Geneva Wellington HHGH High Tunnel EA.pdf

ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT

WELLINGTON

FARM

HIGH TUNNELS

GREENHOUSE

PLANT GENETICS

RESEARCH UNIT

GENEVA, NY

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service

MARCH 2022

USDA-ARS

Geneva, NY

Environmental Assessment Wellington High Tunnels

1. Introduction The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has completed this Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed action described below. The EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 US Code § 4321 et seq.); the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§ 1S00-1S08); and the USDA ARS Procedures for Implementing NEPA (1 CFR § S20). This EA evaluates the potential for significant effects to the quality of the human environment from the Proposed Action.

2. Purpose and Need

The USDA, ARS, Plant Genetic Resources Unit (PGRU), in Geneva, NY requires two new high tunnel greenhouses to be used to continue operations in the preservation of valuable vegetable and hemp germplasm and will be used by the Seeds, Clonal, and Hemp Groups.

Not having these structures has constrained PGRU operations for the last 10 years. As the hemp germplasm project is a recent addition to the crop germplasm conservation efforts, newly available funding from this project will be used to support the addition of this vital infrastructure upgrade.

3. Proposed Action The proposed action is to construct a new greenhouse at the USDA-ARS Wellington Farm, located at 2865 Preemption Road (County Road 6) in Geneva, NY. It will be an approximately 60’ x 96’ (5,760 SF) greenhouse to include steel framing, polycarbonate glazing on roof and endwalls, rollup sidewalls, ventilation, and concrete flooring. The greenhouse was originally planned to be two separate 30’ x 96’ greenhouses. However, the design changed to make one greenhouse with the same approximate square-footage and footprint.

4. Alternatives Considered The USDA ARS considered the No Action Alternative, as required by 40 CFR § 1S02.14. This alternative is retained for comparative analysis in this EA. The No Action Alternative was determined to be unacceptable as it would not allow the program to meet its needs. Therefore, it was dismissed.

March 2022 Page 1

5. Technical Resource Areas

• Land Use Is the Proposed Action likely to have a significant impact on current land use?

Yes □ No X The existing land use is agriculture and research. There would be no change to the site as a result of the Proposed Action.

Are the Alternatives likely to have a significant impact on current land use?

Yes□ No X The No Action Alternative would be the existing condition.

• Aesthetics Visual Resources Is the Proposed Action likely to have a significant impact on aesthetics or visual resources?

Yes□ No X The Proposed Action would include the construction of an approximately 5,760 square-foot greenhouse. Although the project involves the installation of the greenhouse, it will fit with existing structures, and it’s visual and aesthetic impact will not be significant

Is the No Action Alternative likely to have a significant impact on aesthetics or visual resources?

Yes □ No X

• Air Quality Is the Proposed Action likely to have a significant impact on air quality?

Yes □ No X The installation of the greenhouse would have minimal impact to the air quality, as only construction-related vehicles would give off exhaust during the construction. Additionally, dust control measures will be incorporated by the contractor to reduce any fugitive dust issues. Once the construction is complete, there will be no change in greenhouse gas emissions.

Is the No Action Alternative likely to have a significant impact on air quality?

There would be no impact to air quality as a result of the No Action Alternative.

March 2022 Page 2

• Noise Is the Proposed Action likely to have a significant impact on noise?

Yes □ No X Construction activities associated with the Proposed Action would not be expected to produce noise in excess of 90 dBA. The USDA ARS would limit construction activities to normal business hours.

Is the No Action Alternative likely to have a significant impact on noise?

Yes □ No X I The No Action Alternative would have no impact on ambient noise levels. I

• Geology, Topography, Soils Is the Proposed Action likely to have a significant impact on geology, topography, or soils?

Yes□ No X The project involves the construction of an approximately 3,000 square-foot greenhouse.

The project would involve the grading of the site to blend with the existing topography, and therefore would not significantly impact existing geology, topography or soils. Minor subsurface work is projected.

Is the No Action Alternative soils?

likely to have a significant impact on geology, topography, or

• Water Resources (surface, ground, wetlands, floodplains) Is the Proposed Action likely to have a significant impact on water resources?

