9 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY NEPA

Transcription

1 9 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY NEPA 9.1 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS, PLANS, POLICIES, AND REGULATIONS In accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section (c), analysis of environmental consequences shall include discussion of possible conflicts between the Proposed Action and the objectives of federal, regional, state and local land use plans, policies, and controls. Table identifies the principal federal and state laws and regulations that are applicable to the Proposed Action, and describes briefly how compliance with these laws and regulations would be accomplished. Table 9.1-1: Principal Federal and State Laws Applicable to the Proposed Action National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States (U.S.) Code [U.S.C.] section 4321 et seq.); Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR parts ; Navy procedures for Implementing NEPA (32 CFR part 775 and Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction [OPNAVINST] D) Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. section 7401 et seq.) Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. section 1251 et seq.) This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA, and Navy NEPA procedures. The appropriate public participation and review are being conducted in compliance with NEPA. Sections 3.4 and 6.4 (Air Quality) and impact analysis is in Sections 4.4 and 7.4 (Air Quality). The Proposed Action would not cause or contribute to a violation of any National Ambient Air Quality Standards or State Ambient Air Quality Standards. Emissions would be below the applicable General Conformity de minimis thresholds. The General Conformity Record of Non- Applicability is provided for NAS North Island in Appendix C. Sections 3.7 and 6.7 (Water Resources) and impact analysis is in Sections 4.7 and 7.7 (Water Resources). There would not be an increase of impervious surfaces at Naval Air Station (NAS) North Island as a result of the Proposed Action; therefore, no long-term impacts to stormwater quality would be expected. There would be an increase of impervious surfaces of 2.4 acres at NS Norfolk and proper post-construction stormwater management features would be incorporated into the project planning and site design to offset potential increases in runoff, to maintain the pre-project hydrology. When completed, the Proposed Action would not result in a net increase in stormwater volume and sediment or nutrient loading to area water bodies. 9-1

2 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 U.S.C. section 1451 et seq.) Section For NAS North Island, the Navy has determined that the Proposed Action, based on similar past actions and on the analysis presented in this EA, would have no effect on coastal use or resources of the State of California s coastal zone. The Navy consulted with the California Coastal Commission on this determination. During consultation with the Commission, the Navy reiterated its commitment to continued cooperation with the City of Coronado on planning efforts to monitor and, where feasible and practicable, examine ways to reduce effects of aircraft and traffic on residents, recreation, and wildlife. The Coastal Consistency Negative Determination and California Coastal Commission concurrence are provided in Appendix F. For Naval Station (NS) Norfolk, the Navy has determined, based on similar past actions and on the analysis presented in this EA, that the proposed federal agency action may have an effect on a coastal use or resource of the Commonwealth of Virginia s coastal zone and would be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the applicable enforceable policies of the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program. The Coastal Consistency Determination and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality concurrence are provided in Appendix F. 9-2

3 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (Section 106, 16 U.S.C. section 470 et seq.) Sections 3.9 and 6.9 (Cultural Resources) and impact analysis is in Sections 4.9 and 7.9 (Cultural Resources). There are no historic properties located within the area of potential effect (APE) for NAS North Island. Design and construction of the new hangar would take into account the architectural style of the installation in accordance with the Naval Base Coronado (NBC) Installation Appearance Plan for the Airfield Functional District. Although unlikely, it is possible that the remains of an unrecorded archaeological resource may be uncovered during ground disturbing activities associated with facility construction. Due to this potential archaeological sensitivity, the Commander of NBC would provide for archaeological monitoring of ground disturbing activities associated with facility construction, in accordance with Stipulation IX of the NBC Programmatic Agreement (PA). Therefore, the Navy makes a finding of no adverse effect on historic properties by the Proposed Action. Therefore, in accordance with Stipulation VIII-A of the NBC PA, NBC has satisfied its Section 106 responsibilities for the Proposed Action, and no further NHPA Section 106 review is required. Implementation of the undertaking in accordance with the finding as documented fulfills the Navy s responsibilities under Section 106. There are no historic properties located within the APE for NS Norfolk. Design and construction of the new hangar would take into account the architectural style of the adjacent historic properties, primarily the Naval Air Station Historic District, in accordance with the stipulations of the Regional PA. Therefore, the Navy makes a finding of no adverse effect on historic properties by the Proposed Action. In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the Navy initiated consultation with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, which acts as the State Historic Preservation Officer, federally recognized tribes, and interested parties, regarding its determination of effects for the Proposed Action (refer to Appendix E). The findings of the State Historic Preservation Office are included in Appendix E. Implementation of the undertaking in accordance with the findings as documented will fulfill the Navy s responsibilities under Section

