B_USCG Fort Wadsworth Housing NEPA CATEX.pdf

USCG WADSWORTH HOUSING PROJECT

NEPA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

SIGNED - February 1, 2022

USCG DSS ONLINE NEPA SYSTEM USED

DSS ID- USCG - 2021 - 13081

Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Decision Support System

Fort Wadsworth Housing Project - Project Approved

Status

In Preparation (09/01/2021)

Pending Review (09/07/2021)

Environmental Review (01/31/2022)

Senior Environmental Review (02/01/2022)

Proponent Review (02/01/2022)

Project Approved (02/01/2022)

Project Information

General Name: Fort Wadsworth Housing Project

DSS ID: DSS-USCG-2021-13081

Security: Unclassified Description: The project is intended to right-size the family housing with an appropriate combination of units and improve conditions. The project addresses structural, architectural, mechanical, occupant welfare, and code issues associated with the existing units, which were constructed in 1990 by the Navy. The Housing Requirements Analysis provides the requirements of the bedroom count and total number of units. The Planning Proposal (PP) evaluated three alternatives: 1) renovate current apartments, 2) build new apartment buildings, or 3) build new townhomes.

Building new townhomes involves demolishing the remaining 20 apartment buildings and replacing them. Conceptual plans include construction of about 30–31 new 2- or 3-story buildings, with 2–6 townhomes each (see attached notional layout; new buildings are shown as gray polygons with blue outline). The final design and number of buildings and units will depend on layout and space, but the new structures would stay within the USCG housing complex footprint and would be similar to the existing structures in character, size, and scope. Phase 1 construction starts March 2023 and lasts 18 months (demolish 6 buildings/construct 42 townhomes). Two to three additional (18-month each) phases would follow.

In addition to new construction, the project includes demolition and site clearing, underground utilities and roads, garages/parking, two overflow parking lots (shown as light gray/hatched polygons with blue outline on the attached notional layout), sidewalks, street lighting, and landscaping of new construction. The project also includes reconfiguring segments of the perimeter fence along the southeastern and southern boundary of the housing complex to close access at USS Tennessee Road and add a security gate for emergency access on USS North Carolina Road near the public walkway of Fort Wadsworth. The existing community center, many

Fort Wadsworth Housing Project (Unclassified)

Page 1 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM of the existing roads, and other parts of the complex (e.g., tot lots) would remain.

Critical Infrastructure?: No Adopting Another Agency Catex Determination?: No Project Types:

· Construction & Maintenance - New construction upon, or improvement of land where - the structure and proposed use are substantially in compliance with prevailing local planning and zoning standards; the site is on heavily developed property and/or located on a previously disturbed site in a developed area; the proposed use will not substantially increase the number of motor vehicles at the facility; and the site and scale of construction are consistent with those of existing, adjacent, or nearby buildings (*E2, USCG *L14)

· Construction & Maintenance - Demolition and disposal of buildings, structures, or fixtures

(*E4, USCG *L21)

Existing EA/EIS?: No Requires EA/EIS?: No Project Priority: Normal Federal Assistance: No Type of Permit: N/A Estimated Project Cost: $40,000,000

Component Component: USCG - U.S. Coast Guard Region/Area: USCG Shore Infrastructure Logistics Center

Dates FY Funding: 2021 Proposed Project Start: 03/01/2023 Proposed Project End: 09/01/2027 Review Start: 09/01/2021

Project Location

Site Specific: USS Tennessee Road, Staten Island, New York, 10305

Team

Document Preparer, Joanna Skaredoff, joanna.m.skaredoff@uscg.mil

Environmental Reviewer, Karen Ladd (Level III), karen.Ladd@uscg.mil

Collaborator-Environmental Review, Elizabeth Kirkpatrick (Level I), elizabeth.l.kirkpatrick@uscg.mil

Senior Environmental Reviewer, Michael Andrews (Level I), michael.andrews@uscg.mil

Proponent, Eric Para, Eric.G.Para@uscg.mil

Categorical Exclusions

Page 2 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM

1.

2.

3.

4.

E2* - New construction upon or improvement of land where all of the following conditions are met:

(a) The structure and proposed use are compatible with applicable Federal, tribal, state, and local planning and zoning standards and consistent with federally-approved state coastal management programs,

(b) The site is in a developed area and/or a previously-disturbed site,

(c) The proposed use will not substantially increase the number of motor vehicles at the facility or in the area,

(d) The site and scale of construction or improvement are consistent with those of existing, adjacent, or nearby buildings, and,

(e) The construction or improvement will not result in uses that exceed existing support infrastructure capacities (roads, sewer, water, parking, etc.).

Required Conditions

Obtain and implement a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for stormwater discharges from construction activities, as required.

