The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-17-2003 Bayport Expansion Review Committee Meeting~* ~~ MINUTES OF THE BAYPORT EXPANSION OPPOSITION COMMITTEE MAY 29, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Engelken at 6:00 p.m. Members of the Committee Present: Chairperson Chuck Engelken, Councilmembers Mike Mosteit and Peter Griffiths Members Absent: None Members of City Executive Staff and City Employees Present: Assistant City Manager John Joerns and City Secretary Martha Gillett 2. PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES, COMMiJNICATIONS, AND CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE PORT OF HOUSTON EXPANSION REVIEW COMMITTEE There were not any petitions, remonstrances, communications, or citizens wishing to address Council. Let the record show there were no citizens present. 3. DISCUSS AND REVIEW FINAL ENVIItONMENTAL IlVIPACT STUDY FOR THE PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY'S PROPOSED BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL CONTAINER/CRUISE TERMINAL The committee discussed the final document at length. It was the consensus of the committee that they want to be sure all the previous items of adverse affect, listed in the previous letter from Council, have been addressed in the final study. The committee agreed to do the following: Review the Executive Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Study. Set up another meeting in three weeks to further discuss. Next meeting is scheduled for June 17, 2003. The committee will provide City Council with a progress update at City Council meetings. Invite Mr. Jenkins and Commissioner Jimmy Burke to the next meeting. 4. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business discussed. 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS The committee had no further comments. ~' ~ • Page 2 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee, this meeting was duly adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ ~ Martha A. Gillett, TRMC City Secretary Passed and approved on this 17th day of June 2003. Chairman Chuck Engelken ceua CHARLIE JENKINS~ Project Manager PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY P.O. Box 2562 Tel: 713-670-2592 Houston, Texas 77252-2562 Ceil: 713-410-4848 United States of America E-Mail: cjenkins~poha.com LAURA W. FIFFICK~SP Environmental Affairs Manager PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY 111 East Loop N. P.O. Box 2562 Tel: 713-670-2436 Houston, Texas 77252-2562 Fax: 713-670-2427 United States of America E-Mail: Ififfick®poha.com. .~ ~'~ 1 ~. ~~ 4 ~~ d f. ~ , ~J S~ :i o a .~ _ :~; ,, . ,o: o y ~ e O t ::3~^ ~, :: ~J i ;~~~h"~' ~ ° h~ ... ~ ~ p ~ -z !I. %~f ~ ~~. ~' ~ ~~ ~ ~ t @ ~ ~ ~ ~~ v Y ~ ~i R~ ". :...... ~f J~ :.. .. - - N ~ y/1 [D ~ ~• p~i •• ~ 'TJ r7 "h x ~--' ny ;b b (D rn ~. O O H !D ~ fA V ~ `° t~ y o ° .~ 0 ~ „'h ° H ,~ ° 9 ~' o ~ C O H [D w H v nNi ~ ~ N O ~ ~ N "h ° H ~ ° 9 ~' o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ° o o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~• y //v~~~ `C/ p w $ ~ V O~ ° N ~o ° d o b ~ fC .'3* O vv ~ n S fD 1--' cn C ~ eY o ~ y y k • C1 w °- ~ ~ uN, o ° y °~I ° y G K O K ~ `G p p. ~• ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ . 7 ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~' ° ~ w to ~ ~ . ~ o ' ~ ~ ~ 7' p a. K ~' ~ O ~-n UQ ~ "O x ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ,~, ~ ~ ~D ~ Vn .'3 'Y • y ,~.~ O+ , ~ ~ry ~ • ~' ~ Fa ~ H ~ pro '? ~ rn ¢' S• o ° ~ m ° ~ o ~ ~ ~ a. c ~• o a Y ~ ° . ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ,~ O ru ~' ~ O ~ . ~ wf . ~ ~ ~ S ~ S 3 3 n ~ n ~] '< ~ ~ ~ ~e i A \: q• ~ y ~ •' H w ~ '~• ~ ~~ O A . d ~ ~~ y y 7 nn a d n d a rt n d 0 ... - ao _ ~^ _ : . d 'o ,, a __ _ _~ , __ 1_ - - b 0 ~o y °• fD• y 1 ~Q e•Y r~ ~ IY ~ ~• CC ~ e~•' ~ W !D Q• ~• ~ ~• ~ ~ O a ~ ~ b H O CD ~ !D• y H ~ • A Uq' (p Uq ~ ~ '~ (~j ~ O ~ ~„` ~D ~a. O (gyp O y• ~ ro ~ O ~ ro y• ~• y O ~ ~• O ° ~ y O ~. ~~ G O ti „~, ~. ~ ~ ~ O rD y d W C ~• H H ~D N ..p <~ rD n A~ C H n H C C ~, ~ -, cd O a v v°~ -d o C1. v s. «~ y .o o A ~ ,.o ~ ~ ~ v v ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ° y a'~ c ~ O A ~ Q .~ ~ ~ > ~i ~~ a o x q a a~~ a°, ~ ~ V y -: o A A S H d~.~ p, o y ~, ... co • ~ !.G ~ o~ '~, on v ao v ~, .. O d v ~ ~ '~ a ~ °~ ~~" ~ b~A ° ~°„ ~ .i"'. ~ v ~ p pp •~ vii ~ FT+ ~ E'' ~ h ~ ~ y y ~ .~ GJ ~ .~ ~ 3 ~ b G •~ bA y •~ ~` ~ ~ '~ a+ y "" `cam ~" ~ ~! b Q '~ Gl y c~ Q ~ a w ° bA fn • O •.~ • N Lr' N ~ "d • c~ h H y ~ ~V! a ~'' •'" ~ ~ f°n • VJ U • i-1 •+~.+ bA Ci h ~ N QI v~ s.r v L: ~ _7 ~ C". O ~ td QI •i+ ~i ~ .Ny ~ ~ ° CO N N N O ~ •a:+ .~.~' F µy i~.a Li ~ y ~ ~~,,, • V ('~ a v 3 ~ ~ ~ o O ° ~ ~ w > °~ aO~1 O BFI ,~ as'., •~~+ •~ o ~ .~ ~ ~ • • • • M U~ H O F U •Y m H cv ,~ ,, ., ,, _, °fl W C 0 Z N H O F ~5~~i~ i ~k.~ _eF .:~a~l~ 1 O p ~ p ~ ~ "' ?' ~' y ~' p' ~ ~ ro w O ^+ p ~ " n p ~ .t G- p ~. ~ p y. ~ ~ O b ~ ~. ~ C ~ ~ O• ~ ~ 1FF.~~ rrr ~ y n 0 ~ ~ ~ Q,. ~: O ~ y y nom. ~ Q+ .'T' UQ ~ ?' p' lD ~ (~ ~ x ~ f9 n x ~ fD ~ ~' `'~ ~ '+' 'C7 ~ "~ `" ~ C ~' ~ w ~ ~ ~ y ~+ „ , .' i p~ ~ to ~ ~ ¢ ~ ' ro ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ p y G. ' ~ K ~ p n ~ p .P ~ ~ < O~ ~' A~ ~ ~ ~' p ~ A~ .wy ~-. ~••~ . y y y O `~ `~' "~' .~-' ~ y .`J p • p h7 C+ ,.p,_, 'L7 "" w "C7 ~ A~ O H ~ P~ ~ a' (D '.Y ~ '7 y• b ~. ~ A~ UQ x n a „'t ~• ~ n W n ~. ~ b Al . 1..~ p• ~' (°'y fD K ~' G ~ ~' ~ y• ~• ~ W ~ , v ¢' ~ vim, w p ~~`~„ .7 ~ ~o C. .t p ~ M ~ (D .