B08_Attachment_8_Enviornmental_Assessment.pdf

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Colonial National Historical Park

Colonial National Historical Park Repair and Stabilize the York River Shoreline to Protect the Colonial Parkway

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

DOCUMENT NO. 333/100800

PMIS NO. 145520

June 2012

U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service

Colonial National Historical Park

York County, Virginia

Repair and Stabilize the York River Shoreline to Protect the Colonial Parkway Environmental Assessment

July 2012

Proposed Action: Colonial National Historical Park is located in York County, Virginia.

Roughly 5.14 miles of the southern York River shoreline lie within the Yorktown Unit of the park. Artificial structures that defend the shoreline against wind-driven wave action are antiquated and are characterized by local failures, rendering them ineffective. Projected sea-level rise will exacerbate this problem. Repair and stabilization of the shoreline is needed to cease ongoing erosion and halt the landward migration of the shoreline. This erosion poses a direct threat to park resources, primarily the Colonial Parkway (the parkway). The parkway, a resource listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is the principal transportation link between the park’s Yorktown and Jamestown Units. It lies just landward of the York River shoreline for a distance of 4.2 miles and is therefore particularly vulnerable. Archeological resources, estuarine wetlands, and public safety also are threatened by shoreline erosion.

The NPS proposes to repair the existing means of shoreline defense and install new structures within park property only, commencing near the confluence of Felgates Creek and the York River and continuing downstream to the boundary with the U.S. Coast Guard Training Center Yorktown. Actions needed to achieve these goals include the rehabilitation or installation of a combination of shoreline treatments, including rock revetments, rock spurs, continuous and gap sills, pocket beaches, and shore-attached breakwaters. Implementation of the NPS preferred alternative would result in long-term beneficial impacts to coastal resources and soils, wetlands, wildlife and wildlife habitat, vegetation, special status species, visitor use and experience, public safety, and infrastructure and park operations. Impacts to floodplains would be long-term, negligible and adverse. Construction of the NPS preferred alternative would result in short-term, negligible adverse impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, and short-term, minor adverse impacts on vegetated wetlands, vegetation, special status species, cultural landscapes, visitor use and experience, public safety, and both short and long-term minor adverse impacts on infrastructure and park operations. Impacts to cultural landscapes and historic resources would be long-term, negligible, and neither adverse nor beneficial (below the level of detection). The preliminary assessment of effect for archeological resources is that the project would have no effect. This finding is subject to further coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer in accordance with a Programmatic Agreement made between the NPS and the Virginia State Historic Preservation Office per 36 CFR §800.14(b)(1)(ii).

For Further Information Contact: Dorothy Geyer, Natural Resource Manager

(757) 898-2433

Note to Reviewers and Respondents:

This Environmental Assessment will be on public review for 30 days. If you wish to comment on this Environmental Assessment, you may mail comments to the name and address below or post them electronically at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/colo. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Superintendent Colonial National Historical Park PO Box 210 Yorktown, VA 23690 iii Contents

CONTENTS

Contents .............................................................................................................. iii

List of Figures ................................................................................................... viii

List of Tables ....................................................................................................... ix

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..............................................................................x

Purpose and Need Introduction Purpose and Need for Action Study Area Description Project Background Park Purpose and Significance Relationship of Proposal to Other Planning Efforts Scoping

Planning Issues and Concerns Regulatory Issues and Management Concerns Impact Topics Retained For Analysis Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Analysis

Alternatives Development of Alternatives

Guiding Principles Shoreline Treatment Options Study Reach Designations

Alternative 1: No Action Reach IA Reach I Reach II Reach III Reach IV

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives Alternative 2: NPS Preferred Alternative

Reach IA Reach I Reach II Reach III Reach IV

Alternative 3 Reach IA Reach I Reach II iv Contents

Reach III Reach IV

Value Analysis Study Mitigation Measures

Coastal Resource and Soils / Wetland Resources / Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Vegetation Special Status Species Archeological Resources

Elements Considered but Dismissed Summary Comparison of Alternatives Summary Comparison of Impacts of the Alternatives Environmentally Preferable Alternative

Affected Environment Coastal Resources and Soils

Geology Soils Wave Climate Nearshore Sediment Transport Reach IA Reach I Reach II Reach III Reach IV

Wetland Resources Regulatory Context Wetland Delineation Functions and Values Assessment

Floodplains Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

York River Estuary and Wildlife Habitat Wildlife

Vegetation Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation Invasive Species

Special Status Species Federal And State Listed Species

Cultural Resources Regulatory Framework Cultural Landscapes Historic Structures Archeological Resources

Visitor Use and Experience Public Safety Infrastructure and Park Operations

Environmental Consequences General Methodology for Assessing Impacts v Contents

Type of Impact Context Duration Level of Intensity Cumulative Impact Methodology

Coastal Resources and Soils Methodology Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action Impacts of Alternative 2: NPS Preferred Alternative Impacts of Alternative 3 Conclusion

