Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />61. In the DEIS and the FEIS, the Galveston District has attempted to identify and <br />evaluate alternative sites that were large enough to allow both the container and the cruise <br />facilities to be located at the same site. <br />62. However, in the Bayport FEIS, unlike the DEIS, the Galveston District states for <br />the first time that it does not consider cruise and container facilities to be functionally dependent. <br />63. If these facilities are not fiuictionally dependent, then they do not need to be co- <br />located. <br />64. Although the Galveston District has established a new circumstance -container <br />and cruise terminals aze now considered functionally independent -this conclusion was not <br />carried through the alternatives analysis in the Bayport FEIS. <br />65. For example, there was no analysis of a container port at Shoal Point and a cruise <br />terminal in Galveston, an alternative that is clearly viable after the issuance of the Shoal Point <br />permit. <br />66. There are a number of alternative sites to Bayport where only a cruise terminal <br />could be located, but they were never considered by the Galveston District in its evaluation of <br />the Bayport Project. <br />(3). HARRIS COUNTY'S NEW STUDY OF DEVELOPING SPILMANS ISLAND <br />67. One of the alternative sites evaluated in the Bayport FEIS is Spilmans Island. <br />68. Spihnans Island is currently used as a spoil disposal site and is adjacent to the <br />existing Bazbers Cut container facility of the Port of Houston Authority. <br />69. The cost of development of Spilmans Island for a container facility has been a <br />major issue in determining whether Spihnans Island is a practicable alternative to the proposed <br />Bayport site. <br />11. <br />