USCG Station Tybee NEPA EA_DRAFT 10092020.pdf

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

United States Coast Guard

United States Coast Guard

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT FOR THE USCG

STATION TYBEE STATION REBUILD

PROJECT

Cockspur Island, Chatham County, Georgia

Contract Number 70Z05019DARCADI01

Task Order Number 70Z05020FSTATYB00

October 9, 2020

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR

USCG STATION TYBEE REBUILD PROJECT ON COCKSPUR ISLAND GEORGIA

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in accordance with Environmental

Planning Policy, COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) and is in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (42 U.S.C. Sections 4321 to 4370h)) and the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations dated 28 November

1978 (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508).

This EA serves as a concise public document to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining the need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). This EA concisely describes the Proposed Action, the need for the proposal, the alternatives, and the environmental impacts of the proposal and alternatives. This EA also contains a comparative analysis of the action and alternatives, a statement of the environmental significance of the preferred alternative, and a list of the agencies and persons consulted during EA preparation.

__________________________ Environmental Engineer Level II Richard D. Hylton. P.E. Title/Position NEPA Warrant Program Document Preparer

I reviewed the EA and submitted my written comments to the Proponent.

________________________ Environmental Protection Specialist Level II Lesley-Dobbins-Noble Title/Position NEPA Warrant Program Environmental Reviewer

I reviewed the EA and submitted my written comments to the Proponent.

________________________ Environmental Protection Specialist Level III Dean Amundson Title/Position NEPA Warrant Program Senior Environmental Professional

In reaching my decision/recommendation on the Coast Guard’ Proposed Action, I considered the information contained in this EA and considered and acknowledge the written comments submitted to me from the Environmental Reviewer(s).

_______________________ Commanding Officer – Facilities Design & Construction Center Captain J.F. Barresi Title/Position Proponent

UNITED STATE COAST GUARD FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) FOR THE

USCG STATION TYBEE REBUILD PROJECT ON COCKSPUR ISLAND, GEORGIA

The Coast Guard proposes to recapitalize and rebuild hurricane-damaged facilities at USCG Station Tybee by constructing a new Multi-Mission Station Facility and demolishing existing onshore facilities. Also included in the

USCG proposal are repair of shoreline riprap at the Station and upgrade of existing water supply and wastewater treatment systems and the National Park Service (NPS) boat ramp on land beyond the Station compound at Fort

Pulaski National Monument.

Summary of the results of the environmental impact evaluation: The Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for this proposal presents the purpose and need for the action, the Proposed Action and its alternatives, a description of the affected environment and an analysis if direct, indirect and cumulative environmental consequences. Based on the findings of the EA, the Coast Guard concluded that no significant impacts would occur from implementation of the

Proposed Action.

Mitigation commitments (including monitoring), if any, that will be implemented to reduce otherwise significant impacts: No significant impacts have been identified.

This FONSI is based on the attached contractor prepared EA which has been independently evaluated by the Coast

Guard and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the Proposed

Action and provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an environmental impact statement is not required. The Coast Guard takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the attached contractor-prepared EA.

I reviewed the EA, which is the basis for this FONSI, and submitted my written comments to the Proponent.

________________________ Environmental Protection Specialist Level II Lesley-Dobbins-Noble Title/Position NEPA Warrant Program Environmental Reviewer

I reviewed the EA, which is the basis for this FONSI, and submitted my written comments to the Proponent.

________________________ Environmental Protection Specialist Level III Dean Amundson Title/Position NEPA Warrant Program Senior Environmental Professional

In reaching my decision/recommendation to implement the Coast Guard’s Proposed Action, I considered the information contained in this EA/FONSI and considered and acknowledge the written comments submitted to me from the Environmental Reviewer(s). Based on the information in the EA and this FONSI document, I agree that the

Proposed Action as described above and, in the EA, will have no significant impact on the environment.

_______________________ Commanding Officer – Facilities Design & Construction Center Captain J.F. Barresi Title/Position Proponent

Draft Environmental Assessment October 2020

USCG Station Tybee Station Rebuild Project i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES 1. Introduction

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (Public Law 91-190, 42 United States Code [U.S.C.] §4321 et.

seq.); the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of

NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§1500-1508); Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Management Directive 023-01-001-01 (series) Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act;

and United States Coast Guard (USCG) Commandant Instruction (COMDTINST) 5090.1, U.S. Coast

Guard Environmental Planning Policy; and The National Park Service (NPS) Director’s Order 12.

This EA evaluates the environmental effects of the USCG’s proposal to recapitalize and rebuild hurricane-damaged facilities at USCG Station Tybee (the Station; Proposed Action) and its alternatives. The information and analysis contained within this EA will determine whether implementation of the Proposed

Action would have a significant impact on the environment, requiring preparation of an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS). If no significant impacts would occur, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be appropriate.

ES.2 Scope of the Environmental Assessment

This EA evaluates the potential environmental effects of implementing the Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives. In accordance with NEPA and CEQ regulations, this EA considers two action alternatives – Rehabilitation Option 1 and Rehabilitation Option 2 (the Preferred Action Alternative) – for implementing the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative is also evaluated as required by CEQ regulations and COMDTINST 5090.1. Full descriptions of the two rehabilitation alternatives and No Action

Alternative are provided in Section 2.2.

