Appendix D 

Comments on the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Navy Base 

Intermodal Container Transfer Facility North 

Charleston, South Carolina 
New comments submitted on navybaseictf.com 

First Name: Frank 

Last Name: Atkinson 

Email: morgin1120@knology.net

Affiliation: Private Citizen 

July 1 2018 

Comment Subject: Public Involvement 

Comment: When and where will the next community Meeting be held concerning 

the Naval Base rail hub? I am a resident of Park Circle Northeast which is 

basically north of East Montague Avenue (Durant Ave., Pittman Street, Draper 

Street and Braddock Avenue etc.). From the description and pictures of the 

proposed rail lines, it is next to impossible to decipher what effects we 

will experience. Rail lines have for years have been an issue in our area, 

so what benefit, if any, will the proposed rail lines be to our particular 

area mentioned above. Thanks for any help and info you me provide 

me. Frank 

Appendix D Page 1 of 67 
New comments submitted on navybaseictf.com 

First Name: Mary 

Last Name: Mitchell 

Email: mjm2416@gmail.com

Affiliation: Private Citizen (Final EIS) 

July 1, 2018 

Comment Subject: Proposed Project 

Comment: The study is well thought out and explained. I fully support the 

Intermodal Container Transfer Facility as it is needed to alleviate some of 

the traffic on congested roads. 

Appendix D Page 2 of 67 
Appendix D Page 3 of 67 
Appendix D Page 4 of 67 
New comments submitted on navybaseictf.com 

First Name: Eric 

Last Name: Deierlein 

Email: ericd@bellsouth.net

Affiliation: Business (Tekna Investments, Inc.) 

Comment Subject: Proposed Project 

July 31, 2018 

Comment: Dear Sir, 

We are writing to express our concern with the Navy Base Intermodal Container 

Transfer Facility (ICTF) being considered. 

Part of the ICTF includes a rail loop across Meeting Street Extension that 

would very likely cause interruptions and costly delays to our business and 

the businesses located on our property. There are already multiple railways 

crossing roads into our property. Increasing the number of these crossings 

and the rail traffic associated with them would negatively impact the value 

of our property. 

At the very least, we request that approval for the ICTF be deferred until 

the Surface Transportation Plan Study is complete. 

Thank you for your consideration, 

Eric Deierlein, President 

Appendix D Page 5 of 67 
New comments submitted on navybaseictf.com 

First Name: Omar 

Last Name: Muhammad 

Email: ccrabej@gmail.com

Affiliation: NGO (Community Redevelopment Organization) 

Comment Subject: Proposed Project 

July 31, 2018 

Comment: 

Mr. Shawn Boone Project Manager 

The Lowcountry Alliance for Model Communities (LAMC) is a 501c3 organization 

located in North Charleston, SC. LAMC exists to address underlining concerns 

which perpetuate in communities, particularly communities of color, resulting 

in generations trapped in low paying jobs, poor housing stocks, low 

homeownership, low educational attainment, and live in areas steeped in 

blight. Our revitalization plan addresses four core areas (affordable 

housing, education, economics, and the environment) primarily focusing on 

removing barriers that continue the cycle of poverty. To that end, we seek 

partnerships to help us implement strategies that are outlined in our 

revitalization plan. Our revitalization plan can be found on our website at 

www.lamcnc.org. 

The MISSION of LAMC is to promote a sense of ownership within the community 

which translates into empowered residents who actively participate in 

initiatives to improve the quality of life in their communities. The VISION 

of LAMC is to achieve sustainable and vibrant communities encompassing all 

the amenities of a healthy and thriving area. 

The Charleston Community Research to Action Board (CCRAB) is a 501c3 

collaborative effort of diverse community-based organizations, academic 

institutions, and other stakeholder groups promoting environmental health and 

social justice solutions within the Charleston region particularly for 

burdened and underserved communities. We achieve these solutions by actively 

engaging in developing grassroots activities to address community challenges 

centered on environmental justice and health disparity. CCRAB uses the 

Community-based Participatory Research Model to ensure full engagement of the 

community during all stages of research which leverage results to create 

environmental public health actions. These actions empower residents to 

become participatory in the decision-making processes impacting where they 

live, work, and play through education and advocacy to improve environmental 

conditions and resulting human health outcomes. 

CCRAB functions as the clearing house for all research projects for the LAMC 

communities. We have been successful in expanding our Charleston Area 

Pollution Prevention Partnership (CAPs) network to include the University of 

South Carolina, The Medical University of South Carolina, The University of 

Maryland, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region IV. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is an analysis of environmental 

consequences of a proposed action where public participation in the decisionmaking process is incorporated in the process to ensure the NEPA process and 

the resulting decision is informed and the gathered information is shared 

with the public for input. 

Appendix D Page 6 of 67 
The Lowcountry Alliance for Model Communities (LAMC) with the Community 

Mitigation Workgroup (Chicora/Cherokee Neighborhood Association, Union 

Heights Community Council, LAMC and Metanoia) support the application to 

build an Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) on the Navy Base 

Complex within the footprint of the 

Figure 1: LAMC's NEPA Process Overview 

Chicora/Cherokee and Union Heights neighborhoods. On October 18, 2016, 

Palmetto Railways and the Community Mitigation Workgroup entered into an 

agreement to mitigate adverse impacts of the ICTF on fence-line communities. 

Our agreement acknowledges Sterett Hall, a culturally important facility, is 

significantly impacted by this project which will be replaced with the 

construction of a modern recreational center funded by the community 

mitigation agreement for Three Million dollars ($3,000,000); $470,000 will 

fund an affordable housing revolving fund for initiatives in the impacted 

communities to mitigate housing impacts from the project; $130,000 will fund 

a job training endowment to provide job training scholarships; $130,000 will 

fund an endowment for educational scholarships; $130,000 will fund 

environmental research, monitoring, and health impact studies in the impact 

areas; $80,000 will fund a youth endowment to support youth programs, and 

$60,000 will establish an endowment for organizational capacity to support 

trainings for organizations working in the impact communities. 

The community mitigation with Palmetto Railways will address the community 

concern with a buffer between the community and the ICTF by creating a 100-

foot buffer between the facility and the community. In addition, an Earthen 

Berm will be constructed to mitigate noise from the facility to include 

vegetation for aesthetics, noise mitigation and pollution sinks. 

Our initial concerns with adverse health impacts have not been addressed in 

the project’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We strongly feel the 

approach of the EIS did not take in consideration the cumulative impacts of 

pollution exposure on residents nor the adverse impacts of these exposures on 

the residents living near this project. However, Palmetto Railways have 

provided resources to the community to research and understand the health 

impacts of cumulative risk exposure. We commend Palmetto Railways for 

supporting our efforts to better understand contributing environmental 

factors associated with health concerns from pollution exposure, particularly 

for vulnerable populations. As stated in our previous comments on the Draft 

EIS, we are recommending that a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) (Altalil, 

2015) is included in the EIS process to properly evaluate the health 

impacts, often overlooked, for this proposed project on residents’ health. A 

small scale HIA conducted by researchers from the University of Maryland in 

2015 for the Chicora/Cherokee and Union Heights communities shows 

Asthma/Bronchitis is the leading cause of hospitalization in Charleston 

County for children under the age of 18; Asthma hospitalization rate for 

children under the age of 5 in 2012 for Charleston County was 31 per 10,000 

children, compared to 26 per 10,000 children in South Carolina; and 

Charleston County had an asthma ER rate of 153 per 10,000 children under the 

age of 5 years in 2012, compared to South Carolina’s 115 per 10,000 children. 

Studies show that African Americans are 9 times more likely to suffer from 

Asthma than their white cohorts and this become more apparent for individuals 

living near asthmatic triggers such as particulate matter (PM) with PM2.5 

being of a greater concern because of its smaller size allows it to be 

breathed deeply into the lungs. A study (Mehta, 8 March 2016) have shown 

that long-term exposure to poor air quality have detrimental health outcomes 

and another study is now showing a strong correlation to short-term exposure 

Appendix D Page 7 of 67 
having significant negative health outcomes as well. 

