|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||||
On Aug. 17, 1999, a Public Hearing/Scoping
Meeting on the proposed Port of Houston Ned S. Holmes Bayport container port
will be conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at Pasadena Convention
Center, 7902 Fairmont Parkway, Pasadena. The purpose of this hearing is to take
public testimony regarding the "scope" of the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) that is being prepared on the Bayport project of the Port of
Houston Authority. The Bayport container port is proposed to be constructed off
Highway 146 between Seabrook and Bay Colony.
The public meeting will be conducted as follows. Starting at 5 p.m., an informal discussion will be conducted with those in attendance regarding their concerns about the proposed Bayport project. This portion will not be officially "on the record." Starting at 7 p.m., a presentation likely will be made by the Port of Houston Authority. After this initial presentation is complete, those in attendance will be allowed to comment "on the record" regarding the "scope" of the EIS that is being prepared on this project by the Corps of Engineers. Elected officials will likely be allowed to make their comments first, then followed by the general public and concerned groups.
This "scoping" meeting is required under federal law. The Port of Houston Authority has requested that the Corps of Engineers issue it a permit to construct the Ned S. Holmes Bayport facility. Because the decision by the Corps to issue or deny this permit is a federal action, the National Environmental Policy Act requires that an EIS be prepared. "Scoping" is the first official step in preparing an EIS.
Those of us opposing Bayport want to see an excellent EIS prepared. The purpose of an EIS is to tell the truth about the environmental and socio-economic consequences arising from the proposed Bayport project. A "scoping" session is intended to allow the public to tell the Corps and cooperating agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) what impacts are of most concern to the public. The purpose of this write-up is to offer some suggestions about issues that you might raise at the public meeting.
Both regional and local issues are associated with the proposed Bayport facility. Many of you are interested in the project because it is close to your homes and directly threatens your lifestyle, health and property. However, the health of Galveston Bay, the health of residents of East Harris County and the stability of residential development on the west shore of Galveston Bay are also at stake in this project.
This scoping meeting/public hearing is an administrative law proceeding associated with this permit application and is an official part of the Corps' decision-making process associated with the Bayport facility. An official record will be made of this proceeding. Any future litigation in federal court to stop this project will be based on this official record. This is why this scoping meeting is so important.
The following is a list of issues that are associated with the Port's Bayport project.
ISSUE NO. 1: THE SCOPE OF THE BAYPORT EIS SHOULD INCLUDE A 50-FOOT SHIP CHANNEL. Although the Port of Houston Authority denies that it will require a 50-foot-deep channel, the data that we have collected to date strongly argues otherwise. The Houston Ship Channel is currently authorized to be dredged to a 45-foot depth. Many of us fought long and hard to prevent a 50-foot channel from being constructed. Now, that issue is again before us.
Port of Houston Authority planning documents show that the wharves at the Ned S. Holmes Bayport container port are being designed for 50-foot-deep channels and draft and final documents obtained from the Port of Houston Authority show that they anticipate dredging a 50-foot-deep channel. The cranes that are proposed for loading and unloading are large enough to handle the megaships that require 50 feet or greater depth. Port and shipping industry publications emphasize that the future of the container industry is associated with 50-foot channels and the American Association of Port Authorities told Congress last year that the norm for general cargo ports will be as great as 53 feet of depth.
We urge that everyone request that the Port of Houston Authority be required to analyze the impacts of a 50-foot channel from the Gulf of Mexico to Bayport. It's important that we make this request now, because later the most likely scenario is that the Ned S. Holmes Bayport facility will be started with 40-foot depth and several hundred million dollars of taxpayer money will be invested in this project. Then, we will be told that this investment will fail unless a 50-foot-deep channel is constructed to Bayport. And of course, the Bayport Container facility will already be designed to accommodate a 50-foot depth.
A 50-foot-deep channel is a tremendous risk to Galveston Bay. A 50-foot channel to Bayport would bring more saltwater into upper Galveston Bay, an area that is ecologically productive because it is a balance between fresh and salt water. A 50-foot-deep channel represents a threat to oysters, shrimp, crabs and the ecological health of Galveston Bay. We urge that all of you, who are concerned about Galveston Bay, request that the scope of the EIS include an analysis of the impacts of a 50-foot channel.
ISSUE NO. 2: AIR POLLUTION FROM THE PROPOSED BAYPORT FACILITY. Air pollution is an exceedingly complex issue and the Bayport facility will be complex to analyze from an air pollution perspective. No doubt exists that Bayport will be a major source of air pollution. There are issues associated with ozone air pollution. There are issues associated with fine particle air pollution. There are issues associated with hazardous air pollution. These are three separate, but related, concerns.