ES. 3 Background

The USCG has prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental impacts from constructing a new

Multi-Mission Station Facility (hereafter referred to as the Multi-Mission Building [MMB]), demolishing selected existing onshore facilities, and all associated site work including repair of the riprap along the shoreline of Station Tybee. Collectively, these activities constitute the Proposed Action evaluated in this

EA. Construction of the MMB would replace multiple onshore buildings at Station Tybee that were substantially damaged during Hurricane Matthew in 2016 including the Station Building.

ES. 4 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to recapitalize and rebuild the Station to better accomplish its various missions. Implementation of the Proposed Action would equip the Station with modern facilities that comply with today’s standards and harden its infrastructure for future resiliency.

The Proposed Action is needed to create a station that fulfills the needs and requirements of the units that use the Station while addressing the issues and constraints that the units have experienced with the current facilities and hardening its infrastructure for future resiliency. Currently, station personnel must operate out of temporary facilities or those that do not meet USCG-prescribed hurricane resiliency requirements.

ii

ES.5 Proposed Action and Alternatives

The USCG’s Proposed Action consists of the following primary components:

1) At the Station Tybee compound, construct and operate a new, 26,000 gross square foot (GSF) MMB;

repair the stone riprap along the Station shoreline; complete major site work to include reconfiguring parking areas and internal Station roads; and make major upgrades to utilities.

2) Demolish existing facilities at Station Tybee that do not meet USCG and resiliency requirements and remove temporary office trailers at the station following completion of the proposed MMB.

3) Upgrade/replace the existing wastewater treatment system operated by the NPS in an area (Area A), located to the immediate southeast of the Station Tybee compound.

4) Upgrade the existing NPS boat ramp, including adding a floating dock, to accommodate USCG boats in an area (Area B) to the east of the Station Tybee compound.

5) Upgrade the existing potable water supply groundwater well system including constructing a new pump house (Area C).

ES.5.1 Action Alternatives

Each of the two action alternatives, described below, would include waterfront and shore infrastructure upgrades and/or replacements.

Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

Alternative 1 would demolish Station Building 101 (15,857 GSF) and support buildings (including Buildings

102, 109, and other buildings [total 23,096 GSF]) and replace them with an MMB designed and built to modern standards. Construction of a total of 26,000 GSF (replacing Building 101; adding boat storage;

and replacing Buildings 102, 109, and Aids to Navigation Team [ANT Tybee] Building) would satisfy the full Basic Facility Requirement (BFR) for Station Tybee and ANT Tybee functions combined. The USCG would improve the existing wastewater treatment system, if feasible, within the Station and realign parking and roads within the compound. Alternative 1 also includes major erosion repairs to the existing stone riprap along the shoreline of the Savannah River at Station Tybee. A new boat ramp would be constructed within the Savanah River to the east of the existing Station pier.

The new MMB building, to replace Building 101 and other buildings, would be re-constructed slightly to the west of the current location of Building 101, and the main entrance gate would be shifted slightly to the west to provide space for circulation and parking for trailered boats and shop operations. This would also include some associated pavement expansion and utilities extension.

During the construction period (estimated at 18 months to 2 years), temporary space would be provided in trailers on site and off site. With this alternative, Station Tybee would continue to use the existing land parcel but would not use the NPS boat ramp or wastewater treatment system, which are beyond the

Station compound boundaries and owned and operated by the NPS.

iii

Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2 (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 2 (the Preferred Alternative) would demolish and replace Station Building 101 (15,857 GSF) and support buildings, including Buildings 102, 109, and other buildings (total 23,096 GSF), and replace them with an MMB designed and built to modern standards. Construction of a total of 26,000 GSF

(replacing Building 101; adding boat storage; and replacing Buildings 102, 109, and ANT Tybee Building) would satisfy the full BFR for Station Tybee and ANT Tybee functions combined.

In contrast to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would:

Upgrade/replace the existing wastewater treatment system currently operated by the NPS in an area

(Area A) located to the immediate southeast of the Station Tybee compound;

Upgrade an existing NPS boat ramp to accommodate USCG boats in an area (Area B) to the east of

Station Tybee; and

Upgrade the existing potable water supply groundwater well system, including constructing a new pump house (Area C) and upgrading the existing gravel parking lot at the NPS picnic pavilion and the access drive thereto (Area C).

Under the terms of the Interagency Agreement (IAA), the USCG will upgrade the wastewater treatment system and use and maintain it and will upgrade and use the NPS boat ramp. The USCG will complete the improvements in Area B, and the NPS will operate and maintain them.

ES.5.2 No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would retain existing facilities (buildings and piers) for indefinite continued use with only routine repair and maintenance provided. No additional space would be constructed, and no major building renovation/repair would be performed. Although Station Building 101 requires significant structural repairs to extend its useful life, the cost of major renovation/repair of the building would well exceed 50 percent of its Plant Replacement Value, and the USCG previously determined that it is not cost-effective to attempt major renovation of this building; therefore, the No Action Alternative is deemed non-viable, as it does not meet the Purposed and Need.

ES.6 Agency Consultations and Public Involvement

Pursuant to the requirements of NEPA (40 CFR 1506.6), this EA is subject to public involvement.