Air monitoring pre-construction, during construction and post-construction in 

and around this proposed project will occur, thanks to Palmetto’s agreement 

with South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, to ensure 

air quality in the area is not impacted. Our study entitled Assessment of 

Particulate Matter Levels in Vulnerable Communities in North Charleston, 

South Carolina prior to Port Expansion (Svendsen, 2014) shows that local 

wind patterns originating offshore push westerly and southwesterly winds 

towards our communities which aid in the cumulative increases of air 

pollutants especially in the evenings and morning hours. This study also 

found that Union Heights localized PM2.5 was higher than any of the other 

study areas. This finding was contributed to the community’s proximity to 

heavily trafficked roadways that sandwich the community. A Federal Reference 

Monitor (FRM) placed in Howard Heights confirmed concentrations of PM2.5 in 

the Neck Area of North Charleston which comprises both Chicora/Cheerokee and 

Union Heights shows higher PM concentrations than the two existing South 

Carolina ambient network samplers outside of the Neck Area. We believe and 

our study confirms that increases in port and port-related activities will 

contribute to increases in concentrations of localized PM concentrations at 

the neighborhood level. 

Flooding concerns in the community has heightened since the “great flood of 

2015” and the recent flooding event on July 20, 2018. The residents in and 

around the project area for the ICTF are at greatest risk of flooding due to 

not only the construction for this project but also the port construction 

work as well. The fear of most residents is the communities near both the 

ICTF and the port will experience increases with “nuisance” flooding events 

in areas of their communities which never flooded before the built 

environment changed around them. We are recommending remedying this concern 

with best practices for developing impervious development onsite where water 

can naturally be absorbed. 

In closing, I want to acknowledge a great group of individuals from community 

associations, organizations and Palmetto Railways staff that helped to 

negotiate our mitigation with Palmetto Railways. It is also important to 

understand that this group genuinely represents a cross section of groups who 

have worked for many years to improve the impacted communities and have the 

respect of the community. Coming together in this manner, strengthens our 

community efforts to enhance neighborhood cooperation rather than encouraging 

divisions or competitiveness between community representatives. 

Respectfully Submitted 

Omar Muhammad, Executive Director 

Lowcountry Alliance for Model Communities (LAMC) 

Appendix D Page 8 of 67 
July 31, 2018 

On Behalf of the Naval Order of the United States 

Comments accompanying submission of the Memorandum Of Agreement regarding the permit 

request by Palmetto Railways as it relates to the Navy Base Intermodal Facility Project 

 The recent action of the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) in the issuance of a permit to 

Palmetto Railways (PR) for the construction of a rail line that would bisect the Charleston Naval 

Hospital Historic District is in direct contradiction of the letter, spirit and intent of their own 

Regulatory Guidance Letter 88-13 which states: 

 “Another issue arising from EPA’s referral was the misconception that consideration of 

alternatives would always be restricted to those alternatives agreeable to the applicant. While the 

Corps should recognize the applicant’s purpose and need, and evaluate those alternatives 

available to the applicant, that meet this purpose and need, it is sometimes necessary, under 

NEPA, to analyze alternatives beyond the applicant’s capability in order to make an informed 

public interest decision. Such alternatives should be included in the category of “deny the 

permit” where it is appropriate to examine whether the public benefits to be accrued from the 

applicant’s project are likely to be provided elsewhere by another project, even if the permit is 

not issued.” 

 Unless ACE has altered their interpretation of NEPA, it remains an expression of the direction 

and action that should guide decision making by the ACE. The GRL continues: 

“The burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with the Guidelines rests with the applicant; 

where insufficient information is provided to determine compliance, the Guidelines require that 

no permit be issued. 40 CFR 230.12(a)(3)(iv).” 

 On the matter of the availability of an alternative: “The Guidelines state that if it is otherwise 

a practicable alternative, an area not presently owned by the applicant that could reasonably be 

obtained, utilize, expanded, or managed in-order to fulfill the overall purpose of the proposed 

activity can still be considered a practicable alternative. In other words, the fact that an applicant 

does not own an alternative parcel, does not preclude that parcel from being considered as a 

practicable alternative. This factor is normally a consideration as a logistics and possible cost 

limitation. The applicant should consider and anticipate alternatives available during the 

timeframe that the USACE conducts it alternatives analysis. In some circumstances, 

consideration of the timeframe when property was obtained by the applicant may influence the 

analysis.” 

 In their original application, PR stated their intention to make use of an out-of-service CSX 

right-of-way known at the S-Line which completely avoids the National Historic District. 

During discussion between the parties, CSX made several options available to PR. One was to 

pay a fee per container for use of the track. PR countered with a minimal offer to purchase the 

Appendix D Page 9 of 67 
right-of-way. CSX answered by offering allowing PR to construct a parallel line within the 

right-of-way at a cost. At that point, PR made no further effort to reach an agreement and altered 

their application to allow them to build the track through National Historic District property they 

already owned. Further relevant considerations worthy of consideration in keeping with above 

GRL are that: In public comments CSX has stated that the capacity of their and a Norfolk 

Southern current railyards within the immediate area have excess capacity that will meet the 

needs of PR until 2035; further, A private development company which owns an tract adjacent 

to the container terminal has expressed willingness to build a line that will meet the needs of PR. 

 With these options available for avoidance of the National Historic District, it would appear 

that ACE has not acted in compliance with their own GRL and erred in the issuance of the 

permit. 

33 CFR 325 Appendix C on the matter of Adversely Affected Historic Properties 

10. District Engineer Decision. 

a. In making the public interest decision on a permit application, in accordance with 33 CFR 

320.4, the district engineer shall weigh all factors, including the effects of the undertaking on 

historic properties and any comments of the ACHP and the SHPO, and any views of other 

interested parties. The district engineer will add permit conditions to avoid or reduce effects on 

historic properties which he determines are necessary in accordance with 33 CFR 325.4. In 

reaching his determination, the district engineer will consider the Secretary of the Interior's 

Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716). 

b. If the district engineer concludes that permitting the activity would result in the irrevocable 

loss of important scientific, prehistoric, historical, or archeological data, the district engineer, in 

accordance with the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, will advise the 

Secretary of the Interior (by notifying the National Park Service (NPS)) of the extent to which 

the data may be lost if the undertaking is permitted, any plans to mitigate such loss that will be 

implemented, and the permit conditions that will be included to ensure that any required 

mitigation occurs. 

 

15. Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect. 

(a) An undertaking has an effect on a designated historic property when the undertaking may 

alter characteristics of the property that qualified the property for inclusion in the National 

Register. For the purpose of determining effect, alteration to features of a property's location, 

setting, or use may be relevant, and depending on a property's important characteristics, should 

be considered. 

(b) An undertaking is considered to have an adverse effect when the effect on a designated 

historic property may diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects on designated historic properties include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property; 

Appendix D Page 10 of 67 
(2) Isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the property's setting when that 

character contributes to the property's qualification for the National Register; 

(3) Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the 

property or alter its setting; 

(4) Neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or destruction; and 

(5) Transfer, lease, or sale of the property. 

 Clearly in a case of irrevocable lose, mere notification of the National Park Service after the 

issuance of a permit of the planned destruction of multiple buildings listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places, and of an entire National Historic District in danger of being deprive 

of its context and character is insufficient. While adherence to a procedural checklist is laudable, 

the requirement of prior consultation and the exploration of all possible alternatives must be 

paramount when an irrevocable loss is eminent. In this case, there is no evidence that prior 

consultation occurred. 

 If the District Engineer, as required under Provision 10(b), has concluded that irrevocable 

loss will occur as result of the undertaking and has notified the National Park Service (NPS), it is 

reasonable to conclude their NPS has their own review procedures that require a period of public 

comment and, perhaps Congressional oversight. The application of Provision 15 (a) and (b)(1-4) 

fall within the oversight of the NPS and thus under the auspices of the Secretary of the Interior 

which offers the opportunity for further review and comment. These options must reasonably be 

offered to all parties prior to the issuance of a permit. Failing that, PR must be put on notice that 

any action that would degrade, alter or in any way violate the protection of the at risk historic 

assets must be held in abeyance until a finding is made by the named reviewing parties. 

 It is 15(b)(4)(5) which can require PR to do a great deal of explaining. The property is 

subject to the terms and conditions of a Programmatic Agreement dated May 1995 which 

transferred ownership to the State of South Carolina. That document contains numerous 

stipulations, covenants and standards that raise significant issues of two decades of noncompliance. Further, the document makes applicable oversight by numerous military and 

bureaucratic entities, issues which were not addressed in the permitting process. 

Federal Highway Administration 

Section 4(f) Tutorial 

Like Section 4(f), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 also 

mandates consideration of a project's effect on historic sites. Because of their similarities, the 

relationship between Sections 4(f) and 106 is sometimes a source of confusion. But it is 

important to remember that they are two different laws with different requirements for 

compliance that are most efficiently addressed in a coordinated approach. 