Prepare and implement an Inadvertent Discoveries Plan/Unanticipated Discoveries Plan (IDP/UDP).

The IDP/UDP shall specify an archeological monitoring program to be conducted by a qualified archeologist during ground-disturbing demolition and construction activities. The archeological monitor shall have authority to stop work in the event of an inadvertent discovery. The archeological monitor shall have experience in the Middle Atlantic region and with soils and coastal dynamics.

The IDP/UDP shall reference the Stockbridge-Munsee Community’s inadvertent discovery policy

(see document labeled “2021-1207 Stockbridge-Munsee to USCG-response w-IDP”). The IDP/UDP shall specify timely notification be provided to applicable key contacts in the event of an inadvertent discovery of human remains or cultural materials. The IDP/UDP shall contain a contact list with key contacts to be notified in the event of an inadvertent discovery, including New York State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO), Delaware Nation, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Shawnee Tribe, Shinnecock Indian Nation, and Stockbridge-Munsee Community (see Cultural Resources Key

Contacts List attachment).

If active bird nests (e.g., nests containing eggs or chicks) are observed in the project area, contact your servicing environmental staff (e.g., Civil Engineering Unit Providence Environmental

Management Branch) to confirm the appropriate measures to avoid impacts on migratory birds or other protected species. The location of the nests may need to be avoided until chicks have fledged.

Notify the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Delaware Nation, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Shawnee Tribe, Shinnecock Indian Nation, and Stockbridge-Munsee Community (see

Key Contacts List attachment) of any material scope changes (e.g., changes that affect the level and location of ground disturbance). Such a scope change may require additional environmental review and consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

Page 3 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM

5.

6.

7.

8.

Coordinate with the National Park Service regarding any utility connection and level of service changes that will be required (e.g., water, electricity, gas, telecommunications). A substantial change to the level of service requirements for utilities for the new townhomes compared with the existing apartments represents a change in scope and requires additional environmental review.

Contract award for the project is contingent on the USCG having achieved proper resolution of any objection from the New York State Department of State (NYDOS) regarding the USCG’s determination that the project will not result in coastal effects. Prior to contract award, the

Contracting Officer must contact Karen Ladd, Environmental Protection Specialist with the Shore

Infrastructure Logistics Center (SILC) Environmental Management Division (EMD) at karen.ladd@uscg.mil to confirm that any objections from the NYDOS are properly resolved. The

USCG provided notification and negative determination of coastal effects to the New York Coastal

Management Program at the NYDOS on January 31, 2022. NYDOS concurrence with the negative determination shall be presumed if the New York Coastal Management Program at the NYDOS has not responded within 60 days of the notification. If NYDOS responds with a timely objection, additional time may be required to resolve it.

Any change to the Proposed Action that may cause a physical interaction with the human environment will require re-evaluation for compliance with NEPA and other EP&HP requirements before the action can proceed.

This review addresses NEPA and other EP&HP requirements as described in DHS Directive 023-01.

This review may identify the need for additional federal, state, and/or local permits, approvals, etc.

required for the Proposed Action. However, this review may not satisfy those requirements and the

Proponent is responsible for ensuring that all other appropriate federal, state, and/or local permits, approvals, etc. have been obtained.

Decision Documents

Record of Environmental Consideration (REC), 15.38kB

Attachments

Additional Project Description, 515.21kB

Comments

There are no comments.

EPHP Review

Environmental Resources

Page 4 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM

Is the Proposed Action a piece of a larger action or connected to another action? -- No

Please explain how you came to this determination. : Rebuilding the housing at Fort Wadsworth is a standalone project not connected to any other action. The project may be conducted in phases, and all phases are considered to be part of the project.

Will the Proposed Action have a potentially significant effect on public health or safety? Areas to consider include, but are not limited to: environmental justice considerations; air quality; noise impacts; hazardous wastes and/or contamination; wastewater; potable water; and changes in modes or safety of transportation. -- No

Explain how the proposed action would not have a potentially significant effect on public health or safety. : The project entails rebuilding the existing housing area at Fort Wadsworth in a substantially similar configuration and resulting in similar density of people and vehicles. Demolition and construction would be relatively short duration and would be conducted using standard safety and environmental measures.

Would the proposed action place a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on minority populations and low-income populations? -- No

Will the Proposed Action have a potentially significant effect on species or habitats protected by the

Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and

Golden Eagle Protection Act, or Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act? --

No

Provide a conclusion under which statute the determination was made (e.g., no effect, NLAA, LAA, for ESA, etc.), how the determination was made, why it is considered significant, and copies of any consultation (informal and/or formal). : The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint. No tree or brush removal would be done. No work would be done in the water.

