|
|
|
Packery.Com - Information source for the proposed Packery Channel Project... Back
To Packery.Com
CommentsI think you are right. One neat thing, I\'d have never predicted with the internet, is that the sites are staying around, so that people can find them, read them and learn from them. The worst thing about the .edu internet was data rot (a form of link rot) where resources and knowledge went into the vapor every semester.
CommentsInteresting blog, I’m not sure how i missed this story since i had done a story on the confict. Happy blogging.
CommentsIn response to StanMan 2 comments, if you read the Draft Environment Impact Statement you would see that there will "not" be any negligble change in flushing the Laguna Madre due to Packery Channel. In fact the best place for a Channel to increase the flushing of Laguna Madre is another location mentioned in the study, South of Packery, close to the National Seashore entrance. They decided not to use it because the "sponsor" didn't like it. In fact there were actually 3 sites looked at, including the old Fish Pass which would have been cheaper because they would only have to increase the length of the existing jetties and dredge the filled in portion. This had to be called "Environment Project" to get the Federal money, there is no money for recreational projects that damage or do not increase the environmental benefits ( like flushing the Laguna Madre) of opening the channel.
Commentsi cant wait for packery channel,im a tax payer,im also a fisherman who will only be here on earth once.not only will it be good for the lagoon,becuse it will so to speak ( keep the toilet flushed},it will be great for the economy here in the bluff and the island.it will also be good for those who live on the other side of the oso.there are not enough jobs here and you know it. everyony says ..they will be low paying jobs.. but you what,they will be filled.mostly i bet by college students, sure beats topless dancing to pay for your education. why ill just bet those who mostly oppose packery dont fish,dont care about people having jobs no matter what they pay,most are retired and will be gone from this earth in 20 years,people who sit in there house all day and never go outside.why they are probably the people that voted for bill clinton and then wouldnt admit it. the people who want packery... why they are fun luving people,who see the impact that packery will have. i just wished i owned some property along the channel.people who use their heads will profit from this cut to the gulf,theres money to be made just wait and see,i dont care if my taxes go up,they are going up anyway,id rather it go on somthing like this. well i gotta go im on vacation this week,me and a friend are going to the gulf to fish,so we gotta go to port A to launch his boat guess well spend our money over there on gas food and bait and other stupid stuff that you always forget....... get it?
CommentsThe map of the MMPA in the DEIS, Figure 1-3, is an old arial view. The Best Western Motel and the Christus Spohnn Medical Center are not shown. If they were, the MMPA 20 foot high perimeter wall would be directly behind the Christus Spohn rear parking lot. The smell from the MMPA would be directed towards the Best Western Motel most of the year.
CommentsIf the park has been withdrawn and there is not a current disposal site, how can the clock start ticking for the 45 day public comment period? In order to comment, you have to know what site to comment on for the disposal site.
CommentsUpon viewing the replay of the City Council meeting June 18th, Packery update, it was said that the reason for the inclusion of the County Park as the MMPA (aka Muck Muck Plain Affluent) for 50 years was that if it had been withdrawn it would have "delayed" the Draft EIS. Why I ask? Because they don't have another MMPA site designated. Is it a Draft EIS or an Incomplete EIS (IEIS)?
CommentsIt would seem that the Corps is leaving some big gaps in its design plan and the EIS.
Joe McComb, Angel Escobar, and Mark Scott have repeatedly said and written that the Packery Point Park is not going to be used as a dump site for the dredge material. Joe McComb has published a letter stating that the Park has been withdrawn and that the City is currently looking for a dump site. It seems to me that if the dumpsite for the dredge material, unsuitable for beach renourishment, has not been found then a large environmental issue has not been addressed by the Environmental Impact Statement. When the Corps gave its presentation to the City in February 2002 Mr. Anderson stated that the scope of the Corps standards on the project are limited to storm damage control and ecological restoration NOT navigation and recreation. What would the financial impact and design changes to the project be if Corps standards were applied to this project in the scope of navigation and recreation?
CommentsVery Interesting.... |
|
Copyright 2001 ©
Packery.Com all rights reserved |
