Attachment T - DD3 Record of Categorical Exclusion.pdf

For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!

http://www.adobe.com/go/reader

CUI//SP-ARCHR/SP-HISTP/CRIT

PRM4

6 June 2023

Ms. Jennifer Bellville-Marrion

Virginia Department of Historic Resources

Review and Compliance Division

2801 Kensington Avenue

Richmond, Virginia 23221

Dear Ms. Bellville-Marrion

Subj: DRY DOCK 3 MODERNIZATION (VDHR FILE # 2021-3195)

The regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act require federal agencies to identify parties that may be potentially interested in an undertaking, notify them of the proposed project, and solicit their input. The Norfolk Naval Shipyard (NNSY) previously initiated consultation with Virginia Department of Historic Resources in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended and 36 CFR Part 800.

This resulted in a request for additional project information to assess the effect on historical resources. Updated project information is being provided to support this request. The information will demonstrate and support the NNSY’s assessment that the proposed undertaking will have an adverse effect on historical properties.

1. General Project Information.

a. Agency Project Number. NNSY-21-03-00.

b. Associated VDHR File Number. Over the years, there were several Dry Dock 3 projects that required consultation with VDHR

2006-XXXX: Capstone Removal at Dry Docks 2,3,4,6, and 7 – VDHR determination of effect not recorded. NNSY has documents referencing this consultation but the VDHR

Number and decision are missing.

2011-1962: Dry Dock 2 and Dry Dock 3 Steam Pipe – No Adverse Effect with

Conditions. The condition was for archaeological monitoring to be included in the project. Archaeological monitoring occurred in four areas and no significant cultural resources were identified. A Memorandum for the Record about the archaeological monitoring was submitted to VDHR.

2012-0328: Caisson Repair and Replacement – No Adverse Effect

2013-3501: Portal Crane Rail Replacement – No Adverse Effect

Controlled by: NAVFAC-MIDLANT

Controlled by: NNSY PWD EV

CUI Categories: ARCHR, CRIT, HISTP

POC: Matthew Olson 757-636-4307

2014-3113: Vertical Reciprocating Conveyor Installation – No Adverse Effect

2016-4197: Waterfront Utilities at Dry Dock 2, 3, and 4 – No Adverse Effect with

Conditions. The Condition was for archaeological monitoring. Archaeological monitoring was performed by James River Institute for Archaeology. No evidence of human burials or other associated artifacts or features were observed in the vicinity of the Dry Dock 3 project area.

2019-3598: Flood Wall around Dry Docks 1,2,3 and 4 – No Adverse Effect

2021-4318: Support Trailers for MONTPELIER – No Adverse Effect

2021-4554: Additional Support Trailers for MONTPELIER – No Adverse Effect

2022-3404: Silt Removal for Dry Docks (Permit Renewal) – No Properties Effected

c. Project Street Address. N/A.

d. Independent Cities and/or Counties. Portsmouth (Ind. City) and Chesapeake (Ind. City).

e. Agency Involvement. My project involves a federal or state agency and requires review by

DHR under the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106 or 110), Virginia Environmental

Impact Reports Act or other provision of state or federal law.

1) Navy. Federally Funded.

2. Project Description and Current and Past Land Use

a. Project Description. Dry Dock 3 is an unreinforced cast in place concrete gravity graving dock structure; 732ft long consisting of an original timber pile supported 554ft long dry dock constructed in the beginning of the 20th century and a 178ft long extension that is supported by soil constructed in 1960. The project seeks to modernize Dry Dock 3 inner/outer and superflood seats to remove operational restrictions for docking Virginia Class Submarines, stabilize the entrance and protect against dry dock uplift during high water events. The new configuration will prevent the potential loss of dry dock certification and the inability to use Dry Dock 3. The loss of use of Dry Dock 3 would compromise the mission of Norfolk Naval Shipyard and have an extreme negative effect on the capability of the Navy to accomplish its submarine repair mission.

Additionally, the project will reduce the required maintenance cost and level of effort to accomplish the regular maintenance. Lastly, the project will also install a wet land best management practice (BMP) at St. Juliens Creek Annex.

The Chief of Naval Operations has directed that all maintenance activities be able to support The Navy's Fleet Response Plan to keep more ships in a higher state of readiness. The mission of Norfolk Naval Shipyard's (NNSY) Dry Dock 3 is to provide the required dry dock capabilities needed to support the fleet through depot level maintenance and repairs while in dry dock. The project is slated to be a design-bid-build for execution strategy to support the CNO requirement, the complexity of the project, and the unique constraints of NNSY. The actual work will be conducted in three phases starting in 2024 to 2026. A copy of the 65% design drawings is attached to this consultation as Enclosure (1).

1) Phase I. This project will require specialized construction of a cofferdam, located outside of the dry dock approach walls, to allow for dewatering of the dry dock and enable the construction of new, reinforced concrete caisson seats. The existing caisson seats will be demolished and replaced with improved capacity to resist buoyant uplift forces, minimized seepage risks, and provide improved integrity to resist superflood reaction forces. The new caisson seats will be constructed with a top of coping elevation of 106 feet, as part of an existing layered flood protection system. A dedicated turtle back will be installed on north and south sides of the dry dock for the caisson.

This project will provide an auxiliary saltwater discharge header system that discharges directly from ship into the river. A clean water header will be constructed to service Dry Dock 3.

An environmental chamber will be incorporated to collect all Dry Dock 3’s oily waste, waste oil prior to being pumped onto a barge for transport to the Pier No. 3 oily waste, waste oil system.