4 Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. section 1531 et seq.) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. sections ) Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management Toxic Substances Control Act 3.6 and 6.6 (Biological Resources) and impact analysis is in Sections 4.6 and 7.6 (Biological Resources). The Navy has determined that the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the California least tern and the western snowy plover at NAS North Island; therefore, informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was conducted. A letter of concurrence from USFWS is included in Appendix D. For all other federally listed species identified with potential to occur within the action areas, the Navy has determined that the Proposed Action would have no effect. 3.6 and 6.6 (Biological Resources) and impact analysis is in Sections 4.6 and 7.6 (Biological Resources). Impacts to MBTA-protected species and their active nests would be avoided during construction. The Navy has determined that the Proposed action would result in the take of migratory birds through aircraft strikes at NAS North Island and NS Norfolk. However, these takes would not result in a significant adverse effects on a population of a migratory bird species. The Proposed Action is a military readiness activity; therefore, these takes are in compliance with the MBTA and the regulations authorizing incidental take of migratory birds from military readiness activities. Sections 3.7 and 6.7 (Water Resources) and impact analysis is in Sections 4.7 and 7.7 (Water Resources). No 100-year or 500-year floodplains are located within the boundary of the project areas for NAS North Island. Portions of the proposed taxiway expansion at NS Norfolk are within the 100-year floodplain. However, as the existing taxiway is located within the floodplain, no practicable alternative to development within the floodplain exists. In compliance with this EO, the taxiway expansion would be designed to minimize potential harm within the floodplain. Sections 3.10 and 6.10 (Hazardous Materials and Waste) and impact analysis is in Sections 4.10 and 7.10 (Hazardous Materials and Wastes). Management of any listed chemicals would be conducted in accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act. 9-4

5 Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Sections 3.10 and 6.10 (Hazardous Materials and Waste) and impact analysis is in Sections 4.10 and 7.10 (Hazardous Materials and Wastes). Management of any hazardous wastes would be conducted in accordance with the RCRA. Sections 3.10 and 6.10 (Hazardous Materials and Waste) and impact analysis is in Sections 4.10 and 7.10 (Hazardous Materials and Wastes). Construction/renovation would be conducted in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act. Sections 3.11 and 6.11 (Socioeconomics) and impact analysis is in Sections 4.11 and 7.11 (Socioeconomics). The Proposed Action would have no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations. Sections 3.11 and 6.11 (Socioeconomics) and impact analysis is in Sections 4.11 and 7.11 (Socioeconomics). The Proposed Action would not result in environmental health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. 9-5

6 EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments EO 13834, Efficient Federal Operations Note: Applies to both bases and alternatives. Sections 3.9 and 6.9 (Cultural Resources) and impact analysis is in Sections 4.9 and 7.9 (Cultural Resources). The Navy consults with federally recognized Indian tribes on actions with the potential to significantly affect protected tribal resources, tribal treaty rights, or Indian lands. In the case of NAS North Island, the Kumeyaay Indian Tribes are the federally recognized tribe. The 12 Kumeyaay Indian Tribes established a common consultation entity, the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee that is comprised of members representing each tribe and sanctioned by all 12 tribal governments to consult in their interests (Naval Facilities Engineering Command [NAVFAC], 2012). The Kumeyaay Indian Tribes did not identify any Traditional Cultural Properties at NAS North Island during consultation for the 2014 NBC PA. In the case of NS Norfolk, until the Pamunkey Indian Tribe of Virginia received federal recognition in January 2016, there had been no federally recognized Indian tribes located in the Commonwealth of Virginia. However, in the past, two federally recognized tribes have requested to review federal projects located in the Hampton Roads area: the Catawba Indian Nation and the United Keetoowah Band of the Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. The Navy sent letters to the Tribes on November 30, 2017, requesting information about any traditional cultural properties (refer to Appendix E). Responses from the Tribes are included in Appendix E. Regardless of the alternative implemented, the Navy would implement environmental management systems to ensure integrated, continuously improving, efficient, and sustainable practices in federal facility operation COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT Through the CZMA, Congress established national policy to preserve, protect, develop, restore, or enhance resources in the coastal zone. The CZMA encourages coastal states to properly manage use of their coasts and coastal resources, prepare and implement coastal management programs, and provide for public and governmental participation in decisions affecting the coastal zone. To this end, CZMA imparts an obligation upon federal agencies whose actions or activities affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone to be carried out in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of federally approved state coastal management programs. However, Federal lands, which are lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of the Federal Government, its officers, or agents, are statutorily excluded from the State s coastal uses 9-6

