Island as an alternative site. o This study by Harris County is new information that significantly affects the evaluation of alternatives to the proposed Bayport site. Air Pollution [J The entire eight county region is being subjected to rules related to heavy construction limitations, landscape and lawn mowing limitations. Even though small in their total effect, we've all been asked to share the load while this proposed activity isa point source and a real impact borne by a few people. o The less than significant impact definition avoids the true impact to the communities adjacent to and near the Bayport site. It assumes it's not significant because a number has been plugged into an attainment plan that covers an eight county area. There are alternative sites where the Airshed Impacts would not affect such a large population.