B.08.03 19R4000 Amendment 2 Environmental Assessment for Cemetery 1-6-2020.pdf

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION

OF A

NEW VETERANS’ NATIONAL

CEMETERY

Columbia-Greenville, South Carolina Area

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration 810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20420

September 2006

(This page intentionally left blank.)

Final Environmental Assessment

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION

OF A

NEW VETERANS’ NATIONAL CEMETERY

COLUMBIA-GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA AREA

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration

810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20420

Prepared with Assistance from:

URS Group, Inc.

1000 Abernathy Road, NE, Suite 900 Atlanta, GA 30328-5648

Department of Veterans Affairs Contract Number V786P-556 URS Project Number 31942450

TABLE OF CONTENTS

September 2006 i

List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................. iv Executive Summary............................................................................................................. ix

1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1-1

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................2-1

2.1 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 NEED FOR ACTION ............................................................................................................ 2-1

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................3-1

3.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.1 Site Selection Process for the New National Veterans’ Cemetery........................... 3-2

3.2.2 Alternative Sites Considered and Dismissed from Detailed Analysis ..................... 3-4

3.2.3 Alternative Sites Retained for Detailed Analysis ..................................................... 3-4

3.2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................... 3-21

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..........4-1

4.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING .......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Geology .................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Topography .............................................................................................................. 4-3

4.1.3 Soils.......................................................................................................................... 4-4

4.1.4 Geologic Hazards .................................................................................................. 4-22

4.2 WATER RESOURCES........................................................................................................ 4-27

4.2.1 Surface Water......................................................................................................... 4-29

4.2.2 Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 4-41

4.2.3 Wetlands................................................................................................................. 4-47

4.2.4 Floodplain Management ........................................................................................ 4-50

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 4-56

4.3.1 Vegetation, Fish and Wildlife ................................................................................ 4-59

4.3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species..................................................................... 4-64

4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 4-67

4.4.1 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 4-68

4.4.2 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 4-70

4.4.3 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Recommendations......................... 4-74

4.5 SOCIOECONOMICS AND RELATED RESOURCES................................................................ 4-76

4.5.1 Noise and Other Aesthetic Concerns ..................................................................... 4-76

4.5.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................. 4-80

4.5.3 Community Services............................................................................................... 4-85

4.5.4 Land Use and Zoning............................................................................................. 4-88

4.5.5 Utilities................................................................................................................... 4-90

4.5.6 Local and Regional Economics ............................................................................. 4-95

4.5.7 Demographics ........................................................................................................ 4-98

4.5.8 Environmental Justice.......................................................................................... 4-100

4.5.9 Transportation, Parking, and Traffic................................................................... 4-103

4.6 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES ...................................................... 4-122

4.6.1 Findings – Sedalia Site ........................................................................................ 4-123

September 2006 ii

4.6.2 Findings - Whitmire Site ...................................................................................... 4-126

4.6.3 Findings - Fort Jackson Site ................................................................................ 4-129

4.6.4 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Recommendations....................... 4-135

4.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 4-137

4.7.1 Sedalia Site........................................................................................................... 4-137

4.7.2 Whitmire Site........................................................................................................ 4-138

4.7.3 Fort Jackson Site.................................................................................................. 4-139

4.8 COORDINATION AND PERMITS ...................................................................................... 4-140

4.8.1 Water Resources .................................................................................................. 4-140

4.8.2 Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 4-144

4.8.3 Cultural Resources............................................................................................... 4-145

4.8.4 Socioeconomics and Related Resources .............................................................. 4-146

4.9 POTENTIAL FOR GENERATING CONTROVERSY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.................. 4-147

4.9.1 Review of Published Articles................................................................................ 4-147

4.9.2 VA NCA Issuance of Notices Regarding the Project ........................................... 4-150

4.9.3 American Indian Consultation............................................................................. 4-151

4.9.4 Agency Coordination ........................................................................................... 4-152

4.9.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 4-152

5.0 AMERICAN INDIAN AND AGENCY COORDINATION ...........................................5-1

6.0 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................6-1

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS.............................................................................................7-1