7 or resources. If, however, the proposed federal activity affects coastal uses or resources beyond the boundaries of the federal property (i.e., has spillover effects), the CZMA Section 307 federal consistency requirement applies. As a federal agency, the Navy is required to determine whether its proposed activities would affect the coastal zone. This takes the form of a consistency determination, a negative determination, or a determination that no further action is necessary Coastal Zone Management West Coast Fleet Logistics Center NAS North Island is located within the coastal zone of California. The California Coastal Commission is the lead agency for coastal management and is responsible for enforcing the State s federally approved coastal management plan. California s Coastal Management Program was established in 1978 to protect and manage California s coastal zone and the resources that lie within. The California Coastal Act, the foundation of the California Coastal Management Program, has six enforceable policies on which conservation and development decisions in the coastal zone are based: public access, recreation, marine environment, land resources, development, and industrial development. California s coastal zone is defined as the land and water area of the state extending seaward to the state s outer limit of jurisdiction, including all offshore islands, and extending inland generally 3,000 feet from the mean high tide line. Compliance with California s coastal zone management policies, to the maximum extent practicable, is accomplished and recorded through the development of a Federal Coastal Consistency Determination or a Coastal Consistency Negative Determination, which analyzes the Proposed Action and its effects to coastal resources, as outlined by California s enforceable coastal zone policies. The Navy has determined that the Proposed Action (Alternative 1 or Alternative 2) would have no effect on coastal use or coastal resources. The Navy consulted with the California Coastal Commission on this determination. During consultation with the Commission, the Navy reiterated its commitment to continued cooperation with the City of Coronado on planning efforts to monitor and, where feasible and practicable, examine ways to reduce effects of aircraft and traffic on residents, recreation, and wildlife. A copy of the Coastal Consistency Negative Determination and concurrence from the California Coastal Commission are provided in Appendix F Coastal Zone Management East Coast Fleet Logistics Center NS Norfolk is located within the coastal zone of Virginia. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) is the lead agency for coastal management and is responsible for enforcing the State s federally approved coastal management plan. The Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program was established in 1986 to protect and manage Virginia s coastal zone and the resources that lie within. The Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program has nine applicable enforceable policies: fisheries management, subaqueous lands management, wetlands management, primary coastal sand dunes management, point source pollution control, non-point source pollution control, shoreline sanitation, air pollution control, and coastal lands management. NS Norfolk is owned and operated by the Navy and, therefore, is excluded from the coastal zone. However, actions outside the coastal zone may affect land or water uses or natural resources within the coastal zone and, therefore, are subject to the provisions of the CZMA. The Navy has determined that the proposed federal agency action may have an effect on a coastal use or resource of the Commonwealth of Virginia s coastal zone and would be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the applicable enforceable policies of the Virginia Coastal Zone Management 9-7

8 Program. The Navy has consulted with VDEQ on this determination. A copy of the Coastal Consistency Determination and concurrence from VDEQ are provided in Appendix F. 9.2 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Resources that are irreversibly or irretrievably committed to a project are those that are used on a longterm or permanent basis. This includes the use of non-renewable resources such as metal and fuel, and natural or cultural resources. These resources are irretrievable in that they would be used for this project when they could have been used for other purposes. Human labor is also considered an irretrievable resource. Another impact that falls under this category is the unavoidable destruction of natural resources that could limit the range of potential uses of that particular environment. Implementing the Proposed Action would not result in significant irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. Implementation of the Proposed Action (Alternative 1 or Alternative 2) would involve irretrievable commitments of non-renewable and renewable resources. The Proposed Action would not cause the unavoidable destruction of natural resources. Proposed Action construction, demolition, and renovation activities would consume capital, human labor, fuels, and construction materials. The total amount of construction materials (e.g., concrete, insulation, wiring, etc.) required for the Proposed Action is relatively small when compared to the resources available in the regional areas of San Diego County, California, and Hamptons Roads, Virginia. The construction materials and energy required for construction and operations are not in short supply; their use would not have an adverse impact on the continued availability of these resources, and the energy resource commitment is not anticipated to be excessive in terms of region-wide use. All infrastructure upgrades would comply with EO 13834, Efficient Federal Operations and Chief of Naval Operation Instruction E. EO requires federal departments and agencies to enact specific actions and operations outlined within the EO to achieve environmental performance and federal sustainability by reducing energy use and cost. Pursuing clean sources of energy will improve energy and water security. Instruction E outlines the Secretary of the Navy s vision for shore energy management. The focus of this instruction is establishing the energy goals and implementing strategy to achieve energy efficiency. 9.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS This EA has determined that the alternatives considered would not result in any significant impacts. Implementing the alternatives would potentially result in negligible impacts to airspace, noise, safety, air quality, transportation, migratory birds, groundwater, surface water, utilities demand, hazardous materials/wastes, and socioeconomics. Potential future sea level rise may contribute to 100-year event flooding in a portion of the project areas. 9.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY NEPA requires an analysis of the relationship between a project s short-term impacts on the environment and the effects that these impacts may have on the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the affected environment. Impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment are of particular concern. This refers to the possibility that choosing one development 9-8

9 site reduces future flexibility in pursuing other options, or that using a parcel of land or other resources often eliminates the possibility of other uses at that site. In the short-term, effects to the human environment with implementation of the Proposed Action would primarily relate to the construction activity itself. Air quality and traffic would be impacted in the short-term. In the long-term, the Proposed Action would result in both short- and long-term environmental effects. However, implementing Alternative 1 or 2 is not expected to result in the types of impacts that would reduce environmental productivity, affect biodiversity, or narrow the range of potential long-term beneficial uses of the environment. 9-9