Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-2002 Special Called Workshop Meeting Minutes• CITY OF LA PORTE INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM January 16, 2002 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Robert T. Herrer City Manager SUBJECT: Workshop item in regards to the proposed Bayport Container Terminal Attached for your review is a draft letter written for Mayor Malone's signature to Mr. Kerry M. Stanley, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, on the above subject. Over the last two and '/z years, the Council has shared with me some of their thoughts on the proposed Port of Houston project. The draft letter attempts to capture those thoughts and comments which will convey the message the Council is now willing to make after studying the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which was released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The letter is written with two attachments that can be added to or removed, depending on your final wishes and direction. RTH: su cc: John Joerns Executive Staff C7 u January 10, 2002 Mr. Kerry M. Stanley U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District Regulatory Branch P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, TX 77553-1229 Dear Mr. Stanley, DRAFT • On behalf of the City of La Porte, please accept, record, and file this letter as the City of La Porte's comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Bayport Marine Terminal. • The City of La Porte appreciates the time and effort the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has given to study the permit application received from the Port of Houston. We recognize that the review was complex and voluminous. We also believe that the Port of Houston has made a genuine effort to understand some of the concerns raised by residents of East Harris County and the communities they reside in. Our City has participated with the work group developed by the Port Authority (Community Advisory Group) and has attended several public hearings and scoping meetings. The Port Authority continues to work in good faith with the Community Advisory Group in addressing elements of the DEIS and other issues raised during this process. However, it is the view of my Council and my community that concerns raised in the August 1999 position paper have been heard but not acted upon or resolved. Consequently, the City is opposed to the Bayport site, or any combination including Bayport, because we firmly believe the DEIS reinforces our concerns that this site would have substantial long term negative environmental impacts for our community. We would hope that before you consider issuing a permit for this location, you will follow all adopted procedures to insure the public's due process and interests are held at the highest degree of accountability. In addition, we would request that all issues raised during the scoping process, that may not have been analyzed in the current DEIS, be looked at diligently and reported in the final EIS along with all comments received on the • DEIS. As a public, we have the right to know how our quality of life will change under circumstances we have no control over. We further believe that the applicant has a duty and stewardship responsibilities to the community that is not yet evident in their permit application. • • DRAFT • The DEIS Executive Summary established two categories, non-environmental and environmental, for comparison of alternate sites. In general our review finds that the proposed Bayport site ranked either favorably or equal to other sites in the non- environmental categories of availability, operational effectiveness and site constraints. However, within the environmental category, the Bayport site displayed many negative environmental impacts that were more significant than alternate sites. We sincerely hope that convenience, ease of construction and infrastructure costs for the PHA does not prevail over real environmental impacts to adjacent and nearby homes and communities. Another great concern are the comments on air quality. Except for the No Action Alternative, all comments on Airshed Atmosphere Loading are the same for all alternative sites. Especially disturbing is the statement that "2007 NOX and VOC emissions generated by terminal construction and operations are included in the HGA ozone attainment plan. Therefore, the impact on the region's plan to attain the ozone standard is a long term, less than significant adverse impact". This is in effect saying that the increased emissions from Bayport (and surrounding industry) can be spread out or balanced over an eight county region while in reality the impacts will be a concentrated loading to be borne by the adjacent communities. Please explain why other environmental impacts were site specific while this impact was assumed to be spread out over a region? • In La Porte we remember the traffic problems which resulted when Barbours Cut was being built. We remember the discussions and compromises by both sides, which resulted in a grudging acceptance of Barbours Cut by its neighbors. Today, we continue to live with those environmental impacts and lack of planning and public/community involvement in the development of Barbours Cut. We are familiar with the much stricter environmental regulations that exist today and trust that the Corps of Engineers will recognize that Bayport is not the appropriate site. We are submitting additional specific comments on the DEIS for the record as an attachment to this letter together with a copy of the position statement the City has filed regarding the proposed Bayport expansion. If you should require any additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, Mayor Norman L. Malone cc: City Council • Robert T. Herrera, City Manger Knox W. Askins, City Attorney • • Attachment to Letter From Mayor of La Porte, TX Dated January 10, 2002 Additional Comments Re~ardin~ Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Port of Houston Authority's Proposed Bayport Channel Container/Cruise Terminal DRAFT Noise Pollution • Homes to the north side of the channel will experience disruptive amounts of noise. The DEIS notes that construction noise alone during the nighttime would exceed 55 dBA (decibels, A-weighted sound level) at the nearest residences for dredging, and the nighttime pile construction would exceed 55 dBA at the nearest residences. Operation sound levels at the residences north of the channel. would increase 16 to 22 dBA and exceed 65 dBA Ldn. Two of the alternate sites listed would not increase noise pollution or disturb area residents. Air Pollution • The DEIS states "emissions of NOS (Nitrogen Oxides (NO + NO2) + the • nitrate radical (NO3 )) , SO2 (Sulfur Dioxides), and PMIO (Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter) will be generated by construction equipment engines as well as fugitive dust emissions. This is a short-term adverse impact. Fugitive dust PMIO emissions would be mitigated by use of dust control measures. Emissions of NOX, 502, and PMIO will be generated both offsite and onsite due to container and cruise terminal operations. These emissions represent along-term adverse impact. The impact on the Ozone Attainment Plan is stated as "2007 NOx and VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) emissions generated by terminal construction and operations are included in the HGA (Houston-Galveston Non-attainment Area) ozone attainment plan. Therefore, the impact on the region's plans to attain the ozone standard is a long-term, less than significant adverse impact. The EIS lacks discussion of fine particulate matter that will be discharged. Although this area currently is in compliance at 10 microns, a small increase from the port would probably cause it to be non compliant. The EPA is moving towards lowering the standard from 10.0 to 2.5, which mandates that the EIS address this issue. • • • Light Pollution • Homes to the north side of the channel will experience disruptive amounts of light pollution. The DEIS states "Development of the terminal • complexes would change the visual character at any of the terminal location alternatives from generally undeveloped to awell-lighted 24-hour transportation facility with high-mast lighting." Transportation Issues • Delays will be caused at rail crossings and major thoroughfares due to increased vehicular and rail traffic. The DEIS presents references'to roadways that will need to be improved upon but does little to discuss the actual additional traffic and the burden it would place on area residents. No consideration has apparently been given to conflicts with existing vehicular traffic. The only suggestions made are the widening of Port Road from the project site to SH 146 and "proposed interchange and ramp improvements in the vicinity of the Port Road and SH 146 interchange." The DEIS acknowledges that Red Bluff Road, Port Road, and SH 146 will need improvements in future years based on projected growth with or without the Bayport Terminal. As for rail traffic, the DEIS is even more vague, stating only that "The site is located so that trains from the site could easily be consolidated with those from the Barbours Cut Terminal" and suggests "road/rail grade separation at new rail crossing at SH 146." • The EIS addressed the impact to the transportation system on an area basis but does not address localized impacts. Local communities, which are already subject to the worst environmental impacts, will thus realize immediate impact on their surface transportation and this must be discussed. • Only individual site analyses were performed and there is some question how and if it was done for combined port locations. Shipping • The distance between ships moving into position at the docks may be inadequate to prevent collision and erosion. Ships entering the Bayport Terminal do not have to comply with the State air emissions reduction efforts. Fairmont Parkway Overpass • An overpass must be constructed where Fairmont Parkway, a major thoroughfare, crosses the new inter port railway. This overpass and the highway modifications at the entrance to the port must be in place by the date the port begins operation. Sewa e • Sewage from the ships and the port must be handled in a manner whereby there is no chance that it will enter Galveston Bay. A system approved by the Texas Department of Health should be in place by the time operations begin. • • DRAFT Water Quality • The EIS lacks discussion of current water quality for the portion of the bay • that would be affected by the construction of this project and subsequent increase in shipping. It noted a few stations with data collected in 1997- 1998 but the majority is from Galveston Bay Estuary Program reports dated 1992 and 1994. • The EIS lacks reference to ongoing projects and water quality results from current studies that address dioxin and bacteria which could help determine whether or not the Bayport Ship Channel will be added to the state list of impaired waters. The EIS lacks discussion on the impact of dredging on water quality for the short or long term. If dredging causes re-suspension of contaminants, the channel would be placed on a list that would require Total Maximum Daily Load studies. • The EIS lacks discussion on the potential impact of increased shipping activity and storm water runoff on water quality. Wetlands/Habitat • Wetlands in the Galveston Bay watershed provide treatment of storm water runoff and buffer floods to reduce storm surges and additionally serve as habitat for wildlife and commercially valuable species. • The EIS describes 2.5 acres of wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Corps that will be destroyed and require mitigation and 103.5 acres of non- jurisdictional wetlands. The EIS lacks adequate discussion on the impact of losing these wetlands. • The EIS lacks adequate discussion on the value of wetlands, specific mitigation requirements, or the location of mitigation. Furthermore, we believe that our original concerns remain valid and require a closer examination by the Corps of Engineers. • • • DRAFT Attachment to Letter From Mayor of La Porte, TX • Dated January 10, 2002 Additional Comments Re~ardin~ Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Port of Houston Authority's Proposed Bayport Channel Container/Cruise Terminal Almost 2 '/z years ago we issued a position paper on the expansion. For the purpose of record keeping, we are resubmitting it to you as it was written and delivered to your agency on August 17, 1999. 