Alternative Energy Draft EA - NASA Visitor Center at Wallops Flight ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.2.5 Noise No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, implementation of the Alternative Energy Project would not occur; therefore, there would be no additional increase in noise levels at WFF so no new impacts on humans or wildlife from noise would occur. Proposed Action Construction activities have the potential to generate temporary increases in noise levels from heavy equipment operations such as grading, filling, pile driving, and wind turbine construction. NASA would comply with local noise ordinances and State and Federal standards and guidelines for potential impacts on humans caused by construction activities. OSHA limits noise exposure for workers to 115 dBA for a period of no longer than 15 minutes in an 8-hour work shift and to 90 dBA for an entire 8-hour shift. Workers near activities producing unsafe noise levels, both during construction and during maintenance or repair operations after the turbines are operational, would be required to wear hearing protection equipment. Therefore, impacts on the occupational health of construction workers as a result of construction noise are not expected. Modern wind turbines are generally quiet in operation, and compared to the noise of road traffic, trains, aircraft and construction activities, to name but a few, the noise from wind turbines is very low (The Working Group on Wind Turbine Noise, 1996). Outside of homes that are at least 300 meters (980 feet) away from large wind turbines, the sound of a wind turbine generating electricity is likely to be about the same level as noise from a flowing stream about 50 to 100 meters (160 to 330 feet) away or the noise of leaves rustling in a gentle breeze. The noise level from a single wind turbine creates a sound pressure level of 50 to 60 dBA at a distance of 40 meters (131 feet) from the turbine, which is about the same level as conversational speech. At a house 500 meters (1,640 feet) away, the equivalent sound pressure level would be 25 to 35 dBA when the wind is blowing from the turbine towards the house (The Working Group on Wind Turbine Noise, 1996). Additionally, the proposed 2.0 MW wind turbine would use a generator and gearbox with elements that minimize noise. The closest facility occupied by personnel to the utility-scale wind turbines would be the U.S. Navy V-10/V-20 Complex, which is approximately 120 meters (400 feet) east of the proposed northern wind turbine location. The two known locations of the residential-scale wind turbines are proposed at the WFF Visitor Center and the Mainland guard station. Employees and visitors to these facilities would hear the turbines while they were outside of the buildings, but they would not hear the turbines from inside the buildings. The noise from the residential-scale turbines, on windy days, may sound like a faint “whoosh.” However, most of the time the residential-scale turbines would not be heard by people standing outside of the Visitor Center or Mainland guard station, so the impacts on those employees and visitors would be minor. Neither the public nor employees and visitors to WFF outside of Wallops Island would be able to hear the utility-scale wind turbines; therefore, there would be no impacts on either of these two groups from operation of the wind turbines. Operation of two utility-scale and the residential-scale wind turbines would result in highly localized, long-term, minor impacts on the surrounding environment from noise. 106
Alternative One Environmental Consequences The construction-related noise impacts and mitigation would be the same as described under the Proposed Action for construction of utility-scale and residential-scale wind turbines. The discussion of noise generated by wind turbines would be the same as described under the Proposed Action; however, there would be less noise generated compared to Proposed Action because only one utility-scale wind turbine would be operated. Installation activities for the solar panels have the potential to generate temporary increases in noise levels around the Main Base from heavy equipment operations. NASA would comply with local noise ordinances and State and Federal standards and guidelines for potential impacts on humans caused by construction activities. OSHA limits noise exposure for workers to 115 dBA for a period of no longer than 15 minutes in an 8-hour work shift and to 90 dBA for an entire 8hour shift. Workers near activities producing unsafe noise levels, both during installation and during maintenance or repair operations after the solar panels are operational, would be required to wear hearing protection equipment. Therefore, impacts on the occupational health of construction workers as a result of construction noise are not expected. The operation of solar panels would not create any noise. Alternative Two Noise would be the same as described under the Proposed Action for construction and operation of wind turbines; however, there would be less noise generated compared to Proposed Action because only the residential-scale wind turbines would be installed. The types of noise impacts and mitigation for installation of solar panels would be the same as described under Alternative One. However the duration of the noise related to installation of the solar panels would last approximately twice as long because double the amount solar panels would be installed compared to Alternative One. The operation of solar panels would not create any noise. 4.2.6 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, implementation of the Alternative Energy Project would not occur; therefore, there would be no impact from hazardous materials and generation of hazardous waste. Proposed Action Construction activities would include the use of hazardous materials and hazardous waste generation (i.e., solvents, hydraulic fluid, oil, and antifreeze) from the construction equipment. With implementation of safety measures and proper procedures for the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes during construction activities, no adverse impacts are anticipated during construction. In addition, NASA would require site-specific SWPPP to be developed prior to the start of construction activities that would contain BMPs related to spill prevention and clean-up procedures for hazardous materials and wastes. 107
Page 1 and 2:
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WALL
Page 3 and 4:
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ALTE
Page 5 and 6:
INTRODUCTION Executive Summary This
Page 7 and 8:
Executive Summary increase the over
Page 9 and 10:
Executive Summary Resource Proposed
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 17 and 18:
TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.2.1 Post-Constr
Page 19 and 20:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 4: Potenti
Page 21 and 22:
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic P
Page 23 and 24:
NPS National Park Service NRHP Nati
Page 25 and 26:
Mission, Purpose and Need, Backgrou
Page 28 and 29:
Mission, Purpose and Need, Backgrou
Page 30 and 31:
1.4.2 Need Proposed Action and Alte
Page 32 and 33:
Proposed Action and Alternatives Fi
Page 34:
Proposed Action and Alternatives 2.