Demolition work below grade in the existing pumpwell includes components inside the pumpwell to accommodate pump and equipment upgrades, removal of the existing ladders, catwalks, platforms, stairs, and concrete wall as required. All mechanical systems in the pumpwell are to be replaced and upgraded. The pumpwell will be replaced with a wet well within Phase 3.

The project demolishes the entire 440SF of Building No. 516 (a non-contributing resource, VDHR #124-0185-0161) and relocates substations P1E and P1F to provide space for the environmental chamber to be constructed in Phase 1 and then a wet well pump house in

Phase 3. Completion of Phase 1 will result in a complete and usable facility, in the event Phase 2 and/or Phase 3 do not occur.

Measures to mitigate any adverse environmental effects from the project are included.

The proposed strategy includes Level II documentation, large-scale photography of Dry Dock 3 and its historic details; drawings of existing conditions; and a written component documenting its physical features and history.

2) Phase II. Renovate remainder of the dry dock not in Phase 1 - wall/coping reconstruction, crane rails, railroad, floor (install floor pilings) and remove cofferdam.

All existing granite blocks along the dry dock’s floor and walls will be removed. Piles will be installed through the dry dock floor to mitigate uplift tendencies due to hydrostatic pressure. All the existing joints and cracks throughout the dry dock concrete will be resealed.

The dock access stair system will be upgraded to meet the latest life safety and evacuation planning criteria. The depth gages in the dry dock will be replaced.

A floor drainage trench system will be incorporated within the new dry dock floor, covering the entire length of the dock, to improve runoff drainage.

All existing capstans, cleats, and bollards will be replaced around Dry Dock 3. The existing capstan mountings will be provided with surface foundation plates, placed as necessary, and designed to accept capstan assemblies consistent with a repeated mount and removal cycle of use. Capstans to be replaced with properly sized modern type capstans provided from other appropriations.

The entire crane rail system, including beams, around Dry Dock 3 will be replaced on a concrete pile supported system.

The existing concrete coping wall around the dry dock will be raised to EL. 106 to provide improved flood resiliency. A new utility trench will be designed and will include a removable grated walkway cover that can be used for line handling during ship docking. The existing utility tunnel will be reconfigured. All ship service utility systems connections will be modernized to meet current standards and incorporated into the utility trench design for ease of use and connection. Select utilities will be replaced such as crane hotel, capstan feeds, fiber, lighting, compressed air, hydrants, oily waste- waste oil, sanitary, steam, HP compressed air, pure water, nitrogen, and clean water header. A nitrogen gas system supply header will be installed in Dry Dock 3. The existing PA system at the dry dock will be replaced.

Utility upgrades include replacement of existing dry dock lighting system with saltwater submersible, long life features, sized and position for optimum lamination and visibility around Dry Dock 3. The lighting system will be operated by both photocells and switches.

Specific systems such as electrical will be brought into current standards. The lighting will be improved and enhanced to enhance better work conditions for personnel and will reduce energy costs for a more sustainable environment.

All required fire protection pipes and fittings will be installed and spaced properly around the coping of the dock and at the floor of the dock. When a ship is in dry dock, a means of reporting a fire shall be placed at least every 100ft on the dry dock floor under the length of the ship so that personnel working under the ship can quickly report.

The dry dock and the associated Pumpwell 3 will no longer require Pumpwell 2 to perform dewatering and superflood operations. The existing below grade connection tunnel that currently connects Dry Dock No. 3 and pumpwell to Dry Dock 2 will be retained for system redundancy. The tunnel and associated suction junction chamber will be repaired to maintain functionality of dewatering and drainage systems. Repairs to include grouting/sealing of tunnel joints, concrete spalling repair, replacement or repair of sluice gates 7 and 8, replacement of tunnel stop log, and replacement of suction junction 14-inch suction pipe and level monitoring system.

The nuclear refueling tunnel, connecting Building 1475 into Dry Dock 3 northern wall, will be partially demolished and reconstructed into the new geometry of the dry dock. The tunnel will be fully excavated, and a positive waterproof membrane applied. Fire protection considerations and life safety requirements will be incorporated into the new tunnel design.

Safety will be enhanced by providing improved fall protection at the dry dock edge.

Safety, efficiency and work standards will be improved as all dry dock and ship hotel support utilities will be placed in an elevated utility trench with a grated cover which provides a clear and safe walkway around the dry dock for line handling while docking vessels. It is anticipated that a

SHPO recordation package will be required.

3) Phase III. The existing pumpwell will be modernized as a wet well operational type of structure. The wet well design is more compact, less complex, and easier to maintain than a comparable dry-sump, due to reduction in piping, valves, flooding, and other water ingress issues. The wet well system will be designed to meet all user and code requirements of the modernized dry dock.

The Pump House is required to support the wet well and provides additional enclosed area for mechanical and electrical equipment upgrades. The Pump House will be provided with an addressable fire alarm system within the facility. The system will include a manual pull station located near the entrance of the Pump House and a smoke detector provided near the Fire

Alarm Control Unit (FACU). Other amenities will be included in the Pump house for staff and emergency related operations such as the console/control room, toilet room with sink, and main operations area.

The Pump House will maintain a 1200A 480Y/277V service for general power and a

1200A 4.16kV service for three (3) main dewatering pumps. The two (2) pad-mounted transformers (11.5kV to 4.16kV and 11.5kV to 480Y/277V), powering these respective distribution systems will be installed on the Pump House roof. Two (2) separate 11.5kV feeders will be routed up the Pump House roof to provide redundancy.