~ Al ~ lD ~ • ~D y ~y „'t SC p ~u • ~+ • ~ ~• ~ ~ O n ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ r ~ p O ~ rD r , ~ ry O .. ~ O y., ~ e -' y K O W Hv ' y ~ Q'• y O y H (D (D .~ G. '~. O n O y A O 'CS O N ~ p tu ~ Q. "1 ~ ~ rn ~• ~ ~. ~ ~ p. .-r ~ C D 'C H ~ • P1 C ~ M ~ ~' ~' C. A~ ~ w p ~ '~ v, ~ n T3 ~ y p• "'~ P~ .p n y ~ p r* p .. ~ UQ p ~'q1 O . n• ~' '~'~ p ~ ~ ~„' ~ -- ~ ~ ~ w y ~ a ..o °* ~• cra ~ ~ c ~ ~ a p' '<• • ~ a ~ y ~ ~ ~, ~• ~. o ~, x ~c' w~ w pC W FP //~~~ V9 q [ 1 w~ I~il _W _~ 0Q H `Lw WJ i ~. C a 0 0 C ._ 00 t0 N s I- M ° ~ h ~ •~ ~ y ~ V ° ~ ° GJ ~ ("y ~ y . ~ ~ ' Q C ' ~~i ~ Q„ v vy}} . . ~ ~ • ~. ~ v •~ a+ O ~ cd y O ,b v~ v O h ~. Y~'. ~ ~ 3 ~ O ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ 3 °, 3 ~ v . o n ~ . ~ V + ' Fr .~ ..r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i" '~ Li :~ ~ A. D" ~ ~ V y ~ O q O ~ ° ~ ~ W v~ a Q v ° + ,r y c c w i+ ~" L.1 V .-ti ~" ~ N ' y ~ •b "d '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ y C ' ~' C ' p ~ ~ ~' ~ Z3+ '~ c 0 }" + ~ QI ~ .- ! fa L'~ ° ~ ~ ~ a + V 4 Y~ ° . ~• N ' ~ yr ~ p ~ '~ ~ ~•± ~ a • V CJ 1 y'~7 ~y ~ fC 'b q d ~ ~ o ~ o o ~ 3 °~' o o ° ~ `~ ~ c a~ ~ '~ ~ a. oA '~ ~ y . y a ° ~ oA ~ ~ p, v ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ H ° ~ b ~ .~ ° • ~ v a °~ o ~ o ayi ~ N ~ - d ~ ~ v w ~ ~ ~ a ~ b ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ '~ 3 -o ~ a o ~ ~ . ~ y~ O , O ~ N V Y ~ ~ ao ~ ~ O O • ~ i . y ~ • O O • ~ V ~ . O ~ w ~ O ~ • .~ ~ ^ a ~ N F" o v o ~ o v ~ ~ ' ~ ~ r}~ ' ,~ . • o ~ ~ ~ • y a ~ ~ o ~ +a ~ ° ~ ~ ,~°' ~ ~ .~.~ ' ~ ~ ~ +y M Y Y 4~ yi~,y ~ y o C1. ~i ca ~ i-1 O i~"i.+ p if~.+ O 1.'~ ~ lC '"-' f W •~ a~ .. i ~ ~ O ~ '~ ~ ~y 'bA ~ ~I y a~ ~ ~ fA c.~ p, yq Vy ~ '~ ~ O ~ ~ ,O o A" V ~ ~ ~ ~ , h ° 41~ (0 .~ ~ Q I GJ • y a .--~ i 41 G' y , N N ~ v V y a 4" F~ ~ S -~ ~ ~ . GJ V ' +. ~'+ C ~ / ~ F-1 G~ ..yi ~ V -i •~ ~ i ~ ~ . r • ~ N ~- ~ R ~ ~ " V ' +~'' N W bA L: y y ~ a f . i { ~ i . H w ~ W ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ on ~ ~ ~ ~ v U H d a O y ~_ A ~ Cy °S'"i Q W H 0 ate.., 0 ~ y y CQ ~ ~ ~_ ~ b ~ ~ ~ v ~ o°1A ~ O W .~ ~ .v ~ ~ W i~ ~ ~ c'~ ~ ~ Fa' z •~ o a ~ • y ~ ° -~ ° a ~ ~ ~ ~ w a ~ c o ~ ~ a ~ ~ u a o ~ y h ¢ w -d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w Q o ~ ~ W W y C d p ~ ~.~,~ sa ~ y _ ~ ~+ -, pa N s. pq ~. ~ ~ ~ cd (~ --~.. " ~ y ~ '. } sc~. h~~y ~ y d cd ~ `~ ~~., O W vii ~ V o ~' o°n ~ H a.a Ol 3". ~ '~ O O H x 'y ~ W ~ V C." OV ~" Fa x W v°i ~ y .,i-r fn j Q' ~ " ~ w ~' p ~ v p vi pdq O '~ p '~ ~ ~ 9 a~i ~ ~ ~ ~ O ] °' ~ ~ ~ ~ U x '~ ~ x ~ ~ 3 ~¢ a ~ o ~ as ar ~ ,~ ~ c7 0 ~ x oa ~ w ~ v ~ ~ a -o v ° A ~ cn H °~ o N N N ^ ..V1r vii '~-,' . . ~ y ~ ~ .~ ~ c~ x o `y o ~ o ~ a a ~ ~ ~ o ~ a ~ ~ ~ o ° x ~ -~ ~ • ° +~ v ~ ~ `~ +~ o o ~ A " ~ c7 ~ w •~ ,~ o b o a. ~, v o .~ ~ N •~ .~ v a A ~ o V ~ ~ r ° ~ C7 '~ Vi h GJ y y .= N (~ti" ~" V1 y • ~ V Q'' i ~ ..r sr ~ v~ ~ ~., w ~ N V Q+ y ~ ~ G." ~ y s'" v i y ~ . bA N N ~ '~ ~ ~ cd ; b o ~ ~ ° ~ ~' o b - ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ '~ s~ . 0 0 ~ '~ ~ N p h (" ~ ~ ~ p ~ 4J '~ •'" ~ U :b '~ o o°n ~ ~ i y ~ ~'" ~ ao ~ ~ o o v ~ •~ b ~ ~ •~ ~ •~ ~ ~- . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a, ~ ~ •a a ~ Q' ~ ~ v *' s~ ~ >~ a ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ v d 0 as ~ U c~ ~ a 3 ~ cn w ~ 3 w ~ U o v a d p . v ' ~ v 'd ~ ;D ~ -~ .I•. '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v A. s>. q vii ~ O ~ ~ s>. ~ a V ~" y Q. ' p Q+ *~•' ~ V ~ ~ • ~ v ~ ~ O. sue. • ~:. ~ ~ O ~ ~ u ~ ° '" s~ C 'd v on ' a~ -d ~ s~ i.. p ~ y ,~ ~ '+ v `~ cq a~ ~ ~ ^C Q o +~ °on ~ b ~ a a ~ d ~ >~ `" °' a v ° +' p, ~ •> a `~ v ,~ ~ ~ x U a ~ a -. 3 w a, o~ d~ v ~ v ~ s.. v' c~ ~,; C • ~ ~ y ~ b wbA ~ v a+ p s.. w ~', ~ O' ~ q 'w ~ ,~ ~ ~ x on a~ ~ v ~ w y >~ ~, ;~ w .~ > o ~ ~ > x ~ w 'bn ~ '> c4 d a v~ a ~ •~ ~ o .~` , ~,, ,;-_ ~ _ ,,~ ""` a, - . ~• ~- ~'~ ~L'f~~rYr. ,, ,.;1£ ~+ ", F ; ~ ~.`~ _ ~~ ~. V P i~ i ~ ~ . ~ ~ 2' ~~~ ~ s..I x y, "~k-.~ ~ ~ ti~ {,y y ~;' .:.. .t'~irl ~ ~~ ~ ~Y ' ~u}• fa '~?~ . 1 s. G'~ -r - .` y ~\ ~_ .. C7 ~ n w y ~ . . . o ~ y o i~ '~ " ~ c w n bd H o ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cn H ~ o ~ o w y ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ y ~ w y K ~y ~, •.~ b ~ O < ~ O ~ r~ O Up w A p A, ~ y n 'C O G ~' ~ b ~ ~ fD. w ~ ~ y ~ n ~ ''~ y ~ ~ S7 ~ p '~ O ~ Q.. O ~ rr ~ ~ A ~ O. trJ ~' rn ~ ~ b7 lD ~ ~ ~ ~ pAi ~ ~ .A"i. ~D ~ ~"d d ~ o {G~~ y ~ ~ coo ~' ~ ° Ap ~ o. ~ b ~ ~ pAj ~ Q ~ ~ • ~ ~ y 0 ~+ H A p ~ ~ K ~ H~ H w ~ ~ C ~ w ~ ~ ~ y ~ '~. A ~ ~ ~ ~' y A' w rF hG w ~• ~' f1 C ~, y ~ '~ ~~ w d as rt ~" ~D '~ =s' rt rt ~ I V ,''tom °° ~sTON ~00~0 ,\ ~ alp,,; :~_ ...:~q ~. ` o p4 ~,,f a ~ p p ~' - H a "~ z s~ ~, ~ ~e °~o S~'ON _. '~ti~°oo Position Paper USAGE'S FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EIE PROPOSED BAYPORT CONTAINER AND CRUISE TERMINAL The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared and released on May 16, 2003 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) evaluates the Bayport Container & Cruise Terminal (Bayport project) proposed by the Port of Houston Authority (PHA) along with alternative sites picked for review by the USAGE. The FEIS takes into consideration all of the public comments that were submitted following the USACE's release of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) in November 2001. Originally scheduled to end on June 16, the public comment period will now close on July 16. The USAGE will consider public comments on the FEIS in the finalization of its Record of Decision (ROD), which is expected in late August. The ROD will authorize one of three actions related to a construction permit for Bayport: 1) issuance of the permit, 2) issuance of the permit with modifications or conditions, or 3) denial of the permit. The USACE's permit decision is expected to be announced in September. 