Appendix D Page 11 of 67 
The most important connection between the two statutes is that the Section 106 process is 

generally the method by which historic properties are identified that would be subject to 

consideration under Section 4(f). The results of the identification step under Section 106 - 

including the eligibility of the resource for listing on the NRHP, the delineation of NRHP 

boundaries, and the identification of contributing and non-contributing elements within the 

boundary of a historic district—are a critical part of determining the applicability of Section 4(f) 

and the outcome of the Section 4(f) evaluation. 

The most important difference between the two statutes is the way each of them measures 

impacts to historic sites. Whereas Section 106 is concerned with adverse effects, Section 4(f) is 

concerned with use. The two terms are not interchangeable and an adverse effect determination 

under Section 106 does not automatically equate to a Section 4(f) use of the property. Review the 

"Related Statutes " section of this tutorial for a more in-depth discussion of the relationship 

between Section 4(f) and Section 106. 

 The “coordinated approach” called for requires mutual consideration of the desired end result. 

The difference between Section 106 and 4(f) is that one concerns itself with, in one case, impact 

and, in the other, use. Logic requires agreement that a finding of “Serious Adverse Impact” 

under 106 absolutely determines the 4(f)’s finding of potential use. This is not a case of separate 

but equal nor is it a matter of divergent procedural practices. This is where reason requires a 

rational conclusion that permitting a project that will deprive future generations of a National 

Historic District based on a literal reading of two procedural policies defies the stated purpose of 

both. 

23 CFR 774.17 

Definitions. 

 As relates to the Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration or the 

Federal Transportation Administration, these definitions set the authoritative standard for 

interpretation of common terms. Of particular import are the measures of impact. In this case, 

ACE concluded that the project would have a severe adverse effect which is the exact opposite of 

everything found under De minimis impact. 

 The discussion of feasible and prudent avoidance alternative: 

 (1) A feasible and prudent avoidance alternative avoids using Section 4(f) property and does 

not cause other severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweighs the importance of 

protecting the Section 4(f) property. In assessing the importance of protecting the Section 4(f) 

property, it is appropriate to consider the relative value of the resource to the preservation 

purpose of the statute. 

(2) An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering 

judgment. 

Appendix D Page 12 of 67 
(3) An alternative is not prudent if: 

(i) It compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project 

in light of its stated purpose and need; 

(ii) It results in unacceptable safety or operational problems; 

(iii) After reasonable mitigation, it still causes: 

(A) Severe social, economic, or environmental impacts; 

(B) Severe disruption to established communities; 

(C) Severe disproportionate impacts to minority or low income populations; or 

(D) Severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes; 

(iv) It results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an 

extraordinary magnitude; 

(v) It causes other unique problems or unusual factors; or 

(vi) It involves multiple factors in paragraphs (3)(i) through (3)(v) of this definition, that 

while individually minor, cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of extraordinary 

magnitude. 

 By the words of (1), (2) and (3) alone, it is clear that the Federal Railway Administration has 

failed to exercise their oversight responsibility. While we are not yet at the 4(f) stage, these 

criteria apply across the spectrum of implementation of the applicable laws, regulations and 

procedural guidelines. That benchmark in particularly important when one considers: 

23 CFR 774.3 

Section 4(f) approvals 

The Administration may not approve the use, as defined in § 774.17, of Section 4(f) property 

unless a determination is made under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. 

(a) The Administration determines that: 

(1) There is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, as defined in § 774.17, to the use of 

land from the property; and 

(2) The action includes all possible planning, as defined in § 774.17, to minimize harm to the 

property resulting from such use; or 

(b) The Administration determines that the use of the property, including any measure(s) to 

minimize harm (such as any avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures) 

committed to by the applicant, will have a de minimis impact, as defined in § 774.17, on the 

property. 

Appendix D Page 13 of 67 
(c) If the analysis in paragraph (a)(1) of this section concludes that there is no feasible and 

prudent avoidance alternative, then the Administration may approve, from among the remaining 

alternatives that use Section 4(f) property, only the alternative that: 

(1) Causes the least overall harm in light of the statute's preservation purpose. The least 

overall harm is determined by balancing the following factors: 

(i) The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property (including any 

measures that result in benefits to the property); 

(ii) The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, 

attributes, or features that qualify each Section 4(f) property for protection; 

(iii) The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property; 

(iv) The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property; 

(v) The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project; 

(vi) After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not 

protected by Section 4(f); and 

(vii) Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives. 

(2) The alternative selected must include all possible planning, as defined in § 774.17, to 

minimize harm to Section 4(f) property. 

 This citation reiterates the feasible and prudent avoidance alternative requirement and 

interjects strongly all possible planning. That is particularly applicable when one considers the 

lack of insistence by FRA that PR conduct a diligent effort to comply with the letter and spirit of 

the law. While the procedural, perfunctory review of the application has been followed, the 

stand-alone mandate of “all possible planning” has not been reached in the proceeding to-date. 

Federal Highway Administration Environmental Review Guidelines 

GUIDANCE FOR PREPARING AND PROCESSING 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SECTION 4(F) DOCUMENTS 

Historic and Archeological Preservation 

To the fullest extent possible, the final EIS needs to demonstrate that all the requirements of 36 

CFR 800 have been met. If the preferred alternative has no effect on historic or archeological 

resources on or eligible for the National Register, the final EIS should indicate coordination with 

and agreement by the SHPO. If the preferred alternative has an effect on a resource on or eligible 

for the National Register, the final EIS should contain (a) a determination of no adverse effect 

concurred in by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, (b) an executed memorandum of 

agreement (MOA), or (c) in the case of a rare situation where FHWA is unable to conclude the 

Appendix D Page 14 of 67 
MOA, a copy of comments transmitted from the ACHP to the FHWA and the FHWA response 

to those comments. 

 In the matter of this permit, the finding is that the most adverse effect possible will be the 

result of issuance of the permit. The existence of an alternative is a given and failure to exercise 

all effort to that end is to completely disregard the letter, spirit and intent of the will of Congress. 

 Finally, the essential component of involving Native American tribes, local governments and 

organizations in the decisionmaking process must be more than the mere formality of obtaining a 

signature. According to the finding in Pueblo of Sandia vs. United States as well as C.F.R. 

800.4(a)(iii)1995, their involvement must constitute a reasonable and good faith effort to identify 

historic attributes of a site. I have personally on several occasions, in my role as a Consulting 

Party, attempted to engage the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. I have made them aware of my belief 

and knowledge of Native American presence on the site of this proposed project and have yet to 

receive a reply. That lack of involvement has been evident throughout the entire public comment 

period. As a result, I question their ability to make an informed decision in this matter. 

Donald C. Campagna, Consulting Party 

The Naval Order of the United States 

Appendix D Page 15 of 67 
Cyrus A. Buffum 

1903 Hampton Avenue 

North Charleston, SC 29405 

July 31, 2018 

Mr. Shawn Boone 

Project Manager 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District 

69A Hagood Avenue 

Charleston, SC 29403 

Re: P/N 2012-0960, FEIS for Proposed Navy Base Intermodal Container Transfer Facility 

Dear Mr. Boone, 

Please accept this letter as part of the public review process outlined in the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). My hope in submitting these comments is to encourage the 

most appropriate agency action that ensures the highest level of protections for our community 

and the environment upon which we all depend. 

The below comments come directly from my own, unique personal standing and perspective. 

First, I am a proud property owner in the Windsor Place community. My commitment to this 

neighborhood is long-term, and I welcome this opportunity to engage on such an issue where 

adverse impact on my neighbors is possible. Secondly, I am an oysterman. I own and operate a 

small seafood company that prides itself on harvesting wild, local oysters. My livelihood is

directly linked to the quality of our wetlands and waterways, and any degradation of such natural 

resources is a direct threat to my business and my family’s way of life. Finally, I am a 

conservationist. I have worked over the past decade with a national network of organizations to 

ensure appropriate enforcement of the Rivers and Harbors Act and the Clean Water Act. I 

celebrate the public’s fundamental role in managing and protecting our shared commons. 

I have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Study (FEIS) pertaining to the proposed Navy 

Base Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) in Charleston County, South Carolina. My 

comments below correspond directly to the impacts associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed 

Project) in the FEIS. 

Waters of the United States 

The FEIS identifies the following impacts to waters of the United States: “Major adverse impacts 

to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Direct impacts from fill/shading activities during 

construction would result in the permanent impact of approximately 15.84 acres of waters of the 

U.S., including wetlands, including 6.65 acres of tidal salt marsh, 8.01 acres of freshwater 

wetlands, 1.14 acres of tidal open waters, and 0.04 acres of non-tidal open waters.” 