Facility-related control systems include cybersecurity features in accordance with current Department of Defense (DoD) criteria.

This project will provide Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) features and comply with AT/FP regulations, and physical security mitigation in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings. User Generated Unit Costs were used for this project and include the cost of features to meet the minimum DoD AT/FP standards.

Special construction features consist of a temporary coffer dam wall. Supporting facilities include the necessary site preparation and utility work to incorporate the new facility into the existing civil, mechanical, and electrical utility layouts.

Paving and Site improvements include; repair of pavement cuts made to access existing and install new utilities, load and unload paved area and dumpster pad. Storm piping will be reinstalled to match the existing drainage patterns and capacity. Also a will be installed at a single location at St. Juliens Creek Annex.

Electrical Utilities include; primary and secondary distribution, substations, manholes, generators and pumpwell control console.

Mechanical Utilities include; Saltwater supply and return piping, Saltwater fire-fighting piping, freshwater fire piping, dry dock drainage piping, and new saltwater intake structures.

Facilities will be designed to meet or exceed the useful service life specified in DoD

Unified Facility Criteria (UFC). Facilities will incorporate features that provide the lowest practical life cycle cost solutions satisfying the facility requirements with the goal of maximizing energy efficiency.

Project siting has been evaluated in accordance with the requirements of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense memorandum of 11 February 2014, "Floodplain Management on

Department of Defense Installations".

b. Project Number of Acres. The project area to include laydown areas at the NNSY is approximately 6.92 acres. The St Juliens Creek Annex project area will be dependent upon which BMP location is chosen. Option 1 would be approximately 2.2 acres, Option 2 would be

.56 acres, and Option 3 would be 1 acre split in two locations (roughly .59 acres and .41 acres).

c. Current Condition of Project Areas

1) NNSY (Main Site). Dry Dock 3 is located along the southern branch of the Elizabeth

River in the Controlled Industrial Area (CIA) of the NNSY, refer to Enclosure 2. This industrialized area contains closely clustered buildings supported by vast utility networks (above and below ground) and almost completely paved with either asphalt or concrete. There are no green spaces within this area and the soils are classified as Urban Land (USDA/SCS 1983: Map

Sheet 1).

Buildings and structures within the CIA range in time period from modern to around

World War I. While there are above ground historical resources dating from circa World War I most are from World War II. Therefore, the period of significance for this area is from 1911-

1945. The CIA as a historical district meets Criterion A for evaluation used for the National

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) for its association with historical events. No historical buildings or structures and their associated features will be altered by this project.

2) St. Juliens Creek Annex. Its primary mission is to provide a radar testing range (35 acres) and various administrative and warehousing structures. The annex is located in southeastern Virginia at the confluence of St. Juliens Creek and the Southern Branch of the

Elizabeth River in the city of Chesapeake. The northern boundary of the annex is the boundary between the cities of Portsmouth and Chesapeake, Virginia. The Elizabeth River and St. Juliens

Creek form the eastern and southern boundaries, respectively, of the annex. St. Juliens Creek

Annex occupies approximately 490 acres, including 407 acres of land, 14 acres of marsh, and 69 acres of surface water. The terrain is relatively flat with an elevation of 5-15ft above mean sea level.

Most of St. Juliens Creek Annex is characterized as Urban Land but contains pockets of

Munden fine sandy loam, Tetotum fine sandy loam, Aquents, and Rappahannock muck.

Although mostly Urban Land, the majority of land historically contained intact soils with drainage capacities suited to habitation. As for vegetation, it varies across St. Juliens Creek

Annex. Upland areas are mixed with forestland and planted pine stands. The forestlands contain minimal-to-moderate patches of shrubby undergrowth. Oak dominates the hardwood growth but there is also sweetgum, elm, maple, beech, magnolia, hickory, as well as planted cedar and crepe myrtle.

3) Cultural Resources. There are historical resources identified at both NNSY and St

Juliens Creek Annex. A discussion of the types of resources is included in Section 5 of this document.

d. Previous Modifications

1) NNSY Dry Dock 3 Area. A model depicting the evolution of the Southern Branch

Elizabeth River from 8,500 years ago to the present was developed by Ohio Valley Archaeology

Inc. The model indicates a lower low water roughly 6,500 years ago forming the shoreline for the project area prior to development. Shoreline alteration began post European settlement of the area and is mainly connected with the development of the Norfolk Naval Shipyard (NNSY).

Changes to the shoreline were necessitated by NNSY’s mission to support and maintain the

Navy’s fleet.

The NNSY was originally founded as a private shipyard owned and operated by

Andrew Sprowle in the third quarter of the 18th century just prior to the American Revolutionary

War. The shipyard at this time was known as Gosport. Sprowle would lose his shipyard during the war, its ownership then transferring to the state of Virginia. In the late 1790s, Virginia leased

Gosport to the newly formed Department of the Navy. Virginia transferred full ownership to the

Navy on 15 June 1801. The exchange of ownership subsequently resulted in significant upgrades to the shipyard and further growth of NNSY’s boundaries during the 19th century.

From 1826 to 1829, the Navy purchased adjacent Gosport properties. A portion of the current project location was purchased in 1826 from Margaret Livingston and another area from Sophia Bradford in 1827. The Elizabeth River shoreline in the vicinity of this area changed in 1827 with the start of Dry Dock 1’s construction. Two additional dry docks were constructed on the former Livingston and Bradford properties; Dry Dock 2 was constructed in later part of the 19th century, while Dry Dock 3 was completed in the beginning of the 20th century.