1. Air Quality Matters • Bayport will comply with the Houston area's clean air plan. In fact, all of the Bayport emissions were overestimated in the plan. o Onsite Bayport nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions estimated in the FEIS are only 33.5% of the onsite Bayport emissions assumed and included in the clean air plan. o Emissions from Bayport will.be below the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the surrounding neighborhoods. o Emissions from Bayport will be below the air quality standards for diesel particulate established by the EPA and the State of California. Any of the alternative sites would have air impacts that are equal to or greater than Bayport. o Operational emissions from all of the alternative sites would have the same level of impacts for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (S02), diesel particulate and PM10 (particles with a diameter of 10 microns or less). BAWORT POSITION PAPBR page 1 of 7 May 2003 o During the construction phase, the alternative sites would be likely to have PM 2.5 (particles with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less) emissions that are greater than at Bayport, and that could exceed the NAAQS. o The FEIS states that construction-related impacts at the other alternatives "would, in general, be greater than those related to the Bayport terminal location alternative since these locations would require additional stabilization and/or increase in elevation." e The Bayport facility will be more protective of public health and the environment than the FEIS shows because the analysis used overstated emissions. o The FEIS states, "Assumptions were generally made that would result in an estimate of the worst case scenario that could result from the terminal operation." o The study used very high estimates of emissions from construction and operations, like trucks and cranes. The FEIS states, "The emissions inventory presented for the terminal development is intended to be an order of magnitude of emissions greater than what would actually result from terminal operations." o The analysis in the FEIS did not include significant components of the PHA's air mitigation plan. o The study includes the first-ever model in Texas of the impact of such a facility under the new PM 2.5 air quality standard, as well as the impact of diesel particulate . emissions. o The FEIS did not consider all of the benefits of several upcoming environmental regulations that will improve air quality in the region, including the new diesel and fuel standards announced by EPA, new Tier II and Tier III diesel equipment, and other rules relating to the Houston clean air plan. The FEIS states, "This study did not fully account for future regulations and technological advances that would potentially reduce emissions from operations related to the terminal project." o The FEIS states, "Therefore, actual emissions related to the project are likely to be lower than those presented in this assessment." o The FEIS states, "Background levels of PM 2.5 should decrease over time as this pollutant is further controlled. This positive impact was not included in the analysis since it was not possible to determine the degree to which future background levels might decrease." • The Port has also committed to controls that will reduce emissions from Bayport, and further minimize the chance of any harm to citizens living near the facility. o The Port has committed to reducing emissions of ozone-forming chemicals well beyond what is required in the Houston clean air plan. HAYPORT POSITION PAPER page 2 of 7 May 2003 o The Port also has committed to reducing diesel emissions through the use of clean fuels and clean engine technologies. 2. Wetlands and Water Quality Matters The FEIS includes a detailed analysis of the wetlands and other habitat at the Bayport site. The Corps has determined that there are 19.71 acres of wetlands that are subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA), of which 19.28 acres will be impacted by the project. The large majority of those wetlands are on old dredge material disposal areas north of Port Road. • The PHA will mitigate for the loss of these wetlands on a 173.5 acre tract located on Red Bluff Road. The Port will create 66.8 acres of new wetlands, within the Taylor Bayou/Bayport Channel watershed, a ratio of more than 3.4 acres of wetlands for each one acre used to build the terminal. • The PHA will compensate for other aquatic resources and habitat values. In addition to the created wetlands, the Red Bluff Road site will include: - enhancement of 12 acres of existing wetlands - 23.7 acres of forested and shrub uplands - 71 acres of restored coastal prairie - a conservation easement will protect the entire 173.5 acre tract • At least 200 acres of inter-tidal marsh will be created as a beneficial use of dredge material. • Critically, the water quality functions of the aquatic resources (both jurisdictional and non jurisdictional) will be adequately replaced. • The storm water quality plan at Bayport will meet -and exceed -all environmental standards. • This program is being implemented even though sampling of storm water at the existing Barbours Cut Terminal has never exceeded any regulatory limits. That record has been set without the high level of protection Bayport will have. o The Bayport Terminal will capture the first inch of rainfall at the terminal and divert it to a holding pond. The first flush pond will trap suspended solids, thus decreasing the discharge of sediments into the bay. o The rate of storm water flow into Pine Gully will be limited to pre-project conditions. The South Terminal Retention Pond will capture and hold storm water in excess of BAYPORT POSITION PAPER page 3 of 7 May 2003 one inch, and then release it slowly. This retention pond will have a created wetland . in its bottom to filter the storm water before its release. o The areas of the terminal with the highest chance to contribute contaminants to storm water (the Maintenance Facility, RTG maintenance areas, and equipment parking areas) will have isolated drainage basins, which will have inlet treatment units to remove TSS, oil and grease, with the remaining water then proceeding to the first flush basins. 3. Alternative Sites • The USACE analysis of alternatives includes several sites that, in the opinion of the PHA, are not practical or reasonable. - Cedar Point is located in Chambers County, not Harris County. There is no deep water access, so a new 40 foot deep channel approximately 15,000 feet long would need to be constructed from the Houston Ship Channel to Cedar Point. An additional 1021ane miles above that needed for the Bayport alternative would be required. From both an operational and financial standpoint, this alternative is neither reasonable nor practical. - Spillman's Island cannot be used for a container terminal. The site is a key component of the 50-year plan to dispose of dredged material from the congressionally authorized Houston Ship Channel project. Disposal of maintenance material is essential to keeping the Houston Ship Channel open. A replacement for Spillman's Island must be located and permitted before Spilhnan's Island could be used. This alternative disposal site would also produce environmental impacts. Even if that hurdle is overcome, repeated analyses have demonstrated that the costs of constructing a container terminal on the active disposal site are much higher than those for construction at Bayport. - Shoal Point in Texas City is not available to the PHA. A permit has been granted to another applicant to use that location. The construction of a Texas City terminal does not lessen the need for Bayport, but it does eliminate the location as a reasonable or practical alternative. • Bayport is a good location for the project. It is located in an area designated for industrial uses along an existing federally maintained deep water channel. It has synergistic operational efficiencies with the existing Barbours Cut Terminal. It is in the overall public interest. 4. Noise Matters • It is important to recognize that the noise modeling in the FEIS is extremely conservative. Indeed, according to the FEIS, it was "designed to evaluate aworst-case condition." BAYPORT POSITION PAPER page 4 of 7 laay zoos o For example, the source sound level used for operations at the container terminal was the worst case hourly level among all measurements taken by the USACE at the existing Barbours Cut Terminal. o Additionally, the model assumes full build-out with all seven berths operating during a 24-hour period. This scenario, which cannot possibly occur for many years, will never occur for more than a small fraction of the time the terminal operates. o Consistent with its policy to be a good neighbor, the PHA will continue to work with surrounding areas to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. • The FEIS concludes that only short-term, less than significant noise impacts would occur as a result of construction activities at Bayport. • The FEIS demonstrates that no significant noise impacts would occur from vehicular traffic at Bayport or from traffic coming to or from the proposed location. • Bayport will not violate any noise regulations. • If the Bayport Terminal was not built, similar noise levels would likely occur at the site anyway due to future industrial growth. According to the FEIS, "Under the No Action Alternative, increases in industrial development are projected at several of the terminal location alternatives, including the Bayport area. It is expected that ambient noise levels in the Bayport area and at the Cedar Point and Pelican Island locations would increase . commensurate with this projected industrial growth." • The PHA is committed to building a 20-foot-high barrier to reduce noise from both construction and operation of the Bayport Terminal. • According to the FEIS, "[t]here are no ground-borne vibration impacts as a result of construction, vehicular traffic, rail, or terminal operations under the Bayport terminal location ..." • Despite the fact that the modeling over-predicted noise impacts, the PHA has committed to the following mitigation measures to further protect the area: - Construction o Construction equipment that has the lowest possible noise emissions and acoustic height necessary to perform the job will be selected if feasible. o All equipment will be in good repair and fitted with "manufacturer recommended" mufflers. o All equipment maintenance and lay-down areas will be located as far from the development area as possible. o The PHA will use tangent pier construction techniques for the container wharf instead of sheet pile wharf construction to eliminate noise associated with pile drive equipment. o The Port will use drilled shafts instead of pile driven supports to reduce noise. . BAYPORT PO5111ON PAPER page 5 of 7 May 2003 - Operation o All terminal equipment will be properly maintained to reduce noise. o All crane spreaders will be fitted with an impact control device which will reduce impact noise by approximately 35%. 