Wetland Resources Methodology Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action Impacts of Alternative 2: NPS Preferred Alternative Impacts of Alternative 3 Conclusion

Floodplains Methodology Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action Impacts of Alternative 2: NPS Preferred Alternative Impacts of Alternative 3 Conclusion

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Methodology Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action Impacts of Alternative 2: NPS Preferred Alternative Impacts of Alternative 3 Conclusion

Vegetation Methodology Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action Impacts of Alternative 2: NPS Preferred Alternative Impacts of Alternative 3 Conclusion

Special Status Species Methodology Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action Impacts of Alternative 2: NPS Preferred Alternative Impacts of Alternative 3 Conclusion

Cultural Resources Methodology Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action impacts of Alternative 2: NPS Preferred Alternative Impacts of Alternative 3 Conclusion

Historic Structures Methodology Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action impacts of Alternative 2: NPS Preferred Alternative vi Contents

Impacts of Alternative 3 Conclusion

Archeological Resources Visitor Use and Experience

Methodology Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action Impacts of Alternative 2: NPS Preferred Alternative Impacts of Alternative 3 Conclusion

Public Safety Methodology Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action Impacts of Alternative 2: NPS Preferred Alternative Impacts of Alternative 3 Conclusion

Infrastructure and Park Operations Methodology Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action Impacts of Alternative 2: NPS Preferred Alternative Impacts of Alternative 3 Conclusion

Consultation and Coordination The Scoping Process

Internal Scoping Agency Consultation Tribal Consultation Required Permits and Approvals Coastal Zone Management Consistency

List of Preparers and Contributors Contributors and Reviewers

List of Recipients Federal Agencies Tribal Nations State Agencies Local Governments Universities

References Selected Bibliography

Appendix A: Relevant Correspondence

Appendix B: Federal Consistency Determination Introduction .................................................................................................................... B-1

Proposed Action ............................................................................. B-1 Assessment of Effect ..................................................................................................... B-1

Fisheries Management ................................................................... B-1 Subaqueous Lands Management .................................................. B-2 Wetlands Management .................................................................. B-2 Dunes Management ....................................................................... B-2 Non-Point Source Pollution Control ................................................ B-2 vii Contents

Point Source Pollution Control ....................................................... B-2 Shoreline Sanitation ....................................................................... B-3 Air Pollution Control........................................................................ B-3 Coastal Lands Management .......................................................... B-3 viii Contents

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Description Page

1 Project Location Map

2a Study Area Map – Reaches IA, I and II (USGS Quadrangle Map)

2b Study Area Map – Reaches III and IV (USGS Quadrangle Map)

3a Study Area Map – Reaches IA, I and II (Orthophotograph)

3b Study Area Map – Reaches III and IV (Orthophotograph)

4 Alternative 1: No Action - Reaches IA, I, and II

5 Alternative 1: No Action - Reaches II and III

6 Alternative 1: No Action - Reach IV

7 Alternative 2: Shoreline Treatment - Reaches IA, I, and II (preferred) ... 53

8 Alternative 2: Shoreline Treatment - Reaches II and III (preferred)

9 Alternative 2: Shoreline Treatment - Reach IV (preferred)

10 Alternative 2: Representative Cross Section – Rock Sill

11 Alternative 2: Representative Cross Section – Revetment Rehab

12 Alternative 2: Representative Cross Section – Breakwater

13 Alternative 3: Shoreline Treatment - Reaches IA, I, and II

14 Alternative 3: Shoreline Treatment - Reaches II and III

15 Alternative 3: Shoreline Treatment - Reach IV

16a Soil Survey Mapping: Reaches IA, I and II

16b Soil Survey Mapping: Reaches III and IV

17 Field-Delineated Wetlands: Reaches IA, I, and II

18 Field-Delineated Wetlands: Reaches II and III

19 Field-Delineated Wetlands: Reach IV

20 Potential and Existing Shellfish Ground & Leases: Reaches IA, I, & II 127

21 Potential and Existing Shellfish Ground & Leases: Reaches II & III

22 Potential and Existing Shellfish Ground & Leases: Reach IV

23 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Mapped in 2008 ix Contents

