My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
06-17-2003 Bayport Expansion Review Committee Meeting
LaPorte
>
.Minutes
>
Bayport/Port of Houston Expansion Review Committee
>
2003
>
06-17-2003 Bayport Expansion Review Committee Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/15/2016 5:23:42 PM
Creation date
7/31/2025 10:27:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Meetings
Meeting Body
Bayport/Port of Houston Expansion Review Committee
Meeting Doc Type
Minutes
Date
6/17/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
one inch, and then release it slowly. This retention pond will have a created wetland . <br />in its bottom to filter the storm water before its release. <br />o The areas of the terminal with the highest chance to contribute contaminants to storm <br />water (the Maintenance Facility, RTG maintenance areas, and equipment parking <br />areas) will have isolated drainage basins, which will have inlet treatment units to <br />remove TSS, oil and grease, with the remaining water then proceeding to the first <br />flush basins. <br />3. Alternative Sites <br />• The USACE analysis of alternatives includes several sites that, in the opinion of the PHA, <br />are not practical or reasonable. <br />- Cedar Point is located in Chambers County, not Harris County. There is no deep <br />water access, so a new 40 foot deep channel approximately 15,000 feet long would <br />need to be constructed from the Houston Ship Channel to Cedar Point. An additional <br />1021ane miles above that needed for the Bayport alternative would be required. <br />From both an operational and financial standpoint, this alternative is neither <br />reasonable nor practical. <br />- Spillman's Island cannot be used for a container terminal. The site is a key <br />component of the 50-year plan to dispose of dredged material from the <br />congressionally authorized Houston Ship Channel project. Disposal of maintenance <br />material is essential to keeping the Houston Ship Channel open. A replacement for <br />Spillman's Island must be located and permitted before Spilhnan's Island could be <br />used. This alternative disposal site would also produce environmental impacts. Even <br />if that hurdle is overcome, repeated analyses have demonstrated that the costs of <br />constructing a container terminal on the active disposal site are much higher than <br />those for construction at Bayport. <br />- Shoal Point in Texas City is not available to the PHA. A permit has been granted to <br />another applicant to use that location. The construction of a Texas City terminal does <br />not lessen the need for Bayport, but it does eliminate the location as a reasonable or <br />practical alternative. <br />• Bayport is a good location for the project. It is located in an area designated for industrial <br />uses along an existing federally maintained deep water channel. It has synergistic <br />operational efficiencies with the existing Barbours Cut Terminal. It is in the overall public <br />interest. <br />4. Noise Matters <br />• It is important to recognize that the noise modeling in the FEIS is extremely <br />conservative. Indeed, according to the FEIS, it was "designed to evaluate aworst-case <br />condition." <br />BAYPORT POSITION PAPER <br />page 4 of 7 <br />laay zoos <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.