There would be no effect under the ESA; one ESA-listed threatened species (piping plover, Charadrius melodus) may be present nearby along the shoreline, but is not expected to be present within the project area. No eagles are expected to be present within the project area. Some migratory birds may be present in the vicinity of the project, but they are generally shore birds that are not expected to nest within the project area, and the project does not involve tree or brush removal.

Attachments: FWS, NMFS, or Wildife Agency Consultation: (No files uploaded yet.)

What is your Endangered Species Act (ESA) finding and determination? -- No effect

Explain how the determination was made (e.g., are species present in the area but your proposed action will have no effect? why?). Although not required, recommend attaching any consultation or correspondence conducted.: The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint. There would be no effect under the ESA. One ESA-listed threatened species (piping plover, Charadrius melodus) may be present nearby along the shoreline, but is not expected to be present within the project area.

Attachments: ESA consultation: (No files uploaded yet.)

Page 5 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM

What is your Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) finding and determination? -- No effect or negligible effect

Explain how the determination was made (e.g., are species present in the area but your proposed action will have no effect or negligible effects? why?). Although not required, recommend attaching any consultation or correspondence conducted.: The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint. No work would be done in the water.

Attachments: MMPA consultation: (No files uploaded yet.)

Would the proposed action adversely affect a species protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act or Migratory Bird Treaty Act or habitat for such species? -- No

Explain how the determination was made (e.g., are species present in the area but your proposed action will have no adverse effect or no significant effect? why?). Although not required, recommend attaching any consultation or correspondence conducted.: The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint and similar to the existing structures in character, size, and scope. No tree or brush removal would be done. No eagles are expected to be present within the project area. Some migratory birds may be present in the vicinity of the project, but they are generally shore birds that are not expected to nest within the project area.

Attachments: BGEPA MBTA consultation: (No files uploaded yet.)

What is your Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (essential fish habitat) finding and determination? -- No effect

Attachments: EFH consultation: (No files uploaded yet.)

Will the Proposed Action have a potentially significant effect on an environmentally sensitive area?

Examples include, but are not limited to: areas having special designation or recognition such as prime or unique agricultural lands, coastal zones, designated wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, 100-year floodplains, wetlands, sole source aquifers, Marine Sanctuaries, National Wildlife

Refuges, National Parks, National Monuments, etc. -- No

Special Flood Hazard Area (i.e. floodplains) -- N/A

Explain why this resource is not applicable to your proposed action (e.g. is your proposed action located entirely within a building and no resources are present?): The project site is within Zone X

(area of minimal flood hazard).

Jurisdictional wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. -- N/A

Explain why this resource is not applicable to your proposed action (e.g. is your proposed action located entirely within a building and no resources are present?): No wetlands are present within the project site.

Coastal Barrier Unit -- N/A

Explain why this resource is not applicable to your proposed action (e.g. is your proposed action located entirely within a building and no resources are present?): The project is not within any system unit of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS).

Page 6 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM

Coastal Zone Management Area -- Costal Zone Management Area present

Explain why the proposed action would not significantly impact these resources. : The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint. The USCG reviewed the New York

State Coastal Management Program (CMP) rules and determined the project is consistent with the enforceable policies and would not have coastal effects. The USCG provided notification and negative determination of coastal effects to the New York Coastal Management Program at the New

York State Department of State on January 31, 2022.

Attachments: CZMA consultation: 2022-0131 USCG-NYDOS CZMA neg det letter (2022-0131 Ft

Wadsworth USCG Housing CZMA letter.pdf, 2.18MB)

Section 10 navigable waterway -- N/A

Explain why this resource is not applicable to your proposed action (e.g. is your proposed action located entirely within a building and no resources are present?): The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint and does not impact waterways.

Sole Source Aquifers and Wellheads -- N/A

Explain why this resource is not applicable to your proposed action (e.g. is your proposed action located entirely within a building and no resources are present?): The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint. It is not located over a sole source aquifer and does not affect wellheads. The replacement housing would serve the same number of people in the same area, and would continue to be served by city water.

Prime Farmland -- N/A

Explain why this resource is not applicable to your proposed action (e.g. is your proposed action located entirely within a building and no resources are present?): The project is in an urban area and no prime farmland is present in the project site.

Designated land (i.e., Wilderness Area, Wild and Scenic River, Marine Sanctuary, National Park, National Monument, National Natural Landmark, Wildlife Refuge, and Wilderness Area -- N/A

Explain why this resource is not applicable to your proposed action (e.g. is your proposed action located entirely within a building and no resources are present?): The project is not on designated land. The USCG housing area occupies property that was formerly part of Fort Wadsworth. The

National Park Service (NPS) administers most of the remaining areas of the former Fort Wadsworth surrounding the project site as the Staten Island Unit of the Gateway National Recreation Area

(GNRA).

