05-29-2003 Bayport Expansion Review Committee Meeting

Browse Search

... e e flush pond will trap suspended solids, thus decreasing the discharge of sediments into the bay. . The rate of storm water flow into Pine Gully will be limited to pre-project conditions. The South Terminal Retention Pond will capture and hold storm water in excess of one inch, and then release it slowly. This retention pond will have a created wetland in its bottom to filter the storm water before its release. The areas of the terminal with the highest chance to contribute contaminants to storm water (the Maintenance Facility, RTG maintenance areas, and equipment parking areas) will have isolated drainage basins, which will have inlet treatment units to remove TSS, oil and grease, with the remaining water then proceeding to the first flush basins. 3. Alternative Sites The USACE analysis of alternatives includes several sites that, in the opinion of the PHA, are not practical or reasonable. . Cedar Point is located in Chambers County, not Harris County. There -is no deep water access, so a new 40 foot deep channel approximately 15,000 feet long would need to be constructed from the Houston Ship Channel to Cedar Point. An additional 102 lane miles above that needed for the Bayport alternative would be required. From both an operational and financial standpoint, this alternative is neither reasonable nor practical. Spillman's Island cannot be used for a container terminal. The site is a key component of the 50-year plan to dispose of dredged material from the congressionally authorized Houston Ship Channel project. Disposal of maintenance material is essential to keeping the Houston Ship Channel open. A replacement for Spillman's Island must be located and permitted before Spillman's Island could be used. This alternative disposal site would also produce environmental impacts. Even if that hurdle is overcome, repeated analyses have demonstrated that the costs of constructing a container terminal on the active disposal site are much higher than those for construction at Bayport. Shoal Point in Texas City is not available to the PHA. A permit has been granted to another applicant to use that location. The construction of a Texas City terminal does not lessen the need for Bayport, but it does eliminate the location as a reasonable or practical alternative. Bayport is a good location for the project. It is located in an area designated for industrial uses along an existing federally maintained deep water channel. It has synergistic operational efficiencies with the existing Barbours Cut Terminal. It is in the overall public interest. . 4. Noise Matters It is important to recognize that the noise modeling in the FEIS is extremely conservative. Indeed, according to the FEIS, it was 5/19/2003 Page6of9