|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||||
FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE
CONTACT: Nancy Edmonson
281-471-4567
October 11, 2002
In the latest round of comments on the Port
of Houston Authority's proposed Bayport project, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service holds firm to its position of six months ago -- that the Port should not
receive its permit.
"We continue to recommend denial of this permit because of the significant cumulative loss of native coastal prairie habitat," said Frederick T. Werner of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in a recent letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The USFWS letter is in response to a revised permit application submitted by the Port Authority. "The current revision does not change impacts to prairie wetland habitat," said Warner, adding that it also does not address any of the comments and concerns that the USFWS expressed to the Corps in April about the project.
"The Fish and Wildlife Service has said all along that the Bayport location
would be the most environmentally damaging of all the alternative sites under
consideration for a container port," said Nancy Edmonson of the Galveston Bay
Conservation and Preservation Association. "This directly contradicts the Port's
frequent claims that Bayport is the 'best' location for its planned megaport."
The USFWS reserves its sharpest
criticism in recent comments for the Port's mitigation plans for wetlands losses
if the Bayport container facility were built. "The proposed mitigation will not
compensate for the loss of one of the last large native undeveloped tracts of
prairie left in Harris County," Werner told the Corps. "Based on our habitat
assessment, adequate compensation would be the conservation of other native
coastal prairie wetland complexes," Werner said.
Man-made wetlands have substantially less value and do not function as well as natural wetlands, he noted. Previous mitigation efforts have failed to reproduce the hydrology, vegetation, and soil conditions found in natural prairie wetlands.
He dismissed other aspects of the Port's plans as almost irrelevant: "Additional mitigation proposed, such as tree and shrub planting in various areas are small segmented parcels that will take years to reach productivity and do not replace the functions and values of habitat being impacted by this project."
USFWS recommendations are that for mitigation measures to approach being appropriate, they should involve large, contiguous tracts of land. "The Service is requesting an additional 500 acres of native coastal prairie wetland complex be acquired and placed in a conservation easement with a certified land trust," said Werner.
"Ironically, the Bayport property is about the only such natural tract left on the upper bay," said Edmonson. "As you can see if you fly over it, the very size of the property makes it an asset for which mitigation would be very difficult. Bayport is the wrong place."
Finally, USFWS is critical of plans for stormwater discharge from hundreds of acres of new paving at Bayport. "The stormwater discharge into Pine Gully may alter existing wetlands, and the volume of discharge could cause salinity changes and severe erosion of Pine Gully. A detailed analysis of the effects of stormwater discharge into Pine Gully should be provided to the Service for review," said Werner.
The Galveston Bay Conservation and Preservation Association and a series of elected officials, including Congressman Nick Lampson and several state legislators, continue to call for a supplemental draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Bayport project to address more systematically the many public concerns about its impacts.