Will the Proposed Action result in the potential violation of a Federal, State, or local law or requirement imposed to protect the environment? -- No

Please summarize determination. : The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint. The project would adhere to applicable federal, state, and local environmental protection laws.

Page 7 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM

Will the Proposed Action have an effect on the quality of the human environment that is likely to be highly controversial in terms of scientific validity, likely to be highly uncertain, or likely to involve unique or unknown environmental risks? -- No

Required: Please explain. : The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint and similar to the existing structures in character, size, and scope. The project would serve the same number of people as are currently served. There are no known controversies or environmental risks associated with the project.

Will the Proposed Action employ new or unproven technology that is likely to involve unique or unknown environmental risks, where the effect on the human environment is likely to be highly uncertain, or where the effect on the human environment is likely to be highly controversial in terms of scientific validity? -- No

Required: Please explain.: The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint and similar to the existing structures in character, size, and scope. No new or unproven technology would be used.

Will the Proposed Action establish a precedent for future actions that have significant effects? -- No

Please explain how you came to this determination. : The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint and similar to the existing structures in character, size, and scope.

The project does not establish any precedent.

Is the Proposed Action significantly greater in scope or size than normally experienced for its particular category of action? -- No

Required: Please summarize determination.: The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint and similar to the existing structures in character, size, and scope.

Will the Proposed Action have the potential to result in the significant degradation of existing poor environmental conditions? Will the Proposed Action initiate a potentially significant environmentally degrading influence, activity, or effect in areas not already significantly modified from their natural condition? -- No

Please explain how you came to this determination. : The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint and similar to the existing structures in character, size, and scope.

The project would not result in significant environmental degradation. While existing environmental conditions are not considered to be poor, the project would be conducted in an urban area that has already been modified from its natural condition.

Is the Proposed Action related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts? -- No

Please explain how you came to this determination. : The project is not related to any other action.

The project may be conducted in phases, but they are considered to be a single action.

Are there any other requirements for the protection of the environment that need to be considered for this proposed action? -- No

Page 8 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM

Historic Preservation & Cultural Resources

Is the Proposed Action a piece of a larger action or connected to another action? -- No

Please explain how you came to this determination. : Rebuilding the housing at Fort Wadsworth is a standalone project not connected to any other action. The project may be conducted in phases, and all phases are considered to be part of the project.

Will the Proposed Action have a potentially significant effect on public health or safety? Areas to consider include, but are not limited to: environmental justice considerations; air quality; noise impacts; hazardous wastes and/or contamination; wastewater; potable water; and changes in modes or safety of transportation. -- No

Explain how the proposed action would not have a potentially significant effect on public health or safety. : The project entails rebuilding the existing housing area at Fort Wadsworth in a substantially similar configuration and resulting in similar density of people and vehicles. Demolition and construction would be relatively short duration and would be conducted using standard safety and environmental measures.

Would the proposed action place a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on minority populations and low-income populations? -- No

Will the Proposed Action have a potentially significant effect on species or habitats protected by the

Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and

Golden Eagle Protection Act, or Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act? --

No

Provide a conclusion under which statute the determination was made (e.g., no effect, NLAA, LAA, for ESA, etc.), how the determination was made, why it is considered significant, and copies of any consultation (informal and/or formal). : The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint. No tree or brush removal would be done. No work would be done in the water.

There would be no effect under the ESA; one ESA-listed threatened species (piping plover, Charadrius melodus) may be present nearby along the shoreline, but is not expected to be present within the project area. No eagles are expected to be present within the project area. Some migratory birds may be present in the vicinity of the project, but they are generally shore birds that are not expected to nest within the project area, and the project does not involve tree or brush removal.

Attachments: FWS, NMFS, or Wildife Agency Consultation: (No files uploaded yet.)

What is your Endangered Species Act (ESA) finding and determination? -- No effect

Explain how the determination was made (e.g., are species present in the area but your proposed action will have no effect? why?). Although not required, recommend attaching any consultation or correspondence conducted.: The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint. There would be no effect under the ESA. One ESA-listed threatened species (piping plover, Charadrius melodus) may be present nearby along the shoreline, but is not expected to be present within the project area.

Attachments: ESA consultation: (No files uploaded yet.)

Page 9 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM

What is your Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) finding and determination? -- No effect or negligible effect

Explain how the determination was made (e.g., are species present in the area but your proposed action will have no effect or negligible effects? why?). Although not required, recommend attaching any consultation or correspondence conducted.: The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint. No work would be done in the water.

Attachments: MMPA consultation: (No files uploaded yet.)