Figures

FIGURE 1 - SEARCH AREA FOR A COLUMBIA-GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA AREA NATIONAL

CEMETERY ...............................................................................................................................2-3 FIGURE 2 – POTENTIAL NATIONAL CEMETERY SITE LOCATION VICINITY MAP .......................................3-5 FIGURE 3 - SEDALIA SITE LOCATION MAP.................................................................................................3-7 FIGURE 4 - SEDALIA SITE CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................3-9 FIGURE 5 - WHITMIRE SITE LOCATION MAP............................................................................................3-13 FIGURE 6 - WHITMIRE SITE CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................3-15 FIGURE 7 - FORT JACKSON SITE LOCATION MAP ....................................................................................3-17 FIGURE 8 - FORT JACKSON SITE CHARACTERISTICS................................................................................3-19 FIGURE 9 - SEDALIA SITE SOIL CONSTRAINTS MAP ..................................................................................4-5 FIGURE 10 - WHITMIRE SITE SOIL CONSTRAINTS MAP ...........................................................................4-13 FIGURE 11 - FORT JACKSON SITE SOIL CONSTRAINTS MAP ....................................................................4-17 FIGURE 12 - SEDALIA SITE WETLANDS & WATER RESOURCES MAP......................................................4-31 FIGURE 13 - WHITMIRE SITE WETLANDS & WATER RESOURCES MAP...................................................4-35 FIGURE 14 - FORT JACKSON SITE WETLANDS & WATER RESOURCES MAP............................................4-37 FIGURE 15 - SEDALIA SITE - FLOODPLAIN MAP.......................................................................................4-51 FIGURE 16 - WHITMIRE SITE - FLOODPLAIN MAP....................................................................................4-53 FIGURE 17 – FORT JACKSON SITE - FLOODPLAIN MAP............................................................................4-57 FIGURE 18 – FORT JACKSON SITE EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..........................................................4-111 FIGURE 19 – FORT JACKSON SITE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..................................................4-113

September 2006 iii

Appendices

Appendix A - Site Photographs Appendix B - Notice of Intent Appendix C - Agency Coordination and American Indian Consultation Letters Appendix D - Archaeology Site Maps (in VA NCA’s, American Indian Nations’, and SC

SHPO’s copies only) Appendix E - Potential NRHP-Eligible Standing Structures within the Area of Potential Effect Appendix F – Additional Phase I ESA Information for Fort Jackson Site Appendix G - Fort Jackson Conservation Easement (Beaver Pond) Appendix H - Fort Jackson Biological Assessment Appendix I – Draft EA Notice of Availability / American Indian Nations, Agency, and Public

Coordination Documentation Appendix J – Comments Received on the Draft EA / Response to Comments

LIST OF ACRONYMNS

September 2006 iv

%g percentage of the acceleration of gravity or “ground-shaking” ADA Americans with Disabilities Act A.M. Ante Meridiem AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic ACM asbestos-containing material AHPA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act AOCs Areas of Concern APE Area of Potential Effect AQI Air Quality Index ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATR Automatic Tube Recorders ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BA Biological Assessment BC SRM British Columbia, Sustainable Resource Management BCR Bird Conservation Region bgs below ground surface BMPs Best Management Practices BO Biological Opinion BRAC Base Realignment and Closure CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act Information System CFC chlorofluorocarbon CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO carbon monoxide COG Council of Governments CORRACTS Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action CR County Road CWA Clean Water Act DE District Engineer DNR Department of Natural Resources DoD Department of Defense DSNL day-night sound level EA Environmental Assessment EAC Early Action Compact EBS Environmental Baseline Survey ECOP environmental condition of property EDR Environmental Data Resources, Incorporated EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMS emergency medical service EO Executive Order ERNS Emergency Response Notification System ESA Environmental Site Assessment

September 2006 v

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FINDS Facility Index System FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FOIA Freedom of Information Act FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act FY fiscal year GIS Geographic Information Systems gpd gallons per day gpm gallons per minute HMU Habitat Management Unit I Interstate INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan LBP lead-based paint LOS Level of Service LQG large-quantity generator LUST leaking underground storage tank MCL maximum contaminant level mg/L milligrams per Liter MGD million gallons per day MM millimeter MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity mph miles per hour msl mean sea level MTBE methyl tert-butyl ether MWR Morale, Welfare, and Recreation NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NCA National Cemetery Administration NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOA Notice of Availability NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priorities List NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetland Inventory NWP Nationwide Permit O3 ozone PCB polychlorinated biphenyl pCi/L picoCuries per liter PCF Palmetto Conservation Foundation