Appendix D Page 16 of 67 
2 

To account for these impacts, the applicant, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act 

of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and the 

South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act (48-39-10 et seq.), has submitted a Wetland 

Mitigation Plan that “proposes for the Applicant to purchase 86.3 wetland mitigation credits 

from Pigeon Pond Mitigation Bank to compensate for freshwater impacts, as well as a permittee 

responsible mitigation plan to restore and protect approximately 40.6 acres of tidal marsh at the 

former Kings Grant Country Club and Golf Course in Dorchester County, SC.” 

Unfortunately, the applicant’s proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan drastically neglects to achieve 

compensatory mitigation as required under the law. The proposed mitigation actions are to be 

performed off-site and are not entirely in-kind, whereas any such Wetland Mitigation Plan and 

approval thereof by the district engineer, shall give, where possible, preferential consideration to 

on-site and in-kind mitigation. 

In 1990 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States 

Department of the Army entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in which the 

protocol for determining the type and level of mitigation required under Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act was clarified. The MOA stated that the United States Army Corps of Engineers is 

required to determine “appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation for unavoidable 

adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been 

required.”1

Further, a 2008 federal ruling on compensatory mitigation stated the following: “We do agree 

that, in general, in-kind mitigation is preferable to out-of-kind mitigation because it is more 

likely to compensate for the functions and services lost at the impact site. The rule states that the 

compensatory mitigation should be of a similar type (e.g., Cowardin and/or hydrogeomorphic 

class) to the affected aquatic resource, unless the district engineer determines using the 

watershed approach described in the rule (see § 332.3(c) [§ 230.93(c)]) that out-of-kind 

compensatory mitigation will better serve the aquatic resource needs of the watershed. The term 

‘in-kind’ in § 332.2 [§ 230.92] is defined to include similarity in structural and functional type.”2

I find the ruling’s insistence on determining equitable compensation through an evaluation of 

“functions and services lost at the impact site” rather compelling and explicitly clear. 

The applicant’s proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan offers two mitigation sites (e.g. Pigeon Pond 

Mitigation Bank and Kings Grant Country Club and Golf Course), which are both located well 

above the freshwater/saltwater dividing line as determined by the South Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources.3

 

As noted in the FEIS, the applicant proposes to impact “15.84 acres of waters of the U.S.” Of 

this total impact, 7.79 acres are located within an estuarine environment: 6.65 acres of tidal salt 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United 

States Department of the Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act, Section 

404(b)(1) Guidelines, 1990. II.C(3)

2 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-04-10/pdf/E8-6918.pdf 3 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/dividingline.html

Appendix D Page 17 of 67 
3 

marsh and 1.14 acres of tidal open waters. Such an environment—one associated with saltwater 

or brackish conditions—possesses a unique chemical and biological composition, and therefore 

provides specific functions and services. 

The objective of the Clean Water Act, as explicitly stated in the act’s opening section, is “to 

restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 

I am satisfied with the applicant’s proposed accounting for its impacts on freshwater wetlands 

through its mitigation efforts at Pigeon Pond Mitigation Bank and applaud the applicant for its 

efforts to avoid and minimize its impacts elsewhere on the project; however, the applicant has 

not performed an equal accounting of its impacts on saltwater wetlands and open waters of the 

United States. 

Specifically, the applicant’s permittee responsible mitigation plan “to restore and protect 

approximately 40.6 acres of tidal marsh at the former Kings Grant Country Club and Golf 

Course” neglects to compensate for the destruction of the 7.79 acres of estuarine environment. 

Describing the Kings Grant Country Club and Golf Course site as tidal, as a way to suggest inkind compensatory mitigation, is irrelevant and does nothing to account for the “functions and 

services lost at the impact site.” This description, “tidal,” comes from an analysis of the proposed 

site’s physical features (i.e. its hydrology) and not from its chemical or biological composition. 

Were one to consider the proposed site’s chemical and biological characteristics, one would 

quickly recognize the discrepancy between the functions and services of the proposed mitigation 

site versus those at the impacted site. 

For example, oysters depend on waters with a very specific chemical and biological composition. 

Therefore, as an oysterman, I too am dependent on a very specific chemical and biological 

composition in the waters on which I work. Oysters are dependent on waters that possess a very 

specific salinity range. Oyster larvae (Crassostrea virginica) will not settle and metamorphose 

into spat when salinity is less than 6 parts per thousand (ppt).

4

 The oysters that I manage are 

primarily located within the intertidal range in waters where salinity averages 35 ppt. The 

physical features of the waters from which I harvest are such that they are tidal, are roughly 100 

feet in width, and experience a particular flow symptomatic of their hydrodynamic qualities. 

Offering me a shellfish lease on waters with a salinity level of 5 ppt will do me little good in 

making a living, regardless of whether the physical characteristics of these waters are identical to 

the waters from which I currently harvest. 

To further articulate this point, let us imagine the tidal marsh in a freshwater system (such as that 

proposed at the Kings Grant Country Club and Golf Course—a place where oysters cannot exist. 

In such an environment it will be impossible for oyster reefs to form. And where oyster reefs 

cannot exist, juvenile species of aquatic life cannot seek refuge in the effective protections 

offered by a reef’s construction. Without juvenile species present, there will be less food 

available for particular predator species, and with fewer of these species present, the entire 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4 Wilson C, Scotto L, Scarpa J, Volety A, Laramore S, and D Haunert. 2005. Survey of water quality, oyster 

reproduction and oyster health status in the St. Lucie Estuary. Journal of Shellfish Research 24:157-165.

Appendix D Page 18 of 67 
4 

composition of the site’s flora and fauna changes. Further, without oyster reefs, shorelines sit in a 

state of great vulnerability—lacking a crucial defense in the mitigation against storm surge and 

the erosive qualities of boat wake. 

In other words, function and services are better measured by considering the chemical and 

biological composition of a natural resource rather than by its mere influence by celestial bodies. 

There is no evidence made by the applicant in the FEIS to prove the unavoidable necessity for its 

mitigation to be off-site and out-of-kind. Nor has proof been shown by the Army Corps of 

Engineers that the proposed out-of-kind compensatory mitigation will better serve the aquatic 

resource needs of the watershed. The applicant’s identification of the Kings Grant Country Club 

and Golf Course as an appropriate site for compensatory mitigation is arbitrary and unacceptable. 

Saltwater tidal mitigation is possible and feasible in our region. In fact, just last year, the South 

Carolina Ports Authority proposed the establishment of the Daniel Island Saltwater Mitigation 

Bank (P/N SAC-2015-00526) in an effort to effectively account for its impacts on saltwater 

resources—an appropriate in-kind exchange—during its construction of the Hugh Leatherman 

Terminal (HLT).5

 In earlier decades it may have been appropriate, for a lack of other feasible 

options, to use freshwater wetlands to mitigate against impacts to saltwater wetlands and 

streams; however, today, there is absolutely no excuse. 

Therefore, I urge with great conviction the district engineer deny the applicant’s proposed 

mitigation efforts at the Kings Grant Country Club and Golf Course and require an alternative, 

in-kind mitigation effort to appropriately account for the permanent impact to 7.79 acres of 

estuarine environment—one that adequately accounts for lost functions and services. 

Environmental Justice Population 

Furthermore, though the scope of my next point is beyond the application of the law, as it relates 

specifically to compensatory mitigation, I feel it necessary to present. 

According to the FEIS, “Alternative 1 has potential for disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts to Environmental Justice populations. The adverse impacts associated with the 

Alternative 1 would be predominantly borne by the minority and low-income population and are 

appreciably more severe than the adverse effects that would be suffered by the nonminority and 

non-low-income population of the City of North Charleston and Charleston County. With 

regards to benefits and burdens, the benefits of the Proposed Project would extend to the greater 

Charleston region, while the burdens would be borne by the Environmental Justice community 

adjacent to the project. Therefore, the benefits and burdens of the Proposed Project are not 

equitably distributed.”6

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

5 “State plans mitigation bank on Daniel Island,” Charleston Regional Business Journal, March 2, 2017

6 Table 6: Summary of Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice Impacts by Alternative, Appendix K, Community 

Impact Assessment, Final Environmental Impact Study (FEIS), Navy Base Intermodal Container Transfer Facility 

(ICTF), Charleston County, South Carolina

Appendix D Page 19 of 67 
5 

As noted in the previous section, the applicant proposes complete fulfillment of its mitigation 

obligations off-site. Beyond neglecting to account for the “functions and services lost at the 

impact site,” the proposed Kings Grant Country Club and Golf Course mitigation site further 

perpetuates the already disproportionate allocation of benefits away from Environmental Justice 

populations and towards nonminority and non-low-income populations. 

