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

SECTION FIVE: MITIGATION AND MONITORING
5.1 MITIGATION
Mitigation and Monitoring
CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.20) define mitigation to include: (1) avoiding the impact
altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting
the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (3) rectifying the impact by
repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the
impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the lifetime of the action;
and (5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environments. Described below are NASA’s proposed mitigation measures for wind turbines
under the WFF Alternative Energy Project. Mitigation measures are described by resource area.
5.1.1 Wetlands
Up to 0.36 hectare (0.88 acre) of wetlands would be filled under the Proposed Action; 0.29
hectare (0.71 acre) of estuarine intertidal emergent wetlands, 0.06 hectare (0.14 acre) of
palustrine emergent wetlands, and 0.01 hectare (0.03 acre) of palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands.
The potentially affected wetlands are considered jurisdictional under Section 404 of the CWA
and are regulated by the USACE, VDEQ, and Accomack County Wetlands Board. Prior to
construction, NASA would notify the public and coordinate with applicable agencies including
USACE, the VDEQ, VMRC, and the Accomack County Wetlands Board; these agencies would
be notified of potential impacts on wetlands by VMRC through the JPA process. NASA would
obtain necessary permits including CWA Section 404, Section 10, and Section 401 Water
Quality Certification/Virginia Water Protection permits and accordingly would implement a
minimum of 0.362 hectare (0.895 acre) of wetland compensation at the Mainland (Figure 18).
5.1.2 Birds and Bats
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that any structure taller than 61 meters (200
feet) above ground level must have aircraft warning lights. Gehring, et. al. (2009) found that the
use of red or white flashing obstruction lights strongly correlated with a decrease in avian
fatalities compared to non-flashing, steady burning lights at tower systems. Gehring, et. al.
further stated that “Removing non-flashing lights from towers is one of the most effective and
economically feasible means of achieving a significant reduction in avian fatalities at existing
communication towers.” Because the proposed wind turbines would be taller than 61 meters (200
feet), NASA would utilize either red or white flashing light systems.
Numerous technologies and methodologies (e.g., blade color patterns, flight diverters, acoustic
deterrents, etc.) are currently under development to lessen the potential risk that wind turbines
pose to avifauna. NASA may consider implementing such technologies to both test their efficacy
and to reduce potential impacts.
5.2 MONITORING
Under NEPA, a Federal agency has a continuing duty to gather and evaluate new information
relevant to the environmental impact of its actions. Below is a summary of NASA’s proposed
monitoring plan for the implementation of the two utility-scale wind turbines on Wallops Island.
The focus of the monitoring plans would be to track the effects of the project on birds and bats.
149