Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />53. The Bayport FEIS was released by the Galveston District about a month after <br />Col. Waterworth signed the Shoal Point ROD. <br />54. In the Bayport FEIS, the Shoal Point site is still identified as a reasonable and <br />practicable alternative for locating the Bayport Project. <br />55. In the Bayport FEIS, there is no mention of the fact that the Shoal Point site had <br />been found to be the least environmentally damaging alternative and had already been selected <br />for issuance of a Corps permit to construct a container terminal facility. <br />56: At this time, the best site as determined by the Corps' Galveston District for <br />constructing a container port in the Galveston Bay system in the least environmentally damaging <br />way -Shoal Point - has been.issued a permit by the Galveston District. <br />57. The movement of containers into and out of the Houston/Galveston region in the <br />near future is secure with the permitting of the Shoal Point facility. <br />58. The question before the Galveston District now is whether or not a permit should <br />be issued for a second container terminal facility on the Galveston Bay system, e.g., the proposed <br />Bayport facility, given the Shoal Point facility has already been permitted. <br />59. That question has not been fully or fairly analyzed in any EIS issued to date by <br />the Galveston District. <br />(2). Co-Location of Cruise and Container Facilities for the Bayport Project No <br />Longer Necessary <br />60. The permit application submitted by the PHA for the proposed Bayport Project <br />requested a permit allowing the construction of both container berths and cruise berths together <br />(e.g., co-located). <br />10. <br />