FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE FORT NORFOLK PIER REHABILITATION AND EXPANSION PROJECT
FORT NORFOLK, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District (Corps) has conducted an environmental analysis in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. The final Integrated Environmental Assessment (EA) dated 14 December 2022, for the Fort Norfolk Pier Rehabilitation and Improvements Project addresses modifying the existing pier to allow for the safe mooring of three (3) 65 feet (ft) vessels at Fort Norfolk and protecting the mooring location from wave action and severe storm events in Norfolk, Virginia.
The purpose of the project is to modify the existing pier to allow for the safe mooring of three (3) 65 feet (ft) vessels at Fort Norfolk and protect the mooring location from wave action and severe storm events. Currently, the existing pier is not an adequate mooring location in moderate to severe weather situations especially in conjunction with simultaneous high tides. The vessels are relocated to other facilities during these storm events due to the current state of the pier. As a result, the vessels may not be able to access the port for multiple days before or after a storm event, preventing the USACE from performing crucial port and channel work, including aid to navigation verification, hydrographic surveys, and debris collection and removal required for maintaining navigable waterways.
Three USACE vessels shall be moored during storm events:
- The Ewell (61 ft survey catamaran)
- The Adams (65 ft survey boat, monohull)
- The Harrell (56 ft patrol boat)
The proposed mooring options shall be sized to adequately accommodate the above listed vessels. For regular pier berthing and mooring operations, two additional USACE or one US Navy (approximately 104 ft) vessel(s) may be moored along the south side of the pier. The proposed action accounts for five total vessels to be moored, with only the above specified (three USACE) vessels during storm events. The Final EA, incorporated herein by reference, evaluated two action alternatives that would allow for the safe mooring of vessels and protect the mooring location. The proposed action includes:
- Constructing a floating dock and two floating dock fingers;
- Constructing a steel breakwater wave screen to the west and perpendicular to the pier;
- Constructing a timber wave fence on the existing timber fender;
- Adding a boat lift for a Boston whaler, a new sanitary pump out station, and new utilities;
- Raising the existing pier deck.
In addition to a no action alternative, two action alternatives were evaluated (action alternative 1 and the proposed action). Action alternative 1 included construction and installation of concrete floating docks, a wave screen, a new gangway, and new utilities in the south basin. Only those actions that provided the best protection with the least environmental impacts for the longest lifespan and within a reasonable budget were carried forward in the analysis in Section 3. Action alternative 1 was eliminated from further consideration because it did not meet these criteria (see Section 2.4 of the final EA). The final alternatives for evaluation included the no action alternative and the proposed action.
For the proposed action and no action alternative, the potential effects were evaluated, as appropriate. A summary assessment of the potential effects of the recommended plan are listed in Table 1:
Table 1: Summary of Potential Effects of the Proposed Action
|
Insignificant effects
|
Resource unaffected by action
|
Land Use
|
|
X
|
Prime Farmland
|
|
X
|
Geohazards
|
|
X
|
Utilities
|
X
|
|
Unique Ecosystems, Biosphere Reserves, and World Heritage Sites
|
|
X
|
Wild and Scenic Rivers
|
|
X
|
Terrestrial Vegetation
|
|
X
|
Hazardous and Toxic Waste
|
X
|
|
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
|
|
X
|
Socioeconomics
|
X
|
|
Protection of Children
|
|
X
|
Wetlands
|
|
X
|
Noise
|
X
|
|
Air Quality
|
X
|
|
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
|
X
|
|
Surface Waters
|
X
|
|
Storm Water Runoff
|
X
|
|
Floodplains
|
X
|
|
Ground Water
|
X
|
|
Water Quality
|
X
|
|
Coastal Zone Management Consistency
|
X
|
|
Safety and Occupational Health
|
X
|
|
Terrestrial Wildlife
|
X
|
|
Aquatic Wildlife
|
X
|
|
Essential Fish Habitat
|
X
|
|
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
|
X
|
|
Cultural Resources
|
|
X
|
Tribal Resources
|
|
X
|
Geology and Soils
|
X
|
|
Bathymetry
|
X
|
|
Solid Waste
|
X
|
|
Environmental Justice
|
X
|
|
All practicable and appropriate means to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects were analyzed and incorporated into the proposed action. Avoidance and minimization measures as detailed in the EA will be implemented, if appropriate, to minimize impacts. The following avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented to the maximum extent practicable to minimize impacts when applicable:
- “Soft-start” protocols will be followed for pile-driving. Contractors may implement additional noise attenuation measures for the 8 steel piles requiring impact hammering, such as cushion blocks or air bubble curtains.
- Construction crews at the project sites would be required to comply with all applicable laws regarding noise, including any potential time of day restrictions and maximum decibel levels.
- The project was designed to use the absolute minimum quantity of new pilings to support the improvements.
- A 3 feet-high opening will be constructed at the base of the wave screen and wave fence to minimize sedimentation.
- Solid waste will be in alignment with materials accepted by the chosen facility and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
- A zone of passage with appropriate habitat greater than 50% of the water body will be maintained to allow for safe passage of Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species.
- Turbidity curtains, cofferdams, or other methods to control turbidity will be required when operationally feasible.
- Project vessels operating within the action area will be limited to speeds below 10 knots.
- A 1,500-feet buffer between project vessels and ESA-listed whales and a 150-feet buffer between project vessels and sea turtles will be maintained.
No compensatory mitigation is required as part of the proposed action.
Public review of the draft EA and FONSI was completed on 13 January 2023. All comments submitted during the public review period were responded to in the Final EA and FONSI.
Pursuant to section 7 of the ESA of 1973, as amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that the proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the following federally listed species or their designated critical habitat: Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, loggerhead sea turtles, Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, green sea turtles, or leatherback sea turtles. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concurred with the Corps’ determination on 8 February 2022.
Pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that historic properties would not be adversely affected by the proposed action. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources concurred with the determination on 14 June 2022.
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined there will be no Section 404 or 401 fill with the proposed action as this project does not involve point source discharges into state waters, is not subject to Section 402, and therefore will be regulated solely under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). This determination was included in the Federal Consistency Determination. The Virginia Department of Department of Environmental Quality concurred with this determination on 19 October 2022.
A determination of consistency with the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 was obtained from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality on 19 October 2022. All conditions of the consistency determination shall be implemented in order to minimize adverse impacts to the coastal zone.
All applicable environmental laws have been considered and coordination with appropriate agencies and officials has been completed. Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, coordination was completed with NMFS regarding the potential for temporary, minor adverse effects to Essential Fish Habitat for various life stages of ten fish species that may be present in the vicinity of the project site. The NMFS concurred with the Corp’s determination that the project will not substantially adversely affect EFH on 3 March 2022.
Technical, environmental, and economic criteria used in the formulation of alternative plans were those specified in the Water Resources Council’s 1983 Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. All applicable laws, executive orders, regulations, and local government plans were considered in evaluation of alternatives. Based on this report, the reviews by other Federal, State and local agencies, Tribes, input of the public, and the review by my staff, it is my determination that the proposed action would not cause significant adverse effects on the quality of the human environment; therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
Brian P. Hallberg, PMP
COL, EN
Commanding