The contract for the construction of Dry Dock 3 was awarded to John C. Rodgers &

Co. of New York in 1903. By the end of 1905, it was estimated that 122,115 cubic yards of excavated material was removed in support of construction. Construction was completed in 1907 and the USS NORTH CAROLINA was the first ship in the dry dock in 1908. A little over two decades later in 1930 improvements to Dry Dock 3 were carried out by Dravo Contracting and

G.C. Merritt Chapman McLean Corporation. Another round of improvements sought to expand the dry dock in 1960. Since the 1960 improvements, there has been a series of projects conducted to maintain Dry Dock 3. The most recent projects within the past seventeen years is outlined and referenced in Section 1.b. of this document.

Additionally, the land surrounding Dry Dock 3 has undergone significant changes, as documented in the maps from the 19th to 21st century. One of the earliest maps showing the

Dry Dock 3 area dates to 1842. This map, 1842 Plan Navy Gosport, VA, shows an engine house, smithery, and foundry to the northeast and two timber sheds to the west/northwest of the eventual Dry Dock 2 and Dry Dock 3 locations. Also, in these future dry dock locations is an inlet/creek associated with the Elizabeth River. The inlet was slated to be filled in to create a canal. The canal’s location and the inlet are depicted on an 1850 map of the shipyard, while the

1851 Map of the Cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth by Rolin and Keily only shows the canal.

However, an 1857 map of the shipyard depicts an inlet south of Dry Dock 1 as well as three unidentified buildings; an 1859 map indicates that these unidentified buildings are most likely two timber sheds and a saw mill with engine house. This same 1859 map also indicates that the land west of the shipyard was the Collins Estate. North of the Collins Estate, another tract is labeled as the Edwards Estate. Neither parcel has any sort of building, structure, nor landmark depicted.

On an 1866 map following the Civil War, the timber shed on the east side of the creek no longer appears; the western timber shed became a temporary lime shed in 1872. The creek is not evident on subsequent 19th century maps. On these maps, the area south of present-day Dry Dock 2 is shown as basically void of any sort of development except for a storehouse.

But this did not last; by 1900 a new shipfitters shop was under construction south of Dry Dock 2 and two additional dry docks were planned. There would also be a garbage crematory and an unidentified wooden building to the southwest of Dry Dock 3. North of the unidentified frame building on the 1900 map, two structures are depicted; one is labeled as dedicated to cement and the other for acids and oils storage. These facilities would be gone by the first quarter of the 20th century.

The previously-referenced Edwards and Collins estates, with other properties, were purchased by the Navy from the Portsmouth Co. on 22 June 1904. This transaction increased shipyard land holdings to approximately 273 acres, and provided space to create future Dry

Docks 4, 6, and 7. The 1904 tract was developed throughout the remainder of the 20th century and into the 21st century. One of the most recent developments included the infilling of Dry

Docks 6 and 7. Additionally, over the years several utilities have been installed around Dry Dock

3 [refer to Enclosure (2)].

2) St. Juliens Creek Annex. This land has been modified by intensive occupation and construction activities for various buildings supported by installation of above ground and below ground utility lines. The land use and modifications prior to the Navy’s purchase are not as thoroughly documented as the areas around NNSY’s Main Site.

In the mid-17th century, there were several patents granted to individuals on the north and south banks of St. Juliens Creek, but knowledge on exact land use is unknown at this time. The earliest map of St. Juliens Creek Annex is the 1670 Survey Map of Virginia and

Maryland from Augustine Hermann. Hermann’s map depicts a sizable creek flowing westward from the Elizabeth River, in roughly the same location as St. Juliens Creek; however, the map does not indicate any structures or other indications of human activities.

Paucity of information for the St. Juliens Creek vicinity continued into the 18th century. Although cartographic data is scarce, it is known that the land was occupied and passed on via hereditary lines. A glimpse of late-18th century conditions is obtained from Moreau de

Saint-Mery. Her 1794 account describes the outskirts of Portsmouth and Gosport (which is between two and three miles away from present day St. Juliens Creek Annex) as swampy, sandy, and uninteresting. “Settled about are few mediocre house; frequently a fence encloses a rather large plot of ground on which is built the most primitive sort of log or weather boarded dwelling.

Nor is the picture enhanced any by the tree stumps, half-consumed and blackened by fire that have been left in fields. The fences only add to the melancholy spirit of the place” (de Saint-

Mery 1940:263).

By the mid-19th century, there were several plantations in the vicinity of St. Juliens

Creek Annex. The 1863 Soederquist Map indicates that there were three plantations within St.

Juliens Creek Annex’s current boundaries. Each of the three plantations features a structure with cleared grounds surrounding it and roads leading to the tract. Eventually, the Navy would acquire the land on which St. Juliens Creek Annex resides in the late-19th century. The Navy purchased

48-acre tract from Edward M. Watts in 1896 to establish the St. Juliens Magazine. This facility was designed to accommodate the assembly, storage, and maintenance of naval ordnance away from the actual shipyard. St. Juliens would continue to grow from land purchases in 1900 and

1907.

In the early-20th century, St. Juliens began storing ammonium picrate (referred to as “Dunnite” or “Explosive D”) and assembling the first naval shells containing this explosive.

In January of 1917, St. Juliens Magazine was redesignated as the Naval Ammunition Depot, St.

Juliens. This ammunition depot would be pivotal in the North Sea Mine Barrage with the production of the Mark VI sea mine. The mine’s casing was manufactured at NNSY and its explosives loaded at the Naval Ammunition Depot, St. Juliens.