September 2006 vi pH potential of hydrogen P.M. Post Meridiem PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns PCN Preconstruction Notification ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million PSI Pollutant Sub-Index PWS potable water supply RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRAInfo Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Comprehensive Information

System RCW Red-Cockaded Woodpecker RDX cyclotrimethylene trinitramine (explosive material widely used by the military) REC Recognized Environmental Condition RFI RCRA Facility Investigation ROW right-of-way SC South Carolina SCDAH SC Department of Archives and History SCDHEC SC Department of Health and Environmental Control SCDHHS SC Department of Health and Human Services SCDNR SC Department of Natural Resources SCDOT SC Department of Transportation SCE&G SC Electric and Gas SCEMD SC Emergency Management Division SCFC SC Forestry Commission SCGS SC Geological Survey SCPC SC Pipeline Corporation SDMU Standard Density Management Area SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SHWS State Hazardous Waste Site SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 sulfur dioxide SQG small-quantity generator SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit T&E Threatened and Endangered TSD Treatment-Storage-Disposal U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACHPPM U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey

September 2006 vii

UST underground storage tank VA U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs VOC volatile organic compound WUS Waters of the U.S.

WWQMS Watershed Water Quality Management Strategy

September 2006 viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

September 2006 ix

The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the potential environmental consequences of constructing and operating a new national cemetery in the Columbia-Greenville, South Carolina area. This EA has been completed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), and VA regulations (38 CFR 26.4[a]).

The VA NCA completed a Draft EA that evaluated the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative at each of three alternative sites. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EA and invitation to comment was sent to American Indian nations, federal, state, and local regulatory agencies, members of the South Carolina Congressional delegation, private organizations, and private citizens in late March 2006. Some of these representatives were also sent a copy of the Draft EA, and copies were placed in local libraries near each of the alternative sites as well as on the VA’s website. A 30-day comment period ended April 23, 2006. This Final EA incorporates the comments received on the Draft EA.

Purpose and Need for Action

The National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-109) requires the VA NCA to establish six new national cemeteries within four years and the VA NCA has identified the veteran population that is concentrated in the Columbia-Greenville area as a priority. The purpose of the proposed action would be to construct and operate a new national cemetery that would provide veterans and their families living in the 21-county Columbia-Greenville area the opportunity to be buried in a national cemetery, and to benefit from the honor and privilege bestowed upon them by a grateful nation for their service to their country.

Alternatives Considered

The VA NCA identified the proposed action, the construction and operation of a new national veterans’ cemetery in the Columbia-Greenville, South Carolina area, as the best way to meet the purpose and need for action.

The cemetery action would be conducted in multiple phases with Phase I anticipated for completion in late 2010. Phase I would provide a fast-track burial section, development of approximately 5,000 gravesites for casketed interments, 2,450 sites for cremated remains including a columbarium, and appropriate structures/facilities to support cemetery operations.

The total development area for Phase I is expected to be 50 acres, and would provide for approximately 10 years of burials. Subsequent development phases would occur on about 200 more acres and increase the total number of interment sites within the cemetery to a total of 17,677.

The VA NCA anticipates that approximately 250 acres would be necessary to meet the needs for burials through the year 2030, and thus sought available sites of sufficient size that would meet this requirement. Four sites within a 75-mile radius of the Columbia-Greenville focal point were initially offered to the VA NCA for consideration. Each site was preliminarily evaluated against

September 2006 x ten criteria for VA NCA cemetery development, after which one of the sites was eliminated from further consideration. Three sites complied with most of the VA NCA’s criteria for development of a national cemetery, as evaluated in this Environmental Assessment (EA). The alternative sites include: “Sedalia Site,” a 477-acre site in Union County, South Carolina; “Whitmire Site,” a 433-acre site in Newberry County, South Carolina; and “Fort Jackson Site,” a 600-acre site in the northern portion of the U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Jackson, Richland County, South Carolina.

The No Action Alternative is also evaluated in this EA. Under the No Action Alternative, the VA NCA would not develop a new national cemetery in the Columbia-Greenville, South Carolina area. Veterans in the area would have to use another national, state, or private cemetery, perhaps outside their state of residence or more than 75 miles away.

Consequences of the No Action Alternative

Based on the evaluation contained herein, no environmental impacts would be associated with the No Action Alternative. The use of other veterans’ or private cemeteries could create a hardship for veterans’ families for attending the funerals and for gravesite visitations. If veterans and their families must resort to private burials, they would be deprived the benefit, honor, and privilege bestowed upon them by a grateful nation for their service to their country.

