05-29-2003 Bayport Expansion Review Committee Meeting

Browse Search

:. -. ... . e e The FEIS concludes that residential property values will decline due to noise impacts. A 1998 study is cited that identifies a decline ranging from 0.2 to 1.5 % in property value for each dBA of increased noise. Given that some areas are projected to see increases in noise levels of 10 dBA or more, it would be reasonable to expect propeliy value decreases of from 2 to .15% due to. noise impacts alone. This information has never before been made public and it is important. 6. The Cruise and Container Terminal Another huge change between the Draft and Final EIS is the treatment of the container and cruise terminals. From the beginning, the Port of Houston Authority has proposed both a cruise and a container terminal at Bayport and insisted that they both be located at the same site (e.g., co-located). In the DEIS, alternative sites were evaluated to determine if they had sufficient room to accommodate both the container and cruise facilities. There is no reason that container and cruise facilities need to be co-located. In fact, the opposite conclusion is more realistic. Nonetheless, the DEIS evaluated alternative sites based on both container and cruise terminals being co-located. In the FEIS, the Corps has now admitted that the cruise and container facilities do not have to be co-located - that they are not dependant upon each other. However, the Corps did not redo the analysis of alternatives in the FEIS to fully explore the implications of this admission. Now, the cruise terminal could be in Galveston and the container terminal at Spillman's Island, eliminating the major dredging impacts associated with placing cruise facilities at Spillman's Island. The point here is that the analysis of alternatives in the FEIS is wrong and has to be redone. We are finally beginning to get to the truth here. There was never any reason why container and cruise facilities should be co-located, except that only one. site was large .enough and that was Bayport. The Port of Houston Authority set the analysis up so that only one site could be selected. That false premise has now been.set aside. 7. The Future of Existing Hay Residential Development Since the early 1900s; residential development has been an important part of the Galveston Bay .community. Seabrook,.EI Jardi~, Shoreacres and LaPorte all pre-date the Bayport complex. When Friendswood Development first announced the Bayport complex, they were careful to state that the existing residential areas would not be . threatened by the industrial development, that the deepwater channel would only be used to service the industry located west of Highway 146.. That promise has evaporated. Today, as was revealed in the FEIS for Bayport, the residential community of the upper west side of Galveston Bay is threatened by noise, by air pollution and by traffic. . The fight over Bayport, in part, is a fight over the future of residential development along the upper west side of Galveston Bay. I believe that our best chance of protecting Galveston Bay in the long term is to have a strong residential development 5