DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Construction of a Photovoltaic Array Roosevelt Roads Army Reserve Center/ Armed Forces Reserve Center Ceiba, Puerto Rico Supplemental Environmental Assessment November 2020 Contract No. W912QR-16-D-0007 Delivery Order W912QR19F0897 Prepared for U.S. Army Reserve, 81st Readiness Division 81 Wildcat Way Fort Jackson, South Carolina 29207 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Louisville District 600 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Place Louisville, Kentucky 40202-2232 Prepared by CH2M HILL (a wholly owned subsidiary of Jacobs) 2411 Dulles Corner Road, Suite 500 Herndon, VA 30328 Environmental Assessment November 2020 Environmental Assessment Signature Sheet Roosevelt Roads Army Reserve Center/Armed Forces Reserve Center, Ceiba, Puerto Rico Prepared by: Laura Haught Date Project Manager CH2M Reviewed and Recommended by: Daniel H. Thomas Date Chief, Environmental Division 81st Readiness Division Approved by: JAMELLE C. SHAWLEY Date Brigadier General, USAR Commanding General Executive Summary Environmental Assessment November 2020 Executive Summary This supplemental environmental assessment (SEA) was prepared for the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) 81st Readiness Division (RD) to analyze the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with constructing and operating a 650-kilowatt photovoltaic (PV) array system at the Roosevelt Roads Army Reserve Center (ARC)/Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) in Ceiba, Puerto Rico. This SEA tiers off of the Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Construction and Operation of Solar Photovoltaic Renewable Energy Projects on Army Installations prepared by the U.S. Army. The Proposed Action is construction and operation of a 650-kilowatt PV solar array system at the Roosevelt Roads ARC/AFRC. The system will include direct-current/alternating-current inverters, a 13.2- kilovolt automatic distribution switch, connections to a microgrid, and battery components. The system design will meet National Electric Code, regulatory, and local utility requirements; meet energy production requirements; provide bi-directional metering with remote monitoring; and provide carbon dioxide emissions offsets. The Preferred Alternative and a No Action Alternative were evaluated for their potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the human environment. The USAR’s Preferred Alternative involves the construction and operation of the solar PV array on approximately 3 acres of previously developed land at the Roosevelt Roads ARC/AFRC, within the 100-year coastal flood hazard area. Under the No Action Alternative, the solar PV array would not be constructed. The No Action Alternative is required under the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline, or benchmark, against which to compare a proposed action and alternatives. Among alternatives considered was one to construct the PV array system further west on the Roosevelt Roads ARC/AFRC, to be outside of the 100-year coastal flood hazard area. This alternative was eliminated from further consideration for the following reasons: (1) this alternative would require additional land clearing in heavily vegetated and overgrown areas; (2) the PV array would be on a slope, which would reduce the effectiveness of the array to capture solar radiation; and (3) this site is within a buffer area around the wind turbine and placing the PV array directly downhill from the wind turbine would create an avoidable risk if the wind turbine falls. The remainder of the Roosevelt Roads ARC/AFRC is developed or proposed to be transferred to the Roosevelt Roads Local Redevelopment Authority. The potential effects associated with implementing the Preferred Alternative on Roosevelt Roads ARC/AFRC would not result in any significant, adverse impacts. Anticipated adverse impacts would be local in context. The intensity of potential, adverse impacts is anticipated to be minor or negligible for all resources evaluated, with the exception of moderate impacts that are anticipated for hazardous materials and human health and safety. Section 4.0 of this SEA includes a summary of the conservation, protection, and mitigation measures which would be implemented to lessen impacts under the Preferred Alternative. This SEA concludes that neither the Preferred Alternative nor the No Action Alternative would constitute a major federal action with significant impacts on human health or the environment. Additionally, a finding of no significant impact for the Preferred Alternative should be issued to conclude the National Environmental Policy Act documentation process. A summary of potential impacts is in Table ES-1. ES-1 Executive Summary Environmental Assessment November 2020 Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative Preferred No Action Alternative Alternative Degree of Impact Degree of Impact No ImpactNo ImpactNo Significant Significant SEA Section Where Impact Details are Less than Less Significant than Less Significant Category Discussed Land Use X X Section 3.1.1 Geology and Soil X X Section 3.1.2 Groundwater, Surface Water, and Wetlands X X Section 3.1.3 Wildlife and Vegetation X X Section 3.1.4 Cultural Resources X X Section 3.1.5 Utilities X X Section 3.1.6 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas X X Section 3.1.7 Noise X X Section 3.1.8 Traffic and Transportation X X Section 3.1.9 Socioeconomics X X Section 3.1.10 Airspace (Glare) X X Section 3.1.11 Electromagnetic Spectrum X X Section 3.1.12 Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical X X Section 3.2.1 Habitat Coastal Zone X X Section 3.2.2 Flood Hazard Areas X X Section 3.2.3 Hazardous Materials X X Section 3.2.4 Health and Safety X X Section 3.2.5 ES-2 Contents Environmental Assessment November 2020 Contents Environmental Assessment Signature Sheet Roosevelt Roads Army Reserve Center/Armed Forces Reserve Center, Ceiba, Puerto Rico ................................................................................. i Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................... 1-1 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................... 1-1 Use of this Environmental Assessment ........................................................................... 