In approving the proposed permittee responsible mitigation plan to restore and protect 

approximately 40.6 acres of tidal marsh at the former Kings Grant Country Club and Golf 

Course, the Army Corps of Engineers becomes complicit in not upholding its obligations under 

the Clean Water Act and responsibilities outlined in Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. 

To avoid such an irresponsible and inequitable decision, may I respectfully suggest that the 

district engineer direct the applicant to any number of degraded shorelines, wetlands, and 

waterways along the Cooper River, throughout North Charleston’s jurisdiction, to serve as an 

alternative site in its permittee responsible mitigation plan. Our communities, those impacted by 

this proposed activity, deserve to retain the environmental benefits required by law. 

Thank you kindly for your consideration. 

Best, 

Cyrus A. Buffum 

Cc: Gerard Mikell, Sr., President, Union Heights Community Council 

Omar Muhammad, Executive Director, LAMC 

Michael Brown, Councilman, District 10, City of North Charleston 

R. Keith Summey, Mayor, City of North Charleston 

William Want, Esq. 

Appendix D Page 20 of 67 
Appendix D Page 21 of 67 
Appendix D Page 22 of 67 
Appendix D Page 23 of 67 
Appendix D Page 24 of 67 
Appendix D Page 25 of 67 
Appendix D Page 26 of 67 
Appendix D Page 27 of 67 
Appendix D Page 28 of 67 
Appendix D Page 29 of 67 
Appendix D Page 30 of 67 
Appendix D Page 31 of 67 
Appendix D Page 32 of 67 
Appendix D Page 33 of 67 
Appendix D Page 34 of 67 
Appendix D Page 35 of 67 
Appendix D Page 36 of 67 
Appendix D Page 37 of 67 
Appendix D Page 38 of 67 
Appendix D Page 39 of 67 
Appendix D Page 40 of 67 
Appendix D Page 41 of 67 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 4 

ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 

61 FORSYTH STREET 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 

U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers 

Charleston District Regulatory Division 

69A Hagood Avenue 

Charleston, South Carolina 29403 

JUL 1 B 2018 

Re: Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Proposed Navy Base Intermodal 

Container Transfer Facility, North Charleston, South Carolina; CEQ# 20180148 

Dear Lieutenant Colonel Palazzini: 

Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act {CAA) and Section 102{2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reviewed the FEIS for 

the Proposed Navy Base Intermodal Container Transfer Facility {ICTF) developed by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE), Charleston District, using a third-party contracting process as described 

in 40 CFR §1506.5. The FEIS was initiated because the USACE has received an application for a 

Department of the Anny permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act {CWA) from Palmetto 

Railways (SAC 2012-00960). The EPA notes that these comments are limited to the NEPA review and 

not intended to be review comments on the Section 404 CW A permit. 

The EPA previously provided scoping comments on December 30, 2013. On January 27, 2014, the 

USACE requested that the EPA participate as a cooperating agency in the development ofthe DEIS and 

on February 25, 2014, we accepted the invitation. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) also 

accepted the USACE's invitation to become a cooperating agency. As a cooperating agency, we 

participated in numerous meetings, conference calls and public meetings. The EPA provided comments 

on the Draft EIS {DEIS) on July 7, 2016. 

Palmetto Railways proposes to construct a 130-acre ICTF at the former Charleston Naval Complex 

(CNC) to facilitate the transfer of international cargo containers between ships/trucks and rail (i.e., 

trains). The proposed project, also referred to as the Navy Base ICTF, would provide equal access to the 

Class I rail carriers {CSX Transportation (CSX) and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS)) that serve the Port 

of Charleston (Port) and various local businesses and industries. The proposed facility would be 

designed to accommodate existing and projected future intermodal container traffic within the region. 

The off-site infrastructure improvements would include building: {1) a private drayage road 

approximately 1-mile long connecting the ICTF to the Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr. Terminal (HLT), {2) 

rail improvements to the north and south of the ICTF, and {3) several roadway improvements and 

modifications, including the construction of a new overpass. 

The USACE used a three tiered screening process and considered the location ofthe ICTF in 12 

different locations. After the screening process, two sites were considered for further study which 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper {Minimum 30% Postconsumer) 

Appendix D Page 42 of 67 
included the Applicant's Proposed Alternative and a site north of the Applicant's Proposed Alternative 

called the River Center Site. From these two ICTF site locations, the USACE formulated eight 

alternatives (i.e., seven action alternatives and the no action alternative) that were moved forward for 

further consideration. The USACE has not identified a preferred alternative in the FEIS citing the 

regulatory and pre-decisional nature of the Section 404 permitting process. It is anticipated that the 

USACE will identify the preferred alternative in the NEPA Record ofDecision (ROD) and the Section 

404 CWA Statement of Finding. 

The EPA acknowledges the collaborative efforts of the USACE during the development of both the 

DEIS and FEIS. The EPA acknowledges the USACE's receptiveness to conducting appropriate levels of 

air quality modeling needed to properly consider air quality impacts associated with the proposed 

project. The FEIS addressed the recommendations from the review of the DEIS. The EPA also 

supports the USACE efforts in conducting a Health Risk Assessment and disclosing the findings within 

the FEIS. Additionally, the EPA appreciates the efforts made by the Palmetto Railways and the USACE 

to meaningfully engage environmental justice stakeholders throughout the NEP A process. These efforts 

have helped to foster ongoing community relationships and have led to the development of an 

Memorandum of Agreement that includes a $4 million Community Mitigation Plan related to the 

impacts of the facility. The mitigation includes the development of a community recreation center, 

funding for affordable housing in the community,job training, educational initiatives, environmental 

measures, research activities, monitoring, health impact studies, assistance to youth, and capacity 

building training for community organizations. In addition, mitigation measures such as the 

development of noise barriers, natural recreational areas, and relocations assistance are also beneficial to 

the community. The EPA encourages the USACE to memorialize these avoidance, minimization and 

mitigation commitments within the Record of Decision and/or Statement of Findings. 

The EPA appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Navy Base ICTF. If you 

have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ms. Jamie Higgins, of my staff, at 

(404) 562-9681, or by e-mail at Higgins.jamie@epa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Carol J. Monell 

Acting Director 

Resource Conservation and Restoration Division 

Appendix D Page 43 of 67 
_4-A1s

NORFOLK SOUTHERN('

Norfolk Southern Corporation

Three Commercial Place

Norfolk, Virginia 23510-9251

Telephone: 757-629-2748

FAX: 757-533-4307

rob.martinez@nscorn.com

July 31, 2018

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Attn: Mr. Shawn Boone, Project Manager

Charleston District

69A Hagood Avenue

Charleston, SC 29403-5107

Robert E. Martínez

Vice President

Business Development

and Real Estate

RE: Comments on Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Navy Base

Intermodal Container Transfer Facility, Charleston County, South Carolina

Project No, SAC -2012-00960

Dear Mr. Boone:

Norfolk Southern Railway Company (Norfolk Southern) has had an opportunity to review the Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) published by the Army Corps of Engineers relating to the

Navy Base Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) in Charleston County, South Carolina as

proposed by Palmetto Railways (Palmetto). The FEIS states that the overall purpose and need of

the Navy Base ICTF project is "to provide a state-owned, near -dock ICTF that provides equal access

to both Class I rail carriers and accommodates existing and projected future increases in intermodal

container cargo transport through the Port of Charleston to enhance transportation efficiency in the

state of South Carolina." As evidenced throughout the FEIS, one of the Class I rail carriers

referenced in that statement of purpose and need is Norfolk Southern. As such, Norfolk Southern

has been involved in Palmetto's scoping of the ICTF and herein provides comments relating to the

accuracy of the statements contained in the FEIS that pertain to this involvement.

As an initial concern, the FEIS analyzes the ICTF alternatives with the incorrect assertion that if

built, the Class I railroads will use both the north and south routes. As both Norfolk Southern and

the other Class I railroad, CSX Transportation (CSXT), have made clear to the State and to Palmetto;

that assumption is incorrect. Norfolk Southern and CSXT will be using the south access only,

irrespective of whether Palmetto constructs the north and south access to the ICTF or merely the

south access, if they are able to access the ICTF at all.' As a result of this inaccuracy, the FEIS

divides impact that is based on railroad usage and train occurrences, e.g., impacts to noise, vibration,

air, traffic and transportation, and at -grade rail crossings, between the north and south access routes

in Alternative 1 (the preferred alternative as so characterized in the FEIS). Alternative 4 (the all -

Access to the ICTF is contingent upon the Class I railroads obtaining funding support to construct the necessary

infrastructure.