The Houston region is currently violating the national health standard for ozone air pollution. To meet this national health standard for ozone, the Houston area must reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) air pollution by 65 percent to 85 percent by the year 2007. It will be very difficult for our area to reach this goal; Bayport will worsen this problem, adding several tons per day of NOx to our region. The Corps and EPA must fully and fairly understand the NOx emissions from Bayport and must fully and fairly determine whether or not Bayport's development is consistent with solving our region's ozone problem.
The Houston region also has a major health problem associated with fine particle air pollution. According to a recent City of Houston study by Sonoma Technology, as many as 435 people in the Houston area are projected to die prematurely annually due to fine particle levels. These fine particle pollution levels are highest in the eastern portion of Harris County, downwind of the Bayport facility. Bayport will worsen the fine particle problem by adding diesel emissions, sulfur dioxide and NOx, all of which contribute to fine particle air pollution.
Diesel exhaust contains 38 federally regulated hazardous air pollutants and the State of California has identified diesel exhaust itself as a hazardous air pollutant. The proposed Bayport facility will have a tremendous number of diesel sources, including more than 7,000 diesel trucks per day, ships, tugs, trains, cranes and numerous smaller heister-type diesel vehicles.
With regard to each of these pollutants, those preparing the EIS should undertake the following tasks. First, baseline air quality needs to be determined through air quality monitoring to the north, west and south of Bayport. This monitoring data should be over a one-year period and adjustments to these levels must be made for any proposed facilities that are not yet operational. It is particularly important that fine particle levels be determined for the residential areas north and west of Bayport because that is the direction of the prevailing winds.
Next, the emissions originating within the Bayport facility and from roads used by the 7,000 trucks and 2,000 automobiles coming and going from the Bayport facility must be estimated. Emission estimates are necessary for nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, direct emission particulates and hazardous air pollutants (including specifically diesel components). A full and accurate inventory of emissions from Bayport and the road system is essential and should be the subject of strict oversight by the EPA and TNRCC.
Next, the impact of these emissions upon surrounding neighborhoods must be determined. Here, the levels of ozone, fine particles and hazardous air pollutants resulting from Bayport must be predicted in the surrounding community. Ozone levels should be predicted on the basis of computer models and emission budgets developed to aid our community in meeting the national standard for ozone. Fine particle levels must be predicted based upon computer modeling that predicts levels in the adjacent community. These levels must then be added to the monitored levels in order to predict the pollutant levels to which residents will be exposed. This same process should be repeated with regard to hazardous air pollutants. This step is extremely important because the pollution from Bayport will be released at or near ground level and will increase pollution levels in the nearby neighborhoods substantially. This is different from industrial pollution from a stack where the pollution is released hundreds of feet above the ground surface and is dispersed over a much larger area.
As proposed above, levels of fine particle and hazardous air pollutant levels would be predicted around the Bayport facility, extending outward at least five miles in all directions. Once these levels have been predicted, the health implications associated with these levels must be determined. Air pollution from Bayport has the potential to generate significant health effects related to fine particles and hazardous air pollutants as well as ozone. These health effects must be clearly disclosed. Of particular concern are the effects of these pollutants on children, the elderly, asthmatics and those with other existing health problems. The final result of this air pollution analysis should be full disclosure of resulting health consequences.
ISSUE NO. 3: LAND USE DISRUPTION ALONG THE UPPER WEST SHORELINE OF GALVESTON BAY. The proposed Ned S. Holmes Bayport container facility is a huge land use whose impacts extend off-site far beyond the property boundaries. The Port of Houston Authority's proposed Bayport facility will occupy approximately 1,000 acres of land. This land area is bound on the south and east by residential development in Seabrook, on the east by residential development in El Jardin del Mar which is in Pasadena. The City of Shoreacres and the La Porte subdivisions of Bay Colony and Shady Oaks are adjacent to the Bayport Ship Channel on the north. Todville Road is proposed to be widened to four lanes from the small road that currently serves El Jardin and Seabrook. Each of these communities will be severely impacted by this road expansion as well as by the development of Bayport.
From a traffic perspective, there will be 7,000 trucks per day and over 2,000 automobiles per day coming into this facility, primarily down Red Bluff Road and State Highway 146. State Highway 225, Almeda-Genoa and Fairmont Parkway will all experience significantly increased truck traffic. Additionally, with truck traffic dominating these pathways, commuter and other automobile traffic will divert to other roads, including Bay Area Boulevard, Clear Lake City Boulevard and NASA Road One. The negative traffic implications are substantial.