The post-war years saw activities decline at the depot. The mine-filling plant was closed in 1920 but loading, storing, and shipping of naval shells continued. St. Juliens became critical once again after the U.S. entered into World War II by producing ammunition and testing ordinance. Additional land was purchased in April of 1943 bringing the facility to 489.5 acres of developable land, wetlands, and surface water. The Navy would also spend $5 million on infrastructure improvements at St. Juliens during the war.

Shell-loading and test loading of new ammunition types continued at St. Juliens until 1970. Unfortunately, there was an explosion that same year at the facility causing the Navy to re-evaluate this location due to its proximity to residential areas. The Naval Ammunition

Depot, St. Juliens was redesignated as St. Juliens Creek Annex. It ceased all ordnance production, handling, and storage activities by 1975. Presently, the annex serves as a radar-testing range, an administrative facility, and as a warehousing facility with several tenant commands supporting various Navy activities.

3) Historical Maps. Enclosure (2) includes copies of historical maps referenced in the above sections.

e. Work Involving Buildings Or Structures. This project does involve the rehabilitation, addition to, alteration, or demolition of any building or structure over 50 years of age. The associated work as outlined in Paragraph 2.a will take place on Dry Dock 3, which is slightly over 115 years old. A discussion of Dry Dock 3 is found in Paragraph 5.c. Additionally, the proposed locations of BMPs and their associated construction (refer to Paragraph 2.f) at St.

Juliens will not alter any of the structures inside or outside the historic district.

f. Ground Disturbances

1) Dry Dock 3. Various ground disturbances are required at the NNSY to support the modernization of Dry Dock 3. The proposed disturbances to include dimensions and depths are documented in Enclosure (1). Each ground disturbance is either associated with a demolition, installation, or construction of a dry dock component. For example, the new crane rail depicted on page 170 of the 65% Phase 1 Drawings documents the base of the beam is about 5ft below grade. To support this, an excavation to approximately 8ft is required around the existing crane rail foundations to demolish and cut the existing piles. Another example is the storm water utilities, refer to section drawings found page 80-90 of the 65% Phase 1 Drawings. These utilities will be as deep as 10ft to 11ft.

No ground disturbances associated with this undertaking will go outside the limits of disturbance in the design drawing, which was also used to develop the APE, Enclosure (3). It is clear from the provided information that the ground disturbances around Dry Dock 3 are significant and pose an adverse effect to either known or potential historic resources, refer to 5.a.

of this document. These resources could occur within fill contexts that are found throughout the project boundaries as the area is primarily infilled land. Enclosure (4) contains the most recent geotechnical borings from around Dry Dock 3, which shows fill contexts to minimum depth of

10ft and up to 28.5ft below surface. Naturally occurring soils from the “Norfolk Formation” are found under these layers.

The project is 65% design complete and therefore it is possible that the nature of ground disturbances could change. The NNSY will conduct follow on consultations for any significant changes to ground disturbances with this project.

2) St. Juliens Creek Annex: The project seeks to develop a BMP within the St. Juliens

Creek Annex. Three options are being explored but only one will actually be executed. The depths for all three BMP options are exactly the same. The depths will range from .5ft to 3ft depending on the BMP zone, refer to Enclosure (1).

a) Option 1 is within the St. Juliens Creek Annex Historic District on a parcel that is approximately 2.2 acres. The BMP at this location is approximately 450ft by 180ft.

b) Option 2 is outside the historic district and located near Bldg. 171 on approximately

.56 acres. The length and width is approximately 120ft.

c) Option 3 would occur on land totaling approximately 1 acre split between two locations within the St. Juliens Creek Historic District. Area 1 is situated between Bldg 75 and

Bldg 81, and measures 70ft in length by 210ft in width (.59 acres). Area 2 is located between

Bldg 61 and Bldg 73, and measure 30ft in length and around 285ft in width (.41 acres). All the buildings cited are contributing resources.

3. Area of Potential Effect (APE). The scope of the project and its impact on the surrounding area were taken into consideration to determine the APE. Due to the nature of the project, six discontiguous areas, three at NNSY Main Site and three at St. Juliens Creek Annex were identified to formulate the APE included in Enclosure (3). The main APE for the project is centered on Dry Dock 3. The modernization of Dry Dock 3 will not have a negative effect on the surrounding viewshed as the historically industrial nature of the area will remain unchanged.

However, the proposed changes to Dry Dock 3 and the associated ground-disturbing activities will have an adverse effect to historical resources. The other two main site APEs are support locations for the Dry Dock 3 project. No ground disturbances will occur at these locations and the activities at these locations is temporary.

The proposed St. Juliens Creek Annex’s APEs are limited to areas where ground disturbances are expected for a potential wetland BMP. There are three proposed locations associated with the project but only one location will actually be excavated. None of the proposed BMP locations will significantly alter viewsheds of the surrounding structures. It will slightly alter the landscape as it will create either a wetland or wet swale in an area where it did not previously exist. The potential for encountering archaeological resources is considered low, as a 2010 investigation and characterization of SJCA identified the annex as disturbed and retaining no potential to contain intact and significant archaeological deposits. This assessment was concurred with by VDHR (File #2009-1301). However, no shovel test pits (STPs) were placed in any of the proposed locations by any of the St. Juliens Creek Annex archaeology studies. The NNSY is proposing to conduct a limited phase I survey to support a decision of which BMP option to pursue. STPs will not be placed in BMP Option 2 Area 1 as this location falls within Contamination Site 21.

