The project proposed by the SCSPA is to develop a marine container terminal at the south end of the Charleston Naval Complex (CNC), on the Cooper River, in Charleston Harbor, the City of North Charleston, Charleston County, South Carolina. The proposed terminal is designed to handle primarily containerized cargo. The marine container terminal development covers 288.1 acres and will support cargo marshalling areas, cargo processing areas, cargo handling facilities, and related terminal operating facilities.

Development of the site includes filling 13.9 acres of freshwater wetlands, and dredging and filling 53.5 acres of waters of the US, including 7.2 acres of tidal marsh. Adjacent to the dredge and fill area, a 10.3-acre wharf structure (3,000 feet long and 150 feet wide) will be constructed. In addition to the container terminal development, the project includes dredging an 86.7-acre berthing area and turning basin adjacent to the wharf. Upland disposal of dredged material is proposed in existing dredged disposal sites located on the south end of Daniel Island, located in the City of Charleston, Charleston County, South Carolina.

Based on the information provided in the SCSPA permit application, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has determined that it will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS will be prepared in two stages, a Draft EIS (DEIS) and a Final EIS (FEIS). Both of these documents will be circulated for public comment, and a public hearing will be held after the circulation of the DEIS. Ultimately, when the Corps is prepared to make a final decision on the application, we will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD).

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible for regulation of the waters of the United States which include essentially all surface waters such as navigable waters and their tributaries, interstate waters and their tributaries, wetlands adjacent to these waters, and impoundments of these waters. Any person, firm, or agency (including Federal, state, and local government agencies) planning to work in navigable waters of the United States, or dump or place dredged or fill material in waters of the United States, must first obtain a permit from the Corps. The following regulation describes the Corps' responsibilities.

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires approval prior to the accomplishment of any work in or over navigable waters of the United States, or which affects the course, location, condition, or capacity of such waters. Typical activities requiring Section 10 permits are:

• Construction of piers, wharves, bulkheads, dolphins, marinas, ramps, floats intake structures, and cable or pipeline crossings.

• Dredging and excavation.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires approval prior to discharging dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States. Typical activities requiring Section 404 permits are:

• Depositing of fill or dredged material in waters of the U.S. or adjacent wetlands.

• Site development fill for residential, commercial, or recreational developments.

• Construction of revetments, groins, breakwaters, levees, dams, dikes, and weirs.

• Placement of riprap and road fills.

When any applicant, in this case the SCSPA, applies to the Corps for a Department of the Army permit, the Corps evaluates the application in accordance with the policies and procedures that are established in the National Environmental Policy Act, which is commonly referred to as NEPA. This law is the “basic national charter for protection of the environment” and it contains provisions to ensure that federal agencies (the Corps, in this case) carry out the policies of the Act (NEPA) in accordance with its letter and spirit. NEPA also required the establishment of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which issued regulations that federal agencies must use to implement the Act.

These regulations instruct federal agencies on what they must do to comply with the process and procedures outlined in NEPA. One of the basic tenets of these regulations is that comprehensive information is made available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. This comprehensive information must be of high quality and contain accurate scientific analysis. There are two forms in which this information can be documented: an Environmental Assessment (EA) or a more in-depth Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Both of these documents must identify and evaluate the issues that are truly significant to the action in question. The process that leads to the preparation of these documents is called the NEPA process. Essential to the NEPA process are expert agency comments and public input. The NEPA process is intended to help public officials (in this case the Corps) make decisions that are based on an understanding of the environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment.

view NEPA Process Flowchart (pdf)

learn more about NEPA

visit EPA's NEPA website

One of the first ways that the public can participate in the NEPA process is called “scoping.” “Scoping” is an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. In order to ensure that everyone is heard and that there is open communication, the Corps will hold a formal “Public Scoping Meeting” on March 16, 2004. The purpose of the Public Scoping Meeting is for the public to provide input to the Corps on the scope of the issues to be addressed in the EIS; to identify the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts related to the proposed project; and to identify potential alternatives to the proposed project. This meeting is not a public hearing nor is it the proper forum to express broad-ranging opinions, either pro or con, about the proposed project. The sole purpose is to identify specific issues on which to focus during the development of the EIS.

The public’s input is essential to the NEPA process in identifying significant issues, offering relevant information based on personal experience or knowledge, and providing assistance in defining the scope of the EIS. Upon arrival at the Public Scoping Meeting, each attendee will be asked to complete an attendance card and indicate on that card whether they would like to make comments at the meeting. In addition to, or in lieu of, oral comments, you are welcome to bring written comments. Written comments will be accepted at the meeting and up to 30 days after the date of the meeting, or April 15, 2004. Information on how to submit written comments will be provided at the meeting and in the public notice. 