Agencies, organizations, and members of the public with a potential interest in the Proposed Action were invited and encouraged to participate. The USCG will publish and distribute the Draft EA for a 30-day public review and comment period, which will be announced by a Notice of Availability published in the

Savannah Morning News and Savannah Tribune. Substantive comments received on the Draft EA during this 30-day review period will be addressed in the Final EA. Interagency and intergovernmental coordination is a federally mandated process for informing and coordinating with other governmental agencies regarding federal proposed actions. CEQ regulations require intergovernmental notifications before making any detailed statement of environmental impacts. A complete list of federal, state, and local agencies consulted for this EA is included in Section 6.0, and copies of relevant correspondence with those agencies are provided in Appendices A and B. Information and comments received from these agencies have been incorporated into this EA as appropriate. Native American tribes were also invited to participate in the NEPA and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 processes in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal iv

Governments. One federally recognized tribe, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, was invited to consult on this

EA. Copies of relevant tribal correspondence are provided in Appendix B.

A summary of the environmental impacts of each alternative is provided in Table ES-1. The analysis assumes that best management practices (BMPs) included as standard provisions of USCG contracts and developed during federal planning processes would be employed to avoid or minimize significant adverse effects on the environment. Implementing BMPs would ensure that the Proposed Action would avoid significant impacts or reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Table ES-1: Summary of Potential Impacts to Affected Environmental Resources

Environmental Resources

Sub-Category Alternative 1

Alternative 2

(Preferred

Alternative)

No-Action

Alternative

Land Use Negligible Negligible No Effect

Infrastructure & Utilities Adverse Beneficial, Long-term Adverse

Socioeconomics Beneficial;

Short-term

Beneficial;

Short-term No Effect

Recreational Facilities Minor Adverse;

Short-term

Minor Adverse;

Short-term No Effect

Soils Minor Beneficial;

Long-term

Minor Beneficial

Long-term Adverse; Long-Term

Climate and Air Quality Negligible.

Long -term

Negligible;

Long-term No Effect

Noise Negligible;

Short-term

Negligible;

Short-term No Effect

Hazardous Materials/Waste Negligible;

Short-term

Negligible;

Short-term No Effect

Biological

Resources

Terrestrial Vegetation No Effect No Effect

No Effect

Wildlife No Effect No Effect

No Effect

Migratory Birds No Effect No Effect No Effect

Threatened and

Endangered Species

Negligible;

Short-term

Negligible;

Short-term No Effect

Water Resources

Minor Adverse;

Long-term

Tidal Bottom: Minor

Beneficial;

Long-term

Water Quality:

Beneficial, Long-term

Floodplain

Minor Adverse;

Long-term

Tidal Bottom: Minor

Beneficial; Long-term

Water Quality: No

Effect

Floodplain

Minor Adverse;

Long-term

Water Quality v

Environmental Resources

Sub-Category Alternative 1

Alternative 2

(Preferred

Alternative)

No-Action

Alternative

Coastal Resources Negligible Minor, Adverse

Long-term No Effect

Cultural Resources Minor Adverse; Long-

Term

Minor Adverse;

Long-term No Effect

Cumulative Effects No Effect No Effect No Effect

Key:

Minor = An impact that is not significant, but one that cannot be safely disregarded.

Negligible = An impact that is so small or unimportant that it may safely be disregarded.

vi

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ i

Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... xiii

1 Purpose and Need for the Action

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Background

1.2.1 United States Coast Guard Mission

1.2.2 Station Tybee

1.2.3 ANT Tybee

1.2.4 CGC Pompano

1.2.5 Existing Facilities and Requirements

1.2.6 Fort Pulaski National Monument

1.2.7 Hurricane Matthew

1.3 Coastal Zone Applicability

1.4 Draft and Final Report Preparation

1.5 Agency and Public Involvement Process

1.5.1 Public Review

1.5.2 Agency Coordination/Consultation

1.6 Applicable Regulatory Requirements

2 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Description of the Proposed Action

2.2 Alternatives for Evaluation

2.2.1 Planning Process/Alternatives Development

2.2.2 Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

2.2.3 Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2 (Preferred Alternative)