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Description Page

1 Study Area Designation

2 Shoreline Treatment Approaches by Reach and Sub-Reach

3 Summary of Alternatives

4 Summary of Environmental Consequences

5 Key to Cowardin Classifications for Delineated Vegetated Wetlands .. 111

6 Amphibians and Reptiles Potentially Occurring in the Study Area

7 Summary of Essential Fish Habitat Species by Life Stage

8 Special Status Species Known to Occur Within the Project Vicinity

9 Summary of Vegetated and Unvegetated Impacts for Alternative 2

10 Summary of Vegetated and Unvegetated Impacts for Alternative 3

11 Consistency with Applicable Federal Laws, Regulations & Programs . 207

12 Consistency with Applicable State Laws, Regulations & Programs x Contents

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

100MVMT – 100 million vehicle miles traveled ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act APE – Area of Potential Effect CCC – Civilian Conservation Corps CEQ – Council on Environmental Quality CFR – Code of Federal Regulations DCR – Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation DEQ – Virginia Department of Environmental Quality DGIF – Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries DHR – Virginia Department of Historic Resources DO – Director’s Order DSS – Data Sharing System EA – environmental assessment EPA – Environmental Protection Agency FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency ft – feet ft/yr – feet per year GMP – general management plan IPaC – Information, Planning, and Conservation System IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change LOS – level of service LUP – Land Use Permit MHW – mean high water mi – mile MLLW – mean lower low water MLW – mean low water MSL – mean sea level MUTCD – Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices National Register – National Register of Historic Places NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOI – Notice of Intent NPS – National Park Service NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service NWS – Naval Weapons Station PA – programmatic agreement xi Contents park – Colonial National Historical Park parkway – Colonial Parkway PEPC– Planning, Environment and Public Comment SHPO – state historic preservation officer SMP – Shoreline Management Plan SWCB – State Water Control Board SWPPP – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan USACE – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USCG – U.S. Coast Guard USGS – United States Geological Survey VA – value analysis VAFWIS – Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service VDNH – Division of Natural Heritage VHB – Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

VIMS – Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences VMRC – Virginia Marine Resources Commission VSMP – Virginia Stormwater Management Permit WRMP – Water Resource Management Plan xii Contents

This page intentionally left blank.

1 Purpose and Need

PURPOSE AND NEED

INTRODUCTION

Colonial National Historical Park (the park) is located in the southern tidewater region of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the peninsula between the James and York Rivers (Figure 1).

Measuring 10,221 acres in size, “it encompasses most of Jamestown Island, site of the first permanent English settlement in North America, and Yorktown, scene of the culminating battle of the American Revolution” (NPS 1993a). The Colonial Parkway (the parkway) links these two units of the park, providing a scenic 23-mile long drive and connectivity to other colonial sites, including Williamsburg. It is a resource listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), in recognition of its association with the National Park Service’s (NPS) legacy of designed parkways that were built for conservation and interpretive purposes, particularly with respect to historic resources. The parkway is also a designated “All-American Road.” It is used by park visitors, local recreationists, and commuters.

For roughly 4.2 miles, the parkway lies in close proximity to the York River. While riverbank erosion has been a recognized issue for decades and has been combated via the placement of structural defenses or “armor” along the shoreline, strong storms in late 2009 markedly increased shoreline recession. Shoreline defenses were overtopped and wave energy impinged directly on undefended portions of the riverbank, resulting in erosion and sloughing. Though the NPS has performed “spot treatments” to address areas of particularly aggressive storm-related erosion, more comprehensive action is required to prevent further landward migration of the shoreline and subsequent undermining of the parkway at multiple locations.

The NPS owns and maintains the parkway surface, including a minimum 500-foot wide right-of-way outside the limits of the Jamestown and Yorktown units of the park. As such, the NPS is solely responsible for all maintenance of the roadway, vegetation and other natural and cultural resources within this right-of-way. In accordance with the park’s General Management Plan (GMP), the NPS must “maintain the [parkway] for safety while retaining the integrity of its design as a scenic roadway.”

This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates three alternatives: a no-action alternative and two action alternatives, including the NPS Preferred Alternative. The EA further analyzes the potential impacts these alternatives would have on the natural, cultural, and human environment.

2 Purpose and Need

Colonial Parkway

Colonial Parkway

Jamestown IslandJamestown Island

Yorktown BattlefieldYorktown Battlefield

ColonialColonial Williamsburg Williamsburg

North

0 1.25 miles Shoreline Repair & Stabilization Project Environmental Assessment

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Colonial National Historical Park

Figure 1

Project Location Map

Project Location

Colonial National Historic Park

5 Purpose and Need

This document has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended; regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1508.9); and NPS Director’s Order (DO) 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision-Making. Per DO-77-1 (NPS 2002a) and DO-77-2 (NPS 2003), this document also includes a statement of findings (SOF) for wetlands and floodplains and a Federal Coastal Zone Consistency Determination (as appendixes). This EA also recognizes the Natural Resource Management Policies, as outlined in the NPS Management Policies (NPS 2006), specifically Watershed and Stream Processes (4.6.6), and Protection of Geological Resources (4.8.1), including Shorelines and Barrier Islands (4.8.1.1).

A Programmatic Agreement (PA) has been developed jointly by the NPS and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR). Other signatories to the PA include the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Catawba Indian Nation, and the Virginia Council on Indians, and York County, Virginia. The PA implements procedures for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations outlined at 36 CFR Part 800.” The fully executed PA is included in “Appendix A:

Relevant Correspondence.”

