Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />DRAFT <br />02/21/02 <br />11 :30 am <br /> <br />and stewardship responsibilities to the community that is not yet evident in their permit <br />application. <br /> <br />The DEIS Executive Summary established two categories, non-environmental and <br />environmental, for comparison of alternate sites. In general, our review finds that the <br />proposed Bayport site ranked either favorably or equal to other sites in the non- <br />environmental categories of availability, operational effectiveness and site constraints. <br />However, within the environmental category, the Bayport site displayed many negative <br />environmental impacts that were more significant than alternate sites. We sincerely hope <br />that convenience, ease of construction and infrastructure costs for the PHA does not <br />prevail over real environmental impacts to adjacent and nearby homes and communities. <br /> <br />Another great concern is the comment on air quality. Except for the No Action <br />Alternative, the comments on Airshed Atmosphere Loading are the same for all <br />alternative sites. Especially disturbing in the statement that, <br /> <br />"2007 NOx and VOC emissions generated by terminal construction and operations <br />are included in the HGA ozone attainment plan. Therefore, the impact on the <br />region's plan to attain the ozone standard is a long term, less than significant <br />adverse impact." <br /> <br />In effect, this is saying that the increased emissions from Bayport can be spread out or <br />balanced over an eight county region while in reality the impacts will be a loading to be <br />borne by the adjacent communities. Please explain why other environmental impacts <br />were site specific while this impact was assumed to be spread out over a region? <br /> <br />In La Porte we remember the traffic problems which resulted when Barbours Cut was <br />being built. We remember the discussions and compromises by both sides, which <br />resulted in a grudging acceptance of Barbours Cut by its neighbors. Today, we continue <br />to live with those environmental impacts and lack of planning and public/community <br />involvement in the development of Barbours Cut. <br /> <br />Weare familiar with the much stricter environmental regulations that exist today and <br />trust that the Corps of Engineers will recognize that Bayport is not the appropriate site. <br /> <br />2 <br />