Page 37 and 38:
Residential-Scale Turbines Proposed
Page 40 and 41:
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 42:
Proposed Action and Alternatives mo
Page 45 and 46:
2.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE
Page 48:
Page 51 and 52:
Decommissioning Proposed Action and
Page 53 and 54:
turbines because these costs would
Page 55 and 56:
SECTION THREE: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60:
Affected Environment The Virginia S
Page 63 and 64:
Affected Environment FIRM Community
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
3.1.4 Climate Change Table 8: Calen
Page 70 and 71:
Wind Affected Environment For Wallo
Page 72 and 73:
Affected Environment The Accomack C
Page 74 and 75:
Affected Environment On the souther
Page 76 and 77:
Affected Environment phoeniceus), B
Page 78:
Affected Environment The Saxis Wil
Page 81 and 82: Affected Environment For the once-p
Page 83 and 84: Affected Environment less common, w
Page 85 and 86: Affected Environment were also obse
Page 88 and 89: This page intentionally left blank.
Page 90 and 91: Affected Environment Over the entir
Page 92: 3.2.4.1 Birds Henslow’s Sparrow A
Page 95 and 96: Affected Environment Monitoring was
Page 97 and 98: Loggerhead Shrike Affected Environm
Page 99 and 100: Affected Environment known or recor
Page 101 and 102: Table 17: Occupational Distribution
Page 103 and 104: Affected Environment Chincoteague I
Page 106: This page intentionally left blank.
Page 109 and 110: 3.3.6 Transportation Affected Envir
Page 111 and 112: Affected Environment Photograph 2:
Page 116 and 117: Proposed Action Environmental Conse
Page 118 and 119: Environmental Consequences The inst
Page 120 and 121: Alternative Two Environmental Conse
Page 122: Environmental Consequences The func
Page 125 and 126: Environmental Consequences Based on
Page 127 and 128: Environmental Consequences Table 22
Page 129: Environmental Consequences Based on
Page 133 and 134: Environmental Consequences conceiva
Page 135 and 136: Environmental Consequences wetland
Page 137 and 138: Environmental Consequences of magni
Page 139 and 140: Environmental Consequences is the a
Page 141 and 142: Environmental Consequences (TREC).
Page 143 and 144: Environmental Consequences why bats
Page 145 and 146: Environmental Consequences determin
Page 147 and 148: Environmental Consequences While a
Page 149 and 150: Gull-Billed Tern Environmental Cons
Page 151 and 152: Environmental Consequences In addit
Page 153 and 154: Environmental Consequences staff. T
Page 155 and 156: Proposed Action Aboveground Resourc
Page 157 and 158: Alternative One Aboveground Resourc
Page 159 and 160: 4.4.4 Transportation No Action Alte
Page 164 and 165: Environmental Consequences site tha
Page 166 and 167: Environmental Consequences 2) Placi
Page 168 and 169: Environmental Consequences projects
Page 170 and 171: Environmental Consequences Although
Page 172 and 173: 4.6 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND APPROVAL
Page 174 and 175: Mitigation and Monitoring 5.2.1 Pos
Page 176 and 177: Mitigation and Monitoring would be
Page 180 and 181:
Agencies, Organizations, and Person
Page 182 and 183:
NASA WFF Technical Library Building
Page 184 and 185:
Name Organization Other Organizatio
Page 186 and 187:
References Cohen, J.B., S. Karpanty
Page 188 and 189:
References Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett,
Page 190 and 191:
References Richardson, D.L. 1992. H
Page 192 and 193:
References USFWS. 2009c. Northeaste
show all

Alternative Energy Draft EA - NASA Visitor Center at Wallops Flight ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?