4. Consulting Parties and Public Involvement. The NNSY is planning to consult with VDHR on this project as well as the following parties due to the adverse nature of this project:

• Absentee Shawnee Tribe

• Catawba Indian Tribe

• Chickahominy Indian Tribe

• Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

• Eastern Chickahominy

• Monacan Nation

• Nansemond Indian Nation

• Pamunkey Indian Tribe

• Rappahannock Tribe

• Tuscarora Nation

• Upper Mattaponi Tribe

• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

• Chesapeake Historic Preservation Commission

• City of Portsmouth, Planning Department (Historic Preservation Commission)

• Hampton Roads Naval Museum

• Nauticus

• Portsmouth Historical Association

• Portsmouth Museums

5. Historic Resources. There are many historical resources found throughout the NNSY. The

APE map, Enclosure 2, contains an overlay of historical resources within the project area. Two known resources are expected to be adversely effected by this undertaking.

a. Archaeological Resources. The NNSY and its associated annexes do have documented archaeological sites that span from not eligible to eligible for listing in the National Register of

Historic Places (NRHP). Only one known site is expected to be adversely impacted by the ground disturbances associated with the undertaking. Below is a brief discussion of known archaeological sites either in or near construction activities.

1) 44PM0051 falls within the project boundary. It is the location from which four sets of human remains were previously excavated in the early 1990s. The first two sets of encountered remains were removed without archaeological monitoring. The coffins encountered in February of 1991 were removed by archaeological monitoring. All remains are thought to be from the 19th century. No effort was made to identify the potential for additional burials outside the NNSY

1990’s project boundary. Ground disturbances are expected to occur in the vicinity of the original find and therefore NNSY will be conducting archaeological monitoring.

2) There are two archaeological sites, 44PM064 and 44PM085, near the project location but outside its boundaries. 44PM064 is approximately .1 miles northwest of Dry Dock 3. It was the location of a Phase III survey conducted by Southeastern Research, Inc. (SEARCH) in 2008.

The site time period ranges from the 18th to the 20th century but 77-99% of the site was destroyed. 44PM085 was location for the discovery of three anchors dating from the late-18th to mid-19th century, which were potentially improvised mooring. Both sites will not be affected by the Dry Dock 3 Modernization Project construction activities.

3) The following is a list of potential archaeological resources in the vicinity of the project area:

• Wharves and original shoreline of an approximate date of 1828-1859 with a presumed location along the infilled shoreline between Wet Slip #1 and Dry Dock 3.

• Saw Mill and Engine House around 1828-1859 between Dry Dock 2 and Dry Dock 3.

• Row of Timber Sheds which would be aligned southwest from Bldg. 706 to Dry Dock

3 with an approximate date of 1828-1859.

• Bldg. 56 circa 1908 found in between Dry Dock 2 and Dry Dock 3.

4) There are six known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the proposed BMP locations at St. Juliens Creek Annex. Three of the sites (44PM048, 44PM049, and 44PM050) are all located within Chesapeake, Virginia, and are considered potentially eligible for listing in the

NRHP. None of these site are threatened by a potential BMP. The other three sites (44CS0288, 44CS0289, and 44CS0290) are not eligible and are also not within the boundaries of the proposed BMP locations.

b. Archaeological Surveys.

1) 1994 “Archaeological Monitoring: Exhumation of Two Unmarked Graves Norfolk

Naval Shipyard” by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District (VDHR Report No. PM-

019).

2) 1997 “Archaeological Resources Overview, Norfolk Naval Shipyard Portsmouth, Virginia” by Goodwin & Associates, Inc. (VDHR Report No. PM-054).

3) 2011 “Phase I Archaeological Testing of Predictive Model, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia” by Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc. (VDHR Report No. PM-

070).

4) 1992 “St. Juliens Creek Annex Archaeological Survey” by Espey, Huston &

Associates, Inc,

5) 2010 “Archaeological Phase I Survey and Characterization Study at St. Juliens Creek

Annex, Chesapeake, Virginia” by Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc. (VDHR Report

No. CS-099).

c. Architectural Resources.

1) Dry Dock 3 (VDHR# 124-0185-0275), also known as Facility 915, is a rectangular-plan gravity graving dock composed of granite blocks and cast concrete with timber piling supports, measuring 732ft by 596ft. As described in the Dry Dock 3 65% Body of Design report, a series of granite blocks form steps between the dry dock’s wall and floor, where the interior width decreases from 128ft at the coping level to 82ft. The concrete floor thickness is approximately 13ft and the wall thickness ranges from 9.5ft to 21 ft. The structure is excavated deep into the west shore of the south branch of the Elizabeth River.

It was constructed between 1903 and 1911. This dry dock is a contributing resource of the Industrial Area Precinct of the NNSY under Criteria A and C. Dry Dock 3’s character-defining features include granite block stairs, flanked by a modern metal railing, which provide access from the rim of the dock to the dock’s granite block walls and flat granite floor, also character-defining features. Additionally, Dry Dock 3 retains some of its original timber piling foundation.

As originally conceived, Dry Dock 3’s length was 554 ft, but, though a 178ft extension in 1960, increased to 732ft from the outer caisson seat to the head’s inside coping wall. This extended portion is supported directly on soil. The dry dock is a contributing resource within the

NNSY Historic District, and is contributing under Criterion A for its association with 20th century development of the US Navy particularly during World Wars I and II, as well as being representative of the evolution of US Navy vessels and the shipbuilding industry. The dry dock is also significant under Criterion C for Architecture, and as a distinguishable entity embodying the distinctive characteristics of 20th century naval architecture and engineering.

Since its 1903-1911 construction, Dry Dock 3 has had periodic repairs and modifications.