1-1 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................... 1-2 2. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ............................................................ 2-1 Description of the Proposed Action .................................................................................. 2-1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration ............................... 2-1 Alternatives Considered in Detail ..................................................................................... 2-1 2.3.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative).................................................................... 2-1 2.3.2 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 2-2 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation ................................ 3-1 Resources Eliminated from Further Consideration .......................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Geology and Soil ................................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.3 Groundwater, Surface Water, and Wetlands ...................................................... 3-2 3.1.4 Wildlife and Vegetation ....................................................................................... 3-3 3.1.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 3-4 3.1.6 Utilities ................................................................................................................. 3-4 3.1.7 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases .................................................................... 3-5 3.1.8 Noise ................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.1.9 Traffic and Transportation ................................................................................... 3-6 3.1.10 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................. 3-6 3.1.11 Airspace (Glare) .................................................................................................. 3-7 3.1.12 Electromagnetic Spectrum .................................................................................. 3-7 Resources Considered in Detail ...................................................................................... 3-7 3.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat ................................ 3-7 3.2.2 Coastal Zone ....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transportation Asset Management Plan AC000225
    2028 Puerto Rico Transportation Asset Management Plan AC000225 Final Revised October 8, 2019 Prepared by CMA Team for the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority 2028 PR Transportation Asset Management Plan Final Revised October 8, 2019 CMA Team is composed of: CMA Architects & Engineers LLC Team Page ii 2028 PR Transportation Asset Management Plan Final Revised October 8, 2019 Index Index ................................................................................................................................ i List of Figures ...............................................................................................................iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................vi Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ x Preface ............................................................................................................................xi Required Asset Management Processes .................................................................... xii Mandatory Condition Targets ..................................................................................... xiv Review of Processes, Investments, and Conditions ................................................... xiv The Start of a New Era ................................................................................................xv Organization of This Plan ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Advancing Racial Equity Through Highway Reconstruction
    VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW ________________________________________________________________________ VOLUME 73 OCTOBER 2020 NUMBER 5 ________________________________________________________________________ ARTICLES “White Men’s Roads Through Black Men’s Homes”*: Advancing Racial Equity Through Highway Reconstruction Deborah N. Archer** Racial and economic segregation in urban communities is often understood as a natural consequence of poor choices by individuals. In reality, racially and economically segregated cities are the result of many factors, * “White men’s roads through black men’s homes” was the mantra of a coalition led by Reginald M. Booker and Sammie Abbott in opposition to highway development in Washington, D.C. See Harry Jaffe, The Insane Highway Plan that Would Have Bulldozed DC’s Most Charming Neighborhoods, WASHINGTONIAN (Oct. 21, 2015), https://www.washingtonian.com/2015/10/21/the- insane-highway-plan-that-would-have-bulldozed-washington-dcs-most-charming-neighborhoods/ [https://perma.cc/6YCR-PKKR] (discussing the campaign to halt the building of highways in Washington, D.C.). ** Associate Professor of Clinical Law and Co-Faculty Director of the Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law, New York University School of Law. I thank Rachel Barkow, Richard Buery, Audrey McFarlane, Michael Pinard, Russell Robinson, Sarah Schindler, Tony Thompson, Kele Williams, and Katrina Wyman for helpful comments on earlier drafts. I also appreciate the insights I received from participants of faculty workshops at Brooklyn Law School and the University of Miami School of Law and participants at the 2019 Clinical Law Review Workshop at NYU Law School. I am grateful to Nelson Castano, Anna Applebaum, Michael Milov-Cordoba, and Rachel Sommer for their research assistance and to Sarah Jaramillo for her constant support of my research.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of Transportation FY 2017-2018 INFRA Project Applications