Would the proposed action adversely affect a species protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act or Migratory Bird Treaty Act or habitat for such species? -- No

Explain how the determination was made (e.g., are species present in the area but your proposed action will have no adverse effect or no significant effect? why?). Although not required, recommend attaching any consultation or correspondence conducted.: The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint and similar to the existing structures in character, size, and scope. No tree or brush removal would be done. No eagles are expected to be present within the project area. Some migratory birds may be present in the vicinity of the project, but they are generally shore birds that are not expected to nest within the project area.

Attachments: BGEPA MBTA consultation: (No files uploaded yet.)

What is your Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (essential fish habitat) finding and determination? -- No effect

Attachments: EFH consultation: (No files uploaded yet.)

Will the Proposed Action have a potentially significant effect on an environmentally sensitive area?

Examples include, but are not limited to: areas having special designation or recognition such as prime or unique agricultural lands, coastal zones, designated wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, 100-year floodplains, wetlands, sole source aquifers, Marine Sanctuaries, National Wildlife

Refuges, National Parks, National Monuments, etc. -- No

Special Flood Hazard Area (i.e. floodplains) -- N/A

Explain why this resource is not applicable to your proposed action (e.g. is your proposed action located entirely within a building and no resources are present?): The project site is within Zone X

(area of minimal flood hazard).

Jurisdictional wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. -- N/A

Explain why this resource is not applicable to your proposed action (e.g. is your proposed action located entirely within a building and no resources are present?): No wetlands are present within the project site.

Coastal Barrier Unit -- N/A

Explain why this resource is not applicable to your proposed action (e.g. is your proposed action located entirely within a building and no resources are present?): The project is not within any system unit of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS).

Page 10 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM

Coastal Zone Management Area -- Costal Zone Management Area present

Explain why the proposed action would not significantly impact these resources. : The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint. The USCG reviewed the New York

State Coastal Management Program (CMP) rules and determined the project is consistent with the enforceable policies and would not have coastal effects. The USCG provided notification and negative determination of coastal effects to the New York Coastal Management Program at the New

York State Department of State on January 31, 2022.

Attachments: CZMA consultation: 2022-0131 USCG-NYDOS CZMA neg det letter (2022-0131 Ft

Wadsworth USCG Housing CZMA letter.pdf, 2.18MB)

Section 10 navigable waterway -- N/A

Explain why this resource is not applicable to your proposed action (e.g. is your proposed action located entirely within a building and no resources are present?): The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint and does not impact waterways.

Sole Source Aquifers and Wellheads -- N/A

Explain why this resource is not applicable to your proposed action (e.g. is your proposed action located entirely within a building and no resources are present?): The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint. It is not located over a sole source aquifer and does not affect wellheads. The replacement housing would serve the same number of people in the same area, and would continue to be served by city water.

Prime Farmland -- N/A

Explain why this resource is not applicable to your proposed action (e.g. is your proposed action located entirely within a building and no resources are present?): The project is in an urban area and no prime farmland is present in the project site.

Designated land (i.e., Wilderness Area, Wild and Scenic River, Marine Sanctuary, National Park, National Monument, National Natural Landmark, Wildlife Refuge, and Wilderness Area -- N/A

Explain why this resource is not applicable to your proposed action (e.g. is your proposed action located entirely within a building and no resources are present?): The project is not on designated land. The USCG housing area occupies property that was formerly part of Fort Wadsworth. The

National Park Service (NPS) administers most of the remaining areas of the former Fort Wadsworth surrounding the project site as the Staten Island Unit of the Gateway National Recreation Area

(GNRA).

Will the Proposed Action result in the potential violation of a Federal, State, or local law or requirement imposed to protect the environment? -- No

Please summarize determination. : The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint. The project would adhere to applicable federal, state, and local environmental protection laws.

Page 11 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM

Will the Proposed Action have an effect on the quality of the human environment that is likely to be highly controversial in terms of scientific validity, likely to be highly uncertain, or likely to involve unique or unknown environmental risks? -- No

Required: Please explain. : The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint and similar to the existing structures in character, size, and scope. The project would serve the same number of people as are currently served. There are no known controversies or environmental risks associated with the project.

Will the Proposed Action employ new or unproven technology that is likely to involve unique or unknown environmental risks, where the effect on the human environment is likely to be highly uncertain, or where the effect on the human environment is likely to be highly controversial in terms of scientific validity? -- No

Required: Please explain.: The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint and similar to the existing structures in character, size, and scope. No new or unproven technology would be used.

Will the Proposed Action establish a precedent for future actions that have significant effects? -- No

Please explain how you came to this determination. : The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint and similar to the existing structures in character, size, and scope.

The project does not establish any precedent.

Is the Proposed Action significantly greater in scope or size than normally experienced for its particular category of action? -- No

Required: Please summarize determination.: The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint and similar to the existing structures in character, size, and scope.