2.2.4 No Action Alternative

2.3 Alternatives Examined but Eliminated from Further Analysis

2.4 Resources Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

2.4.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

2.4.2 Public Health and Safety

vii

2.4.3 Visual/Aesthetic Resources

3 Affected Environment

3.1 Land Use and Zoning

3.2 Utilities and Infrastructure

3.2.1 Infrastructure

3.2.2 Utilities

3.3 Socioeconomic Environment

3.3.1 Population and Demographics

3.3.2 Employment and Income

3.3.3 Housing

3.4 Recreational Facilities

3.5 Fire, Rescue, and Police Services

3.6 Physical Environment

3.6.1 Geology, Topography, and Soils

3.6.2 Climate and Air Quality

3.6.3 Noise

3.6.4 Hazardous Materials/Waste

3.7 Biological Resources

3.7.1 Vegetation

3.7.2 Wildlife

3.7.3 Migratory Birds

3.7.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

3.7.4.1 Federally Listed Species

3.7.4.2 State Listed Species

3.7.5 Essential Fish Habitat

3.8 Water Resources

3.8.1 Surface Waters

3.8.2 Groundwater

3.8.3 Wetlands

3.8.4 Floodplains

3.8.5 Coastal Resources

viii

3.9 Cultural Resources

3.9.1 Overview

3.9.2 Area of Potential Effect

3.9.3 Archaeological Resources

3.9.4 Historic Resources

4 Environmental Consequences

4.1 Land Use and Zoning

4.1.1 Environmental Criteria

4.1.2 Impacts from Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

4.1.3 Impacts from the Proposed Action (Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2)

4.1.4 Impacts from the No Action Alternative

4.2 Infrastructure and Utilities

4.2.1 Environmental Criteria

4.2.2 Impacts from Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

4.2.3 Impacts from the Proposed Action (Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2)

4.2.4 Impacts from the No Action Alternative

4.3 Socioeconomic Environment

4.3.1 Environmental Criteria

4.3.2 Impacts from Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

4.3.3 Impacts from the Proposed Action (Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2)

4.4 Recreational Facilities

4.4.1 Environmental Criteria

4.4.2 Impacts from Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

4.4.3 Impacts from the Proposed Action (Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2)

4.4.4 Impacts from the No Action Alternative

4.5 Geology, Topography, and Soils

4.5.1 Environmental Criteria

4.5.2 Impacts from Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

4.5.3 Impacts from the Proposed Action (Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2)

4.5.4 Impacts from the No Action Alternative

4.6 Climate and Air Quality

ix

4.6.1 Environmental Criteria

4.6.2 Impacts from Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

4.6.3 Impacts from the Proposed Action (Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2)

4.6.4 Impacts from the No Action Alternative

4.7 Noise

4.7.1 Environmental Criteria

4.7.2 Impacts from Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

4.7.3 Impacts from the Proposed Action (Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2)

4.7.4 Impacts from the No Action Alternative

4.8 Hazardous Materials/Waste

4.8.1 Environmental Criteria

4.8.2 Impacts from Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

4.8.3 Impacts from the Proposed Action (Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2)

4.8.4 Impacts from the No Action Alternative

4.9 Biological Resources

4.9.1 Environmental Criteria

4.9.2 Impacts from Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

4.9.3 Impacts from the Proposed Action (Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2)

4.9.4 Impacts from the No Action Alternative

4.10 Water Resources

4.10.1 Surface Waters

4.10.1.1 Environmental Criteria

4.10.1.2 Impacts from Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

4.10.1.3 Impacts from Proposed Action (Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2)

4.10.1.4 Impacts from the No Action Alternative

4.10.2 Groundwater

4.10.2.1 Environmental Criteria

4.10.2.2 Impacts from Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

4.10.2.3 Impacts from Proposed Action (Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2)

4.10.2.4 Impacts from the No Action Alternative

4.10.3 Wetlands

x

4.10.3.1 Environmental Criteria

4.10.3.2 Impacts from Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

4.10.3.3 Impacts from Proposed Action (Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2)

4.10.3.4 Impacts from the No Action Alternative

4.10.4 Floodplains

4.10.4.1 Environmental Criteria

4.10.4.2 Impacts from Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

4.10.4.3 Impacts from Proposed Action (Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2)

4.10.4.4 Impacts from the No Action Alternative

4.10.5 Coastal Resources

4.10.5.1 Environmental Criteria

4.10.5.2 Impacts from Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

4.10.5.3 Impacts from Proposed Action (Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2)

4.10.5.4 Impacts from the No Action Alternative

4.11 Cultural Resources

4.11.1 Environmental Criteria

4.11.2 Impacts from Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

4.11.3 Impacts from Proposed Action (Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2)

4.11.4 Impacts from the No Action Alternative

4.12 Cumulative Effects

4.12.1 Cumulative Impacts of Alternative 1: Rehabilitation Option 1

4.12.2 Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2: Rehabilitation Option 2)

4.12.3 Cumulative Impacts of the No Action Alternative

5 Comparison of Alternatives and Conclusions

5.1 Comparison of the Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives

5.2 Conclusion

6 List of Preparers

7 Consultation and Coordination

8 References xi

TABLES

Table ES-1: Summary of Potential Impacts to Affected Environmental Resources ..................................... iv

Table 1-1: Existing Shore Infrastructure

Table 1-2: BFR versus Existing Shore Infrastructure Summary

Table 1-3: Potential Federal, State, and Local Permitting Matrix

Table 2-1: USCG Facility Planning Advantages and Disadvantages of Alterative 1

Table 2-2 Ranking of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives and Current System

Table 2-3: USCG Facility Planning Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative 2

Table 2-4: USCG Facility Planning Advantages and Disadvantages of the No Action Alternative

Table 3-1: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP) Demographic Information 2019 ... 30

Table 3-2: U.S. Census Bureau PEP Ethnic Profile 2019

Table 3-3: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates Data Profile Employment/Income Rates

Table 3-4: U.S. Census Bureau PEP Housing Unit Data 2019 & ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profile