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The parkway is both a means of transportation and the primary means by which visitors to the park can interpret the landscape history of early colonial settlements and life between Jamestown and Yorktown. It offers a variety of viewsheds, pull-offs, and roadside markers for motorized and bicycle traffic. The purpose of the project is to protect the parkway from the imminent threat of shoreline erosion along the York River and associated landward migration of the shoreline, particularly in areas where it runs in close proximity to the parkway (e.g., Bellfield Straight, see Figures 2a and 3a). Action is needed at this time in order to mitigate and remediate the effects of historic and continuing storm damage to the parkway. Furthermore, the project would reduce the risk of erosion along areas of the shoreline that are not adjacent to the parkway but where recession is nevertheless occurring and where cultural resources have been identified. Action would be taken in these areas to ensure the integrity of the resources.

The project also acknowledges Secretary of the Interior Order No. 3289, Amendment No. 1, Section 3a (DOI 2010), which requires that each bureau and office of the Department of the Interior consider and analyze potential climate change impacts when undertaking long-range planning exercises and making major decisions regarding the use of Department resources. The planning of the shoreline stabilization project would consider rates of sea-level rise and make sure the resulting design is adaptable to future conditions.

Lastly, the shoreline stabilization project would provide opportunities (where appropriate) to enhance or restore tidal wetland features as part of the overall shoreline management strategy.

This is consistent with Executive Order 11990, which in part directs the federal agencies “…to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands…” and to “…strive to achieve a longer-term goal of net gain of wetlands Servicewide.”

6 Purpose and Need

Yo r k R i v e r

Source: USGS 7.5 minute Clay Bank and Yorktown, Virginia Quadrangles

North

0 2,000 feet

Shoreline Repair & Stabilization Project Environmental Assessment

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Colonial National Historical Park

Figure 2a

Study Area Map: Reaches IA, I, and II (USGS Quadrangle Map)

Reach 1ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Reach 1RReReReReReeeeReeReReReeReeeReReeeeeeReReeeeeeReacacacacaacacacaacaaaacaaaccaaaaa hhhhhh 111111

Reach II

Source: USGS 7.5 minute Clay Bank, Yorktown, Poquoson West, and Achilles Quadrangles

North

0 2,000 feet

Shoreline Repair & Stabilization Project Environmental Assessment

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Colonial National Historical Park

Figure 2b

Study Area Map: Reaches III and IV (USGS Quadrangle Map)

Reach III

Reach IV

Source: 2009 VGIN/VBMP Orthophotography

North

0 2,000 feet

Reach 1ARR Reach 1ReReReeacaa h 1

Reach II

Shoreline Repair & Stabilization Project Environmental Assessment

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Colonial National Historical Park

Figure 3a

Study Area Map: Reaches IA, I, and II (Orthophotograph)

F el ga te s C re ek

In di an F ie ld

C re ek

Roosevelt P ond

Ringfi eld Picnic Area

Colonial Parkway

Colonial Parkway

Bellfi eld Straight

Sandy Point

Navy Pier

Nav y P ier

Naval Weapons Station Yorktown

Penniman Spit

Cheatham Annex

Poley Point

Colonial Parkw ay

Colonial Parkw ay

Stony Point

Source: 2009 VGIN/VBMP Orthophotography

North

0 2,000 feet

Reach III

Reach IV

Co le m an

B rid ge

Co le m an

B rid ge

G eo rg e W ash in g to n M em o rial H ig h w ay G eo rg e W ash in g to n

M em o rial H ig h w ay

Shoreline Repair & Stabilization Project Environmental Assessment

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Colonial National Historical Park

Figure 3b

Study Area Map: Reaches III and IV (Orthophotograph)

Ballard Creek

Yo rk to w n C re ek

W or m le y Po nd

U.S. Coast Guard Training Station

Yorktown

Yorktown Victory Center

York River Cliffs

Redoubt 1 (Fusilier’s Redoubt)

Point of Rocks

Cornwallis Cave

Moore House

Colonial Park

Colonial Parkway way

Colonial Parkw ay

Colonial Parkw ay

15 Purpose and Need

For roughly 4.2 miles of its 23-mile length, the parkway lies in close proximity to the York River shoreline (Figures 2a and 2b). This shoreline is subject to wind-driven wave action, particularly during storms that produce winds approaching from the northeast (i.e., nor’easters). Such wave action can cause bank erosion, which can subsequently threaten inland resources. For example, between Felgates Creek and Indian Field Creek (Figures 2a and 3a), the area known as Bellfield Straight, the road surface of the parkway is as little as 10 ft from the steep south bank of the York River.

Although most of the York River shoreline within the park is currently defended by a variety of structures primarily installed between 1930 and 1958 (e.g., revetments, sills, and breakwaters), recent storm activity has resulted in marked shoreline erosion.