The formal Public Scoping Meeting will be held on March 16, 2004 in the Sterett Hall Auditorium, starting at 6 PM. The address is given below. Location maps and directions to Sterett Hall are included in the February 13, 2004 Local Public Notice Available at the “Documents” page of this website.

Public Notice of Scoping Meeting (pdf 120KB)

Sterett Hall

Building #180

Charleston Naval Complex

North Charleston, South Carolina

(Located at the corner of Hobson Avenue and Calumet Street)

The Corps will also hold an informal public “Information Workshop” before and during the Public Scoping Meeting so that we can share the information that we currently have and answer questions on the NEPA process. This “Information Workshop” will start at 5 p.m. also at Sterett Hall, and will continue during the formal Public Scoping Meeting.

Court reporters will be available in the Information Workshop starting at 5 p.m. and in the formal Public Scoping Meeting to record public comments regarding the proposed project and scope of the EIS. A sign language interpreter for the hearing impaired and a Spanish translator will be provided at the formal Public Scoping Meeting.

The Lead Federal Agency has the responsibility to solicit cooperation from other federal agencies that have jurisdiction by law or special expertise on any environmental issue that should be addressed in the EIS being prepared. Where appropriate, the lead agency should seek the cooperation of state or local agencies of similar qualifications.

After discussions with the candidate cooperating agencies, the lead agency and the cooperating agencies are to determine by letter or by memorandum which agencies will undertake cooperating responsibilities. To the extent possible at this stage, responsibilities for specific issues should be assigned. The allocation of responsibilities will be completed during scoping.

The Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) was invited and accepted to be a Cooperating Federal Agency because of the potential impacts to transportation from the construction of the proposed marine container terminal.

Cooperating agencies (i.e., agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise) and agencies that are authorized to develop or enforce environmental standards, must comment on environmental impact statements within their jurisdiction, expertise, or authority. If a cooperating agency is satisfied that its views are adequately reflected in the environmental impact statement, it should simply comment accordingly. Conversely, if the cooperating agency determines that a draft EIS is incomplete, inadequate or inaccurate, or it has other comments, it should promptly make such comments.

If the lead agency leaves out a significant issue or ignores the advice and expertise of the cooperating agency, the EIS may be found later to be inadequate. Similarly, where cooperating agencies have their own decisions to make and they intend to adopt the environmental impact statement and base their decisions on it, one document should include all of the information necessary for the decisions by the cooperating agencies. Otherwise they may be forced to duplicate the EIS process by issuing a new, more complete EIS or Supplemental EIS, even though the original EIS could have sufficed if it had been properly done at the outset. Thus, both lead and cooperating agencies have a stake in producing a document of good quality. Cooperating agencies also have a duty to participate fully in the scoping process to ensure that the appropriate range of issues is determined early in the EIS process.

The South Carolina State Ports Authority (SCSPA) has not submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) any plans or proposals for access roads. Therefore, the Corps must assume that existing roads will be used by truck traffic generated by the operation and construction of the proposed marine container terminal. In the February 13, 2003, SCSPA permit application amendment #1, the SCSPA references potential access corridor locations to be planned by the South Carolina Department of Transportation in conjunction with the State Infrastructure Bank, the South Carolina Public Railways Commission, and the Charleston Area Transportation Study (CHATS). Another reference to access corridors can be found in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Agreement between the City of North Charleston and the SCSPA:

"The SCSPA acknowledges the [City of North Charleston] requires that certain minimum infrastructure must be in place before the SCSPA commences container operations. This minimum infrastructure includes a truck access road leading from the Port facility 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."

The Corps will continue to assume that the SCSPA plans to utilize existing roads for truck traffic between the proposed facility and I-26 until a proposal is brought forward describing a specific plan. Furthermore, the Corps will determine the number of trucks that will be generated by the operation of the facility and the associated impacts to roads and neighborhoods in the area. 

The development of the EIS needs to a full, open process without relying on any single group to speak for the public as a whole. While a Citizens Advisory Committee could work well for a small localized community (like a specific neighborhood), the Corps does not want to be dependent on one group to successfully represent the public and to effectively distribute information evenly to every sector of the public.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District originally identified 59 potential alternative sites that were evaluated for their ability to meet the project purpose. The Corps gathered information about each of these sites and used a thorough screening process to select 6 alternatives that were considered both reasonable and practicable.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Corps is committed to gathering the information necessary to evaluate the State Ports Authority’s (SPA’s) permit application and to make a legally defensible permit decision. As the Corps continues to evaluate the proposed project and the remaining alternative sites, it is possible that other alternatives may be included or eliminated from further consideration.