Vacant Housing 2018

Table 3-5: Attainment Status for Chatham County for Criteria Pollutants

Table 3-6: Protected Species with Suitable Habitat Near USCG Station Tybee

Table 3-7: EFH and HAPC Near USCG Station Tybee

Table 3-8: Coastal Resources Identified for the Project Area

Table 5-1: Summary of Potential Impacts to Affected Environmental Resources

Table 6-1: List of Preparers

Table 7-1: Consultation and Coordination List

FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Site Location Map

Figure 1.2: Project Location Map

Figure 2.1: Current Site Layout of Station Tybee

Figure 2.4 Proposed Water Supply System Upgrade Conceptual Layout

Figure 2.5 Proposed NPS Boat Ramp Upgrade Conceptual Layout

Figure 3.1: Mapped Soils in Project Area

Figure 3.2: Protected Species Habitat Map xii

Figure 3.3: Waters of the U.S

Figure 3.4: Floodplains ................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 3.5: Looking west toward Station Tybee (in right background) from Park Headquarters

APPENDICES

Appendix A Agency Consultation and Coordination Correspondence

Appendix B Section 106 Consultation and Native American Consultation

Appendix C Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination xiii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACS American Community Survey

ANT Aids to Navigation Team

AOR area of responsibility

APE area of potential effect

BFR Basic Facility Requirement

BMP best management practice

CAA Clean Air Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CEU Civil Engineering Unit

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CGC Coast Guard Cutter

CMP coastal management plan

CO carbon monoxide

COMDTINST Commandant Instruction

CMP coastal management plan

CPS ASEC Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey

CWA Clean Water Act

DHS Department of Homeland Security

E endangered

EA Environmental Assessment

EDDE Environmental Due Diligence Audit

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EP Execution Proposal

EPD Environmental Protection Division (GADNR)

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FOC Full Operational Capacity xiv

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

Fort Pulaski Fort Pulaski National Monument

GADNR Georgia Department of Natural Resources

GHG greenhouse gas

GPA Georgia Port Authority

GSF gross square feet

GSMM Georgia Stormwater Management Manual

HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern

IAA Interagency Agreement

IRMA Integrated Resource Management Applications µg/m3 microgram per cubic meter

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MHW mean high-water

MMB Multi-Mission Building

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MSA metropolitan service area

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS National Park Service

NRCS National Resource Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

O3 ozone

OCGA Official Code of Georgia

PAL Personnel Allotment List

PB Patrol Boat

PEP Population Estimates Program xv

PM10 and PM2.5 particulate matter

PP Planning Proposal ppm parts per million

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SAR search and rescue

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIP Stat Implementation Plan

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOF Statement of Findings

SUI space utilization index

T threatened

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S.C. United States Code

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VOC volatile organic compound

WOTUS Waters of the U.S.

1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

1.1 Introduction

This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the proposal by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and proposed alternatives to recapitalize and rebuild hurricane-damaged facilities by constructing a new

Multi-Mission Station Facility (hereafter referred to as the Multi-Mission Building [MMB]) and demolishing existing onshore facilities. Also included in the USCG proposal are repair of shoreline riprap, upgrade of existing water supply and wastewater treatment systems, and upgrade of the National Park Service

(NPS) boat ramp (the Proposed Action). Construction of the MMB would replace multiple onshore buildings damaged during Hurricane Matthew at Station Tybee (the Station) including the Station

Building. Personnel and functions at Station Tybee would be located in the new MMB upon its completion.

This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42

United States Code [U.S.C.] §§ 4321 et seq.); the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]

Parts 1500-1508); Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Management Directive 023-01001-01 (series)

I; and Coast Guard Commandant Instruction (COMDTINST) 5090.1, U.S. Coast Guard Environmental

Planning Policy, and NPS Director’s Order 12.

This EA has been completed to assist the USCG in making an informed decision on which alternative is appropriate for the recapitalization and rebuild of Station Tybee. The information and analysis contained within this EA will determine whether implementation of the Proposed Action would have a significant impact on the environment, requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If no significant impacts would occur, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be appropriate.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 United States Coast Guard Mission

The USCG employs approximately 38,000 active duty members and represents the seventh largest navy in the world. The USCG is a military service that is part of the DHS. In the past, however, upon a declaration of war or as directed by the U.S. Commander-in-Chief, the USCG has operated under the authority of the United States Navy and Department of Defense. USCG operations are divided into

Atlantic and Pacific commands, which are then subdivided into nine districts. Each district is further divided into sectors that are responsible for protecting inland waterways and coastal waters within the

U.S. exclusive economic zone or any waters within 200 nautical miles of the shoreline.

The U.S. maritime domain includes more than 95,000 miles of coastline and, over time, the USCG mission has evolved to encompass a variety of maritime services related to national defense, law enforcement (e.g., natural resources and counternarcotics operations), search and rescue (SAR), transportation, and waterways management, among others. In 2002, in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress approved the creation of the DHS. The DHS was designed to consolidate and coordinate domestic counterterrorism efforts, and the reorganization established the

USCG as the lead agency for maritime homeland security.

Station Tybee, assigned to Sector Charleston, USCG District 7, is located north of Tybee Island, Georgia, and east of downtown Savannah, Georgia. Figure 1.1 depicts the Site Location Map for Station Tybee.

The Station occupies an approximate 3.1-acre parcel of land under an Interagency Agreement (IAA) with the NPS, Fort Pulaski National Monument (hereinafter referred to as “Fort Pulaski”) on Cockspur Island.