Erosion caused by Hurricane Isabel in September 2003 and exacerbated by Tropical Storm Ernesto in late August 2006 and an unnamed nor’easter in November 2006, prompted emergency reparations near kilometer 5 where the road prism of the parkway was particularly vulnerable (Photograph 1). The more recent November 2009 nor’easter has aggravated erosion at multiple shoreline locations within the boundaries of the park, most notable at Bellfield Straight. Along this stretch of shoreline, erosion has occurred behind the revetment, effectively separating it from the river bank and leaving a terrace between it and an actively eroding scarp that ranges from approximately 3 to 15 ft in width. The crest elevation of the revetment along Bellfield Straight is approximately 6 ft relative to mean lower low water (MLLW, see datum explanation this page). By comparison, the still water level associated with the Hurricane Isabel storm surge was estimated at 8.6 ft MLLW, while wave height extended to

12.5 ft MLLW.

In addition to shoreline erosion, stormwater-induced gullies have formed in the grassy areas immediately north of and adjacent to the parkway along Bellfield Straight. These gullies are

The York River experiences “semidiurnal tides,” meaning that the tide cycles through a high and low twice each day, with one of the two high tides being higher than the other and one of the two low tides being lower than the other. Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) is the average of the lower of the two low tides over the National Tidal Datum Epoch (1983 – 2001).

Mean Low Water (MLW) is the average of all low tide readings over this time period. (Graphic Source: WHOI 2011)

Photograph 1. View of erosion at location of Kilometer 5 (K5) on the Colonial Parkway before repair was carried out. (Source: NPS)

16 Purpose and Need actively eroding and have been observed in seventeen discrete locations. If left unchecked, these features will migrate landward until they intersect and undermine the parkway surface, possibly requiring emergency repairs and necessitating road closures. Catastrophic erosion also could occur at these locations, posing a direct threat to the parkway’s cultural landscape and historic structures, as well as affect public safety.

At locations where the parkway does not run in close proximity to the York River, continued shoreline erosion will affect other resources such as archeological resources and wetland resources. Areas include the east-facing shoreline at the Ringfield Picnic Area, at the confluence of Felgates Creek and the York River, downstream of Indian Field Creek, and along the York River Cliffs (Figures 2a and 3a). Due to its orientation, the shoreline along the Ringfield Picnic Area is particularly vulnerable to wind-driven waves during nor’easters. Penniman Spit, located approximately 1,200 ft offshore and parallel to the shoreline, provides some protection by dissipating wave energy before it reaches land. However, this spit has eroded appreciably in recent years and its efficacy in this regard has diminished accordingly. Consequently, the east face of the point at Ringfield Picnic Area has been actively eroding and is steeply sloped. Such river bank slumping and landward shoreline migration may result in the relocation and/or total loss of cultural resources here and at multiple other locations where they occur in close proximity to the river bank.

STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION

For the purpose of this EA, the study area is broken into five separate Reaches, each containing a terrestrial and aquatic component. These Reaches are consistent in name and extent with those used for the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) developed for the York River shoreline by the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences (VIMS 2006). These five Reaches are shown on Figures 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b and are described in detail in “Chapter 2: Alternatives.”

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The parkway is a 23-mile long road that connects the visitor center at Jamestown Island with Williamsburg and with the visitor center at Yorktown Battlefield, three sites that comprise the historic triangle (Figure 1). Constructed between 1930 and 1958, the parkway is listed on the National Register in recognition of its association with the NPS’ legacy of designed parkways that were built for conservation and interpretive purposes, particularly with respect to historic resources.

The original idea to link the three sites that constitute the historic triangle dates back as far as 1909, when the City Council of Williamsburg passed a resolution to “secure an appropriation for the building of a macadamized road connecting the historic places of Jamestown on the James River and Yorktown on the York River” (NPS 1997). However, it was not until Congress authorized the establishment of Colonial National Monument in 1930 that planning for the parkway began in earnest. Though initial proposals called for an inland route, NPS landscape architect Charles E. Peterson was particularly taken with the idea of aligning the road along the York River (NPS 1997). To cross the mouths of Felgates Creek and Indian Field Creek, marshland was partially filled with dredge material while a relatively narrow opening was left to

17 Purpose and Need ensure continued drainage. This material, or “hydraulic fill,” consisted of a slurry of sand, gravel, and water excavated from the bottom of the York River and placed at the construction site using tubing. The fill material was kept in place by timber bulkheads, allowing for a final minimum elevation of 11 feet above the mean tide range (Davis et al. 2004).

The crossings at Felgates and Indian Field Creeks were completed in 1931. Soon afterwards, it was recognized that tides “which had once spread throughout the tidal marshes were now channeled into the narrow streams under the bridges, and the wave action carved away at the grading around the bridge abutments” (NPS 1997). Though riprap was placed in 1937 to help dissipate wave energy and reapplication has occurred since that time, erosion continues to be problematic to the current day.

