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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, implementation of the Alternative Energy Project would not occur; therefore, no impacts on State or federally listed threatened or endangered species or federally designated critical habitat would occur. Proposed Action and Alternatives Based on the proposed location of the wind turbines and the likelihood that Wallops Island may provide suitable habitat for listed avian species, the flight path of birds may be affected by the wind turbines. Because the proposed solar panel installation lies within a highly developed area of the Main Base, installation and operation of the solar panels would not disturb or affect State or federally listed species or their habitat. Table 25 lists the federally endangered, threatened, and candidate species of concern within the vicinity of WFF that may be affected by the Proposed Action, and lists NASA’s determination of effects under Section 7 of the ESA. The area of effect for the construction of the wind turbines includes the footprint, access road infrastructure, work space for construction and staging areas (Figure 6). The operational area of effect of the wind turbines would include the overall height of the tower and top of the blades, the diameter of the blades, and the rotational area of the blades. Effects to State-listed species are discussed in the text below. Birds Table 25: Determination of Effects on Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Scientific Name Common Name Determination of Effect Charadrius melodus Piping Plover May affect, likely to adversely affect Calidris canutus Red Knot May affect, likely to adversely affect Mammals Sciurus niger cinereus Delmarva fox squirrel No effect Reptiles Dermochelys coriaces leatherback sea turtle No effect Eretmochelys imbricate hawksbill sea turtle No effect Lepidechelys kempi Kemp’s ridley sea turtle No effect Caretta caretta loggerhead sea turtle No effect Chelonia mydas green sea turtle No effect Invertebrates Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis northeast beach tiger beetle No effect Plants Amaranthus pumilus seabeach amaranth No effect 122
Environmental Consequences While a collision with a turbine by a State or federally listed species could occur since these birds exist in the area, the potential impact should be much lower and not substantial in comparison to more common and abundant species. Listed species were infrequently observed during the surveys but no carcasses were recovered during the fatality study. The lack of observations of Piping Plover, Wilson’s Plover, and Upland Sandpiper during the 12-month survey combined with the lack of viable habitat in the proposed wind turbine area for these species indicates the risk should be very low. Only Peregrine Falcon might nest on the marshes near the proposed turbine sites; however, whether the individuals observed nest in the area or are part of a migratory population is unknown. Bald Eagle, Gull-billed Tern, and Red Knot would not likely nest in the vicinity of the turbines because there is little or no suitable habitat. These birds will forage in the general vicinity, but not likely in large numbers. Henslow’s Sparrow The utility-scale wind turbines and access roads would be constructed within potentially suitable habitat for this species. Avian mortality has been documented as an adverse effect of birds colliding with the rotating blades of wind turbines. To reduce the effects to Henslow’s Sparrow resulting from habitat disturbance, NASA has proposed the minimum necessary width for the access roads to the utility-scale wind turbines. The Proposed Action may result in minor adverse impacts on the Henslow’s Sparrow. Upland Sandpiper The utility-scale wind turbines and access roads would be constructed in wetlands that are not the preferred habitat of the Upland Sandpiper (open grassy areas), presenting a reduced risk of avian mortality associated with wind turbine collision. Noise from the construction activities would be of short duration and would likely present minor, if any, startle reactions for birds that were close to the proposed wind turbine sites. The Proposed Action may result in minor adverse impacts on the Upland Sandpiper. Piping Plover The utility-scale wind turbines and access roads would be constructed on the opposite side of Wallops Island from preferred habitat and historical nesting sites of the Piping Plover, presenting a reduced risk of avian mortality associated with wind turbine collision. Residential-scale wind turbines would not be constructed on Wallops Island. No construction is planned for areas within known Piping Plover nesting habitat. Noise from construction activities would be of short duration and would likely present minor, if any, startle reactions. WFF has developed a protected species monitoring plan, which includes the Piping Plover, in cooperation with USFWS (NASA, 2010c). NASA would continue to coordinate with CNWR and USDA personnel in monitoring the Wallops Island beach for Piping Plover activity. These personnel routinely monitor Assateague, Wallops Island, Assawoman, and Metompkin Island beaches for Piping Plovers during nesting season. Any nests discovered would be appropriately marked using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit, identified with signage, and closed to personnel or visitor access. Additionally, educational signs would be posted at all beach access points to raise awareness of the species and to provide contact information. Basic species identification would be included in the natural resources training module of the WFF EMS, a requirement for all new employees at the facility. WFF would continue to distribute its annual 123
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:
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 114 and 115: This page intentionally left blank.
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 and 130: Environmental Consequences Based on
Page 131 and 132: Alternative One Environmental Conse
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: Environmental Consequences determin
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?