Furthermore, the VA NCA would fail to meet its mission and congressional mandate to serve veterans concentrated in the Columbia-Greenville area.

Consequences of the Proposed Action Alternative

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, impacts to a particular alternative site would occur only to the site chosen for implementation of the proposed action.

Geology, Topography, Soils, and Water Resources. Minimal impacts are expected to geology and soils, surface water, and water quality at each of the three alternative sites. The VA NCA is committed to the use of best management practices (BMPs) that would minimize project impacts. No 100-year floodplain areas are located on the Sedalia Site. About 20 percent of the Whitmire Site and 9 percent of the Fort Jackson Site are located within the 100-year floodplain.

No impacts to the floodplain would occur as, this area will be avoided during development and BMPs will be implemented. No adverse impacts to groundwater are anticipated at any of the alternative sites. No indications of contaminated groundwater or surface water were identified at any of the alternative sites.

Topography of the selected site would be altered by grading for burial areas, roads, parking areas, building pads, detention ponds, and service facilities; however, extensive topographic alteration is considered undesirable in cemetery development. In general, topographic impacts at any of the alternative sites would not be significant. Topographic alterations would be greatest at the Sedalia and Whitmire Sites where the relief is 190 feet and 167 feet, respectively, and least at the Fort Jackson Site where the relief is 155 feet.

The potential for shallow rock and groundwater exists in a significant portion of the Whitmire Site that would require a well-planned site layout and limit the available area for interments.

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

September 2006 xi

These conditions exist at the Sedalia Site as well, but over a much smaller area. Soil and groundwater conditions at the Fort Jackson Site are suitable over most of the site for cemetery development.

The only alternative site with prime farmland soils is the Sedalia Site; thus, this site should be given a higher level of protection under the Farmland Protection Policy Act. A cemetery design at the Sedalia Site that avoids conversion of the prime farmland to developed land, or selection of one of the other alternative sites for the cemetery, should be considered.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S.

(WUS) could occur at the Sedalia, Whitmire, and Fort Jackson Sites, depending on the layout and design of the cemetery at these sites. About 9,000 linear feet of WUS, an approximately 5-acre pond, and an approximately 25-acre wetland area are present on the Sedalia Site. About 7,500 linear feet of WUS, and three beaver pond/wetland areas encompassing about 5, 10, and 45 acres, respectively, are present within the Whitmire Site. About 92 acres of wetlands and a 7-acre beaver pond, which is under a conservation easement, are present on the Fort Jackson Site.

The onsite wetlands and WUS would be delineated for the site chosen for the new cemetery and the wetland boundaries would be considered during cemetery master planning. Additional acreage appears to be available at all three sites beyond the necessary 250 acres, which would enable VA NCA to avoid and/or minimize impacts to wetlands and WUS through careful planning and site layout. The VA NCA will consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and apply for a federal permit if necessary due to impacts to wetlands, or where dredging and filling activities would occur in WUS or wetlands. The VA NCA would also conduct compensatory mitigation as necessary due to permitting requirements.

Vegetation and Wildlife. Impacts would occur to existing vegetation due to the need for site grading and installation of grass and native species landscaping at the cemetery site.

Additionally, there would be minor impacts on terrestrial species, creating a permanent loss of habitat for mobile generalist species. The VA NCA would develop and plan for control of invasive species at the site chosen for cemetery development.

Threatened and Endangered Species. No threatened and endangered (T&E) species have been identified at the Sedalia, Whitmire, and Fort Jackson Sites and no impacts to T&E species would occur. However, the Fort Jackson Site contains potential foraging habitat for the federally protected Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW). Transfer of the Fort Jackson Site to the VA NCA for cemetery development would affect the long-term population goals of Fort Jackson’s RCW Management Plan. Planned future habitat for the RCW could be adversely impacted if this site were selected. Fort Jackson has consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the potential effect of the property transfer on the RCW management goals.

Significant adverse impacts to the RCW at the Fort Jackson Site are not anticipated to result from cemetery development.