Erosion along the shoreline at the Bellfield Straight was recognized as a serious issue by NPS engineers as early as 1933, shortly after the parkway grading was completed. A significant storm surge that year had high tides seven to nine feet above sea level. At the time, NPS engineers expressed similar concerns to those creating the need for the current action; that “the erosion was significant enough that… it might continue, undermining the stability of the earth beneath the parkway until it fell into the river some 50 feet below” (NPS 1997). This degree of erosion may have been exacerbated in part by clearing along the Bellfield Straight to open scenic vistas for motorists travelling along the parkway. To address the issue, a modified seawall was constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) before the parkway opened, consisting of a wood-reinforced earthen wall with riprap placed along the toe and honeysuckle “wattles” placed over the wall to help stabilize soil within the structure and provide an aesthetically appealing cover for the engineering structure. The ultimate fate of this seawall is unclear and maintenance records for the period following installation are not available. However, a review of aerial photographic records for the period 1937 through 2002 determined that shoreline position remained relatively static over Bellfield Straight, suggesting that the seawall / revetment treatment was largely successful.

Other means of shoreline defense have been installed along the York River shoreline since 1930, though a precise history of these efforts is not readily available. Naturally occurring headlands at Point of Rocks (Figures 2b and 3b) were hardened in the early 1960’s and reinforced in 1979 (Hardaway et al., 1991). It is possible that the riprap revetment along Bellfield Straight was reinforced at one or both of these times. Five breakwaters constructed of broken concrete were installed in 1985 just upriver from the Yorktown Naval Weapons Station. Designed by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), these so-called “NPS Breakwaters” represent offshore means of erosion control. The various types of shoreline treatments that exist within the project area are discussed in greater detail in the Coastal Resources and Soils section in Chapter 3: Affected Environment.”

PARK PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE

Congress authorized the establishment of the Colonial National Monument in 1930 and redesignated it as Colonial National Historical Park in 1936. It is a 8676.9-acre unit of the NPS located in the Coastal Plain of Virginia on the peninsula of land (aka the “Virginia Peninsula” or “Peninsula”) between the York River and James River estuaries. The park represents one of the

18 Purpose and Need first NPS ventures in the field of historic preservation, commemorating in particular the settlement of Jamestown in 1607 and the Battle of Yorktown in 1781 (Davis et al. 2004; NPS 1997). Initiated in 1931 and completed in 1957, the parkway was included in the original bill to link these three sites and provide a scenic corridor for motorists. The Colonial Parkway is “…the unifying component of the Park’s road system that includes interpretive tour roads on Jamestown Island and the Yorktown Battlefield.” (Davis et al. 2004)

RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSAL TO OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS

Several plans and studies have informed and contributed to the development of alternatives for the proposed project. These include the following.

General Management Plan (GMP) (NPS 1993a) The GMP for the park, approved in 1993, identifies the parkway as one of three “principal management areas,” the others being the Jamestown and Yorktown units. The GMP expressly states that “natural resource management will be consistent with NPS philosophy on management of natural zones while supporting cultural resource objectives.” As a National Register listed resource found in close proximity to natural areas along the York River shoreline (including wetlands), the parkway represents a favorable convergence of natural systems and cultural wealth. The repair and restoration of the York River shoreline should therefore acknowledge this relationship throughout the planning and implementation phases. The GMP also explicitly mentions maintenance of the parkway for “safety while retaining the integrity of its design as a scenic roadway.” Historic sites, landscapes, and undeveloped vistas along the parkway are also noted as worthy of protection.

The GMP did not expressly recognize the need for shoreline repair and rehabilitation. Much of the shoreline erosion currently manifested has occurred since the publication of the GMP in 1993, and thus was not recognized as a problem at the time. Nevertheless, the GMP does not preclude such work. It recognizes that maintenance and improvements within the boundaries of the park could result in adverse impacts to wetlands and floodplains, yet these could be minimized by adherence to executive orders and established guidelines.

Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP): Colonial National Historical Park (NPS 1994).

The WRMP for the park was drafted to complement the GMP and to support the NPS decision making process relating to the protection, preservation, use, enhancement, and management of park water resources and associated environments. The WRMP identified three critical path items with respect to shorelines:

1. evaluate shoreline stability impacts to park cultural/natural resources;

2. monitor historic trends in shoreline movement along the York and James Rivers; and

3. undertake shoreline management strategies.

Documenting shoreline position and trends in movement over time were recognized as important for the protection of cultural resources and for the effective management of erosion and sediment control impacts both within and outside the park. The WRMP highlighted the need for the park to perform additional research with respect to shoreline processes in order to achieve the park’s management objectives and acknowledged that “…historical, cultural, and natural resources are

19 Purpose and Need potentially at risk due to their proximity to the shore zone.” The WRMP recommended the development of a shoreline management plan that considers trends and rates in shoreline change, and assessment of man-made structures and perturbations and their effect on shoreline stability.