Besides the 1960 extension the most extensive modification to date was a 1966 “modernization” where steel tension pilings were inserted among the existing timber piles; a new concrete floor slab was implemented; and new drainage connections were installed to the pumpwell, as well as new hydraulic rams and control console. There were also alterations to the caisson and caisson seat that included some removal of granite. Smaller modifications include 1945 when the caisson was replaced; 1946, when drainage pumps were replaced; a 1949 caisson seat repair; and a caisson overhaul in 1989. Dry Dock 3 received a new caisson in 2012 and in 2018 the coping wall was raised to EL 103.8. Most recently, the caisson gunwale was raised and the entrance coping wall was reconstructed to EL 106.0 in 2022 as part of the P-653 Floodwall project.

This project will demolish a substantial amount of historic materials and character-defining features, thereby creating an adverse effect for these integrities of materials and workmanshp, as well as integrity of design, feeling, and association. The extent of demolition for the project includes removal of all existing granite blocks within the dry dock, which derives from flooring and walls, and at least 12 inches of additional concrete, 12 to 18 inches directly beneath the granite blocks. These granite blocks range from 15 inches thick at the base of the dry dock to 50 inches along the walls and will be a significant loss.

d. Architectural Surveys.

1) 1998 “Architectural Inventory of Norfolk Naval Shipyard and Satellite Activities” by

Goodwin and Associates Inc.

2) 2003 “Architectural Inventory of Norfolk Naval Shipyard and Satellite Activities” by

Goodwin and Associates Inc. (VDHR Report No. PM-041).

3) 2003 “NNSY Categorization of the Built Environment and Draft Programmatic

Agreement” by Sadler and Whitehead Architects, LLC.

4) 2011 “The Review and Re-Evaluation of Significant Resources at Hampton Roads

Naval Installations” by Dutton + Associates.

5) 2011 “Assessment of Cold War Era Resources (1948-1962) at Navy Hampton Roads

Bases” by Dutton + Associates.

6) 2014 “Phase I Architectural Survey of Potentially Significant Cold War Era Resources

(1948-1962) at Navy Hampton Roads Bases” by Dutton + Associates.

6. Proposed Mitigation. The complexity of the project requires a diverse strategy to mitigate the adverse effects. NNSY proposes to develop a Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) for Dry Dock 3, in addition to equivalent and public education in partnership with the

Portsmouth community; this is to be further defined in the forthcoming Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA). Also, the NNSY is requiring an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the

Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards conduct archaeological monitoring for documenting and recovering archaeological resources that might be impacted by this project.

7. Contact Information. Please contact NNSY Cultural Resources Manager Matthew Olson at

(757) 636-4307 or via electronic mail at matthew.g.olson4.civ@us.navy.mil with any questions.

Sincerely, M. G. OLSON

Cultural Resources Manager

Public Works Department Portsmouth

Norfolk Naval Shipyard

Encl: (1) Dry Dock 3 Modernization 65% Design Drawings

Encl: (2) Current and Historical Maps of the Project Area

Encl: (3) Area of Potential Effect with Historical Resources Overlay

Encl: (4) Dry Dock 3 Geotechnical Borings mailto:matthew.g.olson4.civ@us.navy.mil

Western Region Office

962 Kime Lane

Salem, VA 24153

Tel: (540) 387-5443

Fax: (540) 387-5446

Northern Region Office

5357 Main Street

PO Box 519

Stephens City, VA 22655

Tel: (540) 868-7029 Fax: (540) 868-7033

Eastern Region Office

2801 Kensington Avenue

Richmond, VA 23221

Tel: (804) 367-2323

Fax: (804) 367-2391

Travis A. Voyles

Secretary of Natural and

Historic Resources

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

Department of Historic Resources

2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221

Julie V. Langan

Director Tel: (804) 367-2323

Fax: (804) 367-2391 www.dhr.virginia.gov

June 28, 2023

Matthew G. Olson, Archaeologist

PWD Portsmouth, NNSY

Southgate Annex, Bldg 1716

Portsmouth, VA 23709

Re: Dry Dock 3 Repair and Modernization; NNSY-21-03-00

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, VA

DHR File No. 2021-3195

Dear Mr. Olson

We have received your request for comments on the project referenced above. The project, as presented in the submitted materials, seeks to modernize Dry Dock 3 inner/outer and superflood seats to remove operational restrictions for docking Virginia Class Submarines, stabilize the entrance and protect against dry dock uplift during high water events. The undertaking will also install a wet land best management practice (BMP) at St. Juliens Creek

Annex. Our comments are provided as assistance to the Navy in meeting their responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

The area of potential effects (APE) is located within the Norfolk Naval Shipyard Historic District (DHR # 124-

0185) a district that have been determined potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP). Dry Dock 3 (DHR ID #124-0185-0275) is an unreinforced cast-in-place concrete gravity graving dock structure constructed in the beginning of the 20th century and is considered a contributing resource to the historic district. The Navy proposes that this project will demolish a substantial amount of historic materials and character-defining features of Dry Dock 3. It is the Navy’s determination that the proposed repair and modernization activities directly affect the characteristics of Dry Dock 3 that qualify this property for inclusion in the NRHP. Therefore, after applying the criteria of adverse effects, it is the determination of the Navy that this undertaking will result in an Adverse Effect (36CFR §800.5(d)(2)) and DHR concurs.

Please continue to consult with DHR to develop and memorialize appropriate mitigation measures for the Dry Dock

3 Repair and Modernization project. If you have any questions, please contact Jenny Bellville-Marrion at jennifer.bellville-marrion@dhr.virginia.gov.