Cultural Resources. Archaeological sites are located on all three alternative sites. The South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has requested that additional survey of high probability portions of the Sedalia and Whitmire Sites be conducted for the purpose of identifying and assessing archaeological sites. If either site is chosen for VA cemetery

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

September 2006 xii development, the VA NCA would consult with the appropriate American Indian Nations and notify them of the findings of any surveys performed. In addition, the Casey Family Cemetery (dating back to the late 1700s) may be situated somewhere within the Whitmire Site. Should the Whitmire Site be chosen for VA cemetery development and the Casey Family Cemetery be found, the VA NCA would consult with the SHPO to develop a plan for avoidance or mitigation of any potential adverse effects. Eight archaeological sites have been found within the Fort Jackson Site. Five of the sites have been determined ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and three sites are potentially eligible and have undergone additional testing.

A plan of avoidance of the archaeological sites on the selected site will be developed in consultation with the American Indian Nations and SHPO. If avoidance is not possible, the VA NCA would further consult with American Indian Nations and SHPO, and mitigation of any potential adverse effects would be necessary for the sites or the portions of sites that would be developed. For those sites that would be impacted by cemetery development, a data recovery plan would be developed in consultation with American Indian Nations and the SHPO.

Eleven aboveground historic resources were identified adjacent to the Sedalia Site and one aboveground historic resource was identified on the Whitmire Site; if the VA NCA chooses either of these sites for cemetery development, these resources will be investigated to assess their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. No aboveground historic resources are located on or adjacent to the Fort Jackson Site.

Noise and Air Resources, Aesthetics, Community Services. Temporary and minor impacts would occur to existing noise conditions and air quality during construction. Aesthetic changes to the selected site would occur (change from forested land to developed cemetery) but would not be considered adverse by most viewers because of the aesthetically pleasing landscaping and site development features that would be implemented. Overall, with the construction of a new national cemetery at the Sedalia Site, noise and aesthetic impacts would be minimal. Traffic noise from US 176/SC 121 would be a negative, although intermittent, impact to a national cemetery at the Whitmire Site. Noise from small arms fire and other troop-training activities at the Fort Jackson Site, although intermittent, would be a negative and potentially unacceptable noise impact to mourners and other visitors to a veterans’ cemetery. If the Fort Jackson Site were selected for cemetery development, the Army plans to establish a 1,640-foot (500-meter) noise buffer surrounding the property, but additional measures may need to be implemented to lessen these noise impacts on cemetery visitors.

No additional or new community services would be needed at the selected site due to implementation of the proposed action.

Zoning and Land Use. Existing zoning and land uses would not be significantly adversely affected. Both the Sedalia and Whitmire Sites are located within rural portions of Sumter National Forest; surrounding development is very limited. The Fort Jackson Site is located within an increasingly developed portion of east Columbia and residential, commercial, and light industrial development is located adjacent to the site.

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

September 2006 xiii

At the Sedalia Site, development would not occur within a buried fiber optic right-of-way (ROW) that crosses the site, and aboveground electric power lines located within two onsite ROWs would either be avoided or relocated. Relocation of utilities adjacent to the nearby Sumter National Forest would require coordination with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). At the Whitmire Site, no development would occur within a buried natural gas pipeline ROW that crosses the site. The VA NCA would coordinate with and obtain encroachment permits from the appropriate utility if onsite utility ROWs need to be crossed by a cemetery access road, irrigation system, or utilities. Utility ROWs are also located along roadways and the boundaries of the Fort Jackson Site.

Utilities. Electricity and potable water are available to all three alternative sites. Sanitary sewer service is not available at the Sedalia and Whitmire Sites and a septic system would need to constructed onsite. The septic system would need to be carefully sited to avoid shallow rock and groundwater at these sites. No adverse impacts to utilities would occur as a result of the proposed action at any of the three sites.

The regional economy would be beneficially impacted as a result of the proposed action, regardless of which site is developed as the new cemetery; the local economy associated with the chosen site would experience beneficial impacts during both construction and operation due to increased spending by workers and visitors. No adverse impacts would occur to minority or low-income populations as a result of the proposed action at any of the alternative sites.

Transportation. The proposed action would generate additional traffic in the area due to construction, funerals, cemetery workers and visitors, and service deliveries. About 356 vehicle trips are anticipated to be generated daily. Most trips would occur during off-peak hours, and most visitor trips would likely occur on weekends.

Levels of Service (LOS) at the Sedalia Site would remain very good (“A”), with no traffic delays expected due to the minimal existing volumes on nearby roadways. While aspects such as potential other nearby development, existing volumes and lack of congestion, condition of the roadway, and the available sight distance do not affect traffic operations, the main impediment for this site is the distance from the Interstate system and the circuitry of travel, which would require enhanced directional signage to be installed and maintained to direct visitors to the site.