5. Surface Transportation Matters (Motor Vehicles and Railroad) ^ Most of the roadways identified as requiring improvements will need to be improved in the future, regazdless of whether or not the PHA builds the Bayport facility. These required improvements aze addressed in the no-action alternative. ^ The need for roadway improvements in most of the study area would be triggered by the projected increases in "background traffic" (trips not associated with facility). This does not include the widening of Port Road from two lanes to four lanes, or ramp improvements (flyovers) between State Highway 146 and Port Road. The need for improvements along SA 146 would be accelerated as a result of the Bayport project. A comparison of the required improvements at full build-out in the year 2025 indicates that one additional freeway lane would be needed in each direction on SH 146. The comparison also indicates that the Bayport site would require the least amount of lane mile construction compared to the alternatives. Table 3.5-53 Comparative Total of Lane Miles Required Per Alternative r.: ~-.~ ~< ::. ..,. .:; ... ~., :::- . ,.;:.~ :~a ~ ' ~:. •.~~> ~ Year ~ •:. ; • .. ''' ~~` _~ ".Altecnative'~ ' ~ ~.-•. 2005 2015. ~~2025 Ba ort 2 16 82 Pelican Island 1 40 99 S illmans Island 9 16 100 Shoal Point/Ba ort 1 21 105 U er San Jacinto Ba /Ba ort 4 22 111 Shoal Point 1 15 127 Cumulative Scenario 17 30 166 Cedar Point 9 62 184 No Action Alternative 132 186 229 The PHA's main function is to provide, operate, and maintain waterways and marine facilities for cazgo and passenger ships. The PHA does not build roads outside of its facilities (responsibility of cities, county, or state). The PHA, however, has made a commitment to fund a portion of the intersection and rail crossing improvements in the local area to help accelerate their construction and thereby minimize traffic congestion. At full build-out in the yeaz 2025, approximately 5,620 trucks will make more than 11,000 trips per day (transit into and transit out of the complex equal one trip). Bayport trucks will represent approximately 8% of the projected traffic on SH 146 at Port Road in 2025. . BAYPORT POSITION PAPER page 6 of 7 May 2003 Rail service to the facility would not begin until approximately 2012. Until that time, rail cargo would be trucked to the nearby Barbours Cut inter-modal facility. Initiation of rail service will significantly decrease the volume of truck traffic associated with the development. BAYPORT POSITTON PAPER page 7 of 7 May 2003 i .` 1 .. ~~ ~ STAN ~~~0° d .T a o`` ~o S g a _ :.~ ~ ~. ~c °~,os~ ~yQ "~ e A O a DsT -:~:~~~o oo,,_ ON , _ EAYPORT CONTAINER & CRUISE TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE 2005 Phase lA of Bayport is operational, including 1,660 feet of the ultimate 7,000 ft. wharf and approximately 65 acres of the ultimate 1,043 acre facility. Additional phases will be built incrementally over many years according to market demands. Apri12003 The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) conducts a public meeting on the Port Authority's 401 water quality permit. Later this month, the Corps is expected to release its Final Environmental Impact Statement. The Corps' schedule calls for a record of decision on the permit for Bayport near the end of this month. The Port Authority anticipates a favorable decision. August 2002 The Port Authority's Barbours Cut Container and Cruise Terminal and the Central Maintenance facility became the first Port facilities in the U.S. to develop and implement an Environrnental Management System (EMS) that meets the rigorous standards for ISO 14001 compliance. May 2002 Cruise Terminal design changed to reduce the number of berths to three from five to lessen the environmental and bay bottom impact necessary for the facility. Changed mitigation to address the verified wetland delineation at Bayport with a 3.6:1 ratio of new wetlands to impacted wetlands on the conservation easement. Increased the conservation easement size to 173 acres. The Port has proposed to create 66.8 acres of freshwater wetlands, enhance 12 acres of existing wetlands, preserve 23.7 acres of forested and shrub uplands and 71 acres of restored coastal prairie on the easement. March 2002 Written comment period on the DEIS closes. February 2002 The Port makes further minor changes to the master plan to improve stormwater drainage, location of the three-mile long, 130-foot wide, 20-foot tall sight and sound berm located on a 128-acre buffer zone, sound barriers on the north shore of the Bayport Channel, the use of high-tech spreader bars on the wharf cranes to reduce noise and add a new 75-foot set aside between the vegetated berm and Pine Gully for habitat purposes. December 2001 A public workshop followed by the official public hearing was held at the George R. Brown Convention Center. Three to four thousand attended the public hearing. The group was split between opposition and supporters. Bayport Container & Cmise Terminal page I of 9 May 2003 Nov -Dec 2001 Two Public Workshops were set up at the Pasadena Convention Center by the Corps to provide information to the public on Bayport Project and the DEIS. Just a few dozen attend. November 2001 