Appendix D Page 44 of 67 
south route) concentrates the train usage impacts solely on the south route.2 Given that NS and

CSXT will be using the all -south access, the higher train occurrence -dependent impacts resulting

from Alternative 4 will all result on the southern portion of Alternative 1.

The Class I railroads' assertions that they will use only the all -south access does not arise from an

uncooperative view with respect to the north access, as alleged by Palmetto. (See response to Class

I comment letters dated February 3, 2017 from the law office of Willoughby and Hoefer.) Indeed,

the railroads have worked collaboratively with Palmetto and the State of South Carolina to progress

a safe and operationally acceptable project that will provide equal access. Rather, the sole use of

the all -south route is based on operational and engineering hurdles associated with constructing the

additional infrastructure that would be needed to use the northern access point Palmetto proposes in

the preferred alternative.

Infeasibility of Northern Access for Class I Railroads

As noted in the FEIS, the Section 4(f) analysis evaluates alternatives and finds them infeasible if

they cannot be built as a matter of "sound engineering judgment."

In determining whether an alternative is prudent, the FRA may consider whether the

alternative would result in any of the following: (1) compromise the Project to a

degree that is unreasonable for proceeding with the Project in light of its stated

purpose and need, (2) unacceptable safety or operational problems, (3) after

reasonable mitigation the Project results in severe social, economic, or environmental

impacts; severe disruption to established communities; severe disproportionate

impacts on minority or low-income populations; or severe impacts on environmental

resources protected under other federal statutes, (4) additional construction,

maintenance, or operational costs of an extraordinary magnitude, (5) other unique

problems or unusual factors, (6) multiple factors that, while individually minor,

cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude. ICTF

FEIS at 8-13.

Here, as explained below, Palmetto's Alternative 1 /preferred alternative does not include significant

infrastructure requirements that are necessary to accommodate Norfolk Southern's northern access,

and if it did, it would necessarily create significant additional impacts and result in additional

construction costs of an extraordinary magnitude. The failure to include these in the proposal - and

in the FEIS analysis - renders the northern access for the Class 1 railroads infeasible as proposed,

and as such it would not meet the stated purpose and need. Furthermore, it would create

unacceptable safety and operational problems in its current configuration.

In December 2016, Norfolk Southern spent a significant amount of time reconsidering the northern

access to determine if a feasible solution could be found that was in line with the proposed ICTF

project as it had been proposed in Palmetto's permit application. Diagrams from the northern access

engineering study are attached as Appendix A to this letter. To access the ICTF from the north,

Norfolk Southern's Reads Branch would have to cross the CSXT line at the Meads Interlocker north

of the proposed ICTF. This line consists of two tracks, the S and the A, and is part of CSXT's main

line between the northeastern United States and the southeastern United States. The CSXT lines

2 See, e.g., ICTF FEIS at 4-536 "Alternative 4 would have double (8/day) the number of train occurrences as

Alternative 1 on the southern rail connection because all trains would enter and exit the ICTF utilizing a parallel

southern rail connection (Section 4.8.11)." Notably, most other impacts of Alternative 4 are similar to or less than

Alternative 1.

Appendix D Page 45 of 67 
currently accommodate approximately 34 trains per day, consisting of both CSXT freight trains and

Amtrak passenger trains. Because the traffic density on this line is very heavy, crossing the line

with lengthy intermodal trains would be not be possible without causing serious delays for existing

freight and passenger train traffic. Moreover, CSXT has never agreed to a train dispatching protocol

that allows long NS trains to move over the Meads Interlocker on the north access.

The 2016 evaluation established several facts relating to railroad operations near the north access

route. In particular, Amtrak has six train movements per day and CSXT operates 28 train

movements per day, for a total of 34 train movements across a two diamond rail crossing of NS and

CSXT routes in a 24 hour window. Currently, the closest siding for Norfolk Southern to hold trains

and wait for a clear signal from CSXT is 60 miles away from the Meads Interlocker at Rowesville,

SC, which is located in Orangeburg County. Under Palmetto's preferred alternative, to access from

the north, Norfolk Southern would need a clear signal to be held for two hours before an approach

by an NS train could be made and cleared over the Meads Interlocker. To accommodate the

proposed inbound volume for the ICTF, Norfolk Southern would require a clear signal at the Meads

Interlocker twice daily. As a result of the distance from the nearest siding, CSXT would have to

dedicate a minimum of four hours daily across the Meads Interlocker to allow for Norfolk Southern

trains to cross. However, with the existing timetables on both the S and A tracks, CSXT is only

able to offer 30 minute windows for clear signaling to prevent disruptions to both passenger and

freight service. This amount of time is certainly not consistent with operational requirements for

Norfolk Southern to cross the CSXT line at the Meads Interlocker. Route challenges exist to a

similar degree on the two NS trains per day that would need to depart the ICTF.

This review illustrates that an at -grade access at the Meads Interlocker as it currently exists would

be neither safe nor operationally viable. As such, to provide the north access, a grade separation at

the Meads Interlocker would be required to accommodate the real -world operating conditions. But

constructing a grade separation at the Meads Interlocker would not be a simple undertaking. A set

of substantial infrastructure subprojects would be necessary to support construction of the grade

separation. Specifically, at a minimum:

The Reads Branch (the Norfolk Southern line that crosses the CSXT main line at the Meads

Interlocking) would need to be raised by at least 30 feet above the CSXT main line elevation

to allow for required clearances and bridge structures.

Rivers Avenue would be impacted by the western approach and would have to be lowered

by approximately 12 feet to clear the rail bridge.

Attaway Street would need to be closed due to the conflict with the eastern approach.

Significant disruption to residential and commercial property along the Reads Branch would

be required to construct the embankment and structures needed for the rail overpass.

In order to protect service to the existing North Charleston industrial customers, it would be

necessary to double track the North Charleston Terminal Company (NCTC) line from S -

Line Junction to a point short of the Noisette Creek Bridge.

It is expected that a full reconstruction of the Noisette Creek Bridge will be required to

support increased traffic levels.

Preliminary cost estimates for these subprojects that would be necessary to accommodate access to

the ICTF from the north range from $175 million to $225 million. These estimates do not include

additional soft costs and necessary right of way relocations. In addition to these costs, the

preliminary engineering study revealed that the eastern approach of Norfolk Southern's Reads

Branch to the CSXT crossing would be an unacceptably severe 1.78% grade. It would not be

Appendix D Page 46 of 67 
possible to reliably or safely pull intermodal or local freight trains over a grade of this magnitude.

The 2016 study concluded for these and other reasons that the all -south access to the ICTF is the

only practicable and feasible option available to provide equally competitive and reliable rail access

for both carriers to the ICTF. Palmetto has not considered impacts associated with any of this work

in its northern access under Alternative 1.

Palmetto Railways and other major project stakeholders were advised in July 2016 that Norfolk

Southern would not use a northern approach for these technical and operational reasons, among

others. Instead, and with the full operational cooperation of CSXT, the all -south approach was

vetted and approved by both Class I carriers as the only way to access the ICTF that was fair, equal,

and operationally efficient. Agreement was reached with CSXT on a southern crossing, before

which time Norfolk Southern did not have a way to access the proposed terminal from either north

or south. The all -south approach marks the first time in the history of the project where Norfolk

Southern has been given fair, equal and operationally efficient access to the ICTF that is in line with

the purpose and need statement of the proposed ICTF project.

Additional Infrastructure Requirements for Southern Access

As the Class I railroads have stated in the past, each will continue to operate on its existing rights of

way and use its existing facilities to serve existing and future freight customers, whether or not the

ICTF is constructed. In order to use the ICTF, and consistent with the purpose and need for the

project, there must be efficient and safe rail access for both Class I railroads. Palmetto's proposal,

and therefore the FEIS, assumes that eight additional trains per day will ultimately operate over the

corridors connecting the ICTF to the Class 1 railroads,3 but does not fully consider the capacity

needed to support existing and future train movements on the only feasible lines leading to and from

the ICTF by both carriers - the all -south route. While CSXT and Norfolk Southern have operational

agreements that provide for joint use of certain track and crossings throughout the greater Charleston

area, which are designed to improve each carrier's ability to operate efficiently and serve customers,

the capacity to meet, pass, and stage trains supporting use by the Class I carriers is not reflected in

the current preferred alternative and is not addressed in the FEIS, even in the context of cumulative

effects, yet these must be addressed in order to connect both carriers with the facility.

Infrastructure requirements for the all -south route include but are not limited to:

Providing an additional crossing for Norfolk Southern at SY Junction.