Shoreline Management Plan (SMP): Phase II, York River Shoreline and Swanns Point, James River Shoreline (VIMS 2006). The SMP, dated 2006, represents the type of research report recommended by the WRMP. The SMP presents a detailed mapping and analysis of shoreline position and rate of change over time, drawing on ortho-rectified aerial photographic records for the years 1937 1960, 1963, 1968, 1978, 1994, and 2002 to classify shoreline reaches as erosional (i.e., where sediment is being lost and the shoreline is moving landward), accretional (i.e., where sediment is accumulating and the shoreline is moving seaward), or transitional.

Transitional reaches are those typically located between eroding and accreting reaches where an established trend is not obvious. More detailed land-based shoreline and nearshore bathymetric surveys were carried out at the NPS Breakwaters and at the Point of Rocks area and the associated Yorktown Bays.

The SMP also provides a synopsis of the various means of shore defense that currently exist along the York River shoreline as well as recommendations for potential future actions to address areas of concern. As such, the SMP is the principal document that was used to develop the alternatives for repair and stabilization of the York River shoreline as presented in “Chapter 2: Alternatives.”

Traffic Safety Management Plan – Data Analysis and Recommended Countermeasures (CH2M Hill 2011). This report was drafted as part of the Northeast Region Long Range Transportation Plan Traffic Safety Study. It presents the recommended countermeasures that address traffic safety and operations issues at Colonial NHP; countermeasures that serve as the foundation for future safety projects. Traffic issues were identified by discussions with park staff and through field visits. Recommended countermeasures for the parkway within the project area include installing reflector tabs on guardrails and flexible guardrail delineators; installing approximately 400 ft of guardrail or flexible delineators with white retroflective tape at kilometer 3; installing flexible delineators with white retroflective tape and yellow-and-black “curve” diamond warning signs at Felgates Creek; and informing the public that the road surface may be slippery when wet and to decrease vehicle speed during inclement weather.

Value Analysis (VA) Report. The NPS conducted a value analysis in 2010 to compare the potential options for repairing and rehabilitating the York River shoreline (NPS 2011a). The VA looked at planning criteria and constraints as well as a variety of shoreline treatment options and their benefits, drawbacks, and costs to construct and maintain. The VA report documents the VA process that weighed the various treatment options. Those that scored the highest were carried forward and developed into two full action alternatives, both of which are presented in this EA along with the No-action Alternative.

Cultural Landscape Report for Colonial Parkway (CLR). The CLR (NPS 1997) includes abundant information on the history of the parkway development and construction as well as an assessment of the parkway’s historic integrity and significance. Because the existing condition of the parkway is highly reflective of as-built conditions, its integrity was judged to be high. The

20 Purpose and Need significance of the resource is associated with a variety of factors, including those associated with landscape architecture as a designed landscape and NPS design and the historic preservation movement.

SCOPING

Scoping is an early and open process to determine the breadth of environmental issues and alternatives to be addressed in a NEPA document. Scoping is used to identify which issues need to be analyzed in detail and which can be eliminated from in-depth analysis. It also allocates assignments among the NPS’ interdisciplinary team members and/or other participating agencies; identifies related projects and associated documents; identifies permits, surveys, consultation, and other requirements; and creates a schedule that allows adequate time to prepare and distribute the environmental assessment for public review and comment before a final decision is made. Scoping efforts may include any public, staff, interested agency, or any agency with jurisdiction by law or expertise; for example, the SHPO; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), etc. The planning process for the proposed action itself is rooted in NPS initiatives as mandated by the GMP and WRMP described in the preceding section. Scoping for the proposed repair and stabilization of the York River shoreline began in the spring of 2010, with scoping letters being sent to various local, state and federal agencies. These letters introduced the purpose and need for the project and included an invitation to attend an interagency meeting in March, 2010 or provide written input in lieu of attendance at the meeting. Agencies and organizations receiving a scoping letter included York County, the DEQ, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR), the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC), the DCR, the U.S. Navy (Naval Weapons Station Yorktown), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the USFWS, and the USACE. Scoping letters and agency responses are included in “Appendix A: Relevant Correspondence.”

In advance of the interagency meeting, staff from the park and the NPS Denver Service Center conducted a site visit and interdisciplinary meeting. The SMP and its constituent mapping of recommended shoreline treatments were used as a starting point for discussions between interdisciplinary team members. Planning issues and timeframes and protocols for the collection of required field data were discussed at this internal meeting. Recommendations on how to proceed with the determination of a preferred alternative for the project and to analyze components of the work for value effectiveness also were discussed. NPS consultants and VIMS were tasked with developing alternatives for the proposed shoreline treatments using the SMP as a reference and considering manifestations of shoreline change in the time since its publication.

Two action alternatives were presented for NPS review and discussed via a second interdisciplinary team meeting/conference call in June 2010. Internal NPS scoping between interdisciplinary team members and their consultants were ongoing through to a Value Analysis meeting in July 2010. The resulting report outlined the NPS Preferred Alternative (NPS 2011a).