    U.S. Department of Transportation FY 2017-2018 INFRA Project Applications Estimated Total Estimated Future # Project Name Applicant Organization State INFRA Request Federal Eligible Project Assistance Costs 1 Port MacKenzie Rail Extension Matanuska-Susitna Borough AK: Alaska $75,000,000 $50,000,000 $125,000,000 Municipality of Anchorage / Port of 2 Port of Anchorage Petroleum/ Cement Terminal AK: Alaska $64,900,000 $65,900,000 $108,100,000 Anchorage CONNECT Mobile - Creating Opportunity Networks for New 3 Alabama Department of Transportation AL: Alabama $250,000,000 $990,000,000 $1,776,339,086 Economic Connections Today Birmingham-Jefferson County Port 4 Port Revitalization and Freight Flow Management Project AL: Alabama $6,800,000 $6,800,000 $18,000,000 Authority Gulf Shores Regional Connectivity and Infrastructure 5 City of Gulf Shores, Alabama AL: Alabama $22,200,000 $22,200,000 $37,000,000 Improvements Project 6 2nd Avenue Connectivity Corridor Project The University of Alabama AL: Alabama $6,025,657 $6,025,657 $16,737,936 7 Interstate 69 (Monticello Bypass - Highway 65) Arkansas Department of Transportation AR: Arkansas $20,000,000 $65,360,000 $81,700,000 8 Interstate 30 - National Freight Corridor Improvements Arkansas Department of Transportation AR: Arkansas $100,000,000 $192,200,000 $609,500,000 9 Interstate 30 (U.S. Highway 70 - Sevier Street) Arkansas Department of Transportation AR: Arkansas $57,900,000 $57,900,000 $181,300,000 10 Securing Multimodal Freight Corridors in the Ozarks City of Fort Smith, Arkansas AR: Arkansas $8,527,892 $8,527,892 $14,213,154 11 Little River County Intermodal Facility Little River County Intermodal Authority AR: Arkansas $10,500,000 $10,500,000 $17,500,000 Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning 12 I-49 Missouri-Arkansas Connector AR: Arkansas $32,364,000 $90,807,000 $169,907,000 Commission Southeast Arkansas and Northeast Louisiana Multimodal Southeast Arkansas Economic 13 AR: Arkansas $29,541,000 $29,541,000 $49,236,051 Freight Corridor Improvement Project Development District, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Interstate System in Indiana: Volume 1
    SCHOOL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING JOINT HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROJECT JHRP-75-26 HISTORY OF THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM IN INDIANA - VOLUME I DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL PROGRAM David A. Ripple PURDUE UNIVERSITY INDIANA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION Final Report HISTORY OF THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM IN INDIANA TO: J. F. McLaughlin, Director December 1, 1975 Joint Highway Research Project Project: C-36-64H FROM: II. L. Michael, Associate Director Joint Highway Research Project File: 3-5-8 Attached is the Final Report titled "History of the Interstate System in Indiana", authored by David A. Ripple a Graduate Instructor on our staff while conducting the research and authoring the Report. Professor W. L. Grecco, formerly of our staff, directed the study during its initial year and Professor Michael supervised it during the latter years and handled the lengthy review process. The Report has been re- viewed by several personnel of the ISHC, including Mr. Walter Frick, and changes suggested by them have generally been made and are sincerely appreciated. The History covers the period from the late 1930 's through 1972. The Interstate System was not yet complete in 1972 and the period after 1972 is not reported herein. Perhaps it will be at a later date after the System is completed. The Report is voluminous and therefore is issued in four (4) volumes as follows: Volume I - Development of the National Program (Chapters I thru IV) Volume II - Evolution of Policies and Standards (Chapter V) Volume III - Route History (Chapter VI) Volume IV - Cost, Funding and General Benefits (Chapters VII and VIII) Another volume as an Appendix which is a detailed Table titled "Interstate Highway Construction Record" is also in preparation and will be issued at a later date.
    [Show full text]
  • National Inventory of Specialty Lanes and Highways: Technical Report February 2021 6
    Publication No. FHWA-HOP-20-043 February 2021 Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high- quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. The FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Non-Binding Contents The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. Cover Image Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-HOP-20-043 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date National Inventory of Specialty Lanes and Highways: Technical Report February 2021 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Nick Wood, Vivek Gupta, James P. Cardenas, Jinuk Hwang, Deepak Report No. Raghunathan 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transport Equity Act: a Legacy for Users 2005
    PUBLIC LAW 109–59—AUG. 10, 2005 SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS VerDate 14-DEC-2004 12:11 Sep 09, 2005 Jkt 039139 PO 00059 Frm 00001 Fmt 6579 Sfmt 6579 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL059.109 APPS06 PsN: PUBL059 119 STAT. 1144 PUBLIC LAW 109–59—AUG. 10, 2005 Public Law 109–59 109th Congress An Act Aug. 10, 2005 To authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit [H.R. 3] programs, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of Safe, the United States of America in Congress assembled, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. Transportation Equity Act: A (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe, Account- Legacy for Users. able, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Inter- Users’’ or ‘‘SAFETEA–LU’’. governmental (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act relations. 23 USC 101 note. is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 2. General definitions. TITLE I—FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS Subtitle A—Authorization of Programs Sec. 1101. Authorization of appropriations. Sec. 1102. Obligation ceiling. Sec. 1103. Apportionments. Sec. 1104. Equity bonus program. Sec. 1105. Revenue aligned budget authority. Sec. 1106. Future Interstate System routes. Sec. 1107. Metropolitan planning. Sec. 1108. Transfer of highway and transit funds. Sec. 1109. Recreational trails. Sec. 1110. Temporary traffic control devices. Sec. 1111. Set-asides for Interstate discretionary projects. Sec. 1112. Emergency relief. Sec. 1113. Surface transportation program. Sec. 1114. Highway bridge program.