Yes□ No X

As indicated by the New York State Environmental Resource Tracker, the project is not located within any wetland, floodplain, or “Rare Plants or Animals” area. Based on the project location and proposed project activity, no significant impact is expected.

Is the No Action Alternative likely to have a significant impact on water resources?

March 2022 Page 3

• Biological Resources Is the Proposed Action likely to have a significant impact on biological resources?

Yes□ No X

As indicated by the New York State Environmental Resource Tracker, the project is not located within any wetland, floodplain, or “Rare Plants or Animals” area. Based on the project location and proposed project activity, no significant impact is expected.

Is the No Action Alternative likely to have a significant impact on biological resources?

• Cultural Resources Is the Proposed Action likely to have a significant impact on cultural resources?

Yes □ No X There are no cultural resources located at the site. Therefor there was no requirement to complete a Determination of Eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.

Is the No Action Alternative likely to have a significant impact on cultural resources?

The No Action Alternative would be the existing condition.

• Socioeconomics/Environmental Justice Is the Proposed Action likely to have a significant impact on socioeconomics or environmental justice?

Yes□ No X There would be no adverse impacts to socioeconomics or environmental justice concerns as a result of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action could produce short-term positive effects through creation of construction jobs.

Is the No Action Alternative likely to have a significant impact on socioeconomics or environmental justice?

Yes□ No X

The No Action Alternative would be the existing condition. No short-term jobs would be created.

March 2022 Page 4

• Infrastructure and Utilities Is the Proposed Action likely to have a significant impact on infrastructure or utilities?

Yes □ No X Electrical and other utilities will installed in accordance with design plans, and in accordance with all appropriate regulations and guidelines. but this would not be a significant impact.

Is the No Action Alternative likely to have a significant impact on infrastructure or utilities?

• Hazardous and Toxic Materials and Wastes Is the Proposed Action likely to have a significant impact on hazardous and toxic materials and wastes?

Yes □ No X No hazardous or toxic wastes are expected to be generated during the construction, and no additional waste streams will occur once the construction is completed. There are no existing structures or facilities on the proposed project site, so no hazardous materials currently exist at the project site.

Is the No Action Alternative likely to have a significant impact on hazardous and toxic materials and wastes?

March 2022 Page 5

• Cumulative Effects Is the Proposed Action likely to have any cumula1ive effects when considering other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area?

Yes □ No X The project will not change the current use of the site, and will not involve significant changes to existing noise, topographical, or infrastructure conditions. As such, the Proposed Action would not be expected to contribute incrementally to adverse cumulative effects to any specific resource area. As such, no significant cumulative effects would be anticipated.

Is the No Action Alternative likely to have any cumulative effects when considering other past, present. and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area?

Yes □- No X The No Action Alternative would be the existing condition.

6. References

See Attachments section

March 2022 Page 6

7. Finding of No Significant Impact Based on my review of the data and analysis presented in this EA, I conclude that the Proposed Action, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified herein, would not have a significant adverse individual or cumulative impacts to the quality of the human environment. As such, an Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the NEPA, is not warranted and will not be prepared.

To minimize the potential for adverse effects, the USDA ARS will:

• Suppress fugitive dust and particulate matter by applying water to the site, as necessary;

cover exposed materials, as necessary; minimize equipment operation to the extent possible, including minimizing idling and operating time; and use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (as required by Federal law) during all construction activities

Accordingly, the requirements of the referenced regulations have been satisfied, and I conclude that FONSI is appropriate.

Printed Name

Title

Signature

Date

March 2022 Page 7

Attachments:

Project Site Plan

Geneva NY Wellington High Tunnel EA Resources Map

Crusher Run

Rimol 96x30’

Rimol 96x30’

Crusher Run Parking

Expand and deepen 3 side bays for equip storage

Conc Slab

Move pole towers to slab; rotate 90 for access

Saw dust bay

Saw dust bay

Wellington Barn 200’ l x 60’ w

90’

Remove old H20 tank

Wet fruit/veg processing awning

"Rare animals/plants"

Project Location

Stream

Geneva NY Wellington High Tunnel EA Resources Map