Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />191. Plaintiffs allege that the analysis of impacts in the Draft EIS was so inadequate as <br />to preclude meaningful analysis, requiring a supplemental draft of appropriate sections. <br />192. The issuance of the Shoal Point permit by the Galveston District for a container <br />terminal similar to the proposed Bayport Project represents a significant new circumstance and <br />significant new information that was known to the Galveston District, yet not evaluated in the <br />Bayport FEIS. <br />193. Neither the Draft EIS nor the Final EIS presented an alternative analysis wherein <br />two permits were proposed to be issued by the Galveston District for new container ports at <br />different locations on Galveston Bay. <br />194. Numerous comments have been filed by Plaintiffs and others challenging the <br />presentation of alternatives in the DEIS. <br />195. The conclusion by the Galveston District that the cruise and container terminals <br />are not functionally dependent upon each other is significant new information relevant to <br />environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, since there is no <br />analysis of alternative sites in the Bayport DEIS or FEIS where the cruise terminal is located at a <br />different site, other than Bayport, from the container terminal (e.g. cruise terminal at Galveston, <br />container terminal at Shoal Point or Bayport). <br />196. GBCPA submitted comments that included an expert report concluding that cruise <br />and container terminals did not need to be co-located. <br />197. Hams County's recently released study of the feasibility of developing Spilmans <br />Island as a container facility represents significant information relevant to environmental <br />concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts because it makes Spilmans Island <br />more attractive as an alternative site to the proposed Bayport facility. <br />25. <br />