Figure 1.2 shows the Project Location Map for Station Tybee and Areas A, B, and C (the areas where the

Proposed Action and alternatives would occur).

Station Tybee historically responds to approximately 250 SAR cases per year. Station Tybee is also host to both Aids to Navigation Team (ANT) Tybee and Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) POMPANO (WPB 87310), with different missions and areas of responsibility (AOR) as described in subsequent sections.

Figure 1.1: Site Location Map

Figure 1.2: Project Location Map

1.2.2 Station Tybee

Station Tybee (the Station) is located near the mouth of the Savannah River on Cockspur Island, Chatham County, Georgia. Cockspur Island is a small island located on the southern bank of the

Savannah River, west of the City of Tybee Island. The majority of Cockspur Island is within NPS Fort

Pulaski National Monument. Section 1.2.5 provides background information on Fort Pulaski. The onshore portion of Station Tybee exists on the approximate 3.1-acre parcel of land occupied and used by the

USCG under an IAA between the NPS and the USCG, which was signed by both agencies in March

2020. The IAA describes the stipulations regarding maintenance and improvements to USCG Station

Tybee and other Fort Pulaski property. Station Tybee operates and maintains one medium boat and three small boats for the support of the multi-mission USCG, as its specific responsibilities include, but are not limited to:

Provide SAR and support in accordance with Seventh Coast Guard District standard operation procedures and the SAR plan.

Maintain a state of military readiness guarding U.S. shores for DHS.

Provide resources for enforcement of federal laws and treaties and provide periodic support for other federal, state, and local agencies. Station Tybee will maintain a visible, aggressive Maritime Law

Enforcement profile in its AOR.

Support other USCG units as needed.

Provide support for local community services and organizations and be an active member of the community.

The AOR for Station Tybee is an area covering approximately 75 coastal miles seaward from St. Helena

Sound, South Carolina (32-27.5N 080-25.0W) to position 32-02N 079-54W; then southwesterly to position

31-18N 080-41W; then northwesterly to the southern tip of St. Catherine's Island (31-33N 081-11W). This includes miles of rivers, creeks, tributaries, and marshes.

Station Tybee has one 45-foot Response Boat-Medium II and three 29-foot Response Boat-Small II craft.

The Response Boat-Medium II is designed for multiple missions including SAR; law enforcement; drug and migrant interdiction; and port, waterway, and coastal security. The Response Boat-Small II is a multi-mission platform used for the full range of USCG missions including: SAR, vessel boarding team deployment and law enforcement missions, port security, drug and migrant interdiction, and environmental response operations.

The existing waterfront infrastructure includes the main pier, access pier, north floating dock for CGC

POMPANO, and south floating dock for small boats. The existing sizes of the waterfront facilities are sufficient for the operations at Station Tybee. Water depths at Station Tybee are sufficient to support operations.

1.2.3 ANT Tybee

ANT Tybee, located within the Station, is responsible for maintaining all federally owned buoys, day-boards, and other aids to navigation within its AOR. The ANT Tybee AOR extends along the full extent of coastal Georgia, the Savannah River, and eastern Georgia tributaries. ANT Tybee has one 25-foot

Trailerable Aids to Navigation Boat homeported at Station Tybee.

1.2.4 CGC Pompano

CGC POMPANO (formerly TARPON) missions include SAR, Maritime Law Enforcement boarding of commercial and recreational vessels, and port security. CGC POMPANO is located within the Station.

CGC POMPANO also is active in public affairs and hosts tours for local high schools and other organizations. CGC POMPANO’s AOR extends from the South Carolina/Georgia border southward to

Key West, Florida including all waters within the Sector Charleston AOR. The 87-foot Patrol Boat (PB) is homeported at Station Tybee, and CGC POMPANO also operates one small cutter boat (with trailer on site).

1.2.5 Existing Facilities and Requirements

Station Tybee, ANT Tybee, and CGC POMPANO currently operate out of a total of 23,936 gross square feet (GSF) of facility space including two primary buildings (101 and 109) and numerous smaller support facilities. Table 1-1 details the existing Station Tybee facilities based on the current Shore Facilities

Inventory. Station Building 101 houses the Station’s offices, galley and mess deck, training and conference space, duty berthing rooms, and other personnel support space. Shop Building 109 houses

Station Tybee shops, shop storage space, a fitness room, and other shop support spaces. It has a finished floor elevation of 15.94 feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988) and a roof peak elevation of

46.14 feet, which is approximately 36 feet above ground level. Construction of the ANT Tybee boat maintenance and storage building was completed in 2009 via a self-help initiative to relieve some of the congestion identified in the Problem Statement documented in Section 1.4.

Table 1-1: Existing Shore Infrastructure

Facility Number Facility Name Year Built Area (GSF)

101 Station Building 1983 15,857

102 Flammable Storage Building 1996 102

103 Recreation Pavilion 1993 629

109 Shops Building 1983 3,852

110 Hurricane Shed 1990 288

113 Grounds Maintenance Shed 1990 171

115 ANT Tybee Storage Building #2 2009 1,725

116 ANT Tybee Storage Building #1 2009 320

117 CGC POMPANO Storage Building 2000 840

121 Paint Locker - 84

RO1 Open Gen. Storage 68

Total GSF 23,936

A quantitative analysis of Basic Facility Requirement (BFR) versus existing assets is provided in Table 1-

2. Comparing the total BFR to the existing facilities at Station Tybee, the Station has less than 70 percent of the building space required to effectively support the mission. The mission and personnel growth since the establishment of Station Tybee has far exceeded the provision of facility space. Typical reasonable space utilization index (SUI) figures range from 0.95 (shortfall) to 1.15 (excess), and the capacities of all units at Station Tybee are below the reasonable SUI range.