The CAG released a study that showed the residential property values near the Port's Barbours Cut Container facility increased at a faster rate than the average for Harris County. November 2001 Army Corps of Engineers released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Corps sets the original deadline for comments on February 11, 2002 -double the amount of time required by law for a comment period. The comment period was later extended further to March 2002 - a full 120-day comment period. October 2001 Using input from community, industry and maritime groups, the PHA submitted a revised permit application. The revised permit application to the Corps dedicates 12% of the property to buffer zones, provided a channel setback of 225 feet for navigational safety, provided tree planting for the north shore of Bayport, stipulated that some dredge material would be used to create approximately 200 acres of new marsh in the Bay, mitigated wetland delineation by acquiring a 163-acre conservation easement with a 5:1 ratio of new wetlands to impacted wetlands on the easement, protect existing wetlands, forest and shrub upland on the easement, proposed capture of "first flush" stormwater to facilitate capture of total suspended solids, added a South Terminal Retention Pond, added isolated inlet treatment units to treat stormwater from areas that have a higher likelihood of oil and grease, pledged the use of alternative fuels and equipment when available, added an on-site HA7.MAT team, fire department and police department, designed lighting systems that would minimize glare, moved cruise ship traffic from Todville Road to a new four-lane public thoroughfare called Cruise Road that will be inside the berm, modified Todville/Cruise/Port Road intersections to prevent truck traffic from entering the community, pledged the facility will meet the Environmental Management System IS014001 standards -The Port's Barbours Cut Container and Cruise Terminal is the only terminal in the nation to meet these standards. October 2001 The EPA approves the Houston State Implementation Plan (SIl') on air quality attainment -Bayport is included in the SIP's measures. November 1999 A $387 million Bond Election for Phase One of the Project was approved by a 60-40% margin countywide. 1998 - 2002 The Port created and participated in the Citizen Advisory Group (CAG), which included port officials, citizens, area cities, community groups, environmental groups, labor organizations, maritime industry representatives and other interested groups. As a show of good faith, the Port Authority requested the Corps to postpone the Bayport Scoping Meeting to give the CAG the opportunity to develop a list of concerns for Bayport Contains & Cruise Terminal page 2 of 9 May 2003 the EIS to address. The CAG will release a report with recommended changes to the Bayport Master Plan to address the concerns of citizens. January 2000 The Port committed the local share of funds to the Houston-Galveston Area Council for port access projects including the construction of grade separations for major roadways that would cross the Port's container rail west of State Highway 146. Additionally, the Port committed the local share for a dedicated flyover for a truck entrance and a separate flyover for the cruise terminal entrance. 1999 Members of the City Council of Seabrook lost a recall vote before an agreement was reached. However, at a significant cost, several provisions of the last proposal remained in the master plan including the relocated truck entrance and athree-mile long, 130-foot wide, 20-foot tall sight and sound berm. The berm will be planted with native trees and shrubs to provide additional separation between the facility and the community. 1999 From the beginning, the Port of Houston Authority negotiated in good faith on an agreement with the City of Seabrook and offered several concessions. Under the last proposed agreement, the Port would provide some capital improvements for Seabrook near the Bayport Facility, including a fire station and a water treatment plant and the Seabrook City Council would agree to support the Bayport Project. September 1999 The Corps held its scoping meeting for the EIS on the Bayport Project at the Pasadena Convention Center. Over 1,000 people turned out for the meeting. December 1998 The Corps, at the behest of the Port, made the decision to do an environmental impact statement, instead of an environmental assessment. October 1998 The Port applied for permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1998-1999 The Port sponsored public workshops and meetings on the Bayport master plan resulting in multiple changes to the plan. May 1998 Original Bayport Container and Cruise Terminal Master Plan was released to the public. 1993 The PHA purchased 608 acres of land adjacent to the PHA's Bayport property. The original plan was to use 500 acres for dredge material disposal and 100 acres as part of a future terminal. The PHA modified its plans and placed the maintenance dredge material in another location. 