For the Environmental Planning Services Pilot
Download 194.61 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Environmental Assessment
- Technical Assistance Provided by: Environmental Research Group, L.L.C. Baltimore, Maryland Phone (410) 366-5170
- FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SERVICES PILOT, FORT LEE, VIRGINIA
- DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Proposed Action
- Public Review and Comment
- Table of Contents
- AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 15 Table 4LAND USE 15 i.Affected Environment 15
- APPENDIX C - NEPA INVOLVEMENT OPTIONS REPORT 46 Figures Tables List of Acronyms
 Environmental Assessment for the Environmental Planning Services Pilot Prepared By: U.S. Army Fort Lee, Virginia Contract No. W91QF5-14-P-0141   Technical Assistance Provided by: Environmental Research Group, L.L.C. Baltimore, Maryland Phone (410) 366-5170 www.envrg.com 
June 2016 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SERVICES PILOT, FORT LEE, VIRGINIA The United States Army prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to identify and evaluate the potential environmental effects that may occur from the proposed implementation of the 2015 Environmental Planning Services Pilot. This EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] §4321-4370 et. seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (CEQ Regulations, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and Environmental Analysis of Army Actions (32 CFR 651). DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Proposed Action Fort Lee proposes to implement a new concept in meeting the requirements of NEPA with the 2015 Environmental Planning Services Pilot. A full description of the proposed action is found in section 2.1 of the EA which follows this FONSI. A summary of activities involved with this process includes:
Alternatives Considered The Army analyzed a No Action Alternative. An environmental analysis of a No Action Alternative is required by CEQ regulations to serve as a baseline against which the Proposed Action can be evaluated. Under the No Action Alternative, the Army would not implement the Environmental Planning Services Pilot and Environmental Assessments would continue to be produced for each new project that would not qualify for a categorical exclusion. The majority of projects and actions that require NEPA analysis will result in a FONSI and that result is often apparent before the EA begins. Each EA costs thousands of dollars and months of work whereas they may become the cause of project schedule delays as a project cannot begin until the FONSI is signed.
Based upon the analysis provided in the EA, it has been determined that implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in substantial adverse environmental effects. Neither the Proposed Action nor the No Action Alternative creates disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on children, minority, or low-income populations, or communities at, or surrounding, Fort Lee.
The Proposed Action would not violate NEPA, its regulations promulgated by the CEQ, Environmental Analysis of Army Actions, or any other federal, state, or local environmental regulations. Public Review and Comment The Draft EA was made available for public review and comment. The draft public comment period took place from ______________. Finding of No Significant Impact Based on the information presented in the Final EA, the Army proposed to implement the Proposed Action. Once public comments have been addressed and if a determination is made that the Proposed Action will have no significant impact, the FONSI will be signed and the action will be implemented. The requirements of NEPA and the CEQ regulations will have been met. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared and the Army will issue this FONSI. _______________________________ __________________ PAUL K. BROOKS Date COL, LG Commanding Table of ContentsINTRODUCTION 6 Table 1APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 6 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 9 Table 2PROPOSED ACTION 9 i.Organizational Structure and Responsibilities 10 ii.Public Involvement 11 Table 3NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 14 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 15 Table 4LAND USE 15 i.Affected Environment 15 ii.Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 16 iii.Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative 16 iv.Affected Environment 16 v.Environmental Consequences-Proposed Action 17 vi.Environmental Consequences-No Action Alternative 17 vii.Affected Environment 19 viii.Environmental Consequences-Proposed Action 19 ix.Environmental Consequences-No Action Alternative 19 Table 5WATER RESOURCES 19 i.Surface Water 19 ii.Groundwater 22 iii.Affected Environment 22 iv.Environmental Consequences-Proposed Action 23 v.Environmental Consequences-No Action Alternative 23 vi.Affected Environment 25 vii.Environmental Consequences-Proposed Action 26 viii.Environmental Consequences-No Action Alternative 26 ix.Affected Environment 26 x.Environmental Consequences-Proposed Action 27 xi.Environmental Consequences-No Action Alternative 27 Table 6AIRSPACE 27 i.Affected Environment 27 ii.Environmental Consequences-Proposed Action 27 iii.Environmental Consequences-No Action Alternative 28 iv.Affected Environment 28 v.Environmental Consequences-Proposed Action 29 vi.Environmental Consequences-No Action Alternative 29 vii.Affected Environment 29 viii.Environmental Consequences-Proposed Action 30 ix.Environmental Consequences-No Action Alternative 30 x.Affected Environment 30 xi.Environmental Consequence – Proposed Action 32 xii.Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative 32 xiii.Affected Environment 32 xiv.Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 35 xv.Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative 36 REFERENCES 40 LIST OF PREPARERS 43 APPENDIX A – AGENCY COORDINATION 44 APPENDIX B – MEDIA RELEASE INFORMATION 45 APPENDIX C - NEPA INVOLVEMENT OPTIONS REPORT 46 Figures Tables List of Acronyms AST Aboveground Storage Tank AQI Air Quality Index BMP Best Management Practices BRAC Base Realignment and Closure CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CRM Cultural Resource Manager CSI Cumulative Severity Index CWA Clean Water Act CYS Child, Youth & School DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program DoD Department of Defense EA Environmental Assessment EMD Environmental Management Division FES Fire and Emergency Services HUC Hydrologic Unit Code INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan IRP Installation Restoration Program MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MI-EMS Mission Integration-Environmental Management System MIF Military in the Field MMRP Military Munitions Response Program msl Mean Sea Level NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NLEB Northern Long-eared Bat NRHP National Register of Historic Places PTF Petroleum Training Facility REC Record of Environmental Consideration RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RPA Resource Protection Areas SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SOP Standard Operating Procedures VAC Virginia Administrative Code VDCR Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality VDGIF Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries VDOF Virginia Department of Forestry USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UST Underground Storage Tank WWI World War I Download 194.61 Kb. Share with your friends:
|