LOS at the Whitmire Site would also remain very good (“A”), with no traffic delays expected from development of the cemetery at this site. While aspects such as potential other nearby development, condition of the roadway, and the available sight distance do not affect traffic operations, the main impediments for this site are the distance from the Interstate system and the concern for safety due to the high speed of traffic with the large percentage of trucks that visitors would encounter while accessing the site. Also, access roads into the cemetery from each side of US 176/SC 121 would need to be constructed and maintained.

LOS at the Fort Jackson Site would decrease from “A” during the peak times to “B,” “C,” and “B” during the AM peak, noon peak, and PM peak times, respectively. The cemetery would generate the greatest amount of traffic when adjacent street volumes are relatively low. Certain aspects of the area and site would impact traffic operations, such as the potential for nearby development. However, the main benefits of this site, from a transportation and traffic

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

September 2006 xiv perspective, are the proximity to the Interstate system and an existing intersection from the probable main entrance that is already improved with available turn lanes.

Solid and Hazardous Waste. Potential solid and hazardous waste issues were identified at all three alternative sites.

Historic land use of the Sedalia Site has been pastoral, agricultural, residential (two former homesteads), and more recently, silviculture and hunting. The presence of asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint in an onsite hunt cabin would be evaluated and if present, the materials would be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Limited dumping of domestic debris and an onsite soil pile of unknown origin and content were observed onsite; these would be further assessed and disposed of accordingly. Aerial photograph review, interview information, and review of regulatory database information did not identify any environmental concerns associated with the Sedalia Site. No environmental concerns related to offsite properties were identified at the Sedalia Site.

Historic land use of the Whitmire Site has been silviculture and residential (two former homesteads identified), and more recently, silviculture and hunting only. Limited-size dump areas, apparently of domestic solid waste only, and scattered empty 55-gallon drums and other domestic solid waste were observed in several locations onsite. The ground surface in some portions of the site has been subjected to erosion and disturbance due to past logging activities.

Due to a heavy covering of pine straw on the ground across much of the site, other dump areas may be present onsite but not observed. Aerial photograph review, interview information, and review of regulatory database information did not identify any environmental concerns associated with past usage of the Whitmire Site. Furthermore, no environmental concerns related to offsite properties were identified at the Whitmire Site.

The Fort Jackson Site has been used for Army military training exercises for several decades.

Pines have been planted and east-west trending firebreaks have been constructed across the site.

Due to the previously open nature of the northern portion of the Fort Jackson Installation, the potential exists for dump sites to be located onsite but not observed. At least two gravel/sand pits are located onsite; no environmental concerns to the Fort Jackson Site were identified in relation to these borrow areas.

As is the majority of Fort Jackson, the Fort Jackson Site is classified by the Installation as Low/Lightly Dudded and the potential exists for the site to be impacted by ordnance/munitions.

The suspected dudded area of the site consists of 95 acres along the southern perimeter of the proposed 600-acre transfer parcel. Although live ammunition is not currently allowed during field training, the historic use of the site is not documented. Also, the site is located north of the abandoned Salerno Rocket Range (Area of Concern [AOC] G), which was used during the Vietnam War for training with rockets, rifle grenades, and 40-millimeter high-explosive shells, and is considered to be highly contaminated with unexploded ordnance. The site is also located adjacent to and north of a former range, and the southern portion of the site is within an area identified by Fort Jackson staff as a “range ricochet area.” Therefore, areas adjacent the Fort Jackson Site are considered “Suspect” and “Scattered Dud” Areas.

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

September 2006 xv

An uncontrolled dump site representing a REC is located north of Percival Road adjacent (and topographically upgradient) of the Fort Jackson Site. Records indicate that the presence of the dump site/landfill, which operated during the 1980s, resulted in contamination, which devalued the property value. Because the contaminants and impacted media are not known, additional investigation is recommended to assess potential impacts from this site to environmental media at the Fort Jackson Site.

