ATTACHMENT 1.6 NEPA EA Finding of No Significant Impact.pdf
PDF 153 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 1305M324R0067
About this file
This document is a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the proposed demolition and replacement of Building #3 at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) Lake Michigan Field Station (LMFS) facility.
The proposed action involves demolishing the existing Building #3, removing unstable soils, installing a new foundation, and constructing a new 4,500 to 5,000 square foot laboratory building within the existing footprint. The NEPA EA analyzed the potential environmental impacts of three action alternatives and a no-action alternative, finding no significant impacts in areas such as land use, air quality, water resources, cultural resources, and cumulative effects. Recommended mitigation measures include best management practices for soil erosion control, minimizing construction emissions and noise, and adhering to historic preservation standards. The FONSI concludes the proposed action would not significantly affect the human environment.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ENVIRONMNETAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
FOR THE PROPOSED NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
BUILDING #3 REPLACEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Purpose and Need
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), Great Lakes Environmental Research Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), operates the Lake Michigan Field Station (LMFS) in western Michigan. The mission of the GLERL field station is to promote and conduct long-term observations, field work, and freshwater process studies essential for understanding and developing future ecological practices and decision-making.
A recent facility condition assessment has determined that Building #3 has been undergoing gradual internal deformation, creating tripping hazards and uneven flooring. The space within the current facility is also undersized and inefficient given its current and continuing use as a marine laboratory and repository for marine specimen storage. The proposed action would remedy serious structural deformities and other challenges caused by foundation subsidence, and consolidate space for laboratory work and specimen storage at LMFS to better meet its administrative, office, maintenance and other storage functions. In addition, electrical and HVAC systems have little or no capacity for future expansion of laboratory work. A replacement for Building #3 would provide an efficient, hazard-free work space that would complement the surrounding GLERL campus of buildings, garages, storage areas and grounds.
Proposed Action
NOAA is proposing to do the following: demolish and remove Building #3’s structure and interior foundation slabs; remove 556 cubic yards (CY) of unstable dune soils beneath the existing interior foundation slabs; install a replacement foundation inside the existing perimeter foundation; and construct a new 4,500 to 5,000 square feet (SF) laboratory building within the existing footprint of 2,500 SF.
Alternatives Considered
Action Alternative 1 would provide a new 5,000 SF wood-frame, two-story structure that would sit on the existing building exterior foundation footprint. Action Alternative 2 would provide a new pre-engineered metal, 2-story structure placed on the existing building foundation footprint.
Action Alternative 3 would provide a new wood-frame, single-story structure placed on the existing building foundation and cantilevers out to provide square footage needed to meet a minimum space requirement of 4,500 SF. All Action Alternatives would provide for architectural consistency with nearby structures, including Building #1.
No Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative is a condition in which LMFS Building #3 is not replaced or removed. The existing operations at this structure would continue indefinitely until a change is required in response to eventual degradation of the structure and its habitability.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
NOAA prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the proposed action in conformance with procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The document adheres to requirements of NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the NEPA (April 2016) and the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A.
Based on an evaluation of the proposed action’s effect on the human environment, it was determined that no significant impacts would result.
The EA analyzed the following topics:
• Land Use
• Geological Resources
• Air Quality
• Water Resources
• Recreational Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Flora and Fauna
• Wetlands
• Floodplains
• Coastal Zone
Management
• Farmlands
• Noise
• Transportation
• Utilities and Solid Waste
• Visual Resources
• Hazardous Materials
• Environmental Justice
• Cumulative Impacts
No anticipated environmental impacts were identified in relation to the No-Action Alternative.
Table 1 summarizes the anticipated environmental impacts to environmental resources identified in the Final EA for each action alternative and any mitigation measures required to support this Finding of No Significant Impact.
Table 1 Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation
Resource Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation
Land Use Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Geological Resources Action Alternative 1:
Less than significant Action Alternative 2:
Less than significant Action Alternative 3:
Less than significant
Action Alternative 1:
Best management practices would be utilized for soil erosion control.
Action Alternative 2:
Best management practices would be utilized for soil erosion control.
Action Alternative 3:
Best management practices would be utilized for soil erosion control.
Air Quality Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
Standard and customary BMPs during construction should be applied to minimize construction-related emissions.
Action Alternative 2:
Standard and customary BMPs during construction should be applied to minimize construction-related emissions.
Action Alternative 3:
Standard and customary BMPs during construction should be applied to minimize construction-related emissions.
Water Resources Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Recreational Resources
Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Cultural Resources Action Alternative 1:
Less than significant Action Alternative 2:
Less than significant Action Alternative 3:
Less than significant
Action Alternative 1:
Adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
Action Alternative 2:
Adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
Action Alternative 3:
Adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
Flora and Fauna Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Wetlands Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Floodplains Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Coastal Zone Management
Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Farmlands Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Noise Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
Reduce construction equipment and vehicle idling times. Provide advanced notice to occupants of nearby NSA that construction activity is expected to occur. Ensure that construction equipment and vehicles feature factory-approved engine combustion exhaust mufflers and other noise control or sound abatement and that these features are properly maintained or are otherwise in good working order.
Action Alternative 2:
Reduce construction equipment and vehicle idling times. Provide advanced notice to occupants of nearby NSA that construction activity is expected to occur. Ensure that construction equipment and vehicles feature factory-approved engine combustion exhaust mufflers and other noise control or sound abatement and that these features are properly maintained or are otherwise in good working order.