There are many specific environmental issues associated with land use and traffic impacts from the proposed Ned S. Holmes facility. The first, and most important, is that the Ned S. Holmes Bayport facility has sufficiently strong impacts to the extent that it may transform the residential land development pattern along the upper west side of Galveston Bay. A significant devaluation of property will result from this facility. The major issue is how far will this devaluation extend and how extensive will it be. From this perspective, the key land use issue is how extensive will the residential land use disruption be. We are concerned that the character of this portion of the bay will be changed forever by the Ned S. Holmes Bayport facility. This is an important issue that is reasonable to be analyzed in an honest EIS.
El Jardin, Shoreacres, Seabrook, Shady Oaks and Bay Colony will be directly impacted along Todville Road and the Bayport Channel. These areas will be impacted by lights and noise from Bayport which will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The night will be transformed. This transformation will have serious implications for the peaceful and restful use and enjoyment of homes and will lead to a decline in the desirability of these areas for residential uses. Noise and lighting studies must be undertaken to fully understand the magnitude of these impacts. Noise modeling should specifically consider the magnification effects of water on noise to homes across the Bayport channel in Shoreacres and Bay Colony.
Land use will also be negatively impacted by the truck and automobile traffic generated by this facility. Residential neighborhoods adjacent to Red Bluff and SH 146 will be heavily impacted as will those along Almeda-Genoa and Fairmont Parkway. Similarly, the increase in traffic will negatively affect development in Taylor Lake Village, El Lago, the City of Houston and Nassau Bay along Bay Area Boulevard, NASA Road One and Clear Lake City Boulevard. Traffic projections must be completed in sufficient detail that a full analysis of impacts on road capacities can be predicted and the resultant land use impacts fully understood. An expert land use analyst should be required as part of the project team.
ISSUE NO. 4: ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS. One of the primary reasons for preparing an EIS is to identify alternatives and determine if there is a way to achieve the project's purposes yet have less environmental impact in the process. According to the official regulations governing EIS preparation, the selection and evaluation of alternatives is the "heart of the environmental impact statement process." Several alternative sites exist to the proposed Bayport container port. It is important that all reasonable alternatives be fully and fairly evaluated.
Shoal Point at Texas City is an excellent alternative site that is actively being pursued by the City of Texas City. A conceptual plan has been developed for Shoal Point and the City of Texas City has worked very closely with numerous stakeholders in developing this plan. Texas City has been approved by the Corps of Engineers for a 50-foot channel and Texas City is proposing to utilize a 50-foot channel. Although a full analysis of the salinity impact issues at Texas City must be completed, a preliminary review indicates that the salinity levels will not be impacted by the 50-foot channel because Texas City is close to the Gulf and salinity levels in this portion of the bay are much higher than in upper Galveston Bay next to Bayport. Air pollution problems at Texas City also must be analyzed, but preliminary indications are that the Texas City proposal will depend much more heavily on rail transportation, thereby reducing the number of trucks and the diesel emissions from trucks. The dispersion pattern from Texas City will be into relatively less populated areas. The Shoal Point facility is surrounded by industrial and not by residential land uses. Texas City is a very good alternative site for a container port if we need one in the Houston region.
Other alternatives that should be evaluated in detail include (1) more efficient utilization of the existing Barbour's Cut facility in Morgan's Point, (2) full utilization and potential expansion of capacity at the Port of Galveston and (3) full utilization and potential expansion of the Port of Freeport. Given the significant environmental impacts associated with this Bayport proposal, we should demand that a regional view to port development be taken and that the site that best fits into the existing residential, industrial and bay use pattern be selected. This is an extremely important aspect of the "scoping" process.
ISSUE NO. 5: LOSS OF WETLANDS AT THE PROPOSED BAYPORT SITE. There is no
doubt that a significant acreage of wetlands will be filled for the Ned S.
Holmes Bayport facility. A full and honest accounting of these wetlands to be
filled must occur and no filling should occur before a decision is made on the
issuance of this permit. Most importantly, however, are federal rules that
require that no wetlands be filled if there is a practicable alternative that
has less environmental impact than the proposed action. In this case, the
argument certainly exists that the Texas City Shoal Point facility has less
environmental impact than does the Bayport facility. We should emphasize that
the Corps must make a full and fair analysis of practicable alternatives under
the EPA's rules (called by 404(b)(1) guidelines) that are applicable to
decisions by the Corps as to whether or not to issue Section 404 permits.