1964 Port of Houston Authority purchased a major portion of the Bayport Property that is adjacent to the 7,200-acre Bayport Chemical Complex, south of the Bayport Channel, and located on Port Road in the Pasadena Industrial District. Bayport Container & Cruise'rerminal page 3 of 9 May 2003 The Port Authority will continue to work to address all public concerns and issues regarding the proposed facility, setting a new standard in the maritime industry for environmental stewardship and community friendliness. The Port Authority wants to be a good neighbor and will work as hard as we can to meet that goal. Alternate Sites The Corps' DEIS presented resoundingly clear and supportive evidence that the Bayport site is the best site for a container and cruise terminal. The Corps considered 78 preliminary sites in the Galveston Bay area for study in its DEIS, eventually cutting the number to eight for study in the DEIS. The Spilmans Island site is an active, 50-year dredge disposal site. If this site was filled and used as a container and cruise facility, a new site would have to be found that would accommodate over 48 million cubic yards of current and future dredge material. An upland disposal site would require 964 acres of land for the material to be stacked 45 feet high, including 234 acres for 6.5 miles of levees. After the mitigation for the site, the additional costs for pumping the material the extra distance, purchasing land, creating a new master plan for dredge material management, and conducting an environmental impact statement would be conservatively estimated at $157 million more than Bayport. If the material were used for marsh creation near Spilmans Island, the 48 million cubic yards would create 4,300 acres of marshland in an undesirable location in Galveston Bay at a cost estimated to be well in excess of $230 million. In 1999, the voters approved $387 million for port bonds to construct Phase lA of the project. The Spilmans Island alternative would not be monetarily feasible, economically sensible, or efficiently timely in completion as it would cause at least asix-year delay in the construction of the project. Design Phase Contracts The PHA Commission has approved a recommendation to allow the PHA to accept proposals for container yard cranes for Bayport. Additionally, under terms of a contract awarded by the Port Commission in 2001, the services of Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. (LAN) are to be provided over approximately a seven-year period with funding authorized on an annual basis. LAN has provided a new scope of services for the second year of the seven-year period that began November 1, 2002. The new scope of work will include continued project management, completion of the roadway transportation study, design work for repair and maintenance buildings, and an information management system. Bayport Container & Cruise Terminal page 5 of 9 May zoos The PHA Commission also has authorized LAN to issue requests for qualifications (RFQs) for architectural and professional engineering services for a maintenance and repair building, marine terminal gate facility, and an administration gate building at Bayport. Under terms of its program management services contract awarded by the commission in 2001, LAN is responsible for preparing the RFQs related to Phase I development of Bayport. Although no construction will be performed and no spending will be authorized until and unless the corps approves the project, beginning the process now of advertising for and receiving RFQs and proposals will save time and money when the Port Authority is authorized to begin construction. The entire bidding and contracting process can take six to eight months from the time bids are submitted, evaluated by staff, reviewed by commissioners, and then awarded. Environmental Quality ISO 14001: The Port Authority prides itself on being an environmental leader. Last year, the Barbours Cut Container Terminal and the Central Maintenance Facility became the first of any port facilities in the U.S. to meet the rigorous standards of ISO 14001 compliance. This was achieved through the development and implementation of a voluntary environmental management system (EMS) that focuses on reducing and recycling solid waste, lowering air emissions, and improving storm water quality. These goals and standards are expected to be achieved upon the completion and opening of the first phase of the Bayport Container and Cruise Terminal facility. Air Emissions: The construction and operation of Bayport has been factored into the State Implementation Plan that has been submitted for EPA review and approval. In fact, the emissions included in the plan exceed the actual emissions expected from the project. The DEIS covers small particulate emissions as a subset of the Corps' air quality study. The Port Authority is committed to using alternative fuels when available for its equipment at Bayport. The Port Authority currently uses the diesel emulsion fuel PuriNOx at Barbours Cut and has experienced a 25 to 30 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) and a 30 to 50 percent reduction in particulate matter (PM). Additionally, the Port Authority is experimenting with selective catalytic reducers (SCR) and other technologies on some of its equipment to further reduce emissions. Solid Waste: The Port Authority has collaborated with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (formerly the Texas Bayport Container & Cruise Terminal page 6 of 9 May 2003 Natural Resource Conservation Commission) to reduce its use of absorbent materials by 50 percent to meet the EMS objective. The goal was attained by using a cement mixer to distribute oil evenly throughout all used absorbent material. The material can then be reused to absorb six or seven additional spills. Traffic Congestion: The Port Authority recognized the need for roadway improvements near its projects and has made the commitment to fund the local share of port access projects to improve traffic flow, allow quicker transactions, reduce emissions, improve safety and allow for efficient cargo movement. Some of the projects proposed for Bayport include a flyovers that would link State Highway 146 and Port Road, a flyover from State Highway 146 that would connect to a new Cruise Road for passengers arriving at our cruise facility, and grade separations west of State Highway 146 over our proposed north-south rail corridor that parallels the existing Union Pacific track. Our designs also include special intersections that would prevent truck traffic from using city streets and we have proposed that Port Road be widened and straighten to improve traffic flow. Noise: The Bayport Facility will be surrounded on the south and east portions of the property by athree-mile long, 130 foot wide, 20-foot tall earthen sight and sound berm planted with trees and native vegetation. This berm will effectively limit noise and light exposure outside of the terminal. Additionally, the truck entrance, roadways, cruise road, rail yard, container facility, cruise terminal, warehouses, and empty container yard will all be inside the berm. For the north shore of the Bayport Channel, the Port Authority will build a 20-foot tall sound and sight wall to protect communities to the north. Additionally, the Port Authority will use the best available, high tech spreader bars on our wharf cranes to dampen sound. Our existing Barbours Cut Container Terminal, which is just four miles north of Bayport, serves as an example of the limited noise impact of the facility. During tours by our visitors we often drive just a few blocks away from Barbours Cut Boulevard, turn off the car engine, roll down the windows, and let people determine if they can hear the terminal. So far, everyone has told us that they do not hear any noise. Moreover, Barbours Cut was not designed with the same mitigation plan as Bayport. We are confident that our terminal will be community friendly. Houston Ship Channel and Galveston Bay: The deepening and widening project for the Houston Ship Channel is creating 4,200 acres of new marsh for the Galveston Bay area and restoring Bayport Container & Ctuise Tertmnal page 7 of 9 May 2003 historical islands for bird rookeries. This commitment to the environment will not change with our Bayport Project. The Port Authority will create up to another 200 acres of marshlands in Galveston Bay from dredge material. These marshlands act as a nursery for marine life and provide excellent bird watching and fishing opportunities increasing the recreational value of Galveston Bay. The Port Authority has purchased land neaz the Bayport property that will be protected as a conservation easement. The 173-acre site is hydrologically connected to the Armand Bayou Nature Center to the south and east. On this tract, the Port Authority will create 66.8 acres of wetlands on the site to replace the 18.3 acres of wetlands on the Bayport Property (a 3.6:1 replacement ratio). The Port will enhance 12 acres of existing wetlands on the easement and will create 71 acres of restored upland coastal prairie, a land type that is becoming scazce on the Texas Gulf Coast. Neither the Corps of Engineers nor the Port Authority has any plans to deepen the channel to 50 feet. The wharves at Bayport will have a 50-year life span. To design and construct a wharf that can accommodate a 50-foot channel compared to a 45-foot channel would increase the cost of the wharf by an insignificant 1.2%. That compares favorably to the construction cost of a new wharf in excess of $23,000 per liner foot in today's dollars. If the Corps of Engineers decided to deepen the Houston Ship Channel and the Bayport Channel to 50 feet, there would have to be a separate environmental impact statement. As an example, the Houston Ship Channel is currently being deepened to 45 feet from 40 feet. To deepen the channel by five feet required Congressional approval in the Water Resources Development Act, bond election approval by the voters of Hams County, completion of an EIS by the Corps, and annual appropriations by Congress. Finally, if there were such a plan to deepen the channel to 50 feet, it would be known by the Corps. Erosion Protection: The Port Authority has already improved the north shore of the Bayport Channel to prevent erosion from wakes caused by the 6,487 vessel and barge transits each year that currently call on existing private facilities in the Bayport Channel. Property Values: The Bayport Citizens Advisory Committee, made up of area municipalities, environmental groups, industry leaders and the maritime community, commissioned a study on property values in the residential area near the Bazbours Cut Container facility. The study found that residential properties near Bayport Container & Cruise Terminal page 8 of 9 May 2003 the Barbours Cut facility are increasing in value at a quicker pace than similar residential properties in the rest of Harris County. The study showed the area near Barbours Cut compared favorably with most communities in Hams County. San Jacinto Railroad: The BNSF Railroad and a collection of Bayport chemical companies are trying to build a new line to link the Bayport Chemical Loop to BNSF railroad to add competition to that market. The Port Authority will not use that route, as we will have our own rail yard at Bayport connecting to our Barbours Cut's rail yard to the north. Containers from Bayport will not use the San Jacinto Rail Line. Bayport Container & Cruise Terminal page 9 of 9 May 2003