Will the Proposed Action have the potential to result in the significant degradation of existing poor environmental conditions? Will the Proposed Action initiate a potentially significant environmentally degrading influence, activity, or effect in areas not already significantly modified from their natural condition? -- No

Please explain how you came to this determination. : The project is to replace the existing housing within the same general footprint and similar to the existing structures in character, size, and scope.

The project would not result in significant environmental degradation. While existing environmental conditions are not considered to be poor, the project would be conducted in an urban area that has already been modified from its natural condition.

Is the Proposed Action related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts? -- No

Please explain how you came to this determination. : The project is not related to any other action.

The project may be conducted in phases, but they are considered to be a single action.

Are there any other requirements for the protection of the environment that need to be considered for this proposed action? -- No

Page 12 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM

Will the proposed action have a potentially significant effect on a district, highway, structure, or object that is listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places, a historic or cultural resource, traditional or sacred site, or result in the destruction of a significant scientific, cultural, or historic resource? -- No

Attachments: HR - Consultation: (No files uploaded yet.)

What is the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 effect determination? -- No adverse effect

Please explain how you made this determination and level of significant. : The buildings proposed to be demolished are not listed or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP), nor are they contributing elements to any such historic property. Replacing the existing housing structures with new but substantially similar housing structures would not alter the character, use, or historic context of adjacent properties. There appears to be a low probability of encountering prehistoric or historic period deposits that have not been extensively disturbed by previous construction and demolition activities and that have the potential to yield information important to the history or prehistory of Fort Wadsworth and Staten Island. Nonetheless, the USCG will implement an Inadvertent Discoveries Plan/Unanticipated Discoveries Plan (IDP/UDP) with an archeological monitoring program conducted by a qualified archeologist during ground-disturbing demolition and construction activities.

The USCG consulted with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) under Section

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). For the reasons stated above, the USCG determined, and the SHPO concurred, that the project would have no adverse effect on historic properties, with the condition that the USCG prepare and implement an IDP/UDP that will include an archaeological monitoring plan.

The USCG also invited five potentially interested tribes to consult under Section 106: Delaware

Nation, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Shawnee Tribe, Shinnecock Indian Nation, and Stockbridge-

Munsee Community. Three of the five tribes responded, with two of them requesting to consult

(Shinnecock Indian Nation and Delaware Tribe of Indians) and one providing comments

(Stockbridge-Munsee Community). The three responding tribes asked to be kept informed about the project, in particular to be notified in the event of an inadvertent discovery, as well as to be informed about scope changes. All concurred with the USCG's plan to prepare and implement an IDP/UDP which will stipulate that an archeological monitor will be present for ground-disturbing activities.

The Delaware Tribe of Indians further requested that the archeological monitor selected for the project have experience in the Middle Atlantic region and with soils and coastal dynamics. The

Stockbridge-Munsee Community requested that the IDP/UDP reference the tribe's inadvertent discovery policy.

Page 13 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM

The USCG has confirmed that it will prepare and implement an IDP/UDP to ensure that impacts on potential tribal resources are avoided or minimized. This includes having an archeologist monitor ground-disturbing activities with authority to stop work in the event of an inadvertent discovery. The

IDP/UDP will also contain a contact list with tribal contacts to be notified in the event of an inadvertent discovery.

Attachments: Section 106 consultation: 2021-1012 USCG letter to SHPO (2021-1012a USCG-

SHPO letter.pdf, 276.53kB) 2021-1012 USCG letter to SHPO Encl. 1-4 (2021-1012b USCG-SHPO letter Encl. 1-4.pdf, 5.25MB) 2021-1103 SHPO letter to USCG w conditional concurrence (2021-

1103 SHPO-USCG conditional concurrence.pdf, 151.25kB) 2021-1124 USCG letter to Delaware

Nation-consultation offer (2021-1124 USCG-Delaware Nation cnslt ltr.pdf, 5.47MB) 2021-1124

USCG letter to Delaware Tribe of Indians-consultation offer (2021-1124 USCG-Delaware Tribe of

Indians cnslt ltr.pdf, 5.47MB) 2021-1124 USCG letter to Shawnee Tribe-consultation offer (2021-

1124 USCG-Shawnee Tribe cnslt ltr.pdf, 5.47MB) 2021-1124 USCG letter to Shinnecock Indian

Nation-consultation offer (2021-1124 USCG-Shinnecock Indian Nation cnslt ltr.pdf, 5.47MB) 2021-

1124 USCG letter to Sockbridge-Munsee Community-consultation offer (2021-1124 USCG-

Sockbridge-Munsee cnslt ltr.pdf, 5.47MB) 2021-1222 Delaware Tribe of Indians to USCG-response

(2021-1222 Delaware Tribe of Indians-USCG response.pdf, 261.04kB) Cultural Resources Key