    [Show full text]
  • Toll Facilities in the United States: Bridges
    TOLL FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES Bridges - Roads - Tunnels - Ferries July 2011 Publication No: FHWA-PL-11-032 Internet: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tollpage.htm Data Explanation This report contains selected information on toll facilities in the United States that has been provided to FHWA by the States and/or various toll authorities. The information is based on a survey of facilities in operation, financed, or under construction as of January 1, 2011. Differences and inconsistencies from previous editions may be due to corrections of known errors or the introduction of new ones, or a combination of both. Known reported ambiguities of rural/urban and functional system designations are assumed as urban in this report. Tables T-1 and T-2 include, where known: -- The direction of toll collection. -- The type of electronic toll collection system, if available. -- Whether the facility is part of the National Highway System (NHS). -- Various financial and fee information. Table T-1 contains information such as the name, financing or operating authority, location and termini, feature crossed, length, and road system for toll roads, bridges, tunnels, and ferries that connect highways. -- Parts 1 and 3 include the Interstate System route numbers for toll facilities located on the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. -- Parts 2 and 4 include a functional system identification code for non-Interstate System toll bridges, roads, and tunnels. -- Part 5 includes vehicular toll ferries. Table T-2 contains a list of those projects under serious consideration as toll facilities, awaiting completion of financing arrangements, or proposed as new toll facilities that are being studied for financial and operational feasibility.
    [Show full text]
  • Highway Boondoggles 6 Big Projects
    HIGHWAY BOONDOGGLES 6 Big Projects. Bigger Price Tags. Limited Benefits. HIGHWAY BOONDOGGLES 6 Big Projects. Bigger Price Tags. Limited Benefits. WRITTEN BY: GIDEON WEISSMAN AND BRYN HUXLEY-REICHER FRONTIER GROUP MATTHEW CASALE AND JOHN STOUT U.S. PIRG EDUCATION FUND DECEMBER 2020 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Kevin Brubaker of Environmental Law & Policy Center, Clint Richmond of Massachusetts Sierra Club, Chris DeScherer and Sarah Stokes of Southern En- vironmental Law Center, Wendy Landman of WalkBoston, Jenna Stevens of Environment Florida, Ben Hellerstein of Environment Massachusetts, Abe Scarr of Illinois PIRG and Bay Scoggin of TexPIRG for their review of drafts of this document, as well as their insights and suggestions. Thanks also to Frontier Group interns Christiane Paulhus and Hannah Scholl, and Susan Rakov, Tony Dutzik, David Lippeatt and Adrian Pforzheimer of Frontier Group for editorial support. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. Policy recommendations are those of U.S. PIRG Education Fund. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. Project maps included in this report should be considered approximations based on publicly avail- able information and not used for planning purposes. 2020 U.S. PIRG Education Fund. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 Unported License. To view the terms of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0. With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow agendas, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Transportation Department
    January 2014 IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT BRIDGE ASSET MANAGEMENT SECTION STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL CODING GUIDE January 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Federal Structure Inventory and Appraisal Items Item Name Page Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 Instructions for Coding SIA Sheets………………………………………………………………………5 Sufficiency Rating…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8 1 State Code………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8 2 District……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8 3 County…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 4 Place Code………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 5 Inventory Route………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………13 6 Features Intersected…………………………………………………………………………………………………………16 7 Facility Carried By Structure…………………………………………………………………………………16 8 Bridge Number……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………16 9 Location…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17 10 Inventory Route, Minimum Vertical Clearance……………………………………………17 11 Milepoint………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17 12 Base Highway Network…………………………………………………………………………………………………………18 13 LRS Inventory Route……………………………………………………………………………………………………………18 14 Not Used 15 Not Used 16 Latitude…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………19 17 Longitude………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………19 18 Not Used 19 Bypass, Detour Length………………………………………………………………………………………………………19 20 Toll……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………20
    [Show full text]