1) The development will bring about changes in our community which are disruptive and more than just a nuisance. Homes on the north side of the channel to Bayport will experience noise, air pollution, lighting, and shoreline erosion problems. These issues, if not addressed, will cause the property owners' land values to be lowered, and their ability to sell their homes would be very difficult without taking a loss. If the Port Authority cannot correct these real estate concerns, then consideration from the Port Authority should be given to buying out the homes at fair market value, which abut the development. r~ U 2) The proposed development will bring with it major rail and vehicle transportation issues which will impact the City of La Porte and will affect neighboring communities. The proposed development will cause delays at rail crossings of major thoroughfares such as Fairmont Parkway, Shoreacres Boulevard, and Red Bluff Drive. Consideration from the Port of Houston must be given to working with local jurisdictions to resolve traffic concerns. In addition, the Port Authority should petition the State of Texas Highway Department to insure that State Highway 146 and State Highway 225 roadways are designed and constructed in advance to provide for the growth of the area and this development. It is recommended the Port Authority approach the State Highway Department to create a specialized truck lane on State Highway 146 to isolate the truck traffic to and from port facilities. The Port Authority should actively take a lead role in insuring rail crossings have overpasses and should also seek ways to fund these overpasses and their construction before the proposed development occurs. 3) The proposed development will add significant air pollution issues that cannot be ignored. The Bayport facility will generate additional air pollution from its use of diesel trucks, diesel ships, diesel cranes, and diesel vehicles that will operate at this location. The Port Authority should study the impact of this air pollution to the surrounding communities and to Harris County. Consideration should be given to using equipment that uses a cleaner burning fuel alternative. In addition, consideration should be given to the placement of air monitoring devices along • the site boundaries to measure the air quality leaving the site. East Harris County is under orders of the EPA that our region must reduce nitrogen oxides (Nox) emissions by as much as 85 percent to come into compliance with the national ozone standard by the year 2007. Adding this facility at this location contradicts any stated goal adopted to reduce Nox emissions in our region. 4) The Port of Houston should require a complete Environmental Impact Study be performed by the Army Corps of Engineers and require the Corps of Engineers to seek input from all communities and agencies which adjoin or may play some role in protecting the waters of Galveston Bay as a nationally important estuary. The Port Authority should also engage a consultant to study the existing shipping traffic patterns that enter and use the Bayport channel and apply this usage to their traffic models. Furthermore, it is recommended that the same consultant study the water area of the Bayport channel as it relates to the use of water recreational activities such as sailing, fishing, and shrimping. 5) The proposed development may bring about detrimental marine changes whose impact must be understood. The operation of a facility of this type will cause additional erosion to the north boundary of the Bayport channel. Measures must be in place to protect and eliminate the continual loss of shoreline to ship activity visiting and leaving the development. As larger ships come into play, the Port of Houston should attempt to understand the impact to Galveston Bay marine ecosystem if the channel is ever dredged to a depth of 50 feet. The Port Authority should require the Army Corps of Engineers to look at this depth as well as the 45-foot depth, which is proposed, to better understand the incremental change that may occur, if any. C: • • MEETING HANDOUTS ~~ • • 1-21-02 Council Talk Notes I'd like to present 3 items to you this evening. A California diesel pollution study. This study can be summed up in an Acronym, TAC, Toxic Air Contaminant. That study is ongoing but the evidence shows diesel exhaust particulates are heavily coated with carcinogens. Another study showing the impact on our area is due out shortly. 2. Shore Acres Mayor, Nancy Redmonson has researched the DEIS and done a 13 page summary of the DEIS flaws. Nancy will be glad to share this in detail, when you contact her. This summary is very insightful. I think it is essential that Council review this summary as a gauge of the accuracy of the Staff review of the DEIS. Here are a few of her items. 3. I think these blatant DEIS flaws proves the Corp. of Engineers has become the propaganda division of the PHA and is no longer unbiased or credible. Let's combine this with other PHA actions to see the character of the PHA. • The PHA substantially lowered it's original truck traffic estimate when the high numbers created opposition to Bayport. • The PHA says a more southern site is unusable because it will cost $600,000 per acre to build. And independent engineering analysis says it will take $100,000 per acre. 1/6 what the PHA claims. • Jobs? The same grossly inflated PHA propaganda, as proven by the Texas City analysis. ~--• Then there is the Pasadena Manlove scandal. ...and all these are a small piece of the overall picture. Gentlemen, I believe your study of this piece of PHA propaganda that the Corp. mistakenly claims is an EIS, and the PHA's character exposed by it's actions, should prove to you that it is time for you to join the other cities and groups fighting these modern day carpet bagger robber barons who want to adversely affect our health, our property values, our jobs, and our quality of life,.... for other's financial gain. In the Jan.14 Council meeting a councilman asked, why haven't the resistance groups researched to see if there has been a successful container port in the U.S.? My 1435 question to you, Council, is... Why haven't you researched it? Thanks for your time, Bill Scott, Treasurer for Common Sense Govt. •