Of the 59 potential alternative sites, 3 alternatives were located in Jasper County. Each of these 3 alternatives was located along the Savannah River, on the existing deepwater, federal navigation channel. However, after careful consideration, the Jasper County alternative sites were not included in the list of reasonable or practicable alternatives that will be evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Reasons for their elimination include the existing use of these sites as dredge disposal areas, impacts associated with providing infrastructure to operate a marine container terminal, and their inability to meet the applicant’s stated needs.

Recent press coverage of the January 18, 2005, SPA Board Meeting indicates that the SPA plans to attempt to acquire land in Jasper County for a new marine container terminal. The site that was discussed in the Post and Courier is one of the sites that the Corps considered during our alternative site screening process. However, the SPA has stated that a terminal in Jasper County would not meet their current needs in Charleston Harbor, which is to provide existing customers additional container capacity.

It is our understanding that vessels that call at the existing SPA facilities in Charleston Harbor primarily serve the Northern European trade lanes. According to the SPA, vessels that call at the existing Georgia Ports Authority’s marine container terminals on the Savannah River primarily serve the Asian (China) trade lanes. Therefore, the Corps believes that a Jasper County alternative site will not meet the needs outlined by the SPA. For the above mentioned reasons, a Jasper County alternative site is not included on the list of reasonable and practicable alternatives to receive detailed evaluation in the draft EIS.

The July 2004 PortEIS Newsletter identified 6 project alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative and the Proposed Alternative, that would receive detailed evaluation in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS):

• No-Action

• Single site: Charleston Naval Complex, South-End (Proposed Alternative)

• Single site: Daniel Island, Cooper River

• Single site: Clouter Island, South-End

• Combination: Drum Island and Expansion at North Charleston Terminal

• Combination: Charleston Naval Complex, North-End and Expansion at North Charleston Terminal

The alternative site locations identified above were selected because they were considered potential reasonable and practicable alternatives to the proposed project that may avoid or minimize impacts to the community and natural environment.

While developing the scope of work, the Corps gathered additional information on each of these project alternatives. This preliminary information was used by the Corps to develop conceptual terminal layouts that include land requirements, dredging requirements, and transportation infrastructure. These conceptual layouts were used to ensure that the scope of work will gather information necessary to properly evaluate the proposed project and each of the alternative sites.

As a result of the information gathered during the development of the scope of work the Corps has eliminated the Expansion at North Charleston Terminal and the Charleston Naval Complex, North-End from further consideration.

• Expansion at North Charleston Terminal (NCT) - The Corps originally evaluated an expansion at NCT because of pertinent comments that were submitted during the scoping phase that suggest existing facilities located immediately upriver or downriver could be incorporated into the existing marine container terminal. The Corps looked at both redeveloping a portion of the existing facility and the potential use of a portion of these adjacent properties. However, the Corps believes that the operation of the Mead-Westvaco finishing and packaging warehouses and the operation of TC Dock at the Naval Weapons Station by the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC) would prevent these adjacent properties from being incorporated into an expansion of the existing terminal. SDDC indicated that TC Dock plays a critical role in their power projection mission, and their long term outlook is for greater use of these existing facilities. The Corps eliminated NCT from the list of alternative sites because there is not sufficient available backland to develop a one berth expansion.

• Charleston Naval Complex (CNC) North-End – The combination of CNC North-End and the expansion at NCT was considered a potential reasonable and practicable alternative. Since the expansion at NCT has been eliminated, the Corps evaluated CNC North-End to determine if a three berth facility can be constructed at this alternative site. The Corps believes that the operation of the SPA’s existing break bulk facility (Veteran’s Terminal), land use constraints associated with existing site contamination, and the lack of available backland prevent CNC North-End from being considered a single site, three berth alternative. Therefore, the Corps eliminated CNC North-End from the list of alternative sites.

The combination of Drum Island and the expansion at NCT was also considered a potential reasonable and practicable alternative. Drum Island appears to have sufficient backland to construct a three berth alternative. Therefore, the Corps is continuing to gather information to determine if Drum Island should be evaluated in the Draft EIS as a single site, three berth alternative. The revised list of alternatives to be evaluated in the draft EIS is as follows:

• No-Action

• Charleston Naval Complex, South-End (Proposed Alternative)

• Daniel Island, Cooper River

• Clouter Island, South-End

• Drum Island