Action Alternative 3:
Reduce construction equipment and vehicle idling times. Provide advanced notice to occupants of nearby NSA that construction activity is expected to occur. Ensure that construction equipment and vehicles feature factory-approved engine combustion exhaust mufflers and other noise control or sound abatement and that these
Transportation Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Utilities and Solid Waste
Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Visual Impacts Action Alternative 1:
Minor Action Alternative 2:
Minor Action Alternative 3:
Minor
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Hazardous Materials Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
Apply appropriate erosional control measures and dewatering of the construction site.
Action Alternative 2:
Apply appropriate erosional control measures and dewatering of the construction site.
Action Alternative 3:
Apply appropriate erosional control measures and dewatering of the construction site.
Environmental Justice Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended
Cumulative Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations state that the determination of significance using an analysis of effects requires examination of both context and intensity, and lists ten criteria for intensity (40 CFR 1508.27). In addition, NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, Section 6.01(b) 1 – 11, provides eleven criteria, the same ten as the CEQ Regulations and one additional for determining whether the impacts of a proposed action are significant. Each criterion is discussed below with respect to the proposed action and considered individually as well as in combination with the others.
1. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to cause both beneficial and adverse impacts that overall may result in a significant effect, even if the effect will be beneficial?
No. The proposed project is not expected to result in a significant effect. The EA analyzes associated environmental consequences of the proposed project based on established standards and criteria. Analyses for each of the following topics and resource areas were undertaken: Land Use, Geological Resources, Air Quality, Water Resources, Recreational Resources, Cultural Resources, Flora and Fauna, Wetlands, Floodplains, Coastal Zone Management, Farmlands, Noise, Transportation, Utilities and Solid Waste, Visual and Aesthetic Resources, Hazardous Materials, Socioeconomics, and Cumulative Impacts.
2. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to significantly affect public health or safety?
No. Public health and safety effects are not expected to be significant. NOAA will ensure that Building #3 is demolished and replaced in a manner consistent with all applicable federal, state and local laws pertaining to hazardous materials handling, storage, transportation and disposal, including (but not limited to) relevant laws pertaining to asbestos and lead-based paint.
3. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in significant impacts to unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas?
No. There are no historic or prime farmlands, critical dunes, wetlands or wild and scenic rivers on the project site. The GLERL facility is situated on the shore of Lake Michigan in a designated critical dune area (CDA), but not located within a designated high risk erosion area or ecologically sensitive area. The project footprint would not change from the existing Building #3 foundation. However, a Part 353, Sand Dunes Protection and
Management permit under the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, is required for the removal and construction of new structures in a CDA. A Soil Erosion and Sediment Control permit and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit are also required.
Wetlands were not identified on the Michigan or National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, and no wetlands were observed within the project area during the field visit. Lake Michigan and the connecting channel between Lake Michigan and Muskegon Lake are adjacent to the site. The Action Alternative does not propose work beneath the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Lake Michigan and/or in adjacent wetlands. Should the need arise to excavate below the OHWM, a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will be obtained.
Thus, there would be no significant effects to ecologically sensitive areas, including parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, rivers, lakes or CDAs.
4. Are the proposed action’s effects on the quality of the human environment likely to be highly controversial?
No. The proposed action would involve demolishing and replacing Building #3 inside the existing perimeter foundation.
The EA analyzes the effects of the proposed action on the human environment. A draft of this document was circulated and made available for public review. NOAA accepted comments on the draft during a formal 30-day public comment period beginning February 28, 2018 and ending March 30, 2018. No highly controversial topics were raised during the comment period.
5. Are the proposed action’s effects on the human environmental likely to be highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks?
No. The anticipated effects of the proposed action on the human environment are evaluated the EA based on conceptual plans and worst-case conditions.
6. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration?
No. The project consists of a stand-alone facility that is limited in scope and extent. It would neither be a catalyst or precedent for other future actions by NOAA or others that would result in significant effects, nor would it influence a future action under consideration.
7. Is the proposed action related to other actions that when considered together will have individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts?
No. The proposed action is not reliant upon or connected to other actions, nor is it relied upon for the occurrence of other actions. For each of the subject areas analyzed in the EA, the contribution of the proposed project to a cumulatively significant impact is not considerable, provided the recommended mitigation measures are implemented.
Therefore, the proposed action will not result in a significant cumulative impact to the human environment.
8. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to adversely affect districts, sites highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.
No. The proposed action alternatives are not expected to result in significant impacts to unique characteristics of the geographic area. None of the buildings in the project area are within the limits of a state or City of Muskegon Historic District or are individually listed in local registers.
Building #1 was built in 1905 and rehabilitated; it was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 2004, and currently retains sufficient integrity for listing in the NRHP. To retain the integrity of Building #1, the improvements to Building #3 will be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, particularly the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Thus, no impact would occur to Building #1 during construction and operation of Building #3.
SHPO was consulted per Section 106 of NHPA. A packet containing cultural resources information was sent to them on March 20, 2018. SHPO determined there to be no adverse effect on historic properties and sent a concurrence letter to NOAA with the condition that the construction “will not result in restricted or limited public access to the Muskegon South Pierhead Light and piers.”
9. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on endangered or threatened species, or their critical habitat as defined under the Endangered Species Act of 1973?
| 4798_001 |
| Final FONSI GLERL signed |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .