Alabo Street Wharf: 7-13-26

July 13, 2026

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New Orleans District (CEMVN)
7400 Leake Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70118

RE: (Second) Objection to Finding of No Adverse Effect on Historic Properties, with Conditions — Section 106 Consultation, Alabo Street Wharf Rehabilitation/Transloading Facility, New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana (Permit No. MVN-2007-04294-ENP)

Dear Army Corps of Engineers:

Louisiana Landmarks Society objects to the Corps' refusal to consider the reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the undertaking at the Alabo Street Wharf. The undertaking directly enables the partially funded Phase 2, which carries severe adverse effects of its own, as demonstrated in the previously submitted Revitalization Plan. The Corps' Finding of No Adverse Effect on Historic Properties rests entirely on permit conditions governing the rail line — and by imposing those conditions, the Corps has already acknowledged the strong potential for adverse effects. That acknowledgment alone warrants full Section 106 and NEPA review, not a finding that treats the risk as fully resolved by permit language on rail usage.

Those permit conditions are also incompatible with Phase 2. If, in the course of permitting Phase 2, the Corps alters or discards the very conditions that underlie this Finding of No Adverse Effect — which we submit is not merely reasonably foreseeable but inevitable — our concerns about the insufficiency of this Section 106 consultation will be proven correct.

Phase 1 and Phase 2 are not separate undertakings; the Revitalization Plan documents them as sequential, dependent phases, with Phase 1 building the rail and wharf infrastructure Phase 2 is designed to expand. Yet neither Sunrise's letter, ELOS Environmental, LLC’s (ELOS) letter, State Historic Preservation Office’s (SHPO) letter, nor the Corps' determination acknowledges this connection. Both Sunrise and ELOS analyze Phase 1 in isolation, treating the rail conditions as permanent rather than an interim configuration that Phase 2 will require revisiting. This omission is the central flaw running through both submissions, addressed below first as to Phase 1 on its own terms, then as to how the Phase 1/Phase 2 connection compounds each defect.

I. Public Involvement

A. The Phase 1 record does not satisfy 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(d) on its own terms.

Sunrise and ELOS both conflate their own applicant-run outreach with the Corps' independent obligation to inform the public and seek comment. The hundred-plus emails, calls, and briefings cited in both letters responded to Sunrise, not to any outreach by the Corps; an applicant-run meeting is not a substitute for an agency-hosted forum where the public can question the decision-maker, which is what SHPO's May 29, 2026 letter contemplated and what commentors have repeatedly requested. Nor do the roughly 300 comments on the broader permit application establish adequate consultation on this specific effects determination — those comments addressed a different forum and question. Most of those comments were an explicit request for a public meeting — a request the Corps ignored — and nothing suggests that the commentors understood themselves to be weighing in on a specific determination of effects finding.

ELOS's own footnote concedes that the Preservation Resource Center — a major consulting party — never received the initial Area of Potential Effect (APE) proposal and could only comment after the boundary was already set. The few letters the Corps did send, starting with one that simply asked for comments on an already-established APE, never reached many neighborhood leaders and prior commentors. That supports, rather than refutes, the commentors' view that this process was pre-determined and abbreviated. And treating the Holy Cross Neighborhood Association (HCNA) as representative of "the public" ignores the fact that much broader opposition exists from parties whose views the HCNA doesn't necessarily channel — a distinction Sunrise's own letter implicitly concedes by treating "opposition engagement" as a separate outreach category.

B. The unacknowledged Phase 1/Phase 2 connection compounds the defect.

The public that participated was never told — and neither letter discloses — that the rail and dust conditions at issue are only the first stage of a larger, connected development plan. A consultation record that withholds that connection cannot satisfy § 800.2(d) as to the undertaking's true, reasonably foreseeable scope: the public cannot meaningfully comment on conditions when the full future impacts are not disclosed.

II. Grain Material Impacts

A. The Phase 1 modeling does not establish no impact, even standing alone.

Ramboll's dispersion modeling addresses regional ambient-air compliance against EPA's Secondary Standards — a different question from the localized, cumulative deposition of fine grain dust onto porous historic masonry, ironwork, and wood over years. Sunrise's own letter concedes the modeling predates full implementation of the mitigation system, so there is no real-world data confirming actual dust levels, only a prediction that they "should be even lower." The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) exemption reflects a de minimis regulatory threshold for criteria pollutants, not an evaluation of deposition-based deterioration of historic fabric, and neither letter cites any materials-conservation study specific to the district's brick, ironwork, or wood.

B. The modeling fails to account for additional emission sources, including idling ship engines.

Ramboll's modeling addresses grain-handling emissions but neither letter says whether it also captures exhaust from vessels idling at berth — a separate, chemically distinct emissions source with its own particulate and staining characteristics on porous historic material. Nor does either letter address other emissions sources associated with wharf operations, such as truck and railcar idling, onsite generators, or heavy equipment used in loading and transfer — each with its own emissions profile and deposition characteristics distinct from grain dust. Nothing in the record states how many vessel calls the modeling assumes, how long vessels or vehicles are expected to idle, what fuel types or engine tiers will be used, or whether onsite equipment emissions were modeled at all. A modeling exercise that addresses grain dust alone, without quantifying these additional sources, cannot support a finding of no adverse effect on historic fabric. If the Corps intends to rely on Ramboll's modeling, the record must first establish the full scope of emissions sources — and correct that gap for any source, including idling vessels, that is missing.

C. There is no enforcement mechanism or penalty for exceeding the modeled limits.

Critically, neither letter identifies any enforcement mechanism or penalty if actual emissions — from grain handling or idling vessels — exceed Ramboll's modeled levels. Sunrise's voluntary monitoring stations are described only as a public-facing transparency measure, with no obligation to act if readings run high, and no indication that they even intend to monitor vessel-idling emissions. A monitoring system with no consequence for a violation is an observation deck, not a safeguard. If the Corps intends to rely on these limits for its finding, they must become enforceable permit conditions — with independent, continuous monitoring, defined thresholds tied to the levels Ramboll represented as protective, separate provisions covering idling-vessel emissions and permitted idling duration, along with any other reasonably foreseeable environmental issues, and clear penalties and escalation paths for exceedances.

D. The unacknowledged Phase 1/Phase 2 connection compounds the defect.

The de minimis findings LDEQ and Ramboll relied on were calibrated to Phase 1 output alone. Phase 2 necessarily brings much greater and more intense environmental impact — more vessel calls, more idling exposure — none of which the current modeling accounts for or even acknowledges. A facility whose emissions profile will foreseeably change cannot rely on a Phase 1 exemption to show historic surfaces stay protected "over the life of the Project," and any monitoring framework adopted now must be built to catch that transition, not just deviations within the

Phase 1 baseline.

III. Rail Reintroduction

A. The Phase 1 rail analysis is inadequate even on its own terms.

Reactivation of the decades-old dormant rail spur doesn't make resuming daily freight service risk-free. The corridor hasn't seen regular service in over a generation — long enough for residents to reasonably expect their peaceful quality of life to continue. Reintroducing daily operations would be a real disruption to them, regardless of the track's pedigree. ELOS's vibratory analysis models one locomotive pass at 10 mph and finds vibration below the 80 VdB annoyance and, often, the 65 VdB perception threshold — but that single-pass modeling doesn't address the cumulative fatigue of daily, repeated vibration on already-fragile historic mortar, plaster, and foundations, a different engineering question from an acute-damage benchmark. ELOS's response to HCNA — that locomotive vibration is the "highest" expected level — addresses peak amplitude only and ignores that a full train's differing frequencies can affect fragile materials differently regardless of which component peaks highest.

B. There is no enforcement mechanism or penalty for exceeding the permit conditions governing vibration, speed, and rail operations.

The permit conditions Sunrise and ELOS rely on — one train, ten cars, 10 mph, daytime only, flagged crossings — are permit commitments with no monitoring protocol, inspection regime, or penalty for noncompliance. Compliance depends on Norfolk Southern, which is not a party to this process and has made no commitments on this record. The horn-cessation framework under 49 C.F.R. § 222.33 requires flaggers at every crossing on every pass; absent an established Quiet Zone under § 222.35 — which Sunrise only offers to "coordinate" toward, not commit to. Horns remain legally required whenever that condition isn't met, and nothing identifies who monitors compliance or what happens if a flagger fails to appear for any reason, or if any other condition is violated. If the Corps relies on the 10 mph limit, ten cars, flaggers, and its VdB modeling for its finding, monitoring of these must be an enforceable permit condition, not an assumption, with defined thresholds and a point at which a violation triggers direct Corps intervention and defined penalties.

C. The unacknowledged Phase 1/Phase 2 connection compounds the defect — and here the compounding is

severe, because it is the permit conditions themselves that Phase 2 will require the Corps to unwind. ELOS and Sunrise's entire vibratory and noise analysis is calculated against one operational profile — one train, ten cars, 10 mph, daytime only. Phase 2, by the applicant's own documented plans, requires materially greater throughput than that profile can support: more frequent and potentially longer trains, different speeds or hours. Neither letter acknowledges this coming change or how the current monitoring framework would adjust to it. If the Corps modifies these conditions for Phase 2, the modeled 64.44 VdB reading at 100 feet, the sub-75 VdB dissipation at 14 feet, and § 222.33 horn-cessation eligibility all cease to describe the corridor's actual operation. A Finding of No Adverse Effect rests on conditions the Corps will predictably alter. Therefore, it isn't a finding about reasonably foreseeable effects; it is a finding about a transitional state the record shows won't last, monitored and enforced by no one.

IV. The Determination Forecloses Any Means of Mitigation

A finding of no adverse effect is not a neutral procedural formality — it is the mechanism that determines whether affected parties get any seat at the table at all. Section 106 consultation exists specifically to give residents and preservation stakeholders a means to secure enforceable protections before a project proceeds. Once the Corps determines that an undertaking has no adverse effect, that process closes: there is no further consultation, and no avenue through which residents of the Holy Cross Historic District can obtain monitoring, thresholds, or remedies for the grain dust, vessel emissions, and rail vibration impacts described above.

This is why the defects identified in this letter cannot be dismissed as technical quibbles. If the Corps affirms this determination on the present record, it will close off the only process through which affected residents could have secured the independent monitoring, defined thresholds, and real penalty structure that neither Sunrise's nor ELOS's letter provides. Residents will be left with promises voluntarily made by the applicant, revocable at the applicant's discretion, and no regulatory backstop if those promises are broken. A determination that forecloses mitigation without ever meaningfully evaluating the need for it does not satisfy the Corps' obligations under Section 106 — it forecloses them.

Conclusion and Request

Sunrise and ELOS fail to demonstrate no adverse effect even within Phase 1 alone: the public-involvement record substitutes applicant-run outreach for genuine agency consultation, the air-quality analysis addresses regional compliance rather than material-specific deposition and omits idling-vessel emissions entirely, and the vibration analysis addresses a single pass rather than cumulative fatigue. These defects are compounded by the total absence of any enforcement mechanism for the limits both letters rely on. A permit condition without monitoring and a consequence for violation is a promise with no backstop. And because a Finding of No Adverse Effect, with Conditions, closes off the only process through which residents could obtain enforceable mitigation, affirming this determination on the present record does not just misjudge the impacts — it forecloses any means of addressing them.

Accordingly, we request that any permit conditions adopted include, at minimum:

1. Mandatory, independently conducted continuous air-quality monitoring tied to the PM10/PM2.5 limits Ramboll represented as protective, including monitoring and disclosure of idling-vessel emissions and the fuel type, engine tier, and expected idling duration assumed for those vessels;

2. Mandatory continuous vibration monitoring tied to the VdB limits ELOS represented as safe, including at the edge of the 100-foot buffer; and

3. A defined enforcement pathway under which any violation triggers direct Corps investigation and management — including suspension of the exceeded conditions — rather than leaving enforcement to the applicant's discretion or after-the-fact litigation.

Finally, and independently: Phase 1 and Phase 2 are connected phases of one development plan, not isolated undertakings, and the Corps' findings nowhere acknowledge that. Under 36 C.F.R. § 800.5, the Corps must consider an undertaking's reasonably foreseeable effects, including permit conditions being altered once Phase 2 requires changes incompatible with them.

Until the Corps (1) fulfills its outreach obligation to the public — especially to those who have previously commented — and genuinely seeks comment; (2) establishes enforceable monitoring and penalty provisions for the air-quality (including idling-vessel emissions) and vibration limits it relies on; and (3) directly addresses the Phase 2 connection and its effect on this finding's durability, the No Adverse Effect determination cannot be affirmed as sufficient under Section 106.

We look forward to participating in a full Section 106 review of this undertaking.

Sincerely,

Sandra L. Stokes

James R. Logan, IV

cc: Nancy J. Brighton, Deputy Federal Preservation Officer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, nancy.j.brighton@usace.army.mil

Colonel Scotty Autin, USACE Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Scotty.Autin@usace.army.mil

Elliott N. Carman, Deputy Federal Preservation Officer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory and

Tribal Affairs, elliott.n.carman.civ@army.mil

Kelly Fanizzo, General Counsel, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, kfanizzo@achp.gov

Rachel Mangum, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, rmangum@achp.gov

Christopher Daniel, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, cdaniel@achp.gov

Carrie Broussard, Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer, cbroussard@crt.la.gov

Nicole Hobson-Morris, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, nmorris@crt.la.gov

Betsy Merritt, Deputy General Counsel, National Trust for Historic Preservation, emerritt@savingplaces.org

Christopher Cody, Associate General Counsel, National Trust for Historic Preservation, ccody@savingplaces.org

Helena Moreno, Mayor, City of New Orleans, mayor@nola.gov

Louis Pomes, Parish President, St. Bernard Parish, mcampo@sbpg.net

Bette Perez, President, Holy Cross Neighborhood Association, betteperez@comcase.net

Elliot Robinson, Holy Cross Neighborhood Association, elliot.robinson888@gmail.com

Julie Jones, President, Neighbors First for Bywater Association, jjones@uno.edu

MaryNell Nolan Wheatley, Preservation Resource Center, mnolanwheatley@prcno.org

Clara Potter, Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, cpotter2@tulane.edu

Devin Lowell, Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, dlowell@tulane.edu

Lisa Jordan, Lower 9th Ward Neighborhood Association, lower9na@gmail.com