Several thousand citizens rallied at the December 12th public hearing hosted by the US Army Corps of Engineers on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the Bayport container port facility. Those opposing the project included elected officials from surrounding communities – such as the mayors of Seabrook, Taylor Lake Village, El Lago, Shoreacres, and Pasadena; nearby residents; and environmentalists. Port officials, the shipping industry, and labor organizations spoke in favor of the facility.

James Edmonds, Chairman of the Port of Houston Authority, which proposes to build the facility, began the presentations. “If we do not build Bayport, the ships will not come,” he said, a comment that was followed by enthusiastic cheers from anti-Bayport audience members. Edmonds reminded the crowd of the economic benefits associated with the project, and assured everyone that the methodology and contents of the DEIS were accurate and complete. He emphasized that “Bayport is the right location.”

The majority of elected officials who spoke were positive about building a new container facility, just not at the Bayport location. State Senator Mike Jackson (R-LaPorte) noted that, of all the alternative locations outlined in the DEIS, “Bayport is the one that says ‘significant residential disturbances’ are associated with this project.”

“From what I have read, it’s apparent the Corps started with their answer – Bayport – and manipulated and omitted whatever data they could to defend that solution,” asserted Taylor Lake Village mayor Natalie O’Neill.

“At the scoping hearing two years ago, citizens brought forth the issues that concerned them the most,” O’Neill continued. “I expected them to be addressed completely and without bias in your DEIS document. It’s unfortunate that they were not.”

O’Neill and others outlined some of the perceived deficiencies in the DEIS:

A 50-Foot Channel – The proposed Bayport facility will be designed for 50-foot draft vessels, but the channel is currently only approved to a depth of 45 feet. Building a $1.2 billion facility designed for 50-foot vessels would encourage subsequent dredging. That dredging, Bayport opponents say, should be analyzed in the EIS.

Shrinking Wetlands – The DEIS states that Bayport will destroy just over 2.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Opponents claim that more than 100 acres of wetlands should be counted as jurisdictional.

Fine Particle and Hazardous Air Pollutants – The DEIS does not analyze the fine particle matter (PM 2.5) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that will be released by incoming ships, port operations, and increased truck traffic.

BNSF / San Jacinto Rail Project – Opponents requested that the Bayport facility be considered in combination with the proposed BNSF / San Jacinto rail project, since the law requires that projects that impact the same area be evaluated together.

“The omissions and the problems in the analyses are significant enough that I think we must have a supplemental DEIS to address them,” said Nancy Edmonson, mayor pro tem of Shoreacres.

Others requested an additional 90 days be added to the comment period, to ensure adequate time for citizens to thoroughly review the complicated document. The Corps currently plans to accept written comments on both the DEIS and on factors affecting the public interest until February 11, 2002. They can be sent to Kerry M. Stanley, Regulatory Branch, CESWG-PE-RE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 1229, Galveston, TX 77553-1229; fax: 409-766-3931.