Contacts List (Cultural Resources Key Contacts List.docx, 19.13kB) 2021-1206 Shinnecock to

USCG-request to consult (2021-1206 Shinnecock-USCG request to consult.pdf, 129.39kB) 2021-

1207 Stockbridge-Munsee to USCG-response w-IDP (2021-1207 Stockbridge-Munsee-USCG response w-IDP.pdf, 305.18kB) 2021-1214 Stockbridge-Munsee to USCG-response and concur

(2021-1214 Stockbridge-Munsee-USCG response-concur.pdf, 217.94kB) 2021-1213 USCG to

Stockbridge-Munsee-response (2021-1213 USCG-Stockbridge-Munsee response.pdf, 191.79kB)

2021-1215 Delaware Tribe of Indians to USCG-request to consult (2021-1215 Delaware Tribe of

Indians-USCG request to consult.pdf, 216.92kB) 2021-1222 USCG to Delaware Tribe of Indians-response (2021-1222 USCG-Delaware Tribe of Indians response.pdf, 167.75kB) 2021-1223 USCG to Shinnecock-response and req for concur (2021-1223 USCG-Shinnecock response and req for concur.pdf, 178.47kB)

** This question should be carefully checked by the Environmental Reviewer.

Does the proposed action limit access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian sacred sites on federal lands, by Indian religious practitioners, and/or adversely affect the physical integrity of such sites. -- No

Page 14 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM

DHS Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) for Categorically Excluded Actions under NEPA

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) is to provide a record that the potential for impacts to the quality of the human environment has been considered in the decision to implement the Proposed Action described below, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and DHS Directive 023-01 and Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01 on implementation of NEPA. DHS integrates the NEPA process with review and compliance requirements under other Federal laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and other requirements for the stewardship and protection of the human environment, as reflected in Section II (8) of this REC. Signature of the DHS Proponent on this REC demonstrates that they have considered the potential for impacts to the human environment in their decision to implement the Proposed Action as required by NEPA, and are committing to any conditions listed in Section IV of this REC that may be required for implementation of the project. When completed, the form is to be signed by the Preparer, the Environmental Approver, and the Action Proponent. The completed REC becomes a part of the administrative record for the Proposed Action.

SECTION I - Description of Proposed Action

1. Name of Component Authorizing the Proposed Action:

U.S. Coast Guard USCG Shore Infrastructure Logistics Center

2. Title of Proposed Action:

Fort Wadsworth Housing Project

3. Identifying Number of Proposed Action:

DSS-USCG-2021-13081

4. Estimated Start Date and Useful Life of Proposed Action:

Start Date: 03/01/2023 - End Date: 9/1/2027

5. Location of Proposed Action:

Site Specific: USS Tennessee Road, Staten Island, New York, 10305

6. Description of Proposed Action:

The project is intended to right-size the family housing with an appropriate combination of units and improve conditions. The project addresses structural, architectural, mechanical, occupant welfare, and code issues associated with the existing units, which were constructed in 1990 by the Navy. The Housing Requirements Analysis provides the requirements of the bedroom count and total number of units. The Planning Proposal (PP) evaluated three alternatives: 1) renovate current apartments, 2) build new apartment buildings, or 3) build new townhomes.

Building new townhomes involves demolishing the remaining 20 apartment buildings and replacing them.

Conceptual plans include construction of about 30–31 new 2- or 3-story buildings, with 2–6 townhomes each (see attached notional layout; new buildings are shown as gray polygons with blue outline). The final design and number of buildings and units will depend on layout and space, but the new structures would stay within the USCG housing complex footprint and would be similar to the existing structures in character, size, and scope. Phase 1 construction starts March 2023 and lasts 18 months (demolish 6 buildings/construct 42 townhomes). Two to three additional (18-month each) phases would follow.

In addition to new construction, the project includes demolition and site clearing, underground utilities and roads, garages/parking, two overflow parking lots (shown as light gray/hatched polygons with blue outline on the attached notional layout), sidewalks, street lighting, and landscaping of new construction. The project also includes reconfiguring segments of the perimeter fence along the southeastern and southern boundary of the housing complex to close access at USS Tennessee Road and add a security gate for emergency access on USS North Carolina Road near the public walkway of Fort Wadsworth. The existing community center, many of the existing roads, and other parts of the complex (e.g., tot lots) would remain.

Page 15 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM

SECTION II - Analysis of Extraordinary Circumstances

7.ý Proposed Action is not a piece of a larger action o Proposed Action is a piece of a larger action

Remarks:

8. For A through K, check the appropriate box and provide an explanation when appropriate. Include a summary of any coordination or consultation that occurred with a resource or regulatory agency, if relevant.

o Yes ý No

A. Will the Proposed Action have a potentially significant effect on public health or safety?

Remarks:

o Yes ý No

B. Will the Proposed Action have a potentially significant effect on species or habitats protected by the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, or Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act?