For further scoping and public participation information, see “Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination” and “Appendix A: Relevant Correspondence.”

21 Purpose and Need

PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS

During the scoping process, specific considerations and concerns were identified as critical to consider while planning how to best manage the park shoreline along the York River. The following were identified as most important to the planning and design process: provide continued safe public access along the parkway, consider the location of and protect natural and cultural resources, plan for anticipated sea-level rise, appreciate the regulatory implications of the potential approaches, consider site access restrictions from both land and water, and accommodate existing recreation. Along with the purpose and need for the proposed action, these topics guided the development of alternatives and contributed to the selection of impact topics, as identified in this section.

Plan for anticipated sea-level rise. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has determined that global average sea level has risen at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year (0.59 feet per century) from 1961 to 2003 (VIMS 2008). The nearest water level gauge on the York River is located immediately opposite the project location at Gloucester Point, Virginia. Over the period from 1950 to 2003, the mean sea-level trend at this gauge was 3.81 mm/year or 0.15 in/year (NOAA 2010). This rate is equivalent to 1.25 ft of rise in 100 years. Other gauges in the lower Chesapeake Bay have records which show rates or rise ranging from 1.14 to 1.98 ft in 100 years. The proposed methods of shoreline treatment and their eventual design specifications would need to strike a balance between reducing the risk of impacts associated with anticipated sea-level rise and protecting the integrity of archeological, cultural, and natural resources. In other words, while it is critical to increase the effective height of shore-protecting structures to account for sea-level rise and storm surges, such augmentations in shore defense must carefully consider potential impacts on these resources that would be caused by excavation, the placement of fill materials, and the removal of vegetation. The effective heights and of the proposed structures are also constrained by financial considerations.

Appreciate the regulatory implications of the potential approaches.

NPS Director’s Order (DO) #77-1-1: Wetland Protection (NPS 2002a) mandates that NPS projects avoid to the extent possible long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. It is likely that the proposed project would involve unavoidable temporary and possibly permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States and wetlands and streams regulated by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40 Part 230, entitled “Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material” and Virginia Water Protection Permit Regulations require that practicable alternative courses of action be considered before projects can be authorized by the USACE and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). As both agencies require compensatory mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional resources, minimizing such impacts and finding means of incorporating wetland restoration, enhancement, or creation into the project design should be guiding principles during plan development.

Consider site access restrictions from both land and water.

Weight limit specifications for the parkway prohibit its use as an access road for construction equipment or the delivery of construction materials. Bathymetric conditions and potential

22 Purpose and Need underwater archeological resources may dictate the locations and numbers of possible approaches to the shoreline from the water using barges. The location of terrestrial archeological and cultural resources may preclude the use of upland areas for barge landings and material staging.

Accommodate existing recreational uses.

Existing recreational uses within the project area include fishing, picnicking, and sightseeing at the open grassy areas at the mouths of Felgates Creek and Indian Field Creek. Proposed shoreline improvements and the construction approach necessary for their execution should be designed to minimize interference with these ongoing uses. Conversely, proposed shoreline treatments should not introduce new recreational opportunities, either directly or indirectly. For example, the installation of offshore breakwaters with shore-attached beaches may inadvertently attract the recreating public from both land and water, introducing the potential for human caused disturbance in areas that were previously inaccessible or rarely accessed. Such unplanned recreational use also may present liability and safety concerns for the park with respect to parking (including illegal parking on the parkway shoulder), pedestrian traffic in areas where such use is unplanned (including the parkway shoulder and parkway crossings). These unplanned uses can also increase expenditures on park operations and maintenance. Potential means of restricting access and providing proper signage and other means of access control and visitor information should be considered.

REGULATORY ISSUES AND MANAGEMENT CONCERNS

Based on discussions with NPS staff and planning team members, implementation of the shoreline treatments described in this EA would not require any changes to existing legislation or management policies in order to be implemented. Certain approvals and permits would be required prior to construction. These include the following:

A USACE Individual Permit for impacts to navigable waters and wetlands of the United States pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

A permit for encroachment on subaqueous lands and sandy beaches administered by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) pursuant to Virginia Code sections 28.2-1200 et seq. and 28.2-1300 et seq.

A tidal wetlands permit from the York County Wetlands Board in accordance with Section 23.1 (Wetlands) of the County Code.

A permit from York County for land disturbance activities within areas designated as Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas, pursuant to Section 23.2 (Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas) and Section 10.1-2100 of the Code of Virginia.

A Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Permit to authorize land disturbance and construction of the project.

A waiver would likely be issued by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), exempting the project from obtaining a Virginia Water Protection Permit, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, as long as other federal, state, and local permits are issued.

23 Purpose and Need

Coordination with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would be required regarding the possible presence of state and federally listed rare, threatened or endangered species within the project area.

Coordination with the U.S. Navy would be required to insure that barge traffic does…