|
The text below was written in response to the Corpus
Christi Caller-Times article, "Spoils Disposal Clouds Intracoastal
Dredging Plan," published May 15, 2003. A portion of the text
below was published as an op-ed piece in a subseqeuent edition of
the newspaper.
In response to your article "Spoils Disposal
Clouds Intracoastal Dredging Plan" (May 15, 2003), I offer
the following points.
1)
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Dredge Material Management
Plan, which address handling of dredged material from maintenance
of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, are the result of a study which
has continued for at least 7 years. Its focus is one of the most
complicated environmental ecosystems known today.
From an agency perspective, the study team included
knowledgeable individuals representing every interest concerning
the Laguna Madre - including the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,
Environmental Protection Agency, and Corpus Christi Bays and Estuaries
Foundation, to name a few.
This team contended with complex circumstances in
trying to balance waterway maintenance needs with a fragile Laguna
Madre ecosystem. They held several public hearings and open meetings
throughout the process, and posted a web site to provide information
on alternatives under consideration. They have done the best job
possible in a situation that offers no easy solution.
The use of upland disposal sites (including King Ranch
property) was carefully considered by the team, but ultimately deemed
unacceptable due to the destruction of seagrass beds that would
result as access canals to upland sites were dredged.
2)
Before the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway was completed in 1949, the
Laguna Madre was a hyper-saline, mostly stagnated body of water.
It was salty enough to support a salt production industry! Until
the waterway was completed, there WAS no multi-million-dollar recreational
or commercial fishing industry. It was not until completion of the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway that:
- Circulation of water through the entire Laguna Madre began
- Seagrasses appeared in any significant amount
- Wildlife sanctuaries on dredge material islands were created
- Fish in the Laguna Madre had any safe, deep-water haven from
freezes
- A recreational fishing industry began to develop
3)
Maintenance practices have not changed materially since the waterway
was completed in 1949, and many improvements have occurred with
these practices in place. Environmental conditions are better, a
multi-million-dollar recreational industry has flourished, and state-record
trout continue to come from these waters.
Since 1994, maintenance dredging has been performed
on an emergency-only basis, with no "dredging window"
in place for seagrass growth. During this same period, however,
record recreational fish harvests have occurred.
Has the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway really been a detriment
to an industry that did not even exist before its completion?
4)
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is designed for flexibility,
and is backed by all 11 participating agencies. Rather than continue
to study and debate alternatives while we continue to emergency
dredge, the team opted to abandon the notion of a "perfect
solution." Instead, they agreed on a plan, but with the flexibility
to make adjustments as needed.
The plan is better, environmentally, than what we
have been doing for the past 54 years.
5)
The use of Emmord's Hole is included in the plan solely as a last-resort
option. It would be used only with agreement of all agencies on
the team, and under their restrictions. The plan provides for extensive
review, input and discussion before an option like this would ever
be implemented, and all considerations are with the objective of
improving practices and environmental impacts.
6)
If we truly appreciate the recreational opportunities the Laguna
Madre and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway provide, we should all play
by the same rules. When flying over the Laguna Madre, for example,
it is not uncommon to see outboard boat trails running across the
same pristine seagrass beds that other recreational enthusiasts
and environmental groups are trying to protect.
7)
Waterway transportation of bulk commodities is the most environmentally-friendly
option we have for moving our freight. A two-barge petroleum tow
on the waterway, for example, takes 300 tank trucks off our highways.
And it does it with 90% less fuel and pollution.
Europe has relied for years on waterway transportation
as an efficient, environmentally-sound alternative. Considering
projected growth rates for U.S. bulk transportation, it will be
impossible to accommodate the increase in traffic with any other
mode. The number of additional highways required is incomprehensible,
and the resulting traffic management scenario a nightmare.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on your article,
and for your willingness to present all sides of this complicated
issue. The public will benefit by having complete information.
Sincerely,
Raymond Butler
Executive Director
Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association
281-996-6915
|