Remarks:

o Yes ý No

C. Will the Proposed Action have a potentially significant effect on a district, highway, structure, or object that is listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)?

Will the Proposed Action have a potentially significant effect on a historic or cultural resource, traditionalor sacred site, or result in the destruction of a significant scientific, cultural, or historic resource?

Remarks:

o Yes ý No

D. Will the Proposed Action have a potentially significant effect on an environmentally sensitive area?

Remarks:

o Yes ý No

E. Will the Proposed Action result in the potential violation of a Federal, State, or local law or requirement imposed to protect the environment?

Remarks:

o Yes ý No

F. Will the Proposed Action have an effect on the quality of the human environment that is likely to be highly controversial in terms of scientific validity, likely to be highly uncertain, or likely to involve unique or unknown environmental risks?

Remarks:

o Yes ý No

G. Will the Proposed Action employ new or unproven technology that is likely to involve unique or unknown environmental risks, where the effect on the human environment is likely to be highly uncertain, or where the effect on the human environment is likely to be highly controversial in terms of scientific validity?

Remarks:

o Yes ý No

H. Will the Proposed Action establish a precedent for future actions that have significant effects?

Remarks:

o Yes ý No

I. Is the Proposed Action significantly greater in scope or size than normally experienced for its particular category of action?

Remarks:

Page 16 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM o Yes ý No

J. Does the Proposed Action have the potential to result in significant degradation of existing poor environmental conditions? Will the Proposed Action initiate a potentially significant environmentally degrading influence, activity, or effect in areas not significantly modified from their natural condition?

Remarks:

o Yes ý No

K. Is the Proposed Action related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts?

Remarks:

SECTION III - Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) Determination

9. This action is not expected to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The proposed action has been thoroughly reviewed by the U.S. Coast Guard and it has been determined, by the undersigned, that this action is categorically excluded under current DHS CATEX E2* from further environmental documentation, in accordance with Section 3 of DHS Directive 023-01, Environmental Planning Program since implementation of this action:

I. Clearly fits within one or more of the CATEXs listed in Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Revision 01;

II. Is not a piece of a larger action which has been segmented into smaller parts in order to avoid a more extensive evaluation of the potential for significant environmental impacts;

III. Does not involve any extraordinary circumstances, as defined in Section 5(B)(2) of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Revision 01, that would preclude the application of a CATEX due to the potential for significant environmental impacts.

SECTION IV - Conditions

Page 17 of 21 Printed On 2/1/2022 11:44:53 AM

10. The following conditions are required to implement the Proposed Action:

ýObtain and implement a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for stormwater discharges from construction activities, as required.

ýPrepare and implement an Inadvertent Discoveries Plan/Unanticipated Discoveries Plan (IDP/UDP). The

IDP/UDP shall specify an archeological monitoring program to be conducted by a qualified archeologist during ground-disturbing demolition and construction activities. The archeological monitor shall have authority to stop work in the event of an inadvertent discovery. The archeological monitor shall have experience in the Middle

Atlantic region and with soils and coastal dynamics. The IDP/UDP shall reference the Stockbridge-Munsee

Community’s inadvertent discovery policy (see document labeled “2021-1207 Stockbridge-Munsee to USCG-response w-IDP”). The IDP/UDP shall specify timely notification be provided to applicable key contacts in the event of an inadvertent discovery of human remains or cultural materials. The IDP/UDP shall contain a contact list with key contacts to be notified in the event of an inadvertent discovery, including New York State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO), Delaware Nation, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Shawnee Tribe, Shinnecock Indian

Nation, and Stockbridge-Munsee Community (see Cultural Resources Key Contacts List attachment).

ýIf active bird nests (e.g., nests containing eggs or chicks) are observed in the project area, contact your servicing environmental staff (e.g., Civil Engineering Unit Providence Environmental Management Branch) to confirm the appropriate measures to avoid impacts on migratory birds or other protected species. The location of the nests may need to be avoided until chicks have fledged.

ýNotify the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Delaware Nation, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Shawnee Tribe, Shinnecock Indian Nation, and Stockbridge-Munsee Community (see Key Contacts List attachment) of any material scope changes (e.g., changes that affect the level and location of ground disturbance). Such a scope change may require additional environmental review and consultation pursuant to

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

ýCoordinate with the National Park Service regarding any utility connection and level of service changes that will be required (e.g., water, electricity, gas, telecommunications). A substantial change to the level of service requirements for utilities for the new townhomes compared with the existing apartments represents a change in scope and requires additional environmental review.

ýContract award…