ISSUE N0. 6: POOR ECONOMIC DESIGN. Although project economics alone are not usually considered in an EIS, there are situations where project economics are important and relevant in an EIS. We believe that situation to exist with regard to the proposed Bayport facility. A major defect in the design of the Bayport facility is its failure to effectively utilize rail in the design. The large volume of trucks is directly related to the failure of the Port of Houston to better integrate rail into the design.
From an economic standpoint, rail has an extremely important role. In order for a container port to succeed, it must be able to move the containers to market faster than other competing ports. Rail is the key to efficient movement of these containers out of the Houston region to the final destinations of these containers in the Midwest or Western United States. The Bayport facility, as currently designed, does not directly off-load onto rail, requiring at least double if not triple handling of the containers prior to loading them onto rail. More importantly, Bayport is at the end of a congested rail system owned by the Union Pacific system. By contrast, the Texas City alternative site has service from two rail providers - the Burlington-Northern and Union Pacific and its proposed container port unloads container directly onto rail cars.
This EIS should make a serious effort to understand the economics of container ports and to honestly evaluate the economic merits of the Port of Houston Authority's Bayport facility. Here, the issue of sustainable development is raised. From a sustainability standpoint, the worst possible scenario would be for this proposed port to cause significant negative impacts and the loss of important resources for a facility that fails economically. That is not smart growth. That is stupid growth that should not be permitted.
ISSUE NO. 7: DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS OF THE BAYPORT SITE DEVELOPMENT. Almost 1,000 acres of land will be covered with concrete if the proposed Ned S. Holmes facility is constructed. A huge retaining wall will be created by the newly constructed wharves along the Bayport Channel. There will be a major increase in storm water runoff from the site after development. An analysis must be undertaken to ensure that it will not increase flooding in adjacent residential areas. Similarly, the effect of the wharves on hurricane surge tides, including the deflection of these tides into Shoreacres and Bay Colony must be fully analyzed and disclosed.
In addition to covering 1,000 acres with concrete, rail yards will be created. Diesel trucks and other equipment will be operating on this concrete loading and unloading area and will certainly be leaking diesel throughout this facility. Containers may be dropped and spills will occur. When it rains, all of these pollutants will be flushed into the storm drain and will enter Galveston Bay, most likely by directly entering the Bayport channel. A full and fair analysis of this potential impact must occur, including a detailed analysis of the system that will be designed to prevent Galveston Bay from being harmed by this "non-point source" pollution.
ISSUE NO. 8: TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. The EIS must include full and fair disclosure of the hazardous materials that will be transported by container. Containers exist that carry chemicals. Is hazardous waste proposed to be carried in these containers? Are hazardous materials proposed to be carried in these containers? Is there a particular area within Bayport that is proposed to be set aside for hazardous materials transport. These are all important issues that must be fully and fairly disclosed in an EIS.
ISSUE NO. 9: IMPACT TO WORLD-CLASS RECREATIONAL SAILING/BOATING FACILITY. An EIS must fully evaluate the impacts of a proposed action, including impacts on existing uses such as recreational use and on aesthetic values. Although it is not widely known, the portion of Galveston Bay that is directly in front of the Bayport channel is a world-class venue for sailing/boating competition. Indeed, one of the major attributes of the Houston area in its quest for the 2012 Summer Olympic games is the existence of excellent yachting venues. If Bayport is expanded as proposed, the increased container ship traffic would directly impact this sailboat-racing course, thereby reducing the recreational amenity of the bay and our region.
CONCLUSION
This is not an exhaustive list of impacts that may result if the Ned S.
Holmes Bayport container facility is constructed. However, these are key issues
that are worth emphasizing and re-emphasizing in the scoping meeting. If you
would refer to this list while you are listening to comments, perhaps you might
offer a comment on an area that seems to be under-emphasized as well as
particularly important to you.
We hope that this information will help make this "scoping" session more meaningful to you and that it will assist you in participating in this meeting. You can submit comments in writing as well as make oral comments. Depending upon the circumstances at the hearing, you might wish to submit written comments, either in lieu of, or supplementary to, oral comments. You need to clearly indicate in your letter that you wish it to be part of the record of the Bayport Scoping hearing. Such comments should be sent to Mark King, Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 1229, Galveston, Texas 77553-1229, and must be postmarked on or before Sept. 15, 1999.
In conclusion, please remember your manners and be courteous when you speak. Do not hesitate to tell the Corps and these agencies what you think is important to be analyzed. If there is something that you do not like about the public hearing, express it, but keep your cool. This is your chance. Don't waste it.