Table 1-2: BFR versus Existing Shore Infrastructure Summary

Existing USCG Unit

Requirement

(BFR)

Existing

Infrastructure Gap SUI

STA Station Tybee 20,283 15,857 4,426 0.782

ANT Tybee 5,802 2,045 3,757 0.352

CGC TARPONPOMPANO 965 840 125 0.87

Total 27,068 18,742 8,308 0.69

Note: All units in square feet and gross floor area.

Station Tybee Building 101 (the largest building) presents the most serious problems with respect to long-term sustainability. It is in poor condition, especially regarding structural integrity. This building is a wood frame structure built on wood/steel trusses on a woodpile foundation, making it vulnerable to adverse impacts from local environmental conditions and natural events such as Hurricane Matthew. Much of the land mass along the north and west shores of Cockspur Island was built up with dredge spoil during the

1880s (Alexander 2008). Station Building 101 has experienced settling over the years, which has resulted in required installation of numerous jacks to counteract the settling. Additionally, because the air conditioning constantly runs during the summer, the system requires frequent servicing and mold removal. Station Tybee Building 101 also lacks a wet room and a space sufficient for all-hands gatherings.

As a result of poor living conditions in duty-berthing rooms, a rehabilitation project was executed in 2006.

During project execution, numerous deficiencies were discovered including deteriorating floor trusses, sub-floors and floors, doors and frames, and exterior handrails and railings. The restroom facilities on the first deck were also found to be in disrepair, failing to meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards.

From an operational standpoint for Station Tybee personnel/mission, covered small boat maintenance space is a space deficiency of high priority. Shop Building 109 is structurally sound but is poorly configured for daily operations. Work bays were originally designed as auto garages and do not provide sufficient overhead clearance for accommodating small boat maintenance.

The more recently completed ANT Tybee boat storage and maintenance building is sufficient to accommodate two boats, but shop space and storage space are not all collocated and are inadequately sized. Also, vehicular accessibility to the boat bay and maneuvering of boats on trailers is difficult due to existing physical constraints. Permanent storage and additional file storage space is needed.

As stated on the 2019 Department of Defense DD 1391 Form included in the EP, the Station is currently operating at less than Full Operational Capability (FOC) due to the damages sustained and the current condition of the shore facilities and waterfront infrastructure (USCG, 2019). These structures have reached or exceeded their service life, which was exacerbated by storm damage and deterioration.

Damaged waterfront riprap/structures allow scouring to produce sinkholes and subsidence to station property, which has to be continually repaired. Recent Civil Engineering Unit (CEU) inspections (March

2019) have rated the structures as mostly in poor condition.

1.2.6 Fort Pulaski National Monument

Fort Pulaski National Monument is located west of Tybee Island, Georgia and consists of 5,623 acres of land on Cockspur and McQueen’s Islands (Figure 1.3). The Fort was constructed in the 19th century as part of a protective chain of forts built to protect the eastern seaboard cities from attack by the British, French, and Spanish. Fort Pulaski is a historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The park contains a range of significant historical and natural resources. Of the 5,623 acres, nearly 5,000 acres are composed of tidal salt marsh that provides habitat for shellfish and juvenile fish species.

Recreational visitation to the park has averaged approximately 339,000 individuals annually since 1995, and the typical peak visitation period is April through July (NPS 2013). The purposes of Fort Pulaski

National Monument are to:

Preserve and protect the 19th century masonry fort and its associated structures, and interpret its roles in coastal fortifications, military technology, and the Civil War.

Preserve and protect other military structures, other governmental structures, and archeological resources associated with various military developments and fortifications on Cockspur Island.

Preserve and protect approximately 5,000 acres of nearly pristine salt marsh on McQueen’s and

Cockspur Islands that constitute the largest portion of the national monument and interpret this important coastal ecology for the education, inspiration, and enjoyment of the visitor.

1.2.7 Hurricane Matthew

Hurricane Matthew made landfall on October 8, 2016 as a Category 1 hurricane just south of

McClellanville, South Carolina, in the Cape Romain Wildlife Sanctuary. The maximum storm surge measured by a tide gauge was 7.70 feet above normal tide levels at a National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) National Ocean System gauge at Fort Pulaski. The storm produced upwards of 12 inches of rain along the coast and winds of up to approximately 88 miles per hour at landfall (NOAA et al.

2017).

Figure 1.3: Fort Pulaski National Monument

1.3 Coastal Zone Applicability

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to recapitalize and rebuild the Station to better accomplish its various missions. Implementation of the Proposed Action would equip the Station with modern facilities that comply with today’s standards and harden its infrastructure for future resiliency.