Constructing a siding near MP -12 for Norfolk Southern to stage southbound trains waiting

for a clear signal at SY.

Developing a staging yard between Ashley Junction and the Meeting Street crossing.

Providing a double track connection between the staging yard and the ICTF to allow for

coordinated arrival and departures by either railroad.

Minimizing the impact to the public by identifying crossing closures and a proposed grade

separation at Meeting Street.

These infrastructure requirements for the all -south access actually to connect the railroads consistent

with the ICTF's purpose and need statement were formally presented to Palmetto, the State of South

Carolina, and other stakeholders on November 29, 2016. None are included, however, in any of the

3 Note that at page I-37, the FEIS states that the initial number will be 8 trains per day, and that it will ramp up to 8

trains per day by [2038]. We presume one of these numbers is incorrect.

Appendix D Page 47 of 67 
alternatives evaluated in the FEIS or even contemplated in the cumulative effects section of the

FEIS.

Norfolk Southern continues to offer no objection to the project and agrees that there is likely a need

for some track extending from the north of the facility that offers train operation "headroom" to

switch cars between tracks from the north end of the tenniinal. The manner in which Palmetto

achieves this necessary operating north "headroom" feature does not have any bearing on how

Norfolk Southern accesses the terminal. Impacts relating to ingress and egress by the Class I carriers

cannot be discounted or separated from the proposed project, as the defined purpose and need

statement makes clear, and at a minimum should be considered in the cumulative effects analysis.

The proposed project and practical train access to the facility are inextricably linked. Without one,

there is no need for the other.

The only way Norfolk Southern can and will access the proposed ICTF is from the south. If the

funding support necessary to provide for the infrastructure required to access the facility from the

south does not materialize, Norfolk Southern will be unable fully to utilize the terminal and will

have no choice but to stay at its existing Seven Mile Yard location.

Thank you for your review and consideration.

Sincerely,

C--a l i- i-,

Robert E. Martínez

Vice President

Business Development

and Real Estate

z

Appendix D Page 48 of 67 
Appendix A

Northern Access Engineering Study Diagrams

Appendix D Page 49 of 67 
..... . .,;,...Ï-SZb :. . :;:,...;. caNcrP -

100.00 ft . 50.00 ft 9 _ 0.00 ft_ o _'

-50.00 ft o5+00 10+00

.. i ii R ..._. r

t

CORRIDOR OVERVIEW: NS READS BRANCH

11 15+00 - 20+00 25+00 30+00 35+00

r.

,

-12,044

40+00 45+00 50+00 55+00

CORRIDOR PROFILE: NS READS BRANCH

NAVY BASE INTERMODAL FACILITY

NORTH ACCESS CONCEPT !` T CORRIDOR PLAN VIEW

NORFOLK SOUTHERN'

FEASIBILITY STUDY JANUARY 2017

er

60+00 65+00

Appendix D Page 50 of 67 
iI

Io.

[,

1

-L

1- -. p .fflp

..

+ 4:: + . ° , ,.y i.

1 f

e

..2

1 t'1-1

1 nr-J :A'.

ti

i 4t.s

h

_ Æ, s

°z . 1a'ik 4 -err

4

- , s a..

.k

~ .

. t

.r

C S

S., It S

BIRD'S-EYE VIEW LOOKING EAST AT CONCEPT ELEVATED NS

READS BRANCH APPROACHING US 52

NAVY BASE INTERMODAL FACILITY

NORTH ACCESS CONCEPT

FEASIBILITY STUDY JANUARY 2017 r NORFOLK SOUTHERN 

EXHIBIT 1: ELEVATED NS

TRACK TOWARDS US 52 STV loo- - -- urtd.-

Appendix D Page 51 of 67 
.' .Jo 'o I

er

i .

E.- 'l

r

rr '

Q

I

S

- , ,.

0;

. _

.

J

w

:'b° .

. 1 iillf

t

. .. ¿¿y¡ - 3 ,. .R

'i

Sw +., . t.p- ,

\ !

fie

re.,,.'

t 

1

.11

t f

:11K' :ti.

: f;. l; (

i

,

N,

7 -

BIRD'S-EYE VIEW LOOKING EAST AT CONCEPT ELEVATED NS

READS BRANCH APPROACHING US 52

NAVY BASE INTERMODAL FACILITY

NORTH ACCESS CONCEPT

FEASIBILITY STUDY JANUARY 2017

ti

NORFOLK SOUTHERN.

EXHIBIT IA: ELEVATED NS

TRACK TOWARDS US 52 STÇb loo

Appendix D Page 52 of 67 
l j

rn l

47Y - - Jort".- .f-

-' ú, = -. FFr_J'o

° - -- --_

- air,.-- -

_,+-. ___ _ _-_l +- +

'

BIRD'S-EYE VIEW LOOKING EAST AT CONCEPT ELEVATED NS

READS BRANCH APPROACHING US 52

NAVY BASE INTERMODAL FACILITY

NORTH ACCESS CONCEPT

FEASIBILITY STUDY JANUARY 2017

[1$

- NORFOLK SOUTHERN.

EXHIBIT 1B: ELEVATED NS

TRACK TOWARDS US 52

Appendix D Page 53 of 67 
= - -

_ Jr

o z

VIEW FROM US 52 SOUTHBOUND LOOKING NORTH AT CONCEPT

ELEVATED NS READS BRANCH OVER ROADWAY

NAVY BASE INTERMODAL FACILITY

NORTH ACCESS CONCEPT

FEASIBILITY STUDY JANUARY 201711

T

ammowaw-- NORFOLK SOUTHERN.

EXHIBIT 2: GRADE SEPARATION

AT US 52; ELEVATED NS TRACK

Appendix D Page 54 of 67 
;

. . 14

VIEW ALONG CSX ROW LOOKING SOUTH CONCEPT ELEVATED NS

READS BRANCH OVER A LINE

NAVY BASE INTERMODAL FACILITY

NORTH ACCESS CONCEPT

FEASIBILITY STUDY JANUARY 2017 w NORFOLK SOUTHERN'

EXHIBIT 3: GRADE SEPARATION

AT CSX; ELEVATED NS TRACK STVjo

Appendix D Page 55 of 67 
i

VIEW FROM I-526 WESTBOUND LOOKING NORTHWEST AT

CONCEPT ELEVATED NS READS BRANCH OVER CSX

..,

. r

NAVY BASE INTERMODAL FACILITY EXHIBIT 4: ELEVATED NS

NORTH ACCESS CONCEPT `.`' 1 TRACK ABOVE EXISTING NORFOLK SOUTHERN.

FEASIBILITY STUDY JANUARY 2017 ~ BRAT CH

". --

S TV 100

-/eam,

Appendix D Page 56 of 67 
?:mow_ `- ':--

'464

1 . ?;

A ii

`. 'tile.. . ''

''. _, o

r . o a` i

_ =e%r+t r_ . 4;ì: T: ;

,, . . ,e . ;.. p' '

AIM

74

,

T

3

a

w

BIRDS EYE VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST WITH EXISTING

VEGETATION

NAVY BASE INTERMODAL FACILITY[ ORL.`5

FEASIBILITY STUDY JANUARY 2017

-

NORTH ACCESS CONCEPT moomo- NORFOLK SOUTHERN.

EXHIBIT 4A: ELEVATED NS

TRACK ABOVE EXISTING

BRANCH

STV loo

Appendix D Page 57 of 67 
l:9 }1[

9 y

e,.

®r

.\

'o

`\ \ \ t \ \ \ `°\

, q.

., a \1, ,\

,` ` \\ \\ \ . \ \

._ r. BIRDS EYE VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST

_

.1

NAVY BASE INTERMODAL FACILITY

NORTH ACCESS CONCEPT _ 

EXHIBIT 5: ELEVATED NS

TRACK ABOVE EXISTING

NORFOLK SOUTHERN"

FEASIBILITY STUDY JANUARY 2017; BRANCH

R.

Appendix D Page 58 of 67 
4

.G °

oKOUT{ERN+INf

CNdTIESTON 'INTERNATIONAL IRPORT ea...,"

fr

1!%- -.r

.h .OVERPASS

(BOLD OVER RAID

CLOSE CROSING

(ATTTAWAY ST.) e

crkeDE SEPARATION -- ..,z.;- If MEADS JET r 9

I. I )

I4

COSGROVE YARD A

111 . 0fr=

.I

S -LINE DIAMOND

 / T _ 5) +,lJ r .