In addition, the Loveless and Loveless, Inc. Mine #2 site was identified in the general area of the aforementioned uncontrolled dump site north of the Fort Jackson Site. Review of file information indicates that prior to becoming a permitted mine, the majority of the area had been cleared and was being used as a trash dump, off-road vehicle site, and as a shooting range. An asphalt mixing plant had been set up during construction of I-20 in the northern portion of the area. The area was mined for sand from 1979 through 1981 under Permit No. 450. Under South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) authorization, the mine was reclaimed as a landfill. In 1989, Permit No. 450 was cancelled and the reclaimed mined land was released. Based on this information, the uncontrolled dump site may be the SCDHEC-authorized landfill/reclaimed mined land. However, past activities in this area (unauthorized dumping and the operation of the asphalt mixing plant) further support the recommendation for additional investigation of this area encompassing Mine No. 2 and the dump site.

If the Fort Jackson Site were chosen for the new cemetery, the environmental condition of the property must be documented through the performance of an Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) and an environmental condition of property (ECOP), prior to the transfer of jurisdiction to the VA. Because Fort Jackson has a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Part B Permit, the investigation and remediation of the suspected 95-acre dudded area and other areas of concern that might be identified would be performed under the RCRA Corrective Action Program, with the roles and responsibilities of the SCDHEC, Fort Jackson, and VA to be determined. Additional investigation of impacts of offsite properties on the Fort Jackson Site would be addressed separately.

Solid waste would be generated during construction of the new cemetery; any solid waste found or generated during construction would be disposed of at a permitted landfill in accordance with regulatory requirements. Limited amounts of solid waste would also be generated during operation of the cemetery. Recycling and reuse would be performed when applicable, and solid waste would be disposed of in a permitted landfill in accordance with regulatory requirements.

Limited types and amounts of hazardous materials would be used during construction (mainly fuel for vehicles) and operation of the cemetery (herbicides, pesticides, petroleum, etc.). These would be handled in accordance with BMPs and all applicable regulations, and their usage at the selected site is not expected to result in significant impacts to the environment.

Cumulative Impacts. Very limited development is occurring near the Sedalia and Whitmire Sites. Rapid development is occurring near the Fort Jackson Site, and Fort Jackson’s mission is expected to increase, although slightly, due to the recent Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) announcements. Further, the addition of a national cemetery is not expected to generate additional significant development in any of the three alternative site areas. BMPs implemented

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

September 2006 xvi in association with the cemetery development would limit all potential cumulative impacts to insignificant regardless of which site is developed as the new cemetery.

American Indian, Agency and Public Coordination / Potential for Controversy. Numerous American Indian Nations, and agencies and agency representatives were contacted during the NEPA process. No controversial issues have been identified by these persons and agencies to date. The VA NCA plans to continue consultation and coordination with American Indian Nations and regulatory agencies throughout the site selection, design, and construction processes to resolve any issues that are identified. Several newspaper articles have been published that describe the project and tout the benefits of a new national veterans’ cemetery in the Columbia- Greenville area. In addition, notification of and outreach to the public near the three alternative sites has not identified any potential for controversy regarding the project.

Based on the findings of the EA, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate regardless of which site is chosen for development as the new national veterans’ cemetery, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.

K2SR9JGW

Highlight

SECTIONONE Introduction

1-1

1.0 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) is one of three administrations within the United States (U.S.) Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VA NCA is responsible for the operation and maintenance of 120 national cemeteries and the construction of new national cemeteries. The VA NCA is also responsible for providing cemetery services to veterans and other eligible persons pursuant to the provisions of the National Cemeteries Act of 1973 and other statutory authority and regulations.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), and VA Regulations, (38 CFR 26.4 [a]). The VA policy includes provisions to:

• Act with care in carrying out its mission of providing services for veterans to ensure it does so consistently with national environmental policies. Specifically, the VA shall ensure that all practical means and measures are used to protect, restore, and enhance the quality of the human environment;

• Avoid or minimize adverse environmental consequences, consistent with other national policy considerations;

• Prepare concise and clear environmental documents which shall be supported by documented environmental analyses; and

• Preserve historical, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage.

As such, the VA NCA is using this EA in the planning process and to aid in considering the potential environmental consequences of constructing and operating a new national veterans’ cemetery in the Columbia-Greenville, South Carolina area. URS Group, Inc. (URS) prepared the EA on behalf of the VA NCA, based on VA NCA-provided information, site reconnaissances in April and May 2005, and February 2006, and data obtained from interviews, websites, regulatory agency personnel, newspaper articles, previous studies and reports, and other readily available sources of information.

