Record of Decision Department of the Army Permit Application No
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Record of Decision Department of the Army Permit Application No. 2003-1T-016 South Carolina State Ports Authority’s Proposed Marine Container Terminal at the Charleston Naval Complex and Permit Application No. 2005-1N-440 South Carolina Department of Transportation’s Proposed Port Access Roadway 1. Name and Address of Applicants South Carolina State Ports Authority Attn: Mr. Joe T. Bryant Post Office Box 22287 Charleston, South Carolina 29413-2287 South Carolina Department of Transportation Attn: Mr. Ron Patton Post Office Box 191 Columbia, South Carolina 29202-0191 2. Introduction and Background On 24 January 2003, the South Carolina State Ports Authority (SCSPA) submitted an application for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to develop a marine container terminal on the Cooper River at the south end of the former Charleston Navy Base in North Charleston, Charleston County, South Carolina. Based on our review of the permit application, it was determined that the proposed project was likely to have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was required. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was invited to be a cooperating agency on the EIS because of the potential impact that the proposed port facility would have on existing transportation infrastructure. Applied Technology and Management was selected as a third party contractor to assist the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in preparing the EIS. As discussed further in Section 1 of the FEIS, USACE is responsible for evaluating the SCSPA’s application for a DA permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to prepare an EIS for every major Federal action that “significantly” affects the quality of the human environment. The preparation of an EIS in accordance with NEPA is intended to disclose the potential environmental consequences of the proposed project and to provide interested parties with an opportunity to participate in the environmental evaluation process. NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the environment during their decision-making processes 1 and to treat environmental impact as a primary criterion in evaluating a proposed project. It also requires Federal agencies to analyze and consider alternatives to the proposed action, including the No-Action alternative and other activities that may result in less environmental impacts. In this particular case, USACE is evaluating two permit applications to determine whether the SCSPA and the SCDOT should be allowed to place fill material in waters of the United States and to construct structures and dredge in navigable waters of the United States for the development of a marine container terminal and an access roadway on and adjacent to the Cooper River. The EIS includes information on a broad range of issues that may be regulated by other Federal, state, or local authorities. NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the proposed action’s environmental consequences and to balance them with the agency’s statutory mission and responsibilities and technical and economic factors. As the lead agency for this EIS, USACE is responsible for evaluating a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and identifying the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative pursuant to the Clean Water Act. This information is used to determine whether to issue a permit, issue a permit with conditions, or deny a permit for the proposed activity. Role of the SCSPA The SCSPA was established in 1942 by Act No. 626 of the South Carolina General Assembly. The SCSPA is an agency of the State of South Carolina. The Applicant’s jurisdiction extends throughout the state of South Carolina. The mission of the SCSPA includes 1) promoting, developing, constructing, equipping, maintaining, and operating the harbors or seaports within the State, 2) to foster and stimulate the shipment of freight and commerce through said harbors and seaports, and 3) to perform any act or function which may tend to or be useful toward the development and improvement of the said harbors and seaports. In the past 20 years there has been a worldwide shift of cargo transportation to containerization in response to the greater efficiencies afforded by that process. In recognition that the existing container facilities at the Port of Charleston (Columbus Street, North Charleston, and Wando Welch Terminals) were rapidly approaching their maximum practical capacity, the SCSPA proposed to develop a new marine container on a 1,300-acre tract of land they owned on Daniel Island. After almost four years of work and the preparation of a draft EIS by USACE, the SCSPA elected to withdraw their permit application in 2000. In 2002, the SCSPA was directed by the South Carolina General Assembly to begin environmental impact studies and other required actions to locate a new terminal facility on the west bank of the Cooper River. The General Assembly also directed the Charleston Naval Complex (CNC) Redevelopment Authority (RDA) to convey certain parcels of land to the SCSPA for the development of breakbulk, roll-on-roll-off, and container terminal operations. The location of these parcels was identified in a Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement (MOUA) regarding future development 2 plans at the former Charleston Navy Base that was signed by the SCSPA and City of North Charleston. The MOUA identifies the southern half of the former Charleston Navy Base as the Port Facility Area. The SCSPA currently operates Veterans Terminal (a bulk, break bulk, Roll-On-Roll-Off, and project cargo facility), which consists of 110 acres of land and four former U.S. Navy piers near the southern end of the CNC property. The proposed project consists of developing a new marine container terminal on 240 acres of land that is also located within the Port Facility Area. The area north of Viaduct Road and Supply Street will be redeveloped by the City of North Charleston as a mixed use project, which provides the waterfront access to the residents of North Charleston and is generally known as the Noisette Project. The MOUA also states “that certain minimum infrastructure must be in place before the SCSPA commences container operations. This minimum infrastructure includes a truck access road leading directly from the Port Facility Area to I-26 and three rail overpasses in the areas of Rivers Avenue and Harley Street, Rivers Avenue and Durant Road, and North Rhett and I-526 Streets.” According to the SCSPA’s permit application, “(t)he South Carolina Department of Transportation in conjunction with the State Infrastructure Bank, the South Carolina Public Railways Commission, and the Charleston Area Transportation Study will be planning rail and highway access to serve the Port’s needs on the former Charleston Navy Base.” Role of the South Carolina Department of Transportation An Access Roadway Feasibility Study (ARFS) was prepared to help identify a roadway corridor that provides a direct connection between the proposed port facility and Interstate 26. The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT), Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments (BCDCOG), FHWA, and Corps participated in the development of the study, and on August 10, 2005, the SCDOT submitted an application for a DA permit to construct a four lane limited access highway between the proposed marine container terminal and the Interstate 26. Since the construction and operation of the proposed port facility and the access roadway are dependent upon one another, the Corps advised the SCDOT and the SCSPA that both projects would be evaluated in the EIS that was being prepared for the proposed port facility. The two projects are collectively referred to as the Proposed Project in both the draft and the final EIS. Role of the USACE The USACE has overseen and directed the development of the EIS. Charleston District Commanders Lieutenant Colonel Peter C. Mueller (June 2001–June 2003), LTC Alvin B. Lee (June 2003-June 2005), and LTC Edward R. Fleming (June 2005-Present) were directly involved in these decisions. Based on comments received during the scoping process and throughout our preliminary evaluation of the Proposed Project, the USACE identified the following topics as those with specific relevance for this 3 application and they became the focus of the EIS: roadway and railway traffic, air quality, water quality, threatened and endangered species, noise, light, public safety, quality of life, social effects such as division of existing communities, navigation and recreational boating, sediment quality, sedimentation rates, wetlands, and aquatic resources such as Threatened or Endangered species Essential Fish Habitat. During this permit evaluation and NEPA process the USACE has coordinated its activities with other regulatory and resource agencies with important roles in the process. Among these agencies are the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the SC Department of Health and Environmental Control’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) and Bureau of Environmental Quality Control (EQC), SC Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and SC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). These agencies have also been involved in the review and approval of the proposed compensatory mitigation program for affected aquatic resources. At this time, these agencies have indicated that the mitigation offered by the SCSPA and SCDOT for the Proposed Project now compensates appropriately for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. There has been both public opposition and public support for the Proposed Project since the inception of the EIS process. There were a number of opponents, as well as proponents, at the scoping meeting for the EIS, five public workshops, and at the Public Hearing held on November 17, 2005. Several local communities and municipalities have adopted resolutions, or submitted comments, in opposition to the Proposed Project.