The Proposed Action addresses a need to create a station that fulfills the needs and requirements of the units that use the Station while addressing the issues and constraints that the units have experienced with the current facilities and hardening its infrastructure for future resiliency. Currently, station personnel must operate out of temporary facilities or those that do not meet USCG-prescribed hurricane resiliency requirements. The issues and constraints are discussed in Section 1.4, Need for the Action.

1.4 Draft and Final Report Preparation

Station Tybee is a multi-mission USCG Station, constructed in 1983, which has since added personnel and has seen deterioration in the facilities. In May 2008, District Seven initiated a Problem Statement outlining the operational constraints encountered by the unsatisfactory facilities. In 2019, an Execution

Proposal (EP) was implemented, which identified that the Station is currently operating at less than FOC due to damages sustained and the current condition of the shore facilities and waterfront infrastructure.

These structures have reached or exceeded their service life, which was exacerbated by storm damage and deterioration. The shore facilities do not meet mission requirements as outlined above for the following reasons:

Station Tybee was originally constructed for a Personnel Allotment List (PAL) of 25; the current PAL stands at approximately 55, which includes nearly 40 active-duty personnel assigned to Station

Tybee, an additional 11 to 12 assigned to CGC POMPANO, and six personnel assigned to ANT

Tybee. The PAL for Station Tybee could increase to 45 for active-duty personnel in the future if current plans are approved. This increase in PAL from initial establishment of the Station has caused insufficient facilities and makeshift offices and shops to be constructed. Overcrowding has hindered mission readiness and the productivity of the units at Station Tybee. There are also approximately 30 reservists assigned to Station Tybee. The deficiencies resulted in the submission of an official

Problem Statement to Replace Station Tybee in May 2008. CG-81 approved the Problem Statement in July 2008 for the recapitalization or relocation of Station Tybee. An EP to rebuild facilities at Station

Tybee was prepared in May 2019 pursuant to the USCG Civil Engineering Manual (COMDINST

M11000.11B) and the Shore Facilities Standards Manual (COMDISNT M11012.9, Vol 1).

When Station Tybee was originally constructed, it was assigned three small boats. Now, Station

Tybee is assigned three small boats plus one medium boat in addition to ANT Tybee small boats and

CGC POMPANO’s 87-foot Coastal PB and small boat. This has caused overcrowding for boat mooring and trailer parking. There is no boat ramp on site, and small boats must be transported to a boat ramp on Lazaretto Creek at Tybee Island. While this ramp is adequate in size and location for mission support, a ramp on site would be preferable. However, the rapid Savannah River currents make this option difficult for launching/retrieving small boats without some adjacent floating dock to facilitate control of these vessels. Larger vessels, such as the 41-foot utility boat and CGC

POMPANO, cannot be trailered and are dry docked at area shipyards when in need of out-of-water maintenance.

The work bays and shops were originally designed for auto repair and do not have sufficient overhead space for boat maintenance. This causes all boat maintenance to occur outdoors. Working outdoors decreases the quality of the maintenance, as Cockspur Island is subject to excessive heat, rain, and insects.

The Main Station Building (Building 101) is a wood frame structure built on wood/steel trusses on a woodpile foundation, which is not appropriate for the local environmental conditions. The building has deteriorated since the time of construction, and deficiencies continue. Additionally, the roof of the

Station Building was damaged during Hurricane Matthew and resulted in the growth of mold, making the second floor uninhabitable and unusable. The trailers between the Station Building and the road are currently used as living quarters for the officers (to replace currently unusable space on the second floor of the Station Building). There is a need to provide permanent living quarters and other required space.

Station Tybee is vulnerable to future hurricanes and high-water events, both due to its location within the floodplain and because of the material condition of the buildings. There is a need make the

Station resilient, which includes repairing the riprap along the Station shoreline that was damaged during Hurricane Matthew to reduce vulnerability to future hurricanes and to upgrade the water supply system, which provides potable water to the Station. The resiliency principles include, but are not limited to, mitigation measures against flooding, storm surge, or exposure as well as other appropriate safeguards to protect shore facilities, waterfront infrastructure, and critical systems – including distribution systems for supporting utilities (e.g., water/sewer/drainage, electricity, information technology).

The current sanitary wastewater system is overtaxed by demand and would require approximately two times more septic system capacity to meet current demands. In addition, the infiltration rates indicate that the current system cannot provide the Georgia Department of Public Health required 24-hour retention for the maximum day demands, does not properly filter pollutants, and could allow quick leaching into the shallow groundwater table (PHE-BAKER JV, LLC. 2020).

1.5 Agency and Public Involvement Process

Pursuant to the requirements of NEPA (40 CFR 1506.6), this EA is subject to public involvement.

Consideration of the views and information provided by all interested persons promotes open communication and enables better decision-making. Agencies, organizations, and members of the public with a potential interest in the Proposed Action, including minority, low-income, and disadvantaged groups, are encouraged to participate. A record of public involvement, agency coordination, and Native

American consultation associated with this EA is provided in Appendix A. A complete list of agencies and individuals consulted during preparation of this EA is included in Section 6.0.

1.5.1 Public Review

The USCG, as the proponent of the Proposed Action, will publish and distribute the Draft EA for a 30-day public review and comment period, as announced by a Notice of Availability published in the Savannah

Morning News and Savannah Tribune. The Draft EA will be made available for public review online.

Substantive comments received…