Cl

=/1- .J ,(VINIAAVENUE)

to Jo t y . '" ,_CC . r . , : ., . C A !r ,

l;p e

+6,A ...

j.

ti9.e. .

. I , r . y I . ' i h3 i +x

i..,

;lGL..._ 7 ^ + ( : f !.r R N. n l

tg / !

rT- T; . ' .1' - '

Appendix D Page 59 of 67 
l

MNNIWF.. !'

t D.. . 1 .

fk114.4ir"

pXOVO5e0 ASSING SIDMG

"1 r

0 1 i

.01 .1

muNr.cm4 . ewlou.u.a\

N.

Q,

. ä

.4 . i 1 v "P°.éi+DM . © e 1 Jwheo°"..;y14

yy M _ l. .YL r. -

-.e ° .

iM.6W a. T

i.av.w.eo= C w..<. S i. y

rtnl n, : I - n . . /

,:ft.. J l . - a/ o . t Q ` 1% f .: á v V ser'` © n/..

 ,?ee 1 /

. % a,$,.%w-. r i r. P /¡r

]. y e 1 , o! I y' i ,

'" J , pE'-+ 1 i T (¡ i o ) .'r

1, o Q

Y. \ - r , ' s- D -

..o . . i ot.v . .. FISTING G . -__ v _-. 1

g 1 '.

-I4 ` r - Roane -,>:,.ci,

.,_e

1 r 4.

itlerN

, ¢\4w'° r

.,

r l e J

/,

-`t. 9 n A

14

ev...Mi +1 . i . J

Appendix D Page 60 of 67 
Appendix D Page 61 of 67 
July 31, 2018 F/SER47:CC/pw 

(Sent via Electronic Mail) 

Lt. Col. Jeffrey Palazzini 

Charleston District, Corps of Engineers 

69A Hagood Avenue 

Charleston, South Carolina 29403-5107 

Attention: Shawn Boone 

Dear Lt. Colonel Palazzini: 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Navy Base Intermodal Container Transfer Facility North Charleston, 

South Carolina dated June 2018 (Final EIS) and the corresponding public notice (SAC-2012-

0960) dated June 29, 2018. The South Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of Public 

Railways d/b/a Palmetto Railways (Palmetto Railways), proposes to construct a state-of-the-art 

Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) at the former Charleston Naval Complex (CNC). 

The applicant is proposing compensatory mitigation for impacts to essential fish habitat (EFH). 

The Charleston District did not make an initial determination whether the proposed action would 

or would not have substantial individual or cumulative adverse impacts on EFH or federally 

managed fishery species. As the nation’s federal trustee for the conservation and management of 

marine, estuarine, and anadromous fishery resources, the NMFS provides the following 

comments and recommendations pursuant to authorities of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). 

Description of the Proposed Project

Palmetto Railways proposes to construct and operate an ICTF on a 135-acre site at the former 

CNC and undertake off-site roadway and rail improvements for a total of 231.28 acres. The 

facility would include processing and classification railroad tracks, wide-span gantry cranes, 

container stacking areas, administrative buildings, and vehicle driving lanes. The off-site 

infrastructure improvements would include building: (1) a private drayage road approximately 

one-mile-long connecting the ICTF to the Hugh K. Leatherman Sr. Terminal (HLT), (2) rail 

improvements to the north and south of the ICTF, and (3) several roadway improvements and 

modifications, including the construction of a new overpass. 

Project History

The NMFS completed a review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed 

Navy Base Intermodal Facility at the former Charleston Naval Complex, North Charleston, 

dated April 2016 (Draft EIS), and the corresponding public notice (SAC-2012-0960), dated April 

29, 2016. In response, by letter dated July 2016, NMFS recommended:

Appendix D

Page 62 of 67 
2 

1. The applicant should reduce the amount of fill proposed for salt marsh habitat. 

2. The project should include BMPs to reduce direct and indirect impacts to salt marsh and 

the Cooper River. 

3. The project should include a mitigation plan developed in coordination with the NMFS 

and resource agencies.

Essential Fish Habitat in the Project Area

Correspondence during 2016 regarding the Draft EIS summarized EFH in the project area, and 

the NMFS incorporates those summaries here by reference.

Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat 

Under the proposed project, the applicant would affect directly 15.84 acres of Waters of the U.S. 

by placing fill and/or shading activities, including 7.79 acres of tidal wetlands and 8.05 acres of 

freshwater wetlands. The majority of impacts to tidal salt marsh are associated with construction 

of the bridges for the Drayage Road. The largest impact to freshwater wetlands is associated 

with the southern rail connection. Tidal open waters would be directly impacted in six impact 

locations, with the largest impact occurring to tidally influenced ditches near the 

Hobson/Bainbridge Road realignment. 

Avoidance and Minimization 

The proposed project has changed since the Draft EIS stage, the applicant has incorporated 

measures in response to earlier NMFS conservation recommendations. Potential impacts to 

Noisette Creek have been reduced by reusing an existing bridge rather than construction of a new 

one. Potential impacts to Shipyard Creek have been reduced by the redesign of the Drayage 

Road including single ingress/egress at the Drayage Road Bridge, elimination of a flyover at the 

Port Access Road, and change from a two-way roadway to a one-lane divided roadway. The 

Final EIS has also identified a variety of avoidance and minimization strategies for EFH 

including environmental work windows for in-water construction activities, use of pile driving 

noise reduction techniques, in-water turbidity and sedimentation control measures, and plans to 

hire an on-site marine biologist during in-water construction activities to help avoid potential 

impacts.

Compensatory Mitigation 

For unavoidable impacts to freshwater wetlands, the applicant has proposed to purchase 86.3 

wetland mitigation credits from Pigeon Pond Mitigation Bank. For unavoidable impacts to EFH 

from the proposed project, the applicant has proposed a permittee-responsible mitigation (PRM) 

plan to restore and protect approximately 40.6 acres of tidal marsh at the former Kings Grant 

Country Club and Golf Course in North Charleston, Dorchester County. The PRM plan 

provided in the Final EIS is still conceptual in nature and the applicant indicates a fully 

engineered PRM plan will be submitted later for review. The NMFS believes the proposed 

conceptual PRM plan has potential as compensatory mitigation, but recommends the applicant 

replace the drainage system culverts located under the existing road with larger bottomless or 

embedded culverts wide enough to ensure natural tidal exchange throughout the site. In addition 

to the performance standards presented in the conceptual PRM plan, the NMFS recommends 

measures of nekton habitat utilization, relative to a reference site, be assessed as a means of 

evaluating success. Given the conceptual nature of the PRM plan, additional EFH conservation 

recommendations may be provided in the future after more details have been provided. 

Appendix D Page 63 of 67 
3 

EFH Conservation Recommendations 

Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the NMFS to provide EFH 

Conservation Recommendations for any federal action or permit which may result in adverse 

impacts to EFH. Therefore, the NMFS recommends the following to ensure the conservation of 

EFH and associated fishery resources:

1. The permittee-responsible mitigation plan should include improvements to the drainage 

system culverts located under the existing road to ensure natural tidal exchange 

throughout the site. 

2. The permittee-responsible mitigation plan should include nekton habitat utilization

performance standards, relative to a reference site.

 

Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and implementing regulation at 50 CFR 

Section 600.920(k) require the Charleston District to provide a written response to this letter 

within 30 days of its receipt. If it is not possible to provide a substantive response within 30 

days, an interim response should be provided. A detailed response then must be provided ten 

days prior to final approval of the action. The detailed response must include a description of 

measures proposed by the Charleston District to avoid, mitigate, or offset the adverse impacts of 

the activity. If the response is inconsistent with an EFH conservation recommendation, a 

substantive discussion justifying the reasons for not following the recommendation must be 

provided. 

The NMFS appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please direct related 

correspondence to the attention of Cindy Cooksey at our Charleston Area Office. She may be 

reached at (843) 460-9922 or by e-mail at Cynthia.Cooksey@noaa.gov. 

 Sincerely,

 / for

Virginia M. Fay 

Assistant Regional Administrator

 Habitat Conservation Division

cc: COE, Shawn.A.Boone@usace.army.mil 

DHEC, trumbumt@dhec.sc.gov 

SCDNR, DavisS@dnr.sc.gov 

SAFMC, Roger.Pugliese@safmc.net

EPA, Laycock.Kelly@epa.gov

FWS, Karen_Mcgee@fws.gov 

F/SER4, David.Dale@noaa.gov 

 F/SER47, Cynthia.Cooksey@noaa.gov 

Appendix D Page 64 of 67 
Appendix D Page 65 of 67 
Appendix D Page 66 of 67 
Appendix D Page 67 of 67