Roger W. Kirchen, Director

Review and Compliance Division

2/27/2025

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

CLEAN AIR ACT GENERAL CONFORMITY RULE

RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY (RONA)

PROJECT TITLE: Dry Dock 3 Modernization

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Repair and Modernization of Dry Dock 3 involves: (a) repairing all granite blocks, caisson seats, and drydock stairs, (b) installing a utility trench, nitrogen gas system supply header, and structural piles, (c) sealing concrete joints and cracks, (d) replacing stop log, depth gages, capstans, cleats, bollards, lighting system, PA system, and crane rail system, (e) raising coping wall, (f) reconfiguring utility tunnel, (g) modernizing ship service utility systems connections, (h) upgrading electrical systems and pump well electrical distribution system, (i) reconstructing nuclear refueling tunnel into Drydock 3, (j) relocating substations P1E and P1F, (k) converting existing pump well into a wet well system, (l) abandoning in place suction chamber and Drydock 2 tunnel, (m) demolishing Building 516, and (n) constructing salt water discharge header and pumphouse.

INSTALLATION NAME: NSA Portsmouth/NNSY

AIR QUALITY REGION: Hampton Roads

ATTAINMENT DESIGNATION: The region is in attainment for all NAAQS except- Orphan Maintenance for Ozone

DISCUSSION: The CAA requires federal actions conform to an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) designed to achieve or maintain an attainment designation for air pollutants as defined by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93) implements these requirements. EPA has ruled that Federal actions are exempt from Conformity per 40 CFR 93.153 if the actions are specifically listed as exempt or if the actions would result in an emissions increase that is clearly de-minimis.

CONCLUSION: Per 40 CFR 93.153 the proposed action is exempt from Conformity as shown below on the next page.

☐ Listed Exemption:

☒ Meets De-minimis levels: as demonstrated in the attached tables the total of all reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect emissions for this action are below applicable de-minimis levels.

Such actions are presumed to conform to the SIP.

CERTIFICATION: To the best of my knowledge, the information provided is correct and accurate and I concur in the finding that the proposed action will conform to the SIP.

PREPARED BY: Terrence Hodges, Air Program Manager DATE: 03/03/2025

APPROVED BY: __________________________________ DATE: 03/03/2025

CLEAN AIR ACT GENERAL CONFORMITY RULE

RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY (RONA)

2025-03-03T18:06:12-0500

HODGES.TERRENCE.ALEXANDER.1263809072

Page 1 of 16 April 3, 2023

Table 1: In-Water Construction Activities Project Name and Location: Dry Dock 3 Repair and Modernization – Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia Projected Start Date of In-Water Work: June 2025 Duration of In-Water Work: Fender Removal + Cofferdam Construction = 3 months / Cofferdam Removal + Fender Installation = 1 months No concurrent activities per email from Bill Wheaton 12/11/2023: “Activities may occur on the same day but will not be concurrent (happening at the same time)”

Avg. Water Depth at

Project Site

Method of Pile Driving Extract/Install Number of Piles or Sheet Piles Material (timber, concrete, sheet, etc.) Size of Piles Impact driving strikes per pile

Minutes to drive / extract each pile (includes sheet piles)

Max. number of piles installed / extracted each day (includes

Total number of days of pile driving / extraction required (includes

-33 (feet, MLLW)

Vibratory Hammer Extract Fender Piles 5 Timber Piles 14” Dia Butt -N/A- 40 min/ea 8 / day 1 day

Hammer Extract Fender Piles 2 P/S Concrete Piles 20” Square -N/A- 120 min/ea 2 / day 1 day

Hammer

Probe Piles Install and Immediately

Extract 60 Steel H-Piles 14” HP -N/A- 30 min/location 12 / day 5 days

Hammer Install Template Piles 30 Steel Pipe Piles 18” Dia -N/A- 20 min/ea 8 / day 4 days

Hammer Extract Template Piles 30 Steel Pipe Piles 18” Dia -N/A- 20 min/ea 8 / day 4 days

Vibrate and

Install Cofferdam Piles 27 Steel Pipe 60” Dia 700 blows

60 min Vibrate, 60 min Impact 2 / day 30 days

Cofferdam Piles 20 PS31 Flat Steel Sheet

Piles 20” wide -N/A- 30 min/ea 6 / day 4 days

Extract Cofferdam Piles 20 PS31 Flat Steel Sheet

Piles 20” wide -N/A- 30 min/ea 8 / day 3 days

Fender Piles 5 Timber Fender Piles 14” Dia Butt -N/A- 15 min/ea 8 / day

1 day

Fender Piles 2 P/S Concrete Piles 20” Square 300 blows 20 min/ea 2 / day 1 day

Page 2 of 16 April 3, 2023

Table 2: Underwater Noise Source Levels for In-Water Construction Activities Pile Type Pile Diameter Installation Method Peak

(dB re 1 µPa)

RMS

(dB re 1 µPa)

SEL

(dB re 1 1 µPa2 sec) Source

Timber Fender Piles 14-inch Vibratory 185 162 157 Caltrans 2020 Concrete Fender Piles 20-inch Vibratory1 185 162 157 Caltrans 2020 Concrete Fender Piles 20-inch Impact 189 176 163 Illingworth and Rodkin 2017 Steel H Probe Piles 14-inch Vibratory N/A 158 158 Navy 2019 Steel Pipe Piles (Install - Template) 18-inch Vibratory N/A 162 162 Navy 2019, Table 6-4 Steel Pipe Piles for Cofferdam 60-inch Vibratory N/A 175 175…