In addition to describing the Purpose and Need for action (Section 2.0), this EA describes the alternative actions that have been evaluated by the VA NCA (Section 3.0); describes the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (Section 4.0) of implementing the alternative actions and the required coordination and environmental permits; discusses the Agency Coordination (Section 5.0) that has been conducted and is ongoing in association with the NEPA process; lists the References (Section 6.0) that have been used during preparation of this EA; and summarizes the qualifications of the Preparers (Section 7.0) of this EA. The Appendices at the end of the document are: Site Photographs (Appendix A), Notice of Intent (Appendix B), Agency Coordination and American Indian Consultation Letters (Appendix C), Archaeology Site Maps (Appendix D), Potential National Register-Eligible Standing Structures within the Area of Potential Effect (Appendix E), Additional Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Information (Appendix F), Fort Jackson Conservation Easement (Appendix G), Fort Jackson Biological Assessment (Appendix H), and Notice of Availability of Draft EA /

SECTIONONE Introduction

1-2

American Indian Nations, Agency, and Public Coordination Documentation (Appendix I), and Comments Received on the Draft EA / Responses to Comments (Appendix J).

SECTIONTWO Purpose and Need

2-1

2.0 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

2.1 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION

The National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-109) requires the VA NCA to establish six new national cemeteries within four years and the VA NCA has identified the veteran population that is concentrated in the Columbia-Greenville area as a priority. The purpose of the proposed action is to construct and operate a new national cemetery that would provide veterans and their families living in the unserved 21-county Columbia-Greenville area the opportunity to be buried in a national cemetery, and to benefit from the honor and privilege bestowed upon them by a grateful nation for their service to their country.

2.2 NEED FOR ACTION

One of the strategic goals of the VA NCA is to assure that the burial needs of veterans are met, and it has been recognized for some time that there was a need for additional cemetery facilities.

The death of veterans has been increasing each year as World War II and Korean War-era veterans advance in age. VA NCA estimates indicate that veteran deaths would peak at 687,000 in the year 2008. From 2000 to 2008, the annual rate of veteran deaths is expected to increase by approximately 10.5 percent per year. This progressive increase in veteran deaths results in a corresponding increase in the demand for burial space in national cemeteries, a demand that exceeds current capacity (VA NCA, 2000).

National veterans’ cemeteries are already located in Florence, South Carolina, and Beaufort, South Carolina (Figure 1). At current burial rates, the Florence National Cemetery can accommodate in-ground casketed burial space until about mid-2006, and in-ground cremated burial space until about 2010. An expansion project is planned, but is currently on hold (Robinson, 2006). The Beaufort National Cemetery will likely deplete availability of casketed burial spaces by end of 2006; no cremated burial spaces are available. A 15-acre expansion project is planned to provide additional interment space at Beaufort National Cemetery (Gray, 2005). The expansion project can accommodate 723 traditional in-ground casketed burials, 1,885 pre-placed crypts in-ground casketed burials, 693 in-ground cremated burial spaces, and 83 memorials (Phillips, 2006). The expansion would allow for an additional 10 years of burials at Beaufort National Cemetery (VA NCA, 2006a). However, based on a demographic study of the number and location of veterans in the area, even with these cemetery expansions, the VA NCA identified the need for a new national veterans’ cemetery in South Carolina.

A new state veterans’ cemetery anticipated for completion in 2007 under the VA State Grant Program is being planned for Anderson, South Carolina (Figure 1). The cemetery site is located along South Carolina (SC) 4-1116, near the intersection of SC 78 and SC 178 between the towns of Belton and Anderson. At full build-out, this cemetery would encompass nearly 60 acres.

Phase I of the project would develop about 22 acres and provide 6,000 gravesites, 800 pre-placed crypts, 740 in-ground remain sites, and 800 columbarium niches (Gebhardtsbauer, 2005). At full build-out, it would provide a total of 18,095 gravesites, 2,400 pre-placed crypts, 3,000 in-ground cremain sites, and 2,000 to 3,000 columbarium niches.

2-2

Other nearby national veterans’ cemeteries are located in Mountain Home and Salisbury, North Carolina and nearby state veterans’ cemeteries are located in Sandhills, North Carolina, and Milledgeville, Georgia (Figure 1).

The VA NCA has determined through experience that few people will elect burial at a national cemetery that is farther than 75 miles from their home. There is also reluctance for burial to take place across a state line from their place of residence. The VA NCA identified 21 counties (shown on Figure 1) in South Carolina and Georgia that currently are “unserved” by a national veterans’ cemetery, including a population of 168,800 veterans.